| Literature DB >> 30587821 |
Tiina E Laatikainen1, Mohammad Haybatollahi2, Marketta Kyttä3.
Abstract
Physical activity is a fundamental factor in healthy ageing, and the built environment has been linked to individual health outcomes. Understanding the linkages between older adult's walking and the built environment are key to designing supportive environments for active ageing. However, the variety of different spatial scales of human mobility has been largely overlooked in the environmental health research. This study used an online participatory mapping method and a novel modelling of individual activity spaces to study the associations between both the environmental and the individual features and older adults' walking in the environments where older adult's actually move around. Study participants (n = 844) aged 55+ who live in Helsinki Metropolitan Area, Finland reported their everyday errand points on a map and indicated which transport mode they used and how frequently they accessed the places. Respondents walking trips were drawn from the data and the direct and indirect effects of the personal, psychological as well as environmental features on older adults walking were examined. Respondents marked on average, six everyday errand points and walked for transport an average of 20 km per month. Residential density and the density of walkways, public transit stops, intersections and recreational sports places were significantly and positively associated with older adult's walking for transport. Transit stop density was found having the largest direct effect to older adults walking. Built environment had an independent effect on older adults walking regardless of individual demographic or psychological features. Education and personal goals related to physical activities had a direct positive, and income a direct negative, effect on walking. Gender and perceived health had an indirect effect on walking, which was realized through individuals' physical activity goals.Entities:
Keywords: Public Participatory GIS (PPGIS); active travel; activity space; ageing; personal projects; physical environment; walking
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30587821 PMCID: PMC6339229 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16010058
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The online interface of the survey.
Figure 2An example of an individual home range and active travel routes of a respondent.
Figure 3The conceptual framework.
The sociodemographic factors of respondents (n = 844).
| Variable | Sample (%) | Statistics Finland (%) * |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 43 | 45 |
| Female | 57 | 55 |
| Education a | ||
| Basic education | 12 | 40 |
| Upper secondary education | 42 | 33 |
| Lower university degree | 15 | 11 |
| Higher university degree | 31 | 17 |
| Age | ||
| 55–64 | 52 | 55 |
| 65–74 | 48 | 45 |
| Housing | ||
| Apartment | 59 | 70 |
| Detached/row house | 41 | 30 |
| Retired | 60 | 59 |
| Income (median) b | ||
| Ages 55–64 | 3501–4000 | 4001–4500 |
| Ages 65–74 | 3001–3500 | 3001–3500 |
* The sample consists of Finnish people living in the capital area, aged 55–75, in 2015 (a and b exceptions). ᵃThe reference sample consists of Finnish people living in the capital area, aged 55+, in 2014. ᵇThe reference sample consists of all Finnish people aged 55–75 in 2014.
Explanatory factor analysis.
| Items | Factors | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. PA and Sports | 2. Caring for Others | 3. Manage on One’s Own | 4. Culture and Social Affairs | |
| Variance explained (%) | 33 | 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Everyday physical activities (e.g., walking, biking) | 0.834 | |||
| Sports or dance hobby | 0.682 | |||
| Maintaining health and functional capacity of the body | 0.501 | 0.380 | ||
| Health and wellbeing of others | 0.794 | |||
| Taking care of relatives | 0.696 | |||
| Relationships | 0.503 | |||
| Independent living, the preservation of an independent lifestyle | 0.530 | |||
| Managing own financial issues and/or assets | 0.505 | |||
| Maintaining memory capacities | 0.486 | |||
| Cultural activities | 0.627 | |||
| Politics and social affairs | 0.429 | 0.444 | ||
| Social activities (i.e., clubs, voluntary work) | 0.381 | |||
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.
The descriptive statistics of the variables used in the analysis.
| Variable |
| Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total walking a | 673 | 3.575 | 2.775 |
| PA and Sports Goal Factor | 693 | 14.685 | 3.094 |
| Gender | 693 | 0.431 | 0.495 |
| Income | 693 | 2.361 | 1.001 |
| Education | 693 | 2.631 | 1.045 |
| Marital status | 693 | 0.354 | 0.547 |
| Perceived overall health | 693 | 0.594 | 1.909 |
| Walkway density a | 693 | 22.318 | 17.067 |
| Intersection density a | 693 | 112.602 | 40.657 |
| Public transit stop density | 693 | 5.758 | 7.897 |
| Residential density | 693 | 1.203 | 3.548 |
| Sporting places density | 693 | 3.645 | 1.370 |
a Measure was transferred using square root transformation because the data contained zero values.
The standardized model results for direct and total indirect effects of predictors on walking via PA and sports goal factor.
| Predictors | Physical Environmental Features | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walkway Density | Intersection Density | Residential Density | Public Transit Stop Density | Sporting Places Density | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||||
| Direct effect b | 0.002 | 0.002 | −0.002 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Total indirect effect c | −0.037 *** | −0.035 *** | −0.026 *** | −0.032 *** | −0.036 *** |
|
| |||||
| Direct effect b | −0.097 * | −0.097 * | −0.080 * | −0.088 * | −0.107 * |
| Total indirect effect c | 0.010 | 0.010 | 0.008 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
|
| |||||
| Direct effect b | 0.100 * | 0.105 ** | 0.075 * | 0.089 * | 0.112 ** |
| Total indirect effect c | −0.010 | −0.009 | 0.007 | −0.008 | −0.009 |
|
| |||||
| Direct effect b | −0.059 | −0.040 | −0.044 | −0.042 | −0.055 |
| Total indirect effect c | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
|
| |||||
| Direct effect b | −0.055 | −0.054 | −0.043 | −0.049 | −0.055 |
| Total indirect effect c | 0.047 | 0.045 *** | 0.033 *** | 0.040 *** | 0.046 *** |
|
| |||||
| Direct effect b | 0.278 *** | 0.092 * | 0.720 *** | 0.532 *** | 0.135 ** |
| Total indirect effect c | −0.001 | 0.000 | 0.003 | 0.003 | −0.003 |
| Personal Goal F1 (PA, sports) | 0.175 *** | 0.169 *** | 0.124 *** | 0.150 *** | 0.171 *** |
| R-Square | 0.125 *** | 0.125 *** | 0.126 *** | 0.126 *** | 0.125 *** |
| RMSEA | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| GFI | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| TLI | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, a reference category = woman, b The direct effect of predictor on outcome after controlling for mediator (PA). c The effect of predictor on outcome via mediator. d the regression coefficients for environmental measures are divided by columns. β = standardized beta coefficient. DV: Total walking. RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation), GFI (Goodness of Fit Indices), TLI (Tucker-Lewis index).
Figure 4Significant paths with standardized Beta (β) for the five different theoretical models. The figure illustrates only the significant paths between different variables.