Next Article in Journal
Evolutionary Characteristics and Trade-Offs’ Development of Social–Ecological Production Landscapes in the Loess Plateau Region from a Resilience Point of View: A Case Study in Mizhi County, China
Next Article in Special Issue
Built Environment and Childhood Weight Status: A Multi-Level Study Using Population-Based Data in the City of Hannover, Germany
Previous Article in Journal
Association between Cardiovascular Mortality and Economic Development: A Spatio-Temporal Study for Prefectures in Japan
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Brief Report

Environmental Mismatch: Do Associations between the Built Environment and Physical Activity among Youth Depend on Concordance with Perceptions?

1
Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong 3220, Australia
2
Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne 3000, Australia
3
Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Carlton 3010, Australia
4
The Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University, Melbourne 3000, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(4), 1309; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17041309
Submission received: 2 January 2020 / Revised: 12 February 2020 / Accepted: 12 February 2020 / Published: 18 February 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Environmental Supports and Physical Activity among Youth)

Abstract

:
Without accurate awareness of features within the built environment, the availability of a supportive built environment alone may not be sufficient to influence physical activity levels. We examined the moderating effects of concordance/discordance between selected objective and perceived built environment features in the relationship between objective built environment features and physical activity. Cross-sectional data from 465 youth aged 12–20 years from 18 schools in Melbourne, Australia were used. The relationship between trails and physical activity differed by concordance/discordance. There were positive relationships among those with concordant perceptions, but no significant differences for those with discordant perceptions. At least for trails, environmental interventions designed to enhance physical activity may be less effective if efforts are not made to enhance individuals’ awareness of their environment.

1. Introduction

Built environments that promote active living are considered important for improving levels of physical activity [1,2]. However, the availability of a supportive built environment alone may not be sufficient to influence PA levels, and individuals’ perceptions of the built environment often vary from the objectively measured environment [3]. Studies in adults have reported that discordance between the perceived and actual built environment (e.g., adults perceiving their neighbourhoods to be less walkable than reality) is common and associated with lower levels of physical activity [4,5,6].
According to the social ecological framework, the built environment-physical activity relationship may depend on individual-level psychosocial factors [7]. However, to date no studies have examined how individuals’ awareness of the built environment influence the relationship between the actual built environment and physical activity. To better understand the relationship between the built environment and physical activity, both objective built environment attributes (environmental level) and concordance between perceptions and actual built environment attributes (individual level) should be considered.
In particular, adolescents’ concordant (accurate) and discordant (inaccurate) perceptions of the built environment have not been well explored and the way in which perceptions influence associations between the actual built environment and physical activity is not understood. Adolescence is a period when physical activity levels decline steeply when transitioning from childhood [8], and is also a period that is characterised by social changes, including a shift in autonomy away from family to peer interactions [9]. Therefore, the relative importance of built environment features and the mechanisms through which they influence physical activity may not be the same as in adults.
This study aimed to address this gap by examining whether concordance/discordance between perceived and objective built environment features moderated the relationship between selected objective built environment features and physical activity among adolescents. We hypothesised that the positive effects of objective built environment features on physical activity would be stronger among those with concordance between the perceived and objectively measured built environment.

2. Methods

Data collected between August 2014 and December 2015 as part of the NEighbourhood Activity in Youth (NEArbY) study conducted among adolescents living in Melbourne, Australia were used for this study. NEArbY is part of the multi-country IPEN Adolescent project (International Physical Activity and the Environment Network Adolescent; http://www.ipenproject.org/IPEN_adolescent.html). Ethical clearance was obtained from relevant education institutions.
Details about school and participant recruitment across high/low walkability [10] and income areas at statistical area level 1 (SA1) [11] have been published elsewhere [12]. Briefly, 18 of the 137 schools approached agreed to participate. Interested students in year levels nominated by the school received a recruitment package with information about the study, a consent form and parent survey. Written parental consent and student assent were obtained from 528 participants. Of these, 472 wore an accelerometer, 468 students completed an online survey and 287 parents also completed a survey. The residential addresses of 465 students were geocoded.

3. Measures

3.1. Physical Activity

Physical activity was measured using the ActiGraph GT3X+ (ActiGraph, Pensacola, FL, USA) accelerometer, a valid and reliable instrument for measuring physical activity in youth [13]. Participants were asked to wear the monitor on the hip during waking hours for eight consecutive days. Duration of moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA), defined as ≥4 METS/min, was determined using age-appropriate cut-points [14]. On weekdays, MVPA outside of school hours (before school, after school, and evenings [>6 pm]) was computed for days on which participants had ≥50% wear time [15] between the end of school to 6 pm (an indicator of a ‘valid’ day) and averaged for those with at least three valid weekdays. School hours were not considered on weekdays, as it is unlikely that the residential neighbourhood environment influenced physical activity during this time. On weekend days, total duration of MVPA was computed for those with ≥7 h of wear time and averaged across weekend days (min/day).

3.2. Age and Sex

Age (years) and sex were self-reported. Missing data on adolescent age were supplemented from responses in the parent survey (n = 7).

3.3. Neighbourhood Disadvantage

Neighbourhood disadvantage score was obtained from the Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas based on the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage [16] at the SA1 level.

3.4. Perceived Built Environment Features

Perceived built environment features were measured using specific items from a modified scale from the Neighbourhood Environment Walkability Scale-Youth (NEWS-Y) [17]. Participants were asked how long it would take them to walk from their home to the nearest park, recreation facility (indoor recreation centre, swimming pool, basketball court, soccer field or skate park) and walking/hiking/biking trails. Response options were (1) 1–5 min, (2) 6–10 min, (3) 11–20 min, (4) 21–30 min, (5) 31 min and above or (5) do not know. Two variables were created for each destination: (1) feature within 1–5 min walk (present vs. absent) and (2) feature within 1–5 or 6–10 min walk (present vs. absent).

3.5. Objectively Measured Built Environment

IPEN Geographic Information Systems (GIS) templates were used to guide the computation of objective indicators of the built environment [18]. Home addresses were geocoded using ESRI ArcGIS 10.3. Street network buffers of 500 m and 1 km were created around each residential address using street centreline data sourced from VicMap Transport [19]. Three variables that were comparable to the perceived built environment features were computed within each of these buffers and each were dichotomised as present or absent:
Parks: Parcel count of parks within or intersecting with each buffer were calculated. Parks included protected areas, natural and semi natural areas, parkland and gardens [20,21].
Recreation facilities: Parcel count of publicly-funded recreational facilities (e.g., soccer fields, basketball courts) compiled from a range of sources [20,21,22].
Trails: Count of trails within or intersecting with each buffer were identified from State Government of Victoria: Vicmap Transport [19].

3.6. Concordance/Discordance of Perceived and Objective Built Environment Variables

An average self-paced casual walk among 13–15 and 16–18 year olds corresponds to 4.2 and 4.4 METS, respectively [23]. Based on the PA compendium for youth [24], the closest match for walking pace at this intensity is three miles per hour (MPH). At a pace of 3MPH, a 5-min walk corresponds to approximately 400 m, and a 10-min walk to 800 m. Therefore, the perceived built environment within a 1–5 min walk (survey) most closely matches the objective built environment measured with a 500 m buffer and the perceived built environment within a 6–10 min walk most closely matches the 1 km buffer.
For each feature and within each buffer size, ‘’discordance’’ variables were created by comparing perceived and objective data on the presence or absence of a specific feature and coding them as either ‘concordant’ (coded as 0) or ‘discordant’ (coded as 1). Data were coded as ‘concordant’ if the feature was coded as ‘’present’’ in both (e.g., participant reported a park within a 1–5 min walk and ≥1 park was present within the 500 m GIS buffer) or ‘’absent’’ in both (e.g., participant reported no parks within a 1–5 min walk and no parks were present within the 500 m GIS buffer). Data were coded as ‘discordant’ when the perceived absence/presence of the feature did not correspond to the objectively measured absence/presence within the relevant GIS buffer. This included when the feature was perceived to be closer or further than actual.

4. Statistical Analyses

Multilevel logistic regression models were conducted to examine characteristics (age, sex and neighbourhood disadvantage) associated with being concordant/discordant. Separate multilevel linear mixed models were used to examine associations between 500 m and 1 km objectively measured built environment features and MVPA on weekdays and weekend days (min/day). School ID and neighbourhood SA1s were entered as random effect variables to account for cross-classified clustering. Moderating effects of the concordant/discordant variables on associations between the built environment and MVPA were estimated by adding a two-way interaction term to the main effects for each built environment exposure separately. When significant moderation was found, separate effects of the built environment and MVPA were examined for participants with concordant and discordant environmental data. Significant moderation effects are presented graphically (predicted MVPA on weekdays and weekend days plotted against the minimum and maximum of built environment variables at each level of moderator). Data analyses were undertaken using STATA/SE 15.0 (STATA Corp., College Station, TX, USA).

