Introduction: Residents in socio-economically disadvantaged areas are typically exposed to more crime and tend to be more fearful about crime than those in advantaged areas – but often walk in spite of these heightened exposures. This study examines whether crime is a barrier to walking, and tests whether associations differ by area disadvantage.

Methods: HABITAT participants (n = 6680) lived in 200 neighbourhoods that spanned the most and least disadvantaged areas in Brisbane, Australia. They completed questions on their perceived crime and walking behaviours, and objective crime and walkability measures were generated for the 1000 m euclidean distance around participants’ homes. Multi-level models examined associations between perceived and objectively measured ‘crime’ and recreational and transport walking, with progressive adjustment for area-level socio-economic disadvantage and walkability components (density, land-use mix, street connectivity). Interactions tested whether patterns differed by area-level disadvantage.

Results: Higher actual and perceived crime were associated with reduced odds of recreational walking (albeit non-significant). In contrast, actual crime and perceived crime were significantly associated with transport walking, but patterns differed. High perceived crime was associated with reduced odds of transport walking (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.54-0.77), whereas high objective crime was associated with increased odds of transport walking (OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.23-2.17). Patterns did not differ by area-level disadvantage.

Conclusion: The counter-intuitive positive association between objective crime and transport walking was partly explained by the correlation between crime and more walkable environments. Inter-relationships between crime, the built environment and area disadvantage may help explain the inconsistencies in the crime and walking evidence base.