Activity space environment and dietary and physical activity behaviors: A pilot study
Introduction
Research over the past decade has advanced understanding of geographic environmental features that are associated with dietary and physical activity behaviors and body weight status. Some of this research has shown that living in a neighborhood with more supportive environmental features (e.g., walkability, accessibility of recreational places, pleasing esthetics) is associated with greater physical activity and lower body weight status (Black and Macinko, 2010, Coogan et al., 2009, Duncan et al., 2010, Frank et al., 2005, Gomez et al., 2010, Kondo et al., 2009, Rodríguez et al., 2009). Other studies have found associations between neighborhood accessibility of (un)healthy foods and dietary behaviors and body weight status (Franco et al., 2009, Li et al., 2009, Moore et al., 2009, Morland et al., 2002, Rose et al., 2009, Paquet et al., 2010). However, overall, findings for many environmental features are inconsistent (Ball et al., 2006, Casagrande et al., 2009, Fleischhacker et al., 2011, Giskes et al., 2011, Lopez and Hynes, 2006, Lovasi et al., 2009, Witten et al., 2008, Pearce et al., 2008).
Two recent reviews indicate that research has concentrated almost exclusively on environmental features of the residential neighborhood, defined as a surrounding administrative unit (e.g., census tract, ZIP code) in most studies (59–73%) and as a ‘buffer’ (e.g., 0.5 mile radius) in the remaining studies (Feng et al., 2010, Leal and Chaix, 2011). Measuring environmental features for non-residential locations in relation to weight-related behavior has been rare (Inagami et al., 2006, Jeffery et al., 2006, Troped et al., 2010). In fact, a review on geographic environments and cardiometabolic risk factors found that 90% of studies measured environmental features in the residential neighborhood only and just 4% in both the residential neighborhood and around a non-residential location (Leal and Chaix, 2011). The very small number of studies that have examined associations between non-residential environmental features and dietary and physical activity behavior or body weight status have been typically limited to one (i.e., work) (Jeffery et al., 2006, Troped et al., 2010) and at most five (Inagami et al., 2006, Vallee et al., 2010) non-residential locations. Even among studies that measure environmental features based on proximity (rather than density) and thus can incorporate features outside the residential neighborhood, measures are still generally constructed in relation to the place of residence (Apparicio et al., 2007, Sharkey and Horel, 2008, Smoyer-Tomic et al., 2006, Burns and Inglis, 2007, Giles-Corti et al., 2005, Kaczynski et al., 2008).
Yet, individuals routinely conduct day-to-day activities (e.g., work, child care, social engagements, shopping) outside their residential neighborhood. For example, the average travel time to work in the United States is 25.3 min (United States Census Bureau, 2009). In an ethnographic study of low-income families in Boston (n=10), just 6% of day-to-day activities took place in their residential census tract, another 21% in adjacent census tracts, and a startling 73% in other areas of the city (Matthews et al., 2005, Matthews, 2010). Research in the Paris metropolitan area found that 19–47% of individuals engaged in five activities (food shopping, using services, going for a walk, meeting friends, going to a restaurant or café) mainly outside their neighborhood of residence, though 54% reported mainly shopping for food in their residential neighborhood (Vallee et al., 2010). Further, with regard to food shopping, the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Study (n=2144) found that only 22% of participants grocery shopped within their own census tract, 42% in adjacent census tracts, and 37% beyond surrounding census tracts (Inagami et al., 2006). Studies of predominately African-American and/or Latino samples in Philadelphia (n=1440) and Detroit (n=919) revealed that individuals traveled, on average, 2.2–3.3 miles to shop for food (Matthews, 2008a, Zenk et al., 2008). With regard to physical activity, a Boston study found that, on average, less than one-third of moderate and vigorous physical activity among a convenience sample of 148 adults occurred within 1 km (0.62 mile) of participants’ homes (Troped et al., 2010).
Thus, focusing solely on the residential neighborhood may mischaracterize environmental influences on dietary and physical activity behaviors and body weight status (Inagami et al., 2006, Troped et al., 2010, Morenoff, 2003, Rodriguez et al., 2005, Kestens et al., 2010). Scholars have called for research on non-residential environmental influences on health (Chaix et al., 2009, Cummins et al., 2007, Inagami et al., 2007, Kwan and Weber, 2003, Matthews, 2008b, Rainham et al., 2009, Saarloos et al., 2009). Characterizing the space within which people move or travel during the course of their day-to-day activities (activity space) (Golledge and Stimson, 1997, Horton and Reynolds, 1971), rather than only where they live, may provide a more comprehensive and accurate assessment of the environment to which individuals are exposed and utilize. In turn, this could help to elucidate the mechanisms by which geographic environments affect dietary and physical activity behaviors and body weight status. However, little is known about activity space environments and obesity or related behaviors.
Section snippets
Purpose
In this exploratory pilot study, we drew upon data from the Detroit Activity Space Environments Study (DASES), designed to pilot test methodology to measure individuals’ activity space using wearable global positioning systems (GPS) and associated environmental exposures in this space that may affect dietary and physical activity behaviors and, ultimately, body weight status. We addressed the following questions:
- 1.
To what extent do activity space characteristics (size and environmental features,
Design and overview
The Detroit Activity Space Environments Study (DASES) was conducted in September 2008–April 2009. It employed an exploratory observational design. Data collection consisted of three phases: baseline interview, 7-day study period (which included wearing a GPS and accelerometer except during bathing or other water activities), and follow-up interview. All materials were available in English and Spanish, and the research team included Spanish-speaking interviewers.
Sample
Participants were recruited from
Sample characteristics
Table 1 shows characteristics of the 120 study participants with GPS data. The sample was predominately female, African-American or Latino, and of lower SEP. The median for daily minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity was 8.2. The median daily intake was 20.4 g of saturated fat, 2.8 servings of fruits and vegetables, and 0.8 servings of whole grains.
Variation in activity space environmental characteristics
Activity spaces varied considerably in size. The median size of participants’ one standard deviation ellipse was 7.60 mi2 [quartile 1
Discussion
Overall, our findings suggest that applying the concept of “activity space” from behavioral geography to public health research may provide new insights into environmental influences on dietary and physical activity behaviors. Most individuals’ activity space was larger than their residential neighborhood, suggesting that most conducted day-to-day activities outside their residential neighborhood. Further, environmental features of the residential neighborhood were generally weakly associated
Conclusions
Epidemiologic research is valuable for identifying promising targets of environmental and policy interventions to promote health. While our understanding of relationships between geographic environments and health has surged over the past decade, epidemiologic research to date is almost exclusively based on residential neighborhoods. In our pilot study with a diverse urban sample, we found that most individuals spent time in a broader space than their residential neighborhood, and that those
Acknowledgments
The Healthy Environments Partnership (HEP) (www.hepdetroit.org) is a community-based participatory research project affiliated with the Detroit Community-Academic Urban Research Center (www.sph.umich.edu/urc). We thank the members of the HEP Steering Committee for their contributions to the work presented here, including representatives from Brightmoor Community Center, Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Promotion, Detroit Hispanic Development Corporation, Friends of Parkside, Henry Ford
References (94)
- et al.
Measuring food access in Melbourne: access to healthy and fast foods by car, bus and foot in an urban municipality in Melbourne
Health & Place
(2007) - et al.
Built environment and health behaviors among African-Americans: a systematic review
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2009) - et al.
Neighbourhoods in eco-epidemiologic research: delimiting personal exposure areas. A response to Riva, Gauvin, Apparicio and Brodeur
Social Science & Medicine
(2009) - et al.
Understanding and representing ‘place’ in health research: a relational approach
Social Science & Medicine
(2007) - et al.
The built environment and obesity: a systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence
Health & Place
(2010) - et al.
Availability of healthy foods and dietary patterns: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
(2009) - et al.
Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: findings from SMARTRAQ
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2005) - et al.
Increasing walking: how important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space?
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2005) - et al.
Non-residential neighborhood exposures suppress neighborhood effects on self-rated health
Social Science & Medicine
(2007) - et al.
You are where you shop: grocery store locations, weight, and neighborhoods
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2006)