The Influence of Community and the Built Environment on Physical Activity

Abstract

Objective: To examine associations between the built environment and leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) among African Americans and Whites. Method: Independent and control variables were produced from the literature and theory to represent key components of built environment, sense of community, sociodemographic, and health status characteristics. Logistic regression analysis and descriptive statistics were used to measures correlative relationships with physical activity. Results: Built environment elements, especially homeownership, were associated with LTPA, particularly among older African American rural residents. Discussion: Recommendations include transferring the concept of community ownership to residents living in areas where rates of physical activity are low.

Keywords

neighborhood community physical activity African Americans

Introduction

There is a notable absence of scholarship on the relationship between leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) and the neighborhood environment among older African Americans. In particular, there is a lack of information on whether objective and emotional bonds to community affect physical activity. It is highly probable that an interaction between place and residence may affect LTPA given that a significant amount of physical activity occurs outdoors within neighborhoods. A sociological approach to understand the primary place-based factors associated with health-enhancing behavior is particularly important when examining this relationship in vulnerable populations.

Many older African Americans fail to attain even the minimal level of physical activity recommended by the American Heart Association (Bopp et al., 2006; Nelson et al., 2007). This, in combination with higher rates of morbidity from chronic conditions, contributes to a disparity in health outcomes between African Americans and other racial or ethnic groups (National Center for Healthcare Statistics, 2009). Thus, targeting neighborhoods as a way to increase participation in physical activity may translate to improved health outcomes.

Research on physical activity among African Americans suggests that the disparities in physical activity and in subsequent health outcomes may result from environmental factors. In fact, Fitzpatrick and LaGory (2000) argue that “the characteristics of the communities that minorities live in” (p. 158) account for much of the differences in illness mortality between Whites and African Americans.

In addition, in a study of low-income African Americans residing in a southern urban area, McAlexander, Banda, McAlexander, and Lee (2009) examined the availability of physical activity resources (PAR) in low-income neighborhoods. As valuable elements of the built environment, the presence of PARs, such as walking tracks or sidewalks, not only promoted physical activity but also tended to predict body fat percentage among local residents. The authors found that the study area contained few PARs, most of which were of low quality. The above studies suggest that solutions to disparities in physical activity attainment could be derived at the interface between place and resident with special emphasis given to the built environment.

Barriers to neighborhood physical activity exist within the local built environment (Casagrande, White-Glover, Lancaster, Odoms-Young, & Gary, 2009; Gordon-Larsen, Nelson, Page, & Popkin, 2006; Powell, Slater, Chaloupka, & Harper, 2006), defined as any human-formed development contributing to “patterns of human activity” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2009; Handy, Boarnet, Ewing, & Killingsworth, 2002). The built environments of low-income African American communities often contain impediments to neighborhood physical activity, such as crime, blight, poor infrastructure, and fewer amenities that serve as walkable destinations (Casagrande et al., 2009; Gordon-Larsen et al., 2006; Powell et al., 2006).

Ironically, evidence suggests that residence in newer, wealthy, suburban communities may limit physical activity because of an automobile-friendly design that promotes heavy vehicular traffic (Berke, Koepsell, Moudon, Hoskins, & Larson, 2007). Given this, a balance of environmental characteristics is needed to encourage higher rates of LTPA. Although barriers exist on both ends of the socioeconomic scale, the problems associated with health-outcomes are more salient in low-income areas where residents have fewer resources to combat deficiencies in the built environment.

In response to Duncan, Spence, and Mummery’s (2005) appeal for “ecological models that incorporate variables beyond basic demographic information,” this research strives to uncover specific place-based traits associated with persons who meet the Surgeon General’s recommended levels of LTPA for older adults of 1,000 kCal expenditure per week (Ashe, Miller, Eng, & Noreau, 2009; Jones et al., 1998; Martin, Powell, Peel, Zhu, & Allman, 2006; Sawatzky, Liu-Ambrose, Miller, & Marra, 2007; Siscovick et al., 1997; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996). It should be noted that the above recommendation represents the minimum level of activity that older adults should engage in to maintain health and well-being, a level that corresponds with “moderate” activity.

Using this rubric, we endeavored not to produce an exhaustive list of factors that correlate with physical activity, but to examine the influence of neighborhood-specific traits consistent with the theoretical framework presented here. These results can inform policy makers, scientists, and concerned citizens as they strive to develop practical interventions for low-income communities.

Literature and Theory

Residential Milieu, Sense of Community, and LTPA

Recent research suggests that residential milieu plays a pivotal role in promoting physical activity among older adults (Boslaugh, Luke, Brownson, Naleid, & Kreuter, 2004; Duncan et al., 2005; Gordon-Larsen et al., 2006; Heinrich et al., 2008). Specifically, participation in activities such as walking or cycling depends on positive attributes within the built environment (Handy et al., 2002; Saelens, Sallis, & Frank, 2003). These include the presence of park benches, sidewalks, bike lanes, or retail shops. When such elements within the built environment are well-maintained and functional, they may help develop or reinforce a positive sense of community.

