Arlie Adkins1, Carrie Makarewicz1, Michele Scanze1, Maia Ingram1, Gretchen Luhr1. 1. Arlie Adkins is an assistant professor of planning in the School of Landscape Architecture and Planning at the University of Arizona. Carrie Makarewicz is an assistant professor in the College of Architecture and Planning at the University of Colorado, Denver. Michele Scanze is a recent graduate of the planning master's program at the University of Arizona. Maia Ingram is the codirector of the Arizona Prevention Research Center at the University of Arizona. Gretchen Luhr is a research associate at the Institute on Aging at Portland State University.
Abstract
PROBLEM RESEARCH STRATEGY AND FINDINGS: Supportive built environments for walking are linked to higher rates of walking and physical activity, but little is known about this relationship for socioeconomically disadvantaged (e.g., low-income and racial/ethnic minority) populations. We review 17 articles and find that most show that the built environment has weaker effects on walking and physical activity for disadvantaged than advantaged groups. Those who lived in supportive built environments walked more and were more physically active than those who did not, but the effect was about twice as large for advantaged groups. We see this difference because disadvantaged groups walked more in unsupportive built environments and less in supportive built environments, though the latter appears more influential. TAKEAWAY FOR PRACTICE: Defining walkability entirely in built environment terms may fail to account for important social and individual/household characteristics and other non-built environment factors that challenge disadvantaged groups, including fear of crime and lack of social support. Planners must be sensitive to these findings and to community concerns about gentrification and displacement in the face of planned built environment improvements that may benefit more advantaged populations. We recommend five planning responses: Recognize that the effects of the built environment may vary by socioeconomics; use holistic approaches to improve walkability; expand walkability definitions to address a range of social and physical barriers; partner across agencies, disciplines, and professions; and evaluate interventions in different socioeconomic environments.
PROBLEM RESEARCH STRATEGY AND FINDINGS: Supportive built environments for walking are linked to higher rates of walking and physical activity, but little is known about this relationship for socioeconomically disadvantaged (e.g., low-income and racial/ethnic minority) populations. We review 17 articles and find that most show that the built environment has weaker effects on walking and physical activity for disadvantaged than advantaged groups. Those who lived in supportive built environments walked more and were more physically active than those who did not, but the effect was about twice as large for advantaged groups. We see this difference because disadvantaged groups walked more in unsupportive built environments and less in supportive built environments, though the latter appears more influential. TAKEAWAY FOR PRACTICE: Defining walkability entirely in built environment terms may fail to account for important social and individual/household characteristics and other non-built environment factors that challenge disadvantaged groups, including fear of crime and lack of social support. Planners must be sensitive to these findings and to community concerns about gentrification and displacement in the face of planned built environment improvements that may benefit more advantaged populations. We recommend five planning responses: Recognize that the effects of the built environment may vary by socioeconomics; use holistic approaches to improve walkability; expand walkability definitions to address a range of social and physical barriers; partner across agencies, disciplines, and professions; and evaluate interventions in different socioeconomic environments.
Authors: Abby C King; Deborah Toobert; David Ahn; Ken Resnicow; Mace Coday; Deborah Riebe; Carol E Garber; Shannon Hurtz; Jessica Morton; James F Sallis Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2006 Sep-Oct
Authors: James F Sallis; Robert B Cervero; William Ascher; Karla A Henderson; M Katherine Kraft; Jacqueline Kerr Journal: Annu Rev Public Health Date: 2006 Impact factor: 21.981
Authors: Gina S Lovasi; Kathryn M Neckerman; James W Quinn; Christopher C Weiss; Andrew Rundle Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2008-12-04 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Sarah Stark Casagrande; Joel Gittelsohn; Alan B Zonderman; Michele K Evans; Tiffany L Gary-Webb Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: James F Sallis; Brian E Saelens; Lawrence D Frank; Terry L Conway; Donald J Slymen; Kelli L Cain; James E Chapman; Jacqueline Kerr Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2009-02-18 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Agnes G Bucko; Dwayne E Porter; Ruth Saunders; Lynn Shirley; Marsha Dowda; Russell R Pate Journal: Health Place Date: 2021-11-03 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Pedro Gullon; Usama Bilal; Jana A Hirsch; Andrew G Rundle; Suzanne Judd; Monika M Safford; Gina S Lovasi Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2020-12-14 Impact factor: 6.286
Authors: Chastin Sfm; J Van Cauwenberg; L Maenhout; G Cardon; E V Lambert; D Van Dyck Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Alana C Jones; Ninad S Chaudhary; Amit Patki; Virginia J Howard; George Howard; Natalie Colabianchi; Suzanne E Judd; Marguerite R Irvin Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-02-01
Authors: Chelsea D Christie; Anna Consoli; Paul E Ronksley; Jennifer E Vena; Christine M Friedenreich; Gavin R McCormack Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2020-08-24