Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 2011, 8, 429 -435
© 2011 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Correlates of Physical Activity Among Hispanic Adults
Timothy J. Bungum, Melva Thompson-Robinson, Sheniz Moonie,
and Monica A.F. Lounsbery
Background: Health behaviors of minority populations, including Hispanics, are important from a public health
perspective because this subpopulation is growing and health behaviors of this subgroup are understudied.
Physical activity is a component of healthy lifestyles and Hispanics have been shown to be less active than
are Caucasians. It will be necessary to know correlates of physical activity to enhance the physical activity of
this group. Recently, the importance of environmental and cultural factors has been recognized as correlates
of physical activity behavior. The purpose of this study was to identify environmental and cultural correlates
of physical activity among Hispanic adults. Methods: A 52-item telephone survey was employed to assess
physical activity and its potential correlates. Results: The sample included 175 females and 156 males. Respondent ages ranged from 18 to 82 years (x = 38.39 ± 15.0). Approximately 20% of respondents were assigned
to a “higher physical activity” group. Predictors of being in this group were having supportive environments,
being acculturated, attending some college, and age. Conclusions: Providing environmental supports may be
an effective strategy to enhance physical activity levels of adult Hispanics. Older Hispanics, those with lower
educational attainments and those of lower acculturation should be targeted for intervention.
Keywords: health behavior, physical activity
Despite overwhelming evidence and widespread
knowledge of the health benefits associated with regular
participation in physical activity,1 the majority of American adults are not physically active at levels that produce
health benefits.2 Recent data indicates that only about
15% of adult Americans perform recommended amounts
of physical activity, while 40% of adults participate in no
leisure time physical activity.3 Minority group members
are especially inactive,4 including Hispanic-Americans.5,6
Important health benefits of regular physical activity
include decreases in the risks of diabetes, obesity, and
colon cancer, as well as lowering overall death rates.3
Physical activity also increases lean muscle mass and
decreases body fat, both of which are important components of weight control regimens.7 Pursuant to the low
physical activity rates among Hispanics, it is not surprising that members of this group suffer from hypokinetic
diseases, such as diabetes, at rates higher than those of
other ethnic groups.8
The Hispanic population is important from a public
health perspective because it is America’s largest and
fastest growing minority group.9 Despite the size and
growth of the Hispanic population this group’s health
habits are understudied.10 It is however known that Hispanics have body mass indices (BMIs) that are higher
than those of whites.9
Bungum is with the Dept of Health Promotion, University of
Nevada, Las Vegas. Thompson-Robinson and Moonie are with
the Dept of Environmental and Occupational Health, University
of Nevada, Las Vegas. Lounsbery is with the Dept of Sports
Education Leadership, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
A first step to increasing physical activity among
members of this subpopulation is to identify correlates of
that behavior.11 Physical activity correlates have typically
been divided into 4 categories: demographic, psychological, social/cultural, and environmental.11 Of these,
environmental influences are the least studied across all
populations.12 At least among Caucasians, environmental
factors such as walkable destinations; safety from traffic,
dogs, and other people; and the presence of sidewalks
tend to be stronger predictors of moderately intense
physical activity than are psychosocial and demographic
variables, which are stronger predictors of vigorous
physical activity and exercise.13 Accordingly, a position
taken by the CDC suggests that environmental factors
might be key to increasing moderately intense physical
activities, including utilitarian physical activity (UPA),
at the population level.14 UPA is physical activity that is
done in the context of performing activities of daily living
such as walking to work, a restaurant or a store.
The paucity of research addressing environmental
correlates of physical activity among Hispanics has been
expressed in the literature.15 However, 2 studies were
located. One large study assessed the association of the
physical environment and exercise (planned physical
activity) among Hispanic women from 3 states and it
showed no association between those variables.16 Another
study found no relationship between exercise and safety.10
This seeming lack of attention to environmental influences may partially explain why there has been limited
success in promoting PA.3,17
Another variable that may influence physical activity
behavior is culture. A trend toward less healthy behaviors
429
430 Bungum et al
has been observed among Hispanics as they become more
acculturated. A typical pattern for Hispanics is greater
alcohol abuse, tobacco use, and less healthy diets as members of this group become more acculturated.18 However,
exercise counters this trend, as it tends to increase with
acculturation among Hispanics.10,18,19
It should be noted that exercise is defined as “planned
physical activity done for the purpose of enhancing or
maintaining some aspect of physical fitness.” 20 This
presents a challenge for physical activity practitioners
because exercise is usually done during leisure time, is
often the purview of the highly educated and those whose
lifestyles afford leisure time.21 Because Hispanics, as a
group carry busy work schedules13 and are also less apt
to pursue higher education than are other ethnic groups,22
promoting other types of physical activity, such as UPA
to this group may be important.