Resident perceptions of their local environment contribute to their sense of community which in turn influences whether they will engage in neighborhood physical activity (Handy et al., 2002; Woods, Frank, & Giles-Corti, 2010). Though there is much discussion on how to define community, this study uses Denise and Harris’ (1990) explanation of community as a group of people sharing a geographic identification with significant commonalities. Meanwhile, the components that make up sense of community include needs fulfillment, group membership, influence, and shared emotional connection (Peterson, Speer, & McMillan, 2008).

Residents of any neighborhood share elements of the built environment. Aesthetically pleasing architecture, scenic beauty, evenly paved sidewalks, and clean benches are positive built environment features that people encounter in the course of outdoor activity. Thus, the character of the community plays a significant part in developing a positive sense of community conducive to neighborhood physical activity (Ross & Mirowsky, 2001). Accordingly, residents who have a positive sense of community may feel more comfortable being outdoors. In this sense, the neighborhood milieu shapes behavior as residents react to the features in the immediate environment. Furthermore, residents who have a positive sense of community may also have a positive outlook on life itself. Such individuals have been shown to be more physically active as well as healthier (Handy et al., 2002; Ross & Mirowsky, 2001).

Conversely, negative characteristics of a person’s immediate residential environment may serve as a formidable barrier to such activity. Residents in poorly maintained communities may internalize negativity which would, theoretically, translate into lower levels of physical activity performed within the neighborhood. Geopolitical inequality in resource distribution may contribute to disparities in the built environment in low-income areas further diminishing the potential that such residents will participate in neighborhood physical activity (Fitzpatrick & LaGory, 2000; Jargowsky, 1997; Massey, 1990; Wilson, 1996). Low-income communities tend to have fewer workout facilities, fewer parks and walking trails, and fewer amenities, further adding to the perception that these communities are “islands of despair” (Fitzpatrick & LaGory, 2000; Powell, Slater, & Chalouopka, 2004). These deficits may directly contribute to the lower levels of physical activity of low-income residents.

Housing

Housing is a fundamental element of communities. Housing not only provides shelter, but also contributes to the aesthetic and social quality of the community (McHugh, Gober, & Reid, 1990). Qualities of housing include not only the physical buildings but also surrounding areas and spaces. Areas with attractive, well-maintained, occupied housing send a message that residents of that community are in some way proactive in the aggregate success of the neighborhood (Wilson & Keller, 1982). Disadvantaged areas send the opposite message affecting residents within the community. Residents who live in disadvantaged areas tend to stay indoors, lowering their propensity to be physically active in the community. Subsequently, this puts them at risk for chronic disorders associated with a sedentary lifestyle (Jacobs, Wilson, Dixon, Smith, & Evens, 2009; Saelens et al., 2003).

Because housing plays such a powerful role in shaping the community, it is important to understand its role in the lifestyle of a community’s residents. Research suggests that homeownership tends to be positively associated with sense of community (Woods et al., 2010). Financially, those who own the houses in which they reside will typically have more long-term investment in their communities than those who rent (Rephann, 2007; Rohe, Van Zandt, & McCarthy, 2002). Renters are less obligated contractually to the community and are often more transient than homeowners who are typically tied to the community through a 15- or 30-year mortgage.

Older Adults and the Recommended Levels of LTPA

Research on LTPA suggests that reaching the recommended levels is related to reduced length of hospital stay and a lower prevalence of chronic diseases. For example, Martin and colleagues (2006) studied the relationship between LTPA and health care utilization among community-dwelling older adults. They found that those who attained the recommended level of LTPA spent fewer nights in the hospital than those who did not. The general conclusion is that achieving the recommended levels could lead to better health outcomes, quicker recoveries, and lower health care costs (Martin et al., 2006).

A study of Canadian adults 65 and over revealed that the presence of chronic diseases affected whether individuals met the recommended levels of LTPA (Ashe et al., 2009). Thirty percent of those with no chronic diseases attained the recommended level compared with 23% of those with one or more. Additionally, the authors found that higher education and income were associated with those who achieved the recommended levels and that low body mass index, the presence of pain, and limited mobility were traits associated with those who did not.

Scholarship also suggests that achieving the recommended level is associated with specific activities. Jones and colleagues (1998) gave common examples of such activities including gardening or raking leaves, walking for 2 miles, or pushing a stroller for 1.5 miles. The authors maintained that each of these activities should be done for at least 30 min per day to achieve the recommended level.

Theoretical Perspective

Sense of community can be evaluated by objective and subjective ties to the neighborhood. Objective ties include factors such as the asset-based financial investment in owning a home, the percentage of homeowners in contrast to renters, and the length of time a person has resided in the community. In contrast, the strength of an emotional bond created by these objective ties is subjective. Both objective and subjective factors will maintain the association between physical activity and sense of community.

This research examined the association of objective and subjective ties to community with LTPA among community-dwelling older African Americans. The underlying rationale is that both individual- and community-level attributes will influence health-enhancing behavior. Elements that make up a neighborhood’s built environment are shaped by the level of investment that residents have in the area. The aggregate level of individual investment in a neighborhood and the resulting character of the built environment play a major role in shaping a resident’s sense of community. Residents who have a positive sense of their community are more likely to be more active outdoors within that community.

The application of this theoretical perspective led to the hypothesis that neighborhood homeownership rates would have a positive relationship to persons attaining the minimal recommended levels of LTPA in both rural and urban environments. It was also hypothesized that homeownership would remain significant after controlling for individual-level sociodemographic and health characteristics.

