Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 92, Issue 2, pp 253–264 | Cite as

Do Relationships Between Environmental Attributes and Recreational Walking Vary According to Area-Level Socioeconomic Status?

  • Takemi Sugiyama
  • Natasha J. Howard
  • Catherine Paquet
  • Neil T. Coffee
  • Anne W. Taylor
  • Mark Daniel
Article

Abstract

Residents of areas with lower socioeconomic status (SES) are known to be less physically active during leisure time. Neighborhood walkability has been shown to be related to recreational walking equally in low and high SES areas. This cross-sectional study tested whether associations of specific environmental attributes, measured objectively and subjectively, with walking for recreation were moderated by area-level SES. The data of the North West Adelaide Health Study collected in 2007 (n = 1500, mean age 57) were used. Self-reported walking frequency was the outcome of the study. Environmental exposure measures included objectively measured walkability components (residential density, intersection density, land use mix, and net retail area ratio) and perceived attributes (access to destinations, neighborhood esthetics, walking infrastructure, traffic/barriers, and crime safety). Participants’ suburbs were categorized into low and high SES areas using an indicator of socioeconomic disadvantage. Low SES areas had lower scores in residential density, neighborhood esthetics, walking infrastructure, traffic/barriers, and crime safety. Recreational walking was associated with residential density, access to destinations, esthetics, traffic/barriers, and crime safety. Effect modification was observed for two attributes (out of nine): residential density was associated with walking only in low SES areas, while walking infrastructure was associated with walking only in high SES areas. The associations of neighborhood environmental attributes with recreational walking were largely consistent across SES groups. However, low SES areas were disadvantaged in most perceived environmental attributes related to recreational walking. Improving such attributes in low SES neighborhoods may help close socioeconomic disparities in leisure time physical activity.

Keyword

Physical activity Neighborhood environment Walkability Inequality Effect modification 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The Spatial Epidemiology and Evaluation Research Group at the University of South Australia in collaboration with the South Australian Department of Health and Ageing conducted the Place and Metabolic Syndrome (PAMS) project under National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grants (#631917, #570150). Catherine Paquet was funded by NHMRC Post-doctoral Training Research Fellowship (#570139). This manuscript has been reviewed for scientific content and consistency of data interpretation by Chief Investigators of the North West Adelaide Health Study. The authors are grateful for the interest and commitment of cohort participants, as well as the contributions of research support staff involved in recruitment and data collection.