Promoting UPA is sensible to Hispanics because
people doing this type of physical activity complete
an activity of daily living while simultaneously receiving benefits from physical activity. Another attractive
feature of UPA is that it is usually done at moderate
intensities,13,23 and people are more apt to persist with
these types of physical activity than they are with more
vigorous forms.13 Further, there is some evidence that
exercise is undervalued by Hispanic cultures.24
History also provides rationale for promoting UPA.
Exercise has been promoted for over 30 years with little
improvement at the population level.3 This suggests that
telling people to be active in their free time because it will
result in healthy outcomes is not particularly effective, or
that effective and efficient exercise promoting programs
remain undiscovered. Because leisure time physical activity is an infrequent pursuit among Hispanics18,25 UPA is
especially important for this group.
A challenge with increasing UPA is that much of
it has been engineered out of the lives of Americans.
Whether this type of physical activity can be reintroduced
into the lives of a large proportion of Americans is open
to debate. However, communities such as Tyson’s Corner,
VA, Celebration, FL, and Portland, OR are amending
zoning laws and providing incentives for environmental
changes to their communities that are supportive of
physical activity.26,27 Accordingly, purposes of this study
were to determine whether Hispanic adult’s perceptions
of neighborhood environmental characteristics, and
acculturation are predictive of self-reported physical
activity behavior.
Methods
A telephone survey using random digit dialing targeted
Hispanic citizens aged 18 years and older living in
Las Vegas, Nevada. All phone calls were made from a
university-based center by trained interviewers. Calls
targeted zip codes that are known to have high proportions
of Hispanic residents. Approximately 77% of participants
in this study lived in 1 of 5 zip code areas. The prevalence
of Hispanic residents in these locales ranged from 33.4%
to 69.2%. All calls were placed Mondays through Fridays
from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM, and occurred from mid-April
through mid-June of 2007.
Upon the phone being answered the interviewer
explained that a survey assessing health-related behaviors was being conducted. As described elsewhere28 a
procedure was used to objectively identify a telephone
sample. If the person answering the phone indicated that
there was at least 1 adult Hispanic in the household, it
was requested that the person who was at least 18 years of
age and had most recently celebrated his or her birthday
respond to questions regarding their physical activity,
diet, and other health behaviors. Potential respondents
were informed that the interview would take about 15
minutes. Participants were also told that they could refuse
to answer any question, and could end the call at any time.
Potential participants were additionally made aware that
there was minimal risk associated with involvement in
the survey because the interview was being conducted
anonymously. The interviewer disclosed that there were
no direct benefits to the respondent, but that the information gleaned from the interview could be used to create
programs that may enhance the health of Hispanics living
in or near Las Vegas. Only 1 person per phone number
was questioned and a maximum of 3 attempts per phone
number were made. Participants had the option of having
the survey conducted in English or Spanish. Those
selecting to be interviewed in English were classified as
“higher acculturation” and those choosing Spanish were
labeled as “lower acculturation.” While there are more
comprehensive methods of assessing acculturation10 it
is often defined on the basis of language preference.18
The assessment instrument was a 52-item questionnaire that had been approved by the university’s
Institutional Review Board. Respondents reported their
readiness for, and current global physical activity by
selecting the 1 statement that best described their recent
physical activity behavior. The choices were 1) no regular
physical activity and no intention to begin; 2) no current
physical activity but plan to begin within 6 months; 3)
trying to be physically active, but that such activity was
infrequent; 4) vigorous physical activity less than 3 times
per week; 5) moderate physical activity less than 5 times
per week; 6) moderate physical activity 5 or more times
per week or; 7) vigorous physical activity 3 or more times
per week. This item has been used in other studies and has
been shown to have adequate reliability (Kappa = .78)29
and concurrent validity with a 7-day recall of physical
activity.30 Respondents selecting numbers 1 or 2 were
classified as “lower physical activity.” Because physical
activity behavior tends to be overestimated,31 those selecting response number 3 (“trying to be physically active,
but that such physical activity is infrequent”) were also
labeled as being lower physical activity. Respondents who
described their physical activity behavior by selecting
numbers 4, 5, 6, or 7 were labeled as “higher physical
activity.”
Neighborhood environments were assessed by 6
items. These specific items were selected because they
Environmental and Cultural Correlates 431
have been shown, or hypothesized to influence physical
activity. Specific items assessed the presence of neighborhood sidewalks, the nearness of parks and recreation
facilities, the perceived prevalence of neighborhood
crime, heaviness of neighborhood motorized traffic,
whether neighbors could be trusted, the presence of
unleashed dogs, and the perception that a grocery store
was within walking distance.32
Response choices to the items that assessed the availability of sidewalks and public recreation facilities, the
trustworthiness of neighbors and the ability to easily walk
to a grocery store were “yes” or “no.” Items that measured
the pleasantness of the neighborhood, the presence of
unleashed dogs and neighborhood safety were measured
on 4-point Likert type scales. These items had endpoints
of “not at all pleasant/very pleasant; not a problem at
all/a problem, and not at all safe and extremely safe,”
respectively. Those items that were measured on 4-point
scales were dichotomized. For instance, when measuring
neighborhood pleasantness, “not at all pleasant” and not
pleasant” were combined as were “pleasant” and “very
pleasant.” Respondents selected “heavy, moderate or
light” to describe neighborhood traffic. Test-retest reliability of these scales have been assessed by others and
have been found to be between .42 and .74.33 Information
regarding the age, gender, and educational attainment of
participants were also collected, as these factors have
been shown to influence physical activity.34–36 Educational attainment was dichotomized into groups of those
who had attended at least some college, and those who
had not. Other data were collected but were not used in
this study. Information on mental health issues, HIV risks,
tobacco use, health care behavior, health care insurance
coverage, and recent dental care were also requested.
Statistical Analysis
Initial statistics were run to describe demographic characteristics of respondents. Factor analysis, which extracted
components using principal component analysis with
varimax rotation, was used to assess the construct validity of the neighborhood environmental characteristics.
Items whose factor loading scores were > .40 became
a component of that variable. This procedure produced
2 factors of the neighborhood environment. Four items
(safety from crime, neighbor trustworthiness, unleashed
dogs, and the heaviness of traffic) loaded on the factor
“safety,” which explained 20.5% of the variance in the
items that assessed environmental factors. The items that
loaded on the other component, “supportive environment,” were the presence of sidewalks, the availability
of public recreation areas (including parks), a nearby
grocery store, and the heaviness of motorized traffic,
which loaded on both factors. Supportive environment
explained 18.0% of the variance in the items that assessed
environmental influences.
Finally, logistic regression was used to identify predictors of being assigned to the physical activity groups.
Variables in the regression models included supportive
environment, environmental safety, acculturation, body
mass index, educational attainment, gender, and age.
The significance level for all analyses was set at P < .05.
Results
A total of 331 eligible people completed the phone interview. The cooperation rate was 60% (331/551). This rate
was calculated by dividing the number of completed interviews by the number of calls that produced an eligible
participant. Slightly more females (n = 175; 52.8%) than
males (n = 156; 47.2%) completed the survey. The mean
age of participants was 38.4 years (SD = 15.0) and ranged
from 18 to 82 years. Approximately one-third (n = 117;
35.4%) of the sample were of normal BMI, 39.4% (n =
130) were overweight and 23.7% (N = 78) were obese. A
small proportion were college graduates (n = 19; 5.7%)
or had completed some college (n = 25; 7.6%), and about
one-half of the sample was married, (n = 165; 50.3%).
Slightly more than one-half of respondents (50.8%)
elected to have the interview conducted in Spanish, and
the remainder completed it in English. The proportion of
participants who rated their health as excellent, very good,
good, fair, or poor were 10.3, 11.8, 40.3, 24.5, and 7.9%
respectively. Most respondents (75.0%) had not smoked
100 cigarettes in their lifetimes and less than one-half
(44.7%) were employed.