Method

This study examined housing characteristics as elements of the built environment and their influence on achieving recommended LTPA among older African Americans. Participants were recruited from a 5-county area of central and west central Alabama. The population of the study area was 1,172,717 according to the U.S. Census. Respondents were selected from cities and rural areas representing 178 census tracts.

Data and Population

Data were from the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Study of Aging, a study of mobility among a random sample of 1,000 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries stratified by race, gender, and rural/urban residence (51% rural, 50% men, and 50% African American; Allman, Sawyer, & Roseman, 2006). Publically available data from the 2000 U.S. Census Summary File 3 were merged with data from the UAB Study of Aging to examine the objectives associated with this project. After linking participant addresses to their corresponding census tracts, rates of neighborhood homeownership, density, and neighborhood occupancy were merged into the UAB Study of Aging data set. The study protocol was approved by the UAB Institutional Review Board. This analysis is based on African American participants in the UAB Study of Aging who demonstrated the ability to walk at the time of the baseline interview (n = 428). However, descriptive data on eligible White participants were included as a comparative reference (n = 472).

Measures

Respondents completed a baseline in-home evaluation between 1999 and 2001 that included an interview as well as objective measures of standing balance and a timed walk (Baker, Bodner, & Allman, 2003). Factors theoretically relevant to the performance of LTPA were separated into three classes: (a) neighborhood/built environment independent variables, (b) sociodemographic control variables, and (c) health status control variables.

Dependent Variable

LTPA represents an age and weight-adjusted evaluation of activity measured in kilocalories expended per week (Ashe et al., 2009; Martin et al., 2006; Siscovick et al., 1997). LTPA was a self-reported assessment of physical activity examining the regularity and extent of participation in 15 different activities common among older adults (Martin et al., 2006). Activities included walking, mowing the lawn, raking grass or leaves, gardening, jogging, biking, exercise cycling, household chores, hiking, dancing, aerobics, bowling, golfing, general exercise, and swimming. Given the theoretical perspective for this study, LTPA was a plausible choice as a dependent variable given that many of the above activities (e.g., mowing, raking, jogging) are typically done outdoors, within the neighborhood. Obtaining the recommended level of 1,000 kCal expenditure per week was the primary outcome measure for these analyses.

Factors Representing a Sense of Community/Built Environment

Variables to measure the influence of sense of community and the built environment included objective factors measured by neighborhood homeownership, density, neighborhood occupancy, length of residency and subjective factors measured by whether the respondent reported limiting activities out of fear of being robbed or attacked.

Neighborhood homeownership was a census tract–level variable measuring the percentage of homeowners. It was recoded from a continuous/interval variable to reflect six categories based on respondent distribution.

Density was a tract-level measurement of population density (people per square mile) derived from the 2000 U.S. Census.

Neighborhood occupancy measured the percentage of occupied housing in the community in contrast to vacant housing. This variable was included as a measure of vibrancy and transition within the community on the assumption that a significant amount of vacant housing would be a sign of neighborhood blight and divestment.

Length of residency was assessed at the baseline interview. It measured in years the length of time a respondent has lived at his or her current residence. It was included in the built environment category as an example of a resident’s level of connectedness with place.

Limiting activities out of fear of being robbed or attacked was an individual-level measure assessed at the baseline interview and was included in these analyses as a measure of perception of community to evaluate whether views of crime and safety influenced LTPA. Not limiting activities was coded as 1 to facilitate model coherence.

Geographic location or whether the respondent lived in a rural or nonrural residence was defined by the participant’s U.S. Census designation.

Sociodemographic Factors

Income was based on self-reported household income. Income categories include 0 < US$5,000; 1 = US$5,000-US$7,999; 2 = US$8,000-US$11,999; 3 = US$12,000-US$15,999; 4 = US$16,000-US$19,999; 5 = US$20,000- US$29,999; 6 = US$30,000-US$39,999; 7 = US$40,000-US$49,000; and 8 ≥US$50,000. Participants were also asked about the adequacy of their income as to whether it was “not enough to make ends meet”; “just enough to get by on”; “comfortable but permits no luxuries”; or “allow you to do more or less what you want.” For persons who did not provide an annual income, self-reports of income adequacy were used to impute income level categories based on the mean value for persons providing responses to both questions.

Age was coded as a continuous variable and sex was coded so that female = 1.

Education assessed the highest level of formal education attained by the respondent. Five categories ranged from less than seventh-grade education to completion of graduate or professional school.

Marital status was coded into married at baseline versus not married. The not married category included individuals who were widowed, separated, or divorced.

Health-Status Factors

Comorbidities, the number of chronic conditions, were included as potentially limiting to LTPA. The baseline interview included self-reports of physician-diagnosed medical diseases and conditions. To verify the presence of a disease or condition, participants had to report taking a medication for any condition, their primary physician had to report that they had the condition, or the condition had to be documented on a hospital discharge within 3 years before entry into the study. Verified comorbidities that are a part of the Charlson Comorbidity Index were summed to develop a comorbidity count (Charlson et al., 1986).

Self-Rated Health was assessed by asking “in general would you say your health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?” It was used as a psychological measure of perceived health status to provide insight on whether the respondent’s perception of their health influenced whether they met the recommended levels of LTPA.

