|
Citation
|
Contardo Ayala AM, Lamb KE, Loh V, Daniel M, Coffee NT, Oostenbach LH, Thornton LE. Health Place 2022; 76: e102859. |
|
Abstract
|
BACKGROUND: The 20-min neighbourhood (20 MN) concept aims to provide people the ability to meet their daily needs within a 20-min non-motorised trip from home. Evidence as to whether the 20 MN encourages more walking for transport or recreation is currently absent.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study used self-reported data from the Places and Locations for Activity and Nutrition study (ProjectPLAN) targeting adults (n = 843) residing in Melbourne or Adelaide, Australia. Multiple services and amenities were used to represent access to five service domains (healthy food, community resources, recreational resources, public open space, public transport). Address points meeting the access criteria for each of the five domains were defined as having a 20 MN. Non-20 MNs were defined as having five or fewer individual services and amenities. This study examined if those residing in a 20 MN compared with a non-20MN undertook more walking for transport or for recreation. The analysis considered separately each of the cities to support the estimation of effects specific to each local context.
RESULTS: Respondents residing in a 20 MN relative to a non-20MN had higher odds of walking for transport in Melbourne (OR = 4.24, 95% CI = 2.38, 7.56), whilst in Adelaide there was no evidence of a difference (OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 0.80, 2.13). In Melbourne, the mean time spent walking for transport was greater for 20 MNs (82.5 min/week, 95% CI = 65.3, 99.7) compared to non-20MNs (41.2 min/week, 95% CI = 32.7, 49.7). Whilst minutes spent walking for recreation was higher than minutes spent walking for transport, no differences were found between neighbourhood types and walking for recreation in either city.
CONCLUSION: 20 MNs appeared to promote walking for transport in the higher density setting of Melbourne, but no association was observed in the lower density city of Adelaide. Further investigation is required to determine other factors beyond service provision that can promote walking for transport in Adelaide (e.g. pedestrian safety). Recreational walking did not differ across neighbourhood types highlighting that service provision and thus the 20 MN is not related to walking for exercise/recreation purposes.
Language: en |