Physical activity behavior data are presented in
Table 1. Approximately 20% of respondents (n = 65) were
assigned to the “higher physical activity” group, while
266 (80%) were categorized as “lower physical activity.”
Neighborhood perceptions are presented in Table 2.
Most variables were scored favorably as they relate to participation in physical activity. A majority of respondents
reported the presence of sidewalks and nearby public
recreation facilities, and over three-fourths could easily
walk to a grocery store.
The logistic regression model that predicted assignment into higher and lower physical activity groups
produced 4 significant independent variables. Age (P =
.037), with the younger being more active, supportive
destinations (OR = 1.37; P = .024), attending at least
some college (OR = 3.50; P = .003), and acculturation
as measured by language preference (OR = 15.2; P <
.001), with those responding in English being more active,
predicted assignment to the higher active group. Environmental safety, gender, and BMI were not significant
predictors of higher or lower physical activity. Results
from this model are presented in Table 3.
Discussion
Perhaps this study’s most interesting finding, in the sense
that it is changeable, is that having supportive destinations
in one’s neighborhood predicted being assigned to the
higher physical activity group. The items that comprised
“supportive environment” included sidewalk availability,
432 Bungum et al
Table 1 Current Physical Activity Behavior
I do not exercise or walk and do not intend to start
I do not exercise or walk but have been thinking about starting
I am trying to walk or exercise regularly, or I walk or exercise infrequently
I am doing vigorous exercise less than 3 times per week
I have been doing moderately intense exercise 4 or fewer times per week for the past 6 months
I have been doing moderately intense physical activity 5 or more times per week for the past 6 months
I have been doing vigorous physical activity 3 or more times per week for less than 6 months
I have been doing vigorous physical activity 3 or more times per week for more than 6 months
n
52
44
170
30
15
5
5
10
%
15.7
13.3
51.4
9.1
4.5
1.5
1.5
3.0
Table 2 Neighborhood Characteristics
%
82.8
61.0
77.8
14.8
21.3
42.3
52.1
71.9
Does neighborhood have your sidewalks (yes)
Does your neighborhood have public recreation facilities (yes)
Can you easily walk to a grocery store (yes)
How would you rate your neighborhood as a place to walk? (not at all pleasant or not very pleasant)
For walking are dogs a problem in your neighborhood (a problem or somewhat of a problem)
How safe do you consider your neighborhood to be from crime? (not at all safe or slightly safe)
Can people in your neighborhood be trusted? (no or not sure)
Motorized traffic in your neighborhood is heavy or moderate? (yes)
Table 3 Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting the Individual Being Classified
as More Active (N = 331)
Variable
Acculturation
College education
Age
Supportive destinations
Environmental safety
Gender
BMI
Odds ratio
15.2
3.50
95% CI of odds ratio
7.29–31.3
1.51–8.11
SE β
.372
.443
.027
P
<.001
.003
.037
1.37
1.16
1.81
1.04–1.81
.84–1.59
.91–3.56
.140
.126
.013
.040
.024
.174
.749
.865
nearby public recreation areas, the presence of grocery
stores in close proximity to residences and the heaviness
of motorized traffic. This finding supports the notion
that how we design and build our cities associates with
the physical activity behavior of Hispanic Americans.17
This result is also in agreement with those who believe
that sidewalks and parks are essential if physical activity
is to be enhanced at the population level.37,38 The high
reported prevalence of sidewalks in this study supports
data which shows that Hispanics tend to live in walkable
neighborhoods,39 which suggests that a portion of the
physical activity in the current study was UPA. Additional
evidence that our reported physical activity was likely
UPA and not exercise, is that Hispanics have low rates
of leisure time physical activity,16 exercise tends to be of
low value to Hispanics15 and because supportive physical
environments are more related to UPA than they are to
exercise.40
Another finding of note is that acculturation associates with physical activity. This has been shown by others
and suggests that those who are more acculturated, are
more physically active. The strength of association of this
finding (OR = 15.2), and because it is in agreement with
the work of others,34,41,42 we believe that acculturation
Environmental and Cultural Correlates 433
has a powerful influence on physical activity. It is clear
that less acculturated Hispanics, and especially MexicanAmericans who are slower to acculturate to American
ways than are other Hispanic groups, should be targets
for intervention.18
Recreation facilities may also be important physical activity promoting supports for Hispanics, as there
is some evidence, at least among African-American and
White adolescents living in South Carolina, that those
who live near facilities are more physically active than
those who do not.43This suggests that building recreational facilities in Hispanic neighborhoods may increase
physical activity among area residents.
Because of the nature of how decisions are made
about zoning, whether parks and sidewalks are built, and
how heavily and fast automobile traffic will flow, it is
likely that it will be necessary for people to be involved
in the political processes that determine how cities and
neighborhoods are built and evolve. It has been correctly
predicted that making policy changes that effect the
physical environment will be political and potentially
controversial.26 Recently, the state of Virginia implemented new policies, that would among other things,
make neighborhoods more walkable and bikable. As
predicted, some developers have resisted these changes
and claim that people want to live in places that are not
supportive of physical activity. The characteristics that
developers claim that people want include density and
connectivity (eg, sprawling areas with many cul-desacs).26 Therefore concerned citizens and transportation
authorities will likely need to educate citizens and advocate for neighborhoods that are favorable for physical
activity, because others are equally vociferous in arguing for low density, low connectivity neighborhoods.44
Nearby grocery stores may be an especially important
environmental factor in increasing physical activity levels
because they are the most frequent destinations for people
using UPA.33 The presence or nonpresence of nearby
grocery stores is suggestive of built environments that
are UPA friendly.45 Again, involvement in the political
process may be necessary to influence zoning decisions
that will allow residential and commercial property to be
near one another. Nearby grocery stores may be especially
important for Hispanics who are less likely to own cars
than are members of other ethnicities.18
It is of note that the perception of neighborhood
safety did not predict physical activity. This finding
appears to be counterintuitive as one might expect that
people would walk more in safer neighborhoods. However, 1 cross-sectional study has shown that those who
reside in unsafe environments are more likely to walk or
bike than people who report living in safer areas.46 It is
probably not that walkers and bikers prefer dangerous
environs, but that those who use UPA are more directly
exposed to unsafe environments and are therefore more
aware of their neighborhood’s dangers than are those
who travel in motor vehicles through the same areas.10
This finding may also reflect the life situation of people
who have no transportation choices other than walking
or biking. Such people are sometimes referred to as
“captive walkers.”46
Although environmental changes are no doubt
important in efforts to increase physical activity, it is
unlikely that the environment alone will be the “magic
bullet” that motivates people to become more physically
active.40 Interventions that promote physical activity will
also likely be necessary before population level improvements in physical activity behavior will occur.44,47 This
has led to the idea that to increase physical activity
attention will need to be paid to “the 4 E’s.” The E’s are;
1) engineering, which will help create walkable neighborhoods; 2) enforcement, which will keep walkers and
bicyclists safer from speeding traffic; 3) education, which
will make people aware of the benefits and opportunities
available for physical activity; and 4) encouragement,
which will provide support for people to be physically
active.13
There are several limitations of this study. Limitations include the self-reported nature of the data, although
the instrumentation is widely used and has been tested
for reliability and validity.33 In addition, because of the
cross-sectional study design we cannot distinguish the
temporal sequence of the relationships of physical activity
and the assessed correlates. For example, we do not know
if people who enjoy walking purposefully chose to live in
areas that are supportive of that behavior, or if the environment provides the impetus for people to participate in
physical activities. Because there is data that indicates that
it is the environment that influences behavior rather than
active people self-selecting to live in physical activity supportive environments,42 we believe that it is unlikely that
temporal sequence is an issue in this study. It would also
have been preferable to measure acculturation with more
than the 1 item we used, language preference. Further, our
sample was also limited to those who had telephones and
were willing to respond to the questionnaire. However,
our obesity data are similar to rates seen among Hispanics,48 suggesting that our sample is similar to the overall
Hispanic population. It should be noted that findings
from this study do not pertain to Hispanics living in other
parts of the United States. However, this could also be
viewed as a strength. The one large study that assessed
the relationship of environmental factors with physical
activity among Hispanic females included women from
only North Carolina, Maryland, and Illinois.16 The current
study was conducted in the West, which is home to the
plurality of Hispanic-Americans and is the only region of
the country where the proportion (24.3%) of Hispanics
exceeds that of the national average (12.5%).49 Finally, an
incomplete array of possible physical activity predictors
were assessed in this study.
In the future researchers should be alert for opportunities to study the effects of environmental changes on
physical activity such as those that are now occurring in
434 Bungum et al
Virginia. Studies that capture the effects of environmental
changes on physical activity would allow researchers to
establish temporal sequence and more clearly determine
which environmental factors influence physical activity behaviors. Such information would be valuable to
those attempting to increase physical activity among
Hispanic-Americans and would provide data that would
potentially strengthen arguments for building physical
activity friendly communities.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Stimulation, Implementation,
Transition, and Enhancement (SITE) Program at the University
of Nevada, Las Vegas
References
1. Morrow J, Kyzewinski-Malone J, Jackson A, et al. Americans adults knowledge of exercise recommendations. Res
Q Exerc Sport. 2004;75:231–237.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Prevalence of physical activity, including lifestyle
activities among adults-United States, 2001-2003. In:
Prevention CDC. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
2003;52:764–769.
3. Haskell W, Lee I, Pate R, et al. Physical activity and health:
Updated recommendation for adults from the American
College of Sports Medicine and American Heart Association. Circul. 2007;116(9):1081–1093.
4. Physical activity and health: a report of the surgeon general. In: US Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, ed.
1996.
5. Gazzaniga J. Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors Among
California Adults. In: Aging CDHSIH, ed. 1984-1994.
1998.
6. Kruger J, Sanker S. Physical inactivity during leisure time
among older adults: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
System. J Aging Phys Act. 2008;16:280–291.
7. Goran M, Reynolds K, Lindquist C. Role of physical
activity in the prevention of obesity in children. Int J Obes.
1999;23:s18–s33.
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NIDDK.
National Diabetes Status. In: Health and Human Services
NIH, ed; 2008.
9. Aguirre-Molina M, Molina C. Latino health in the United
States. San Francisco: Josey-Bass; 2003.
10. Pichon L, Arrendando E, Roesch S, et al. The relation of
acculturation to Latina’s perceived neighborhood safety
and physical activity: a structural equation analysis. Ann
Behav Med. 2007;34(3):295–303.
11. Sallis J, Prochaska J, Taylor W. A review of correlates
of physical activity of children and adolescents. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2000;32(5):963–975.
12. Sallis J, McKenzie T, Conway T, et al. Environmental
interventions for eating and physical activity: a randomized controlled trial in middle schools. Am J Prev Med.
2003;24(3):209–217.
13. Frank LD, Engelke PO, Schmid TL. Health and community
design. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2003.
14. Physical Activity for Everyone. Recommendations: How
active do adults need to be to gain some benefit? CDC,
Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/guidelines/index.html Accessed December 2, 2009.
15. Marquez D, McAuley E. Social cognitive correlates of
leisure time physical activity among Latinos. J Behav
Med. 2000;29(3):281–289.
16. Eyler A, Baker E, Cromer L, et al. Physical activity and
minority women: a qualitative study. Health Educ Behav.
1998;25:640–652.
17. Frumkin H, Frank L, Jackson R. Urban sprawl and public
health. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2004.
18. Crespo C, Smit E, Carter-Pokras O, Anderson R. Acculturation and leisure time physical inactivity in MexicanAmerican adults: results from NHANES III, 1988-1994.
Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1254–1257.
19. Garber C, Allsworth J, Marcus B, et al. Correlates of stages
of change for physical activity in a population survey. Am
J Public Health. 2008;98:897–904.
20. Frank L. Multiple impacts of the built environment on
public health: walkable places and the exposure to air
pollution. Int Reg Sci Rev. 2005;28(2):193–316.
21. Hallal P, Azevedo M, Reichert F, et al. Who, when and
how much? Epidemiology of walking in a middle income
country. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2):156–161.
22. Crissey SR. Educational attainment in the United States:
2007. In: Bureau USC, Available at: http://www.census.
gov/prod/2009pubs/p20-560.pdf Accessed December 4,
2009.
23. Badland H, Schofield G, Garrett M. Travel behavior and
objectively measured urban design variables: association
for adults travelling to work. Health Place. 2008;14:85–95.
24. Juarbe T, Turok X, Perez-Stable E. Perceived benefits and
barriers to physical activity among older Latina women.
West J Nurs Res. 2002;24(8):868–886.
25. Timperio A, Ball K, Giles-Corti B, et al. Personal, family
and environmental correlates of active commuting to
school. Am J Prev Med. 2000;30:45–51.
26. Weiss E. In Virginia vision of suburbia at a crossroads,
targeting cul-de-sacs: rules require through streets in new
subdivisions. The Washington Post. March 22: A01, 2009:
A01.
27. Gellar A. Smart growth: a prescription for livable cities.
Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1410–1415.
28. Kish L. A procedure for objective respondent selection
within the household. J Am Statistical Assn. 1949;44:380–
387.
29. Marcus B, Williams D, Dubbert P, et al. Physical activity
intervention studies: what we know and what we need
to know: a scientific statement from the American Heart
Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and
Metabolism (subcommittee on Physical Activity); Council
on Cardiovascular Disease in the Lung; and the Interdisciplinary Working Group of Quality of Care and Outcomes
Research. Circul. 2006;114:2739–2752.
30. Marcus B, Simkin L. The stages of exercise behavior. J
Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1993;33:83–88.
31. Weston A, Petosa R, Pate R. Validation of an instrument
for measurement of physical activity in youth. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 1997;29(1):138–143.
Environmental and Cultural Correlates 435
32. Addy C, Wilson D, Kirtland K, et al. Associations of
perceived social and physical environment supports with
physical activity and walking behavior. Am J Public
Health. 2004;94:440–443.
33. Kirtland K, Porter D, Addy C, et al. Environmental
measures of physical activity supports: perception versus
reality. Am J Prev Med. 2003;24:323–331.
34. Sallis J, Hovell M. Determinants of exercise behavior.
Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 1990;18:307–330.
35. Sallis J, King A, Sirad J, Albright C. Perceived environmental predictors of physical activity ove 6-months
in adults: Activity Counseling Trial. Health Psychol.
2007;26:701–709.
36. Trost S, Owen N, Bauman A, et al. Correlates of adults
participation in physical activity: review and update. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34(12):1996–2001.
37. Sharpe P, Granner M, Hutto B, Ainsworth B. Association
of environmental factors to meeting physical activity
recommendations in two South Carolina counties. Am J
Health Promot. 2004;18:251–257.
38. Lavizzo-Murrey R. Making a case for active living communities. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1386–1388.
39. Whitt-Glover M, Taylor W, Floyd M, et al. Disparities in
physical activity and sedentary behaviors among US children and adolescents: prevalence, correlates and intervention implications. J Pub Health Pol. 2009;30:s309–s334.
40. Hoehner C, Brennan R, Ramirez L, et al. Perceived and
objective environmental measures and physical activity
among urban adults. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28:105–116.
41. Agrawal A, Schimek P. Extent and correlates of walking
in the USA. Transp Res. 2007;12:548–663.
42. Heath G, Brownson R, Kruger J, et al. The effectiveness
of urban designs and land use and transportation policies
and practices to increase physical activity: a systematic
review. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3:s55–s76.
43. Dowda M, McKenzie TL, Cohen D, et al. Commercial
venues as supports for physical activity in adolescent girls.
Prev Med. 2007;45:163–168.
44. Giles-Corti B. People or places: what should we target? J
Sci Med Sport. 2006;9:357–366.
45. Pekora T, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M, et al. Neighborhood
environmental factors correlated with walking near home
using SPACES. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(4):708–
714.
46. Lovasi G, Meckerman K, Quinn J, et al. Effect of
neighborhood disadvantage on the association between
neighborhood walkability and BMI. Am J Public Health.
2009;99:279–284.
47. Forsyth A, Oakes J, Schmitz K, Hearst M. Does residential density increase walking and other physical activity?
Urban Stud. 2007;44(4):679–697.
48. Obesity statistics for US adults, children and minorities
Diet Bites. Available at: http://www.dietbites.com/DietArticles-5/obesity-statistics.html. Accessed April 20, 2009.
49. Hispanic population by type for regions, states and Puerto
Rico. In: Bureau UC, ed; 2000. Available at: http://www.
census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-3.pdf Accessed
November 4, 2009