|
|
Volume 1:
No. 4, October 2004
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Use of a Community Trail
Among New and Habitual Exercisers: A Preliminary Assessment
Paul M. Gordon, PhD, MPH, Samuel J. Zizzi, EdD, Jeff Pauline, EdD
Suggested citation for this article: Gordon PM, Zizzi SJ, Pauline J. Use
of a community trail among new and habitual exercisers: a preliminary
assessment. Prev Chronic Dis [serial online] 2004 Oct [date cited].
Available from: URL:
http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2004/
oct/04_0058.htm.
PEER REVIEWED
Abstract
Introduction
We evaluated physical activity patterns and trail use among new and
habitually active exercisers using onsite trail interviews.
Methods
Using a cross-sectional study design, 414 adults who accessed two new trails
that bisect a rural community of 26,809 residents were interviewed during
the first summer of the trails’ official operation (2001). The trails
comprise 12 miles of level and paved surface and run parallel to adjacent
water sheds, businesses, and neighborhoods. Recent trail activity patterns
were obtained, including the following: frequency of use, mode of activity,
duration, distance traveled on trail, access points, time of day used, use
of exercise companions, and distance traveled to get to trail. Perceived
enablers and barriers related to trail use were also obtained. Data were
compared between newly adopted exercisers (new exercisers) and individuals
active prior to development of the trails (habitually active exercisers).
Results
Twenty-three percent of the trail users were new exercisers. New exercisers
were more dependent on the trails as a primary outlet for physical activity
than were habitually active exercisers (P < .001). New exercisers traveled
shorter distances to access the trails and rated convenience as a primary
reason for using them. Both safety and terrain issues emerged as enablers
for trail use, and unsafe conditions emerged as a concern among new
exercisers.
Conclusion
A community trail may be an important vehicle for promoting physically
active lifestyles. However, new exercisers must overcome issues of proximal
and safe access from residential areas in addition to other safety concerns to
achieve regular physical activity.
Back to top
Introduction
Although the health benefits of physical activity are now well
established (1), 55% of Americans do not meet the minimal physical activity
recommendations for health (2). Environmental and policy approaches to
promoting physical activity have been recommended to change the physical and
social environments that individuals inhabit. Public health officials
theorize that when suitable facilities are available to community residents,
physical activity levels increase (3,4). Healthy People 2010
objectives recommend creating and enhancing access to places and facilities
where people can be physically active (5). Furthermore, the Task Force on
Community Preventive Services has recently issued a strong recommendation
for policy and environmental approaches that create or enhance access to
places for physical activity, along with information outreach activities, as
an intervention to increase community physical activity levels (6).
One
example of an environmental and policy approach to increase physical
activity in the community is the development of a walking/bicycling trail. A
community walking/bicycling trail can be a relatively low-cost intervention
that may facilitate physical activity by reducing barriers related to cost,
convenience, and accessibility (7,8). Moreover, because the trail is a
permanent fixture within the community, it may facilitate the maintenance of
a physically active lifestyle. Brownson et al examined the characteristics
and possible impact of walking-trail development and suggested that walking
trails may be particularly effective at reaching populations at high risk
for inactive behaviors (9). Although recent studies have included trails as
examples of physical environmental attributes of an active community (10),
community walking/biking trails in particular have not been well studied.
One recent investigation in Australia found that a newly constructed rail
trail accompanied by a local promotional campaign increased
cycling (11). More studies are needed to assess the importance of a
community walking/biking trail on influencing physical activity levels.
It is not known how important a trail is among individuals who have newly
adopted exercise habits. Nor is it known if the types of physical activity
and patterns of trail use differ between new exercisers
and habitually active exercisers. Although health officials have theorized that
community recreation trails can provide convenient and accessible
opportunities for engaging in regular physical activity, little data are
available to describe the trails’ importance, particularly among those who
are transitioning toward an active lifestyle. In addition, the barriers and
enablers to trail use, which may differ between new and habitually active
exercisers, are important to understanding how to facilitate this
transition. This information will provide health officials with insights
that may be useful for promoting trail use and active lifestyles among
residents within their communities.
Back to top
Methods
Design
A cross-sectional study used data from an onsite interview survey of
physical activity patterns, barriers, and enablers to trail use among
adults using two new rail trails within the city of Morgantown, WVa.
