Short ReportWhat neighborhood area captures built environment features related to adolescent physical activity?
Introduction
Despite some evidence that built environment (BE) features (e.g., recreation facilities, street connectivity) may promote physical activity (PA), associations vary dramatically across studies (Saelens and Handy, 2008, Wendel-Vos et al., 2007). Inconsistent study findings could result, in part, from variation in neighborhood definitions, which may capture neighborhood features relevant to PA to varying degrees, depending on the type of BE feature and population subgroup (Colabianchi et al., 2007, Diez Roux, 2007, Soobader et al., 2006).
Findings from the few empirical comparisons of objectively defined neighborhoods are mixed, showing dramatic (Zhang and Kukadia, 2005) or inconsequential (Lovasi et al., 2008, Berke et al., 2007, Diez Roux et al., 2007, Forsyth et al., 2008) differences in associations according to neighborhood size. However, these studies focus on adult, generally metropolitan samples and lack the size and diversity needed to evaluate subgroup differences.
Our objective was to determine the most salient circular neighborhood area for capturing BE features (PA facilities and street connectivity) most strongly associated with moderate-vigorous PA (MVPA) in a nationally representative sample of adolescents. We considered areas within 1, 3, 5, and 8.05 km (km) of each respondents’ home (Euclidian neighborhood buffers) using a unique database, which provided exceptional geographic variability.
Section snippets
Study population and data sources
We used Wave I data (n=20,745; 11–22 years of age) from The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), a prospective cohort study of adolescents representative of the U.S. school-based population in grades 7–12 in 1994–95. The survey design and sampling frame have been discussed elsewhere (Resnick et al., 1997).
Using complex geographic information system (GIS) techniques, we linked time-varying, community-level data to Add Health respondent residential locations determined
Results
In general, we observed dramatic differences in most environmental characteristics among urbanicity levels (Table 1). Individual-level characteristics by sex and urbanicity are presented in the Appendix (Table A2).
The association between MVPA and facility count varied by buffer size and urbanicity (Table 2). The strongest associations were generally observed for 1–5 km buffers, most consistently for the 3 km buffer. Associations were strongest in the non- and low-urban strata and were similar by
Discussion
In our large, national sample of U.S. adolescents, we found particular relevance for PA facilities within a 3 km buffer and street connectivity within a 1 km buffer. Our joint model suggests that MVPA is independently associated with intersection density and, in low-urban adolescents, resource count. Our findings are consistent with prior work (Zhang and Kukadia, 2005) suggesting that behavior is influenced by different features within different neighborhood areas. That is, the relevant
Conclusion and implications
In our cross-sectional study, higher MVPA was generally associated with resource counts and intersection density within 1–5 and 1 km of respondents’ homes, respectively. These findings suggest that recommendations should specify the relevant scale and setting. For example, guidelines for minimum intersection density based on research within a 1 km buffer in high-urban areas applied to larger scales or in suburban areas may not be valid. Until consensus on the most relevant scale is reached,
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Brian Frizzelle, Marc Peterson, Chris Mankoff, James D. Stewart, Phil Bardsley, and Diane Kaczor of the University of North Carolina, Carolina Population Center (CPC) and the CPC Spatial Analysis Unit for creation of the environmental variables and Jillian H Jefferson for her assistance with our literature review of existing buffer measures. The authors also thank Ms. Frances Dancy for her helpful administrative assistance. There were no potential or real
References (33)
- et al.
Neighborhood design and walking trips in ten U.S. metropolitan areas
Am. J. Prev. Med.
(2007) - et al.
Validation of a GIS facilities database: quantification and implications of error
Ann. Epidemiol.
(2008) - et al.
Neighbourhoods in eco-epidemiologic research: delimiting personal exposure areas. A response to Riva, Gauvin, Apparicio and Brodeur
Soc. Sci. Med.
(2009) Neighborhoods and health: where are we and where do we go from here?
Rev. Epidemiol. Sante Publique
(2007)- et al.
Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars
Am. J. Prev. Med.
(2004) - et al.
Evaluating options for measurement of neighborhood socioeconomic context: evidence from a myocardial infarction case-control study
Health Place
(2008) - et al.
Adolescent physical activity and sedentary behavior: patterning and long-term maintenance
Am. J. Prev. Med.
(2005) The (mis)estimation of neighborhood effects: causal inference for a practicable social epidemiology
Soc. Sci. Med.
(2004)- et al.
Fear of walking outdoors. A multilevel ecologic analysis of crime and disorder
Am. J. Prev. Med.
(2008) - et al.
Levels of analysis for the study of environmental health disparities
Environ. Res.
(2006)