4.1 Article

The influence of neighborhood residential density, physical and social environments on older adults' physical activity: An exploratory study in two metropolitan areas

Journal

JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages 35-43

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaging.2011.07.001

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG028254] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study explored the influence of neighborhood residential density, physical and social environments on physical activity of older adults in Metro Vancouver, British Columbia and Metro Portland, Oregon. Eight neighborhoods in the two metropolitan regions were selected based on varying population density and income levels. Photovoice method was used with sixty-six older adult participants across the neighborhoods. Data were analyzed to explore any possible differences in the physical or social environmental aspects perceived as barriers or facilitators to physical activity between the higher and lower density neighborhoods. Four themes emerged based on a systematic analysis of the participant-taken photographs, participants' descriptions of photographs and group discussions. These themes were: safety and security, accessibility, comfort of movement, and peer support. Although a few themes were common across the eight neighborhoods, there were also differences between neighborhoods of varying residential density and across the two metro areas. More negative issues were reported concerning traffic hazards and personal safety in the higher density neighborhoods compared to the lower density neighborhoods. Also, a more positive outlook on public transportation was noted in the higher density neighborhoods. Across the two regions, differences were noted regarding private transportation, intergenerational activities and volunteering. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available