Statistical Analysis

Initially, correlations of theoretically relevant variables with LTPA were examined for potential inclusion in the models. Pearson’s r was used to test for collinearity between variables. Descriptive statistics were used to illustrate the overall dynamics associated with LTPA. Rural and urban residents were considered separately to facilitate comparisons. Descriptive statistics for White residents were examined to highlight between-group analyses.

Logistic regression analysis was used for within-group analyses. The binary dependent variable measured the likelihood of an individual obtaining the minimal recommended level of LTPA or not. Three models each were examined for both rural and urban residents. Groups of factors were added in steps to assess the amount of variance explained by each model. Nagelkerke’s R² (pseudo R²) was calculated to assess explained variance. The first model included built environment factors only, Model 2 added sociodemographic factors, and the final model included health status factors.

Results

Characteristics of the study sample are shown in Table 1. Thirty-seven percent of both rural and urban African American residents achieved the minimal recommended amount of LTPA of 1,000 kCal per week compared with 46% of White rural residents and 52.2% of White urbanites. Several of the characteristics that may affect LTPA differed significantly between rural and urban residents. Specifically, among African Americans, rural residents lived in tracts with much higher homeownership rates than their urban counterparts (rural mean homeownership rate was 77.6% compared with urban residents at 59.1%). The mean homeownership rate for rural African American neighborhoods was similar to that of White rural (75.7%) and White urban (72.4%) areas. Between both racial groups, the occupancy rate among rural neighborhoods was slightly lower than in urban areas. The combination of lower homeownership rates and higher occupancy rates suggests that more renters inhabited these areas.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for African American and White Older Adults

	Rural African American (SD)	Urban African American (SD)		Rural Whites (SD)	Urban Whites (SD)
	n = 220	n = 208	t or F	n = 240	n = 231	t or F
LTPA
% achieving recommended amount of ≥1,000 kCal/week	37.0	37.0	0.1	46.0	52.2	0.6
Continuous variables; M (SD)
Neighborhood homeownership (%)	77.6 (8.7)	59.1 (20.3)	−12.3***	75.7 (9.1)	72.4 (20.3)	−2.3*
Neighborhood occupancy (%)	85.2 (5.1)	89.9 (4.3)	10.2***	86.0 (4.4)	93.3 (3.4)	20.0***
Length of residency (years)	26.4 (18.6)	28.5 (16)	1.2	28.5 (18.4)	25.7 (17.4)	−1.7
Population density (persons/sq. mile)	38.3 (76.6)	2,187.0 (1,720.4)	18.4***	42.0 (64.4)	1,539 (1,348.9)	17.2***
Age (years)	75.8 (7.0)	75.4 (7.0)	−0.6	74.8 (6.4)	74.5 (6.1)	0.4
Comorbidities	2.2 (1.6)	2.2 (1.6)	0.3	2.3 (1.6)	1.9 (1.5)	−2.9*
Categorical variables
Income (% <US$8,000 per year)	45.2	26.4	19.0***	16.2	3.0	6.5**
Marital status (% married)	35.0	44.7	13.9***	58.1	68.0	18.3***
Education (% ≤sixth grade completed)	43.6	29.3	5.0**	7.5	3.0	1.4
Sex (% female)	50	47.6	0.5	49.8	50.6	0.03
Does not limit activities of fear	70.5	78.4	14.3***	91.0	92.2	1.1
Perceived health			3.4			0.4
% excellent, very good, or good	45.9	56.3		56.4	73.6
% fair or poor	54.1	43.8		43.6	26.4

Note. LTPA = leisure-time physical activity.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Salient within- and between-group differences were found in terms of income and marital status. Urban African Americans had higher incomes than their rural counterparts. About 26% of urban African Americans had incomes below US$8,000 compared with 45.2% of rural residents. Noticeably, fewer White rural residents had incomes this low (16.2%) and only 3% of urban White residents had incomes this low. Also, urban African American residents were more likely to be married than their rural counterparts, but they were less likely to be married than their White rural counterparts. About 45% of urban African American residents reported being married at the time they were interviewed in contrast to only 35% of African American rural residents; in comparison, 58.1% of White rural residents and 68% of White urban residents were married.

Nearly 44% of rural African American residents said that they had less than a seventh-grade education compared with only 29.3% of their urban counterparts. White residents had more years of education. Among Whites, 7.5% of rural and 3% of urban residents had less than a seventh-grade education.

In terms of self-ratings of health, differences were found between African Americans and Whites. About 46% of African American rural residents scored their health as excellent, very good, or good compared with 56.4% of White rural residents. Nearly 56% of urban African Americans had positive perceptions of their health compared with 73.6% of urban Whites. The two groups were similar in terms of length of residence, age, and number of chronic symptoms. A minority of African American rural and urban residents reported limiting activities out of fear of being robbed or attacked (29.5% rural and 21.6% urban). The difference between White and African American was noticeable with fewer White residents limiting their activities out of fear (9% rural and 7.8% urban).

Tables 2 displays the percentage of participation in the three activities mentioned most often in this data set and in previously published research. The percentages correspond to those who obtained the recommended levels of LTPA. The percentages of those who did not obtain the recommended levels are in parentheses. For both racial groups, those who obtained the recommended levels of LTPA were more active in all three activities. Among African Americans, the widest margin between those obtaining recommended levels and those who do not appears to be walking among urban residents where there is a net difference of 42.7% points between those who obtained recommended levels and those who did not. Among Whites, the biggest difference was participation in strenuous chores by rural Whites with a 36.6% net difference.

Table 2.

Percentage Participation in Most Common Activities Among Residents Obtaining Recommended LTPA

	African American		White
Activity	Rural	Urban	Rural	Urban
Walking	71.6 (55.0)	75.3 (43.8)	70.9 (48.0)	69.2 (47.3)
Strenuous chores	79.0 (52.2)	89.6 (46.9)	80.0 (43.4)	86.7 (51.8)
Gardening	75.4 (60.0)	57.8 (33.8)	77.3 (50.0)	59.6 (48.3)

Note. LTPA = leisure-time physical activity. Percentage participation of those who did not obtain recommended levels in parentheses.

Overall, participation in strenuous chores was reported the most for both rural and urban African American respondents receiving the recommended levels at 79% and 89.6%, respectively. The same is true for their White counterparts at 80% and 86.7%, respectively. Finally, both African American and White residents obtaining the recommended levels of LTPA appeared to garden more than their urban counterparts.

Table 3 displays results from the multivariate analysis for African American and Whites. The first column of the modeling indicates the bivariate odds ratio for each built environment factors without the influence of control variables. The bivariate OR tended to follow the same direction as those in the models. According to the Pseudo R², explained variance increased with each model among both racial groups.

Table 3.

Likelihood of Respondents Obtaining Recommended LTPA

	Rural African Americans (n = 220)				Urban Whites (n = 231)				Rural Whites (n = 241)				Urban African Americans (n = 208)
Factors	Bivariate	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Bivariate	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Bivariate	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Bivariate	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Neighborhood homeownership	1.261	1.331	1.426*	1.619**	1.025	1.069	1.054	1.079	0.938	0.909	0.827	0.816	1.134	1.331*	1.359*	1.319
Density	1.004	1.089	1.070	1.090	1.000	1.274	1.240	1.260	0.996	0.997	0.997	0.996	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
Neighborhood occupancy	1.036	1.421*	1.491*	1.511*	1.041	1.174	1.087	1.057	0.981	0.996	0.983	0.986	1.012	0.966	0.957	0.961
Length of residency	1.001	0.869	0.860	0.831	1.001	0.994	0.968	0.951	1.011	1.012	1.015	1.014	1.001	1.001	1.007	1.006
Perceives neighborhood as safe from crime	2.008*	2.194*	1.929	2.053*	0.537	0.540	0.424*	0.392**	1.258	0.816	0.990	1.124	0.863	1.107	1.166	1.351
Income			0.994	0.934			1.134	1.136			1.161	1.090			1.261*	1.226*
Age			1.006	1.008			0.964	0.962			0.921***	0.918***			0.937**	0.943*
Male			1.330	1.338			0.997	1.011			0.687	0.554			1.016	0.997
Education			1.138*	1.134*			1.051	1.043			1.001	0.966			0.987	0.943
Married			1.438	1.745			1.124	1.138			1.451	1.376			1.422	1.362
Comorbidities				1.013				0.985				0.827				1.075
Perceived health				0.607***				0.790				0.722				0.692*
Nagelkerke R²		.09	.139	.204		.043	.102	.118		.027	.141	.202		.036	.133	.162

Note. LTPA = leisure-time physical activity.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

Rural African Americans and Whites

In reference to African Americans, each variable in rural Model 1 except length of residency maintained a positive association. The opposite is true among rural Whites in Model 1 where each variable, with the exception of length of residency, maintained an inverse association with LTPA. Among the statistically significant variables, results shown in Table 3 indicated that higher occupancy was associated with an increased likelihood that rural African American residents would achieve the recommended levels of LTPA. Occupancy remained statistically significant in a positive direction throughout the rural models. Similarly, those who said they did not limit activities out of fear of being robbed or attacked were twice as likely to attain the recommended level of LTPA in Models 1 and 3 for rural African Americans.

Importantly, among African Americans, homeownership was positively linked to achieving recommended LTPA in rural Models 2 and 3. In fact, the strength of neighborhood homeownership increased as other factors were taken into account. Residents in neighborhoods with higher levels of homeownership were 43% more likely to attain recommended LTPA when controlling for the sociodemographic variables and 62% more likely when controlling for sociodemographic and health status variables. Education was significant in rural Models 2 and 3 with each categorical increase yielding a 14% and 13% increase, respectively, in the likelihood that residents would achieve the recommended LTPA.

The better African American rural respondents rated their health, the more likely they were to have achieved recommended LTPA (perceived health is reverse coded). Each categorical decrease in perceived health decreased the likelihood that the respondent would attain recommended LTPA by about 40%. Though not statistically significant, the direction was the same for urban residents. Age was the only significant variable among rural Whites, however; as with Model 1, several key variables maintained an inverse relationship with achieving the recommended levels of LTPA.

Urban African Americans and Whites

The models for urban African Americans did not show any significant odds ratios other than limiting activities out of fear. Perceiving their neighborhood as safe did not appear to increase their odds of being active. Notably, the relationship of key community variables such as neighborhood homeownership and occupancy with LTPA maintained a positive direction throughout.

Homeownership within the first two models for urban Whites was significant. An increase in White urban homeownership rates yielded 33% increase in the likelihood that residents achieved the recommended levels of LTPA. When controlling for sociodemographic variables in Model 2, the increase was 36%. Income was significant for the first time in any of the modeling. Each categorical rise in income equated to a 26% increase in the likelihood of achieving the recommended levels. In the third model, Income yielded a 23% increase in the likelihood. Finally, in Model 3, the better urban Whites ranked their health, the more likely they were to achieve the recommended levels.

Discussion and Conclusion

African American Distinctions Compared With Whites

White older adults in the sample were notably more active than African Americans. This disparity between White and African Americans relative to neighborhood physical activity appeared to be a function of socioeconomic differences. Both rural and urban Whites had higher incomes, marriage rates, and years of education. Furthermore, very few reported limiting their activities because of fear, suggesting that their neighborhood conditions are more amiable to outdoor activity. Urban Whites appeared to fare much better than urban African Americans. They had a substantially higher homeownership rate, and their higher achievement of recommended levels of LTPA corresponded with higher levels of homeownership. There were stark differences in income, education, and perceived health between urban Whites and urban African Americans.

These data indicate that the older White adults in this study had the socioeconomic power to create and maintain positive neighborhood environments that foster higher amounts of physical activity. Besides descriptive data showing stark differences in income among both groups of African Americans and Whites, the multivariate model exemplified the positive association of income and LTPA in urban communities among Whites. In contrast, physical activity among African Americans living in urban neighborhoods may have been limited by environmental factors associated with socioeconomic status. This may be especially true in urban areas where poor neighborhoods often experience higher crime rates that promote fear as well as smaller investments in public goods such as lighting, and fewer walkable destinations.

Rural and Urban African Americans

This study included analyses of non-Hispanic Whites not only as a reference group but also to explore the value of within-group analyses among African Americans. Although major differences were found between African Americans and Whites, few were unexpected. Socioeconomic factors such as income appear to be the major divider between the races, especially among urban African Americans and Whites. However, within-group analyses among rural and urban African Americans yield important findings related to the influence of the built environment on LTPA. For example, it appears that homeownership, occupancy, and perception of the neighborhood as a safe place have a positive impact on older rural African Americans, but not so much with their urban counterparts. It is likely that the rural urban dynamic influences how residents process perceptions of place which in turn may affect their participation in activities within it.

The hypotheses for this study were confirmed for rural African Americans. The attributes associated with a positive sense of community and the built environment appeared to have more influence over rural in comparison to urban residents. This research conceptualized homeownership as the key built environment factor expected to promote a positive sense of community. As shown by the descriptive statistics and multivariate analysis, higher neighborhood homeownership rates tended to be more closely tied to achieving the recommended levels of LTPA among rural African Americans. Given that neighborhood homeownership remained robust after controlling for the sociodemographic and health status factors, rural African Americans appeared to have greater emotional and financial bonds to their community. These bonds served as potential motivators for individuals to be more physically active in the community.

A positive sense of community may also be a factor in rural residents conceptualizing their community as a safe zone for physical activity. A majority of them reported perceiving their neighborhood as safe for activity which corresponded to them being twice as likely to achieve recommended levels of LTPA.

The multivariate analysis displayed a positive relationship between education and achieving the recommended levels of LTPA among African Americans. These results illustrate the potential for education to promote higher levels of physical activity, especially in low-income rural neighborhoods containing a critical mass of residents who have a positive sense of community. Given these findings, it appears that rural residents who achieved the recommended levels of LTPA exhibited subjective and objective traits mostly associated with homeownership and limited fear of crime.

In contrast, urban African Americans who achieved the recommended level of LTPA appeared to be influenced by a set of objective and subjective traits that did not revolve around homeownership. Urban African Americans may have been guided by factors such as the neighborhood vitality or vibrancy that potentially results from an increase in human activity within densely populated areas. This was reflected in the higher proportions of urban residents achieving recommended levels of LTPA living in high-occupancy neighborhoods.

Family support also appeared to be a factor in achieving recommended physical activity levels given that a substantial portion of urban African Americans who achieved recommended levels were married. In addition, urban residents were advantaged in other areas. They had, for example, higher incomes and slightly higher educational levels than their rural counterparts. Finally, perceived-health appeared to influence LTPA among urban African Americans. A substantial percentage of this group who attained the recommended level of LTPA reported being in good or excellent health.

Although neighborhood vibrancy could result from high occupancy rates, the reader should also consider that in low-income urban areas, high occupancy mixed with low homeownership rates suggests a high proportion of renters in the community. An influx of renters in low-income neighborhoods may impede the development of a positive sense of community. In turn, this may reduce a resident’s willingness to participate in neighborhood physical activity thereby reducing LTPA.

Many urban residents did not report limiting their activities because of a fear of crime. The multivariate analysis suggests that such residents may have been active, but less likely to achieve the recommended levels of LTPA. This is an unusual finding that requires deeper analysis. It is quite possible that these particular residents were active to a point, but not to where it compromised their comfort in terms of feeling safe. Thus, the comfort threshold may not be large enough to provide them with higher levels of LTPA. Thus, they may not be limiting their activities because they perceive their neighborhood as safe, but at the same time, this perceived safety is still not associated with notable increases in LTPA.

Strengths and Limitations

This article contributes to the available literature by providing a different conceptualization of the built environment’s influence on neighborhood physical activity. Unlike other studies on the topic, this article demonstrates how the elements of place—especially housing—are associated with achieving the recommended levels of LTPA. Also, this is one of the few studies that focuses on differences between urban and rural African Americans which allows for a better understanding of within-group nuances. Also, this study looks specifically at traits associated with rural African Americans in a southeastern state. This is important because more than half of all African Americans live in the Southeast United States and more than 90% of African Americans who live in rural areas live within this region (Allman et al., 2006).

There are limitations to these findings that should be considered. First, the insight on the influence of neighborhood occupancy was based on the assumption that unoccupied houses were associated with blight. Conceivably, houses can be well maintained though unoccupied. Another limitation is that items not related to neighborhood physical activity were included in the LTPA measurement, such as bowling or golfing. Furthermore, the inclusion of activities such as gardening or mowing may be limited given that all residents may not have lawn space to conduct such activities. Another limitation is that there is no explicit measure of residential perception. Although sense of community is implicit in the theoretical framework, the data do not explicitly ask respondents about their feelings toward their neighborhoods. Future research should include a question asking residents to rate their community. Another potential weakness is the use of the larger census tract to approximate neighborhood.

Implications for Reducing Disparities in Health Experienced by African Americans

This study has particular implications for the African American population because it outlines areas that serve as barriers to physical activity, especially among those who are low income. These factors include dysfunctional built environments, limited familiarity with neighbors, and a fear of crime. This study has further relevance in that the United States is witnessing a reversal of the Great Migration of the early to mid-20th century where African Americans were leaving the rural South for industrial cities of the North and West. Current migration trends suggest that African Americans are moving back to rural and urban regions in the South (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2011). The findings for this study were based on population data of respondents currently living in the South. The socioeconomic traits brought by returning migrants will have an influence on their new communities in terms occupancy rates, homeownership, familiarity, and sense of community.

Examining the positive community- and individual-level attributes associated with different neighborhoods is informative to health policy aimed at producing higher rates of LTPA. This study examined such attributes through a comparison of residents living in rural and urban areas. In the present study, 37% of both rural and urban African Americans attained the recommended levels of LTPA. This allowed for an investigation into the different factors that contributed to this congruency relative to the theoretical framework of this article and the extant literature.

Increasing LTPA among older, low-income African Americans may be promoted by taking the positive attributes of rural areas, such as the concept of neighborhood ownership, and applying it to urban areas. Although it may not be possible to increase homeownership directly, the qualities associated with it may be transferable across communities and therefore warrant investigation. The goal is to confer ownership to all residents, not in a fiscal sense, but in terms of residents believing the neighborhood itself belongs to them. This can be accomplished in a low-cost manner by conferring responsibilities to each able older adult. Activities that directly require physical activity while conferring ownership will be relevant here.

Programs to increase levels of LTPA may also use the approach of taking the positive attributes of residents of urban areas and applying them to residents of rural communities. Education appears to have a positive impact on LTPA among urban older adults. Thus, low-cost initiatives to help older residents receive their high school diploma or, perhaps, a bachelor’s degree could have a measurable effect on health-enhancing behavior among rural residents.

Footnotes

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Allman

R. M.

Sawyer

Roseman

J. M.

(2006). The UAB study of aging: Background and insights into life-space mobility among older Americans in rural and urban settings. Aging Health, 2, 417-429.

Ashe

M. C.

Miller

W. C.

Eng

J. J.

Noreau

(2009). Older adults, chronic disease and leisure-time physical activity. Gerontology, 55, 64-72.

Baker

P. S.

Bodner

E. V.

Allman

R. M.

(2003). Measuring life-space mobility in community-dwelling older adults. Journal of American Geriatrics Society, 51, 1610-1614.

Berke

E. M.

Koepsell

T. D.

Moudon

A. V.

Hoskins

R. E.

Larson

E. B.

(2007). Association of the built environment with physical activity and obesity in older persons. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 486-492.

Bopp

Wilcox

Laken

Butler

Carter

R. E.

McClorin

Yancey

(2006). Factors associated with physical activity among African-American men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30, 340-346.

Boslaugh

S. E.

Luke

D. A.

Brownson

R. C.

Naleid

K. S.

Kreuter

M. W.

(2004). Perceptions of neighborhood environment for physical activity: Is it “who you are” or “where you live?” Journal of Urban Health, 81, 671-681.

Casagrande

S. S.

White-Glover

M. C.

Lancaster

K. J.

Odoms-Young

A. M.

Gary

T. L.

(2009). Built environment and health behaviors among African Americans: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36, 174-181.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Designing and building healthy places. Retrieved form http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/

Charlson

M. E.

Sax

F. L.

MacKenzie

C. R.

Fields

S. D.

Braham

R. L.

Douglas

R. G.

(1986). Assessing illness severity: Does clinical judgment work? Journal of Chronic Disorder, 39, 439-452.

10.

Denise

P. S.

Harris

(1990). Experiential education for community development. New York, NY: Greenwood.

11.

Duncan

M. J.

Spence

J. C.

Mummery

W. K.

(2005). Perceived environment and physical activity: A meta-analysis of selected environmental characteristics. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2, 11.

12.

Fitzpatrick

LaGory

(2000). Unhealthy places: The ecology of risk in the urban landscape. New York, NY: Routledge.

13.

Gordon-Larsen

Nelson

M. C.

Page

Popkin

B. M.

(2006). Inequality in the built environment underlies key health disparities in physical activity and obesity. Pediatrics, 117, 417-424.

14.

Hamilton

M. T.

Hamilton

D. G.

Zderic

T. W.

(2007). Role of low energy expenditure and sitting in obesity, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Diabetes, 56, 2655-2667.

15.

Handy

S. L.

Boarnet

M. G.

Ewing

Killingsworth

R. E.

(2002). How the built environment affects physical activity: Views from urban planning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 64-73.

16.

Heinrich

K. M.

Lee

R. E.

Regan

G. R.

Reese-Smith

J. Y.

Howard

H. H.

Haddock

C. K.

. . . Ahluwalia

J. S.

(2008). How does the built environment relate to body mass index and obesity prevalence among public housing residents? American Journal of Health Promotion, 22, 187-194.

17.

Jacobs

D. E.

Wilson

Dixon

S. L.

Smith

Evens

(2009). The relationship of housing and population health: A 30-year retrospective analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117, 597-604.

18.

Jargowsky

P. A.

(1997). Poverty and place: Ghettos, barrios, and the American city. New York, NY: SAGE.

19.

Jones

D. A.

Ainsworth

B. E.

Croft

J. B.

Macera

C. A.

Lloyd

E. E.

Yusuf

H. R.

(1998). Moderate leisure-time physical activity: Who is meeting the public health recommendations? A national cross-sectional study. Archives of Family Medicine, 7, 285-289.

20.

Martin

M. Y.

Powell

M. P.

Peel

Zhu

Allman

(2006). Leisure-time physical activity and health-care utilization in older adults. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 14, 392-410.

21.

Massey

D. S.

(1990). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 329-357.

22.

McAlexander

K. M.

Banda

J. A.

McAlexander

J. W.

Lee

R. E.

(2009). Physical activity resource attributes and obesity in low-income African Americans. Journal of Urban Health, 86, 696-707.

23.

McHugh

K. E.

Gober

Reid

(1990). Determinants of short- and long-term mobility expectations for homeowners and renters. Demography, 27, 81-95.

24.

Heron

Hoyert

D. L.

Murphy

S. L.

Kochanek

K. D.

Tejada-Vera

(2009). Deaths: Final data 2006. National Vital Statistics Report, 57(14), 1-134.

25.

Nelson

M. E.

Rejeski

W. J.

Blair

S. N.

Duncan

P. W.

Judge

J. O.

King

A. C.

. . . Castaneda-Sceppa

(2007). Physical activity and public health in older adults: Recommendation from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Medical Science Sports Exercise, 39, 1435-1445.

26.

Peterson

A. N.

Speer

P. W.

McMillan

D. W.

(2008). Validation of a brief sense of community scale: Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 61-73.

27.

Powell

L. M.

Slater

Chaloupka

F. J.

(2004). The relationship between community physical activity settings and race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Evidence-Based Preventive Medicine, 1, 135-144.

28.

Powell

L. M.

Slater

Chaloupka

F. J.

Harper

(2006). Availability of physical activity–related facilities and neighborhood demographic and socioeconomic characteristics: A national study. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 1676-1680.

29.

Rephann

T. J.

(2007). Rental housing and crime: The role of property ownership and management. Annals of Regional Science, 43, 435-451.

30.

Rohe

W. M.

Van Zandt

McCarthy

G. W.

(2002). The social benefits and costs of homeownership: A critical assessment of the research. In: Retsinas

N. P.

Belsky

E. S.

(Eds.), Low-income homeownership: Examining the unexamined goal (pp. 381-406). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.

31.

Ross

C. E.

Mirowsky

(2001). Neighborhood disadvantage, disorder, and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42, 258-276.

32.

Saelens

B. E.

Sallis

J. F.

Frank

L. D.

(2003). Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 80-91.

33.

Sawatzky

Liu-Ambrose

Miller

W. C.

Marra

C. A.

(2007). Physical activity as a mediator of the impact of chronic conditions on quality of life in older adults. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 68.

34.

Siscovick

D. S.

Fried

Mittelmark

Rutan

Bild

O’ Leary

D. H.

(1997). Exercise intensity and subclinical cardiovascular disease in the elderly: The cardiovascular health study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 145, 977-986.

35.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2011). National and states population estimates: Population change. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-pop-chg.html

36.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996). Physical activity and health: A report of the surgeon general. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, National Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/sgr/pdf/sgrfull.pdf

37.

Wilson

J. Q.

Kelling

(1982). Broken windows. Atlantic Monthly, 211, 29-38.

38.

Wilson

W. J.

(1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York, NY: Alfred Knopf.

39.

Woods

Frank

L. D.

Giles-Corti

(2010). Sense of community and its relationship with walking and neighborhood design. Social Science and Medicine, 70, 1381-1390.