Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812

The relative influence of individual, social and physical

environment determinants of physical activity
Billie Giles-Cortia,*, Robert J. Donovanb,1
a
Department of Public Health, The University of Western Australia, P.O. Box 5771, Albany, W.A. 6332, Australia
b
Department of Public Health, The University of Western Australia, Australia

Abstract

Environmental determinants of health are receiving growing attention in the literature, although there is little
empirical research in this area. The Study on Environmental and Individual Determinants of Physical Activity (known
as the SEID project) was a social ecological project that examined the relative influence of individual, social
environmental and physical environmental determinants of recreational physical activity. It involved a community
survey of 1803 healthy workers and home-makers aged 18–59 years living in a 408 km2 area of metropolitan Perth,
Western Australia. Physical environmental determinants were mainly conceptualised as spatial access to popular
recreational facilities. Overall, 59% of respondents exercised as recommended. Recreational facilities located near home
were used by more respondents than facilities located elsewhere. The most frequently used facilities were informal: the
streets (45.6%); public open space (28.8%) and the beach (22.7%). The physical environment’s directs the influence on
exercising as recommended was found to be secondary to individual and social environmental determinants.
Nevertheless, accessible facilities determined whether or not they were used and in this way, support and enhance the
achievement of recommended levels of physical activity behaviour by providing opportunities. The results suggest that
access to a supportive physical environment is necessary, but may be insufficient to increase recommended levels of
physical activity in the community. Complementary strategies are required that aim to influence individual and social
environmental factors. Given the popularity of walking in the community, it is recommended that greater emphasis be
placed on creating streetscapes that enhance walking for recreation and transport. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All
rights reserved.

Keywords: Physical activity; Spatial access; Environment; Social policy; Health promotion; Western Australia

Introduction individual determinants. This approach has been criti-

Physical inactivity is an important determinant of ill-
health, and even moderate levels of activity confer
health benefit (US Department of Health and Human
Services, 1996). Until relatively recently, behavioural
physical activity research has focussed on identifying
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-8-9842-0888; fax: +61-8-
9842-0877.
E-mail address: billie@cyllene.uwa.edu.au (B. Giles-Corti).
1
Now at Division of Health Sciences, Curtin University of
Technology.
cised because it places undue emphasis on the individual
and fails to consider the context within which health
behaviour takes place (Milio, 1986; McLeroy, Bibeau,
Steckler, & Glanz, 1988; Tesh, 1988; Minkler, 1989;
Stevenson & Burke, 1992; Stokols, 1992). A focus on
broader determinants of health behaviour is consistent
with a social ecological perspective of human behaviour
which suggests an interaction between the individual
and the social and physical environment and the need to
maximise the ‘person-environment fit’ (Stokols, 1996).
Since the late 1980s, there has been a growing interest
in the role of the physical environment in increasing