References

  1. 1.
    Kavanagh AM, Goller JL, King T, Jolley D, Crawford D, Turrell G. Urban area disadvantage and physical activity: a multilevel study in Melbourne, Australia. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005; 59: 934–940.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Turrell G, Haynes M, Burton NW, et al. Neighborhood disadvantage and physical activity: baseline results from the HABITAT multilevel longitudinal study. Ann Epidemiol. 2010; 20: 171–181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Lenthe FJ, Brug J, Mackenbach JP. Neighbourhood inequalities in physical inactivity: the role of neighbourhood attractiveness, proximity to local facilities and safety in the Netherlands. Soc Sci Med. 2005; 60: 763–775.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Janssen E, Sugiyama T, Winkler E, de Vries H, te Poel F, Owen N. Psychosocial correlates of leisure-time walking among Australian adults of lower and higher socio-economic status. Health Educ Res. 2010; 25: 316–324.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Preventative Health Taskforce. Australia: the healthiest country by 2020—National Preventative Health Strategy—the roadmap for action. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee IM, Buchner DM. The importance of walking to public health. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008; 40: S512–S518.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Frank LD, et al. Neighborhood built environment and income: examining multiple health outcomes. Soc Sci Med. 2009; 68: 1285–1293.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sundquist K, Eriksson U, Kawakami N, Skog L, Ohlsson H, Arvidsson D. Neighborhood walkability, physical activity, and walking behavior: the Swedish Neighborhood and Physical Activity (SNAP) study. Soc Sci Med. 2011; 72: 1266–1273.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Dyck D, Cardon G, Deforche B, Sallis JF, Owen N, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Neighborhood SES and walkability are related to physical activity behavior in Belgian adults. Prev Med. 2010; 50: S74–S79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blacksher E, Lovasi GS. Place-focused physical activity research, human agency, and social justice in public health: taking agency seriously in studies of the built environment. Health Place. 2012; 18: 172–179.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Inoue S, Ohya Y, Odagiri Y, et al. Association between perceived neighborhood environment and walking among adults in 4 cities in Japan. J Epidemiol. 2010; 20: 277–286.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD, et al. Neighborhood environment and psychosocial correlates of adults’ physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012; 44: 637–646.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sugiyama T, Leslie E, Giles-Corti B, Owen N. Physical activity for recreation or exercise on neighbourhood streets: associations with perceived environmental attributes. Health Place. 2009; 15: 1058–1063.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Evenson KR, Block R, Roux AVD, McGinn AP, Wen F, Rodriguez DA. Associations of adult physical activity with perceived safety and police-recorded crime: the Multi-ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012; 9: 146.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Foster S, Giles-Corti B. Does fear of crime discourage walkers? A social-ecological exploration of fear as a deterrent to walking. Environ Behav. 2014; 46: 698–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Arvidsson D, Kawakami N, Ohlsson H, Sundquist K. Physical activity and concordance between objective and perceived walkability. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012; 44: 280–287.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ball K, Jeffery RW, Crawford DA, Roberts RJ, Salmon J, Timperio AF. Mismatch between perceived and objective measures of physical activity environments. Prev Med. 2008; 47: 294–298.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gebel K, Bauman A, Owen N. Correlates of non-concordance between perceived and objective measures of walkability. Ann Behav Med. 2009; 37: 228–238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grant JF, Taylor AW, Ruffin RE, et al. Cohort profile: the North West Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS). Int J Epidemiol. 2009; 38: 1479–1486.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Australian Bureau of Statistics. National Health Survey: users’ guide—electronic publication, 2004–05. Canberra: ABS; 2006.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rzewnicki R, Vanden Auweele Y, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Addressing overreporting on the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) telephone survey with a population sample. Public Health Nutr. 2003; 6: 299–305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gauvin L, Richard L, Kestens Y, et al. Living in a well-serviced urban area is associated with maintenance of frequent walking among seniors in the VoisiNuAge study. J Gerontol B-Psychol. 2012; 67: 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mason P, Kearns A, Livingston M. “Safe Going”: the influence of crime rates and perceived crime and safety on walking in deprived neighbourhoods. Soc Sci Med. 2013; 91: 15–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Frank LD, Sallis JF, Saelens BE, et al. The development of a walkability index: application to the Neighborhood Quality of Life Study. Br J Sports Med. 2010; 44: 924–933.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Black JB, Chen D. Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: an environment scale evaluation. Am J Public Health. 2003; 93: 1552–1558.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baldock K, Paquet C, Howard N, et al. Associations between resident perceptions of the local residential environment and metabolic syndrome. J Environ Publ Health. 2012; 2012: 589409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Australian Bureau of Statistics. Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA)—technical paper 2006. Canberra: ABS; 2008.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Whisman MA, McClelland GH. Designing, testing, and interpreting interactions and moderator effects in family research. J Fam Psychol. 2005; 19: 111–120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Saelens BE, Handy SL. Built environment correlates of walking: a review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008; 40: S550–S566.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Franzini L, Taylor W, Elliott MN, et al. Neighborhood characteristics favorable to outdoor physical activity: disparities by socioeconomic and racial/ethnic composition. Health Place. 2010; 16: 267–274.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sallis JF, Slymen DJ, Conway TL, et al. Income disparities in perceived neighborhood built and social environment attributes. Health Place. 2011; 17: 1274–1283.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Duncan MJ, Winkler E, Sugiyama T, et al. Relationships of land use mix with walking for transport: do land uses and geographical scale matter? J Urban Health. 2010; 87: 782–795.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marshall WE, Garrick NW. Effect of street network design on walking and biking. Transp Res Rec. 2010; 2198: 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Turrell G, Haynes M, Wilson L, Giles-Corti B. Can the built environment reduce health inequalities? A study of neighbourhood socioeconomic disadvantage and walking for transport. Health Place. 2013; 19: 89–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cerin E, Sit CHP, Barnett A, Cheung M-C, Chan W-M. Walking for recreation and perceptions of the neighborhood environment in older Chinese urban dwellers. J Urban Health. 2013; 90: 56–66.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Starnes HA, Troped PJ, Klenosky DB, Doehring AM. Trails and physical activity: a review. J Phys Act Health. 2011; 8: 1160–1174.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sugiyama T, Francis J, Middleton NJ, Owen N, Giles-Corti B. Associations between recreational walking and attractiveness, size, and proximity of neighborhood open spaces. Am J Public Health. 2010; 100: 1752–1757.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Crawford D, Timperio A, Giles-Corti B, et al. Do features of public open spaces vary according to neighbourhood socio-economic status? Health Place. 2008; 14: 889–893.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takemi Sugiyama
    • 1
  • Natasha J. Howard
    • 1
  • Catherine Paquet
    • 1
    • 2
  • Neil T. Coffee
    • 1
  • Anne W. Taylor
    • 3
  • Mark Daniel
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Spatial Epidemiology and Evaluation Research Group, Sansom Institute for Health Research & School of Population HealthUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Research Centre of the Douglas Mental Health University InstituteVerdunCanada
  3. 3.Discipline of MedicineThe University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Medicine, St. Vincent’s HospitalThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  5. 5.South Australian Health & Medical Research InstituteAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations