Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Do Relationships Between Environmental Attributes and Recreational Walking Vary According to Area-Level Socioeconomic Status?

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

Abstract

Residents of areas with lower socioeconomic status (SES) are known to be less physically active during leisure time. Neighborhood walkability has been shown to be related to recreational walking equally in low and high SES areas. This cross-sectional study tested whether associations of specific environmental attributes, measured objectively and subjectively, with walking for recreation were moderated by area-level SES. The data of the North West Adelaide Health Study collected in 2007 (n = 1500, mean age 57) were used. Self-reported walking frequency was the outcome of the study. Environmental exposure measures included objectively measured walkability components (residential density, intersection density, land use mix, and net retail area ratio) and perceived attributes (access to destinations, neighborhood esthetics, walking infrastructure, traffic/barriers, and crime safety). Participants’ suburbs were categorized into low and high SES areas using an indicator of socioeconomic disadvantage. Low SES areas had lower scores in residential density, neighborhood esthetics, walking infrastructure, traffic/barriers, and crime safety. Recreational walking was associated with residential density, access to destinations, esthetics, traffic/barriers, and crime safety. Effect modification was observed for two attributes (out of nine): residential density was associated with walking only in low SES areas, while walking infrastructure was associated with walking only in high SES areas. The associations of neighborhood environmental attributes with recreational walking were largely consistent across SES groups. However, low SES areas were disadvantaged in most perceived environmental attributes related to recreational walking. Improving such attributes in low SES neighborhoods may help close socioeconomic disparities in leisure time 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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kavanagh AM, Goller JL, King T, Jolley D, Crawford D, Turrell G. Urban area disadvantage and physical activity: a multilevel study in Melbourne, Australia. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005; 59: 934–940.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Turrell G, Haynes M, Burton NW, et al. Neighborhood disadvantage and physical activity: baseline results from the HABITAT multilevel longitudinal study. Ann Epidemiol. 2010; 20: 171–181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. van Lenthe FJ, Brug J, Mackenbach JP. Neighbourhood inequalities in physical inactivity: the role of neighbourhood attractiveness, proximity to local facilities and safety in the Netherlands. Soc Sci Med. 2005; 60: 763–775.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Janssen E, Sugiyama T, Winkler E, de Vries H, te Poel F, Owen N. Psychosocial correlates of leisure-time walking among Australian adults of lower and higher socio-economic status. Health Educ Res. 2010; 25: 316–324.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. National Preventative Health Taskforce. Australia: the healthiest country by 2020—National Preventative Health Strategy—the roadmap for action. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lee IM, Buchner DM. The importance of walking to public health. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008; 40: S512–S518.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Frank LD, et al. Neighborhood built environment and income: examining multiple health outcomes. Soc Sci Med. 2009; 68: 1285–1293.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sundquist K, Eriksson U, Kawakami N, Skog L, Ohlsson H, Arvidsson D. Neighborhood walkability, physical activity, and walking behavior: the Swedish Neighborhood and Physical Activity (SNAP) study. Soc Sci Med. 2011; 72: 1266–1273.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Van Dyck D, Cardon G, Deforche B, Sallis JF, Owen N, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Neighborhood SES and walkability are related to physical activity behavior in Belgian adults. Prev Med. 2010; 50: S74–S79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Blacksher E, Lovasi GS. Place-focused physical activity research, human agency, and social justice in public health: taking agency seriously in studies of the built environment. Health Place. 2012; 18: 172–179.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Inoue S, Ohya Y, Odagiri Y, et al. Association between perceived neighborhood environment and walking among adults in 4 cities in Japan. J Epidemiol. 2010; 20: 277–286.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD, et al. Neighborhood environment and psychosocial correlates of adults’ physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012; 44: 637–646.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sugiyama T, Leslie E, Giles-Corti B, Owen N. Physical activity for recreation or exercise on neighbourhood streets: associations with perceived environmental attributes. Health Place. 2009; 15: 1058–1063.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Evenson KR, Block R, Roux AVD, McGinn AP, Wen F, Rodriguez DA. Associations of adult physical activity with perceived safety and police-recorded crime: the Multi-ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012; 9: 146.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Foster S, Giles-Corti B. Does fear of crime discourage walkers? A social-ecological exploration of fear as a deterrent to walking. Environ Behav. 2014; 46: 698–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Arvidsson D, Kawakami N, Ohlsson H, Sundquist K. Physical activity and concordance between objective and perceived walkability. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012; 44: 280–287.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ball K, Jeffery RW, Crawford DA, Roberts RJ, Salmon J, Timperio AF. Mismatch between perceived and objective measures of physical activity environments. Prev Med. 2008; 47: 294–298.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gebel K, Bauman A, Owen N. Correlates of non-concordance between perceived and objective measures of walkability. Ann Behav Med. 2009; 37: 228–238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Grant JF, Taylor AW, Ruffin RE, et al. Cohort profile: the North West Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS). Int J Epidemiol. 2009; 38: 1479–1486.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Australian Bureau of Statistics. National Health Survey: users’ guide—electronic publication, 2004–05. Canberra: ABS; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rzewnicki R, Vanden Auweele Y, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Addressing overreporting on the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) telephone survey with a population sample. Public Health Nutr. 2003; 6: 299–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gauvin L, Richard L, Kestens Y, et al. Living in a well-serviced urban area is associated with maintenance of frequent walking among seniors in the VoisiNuAge study. J Gerontol B-Psychol. 2012; 67: 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mason P, Kearns A, Livingston M. “Safe Going”: the influence of crime rates and perceived crime and safety on walking in deprived neighbourhoods. Soc Sci Med. 2013; 91: 15–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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. 2010; 44: 924–933.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Black JB, Chen D. Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: an environment scale evaluation. Am J Public Health. 2003; 93: 1552–1558.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Baldock K, Paquet C, Howard N, et al. Associations between resident perceptions of the local residential environment and metabolic syndrome. J Environ Publ Health. 2012; 2012: 589409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA)—technical paper 2006. Canberra: ABS; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Whisman MA, McClelland GH. Designing, testing, and interpreting interactions and moderator effects in family research. J Fam Psychol. 2005; 19: 111–120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Franzini L, Taylor W, Elliott MN, et al. Neighborhood characteristics favorable to outdoor physical activity: disparities by socioeconomic and racial/ethnic composition. Health Place. 2010; 16: 267–274.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sallis JF, Slymen DJ, Conway TL, et al. Income disparities in perceived neighborhood built and social environment attributes. Health Place. 2011; 17: 1274–1283.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Duncan MJ, 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. 2010; 87: 782–795.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Marshall WE, Garrick NW. Effect of street network design on walking and biking. Transp Res Rec. 2010; 2198: 103–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Turrell G, Haynes M, Wilson L, Giles-Corti B. Can the built environment reduce health inequalities? A study of neighbourhood socioeconomic disadvantage and walking for transport. Health Place. 2013; 19: 89–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cerin E, Sit CHP, Barnett A, Cheung M-C, Chan W-M. Walking for recreation and perceptions of the neighborhood environment in older Chinese urban dwellers. J Urban Health. 2013; 90: 56–66.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Starnes HA, Troped PJ, Klenosky DB, Doehring AM. Trails and physical activity: a review. J Phys Act Health. 2011; 8: 1160–1174.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sugiyama T, Francis J, Middleton NJ, Owen N, Giles-Corti B. Associations between recreational walking and attractiveness, size, and proximity of neighborhood open spaces. Am J Public Health. 2010; 100: 1752–1757.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Crawford D, Timperio A, Giles-Corti B, et al. Do features of public open spaces vary according to neighbourhood socio-economic status? Health Place. 2008; 14: 889–893.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The Spatial Epidemiology and Evaluation Research Group at the University of South Australia in collaboration with the South Australian Department of Health and Ageing conducted the Place and Metabolic Syndrome (PAMS) project under National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grants (#631917, #570150). Catherine Paquet was funded by NHMRC Post-doctoral Training Research Fellowship (#570139). This manuscript has been reviewed for scientific content and consistency of data interpretation by Chief Investigators of the North West Adelaide Health Study. The authors are grateful for the interest and commitment of cohort participants, as well as the contributions of research support staff involved in recruitment and data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Spatial Epidemiology and Evaluation Research Group, Sansom Institute for Health Research & School of Population Health, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia

    Takemi Sugiyama, Natasha J. Howard, Catherine Paquet, Neil T. Coffee & Mark Daniel

  2. Research Centre of the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Verdun, Canada

    Catherine Paquet

  3. Discipline of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

    Anne W. Taylor

  4. Department of Medicine, St. Vincent’s Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Mark Daniel

  5. South Australian Health & Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia

    Mark Daniel

Authors
  1. Takemi Sugiyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Natasha J. Howard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Catherine Paquet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Neil T. Coffee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anne W. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mark Daniel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takemi Sugiyama.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sugiyama, T., Howard, N.J., Paquet, C. et al. Do Relationships Between Environmental Attributes and Recreational Walking Vary According to Area-Level Socioeconomic Status?. J Urban Health 92, 253–264 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-014-9932-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-014-9932-1

Keyword

Search

Navigation