The Caperton and Decker’s Creek trails comprise 12 miles of paved trails
that bisect the town and run adjacent to the Monongahela River and Decker’s
Creek, respectively. These trails also extend outside the city limits with
an additional 14 miles of unpaved trails. Construction on these trails was
completed in spring 2001. Rail trails are multiuse pathways
constructed on abandoned railway beds and can be used for both recreational
and transportation-related physical activity (12). In addition to stretching
along waterways, these level trails intersect neighborhoods and business
establishments within city limits.
Sample
An interceptor-based survey approach was used instead of a
population-based survey approach because of its better ability to identify
and probe for trail users’ perceptions and attitudes. Trained interviewers
administered the Recreation Trail
Evaluation Survey (RTES) to a
sample of 414 adult trail users who lived in Monongalia County, West
Virginia. Graduate students were trained to interview participants using
skills training developed from other physical-activity interview-driven
questionnaires (13). During training, interviewers reviewed and discussed
the RTES questionnaire, rehearsed several practice interviews, and received
grades on proficiency. Important features of the training sessions included
clear explanations of the frame of reference for each question, how to
control the pace and structure of the interview, and how and when to use
prompts and other questions. To assure consistency, the same interviewers
participated in the RTES pilot study prior to the study’s initiation.
Interviews were conducted two times per day using a randomized schedule that
included predetermined blocks of time (7-10:00 AM, 11-2:00
PM, 3-6:00 PM,
and 6-9:00 PM) and five different trail access points to ensure that samples
fairly represented time of day, location on trail, and time of week (i.e.,
weekend vs weekday). The influence of weather was recognized as a possible
limitation to data collection, but poor weather rarely occurred during data
collection. The trail interview took approximately five to 10 minutes per
participant to
complete. Trail interviews took place for four weeks from June–July 2001. A true survey response rate
(number of participants divided by total number of individuals who used the
trails during the interview sessions) was not attained because of the way
data were collected: some individuals may have passed by while interviews
were being conducted. Nevertheless, 98% of all individuals who were
approached were willing to participate. Willingness to participate in the
study was high perhaps due to the novelty of newly developed trails in a
smaller community and because the investigation took place shortly after
their opening. Moreover, we did not infringe upon the participants’ right to
exercise. Rather, participants were interviewed as they entered or exited
the various trailheads, and interviewers sometimes walked along with the
exercisers during interviews. To prevent duplication, participants were
asked at the start of the survey if they had previously been interviewed.
Back to top
Measures
The RTES measured recent trail physical activity patterns and included
information on up to two types of physical activity performed on the trails
(Appendix). The survey’s exercise components queried participants on
frequency and duration of activity, distance traveled on trail, and points
of access for each type of activity. The question format used for the
exercise components was similar to the format used by the Behavioral Risk
Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (14). In addition, information was
obtained on time of day, exercise companions, and method and distance
traveled to get to the trail. Additionally, all respondents were asked if
they participated in any of 10 non-trail physical activities in the
previous month. These activities included walking, aerobic dance, bicycling,
golfing, strength training, gardening, jogging/running, swimming/water
exercises, organized team sports, and housework. Non-trail recreational
patterns were assessed based on each activity’s type, duration, and frequency.
In addition to self-reported distance traveled on the trail, actual
distances were also calculated by premeasuring distances between access
points and landmarks using an odometer wheel. Subjects were asked to
identify points traveled on the trail (entry, turnaround, and exit) and the
actual distance was calculated. Because there were no significant
differences between self-reported and actual distance traveled on the trail,
actual distance traveled is reported in the present study.
Each perceived enabler and barrier to trail use was measured using a
five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all important to 5 = most
important. Enablers were defined as reasons for using the trail and
included safety, scenery/environment, terrain (flat, paved), convenience,
and atmosphere. Barriers were defined as items that may prevent participants
from using the trail more and included safety issues, parking,
accessibility, facilities, maintenance, and congestion. Using an open-ended
question format, interviewers also asked participants to identify their
primary enabler or barrier. Social and demographic information was collected
on age, sex, marital status, race, employment status, educational
attainment, and individual income level.
