Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Relationships of Land Use Mix with Walking for Transport: Do Land Uses and Geographical Scale Matter?

  • Published:
Journal of Urban Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Physical activity and public health recommendations now emphasize the creation of activity-friendly neighborhoods. Mixed land use in a neighborhood is important in this regard, as it reflects the availability of destinations to which residents can walk or ride bicycles, and thus is likely to contribute to residents’ active lifestyles that in turn will influence their overall health. Relationships between land use mix (LUM) and physical activity have not been apparent in some studies, which may be because geographical scale and the specificity of hypothesized environment–behavior associations are not taken into account. We compared the strength of association of four Geographic Information Systems-derived LUM measures with walking for transport and perceived proximity to destinations. We assessed physical activity behaviors of 2,506 adults in 154 Census Collection Districts (CCDs) in Adelaide, Australia, for which ‘‘original’’ LUM measures were calculated, and then refined by either: accounting for the geographic scale of measurement; including only the most-relevant land uses; or, both. The refined (but not the ‘‘original’’) LUM measures had significant associations with the frequency of walking for transport (p < 0.05) and area-corrected measures had significant associations with the duration of walking for transport. All LUM measures had significant associations with perceived proximity to destinations, but stronger associations were seen when using the refined measures compared with the original LUM. Identifying the LUM attributes most strongly associated with walking for transport is a priority and can inform environmental and policy initiatives that are needed to promote health-enhancing physical activity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

FIGURE 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Frank LD, Engelke PO, Schmid TL. Health and community design. Washington: Island; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wendel-Vos W, Droomers M, Kremers S, Brug J, van Lenthe F. Potential environmental determinants of physical activity in adults: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2007; 8: 425-440.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Saelens BE, Handy SL. Built environment correlates of walking: a review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008; 40: S550-S566.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sallis JF, Cervero RB, Ascher W, Henderson KA, Kraft MK, Kerr J. An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006; 27: 297-322.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. The built environment, physical activity, heart disease and stroke. Ottawa: Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cavill N. Building health: creating and enhancing places for healthy active lives: what needs to be done? London: National Heart Forum; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  7. National Heart Foundation of Australia. Heart Foundation Position statement: The built environment and walking. Canberra: National Heart Foundation of Australia; 2009.

  8. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE public health guidance 8: Promoting and creating built or natural environments that encourage and support physical activity. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008.

  9. Handy SL, Boarnet MG, Ewing R, Killingsworth RE. How the built environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning. Am J Prev Med. 2002; 23: 64-73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Giles-Corti B, Timperio A, Bull F, Pikora TJ. Understanding physical activity environmental correlates: increased specificity for ecological models. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2005; 33: 175-181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Owen N, Humpel N, Leslie E, Bauman A, Sallis JF. Understanding environmental influences on walking: review and research agenda. Am J Prev Med. 2004; 27: 67-76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sallis JF, Owen N, Fisher EB. Ecological models of health behavior. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanth K, eds. Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brownson RC, Hoehner CM, Day K, Forsyth A, Sallis JF. Measuring the built environment for physical activity: state of the science. Am J Prev Med. 2009; 36: S99-S123. e112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cervero R, Duncan M. Walking, bicycling, and urban landscapes: evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Am J Public Health. 2003; 93: 1478-1483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Frank LD, Kerr J, Sallis JF, Miles R, Chapman J. A hierarchy of sociodemographic and environmental correlates of walking and obesity. Prev Med. 2008; 47: 172-178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Li F, Harmer PA, Cardinal BJ, et al. Built environment, adiposity, and physical activity in adults aged 50–75. Am J Prev Med. 2008; 35: 38-46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rodriguez DA, Evenson KR, Diez Roux AV, Brines SJ. Land use, residential density, and walking the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Am J Prev Med. 2009; 37: 397-404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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: 117-125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hayashi T, Tsumura K, Suematsu C, Okada K, Fujii S, Endo G. Walking to work and the risk for hypertension in men: the Osaka Health Survey. Ann Intern Med. 1999; 131: 21-26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hu G, Qiao Q, Silventoinen K, et al. Occupational, commuting, and leisure-time physical activity in relation to risk for Type 2 diabetes in middle-aged Finnish men and women. Diabetologia. 2003; 46: 322-329.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hamer M, Chida Y. Active commuting and cardiovascular risk: a meta-analytic review. Prev Med. 2008; 46: 9-13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cerin E, Leslie E, du Toit L, Owen N, Frank LD. Destinations that matter: associations with walking for transport. Health Place. 2007; 13: 713-724.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Forsyth A, Hearst M, Oakes JM, Schmitz KH. Design and destinations: factors influencing walking and total physical activity. Urban Stud. 2008; 45: 1973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Riva M, Apparicio P, Gauvin L, Brodeur JM. Establishing the soundness of administrative spatial units for operationalising the active living potential of residential environments: an exemplar for designing optimal zones. Int J Health Geogr. 2008; 7: 43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gauvin L, Robitaille E, Riva M, McLaren L, Dassa C, Potvin L. Conceptualizing and operationalizing neighbourhoods: the conundrum of identifying territorial units. Can J Public Health. 2007; 98: S18-26.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. McCormack GR, Giles-Corti B, Bulsara M. The relationship between destination proximity, destination mix and physical activity behaviors. Prev Med. 2008; 46: 33-40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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. 2009; 29: 224.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Badland HM, Schofield GM, Witten K, et al. Understanding the Relationship between Activity and Neighbourhoods (URBAN) Study: research design and methodology. BMC Public Health. 2009; 9: 224.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhang M, Kukadia N. Metrics of urban form and the modifiable areal unit problem. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2005; 1902: 71-79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) 2000. 1216.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2005.