0277-9536/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 7 7 - 9 5 3 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 5 0 - 2
1794 B. Giles-Corti, R.J. Donovan / Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812
community physical activity levels (Dishman, 1988;
King et al., 1995; Sallis, Bauman, & Pratt, 1998). The
physical environment provides cues and opportunities
for physical activity. Its influence is passive through the
design of the urban environment, domestic appliances
and buildings which encourage or discourage incidental
physical activity (King et al., 1995; Sallis & Owen, 1996;
Sallis et al., 1998). Its influence is also active by
providing physical activity opportunities that are
accessible, convenient, safe and appealing (King et al.,
1995; Sallis & Owen, 1996). Compared with individual
determinants of physical activity, relatively few studies
have examined the influence of the physical environment
on physical activity levels (see Brownell, Stunkard, &
Albaum, 1980; Hofstetter, Hovell, & Sallis, 1990; Sallis
et al., 1990; Linenger, Chesson, & Nice, 1991; McKen-
zie, Sallis, Nader, Broyles, & Nelson, 1992; Macintyre,
Maciver, & Sooman, 1993; Hahn & Craythorn, 1994;
Blamey, Mutrie, & Aitchison, 1995; Bauman & Smith,
1999).
The results reported in this paper are based on the
Study on Environmental and Individual Determinants
of Physical Activity (known as SEID), a social
ecological project that examined the relative influence
of social environmental, physical environmental and
individual factors on recreational physical activity. The
overall aims of the research were to measure the
individual, social and physical environmental factors
influencing participation in planned recreational physi-
cal activity and to examine the relative influence of and
interaction between, environmental and individual
factors that influence exercising as recommended. This
paper describes the overall results, as well as the
influence of spatial access on the use of recreational
facilities.
Individual factors
The individual factors examined in this study were
based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
(Ajzen, 1991) and the Theory of Trying (TT) (Bagozzi
& Warshaw, 1990). These theories are derived from
Fishbein and Azjen’s theory of reasoned action (TRA),
an ‘expectancy-value’ model (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).
According to expectancy-value models, individuals are
more motivated to perform behaviours they believe will
result in highly valued outcomes, and, conversely, are
less motivated when they do not believe that valued
outcomes will follow when the expected outcomes are
not valued (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).
While the TRA has had widespread use in physical
activity research (for example see Godin, 1993; Blue,
1995), its predictive capacity has been limited by the
theory’s underlying assumption that performing a
behaviour involves a rational decision-making process
and its performance is under the individual’s volitional
control. This requires that individuals have all the
necessary resources, skills and abilities to perform the
behaviour at will, and its execution requires no co-
operation from anyone else nor is it subject to any
environmental barriers (Ajzen, 1985; Sheppard et al.,
1988; Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1990; Ajzen, 1991).
During the 1980s, behavioural scientists questioned
the assumption that many behaviours are under an
individual’s ‘complete volitional control’ (Ajzen, 1985;
Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1990) and suggested that, where
there is incomplete control, individuals form intentions
to perform behavioural goals. Thus, many intentions are
best considered goals, the attainment of which are
subject to some degree of uncertainty (Ajzen & Madden,
1986).
In the early 1990s, the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) and the TT
(Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1990) were developed in response
to these concerns. Ajzen’s TPB extended the original
theory by adding perceived behavioural control: one’s
belief about how easy or difficult performance of a
behaviour is likely to be. Similar to Bandura’s concept
of self-efficacy (1997), the addition of perceived beha-
vioural control significantly improved the predictive
ability of the original theory (Ajzen, 1991).
According to Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990), for most
behaviours, the key assumptions of the TRA cannot be
met; that is the performance of a behaviour is preceded
by a deliberate process culminating in a conscious
decision to act and that, once decided, there are no
barriers (e.g., cost, inconvenience) preventing action.
They developed the TT to better understand the steps
between intention formation and actual performance of
the target behaviour. Thus, the individual factors
examined in this study were based on Bagozzi and
Warshaw’s (1990) TT, Ajzen’s (1985) perceived beha-
vioural control and Bandura’s (1997) conceptualisation
of behavioural skills.
Physical environmental factors
The limited number of published studies on the
influence of the physical environment on physical
activity suggest that spatial access to recreational
facilities may influence physical activity participation.
Spatial access was a significant predictor of participation
in an executive health program (Teraslinna, Partanen,
Koskela, & Oja, 1969), and had a measurable, albeit
modest, impact on participation in vigorous exercise in
community settings (Sallis et al., 1990) and on fitness
levels in a naval setting (Linenger et al., 1991). Bauman
et al. (1999) found that living in close proximity to the
