Advertisement

Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 84, Issue 2, pp 162–184 | Cite as

Exploring Associations between Physical Activity and Perceived and Objective Measures of the Built Environment

  • Aileen P. McGinnEmail author
  • Kelly R. Evenson
  • Amy H. Herring
  • Sara L. Huston
  • Daniel A. Rodriguez
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Physical activity Built environment Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Perceptions Objective measures 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. 2.
    Pate RR, Pratt M, Blair SN, et al. Physical activity and public health. A recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine. JAMA. 1995;273(5):402–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breslow L. Social ecological strategies for promoting healthy lifestyles. Am J Health Promot. 1996;10(4):253–257.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hill JO, Goldberg JP, Pate RR, Peters JC. Proceedings of the partnership to promote healthy eating and active living summit. Nutr Rev. March 2001;59(3):S4–S6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Stecker A, Glanz K. An ecologic perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q. 1988;15(4):351–377.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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. 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. 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
  9. 9.
    Schmid TL, Pratt M, Howze E. Policy as intervention: environmental and policy approaches to the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Am J Public Health. 1995;85:1207–1211.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Handy SL, Boarnet MG, Ewing R, Killingsworth R. How the built environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23(2S):64–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frumkin H. Urban sprawl and public health. Public Health Rep. May–June 2002;117:201–217.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD. Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Ann Behav Med. 2003;25(2):80–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    1000 Friends of Oregon. The pedestrian environment (Vol 4a). Portland, OR: Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas Inc.; 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 15.
    Cervero R, Kockelman K. Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transp Res Part D Trans Environ. 1997;2(3):199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cervero R, Duncan M. Walking, bicycling and urban landscapes: evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(9):1478–1483.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 18.
    Song Y. Comparing urban growth in U.S. metropolitan areas: a spatial analysis of urban form. Int Reg Sci Rev. 2005;28(2):239–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 20.
    Frank LD, Schmid TL, Sallis JF, Chapman J, Saelens BE. Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: Findings from SMARTRAQ. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2 Suppl 2):117–125.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 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
  23. 23.
    Eyler AA, Brownson RC, Bacak SJ, Housemann R. The epidemiology of walking for physical activity in the United States. Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2003;35(9):1529–1536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    King AC, Castro C, Wilcox S, et al. Personal and environmental factors associated with physical inactivity among different racial/ethnic groups of U.S. middle- and older-aged women. Health Psychol. 2000;19(4):354–364.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wilcox S, Castro C, King AC, Housemann R, Brownson RC. Determinants of leisure time physical activity in rural compared with urban older and ethnically diverse women in the United States. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000;54(9):667–672.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huston S, Evenson KR, Bors P, Gizlice Z. Neighborhood environment, access to places for physical activity, and leisure time physical activity in a diverse North Carolina population. Am J Health Promot. 2003;18(1):58–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kirtland KA, Porter DE, Addy CL, et al. Environmental measures of physical activity supports: Perception versus reality. Am J Prev Med. 2003;24(4):323–331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Troped PJ, Saunders RP, Pate RR, et al. Associations between self-reported and objective physical environmental factors and use of a community rail-trail. Prev Med. 2001;32:191–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Giles-Corti B, Donovan RJ. The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:1793–1812.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Giles-Corti B, Donovan RJ. Socioeconomic status differences in recreational physical activity levels and real and perceived access to supportive physical environment. Prev Med. 2002;35(6):601–611.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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. 32.
    Andrews LW. Reading Level Calculator. Available at: www.linda-andrews.com/readability_tool.htm. Accessed November 2002.
  33. 33.
    Evenson KR, McGinn AP. Test–retest reliability of a questionnaire to assess physical environmental factors pertaining to physical activity. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2005;2:7–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Evenson KR, McGinn AP. Test–retest reliability of adult surveillance measures of physical activity and inactivity. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(5):470–478.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pikora T, Giles-Corti B, Bull F, Jamrozik K, Donovan R. Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:1693–1703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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. 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
  38. 38.
    Strath S, Bassett Jr. D, Ham S, Swartz A. Assessment of physical activity by telephone interview versus objective monitoring. Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2003;35(Suppl 5):S114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Baecke JAH, Burema J, Frijters JER. A short questionnaire for the measurement of habitual physical activity in epidemiological studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 1982;36(5):936–942.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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. 41.
    Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc. TigerLine Road Network. Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc. Available at: www.esri.com. Accessed July 2003.
  42. 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. 43.
    Dill J. Measuring Network Connectivity for Bicycling and Walking. Washington DC: 83rd annual meeting of the transportation research board; 2004.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tchoukanski I. Edit Tools Extension for ArcView 3.x. ET Spatial Techniques. Available at: http://ian-ko.com. Accessed July 2003.
  45. 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. 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. 47.
    Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc. ArcGIS (computer program). Version 8.1. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc.; 2000.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    SAS Institute Inc. SAS [computer program]. Version 8.2. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 2002.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Delaune M. Xtools Extension for Arcview 3.x. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. Available at: http://arcscripts.esri.com/. Accessed July 2003.
  50. 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.
  51. 51.
    Kaiser H. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. 53.
    Landis J, Koch G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. 55.
    Little RJ, Lewitzky S, Heeringa S, Lepkowski J, Kessler RC. Assessment of weighting methodology for the National Co-morbidity Survey. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;146(5):439–449.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hoehner CM, Brennan Ramirez LK, Elliott MB, Handy SL, Brownson RC. Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity among urban adults. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2Suppl 2):105–116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ball K, Bauman A, Leslie E, Owen N. Perceived environmental aesthetics and convenience and company are associated with walking for exercise among Australian adults. Prev Med. 2001;33:434–440.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    King WC, Brach JS, Belle S, et al. The relationship between convenience of destinations and walking levels in older women. Am J Health Promot. 2003;18(1):74–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aileen P. McGinn
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kelly R. Evenson
    • 2
  • Amy H. Herring
    • 3
  • Sara L. Huston
    • 2
  • Daniel A. Rodriguez
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology and Population HealthAlbert Einstein College of MedicineBronxUSA
  2. 2.Department of EpidemiologyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  4. 4.Department of City and Regional PlanningUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations