Intern
ati
o
n
a
l
Jo
urn
a
l
o
f
P
u
b
lic Hea
l
th Science (IJ
P
HS)
V
o
l.5
,
No
.2
,
Jun
e
2
016
, pp
. 14
2
~ 1
50
I
S
SN
: 225
2-8
8
0
6
1
42
Jo
urn
a
l
h
o
me
pa
ge
: h
ttp
://iaesjo
u
r
na
l.com/
o
n
lin
e/ind
e
x.ph
p
/
IJPHS
Differences in Ph
ysical Activit
y
and Built Environment
Perceptions between Youn
ger and Older Adults
Living in The Same Ru
ral
C
h
a
r
ila
os
Pa
pa
do
po
u
l
o
s
1
, B
rent
J.
T
w
add
l
e
2
1
Department of Kinesi
olog
y,
P
a
cifi
c Lu
ther
an U
n
ivers
i
t
y
,
US
A
2
Departm
e
nt
of
Nutrition
,
Ex
erc
i
se and H
eal
th Sc
ienc
es, C
e
ntra
l
W
a
shington Uni
v
ersit
y
,
USA
Article Info
A
B
STRAC
T
Article histo
r
y:
Received Feb 16, 2016
Rev
i
sed
Mar
21
, 20
16
Accepted Apr 27, 2016
This
s
t
ud
y ex
am
ined as
s
o
ci
ati
o
n
s
between p
e
rc
e
p
tions
and ph
ys
i
cal
ac
tivi
t
y
of
y
ounger an
d older adults
residi
ng in the same rural/small town
community
. Th
irty
-two adults comple
ted interviews about their
community
and their ph
y
s
ical activ
ity
.
Both
groups perceived their neigh
borhood as
pleas
an
t and s
a
fe to b
e
ac
ti
ve. F
e
wer old
e
r adults perceived th
eir
neighborhood as having sidewalks. Y
ounger adults reported being more
vigorousl
y
act
iv
e and the
y
wer
e
m
o
re often ut
iliz
ing priva
t
e
m
e
m
b
ership
clubs for ph
y
s
ical activity
. Older adu
lts utilized more
public recr
eational
fa
c
i
litie
s.
The
s
e re
sults sugge
s
t
tha
t
highe
r
pe
rc
eive
d qua
lity
of the
neighborhood b
u
ilt env
i
ronm
en
t can
enhan
c
e parti
c
ipation i
n
m
oderate
exerc
i
s
e
in old
e
r
adul
ts
.
Keyword:
Bu
ild
en
v
i
ronmen
t
Comm
unity-based researc
h
N
e
igh
bor
hoo
d
Ol
de
r a
dul
t
s
Ph
ysical activ
ity
Copyright ©
201
6 Institut
e
o
f
Ad
vanced
Engin
eer
ing and S
c
i
e
nce.
All rights re
se
rve
d
.
Co
rresp
ond
i
ng
Autho
r
:
C
h
ari
l
a
os
Pa
pa
do
p
oul
os,
Depa
rt
m
e
nt
of
Ki
nesi
ol
o
g
y
,
Pacific Lut
h
era
n
Uni
v
ersity,
1
218
0 Par
k
Aven
u
e
S., Tacoma,
W
A
984
47, USA
Em
a
il: p
a
p
a
doh
a@p
l
u.edu
1.
INTRODUCTION
The
Am
eri
can C
o
l
l
e
ge
of
Sp
ort
s
M
e
di
ci
ne [
1
]
h
a
s st
ated that re
gular physical activity is a
si
gni
fi
ca
nt
fact
or i
n
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
ing a h
ealt
h
y lifestyle. Regula
r
physical act
ivity reduces t
h
e risk of prem
ature
m
o
rtality, coronary
heart dise
ase, hy
pert
en
si
on
, col
on ca
nc
er, a
nd t
y
pe
II
diabetes [1],
with s
o
m
e
evidenc
e
th
at ph
ysical activ
ity, ev
en
of m
o
d
e
rate in
t
e
n
s
ity, h
a
s l
o
ng
-term
co
gn
itiv
e b
e
n
e
fits (e.g
., l
o
w in
cid
e
n
ce of
dem
e
nt
i
a
) [2]
.
Howe
ver
,
o
n
l
y
49.7%
of U
.
S. m
e
n and 4
6
.
7
% o
f
U.S
.
wom
e
n rep
o
rt
enga
gi
n
g
i
n
re
gul
a
r
phy
si
cal
act
i
v
i
t
y
[3]
.
Usi
n
g
N
H
A
N
ES
dat
a
,
Troi
a
n
o
an
d
colleag
u
e
s
[4
]
fou
n
d
t
h
at ph
ysical activ
ity
m
e
a
s
u
r
ed
by accelerom
e
t
er declines
dra
m
atically
through later c
h
ildhood a
n
d throug
h adulthood,
suc
h
t
h
at
only
2.4%
o
f
adu
lts ov
er t
h
e ag
e
o
f
60
at
tain
reco
mmen
d
e
d lev
e
ls
o
f
ph
ysical activ
ity
.
The
num
ber an
d pe
rce
n
t
a
ge
o
f
ol
d
e
r i
n
di
vi
d
u
al
s i
n
t
h
e
Uni
t
ed St
at
es i
s
gr
owi
n
g
.
Li
fe e
xpect
a
n
cy
i
n
the U.S.
has re
ached
78.8 y
ears [5]. The
ne
ed for c
o
mm
u
n
ity su
ppo
rt to
m
a
in
tain
, o
r
i
n
crease, th
e
p
hysical
fitn
ess and
con
s
eq
u
e
n
t
p
h
y
sical an
d
m
e
n
t
al h
ealth
o
f
o
l
d
e
r adu
lts will in
ten
s
ify in
t
h
e co
m
i
n
g
d
e
cad
es.
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
ng re
gul
a
r
p
h
y
s
i
cal
act
i
v
i
t
y
beha
vi
o
r
m
a
y
be especi
al
l
y
co
m
p
l
e
x f
o
r
ol
de
r
adul
t
s
, i
n
v
o
l
v
i
ng an
interaction of envi
ronm
ental
factors
(e.g.,
availab
ility and accessibility
of si
dewal
k
s,
equi
pm
ent and space
,
traffic) indivi
dual-level
factors (e.g
., ph
ysical activ
ity h
i
sto
r
y,
b
e
liefs ab
ou
t th
e im
p
o
r
tan
ce and
imp
act
of
exercise, c
o
nc
ern a
b
out health, loc
u
s of control, self-efficacy, sense
of well-being), a
nd physical capa
b
ility.
Th
e bu
ilt env
i
ro
n
m
en
t in
wh
ich
p
e
op
le liv
e may p
r
o
m
o
t
e o
r
h
i
nd
er ph
ysical activ
ity [6
]-[1
1
]
.
Ag
e app
e
ars t
o
b
e
an
im
p
o
r
tant d
e
term
in
an
t o
f
o
v
erall ph
ysical activ
ity
le
v
e
ls,
b
u
t
co
u
l
d also
in
fl
u
e
n
ce th
e env
i
ro
n
m
en
ts in
wh
ich
p
h
y
sical
activ
ity o
ccurs and
p
e
rcep
tion
s
o
f
su
ch
env
i
ron
m
en
ts [12
]
. For i
n
st
an
ce, recreatio
n
a
l facilit
ies
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
PH
S I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
0
6
Differen
ces
i
n
Ph
ysica
l
Activity
a
n
d
Bu
ilt
Enviro
nmen
t
Percep
tio
ns
b
e
tween
.... (Cha
rilao
s
Pap
ado
pou
lo
s)
14
3
are often
d
e
si
g
n
e
d
for sp
ecific ag
e groups (e.g
.,
p
l
aygro
und
s in
p
a
rks),
p
e
rh
ap
s resu
ltin
g
i
n
th
e sa
me
envi
ro
nm
ent
b
e
i
ng
pe
rcei
ve
d
di
ffe
re
nt
l
y
by
di
ffe
re
nt
age
g
r
o
u
p
s.
Bu
ilt en
v
i
ro
n
m
en
t stu
d
i
es i
n
ph
ysical activ
ity
h
a
v
e
also
g
e
nerally b
een
limited
to
m
e
tro
p
o
litan
areas
[9]-[11],[13]. The study of
indivi
duals
living in rural areas is critica
l
,
because such individuals are less
physically active overall, re
port greater num
ber of phy
si
cal activity barriers
,
incl
u
d
i
n
g care gi
vi
n
g
dut
i
e
s
,
l
ack of t
i
m
e and l
ack o
f
ener
g
y
[14]
,[
1
5
]
.
