Living Close to Natural Outdoor Environments in Four European Cities: Adults’ Contact with the Environments and Physical Activity
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Contact with Natural Outdoor Environments
1.2. Overall Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity
1.3. NOE Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Sample
2.2. Design
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Exposure
Residential Availability of Natural Outdoor Environments
2.3.2. Outcomes
Contact with NOE
Overall MVPA
NOE MVPA
2.3.3. Covariates
2.4. Statistical Analyses
2.5. Sensitivity Analyses
2.5.1. Low Prevalence of Exposure Categories
2.5.2. Buffer Type for Abstracting NOE Indicators
3. Results
3.1. Sample Characteristics
3.2. Contact with NOE
3.3. Overall MVPA
3.4. NOE MVPA
3.5. Sensitivity Analyses
4. Discussion
4.1. Contact with NOE
4.2. Overall MVPA
4.3. NOE MVPA
4.4. Strengths and Limitations
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
City | Invited n | Willing to Participate n (% from the Invited Ones) | Participated n | Finally Included in the Analyses |
---|---|---|---|---|
Barcelona | 1044 | 379 (37%) | 109 | 107 |
Stoke-on-Trent | 99 | 92 | ||
From the original sample | 1044 | 164 (17%) | 49 | 45 |
Further approaches | 4814 | 107 (2.22%) | 50 | 47 |
Doetinchem | 861 | 224 (26%) | 111 | 105 |
Kaunas | 997 | 280 (28%) | 112 | 104 |
Appendix A.1. CalFit Data Treatment
- (1)
- CalFit-recorded location data (including GPS and, when GPS data were not available, wireless network triangulation data) were converted into a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data layer. We then attached the street network maps, and participant geocoded home and work addresses to the location data layer. After this, we resampled to 10 s to reduce the measurement error in the geolocation. Then we scanned the data sequentially looking for clusters of points based on the angular variability of its trajectory. This process identifies only the clearest clusters. Then, we made a spatial and temporal query around each point being part of a cluster to identify also the temporary closer points that are also spatially closer (i.e., points under the space and time threshold of 150 m and 30 min). The rest of points not being part of a cluster were considered trips. Finally we used the geocoded home and work points to identify the clusters belonging to these locations. The other clusters were considered others places and we calculated the centroid of each of them. The trips, the centroids and the geocoded home and work location points were the data used to continue with the analyses. The next step was to add information from Urban Atlas 2006 and Top10 NL and to develop the indicator of the presence/absence of green spaces within a 50 m circular buffer for each location point. Those location points identified as home or work were considered non-exposed to green spaces. Finally, we resampled to one-minute assigning the mode of all the calculated indicators. This resampling was done because one-minute was the minimum meaningful physical activity information that our measurement instruments could provide.
- (2)
- CalFit-recorded accelerometer was used to get two g-forces (vertical and horizontal). After this, we converted the vertical force recorded in g-force into counts using a linear regression, and these counts into METs using the equation of Freedson et al. [62], as CalFit METs = 1.2907087 + (0.4141791 × VT g/min) [50]. We then defined time not wearing the CalFit as those periods of time of at least 40 consecutive minutes below 0.34 g in the vertical axis. These non-wear were excluded from analyses. We then classified those minutes with a MVPA intensity (≥3 METs).
- (3)
- We excluded those days that were non-study days (e.g., delivery and collection days) and classified the remainder as weekdays or weekend days. We then applied the criteria of three days with at least 10 h as valid assessment for physical activity during weekdays and, similarly, applied two days with at least 10 h during weekend days [51,52]. Those participants not fulfilling the weekdays criteria were excluded from the weekdays analyses, while those participants not fulfilling the weekend days criteria were excluded from the weekend days analyses. This led to a total sample for this study of 350 participants on weekdays and 308 on weekend days (408 participants with either weekdays or weekend days data).
Characteristics | Overall | BCN/SoT | BCN/Doe | BCN/Kau | SoT/Doe | SoT/Kau | Doe/Kau | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chi2 | p-Value | p-Value | p-Value | p-Value | p-Value | p-Value | p-Value | |
Sociodemographic characteristics | ||||||||
Gender | 2.94 | 0.40 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Age | - | <0.01 | 0.05 ‡ | <0.01 ¥ | <0.01 ¤ | <0.01 ¥ | 0.23 | 0.01 ¥ |
Living with children < 11 years old | 6.15 | 0.10 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Dog ownership | 38.85 | <0.01 | 0.51 | 1.00 | <0.01 ¤ | 0.49 | <0.01 ¤ | <0.01 ¤ |
Highest education | 19.97 | <0.01 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.01 ¤ | 1.00 | <0.01 ¤ | <0.01 ¤ |
Neighbourhood SES | 11.47 | 0.07 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Season | 13.07 | <0.01 | 0.09 | <0.01 ¥ | 0.03 ¤ | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Residential availability of natural outdoor environments | ||||||||
Presence/absence of green spaces at 300 m network buffer | 76.71 | <0.01 | <0.01 ‡ | <0.01 ¥ | <0.01 ¤ | <0.01 ¥ | 1.00 | <0.01 ¥ |
Weekdays | ||||||||
Contact with NOE | - | <0.01 | 0.82 | <0.01 ¥ | 0.06 | <0.01 ¥ | 0.47 | <0.01 ¥ |
Overall moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | - | <0.01 | <0.01 † | 0.04 † | <0.01 † | 0.71 | 1.00 | 0.80 |
NOE moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | - | <0.01 | 0.99 | <0.01 ¥ | 0.50 | <0.01 ¥ | 0.78 | <0.01 ¥ |
Weekends | ||||||||
Contact with NOE | - | <0.01 | 0.26 | <0.01 ¥ | 0.83 | <0.01 ¥ | 0.76 | <0.01 ¥ |
Overall moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | - | 0.01 | 0.01 † | 0.97 | 0.29 | 0.04 ¥ | 0.50 | 0.57 |
NOE moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | - | <0.01 | 0.96 | <0.01 ¥ | 1.00 | <0.01 ¥ | 0.93 | <0.01 ¥ |
Outcomes | Pooled p-Value | Barcelona p-Value | Stoke-on-Trent p-Value | Doetinchem p-Value | Kaunas p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Contact with NOE | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.12 | 0.91 | 0.23 |
Overall moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.02 | 0.48 | 0.14 |
NOE moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.48 | 0.20 | 0.55 |
Outcomes | Gender | Age | City | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Female x residential NOE availability—Estimate (95% CI) | p-value of chi-2 test | Age above median age x residential NOE availability—Estimate (95% CI) | p-value of chi-2 test | Stoke-on-Trent x residential NOE availability—Estimate (95% CI) | Doetinchem x residential NOE availability | Kaunas x residential NOE availability—Estimate (95% CI) | p-value of chi-2 test | |
Contact with NOE | ||||||||
Weekdays | 0.81 (0.48, 1.38) | 0.30 | 0.77 (0.44, 1.33) | 0.51 | 0.51 (0.21, 1.22) | 0.71 (0.32, 1.62) | 0.58 (0.24, 1.40) | 0.38 |
Weekend days | 0.82 (0.46, 1.46) | 0.20 | 0.74 (0.40, 1.34) | 0.12 | 1.06 (0.42, 2.66) | 2.03 (0.86, 4.83) | 0.92 (0.36, 2.35) | 0.28 |
Overall moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | ||||||||
Weekdays | 0.93 (0.55, 1.58) | 0.15 | 0.69 (0.40, 1.19) | 0.55 | 0.83 (0.35, 1.96) | 1.12 (0.50, 2.52) | 0.86 (0.36, 2.07) | 0.89 |
Weekend days | 0.56 (0.32, 1.01) | 0.88 | 0.94 (0.52, 1.71) | 0.36 | 1.46 (0.58, 3.68) | 1.79 (0.75, 4.25) | 0.82 (0.32, 2.07) | 0.06 |
NOE moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | ||||||||
Weekdays | 0.57 (0.33, 0.97) | 0.42 | 0.87 (0.50, 1.51) | 0.64 | 0.45 (0.19, 1.10) | 0.56 (0.25, 1.29) | 0.52 (0.21, 1.26) | 0.03 |
Weekend days | 0.66 (0.37, 1.18) | 0.52 | 1.10 (0.60, 1.99) | 0.02 | 0.98 (0.40, 2.42) | 1.37 (0.58, 3.21) | 0.54 (0.21, 1.40) | 0.01 |
Outcomes | Total | |
---|---|---|
Estimate (95% CI) | p-Value | |
Contact with NOE | ||
Weekdays | 2.28 (1.29, 4.04) | <0.01 |
Weekend days | 0.88 (0.48, 1.62) | 0.68 |
Overall moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | ||
Weekdays | 1.06 (0.61, 1.84) | 0.85 |
Weekend days | 0.82 (0.45, 1.49) | 0.52 |
NOE moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | ||
Weekdays | 2.42 (1.35, 4.32) | <0.01 |
Weekend days | 1.10 (0.59, 2.03) | 0.77 |
Outcomes | Total | |
---|---|---|
Estimate (95% CI) | p-Value | |
Contact with NOE | ||
Weekdays | 2.62 (1.26, 5.44) | 0.01 |
Weekend days | 1.30 (0.60, 2.83) | 0.51 |
Overall moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | ||
Weekdays | 1.35 (0.66, 2.76) | 0.41 |
Weekend days | 1.07 (0.50, 2.30) | 0.86 |
NOE moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | ||
Weekdays | 4.19 (1.91, 9.18) | <0.01 |
Weekend days | 1.69 (0.75, 3.80) | 0.20 |
Outcomes | Total | |
---|---|---|
Estimate (95% CI) | p-Value | |
Contact with NOE | ||
Weekdays | 1.82 (1.06, 3.12) | 0.03 |
Weekend days | 1.61 (0.90, 2.88) | 0.11 |
Overall moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | ||
Weekdays | 0.69 (0.40, 1.18) | 0.18 |
Weekend days | 0.66 (0.37, 1.17) | 0.15 |
NOE moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | ||
Weekdays | 1.62 (0.94, 2.79) | 0.08 |
Weekend days | 1.37 (0.77, 2.45) | 0.29 |
Outcomes | Total | |
---|---|---|
Estimate (95% CI) | p-Value | |
Contact with NOE | ||
Weekdays | 2.25 (1.14, 4.42) | 0.02 |
Weekend days | 1.27 (0.62, 2.58) | 0.52 |
Overall moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | ||
Weekdays | 0.99 (0.51, 1.90) | 0.97 |
Weekend days | 0.78 (0.39, 1.57) | 0.49 |
NOE moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | ||
Weekdays | 2.41 (1.21, 4.79) | 0.01 |
Weekend days | 1.20 (0.58, 2.47) | 0.62 |
Outcomes | Total | |
---|---|---|
Estimate (95% CI) | p-Value | |
Contact with NOE | ||
Weekdays | 1.39 (0.75, 2.59) | 0.30 |
Weekend days | 1.25 (0.61, 2.54) | 0.54 |
Overall moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | ||
Weekdays | 0.75 (0.40, 1.39) | 0.36 |
Weekend days | 1.00 (0.50, 2.00) | 0.99 |
NOE moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | ||
Weekdays | 1.94 (1.02, 3.70) | 0.04 |
Weekend days | 1.49 (0.71, 3.13) | 0.29 |
References
- Hunter, R.F.; Christian, H.; Veitch, J.; Astell-Burt, T.; Hipp, J.A.; Schipperijn, J. The impact of interventions to promote physical activity in urban green space: A systematic review and recommendations for future research. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015, 124, 246–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Almanza, E.; Jerrett, M.; Dunton, G.; Seto, E.; Ann Pentz, M. A study of community design, greenness, and physical activity in children using satellite, GPS and accelerometer data. Health Place 2012, 18, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mytton, O.T.; Townsend, N.; Rutter, H.; Foster, C. Green space and physical activity: An observational study using Health Survey for England data. Health Place 2012, 18, 1034–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- European Commission. Towards a Local Sustainability Profile. European Common Indicators; Methodology Sheets; European Commission: Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Public Health Office Copenhagen. Sunde Københavnere i Alle Aldre-Københavns Kommunes Sundhedspolitik 2006–2010 (Healthy Copenhageners in All Ages—Healthy Policy of the Municipality of Copenhagen for 2006–2010 (Internet). 2006. Available online: http://www.kk.dk/sites/default/files/edoc_old_format/Sundheds-%20og%20Omsorgsudvalget/21-09-2006%2014.00.00/Dagsorden/15-09-2006%2014.12.08/Bilag%201%20Andet%20udkast%20til%20Sundhedspolitikken.PDF (accessed on 17 January 2016).
- Van den Bosch, M.A.; Mudu, P.; Uscila, V.; Barrdahl, M.; Kulinkina, A.; Staatsen, B.; Swart, W.; Kruize, H.; Zurlyte, I.; Egorov, A.I. Development of an urban green space indicator and the public health rationale. Scand. J. Public Health 2016, 442, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dadvand, P.; Sunyer, J.; Basagaña, X.; Ballester, F.; Lertxundi, A.; Fernández-Somoano, A.; Estarlich, M.; García-Esteban, R.; Mendez, M.A.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Surrounding Greenness and Pregnancy Outcomes in Four Spanish Birth Cohorts. Environ. Health Perspect. 2012, 120, 1481–1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McEachan, R.R.C.; Prady, S.L.; Smith, G.; Fairley, L.; Cabieses, B.; Gidlow, C.; Wright, J.; Dadvand, P.; van Gent, D.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. The association between green space and depressive symptoms in pregnant women: Moderating roles of socioeconomic status and physical activity. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2015, 70, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Triguero-Mas, M.; Dadvand, P.; Cirach, M.; Martínez, D.; Medina, A.; Mompart, A.; Basagaña, X.; Gražulevičienė, R.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Natural outdoor environments and mental and physical health: Relationships and mechanisms. Environ. Int. 2015, 77, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tamosiunas, A.; Grazuleviciene, R.; Luksiene, D.; Dedele, A.; Reklaitiene, R.; Baceviciene, M.; Vencloviene, J.; Bernotiene, G.; Radisauskas, R.; Malinauskiene, V. Accessibility and use of urban green spaces, and cardiovascular health: Findings from a Kaunas cohort study. Environ. Health 2014, 13, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Astell-Burt, T.; Mitchell, R.; Hartig, T. The association between green space and mental health varies across the lifecourse. A longitudinal study. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2014, 68, 578–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dadvand, P.; Wright, J.; Martinez, D.; Basagaña, X.; McEachan, R.R.C.; Cirach, M.; Gidlow, C.J.; de Hoogh, K.; Gražulevičienė, R.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Inequality, green spaces, and pregnant women: Roles of ethnicity and individual and neighbourhood socioeconomic status. Environ. Int. 2014, 71, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van den Berg, M.; van Poppel, M.; van Kamp, I.; Andrusaityte, S.; Balseviciene, B.; Cirach, M.; Danileviciute, A.; Ellis, N.; Hurst, G.; Masterson, D.; et al. Visiting green space is associated with mental health and vitality: A cross-sectional study in four european cities. Health Place 2016, 38, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jilcott, S.B.; Evenson, K.R.; Laraia, B.A.; Ammerman, A.S. Peer Reviewed: Association between Physical Activity and Proximity to Physical Activity Resources among Low-Income, Midlife Women. Prev. Chron. Dis 2007, 4, A04. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1832127/ (accessed on 28 August 2017).
- Ries, A.V.; Voorhees, C.C.; Roche, K.M.; Gittelsohn, J.; Yan, A.F.; Astone, N.M. A Quantitative Examination of Park Characteristics Related to Park Use and Physical Activity Among Urban Youth. J. Adolesc. Health 2009, 45, S64–S70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hagstromer, M.; Ainsworth, B.E.; Oja, P.; Sjostrom, M. Comparison of a subjective and an objective measure of physical activity in a population sample. J. Phys. Act. Health 2010, 7, 541–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Prince, S.A.; Adamo, K.B.; Hamel, M.; Hardt, J.; Connor Gorber, S.; Tremblay, M. A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: A systematic review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2008, 5, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hartig, T.; Mitchell, R.; de Vries, S.; Frumkin, H. Nature and Health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2014, 35, 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grahn, P.; Stigsdotter, U.A. Landscape planning and stress. Urban For. Urban Green. 2003, 2, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, A.; Hillsdon, M.; Coombes, E. Greenspace access, use, and physical activity: Understanding the effects of area deprivation. Prev. Med. 2009, 49, 500–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Neuvonen, M.; Sievänen, T.; Tönnes, S.; Koskela, T. Access to green areas and the frequency of visits—A case study in Helsinki. Urban For. Urban Green. 2007, 6, 235–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rossi, S.D.; Byrne, J.A.; Pickering, C.M. The role of distance in peri-urban national park use: Who visits them and how far do they travel? Appl. Geogr. 2015, 63, 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schipperijn, J.; Ekholm, O.; Stigsdotter, U.K.; Toftager, M.; Bentsen, P.; Kamper-Jørgensen, F.; Randrup, T.B. Factors influencing the use of green space: Results from a Danish national representative survey. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 95, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schipperijn, J.; Stigsdotter, U.K.; Randrup, T.B.; Troelsen, J. Influences on the use of urban green space—A case study in Odense, Denmark. Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evenson, K.R.; Wen, F.; Hillier, A.; Cohen, D.A. Assessing the Contribution of Parks to Physical Activity Using Global Positioning System and Accelerometry. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2013, 45, 1981–1987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- World Health Organization. Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Kaczynski, A.T.; Henderson, K.A. Parks and Recreation Settings and Active Living: A Review of Associations with Physical Activity Function and Intensity. J. Phys. Act. Health 2008, 5, 619–632. Available online: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=15433080&AN=32759717&h=vWdjtypSNT%2BcAaP0MAjzo3kYArrPoFISX58YS9uSmCCpap%2Fr%2FFWSiB1txNiEIgLl8kIrTB4yk%2BLqRnV1UQj%2FCQ%3D%3D&crl=c (accessed on 21 May 2014). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lachowycz, K.; Jones, A.P. Greenspace and obesity: A systematic review of the evidence: Greenspace and obesity review. Obes. Rev. 2011, 12, e183–e189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bancroft, C.; Joshi, S.; Rundle, A.; Hutson, M.; Chong, C.; Weiss, C.C.; Genkinger, J.; Neckerman, K.; Lovasi, G. Association of proximity and density of parks and objectively measured physical activity in the United States: A systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015, 138, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sallis, J.F.; Cerin, E.; Conway, T.L.; Adams, M.A.; Frank, L.D.; Pratt, M.; Salvo, D.; Schipperijn, J.; Smith, G.; Cain, K.L. Physical activity in relation to urban environments in 14 cities worldwide: A cross-sectional study. Lancet 2016, 387, 2207–2217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brownson, R.C.; Baker, E.A.; Housemann, R.A.; Brennan, L.K.; Bacak, S.J. Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity in the United States. Am. J. Public Health 2001, 91, 1995–2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pietilä, M.; Neuvonen, M.; Borodulin, K.; Korpela, K.; Sievänen, T.; Tyrväinen, L. Relationships between exposure to urban green spaces, physical activity and self-rated health. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2015, 10, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Astell-Burt, T.; Feng, X.; Kolt, G.S. Green space is associated with walking and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in middle-to-older-aged adults: Findings from 203 883 Australians in the 45 and Up Study. Br. J. Sports Med. 2014, 48, 404–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bjork, J.; Albin, M.; Grahn, P.; Jacobsson, H.; Ardo, J.; Wadbro, J.; Östergren, P.-O.; Skärbäck, E. Recreational values of the natural environment in relation to neighbourhood satisfaction, physical activity, obesity and wellbeing. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2008, 62, e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Janssen, I.; Rosu, A. Undeveloped green space and free-time physical activity in 11 to 13-year-old children. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McMorris, O.; Villeneuve, P.J.; Su, J.; Jerrett, M. Urban greenness and physical activity in a national survey of Canadians. Environ. Res. 2015, 137, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ord, K.; Mithcell, R.; Pearce, J. Is level of neighbourhood green space associated with physical activity in green space? Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2013, 10, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Richardson, E.A.; Pearce, J.; Mitchell, R.; Kingham, S. Role of physical activity in the relationship between urban green space and health. Public Health 2013, 127, 318–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sanders, T.; Feng, X.; Fahey, P.P.; Lonsdale, C.; Astell-Burt, T. The Influence of neighbourhood Green Space on Children’s Physical Activity and Screen Time: Findings from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 126. Available online: http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/12/1/126 (accessed on 3 December 2015). [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Klinker, C.D.; Schipperijn, J.; Kerr, J.; Ersbøll, A.K.; Troelsen, J. Context-Specific Outdoor Time and Physical Activity among School-Children Across Gender and Age: Using Accelerometers and GPS to Advance Methods. Front. Public Health 2014, 2, 20. Available online: http://www.frontiersin.org/Public_Health_Education_and_Promotion/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00020/abstract (accessed on 29 July 2014). [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lachowycz, K.; Jones, A.P.; Page, A.S.; Wheeler, B.W.; Cooper, A.R. What can global positioning systems tell us about the contribution of different types of urban greenspace to children’s physical activity? Health Place 2012, 18, 586–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liao, Y.; Intille, S.S.; Dunton, G.F. Using Ecological Momentary Assessment to Understand Where and With Whom Adults’ Physical and Sedentary Activity Occur. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2015, 22, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schipperijn, J.; Bentsen, P.; Troelsen, J.; Toftager, M.; Stigsdotter, U.K. Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, R. Is physical activity in natural environments better for mental health than physical activity in other environments? Soc. Sci. Med. 2013, 91, 130–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thompson Coon, J.; Boddy, K.; Stein, K.; Whear, R.; Barton, J.; Depledge, M.H. Does Participating in Physical Activity in Outdoor Natural Environments Have a Greater Effect on Physical and Mental Wellbeing than Physical Activity Indoors? A Systematic Review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 1761–1772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pasanen, T.P.; Tyrväinen, L.; Korpela, K.M. The Relationship between Perceived Health and Physical Activity Indoors, Outdoors in Built Environments, and Outdoors in Nature: Perceived Health and Activity in Nature. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being 2014, 6, 324–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ou, J.; Levy, J.; Peters, J.; Bongiovanni, R.; Garcia-Soto, J.; Medina, R.; Scammell, M.K. A Walk in the Park: The Influence of Urban Parks and Community Violence on Physical Activity in Chelsea, MA. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Kruize, H.; Gidlow, C.; Andrusaityte, S.; Antó, J.M.; Basagaña, X.; Cirach, M.; Dadvand, P.; Danileviciute, A.; Donaire-Gonzalez, D. Positive health effects of the natural outdoor environment in typical populations in different regions in Europe (PHENOTYPE): A study programme protocol. BMJ Open 2014, 4, e004951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Donaire-Gonzalez, D.; Valentín, A.; de Nazelle, A.; Ambros, A.; Carrasco-Turigas, G.; Seto, E.; Jerrett, M.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Benefits of Smartphone Technology for Personal Environmental Monitoring. JMIR MHealth UHealth 2016, 4, e126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Donaire-Gonzalez, D.; de Nazelle, A.; Seto, E.; Mendez, M.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Jerrett, M. Comparison of Physical Activity Measures Using Mobile Phone-Based CalFit and Actigraph. J. Med. Internet Res. 2013, 15, e111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heil, D.P.; Brage, S.; Rothney, M.P. Modeling Physical Activity Outcomes from Wearable Monitors. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2012, 44, S50–S60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matthews, C.E.; HagströMer, M.; Pober, D.M.; Bowles, H.R. Best Practices for Using Physical Activity Monitors in Population-Based Research. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2012, 44, S68–S76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gascon, M.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Martínez, D.; Dadvand, P.; Forns, J.; Plasència, A.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Mental Health Benefits of Long-Term Exposure to Residential Green and Blue Spaces: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 4354–7439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- European Environment Agency. Urban Atlas (Internet). 2014. Available online: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/urban-atlas/#parent-fieldname-title (accessed on 21 January 2015).
- The Netherlands’ Cadastre. Land Registry and Mapping Agency. Information on Kadaster. TOP10NL (Internet). Available online: http://www.kadaster.nl/web/artikel/producten/TOP10NL.htm (accessed on 21 January 2015).
- Carlson, J.A.; Sallis, J.F.; Conway, T.L.; Saelens, B.E.; Frank, L.D.; Kerr, J.; Cain, K.L.; King, A.C. Interactions between psychosocial and built environment factors in explaining older adults’ physical activity. Prev. Med. 2012, 54, 68–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Coombes, E.; Jones, A.P.; Hillsdon, M. The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010, 70, 816–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Toohey, A.M.; McCormack, G.R.; Doyle-Baker, P.K.; Adams, C.L.; Rock, M.J. Dog-walking and sense of community in neighborhoods: Implications for promoting regular physical activity in adults 50 years and older. Health Place 2013, 22, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saelens, B.E.; Sallis, J.F.; Frank, L.D.; Cain, K.L.; Conway, T.L.; Chapman, J.E.; Slymen, D.; Kerr, J. Neighborhood Environment and Psychosocial Correlates of Adults’ Physical Activity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2012, 44, 637–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaczynski, A.T.; Potwarka, L.R.; Smale, B.J.A.; Havitz, M.E. Association of Parkland Proximity with Neighborhood and Park-based Physical Activity: Variations by Gender and Age. Leis. Sci. 2009, 31, 174–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilchrist, K.; Brown, C.; Montarzino, A. Workplace settings and wellbeing: Greenspace use and views contribute to employee wellbeing at peri-urban business sites. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 138, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freedson, P.; Melanson, E.; Sirard, J. Calibration of the Computer Science and Apllications, Inc. accelerometer. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1998, 30, 777–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Total | Barcelona | Stoke-on-Trent | Doetinchem | Kaunas | Intercity Comparison | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample (n) | 408 | 107 | 92 | 105 | 104 | |
Sociodemographic characteristics | ||||||
Gender, females (n (%)) | 53.68% | 46.73% | 56.52% | 57.14% | 54.81% | |
Age (years: median (IQR)) | 51.00 (26.00) | 40.00 (23.00) | 44.00 (29.00) | 59.00 (16.00) | 55.00 (23.50) | * |
Living with children <11 years old, one or more (n (%)) | 19.90% | 24.30% | 25.27% | 17.14% | 13.46% | |
Dog ownership, yes (n (%)) | 34.80% | 23.36% | 34.78% | 22.86% | 58.65% | * |
Highest education, university or more (n (%)) | 56.76% | 54.21% | 47.25% | 49.52% | 75.00% | * |
Neighbourhood SES | ||||||
Low | 30.39% | 40.19% | 23.91% | 30.48% | 25.96% | |
Medium | 33.82% | 35.51% | 35.87% | 29.52% | 34.62% | |
High | 35.78% | 24.30% | 40.22% | 40.00% | 39.42% | |
Season, autumn (n (%)) | 51.12% | 36.19% | 54.35% | 58.82% | 55.77% | * |
Residential availability of natural outdoor environments | ||||||
Presence/absence of green spaces at 300 m network buffer, one or more (n (%)) | 69.12% | 41.12% | 73.91% | 96.19% | 66.35% | * |
Weekdays | ||||||
Sample (n) | 350 | 101 | 70 | 93 | 86 | |
Contact with NOE, high (minutes: median (IQR)) | 41.40 (85.50) | 14.67 (39.00) | 32.23 (44.31) | 114.60 (104.33) | 40.30 (70.19) | * |
Overall moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, high (minutes: median (IQR)) | 88.80 (57.58) | 101.50 (59.50) | 74.22 (68.28) | 90.25 (53.50) | 82.67 (42.89) | * |
NOE moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, high (minutes: median (IQR)) | 7.73 (19.25) | 4.20 (9.40) | 4.60 (12.31) | 21.00 (33.80) | 8.57 (17.70) | * |
Weekends | ||||||
Sample (n) | 308 | 90 | 63 | 80 | 75 | |
Contact with NOE, high (minutes: median (IQR)) | 43.75 (122.50) | 33.25 (94.50) | 16.00 (33.50) | 128.25 (119.00) | 29.00 (102.00) | * |
Overall moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, high (minutes: median (IQR)) | 78.25 (59.75) | 88.75 (54.62) | 53.00 (61.00) | 81.50 (55.50) | 74.50 (58.00) | * |
NOE moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, high (minutes: median (IQR)) | 7.75 (24.12) | 6.00 (15.88) | 4.00 (10.50) | 25.50 (31.75) | 6.00 (19.25) | * |
Post-estimation measures/Model variables | Contact with NOE | Overall Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity | NOE Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Weekdays | Weekends | Weekdays | Weekends | Weekdays | Weekends | |||||||
OR | OR | OR | OR | OR | OR | |||||||
(95% CI) | (95% CI) | (95% CI) | (95% CI) | (95% CI) | (95% CI) | |||||||
Post-estimation measures | ||||||||||||
R2 of the model | 6% | 2% | 4% | 1% | 6% | 3% | ||||||
Hosmer-Lemeshow test p-value | 0.04 | 0.25 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.24 | ||||||
Model variables | ||||||||||||
Intercept | 0.87 (0.32, 2.39) | 1.29 (0.43, 3.88) | 1.47 (0.54, 3.98) | 2.85 (0.93, 8.69) | 0.79 (0.28, 2.18) | 1.40 (0.46, 4.22) | ||||||
Residential availability of NOE (one or more) | 2.41 (1.39, 4.17) | * | 0.93 (0.52, 1.67) | 1.14 (0.67, 1.95) | 0.82 (0.46, 1.45) | 2.42 (1.39, 4.22) | * | 1.12 (0.63, 2.02) | ||||
City | ||||||||||||
Stoke-on-Trent | 0.78 (0.39, 1.56) | 1.00 (0.48, 2.10) | 0.96 (0.49, 1.91) | 1.09 (0.53, 2.26) | 0.90 (0.45, 1.82) | 1.32 (0.63, 2.77) | ||||||
Doetinchem | 0.95 (0.47, 1.95) | 2.15 (1.00, 4.65) | * | 1.23 (0.60, 2.53) | 1.82 (0.85, 3.91) | 0.93 (0.45, 1.92) | 2.01 (0.92, 4.38) | |||||
Kaunas | 0.89 (0.45, 1.79) | 1.32 (0.63, 2.74) | 1.05 (0.53, 2.07) | 1.12 (0.54, 2.31) | 1.12 (0.56, 2.24) | 1.36 (0.65, 2.86) | ||||||
Neighbourhood socioeconomic status | ||||||||||||
Medium status | 0.71 (0.41, 1.22) | 0.84 (0.46, 1.53) | 0.89 (0.52, 1.54) | 1.09 (0.60, 1.98) | 1.21 (0.69, 2.11) | 0.94 (0.51, 1.71) | ||||||
High status | 0.84 (0.48, 1.46) | 1.28 (0.71, 2.33) | 0.95 (0.55, 1.66) | 1.03 (0.57, 1.88) | 1.63 (0.93, 2.86) | 1.02 (0.56, 1.85) | ||||||
Gender (female) | 0.70 (0.45, 1.09) | 0.66 (0.41, 1.07) | 0.75 (0.48, 1.16) | 0.58 (0.36, 0.93) | * | 0.50 (0.32, 0.79) | * | 0.74 (0.46, 1.19) | ||||
Age | 1.00 (0.98, 1.01) | 0.98 (0.96, 1.00) | * | 0.99 (0.98, 1.01) | 0.97 (0.96, 0.99) | * | 0.99 (0.98, 1.01) | 0.98 (0.96, 1.00) | * | |||
Education completed | ||||||||||||
High level | 1.33 (0.84, 2.11) | 1.13 (0.69, 1.84) | 0.89 (0.56, 1.39) | 1.91 (1.17, 3.11) | * | 0.86 (0.54, 1.37) | 0.86 (0.53, 1.41) | |||||
Sampling season (autumn) | 0.76 (0.48, 1.20) | 1.47 (0.90, 2.39) | 0.68 (0.44, 1.08) | 0.89 (0.55, 1.45) | 0.83 (0.53, 1.32) | 1.11 (0.68, 1.81) | ||||||
Dog ownership (yes) | 1.35 (0.83, 2.20) | 1.27 (0.75, 2.15) | 1.82 (1.11, 2.96) | * | 1.29 (0.77, 2.17) | 1.42 (0.87, 2.31) | 1.27 (0.75, 2.14) | |||||
Living with children younger than 11 years old (yes) | 0.88 (0.49, 1.56) | 1.10 (0.60, 2.01) | 1.97 (1.10, 3.53) | * | 0.96 (0.52, 1.76) | 0.73 (0.40, 1.31) | 0.72 (0.39, 1.33) |
Outcomes | Below Median Age | Above Median Age | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate (95% CI) | p-Value | Estimate (95% CI) | p-Value | |||
Contact with NOE | ||||||
Weekdays | 2.28 (1.01, 5.12) | 0.05 | (1) | 3.02 (1.32, 6.89) | 0.01 | (7) |
Weekend days | 0.47 (0.20, 1.09) | 0.08 | (2) | 2.00 (0.82, 4.91) | 0.13 | (8) |
Overall moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | ||||||
Weekdays | 1.18 (0.54, 2.59) | 0.68 | (3) | 1.09 (0.51, 2.32) | 0.83 | (9) |
Weekend days | 0.71 (0.31, 1.62) | 0.42 | (4) | 0.94 (0.41, 2.13) | 0.88 | (10) |
NOE moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | ||||||
Weekdays | 3.05 (1.28, 7.27) | 0.01 | (5) | 2.31 (1.07, 5.02) | 0.03 | (11) |
Weekend days | 0.72 (0.31, 1.65) | 0.44 | (6) | 2.45 (0.97, 6.19) | 0.06 | (12) |
Outcomes | Barcelona | Stoke-on-Trent | Doetinchem | Kaunas | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR | p-Value | OR | p-Value | OR | p-Value | OR | p-Value | |||||
