Skip to main content

Walking for Transportation or Leisure: What Difference Does the Neighborhood Make?

Journal of General Internal Medicine volume 22, pages 1674–1680 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Patients are often advised to initiate a physical activity program by walking for transportation or leisure. This study explored whether neighborhood factors beyond the individual might affect compliance.

Objective

We examined the associations between total walking and neighborhood factors in a multi-ethnic population-based sample in California and the roles race/ethnicity plays in these associations.

Design

Cross-sectional study

Participants

Individual-level data were obtained from the 2003 California Health Interview Survey. Participants’ census tracts were linked to Census 2000 data to capture neighborhood SES.

Measurements and Main Results

The dependent variable was self-reported walking at recommended levels. Neighborhood SES was measured by a scale of 4 Census-based variables (alpha = 0.83). Social cohesion was measured by a scale tapping the extent of perceived social connectedness, trust, and solidarity among neighbors (alpha = 0.70). Neighborhood access to a park, playground, or open space was measured by a single item. Safety was measured by a scale of three items (alpha = 0.66). We performed a series of multiple logit models with robust variance estimates while taking complex survey design into account. Neighborhood social cohesion (odds ratio [OR] = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.04, 1.14) and access to a park, playground, or open space (OR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.16, 1.36) were significant environmental correlates of walking at recommended levels, independent of individual socio-demographics. Subgroup analysis showed that neighborhood effects were different by race/ethnicity.

Conclusions

Neighborhood physical and social environmental factors are significantly associated with walking at recommended levels. Being aware of the ways that the environment could affect a patient’s compliance with PA recommendations may help physicians tailor recommendations to circumstances.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Perceptions of neighborhood characteristics and leisure-time physical inactivity—Austin/Travis County, Texas, 2004. MMWR Morb Mort Wkly Rep. 2005;54(37):926–8.

    Google Scholar 

  2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010. With Understanding and Improving Health and Objectives for Improving Health. Vol 2 volumes, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2000.

  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Physical activity trends—United States, 1990–1998. MMWR Morb Mort Wkly Rep. 2001;50:166–9.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dishman RK, Buckworth J. Increasing physical activity: a quantitative synthesis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1996;28(6):706–19.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kahn EB, Ramsey LT, Brownson RC, et al. The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22(4S).

  6. Eyler AA, Brownson RC, Bacak SJ, Housemann RA. The epidemiology of walking for physical activity in the United States. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(9):1529–36.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hillsdon M, Thorogood M, Antiss T, Morris J. Randomized controlled trials of physical activity promotion in a free-living populations: a review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1995;49:448–53.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. The Surgeon General’s Call to Action Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2001.

  9. Fletcher GF. How to implement physical activity in primary and secondary prevention: a statement for healthcare professionals from the task force on risk reduction, American Heart Association. Circulation. 1997;96:355–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; 1996:87–142.

  11. Ainsworth BE, Wilcox S, Thompson WW, Richter DL, Henderson KA. Personal, social, and physical environmental correlates of physical activity in African-American Women in South Carolina. Am J Prev Med. 2003;25(3Si):23–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Huston SL, Evenson KR, Bors P, Gizlice Z. Neighborhood environment, access to places for activity, and leisure-time physical activity in a diverse North Carolina Population. Am J Health Promot. 2003;18:58–69.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Robinson TN, Sirard JR. Preventing childhood obesity: a solution-oriented research paradigm. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(suppl 2):194–201.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Duncan SC, Duncan TE, Strycker LA. A multilevel analysis of neighborhood context and youth alcohol and drug problems. Prevention Science 2002;3(2):125–33.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Giles-Corti B, Donovan RJ. Relative influences of individual, social environmental, and physical environmental correlates of walking. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(9):1583–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McNeill LH, Kreuter MW, Subramanian SV. Social environment and physical activity: a review of concepts and evidence. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63:1011–22.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ross CE. Walking, exercising, and smoking: does neighborhood matter? Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(2):265–74.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Sundquist J, Malmström M, Johansson S-E. Cardiovascular risk factors and the neighborhood environment: a multilevel analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28(5):841–5.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Yen IH, Kaplan GA. Poverty area residence and changes in physical activity level: Evidence from the Alameda County study. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1709–12.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Cubbin C, Hadden WC, Winkleby MA. Neighborhood context and cardiovascular disease risk factors: the contribution of material deprivation. Ethn Dis. 2001;11(4):687–700.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee RE, Cubbin C. Neighborhood context and youth cardiovascular health behaviors. Am J Public Health. 2002;92(3):428–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthy places terminology-designing and building healthy places. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/terminology.htm.; Accessed on: August 12, 2005.

  23. Duncan MJ, Spence JC, Mummery WK. Perceived environment and physical activity: a meta-analysis of selected environmental characteristics. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2005;2(11):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ewing R. Can the physical environment determine physical activity levels? Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2005;33(2):69–75.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Eyler AA, Baker E, Cromer L, King AC, Brownson RC, Donatelle RJ. Physical activity and minority women: a qualitative study. Health Educ Behav. 1998;25:640–52.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Boslaugh SE, Luke DA, Brownson RC, Naleid KS, Kreuter MW. Perceptions of neighborhood environment for physical activity: Is it “who you are” or “where you live”? J Urban Health 2004;81(4):671–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. King AC, Castro C, Wilcox S, Eyler AA, Sallis JF, Brownson RC. 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(4):354–64.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. California Health Interview Survey. The 2003 California Health Interview Survey Response Rates. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research; 2003.