C
e
nsu
s
dat
a
fr
om
20
05 i
n
di
cat
e t
h
at
12.
5%
of
Was
h
i
n
gt
o
n
St
at
e’s
p
opu
latio
n
resid
e
s in
rural co
mm
u
n
ities [1
6
]
. Ru
ral po
pul
atio
n
s
are
g
e
nerally o
l
d
e
r,
so
und
erstan
d
i
ng
th
e
i
n
fl
ue
nce o
f
r
u
ral
en
vi
r
o
nm
ent
s
o
n
ol
de
r
po
pul
at
i
o
ns i
s
part
i
c
ul
arl
y
im
port
a
nt
.
Ab
out
1
0
.
7
%
of
ur
ba
n
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
ons
an
d 15
.3
% of r
u
r
a
l
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
ons
i
n
W
a
shi
ngt
on
St
at
e
are 65
o
r
ol
de
r
[
1
6]
.
En
vi
ro
nm
ent
a
l
fact
or
s rel
a
t
e
d t
o
ur
ban
o
r
sub
u
r
ba
n
ol
de
r
adul
t
s
’
p
h
y
s
i
cal
act
i
v
i
t
y
m
a
y
not
be t
h
e
sam
e
facto
r
s related
to
ru
ral
o
l
d
e
r adu
lts’
ph
ysical
activity. There also
may be diffe
re
nces
betwee
n
younge
r
an
d
o
l
d
e
r
p
opulatio
n
s
w
ith
in
r
u
r
a
l ar
eas. Such
in
fo
r
m
atio
n
is i
m
p
o
r
tan
t
t
o
ev
alu
a
te if
eff
ectiv
e str
a
teg
i
es ar
e
to
b
e
im
p
l
e
m
en
ted
t
o
in
crease ph
ysical activ
ity in
th
e
rural o
l
d
e
r adu
lt po
pu
latio
n. Th
e
presen
t stu
d
y
com
p
ares the percei
ved
phy
sical activity
envi
ronm
enta
l (e.g.
prese
n
c
e
of side
walks
,
access to parks a
nd
walk
ing
p
a
thways,
safety,
traffic, p
r
esen
ce o
f
recreatio
n
a
l
facilities, etc.) b
e
tween
o
l
d
e
r an
d
y
o
ung
er
ad
u
lts
resid
i
ng
i
n
th
e sam
e
ru
ral/small to
wn co
m
m
u
n
ity an
d
exa
m
in
es th
e asso
ciatio
n
s
b
e
t
w
een
th
ese p
e
rcep
tio
ns
and self-re
port
ed
physical act
ivity.
2.
R
E
SEARC
H M
ETHOD
2.
1.
Popul
ati
o
n
Fi
ft
y
-
ei
ght
su
b
j
ect
s bet
w
ee
n t
h
e ages o
f
2
0
and
30 y
ears ol
d or
bet
w
ee
n t
h
e ages o
f
6
0
and
90 y
ear
s
o
l
d
were i
n
terv
iewed
.
Sub
j
ects h
a
d
liv
ed
i
n
Kittitas Co
un
ty,
W
a
sh
ing
t
o
n
fo
r at least th
e prev
i
o
u
s
6
m
o
n
t
h
s
.
Thi
s
st
udy
was
ap
pr
o
v
ed
by
t
h
e
Hum
a
n S
u
b
j
ect
s R
e
vi
e
w
B
o
ar
d at
C
e
nt
ral
W
a
s
h
i
n
gt
o
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
si
t
y
.
2.
2.
Recruitme
nt
Ol
de
r a
dul
t
s
were
rec
r
ui
t
e
d
vi
a
fl
y
e
rs
po
st
ed at
s
upe
rm
arket
s
a
n
d a
d
u
l
t
l
i
v
i
ng ce
nt
e
r
s a
n
d
f
r
om
announcem
ents placed i
n
mont
hly ne
wsletters.
Younge
r adults were re
cruited t
h
rough announcem
ents and
flyers p
o
s
ted
on
th
e
Cen
t
ral
Wash
ing
t
on
Un
iv
ersity
cam
p
u
s.
2.
3.
Surve
y Me
th
o
d
All participa
n
t
s
com
p
leted a face-
t
o
-face i
n
terview.
Face
-to-face inte
rvi
e
ws
were s
e
lected as the
m
o
st ap
p
r
op
r
i
ate su
r
v
ey m
e
t
h
od
fo
r
b
o
t
h
gr
oup
s to
ens
u
re cooperation
and inc
r
ease t
h
e com
p
leteness and
accuracy of data gathere
d
[17],[18]. Interviewi
ng was also helpful in that
it gave
the intervie
wers the
flex
ib
ility to
ob
serv
e th
e subj
ects, rep
eat
o
r
clarify
qu
estio
n
s
, an
d
po
ssi
b
l
y p
r
ess fo
r ad
d
ition
a
l in
formatio
n
wh
en
respo
n
ses see
m
ed
in
com
p
le
te o
r
irrel
e
v
a
n
t
. Th
e in
t
e
rvi
e
ws we
re co
nd
uct
e
d
by
four train
e
d
in
terviewers
and lasted
30-40 m
i
nutes pe
r s
u
bject.
Participan
t cha
r
acterist
i
cs are
provide
d
in Ta
ble 1.
2.
4.
Measures
2.
4.
1.
Environmental Char
ac
teristics.
Th
e Env
i
ron
m
en
tal Su
ppo
rts fo
r Ph
ysical Activ
ity
Quest
i
onnaire was
use
d
to
m
easure percei
ved
phy
si
cal
e
nvi
r
onm
ent
.
T
h
i
s
i
n
st
rum
e
nt
,
de
vel
o
ped
by
Ai
nsw
o
rt
h a
n
d c
o
l
l
eague
s
[1
9]
,
i
s
di
vi
de
d i
n
t
w
o
set
s
o
f
item
s
. Th
is
2
7
-item
in
stru
men
t
h
a
s
d
e
m
o
n
s
trated goo
d reliab
ility an
d
valid
ity [2
0
]
.
In add
itio
n
,
Brown
s
on
et al. [21] indicated that thi
s
in
st
r
u
m
e
nt
is reas
ona
bl
y
r
e
l
i
a
bl
e and
t
h
ere we
re
q
u
es
t
i
ons t
h
at
ha
v
e
hi
g
h
reliab
ility fo
r ru
ral resp
ond
ers. Th
e first 13 ite
m
s
fo
cu
s on
n
e
ighb
orhood
v
a
riab
les. A Lik
e
rt-typ
e scale is
use
d
t
o
asse
ss
nei
g
hb
o
r
h
o
od
charact
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s, soci
al
i
ssues
,
bar
r
i
e
rs,
use
,
a
nd a
ccess.
Nei
g
h
b
o
r
h
oo
d i
s
d
e
fi
ne
d
as a 0.
5-m
i
l
e
radi
us o
r
a 1
0
-m
i
nut
e wal
k
fr
om
th
e r
e
sp
ond
er’
s
ho
me. N
e
ighb
or
hoo
d
su
rv
ey item
s
ar
e
prese
n
ted in
T
a
ble 2. T
h
e se
cond se
t
of item
s
(1
3
-
item
s
) fo
cu
s
on
co
mm
u
n
ity-lev
el v
a
riab
les.
Th
ese ite
m
s
q
u
e
r
i
ed
r
e
spond
er
s t
o
r
e
p
o
r
t
w
h
et
h
e
r
th
ey
hav
e
u
s
ed
,
d
i
d
n
o
t
u
s
e,
o
r
d
i
d n
o
t
h
a
v
e
th
e en
v
i
r
o
n
m
en
tal s
u
ppo
r
t
fo
r p
h
y
s
i
cal
act
i
v
i
t
y
. C
o
m
m
uni
t
y
i
s
defi
ne
d as a 1
0
-
m
ile radi
us o
r
2
0
-
d
r
i
v
e
fr
om
t
h
e resp
o
nde
r’
s hom
e.
Co
mm
u
n
ity su
rv
ey item
s
are p
r
esen
ted in
Tab
l
e 3.
2.
4.
2.
Physic
al Ac
tiv
i
ty
Me
asures
The I
n
t
e
rnat
i
o
nal
Phy
s
i
cal
Act
i
v
i
t
y
Quest
i
onnai
r
e (IP
A
Q
)
was used t
o
m
easure p
h
y
s
i
cal
act
i
v
i
t
y
.
Th
e IPAQ
h
a
s
b
een
u
s
ed
ex
ten
s
iv
ely in
r
e
sear
ch
and
h
a
s sh
own
to
b
e
b
o
t
h
v
a
li
d
and
r
e
liab
l
e fo
r
y
o
unger
and
ol
de
r a
dul
t
s
[
2
2]
,[
23]
.
Su
b
j
ec
t
s
were
aske
d t
o
rec
a
l
l
du
ri
n
g
a t
y
pi
cal
week
t
h
e n
u
m
b
er o
f
day
s
(a
n
d
ho
w
m
u
ch
ti
m
e
p
e
r d
a
y) th
at th
ey d
o
the fo
llowing
for at least
10
m
i
nut
es:
a) wal
k
i
ng,
b) m
odera
t
e
exerci
se suc
h
as
bi
cy
cl
i
ng, vac
uum
i
ng, ga
rd
e
n
i
n
g, o
r
any
t
h
i
ng t
h
at
cause
s sm
al
l i
n
creases i
n
breat
hi
ng
or hea
r
t
ra
t
e
, c)
vigorous exerc
i
se such as
r
unn
ing
,
aero
b
i
cs, h
eav
y yar
d
wo
rk
or
an
yt
hing else that cause
s a large increase in
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
06
IJP
H
S V
o
l
.
5, No
. 2,
J
u
ne 2
0
1
6
:
14
2 – 1
5
0
14
4
breat
hi
n
g
or
h
eart
rat
e
.
S
u
b
j
ect
s al
so i
ndi
c
a
t
e
d
ho
w m
a
ny
days in a ty
pical wee
k
t
h
e
y
do stre
ngth
exercis
e
d
e
sign
ed
to in
crease m
u
scle streng
th or ton
e
su
ch
as
lifting
weigh
t
s, pu
ll
up
s, pu
sh
-u
ps, or
sit-u
p
s
.
2.
4.
3.
Sociodem
ogr
aphic me
asures
Part
i
c
i
p
ant
s
re
po
rt
ed t
h
ei
r a
g
e,
ge
nde
r, m
a
ri
t
a
l
st
at
us, e
m
pl
oym
ent
st
at
us, a
n
d
an
n
u
a
l
ho
use
hol
d
i
n
com
e
, l
e
vel
o
f
e
ducat
i
o
n,
ra
ce/
et
hni
ci
t
y
, he
i
ght
, a
n
d
wei
g
ht
.
2.
5.
Statistics
Pears
o
n’s Chi
-
Square a
nd
Fisher’s exact test
were
used t
o
det
e
rm
i
n
e di
ff
erences
bet
w
ee
n ol
der a
n
d
yo
un
g
e
r adu
lts in
t
h
eir en
viron
m
en
tal p
e
rcep
tio
ns.
Fo
ll
o
w
-up
p
a
irwise co
m
p
arison
s were co
ndu
cted
to
evaluate the di
ffe
rences
between age groups. Based on
hi
gh s
k
ew
ness
, phy
si
cal
act
i
v
i
t
y
m
easures w
e
re l
o
g
t
r
ans
f
o
r
m
e
d. Inde
pe
nde
nt
t
t
e
st
of t
h
e l
o
g t
r
ans
f
o
r
m
a
ti
on
was use
d
t
o
det
e
rm
i
n
e any
di
ffe
rence
s
b
e
t
w
een
ol
de
r an
d y
o
u
nge
r a
dul
t
s
. B
i
vari
at
e co
rrel
a
t
i
ons
were
use
d
t
o
exam
i
n
e t
h
e rel
a
t
i
ons
hi
p
bet
w
ee
n eac
h
of t
h
e
fo
ur
l
o
g t
r
ans
f
o
r
m
e
d m
easu
r
es
of
phy
si
ca
l
act
i
v
i
t
y
(wal
ki
n
g
,
st
re
ngt
h
t
r
ai
ni
n
g
,
m
oderat
e
a
n
d
vi
go
r
ous
exerci
se
) an
d
nei
g
hb
o
r
h
o
od
envi
ro
nm
ent
vari
abl
e
s a
nd
u
s
e of
com
m
uni
t
y
faci
l
i
t
i
e
s. Si
gni
fi
ca
nce l
e
v
e
l
wa
s
set to
P <
0
.
0
5
.
3.
R
E
SU
LTS AN
D ANA
LY
SIS
3.
1.
Results
Th
e y
o
ung
er ad
u
lts
were m
o
re activ
e th
an
t
h
e o
l
d
e
r adu
lts,
b
u
t
on
ly sign
ifican
tly d
i
fferen
t in
th
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
a
y
s
p
e
r
week engag
e
d in
streng
t
h
trai
n
i
ng
activities an
d
i
n
to
tal ti
m
e
p
e
r d
a
y
p
a
rticip
ating
in
vi
g
o
r
o
us act
i
v
i
t
y
(Tabl
e
1)
.
Tabl
e 1. Soci
o
d
em
ogra
phi
c,
Ant
h
r
o
pom
et
ric, and
Physical
Activity Measures
Measure
Younger
adults
(
n
= 32)
Older
adults
(
n
= 26)
Gen
d
e
r (%
)
M
a
le 40.
7
38.
5
Fem
a
le 59.
3
61.
5
Marital
status (%
)
M
a
rr
ied 3.
7
19.
3
Un
m
a
rr
ied
96.
3
80.
7
Em
ploy
m
e
nt (
%
)
Em
ploy
ed
22.
2
3.
8
Unem
p
l
oy
ed
77.
8
96.
2
E
ducation (
%
)
High school or
less
0.
0
38.
5
So
m
e
college
85.
2
38.
4
College gr
aduate
14.
8
23.
1
Annual inco
m
e
(
%
)
< $5,
000
38.
5
11.
5
$5,
000-
2
0
,
000
42.
3
34.
5
$20,
00
0-
$50,
0
0
0
11.
5
30.
8
>$50,
000
0
7.
7
E
t
hnicity
(
%
)
Hispanic/L
atino 3.
7
0.
0
White/Caucasian
96.3
92.3
Native A
m
er
ican
0.
0
7.
7
Age (y
ear
s
)
23.
0 ± 2.
4
78.
8 ± 8.
1
*
Height (
c
m
)
171.
5 ±17.
7
166.
0 ± 10.
7
W
e
ight (
kg)
72.
0 ±7.
1
76.
2 ± 15.
8
Total days pe
r we
e
k
perform
i
ng strength activities
Med
i
an
2.
9 ± 1.
9
3.
0
1.
3 ± 2.
4
*
0.
0
Total ti
m
e
per day
walking (m
in)
Med
i
an
42.
7 ± 43.
1
30.
0
37.
5 ± 41.
8
30.
0
T
o
tal tim
e
per day
per
f
orm
i
ng
m
oderate activity
Med
i
an
52.
4 ± 49.
1
30.
0
33.
1 ± 41.
7
15.
0
T
o
tal tim
e
per day
per
f
orm
i
ng vigor
ous activity
Med
i
an
40.
8 ± 35.
8
32.
5
13.
7 ± 27.
8
*
0.
0
* P
<
0.
05
bet
w
een
ol
der
an
d
y
o
u
n
g
er
ad
ul
t
s
Bo
th
g
r
ou
ps gen
e
rally
repo
rt
ed
p
o
sitiv
e
p
e
rcep
tio
n
s
of neig
hb
orh
ood
ch
aracteristics fo
r
ph
ysical
activ
ity, with
th
e ex
cep
tion
of street ligh
ting
for
walk
in
g
at n
i
gh
t,
wh
ich was
g
e
n
e
rally reported
as less than
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
PH
S I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
0
6
Differen
ces
i
n
Ph
ysica
l
Activity
a
n
d
Bu
ilt
Enviro
nmen
t
Percep
tio
ns
b
e
tween
.... (Cha
rilao
s
Pap
ado
pou
lo
s)
14
5
‘ve
r
y
g
o
o
d
’
(T
able 2
)
.
Olde
r
adults
were
m
u
ch
m
o
re lik
ely than y
o
unger ad
u
lts to
rep
o
rt a lack
o
f
sid
e
walks
in
th
eir n
e
i
g
hb
orh
ood
(p
<.05
). Th
e
p
r
ob
ab
ility o
f
o
l
d
e
r adu
lts rep
o
rt
in
g
a lack
of sid
e
walk
s i
n
th
eir
nei
g
hb
o
r
h
o
od
was 4.
1 t
i
m
e
s
hi
g
h
er t
h
a
n
f
o
r
y
oun
ger a
dul
t
s
. Ho
we
ver
,
ol
der ad
ul
t
s
wer
e
al
so
m
o
re l
i
k
el
y
t
o
percei
ve their
neighborhood
as a pleasa
n
t place to walk
(p<.05; Table
2). The
probab
ility of
olde
r adul
ts to
percei
ve their
neighborhood
as a ‘v
ery ple
a
sant’ place to walk was about
1.8 tim
es
m
o
re likely than the
yo
un
g
e
r
g
r
ou
p. Sim
i
larly, o
l
der ad
u
lts
p
e
rcei
v
e
d th
at
p
u
b
lic recreation
faci
lities were in
better con
d
ition
th
an
yo
un
g
e
r adu
lts (P < 0.05
; Tab
l
e 2). A
h
i
gher
p
r
o
portio
n
o
f
t
h
e y
o
ung
er adu
lts p
e
rceived
th
e cond
itio
n of
p
u
b
lic recreatio
n
a
l
facilities as ‘fair’ or
‘poor’ co
m
p
ared to
th
e o
l
d
e
r adu
lts.
Table 2. Percei
ved
Nei
g
hborhood Access
,
Sa
fety, Use
,
a
n
d
Characteristics
by
Age
Neighbor
hoo
d-
r
e
lated sur
v
ey
ite
m
Younger
adults (
%
)
(
N
=32)
Older
adults (
%
)
(
N
=26)
P
Access
Does y
our
neighbor
hood have any
sidewalks
?
< 0.
01
*
Yes 90.
6
61.
5
No 9.
4
38.
5
Does y
our neighborhood have any
public recreation facilities
?
0.
07
Yes 71.
9
48.
0
No 28.
1
52.
0
Charact
erist
ics
How would y
ou ra
te y
our neighborhood as a place to w
a
lk
?
0.
03
*
Very
pleasant
43.
8
76.
9
So
m
e
what pleasan
t
53.
1
19.
2
Not ver
y
pleasant
3.
1
3.
8
Not at all pleasant
0
0.
0
For
walking in y
our
neighbor
hoo
d,
woul
d y
ou say
y
our
sidewalks ar
e:
0.
12
Very well
m
a
intai
n
ed
31.0
62.5
So
m
e
what m
a
intained
55.
2
31.
3
Not very well
m
a
i
n
tained
13.8
6.3
Not at all
m
a
intain
ed
0
0.0
I
n
y
our
neighbor
hood,
would y
ou say
that unatte
nded dogs ar
e:
0.
77
A big pr
oblem
3.
2
0.
0
So
m
e
what of a pr
o
b
lem
6.
5
7.
7
Not ver
y
m
u
ch of
a pr
oblem
32.
3
26.
9
Not a pr
oblem
at all
58.
0
65.
4
How would you ra
te the condition of
your public recreat
ion facilities
?
0.03
*
E
x
cellent 12.
0
45.
5
Good
44.
0
54.
5
Fair 40.
0
0.
0
Poor
4.
0
0.
0
For
walking at night,
would y
ou r
a
te
the str
eet
lighting in y
our
neighbor
ho
od as:
0.
10
Very
good
0.
0
19.
0
Good
12.
5
19.
0
Fair 37.
5
28.
6
Poor
or
very
poor
50.
0
33.
3
Barriers
W
ould y
ou say the
m
o
tor
i
zed tr
affic in y
our
neighbor
ho
od is:
0.
66
Heavy 15.
6
12.
0
M
oder
a
te 37.
5
36.
0
L
i
ght 46.
9
52.
0
How safe fr
o
m
crim
e do
y
ou consid
er
y
our
neighbor
ho
od to be
?
W
oul
d y
ou say
0.
21
E
x
tr
em
ely safe
25.
0
46.
2
Quite safe
65.
6
42.
3
Slightly
safe
6.
2
11.
5
Not at all s
a
fe
3.
1
0.
0
Social Issues
W
ould y
ou say that the people in y
our
neighbor
hoo
d ar
e:
0.
08
Very
phy
sically
active or
so
m
e
what phy
sically active
70.
0
87.
0
Not ver
y
phy
sically
active or
not
at a
ll physically active
30.0
13.0
W
ould y
ou say
m
o
st people in y
our
neighbor
ho
od can b
e
tr
usted?
0.
33
Yes 95.
8
100.
0
No 4.
2
0.
0
Thinking about how public
m
oney is
spent in recreation
facilities which of the following state
m
e
n
ts is
m
o
st
accurate
0.
16
Alway
s
gets its fair
shar
e or often gets fair
shar
e
63.
2
50.
0
Seldo
m
gets its fair
shar
e or never
gets its fair
shar
e
36.
8
50.
0
*
P
< 0.05
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
06
IJP
H
S V
o
l
.
5, No
. 2,
J
u
ne 2
0
1
6
:
14
2 – 1
5
0
14
6
Ol
de
r ad
ul
t
s
w
e
re si
g
n
i
f
i
cant
l
y
m
o
re l
i
k
el
y
t
o
re
p
o
rt
usi
n
g
pu
bl
i
c
rec
r
eat
i
on c
e
nt
er
s an
d
pr
o
g
ram
s
or
facilities at pl
aces of
worship com
p
ared
t
o
younge
r adults. In c
o
ntrast,
olde
r adults were less likely than
yo
un
g
e
r adu
lts to
repo
rt
u
s
i
n
g
p
r
i
v
ate or m
e
m
b
ersh
i
p
o
n
l
y recreation
a
l
facilities, sch
o
o
l
s th
at
were
op
en fo
r
p
u
b
lic recreatio
n activ
ities, an
d n
e
arb
y
wate
rways
for
ph
ysical activ
ity (Tab
le 3).
Tab
l
e
3
.
Use
of Co
mm
u
n
ity Reso
urces and
Facilities b
y
Ag
e
Co
mm
unity-
r
elat
e
d
survey ite
m
Younger
adults
(%)
Older
adults
(%)
P
Do you use any pri
v
ate or
m
e
m
b
e
r
sh
ip only rec
r
eational
facilities?
<0.01
*
Yes 70.
4
23.
1
No 29.
6
73.
1
Do y
ou use walkin
g tr
ails?
0.
98
Use 34.
4
34.
6
Do not Use
56.
3
53.
8
Do y
ou use public swim
m
i
ng pools
?
0.
31
Use 43.
8
30.
8
Do not Use
56.
3
65.
4
Do
yo
u
u
s
e p
u
b
lic recre
a
tio
n
cen
ters?
<0.01
*
Use 41.
4
80.
8
Do not Use
55.
2
19.
2
Do
yo
u
u
s
e b
i
cycl
e p
a
th
s o
r
b
i
k
e
trai
ls?
0
.
1
9
Use 27.
6
12.
0
Do not Use
72.
4
88.
0
Do y
ou use par
k
s,
play
gr
ounds,
or
spor
ts fields
?
0.
18
Use 56.
2
38.
5
Do not Use
43.
8
61.
5
Do y
ou use schools that are
open for public recreation a
c
tivities
?
<0.01
*
Use
55.
2
8.
0
Do not Use
44.
8
92.
0
Do y
ou use a shopping
m
a
ll for
phy
sical activity
/
walkin
g pr
ogr
am
?
0.
26
Use 0.
0
3.
8
Do not Use
100.
0
96.
2
Do you use physic
a
l activity progra
m
s and f
acilities at a
place of
worship?
0.02
*
Use 0.
0
16.
0
Do not Use
100.
0
84.
0
Do
yo
u
u
s
e n
earb
y
water
w
a
y
s f
o
r wat
e
r re
lated
p
h
y
sical
activ
ity?
<0.01
*
Use 53.
1
11.
5
Do not Use
46.
9
88.
5
*P < 0.
05
Fo
r t
h
e you
nger adu
lts, th
ere was a sign
ifican
t (p
<
0
.
0
5
)
relatio
n
s
h
i
p
b
e
tween
walk
ing (r = 0.36)
an
d b
e
i
n
g v
i
g
o
r
o
u
s
ly activ
e
(
r
= 0.50)
an
d the pr
esen
ce of
neig
hb
orh
ood
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
(
T
ab
le 4)
.
Tabl
e
4. B
i
vari
at
e cor
r
el
at
i
ons
bet
w
ee
n
nei
g
h
b
o
r
h
ood foc
u
s
varia
b
les and
physical activity m
easures
W
a
lking
M
oder
a
te exer
cise
Vigor
ous exer
cise
Older
Adults
Younger
Adults
Older
Adults
Younger
Adults
Older
Adults
Younger
Adults
Access
Neighborhoo
d side
walk av
ailability 0.18
0.36
*
-0
.3
5
*
-
0
.
23
0.
23
0.
50
*
Neighbor
hoo
d pub
lic r
e
cr
eation facility
availability
0.
11
-
0
.
21
0.
14
-
0
.
11
-
0
.
05
-
0
.
12
Charact
erist
ics
Pleasantness of neighbor
h
ood
for
walking
0.
07
-
0
.
09
-
0
.
06
-
0
.
21
-
0
.
22
0.
06
Sidewalk m
a
intenance
0.
16
-
0
.
