The Causal Influence of Neighborhood Design on Physical Activity within the Neighborhood: Evidence from Northern California

Abstract

Purpose. Test for a causal relationship between neighborhood design and physical activity within the neighborhood by controlling for self-selection. Design. Cross-sectional and quasi-longitudinal analyses of residents of selected neighborhoods. Setting. Eight Northern California neighborhoods. Subjects. Random sample of 1682 adults stratified by movers (moved within 1 year) and nonmovers (moved .1 year ago) responding to self-administered mail surveys (24.7% response rate). Measures. Self-reported number of days in last 7 days of moderate to vigorous physical activity somewhere in the neighborhood and self-reported change in physical activity in the neighborhood from prior to moving (for movers) or from 1 year ago (for nonmovers). Analysis. Zero-inflated Poisson regression for cross-sectional analysis (n 5 1497); ordered probit model for quasi-longitudinal analysis (n 5 1352). Results. After we controlled for physical activity attitudes and neighborhood preferences, selected neighborhood design characteristics were associated with physical activity within the neighborhood and changes in selected neighborhood design characteristics were associated with changes in physical activity within the neighborhood. Conclusions. Both cross-sectional and quasi-longitudinal analyses provided evidence of a causal impact of neighborhood design. Improving physical activity options, aesthetic qualities, and social environment may increase physical activity. Critical limitations included self-report measures of physical activity, lack of measures of duration and intensity of neighborhood physical activity, lack of measures of total physical activity, and limited measures of preferences related to physical activity.

In search of causality: a systematic review of the relationship between the built environment and physical activity among adults

“…Physical activity undertaken during the last 7 days (n = 11), 30 days or month (n = 5), two days (n = 4) or daily (n = 6) were often captured. Several studies captured context-specific physical activity including physical activity undertaken in the neighborhood [43,45,48,53,54,59], park [38], on a street or cycle path [28,30], and on a trail [40]. Less than half of studies presented supporting evidence for the reliability or validity of their physical activity data collection method [29,33,34,36-42,45,54,55].…”

“…Handy et al [45] found that the number of different businesses within 800 m of home was positively associated with the frequency of walking to a store, but not strolling, within the neighborhood. Positive associations between frequency of MVPA[54] and walking and biking[51] and the number of different business types within 400 m of home was also found. In addition, Cao et al [60] found the monthly frequency of undirected walking and biking trips undertaken during good weather to increase as the number of business types within 1600 m of home increased.…”

“…Boarnet et al[58] found a negative association between distance to city hall and the distance walked over two days, while residents of a neo-traditional neighborhood were found to do more transportation-related walking trips the closer they resided to a commercial center [46]. Contrary to the expected negative relationship between distance to destinations and physical activity, Handy et al [45,54] found that increasing distance to the nearest bank and health establishment was associated with more walking. Temporal evidence provided general support for these cross-sectional study findings.…”

The Impact of a Signalized Crosswalk on Traffic Speed and Street-Crossing Behaviors of Residents in an Underserved Neighborhood

“…2 While physical activity (PA) improves overall health by lowering the risk for obesity and its related ailments, 3 most Americans fall short of current PA guidelines. 4 Recent studies show that the built environment plays an important role in promoting PA. [5][6][7][8][9][10] However, neighborhoods with low-income, minority residents often have low walkability as a result of busy streets; 11,12 absent or poorly maintained sidewalks, crosswalks, and parks; [13][14][15] and actual or perceived threats to personal safety. 16,17 Thus, individuals from these neighborhoods often have limited access to PA facilities and may have a higher risk of developing obesity.…”

“…5,7,9,11,13,[20][21][22][23] Kaczynski et al 22 found that participants needing to cross high-speed roads to access the closest park were less likely to use parks. Similarly, Handy et al 7 found that key neighborhood design features including low traffic and general walkability directly influence PA. Thus, built environment improvements, such as the installation of crosswalks that calm traffic and increase accessibility to PA opportunities, could alleviate barriers to active living.…”