Physical Activity Friendliness of Neighborhoods: Do Subjective and Objective Measures Correspond Within a Mid-Sized Dutch Town?

Thomas G. Kuijpers, H. Susan J. Picavet, Jeroen Lakerveld, Johannes Mark Noordzij, G.C. Wanda Wendel-Vos and Barbara A. M. Snoeker ()
Additional contact information
Thomas G. Kuijpers: Center for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, 3721 MA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
H. Susan J. Picavet: Center for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, 3721 MA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
Jeroen Lakerveld: Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Johannes Mark Noordzij: Mulier Institute, 3584 AA Utrecht, The Netherlands
G.C. Wanda Wendel-Vos: Center for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, 3721 MA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
Barbara A. M. Snoeker: Center for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, 3721 MA Bilthoven, The Netherlands

IJERPH, 2025, vol. 22, issue 4, 1-16

Abstract: One potential strategy to promote physical activity (PA) involves changing the neighborhood environment. The PA-friendliness of neighborhood environments is often calculated using geospatial data. However, the association with perceived PA-friendliness seems to be low. Therefore, we examined the relationship between two Dutch geospatial measures and residents’ perceptions regarding the PA-friendliness of their neighborhoods. Data from 3438 respondents aged 40–80 years from the Doetinchem Cohort Study were linked to individual geospatial data. In addition to respondents’ self-reports, we used the following two geospatial measures: the Dutch walkability index and the Dutch indicator for PA-friendly environments (KBO-indicator). We performed logistic regression analyses to assess associations between perceived PA-friendliness and two objective geospatial measures, including interactions for age, sex, education, work status, and physical functioning. The majority of respondents (83%) evaluated their neighborhood as PA-friendly. The logistic analyses revealed no associations between the geospatial measures of walkability and PA-friendliness and the individuals’ perception measures. Similarly, a comparison of residents from high versus low walkable or PA-friendly neighborhoods demonstrated no significant differences in their perception of PA-friendliness. Additionally, no significant interaction effects were observed with sex, age, education, employment status, or physical functioning, indicating that even among subgroups there was no correspondence between objective and subjective measures. The lack of correspondence between both objective and subjective measures for PA-friendliness in the neighborhood suggests that these are distinct constructs. Future research should focus on qualitative methods to bridge the gap between objective and subjective measures and test whether the perceived PA-friendliness is similar to the objective measures.

Keywords: physical activity; geospatial measures; perception; epidemiology; neighborhoods (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/4/536/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/4/536/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:22:y:2025:i:4:p:536-:d:1625841

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().