02
0.
41
-
0
.
15 0.
24
0.
10
Pr
oblem
atic level
of unatten
d
ed dogs
0.
14
-
0
.
30
0.
21
-
0
.
09
-
0
.
02
-
0
.
05
Public recre
a
tion facility quality
-0
.35 -0.22
-0.34
0.
04 -0.37
-0.10
Street lighting quality
-0.14
0.44
*
-
0
.
01 0.
36
*
-
0
.
01
0.
38
*
Barriers
E
x
tent of
m
o
tor
i
zed tr
affic
-
0
.
16
0.
02
0.
03
0.
19
0.
08
0.
14
Safety
fr
o
m
cr
i
m
e
-
0
.
18
-
0
.
12
0.
40
*
-0
.0
8
-0
.2
0
-
0
.
14
Social Issues
Activity
level of other
s
in neighbor
ho
od
0.
16
-
0
.
27
-
0
.
13
0.
35
*
-
0
.
16
-
0
.
18
T
r
ustwor
thiness of neighbor
ho
od r
e
sident
s
0.
16
0.
16
-
0
.
28
0.
19
-
0
.
14
0.
20
Fair
ness of r
ecr
eation r
e
sour
ce allocation
0.
27
-
0
.
03
0.
18
0.
07
0.
21
-
0
.
32
*P < 0.
05
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
PH
S I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
0
6
Differen
ces
i
n
Ph
ysica
l
Activity
a
n
d
Bu
ilt
Enviro
nmen
t
Percep
tio
ns
b
e
tween
.... (Cha
rilao
s
Pap
ado
pou
lo
s)
14
7
The
quality of street lighting
was
also posi
tively related t
o
all types
of
activity a
m
ong younge
r
ad
u
lts. Fo
r y
o
u
n
g
e
r ad
u
lts,
m
o
d
e
rate ph
ysical activ
ity was related to
perceiv
i
ng
m
o
re activ
e ind
i
v
i
du
als in
t
h
ei
r nei
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
. F
o
r t
h
e
ol
de
r ad
u
lts, there was
a sign
ifican
t relation
s
hi
p
bet
w
ee
n sa
fet
y
fr
om
crim
e an
d
m
oderate exercise (r = 0.40). Stre
ngth trai
ning am
ong ol
der a
dults wa
s
positively related to the quality of
p
u
b
lic recreatio
n facilities (Tab
le 5).
The bi
variate analysis reveal
ed
a si
gni
fi
ca
nt
rel
a
t
i
ons
hi
p
bet
w
een t
h
e
use o
f
p
ubl
i
c
recreat
i
o
nal
facilities an
d
m
o
d
e
rate (r = 0
.
36), v
i
g
o
rou
s
ex
ercise (r
= 0
.
33) (Tab
le 6
)
and
strength
train
i
ng
(r = 0
.
33)
(Table
5) for y
o
unger adults.
Tab
l
e
5
.
Bi
v
a
ri
ate co
rrelatio
n
s
b
e
tween
u
s
e of co
mm
u
n
ity facilities an
d
stren
g
t
h
trai
n
i
ng
Str
e
ngth T
r
aining
Older
Adults
Younger
Adults
Public recre
a
tion facility quality
0.65
*
-
0
.
22
Do y
ou use public r
ecr
eation center
s
?
-
0
.
07
0.
33
*
*P < 0.05
Tab
l
e
6
.
Bi
v
a
ri
ate co
rrelatio
n
s
b
e
tw
een
u
s
e of
co
mm
u
n
ity facilities an
d
physical activ
ity
measu
r
es
W
a
lking
M
oder
a
te exer
cise
Vigor
ous exer
cise
Older
Adults
Younger
Adults
Older
Adults
Younger
Adults
Older
Adults
Younger
Adults
Do y
ou use any pr
ivate or
m
e
m
b
er
ship
only rec
r
eational facilities?
-
0
.
32 -
0
.
01
0.
35
*
-
0
.
10 0.
45
*
0.
16
Do y
ou use walkin
g tr
ails?
0.
11
0.
02
-
0
.
19
0.
01
-
0
.
14
-
0
.
12
Do y
ou use public swim
m
i
ng pools
?
-
0
.
01
0.
03
-
0
.
14
-
0
.
04
0.
44
*
-
0
.
18
Do y
ou use public r
ecr
eation center
s
?
-
0
.
06
-
0
.
15
-
0
.
22
0.
36
*
-
0
.
07
0.
33
*
Do y
ou use bicy
cle paths or
bike tr
ails
?
-
0
.
15
-
0
.
11
0.
02
-
0
.
11
-
0
.
20
-
0
.
19
Do y
ou use par
k
s,
play
gr
ounds,
or
spor
ts
f
i
eld
s
?
-
0
.
01
0.
07
-
0
.
25 -
0
.
04 -
0
.
13
0.
11
Do y
ou use schools that ar
e open for
public recreation a
c
tivities
?
0.
26
0.
32
*
0.
06
-
0
.
28
0.
19
-
0
.
27
Do y
ou use near
by waterway
s for
water
related
p
h
y
sical
ac
tiv
ity?
-
0
.
22
-
0
.
03 0.
41
*
-
0
.
06
0.
25
*
-
0
.
13
*P < 0.05
Th
ere
w
a
s also
a po
sitiv
e
relatio
n
b
e
tw
een yo
ung
er
ad
u
l
t
s
u
s
e
o
f
schools for
pu
b
lic
recreatio
n and
num
ber o
f
day
s
rep
o
rt
i
n
g wa
l
k
i
ng (
r
= 0.
3
2
)
. Fo
r ol
der ad
ul
t
s
, t
h
ere was
a si
gni
fi
cant
r
e
l
a
t
i
onshi
p bet
w
een
bot
h m
oderat
e
(r
=
0.
41
) a
n
d
vi
g
o
r
o
us e
x
erci
se (
r
=
0.
2
5
) a
n
d
use
of
near
by
w
a
t
e
rw
ay
s and
a si
gn
i
f
i
cant
rel
a
t
i
ons
hi
p be
t
w
een vi
g
o
r
o
u
s
exerci
se
a
nd t
h
e
use of p
ubl
i
c
swi
m
m
i
ng
p
ool
s (r
= 0.
44
).
Am
ong ol
der adul
t
s
,
t
h
ere
was al
so
a si
gni
fi
ca
nt
r
e
l
a
t
i
onshi
p bet
w
een
b
o
t
h
m
oderat
e
(
r
=
0.
3
5
) a
n
d vi
go
ro
u
s
exerci
se
(r =
0.
45
)
an
d
th
e
u
s
e of p
r
iv
ate or m
e
m
b
ersh
ip
on
ly recreatio
n
facilit
ies. Fin
a
lly, fo
r th
e
o
l
d
e
r ad
u
lts th
ere
was a
sig
n
i
fican
t
inverse
relatio
n
s
h
i
p
b
e
tween
si
d
e
walk
av
ailab
ility an
d
m
o
d
e
rate ex
ercise.
3.
2.
Discussion
Bo
th
youn
g
an
d
o
l
d
e
r ad
u
l
t
s
in
th
e sam
e
rural/sm
a
ll to
wn
co
mm
u
n
ity repo
rt gen
e
rally p
o
s
itiv
e
perce
p
t
i
o
ns o
f
t
h
ei
r com
m
uni
t
y
and
nei
g
hb
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
A
hi
g
h
er
perce
n
t
a
ge o
f
ol
der i
ndi
vi
d
u
al
s,
ho
weve
r,
p
e
rcei
v
e
d lower sid
e
walk availab
ility. Old
e
r ad
u
lts
were
also
less lik
ely
to
repo
rt
h
a
v
i
n
g
pub
lic recreatio
n
facilities av
aila
b
l
e in
th
eir n
e
i
g
hbo
rho
o
d
.
Alth
ou
gh
wh
en
su
ch
facilities
were p
r
esen
t, o
l
d
e
r
adu
lts
p
e
rceiv
e
d
th
em
as in
b
e
tter con
d
ition
th
an
t
h
eir young
er cou
n
t
er
p
a
rts an
d
reporting
using
pub
lic recreation
facilit
ies,
i
n
cl
udi
ng
pl
ac
es of
w
o
rs
hi
p,
at
a hi
g
h
er
rat
e
t
h
an y
o
u
n
g
er
adul
t
s
.
I
n
co
nt
rast
, y
o
u
n
g
e
r
a
dul
t
s
r
e
p
o
rt
e
d
usi
n
g
scho
o
l
s, priv
at
e facilities, and n
e
arb
y
waterways m
o
re oft
e
n
for
p
h
y
sical
activ
ity th
an
old
e
r adu
lts.
