Document Detail

Neighborhood built environment and physical activity of Japanese older adults: results from the Aichi Gerontological Evaluation Study (AGES).
Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  21854598     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
BACKGROUND: Although many studies have reported the association between neighborhood built environment (BE) and physical activity (PA), less is known about the associations for older populations or in countries besides the US and Australia. The aim of this paper is to examine the associations for older adult populations in Japan.
METHODS: Our analyses were based on cross-sectional data from the Aichi Gerontological Evaluation Study (AGES), conducted in 2003. The respondents were older adults, aged 65 years or over (n = 9,414), from 8 municipalities across urban, suburban, and rural areas. The frequency of leisure time sports activity and total walking time were used as the outcome variables. Using geographic information systems (GIS), we measured residential density, street connectivity, number of local destinations, access to recreational spaces, and land slope of the respondents' neighborhoods, based on network distances with multiple radii (250 m, 500 m, 1,000 m). An ordinal logistic regression model was used to analyze the association between PA and BE measures.
RESULTS: Population density and presence of parks or green spaces had positive associations with the frequency of sports activity, regardless of the selected buffer zone. The analysis of total walking time, however, showed only a few associations.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide mixed support for the association between PA and the characteristics of BE measures, previously used in Western settings. Some characteristics of the neighborhood built environment may facilitate leisure time sports activity, but not increase the total walking time for Japanese older adults.
Authors:
Tomoya Hanibuchi; Ichiro Kawachi; Tomoki Nakaya; Hiroshi Hirai; Katsunori Kondo
Related Documents :
20587808 - The inclusion of adult vehicle occupants in matched cohort studies of child restraint e...
10073158 - Road traffic practices among a cohort of young adults in new zealand.
20146138 - Road crash trends for young drivers in new south wales, australia, from 1997 to 2007.
20730688 - Identifying driver characteristics influencing overtaking crashes.
2379338 - Hand rejuvenation. the state of the art.
13935078 - Serum uric acid in young mongoloids.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't     Date:  2011-08-19
Journal Detail:
Title:  BMC public health     Volume:  11     ISSN:  1471-2458     ISO Abbreviation:  BMC Public Health     Publication Date:  2011  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2011-09-12     Completed Date:  2012-01-11     Revised Date:  2013-06-27    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  100968562     Medline TA:  BMC Public Health     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  657     Citation Subset:  IM    
Affiliation:
Research Center for Disaster Mitigation of Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University, 58 Komatsubara Kitamachi, Kita-ku, Kyoto, Kyoto, 603-8341 Japan. info@hanibuchi.com
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Cross-Sectional Studies
Environment Design / statistics & numerical data*
Female
Geographic Information Systems
Humans
Japan
Male
Population Density*
Residence Characteristics / statistics & numerical data*
Sports / statistics & numerical data*
Time Factors
Walking / statistics & numerical data*
Comments/Corrections

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Public Health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Publisher: BioMed Central
Article Information
Download PDF
Copyright ©2011 Hanibuchi et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
open-access:
Received Day: 15 Month: 4 Year: 2011
Accepted Day: 19 Month: 8 Year: 2011
collection publication date: Year: 2011
Electronic publication date: Day: 19 Month: 8 Year: 2011
Volume: 11First Page: 657 Last Page: 657
ID: 3170622
Publisher Id: 1471-2458-11-657
PubMed Id: 21854598
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-657

Neighborhood built environment and physical activity of Japanese older adults: results from the Aichi Gerontological Evaluation Study (AGES)
Tomoya Hanibuchi1 Email: info@hanibuchi.com
Ichiro Kawachi2 Email: ikawachi@hsph.harvard.edu
Tomoki Nakaya3 Email: nakaya@lt.ritsumei.ac.jp
Hiroshi Hirai4 Email: hirai181kan@gmail.com
Katsunori Kondo5 Email: kkondo@n-fukushi.ac.jp
1Research Center for Disaster Mitigation of Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University, 58 Komatsubara Kitamachi, Kita-ku, Kyoto, Kyoto, 603-8341 Japan
2Department of Society, Human Development, and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave., Boston, MA, 02115 USA
3Department of Geography, Ritsumeikan University, 56-1 Tojiin-Kitamachi, Kita-ku, Kyoto, 603-8577 Japan
4Department of Civil Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Iwate University, Morioka, Japan
5Center for Well-being and Society, Nihon Fukushi University, 5-22-35 Chiyoda, Naka-ku, Nagoya, 460-0012 Japan

Background

Physical activity (PA) has been reported to have many health benefits including reduced risk of mortality [1,2] and the prevention of chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, hypertension, obesity, or depression [3]. However, a large part of the population does not regularly engage in exercise. For example, less than one third of the Japanese population (32.2% of men and 27.0% of women) regularly engage in exercise; thirty minutes or more of exercise two or more times per week, for more than a year [4]. In this regard, exploring factors that are associated with increased levels of physical activity is important for public health research.

In studies of the health impacts of neighborhood environments, the association between the built environment (BE) and physical activity is of central importance [5]. PA has been reported to be related to residential density, street connectivity, and land use mix [6-8]. Although many empirical studies have analyzed the associations using perceived measures [9-11], objective measures [12-15], or both [16-19], the findings continue to be heterogeneous (e.g., no association, or associations in the opposite direction) [20,21]. This may be explained by variations in the environmental measures, study populations, or geographical settings, in which the respondents reside.

Age (adolescent, middle aged, or older adults) is an important source of the between-study heterogeneity. Compared to the studies of adolescents and adults, few studies have explored the association between the BE and the PA of older adults [14,22]. Only recently, especially in the late 2000s, have researchers begun to analyze the association with a variety of objective and/or perceived measures of BE (e.g., residential density, land use mix, street connectivity, access to local destinations, walking/cycling facilities, etc.) and different types of PA (e.g., total PA, recreational PA, recreational walking, transportation walking, etc.). In a systematic review of 31 articles concerning the relationship between BE and PA in older adults, Van Cauwenberg et al. [23] concluded that the results were inconsistent, though most of the studied environmental characteristics were reported to be unrelated to PA. The authors pointed out that this might reflect some methodological issues within this developing field, such as the measurement of PA and environment. For example, Nagel et al. [14] found no association between any of the variables of objectively measured BEs and the likelihood of engaging in walking, based on the samples of community-dwelling older adults in Portland, Oregon. However, amongst those reporting some degree of walking activity, the average time spent walking was associated with some variables of BE; amount of automobile traffic and number of commercial establishments.

Furthermore, the broader social and cultural context may be important in studies of the environment and PA. Although many studies have been conducted, especially in the US, Europe, and Australia [23], the association between BE and PA may not be clearly generalizable to other societies. For example, a study of an elderly population from Latin America (Bogotá) recently showed the negative associations between street connectivity and walking for at least 60 minutes, which, according to the authors, differs from most of the evidence gathered from studies in Europe and the US [24]. Generally speaking, the spatial forms of residence, transportation infrastructure, and retail or business locations may all vary according to the given country, region and cultural context. Thus, research is needed to explore the association between the BE and PA outside the US, Europe, and Australia [7,23,25], especially in Asian countries, where a dearth of studies have been conducted.

Based on the above mentioned challenges, the aim of this paper is to fill the gaps in the literature by examining the association between neighborhood BEs and PA of older adults in Japan.


Methods
Data

Our analyses were based on the cross-sectional data of the Aichi Gerontological Evaluation Study (AGES), conducted in 2003 [26]. We conducted a mail survey with a random sample of functionally independent, community-dwelling people aged 65 years and over (i.e., who were not eligible for public, long-term nursing care) in 15 municipalities from 3 prefectures in Japan. According to the availability of geocoded data, the present study involved 11,876 respondents from 8 municipalities (response rate = 48.7%) in the Chita Peninsula region. The Chita Peninsula region is adjacent to Nagoya City, which is the center of the third largest metropolitan area in Japan. The study area consisted of eight municipalities that included urban/suburban areas (northern part of the Chita Peninsula) and rural areas (southern part). The study protocol and informed consent procedure were approved by the Ethics Committee in Research of Human Subjects at Nihon Fukushi University.

Outcome

Frequency of leisure time sports activity and total walking time were the two outcome variables used.

Leisure time sports activity

The questions for frequency of leisure time activities, including sports activity, were included in the questionnaire [27]. Respondents were asked "Do you engage in any leisure activities at the moment?" with possible responses of "Yes" or "No". Those who answered "Yes" were then asked about the frequency of leisure activities for each of the eight types (sports activities, cultural activities, musical activities, creative activities, horticulture etc., watching TV etc., travelling etc., and gambling etc.). Sports activity was included as one of these types, with the description of: "sports activities (e.g., ground golf; "gateball" [Japanese croquet]; walking; jogging; physical exercises)". Possible responses were the following six categories: I don't engage in any sports activities, I engage in the activity several times a year, once or twice a month, once a week, twice or three times a week, and almost everyday. Those who did not engage in any leisure activities (from the first question) or who did not engage in sports activities (from the second question) were collapsed into a single category.

Walking

We also inquired about the total walking time per day. Respondents were asked "How long do you walk a day on average?" with the following four response categories: Less than 30 minutes, 30 to 60 minutes, 60 to 90 minutes, and more than 90 minutes. The purpose of walking (e.g., for transportation or for leisure) was not identified in this question. A previous study reported the validity of a single-item questionnaire on walking among the Japanese population, using pedometer counts as the reference standard [28].

Exposure
Definition of neighborhoods

For neighborhood BEs, we measured residential density, street connectivity, number of local destinations, accessibility to recreational facilities, and land slope. Neighborhoods were defined by constructing a buffer zone around each respondent's home, based on a street network. Compared to the commonly used multilevel structure (where individuals are nested in a larger geographic unit), the GIS approach allows for neighborhood environments to be defined for each resident level. Since the relevant size of a neighborhood could vary according to the age group or other settings, the use of multiple geographic scales was helpful in this regard [6]. Given that our study population consisted of older adults, we considered a radial distance of 250 m as indicating the most accessible space, in addition to 500 m and 1,000 m (roughly a quarter mile and a half mile).

We used ArcGIS 9.3 for all spatial calculations. The "CSV address matching service" (provided by the Center for Spatial Information Science, The University of Tokyo) was used for geocoding procedures. The accuracy of geocoding was at the Gaiku (city block) level; reference points were located at about 50 m intervals.

Residential density

Population density was used as an indicator of residential density. Nevertheless, similar to the suggestion by Owens et al. [29], regarding the US census data, the Japanese census unit (Chou-Chou-Aza-tou) is unsuitable for measuring neighborhood population density, especially in suburban and rural areas, since the unit tends to be large and includes many non-habitable areas. To address this problem, we identified developed areas as those with buildings or settlements at 50 m interval points, based on the 1:25,000 Topographic Map in Japan [30]. Next, each point was weighted by the population of the census unit (as of 2005). For example, if the population was 500, and 20 points were identified in a certain census unit, we assigned a population of 25 to each point. We then aggregated the population of the neighborhood, based on the points within the network buffer. With this method, we could exclude non-developed areas (e.g., rivers, ponds, or mountains) and some land use for non-residential purposes (farms or industrial districts) from the calculation.

Street connectivity

The number of intersections (at least three-way) was used as an index of street connectivity. We also counted the number of dead-end streets, as possibly representing lower street connectivity. The source of information was the Digital Map 2500 (Spatial Data Framework), published by The Geospatial Information Authority of Japan, which provides basic spatial data on streets, public spaces, natural environments, and administrative boundaries, as of 2002.

Number of local destinations

The number of destinations was used as a measure for the land use mix. Considering previous studies and the Japanese context, we chose 17 common destinations: bank, bookstore, cafe, clothing store, community center, convenience store, dentist, electrical appliance shop, fast-food store, hairdressing salon, hospital, laundry, library, municipal office, pharmacy, post office, and supermarket. The data was collected from the Yellow Pages, a phone number database, in August 2010, and geocoded.

Recreational facilities

The presence or absence of parks or green spaces and schools was measured as the accessibility to recreational facilities. Parks or green spaces also included open spaces, athletic grounds, and ball parks. Schools were included in our analysis because some schools open their grounds to the public. This information was obtained from the Digital Map 2500 (Spatial Data Framework).

Land slope

Average land slope of neighborhoods was measured for the neighborhood environment, though this could be considered a feature of the physical or natural environment, rather than the BE. Elevation data (as of 2001) was obtained from the Digital Map 50 m Grid (Elevation), from The Geospatial Information Authority of Japan.

Covariates

Considering possible confounding factors from the respondents' demographic, socioeconomic, and health status, age (65-69, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, ≥85 years); gender (male, female); marital status (married, divorced/widowed, never married); educational attainment (<6, 6-9, 10-12, ≥13 years of schooling); household equivalized income (<1 million, 1-2 million, 2-3 million, 3-4 million, and ≥4 million yen); having paid work (Yes, No); self-rated health (SRH; fair and poor were collapsed into Poor); 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS; 10 points or more = High depressive symptoms); and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL; 4 points or less = Low IADL) by TMIG-IC [31] were used as the control variables.

Statistical analysis

Based on the ordinal scale of our two outcome variables, we performed an ordinal logistic regression analysis. BE measures were included as continuous (population density, number of intersections, number of dead-ends, number of destinations, and land slope) or dummy variables (parks or green spaces, and schools), though the variables that were categorized into quartiles (Lowest, Low, High, and Highest) were also considered in order to examine the non-linear association. First, each BE measure was separately included in the regression model due to the high correlations among them. We also considered mutually adjusted models including the variables that were shown to be associated with PA in the separated models. A regression analysis was also performed for the sample after stratifying the data by gender, location (North vs. South), and years of residence in the municipality (<50 years vs. ≥50 years), in order to explore whether the associations between BE and PA were seen in each population subgroup.

The analyses were restricted to respondents who provided complete information on age and gender, and who were successfully geocoded. For other control variables, we created a "missing" category for missing data. Respondents from two isolated islands were excluded from our analyses, because our measurements were based on network distance, and the evaluation of accessibility for these respondents would be difficult. Finally, we used 9,414 older adults for the analyses, though the number of samples for the regression varied due to missing values for the outcome variables.


Results

Basic characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 1 and characteristics of the BEs in neighborhoods are shown in Table 2. More than half respondents did not engage in sports activity. However, among those who did engage in sports activity, many people were more likely to engage in it frequently. As for walking time, although approximately one third of the respondents answered they walk less than 30 minutes a day, the responses were more evenly distributed than the frequency of sports activity. Table 3 represents the correlation coefficient between BE measures. Some combinations showed a high correlation, especially at the radial distance of 1,000 m. For example, population density was positively correlated with the number of intersections (r = 0.66) and the number of destinations (r = 0.74).

Table 4 shows the results of the ordinal logistic regression analysis for leisure time sports activity. Population density was related to increased sports activity at radial distances of 250 m (OR = 1.004, 95%CI = 1.001-1.006), 500 m (OR = 1.004, 95%CI = 1.002-1.007), and 1,000 m (OR = 1.005, 95%CI = 1.002-1.008) for the neighborhood. The presence of parks or green spaces also showed a consistent association with sports activity at 250 m (OR = 1.258, 95%CI = 1.082-1.462), 500 m (OR = 1.152, 95%CI = 1.021-1.300), and 1,000 m radius (OR = 1.162, 95%CI = 1.056-1.280). The number of dead-ends was inversely related to sports activity, at radial distances of 500 m (OR = 0.992, 95%CI = 0.985-0.999), while the number of intersections had a positive association only at a radial distance of 1,000 m (OR = 1.001, 95%CI = 1.000-1.001). The presence of schools was not associated with sports activity measures. Land slope were negatively related to sports activity at 250 m (OR = 0.961, 95%CI = 0.941-0.981), 500 m (OR = 0.957, 95%CI = 0.931-0.983), and 1000 m radius (OR = 0.944, 95%CI = 0.923-0.967).

When looking at the results using variables that were categorized into quartiles, some non-linear associations were observed. For the number of dead-ends at 250 m radius, Low (OR = 0.880, 95%CI = 0.778-0.994) and High (OR = 0.852, 95%CI = 0.762-0.952) showed differences compared to the reference category (Lowest), but Highest (OR = 0.954, 95%CI = 0.852-1.069) did not. Although no linear relation was observed, when using the categorized variable, the number of destinations was associated with sports activity at a radial distance of 1,000 m (Low: OR = 1.185, 95%CI = 1.049-1.338, Highest: OR = 1.161, 95%CI = 1.033-1.306). Mixed results were observed for land slope; a negative association was observed at a radial distance of 1,000 m (Highest: OR = 0.840, 95%CI = 0.740-0.953), while a positive association was observed at a radial distance of 250 m (Low: OR = 1.129, 95%CI = 1.001-1.273).

Table 5 represents the results of mutually adjusted models including the variables that were shown to be associated with sports activity in the separated models at each buffer radius. Associations remained for two out of three BE variables at 250 m radius, three out of four at 500 m radius, and two out of four at 1,000 m radius.

Table 6 shows the results of regression analysis for total walking time. Only a few associations were observed. The land slope showed a consistent positive association with walking time at 250 m (OR = 1.037, 95%CI = 1.018-1.056), 500 m (OR = 1.048, 95%CI = 1.023-1.074), and 1,000 m radius (OR = 1.036, 95%CI = 1.015-1.058), suggesting that the respondents living in areas with steeper slopes tended to report longer times for walking per day. When using variables that were categorized into quartiles, in addition to the land slope, the number of intersections at a radial distance of 500 m (Low: OR = 0.876, 95%CI = 0.782-0.981, Highest: OR = 0.891, 95%CI = 0.796-0.998) and the number of destinations at a radial distance of 1,000 m (Low: OR = 0.879, 95%CI = 0.784-0.985) were negatively associated with walking time.

The regression analysis was performed using subgroups stratified by gender, location (North vs. South Chita Peninsula), and years of residence (<50 years vs. ≥50 years). The results were shown in Table 7 (sports activity) and Table 8 (walking time). Regarding sports activity, the association between the BE and PA was clearly apparent among male respondents. Associations were observed in 10 out of the 21 models (seven BE measures and three buffer radii) for the male group, while only one was observed among the female respondents. In seven out of the 10 models, interactions between gender and BE were observed (results not shown). When the analysis was stratified by location, even though associations were seen in both North and South, only a few were observed in North. For example, parks or green spaces were not associated with sports activity in the North subgroup. Among respondents who had resided longer in the municipality (≥50 years), associations were observed in eight models, while only one was seen among respondents who had resided for a shorter time in the municipality (<50 years). For example, associations between population density and sports activity were only seen among the residents residing for 50 years or more (at three radii). Interactions between years of residence and BE were observed in three of the models.

In terms of walking time, a clear difference was seen between North and South. Among the respondents who resided in the South, associations were detected in eight models, and the direction of the associations were negative for population density, number of intersections, and number of destinations, and positive for land slope. Out of the eight models, three models showed interactions between location and BE measures.


Discussion

The present study revealed that, in Japan, some neighborhood BEs were associated with the PA levels of older residents. For example, population density and the presence of parks or green spaces were associated with increased sports activity, regardless of the buffer zone selected. Land slope was also consistently associated with sports activity in the expected direction (i.e., negative association), but only when it was used as continuous variable. The number of destinations was not linearly related to the frequency of sports activity, while using the variable, categorized into quartiles, yielded some positive associations. In the mutually adjusted models, some BE variables were not associated with sports activity, suggesting that not all the BE variables have independent effects on sports activity, or, that it can be difficult to disentangle the effects of BEs due to their similar spatial distribution. On the other hand, the results of the analysis for total walking time showed only a few associations, and most of them were in an unexpected direction. Therefore, our findings provide mixed support for the association between PA and the characteristics of BEs, previously used in Western settings.

Our study also showed mixed results based on the stratified samples. In particular, the unexpected direction of the associations between the BE and walking time (i.e., negative associations for population density, the number of intersections, and number of destinations, and positive associations for land slope) in Southern Chita Peninsula deserves comment. As a possible explanation for this finding, the respondents who were engaged in farming or forestry may have considered their daily work routines to be walking time. Southern Chita is more rural than northern Chita. Additionally, respondents who do not drive a car (most likely females) may have had to walk longer in areas with less public transportation.

As for gender differences, associations with sports activity were mostly seen among the male respondents. In particular, population density, parks or green spaces, and land slope showed associations with sports activity at any of the buffer radii. This may reflect gender differences in the context of sports activity. For older men, games or sports events (e.g., ground golf or gateball [Japanese croquet]) are more likely to be accessible and preferred, while daily physical activities (e.g., walking or jogging), that can be performed alone or with a few people, may be more popular among older women. Neighborhood BEs, such as population density or availability of parks, may play a role especially for such games or events. Regarding years of residence, many associations were observed in the subgroup of residents residing for 50 years or more. This may suggest that the results are not necessarily attributable to reverse causation brought about by differences in residential preference.

The present study has some advantages. Our analysis was based on the respondents of Japanese older adults. Although PA levels have been reported to be related to neighborhood BEs, less is known about these associations for older adults or in countries besides the US, Europe, and Australia [14,22,23]. Some studies have recently reported associations between BEs and PA in Japan; however, they were mainly based on perceived measures [9,10,32]. A few studies have analyzed a limited set of BE characteristics using GIS techniques [33], or have focused on small samples from a narrow study area [34]. In contrast, we measured various BEs using GIS, based on network distances with multiple radii. Particularly, a method for calculating population density, based on a combination of topographic maps and census data, may have contributed to a more accurate measurement and the detection of its association with sports activity.

In addition, using samples from a variety of regions, covering eight municipalities with urban, suburban, and rural areas, was another advantage in the current study. Van Cauwenberg et al. [23] pointed out that the low number of positive relationships in previous studies of older adults could be due to the limited range of environmental variation in the study areas. Since broader regional variations in the BE may occur between urban and rural areas, analysing respondents from a variety of regions might have allowed us to detect some associations between BE and PA. In our stratified analysis by location (North vs. South), results similar to the entire sample were obtained for the South subgroup, while only a few associations were seen for the North strata. For example, parks or green spaces were not associated with sports activity when the analysis was limited within the North strata. Including samples from the South, the region which has less access to parks or green spaces (no parks or green spaces were located within 1,000 m from the respondents' home in the South region), may have contributed to the increasing regional variation and the detection of the association with sports activity.

Using multiple radii for buffer zones was also considered to be an advantage of this study, though the main results were basically consistent between all radii. However, as for street connectivity, the number of dead-ends was associated with sports activity at 250 m and 500 m, while the number of intersections showed an association at 1,000 m radius. Many dead-ends in immediate neighborhoods may indicate that the residents lived in a much less connected area. In the stratified analysis, there were also some different results for the selected buffer radii. For example, associations were only seen at 250 m radius in the North subgroup. Although this is not very clear from our results, an appropriate radius could vary by population, region, or types of BE. Therefore, using multiple radii would be useful, at least until an appropriate radius is established, and further study is needed to explore a better definition for neighborhood in many localities.

The present study also has some limitations. First, self-reported measured PA was a limitation, as they might have been misreported, and/or recognition of "leisure time" and "sports activity" might differ between each respondent. Our outcome variables were not based on well-established measures, such as the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). For example, we could not distinguish between walking for transport vs. walking for PA. Since specific environments may affect specific physical activities, the variety of physical activities should be considered, such as the purpose of walking (e.g., for daily errands, for leisure, or for commuting to work) [10]. In our study, leisure time sports activity was more specific in its purpose than total walking time, which could explain the different associations with the BE.

Another limitation of our study was its cross-sectional design, which prevents inferences being made about causality from the observed associations. Residents are likely to reside in different neighborhoods based partly on their preferences for PA. For example, those inclined to be regularly active may choose to live in areas that offer a variety of features (access to parks, sidewalks) that are conducive to PA. Recent studies have begun to tease out the effects of residential preferences, which may confound the associations between BE characteristics and PA. For example, Frank et al. [35] found that the low preference for living in a walkable neighborhood was indeed associated with less walking (for both transport and leisure). Importantly, within the strata of residential preferences, the objective BE independently predicted walking behavior. In other words, even among residents expressing a high preference for living in a highly walkable neighborhood, low walkability (objectively assessed by GIS) was associated with less walking.

Finally, some have suggested that the social environment influence PA [36], and that walkable BEs may increase social capital [37,38]. Thus, the neighborhood social capital is often considered as the causal pathway from the BE to PA [8,39]. Nevertheless, since the social environment may interact with the BE, it could be both a mediator and a confounder in the association between BE and PA. These complex causal relationships among the environmental features need to be further elucidated in future studies.


Conclusions

The aim of this paper was to examine the association between the characteristics of neighborhood BEs and PA levels of older adults in Japan. Our findings provide mixed support for the association. Some characteristics of the neighborhood BE (e.g., population density and presence of parks or green spaces) may facilitate leisure time sports activity, but not increase the total walking time for Japanese older adults.


Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


Authors' contributions

TH conceived of the study, performed the statistical analysis, and drafted the manuscript. IK participated in the design of the study and helped to draft the manuscript. TN assisted in the statistical analysis and contributed to the interpretation of the results. HH and KK contributed to the data acquisition, interpretation of the results, and revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.


Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/11/657/prepub


Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows (216500). This study used data from the Aichi Gerontological Evaluation Study (AGES). The survey was conducted by the Nihon Fukushi University Center for Well-being and Society as one of their research projects, and supported by a grant of Strategic Research Foundation Grant-aided Project for Private Universities from Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science, and Technology, Japan (MEXT), 2009-2013.


References
Kujala UM,Kaprio J,Sarna S,Koskenvuo M,Relationship of leisure-time physical activity and mortality: the Finnish twin cohortJAMAYear: 199827944044410.1001/jama.279.6.4409466636
Fujita K,Takahashi H,Miura C,Ohkubo T,Sato Y,Ugajin T,Kurashima K,Tsubono Y,Tsuji I,Fukao A,Hisamichi S,Walking and mortality in Japan: the Miyagi Cohort StudyJ EpidemiolYear: 200414Suppl 1S263215143875
Warburton DE,Nicol CW,Bredin SS,Health benefits of physical activity: The evidenceCMAJYear: 200617480180910.1503/cmaj.05135116534088
Ministry of HealthLabour and Welfare of JapanNational health and nutrition survey 2009http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/houdou/2r9852000000xtwq-img/2r9852000000xu2r.pdf
Diez Roux AV,Mair C,Neighborhoods and healthAnn N Y Acad SciYear: 2010118612514510.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05333.x20201871
Brownson RC,Hoehner CM,Day K,Forsyth A,Sallis JF,Measuring the built environment for physical activity: State of the scienceAm J Prev MedYear: 2009364SS99123.e1219285216
Duncan MJ,Spence JC,Mummery WK,Perceived environment and physical activity: A meta-analysis of selected environmental characteristicsInt J Behav Nutr Phys ActYear: 200521110.1186/1479-5868-2-1116138933
Frumkin H,Frank L,Jackson R,Urban sprawl and public health: Designing, planning, and building for healthy communitiesYear: 2004Washington, D.C., Island Press
Inoue S,Murase N,Shimomitsu T,Ohya Y,Odagiri Y,Takamiya T,Ishii K,Katsumura T,Sallis JF,Association of physical activity and neighborhood environment among Japanese adultsPrev MedYear: 20094832132510.1016/j.ypmed.2009.01.01419463488
Inoue S,Ohya Y,Odagiri Y,Takamiya T,Ishii K,Kitabayashi M,Suijo K,Sallis JF,Shimomitsu T,Association between perceived neighborhood environment and walking among adults in 4 cities in JapanJ EpidemiolYear: 20102027728610.2188/jea.JE2009012020472982
Sallis JF,Bowles HR,Bauman A,Ainsworth BE,Bull FC,Craig CL,Sjöström M,De Bourdeaudhuij I,Lefevre J,Matsudo V,Matsudo S,Macfarlane DJ,Gomez LF,Inoue S,Murase N,Volbekiene V,McLean G,Carr H,Heggebo LK,Tomten H,Bergman P,Neighborhood environments and physical activity among adults in 11 countriesAm J Prev MedYear: 20093648449010.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.03119460656
Duncan MJ,Winkler E,Sugiyama T,Cerin E,duToit L,Leslie E,Owen N,Relationships of land use mix with walking for transport: Do land uses and geographical scale matter?J Urban HealthYear: 20108778279510.1007/s11524-010-9488-720814757
Leslie E,Coffee N,Frank L,Owen N,Bauman A,Hugo G,Walkability of local communities: Using geographic information systems to objectively assess relevant environmental attributesHealth PlaceYear: 20071311112210.1016/j.healthplace.2005.11.00116387522
Nagel CL,Carlson NE,Bosworth M,Michael YL,The relation between neighborhood built environment and walking activity among older adultsAm J EpidemiolYear: 200816846146810.1093/aje/kwn15818567638
Owen N,Cerin E,Leslie E,duToit L,Coffee N,Frank LD,Bauman AE,Hugo G,Saelens BE,Sallis JF,Neighborhood walkability and the walking behavior of Australian adultsAm J Prev MedYear: 20073338739510.1016/j.amepre.2007.07.02517950404
Duncan M,Mummery K,Psychosocial and environmental factors associated with physical activity among city dwellers in regional QueenslandPrev MedYear: 20054036337210.1016/j.ypmed.2004.06.01715530589
Lackey KJ,Kaczynski AT,Correspondence of perceived vs. objective proximity to parks and their relationship to park-based physical activityInt J Behav Nutr Phys ActYear: 200965310.1186/1479-5868-6-5319671173
McGinn AP,Evenson KR,Herring AH,Huston SL,Rodriguez DA,Exploring associations between physical activity and perceived and objective measures of the built environmentJ Urban HealthYear: 20078416218410.1007/s11524-006-9136-417273926
Prins RG,Oenema A,van der Horst K,Brug J,Objective and perceived availability of physical activity opportunities: Differences in associations with physical activity behavior among urban adolescentsInt J Behav Nutr Phys ActYear: 200967010.1186/1479-5868-6-7019832969
Lovasi GS,Moudon AV,Pearson AL,Hurvitz PM,Larson EB,Siscovick DS,Berke EM,Lumley T,Psaty BM,Using built environment characteristics to predict walking for exerciseInt J Health GeogrYear: 200871010.1186/1476-072X-7-1018312660
Oakes JM,Forsyth A,Schmitz KH,The effects of neighborhood density and street connectivity on walking behavior: The Twin Cities walking studyEpidemiol Perspect InnovYear: 200741610.1186/1742-5573-4-1618078510
Berke EM,Koepsell TD,Moudon AV,Hoskins RE,Larson EB,Association of the built environment with physical activity and obesity in older personsAm J Public HealthYear: 20079748649210.2105/AJPH.2006.08583717267713
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 reviewHealth PlaceYear: 20111745846910.1016/j.healthplace.2010.11.01021257333
Gómez LF,Parra DC,Buchner D,Brownson RC,Sarmiento OL,Pinzón JD,Ardila M,Moreno J,Serrato M,Lobelo F,Built environment attributes and walking patterns among the elderly population in BogotáAm J Prev MedYear: 20103859259910.1016/j.amepre.2010.02.00520494235
Wendel-Vos W,Droomers M,Kremers S,Brug J,van Lenthe F,Potential environmental determinants of physical activity in adults: A systematic reviewObes RevYear: 2007842544010.1111/j.1467-789X.2007.00370.x17716300
Kondo K,(Ed)Health inequalities in Japan: An empirical study of older peopleYear: 2010Melbourne, Trans Pacific Press
Takeda T,Kondo K,Kuze J,Higuchi K,Leisure activities and IKIGAI in elderly people: a clue to the preventive approaches by occupational therapistSogo rihabiriteshonYear: 200533469476 (in Japanese).
Tsubono Y,Tsuji I,Fujita K,Nakaya N,Hozawa A,Ohkubo T,Kuwahara A,Watanabe Y,Ogawa K,Nishino Y,Hisamichi S,Validation of walking questionnaire for population-based prospective studies in Japan: Comparison with pedometerJ EpidemiolYear: 20021230530912395870
Owens PM,Titus-Ernstoff L,Gibson L,Beach ML,Beauregard S,Dalton MA,Smart density: A more accurate method of measuring rural residential density for health-related researchInt J Health GeogrYear: 20109810.1186/1476-072X-9-820152044
Hanibuchi T,Mapping and classifying urbanisation by using Japanese historic topographical maps: The case of Chita Peninsula, Aichi Prefecture, JapanUrban Geography of JapanYear: 20083717 (in Japanese).
Koyano W,Shibata H,Nakazato K,Haga H,Suyama Y,Measurement of competence: Reliability and validity of the TMIG Index of CompetenceArch Gerontol GeriatrYear: 19911310311610.1016/0167-4943(91)90053-S15374421
Ishii K,Shibata A,Oka K,Environmental, psychological, and social influences on physical activity among Japanese adults: Structural equation modeling analysisInt J Behav Nutr Phys ActYear: 201076110.1186/1479-5868-7-6120684794
Kamada M,Kitayuguchi J,Inoue S,Kamioka H,Mutoh Y,Shiwaku K,Environmental correlates of physical activity in driving and non-driving rural Japanese womenPrev MedYear: 20094949049610.1016/j.ypmed.2009.09.01419769998
Kondo K,Lee JS,Kawakubo K,Kataoka Y,Asami Y,Mori K,Umezaki M,Yamauchi T,Takagi H,Sunagawa H,Akabayashi A,Association between daily physical activity and neighborhood environmentsEnviron Health Prev MedYear: 20091419620610.1007/s12199-009-0081-119568848
Frank LD,Saelens BE,Powell KE,Chapman JE,Stepping towards causation: Do built environments or neighborhood and travel preferences explain physical activity, driving, and obesity?Soc Sci MedYear: 2007651898191410.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.05317644231
McNeill LH,Kreuter MW,Subramanian SV,Social environment and physical activity: A review of concepts and evidenceSoc Sci MedYear: 2006631011102210.1016/j.socscimed.2006.03.01216650513
Cohen DA,Inagami S,Finch B,The built environment and collective efficacyHealth PlaceYear: 20081419820810.1016/j.healthplace.2007.06.00117644395
Leyden KM,Social capital and the built environment: The importance of walkable neighborhoodsAm J Public HealthYear: 2003931546155110.2105/AJPH.93.9.154612948978
Kaczynski AT,Sharratt MT,Deconstructing Williamsburg: Using focus groups to examine residents' perceptions of the building of a walkable communityInt J Behav Nutr Phys ActYear: 201075010.1186/1479-5868-7-5020507586

Tables
[TableWrap ID: T1] Table 1 

Characteristics of the respondents


n % n %
Overall 9414 100.0 Equivalized income
Sports activity  <1 million yen 937 10.0
 No sports activities 5227 55.5  1-2 million yen 2123 22.6
 Several times a year 70 .7  2-3 million yen 2161 23.0
 Once or twice a month 230 2.4  3-4 million yen 1451 15.4
 Once a week 676 7.2  ≥4 million yen 929 9.9
 Twice or three times a week 1176 12.5  Missing 1813 19.3
 Almost everyday 1495 15.9 Having paid work
 Missing 540 5.7  Yes 2272 24.1
Walking time/day  No 6970 74.0
 Less than 30 minutes 2936 31.2  Missing 172 1.8
 30 to 60 minutes 3074 32.7 SRH
 60 to 90 minutes 1183 12.6  Good 6591 70.0
 More than 90 minutes 1104 11.7  Poor 2585 27.5
 Missing 1117 11.9  Missing 238 2.5
Age GDS
 65-69 3386 36.0  Low depressive symptoms 7401 78.6
 70-74 2765 29.4  High depressive symptoms 565 6.0
 75-79 1886 20.0  Missing 1448 15.4
 80-84 938 10.0 IADL
 ≥85 439 4.7  High IADL 7178 76.2
Gender  Low IADL 1837 19.5
 Male 4519 48.0  Missing 399 4.2
 Female 4895 52.0 Location
Marital status  North 3856 41.0
 Married 6759 71.8  South 5558 59.0
 Divorced/widowed 2321 24.7 Years of residence
 Never married 127 1.3  <50 years 4819 51.2
 Missing 207 2.2  ≥50 years 4138 44.0
Educational attainment  Missing 457 4.9
 <6 430 4.6
 6-9 5242 55.7
 10-12 2711 28.8
 ≥13 903 9.6
 Missing 128 1.4

[TableWrap ID: T2] Table 2 

Characteristics of neighborhoods of respondents


n Mean SD Min Max
(r = 250 m)
Population density (per hectare) 9414 35.3 18.3 0.0 140.8
No. of intersections 9414 22.4 10.3 0.0 69.0
No. of dead-ends 9414 2.8 2.5 0.0 18.0
No. of destinations 9414 2.6 3.2 0.0 33.0
Parks or green spaces 9414 0.1 0.3 0.0 1.0
Schools 9414 0.1 0.3 0.0 1.0
Land slope 9414 2.9 2.2 0.0 14.5
(r = 500 m)
Population density (per hectare) 9414 34.0 16.5 0.0 108.5
No. of intersections 9414 70.6 27.3 2.0 176.0
No. of dead-ends 9414 7.8 6.0 0.0 39.0
No. of destinations 9414 8.2 7.7 0.0 57.0
Parks or green spaces 9414 0.1 0.3 0.0 1.0
Schools 9414 0.3 0.5 0.0 1.0
Land slope 9414 2.7 1.6 0.1 12.0
(r = 1000 m)
Population density (per hectare) 9414 25.2 13.4 1.3 91.7
No. of intersections 9414 252.1 91.4 16.0 552.0
No. of dead-ends 9414 39.7 23.0 1.0 108.0
No. of destinations 9414 29.6 21.6 0.0 117.0
Parks or green spaces 9414 0.2 0.4 0.0 1.0
Schools 9414 0.6 0.5 0.0 1.0
Land slope 9414 3.1 2.0 0.2 12.7

[TableWrap ID: T3] Table 3 

Correlation coefficient between BE measures


a) b) c) d) e) f) g)
(r = 250 m)
a) Population density 1.00
b) No. of intersections 0.31 1.00
c) No. of dead-ends -0.07 -0.01 1.00
d) No. of destinations 0.23 0.32 0.02 1.00
e) Parks or green spaces 0.39 0.16 -0.13 0.08 1.00
f) Schools 0.04 0.10 0.03 0.10 0.02 1.00
g) Land slope -0.29 -0.24 0.01 -0.18 -0.08 0.04 1.00
(r = 500 m)
a) Population density 1.00
b) No. of intersections 0.42 1.00
c) No. of dead-ends -0.01 0.17 1.00
d) No. of destinations 0.44 0.44 0.07 1.00
e) Parks or green spaces 0.43 0.29 -0.22 0.18 1.00
f) Schools 0.07 0.19 -0.01 0.17 0.09 1.00
g) Land slope -0.27 -0.38 -0.07 -0.32 -0.08 -0.01 1.00
(r = 1000 m)
a) Population density 1.00
b) No. of intersections 0.66 1.00
c) No. of dead-ends 0.15 0.35 1.00
d) No. of destinations 0.74 0.58 0.23 1.00
e) Parks or green spaces 0.43 0.42 -0.20 0.25 1.00
f) Schools 0.04 0.12 -0.01 0.03 0.25 1.00
g) Land slope -0.45 -0.59 -0.26 -0.43 -0.19 0.08 1.00

[TableWrap ID: T4] Table 4 

Associations between frequency of sports activity and each of the BEs by ordinal logistic regression analysis


r = 250 m r = 500 m r = 1000 m
Independent variables a ORb 95%CI ORb 95%CI ORb 95%CI
Population density 1.004 (1.001, 1.006) 1.004 (1.002, 1.007) 1.005 (1.002, 1.008)
No. of intersections 1.001 (0.997, 1.006) 1.001 (0.999, 1.002) 1.001 (1.000, 1.001)
No. of dead-ends 0.991 (0.975, 1.008) 0.992 (0.985, 0.999) 1.000 (0.998, 1.002)
No. of destinations 1.002 (0.989, 1.015) 1.000 (0.994, 1.005) 1.001 (0.999, 1.003)
Parks or green spaces 1.258 (1.082, 1.462) 1.152 (1.021, 1.300) 1.162 (1.056, 1.280)
Schools 0.967 (0.852, 1.097) 1.008 (0.919, 1.106) 0.992 (0.909, 1.082)
Land slope 0.961 (0.941, 0.981) 0.957 (0.931, 0.983) 0.944 (0.923, 0.967)
(Quartiles)
Population density (Ref. Lowest) Low 1.017 (0.900, 1.150) 0.899 (0.796, 1.015) 1.074 (0.950, 1.215)
High 1.067 (0.945, 1.205) 0.971 (0.861, 1.096) 1.160 (1.027, 1.310)
Highest 1.186 (1.054, 1.335) 1.147 (1.021, 1.29) 1.200 (1.066, 1.351)
No. of intersections (Ref. Lowest) Low 1.052 (0.934, 1.184) 1.075 (0.952, 1.212) 1.233 (1.088, 1.397)
High 1.063 (0.943, 1.198) 0.982 (0.869, 1.108) 1.138 (1.004, 1.290)
Highest 1.034 (0.919, 1.163) 1.089 (0.966, 1.228) 1.191 (1.051, 1.350)
No. of dead-ends (Ref. Lowest) Low 0.880 (0.778, 0.994) 0.896 (0.800, 1.002) 0.929 (0.824, 1.047)
High 0.852 (0.762, 0.952) 0.926 (0.823, 1.041) 0.990 (0.879, 1.116)
Highest 0.954 (0.852, 1.069) 0.884 (0.787, 0.992) 0.999 (0.888, 1.123)
No. of destinations (Ref. Lowest) Low 1.095 (0.984, 1.219) 1.096 (0.972, 1.236) 1.185 (1.049, 1.338)
High 1.097 (0.969, 1.243) 1.101 (0.982, 1.233) 1.069 (0.948, 1.206)
Highest 1.042 (0.919, 1.181) 0.980 (0.872, 1.100) 1.161 (1.033, 1.306)
Land slope (Ref. Lowest) Low 1.129 (1.001, 1.273) 1.026 (0.910, 1.156) 1.059 (0.941, 1.193)
High 1.115 (0.988, 1.258) 1.088 (0.965, 1.227) 1.053 (0.934, 1.187)
Highest 0.948 (0.837, 1.073) 0.933 (0.825, 1.057) 0.840 (0.740, 0.953)

a Each independent variable was included separately.

b Age, gender, marital status, educational attainment, equivalized income, having paid work, SRH, GDS, and IADL were adjusted.


[TableWrap ID: T5] Table 5 

Associations between frequency of sports activity and BE (mutually adjusted)


r = 250 m r = 500 m r = 1000 m
Independent variables a ORb 95%CI ORb 95%CI ORb 95%CI
Population density 1.002 (0.999, 1.004) 1.003 (1.000, 1.006) 1.002 (0.997, 1.006)
No. of intersections 1.000 (0.999, 1.000)
No. of dead-ends 0.992 (0.985, 0.999)
Parks or green spaces 1.186 (1.007, 1.397) 1.036 (0.902, 1.190) 1.118 (1.003, 1.247)
Land slope 0.966 (0.945, 0.987) 0.964 (0.938, 0.992) 0.947 (0.921, 0.975)

a Independent variables were included simultaneously.

b Age, gender, marital status, educational attainment, equivalized income, having paid work, SRH, GDS, and IADL were adjusted.