An initial pilot survey was developed from several existing documents
that were obtained from similar studies (9,15) and tested over a three-week
period. A sample was obtained at five key access points along the trail
within the city limits to yield 161 users that included 90 female and 71
male adult respondents ranging in age from 18 to 82. Three expert reviewers
analyzed results from the pilot survey to identify possible issues of
clarity. Minor revisions to the trail user survey were made to address
problems. While reliability measures are known for questions obtained from
the BRFSS, no specific psychometric measures were obtained for the completed
RTES survey. The finalized survey consisted of 33 closed and open-ended
items.
Of primary interest to this investigation was to determine if the
addition of the trail into the community caused any trail users to adopt new
physical activity programs. Consequently, participants were asked, “Did you
exercise regularly [more than three times per week for 20 minutes] before
using this trail?” Three times per week was used as the frequency threshold
for regular exercisers because of the associated health benefits that may
exist among vigorous exercisers (1). This construct was designed to
determine whether participants were currently engaged in a pattern of
regular physical activity rather than to identify the prevalence of
individuals meeting physical activity recommendations for health.
Ninety-three (22.5%) trail users responded “no” to this question and were
classified as new exercisers. The remaining 321 (77.5%) participants who
answered “yes” were classified as habitually active exercisers. To determine
differences that might exist between new exercisers and habitually active
exercisers, comparisons of physical activity patterns and preferences for
trail use were analyzed. Among all survey respondents, 94% were attaining
150 minutes of leisure-time physical activity per week, the amount
recommended by the surgeon general (1).
This investigation was approved by the Human Subject’s Institutional
Review Board at West Virginia University.
Back to top
Analysis
Survey data were analyzed to determine the uses and usefulness of newly
developed trails for physical activity within a community. The primary research
question related to how many of the trail users in the sample were new
exercisers and how many were habitually active prior to trail completion. After
grouping participants, a series of analyses were conducted to explore potential
demographic, behavioral, and motivational differences related to trail use
between groups. All data were coded and entered into an SPSS 10.0 (SPSS Inc,
Chicago, Ill) statistical software database for analyses. Chi-square analyses
were conducted to determine differences in proportions. In addition, an
independent t-test was used to test for differences in physical activity
variables (e.g., frequency, duration, distance) between groups.
Back to top
Results
The sample (n = 414) was 94.4% white (n = 391), 44.9% male (n = 186), and
55.1% female (n = 228). Table 1 summarizes the primary demographic
characteristics of the community trail users in this survey. These
characteristics are representative of the community population. According to
the 2000 U.S. Census, Monongalia County, West Virginia, is 93% white and 50%
female (16). The age distribution for the county is as follows: 18–25 years
= 22.0%; 26–35 years = 19.2%; 36–45 years = 17.8%; 46–64 years = 26.8%; and
older than 65 years = 14.2%. The age distribution of the survey sample is
comparable to the census distribution, except the sample had fewer
respondents older than 65 (6.5%).
Impact of trail on physical activity rates
Ninety-three (22.5%) trail users were classified as new exercisers, and
321 (77.5%) participants were classified as habitually active exercisers. A
two-way chi-square analysis was performed to determine differences between
groups across sex, age, and employment status. These analyses revealed no
significant differences, suggesting that new exercisers and habitually
active exercisers share similar demographic profiles. Analyses were also
used to compare the frequency of additional physical activity reported
between new and previously active exercisers. All respondents were asked if
they had participated in any of 10 various physical activities (e.g.,
aerobic dance, swimming, team sports, housework, gardening) in the previous
month. The total number of activities for each participant was computed, and
an independent t-test was conducted to test the hypothesis.
Habitually active exercisers reported significantly more frequency of
additional physical activity (mean = 1.83 occurences; SD = 1.2) than new exercisers (mean =
1.2 occurences; SD = 1.1), t (412) = 4.51, P < .001. Additionally, more
than twice as many new exercisers (31%) than habitually active exercisers
(15%) reported that the trail was their only form of physical activity.
Nearly all (98%) of the new exercisers reported that their exercise
amounts had increased when asked, “Since using the trail, has the amount of
exercise that you do increased, decreased, or stayed the same?” Only 52% of
the habitually active exercisers reported an increase. Conversely, 48% of
habitually active exercisers and only 2% of new exercisers reported that
their exercise amounts stayed the same. These data suggest that the physical
activity patterns of nearly one half of habitually active exercisers were
not impacted by the addition of the trail. Moreover, the perceived
improvement in physical activity levels between new and habitually active
exercisers was significantly different (χ2[4] = 120.54,
P < .001), with new exercisers reporting much greater increases in
physical activity than habitually active exercisers with the addition of the
trail (Figure).
Figure.
Percentage of increase in physical activity reported by new and habitually
active exercisers when asked, “Since using the trail, approximately how much
has your exercise level increased?”
(A text description of this chart is also available.)
Types and patterns of physical activity on the trail
New exercisers traveled shorter distances to access the trails compared
with
habitually active exercisers (2.9 ± 3.4 miles vs 3.9 ± 6.0 miles; P = .03). The majority of respondents traveled to the trails by vehicle (81%).
However, new exercisers were more likely to walk (18%) to the trails than
habitually active exercisers (10.1%) (P = .04). Overall, these two
groups differed in their patterns of physical activity on the trails. New
exercisers were also more likely to walk (58% to 42%), less likely to run or
jog (11% to 17%), and less likely to in-line skate (4% to 11%) than
habitually active exercisers (χ2[3] = 9.15, P
=
.02). Comparisons of average time and distance on the trails provide further
support to the hypothesis that habitually active exercisers are engaging in
different modes or higher exercise intensities compared with new exercisers.
Habitually active exercisers traveled greater distances (P = .03) on
the trail (6.64 ± 5.7 miles) than new exercisers (5.41 ± 3.7 miles) but did
not spend a longer amount of time exercising (57.2 ± 30.1 min) than new
exercisers (59.6 ± 30.2 min). Additionally, the frequency of weekly trail
use averaged 3.4 (± 2.1) days per week in the entire sample. No significant
difference in weekly trail use was observed between new exercisers (3.63 ±
1.5 days) and habitually active individuals (3.3 ± 2.3 days).
Enablers and barriers to trail use
Table 2 presents the mean Likert-scale ratings of perceived enablers and
barriers to trail use among new and habitually active exercisers.
Participants were asked to rank each enabler and barrier, and rankings for enablers and barriers
based on their aggregate level of
importance were assigned by the investigators. New exercisers ranked enablers in the following order of
importance: 1) convenience, 2) terrain, 3) safety, 4) scenery, and 5)
atmosphere. In contrast, habitual exercisers ranked enablers in this order:
1) terrain, 2) convenience, 3) scenery, 4) safety, and 5) atmosphere. Mean
ratings of enablers differed between groups. New exercisers rated safety (P
= .03), terrain (P = .04), and convenience (P = .001) as
significantly more important than habitually active exercisers. New
exercisers rated unsafe conditions as a significantly higher barrier than
habitually active exercisers (P = .04), although mean scores (3.1 ±
1.6) were in the middle of the five-point scale. All other perceived
enablers and barriers were similar for both groups.
Back to top
Discussion
In this preliminary investigation, improvements in physical activity
behavior occurred as a result of adding a community walking/biking trail,
particularly among previously inactive participants. Approximately 25% of
the trail users became regular exercisers (three or more times a week) as a
result of the development of the trail. Moreover, new exercisers were much
more dependent on the trail as a principal place for engaging in physical
activity than those who exercised regularly prior to trail development.
Thirty-one percent of new exercisers used the trail as the only venue for
physical activity. This suggests that recreational trails may be a powerful
vehicle for physical activity promotion, particularly among previously
inactive individuals. Brownson et al suggested that within rural
communities, sedentary individuals may be the most likely to benefit from
walking trails (9). Although Morgantown, WVa, is a city of 26,809 residents,
it is located in a rural region where there is little opportunity to safely
engage in walking for physical activity. With narrow streets that lack
traffic-calming strategies, bike lanes, and sidewalks, the community is not
conducive for walking or bicycling. The introduction of a safe and
convenient area to walk may be an excellent physical activity promotion
tool. In a recent review of the effectiveness of interventions to increase
physical activity, the Guide to Community Preventive Services
proposed that creating access to places for physical activity, combined with
informational outreach, is an effective means for increasing physical
activity levels (6). The current investigation supports this recommendation.