Ph
ysical activ
ity d
eclin
es with
ag
e [1
],[4
], b
u
t
in
th
is stu
d
y
th
ere was n
o
sign
ifican
t d
i
fferen
ce
bet
w
ee
n
ol
de
r
an
d y
o
u
n
g
e
r
adul
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
num
ber
of
da
y
s
per
wee
k
s
p
ent
wal
k
i
n
g
and
d
o
i
n
g m
oderat
e
in
ten
s
ity activ
ities. Howev
e
r, yo
ung
er adults en
g
a
g
e
d
i
n
m
o
re stren
g
t
h
train
i
n
g
and v
i
go
rou
s
activ
ities.
Sev
e
ral stu
d
i
es h
a
v
e
shown
th
e po
sitiv
e effects of stre
n
g
th
train
i
ng
o
n
fun
c
tion
a
l activ
ity o
f
o
l
d
e
r ad
u
l
t
s
[1]
,
[2
4]
,[
2
5
]
.
Thi
s
gr
o
u
p
o
f
ol
de
r a
d
ul
t
s
was s
p
e
ndi
ng
l
e
ss t
h
an
t
w
o
day
s
per
wee
k
o
n
st
ren
g
t
h
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
activ
ities. On
e p
o
ssi
b
l
e exp
l
an
atio
n
is th
e
p
e
rcep
tion
th
at
streng
th
train
i
n
g
requ
ires t
h
e u
s
e of a private o
r
me
m
b
ersh
ip on
ly clu
b
s.
In
this stu
d
y
, even th
oug
h th
er
e
was a sign
ifican
t relatio
ns
hi
p b
e
t
w
een use
o
f
pri
v
at
e
o
r
m
e
m
b
ersh
ip o
n
l
y recreation
facilities an
d v
i
go
rou
s
ex
ercise for th
e
o
l
der adu
lts,
7
6
%
o
f
t
h
em
d
i
d
no
t use
an
y priv
ate
o
r
m
e
m
b
ersh
ip
o
n
l
y recrea
tion
a
l facilities. In
co
n
t
rast, th
e yo
ung
er adu
lts were m
o
re lik
ely to
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
06
IJP
H
S V
o
l
.
5, No
. 2,
J
u
ne 2
0
1
6
:
14
2 – 1
5
0
14
8
have a
nd
use
pri
v
ate or m
e
m
b
ership only recreatio
nal facilities, public schools, and nearby waterways
com
p
ared t
o
older adults.
Despite the a
g
e-base
d diffe
r
ence in stre
ngth an
d
vi
g
o
r
ous e
x
erci
se t
h
ere
was n
o
si
gni
fi
ca
nt
relatio
n
s
h
i
p
b
e
tween
th
e
u
s
e
o
f
m
e
m
b
ersh
ip o
n
l
y facilities
an
d
v
i
go
rou
s
an
d
streng
th
rel
a
ted
ex
ercise
fo
r th
e
yo
un
g
e
r p
a
rticip
an
ts. Th
ere were sign
ifican
t
asso
ciatio
ns
b
e
tween
th
e u
s
e o
f
p
u
b
lic
recreatio
n
a
l
facilitie
s
and
th
e n
u
m
b
e
r of d
a
ys p
a
rticip
at
in
g
in
stren
g
t
h
,
m
o
d
e
rate, and v
i
g
o
rou
s
activities. Bo
o
t
h
et al. [7
] in
a g
r
ou
p
o
f
olde
r adults found that a
higher proportion of active indivi
duals repor
ted having access to a recreation ce
nter,
a cy
cl
e
t
r
ack, a gol
f co
ur
se, a par
k
, an
d a swi
m
m
i
ng pool
. I
n
t
h
i
s
st
udy
, a hi
g
h
er p
r
op
ort
i
on
of ol
der ad
u
l
t
use
p
u
b
lic recreatio
n
a
l
facilities
co
m
p
ared
t
o
yo
ung
er adu
lts. In
add
itio
n, fo
r t
h
e
o
l
d
e
r adu
lts th
ere was
a
si
gni
fi
ca
nt
ass
o
ci
at
i
o
n
bet
w
e
e
n t
h
e
num
ber
o
f
day
s
e
nga
gi
n
g
i
n
vi
g
o
r
o
us act
i
v
i
t
y
a
n
d
pu
bl
i
c
s
w
i
m
m
i
ng
po
ol
s.
The m
a
jori
t
y
of
ol
de
r a
n
d
y
o
u
nge
r a
dul
t
s
pe
rcei
ve
d t
h
ei
r
nei
g
hb
o
r
ho
o
d
s as “
q
ui
t
e
safe”
or
“extrem
ely safe.” Bivariate a
n
alysis indicat
ed a
signif
icant relatio
n
s
h
i
p
b
e
tween
safety fro
m
cri
m
e an
d th
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
a
y
s
th
at o
l
d
e
r adu
lts p
a
rticip
ated
in
m
o
d
e
rate in
ten
s
ity activ
ities. Th
is fi
n
d
i
n
g
is i
n
ag
reemen
t
with Brownson et al. [26]. In their
study, the researc
h
ers
reported that
p
h
y
sical activ
ity rates were h
i
gh
er
am
ong
ol
der
a
dul
t
s
t
h
at
pe
rce
i
ve t
h
ei
r
nei
g
h
b
o
r
ho
o
d
s t
o
be
safe.
Th
ese
ob
serv
at
io
n
s
sugg
est that yo
un
g
e
r ad
ults were m
o
re
lik
ely to
eng
a
ge in
streng
th
train
i
n
g
and
v
i
go
rou
s
ex
ercise an
d
p
e
rform th
ese activ
it
ies in
n
earb
y
facilities (e.g
.
p
r
i
v
ate clu
b
s
,
scho
o
l
s
o
p
e
n
t
o
th
e
p
u
b
lic, etc). On
th
e con
t
rary,
activ
e o
l
d
e
r adu
lts u
s
e p
u
b
lic recreation
a
l facilities
(e.g
. sen
i
or cen
ters). Th
ere
was a si
gni
fi
cant
associ
at
i
o
n bet
w
ee
n t
h
e
use of
pu
bl
i
c
swi
m
m
i
ng po
ol
s an
d vi
g
o
r
o
us act
i
v
i
t
y
i
n
t
h
i
s
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
on. T
h
ere was al
s
o
a si
gni
fi
ca
nt
i
n
verse
rel
a
t
i
ons
hi
p
bet
w
ee
n p
r
esence o
f
si
de
wal
k
s a
nd m
oderat
e
-
in
ten
s
ity ex
ercise. It is p
o
s
sib
l
e th
at th
e o
l
d
e
r adu
lts were
n
o
t
en
g
a
g
i
ng
in
m
o
d
e
rate ex
ercise in
th
ei
r
nei
g
hb
o
r
h
o
ods
d
u
e t
o
t
h
e l
a
c
k
o
f
si
de
wal
k
s [
27]
,
[
2
8
]
.
B
o
t
h
g
r
ou
ps,
ol
de
r an
d y
o
u
nge
r,
rep
o
rt
e
d
t
h
at
t
h
ei
r nei
g
hb
o
r
h
o
ods
wer
e
“pl
easant
”
o
r
“som
ewhat
pleasant” as
a
place to
wal
k
. The
follow-up a
n
alysis i
ndi
cated that the
olde
r adu
lts c
o
m
p
ared t
o
younge
r
ad
u
lts
were mo
re lik
ely to
rep
o
rt th
at t
h
ei
r
n
e
igh
b
o
r
hood was very
pl
easant. The
r
e was
als
o
a
significant
d
i
fferen
ce b
e
t
w
een
y
o
ung
er
an
d
o
l
d
e
r in
their p
e
rcep
tio
n
o
f
th
e con
d
ition
of th
e pub
lic recreation
a
l facilities.
Th
e m
a
j
o
rity of th
e
o
l
d
e
r adults rated
tho
s
e
facilities as
eit
h
er ex
cellen
t
(4
5.5%)
o
r
go
od
(45
.
5
%
), whereas
am
ong y
o
unge
r
adults, 44%
of them
report
ed that the
condition
of the
re
creational facil
ities were good and
anot
her
4
0
%
o
f
t
h
em
rep
o
rt
e
d
t
h
at
t
h
e c
o
nd
i
t
i
on wa
s
fai
r
.
One
p
o
ssi
bl
e e
xpl
a
n
at
i
o
n
of t
h
e
di
ffe
re
nce i
s
t
h
at
a
h
i
gh
er p
e
rcen
t
a
g
e
o
f
o
l
d
e
r adu
lts u
s
e th
ese facilities th
an
yo
ung
er adu
lts.