  29. Bedimo-Rung AO, Mowen AJ, Cohen D. The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: a conceptual model. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(suppl 2):159–68.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cohen DA, McKenzie TL, Sehgal A, Williamson S, Golinelli D, Lurie N. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(3):509–14.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Godbey GC, Caldwell LL, Floyd M, Payne LL. Contributions of leisure studies and recreation and park management research to the active living agenda. Amerique. 2005;28(suppl 2):150–8.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sallis JF, Bauman A, Pratt M. Environmental and policy interventions to promote physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 1998;15:379–97.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Sallis JF, Linton LS, Kraft MK. The first Active Living Research conference: growth of a transdisciplinary field. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2S2):93–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Physical activity among Asians and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders—50 states and the District of Columbia, 2001–2003. MMWR Morb Mort Wkly Rep. 2004;53(33):756–60.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kandula NR, Lauderdale DS. Leisure time, non-leisure time, and occupational physical activity in Asian Americans. Ann Epidemiol. 2005;15(4):257–65.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Grzywacz JG, Marks NF. Social inequalities and exercise during adulthood: toward an ecological perspective. J Health Soc Behav. 2001;42(2):202–20.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Humpel N, Owen N, Iverson D, Leslie E, Bauman A. Perceived environment attributes, residential location, and walking for particular purposes. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26(2):119–25.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Motl RW, Dishman RK, Ward DS, et al. Perceived physical environment and physical activity across one year among adolescent girls: self-efficacy as a possible mediator? J Adolesc Health. 2005;37(5):403–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Shenassa ED, Liebhaber A, Ezeamama A. Perceived safety of area of residence and exercise: a pan-European study. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(11):1012–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Voorhees CC, Young DR. Personal, social, and physical environmental correlates of physical activity levels in urban Latinas. Am J Prev Med. 2003;25(3Si):61–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wen M, Browning CR, Cagney K. A multi-level study of neighborhood environment and its relationship to physical activity in adulthood. Urban Stud. 2007;44(13):1–18.

  42. Degrance JM, Mouton CP, Lichtenstein MJ, Hazuda HP. Potential mediators of ethnic differences in physical activity in older Mexican Americans and European Americans: Results from the San Antonio Longitudinal Study of Aging. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:1240–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lindström M, Hanson BS, Wirfalt E, Ostergren PO. Socioeconomic differences in the consumption of vegetables, fruit and fruit juices. The influence of psychosocial factors. Eur J Public Health. 2001;11(1):51–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Berrigan D, Troiano RP, McNeel T, DiSogra C, Ballard-Barbash R. Active transportation increases adherence to activity recommendations. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31(3):210–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Berke EM, Koepsell TD, Moudon AV, Hoskins RE, Larson EB. Association of the built environment with physical activity and obesity in older persons. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(3):486–92.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Jacobson D, Strohecker L, Compton M, Katz D. Physical activity counseling in the adult primary care setting position statement of the American College of Preventive Medicine. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29(2):158–62.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Bolognesi M, Nigg CR, Massarini M, Lippke S. Reducing obesity indicators through PACE in Italian Primary Care settings. Annals Behav Med 2006;31:179–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Heymann J, Fishcher A. Neighborhoods, Health Research, and Its Relevance to Public Policy. In: Kawachi I, Berkman LF, eds. Neighborhoods and Health. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003:335–47.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Katx L, Kling J, Liebman J. Moving to opportunity in Boston: early results of a randomized mobility experiment. Q J Econ. 2001;116(2):604–54.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Rosenbaum JE. Changing the geography of opportunity by expanding residential choice: lessons from the Gautreaux Program. Hous Policy Debate. 1995;6:231–69.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a Research Scholars Grant GPHPS 107922 from the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA (Lauderdale is the PI; Wen and Kandula are co-investigators) and a grant awarded to Wen (NICHD R03 HD0525370-01). The authors thank UCLA Center for Health Policy Research for providing access to the confidential data of the 2003 California Health Interview Survey.

Conflict of Interest

This research was supported by a research grant from the American Cancer Society to all three authors, with Dr. Lauderdale as PI and Dr. Wen and Dr. Kandula as co-investigators. Dr. Wen also received a grant from the NICHD to partly support her work in this research.

No other potential conflict of interest is involved in this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Utah, Salt Lake, UT, USA

    Ming Wen PhD

  2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Namratha R. Kandula MD MPH

  3. Department of Health Studies, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Diane S. Lauderdale PhD

Authors
  1. Ming Wen PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Namratha R. Kandula MD MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Diane S. Lauderdale PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ming Wen PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wen, M., Kandula, N.R. & Lauderdale, D.S. Walking for Transportation or Leisure: What Difference Does the Neighborhood Make?. J GEN INTERN MED 22, 1674–1680 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0400-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0400-4

KEY WORDS

  • physical activity
  • walking
  • neighborhood social cohesion
  • trust
  • neighborhood safety
  • neighborhood SES