[TableWrap ID: T6] Table 6 

Associations between total walking time and each of the BEs by ordinal logistic regression analysis


r = 250 m r = 500 m r = 1000 m
Independent variables a ORb 95%CI ORb 95%CI ORb 95%CI
Population density 1.000 (0.998, 1.002) 0.999 (0.997, 1.002) 0.999 (0.996, 1.002)
No. of intersections 0.997 (0.993, 1.001) 0.999 (0.998, 1.001) 1.000 (0.999, 1.000)
No. of dead-ends 0.997 (0.981, 1.012) 0.997 (0.991, 1.004) 0.999 (0.997, 1.001)
No. of destinations 0.998 (0.986, 1.010) 0.996 (0.990, 1.001) 0.999 (0.997, 1.001)
Parks or green spaces 1.045 (0.902, 1.211) 1.057 (0.940, 1.188) 1.019 (0.929, 1.117)
Schools 1.078 (0.958, 1.214) 1.063 (0.974, 1.160) 1.085 (0.999, 1.178)
Land slope 1.037 (1.018, 1.056) 1.048 (1.023, 1.074) 1.036 (1.015, 1.058)
(Quartiles)
Population density (Ref. Lowest) Low 1.088 (0.973, 1.218) 0.971 (0.868, 1.086) 0.998 (0.892, 1.117)
High 0.919 (0.820, 1.030) 0.900 (0.804, 1.008) 0.911 (0.813, 1.020)
Highest 1.042 (0.933, 1.165) 0.970 (0.868, 1.084) 0.937 (0.838, 1.048)
No. of intersections (Ref. Lowest) Low 0.941 (0.843, 1.051) 0.876 (0.782, 0.981) 0.992 (0.884, 1.113)
High 0.926 (0.827, 1.037) 0.959 (0.856, 1.074) 0.914 (0.814, 1.027)
Highest 0.937 (0.839, 1.046) 0.891 (0.796, 0.998) 0.998 (0.888, 1.121)
No. of dead-ends (Ref. Lowest) Low 0.977 (0.871, 1.095) 1.031 (0.928, 1.145) 1.073 (0.960, 1.200)
High 0.962 (0.867, 1.069) 0.930 (0.832, 1.041) 0.996 (0.890, 1.114)
Highest 0.926 (0.832, 1.032) 0.937 (0.840, 1.046) 0.980 (0.877, 1.096)
No. of destinations (Ref. Lowest) Low 0.930 (0.841, 1.029) 0.926 (0.827, 1.038) 0.879 (0.784, 0.985)
High 1.011 (0.899, 1.136) 1.007 (0.905, 1.121) 1.035 (0.926, 1.156)
Highest 0.977 (0.869, 1.098) 0.935 (0.838, 1.042) 0.942 (0.843, 1.052)
Land slope (Ref. Lowest) Low 1.039 (0.927, 1.165) 1.025 (0.915, 1.149) 1.061 (0.947, 1.189)
High 1.025 (0.914, 1.149) 1.053 (0.939, 1.180) 1.153 (1.029, 1.292)
Highest 1.178 (1.049, 1.322) 1.189 (1.059, 1.334) 1.154 (1.027, 1.297)

a Each independent variable was included separately.

b Age, gender, marital status, educational attainment, equivalized income, having paid work, SRH, GDS, and IADL were adjusted.


[TableWrap ID: T7] Table 7 

Associations between frequency of sports activity and the BE stratified by gender, location, and years of residence


r = 250 m r = 500 m r = 1000 m
Independent variables a ORb 95%CI ORb 95%CI ORb 95%CI
Male
Population density 1.005 (1.002, 1.009) 1.007 (1.003, 1.010) 1.008 (1.003, 1.012)
No. of intersections 1.003 (0.997, 1.008) 1.001 (0.999, 1.003) 1.001 (1.000, 1.002)
No. of dead-ends 0.999 (0.976, 1.022) 0.993 (0.984, 1.003) 1.000 (0.998, 1.003)
No. of destinations 1.009 (0.991, 1.028) 0.997 (0.989, 1.005) 1.002 (0.999, 1.004)
Parks or green spaces 1.336 (1.089, 1.640) 1.253 (1.064, 1.476) 1.233 (1.081, 1.407)
Schools 0.854 (0.711, 1.024) 0.964 (0.846, 1.098) 0.972 (0.862, 1.096)
Land slope 0.943 (0.915, 0.972) 0.945 (0.909, 0.982) 0.924 (0.893, 0.956)
Female
Population density 1.001 (0.998, 1.005) 1.002 (0.998, 1.006) 1.003 (0.998, 1.007)
No. of intersections 1.000 (0.994, 1.006) 1.000 (0.998, 1.003) 1.000 (1.000, 1.001)
No. of dead-ends 0.982 (0.959, 1.006) 0.990 (0.980, 1.000) 0.999 (0.997, 1.002)
No. of destinations 0.993 (0.974, 1.012) 1.002 (0.995, 1.010) 1.001 (0.998, 1.003)
Parks or green spaces 1.172 (0.937, 1.464) 1.033 (0.862, 1.238) 1.083 (0.939, 1.249)
Schools 1.092 (0.916, 1.301) 1.060 (0.928, 1.210) 1.019 (0.898, 1.157)
Land slope 0.979 (0.952, 1.008) 0.971 (0.935, 1.009) 0.964 (0.934, 0.995)
North
Population density 1.001 (0.998, 1.004) 1.003 (0.999, 1.006) 1.001 (0.997, 1.006)
No. of intersections 1.007 (1.001, 1.013) 1.001 (0.998, 1.003) 1.000 (0.999, 1.001)
No. of dead-ends 0.987 (0.957, 1.019) 0.994 (0.979, 1.009) 0.998 (0.995, 1.002)
No. of destinations 1.017 (0.998, 1.035) 1.004 (0.996, 1.011) 1.000 (0.998, 1.003)
Parks or green spaces 1.138 (0.970, 1.336) 1.024 (0.893, 1.174) 1.007 (0.884, 1.147)
Schools 0.975 (0.809, 1.175) 0.999 (0.874, 1.143) 0.920 (0.783, 1.081)
Land slope 0.954 (0.907, 1.003) 0.968 (0.911, 1.029) 1.041 (0.965, 1.123)
South
Population density 1.004 (1.000, 1.008) 1.005 (1.000, 1.009) 1.008 (1.003, 1.012)
No. of intersections 0.995 (0.989, 1.001) 1.000 (0.998, 1.002) 1.001 (1.000, 1.001)
No. of dead-ends 1.004 (0.984, 1.025) 0.998 (0.989, 1.007) 1.002 (1.000, 1.004)
No. of destinations 0.989 (0.970, 1.008) 0.996 (0.988, 1.004) 1.001 (0.999, 1.004)
Parks or green spaces
Schools 0.951 (0.799, 1.132) 0.977 (0.857, 1.115) 0.941 (0.840, 1.055)
Land slope 0.963 (0.941, 0.986) 0.953 (0.924, 0.983) 0.943 (0.919, 0.967)
< 50 years
Population density 1.001 (0.998, 1.003) 1.002 (0.998, 1.005) 1.001 (0.997, 1.005)
No. of intersections 1.002 (0.996, 1.007) 1.000 (0.998, 1.002) 1.000 (1.000, 1.001)
No. of dead-ends 0.990 (0.968, 1.012) 0.995 (0.985, 1.004) 0.999 (0.996, 1.001)
No. of destinations 1.007 (0.988, 1.026) 0.999 (0.992, 1.006) 0.998 (0.996, 1.001)
Parks or green spaces 1.198 (1.011, 1.420) 1.086 (0.942, 1.251) 1.051 (0.931, 1.185)
Schools 0.990 (0.829, 1.181) 1.029 (0.905, 1.170) 0.975 (0.869, 1.094)
Land slope 0.975 (0.942, 1.009) 0.979 (0.938, 1.022) 0.970 (0.932, 1.010)
≥ 50 years
Population density 1.005 (1.001, 1.009) 1.005 (1.000, 1.010) 1.007 (1.001, 1.012)
No. of intersections 0.999 (0.992, 1.005) 1.000 (0.998, 1.003) 1.001 (1.000, 1.001)
No. of dead-ends 1.001 (0.975, 1.028) 0.993 (0.982, 1.004) 1.002 (0.999, 1.004)
No. of destinations 1.003 (0.984, 1.023) 1.002 (0.994, 1.010) 1.005 (1.002, 1.008)
Parks or green spaces 1.034 (0.708, 1.509) 1.065 (0.821, 1.381) 1.217 (1.022, 1.450)
Schools 0.976 (0.808, 1.179) 1.029 (0.892, 1.185) 1.041 (0.905, 1.198)
Land slope 0.968 (0.942, 0.995) 0.961 (0.926, 0.997) 0.954 (0.926, 0.984)

a Each independent variable was included separately.

b Age, gender, marital status, educational attainment, equivalized income, having paid work, SRH, GDS, and IADL were adjusted.


[TableWrap ID: T8] Table 8 

Associations between total walking time and the BE stratified by gender, location, and years of residence


r = 250 m r = 500 m r = 1000 m
Independent variables a ORb 95%CI ORb 95%CI ORb 95%CI
Male
Population density 1.002 (0.999, 1.005) 1.001 (0.998, 1.005) 1.002 (0.998, 1.006)
No. of intersections 0.999 (0.993, 1.004) 1.000 (0.998, 1.002) 1.000 (1.000, 1.001)
No. of dead-ends 1.000 (0.978, 1.022) 0.998 (0.988, 1.007) 0.999 (0.997, 1.002)
No. of destinations 0.993 (0.976, 1.012) 0.997 (0.989, 1.004) 1.000 (0.997, 1.002)
Parks or green spaces 1.133 (0.925, 1.386) 1.157 (0.985, 1.360) 1.085 (0.954, 1.233)
Schools 1.122 (0.945, 1.331) 1.003 (0.886, 1.136) 1.053 (0.938, 1.181)
Land slope 1.028 (1.000, 1.056) 1.038 (1.002, 1.074) 1.021 (0.991, 1.053)
Female
Population density 0.998 (0.995, 1.001) 0.997 (0.994, 1.001) 0.996 (0.991, 1.000)
No. of intersections 0.995 (0.990, 1.001) 0.998 (0.996, 1.000) 1.000 (0.999, 1.000)
No. of dead-ends 0.994 (0.972, 1.016) 0.997 (0.988, 1.007) 0.999 (0.997, 1.002)
No. of destinations 1.003 (0.986, 1.020) 0.995 (0.988, 1.002) 0.998 (0.996, 1.001)
Parks or green spaces 0.953 (0.770, 1.181) 0.951 (0.802, 1.128) 0.948 (0.829, 1.083)
Schools 1.043 (0.885, 1.229) 1.130 (0.999, 1.278) 1.124 (0.998, 1.265)
Land slope 1.045 (1.019, 1.072) 1.058 (1.022, 1.094) 1.048 (1.019, 1.078)
North
Population density 1.000 (0.997, 1.003) 1.000 (0.997, 1.004) 1.002 (0.998, 1.006)
No. of intersections 0.999 (0.993, 1.005) 0.999 (0.997, 1.001) 1.000 (0.999, 1.001)
No. of dead-ends 0.989 (0.960, 1.019) 0.999 (0.985, 1.014) 1.002 (0.998, 1.005)
No. of destinations 1.006 (0.988, 1.024) 0.999 (0.992, 1.006) 1.001 (0.998, 1.004)
Parks or green spaces 0.990 (0.846, 1.159) 1.003 (0.878, 1.145) 0.931 (0.821, 1.057)
Schools 1.078 (0.899, 1.293) 0.994 (0.872, 1.132) 1.028 (0.878, 1.204)
Land slope 0.997 (0.950, 1.047) 1.004 (0.947, 1.065) 1.019 (0.948, 1.096)
South
Population density 0.998 (0.994, 1.001) 0.996 (0.992, 1.000) 0.994 (0.989, 0.998)
No. of intersections 0.995 (0.989, 1.000) 0.999 (0.997, 1.001) 1.000 (0.999, 1.000)
No. of dead-ends 1.005 (0.986, 1.025) 1.000 (0.992, 1.008) 0.999 (0.997, 1.001)
No. of destinations 0.992 (0.975, 1.009) 0.992 (0.985, 1.000) 0.997 (0.995, 1.000)
Parks or green spaces
Schools 1.084 (0.926, 1.267) 1.112 (0.987, 1.253) 1.081 (0.974, 1.201)
Land slope 1.043 (1.022, 1.065) 1.056 (1.028, 1.085) 1.042 (1.019, 1.066)
< 50 years
Population density 1.002 (0.999, 1.004) 1.001 (0.998, 1.005) 1.001 (0.997, 1.005)
No. of intersections 1.001 (0.996, 1.007) 1.000 (0.998, 1.002) 1.000 (1.000, 1.001)
No. of dead-ends 0.987 (0.966, 1.008) 0.993 (0.984, 1.002) 0.999 (0.996, 1.001)
No. of destinations 1.006 (0.988, 1.025) 0.996 (0.989, 1.004) 0.999 (0.997, 1.002)
Parks or green spaces 1.049 (0.886, 1.243) 1.130 (0.982, 1.300) 1.091 (0.969, 1.229)
Schools 1.098 (0.922, 1.307) 1.029 (0.907, 1.168) 1.084 (0.968, 1.214)
Land slope 1.019 (0.986, 1.054) 1.034 (0.992, 1.077) 1.026 (0.988, 1.065)
≥ 50 years
Population density 0.996 (0.993, 1.000) 0.996 (0.992, 1.001) 0.997 (0.992, 1.002)
No. of intersections 0.992 (0.986, 0.997) 0.998 (0.996, 1.000) 1.000 (0.999, 1.001)
No. of dead-ends 1.006 (0.982, 1.030) 1.001 (0.991, 1.011) 1.000 (0.997, 1.002)
No. of destinations 0.992 (0.975, 1.009) 0.995 (0.987, 1.002) 0.999 (0.996, 1.002)
Parks or green spaces 1.082 (0.770, 1.520) 0.925 (0.728, 1.175) 0.982 (0.835, 1.155)
Schools 1.095 (0.926, 1.295) 1.092 (0.961, 1.240) 1.075 (0.947, 1.219)
Land slope 1.044 (1.020, 1.069) 1.056 (1.023, 1.090) 1.035 (1.008, 1.062)

a Each independent variable was included separately.

b Age, gender, marital status, educational attainment, equivalized income, having paid work, SRH, GDS, and IADL were adjusted.



Article Categories:
  • Research Article


Previous Document:  Expression of Transketolase like gene 1 (TKTL1) predicts disease-free survival in patients with loca...
Next Document:  Self-esteem is associated with premorbid adjustment and positive psychotic symptoms in early psychos...