A
h
i
g
h
e
r
p
e
r
c
en
tag
e
o
f
young
er
ad
u
lts r
e
por
ted
sid
e
w
a
lks in
th
eir
n
e
i
g
hb
orh
ood
s and
t
h
e pr
esen
ce
o
f
sid
e
walk
s
was si
g
n
i
ficantly asso
ciated
with
walk
ing
an
d v
i
g
o
rou
s
activ
ity in
th
is po
pu
latio
n. Fo
r t
h
e
yo
un
g
e
r
gr
oup, th
er
e
w
a
s a
sig
n
i
f
i
can
t
r
e
latio
n
s
h
i
p
b
e
tw
een
st
r
eet lig
h
t
i
n
g an
d w
a
l
k
ing
and
a
sign
ifican
t
relatio
n
s
h
i
p
b
e
tween
p
e
op
le th
at are activ
e in
th
e n
e
ig
hbo
rho
o
d
and
mo
d
e
rate in
ten
s
i
t
y ex
ercise. Th
ese
resu
lts ind
i
cate th
at th
e o
l
der adu
lts are
m
o
re lik
ely
to
en
g
a
g
e
in
p
hysical activ
it
y
in
p
u
b
lic recreatio
n
a
l
facilities th
at p
e
rceiv
e
th
em
t
o
b
e
go
od
o
r
ex
cellen
t
, wh
ereas yo
un
ger ad
ults are
m
o
re likely to
u
s
e streets th
at
have si
dewal
k
s. These res
u
l
t
s
al
so sug
g
est
t
h
at
y
oun
ge
r
adults are affec
t
ed
m
o
re by
social issues and they
ten
d
t
o
exercise at later ti
m
e
s o
f
th
e
d
a
y.
Th
ese
resu
lts
are no
t in
agree
m
en
t with
Sallis et al. [6
]. In
th
ei
r
stu
d
y
, sim
i
lar
t
o
th
is stu
d
y
’
s
ag
e gr
oup
o
f
you
ng
adu
lts
, th
ey fo
und
th
at walk
in
g
wa
s not
associated wit
h
any
envi
ronm
ental m
easures.
One possible
explanation for th
e differe
n
ce
between the t
w
o st
udies
is that the
p
a
rticip
an
ts in
th
e Sallis
et al
[
6
]
st
u
d
y
we
r
e
resi
de
nt
s
o
f
an
ur
ba
n e
nvi
r
onm
ent
w
h
ere
a
s t
h
e
pa
rt
i
c
i
p
ant
s
i
n
th
is stud
y w
e
re r
e
sid
i
n
g
in
a
r
u
r
a
l/sm
a
ll to
w
n
.
Th
e m
a
j
o
r
ity o
f
t
h
e youn
ger
ad
u
lts in th
i
s
stud
y r
e
p
o
r
t
ed
th
at
they
pe
rceive
their neighborhood
as
either quite safe
or
extrem
ely sa
fe an
d a
n
o
v
er
w
h
el
m
i
ng m
a
jo
r
i
t
y
of
t
h
em
(95.
8%
) r
e
po
rt
ed
t
h
at
pe
opl
e i
n
t
h
ei
r
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
ho
o
d
s ca
n
be t
r
ust
e
d
.
Th
er
e ar
e sever
a
l li
m
i
tatio
n
s
in
th
is study. Th
e sam
p
le size is s
m
al
l, h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
it rep
r
esen
t an
appropriate pe
rcenta
ge of the
entire
comm
unity. In a
ddition, the
researc
h
er
s use
d
face to face inte
rvie
ws to
collect data. Face to
face int
e
rvie
ws a
r
e more tim
e cons
um
ing and m
o
re e
xpe
nsive
to c
o
nduct.
Anothe
r
li
mitatio
n
is t
h
at th
e respond
ers
w
e
re asked
abou
t th
eir p
e
rcep
tion
of th
e bu
ilt en
v
i
ron
m
en
t an
d
ph
ysical
activ
ity was self reported
.
Th
ere ar
e a
n
u
m
b
er of st
ud
i
e
s t
h
at
has u
s
ed pe
rcei
ve
d
envi
ro
nm
ent
and sel
f
rep
o
rt
e
d
p
h
y
s
i
cal
act
i
v
i
t
y
as
m
e
t
hods t
o
det
e
rm
i
n
e t
h
e associ
at
i
on
bet
w
e
e
n t
h
e t
w
o
[1
2
]
,[2
9
]
.
I
n
t
h
i
s
st
udy
,
face to face int
e
rvie
ws we
re conducted
whic
h m
a
y eli
m
inat
e false reports.
In addition, the interviewe
rs
were
ab
le to
rep
eat
an
d
clarify
state
m
en
ts th
at th
e p
a
rticipan
ts d
i
d
no
t
u
n
d
e
rstand
. Fi
n
a
lly, th
e sam
p
l
i
n
g
meth
o
d
o
l
og
y
an
d th
e sam
p
l
e
size m
a
y li
mit g
e
n
e
ralizab
ility. Du
e to
th
e cro
s
s-sectio
n
a
l
d
e
si
g
n
, cau
s
ality
can
no
t b
e
d
e
termin
ed
.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
PH
S I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
0
6
Differen
ces
i
n
Ph
ysica
l
Activity
a
n
d
Bu
ilt
Enviro
nmen
t
Percep
tio
ns
b
e
tween
.... (Cha
rilao
s
Pap
ado
pou
lo
s)
14
9
4.
CO
NCL
USI
O
N
Th
e aim o
f
this stu
d
y
was to
add
in
th
e growin
g
bod
y of literatu
re investig
atin
g
th
e
asso
ciatio
n
b
e
tween
ou
r
bu
ilt en
v
i
ron
m
e
n
t and
ph
ysical activ
ity. Th
e stu
d
y
co
m
p
ared
a group
of o
l
d
e
r and
you
ng
er
in
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
ls
resid
i
n
g
i
n
a rural/s
m
a
ll
to
wn
commu
n
ity an
d
fo
und
th
at bo
th
g
r
ou
p
s
h
a
v
e
positiv
e p
e
rcep
tio
n
s
o
f
t
h
ei
r nei
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
an
d com
m
uni
t
y
. The ol
der i
n
di
vi
du
al
s, h
o
we
ver
,
we
r
e
enga
gi
n
g
i
n
l
e
ss day
s
pe
r w
eek i
n
streng
th
and
vig
o
rou
s
activ
ity an
d
were less lik
ely to
use private clubs, and nearby
waterways.
On the
co
n
t
rary, young
er ad
u
lts w
e
re less lik
ely to
u
s
e pu
b
lic
recreatio
n
a
l facilities an
d
p
e
rceiv
e
th
e cond
itio
n
s
of
th
o
s
e
facilities
as eith
er fair o
r
p
o
o
r
. Th
ere was an
asso
ciatio
n
b
e
tween
u
s
e o
f
wat
e
rways
an
d
pu
b
lic
sw
immin
g
pools an
d m
o
d
e
rat
e
and
v
i
go
ro
us ex
ercise. Th
es
e resu
lts sugg
est p
r
esen
ces of pu
b
lic facilitie
s th
at
of
fer
a
vari
et
y
o
f
pr
o
g
ram
s
are i
m
port
a
nt
t
o
e
nga
ge
ol
der
ad
ul
t
i
n
vi
g
o
r
ous
e
x
erci
se a
n
d
st
re
ngt
h t
r
a
i
ni
n
g
.
Th
ese resu
lts also
sugg
est th
at city o
f
f
i
cials n
eed
t
o
m
a
in
ta
in
th
e n
e
i
g
hbor
hoo
d
s
i
n
or
d
e
r
fo
r
th
e
o
l
d
e
r
ad
u
lts
to
wal
k
m
o
re fo
r recreatio
n an
d tr
an
spor
tatio
n.
ACKNOWLE
DGE
M
ENTS
The a
u
t
h
o
r
s
wo
ul
d
l
i
k
e t
o
ack
n
o
wl
e
dge
D
r
. M
e
l
ody
M
a
dl
em
and
Dr.
B
r
i
a
n S
a
e
l
ens
fo
r t
h
ei
r
statistical an
d
ed
ito
rial assist
an
ce.
Th
e au
t
h
o
r
s wou
l
d
lik
e
to
th
an
k all th
e p
a
rticip
an
ts i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d in
t
h
is stu
d
y
.
REFERE
NC
ES
[1]
Nelson M. E.,
et al.
, "Ph
y
si
cal
act
ivit
y and pub
lic he
alth in old
e
r adults: re
com
m
e
ndation from
the Am
erican
College of S
port
s
M
e
dicine and
t
h
e Am
erican He
art As
s
o
ciation
,
"
MedSciSports Exerc
, vo
l/issue:
39(8), pp. 1435–
45, 2007
.
