4.6 Article

The relation between neighborhood built environment and walking activity among older adults

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 168, Issue 4, Pages 461-468

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwn158

Keywords

aged; environment design; geographic information systems; health behavior; regression analysis; residence characteristics; urban health; walking

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA 109920, R21 CA109920] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [AG 08017, P30 AG008017, AG 026002, R21 AG026002] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The association of neighborhood built environment with walking activity has received growing attention, although most studies have relied upon subjective measures of the built environment and few have examined the relation between built environment and walking among older adults. This 2001 study examined the relation between objectively measured characteristics of the local neighborhood and walking activity among a sample of 546 community-dwelling older adults in Portland, Oregon. A geographic information system was used to derive measures of the built environment within a quarter-mile (0.4 km) and half-mile (0.8 km) radius around each participant's residence. Multilevel regression analysis was used to examine the association of built environment with walking behavior. No association between built environment and the likelihood of walking or not walking was observed in this cohort of older adults. However, among those participants who reported some degree of walking activity, average time spent walking per week was significantly associated with amount of automobile traffic and number of commercial establishments in their local neighborhood. These findings suggest that built environment may not play a significant role in whether older adults walk, but, among those who do walk, it is associated with increased levels of activity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available