Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2007-3
Using Objective and Subjective Measures of Neighborhood Greenness and Accessible Destinations for Understanding Walking Trips and BMI in Seattle,Washington
Examine the influence of destinations within walking distance of a residence and vegetation on walking trips and body mass index (BMI).
Design.
Cross-sectional analysis of data from residences with varying accessibility and greenness.
Setting.
Seattle, Washington.
Subjects.
Stratified random sample of residents, stratified by accessibility and greenness. Response rate: 17.5%, 529 respondents.
Measures.
Accessibility and greenness were measured objectively by Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Network Analysis and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), respectively. Self-reported destinations, natural features, walking trips, BMI, and importance of destinations were measured through a postal survey.
Results.
Objective accessibility were related to walking trips per month (r2 = .110, p < .0001), as was subjective greenness (r2 = .051, p < .0001), although objective measures of actual greenness were not. In areas with high accessibility, BMI was lower in areas that had high NDVI, or more greenness (r2 = .129428, model p < .0001; t-test of interaction p = .0257). Low NDVI areas were associated with overestimation of the number of destinations within walking distance (F1, 499 = 11.009, p < .001).
Conclusions.
Objective and subjective measurements of accessibility and greenness led to an understanding of variation among walking trips and BMI in different neighborhoods.
MokdadAFordEBowmanB. Prevalence of obesity, diabetes and obesity-related risk factors, 2001. JAMA. 2003;289:76–79.
2.
PateRRPrattMBlairSN. 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.
SallisJFOwenN. Ecological models of health behavior. In: GlanzKRimerBKLewisFM, eds. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. 3rd ed.San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass; 2002:462–484.
5.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Healthy People 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2000.
6.
KingACCastroCWilcoxS. 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.
7.
Giles-CortiBDonovanR. The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:1793–1812.
8.
FrankLDSchmidTLSallisJF. Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: Findings from SMARTRAQ. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(suppl 2):117–125.
9.
KingWCBelleSHBrachJS. Objective measures of neighborhood environment and physical activity in older women. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28:461–469.
10.
HoehnerCMBrennanLKElliottMB. Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity among urban adults. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28:105–115.
11.
LeeCMoudonAV. Physical activity and environment research in the health field: Implications for urban and transportation planning practice and research. J Plann Lit. 2004;19:147–181.
12.
HandySL. Urban form and pedestrian choices: Study of Austin neighborhoods. Transport Res Rec. 1996;1552:135–144.
13.
CeveroR. Mixed land-uses and commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey. Transport Res Gen. 1996;30:361–377.
14.
HumpelNOwenNIversonD. Perceived environment attributes, residential location, and walking for particular purposes. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26:119–125.
15.
HumpelNOwenNLeslieE. Environmental factors associated with adults' participation in physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22:188–199.
16.
BrownsonRCBakerEAHousemannRA. Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1995–2003.
17.
SaelensBESallisJFBlackJBChenD. Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: An environment scale evaluation. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1552–1558.
18.
WilcoxSCastroCKingAC. Determinants of leisure time physical activity in rural compared with urban older and ethnically diverse women in the United States. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000;54:667–672.
19.
BrownsonRCHousemannRBrownDR. Promoting physical activity in rural communities: Walking trail access, use, and effects. Am J Prev Med. 2000;18:235–241.
20.
BallKBaumanALeslieEOwenN. Perceived environmental aesthetics and convenience and company are associated with walking for exercise among Australian adults. Prev Med. 2001;33:434–440.
21.
Giles-CortiBBroomhallMKnuimanM. Increase walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space?Am J Prev Med. 2005;28:169–176.
22.
BaumanASmithBStokerL. Geographical influences upon physical activity participation: Evidence of a ‘coastal effect’. Aust N Z J Public Health. 1999;23:322–324.
23.
CortiBDonovanRHolmanC. Factors influencing the use of physical activity facilities: Results from qualitative research. Health Promot J Austr. 1996;6:16–21.
24.
KaplanRKaplanS. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1989.
25.
ArcView 3.3 [computer program]. Redlands, Calif: Environmental Systems Research Institute; 2002.
