Differences in behavior, time, location, and built environment between objectively measured utilitarian and recreational walking

Abstract

Objectives Utilitarian and recreational walking both contribute to physical activity. Yet walking for these two purposes may be different behaviors. We sought to provide operational definitions of utilitarian and recreational walking and to objectively measure their behavioral, spatial, and temporal differences in order to inform transportation and public health policies and interventions. Methods Data were collected 2008–2009 from 651 Seattle-King County residents, wearing an accelerometer and a GPS unit, and filling-in a travel diary for 7 days. Walking activity bouts were classified as utilitarian or recreational based on whether walking had a destination or not. Differences between the two walking purposes were analyzed, adjusting for the nested structure of walking activity within participants. Results Of the 4,905 observed walking bouts, 87.4% were utilitarian and 12.6% recreational walking. Utilitarian walking bouts were 45% shorter in duration (−12.1 min) and 9% faster in speed (+0.3km/h) than recreational walking bouts. Recreational walking occurred more frequently in the home neighborhood and was not associated with recreational land uses. Utilitarian walking occurred in areas having higher residential, employment, and street density, lower residential property value, higher area percentage of mixed-use neighborhood destinations, lower percentage of parks/trails, and lower average topographic slope than recreational walking. Conclusion Utilitarian and recreational walking are substantially different in terms of frequency, speed, duration, location, and related built environment. Policies that promote walking should adopt type-specific strategies. The high occurrence of recreational walking near home highlights the importance of the home neighborhood for this activity.

The Tale of Two Communities: Residents’ Perceptions of the Built Environment and Neighborhood Social Capital

“…For instance, residential density and street connectivity is associated with increased pedestrianism in some studies, but not in others (Lovasi et al, 2008). One of the reasons such inconsistencies may be the lack of clear differentiation between walking for exercise and walking for transportation, or recreational and utilitarian (or destination) walking, respectively (Kang, Moudon, Hurvitz, & Saelens, 2017). Utilitarian and recreational walking differ in the purpose, length, and speed of walking.…”

“…Utilitarian and recreational walking differ in the purpose, length, and speed of walking. Compared with recreational walking, utilitarian walking generally involves longer distances, higher speed, and has a clear destination for the walk; in general, utilitarian walking is more likely to occur outside the neighborhood of one's residence (Kang et al, 2017). In comparison with recreational walking, the role of the built environment may be more significant for the utilitarian walking behavior.…”

Validation of the Block Walk Method for Assessing Physical Activity occurring on Sidewalks/Streets

“…Moreover, some built environment characteristics are shown to influence the degree to which individuals engage in PA [14,15,16]. In particular, access to neighborhood sidewalks/streets is associated with greater participation in moderate-to-vigorous PA [17,18,19]. Sidewalks/streets are among the most common aspects of the built environment where a considerable proportion of outdoor, physical activities (e.g., walking, running, cycling) are performed largely within neighborhoods that are proximal to a person’s home [18,20,21].…”

“…In particular, access to neighborhood sidewalks/streets is associated with greater participation in moderate-to-vigorous PA [17,18,19]. Sidewalks/streets are among the most common aspects of the built environment where a considerable proportion of outdoor, physical activities (e.g., walking, running, cycling) are performed largely within neighborhoods that are proximal to a person’s home [18,20,21]. For example, approximately 70% of adults who engage in recreational walking report using the sidewalks/streets in their neighborhood and adults who are PA near their homes gain about 17% more time in daily moderate-to-vigorous PA [20,21].…”

Physical Activity Environment and Japanese Adults’ Body Mass Index

“…There may be several explanations for the negative associations between walkable neighbourhood attributes and BMI. Studies have shown that people who lived in well-connected areas having a variety of destinations nearby were more likely to walk, especially for transport [ 54 , 55 ]. Thus, such environmental attributes may influence BMI through the accrued physical activity [ 56 , 57 ].…”