Walking for Transport among Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study on the Role of the Built Environment in Less Densely Populated Areas in Northern Germany
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
2.2. Data Collection and Sample
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Perceived Neighborhood Environmental Attributes
2.3.2. Walking for Transport
2.3.3. Socioeconomic Variables
2.3.4. Health
2.3.5. Transport
2.4. Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Characteristics of the Study Population
3.2. Prevalence of Walking for Transport
3.3. Associations of the Built Environment and Walking for Transport
3.4. Moderating Effects
4. Discussion
4.1. Residential Density
4.2. Proximity to Destinations
4.3. Street Connectivity
4.4. Infrastructure
4.5. Aesthetics
4.6. Traffic Safety
4.7. Strengths and Limitations
4.8. Implications
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
- ‘There are sidewalks on most of the streets in my neighborhood’
- ‘The sidewalks are well maintained (paved, even, and few potholes)’
- ‘The sidewalks are wide enough’
- ‘There are cycle paths on most of the streets in my neighborhood’
- ‘The cycle paths are well maintained (paved, even, and few potholes)’
- ‘The cycle paths are wide enough’
- ‘There are shared paths for walking and cycling’
- ‘There are many four-way intersections’
- ‘The distance between intersections is usually short (100 meters or less; the length of a soccer field or less)’
- ‘There are many alternative routes for getting from place to place (I don’t have to go the same way every time)’
- ‘There are trees along the streets in my neighborhood’
- ‘Trees give shade for the sidewalks in my neighborhood’
- ‘There are many interesting things to look at while walking in my neighborhood’
- ‘My neighborhood is generally free from litter’
- ‘There are many attractive natural sights in my neighborhood (such as (front) gardens, landscaping, views)’
- There are attractive buildings/homes in my neighborhood
- ‘There is a lot of traffic along the street I live in’
- ‘The speed of traffic on the street where I live is usually fast’
- ‘Most drivers exceed the posted speed limits while driving in my street’
- ‘I like to walk along the street where I live’
- ‘On this street, I feel safe from crime’
- ‘On this street, I feel safe from road accidents’
- ‘Crossing the road is safe for pedestrians’
References
- Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Khreis, H. Car free cities: Pathway to healthy urban living. Environ. Int. 2016, 94, 251–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giles-Corti, B.; Vernez-Moudon, A.; Reis, R.; Turrell, G.; Dannenberg, A.L.; Badland, H.; Foster, S.; Lowe, M.; Sallis MStevenson, J.F.; Owen, N. City planning and population health: A global challenge. Lancet 2016, 388, 2912–2924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gatzweiler, H.-P.; Adam, A.; Milbert, T.; Pütz, M.; Spangenberg, G.; Sturm, G.; Walther, A. Klein- und Mittelstädte in Deutschland—Eine Bestandsaufnahme. BBSR 2012, 10, 9–14. [Google Scholar]
- Federal Statistical Office. Older People in Germany and the EU; Federal Statistical Office: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Nobis, C. Mobilität in Deutschland—MiD Analysen zum Radverkehr und Fußverkehr. [Mobility in Germany—MiD Analyses of Bicycle Traffic and Foot Traffic. Study by infas, DLR, IVT and infas 360; on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure: Berlin, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- WHO. Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Kelly, P.; Kahlmeier, S.; Gotschi, T.; Orsini, N.; Richards, J.; Roberts, N.; Scarborough, P.; Foster, C. Systematic review and meta-analysis of reduction in all-cause mortality from walking and cycling and shape of dose response relationship. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lee, I.M.; Shiroma, E.J.; Lobelo, F.; Puska, P.; Blair, S.N.; Katzmarzyk, P.T. Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: An analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet 2012, 380, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Musselwhite, C.; Holland, C.; Walker, I. The role of transport and mobility in the health of older people. J. Transp. Health 2015, 2, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ryan, J.; Wretstrand, A. What’s mode got to do with it? Exploring the links between public transport and car access and opportunities for everyday activities among older people. Travel Behav. Soc. 2019, 14, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sallis, J.F.; Cervero, R.B.; Ascher, W.; Henderson, K.A.; Kraft, M.K.; Kerr, J. An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annual Rev. Public Health 2006, 27, 297–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cerin, E.; Nathan, A.; van Cauwenberg, J.; Barnett, D.W.; Barnett, A. The neighbourhood physical environment and active travel in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017, 14, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Cauwenberg, J.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; De Meester, F.; Van Dyck, D.; Salmon, J.; Clarys, P.; Deforche, B. Relationship between the physical environment and physical activity in older adults: A systematic review. Health Place 2011, 17, 458–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerin, E.; Sit, C.H.P.; Barnett, A.; Johnston, J.M.; Cheung, M.C.; Chan, W.M. Ageing in an ultra-dense metropolis: Perceived neighbourhood characteristics and utilitarian walking in Hong Kong elders. Public Health Nutr. 2014, 17, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Inoue, S.; Ohya, Y.; Odagiri, Y.; Takamiya, T.; Kamada, M.; Okada, S.; Oka, K.; Kitabatake, Y.; Nakaya, T.; Sallis, J.F.; et al. Perceived neighborhood environment and walking for specific purposes among elderly Japanese. J. Epidemiol. 2011, 21, 481–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kerr, J.; Emond, J.A.; Badland, H.; Reis, R.; Sarmiento, O.; Carlson, J.; Sallis, J.F.; Cerin, E.; Cain, K.; Conway, T.; et al. Natarajan, perceived neighborhood environmental attributes associated with walking and cycling for transport among adult residents of 17 Cities in 12 countries: The IPEN study. Environ. Health Perspect 2016, 124, 290–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Barnett, A.; Cerin, E.; Zhang, C.J.P.; Sit, C.H.P.; Johnston, J.M.; Cheung, M.M.C.; Lee, R.S.Y. Associations between the neighbourhood environment characteristics and physical activity in older adults with specific types of chronic conditions: The ALECS cross-sectional study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2016, 13, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ding, D.; Sallis, J.F.; Norman, G.J.; Frank, L.D.; Saelens, B.E.; Kerr, J.; Conway, T.L.; Cain, K.; Hovell, M.F.; Hofstetter, C.R.; et al. Neighborhood environment and physical activity among older adults: Do the relationships differ by driving status? J. Aging Phys. Act. 2014, 22, 421–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nyunt, M.S.Z.; Shuvo, F.K.; Eng, J.Y.; Yap, K.B.; Scherer, S.; Hee, L.M.; Chan, S.P.; Ng, T.P. Objective and subjective measures of neighborhood environment (NE): Relationships with transportation physical activity among older persons. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Moran, M.; Van Cauwenberg, J.; Hercky-Linnewiel, R.; Cerin, E.; Deforche, B.; Plaut, P. Understanding the relationships between the physical environment and physical activity in older adults: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- OECD. Pensions at a Glance 2019: OECD and G20 Indicators; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pollard, T.M.; Wagnild, J.M. Gender differences in walking (for leisure, transport and in total) across adult life: A systematic review. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Follmer, R.; Gruschwitz, D. Mobility in Germany—Short Report. Edition 4.0 of the Study by Infas, DLR, IVT and Infas 360; Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (BMVI): Bonn, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Clarke, P.; Ailshire, J.A.; Bader, M.; Morenoff, J.D.; House, J.S. Mobility disability and the urban. Built Environ. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2008, 168, 506–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- WHO. WHO Global Report on Falls Prevention in Older Age; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Brüchert, T.; Quentin, P.; Baumgart, S.; Bolte, G. Intersectoral collaboration of public health and urban planning for promotion of mobility and healthy ageing: Protocol of the AFOOT project. Cities Health 2017, 1, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saelens, B.E.; Sallis, J.F.; Black, J.B.; Chen, D. Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: An environment scale evaluation. Am. J. Public Health 2003, 93, 1552–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cerin, E.; Conway, T.L.; Cain, K.L.; Kerr, J.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Owen, N.; Reis, R.S.; Sarmiento, O.L.; Hinckson, E.A.; Salvo, D.; et al. Sharing good NEWS across the world: Developing comparable scores across 12 countries for the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS). BMC Public Health 2013, 13, 309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- IPAQ Team. Guidelines for Data Processing and Analysis of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)—Short and Long Forms, Revised on November 2005. Available online: https://sites.google.com/site/theipaq/scoring-protocol (accessed on 11 November 2005).
- BBSR. Laufende Stadtbeobachtung—Raumabgrenzungen. Stadt- und Gemeindetypen in Deutschland [Ongoing City Observation—Spatial Delimitations. Types of Cities and Municipalities in Germany}. Available online: https://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/forschung/raumbeobachtung/Raumabgrenzungen/deutschland/gemeinden/StadtGemeindetyp/StadtGemeindetyp.html (accessed on 11 November 2020).
- UNESCO-UIS. International Standard Classification of Education; Unesco UIS: Montreal, QC, Canada, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. OECD Guidelines for Micro Statistics on Household Wealth; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder. Armutsgefährdungsschwelle Nach Bundesländern für Einen Einpersonenhaushalt im Zeitvergleich [At-Risk-of-Poverty Threshold by German Länder for a Single-Person Household in Time Comparison]. 2018. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Soziales/Sozialberichterstattung/Tabellen/liste-armutsgefaehrungs-schwelle.html (accessed on 11 November 2020).
- Subramanian, S.V.; Huijts, T.; Avendano, M. Self-reported health assessments in the 2002 World Health Survey: How do they correlate with education? Bull. World Health Organ. 2010, 88, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hosmer, D.W.; Lemeshow, S.; Sturdivant, R.X. Applied Logistic Regression, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2013; p. 528S. [Google Scholar]
- Nathan, A.; Wood, L.; Giles-Corti, B. Perceptions of the built environment and associations with walking among retirement village residents. Environ. Behav. 2014, 46, 46–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Cauwenberg, J.; Clarys, P.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Van Holle, V.; Verte, D.; De Witte, N.; De Donder, L.; Buffel, T.; Dury, S.; Deforche, B. Physical environmental factors related to walking and cycling in older adults: The Belgian aging studies. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Etman, A.; Kamphuis, C.B.M.; Prins, R.G.; Burdorf, A.; Pierik, F.H.; van Lenthe, F.J. Characteristics of residential areas and transportational walking among frail and non-frail Dutch elderly: Does the size of the area matter? Int. J. Health Geogr. 2014, 13, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Holle, V.; Van Cauwenberg, J.; Gheysen, F.; Van Dyck, D.; Deforche, B.; Van de Weghe, N.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I. The association between belgian older adults’ physical functioning and physical activity: What is the moderating role of the physical environment? PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0148398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- King, A.; Toobert, D.; Ahn, D.; Resnicow, K.; Anderson, M.; Riebe, D.; Garber, C.; Hurtz, S.; Morton, J.; Sallis, J. Perceived environments as physical activity correlates and moderators of intervention in five studies. Am. J. Health Promot. 2006, 21, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pelclová, J.; Frömel, K.R.; Cuberek, R. Gender-specific associations between perceived neighbourhood walkability and meeting walking recommendations when walking for transport and recreation for Czech inhabitants over 50 years of age. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 527–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scheiner, J.; Sicks, K.; Holz-Rau, C. Gendered activity spaces: Trends over three decades in Germany. Erdkunde 2011, 65, 371–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MiD. Mobilität in Tabellen (MiT 2017): PKW-Verfügbarkeit nach Bildungsabschluss und Alter (Eigene Berechnungen). [Mobility in Tables (MiT 2017): Car Availability by Educational Level and Age (Own Calculations)]. 2017. Available online: https://mobilitaet-in-tabellen.dlr.de/mit/login.html?brd (accessed on 11 November 2020).
- Shankar, A.M.; Hamer, A. McMunn, and A.; Steptoe, Social isolation and loneliness: Relationships with cognitive function during 4 years of follow-up in the English longitudinal study of ageing. Psychosom. Med. 2013, 75, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Valtorta, N.K.; Kanaan, M.; Gilbody, S.; Ronzi, S.; Hanratty, B. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: Systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies. Heart 2016, 102, 1009–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Laatikainen, T.E.; Haybatollahi, M.; Kyttä, M. Environmental, individual and personal goal influences on older adults’ walking in the helsinki metropolitan area. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Nathan, A.; Wood, L.; Giles-Corti, B. Examining correlates of self-reported and objectively measured physical activity among retirement village residents. Australas. J. Ageing 2014, 33, 250–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bundeskriminalamt, der Deutsche Viktimisierungssurvey 2017 [The German Victimisation Survey 2017]; Bundeskriminalamt: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2019.
- Faller, I.; Holz-Rau, C.; Scheiner, J. Verkehrsunfallrisiken der Bevölkerung von Niedersachsen [Traffic accident risks for the population of Lower Saxony]. Z. Verk. 2020, 66, 7–20. [Google Scholar]
- Tinetti, M.E.; Kumar, C. The patient who falls: It’s always a trade-off. JAMA 2010, 303, 258–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder. Bevölkerung nach Geschlecht und Alter (5er-Jahresgruppen). Ergebnis des Zensus 2011 zum Berichtszeitpunkt 9. Mai 2011. [Population by Gender and Age (5-Year Groups). Result of the 2011 Census as of the Reporting Date 9 May 2011]. 2014. Available online: https://ergebnisse.zensus2011.de/#StaticContent:03,BEG_1_1_1,GESCHLECHT-1,table (accessed on 11 November 2020).
- Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder. Bevölkerung nach Familienstand und Alter (5er-Jahresgruppen). Ergebnis des Zensus 2011 zum Berichtszeitpunkt 9. Mai 2011 [Population by Family Status and Age (5-Year Groups). Result of the 2011 Census as of the Reporting Date 9 May 2011]. 2014. Available online: https://ergebnisse.zensus2011.de/#StaticContent:03,BEG_1_7_2,m,table (accessed on 11 November 2020).
- Spuling, S.M.; Wurm, S.; Wolff, J.K.; Wünsche, J. Heißt krank zu Sein Sich Auch Krank zu Fühlen? Subjektive Gesundheit und ihr Zusammenhang Mit Anderen Gesundheitsdimensionen [Does Being Sick Mean Feeling Sick? Subjective Health and Its Relation to Other Health Dimensions]; Altern im Wandel: Zwei Jahrzehnte Deutscher Alterssurvey (DEAS); Mahne, K., Ed.; Deutsches Zentrum für Altersfragen (DZA): Berlin, Germany, 2016; pp. 161–174. [Google Scholar]
- Statistisches Bundesamt. Daten aus dem Gemeindeverzeichnis. BIK-Gemeindegrößenklassen Nach Fläche, Bevölkerung und Bevölkerungsdichte. Data from the Municipal Directory. BIK Municipality Size Classes According to Area, Population and Population Density]. 2019. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Laender-Regionen/Regionales/Gemeindeverzeichnis/Administrativ-Nicht/39-bik-7.html (accessed on 11 November 2020).
- Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder. Bevölkerung Nach Staatsangehörigkeit und Alter (5er-Jahresgruppen). Ergebnis des Zensus 2011 zum Berichtszeitpunkt 9. Mai 2011. Population by Nationality and Age (5-Year Groups). Result of the 2011 Census as of the Reporting Date 9 May 2011]. 2014. Available online: https://ergebnisse.zensus2011.de/#StaticContent:03,BEG_1_3_2,m,table (accessed on 11 November 2020).
- Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder. Bevölkerung nach Alter (5er-Jahresgruppen) und Höchstem Schulabschluss. Ergebnis des Zensus 2011 zum Berichtszeitpunkt 9. Mai 2011. Population by Age (5-Year Groups) and Highest School-Leaving Qualification. Result of the 2011 Census as of the Reporting Date 9 May 2011. 2014. Available online: https://ergebnisse.zensus2011.de/#StaticContent:03,BEG_1_6_6,m,table (accessed on 11 November 2020).
- Van Holle, V.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Deforche, B.; Van Cauwenberg, J.; Van Dyck, D. Assessment of physical activity in older Belgian adults: Validity and reliability of an adapted interview version of the long International physical activity questionnaire (IPAQ-L.). BMC Public Health 2015, 15, 433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kahlert, D.; Schlicht, W. Older people’s perceptions of pedestrian friendliness and traffic safety: An experiment using computer-simulated walking environments. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 10066–10078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolte, G.; Bunge, C.; Hornberg, C.; Kockler, H. Environmental justice as an approach to tackle environmental health inequalities. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundh. Gesundh. 2018, 61, 674–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meunier, C. Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung in Berlin-Brandenburg im Praxistest–Arbeitshilfe für die Praxis (UVP spezial, Bd. 20) [Public participation in urban land use planning. Significance of the Aarhus Convention and the EU Directives serving its implementation-public participation in Berlin-Brandenburg in practical test-Guidelines for practice (UVP spezial, Vol. 20)]. In Dortmunder Vertrieb–Verl. für Architektur, Bau- und Planungsliteratur; Dortmunder Vertrieb-Verlag für Architektur, Bau-und Planungsliteratur: Dortmund, Germany, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Mathers, J.; Parry, J.; Jones, S. Exploring resident (Non-)participation in the UK new deal for communities regeneration programme. Urban Stud. 2008, 45, 591–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishler, A.D.; Neider, M.B. Improving wayfinding for older users with selective attention deficits. Ergon. Des. 2017, 25, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Brüchert, T.; Baumgart, S.; Bolte, G. Social determinants of older adults’ urban design preference: A cross-sectional study. Cities Health 2020. under review. [Google Scholar]
Total (n = 2189) | Male (n = 1115) | Female (n = 996) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | n | % | |
Age, years | ||||||
65–69 | 593 | 28.1 | 303 | 27.2 | 290 | 29.1 |
70–74 | 538 | 25.5 | 275 | 24.7 | 262 | 26.3 |
75–79 | 508 | 24.1 | 273 | 24.5 | 234 | 23.5 |
80+ | 472 | 22.4 | 262 | 23.5 | 210 | 21.1 |
Partner status | ||||||
Partner | 1643 | 77.9 | 954 | 85.7 | 687 | 69.2 |
No partner | 465 | 22.1 | 159 | 14.3 | 306 | 30.8 |
Living situation | ||||||
Living alone | 455 | 20.9 | 167 | 15.0 | 271 | 27.3 |
Not living alone | 1727 | 79.2 | 946 | 85.0 | 723 | 72.7 |
Area of residence | ||||||
Medium sized town | 653 | 30.2 | 320 | 29.1 | 316 | 32.1 |
Larger small town | 795 | 36.8 | 392 | 35.6 | 367 | 37.3 |
Small town | 549 | 25.4 | 301 | 27.3 | 229 | 23.3 |
Rural community | 165 | 7.6 | 88 | 8.0 | 72 | 7.3 |
Education, ISCED | ||||||
Low | 165 | 7.7 | 33 | 3.0 | 128 | 13.1 |
Middle | 1229 | 57.1 | 547 | 49.8 | 631 | 64.3 |
High | 760 | 35.3 | 518 | 47.2 | 222 | 22.6 |
Income | ||||||
Low | 287 | 13.6 | 144 | 13.3 | 136 | 14.2 |
Middle | 699 | 33.0 | 340 | 31.3 | 331 | 34.6 |
High | 1130 | 53.4 | 601 | 55.4 | 490 | 51.2 |
Country of birth | ||||||
Germany | 2029 | 96.5 | 1077 | 97.0 | 951 | 96.1 |
Other country | 73 | 3.5 | 33 | 3.0 | 39 | 3.9 |
Self-rated health | ||||||
Very good/good | 1272 | 58.8 | 642 | 58.3 | 576 | 58.4 |
Moderate/poor/very poor | 893 | 41.3 | 460 | 41.7 | 410 | 41.6 |
Mobility impairments | ||||||
At least one | 824 | 38.2 | 416 | 37.7 | 391 | 40.0 |
None | 1334 | 61.8 | 689 | 62.4 | 586 | 60.0 |
Walking aid | ||||||
Yes | 311 | 14.3 | 144 | 13.0 | 160 | 16.2 |
No | 1862 | 85.7 | 966 | 87.0 | 825 | 83.8 |
Driving license | ||||||
Yes | 1996 | 93.3 | 1065 | 97.3 | 860 | 88.7 |
No | 143 | 6.7 | 30 | 2.7 | 110 | 11.3 |
Car availability | ||||||
Always | 1910 | 89.3 | 1029 | 94.0 | 813 | 83.8 |
Sometimes | 160 | 7.5 | 42 | 3.8 | 115 | 11.9 |
Never | 70 | 3.3 | 24 | 2.2 | 42 | 4.3 |
Bike availability | ||||||
Yes | 1839 | 84.6 | 978 | 88.2 | 786 | 79.7 |
No | 334 | 15.4 | 131 | 11.8 | 200 | 20.3 |
Any Walking for Transport | Frequency of Walking for Transport | Amount of Walking for Transport | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | ≥3 Days a Week | Min/Week | ||||||||
n | % | p-Value a | n | % | p-Value a | n | Median | IQR | p-Value b | |
Gender | ||||||||||
Male | 785 | 71.4 | 0.7597 | 601 | 55.9 | 0.0361 | 744 | 120 | 180 | 0.6882 |
Female | 699 | 70.8 | 478 | 51.2 | 641 | 120 | 165 | |||
Age, years | ||||||||||
65–69 | 420 | 71.3 | 0.0035 | 316 | 55.5 | 0.0348 | 405 | 120 | 180 | 0.1701 |
70–74 | 396 | 74.3 | 287 | 56.2 | 373 | 120 | 160 | |||
75–79 | 368 | 73.6 | 264 | 54.9 | 330 | 120 | 210 | |||
80+ | 300 | 64.7 | 213 | 47.8 | 277 | 120 | 180 | |||
Partner status | ||||||||||
Partner | 1155 | 71.3 | 0.8431 | 837 | 53.5 | 0.7216 | 1081 | 120 | 180 | 0.2312 |
No partner | 327 | 70.8 | 239 | 54.4 | 301 | 120 | 210 | |||
Living situation | ||||||||||
Living alone | 337 | 74.4 | 0.1474 | 235 | 54.4 | 0.8868 | 309 | 120 | 210 | 0.3152 |
Not living alone | 1206 | 70.9 | 888 | 54.0 | 1131 | 120 | 180 | |||
Area of residence | ||||||||||
Medium sized town | 487 | 75.2 | 0.0512 | 357 | 56.8 | 0.4471 | 453 | 120 | 180 | 0.3302 |
Larger small town | 560 | 71.4 | 400 | 53.3 | 529 | 120 | 165 | |||
Small town | 372 | 69.1 | 272 | 52.3 | 346 | 120 | 180 | |||
Rural community | 109 | 66.5 | 84 | 53.5 | 100 | 120 | 225 | |||
Education, ISCED | ||||||||||
Low | 101 | 62.0 | 0.0005 | 68 | 43.9 | 0.0004 | 96 | 90 | 155 | 0.0734 |
Middle | 857 | 70.7 | 611 | 52.6 | 796 | 120 | 180 | |||
High | 570 | 76.0 | 436 | 59.4 | 534 | 120 | 165 | |||
Income | ||||||||||
Low | 193 | 68.2 | 0.2744 | 121 | 45.2 | 0.0033 | 178 | 120 | 255 | 0.0155 |
Middle | 501 | 72.9 | 359 | 53.9 | 468 | 120 | 210 | |||
High | 813 | 72.7 | 615 | 56.6 | 765 | 120 | 150 | |||
Country of birth | ||||||||||
Germany | 1419 | 70.8 | 0.2748 | 1027 | 53.3 | 0.2851 | 1331 | 120 | 180 | 0.8705 |
Other country | 56 | 76.7 | 43 | 59.7 | 45 | 120 | 150 | |||
Self-rated health | ||||||||||
Very good/good | 949 | 75.5 | <0.0001 | 711 | 58.5 | <0.0001 | 892 | 120 | 180 | 0.6735 |
Moderate/poor/very poor | 579 | 66.0 | 402 | 47.6 | 535 | 120 | 180 | |||
Mobility impairments | ||||||||||
At least one | 519 | 63.9 | <0.0001 | 353 | 45.8 | <0.0001 | 478 | 120 | 180 | 0.3602 |
None | 1008 | 76.6 | 761 | 59.2 | 949 | 120 | 180 | |||
Walking aid | ||||||||||
Yes | 166 | 54.4 | <0.0001 | 109 | 37.7 | <0.0001 | 148 | 120 | 180 | 0.8522 |
No | 1368 | 74.4 | 1007 | 56.6 | 1285 | 120 | 180 | |||
Driving license | ||||||||||
Yes | 1407 | 71.5 | 0.6206 | 1026 | 53.9 | 0.7806 | 1320 | 120 | 180 | 0.2763 |
No | 105 | 73.4 | 75 | 55.2 | 92 | 120 | 180 | |||
Car availability | ||||||||||
Always | 1361 | 72.1 | 0.3791 | 994 | 54.5 | 0.3882 | 1275 | 120 | 180 | 0.0112 |
Sometimes | 109 | 69.0 | 76 | 50.7 | 101 | 140 | 240 | |||
Never | 44 | 65.7 | 31 | 47.7 | 39 | 180 | 280 | |||
Bike availability | ||||||||||
Yes | 1340 | 73.6 | <0.0001 | 969 | 55.3 | 0.0100 | 1263 | 120 | 180 | 0.0385 |
No | 195 | 60.0 | 151 | 47.5 | 172 | 135 | 240 |
Any Walking for Transport | Frequency of Walking for Transport(≥3 Days a Week) | Amount of Walking for Transport(Min/Week) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | Crude OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | n | Crude OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | n | Crude exp(β) (95% CI) | Adjusted exp(β) (95% CI) | |
Density | 1854 | 1.01 (1.01–1.01) | 1.01 (1.01–1.01) | 1790 | 1.01 (1.01–1.01) | 1.01 (1.01–1.01) | 1253 | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) † | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) † |
Walking infrastructure | 1796 | 1.38 (1.23–1.54) | 1.36 (1.21–1.53) | 1745 | 1.34 (1.20–1.49) | 1.33 (1.19–1.49) | 1223 | 1.02 (0.96–1.09) | 1.01 (0.94–1.08) |
Cycling infrastructure | 1739 | 1.09 (0.95–1.25) | 1.06 (0.92–1.22) | 1680 | 1.07 (0.94–1.21) | 1.04 (0.92–1.19) | 1169 | 1.00 (0.93–1.08) | 1.00 (0.93–1.07) |
Shared infrastructure (for walking and cycling) | 1852 | 1.14 (1.04–1.25) | 1.13 (1.03–1.24) | 1791 | 1.08 (0.99–1.17) | 1.06 (0.97–1.16) | 1250 | 0.98 (0.94–1.03) | 0.99 (0.95–1.05) |
Street connectivity | 1804 | 1.70 (1.47–1.97) | 1.67 (1.44–1.95) | 1752 | 1.61 (1.40–1.84) | 1.64 (1.42–1.89) | 1219 | 1.06 (0.98–1.14) | 1.05 (0.97–1.13) |
Aesthetics | 1697 | 1.35 (1.17–1.55) | 1.30 (1.13–1.50) | 1649 | 1.28 (1.12–1.46) | 1.25 (1.09–1.43) | 1153 | 0.99 (0.92–1.07) | 0.99 (0.92–1.07) |
Traffic safety | 1814 | 1.27 (1.09–1.48) | 1.22 (1.04–1.43) | 1756 | 1.22 (1.05–1.40) | 1.16 (1.00–1.35) † | 1220 | 0.94 (0.86–1.02) | 0.93 (0.86–1.02) |
Proximity of destinations | 1899 | 1.90 (1.68–2.13) | 1.82 (1.61–2.06) | 1832 | 1.94 (1.73–2.17) | 1.88 (1.67–2.11) | 1283 | 1.07 (1.00–1.13) | 1.06 (0.99–1.13) |
Destinations within 20-min walk | 1899 | 1.13 (1.10–1.15) | 1.12 (1.09–1.15) | 1832 | 1.13 (1.10–1.15) | 1.12 (1.09–1.15) | 1283 | 1.01 (1.00–1.03) * | 1.01 (1.00–1.02) * |
Proximity of bus stop | 1899 | 1.25 (1.13–1.37) | 1.19 (1.08–1.32) | 1832 | 1.38 (1.26–1.52) | 1.33 (1.21–1.47) | 1283 | 1.02 (0.97–1.08) | 1.01 (0.95–1.07) |
n | Crude OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | |
---|---|---|---|
Any Walking for Transport | |||
Cycling infrastructure * age | |||
65–69 | 527 | 1.48 (1.14–1.92) | 1.47 (1.12–1.93) |
70–74 | 460 | 0.94 (0.72–1.24) | 0.91 (0.69–1.21) |
75–79 | 403 | 0.98 (0.74–1.31) | 0.96 (0.71–1.29) |
80+ | 349 | 0.96 (0.73–1.26) | 0.92 (0.69–1.23) |
Street connectivity * age | |||
65–69 | 545 | 2.14 (1.61–2.85) | 2.32 (1.70–3.16) |
70–74 | 467 | 1.74 (1.28–2.35) | 1.77 (1.29–2.43) |
75–79 | 427 | 1.44 (1.07–1.92) | 1.41 (1.04–1.90) |
80+ | 365 | 1.52 (1.13–2.05) | 1.44 (1.05–1.98) |
Aesthetics * age | |||
65–69 | 512 | 1.57 (1.22–2.01) | 1.58 (1.21–2.05) |
70–74 | 453 | 1.42 (1.07–1.90) | 1.41 (1.04–1.90) |
75–79 | 396 | 1.18 0.88–1.59) | 1.14 (0.84–1.55) |
80+ | 336 | 1.17 (0.88–1.56) | 1.06 (0.78–1.45) |
n | Crude OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | |
Frequent walking for transport | |||
Walking infrastructure * walking aid | |||
Yes | 222 | 1.81 (1.29–2.55) | 1.92 (1.33–2.78) |
No | 1523 | 1.29 (1.15–1.45) | 1.29 (1.14–1.45) |
Cycling infrastructure * walking aid | |||
Yes | 206 | 1.43 (1.00–2.05) | 1.40 (0.95–2.07) |
No | 1474 | 1.01 (0.88–1.15) | 1.00 (0.87–1.14) |
Shared infrastructure * walking aid | |||
Yes | 233 | 1.33 (1.05–1.70) | 1.44 (1.11–1.88) |
No | 1558 | 1.03 (0.93–1.13) | 1.02 (0.93–1.13) |
Aesthetics * walking aid | |||
Yes | 203 | 1.77 (1.20–2.60) | 1.87 (1.23–2.85) |
No | 1446 | 1.21 (1.06–1.39) | 1.20 (1.04–1.38) |
n | Crude exp(β) (95% CI) | Adjusted exp(β) (95% CI) | |
Walking amount min/week | |||
Land use mix proximity * gender | |||
Male | 699 | 1.02 (0.93–1.11) | 1.01 (0.93–1.10) |
Female | 584 | 1.13 (1.03–1.23) | 1.12 (1.02–1.22) |
Traffic safety * age | |||
65–69 | 373 | 1.04 (0.90–1.21) | 1.07 (0.92–1.24) |
70–74 | 332 | 0.92 (0.78–1.09) | 0.94 (0.79–1.12) |
75–79 | 281 | 0.92 (0.77–1.10) | 0.92 (0.77–1.10) |
80+ | 234 | 0.80 (0.67–0.97) | 0.82 (0.67–0.99) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 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
Brüchert, T.; Hasselder, P.; Quentin, P.; Bolte, G. Walking for Transport among Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study on the Role of the Built Environment in Less Densely Populated Areas in Northern Germany. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9479. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249479
Brüchert T, Hasselder P, Quentin P, Bolte G. Walking for Transport among Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study on the Role of the Built Environment in Less Densely Populated Areas in Northern Germany. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(24):9479. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249479
Chicago/Turabian StyleBrüchert, Tanja, Pia Hasselder, Paula Quentin, and Gabriele Bolte. 2020. "Walking for Transport among Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study on the Role of the Built Environment in Less Densely Populated Areas in Northern Germany" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 24: 9479. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249479