Mismatch between perceived and objective measures of physical activity environments
Introduction
Physical activity behaviors are influenced not only by personal cognitions but also by a range of environmental cues (Ball et al., 2006a, Giles-Corti et al., 2005, Kremers et al., 2006), both in children (Ferreira et al., 2006) and adults (Humpel et al., 2002). Most studies examining associations of the physical environment with physical activity have relied upon self-reported perceptions to measure the environment. However, little is known about the accuracy of such perceptions since few studies have directly assessed the correspondence between perceived and objective measures. One study assessed correlations between environmental features assessed by observation, using a geographic information system (GIS) and perceptions as reported by adolescent males (Jago et al., 2006). However, that study did not incorporate directly corresponding environmental items, but rather examined aggregate environmental ‘factors’, (e.g., ‘self-reported access and safety’ ‘walking/cycling ease’), derived through factor analyses. Correlations between indices obtained via different assessment methods were found to be low (the majority were in the range 0.1–0.4). Others have also found low levels of agreement between perceived and objective data on hills, weather, and other environmental supports for physical activity (Kirtland et al., 2003, McGinn et al., 2007, Troped et al., 2001).
Although access to facilities (assessed primarily via self-report) is an important correlate of physical activity (Humpel et al., 2002), we are not aware of previous studies that have examined the agreement between perceived and objectively-assessed access to physical activity facilities or places to be active in local neighborhoods. Similarly, we know of no studies that have attempted to characterize individuals with greater levels of ‘mismatch’ between their own perceptions of the physical activity environment and objective data. An understanding of the correspondence between perceived and objectively-assessed environments is important for several reasons. If perceptions are commonly being used in research to characterize environments, and these perceptions are inaccurate, important associations may be missed, while others may be erroneously identified. Further, there may be systematic biases in the misreporting of environmental perceptions. For instance, less educated groups, or those with low self-efficacy for physical activity, may be more likely to misperceive their physical activity environment. An understanding of the mismatch between perceptions and objective reality could be used to inform interventions aimed at educating the community about the availability of physical activity facilities.
This study aimed to investigate the match between measures of physical activity facilities obtained through self-report and through objective audits; and to identify the socio-demographic, cognitive and behavioral characteristics of those who perceive their physical activity environment to be less supportive than objective measures suggest.
Section snippets
Sample
Data were collected from 1540 women recruited using a stratified random sampling procedure from 45 Melbourne neighborhoods of different levels of socioeconomic disadvantage, defined according to the Socioeconomic Index for Areas (SEIFA: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003). Based on 2001 Census data, the Australian Bureau of Statistics assigned a SEIFA score to suburbs based on relative disadvantage. Based on their SEIFA score, all suburbs within 30 km of Melbourne CBD were grouped into
Results
The mean age of the sample was 42 years (SD 12.8). Just over a third (37%) were tertiary-educated and one in five reported a weekly household income of $1500 or more. Three-quarters of the women reported some leisure-time physical activity; 65% reported any leisure-time walking; and 54% reported leisure-time walking in their own neighborhood in the previous week.
Table 1 shows the correspondence between perceived and objectively-assessed availability of the eight facilities, with cell figures
Discussion
Results show considerable mismatch between perceived and objectively-assessed access to physical activity facilities in local neighborhoods. In particular, self-reports of walking/bicycle tracks and tennis courts were poorly correlated with objective data. While few studies have examined agreement between perceived and objective measures of the physical activity environment, the present findings are generally consistent with those of previous studies (Kirtland et al., 2003, McGinn et al., 2007,
Conclusions
This study shows substantial mismatch between the availability of physical activity facilities in the local neighborhood obtained by self-report and by objective audits. This mismatch is greater for certain segments of the population, defined according to socio-demographic, cognitive and behavioral variables. This lack of correspondence should be taken into account in both future studies assessing physical activity environments, and public health strategies aimed at promoting activity,
Acknowledgments
Kylie Ball is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Senior Research Fellowship, ID 479513. David Crawford and Anna Timperio are supported by Victorian Health Promotion Foundation Research Fellowships. Jo Salmon is supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia and sanofi-aventis Career Development Award. Funding for this study was provided by the National Heart Foundation of Australia.
References (24)
- et al.
Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity among urban adults
Am. J. Prev. Med.
(2005) - et al.
Environmental factors associated with adults' participation in physical activity: a review
Am. J. Prev. Med.
(2002) - et al.
Environmental measures of physical activity supports: perception versus reality
Am. J. Prev. Med.
(2003) - et al.
The relationship between leisure, walking, and transportation activity with the natural environment
Health Place
(2007) - et al.
Neighborhood differences in social capital: a compositional artefact or a contextual construct?
Health Place
(2003) - et al.
Associations between self-reported and objective physical environmental factors and use of a community rail-trail
Prev. Med.
(2001) Census of population and housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia. Catalogue 2033.0.55.001
(2003)- et al.
Understanding environmental influences on nutrition and physical activity behaviors: where should we look and what should we count?
Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act
(2006) - et al.
Socioeconomic inequalities in women's fruit and vegetable intakes: a multilevel study of individual, social and environmental mediators
Public Health Nutr.
(2006) - et al.
Personal, social and environmental determinants of educational inequalities in walking: a multilevel study
J. Epidemiol. Community Health
(2007)
International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ): 12-country reliability and validity
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
National Physical Activity Guidelines for Australians
Cited by (190)
Understanding the effects of environmental perceptions on walking behavior by integrating big data with small data
2023, Landscape and Urban PlanningHow low-carbon travel improves travel well-being : Evidence from China
2023, Sustainable Production and ConsumptionThe impact of the streetscape built environment on recreation satisfaction: A case study of Guangzhou
2023, Journal of Transport GeographyElderly's intention and use behavior of urban parks: Planned behavior perspective
2023, Habitat International