Few studies have explored how relationships of perceived environment and physical activity vary across different activity domains and populations. This question was explored in five physical activity intervention trials funded by the National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium.
Design
Observational.
Settings
San Francisco peninsula, California (N = 94); Eugene, Oregon (N = 122); Atlanta, Georgia (N = 256); Kingston, Rhode Island (N = 109); Memphis, Tennessee (N = 64).
Subjects
Ethnically diverse community adults ages 18 to 85 years.
Measures
The Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale and CHAMPS physical activity questionnaire. Response rate among those invited to complete these measures was 90%.
Results
Cross-sectional pooled signal detection analysis indicated that people who reported living in neighborhoods with more attractive scenery and ease of walking were more likely to meet national physical activity recommendations (67%) compared with those without these neighborhood attributes (36%, χ2 = 13.04, p = .0003). Within-site multiple regression identified two additional variables–-seeing others when walking and encountering loose dogs that make it difficult to walk–-as correlates across multiple sites and activity domains (i.e., minutes of weekly moderate or more vigorous activity, walking for errands, walking leisurely) (incremental R2 = 2.0–7.5; p < .05). Analyses of covariance suggested that traffic safety might be particularly important in facilitating or impeding physical activity in response to a formal intervention (for traffic-arm assignment interactions, F = 3.8–7.0, p ≤ .05).
Conclusions
Relationships between perceived environments and physical activity may differ depending upon population groups and activity domains and merit investigation by using stronger prospective designs.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Increasing physical activity.A report on recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services.MMWR Recomm Rep.2001; 50(RR-18): 1–14.
2.
International Journal of Public Health Special Issue, Physical activity in Europe.Int J Public Health.2004; 49: 229–317.
3.
KahnE.B., RamseyL.T., BrownsonR.C.. The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity. A systematic review.Am J Prev Med2002; 22(4 suppl): 73–107.
4.
KingA.C., StokolsD., TalenE.. Theoretical approaches to the promotion of physical activity: forging a transdisciplinary paradigm.Am J Prev Med.2002; 23(2 suppl): 15–25.
5.
SallisJ.F., BaumanA., PrattM.. Environmental and policy interventions to promote physical activity.Am J Prev Med.1998; 15: 379–397.
6.
KingA.C., JefferyR.W., FridingerF.. Environmental and policy approaches to cardiovascular disease prevention through physical activity: issues and opportunities.Health Educ Q.1995; 22: 499–511.
7.
HumpelN., OwenN., LeslieE.. Environmental factors associated with adults’ participation in physical activity.Am J Prev Med.2002; 22: 188–199.
8.
OwenN., HumpelN., LeslieE.. Understanding environmental influences on walking: review and research agenda.Am J Prev Med.2004; 27: 67–76.
9.
SaelensB.E., SallisJ.F., FrankL.D.. Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures.Ann Behav Med.2003; 25: 80–91.
10.
HoehnerC.M., Brennan RamirezL.K., ElliottM.B.. Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity among urban adults.Am J Prev Med.2005; 28(2 suppl 2): 105–116.
11.
KitamuraR., MokhtarianP.L., LaidetL.. A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay area.Transportation.1997; 24: 125–158.
12.
LoutzenheiserD.R.. Pedestrian access to transit: model of walk trips and their design and urban form determinants around Bay Area Transit stations.Transport Res Rec.1997; 1604: 40–49.
13.
SallisJ.F., HovellM.F., HofstetterC.R.. Distance between homes and exercise facilities related to frequency of exercise among San Diego residents.Public Health Rep.1990; 105: 179–185.
KingA.C., MarcusB.H., DunnA.L.. Identifying subgroups who succeed or fail with three physical activity interventions: the Activity Counseling Trial.Health Psychol. In press.
16.
KingA.C., FriedmanR., MarcusB.. Harnessing motivational forces in the promotion of physical activity: the Community Health Advice by Telephone (CHAT) Project.Health Educ Res.2002; 17: 627–636.
17.
ToobertD.J., StryckerL.A., GlasgowR.E.. Enhancing support for health behavior change among women at risk for heart disease: the Mediterranean Lifestyle Trial.Health Educ Res.2002; 17: 574–585.
18.
ResnicowK., JacksonA., BraithwaiteR.. Healthy body/healthy spirit: a church-based nutrition and physical activity intervention.Health Educ Res.2002; 17: 562–573.
19.
ClarkP.G., NiggC.R., GreeneG.. The study of exercise and nutrition in older Rhode Islanders (SENIOR): translating theory into research.Health Educ Res.2002; 17: 552–561.
20.
CodayM., KlesgesL.M., GarrisonR.J.. Health opportunities with physical exercise (HOPE): social contextual interventions to reduce sedentary behavior in urban settings.Health Educ Res.2002; 17: 637–647.
21.
SaelensB.E., SallisJ.F., BlackJ.B., ChenD.. Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: an environment scale evaluation.Am J Public Health.2003; 93: 1552–1558.
22.
BrownsonR.C., ChangJ.J., EylerA.A.. Measuring the environment for friendliness toward physical activity: a comparison of the reliability of 3 questionnaires.Am J Public Health.2004; 94: 473–483.
23.
De BourdeaudhiujI., SallisJ.F., SaelensB.E.. Environmental correlates of physical activity in a sample of Belgian adults.Am J Health Promot.2003; 17: 83–92.
24.
LeslieE., SaelensB.E., FrankL.. Residents’ perceptions of walkability attributes in objectively different neighbourhoods: a pilot study.Health Place.2005; 11: 227–236.
25.
