Correlates of Non-Concordance between Perceived and Objective Measures of Walkability
- 1.3k Downloads
Objective and self-reported physical environmental attributes have been related to physical activity.
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsWalkability Walkable area Physical activity GIS Built environment Awareness
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.
- 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
- 5.Sallis JF, Owen N. Physical Activity and Behavioral Medicine. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1999.Google Scholar
- 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
- 19.Lloyd R. Spatial Cognition - Geographic Environments. Boston: Kluwer Academic; 1997.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.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
- 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.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
- 38.Australian Bureau of Statistics. Census of Population and Housing: CDATA, CD-ROM, Final Release. Available online at www.abs.gov.au.
- 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
- 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