Annals of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 228–238 | Cite as

Correlates of Non-Concordance between Perceived and Objective Measures of Walkability

Original Article

Abstract

Background

Objective and self-reported physical environmental attributes have been related to physical activity.

Purpose

We examined the characteristics of adults who are resident in objectively identified high walkable neighborhoods but whose perceptions of neighborhood attributes are not concordant with objective attributes relating to high walkability.

Methods

Neighborhood built-environment attributes relating to walkability (dwelling density, intersection density, land use mix, and net retail area) were determined objectively, using Geographic Information System databases; data on corresponding perceptions of local environment attributes (from the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale) were derived from a self-completion survey of a socially diverse sample of 2,650 adults aged 19 to 65. Objective and perceived walkability attributes were categorized using median splits, and correlates of non-concordance were determined using multiple logistic regression models.

Results

There was a fair overall agreement between objectively determined walkability and perceived walkability (Kappa = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.31–0.39). Among those resident in objectively assessed high walkable areas (n = 1,063), 32.1% perceived them to be low walkable; conversely, 32.7% (n = 1,021) resident in objectively determined low walkability areas perceived them to be high. For residents of objectively determined high walkable areas, the characteristics that differentiated those with perceptions of low walkability (non-concordant perceptions) from those with concordant perceptions of high walkability were: not being university-educated (OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.06–2.04); having lower household incomes (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.09–2.17); being overweight (OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.03–2.07); and walking fewer days per week for transport (OR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.11–2.70). Higher walking times and more positive cognitive variables were noted among participants who lived in a neighborhood with low walkability that was perceived as high compared to those who lived in a high walkable environment that was perceived as low walkable.

Conclusion

Adults with lower educational attainment and lower incomes, who were overweight, or who were less physically active for transportation purposes, were more likely to misperceive their high walkable neighborhood as low walkable. There is the potential for physical activity promotion and persuasion strategies to address non-concordant perceptions, especially among those who live in high walkable environments but perceive them to be low and also among those who are socially disadvantaged and are less active. Perceptions of environmental attributes may be more strongly correlated with cognitive antecedents and with behavior than are objective measures.

Keywords

Walkability Walkable area Physical activity GIS Built environment Awareness 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the South Australian Government Department for Transport and Urban Planning for providing access to the relevant GIS data used in this study. The PLACE study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grant #213114. Klaus Gebel is the recipient of post-graduate scholarships from Sport Knowledge Australia and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. Neville Owen is supported by National Health and Medical Research Council Program Grant #301200 and by a Core Research Infrastructure Grant from Queensland Health.

