Neighbourhood built environment characteristics associated with different types of physical activity in Canadian adults

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to estimate the associations between neighbourhood built environment characteristics and transportation walking (TW), recreational walking (RW), and moderate-intensity (MPA) and vigorous-intensity physical activity (VPA) in adults independent of sociodemographic characteristics and residential self-selection (i.e. the reasons related to physical activity associated with a person's choice of neighbourhood).

The use of the behaviour change wheel in the development of ParticipACTION’s physical activity app

“… Change is needed as not all Canadians may have the necessary knowledge ( ParticipACTION, 2019 ). Physical opportunity Create the opportunity to be active in a variety of settings Change is needed to create an environment which is supportive of physical activity ( McCormack, 2017 ). Social opportunity See members in close social networks valuing physical activity and getting active.…”

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].…”

The Moving to Health (M2H) approach to natural experiment research: A paradigm shift for studies on built environment and health

“…The physical activity (PA) environment is normally conceptualized in terms of density of or distance to parks and trails (Cohen et al, 2006a, Cohen et al, 2006b, Edwards et al, 2014, Ewing and Cervero, 2010, Kaczynski et al, 2014, Rundle et al, 2013, Spoon, 2012, Van Cauwenberg et al, 2015), and recreational facilities (Alexander et al, 2013), the length of sidewalks and street-block size (Berke et al, 2007, Ding and Gebel, 2012, Frank et al, 2007, McCormack, 2017, Stafford et al, 2007, Stewart et al, 2016, Yan et al, 2010). More recent studies, including some natural experiments, have explored the impact on PA of living close to light rail or other public transport as well as the impact of active commuting, and bus ridership (Lee and Moudon, 2004, Lee and Moudon, 2006a, Lee and Moudon, 2006b, MacDonald et al, 2010; Moudon, Hess, Snyder, & Stanilov, 1997; Moudon et al, 2007).…”

“…Health-smart urban planning requires a better understanding of which aspects of the BE are most likely to have a measurable impact on obesity rates. Among neighborhood features thought to influence weight and health are walkability (Creatore et al, 2016, Duncan et al, 2015; Hajna et al, 2016; Lee & Moudon, 2006a; Lovasi, Grady, & Rundle, 2011; Moudon et al, 2007; Rundle et al, 2008), proximity to parks and trails (Cohen et al, 2006a, Cohen et al, 2006b, Edwards et al, 2014, Kaczynski et al, 2014, Rundle et al, 2013, Spoon, 2012, Van Cauwenberg et al, 2015), and access to physical activity (Berke et al, 2007, Ding and Gebel, 2012, Frank et al, 2007, Lee and Moudon, 2004; Lee et al, (2009); McCormack, 2017; Nelson & Woods, 2009). The food environment, often defined by the density of and proximity to supermarkets, grocery stores, farmers’ markets, fast food stores, or convenience stores has also been linked to diet quality, obesity, and T2D risk (Aggarwal et al, 2014, Babey et al, 2008, Caspi et al, 2012, Drewnowski et al, 2012, Jiao et al, 2015a, Jiao et al, 2015b, Leal and Chaix, 2011, Zenk et al, 2017).…”