Obesity is a public health problem that is due in part to low levels of physical activity. Physical activity levels are influenced by the built environment. We examined how changes in the built environment affected residents' physical activity levels in a low-income, primarily African American neighborhood in New Orleans.
We built a 6-block walking path and installed a school playground in an intervention neighborhood. We measured physical activity levels in this neighborhood and in 2 matched comparison neighborhoods by self-report, using door-to-door surveys, and by direct observations of neighborhood residents outside before (2006) and after (2008) the interventions. We used Pearson χ2 tests of independence to assess bivariate associations and logistic regression models to assess the effect of the interventions.
Neighborhoods were comparable at baseline in demographic composition, choice of physical activity locations, and percentage of residents who participated in physical activity. Self-reported physical activity increased over time in most neighborhoods. The proportion of residents observed who were active increased significantly in the section of the intervention neighborhood with the path compared with comparison neighborhoods. Among residents who were observed engaging in physical activity, 41% were moderately to vigorously active in the section of the intervention neighborhood with the path compared with 24% and 38% in the comparison neighborhoods at the postintervention measurement (
Changes to the built environment may increase neighborhood physical activity in low-income, African American neighborhoods.
Obesity is a serious and widespread problem in the United States. Nearly 34% of American adults are obese, and 68% are either obese or overweight (
Features of the built environment influence the propensity to be physically active (
The Prevention Research Center (PRC) at Tulane University works to identify and address physical and social environmental factors that influence the obesity epidemic and has an overall goal of reducing obesity and its associated health problems. In this project, the Partnership for an Active Community Environment (PACE), the PRC worked with neighborhood-based community groups to create improvements to the built environment that would facilitate PA. Taking a community-based participatory research approach (
We used a serial cross-sectional study design to evaluate the effect of the installation of a path and playground on community-wide PA. We conducted cross-sectional assessments at baseline (fall of 2006) and follow-up (fall of 2008). The changes to the built environment occurred in 2007. The study protocol received approval from the Tulane University institutional review board.
In keeping with principles of community-based participatory research (
We also considered neighborhood flood levels at the time of Hurricane Katrina (August 29, 2005) to ensure that a similar level of damage and rebuilding in each of the neighborhoods existed (
Partnership for an Active Community Environment Study Areas, New Orleans, Louisiana.
The PACE steering committee chose to install a walking path in Area A of the intervention neighborhood (INA). In November 2007, PACE and the city of New Orleans built an 8-foot-wide path of 6 blocks on a grassy, tree-filled median of a wide neighborhood boulevard. The path connected a park outside the intervention area to a commercial corridor.
In another intervention, in May 2007, KaBoom! (
We measured self-reported PA in the intervention neighborhood and the 2 comparison neighborhoods through interviewer-administered household surveys conducted door to door (survey instruments available upon request to corresponding author). The sampling plan consisted of 2 separate stratified random samples of households before (September 2006 through February 2007) and after (October 2008 through January 2009) the walking path and the playground were built. A total of 6,497 households were in the 3 areas; 3,115 in the intervention neighborhood, 943 in the first comparison neighborhood, and 2,439 in the second comparison neighborhood. Trained interviewers orally administered the survey, which assessed the community social environment, the community physical environment, and self-reported PA, health and well-being, height, weight, and demographic characteristics. Interviewers randomly selected from each household 1 English-speaking adult aged 18 to 70 who had lived in the neighborhood for at least 3 months. Interviewers made up to 12 attempts to reach that person. People were excluded if they did not speak English, had not lived in the neighborhood for at least 3 months, or were outside the age range. PA questions covered walking for leisure, walking for transportation, and engaging in other activities such as bicycling or jogging. We also asked about use of specific locations for such activity.
At baseline, we sampled 778 households and conducted 499 interviews (response rate, 64.1%): 113 (out of 184) in INA, 111 (out of 174) in INB, 159 (out of 255) in comparison neighborhood 1 (CN1), and 116 (out of 165) in comparison neighborhood 2 (CN2). Of people sampled, we were unable to contact 112 (14.4%): 36 in INA, 21 in INB, 33 in CN1, and 22 in CN2. At follow-up, we sampled 900 households and conducted 692 interviews (response rate, 76.9%): 144 (out of 179) in INA, 192 (out of 253) in INB, 169 (out of 204) in CN1, and 187 (out of 264) in CN2. Of people sampled, we were unable to contact 109 (12.1%): 22 in INA, 26 in INB, 9 in CN1, and 52 in CN2.
We used adapted SOPLAY (System for Observing Play and Leisure Activity in Youth) methods to objectively measure neighborhood PA on streets, sidewalks, and outside public areas on every block in each of the 3 neighborhoods (
Data collectors conducted PA observations in the afternoons between 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm, 3 days per week (Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday), for 6 weeks (from October through early December, excluding the week of Thanksgiving) in 2006 and 2008.
We examined self-reported PA in several ways. Respondents indicated dichotomously (yes/no) whether they walked for transportation and walked for leisure (which included walking for exercise or walking a dog). We created 2 binary variables (1 for transportation and 1 for leisure) to indicate walking at least 30 minutes per day for at least 5 days per week and created a single binary variable to indicate walking for transportation, leisure, both, or not walking. Results were similar for the 3 approaches and were, therefore, only reported for the first. Frequencies of other forms of PA were low and were not included.
We compared neighborhoods at baseline and follow-up for the proportion of observed people that were moderately or vigorously active, for self-reported PA and location of activity, and for sociodemographic characteristics. We treated the 2 sections of the intervention neighborhood as separate neighborhoods, which required 3 dummy variables to code the intervention neighborhood.
We computed Pearson χ2 statistics to explore the bivariate relationships and used logistic regression to explore the effect of the intervention. We considered age as a confounder and potential effect modifier. Regression models included neighborhood, time, and neighborhood-by-time interactions. If the neighborhood-by-time interaction was significant, we used post hoc tests to determine whether the intervention neighborhood sections changed more than the comparison neighborhoods. We set significance at
Survey respondents from the 3 neighborhoods were similar demographically at baseline (
People from all neighborhoods reported that they most frequently exercised at sidewalks, mall or stores, and streets (
We found a significant neighborhood-by-time interaction between baseline and follow-up for the proportion of people observed who were active. A significant increase in the proportion of people engaged in moderate and vigorous activity was noted in INA between baseline (36.7%) and follow-up (41.0%) (Pearson χ2 test,
Percentage of people observed in intervention and comparison neighborhoods engaged in moderate and vigorous physical activity, at baseline (2006) and follow-up (2008), Partnership for an Active Community Environment Project, New Orleans, Louisiana. Neighborhood-by-time interaction was significant (χ2 test,
| Neighborhood | Baseline, % | Follow-Up, % |
|---|---|---|
| INA | 36.7 | 41.0 |
| INB | 40.5 | 40.6 |
| CN1 | 37.0 | 23.9 |
| CN2 | 39.3 | 37.5 |
We observed a slight, significant increase in vigorous activity from 10.5% to 13.7% in that same area (Pearson χ2 test,
Percentage of people observed in intervention and comparison neighborhoods engaged in vigorous physical activity, at baseline (2006) and follow-up (2008), Partnership for an Active Community Environment Project, New Orleans, Louisiana. Neighborhood-by-time interaction was significant (χ2 test,
| Neighborhood | Baseline, % | Follow-Up, % |
|---|---|---|
| INA | 10.5 | 13.7 |
| INB | 11.3 | 10.6 |
| CN1 | 12.1 | 10.9 |
| CN2 | 14.6 | 13.5 |
We analyzed the combined proportion of moderate and vigorous activity for youth and adults separately and the patterns of moderate and vigorous activity were similar (combined proportions shown) (
The playground was open for 81 weeks, from July 2007 through April 2009. The daily counts of playground users ranged from 1 to 114 (mean daily count, 25 users; data not shown).
We found that after a walking path was installed in a low-income neighborhood, the proportion of people observed who were active in that area increased. Observed activity decreased in the other areas during the same period. Self-reported activity also increased for residents in both intervention areas on streets, for everyone in parks, and for those in INA on a walking trail. However, only the change in park use was significant. The modest increases in observed activity around the path suggest that improvements to the built environment may have had this effect and are encouraging.
It must be noted that the evaluation of the path was not targeted around the path. We hypothesized that environmental changes available to the entire community would lead to increases in PA throughout the neighborhood, as norms for PA changed. However, we could not focus data collection where the built environment was altered because the interventions were decided after baseline data were gathered. Regardless, we were able to show a modest increase in both observed moderate and vigorous activity combined from 36.7% to 41.0% and in observed vigorous activity from 10.5% to 13.7%.
Randomized, controlled trials involving changes to the built environment are difficult to conduct, so most research has been cross-sectional. Our study used cross-sectional assessments before and after the interventions were implemented. In a review article relating features of the built environment to PA in majority African American populations, associations have not been consistent (
Trails and other outdoor recreational spaces in the physical environment promote PA, as evidenced by this study and others (
Environmental interventions aimed at increasing PA have shown modest results. Fitzhugh et al found an association between objectively measured PA and increased PA after installation of a greenway/trail (
The study has several limitations. First, respondents tend to overestimate duration and intensity of PA when the accounts are self-recalled (
This study has several strengths. The study design included 2 comparison communities, subjective and objective measures of the outcome variables, and 2 waves of data collection. The communities were chosen using objective considerations as well as via the participation of members of the steering committee, who had "insider" perspectives. The interventions were community generated or supported, making them more likely to be accepted and used (
Built environment changes, such as easily accessible paths that lead to destinations, can provide more opportunities for PA in primarily African American neighborhoods and others where infrastructure has been allowed to fall into disrepair or was not initially installed. Such increases in opportunity can lead to increases in population-level PA. Environmental interventions can affect many people, over a long period, which programmatic interventions cannot do. Cities and planning commissions should prioritize places for people to be active that are in or near the neighborhoods where people live and consider simple adaptations to existing infrastructure. Resident participation in decision making about the nature and location of environmental changes may be necessary to ensure that changes lead to changes in behavior. As PA levels decrease across the country and in specific communities, creating supportive environments for activity is important. Walking paths or trails may provide a long-term, sustainable, and low-cost strategy to increase the PA of residents in low-income neighborhoods.
This study was part of the core research project of the Prevention Research Center at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine and was funded by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Cooperative Agreement no. 1-U48-DP-000047. The authors thank the PACE steering committee for their dedicated time to the project.
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions.
All Citizens Together
Bunny Friend Neighborhood Association
Bywater Hospital (2004-2005)
Crescent City Peace Alliance
Dillard University (2004-2005)
Douglass Community Coalition (2004-2005)
Faubourg St. Roch Improvement Association
Holy Angels/Marionites
Small Axe Urban Farms
St. Claude Merchants' Association (2004-2006)
St. Roch Neighborhood Association
St. Roch Community Church
Steps to a Healthier Louisiana (a project of the New Orleans City Health Department and the Louisiana Public Health Institute)
The Renaissance Project (2004-2007)
Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine
Urbanheart (2004-2005)
Baseline Demographic Data and Self-Reported Body Mass Index (BMI), Household Survey Respondents in Intervention and Comparison Neighborhoods, New Orleans, Louisiana, Partnership for an Active Community Environment Project, 2006
|
| INA (n = 105) | INB (n = 108) | CN1 (n = 150) | CN2 (n = 110) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 85.7 | 91.7 | 96.7 | 100.0 |
|
| 54.7 | 63.9 | 65.3 | 60.4 |
|
| 61.2 | 50.9 | 49.7 | 60.6 |
|
| 82.9 | 76.2 | 80.4 | 88.3 |
|
| 41.6 (14.3) | 47.0 (14.0) | 43.5 (13.6) | 45.5 (14.1) |
|
| 36.0 | 46.7 | 33.6 | 46.2 |
|
| ||||
| Male | 27.9 (6.7) | 27.6 (6.8) | 26.3 (4.8) | 26.8 (5.0) |
| Female | 27.7 (8.0) | 29.6 (6.0) | 30.0 (8.5) | 30.1 (7.6) |
Abbreviations: INA, intervention neighborhood A (path); INB, intervention neighborhood B (playground); CN1, comparison neighborhood 1; CN2, comparison neighborhood 2; GED, general educational development certificate; SD, standard deviation.
Differences between total numbers in table and methods section result from item nonresponse.
Difference between neighborhoods at baseline,
Difference between neighborhoods at baseline,
Self-Reported Walking at Baseline (2006, n = 476) and Follow-Up (2008, n = 665),
| Neighborhood | Walk for Transportation, % | Walk for Leisure, % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Baseline | Follow-Up | Baseline | Follow-Up | |
| Intervention A (path) | 29.3 | 34.8 | 60.0 | 65.3 |
| Intervention B (playground) | 24.8 | 36.9 | 63.3 | 61.5 |
| Comparison 1 | 31.3 | 40.5 | 61.3 | 70.4 |
| Comparison 2 | 19.8 | 31.1 | 57.7 | 68.9 |
Differences between total numbers in table and methods section result from item nonresponse.
Neighborhood-by-time interaction was not significant.
Percentage of Survey Respondents Who Reported Exercising at Specific Locations, by Neighborhood, at Baseline (2006, n = 473) and Follow-Up (2008, n = 666), New Orleans, Louisiana, Partnership for an Active Community Environment Project
| Location | Baseline, % | Follow-Up, % | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| INA | INB | CN1 | CN2 | INA | INB | CN1 | CN2 | |
| Sidewalk | 61.5 | 53.2 | 60.0 | 51.8 | 52.1 | 52.9 | 54.4 | 52.8 |
| Mall or store | 35.2 | 45.0 | 54.7 | 47.3 | 31.9 | 38.7 | 34.4 | 40.6 |
| Street | 40.4 | 32.1 | 46.7 | 42.7 | 41.5 | 41.7 | 41.9 | 37.2 |
| Park | 27.6 | 14.7 | 30.7 | 18.2 | 34.5 | 26.2 | 38.4 | 36.5 |
| Walking trail | 21.9 | 21.1 | 25.3 | 17.3 | 29.6 | 15.0 | 21.4 | 20.8 |
| Equipment in home | 21.9 | 23.8 | 19.3 | 22.7 | 13.4 | 13.4 | 11.9 | 14.4 |
| Indoor gym | 21.9 | 18.4 | 21.5 | 18.2 | 11.4 | 9.6 | 13.1 | 18.3 |
| Track at local school | 10.5 | 8.3 | 9.3 | 9.1 | 6.3 | 4.3 | 6.3 | 14.4 |
Abbreviations: INA, intervention neighborhood A (path); INB, intervention neighborhood B (playground); CN1, comparison neighborhood 1; CN2, comparison neighborhood 2.
Differences between total numbers in table and methods section result from item nonresponse.
There were no significant neighborhood-by-time interactions.
Overall differences between baseline and follow-up,
Overall differences between baseline and follow-up,