5. Results

Adolescents’ mean age was 15.3 (SD = 1.5) years, and 59% were girls. On average, participants spent 25.2 min/day (SD = 14.8) in MVPA outside school hours on weekdays and 24.8 min/day (SD = 21.6) in MVPA on weekend days.
Data on concordance of perceived and objective environmental features are shown in Table 1. In general, a higher percentage of participants had concordant perceptions for built environment features within the 500 m buffer than with the 1km buffer. For example, 76% of participants had concordant perceptions of the presence of trails within 500 m buffer, while 49% of participants had concordant perceptions of trails within the 1 km buffer. Age, sex and neighbourhood disadvantage were not associated with concordance (results not shown).
On weekdays, no significant associations were found between the selected objective BE features and MVPA (Table 2). Concordance/discordance significantly moderated the relationship between trails within 1 km and weekday MVPA. A significant relationship was observed between trails within 1 km and weekday MVPA among those who had concordant perceptions: for every one-unit increase in trail count within 1 km, MVPA was 5.43 min/day higher (B = 5.43; 95% CI 1.83, 9.03; p = 0.003). However, no relationship was found among those who had discordant perceptions (B = 0.04; 95% CI −2.68, 2.77; p = 0.973) (Figure 1a).
On weekends, objective parks and recreation facilities were significantly positively associated with MVPA (Table 2). Concordance/discordance significantly moderated the relationship between trails within 1 km and weekend MVPA. Among those with concordant perceptions, trails within 1 km were positively associated with weekend day MVPA: for every one-unit increase in trail count within 1 km, MVPA was 6.93 min/day higher (B = 6.93; 95% CI 1.63, 12.22; p = 0.010). However, no relationship was found among those with discordant perceptions (B = −1.13, 95% CI −5.33, 3.06; p = 0.597) (Figure 1b).

6. Discussion

This study examined whether concordance/discordance between perceived and objectively measured built environment features moderated associations between objectively measured BE and MVPA among adolescents on weekdays and weekends. No relationships were observed between the selected objectively measured built environment features and MVPA outside school hours on weekdays, but positive relationships between the number of parks and recreation facilities and MVPA on weekends were present. The relationship between trails (1 km) and MVPA on weekdays and weekend days differed by concordant/discordant perceptions: positive associations were found among those with concordant perceptions but no associations were observed among those with discordant perceptions.
Consistent with previous studies [4,5,25,26,27], discordance between perceived and objectively measured built environment measures was common, particularly for recreation facilities. Adolescents may be unaware of recreation facilities that they do not use. However, discordance may also reflect difficulties in accurately estimating time-to-walk to destinations or variation in time-to-walk within samples. For example, individuals may walk at a faster or slower pace than estimated, so calculated time-to-walk may not align accurately with buffers used. Further, the constructs of perceived and objectively measured built environment may be different (i.e., perceived built environment survey questions may not adequately reflect the objective built environment measures).
We found significant main effects of parks and recreation facilities on weekend MVPA, but no main effect was found between built environment features and weekday MVPA. This finding suggests that less structured weekend days may encourage MVPA around home. Even though the effect sizes were small, investing in supportive built environment features is likely to have a long-term positive effect on physical activity given the potential to reach large numbers of the population. We also found that the concordance of trails moderated the relationship between trails within 1km and MVPA. Trails have the potential to provide a broader range of opportunities to accumulate MVPA through both active transportation and leisure activities than parks and recreation facilities [28].
The lack of focus on the quality of destinations and/or limiting exposure to the residential neighbourhood may help explain some of the null findings in this study [29]. Adolescents may travel greater distances (>1 km) to visit parks or recreation facilities for MVPA than visiting the nearest facility, which may be of a poorer quality or have features that do not meet their needs [30,31]. Alternatively, those who rarely walk to or use neighbourhood destinations may have low awareness of their existence or location. Further, the BE around home may not be the single most important context for adolescents’ PA, as adolescents also engage in PA around school or during the journey to school from home [32].
The cross-sectional design means that claims about causality cannot be made. Only a crude measure of concordance was used rather than measuring the degree of concordance. The self-report measures were not purposively designed to address concordance of perceptions and, therefore, the perceived time-to-walk to the selected destinations may not be an optimal match to the buffers used. With the exception of parks, those who had discordant views typically perceived trails and recreation facilities to be closer than actual, but we were unable to test interactions at this level due to low frequencies in responses. Finally, the MVPA measure lacked specificity; activities undertaken within the residential neighbourhood and elsewhere could not be distinguished.

