Studies on how the interaction of psychological and environmental characteristics influences walking are limited, and the results are inconsistent. Our aim is to examine how the attitude toward walking and neighborhood environments interacts to influence walking.
Design:
Cross-sectional phone and mail survey.
Setting:
Participants randomly sampled from 6 study sites including Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore, Minneapolis, Manhattan, and Bronx Counties in New York City, and Forsyth and Davidson Counties in North Carolina.
Participants:
The final sample consisted of 2621 persons from 2011 to 2012.
Measures:
Total minutes of walking for travel or leisure, attitude toward walking, and perceptions of the neighborhood environments were self-reported. Street Smart (SS) Walk Score (a measure of walkability derived from a variety of geographic data) was obtained for each residential location.
Analysis:
Linear regression models adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, and income.
Results:
Attitude toward walking was positively associated with walking for both purposes. Walking for travel was significantly associated with SS Walk Score, whereas walking for leisure was not. The SS Walk Score and selected perceived environment characteristics were associated with walking in people with a very positive attitude toward walking but were not associated with walking in people with a less positive attitude.
Conclusion:
Attitudes toward walking and neighborhood environments interact to affect walking behavior.
LeeIMBuchnerDM. The importance of walking to public health. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(7 suppl):S512–S518.
2.
PucherJBuehlerR. Walking and cycling for healthy cities. Built Environ. 2010;36:391–414.
3.
PucherJDijkstraL. Promoting safe walking and cycling to improve public health: lessons from the Netherlands and Germany. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(9):1509–1516.
4.
Giles-CortiBFosterSShiltonTFalconerR. The co-benefits for health of investing in active transportation. N S W Public Health Bull. 2010;21(5-6):122–127.
5.
OwenNHumpelNLeslieEBaumanASallisJF. Understanding environmental influences on walking: review and research agenda. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27(1):67–76.
6.
HeathGWBrownsonRCKrugerJ. The effectiveness of urban design and land use and transport policies and practices to increase physical activity: a systematic review. J Phys Activ Health. 2006;3(suppl 1):S55–S76.
7.
HumpelNOwenNLeslieE. Environmental factors associated with adults’ participation in physical activity: a review. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22(3):188–199.
8.
LeeCMoudonAV. Physical activity and environment research in the health field: implications for urban and transportation planning practice and research. J Plann Lit. 2004;19(2):147–181.
9.
SaelensBESallisJFFrankLD. Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Ann Behav Med. 2003;25(2):80–91.
10.
HandySLBoarnetMGEwingRKillingsworthRE. How the built environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23(2 suppl):64–73.
11.
Transportation Research Board. TRB Special Report 282: Does the built environment influence physical activity?Examing the Evidence. 2005. Website. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr282.pdf.
12.
CerinELeslieEOwenN. Explaining socio-economic status differences in walking for transport: an ecological analysis of individual, social and environmental factors. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68(6):1013–1020.
13.
CaoXHandySLMokhtarianPL. The influences of the built environment and residential self-selection on pedestrian behavior: evidence from Austin, TX. Transport. 2006;33(1):1–20.
14.
BerkeEMKoepsellTDMoudonAVHoskinsRELarsonEB. Association of the built environment with physical activity and obesity in older persons. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(3):486–492.
15.
PucherJRenneJL. Socioeconomics of urban travel: evidence from the 2001 NHTS. Transport Q. 2003;57(3):49–77.
16.
KrugerJHamSABerriganDBallard-BarbashR. Prevalence of transportation and leisure walking among U.S. adults. Prev Med. 2008;47(3):329–334.
17.
PanterJRJonesA. Attitudes and the environment as determinants of active travel in adults: what do and don’t we know?J Phys Act Health. 2010;7(4):551–561.
18.
KremersSde BruijnGVisscherTvan MechelenWde VriesNKBrugJ. Environmental influences on energy balance-related behaviors: a dual-process view. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2006;3:9.
19.
BeenackersMAKamphuisCBMMackenbachJPBurdorfAvan LentheFJ. Why some walk and others don’t: exploring interactions of perceived safety and social neighborhood factors with psychosocial cognitions. Health Educ Res. 2013;28(2):220–233.
20.
CerinEVandelanotteCLeslieEMeromD. Recreational facilities and leisure time physical activity: an analysis of moderators and self-efficacy as a mediator. Health Psychol. 2008;27(2 suppl):S126–S135.
21.
Van DyckDDeforcheBCardonGDe BourdeaudhuijI. Neighbourhood walkability and its particular importance for adults with a preference for passive transport. Health Place. 2009;15(2):496–504.
22.
Van DyckDCardonGDeforcheBDe BourdeaudhuijI. Urban-rural differences in physical activity in Belgian adults and the importance of psychosocial factors. J Urban Health. 2011;88(1):154–167.