coast was associated with exercising as recommended.
Convenience appears to be important. Andrew et al.
(1981) found that perceptions of the convenience of a
rehabilitation program and difficulties encountered
with parking influenced participation by post-coronary
 B. Giles-Corti, R.J. Donovan / Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812
patients. Indeed, Hofstetter et al. (1990) have reported
that positive perceptions about the convenience of
facilities and neighbourhood safety increased exercise
self-efficacy, a factor known to influence intention to be
physically active.
While it has been suggested that the finding that close
proximity is associated with the use of facilities could ‘be
easily understood by common sense’ (Teraslinna et al.,
1969), conclusive evidence that simply having access to
facilities increases regular physical activity remains
elusive. Sallis et al. (1990) found that enhanced access
was associated with higher levels of participation in
vigorous activity regardless of one’s socioeconomic
status. Consequently, Scottish findings (Macintyre
et al., 1993) demonstrating an inequitable distribution
in recreational facilities in favour of high socioeconomic
status suburbs raise concerns that poor access in
disadvantaged areas contributes to lower levels of
participation in physical activity (Macintyre et al.,
1993; King et al., 1995).
Geographers conceive accessibility as a measure of the
spatial distribution of facilities adjusted for the desire
and the ability of people to overcome ‘spatial
separation’ (i.e., distance or travel time) to access a
facility or activity (Hansen, 1959). Accordingly, desire
and ability are influenced by the importance of the trip
to the user (i.e., the felt need), attractiveness of the
facility (e.g., the facility’s attributes), the facility’s
location and the user’s access to transport (Hansen,
1959). Although it has been demonstrated that use is
inversely related to distance travelled, the extent of the
distance of decay factor depends upon the attractiveness
of the destination, as well as the nature of the trip and its
importance to the user.
One approach to measuring accessibility is based on a
variation of the gravity model (Hansen, 1959) such that
X sailing clubs, squash or badminton courts); and three
Ai ¼ mj =dijb ;
j
where Ai is a measure of accessibility from origin i; mj is
the attractiveness of destination j; dij is the travel time or
distance between origin i and destination j; and b is an
estimated destination-specific distance-decay parameter
between i and j:
Distance is generally perceived to be a barrier to use a
facility, with those living closer having increased
opportunities for use and paying less for transport
(Knox, 1978). However, in some instances, the effect of
distance may be moderated by the attractiveness of a
facility or activity and its proximity to other facilities or
activities (i.e., its spatial structure) (Fotheringham, 1981;
Kim & Fesenmaier, 1990). Measures of attractiveness
appear to be context-specific and aspects of attractive-
ness vary in surveys depending on the type of recreation.
For example, in a survey examining recreational travel
to regional parks, attractiveness factors included the size
1795
of the park, the size of the water body, the availability of
boat ramps, opportunities for swimming, and the
number of campsites (Kim & Fesenmaier, 1990). In a
study of urban swimming pools, attractiveness included
the size of the pool, facilities offered and the level of
crowding anticipated by individuals (Goodchild &
Booth, 1980).
Although the recreational studies reviewed were based
on gravity models, none sought to examine individual
spatial access. Rather, the objectives were to make
decisions about the location of future urban recreational
facilities (Goodchild & Booth, 1980); or to evaluate the
effects of ‘spatial structure’ (i.e., proximity to nearby
recreational opportunities) as a means of understanding
the ‘competitive and agglomerative relationship’ be-
tween tourism facilities (Kim & Fesenmaier, 1990) or to
model recreational trip distribution (Baxter & Ewing,
1981).
Similarly, there appears to be no published examples
of the use of models to assess the individual accessibility
of recreational facilities. Generally, researchers have
examined the ease of access of population groups living
in different areas (Knox, 1978). Examining spatial access
of population groups assumes that every individual
living in a study area has an equal share of the
opportunities, regardless of exactly where they live.
The extent to which there are individual variations in
spatial access within a group and the ability to take-up
available opportunities, is not considered in this
approach.
Thus, in this study, individual spatial access to nine
facilities commonly used by Australian adults for
recreational physical activity (DASETT, 1988; DASET,
1992) was examined: six formal facilities (gym or health
club; swimming pool; sporting complex or recreation
centre; tennis court; golf course or other (e.g., yacht and
informal facilities (public open space, river and beach)).
It was beyond the scope of this study to examine the
factors that made each of these facilities ‘attractive’,
although factors that made public open space attractive
were considered (Corti, 1998; Broomhall, 1996). Thus, it
is assumed that all other facilities are equally attractive.
Methods
Study design
The results reported are based on a cross-sectional
survey of adults aged 18–59 years undertaken between
August 1995 and March 1996. A probability cluster
sample was drawn by the Australian Bureau of
Statistics. One eligible respondent was randomly se-