References

  1. 1.
    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: 402–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haskell WL, Lee IM, Pate RR, et al. Physical activity and public health: Updated recommendation for adults from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007; 39: 1423–1434.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity and Health—A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bauman AE, Sallis JF, Dzewaltowski DA, Owen N. Toward a better understanding of the influences on physical activity: The role of determinants, correlates, causal variables, mediators, moderators, and confounders. Am J Prev Med. 2002; 23: 5–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sallis JF, Owen N. Physical Activity and Behavioral Medicine. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Humpel N, Owen N, Leslie E. Environmental factors associated with adults' participation in physical activity: A review. Am J Prev Med. 2002; 22: 188–199.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Owen N, Humpel N, Leslie E, Bauman AE, Sallis JF. Understanding environmental influences on walking: Review and research agenda. Am J Prev Med. 2004; 27: 67–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gebel K, Bauman AE, Petticrew M. The physical environment and physical activity: A critical appraisal of review articles. Am J Prev Med. 2007; 32: 361–369.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saelens BE, Handy SL. Built environment correlates of walking: A review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008; 40: S550–S566.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sallis JF, Hovell MF, Hofstetter CR, et al. Distance between homes and exercise facilities related to frequency of exercise among San Diego residents. Public Health Rep. 1990; 105: 179–185.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giles-Corti B, Donovan RJ. Socioeconomic status differences in recreational physical activity levels and real and perceived access to a supportive physical environment. Prev Med. 2002; 35: 601–611.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reed JA, Ainsworth BE, Wilson DK, Mixon G, Cook A. Awareness and use of community walking trails. Prev Med. 2004; 39: 903–908.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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: 105–116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cao X, Handy SL, Mokhtarian P. The influences of the built environment and residential self-selection on pedestrian behavior: Evidence from Austin, TX. Transportation. 2006; 33: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Owen N, Cerin E, Leslie E, et al. Neighborhood walkability and the walking behavior of Australian adults. Am J Prev Med. 2007; 33: 387–395.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McCormack GR, Cerin E, Leslie E, Du Toit L, Owen N. Objective versus perceived walking distances to destinations: Correspondence and predictive validity. Environ Behav. 2008; 40: 401–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jilcott SB, Evenson KR, Laraia BA, Ammerman AS. Association between physical activity and proximity to physical activity resources among low-income, midlife women. Prev Chronic Dis. 2007; 4: 1–16.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tilt JH, Unfried TM, Roca B. Using objective and subjective measures of neighborhood greenness and accessible destinations for understanding walking trips and BMI in Seattle, Washington. Am J Health Promot. 2007; 21: 371–379.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lloyd R. Spatial Cognition - Geographic Environments. Boston: Kluwer Academic; 1997.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Golledge RG. Cognition of physical and built environments. In: Gärling T, Evans GW, eds. Environment, Cognition, and Action - An Integrated Approach. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1991: 35–62.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leslie E, Coffee N, Frank L, et al. Walkability of local communities: Using geographic information systems to objectively assess relevant environmental attributes. Health Place. 2007; 13: 111–122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sallis JF, Owen N, Fisher EB. Ecological models of health behavior. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM, eds. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boehmer T, Hoehner C, Wyrwich K, Ramirez L, Brownson R. Correspondence between perceived and observed measures of neighborhood environmental supports for physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2006; 3: 22–36.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McGinn AP, Evenson KR, Herring AH, Huston SL, Rodríguez DA. Exploring associations between physical activity and perceived and objective measures of the built environment. J Urban Health. 2007; 84: 162–184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leslie E, Saelens B, Frank LD, et al. Residents' perceptions of walkability attributes in objectively different neighbourhoods: A pilot study. Health Place. 2005; 11: 227–236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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
  28. 28.
    Ball K, Jeffery RW, Crawford DA, et al. Mismatch between perceived and objective measures of physical activity environments. Prev Med. 2008; 47(3): 294–298.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Macintyre S, Macdonald L, Ellaway A. Lack of agreement between measured and self-reported distance from public green parks in Glasgow, Scotland. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008; 5: 26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kirtland KA, Porter DE, Addy CL, et al. Environmental measures of physical activity supports: Perception versus reality. Am J Prev Med. 2003; 24: 323–331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Humpel N, Marshall AL, Leslie E, Bauman A, Owen N. Changes in neighborhood walking are related to changes in perceptions of environmental attributes. Ann Behav Med. 2004; 27: 60–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Donovan RJ. Target audiences and target behaviors. In: Kerr J, Weitkunat R, Moretti M, eds. ABC of Behavior Change. Edinburgh, New York: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2005: 207–220.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    van Stralen M, Lechner L, Mudde A, de Vries H, Bolman C. Active plus: The effect of adding community based information to a tailored physical activity intervention among the over-fifties. Seventh Conference of the International Society of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. Banff; 2008.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    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: 80–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjöström M, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003; 35: 1381–1395.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sallis J, Pinski R, Grossman R, Patterson T, Nader PR. The development of self-efficacy scales for health-related diet and exercise behaviors. Health Educ Res. 1988; 3: 283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cerin E, Leslie E, Owen N, Bauman AE. An Australian version of the neighborhood environment walkability scale: Validity evidence. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2008; 12: 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Australian Bureau of Statistics. Census of Population and Housing: CDATA, CD-ROM, Final Release. Available online at www.abs.gov.au.
  39. 39.
    Maibach EW, Abroms LC, Marosits M. Communication and marketing as tools to cultivate the public's health a proposed “people and places” framework. BMC Public Health. 2007; 7: 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Abroms LC, Maibach EW. The effectiveness of mass communication to change public behavior. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008; 29: 219–234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Heath G, Brownson R, Kruger J, et al. The effectiveness of urban design and land use and transport policies and practices to increase physical activity: a systematic review. J Phys Act Health. 2006; 3: S55–S71.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    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-aged and older-aged women. Health Psychol. 2000; 19: 354–364.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Owen N, Bauman A. The descriptive epidemiology of a sedentary lifestyle in adult Australians. Int J Epidemiol. 1992; 21: 305–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Trost SG, Owen N, Bauman AE, Sallis JF, Brown W. Correlates of adults' participation in physical activity: Review and update. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002; 34: 1996–2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    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
  46. 46.
    Wilson DK, Kirtland KA, Ainsworth BE, Addy CL. Socioeconomic status and perceptions of access and safety for physical activity. Ann Behav Med. 2004; 28: 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Liben LS. Spatial representation and behavior: Multiple perspectives. In: Liben LS, Patterson AH, Newcombe N, eds. Spatial Representation and Behavior Across the Life Span: Theory and Application. New York: Academic Press; 1981: 3–36.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Behavioral Medicine 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cluster for Physical Activity and Health, School of Public Health, University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Cancer Prevention Research Centre, School of Population Health, University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations