BACKGROUND: Physical activity levels, including walking, are lower in the southern U.S., particularly in rural areas. This study investigated the concept of rural neighborhood walkability to aid in developing tools for assessing walkability and to identify intervention targets in rural communities. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with physically active adults (n = 29) in rural Georgia. Mean age of participants was 55.9 years; 66% were male, 76% were white, and 24% were African American. Participants drew maps of their neighborhoods and discussed the relevance of typical domains of walkability to their decisions to exercise. Comparative analyses were conducted to identify major themes. RESULTS: The majority felt the concept of neighborhood was applicable and viewed their neighborhood as small geographically (less than 0.5 square miles). Sidewalks were not viewed as essential for neighborhood-based physical activity and typical destinations for walking were largely absent. Destinations within walking distance included neighbors' homes and bodies of water. Views were mixed on whether shade, safety, dogs, and aesthetics affected decisions to exercise in their neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: Measures of neighborhood walkability in rural areas should acknowledge the small size of self-defined neighborhoods, that walking in rural areas is likely for leisure time exercise, and that some domains may not be relevant.
BACKGROUND: Physical activity levels, including walking, are lower in the southern U.S., particularly in rural areas. This study investigated the concept of rural neighborhood walkability to aid in developing tools for assessing walkability and to identify intervention targets in rural communities. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with physically active adults (n = 29) in rural Georgia. Mean age of participants was 55.9 years; 66% were male, 76% were white, and 24% were African American. Participants drew maps of their neighborhoods and discussed the relevance of typical domains of walkability to their decisions to exercise. Comparative analyses were conducted to identify major themes. RESULTS: The majority felt the concept of neighborhood was applicable and viewed their neighborhood as small geographically (less than 0.5 square miles). Sidewalks were not viewed as essential for neighborhood-based physical activity and typical destinations for walking were largely absent. Destinations within walking distance included neighbors' homes and bodies of water. Views were mixed on whether shade, safety, dogs, and aesthetics affected decisions to exercise in their neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: Measures of neighborhood walkability in rural areas should acknowledge the small size of self-defined neighborhoods, that walking in rural areas is likely for leisure time exercise, and that some domains may not be relevant.
Authors: M Renée Umstattd Meyer; Justin B Moore; Christiaan Abildso; Michael B Edwards; Abigail Gamble; Monica L Baskin Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2016 Sep-Oct
Authors: Sarah D Kowitt; Allison E Aiello; Leigh F Callahan; Edwin B Fisher; Nisha C Gottfredson; Joanne M Jordan; Kathryn E Muessig Journal: Health Place Date: 2020-01-26 Impact factor: 4.931
Authors: Narelle M Berry; Neil T Coffee; Rebecca Nolan; James Dollman; Takemi Sugiyama Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-08-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Suzannah D'Hooghe; Yasemin Inaç; Eva De Clercq; Benedicte Deforche; Sarah Dury; Stefanie Vandevijvere; Nico Van de Weghe; Delfien Van Dyck; Karin De Ridder Journal: Arch Public Health Date: 2022-10-05
Authors: Michelle C Kegler; Radhika Prakash; April Hermstad; Kate Anderson; Regine Haardörfer; Ilana G Raskind Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 4.333