Physical activity and concordance between objective and perceived walkability

Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 280-287

  Arvidsson, Daniel ^a   Kawakami, Naomi ^a,b   Ohlsson, Henrik ^a   Sundquist, Kristina ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Actigraph; Geographic information systems; International physical activity questionnaire; Neighborhood environment walkability scale; Walking

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AMBULATORY MONITORING; ARTICLE; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOTOR ACTIVITY; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; SWEDEN; WALKING;

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MONITORING, AMBULATORY; MOTOR ACTIVITY; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESIDENCE CHARACTERISTICS; SWEDEN; WALKING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84858295388     PISSN: 01959131     EISSN: 15300315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31822a9289     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Adams MA, Ryan S, Kerr J, et al. Validation of the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS) items using geographic information systems. J Phys Act Health. 2009;6(1 suppl):S113-23.
2. Ball K, Jeffery RW, Crawford DA, Roberts RJ, Salmon J, Timperio AF. Mismatch between perceived and objective measures of physical activity environments. Prev Med. 2008;47(3):294-8.
3. Boehmer T, Wyrwich K, Ramirez L, Brownson R. Correspondence between perceived and observed measures of neighborhood environmental supports for physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3(1):22-36.
4. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjöström M, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(8):1381-95. (Pubitemid 36936159)
5. Forsyth A (ed.). Twin Cities Walking Study, Environment and Physical Activity: GIS Protocols. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota; 2007. 238 p.
6. Freedson PS, Melanson E, Sirard J. Calibration of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30(5):777-81. (Pubitemid 28211005)
7. Frohlich KL, Bodnarchuk JL, Château D, Roos L, Forsyth S. What you see is what you get? Questioning the relationship between objective and subjective appraisals of neighbourhood resources in relation to health. Can J Public Health. 2007;98(4):292-6.
8. Gebel K, Bauman A, Owen N. Correlates of non-concordance between perceived and objective measures of walkability. Ann Behav Med. 2009;37(2):228-38.
9. Gebel K, Bauman AE, Sugiyama T, Owen N. Mismatch between perceived and objectively assessed neighborhood walkability attributes: prospective relationships with walking and weight gain. Health Place. 2011;17(2):519-24.
10. Giles-Corti B, Timperio A, Bull F, Pikora T. Understanding physical activity environmental correlates: increased specificity for ecological models. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2005;33(4):175-81. (Pubitemid 41513201)
11. Humpel N, Marshall AL, Leslie E, Bauman A, Owen N. Changes in neighborhood walking are related to changes in perceptions of environmental attributes. Ann Behav Med. 2004;27(1):60-7. (Pubitemid 38095813)
12. John D, Tyo B, Bassett DR. Comparison of four ActiGraph accelerometers during walking and running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(2):368-74.
13. Kirtland K, Porter D, Addy C, et al. Environmental measures of physical activity supports: perception versus reality. Am J Prev Med. 2003;24(4):323-31. (Pubitemid 36506690)
14. Lee C, Vernez Moudon A. The 3Ds + R: quantifying land use and urban form correlates of walking. Transp Res. 2006;11(3): 204-15.
15. Matthews C, Ainsworth B, Thompson R, Bassett DJ. Sources of variance in daily physical activity levels as measured by an accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34(8):1376-81. (Pubitemid 34840039)
16. McCormack G, Cerin E, Leslie E, Du Toit L, Owen N. Objective versus perceived walking distances to destinations: correspondence and predictive validity. Environ Behav. 2008;40(3): 401-25.
17. McGinn AP, Evenson KR, Herring AH, Huston SL, Rodriguez DA. Exploring associations between physical activity and perceived and objective measures of the built environment. J Urban Health. 2007;84(2):162-84. (Pubitemid 46425397)
18. Owen N, Cerin E, Leslie E, et al. Neighborhood walkability and the walking behavior of Australian adults. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33(5):387-95. (Pubitemid 47575814)
19. Ries A, Dunsiger S, Marcus B. Physical activity interventions and changes in perceived home and facility environments. Prev Med. 2009;49(6):515-7.
20. Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Black JB, Chen D. Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: an environment scale evaluation. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(9):1552-8. (Pubitemid 38477684)
21. Sallis JF, Cervero RB, Ascher W, Henderson KA, Kraft MK, Kerr J. An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:297-322.
22. Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Frank LD, et al. Neighborhood built environment and income: examining multiple health outcomes. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68(7):1285-93.
23. Srinivasan M. Optimal speeds for walking and running, and walking on a moving walkway. Chaos. 2009;19(2):026112.
24. Sundquist K, Eriksson U, Kawakami N, Skog L, Ohlsson H, Arvidsson D. Neighborhood walkability, physical activity and walking behavior: the Swedish Neighborhood and Physical Activity (SNAP) study. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72:1266-73.
25. Van Dyck D, Cardon G, Deforche B, Sallis JF, Owen N, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Neighborhood SES and walkability are related to physical activity behavior in Belgian adults. Prev Med. 2010;50(1 suppl):S74-9.
26. World Health Organization. Global Health Risks: Mortality and Burden of Disease Attributable to Selected Major Risks. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2009. p. 9-27.