IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v22y2025i4p536-d1625841.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • 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)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas G. Kuijpers & H. Susan J. Picavet & Jeroen Lakerveld & Johannes Mark Noordzij & G.C. Wanda Wendel-Vos & Barbara A. M. Snoeker, 2025. "Physical Activity Friendliness of Neighborhoods: Do Subjective and Objective Measures Correspond Within a Mid-Sized Dutch Town?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 22(4), pages 1-16, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:22:y:2025:i:4:p:536-:d:1625841
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/4/536/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/4/536/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:22:y:2025:i:4:p:536-:d:1625841. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.