7. Implications

Our findings imply that multilevel strategies that targeting both awareness of trails among individual (through signage or public mass media program) and provision of supportive trail infrastructure for physical activity may be important for encouraging physical activity among adolescents.

8. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study highlights that, at least for trails, environmental interventions designed to enhance MVPA may be less effective if efforts are not made to enhance individuals’ awareness of their environment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.H.Y.L., J.V. and A.T.; methodology, V.H.Y.L., J.V., J.S., E.C. and A.T.; software, S.M.; formal analysis, V.H.Y.L.; investigation, V.H.Y.L., J.V. and A.T.; writing—original draft preparation, V.H.Y.L.; writing—review and editing, J.V., J.S., E.C., S.M, K.V. and A.T.; visualization, V.H.Y.L.; supervision, J.V. and A.T.; project administration, J.S. and A.T.; funding acquisition, J.S. and A.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study received funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01 HL111378. JV is supported by an Australian National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship (ID 101928). JS was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Principal Research Fellowship (APP1026216) during this study. EC is supported by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT14010085). SM is supported by an Australian NHMRC Early Career Fellowship (#1121035). AT was supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship (Award 100046) during the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018–2030: More Active People for a Healthier World; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ding, D.; Sallis, J.F.; Kerr, J.; Lee, S.; Rosenberg, D.E. Neighborhood environment and physical activity among youth: A review. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2011, 41, 442–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Orstad, S.L.; McDonough, M.H.; Stapleton, S.; Altincekic, C.; Troped, P.J. A systematic review of agreement between perceived and objective neighborhood environment measures and associations with physical activity outcomes. Environ. Behav. 2017, 49, 904–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gebel, K.; Bauman, A.E.; Sugiyama, T.; Owen, N. Mismatch between perceived and objectively assessed neighborhood walkability attributes: Prospective relationships with walking and weight gain. Health Place 2011, 17, 519–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Arvidsson, D.; Kawakami, N.; Ohlsson, H.; Sundquist, K. Physical activity and concordance between objective and perceived walkability. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2012, 44, 280–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Koohsari, M.J.; Badland, H.; Sugiyama, T.; Mavoa, S.; Christian, H.; Giles-Corti, B. Mismatch between perceived and objectively measured land use mix and street connectivity: Associations with neighborhood walking. J. Urban Health 2015, 92, 242–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Ding, D.; Sallis, J.F.; Conway, T.L.; Saelens, B.E.; Frank, L.D.; Cain, K.L.; Slymen, D.J. Interactive effects of built environment and psychosocial attributes on physical activity: A test of ecological models. Ann. Behav. Med. 2012, 44, 365–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dumith, S.C.; Gigante, D.P.; Domingues, M.R.; Kohl, H.W., III. Physical activity change during adolescence: A systematic review and a pooled analysis. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2011, 40, 685–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Halfon, N.; Hochstein, M. Life course health development: An integrated framework for developing health, policy, and research. Milbank Q. 2002, 80, 433–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Giles-Corti, B.; Macaulay, G.; Middleton, N.; Boruff, B.; Bull, F.; Butterworth, I.; Badland, H.; Mavoa, S.; Roberts, R.; Christian, H. Developing a research and practice tool to measure walkability: A demonstration project. Health Promot. J. Aust. 2014, 25, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Basic Community Profile Release 1: SA1, DataPacks. Available online: https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/datapacksdetails?opendocument&navpos=250 (accessed on 2 January 2020).