lected from each household (the eligible person whose
birthday fell closest to the day of the interview was
1796 B. Giles-Corti, R.J. Donovan / Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812
selected). After allowing for three call-backs, a response
rate of 52.9% of households was achieved. The final
sample included 1803 respondents from 277 ABS
‘collectors’ districts: n ¼ 939 (137 CDs) from the 80th
percentile and above of ABS social advantage and n ¼
874 (140 CDs) from the 20th percentile or below.
The study design controlled for major confounding
variables for recreational physical activity and the
use of recreational facilities (Miettinen, 1985). Those
excluded from the study were: the unemployed; those
who were physically active as part of their job; those
with any medical condition likely to affect participation
in recreational physical activity including walking
(Hofstetter et al., 1991); those aged over 59 years
(because of the likelihood that medical problems
increase with age); and those who had occupied a
household for less than one year. The final sample was
also restricted to those who were proficient in the
English language.
The study was restricted to a 408 km2 area of Perth,
Western Australia (see Fig. 1). With a population of
about 1.2 million, Perth is one of the smaller Australian
capital cities and enjoys a relatively high standard of
living. The study area was selected by creating artificial
boundaries in the north, east and south. The ocean
created a natural boundary in the west. The study area
was specifically selected to avoid newly established
suburbs because they may have had insufficiently
developed community recreational infrastructure.
Measures
A copy of the survey instrument is available upon
request to the principal author. The final instrument had
255 items, including 27 items measuring physical activity
behaviour; eight measuring social environmental fac-
tors; 81 measuring cognitive factors and 15 measuring
details of the streetscape outside the respondent’s home.
The reliability of newly developed items was assessed in
an extensive pilot phase. After preliminary analysis of
the data (Corti, 1998), a subset of these variables was
used in the analysis that follows.
A modified version of the physical activity items used
in other major Australian studies were used to measure
physical activity (Risk Factor Prevalence Study Man-
agement Committee, 1990; Bauman et al., 1996a, b). The
frequency and total duration of all types of physical
activity undertaken in the previous two weeks were
collected: vigorous activity, light to moderate activity,
walking for recreation and walking for transport.
Consistent with current public health messages at the
time, the walking questions were extended to include
walking for transport and the question on light to
moderate activity specifically mentioned gardening. In
accordance with Stephen et al.’s (1985) recommenda-
tion, for each type of activity respondents were
prompted by providing examples of the type of activity
targeted by each question.
Spatial access
Access indices based on Hansen’s accessibility model
(Hansen, 1959) were developed for the main formal and
informal facilities used by respondents. The develop-
ment of the access indices involved three tasks: geocod-
ing addresses, road network analysis and estimating the
access indices. The methods are fully described else-
where (Corti, 1998) and are summarised below. In
addition, a summary access index was also developed for
built (i.e., golf courses, gym/health club/exercise centres;
sport and recreational centres; swimming pools; tennis
courts and public open space) and natural (i.e., beaches
and river) facilities.
The spatial location of destination addresses (i.e., the
recreational facilities) were determined using MapInfo
(MapInfo, 1992) (referred to as geocoding). For the
origin addresses (i.e., the respondents’ home addresses),
an automatic look-up file based on the Valuer General’s
spatial database was developed. Road network analysis
was undertaken to determine the distance between the
origins and destinations, using the ArcInfo GIS software
(ESRI, 1994). Using a street network database of the
Perth metropolitan area, distances were measured in
metres and were based on the shortest possible road
network route between the origins and destinations.
The final task involved calculating the access indices.
Decay of distance parameters was estimated for nine
different facilities. To estimate the decay of distance
parameters, the distance between the origins and
destinations were grouped into 500 m categories.
The bottom category was 500 m and less and the
top category was 20 km and beyond. This variable
was cross-tabulated by whether or not respondents had
used the facility. The cross-tabulated data were used to
create a new data file containing the mid-points of the
distance categories (e.g., 250 m for the bottom category)
and the percentage of opportunities to access facilities
actually used by respondents in each distance category.
Using a linear regression model, the log of distance was
regressed on the log of percentage of opportunities for
access to facilities that were used. This produced a
beta coefficient that represented the decay of distance
parameter. This procedure was repeated for each
facility.
Dependent variables
Two dichotomous behavioural dependent variables
were examined: use of facilities and exercising as
recommended. A variable was developed for each of
the nine formal and informal recreational facilities used
by respondents for their physical activities in the
 B. Giles-Corti, R.J. Donovan / Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812 1797

