| Literature DB >> 31639003 |
Mikko Kärmeniemi1,2,3, Tiina Lankila4,5, Tiina Ikäheimo6,7, Soile Puhakka4,8,5, Maisa Niemelä6,9, Timo Jämsä6,9,10, Heli Koivumaa-Honkanen11,12,13, Raija Korpelainen4,8,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the high global prevalence of physical inactivity, there is a need to design cities that support active modes of transportation. High density diverse neighborhoods with good access networks have been associated with enhanced walking and cycling, but there is a lack of large-scale longitudinal studies utilizing a life course perspective to model residential relocation trajectories. The objectives of the present longitudinal study were to model and visualize residential relocation trajectories between 31 and 46 years of age based on neighborhood density, mixed land use and access networks (DMA), and to assess neighborhood DMA as a predictor of self-reported regular walking and cycling and objectively measured physical activity.Entities:
Keywords: Built environment; Geographic information system; Longitudinal design; Physical activity; Sequence analysis; Urban planning
Year: 2019 PMID: 31639003 PMCID: PMC6805374 DOI: 10.1186/s12966-019-0856-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act ISSN: 1479-5868 Impact factor: 6.457
Characteristics of study participants at 31 years (n = 5947) and 46 years (n = 4006)
| Variable | 31 years, | 46 years, |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Female | 3096 (52.1) | 2261 (56.4) |
| Male | 2851 (47.9) | 1745 (43.6) |
| BMIa | 24.7 ± 4.2 | 26.8 ± 4.8 |
| Missing | 43 | 13 |
| Household incomeb | 35,424 ± 29,509 | 60,000 ± 344,697 |
| Missing | 653 | 535 |
| Education | ||
| Higher education | 685 (11.7) | 984 (26.6) |
| Vocational, secondary or basic education | 5176 (88.3) | 2747 (73.4) |
| Missing | 86 | 275 |
| Marital status | ||
| Married/de facto relationship | 4269 (72.5) | 3019 (78.9) |
| Single/divorced/widowed | 1617 (27.5) | 806 (21.1) |
| Missing | 61 | 181 |
| Children < 18 years at home | 3555 (62.8) | 2572 (73.7) |
| Missing | 288 | 516 |
| Employment | ||
| Employed | 3710 (63.2) | 3374 (88.4) |
| Not in workforce | 2160 (36.8) | 444 (11.6) |
| Missing | 77 | 188 |
| Self-rated health | ||
| Good | 3901 (66.4) | 2564 (67.3) |
| Poor | 1978 (33.6) | 1245 (32.2) |
| Missing | 68 | 197 |
| Neighborhood DMAa | 0.36 ± 2.98 | −0.09 ± 2.54 |
| Missing | 102 | 11 |
| Regular walking | 711 (12.6) | 739 (18.8) |
| Missing | 309 | 65 |
| Regular cycling | 882 (15.7) | 437 (11.1) |
| Missing | 313 | 69 |
aMean ± standard deviation
bMedian € ± standard deviation
Descriptive statistics of the neighborhood DMA quintiles (1997–2012)
| Neighborhood DMA quintile | n | Mean | Min | Max | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Very low | 1752 | −2.45 | − 2.62 | −2.22 | 0.11 |
| 2. Low | 2182 | −1.69 | −2.21 | −1.17 | 0.32 |
| 3. Moderate | 2536 | −0.61 | −1.16 | −0.04 | 0.33 |
| 4. High | 2616 | 0.63 | −0.03 | 1.45 | 0.43 |
| 5. Very high | 2469 | 4.12 | 1.46 | 19.87 | 2.92 |
Fig. 1Sequence analysis representing clustered residential relocation trajectories based on neighborhood DMA quintiles from 31 to 46 years of age
Association between changes in neighborhood DMA and its components and changes in regular walking and cycling
| Variable | Regular walkinga | Regular cyclingb | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude modelc (OR, 95% CI) | Adjusted modeld (OR, 95% CI) | Crude modelc (OR, 95% CI) | Adjusted modeld (OR, 95% CI) | |||||
| Neighborhood DMAe | 1.03 (1.00, 1.05) | 0.023 | 1.01 (0.98, 1.04) | 0.609 | 1.17 (1.12, 1.23) | < 0.001 | 1.13 (1.07, 1.19) | < 0.001 |
| Population densityf | 1.06 (0.99, 1.13) | 0.076 | 1.00 (0.93, 1.08) | 0.918 | 1.36 (1.21, 1.53) | < 0.001 | 1.24 (1.09, 1.42) | 0.002 |
| Number of destinationsg | 1.03 (0.97, 1.10) | 0.289 | 0.98 (0.91, 1.06) | 0.618 | 1.25 (1.12, 1.40) | < 0.001 | 1.14 (0.99, 1.30) | 0.058 |
| Intersection densityh | 1.12 (1.04, 1.19) | 0.001 | 1.07 (0.99, 1.16) | 0.071 | 1.87 (1.63, 2.13) | < 0.001 | 1.74 (1.49, 2.02) | < 0.001 |
aWalking four or more times per week
bCycling four or more times per week
cGeneralized linear mixed model with no adjustments
dGeneralized linear mixed model adjusted for sex (female/male), education (higher education/vocational or secondary or basic education), children under 18 years of age living at home (yes/no) and marital status (married or de facto relationship/single or divorced or widowed)
eSummed z-scores of population density, number of destinations and intersection density
fZ-score of population density within 1 km buffer around residential location
gZ-score of number of destinations within 1 km buffer around residential location
hZ-score of number of intersections with three of more legs within 1 km buffer around residential location
Fisher’s exact test comparing counts of subjects who started to walk regularly and who started to cycle regularly (in bold) during the follow-up between different clusters (OR, 95% CI)
| Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | Cluster 5 | Cluster 6 | Cluster 7 | Cluster 8 | Cluster 9 | Cluster 10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cluster 1 | 1.17 (0.81, 1.69) | 1.31 (0.92, 1.84) | 0.94 (0.71, 1.35) | 1.52 (1.06, 2.18)* | 0.80 (0.51, 1.29) | 1.29 (0.71, 2.49) | 0.92 (0.56, 1.53) | 2.53 (1.28, 5.44)** | 0.44 (0.13, 1.65) | |
| Cluster 2 |
| 1.12 (0.79, 1.57) | 0.84 (0.60, 1.15) | 1.30 (0.91, 1.86) | 0.68 (0.43, 1.10) | 1.11 (0.61, 2.12) | 0.78 (0.48, 1.31) | 2.15 (1.10, 4.64)* | 0.37 (0.11, 1.40) | |
| Cluster 3 |
|
| 0.75 (0.56, 1.01) | 1.16 (0.83, 1.63) | 0.61 (0.39, 0.97)* | 0.99 (0.55, 1.88) | 0.70 (0.44, 1.15) | 1.93 (0.99, 4.11) | 0.33 (0.10, 1.25) | |
| Cluster 4 |
|
|
| 1.56 (1.14, 2.14)** | 0.82 (0.54, 1.27) | 1.32 (0.75, 2.48) | 0.94 (0.60, 1.52) | 2.58 (1.35, 5.44)** | 0.44 (0.14, 1.66) | |
| Cluster 5 |
|
|
|
| 0.53 (0.33, 0.84)** | 0.85 (0.47, 1.62) | 0.60 (0.37, 0.10)* | 1.66 (0.85, 3.55) | 0.28 (0.09, 1.08)* | |
| Cluster 6 |
|
|
|
|
| 1.61 (0.82, 3.29) | 1.15 (0.64, 2.06) | 3.15 (1.50, 7.14)** | 0.54 (0.16, 2.13) | |
| Cluster 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.71 (0.34, 1.43) | 1.94 (0.81, 4.85) | 0.34 (0.09, 1.41) | |
| Cluster 8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.75 (1.27, 6.34)** | 0.47 (0.14, 1.88) | |
| Clusters 8 and 9a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.17 (0.04, 0.76)** | |
| Cluster 10b |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Cluster in row used as a reference category for starting regular walking and cluster in column used as a reference category for starting regular cycling
aOnly one individual started to cycle regularly in cluster 9, so for statistical analyses it was merged with cluster 8 to indicate from higher to lower neighborhood DMA trajectory. Cluster 9 was used as a reference category for starting regular walking
bNone of the participants in cluster 10 started cycling regularly
*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05