Factors Preventing
Walking to Near-Home Destinations
by Transportation
Walking Status, U.S. Adults, 2022
Tiffany J.
Chen1, Hatidza Zaganjor1, Miriam
E. Van Dyke1, Jennifer L. Matjasko1, and Geoffrey P.
Whitfield1
1Division of Nutrition, Physical
Activity, and Obesity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, U.S.A.
Abstract
Increasing transportation
walking (i.e., walking to get to and from destinations) is a key strategy for
increasing physical activity, but what is not well understood are factors
preventing people who do not walk for transportation from initiating that
practice and current transportation walkers from maintaining or increasing this
behavior. This study describes factors preventing adults who report walking or
not walking for transportation from regularly walking to destinations near
home. National data from the 2022 SummerStyles
survey included 3,955 U.S. adults who indicated factors preventing them from
regularly walking to places within a 10-minute walk of their home, selecting
all that apply from 11 environmental, access, or individual factors, or “None
of the above.” We estimated weighted prevalence for each factor and conducted
pairwise t-tests to identify significant
differences (p<.05) by transportation walking status. About 31% of
adults not walking for transportation in the past 7 days reported having no
places to walk to within a 10-minute walk, more than double the prevalence among
transportation walkers (14%). Compared to transportation walkers, more adults
not walking for transportation reported individual factors (i.e., 24% preferred
driving or being driven, vs. 19%; 23% reported inconvenience, vs. 19%), while
more transportation walkers reported environmental factors (e.g., 40% reported
hot or humid conditions, vs. 34%) or none of the factors. These findings
suggest those not walking for transportation may need varied interventions, such
as mixed land use for near-home destinations and individual supports, to meet
their needs for transportation walking.
Keywords: walking,
transportation, active transport, physical activity
Physical activity provides a variety
of physical and mental health benefits, including reduced risk of chronic
disease, depression, and anxiety (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
2018). The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, second edition, recommends
adults engage in ≥150 minutes of moderate-intensity or moderate-equivalent
aerobic physical activity per week (aerobic guideline), preferably spread
throughout the week, for substantial health benefits (U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, 2018). Despite this, only about half of U.S. adults met the
aerobic guideline from nonoccupational activity in 2019 (Ussery et al., 2021). Walking
has been reported as the most common nonoccupational aerobic physical activity
for U.S. adults across many demographic groups (Watson et al., 2015). Prevalence
of walking was higher among people who met the aerobic guideline than for
people who did not (Ussery et al., 2017). Step It Up! The Surgeon General’s Call
to Action to Promote Walking and Walkable Communities promotes walking as a
key public health strategy for increasing physical activity and an accessible,
multipurpose activity for many people to incorporate into their lives in
different ways that work for them (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 2015), such as walking 10 minutes for transportation.
Transportation walking (i.e., to
get to and from destinations such as work, stores, or public transit) is a
potential source of activity for meeting the aerobic guideline. Between 2005
and 2015, the proportion of U.S. adults who reported any transportation walking
increased modestly from 28.4% to 31.7%; however, the average minutes per week
of transportation walking decreased, and the prevalence of walking enough minutes
to meet the aerobic guideline also decreased (Ussery et al., 2018). Various
factors may prevent the initiation or increase of transportation walking in the
U.S., including lack of time, safety concerns, unsupportive community design, and
actual or perceived physical ability (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
2015).
It is not well understood which specific
factors prevent initiating this behavior among those who do not walk for
transportation and preclude maintaining or increasing transportation walking
among those who do walk for transportation (i.e., transportation walkers). The
objective of this study is to describe factors preventing U.S. adults who
report walking or not walking for transportation from regularly walking to destinations
near home. Understanding the factors that prevent transportation walking is
important for planning interventions to promote walking and increase physical
activity.
Methods
Porter Novelli conducted the 2022 Styles
surveys using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel®, a continuously replenished
online panel of about 60,000 noninstitutionalized U.S. panelists who are
recruited randomly by mail using probability-based random sampling by address
(Porter Novelli, n.d.). Our study used 2022 SummerStyles data of
respondents aged 18 or older from the survey’s summer wave, fielded from May 31
to July 6, 2022. The SummerStyles survey was sent to 5,990 households
that completed the initial 2022 SpringStyles survey wave. The final SummerStyles
sample had 4,156 adult respondents (response rate 69.3%), and respondents
received around $5 in cash-equivalent reward points. Data were weighted to
match 2021 U.S. Current Population Survey proportions
using eight factors (gender by age, household income, race/ethnicity, household
size, education, Census region, metro status, and parental status of children
11–17
years old). Our final analytic sample was 3,955 adults, excluding 201 adults who
were missing data on transportation walking status, factors preventing walking
to near-home destinations, or inability to walk, or who reported being physically
unable to walk. Our analysis involved the examination of precollected data
licensed from Porter Novelli Public Services and was considered exempt from
Institutional Review Board assessment at the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
Measures
To assess factors preventing walking
to destinations near home, respondents were asked, “Which of the following
prevent you from regularly walking to places within a 10-minute walk of where
you live?” and asked to select all that apply or “None of the above.” Response
options included “Unpleasant or unhealthy environment (e.g., trash, noise,
pollution),” “Cold or icy conditions,” “Hot or humid conditions,” and “Feeling
unsafe for any reason” (henceforth, environmental factors); “Sidewalks are
missing or poorly maintained,” “Crosswalks are missing or too far apart,” and
“There are no places within a 10-minute walk of where I live” (henceforth, access
factors); and “Inconvenient (e.g., too far, takes too long, unfamiliar),” “My
physical abilities or fitness,” “Do not like walking,” and “Prefer driving or
being driven” (henceforth, individual factors). We grouped these into
environmental, access, and individual factors based generally on the
socioecological model of active living (Sallis et al., 2006).
For transportation walking status,
respondents were asked, “In the past 7 days, how many days did you walk for
transportation? This is walking you might have done to travel to and from work,
to do errands, or to go from place to place.” Respondents could indicate 0 to 7
days per week, or “I am not physically able to walk.” Respondents were also
asked for the approximate duration in minutes they walked for transportation
each day. Respondents were categorized as transportation walkers if they
reported 1 to 7 days per week and were not missing a duration response. Those
who reported 0 days per week were categorized as not walking for
transportation.
Statistical Analysis
We estimated weighted prevalence
and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all factors preventing U.S. adults from
walking to places within 10 minutes of home, stratified by transportation
walking status. We conducted pairwise t-tests to assess significant
differences between those walking versus not walking for transportation, with alpha
= .05. Analyses were conducted using SAS-callable SUDAAN (version 11.0;
Research Triangle Institute) to account for survey weights.
Results
Weighted and unweighted
characteristics of respondents are presented in the Supplemental Table.
|
Supplemental
Table. Respondent Characteristics, 2022 SummerStyles (n=3,955)*
|
|
|
|
Characteristic
|
n
|
Unweighted %
|
Weighted % (95% CI)†
|
|
|
|
Age
(years)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18–34
|
574
|
14.5%
|
29.3 (27.4—31.4)
|
|
|
|
35–49
|
1,102
|
27.9%
|
23.7 (22.2—25.3)
|
|
|
|
50–64
|
1,123
|
28.4%
|
24.9 (23.4—26.4)
|
|
|
|
65+
|
1,156
|
29.2%
|
22.1 (20.8—23.4)
|
|
|
|
Sex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Male
|
1,990
|
50.3%
|
49.4 (47.5—51.2)
|
|
|
|
Female
|
1,965
|
49.7%
|
50.6 (48.8—52.5)
|
|
|
|
Race/ethnicity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
White, NH
|
2,853
|
72.1%
|
63.0 (61.0—64.9)
|
|
|
|
Black, NH
|
354
|
9.0%
|
11.6 (10.4—13.0)
|
|
|
|
Hispanic or Latino
|
442
|
11.2%
|
16.9 (15.3—18.6)
|
|
|
|
Asian, NH
|
163
|
4.1%
|
5.9 (5.0—7.0)
|
|
|
|
Another or 2+ races, NH
|
143
|
3.6%
|
2.6 (2.1—3.2)
|
|
|
|
Education
level
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High school graduate or less
|
1,151
|
29.1%
|
36.6 (34.7—38.5)
|
|
|
|
Some college
|
1,110
|
28.1%
|
27.3 (25.7—29.0)
|
|
|
|
Bachelor's degree or higher
|
1,694
|
42.8%
|
36.2 (34.4—37.9)
|
|
|
|
Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less than $50,000
|
934
|
23.6%
|
28.4 (26.6—30.2)
|
|
|
|
$50,000–$99,999
|
1,180
|
29.8%
|
30.0 (28.3—31.8)
|
|
|
|
$100,000 or more
|
1,841
|
46.6%
|
41.6 (39.8—43.5)
|
|
|
|
Region
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Northeast
|
699
|
17.7%
|
17.2 (15.8—18.6)
|
|
|
|
Midwest
|
891
|
22.5%
|
20.9 (19.4—22.4)
|
|
|
|
South
|
1,414
|
35.8%
|
37.9 (36.1—39.8)
|
|
|
|
West
|
951
|
24.1%
|
24.1 (22.5—25.7)
|
|
|
|
MSA
status
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonmetro
|
497
|
12.6%
|
13.1 (11.9—14.4)
|
|
|
|
Metro
|
3,458
|
87.4%
|
86.9 (85.6—88.1)
|
|
|
|
Transportation
walking status‡
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
2,697
|
68.2%
|
66.8 (65.0—68.6)
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
1,258
|
31.8%
|
33.2 (31.4—35.0)
|
|
|
|
Abbreviations:
CI, confidence interval; MSA, metropolitan statistical area; NH,
non-Hispanic.
|
|
|
|
*201
adults were excluded due to missing responses to transportation walking
status, factors preventing walking, or being unable to walk, or a response of
being unable to walk. Those excluded were distributed differently by
education and income compared to the analytic sample (chi-square p<.05),
representing more adults with lower education and income.
†Weighted
to the total U.S. population as estimated by the 2021 U.S. Current Population
Survey proportions using eight factors (gender by age, household income,
race/ethnicity, household size, education, census region, metro status, and
parental status of children 11–17 years old).
‡Transportation
walking status was determined by reported transportation walking in the past
7 days. Adults who do not walk for transportation were distributed
differently by age, race/ethnicity, income, region, and MSA status
(chi-square p<.05), representing more older, Non-Hispanic White,
middle-income adults, residents of the South, and residents of nonmetro areas
compared to adults who walk for transportation (with more younger, non-White,
lower-income adults, residents of the Northeast, and residents of metro
areas).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There were significant differences
by transportation walking status for seven of the 11 factors preventing walking
to near-home destinations (Table 1).
|
Table
1. Prevalence of Factors Preventing Regular Walking to Near-Home
Destinations, by Transportation Walking Status, 2022 SummerStyles (n=3,955)
|
|
Factor Type
|
Factors*
|
Weighted Prevalence % (95% CI)
|
|
Adults who do not walk for transportation†
|
Adults who walk for transportation†
|
|
Environmental
|
Hot/humid
|
34.2 (32.1—36.4)‡
|
39.6 (36.3—42.9)‡
|
|
Unsafe
|
13.4 (11.9—15.2)‡
|
16.8 (14.3—19.6)‡
|
|
Cold/icy
|
11.4 (10.1—12.8)‡
|
16.2 (14.0—18.5)‡
|
|
Unpleasant/unhealthy environment
|
4.8 (3.9—5.9)‡
|
8.6 (6.8—10.8)‡
|
|
Access
|
No places within 10-minute walk
|
30.5 (28.5—32.6)‡
|
13.9 (11.9—16.2)‡
|
|
Sidewalks missing or poorly maintained
|
17.4 (15.7—19.2)
|
16.4 (14.1—19.1)
|
|
Crosswalks missing or too far apart
|
6.1 (5.0—7.4)
|
6.1 (4.7—8.0)
|
|
Individual
|
Prefer driving/being driven
|
23.9 (21.9—25.9)‡
|
18.7 (16.1—21.5)‡
|
|
Inconvenient
|
22.8 (20.9—24.8)‡
|
18.8 (16.2—21.7)‡
|
|
Abilities/fitness
|
10.9 (9.6—12.3)
|
9.8 (8.0—11.9)
|
|
Do not like walking
|
7.3 (6.1—8.6)
|
5.5 (4.1—7.4)
|
|
None of the above
|
18.3 (16.5—20.1)‡
|
26.0 (23.2—29.0)‡
|
|
Abbreviation:
CI, confidence interval.
*Question
and response text: Which of the following prevent you from regularly walking
to places within a 10-minute walk of where you live? Hot or humid conditions;
feeling unsafe for any reason; cold or icy conditions; unpleasant or
unhealthy environment (e.g., trash, noise, pollution); there are no places
within a 10-minute walk of where I live; sidewalks are missing or poorly
maintained; crosswalks are missing or too far apart; prefer driving or being
driven; inconvenient (e.g., too far, takes too long, unfamiliar); my physical
abilities or fitness; do not like walking.
† Transportation walking status was determined by reported
transportation walking in the past 7 days.
‡ For
each factor, prevalence estimates with the same superscript symbol are
statistically different at p < .05.
|
Three factors were reported more by those not
walking for transportation versus those who are transportation walkers: the
access factor of not having places within a 10-minute walk of where they live
(30.5% vs. 13.9%), and the individual factors of preferring driving or being
driven (23.8% vs. 18.6%) and inconvenience (22.8% vs. 18.9%). Four
environmental factors were reported more by transportation walkers: hot or
humid conditions (39.6% vs. 34.3%), feeling unsafe for any reason (16.8% vs.
13.4%), cold or icy conditions (16.1% vs. 11.3%), and an unpleasant or
unhealthy environment (8.6% vs. 4.8%). “None of the above” was also reported
more by transportation walkers (26.0% vs. 18.2%). The Supplemental Figure
visually depicts Table 1’s significantly different prevalence estimates by
transportation walking status for environmental, access, and individual factors
that prevent walking to destinations near home.
Discussion
About 31% of adults who do not walk
for transportation—more than double the prevalence of transportation walkers—reported
having no places within a 10-minute walk as a factor preventing walking to
near-home destinations. They were also more likely to report individual
preferences for driving and inconvenience of walking. Transportation walkers more
often reported environmental factors or none of the listed factors. Our
findings suggest adults not walking for transportation may benefit from land use
decisions that expand the variety of near-home destinations and interventions both
to improve convenience of transportation walking and to change people’s
preferences.
To our knowledge, our study is the
first to explore factors preventing transportation walking, specifically to
places within 10 minutes from home, by transportation walking status. Previous
studies have broadly examined environmental correlates in various countries by
walking purpose (Dadpour et al., 2016; Inoue et al., 2010; Lee & Moudon,
2006; Owen et al., 2004; Saelens & Handy, 2008; Whitfield et al., 2019). Evidence
consistently supports residential density (Lee & Moudon, 2006; Saelens
& Handy, 2008), mixed land use (Saelens & Handy, 2008), and route
connectivity for neighborhood walkability (Inoue et al., 2010; Owen et al.,
2004)—as well as utilitarian destinations (Lee & Moudon, 2006; Saelens
& Handy, 2008; Whitfield et al., 2019) and shorter distances to
destinations (Dadpour et al., 2016; Owen et al., 2004; Saelens & Handy,
2008) as environmental correlates of transportation walking . Weather (Dadpour
et al., 2016), safety (Saelens & Handy, 2008), built environment aesthetics
(Dadpour et al., 2016), and sidewalks (Owen et al., 2004; Whitfield et al.,
2019), among others, could also be important. A study on individual attitudes
demonstrated an interaction with environmental correlates, such that a
walkability measure and positive environmental characteristics were associated
with transportation walking only in people with positive walking attitudes
(Yang & Diez-Roux, 2017). Our findings augment previous research by
identifying which factors might specifically influence adults who do not walk
for transportation when they are deciding whether to walk for transportation
near home. The magnitudes of prevalence and difference by transportation
walking status may signify the extent to which each factor drives decisions. For
example, not having destinations near home was identified by almost one-third
of those not transportation walking, more than twice as often than by
transportation walkers—emphasizing how nearby destinations may be essential for
regular transportation walking.
Notably, our findings on
differences by factor types may fit into Alfonzo’s hierarchy of walking needs,
a framework that uses a social-ecological model of walking to describe
decisions to walk (Alfonzo, 2005). In Alfonzo’s hierarchy, feasibility of
walking is the most basic need limiting further considerations of needs.
Environmental urban form (built environment) characteristics are then placed in
an ordered hierarchy (lower-level to higher-level: accessibility, safety,
comfort, pleasurability) where lower-level needs typically must be met before
considering higher-level needs for walking, and individual-, group-, and
regional-level (e.g., respectively: biological, sociocultural, and
geographical) attributes moderate walking decisions (Alfonzo, 2005). Individual
attributes or psychological factors (e.g., attitudes, self-efficacy) may
influence how many levels must be satisfied before deciding to walk (Alfonzo,
2005). The higher prevalence of not having destinations near home among those
not walking for transportation may indicate that regular transportation walking
is not feasible, and higher prevalence of individual factors may indicate that they
may need more or all built environment characteristics fulfilled in Alfonzo’s
hierarchy to initiate walking. Compared to those who do not walk for
transportation, it is possible that some transportation walkers reporting
higher prevalence of environmental factors may feel their lower-level needs
(e.g., accessibility) are sufficiently met and are considering higher-level
needs (e.g., safety, comfort, and pleasurability) in walking decisions. More
than one-fourth of transportation walkers (compared to 18% of those not
transportation walking) reported “None of the above,” which may indicate their transportation
walking needs were met or their relevant factors were not response options.
However, it is also possible that
transportation walkers may not be voluntarily walking if walking is their only
available form of transportation. Their higher prevalence of environmental
factors may be due to their exposure to and observations of conditions in the walking
environment, which may not be observable by those who do not walk for
transportation. Regardless, environmental supports are needed to address
factors across Alfonzo’s hierarchy. Interventions including trees (for shade
and aesthetics) and green spaces (Dadpour et al., 2016) may improve comfort or pleasurability
and counteract heat to influence decisions to walk. Prioritizing mixed land use
and proximity of destinations could provide more convenient, accessible places
to walk to (Dadpour et al., 2016; Saelens & Handy, 2008), just as well-connected
pedestrian and transit transportation systems (Dadpour et al., 2016; Lee &
Moudon, 2006; Owen et al., 2004) could provide more enjoyable and convenient
alternatives to driving or being driven; the Community Preventive Services Task
Force recommends strategies that combine at least one land use intervention
(e.g., diverse and accessible local destinations nearby, such as stores,
healthcare, banks, and social clubs) with at least one transportation system
intervention (e.g., pedestrian infrastructure, such as sidewalks or trails,
intersection design, and landscaping) to increase physical activity (Guide to
Community Preventative Services, 2017). Since individual attitudes may moderate
how people respond to environmental supports for transportation walking (Yang
& Diez-Roux, 2017), people who prefer or are accustomed to cars for
transportation (Dadpour et al., 2016) may need additional support to walk for
transportation, beyond improved walking environments. Individual supports (i.e.,
behavior change guidance to incorporate routine walking) could compliment
environmental supports (Schmid et al., 2021), particularly for the higher
prevalence of adults not walking for transportation who reported preferring
driving and inconvenience.
Some limitations exist for our
study. First, the survey question asks about only home-based walking (i.e.,
“within a 10-minute walk of where you live”) and does not specify walking
purpose, so reported factors are specific to home-based walking and could vary by
respondent interpretation. Second, 11 response options were listed, none of
which were factors about social influences, so options were not comprehensive.
Third, only past 7-day transportation walking was assessed, whereas factors preventing
regular transportation walking were assessed; some regular transportation
walkers could be missed by the past 7-day assessment. Fourth, 2022 SummerStyles
was fielded in the summer, so respondents may have been subject to priming
effects when responding about hot or humid conditions, with possible opposite
effects for cold or icy conditions. Fifth, our supplementary analyses suggest
that there are important sociodemographic differences in walking for
transportation. It was beyond the scope of our current study to extensively
consider the nature of these differences and is an important next step for
research on this topic.
Conclusion
Among adults who did not walk for
transportation in the past 7 days, almost one-third do not have destinations near
home to regularly walk to. Prevalence of individual factors preventing walking
to near-home destinations was higher for those not walking for transportation
than for transportation walkers, and prevalence of environmental factors was
higher for transportation walkers than those not walking for transportation. Understanding
factors preventing walking to near-home destinations is valuable for planning
environmental, access, and individual interventions to promote walking and
increase physical activity. Focused efforts on near-home destinations may be particularly
important.
Correspondence should be addressed to
Tiffany J. Chen, MSPH
Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
4770 Buford Highway NE, MS S107-5
Atlanta, GA 30341
pgi8@cdc.gov
404-498-2590
Tiffany
J. Chen: 0000-0002-2326-0986
Hatidza
Zaganjor: 0000-0001-8596-712X
Miriam E. Van Dyke: 0000-0002-8684-2860
Jennifer L. Matjasko: 0000-0002-0005-1401
Geoffrey
P. Whitfield: 0000-0002-3991-8690
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article. This research did not receive any specific grant
from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, T.J.C., H.Z., and G.P.W.;
Methodology, T.J.C. and M.E.V.D.; Formal Analysis, T.J.C.; Investigation, T.J.C.
and H.Z.; Writing – Original Draft, T.J.C.; Writing – Review & Editing, T.J.C.,
M.E.V.D., G.P.W., H.Z., J.L.M.; Supervision, G.P.W.; Project Administration,
T.J.C.
Author Note
Miriam E. Van Dyke is now at the Division of
Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic
Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA,
USA.
Disclaimer
The findings and conclusions in this report are those
of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Financial Disclosure
Authors received no financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research did not
receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed
under a Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
References
Alfonzo,
M.A. (2005). To walk or not to walk? The hierarchy of walking needs. Environ
Behav. 37(6):731-865. doi:10.1177/0013916504274
Dadpour,
S., Pakzad, J., & Khankeh, H. (2016). Understanding the influence of
environment on adults’ walking experiences: a meta-synthesis study. Int J
Environ Res Public Health. 13(7):731. doi:10.3390/ijerph13070731
Guide
to Community Preventive Services. (2017, May 2). Physical Activity: Built
Environment Approaches Combining Transportation System Interventions with Land
Use and Environmental Design. Accessed September 13, 2024. https://www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/physical-activity-built-environment-approaches.html
Inoue,
S., Ohya, Y., Odagiri, Y., Takamiya, T., Ishii, K., Kitabayashi, M., Suijo, K.,
Sallis, J. F., & Shimomitsu, T. (2010). Association between perceived
neighborhood environment and walking among adults in 4 cities in Japan. J Epidemiol.
20(4), 277–286. doi: 10.2188/jea.je20090120
Lee,
C. & Moudon, A. V. (2006). Correlates of walking for transportation or
recreation purposes. J Phys Act Health. 3(Suppl 1):S77-S98.
doi:10.1123/jpah.3.s1.s77
Owen,
N., Humpel, N., Leslie, E., Bauman, A., & Sallis, J. F. (2004). Understanding
environmental influences on walking: review and research agenda. Am J Prev
Med. 27(1):67-76. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.03.006
Porter
Novelli. (n.d.). PNStyles: ConsumerStyles & YouthStyles. Accessed May 29,
2024. https://styles.porternovelli.com/consumer-youthstyles/
Saelens,
B. E. & Handy, S. L. (2008). Built environment
correlates of walking: a review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 40(7
Suppl):S550-S566. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31817c67a4
Sallis,
J. F., Cervero, R. B., Ascher, W., Henderson, K. A., Kraft, M. K., & Kerr,
J. K. (2006). An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annu
Rev Public Health. 27:297-322.
doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102100
Schmid,
T. L., Fulton, J. E., McMahon, J. M., Devlin, H. M., Rose, K. M., & Petersen,
R. (2021). Delivering physical activity strategies that work: Active People,
Healthy NationSM. J Phys Act Health. 18(4):352-356.
doi:10.1123/jpah.2020-0656
U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. (2015). Step It Up! The Surgeon
General’s Call to Action to Promote Walking and Walkable Communities.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/call-to-action-walking-and-walkable-communites.pdf
U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). Physical Activity
Guidelines for Americans, 2nd edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Activity_Guidelines_2nd_edition.pdf
Ussery,
E. N., Carlson, S. A., Whitfield, G. P., Watson, K. B., Berrigan, D., & Fulton,
J. E. (2017). Walking for transportation or leisure among U.S. women and
men—National Health Interview Survey, 2005–2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.
66:657-662. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6625a1
Ussery,
E. N., Carlson, S. A., Whitfield, G. P., Watson, K. B., Berrigan, D., & Fulton,
J. E. (2018). Transportation and leisure walking among U.S. adults: trends in
reported prevalence and volume, National Health Interview Survey 2005–2015. Am
J Prev Med. 55(4):533-540. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2018.05.027
Ussery,
E. N., Omura, J. D., McCain, K., & Watson, K. B. (2021). Change in
prevalence of meeting the aerobic physical activity guideline among US adults,
by states and territories—Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2011 and
2019. J Phys Act Health. 18:S84-S85. doi:10.1123/jpah.2021-0181
Watson,
K. B., Frederick, G. M., Harris, C. D., Carlson, S. A., & Fulton, J. E. (2015).
U.S. adults' participation in specific activities: Behavioral Risk Factor
Surveillance System—2011. J Phys Act Health. 12(Suppl 1):S3-S10.
doi:10.1123/jpah.2013-0521
Whitfield,
G. P., Carlson, S. A., Ussery, E. N., Watson, K. B., Berrigan, D., Fulton, J. E.
(2019). National-level environmental perceptions and walking among urban and
rural residents: informing surveillance of walkability. Prev Med.
123:101-108. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.03.019
Yang,
Y. & Diez-Roux, A.V. (2017). Adults’ daily walking for travel and leisure:
interaction between attitude toward walking and the neighborhood environment. Am
J Health Promot. 31(5):435-443. doi:10.1177/0890117116669278