Journal Home
Search for

Volume 36, Issue 4, Supplement, Pages S99-S123.e12 (April 2009)


View previous. 7 of 18 View next.

Measuring the Built Environment for Physical Activity: State of the Science

Ross C. Brownson, PhDabCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Christine M. Hoehner, PhD, MSPHb, Kristen Day, PhDc, Ann Forsyth, PhDd, James F. Sallis, PhDe

Abstract 

Physical inactivity is one of the most important public health issues in the U.S. and internationally. Increasingly, links are being identified between various elements of the physical—or built—environment and physical activity. To understand the impact of the built environment on physical activity, the development of high-quality measures is essential. Three categories of built environment data are being used: (1) perceived measures obtained by telephone interview or self-administered questionnaires; (2) observational measures obtained using systematic observational methods (audits); and (3) archival data sets that are often layered and analyzed with GIS. This review provides a critical assessment of these three types of built-environment measures relevant to the study of physical activity. Among perceived measures, 19 questionnaires were reviewed, ranging in length from 7 to 68 questions. Twenty audit tools were reviewed that cover community environments (i.e., neighborhoods, cities), parks, and trails. For GIS-derived measures, more than 50 studies were reviewed. A large degree of variability was found in the operationalization of common GIS measures, which include population density, land-use mix, access to recreational facilities, and street pattern. This first comprehensive examination of built-environment measures demonstrates considerable progress over the past decade, showing diverse environmental variables available that use multiple modes of assessment. Most can be considered first-generation measures, so further development is needed. In particular, further research is needed to improve the technical quality of measures, understand the relevance to various population groups, and understand the utility of measures for science and public health.

a Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, St. Louis, Missouri

b Department of Surgery and Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri

c Department of Planning, Policy, and Design, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California

d Department of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

e Department of Psychology and Active Living Research, San Diego State University, San Diego, California

Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence and reprint requests to: Ross C. Brownson, PhD, Washington University in St. Louis, 660 S. Euclid, Campus Box 8109, St. Louis MO 63110

PII: S0749-3797(09)00013-0

doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.005


View previous. 7 of 18 View next.