[2]
Abbott R. D.,
et al.
, "Walking and dementia in ph
y
s
ic
all
y
c
a
pa
ble eld
e
rl
y
m
e
n
,
"
JAMA,
vol/issue: 292(12), pp.
1447–53, 2004
.
[3]
"Prevalence of regular ph
y
s
ical
activit
y
among adults--United
States, 2001 and 2
005,"
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly
Rep.
, vo
l/issue:
56(46), pp
. 1209
–12, 2007
.
[4]
Troiano R. P.,
et al.
, "P
h
y
s
i
ca
l act
ivit
y in th
e United S
t
at
es
m
eas
ured b
y
ac
ce
ler
o
m
e
ter,"
Med S
c
i Sports Exerc.,
vol/issue: 40(1), pp.
181–8
,
2008
.
[5]
Products, "Data Br
iefs,"
vol. 168
, 2014. [
c
ited 2016
Feb 15]
. Availab
l
e fro
m:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/d
ata/d
a
tabriefs/db168.htm
[6]
Sallis J. F.,
et a
l
.
, "Assessing perceived ph
y
s
ical env
i
ronmental va
ri
ables th
at
m
a
y
inf
l
uenc
e p
h
y
sic
a
l
act
ivit
y,
"
ResQExercSport
, vol/issue: 68(4)
, pp
. 345–51
, 19
97.
[7]
Booth M. L.,
et al.
,
"Social-
cog
n
itive
and p
e
rce
i
ved env
i
ronm
ent infl
u
e
nces associat
ed
with
ph
ysic
al act
ivit
y i
n
older Australian
s,"
Pr
evM
ed
, vol/issue: 31(1)
, pp
. 15–22, 2000.
[8]
Saelens B.
E
.
&
Hand
y
S.
L.
, "B
uilt
environm
ent
correl
a
t
e
s of wa
lking:
a rev
i
ew,"
Med Sci Sports
Exerc.
, vo
l/issue
:
40(7), pp
. S550–
66, 2008
.
[9]
M
i
chae
l Y.
,
et al.
, "Measuring
the
influ
e
nce o
f
built neighbor
hood
environments on walking
in older
adu
lts,"
JAging
PhysAct,
vol/issue: 14(3)
, pp. 302–12, 200
6.
[10]
King W. C.,
et al.
, "Objectiv
e
measures of nei
ghborhood envir
onment and ph
y
s
ical
activ
ity
in
older women,"
AmJPr
evM
ed,
v
o
l/issue: 2
8
(5), p
p
. 461–9
, 2005
.
[11]
Lees
E
.,
et al.
, "Environmental changes
to increase
ph
y
s
ical
ac
tivity
: per
cep
tions
of older urban
ethnic-minor
ity
women,
"
JAging
PhysAct,
vol/issue: 15(4)
, pp
. 42
5–38, 2007
.
[12]
S
h
igem
ats
u
R.,
et al.
, "Age differ
e
nces in th
e relation of pe
rceived
neighborhood en
vironment to walking,"
Med S
c
i
Sports Exerc,
vo
l/issue: 41
(2), pp
. 314–21
, 2009
.
[13]
King D., "Neigh
borhood and
ind
i
vidual factors in
activity
in
older
adults: results fr
om
the neighbor
hood and sen
i
or
heal
th s
t
ud
y,"
JAging Ph
ysAct,
vo
l/issue: 16
(2), pp
. 144–70
, 2008
.
[14]
W
ilcox S.,
et al.
,
"De
t
ermi
na
nt
s
of l
e
i
s
ure
ti
me
phy
si
ca
l
a
c
t
i
v
ity
in
rural
com
p
are
d
with urban
old
e
r and
ethn
ic
all
y
diverse women
in the United States,"
JEpidemio
l
Community Health,
vo
l/issue: 54(
9), pp
. 667–72
,
2000.
[15]
Pa
rks S.
E
.
,
et
al
.
, "Differen
tial
correlates of
ph
y
s
ical
activit
y
in
urban and
rural adults of v
a
riou
s socioeconomic
backgrounds in
the United States,"
JEpid
e
miolCo
mmunity Health,
vol/issue: 57(1)
, pp. 29–35, 2003
.
[16]
Washington State Departmen
t
of
Health
, "Guidelines for Using Rural/Urban
C
l
assifications," 2009
. [cited 2009 J
a
n
28]
. Availab
l
e fr
om: http://www.doh.wa.
gov/D
a
ta/Guidelines/Ru
r
alUrban.h
t
m.
[17]
Picavet H. S., "National health survey
s b
y
mail or home interview: effects on res
ponse,"
J Epide
m
iol Community
Health,
vol/issue: 55(6), pp. 408–
13, 2001
.
[18]
S
m
eeth L.,
et al.
, "Randomised comparison of three methods of ad
ministering a s
c
reen
ing questio
nnaire
to eld
e
rly
people: find
ings from the MRC
trial
of
the a
sse
ssme
n
t a
nd ma
nagement of o
l
der
people in
the co
mmunity
,"
BM
J
,
vol/issue:
323(7
326), pp
. 1403–
7, 2001
.
[19]
SIP 4-99 Research Group, "En
v
ironmental Sup
ports for
Phy
s
ical Activ
ity
Questionna
ir
e," Prevention Research
Center
, Norman
J. Arnold Schoo
l of Public He
alth
, University
of
South Caro
lina, 2
002.
[20]
Kirtland K
.
A.
,
et a
l
., "Envir
onmental meas
ures of ph
y
s
ical activ
ity
supp
orts: perception
versus reality
,
"
AmJPr
evM
ed,
v
o
l/issue: 2
4
(4), p
p
. 323–31
, 2003
.
[21]
Brownson R. C.,
et al.
, "Measuring the environm
ent for friendlin
ess to
ward ph
y
s
i
cal a
c
t
i
vit
y
:
a co
m
p
aris
on of the
reliability
of
3
q
u
estionnaires,"
AmJPublic Hea
lth
,
vol/issue: 94(3)
, pp
. 473–83
, 20
04.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
06
IJP
H
S V
o
l
.
5, No
. 2,
J
u
ne 2
0
1
6
:
14
2 – 1
5
0
15
0
[22]
Craig C. L.,
et a
l
.
, "Intern
a
tion
a
l
ph
y
s
i
cal
activi
t
y
qu
estionnaire:
12-countr
y
r
e
li
abilit
y
and v
a
lid
it
y
,
"
MedSciSports
Exer
c
, vo
l/issue: 35(8), pp. 1381
–95, 2003
.
[23]
Kolbe-Alexand
e
r T.
L
.,
et al.
, "
C
omparison of two methods of
measuring
ph
y
s
ical activity
in
South African old
e
r
adults,"
JAg
i
ng Phys
Ac
t,
vol/issue: 14(1)
, pp
. 98
–114, 2006
.
[24]
Brandon L. J.,
et al.
, "R
esistive training
and
long
-ter
m function in older
adults,"
JAging PhysAct,
vol/issue: 12(1)
,
pp. 10–28
, 2004
.
[25]
DiF
r
ancis
c
o-D. J
.,
et al.
, "Co
m
parison of once-week
ly
and
twice-week
ly
strength tr
aining
in older
adults,"
BrJSports Med
,
vol/issue: 41(1), pp.
19–22
,
2007
.
[26]
Brownson R. C.,
et al.
, "Prom
o
ting ph
y
s
ica
l
a
c
ti
vit
y
in ru
ral
co
m
m
un
ities: walk
ing tra
il
ac
cess,
use, and
effe
cts,
"
Am J
Prev
Med
,
vol/issue: 18(3), pp.
235–41
,
200
0.
[27]
Hong T. & Farley
T. A., "Urban
reside
nts’ prior
i
ties for neighbor
hood featur
es
. A
survey
of New
Orleans residen
t
s
after
Hurric
a
ne
Katrina
,
"
Am
J
P
r
ev Med
,
vo
l/iss
u
e: 34(4)
, pp
. 35
3–6, 2008
.
[28]
Reed J. & Ainsworth B., "Perceptions of envir
onmental
supports on the phy
sical activit
y
beh
a
v
i
ors of university
men and women
:
a preliminar
y
investigation,"
J
Am Coll
Health
,
vol/issue: 56(2), pp.
199–204
,
20
07.
[29]
Ogilvie D.
,
et al.
, "Personal and
environm
enta
l c
o
rrela
tes of ac
tiv
e tr
avel and ph
ysical activ
ity
in
a deprived urb
a
n
population
,
"
In
t
J B
e
hav
Nutr Ph
ys Ac
t,
vol. 5
,
pp
. 43
, 2008
.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.