  12. Loh, V.H.; Veitch, J.; Salmon, J.; Cerin, E.; Thornton, L.; Mavoa, S.; Villanueva, K.; Timperio, A. Built environment and physical activity among adolescents: The moderating effects of neighborhood safety and social support. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2019, 16, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. De Vries, S.; Van Hirtum, H.; Bakker, I.; Hopman-Rock, M.; Hirasing, R.; Van Mechelen, W. Validity and reproducibility of motion sensors in youth: A systematic update. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2009, 41, 818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Trost, S.G.; Pate, R.R.; Sallis, J.F.; Freedson, P.S.; Taylor, W.C.; Dowda, M.; Sirard, J. Age and gender differences in objectively measured physical activity in youth. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2002, 34, 350–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Cain, K.L.; Sallis, J.F.; Conway, T.L.; Van Dyck, D.; Calhoon, L. Using accelerometers in youth physical activity studies: A review of methods. J. Phys. Act. Health 2013, 10, 437–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA); Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra, Australia, 2011.
  17. Cerin, E.; Sit, C.H.P.; Barnett, A.; Huang, W.Y.J.; Gao, G.Y.; Wong, S.H.S.; Sallis, J.F. Reliability of self-report measures of correlates of obesity-related behaviours in Hong Kong adolescents for the iHealt(H) and IPEN adolescent studies. Arch. Public Health 2017, 75, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Adams, M.A.; Frank, L.D.; Schipperijn, J.; Smith, G.; Chapman, J.; Christiansen, L.B.; Coffee, N.; Salvo, D.; du Toit, L.; Dygrýn, J. International variation in neighborhood walkability, transit, and recreation environments using geographic information systems: The IPEN adult study. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2014, 13, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. State Government of Victoria, Vicmap Transport. Road Network; State Government of Victoria, Vicmap Transport: Melbourne, Australia, 2013.
  20. Victorian Environmental Assessment Council; State Government of Victoria, Public Open Space Inventory. Victoria; Victorian Environmental Assessment Council; State Government of Victoria, Public Open Space Inventory: Victoria, Australia, 2011.
  21. State Government of Victoria, Vicmap Property. Parcel Boundaries; State Government of Victoria, Vicmap Property: Victoria, Australia, 2013.
  22. Sports Victoria. Sports Facilities; Sports Victoria: Victoria, Australia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  23. Butte, N.F.; Watson, K.B.; Ridley, K.; Zakeri, I.F.; McMurray, R.G.; Pfeiffer, K.A.; Crouter, S.E.; Herrmann, S.D.; Bassett, D.R.; Long, A. A youth compendium of physical activities: Activity codes and metabolic intensities. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2018, 50, 246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ainsworth, B.; Haskell, W.; Herrmann, S.; Meckes, N.; Bassett, J.D.; Tudor-Locke, C.; Greer, J.; Vezina, J.; Whitt-Glover, M.; Leon, A. Compendium of Physical Activities: A second update of codes and MET values. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2011, 43, 1575–1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Macdonald, L.; Kearns, A.; Ellaway, A. Do residents’ perceptions of being well-placed and objective presence of local amenities match? A case study in West Central Scotland, UK. BMC Public Health 2013, 13, 454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Leslie, E.; Sugiyama, T.; Ierodiaconou, D.; Kremer, P. Perceived and objectively measured greenness of neighbourhoods: Are they measuring the same thing? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 95, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ball, K.; Jeffery, R.W.; Crawford, D.A.; Roberts, R.J.; Salmon, J.; Timperio, A.F. Mismatch between perceived and objective measures of physical activity environments. Prev. Med. 2008, 47, 294–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vogt, C.; Kho, C. Parks and Trail Hubs as Green Gyms. Cities Environ. 2018, 11, 3. [Google Scholar]
  29. Van Cauwenberg, J.; Cerin, E.; Timperio, A.; Salmon, J.; Deforche, B.; Veitch, J. Park proximity, quality and recreational physical activity among mid-older aged adults: Moderating effects of individual factors and area of residence. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Veitch, J.; Salmon, J.; Ball, K. Children’s active free play in local neighborhoods: A behavioral mapping study. Health Educ. Res. 2007, 23, 870–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Van Hecke, L.; Deforche, B.; Van Dyck, D.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Veitch, J.; Van Cauwenberg, J. Social and physical environmental factors influencing adolescents’ physical activity in urban public open spaces: A qualitative study using walk-along interviews. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0155686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Rainham, D.G.; Bates, C.J.; Blanchard, C.M.; Dummer, T.J.; Kirk, S.F.; Shearer, C.L. Spatial classification of youth physical activity patterns. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2012, 42, e87–e96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Marginal means plot of significant interactions between trails within 1 km and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) on (a) weekdays and (b) weekend days according to concordant/discordant perceptions.