New exercisers also traveled shorter distances to access the trail,
implying that residential proximity to the trail may play an important role
in whether individuals will use the trail. In further support of this, new
exercisers were more likely to rate convenience as a primary reason for
using the trail. Residential proximity to trails and their usage has
previously been documented (10,11,17). Increases in self-reported and
geospatial distance were associated with a decreased likelihood of using a
bikeway (17). Moreover, King et al found that walking levels among older
women were higher among those living in areas where parks or trails existed
(10). Their study, however, did not specifically measure the impact of a
walking trail. Nevertheless, they concluded that the ability to engage in
walking trips from home and the perception of having favorable neighborhood
surroundings for walking are associated with increased physical activity
levels (10). Merom et al found that trail usage was increased among
cyclists, particularly among individuals in close proximity to a trail (11).
In our study, data suggest that convenient, safe, and proximal community
walking trails provide an incentive for community residents to engage in
regular physical activity. This offers further support to the importance of
closely linking recreational trails with residential communities to provide
safe and convenient access.
The type and pattern of physical activity on the trail also differed
between new exercisers and habitually active individuals. It appears that
newer exercisers begin with a more conservative physical activity (walking),
whereas habitually active trail users more commonly select moderate- to
high-intensity activities (e.g., running, in-line skating). Choosing more
conservative physical activities like walking may also be related to a
concern for personal safety and injury prevention. Both safety and terrain
issues emerged as significant enablers for trail use among new exercisers.
Consequently, new exercisers may be more concerned with injury prevention during physical activity and may use the trail
because they feel it is safe and appropriate for exercise. Similarly, new exercisers were more
likely to rate unsafe conditions as a barrier when asked, “What issues may
prevent you from using the trail more frequently?” These data suggest that
new exercisers are more sensitive to safety concerns than habitually active
individuals.
How individuals perceive their environment may be more important in
persuading a physically active lifestyle (18,19). Carnegie et al (20)
identified a link between perceptions of the environment and stage of change
for physical activity (21). In their study, contemplators (21) (inactive
but intend to become more physically active) had more negative perceptions
of the environment for physical activity. Similarly, it is reasonable to
believe that the new exercisers in the present study were still embracing
more negative perceptions of the environment than those who are habitually
active. Developing strategies to address safety concerns along with other
negative perceptions may be necessary if individuals are to progress to
being habitually active. As such, trail advocates should prioritize and
address safety concerns among new exercisers to promote the appeal of a
trail for the long-term pursuit of enhancing physical activity within a
community.
Although this preliminary investigation found that new exercisers appear
to be more dependent on a recreational trail for achieving a pattern of
regular physical activity compared with habitually active exercisers, this
study has the following limitations:
- This investigation used a cross-sectional design that prohibited
us from obtaining a baseline assessment of physical activity levels prior
to the development of the trail.
- We relied on trail interviews, which may be subject to a potential
response bias. Although we were unable to determine a true response rate,
nearly all individuals (98%) approached on the trail were willing to
participate.
- We used self-reported physical activity data, so there is no direct
evidence that trail activities reported were actually performed.
Nevertheless, every effort was made to conduct the interviews in a
standardized format.
- The construct used to classify new vs habitual exercisers was not
validated. We relied on individual recall. Consequently, it is possible
that some trail users were misclassified. However, nearly all of the
respondents (94%) were meeting physical activity recommendations (engaged
in 150 minutes of leisure-time physical activity per week). Furthermore,
to prevent a response bias, we asked participants about the type,
frequency, and duration of their physical activity before asking
them whether they were exercising regularly (more than three times per week for 20 minutes).
- Finally, we used an interceptor-based survey approach to probe
respondents’ views of the trail and identify their perceptions of the
environment. Thus, while the information presented helps to identify
perceptions of the environment for the trail user, it does not necessarily
reflect the impact of the trail on the overall community. However,
community-wide phone-survey data (unpublished data), which were obtained
during the same time, indicate that 20% of regular exercisers use the
trail as their primary exercise venue and only neighborhood streets
provided a more common exercise location among community residents.
Perhaps a lack of connectivity to the trail prevented many community
members from using the trail as a primary site for regular physical
activity. Given that there are very few walkable neighborhoods (e.g, no
sidewalks, bike lanes, traffic-calming strategies) within the community,
trail use would likely further increase if pedestrian connectivity from
the trail to residential areas improved.
Regardless, these data provide a preliminary assessment of the
importance of physical environmental changes, such as the development of a
walking and biking trail, for promoting physically active lifestyles. Although a community trail can provide opportunities for all residents to
engage in regular physical activity, both proximal and safe access from
residential areas and safety on the trail may be important issues to
encourage trail use among new exercisers.
Back to top
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by the West Virginia University Prevention Research
Center and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors would like to
acknowledge David Goodrich, Emily Spangler, and Amy Sindler for their
contributions.
Back to top
Author Information
Corresponding author: Paul M. Gordon, PhD, MPH, West Virginia University,
School of Medicine, Department of Human Performance and Exercise Science,
P.O. Box 9227, Morgantown, WV 26506. Telephone: 304-293-0442. E-mail: pgordon@hsc.wvu.edu.
Author affiliations: Samuel J. Zizzi, EdD, West Virginia University,
School of Physical Education, Morgantown, WVa; Jeff Pauline, EdD, Ball State
University, School of Physical Education, Muncie, Ind.
Back to top
References
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Physical
activity and health: a report of the Surgeon General executive summary.
Atlanta (GA): Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease
Prevention and Health Promotion, The President's Council on Physical
Fitness and Sports; 1996.
- Macera CA, Jones DA, Yore MM, Ham SA, Kohl HW, Kimsey CD Jr, et al.
Prevalence of
physical activity, including lifestyle
activities among adults - United States 2000-2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly
Rep 2003;52(32):764-769.
- Schmid T, Pratt M, Howze E.
Policy as intervention: environmental and
policy approaches to the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Am
J Pub Health 1995;85(9):1207-11.
- King AC.
Community and public health approaches to the promotion of
physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1994;26(11):1405-12.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Healthy people 2010:
understanding and improving health. Washington (DC): U.S.
Government Printing Office; 2000.
- Kahn EB, Ramsey LT, Brownson RC, Heath GW, Howze EH, Powell KE, et al.
The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity. A
systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2002;22(4 Suppl):73-107.
- Wang G, Macera C, Scudder-Soucie B, Schmid T, Pratt M, Buchner
D.
Cost effectiveness of a bicycle/pedestrian trail development in health
promotion. Prev Med 2004;38(2):237-42.
- Wang G, Macera CA, Scudder-Soucie B, Schmid T, Pratt M, Buchner D, et
al.
Cost analysis of the built environment: the case of bike and
pedestrian trials in Lincoln, Neb. Am J Public Health 2004;94(4):549-53.
- Brownson RC, Housemann RA, Brown D, Jackson-Thompson J, King A,
Malone B, et al.
Promoting physical activity in rural communities: walking
trail access, use, and effects. Am J Prev Med
2000;18(2):235-41.
- King WC, Brach JS, Belle S, Killingsworth R, Fenton M, Kriska
AM.
The relationship between convenience of destinations and walking
levels in older women. Am J Health Promot 2003;18(1):74-82.
- Merom D, Bauman A, Vita P, Close G.
An environmental intervention
to promote walking and cycling - the impact of a newly constructed Rail
Trail in Western Sidney. Prev Med 2003;36(2):235-42.
- Flink CA, Olka K, Searns RM. Trails for the twenty-first century:
planning, design, and management manual for multi-use trails. 2nd
ed. Washington (DC): Island Press; 2001.
- Kriska AM, Casperson C. A collection of physical activity
questionnaires for health-related research. Med Sci Sports
1997;29(6):s94-s99.
- Hahn RA, Heath GW, Chang MH.
Cardiovascular disease risk factors
and preventive practices among adults - United States, 1994: a behavioral
risk factor atlas. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
State Coordinators. MMWR CDC Surveill Summ 1998;47(5):35-69.
- Neff LJ, Ainsworth BE, Wheeler FC, Krumwiede SE, Trepal AJ. Assessment
of Trail Use in a Community Park. Fam Community Health 2000;23(3):76-84.
-
Compliance with physical activity recommendations by walking for
exercise--Michigan, 1996 and 1998. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
2000;49(25):560-5.
- Troped PJ, Saunders RP, Pate RR, Reininger B, Ureda JR, Thompson SJ.
Associations between self-reported and objective physical environmental
factors and use of a community rail-trail. Prev Med 2001;32(2):191-200.
- Kirtland KA, Porter DE, Addy CL, Neet MJ, Williams JE, Sharpe PA, et
al.
Environmental measures of physical activity supports: perception
versus reality. Am J Prev Med 2003;24(4):323-31.
- Ball K, Bauman A, Leslie E, Owen N.
Perceived environmental aesthetics
and convenience and company are associated with walking for exercise among
Australian adults. Prev Med 2001;33(5):434-40.
- Carnegie MA, Bauman A, Marshall AL, Mohsin M, Westley-Wise V, Booth ML.
Pereptions of the
physical environment, stage of change for
physical activity, and walking among Australian adults. Res Q Exerc Sport
2002;73(2):146-55.
- Marcus BH, Simkin LR.
The stages of exercise behavior. J Sports Med
Phys Fitness 1993;33(1):83-8.
Back to top
Tables
Table 1. Socio-demographic Characteristics of Trail Users (n = 414),
Morgantown, WVa, 2001
Characteristic |
No. (%) |
Sex |
Female |
228 (55.1) |
Male |
186 (44.9) |
Age (years) |
18-25 |
96 (23.2) |
26-35 |
92 (22.2) |
36-45 |
89 (21.5) |
46-65 |
110 (26.6) |
65+ |
27 (6.5) |
Race/ethnicity |
White |
391 (94.4) |
Black |
7 (1.7) |
Other |
13 (3.1) |
Declined |
3 (0.7) |
Annual household income, $ |
<$10,000 |
111 (26.8) |
$10,000 to 30,000 |
105 (25.4) |
$31,000 to 60,000 |
114 (27.5) |
>$60,000 |
54 (13.0) |
Declined |
30 (7.2) |
Education |
High school/GED |
145 (35.0) |
Technical school |
16 (3.9) |
College graduate |
160 (38.6) |
Graduate school |
61 (14.7) |
Professional
degree |
30 (7.2) |
Declined |
2 (0.5) |
Employment Status |
Homemaker |
28 (6.8) |
Self-employed |
30 (7.2) |
Student |
100 (24.2) |
Employed for wages |
213 (51.4) |
Retired |
33 (8.0) |
Unemployed |
7 (1.7) |
Declined/Other |
3 (0.7) |
|
Table 2. Perceived Enabling Factors and Personal Barriers to Trail Use for
New Exercisers and Habitually Active Exercisers (n = 414), Morgantown, WVa, 2001
|
Habitually active (n = 321) |
New exerciser (n = 93) |
Difference between new and habitually active exercisers |
Characteristic |
Mean (±SD)a |
Rankb |
Mean (±SD) |
Rank |
Pc |
Enablers |
Safety |
3.9 (1.3) |
4 |
4.2 (1.0) |
3 |
.03 |
Scenery/environment |
4.0 (1.0) |
3 |
4.1 (1.0) |
4 |
.16 |
Terrain (flat, paved) |
4.3 (0.9) |
1 |
4.6 (0.7) |
2 |
.04 |
Convenience |
4.3 (0.9) |
2 |
4.7 (0.5) |
1 |
<.001 |
Atmosphere |
3.8 (1.1) |
5 |
4.1 (1.2) |
5 |
.19 |
Barriers |
Unsafe |
2.7 (1.7) |
3 |
3.1 (1.6) |
2 |
.04 |
Parking |
2.1 (1.3) |
6 |
2.1 (1.4) |
6 |
.78 |
Accessibility |
2.2 (1.3) |
5 |
2.4 (1.6) |
5 |
.11 |
Facilities |
3.1 (1.4) |
1 |
3.4 (1.4) |
1 |
.08 |
Maintenance |
3.0 (1.5) |
2 |
2.8 (1.6) |
3 |
.28 |
Congestion |
2.6 (1.4) |
4 |
2.5 (1.4) |
4 |
.53 |
|
aMean values represent a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 =
not important at all to 5 = most important.
bRank is based on the aggregate level of importance placed on each
variable. cBased on independent t-test.
Back to top
Appendix
Recreational Trail Evaluation Survey, Morgantown, WVa, 2001
Interviewer name:
Interview date:
Interview time:
Trailhead location:
Statement: Hello, We are conducting an interview about the recreational trail
on behalf of the Division of Exercise Physiology and the Prevention Research
Center at West Virginia University. We would like to get your opinions about the
usage of the trail. The interview will take approximately five minutes to
complete. Your responses are confidential and no identifying information will be
obtained. Participation is voluntary and you may refuse to answer any questions.
