The environmental correlates of overall and neighborhood based recreational walking (a cross-sectional analysis of the RECORD Study)

Julie Vallée,Jean-Michel Oppert,Chantal Simon,Yan Kestens,Basile Chaix,Noëlla Karusisi,Christiane Weber,Frédérique Thomas,Hélène Charreire,Bruno Pannier

doi:10.1186/1479-5868-11-20

Abstract

BackgroundPreliminary evidence suggests that recreational walking has different environmental determinants than utilitarian walking. However, previous studies are limited in their assessment of environmental exposures and recreational walking and in the applied modeling strategies. Accounting for individual sociodemographic profiles and weather over the walking assessment period, the study examined whether numerous street network-based neighborhood characteristics related to the sociodemographic, physical, service, social-interactional, and symbolic environments were associated with overall recreational walking and recreational walking in one’s residential neighborhood and could explain their spatial distribution.MethodsBased on the RECORD Cohort Study (Paris region, France, n = 7105, 2007–2008 data), multilevel-spatial regression analyses were conducted to investigate environmental factors associated with recreational walking (evaluated by questionnaire at baseline). A risk score approach was applied to quantify the overall disparities in recreational walking that were predicted by the environmental determinants.ResultsSixty-nine percent of the participants reported recreational walking over the past 7 days. Their mean reported recreational walking time was 3h31mn. After individual-level adjustment, a higher neighborhood education, a higher density of destinations, green and open spaces of quality, and the absence of exposure to air traffic were associated with higher odds of recreational walking and/or a higher recreational walking time in one’s residential neighborhood. As the overall disparities that were predicted by these environmental factors, the odds of reporting recreational walking and the odds of a higher recreational walking time in one’s neighborhood were, respectively, 1.59 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.56, 1.62] times and 1.81 (95% CI: 1.73, 1.87) times higher in the most vs. the least supportive environments (based on the quartiles).ConclusionsProviding green/open spaces of quality, building communities with services accessible from the residence, and addressing environmental nuisances such as those related to air traffic may foster recreational walking in one’s environment.

Highlights

Preliminary evidence suggests that recreational walking has different environmental determinants than utilitarian walking
It is relevant to focus on recreational walking, as environmental interventions to promote utilitarian walking may not be efficient for recreational walking
Our study showed that several contextual factors related to the socioeconomic environment, physical environment, Figure 2 Spatially structured between-neighborhood variations in the odds of recreational walking, as assessed from spatial-multilevel regression models including individual and meteorological variables (Part A) and further including environmental factors (Part B)

Summary

Introduction

Preliminary evidence suggests that recreational walking has different environmental determinants than utilitarian walking. Factors related to the pleasantness/unpleasantness of the environment that may be important for recreational walking have received less attention, were often assessed as individual perceptions [22,23] rather than at the neighborhood level [24,25], and were restricted to a limited number of dimensions (e.g., safety and esthetics) To address this gap, the present study on recreational walking investigates a wide set of environmental factors that include, in addition to the usual walkability dimension, factors related to neighborhood esthetic and pleasantness (e.g., the absence of highways, traffic-related pollution, waste treatment facilities, stressful social interactions and the presence of monuments or social cohesion; see Table 1). It is relevant to focus on recreational walking, as environmental interventions to promote utilitarian walking may not be efficient for recreational walking

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion