| Literature DB >> 29065897 |
Erica Hinckson1,2, Ester Cerin3,4, Suzanne Mavoa5,6, Melody Smith7, Hannah Badland8, Tom Stewart9, Scott Duncan9, Grant Schofield9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is accumulating evidence supporting the association between neighborhood built environments and adults' physical activity (PA) and sedentary time (ST); however, few studies have investigated these associations in adolescents. A better understanding of the features of the built environment that encourage PA or ST is therefore of critical importance to promote health and wellbeing in adolescents. The aim of this study was to estimate the associations of GIS-determined and perceived walkability components in individual residential buffer zones with accelerometer-assessed moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and ST in adolescents.Entities:
Keywords: Accelerometer; Activity friendly; Urban environment; Youth
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29065897 PMCID: PMC5655834 DOI: 10.1186/s12966-017-0597-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act ISSN: 1479-5868 Impact factor: 6.457
Sample characteristics (N = 524)
| Characteristic | Statistic |
|---|---|
| Adolescent’s age, mean (SD) | 15.78 (1.62) |
| Adolescent’s sex, | 44.5 |
| Adolescent’s race/ethnicity, % | |
| New Zealand European | 69.9 |
| Māori | 3.1 |
| Pacific Peoples | 1.5 |
| Asian | 12.0 |
| Other European | 6.5 |
| Other | 6.5 |
| Highest educational attainment in household, % | |
| Did not complete secondary education | 2.4 |
| Secondary – Completed school certificate | 5.8 |
| Secondary – completed sixth form certificate | 5.1 |
| Secondary – Completed University entrance or NCEA | 7.1 |
| Completed national or trade certificate | 12.9 |
| Completed and advanced certificate or diploma | 11.2 |
| Tertiary – Completed bachelor’s degree | 20.8 |
| Tertiary – Completed postgraduate study | 22.6 |
| Tertiary – completed doctorate degree | 2.6 |
| Marital status of parents/custodians, % | |
| Married | 65.9 |
| Widowed / divorced / separated | 12.0 |
| Single and never married | 4.8 |
| Living with partner | 11.3 |
| Place of residence (study site), % | |
| Auckland | 78.4 |
| Wellington | 21.6 |
| Adolescents from each stratum, % | |
| Low SES/ Low Walkable | 21.8 |
| Low SES/ High Walkable | 28.2 |
| High SES/ Low Walkable | 26.7 |
| High SES/ High Walkable | 23.3 |
| Length or residence at current address (years), mean (SD) | 8.09 (7.07) |
| Length or residence in neighborhood (years), mean (SD) | 10.92 (8.42) |
| Accelerometer wear time (valid days), mean (SD) | 7.37 (0.86) |
| Accelerometer wear time (hr/day), mean (SD) | 13.79 (1.38) |
| Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (average min/day), mean (SD) | 112.14 (36.95) |
| Sedentary time (average min/day), mean (SD) | 354.80 (98.84) |
N for some variables is reduced due to missing data. Accelerometer wear time (hr/day) = average number of valid hours per valid day. Sedentary time (average min/day) = average minutes of sedentary per valid day. Missing values: adolescent’s age (0%), adolescent’s sex (0%), adolescent’s race/ethnicity (0.6%), highest educational attainment in household (9.5%), marital status (6.0%), place of residence (study site) (0%); length of residence at current address and neighborhood (6.6%); accelerometer wear time variables, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and sedentary time (0%)
Descriptive statistics of perceived and objective environmental attributes (N = 524)
| Environmental attribute | Th. range | M (SD) | Environmental attribute (cont.) | Th. range | M (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived (NEWS-Y) | |||||
| Residential density | 1-750 | 115.0 (78.6) | Pedestrian/automobile traffic safety | 1-4 | 2.96 (0.42) |
| Land use mix - diversity | 1-5 | 2.72 (0.73) | Crime | 1-4 | 1.38 (0.46) |
| Land use mix - access | 1-4 | 3.30 (0.67) | Parking difficult in local shopping areas | 1-4 | 2.19 (0.75) |
| Street connectivity | 1-4 | 2.65 (0.55) | Physical barriers to walking | 1-4 | 1.47 (0.74) |
| Walking facilities | 1-4 | 2.99 (0.60) | Hilly streets | 1-4 | 2.42 (0.89) |
| Aesthetics | 1-4 | 2.79 (0.58) | |||
| Composite subjective index of activity-friendliness | -∞, ∞ | 0.00 (1.99) | Composite subjective index of non-sedentariness | -∞, ∞ | 0.00 (2.89) |
| Objective (GIS) | |||||
| Net residential density (dwellings/km2) | 0-∞ | Street intersection density (intersections/km2) | 0-∞ | ||
| 250 m buffers | 781.7 (560.4) | 250 m buffers | 154.5 (79.3) | ||
| 500 m buffers | 740.3 (513.8) | 500 m buffers | 147.5 (56.6) | ||
| 1 km buffers | 660.6 (459.6) | 1 km buffers | 146.2 (46.9) | ||
| 2 km buffers | 597.1 (409.1) | 2 km buffers | 143.9 (39.7) | ||
| Cul-de-sac density (cul-de-sacs/km2) | 0-∞ | Transit stops density (stops/km2) | 0-∞ | ||
| 250 m buffers | 26.8 (30.0) | 250 m buffers | 34.1 (43.9) | ||
| 500 m buffers | 29.9 (27.7) | 500 m buffers | 36.0 (29.6) | ||
| 1 km buffers | 32.3 (24.4) | 1 km buffers | 36.0 (19.5) | ||
| 2 km buffers | 30.5 (10.7) | 2 km buffers | 33.4 (14.8) | ||
| Land use mix (entropy score) | 0-1 | Number of parks | 0-∞ | ||
| 250 m buffers | 0.12 (0.14) | 250 m buffers | 1.13 (1.15) | ||
| 500 m buffers | 0.19 (0.18) | 500 m buffers | 2.40 (1.93) | ||
| 1 km buffers | 0.24 (0.19) | 1 km buffers | 6.85 (3.95) | ||
| 2 km buffers | 0.29 (0.21) | 2 km buffers | 22.63 (10.50) | ||
| Composite objective index of activity-friendliness (2 km buffer) | 0.00 (1.71) | Composite objective index of non-sedentariness | -∞, ∞ | NA | |
NEWS-Y Neighborhood Walkability Scale – Youth, GIS Geographic Information Systems, Th. theoretical. N for some variables is reduced due to missing data. Missing values: Residential density (0.2%), Land use mix – diversity (0%), Land use mix - access (0%), Street connectivity (1.7%), Walking facilities (1.1%), Aesthetics (0.6%), Pedestrian/automobile traffic safety (1.5%), Crime (1.7%), Parking difficult in local shopping areas (0.4%), No major barriers (0%), Hilly streets (0%), Composite subjective index of activity-friendliness (2.1%), Composite subjective index of non-sedentariness (3.4%), Composite objective index of activity-friendliness – 2 km buffer (0%). 0.6% of missing data on Net residential density, Street intersection density, Cul-de-sac density and Number of parks – 500 m and 1 km buffers. No missing data on the remaining GIS variables. Composite objective indices of non-sedentariness not computed as no objective environmental correlates of sedentary time were found
Associations of perceived and objective environmental attributes with objectively-measured moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (average daily minutes) (N = 522)
| Environmental attribute | exp(b) | exp(95% CI) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived (NEWS-Y) | |||
| Residential density | 1.000 | 1.000, 1.001 | .907 |
| Land use mix – diversity |
|
|
|
| Land use mix – access | 1.039 | 0.999, 1.081 | .056 |
| Street connectivity |
|
|
|
| Walking facilities | 0.975 | 0.934, 1.018 | .242 |
| Aesthetics |
|
|
|
| Pedestrian/automobile traffic safety | 1.055 | 0.991, 1.123 | .092 |
| Crime | 0.973 | 0.918, 1.031 | .343 |
| Parking difficult in local shopping areas | 0.993 | 0.958, 1.028 | .672 |
| Physical barriers to walking | 0.985 | 0.950, 1.021 | .389 |
| Hilly streets | 1.000 | 0.970, 1.030 | .982 |
| Composite subjective index of activity-friendlinessa |
|
|
|
| Objective (GIS) | |||
| Net residential density (100 dwellings/km2) | |||
| 250 m buffers | 1.006 | 0.999, 1.013 | .093 |
| 500 m buffers | 1.000 | 0.993, 1.007 | .976 |
| 1 km buffers | 1.000 | 0.992, 1.008 | .990 |
| 2 km buffers |
|
|
|
| Street intersection density (10 intersections/km2) | |||
| 250 m buffers | 1.000 | 0.997, 1.004 | .886 |
| 500 m buffers | 1.002 | 0.997, 1.006 | .448 |
| 1 kmbuffers | 0.998 | 0.992, 1.004 | .501 |
| 2 km buffers | 1.002 | 0.995, 1.010 | .491 |
| Cul-de-sac density (10 cul-de-sacs/km2) | |||
| 250 m buffers | 0.998 | 0.989, 1.007 | .636 |
| 500 m buffers | 0.993 | 0.983, 1.002 | .121 |
| 1 kmbuffers | 0.992 | 0.982, 1.003 | .175 |
| 2 km buffers | 0.984 | 0.956, 1.013 | .274 |
| Transit stop density (10 stops/km2) | |||
| 250 m buffers | 1.004 | 0.997, 1.010 | .242 |
| 500 m buffers | 0.999 | 0.989, 1.008 | .768 |
| 1 km buffers | 0.999 | 0.983, 1.015 | .869 |
| 2 km buffers | 1.012 | 0.988, 1.036 | .323 |
| Number of parks (contained in or intersected by buffer) | |||
| 250 m buffers | 0.995 | 0.973, 1.019 | .698 |
| 500 m buffers | 0.996 | 0.983, 1.010 | .573 |
| 1 km buffers | 0.999 | 0.992, 1.006 | .770 |
| 2 km buffers |
|
|
|
| Land use mix | |||
| 250 m buffers | 1.002 | 0.815, 1.233 | .982 |
| 500 m buffers | 0.989 | 0.839, 1.165 | .891 |
| 1 km buffers | 1.018 | 0.861, 1.203 | .832 |
| 2 km buffers | 1.067 | 0.875, 1.302 | .515 |
| Composite objective index of activity-friendlinessa |
|
|
|
exp(b) = antilogarithm of regression coefficient; exp.(95% CI) = antilogarithms of 95% confidence intervals; p = p value. Values of exp.(b) are to be interpreted as the proportional increase (or decrease) in objectively-assessed moderate-to-vigorous physical activity associated with a 1 unit increase of the environmental attribute. Values >1.00 indicate a positive associations (increase), while values <1.00 indicate a negative association (decrease). All regression coefficients were adjusted for adolescents’ age, sex, parental/custodian marital status, highest educational attainment in the household, length of residence in the neighborhood, administrative-unit socio-economic status, accelerometer wear time, and study site. Models accounted for administrative-unit and school clustering. Statistically significant (p < .05) environmental correlates are in bold
asum of z-values of perceived or objective environmental attributes positively related to moderate-to-vigorous physical activity
Associations of perceived and objective environmental attributes with objectively-measured sedentary time (average daily minutes) (N = 524)
| Environmental attribute | exp(b) | exp(95% CI) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived (NEWS-Y) | |||
| Residential density | 1.000 | 1.000, 1.001 | .170 |
| Land use mix – diversity |
|
|
|
| Land use mix – access | 0.974 | 0.948, 1.002 | .062 |
| Street connectivity |
|
|
|
| Walking facilities | 1.017 | 0.987, 1.048 | .259 |
| Aesthetics |
|
|
|
| Pedestrian/automobile traffic safety |
|
|
|
| Crime | 1.032 | 0.991, 1.074 | .128 |
| Parking difficult in local shopping areas | 1.019 | 0.994, 1.044 | .129 |
| Physical barriers to walking |
|
|
|
| Hilly streets | 1.005 | 0.984, 1.027 | .615 |
| Composite subjective index of non-sedentarinessa |
|
|
|
| Objective (GIS) | |||
| Gross residential density (100 dwellings/km2) | |||
| 250 m buffers | 0.999 | 0.994, 1.004 | .734 |
| 500 m buffers | 1.001 | 0.996, 1.006 | .771 |
| 1 km buffers | 1.001 | 0.995, 1.006 | .837 |
| 2 km buffers | 0.996 | 0.989, 1.003 | .281 |
| Street intersection density (10 intersections/km2) | |||
| 250 m buffers | 1.000 | 0.997, 1.002 | .786 |
| 500 m buffers | 0.999 | 0.996, 1.002 | .487 |
| 1 km buffers | 1.000 | 0.996, 1.004 | .901 |
| 2 km buffers | 0.981 | 0.933, 1.030 | .428 |
| Cul-de-sac density (10 cul-de-sacs/km2) | |||
| 250 m buffers | 1.000 | 0.994, 1.006 | .941 |
| 500 m buffers | 1.003 | 0.997, 1.010 | .305 |
| 1 km buffers | 1.033 | 0.957, 1.116 | .399 |
| 2 km buffers | 1.015 | 0.994, 1.037 | .146 |
| Transit stop density (10 stops/km2) | |||
| 250 m buffers | 0.999 | 0.994, 1.003 | .587 |
| 500 m buffers | 1.000 | 0.993, 1.007 | .983 |
| 1 km buffers | 1.004 | 0.993, 1.016 | .440 |
| 2 km buffers | 0.997 | 0.981, 1.014 | .741 |
| Number of parks (contained in or intersected by buffer) | |||
| 250 m buffers | 1.008 | 0.992, 1.024 | .334 |
| 500 m buffers | 1.004 | 0.995, 1.014 | .384 |
| 1 km buffers | 1.003 | 0.998, 1.008 | .216 |
| 2 km buffers | 1.000 | 0.998, 1.002 | .805 |
| Land use mix | |||
| 250 m buffers | 0.993 | 0.859, 1.147 | .918 |
| 500 m buffers | 1.000 | 0.892, 1.121 | .998 |
| 1 km buffers | 1.029 | 0.916, 1.156 | .629 |
| 2 km buffers | 0.925 | 0.806, 1.062 | .262 |
exp(b) = antilogarithm of regression coefficient; exp.(95% CI) = antilogarithms of 95% confidence intervals; p = p value. Values of exp.(b) are to be interpreted as the proportional increase (or decrease) in objectively-assessed sedentary time associated with a 1 unit increase of the environmental attribute. Values >1.00 indicate a positive associations (increase), while values <1.00 indicate a negative association (decrease). All regression coefficients were adjusted for adolescents’ age, sex, parental/custodian marital status, highest educational attainment in the household, length of residence in the neighborhood, administrative-unit socio-economic status, accelerometer wear time, and study site. Models accounted for administrative-unit and school clustering. Statistically significant (p < .05) environmental correlates are in bold
asum of z-values of perceived environmental attributes negatively related to sedentary time minus environmental attributes positively related to sedentary time
GIS measures of the built environment
| Measure | Calculation |
|---|---|
| Gross residential density | Dividing number of residential dwellings obtained from the 2013 New Zealand census by the area of the buffer |
| Street intersection density | Dividing the number of 3 or more-way intersections derived from the walkable road network by the area of the buffer |
| Cul-de-sac density | Dividing the culs-de-sac derived from the walkable road network by the area of the buffer |
| Transit stop density | Number of transit stops (bus, train, and ferry in Auckland, and bus and train in Wellington) by the area of the buffer |
| Number of parks | Contained in or intersected by the buffer were calculated using park data source from territorial authorities |
| Land use mixa | Land use mix for each buffer was calculated using an entropy formula [ |
aThe parcel level land use data used to calculate land use mix was compiled from a variety of sources: territorial authority zoning data, territorial authority points of interest data sourced in 2013/2014 (e.g., parks, libraries), and Zenbu online business directory data extracted in 2014
Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale – Youth (NEWS-Y)
| Subscales | Calculation |
|---|---|
| Residential density | Weighted sum of items reflecting perceived density of housing, ranging from predominantly single-family dwellings to high-rise buildings with more than 20 stories [ |
| Land use mix – diversity | Average perceived walking proximity (i.e., average of five-point ratings ranging from ≤5 min walk to ≥30 min walk) from home to 26 types of destinations (e.g., supermarket, library, post office, any school, the participant’s school, bus or train stop, park, gym or fitness facility, etc.) |
| Remaining nine scales | Average ratings of items answered on a four-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree) |