The role of the perceived environment for recreational walking among adults in socioeconomically disadvantaged situations: A study using walk-along interviews.
ANGELO framework
Health inequities
Participatory methods
Persons in socioeconomic disadvantaged situations
Physical activity
Socioeconomic status
Journal
SSM - population health
ISSN: 2352-8273
Titre abrégé: SSM Popul Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101678841
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2023
Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
12
04
2023
revised:
17
06
2023
accepted:
21
06
2023
medline:
28
7
2023
pubmed:
28
7
2023
entrez:
28
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Persons in socioeconomically disadvantaged situations (PSEDS) are generally less likely to engage in recreational walking (RW) compared to higher socioeconomic groups and are often more dependent on their local environment. Studies on RW have primarily focused on the role of the built environment for the general adult population and the older population in urban areas. The aim of this study is to qualitatively identify the perceived environmental factors affecting RW among PSEDS in peri-urban areas. In two peri-urban municipalities in Belgium, walk-along interviews were conducted until data saturation with a purposeful convenience sampling of 38 PSEDS (25-65y/o) to identify local environmental factors affecting RW. A subsample of 22 participants joined a focus group ( The information environment (dissemination, retrieving and understanding of information) was added to the ANGELO framework, highlighting the importance of digital literacy. Availability and accessibility of well-maintained walking surfaces, toilets, street lighting and seating options (physical environment), social support, dog-ownership, stigmatization, social isolation, and a sense of belonging (sociocultural environment) and indirect costs (economic environment) were identified as important environmental factors in RW among PSEDS. The identified political and economic factors are intertwined with the other environments. Perceived environmental factors affect RW among PSEDS and peri-urban settings offer specific challenges. Local governments should incorporate citizen perception into decision-making processes to create supportive environments that have the potential to promote RW among PSEDS in a peri-urban setting.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Persons in socioeconomically disadvantaged situations (PSEDS) are generally less likely to engage in recreational walking (RW) compared to higher socioeconomic groups and are often more dependent on their local environment. Studies on RW have primarily focused on the role of the built environment for the general adult population and the older population in urban areas. The aim of this study is to qualitatively identify the perceived environmental factors affecting RW among PSEDS in peri-urban areas.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
In two peri-urban municipalities in Belgium, walk-along interviews were conducted until data saturation with a purposeful convenience sampling of 38 PSEDS (25-65y/o) to identify local environmental factors affecting RW. A subsample of 22 participants joined a focus group (
Results
UNASSIGNED
The information environment (dissemination, retrieving and understanding of information) was added to the ANGELO framework, highlighting the importance of digital literacy. Availability and accessibility of well-maintained walking surfaces, toilets, street lighting and seating options (physical environment), social support, dog-ownership, stigmatization, social isolation, and a sense of belonging (sociocultural environment) and indirect costs (economic environment) were identified as important environmental factors in RW among PSEDS. The identified political and economic factors are intertwined with the other environments.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Perceived environmental factors affect RW among PSEDS and peri-urban settings offer specific challenges. Local governments should incorporate citizen perception into decision-making processes to create supportive environments that have the potential to promote RW among PSEDS in a peri-urban setting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37501782
doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2023.101456
pii: S2352-8273(23)00121-0
pmc: PMC10368917
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
101456Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None.The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:297-322
pubmed: 16533119
Implement Sci. 2017 Dec 19;12(1):150
pubmed: 29258551
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Mar 04;18(5):
pubmed: 33806546
Rev Saude Publica. 2020;54:61
pubmed: 32491115
Health Psychol. 2014 Jul;33(7):699-709
pubmed: 24245836
J Urban Health. 2011 Feb;88(1):154-67
pubmed: 21274644
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Mar;80:76-84
pubmed: 23312303
SSM Popul Health. 2020 Jan 20;10:100546
pubmed: 32042889
Health Place. 2021 Jan;67:102468
pubmed: 33285411
Health Place. 2009 Mar;15(1):263-72
pubmed: 18606557
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Jan;221:95-105
pubmed: 30578943
Lancet Glob Health. 2022 Jun;10(6):e895-e906
pubmed: 35561724
Indoor Built Environ. 2018 Aug;27(7):938-952
pubmed: 30853850
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016 Jun 07;13(6):
pubmed: 27338426
Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Mar;82(3):389-95
pubmed: 21257280
Soc Sci Med. 2022 Jan;292:114523
pubmed: 34785096
Health Place. 2020 May;63:102337
pubmed: 32543426
SSM Popul Health. 2017 May 15;3:506-515
pubmed: 29349241
Am J Health Promot. 2016 Jan-Feb;30(3):139-48
pubmed: 25615703
J Health Psychol. 2015 Oct;20(10):1328-39
pubmed: 24296734
SSM Popul Health. 2017 Dec;3:435-441
pubmed: 29124104
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017 Nov 16;14(1):158
pubmed: 29145884
Health Place. 2014 Jul;28:22-30
pubmed: 24721737
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Mar;104:23-30
pubmed: 24581058
Health Place. 2021 May;69:102570
pubmed: 33873131
J Environ Public Health. 2020 Apr 1;2020:4283027
pubmed: 32322283
Arch Public Health. 2022 Oct 5;80(1):219
pubmed: 36199109
Int J Health Geogr. 2020 Nov 9;19(1):47
pubmed: 33168094
Soc Sci Med. 2014 May;108:106-14
pubmed: 24632055
Gerontologist. 2020 May 15;60(4):651-660
pubmed: 31513712
J Urban Health. 2015 Apr;92(2):253-64
pubmed: 25604935
Environ Res. 2021 Mar;194:110591
pubmed: 33359675
Environ Health Perspect. 2017 Jul 12;125(7):077009
pubmed: 28728139
Health Promot J Austr. 2019 Apr;30(2):153-162
pubmed: 30168879
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010 May 06;7:34
pubmed: 20459636
BMC Public Health. 2022 Apr 14;22(1):753
pubmed: 35421959
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 May 05;15(5):
pubmed: 29734745
Health Promot Pract. 2022 Nov;23(1_suppl):44S-54S
pubmed: 36374593
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014 Feb 21;11(1):20
pubmed: 24555820
Prev Med. 1999 Dec;29(6 Pt 1):563-70
pubmed: 10600438
BMC Public Health. 2022 Jun 21;22(1):1233
pubmed: 35729509
Eur J Public Health. 2021 Oct 11;31(4):840-845
pubmed: 34000007
Prev Med. 2019 Jun;123:101-108
pubmed: 30878571
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Sep;116:10-21
pubmed: 24973570
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012 Jul 10;9:85
pubmed: 22780948
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008 Mar 27;5:17
pubmed: 18366804
J Aging Health. 2017 Feb;29(1):45-67
pubmed: 26754197