Comparing Perceived and Objectively Measured Access to Recreational Facilities as Predictors of Physical Activity in Adolescent Girls

Abstract

A number of studies in recent years have identified both self-report and objectively measured accessibility of recreational facilities as important predictors of physical activity in youth. Yet, few studies have: (1) examined the relationship between the number and proximity of objectively measured neighborhood physical activity facilities and respondents_ perceptions and (2) compared objective and self-report measures as predictors of physical activity. This study uses data on 1,367 6th-grade girls who participated in the Trial of Activity for Adolescent Girls (TAAG) to explore these issues. Girls reported whether nine different types of recreational facilities were easily accessible. These facilities included basketball courts, golf courses, martial arts studios, playing fields, tracks, skating rinks, swimming pools, tennis courts, and dance/ gymnastic clubs. Next, geographic information systems (GIS) were used to identify all the parks, schools, and commercial sites for physical activity located within a mile of each girl_s home. These sites were then visited to inventory the types of facilities available. Girls wore accelerometers to measure their weekly minutes of non-school metabolic equivalent weighted moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MW-MVPA). The number of facilities within a half-mile of girls_ homes strongly predicted the perception of easy access to seven out of nine facility types. Both individual facility perceptions and the total number of facilities perceived were associated with increased physical activity. For each additional facility perceived, girls clocked 3% more metabolic equivalent weighted moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (pG0.001). Although girls tended to record 3% more of this kind of physical activity (pG0.05) per basketball court within a mile of their homes, objective facility measures were otherwise unrelated to physical activity. The results from this study suggest that raising the profile of existing facilities may help increase physical activity among adolescent girls.

Rethinking planning for urban parks: accessibility, use and behaviour

“…The extensive documentation of the inconsistency between subjectively measured accessibility (perceived accessibility) and objectively measured accessibility (geographic accessibility) confirms the multidimensional nature of the accessibility concept (Ball et al, 2008;Hoehner et al, 2005;Jones et al, 2009;McCormack et al, 2008;Scott et al, 2007), but also further highlights the need to investigate the accessibility concept from a perspective of potential urban facility users. Analysis in this study indicates that the accessibility concept has been developed into a multidimensional construct that encompasses both spatial and socio-psychological dimensions.…”

“…Accessibility does not always equate with these objectively measured geographic indicators (Boehmer et al, 2006;Scott et al, 2007). Subjectively measured access to parks (perceived accessibility) shows poor consistency with objectively measured accessibility (geographic accessibility) based on quantitative standards (e.g., distance to parks and park area per capita) (Ball et al, 2008;Hoehner et al, 2005;Jones et al, 2009;McCormack et al, 2008;Scott et al, 2007).…”

“…Perceived access does not equate with geographic access (Boehmer et al, 2006;Scott et al, 2007) and may be more important in understanding and predicting human behaviour (Kruger et al, 2007;Zondag and Pieters, 2005). Perceived accessibility measures the extent to which individuals consider the service is accessible to them, representing the subjective nature of the accessibility construct.…”

“…But other studies reported that variations in accessibility measurement could significantly impact the empirical results (Guy, 1983;Kwan, 1998;Neutens et al, 2010;Weber, 2003) and the ability to predict human behavioural changes (Joerin et al, 2005). Further, there have been extensive studies revealing inconsistencies between subjectively measured accessibility (perceived accessibility) and geographic measured accessibility based on quantitative standards (e.g., distance to parks and park area per capita) (Ball et al, 2008;Hoehner et al, 2005;Jones et al, 2009;McCormack et al, 2008;Scott et al, 2007;Talen and Anselin, 1998). Perceived access does not equate with geographic access (Boehmer et al, 2006;Scott et al, 2007) and may be more important to understand and predict human behaviour (Kruger et al, 2007;Zondag and Pieters, 2005).…”

“…Further, there have been extensive studies revealing inconsistencies between subjectively measured accessibility (perceived accessibility) and geographic measured accessibility based on quantitative standards (e.g., distance to parks and park area per capita) (Ball et al, 2008;Hoehner et al, 2005;Jones et al, 2009;McCormack et al, 2008;Scott et al, 2007;Talen and Anselin, 1998). Perceived access does not equate with geographic access (Boehmer et al, 2006;Scott et al, 2007) and may be more important to understand and predict human behaviour (Kruger et al, 2007;Zondag and Pieters, 2005). To date, quantitative criteria have been the predominant methods to measure accessibility in park-related studies (Murray et al, 2003).…”