Exploring Associations between Physical Activity and Perceived and Objective Measures of the Built Environment
- 1.8k Downloads
The built environment may be responsible for making nonmotorized transportation inconvenient, resulting in declines in physical activity. However, few studies have assessed both the perceived and objectively measured environment in association with physical activity outcomes. The purpose of this study was to describe the associations between perceptions and objective measures of the built environment and their associations with leisure, walking, and transportation activity. Perception of the environment was assessed from responses to 1,270 telephone surveys conducted in Forsyth County, NC and Jackson, MS from January to July 2003. Participants were asked if high-speed cars, heavy traffic, and lack of crosswalks or sidewalks were problems in their neighborhood or barriers to physical activity. They were also asked if there are places to walk to instead of driving in their neighborhood. Speed, volume, and street connectivity were assessed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for both study areas. Locations of crashes were measured using GIS for the NC study area as well. Objective and perceived measures of the built environment were in poor agreement as calculated by kappa coefficients. Few associations were found between any of the physical activity outcomes and perception of speed, volume, or presence of sidewalks as problems in the neighborhood or as barriers to physical activity in regression analyses. Associations between perceptions of having places to walk to and presence of crosswalks differed between study sites. Several associations were found between objective measures of traffic volume, traffic speed, and crashes with leisure, walking, and transportation activity in Forsyth County, NC; however, in Jackson, MS, only traffic volume was associated with any of the physical activity outcomes. When both objective and perceived measures of the built environment were combined into the same model, we observed independent associations with physical activity; thus, we feel that evaluating both objective and perceived measures of the built environment may be necessary when examining the relationship between the built environment and physical activity.
KeywordsPhysical activity Built environment Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Perceptions Objective measures
This study was funded by a grant from the American Heart Association. The lead author was also funded, in part, by NIH, NHLBI, and NRSA training grant no. 5-T32-HL007055. The authors would like to thank Fang Wen for her contribution via programming.
- 1.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Physical activity and health: a report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; 1996.Google Scholar
- 6.von Korff M, Koepsell T, Curry S, Diehr P. Multi-level analysis in epidemiologic research on health behaviors and outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135(10):1077–1082.Google Scholar
- 7.Green L, McAlister A. Macro-intervention to support health behavior: some theoretical perspectives and practical reflections. Health Educ. 1984;11:322–339.Google Scholar
- 8.Green L, Richard L. The need to combine health education and health promotion: the case of cardiovascular disease prevention. Promot Educ. 1993;1:11–17.Google Scholar
- 13.1000 Friends of Oregon. The pedestrian environment (Vol 4a). Portland, OR: Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas Inc.; 1993.Google Scholar
- 14.Greenwald M, Boarnet M. The built environment as a determinant of walking behavior: analyzing non-work pedestrian travel in Portland, Oregon. Transp Res Rec. 2002;1780:33–42.Google Scholar
- 17.Krizek KJ. Residential relocation and changes in urban travel: does neighborhood-scale urban form matter? J Am Plan Assoc. 2003;69(3):265–282.Google Scholar
- 19.Song Y, Knaap G-J. Measuring urban form: Is Portland winning the war on sprawl. J Am Plan Assoc. 2004;70(2):210–225.Google Scholar
- 21.Ross C, Dunning A. Land Use Transportation Interaction: An Examination of the 1995 NPTS Data. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; 1997.Google Scholar
- 22.Frank L, Pivo G. Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: Single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transp Res Rec. 1994;1466:44–52.Google Scholar
- 31.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System User’s Guide. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1998.Google Scholar
- 32.Andrews LW. Reading Level Calculator. Available at: www.linda-andrews.com/readability_tool.htm. Accessed November 2002.
- 36.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of physical activity, including lifestyle activities among adults—United States, 2000–2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003;52(32):764–769.Google Scholar
- 37.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Physical activity trends—United States, 1990–1998. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2001;50(9):166–169.Google Scholar
- 40.North Carolina State Center for Health Statistics. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 2000 Questionnaire. North Carolina State Center for Health Statistics. Available at: http://www.schs.state.nc.us/SCHS/brfss/pdf/BRFSSQ00.pdf. Accessed July 2001.
- 41.Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc. TigerLine Road Network. Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc. Available at: www.esri.com. Accessed July 2003.
- 42.Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. Spatial Analyst Extension for Arcview 3.x (computer program). Version. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.; 1998.Google Scholar
- 43.Dill J. Measuring Network Connectivity for Bicycling and Walking. Washington DC: 83rd annual meeting of the transportation research board; 2004.Google Scholar
- 44.Tchoukanski I. Edit Tools Extension for ArcView 3.x. ET Spatial Techniques. Available at: http://ian-ko.com. Accessed July 2003.
- 45.Zhou Y. Count Points in Polygons (countpoints.avx) Extension for ArcView 3.x. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. Available at: http://arcscripts.esri.com/. Accessed July 2003.
- 46.Alsleben S. Points & Polyline Tools V1.2 for ArcView 3.x. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. Available at: http://arcscripts.esri.com/. Accessed July 2003.
- 47.Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc. ArcGIS (computer program). Version 8.1. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc.; 2000.Google Scholar
- 48.SAS Institute Inc. SAS [computer program]. Version 8.2. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 2002.Google Scholar
- 49.Delaune M. Xtools Extension for Arcview 3.x. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. Available at: http://arcscripts.esri.com/. Accessed July 2003.
- 50.Johnson T. Calculate Demographics (calculate_demographics.ave) Script for ArcView 3.x. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. Available at: http://arcscripts.esri.com/. Accessed July 2003.
- 52.Hatcher L, Stepanski E. A Step-by-step Approach to Using the SAS System for Univariate and Multivariate Statistics, 1st edn. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 1994.Google Scholar
- 54.Research Triangle Institute. Sudaan Software for the Statistical Analysis of Correlated Data (computer program). Version 8.0.2. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute; 2003.Google Scholar