Figure 1. Marginal means plot of significant interactions between trails within 1 km and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) on (a) weekdays and (b) weekend days according to concordant/discordant perceptions.
Ijerph 17 01309 g001
Table 1. Built environment variables and the proportion of participants with concordant and discordant perceptions.
Table 1. Built environment variables and the proportion of participants with concordant and discordant perceptions.
Built Environment
Park (n = 463)Recreation Facilities (n = 463)Trails (n = 463)
500 m1 km500 m1 km500 m1 km
Objective built environment, n (%)
Present 418 (90.3)456 (98.5) 138 (29.8)294 (63.5)67 (14.5)107 (30.2)
Absent 45 (9.7)7 (1.5)325 (70.2)169 (36.5)396 (85.5)247 (69.8)
Park (n = 463)Recreation Facilities (n = 464)Trails (n = 460)
Perceived built environment, n (%)1–5 min1–5/6–10 min1–5 min1–5/6–10 min1–5 min1–5/6–10 min
Present 291 (62.8)398 (85.9)329 (70.9)423 (91.2)98 (21.3)228 (49.6)
Absent 172 (37.2)65 (14.1)135 (29.1)41 (8.8)362 (78.7)232 (50.4)
Concordant/discordant (two categories), n (%)Park (n = 461)Recreation Facilities (n = 462)Trails (n = 458)
Concordant 297 (64.4)288 (62.5)197 (42.6)149 (32.2)346 (75.5)223 (48.7)
Discordant 164 (35.6)173 (37.5)265 (57.4)313 (67.8)112 (24.5)235 (51.3)
Concordant/discordant (four categories), n (%)
Concordant
  Present/present271 (58.8)287 (62.3)100 (21.6)134 (29.0)26 (5.7)50 (10.9)
  Absent/absent26 (5.6)1 (0.2)97 (21.0)15 (3.2)320 (69.9)173 (37.8)
Discordant
  Perceived closer than actual19 (4.1)19 (4.1)228 (49.3)265 (57.4)71 (15.5)160 (34.9)
  Perceived further than actual145 (31.5)154 (33.4)37 (8.1)48 (10.4)41 (8.9) 75 (16.4)
Table 2. Associations between the objective built environment features and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and the moderating effects of concordance/discordance between perceived and objectively measured presence or absence of built environment features (n = 354).
Table 2. Associations between the objective built environment features and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and the moderating effects of concordance/discordance between perceived and objectively measured presence or absence of built environment features (n = 354).
Built Environment FeatureWeekday MVPA (min/day) n = 412Weekend MVPA (min/day) n = 356
500 m
B (95% CI)
1 km
B (95% CI)
500 m
B (95% CI)
1 km
B (95% CI)
Park (n) 1−0.10 (−0.51, 0.30)0.02 (−0.12, 0.17)0.23 (−0.34, 0.81)0.22 (0.01, 0.43) *
Interaction 2:
x discordant 3−0.09 (−0.97, 0.79)0.25 (−0.07, 0.58)0.27 (−1.07, 1.61)0.27 (−0.19, 0.75)
Recreation facility (n) 1−0.53 (−2.64, 1.56)0.41 (−0.46, 1.28)2.29 (−0.73, 5.32)1.69 (0.47, 2.91) **
Interaction 2:
x discordant 31.52 (−2.92, 5.97)1.67 (−0.03, 3.37)4.86 (−1.71, 11.45)1.11 (−1.31, 3.54)
Trails (n) 10.57 (−2.93, 4.08)1.78 (−0.46, 4.02)-0.01 (−5.17, 5.17)1.83 (−1.50, 5.18)
Interaction 2:
x discordant 3−4.53 (−11.80, 2.73)−5.38 (−9.76, −1.01) *−3.33 (−14.38, 7.71)−8.06 (−14.72, −1.40) *
All models adjusted for age, sex and neighbourhood disadvantage; 1 Main effect model; 2 Model including main effects and interaction term between built environmental feature and concordance/discordance of environmental measures; 3 Reference group = concordant. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Loh, V.H.Y.; Veitch, J.; Salmon, J.; Cerin, E.; Mavoa, S.; Villanueva, K.; Timperio, A. Environmental Mismatch: Do Associations between the Built Environment and Physical Activity among Youth Depend on Concordance with Perceptions? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1309. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17041309

AMA Style

Loh VHY, Veitch J, Salmon J, Cerin E, Mavoa S, Villanueva K, Timperio A. Environmental Mismatch: Do Associations between the Built Environment and Physical Activity among Youth Depend on Concordance with Perceptions? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(4):1309. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17041309

Chicago/Turabian Style

Loh, Venurs H. Y., Jenny Veitch, Jo Salmon, Ester Cerin, Suzanne Mavoa, Karen Villanueva, and Anna Timperio. 2020. "Environmental Mismatch: Do Associations between the Built Environment and Physical Activity among Youth Depend on Concordance with Perceptions?" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 4: 1309. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17041309

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop