4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Trail characteristics as correlates of urban trail use

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH PROMOTION
Volume 21, Issue 4, Pages 335-345

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.4278/0890-1171-21.4s.335

Keywords

exercise; city planning; environment design; recreation; prevention research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to identify the environmental correlates of urban trail use. Design. Three multiuse urban trails at least 15 miles in length were selected. Trails were divided into one-half-mile segments (N = 102 total segments) and marked in the field. An audit of each trail was completed identifying built environmental features. A cross-sectional count of trail users was completed at each segment estimating the type of use, age, gender. Setting. Data collection occurred on urban trails in Chicago, Dallas, and Los Angeles. Subjects. Trained observers counted 17,338 users across the three trails. Measures. The SPACES for Trails instrument was used, and a trail count data collection sheet was developed. Analysis. Univariate and multivariate Poisson regressions controlling for location of trail and density of the population within I mile of the trail. Results. Positive associations with trail use were observed for mixed views (beta =.33, p < 0001), streetlights (beta =.30, p <. 0001), good trail condition (beta =.28, p <. 0001), and the presence of cafes (beta =.38, p <. 0001) and other trailside facilities (beta =. 08, p <. 0001). Negative associations were observed for litter (beta = -.22, p <.0001), noise (beta = -.41, p <. 0001), higher vegetation density (beta = -.10, p <. 001), drainage features (beta = -. 67, p <.0003), natural areas adjacent to the trail (beta = -.39, p <. 0001), and tunnel present (beta =-.20, p <.04). Conclusions. These correlates should be confirmed in other studies and if supported.

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