Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 516

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Walking Distance by Trip Purpose and Population Subgroups

Open access
Yang, Yong, Diez-Roux, Ana V.·2012·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Background Walking distance is an important concept in the fields of transportation and public health. A distance of 0.25 miles is often used as an acceptable walking distance in U.S. research studies. Overall, research on the distance and duration of walking trips for different purposes and across different population groups remains limited. Purpose This study examines the prevalence of walking and distances and durations of walking trips for different purposes among U.S. residents. Methods The distances and durations of walking trips for different purposes across population groups were compared using nationally representative data from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS). Distance decay functions were used to summarize the distribution of walking distances and durations for different purposes and population subgroups. Data were analyzed in 2011. Results Sixteen percent of respondents had at least one daily walking trip. The mean and median values for walking distance were 0.7 and 0.5 miles, respectively. For walking duration, the mean and median values were 14.9 and 10 minutes. About 65% of walking trips were more than 0.25 miles, and about 18% of walking trips were more than 1 mile. Large variations were found among various purposes for both distance and duration. The distances and durations of walking for recreation were substantially longer than those for other purposes. People with lower versus higher household income walked longer distances for work but shorter distances for recreation. Conclusions Only a small fraction of respondents walk, but trips longer than 0.25 miles are common. There is substantial variability in the distance and duration of walking trips by purpose and population subgroups. These differences have implications for developing strategies to increase physical activity through walking.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.03.015

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Cited by

See all 516

Metadata

Authors
Yang, Y., & Diez-Roux, A. V.
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-07
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
11-19
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2043614425
Cited by
516
References
29
FWCI
29.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Walking Distance by Trip Purpose and Population Subgroups. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.03.015
The paper
Yang, Y., & Diez-Roux, A. V. (2012). Walking Distance by Trip Purpose and Population Subgroups. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.03.015

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.