26.
KingWCBrachJSBelleSH. The relationship between convenience of destinations and walking levels in older women. Am J Health Promot. 2003;18:74–82.
27.
MoudonAVLeeCCheadleA. Attributes of walking-supportive environments. Am J Prev Med. (In review).
CohenWBGowardSN. Landsat's role in ecological applications of remote sensing. BioScience. 2004;54:535–545.
30.
TuckerCJVanpraetCLSharmeanMJVan IttersumG. Satellite remote sensing of total herbaceous biomass production in the Senagalese Sahel: 1980–1984. Rem Sens Environ. 1985;17:233–249.
31.
CoopsNCWaringRHLandsbergJJ. Estimation of potential forest productivity across the Oregon transect using satellite data and monthly weather records. Int J Rem Sens. 2001;22:3797–3812.
32.
SainoNSzepTAmbrosiniT. Ecological conditions during winter affect sexual selection and breeding in a migratory bird. Proc Biol Sci. 2004;271:681–686.
33.
BaileySAHorner-DevineMCLuckG. Primary productivity and species richness: Relationships among functional guilds, residency groups and vagility classes at multiple spatial scales. Ecography. 2004;27:207–217.
34.
AlbertiMWeeksRCoeS. Urban landcover change analysis in Central Puget Sound. Photogramm Eng Rem Sens. 2004;70:1043–1052.
35.
ArcMap 9.1 [computer program]. Redlands, Calif: Environmental Systems Research Institute; 2005.
GrayDFujiokaK. Use of relative weight and body mass index for the determination of adiposity. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:545–550.
40.
SPSS 11.5 for Windows [computer program]. Chicago, Ill: SPSS Inc.; 2003.
41.
Giles-CortiBDonovanR. Socioeconomic status differences in recreational physical activity levels and real and perceived access to a supportive physical environment. Prev Med. 2002;35:601–611.
42.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, Ga: U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; 1996.
43.
JonesDAAinsworthBECroftJB. Moderate lesiure-time physical activity: Who is meeting the public health recommendations? A national cross-sectional study. Arch Fam Med. 1998;7:285–289.
CromptonA. Perceived distance in the city as a function of time. Environ Behav. 2006;38:173–182.
46.
Giles-CortiBDonovanRJ. Relative influences of individual, social environmental, and physical environmental correlates of walking. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1583–1589.
47.
NaglerPLGlennEPHueteAR. Assessment of spectral vegetation indices for riparian vegetation in the Colorado River delta, Mexico. J Arid Envir. 2001;49:91–110.
48.
StimsonHCBreshearsDDUstinSLKefauverSC. Spectral sensing of foliar water conditions in two co-occurring conifer species: Pinus edulis and Juniperus monosperma. Rem Sens Envir. 2005;96:108–118.
49.
HuemmrichKFGowardSN. Vegetation canopy PAR absorptance and NDVI: An assessment for ten tree species with the SAIL model. Rem Sens Envir. 1997;61:254–269.
50.
KaplanS. The restorative benefit of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J Environ Psychol. 1995;15:169–182.
51.
LohrVIPearson-MimsCHTarnaiJDillmanDA. How urban residents rank and rank benfits and problems associated with trees in cities. J Arboriculture. 2004;30:28–37.
52.
McPhersonEGSimpsonJRPeperPJQingfuX. Benefit-cost analysis of Modesto's municipal urban forests. J Arboriculture. 1999;25:235–248.
53.
DwyerJFMcPhersonEGSchroederHWRowtreeRA. Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. J Arboriculture. 1992;18:227–234.
54.
D'AmatoNESydnorTDKneeM. Which comes first, the root or the crack?J Arboriculture. 2002;28:277–282.
55.
SharpePGrannerMHuttoBAinsworthBE. Association of environmental factors to meeting physical activity recommendations in two South Carolina counties. Am J Health Promot. 2004;18:251–257.
56.
McPhersonEGMuchnickJ. Effects of street tree shade on asphalt concrete pavement performance. J Arboriculture. 2005;31:303–310.