  33. Guo JY, Bhat CR. Operationalizing the concept of neighborhood: application to residential location choice analysis. J Tran Geo. 2007; 15: 31-45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Moudon AV, Lee C, Cheadle AD, et al. Operational definitions of Walkable neighborhood: theoretical and empirical insights. J Phys Act Health. 2006; 3: 99.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Openshaw S. Ecological fallacies and the analysis of areal census data. Environ Plann A. 1984; 16: 17-31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Leslie E, Coffee N, Frank L, Owen N, Bauman A, Hugo G. Walkability of local communities: using geographic information systems to objectively assess relevant environmental attributes. Health Place. 2007; 13: 111-122.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Cancer Prevention Research Centre, School of Population Health. Physical Activity in Localities and Community Environments (The PLACE Project): An Account of Spatially Based Survey Methods and Recruitment Outcomes. Herston: The University of Queensland; 2005.

  38. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Census of Population and Housing CDATA 2001 [CD- ROM]. Final Release. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2001. http://www.abs.gov.au/.

  39. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003; 35: 1381-1395.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Cervero R, Kockelman K. Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transportation Res Part D. 1997; 2: 199-219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Leslie E, Saelens B, Frank L, et al. Residents' perceptions of walkability attributes in objectively different neighbourhoods: a pilot study. Health Place. 2005; 11: 227-236.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cerin E, Leslie E, Owen N, Bauman A. An Australian version of the neighborhood environment walkability scale: validity evidence. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2008; 12: 31-51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Williams RL. A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data. Biometrics. 2000; 56: 645-646.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Duncan MJ, Mummery WK, Steele RM, Caperchione C, Schofield G. Geographic location, physical activity and perceptions of the environment in Queensland adults. Health Place. 2009; 15: 204-209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Information paper: draft mesh blocks Australia, 2005. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The PLACE study was supported by National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia Project Grant #213114, by NHMRC Program Grant #301200 (Owen) and by a Research Infrastructure Grant from Queensland Health. Sugiyama is supported by a Capacity Building Grant in Population Health (#252799) from the NHMRC. Leslie is supported by an NHMRC Public Health Fellowship (#301261).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Physical Activity Studies, Institute for Health and Social Science Research, CQ University, Rockhampton QLD 4702, Australia

    Mitch J. Duncan

  2. Cancer Prevention Research Centre, School of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, 4006, Australia

    Elisabeth Winkler, Takemi Sugiyama, Lorinne duToit & Neville Owen

  3. Institute of Human Performance, The University of Hong Kong, Hongkong, CHINA

    Ester Cerin

  4. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC 3125, AUSTRALIA

    Eva Leslie

Authors
  1. Mitch J. Duncan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elisabeth Winkler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Takemi Sugiyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ester Cerin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lorinne duToit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eva Leslie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Neville Owen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mitch J. Duncan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Duncan, M.J., 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 87, 782–795 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-010-9488-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-010-9488-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation