| Literature DB >> 32299439 |
Ester Cerin1,2,3, Anthony Barnett4, Casper J P Zhang5, Poh-Chin Lai6, Cindy H P Sit7, Ruby S Y Lee8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Population growth, population ageing, and urbanisation are major global demographic trends that call for an examination of the impact of urban densification on older adults' health-enhancing behaviours, such as walking. No studies have examined the pathways through which urban densification may affect older adults' walking. This information is key to evidence-based, health-oriented urban and transport planning. This study aimed to identify neighbourhood environment characteristics potentially responsible for the effects of neighbourhood densification on older adults' frequency and amount of transportation and recreation walking within and outside the neighbourhood.Entities:
Keywords: Built environment; High-density environment; Mediation analysis; Older adults; Walkability; Walking for transport and recreation
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32299439 PMCID: PMC7164360 DOI: 10.1186/s12942-020-00210-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Health Geogr ISSN: 1476-072X Impact factor: 3.918
Fig. 1Conceptual model of the effects of urban densification on walking for different purposes. This represents a simplified model of the effects of urban densification on transportation walking and leisure. N, P and C indicate, respectively, hypothesised negative, positive and curvilinear relationships between variables; (transport) and (recreation) indicate that a relationship applies to a specific walking purpose
Sample characteristics (N = 909)
| Characteristics | Statistics | Characteristics | Statistics |
|---|---|---|---|
| Socio-demographic and health-related characteristics | |||
| Age, years, M ± SD | 76.5 ± 6.0 | Sex, female, % | 66.3 |
| Educational attainment, % | Housing type, % | ||
| Up to primary | 56.3 | Public and aided | 43.1 |
| Secondary or higher | 43.7 | Private (purchased) | 51.3 |
| Marital status, % | Rental | 5.6 | |
| Married or cohabiting | 59.5 | Living alone, % | 23.1 |
| Widowed | 32.7 | Household with car, % | 28.5 |
| Other | 7.8 | Number of chronic health problems, M ± SD | 3.2 ± 2.0 |
| TPU-level SES, high, % | 49.7 | ||
| Walking outcomes, M ± SD | |||
| Transportation walking | Recreation walking | ||
| Frequency (times/week)—within neighbourhood | 8.1 ± 7.7 | Frequency (times/week)—within neighbourhood | 3.0 ± 4.0 |
| Amount (min/week)—within neighbourhood | 168.7 ± 205.5 | Amount (min/week)—within neighbourhood | 137.5 ± 220.2 |
| Frequency (times/week)—outside neighbourhood | 2.3 ± 4.3 | Frequency (times/week)—outside neighbourhood | 0.5 ± 1.8 |
| Amount (min/week)—outside neighbourhood | 76.1 ± 170.8 | Amount (min/week)—outside neighbourhood | 32.5 ± 120.1 |
| Neighbourhood environmental attributes (800 m-radius street-network buffers), M ± SD | |||
| Residential density (dwellings/km2) | 14,295 ± 8444 | Street intersection density (intersections/km2) | 91.5 ± 40.0 |
| Civic and institutional destination density (destinations/km2) | 69.7 ± 36.5 | Entertainment density (destinations/km2) | 6.9 ± 5.2 |
| Recreation density (destinations/km2) | 22.5 ± 15.2 | Food and retail density (destinations/km2) | 63.6 ± 37.7 |
| Public transport density (points/km2) | 11.6 ± 8.5 | Park area (hectares) | 1.1 ± 1.7 |
M mean, SD standard deviation
Total effects (associations) of neighbourhood residential density (1000 units/km2) on walking
| Transportation walking | Recreation walking | |
|---|---|---|
| e | e | |
| Frequency (times/week)—within neighbourhood | 1.008 (1.001, 1.015) | 1.002 (0.992, 1.012) |
| Amount (min/week)—within neighbourhood | 1.015 (1.005, 1.025) | 1.004 (0.987, 1.021) |
| Frequency (times/week)—outside neighbourhood | 1.003 (0.992, 1.015) | 1.014 (1.005, 1.024) |
| Amount (min/week)—outside neighbourhood | 0.997 (0.979, 1.016) | 1.053 (1.021, 1.087) |
Models were adjusted for covariates listed in Additional file 1: Table S2—model 1T
e exponentiated regression coefficient, CI confidence intervals
Fig. 2Direct and indirect effects of residential density on walking for transport (a) and recreation (b). Only significant associations (p < 0.05) are reported. Values represent exponentiated regression coefficients. For example, 1.631 in panel a indicates a 63.1% increase in amount of outside-neighbourhood transportation walking followed by a 1 unit increase in frequency of outside-neighbourhood transportation walking. Significant curvilinear associations between pairs of variables are labelled by the figure number depicting them (e.g., Fig. 3a referring to Fig. 3—panel a, representing the association between neighbourhood residential density and entertainment density). Point estimates and confidence intervals of all examined associations are reported in Additional file 1: Tables S1–S7. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001
Fig. 3Nonlinear relationships of residential density with other environmental attributes. a Recreation density; b public transport density; c street intersection density; d recreation density; e food and retail density; f civic/institutional density. The solid lines represent point estimates and the dotted lines represent the 95% confidence intervals of the point estimates
Fig. 4Relationships of food/retail density (a) and frequency of within-neighbourhood transportation walking (b) with amount of within-neighbourhood transportation walking. The solid lines represent point estimates and the dotted lines represent the 95% confidence intervals of the point estimates
Fig. 5Relationship between frequency of within-neighbourhood and outside-neighbourhood transportation walking. The solid line represents point estimates and the dotted lines represent the 95% confidence intervals of the point estimates
Fig. 6Nonlinear relationships of residential (a) and public transport (b) density with park area. The solid lines represent point estimates and the dotted lines represent the 95% confidence intervals of the point estimates