SallisJ.F., JohnsonM.F., CalfasK.J., CaparosaS., NicholsJ.. Assessing perceived physical environment variables that may influence physical activity.Res Q Exerc Sport.1997; 68: 345–351.
26.
KingA.C., CastroC., WilcoxS.. Personal and environmental factors associated with physical inactivity among different racial/ethnic groups of U.S. middle- and older-aged women.Health Psychol.2000; 19: 354–364.
27.
ZabeskiA.C., SallisJ.F., SaelensB.E., BlackJ.B.. Evaluation of a neighborhood satisfaction scale: relevance to walk-ability.Ann Behav Med.2003; 25(suppl): S004.
28.
StewartA.L., MillsK.M., KingA.C.. CHAMPS physical activity questionnaire for older adults: outcomes for intervention.Med Sci Sports Exerc.2001; 33: 1126–1141.
29.
HaradaN.D., ChiuV., KingA.C., StewartA.L.. An evaluation of three self-report physical activity instruments for older adults.Med Sri Sports Exerc.2001; 33: 962–970.
30.
LeeR.E., KingA.C.. Discretionary time among older adults: how do physical activity promotion interventions affect sedentary and active behaviors?Ann Behav Med.2003; 25: 112–119.
31.
ResnicowK., McCartyF., BlissettD.. Validity of a modified CHAMPS physical activity questionnaire among African-Americans.Med Sci Sports Exerc.2003; 35: 1537–1545.
32.
KingA.C., PruittL.A., PhillipsW.. Comparative effects of two physical activity programs on measured and perceived physical functioning and other health-related quality of life outcomes in older adults.J Gerontol Med Sci.2000; 55A: M74–M83.
33.
StewartA.L., VerboncoeurC.J., McLellanB.Y.. Physical activity outcomes of CHAMPS II: A physical activity promotion program.J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci.2001; 56: M465–M470.
34.
KingA.C., BaumannK., O'SullivanP.. Effects of moderate-intensity exercise on physiological, behavioral, and emotional responses to family caregiving: a randomized controlled trial.J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci.2002; 57: M26–M36.
35.
KingA.C., FriedmanR., MarcusB.H.. Increasing regular physical activity via humans or automated technology: 12–month results of the CHAT trial.Ann Behav Med.2004; 27(suppl): S044.
36.
PateR.R., PrattM., BlairS.N.. 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.
37.
HakimA.A., PetrovitchH., BurchfielC.M.. Effects of walking on mortality among nonsmoking retired men.N Engl J Med.1998; 338: 94–99.
38.
FisherK.J., RitchieC.B., AbernethyP.J.. Just walk it: enhancing community participation in physical activity.Health Promot J Aust.1998; 8: 140–144.
39.
OjaP., VuoriI., ParonenO.. Walking and cycling to work: their utility as health-enhancing physical activity.Patient Educ Couns.1998; 33: S87–S94.
40.
BaumanA., RussellS.J., FurberS., DobsonA.J.. The epidemiology of dog walking: an unmet need for human and canine health.Med J Aust.2001; 175: 632–634.
41.
US Department of Health and Human Services,Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General.Atlanta, Ga: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; 1996.
42.
KraemerH.C.. Assessment of 2 X 2 association: generalization of signal detection methods.Am Statistician.1988; 42: 37–49.
43.
KiernanM., KraemerH.C., WinklebyM.A.. Do logistic regression and signal detection identify different subgroups at risk? Implications for the design of tailored interventions.Psychol Methods.2001; 6: 35–48.
44.
KingA.C., KiernanM., OmanR.F.. Can we identify who will adhere to long-term physical activity? Application of signal detection methodology as a potential aid to clinical decision-making.Health Psychol1997; 16: 380–389.
45.
KraemerH.C.. Evaluating Medical Tests.Newbury Park, Calif: Sage; 1992.
46.
KiernanM., KingA.C., StefanickM., KraemerH.C.. Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful dieters: an application of signal detection methodology.Ann Behav Med.1998; 20: 1–6.
BaronR.M., KennyD.A.. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.J Pers Soc Psychol.1986; 51: 1173–1182.
49.
KraemerH.C., WilsonG.T., FairburnC.G., AgrasW.S.. Mediators and moderators of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials.Arch Gen Psychiatry.2002; 59: 887–883.
50.
FrankL.D., EngelkeP.O., SchmidT.L.. Health and Community Design: The Impact of the Built Environment on Physical Activity.Washington, DC: Island; 2003.
EylerA.A., Matson-KoffmanD., VestJ.R.. Environmental, policy, and cultural factors related to physical activity in a diverse sample of women: the Women's Cardiovascular Health Network Project—summary and discussion.Women Health.2002; 36: 123–134.
53.
HurtzS.Q., SirardJ.R., lungA.C.. The relationship between physical activity and dog-related animal control incidents. Paper presented at: Active Living Research Annual Conference; January 30–31, 2004; Del Mar, Calif.
54.
FrankL.D., PivoG.. Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant, transit, and walking.Transport Res Rec.1994; 1466: 44–52.
55.
WeinsteinA., FeigleyP., PullenP.. Neighborhood safety and the prevalence of physical activity—selected states, 1996.MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.1999; 48: 143–146.
56.
BalfourJ.L., KaplanG.A.. Neighborhood environment and loss of physical function in older adults: evidence from the Alameda County Study.Am J Epidemiol.2002; 155: 507–515.
57.
HandyS.L., BoarnetM.G., EwingR., KillingsworthR.E.. How the built environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning.Am J Prev Med.2002; 23(Suppl 2): 64–73.
