Abstract

There continues to be a lack of understanding as to the geographical area at which the environment exerts influence on behaviour and health. This exploratory study compares different potential methods of both researcher- and participant-defined definitions of neighbourhood reflect an adolescent's activity space. Seven consecutive days of global positioning system (GPS) tracking data were collected at 15s intervals using a small exploratory adolescent sample of 14-18 year olds (n=69) in West Yorkshire, England. A total of 304,581 GPS tracking points were collected and compared 30 different definitions of researcher-defined neighbourhoods including radial, network and ellipse buffers at 400m, 800m, 1000m, 1600m and 3000m, as well as participant-defined self-drawn neighbourhoods. This exploratory study supports emerging evidence cautioning against the use of static neighbourhood definitions for defining exposure. Traditional buffers (network and radial) capture at most 67% of activity space (home radial), and at worst they captured only 3.5% (school network) and range from capturing between 3 and 88% of total time. Similarly, self-drawn neighbourhoods captured only 10% of actual daily movement. Interestingly, 40% of an adolescent's self-drawn neighbourhood was not used. We also demonstrate that buffers capture a range of space (22-95%) where adolescents do not go, thus misclassifying the exposure. Our exploratory findings demonstrate that neither researcher- nor participant-defined definition of neighbourhood adequately captures adolescent activity space. Further research with larger samples are needed to confirm the findings of this exploratory study.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call