(95% CI) | (95% CI) | (95% CI) | (95% CI) | |||||||||
Contact with NOE | ||||||||||||
Weekdays | 5.35 (2.05, 13.95) | <0.01 | (1) | 1.34 (0.36, 4.92) | 0.66 | (7) | 1.97 (0.15, 25.74) | 0.61 | (13) | 0.77 (0.23, 2.63) | 0.68 | (19) |
Weekend days | 0.95 (0.35, 2.58) | 0.92 | (2) | 2.05 (0.50, 8.39) | 0.32 | (8) | 1.26 (0.09, 17.72) | 0.87 | (14) | 0.39 (0.12, 1.29) | 0.12 | (20) |
Overall moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | ||||||||||||
Weekdays | 1.23 (0.53, 2.90) | 0.63 | (3) | 0.67 (0.18, 2.51) | 0.55 | (9) | 1.05 (0.07, 15.19) | 0.97 | (15) | 0.60 (0.20, 1.84) | 0.37 | (21) |
Weekend days | 0.85 (0.33, 2.17) | 0.73 | (4) | 3.81 (0.88, 16.44) | 0.07 | (10) | 0.52 (0.03, 7.97) | 0.64 | (16) | 0.18 (0.05, 0.66) | 0.01 | (22) |
NOE moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | ||||||||||||
Weekdays | 7.62 (2.84, 20.40) | <0.01 | (5) | 0.90 (0.20, 3.94) | 0.89 | (11) | 1.17 (0.09, 15.73) | 0.91 | (17) | 0.74 (0.23, 2.34) | 0.61 | (23) |
Weekend days | 3.71 (1.23, 11.21) | 0.02 | (6) | 2.29 (0.54, 9.67) | 0.26 | (12) | 1.36 (0.09, 19.35) | 0.82 | (18) | 0.19 (0.05, 0.68) | 0.01 | (24) |
Outcomes | Males | Females | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate (95% CI) | p-Value | Estimate (95% CI) | p-Value | |||
Contact with NOE | ||||||
Weekdays | 1.83 (0.84, 3.97) | 0.13 | (1) | 3.70 (1.55, 8.79) | <0.01 | (7) |
Weekend days | 0.69 (0.29, 1.63) | 0.40 | (2) | 1.36 (0.58, 3.17) | 0.48 | (8) |
Overall moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | ||||||
Weekdays | 0.90 (0.41, 1.97) | 0.79 | (3) | 1.59 (0.72, 3.49) | 0.25 | (9) |
Weekend days | 0.83 (0.35, 1.96) | 0.68 | (4) | 0.71 (0.31, 1.63) | 0.42 | (10) |
NOE moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | ||||||
Weekdays | 2.32 (1.06, 5.06) | 0.04 | (5) | 2.63 (1.11, 6.24) | 0.03 | (11) |
Weekend days | 2.10 (0.89, 4.98) | 0.09 | (6) | 0.55 (0.22, 1.36) | 0.19 | (12) |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Triguero-Mas, M.; Donaire-Gonzalez, D.; Seto, E.; Valentín, A.; Smith, G.; Martínez, D.; Carrasco-Turigas, G.; Masterson, D.; Van den Berg, M.; Ambròs, A.; et al. Living Close to Natural Outdoor Environments in Four European Cities: Adults’ Contact with the Environments and Physical Activity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1162. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101162
Triguero-Mas M, Donaire-Gonzalez D, Seto E, Valentín A, Smith G, Martínez D, Carrasco-Turigas G, Masterson D, Van den Berg M, Ambròs A, et al. Living Close to Natural Outdoor Environments in Four European Cities: Adults’ Contact with the Environments and Physical Activity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2017; 14(10):1162. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101162
Chicago/Turabian StyleTriguero-Mas, Margarita, David Donaire-Gonzalez, Edmund Seto, Antònia Valentín, Graham Smith, David Martínez, Glòria Carrasco-Turigas, Daniel Masterson, Magdalena Van den Berg, Albert Ambròs, and et al. 2017. "Living Close to Natural Outdoor Environments in Four European Cities: Adults’ Contact with the Environments and Physical Activity" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14, no. 10: 1162. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101162
APA StyleTriguero-Mas, M., Donaire-Gonzalez, D., Seto, E., Valentín, A., Smith, G., Martínez, D., Carrasco-Turigas, G., Masterson, D., Van den Berg, M., Ambròs, A., Martínez-Íñiguez, T., Dedele, A., Hurst, G., Ellis, N., Grazulevicius, T., Voorsmit, M., Cirach, M., Cirac-Claveras, J., Swart, W., ... Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2017). Living Close to Natural Outdoor Environments in Four European Cities: Adults’ Contact with the Environments and Physical Activity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(10), 1162. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101162