Neighborhood Walkability and the Walking Behavior of Australian Adults
Background
The physical attributes of residential neighborhoods, particularly the connectedness of streets and the proximity of destinations, can influence walking behaviors. To provide the evidence for public health advocacy on activity-friendly environments, large-scale studies in different countries are needed. Associations of neighborhood physical environments with adults’ walking for transport and walking for recreation must be better understood.
Method
Walking for transport and walking for recreation were assessed with a validated survey among 2650 adults recruited from neighborhoods in an Australian city between July 2003 and June 2004, with neighborhoods selected to have either high or low walkability, based on objective measures of connectedness and proximity derived from geographic information systems (GIS) databases. The study design was stratified by area-level socioeconomic status, while analyses controlled for participant age, gender, individual-level socioeconomic status, and reasons for neighborhood self-selection.
Results
A strong independent positive association was found between weekly frequency of walking for transport and the objectively derived neighborhood walkability index. Preference for walkable neighborhoods moderated the relationship of walkability with weekly minutes, but not the frequency of walking for transport—walkability was related to higher frequency of transport walking, irrespective of neighborhood self-selection. There were no significant associations between environmental factors and walking for recreation.
Conclusions
Associations of neighborhood walkability attributes with walking for transport were confirmed in Australia. They accounted for a modest but statistically significant proportion of the total variation of the relevant walking behavior. The physical environment attributes that make up the walkability index are potentially important candidate factors for future environmental and policy initiatives designed to increase physical activity.
aCancer Prevention Research Centre, School of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
bInstitute of Human Performance, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
cSchool of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
dNational Centre for Social Applications of GIS, Australian Institute of Social Research, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
eSchool of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
fCentre for Physical Activity and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
gUniversity of Washington School of Medicine and Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle, Washington
hDepartment of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Neville Owen, PhD, Cancer Prevention Research Centre, School of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Herston Road, Herston QLD 4006, Australia.
ABSTRACT