23.
JohKNguyenMTBoarnetMG. Can built and social environmental factors encourage walking among individuals with negative walking attitudes?J Plann Educ Res. 2012;32(2):219–236.
24.
DingDSallisJConwayT. Interactive effects of built environment and psychosocial attributes on physical activity: a test of ecological models. Ann Behav Med. 2012;44(3):365–374.
25.
RhodesRBrownSMcIntyreC. Integrating the perceived neighborhood environment and the theory of planned behavior when predicting walking in a Canadian adult sample. Am J Health Promot. 2006;21(2):110–118.
26.
CarlsonJASallisJFConwayTL. Interactions between psychosocial and built environment factors in explaining older adults’ physical activity. Prev Med. 2012;54(1):68–73.
27.
FriederichsSKremersSLechnerLde VriesN. Neighborhood walkability and walking behavior: the moderating role of action orientation. J Phys Act Health. 2013;10(4):515–522.
28.
BeenackersMAKamphuisCBMPrinsRGMackenbachJPBurdorfAvan LentheFJ. Urban form and psychosocial factors: do they interact for leisure-time walking?Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46(2):293–301.
29.
DeforcheBVan DyckDVerloigneMDe BourdeaudhuijI. Perceived social and physical environmental correlates of physical activity in older adolescents and the moderating effect of self-efficacy. Prev Med. 2010;50(suppl 1):S24–S29.
30.
YangY. Interactions between psychological and environmental characteristics and their impacts on walking. J Transp Health. 2015;2(2):195–198.
31.
AuchinclossAHDiez RouxAVBrownDGO’MearaESRaghunathanTE. Association of insulin resistance with distance to wealthy areas: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165(4):389–397.
HirschJAMooreKAEvensonKRRodriguezDARouxAVD. Walk Score® and Transit Score® and walking in the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Am J Prev Med. 2013;45(2):158–166.
34.
DuncanDTAldstadtJWhalenJMellySJGortmakerSL. Validation of Walk Score® for estimating neighborhood walkability: an analysis of four us metropolitan areas. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2011;8(11):4160–4179.
35.
CarrLJDunsigerSIMarcusBH. Validation of Walk Score for estimating access to walkable amenities [Published online April 23, 2010]. Br J Sports Med. 2010.
36.
MujahidMDiez RouxAMorenoffJRaghunathanT. Assessing the measurement properties of neighborhood scales: from psychometrics to ecometrics. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165(8):858–867.
37.
AlfonzoMA. To walk or not to walk? The hierarchy of walking needs. Environ Behav. 2005;37(6):808–836.
38.
YangYDiez RouxAVAuchinclossAHRodriguezDABrownDG. Exploring walking differences by socioeconomic status using a spatial agent-based model. Health Place. 2012;18(1):96–99.
39.
ShayERodriguezDChoGCliftonKEvensonK. Comparing objective measures of environmental supports for pedestrian travel in adults. Int J Health Geogr. 2009;8:62.
40.
LinLMoudonAV. Objective versus subjective measures of the built environment, which are most effective in capturing associations with walking?Health Place. 2010;16(2):339–348.
41.
BallKJefferyRCrawfordDRobertsRJSalmonJTimperioAF. Mismatch between perceived and objective measures of physical activity environments. Prev Med. 2008;47(3):294–298.
42.
McGinnAEvensonKHerringAHustonSRodriguezD. Exploring associations between physical activity and perceived and objective measures of the built environment. J Urban Health. 2007;84(2):162–184.
43.
HandySCaoXMokhtarianPL. Self-selection in the relationship between the built environment and walking. J Am Plann Assoc. 2006;72(1):55–74.
44.
AditjandraPTCaoXMulleyC. Exploring changes in public transport use and walking following residential relocation: a British case study. J Transport Land Use. 2016;9:1–19.
45.
AditjandraPT.The impact of urban development patterns on travel behaviour: Lessons learned from a British metropolitan region using macro-analysis and micro-analysis in addressing the sustainability agenda. Res Transport Bus Manag. 2013;7:69–80.
46.
HsiaH-CYehK-YVandebonaUTsukaguchiH. Comparison of walking image among different age groups in Taiwanese cities. J Eastern Asia Soc Transport Stud. 2010;8:1245–1260.
47.
PaulPCarlsonSACarrollDDBerriganDFultonJE. Walking for transportation and leisure among U.S. adults—National Health Interview Survey 2010. J Phys Act Health. 2015;12(suppl 1):S62–S69.
48.
YangYDiez-RouxA. Using an agent-based model to simulate children’s active travel to school. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:67.
49.
YangYDiez RouxAVAuchinclossAHRodriguezDABrownDG. A spatial agent-based model for the simulation of adults’ daily walking within a city. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(3):353–361.