- Have you already been interviewed? Yes (Stop — not eligible) or No
(Continue)
- Would you like to participate? Yes (Continue to question 3) or no (Stop —
not eligible)
- Are you 18 or older? Yes (Continue to question 4) or no (Stop — not
eligible)
- How long have you been using the trail? (Weeks, months, or year)
- What type of activity do you usually do on the trail? (Walk, run, bike, or
inline skate)
- How far do you usually perform [stated activity]? (Miles)
- Where do you usually enter and exit the trail? (Caperton Trail: start,
turn around, or finish) (Decker’s Creek Trail: start, turn around, or finish)
- How many minutes does this usually take you?
- How many times (days) per week do you use the trail for [stated activity]?
- Is there a second activity that you do on the trail? (If no, skip to 15)
- How far do you usually perform [stated activity]? (Miles)
- Where do you usually enter and exit the trail? (Caperton Trail: start,
turn around, or finish) (Decker’s Creek Trail: start, turn around, or finish)
- How many minutes does this usually take you?
- How many times (days) per week do you use the trail for [stated
activity]?
- Did you exercise regularly (three or more times per week for 20 minutes
per session) before using this trail? Yes or no
- a. Since using the trail, has the amount of exercise that you do: Increased
(Skip to question 16b); decreased (why?); stayed the same; or don’t know
b. Since using the trail, approximately how much has your exercise
increased? (0–25%; 26–50%; 51–75%; 76–100%; over 100%)
- On most days, where do usually come from to get to the trail? (Work,
home, school, or other [identify other])
- On most days how do you get to the trail? (Walk, drive, bicycle, bus, or
other [identify other])
- How far do you travel to use the trail? (Miles)
- How long does it take you to get to the trail by walking? (Minutes)
- While on the trail do you usually exercise: with others or alone (If
alone, skip to question 23)
- Who do you usually exercise with? (Friends, other family
members/relatives, spouse/partner, walk/run club, children, pets, or other
[identify other])
- What time of the day do you usually use the trail? [Read categories
aloud] Early morning (5–8:00 AM), Morning (8–11:00
AM), Midday (11:00
AM–2:00 PM), Afternoon (2-6:00
PM), Evening (after 6:00
PM), Varies, Refuse to
answer
- Please rate the following reasons on why you use this trail instead of
other facilities on a scale of 1 to 5:
|
Least
important = 1 to
most important = 5 |
Safety (free from personal
injury) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Scenery (beauty of
environment) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Access (no cost associated
with use) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Terrain (paved, flat) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Convenience (location)
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Friendly atmosphere (social
environment) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Other (please identify) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
- What is the primary reason why you use the trail instead of other
facilities?
- Please rate the following concerns you have about the trail on a scale of
1 to 5:
|
Least
important = 1 to
most important = 5 |
Unsafe |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Parking (cost, lack of) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Accessibility of the trail
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Facilities (restrooms, water
fountains) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Maintenance |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Space/congestion on the
trail |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Fear of injury |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Lack of police patrol |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Visibility of distance/mile
markers |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Other (please identify) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
- What concerns you the most about the trail?
- Apart from your trail activities, in the past month, have you
participated in any of the following?
|
Yes |
No |
Number of days per week |
Minutes per session |
Aerobic dance |
|
|
|
|
Bicycling |
|
|
|
|
Strength training |
|
|
|
|
Golf |
|
|
|
|
Jogging/running |
|
|
|
|
Walking |
|
|
|
|
Gardening |
|
|
|
|
Swimming/water exercises |
|
|
|
|
Organized team sports |
|
|
|
|
Housework |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
- Age: 18–25, 26–35, 36–45, 46–65, 65 and above, declined to answer
- Sex: Male, female, declined to answer
- Race/ethnic origin: White, African American, Asian American, Hispanic,
other (identify other), declined to answer
- Employment status: Homemaker, self-employed, student, employed for wages,
retired, unemployed, other (identify other), declined to answer
- Educational attainment: Eighth grade or less, high school or GED,
technical school, college graduate, graduate school, professional degree,
declined to answer
- Income level: Under $10,000; $10-30,000; $31-60,000; more than $60,000;
declined to answer
Back to top
*URLs for nonfederal organizations are provided solely as a
service to our users. URLs do not constitute an endorsement of any organization
by CDC or the federal government, and none should be inferred. CDC is
not responsible for the content of Web pages found at these URLs.
|
|