Fig. 1. Map of the study area.

previous two weeks (referred to as ‘use of facility’ independent of body weight was calculated using the
variables). following formula:
‘Exercising as recommended’ was defined as the X
accumulation of the equivalent of 30 min or more of MET  min=week ¼ fðMETÞi di fi g;
i
moderate physical activity on most days of the week
(USDHHS, 1996). To enable participation in different where ðMETÞi ; di and fi are, respectively, the MET level,
types of activity to be aggregated, a total activity index duration in minutes and frequency per week of the ith
1798 B. Giles-Corti, R.J. Donovan / Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812
activity (Ainsworth et al., 1993; Wolf et al., 1994). The
‘‘MET’’ is a measure of metabolic equivalents. The
assigned MET levels were based on the compendium of
activities developed by Ainsworth et al. (1993). Vigorous
activity was assigned a MET value of 8.0, light to
moderate activity a MET value of 4.0, walking for
recreation a MET value of 3.5, and walking for
transport a MET value of 4.0. The decision to use an
index independent of body weight was based on two
factors: (1) Ainsworth et al.’s (1993) caution against the
use of kcal scores in correlation analyses since coeffi-
cients may reflect body weight rather than the energy
costs of activities; and (2) the fact that public health
messages focus on duration, frequency and intensity of
physical activity with no attempt to vary messages for
people of different body weights. Initial analysis of the
data demonstrated that categorising individuals based
on weight-dependent energy expenditure had the poten-
tial to misclassify individuals who exercise above or
below recommended levels of physical activity, depend-
ing on how much they weighed (Corti, 1998). Thus,
‘exercising as recommended’ was classified as those
expending 840 MET (minute/week) or more on recrea-
tional physical activity (i.e., the equivalent of 30 or more
min  week  4 MET). To avoid measurement error due
to over-reporting, those reporting energy expenditure of
10,000 MET (min/week) or more were excluded (n ¼ 30)
(Booth, Owen, & Bauman, 1995; Bauman et al.,
1996a, b).
Independent variables
In the models predicting use of individual recreational
facilities, apart from demographic variables, the main
effect variables were spatial access to each individual
facility. Spatial access was recoded into quartiles of
access where 1=top quartile of access and 4=bottom
quartile of access.
The choice of variables for inclusion in the model
associating exercising as recommended with individual,
social environmental and physical environmental deter-
minants was based on the results of previous analyses
examining the independent influence of individual,
social and physical environmental variables (Corti,
1998). The overall model included 14 independent main
effect variables (see Table 1): seven individual cognitive
variables; three social environmental variables and four
physical environmental variables. In addition, six
demographic variables were included to control for
potential confounding (i.e., age, sex, number of children
in the household under 18 years, work outside the home,
household income and education).
The analysis was based on 1773 respondents who
reported in-scope data and was undertaken using the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
software. After creating scales for individual cognitive
variables comprising multiple items, internal consistency
was assessed. The results ranged from 0.71 to 0.86
indicating satisfactory internal consistency.
A series of unconditional logistic regression analyses
were undertaken. A number of criteria were used to
assess the significance of variables for inclusion in the
final model. Variables for inclusion in the final model
were assessed in terms of whether they were statistically,
empirically or theoretically important. Statistically sig-
nificant variables were those with p-values less than 0.05,
or 95% confidence intervals that excluded unity.
Empirically significant variables were classified as those
that did not reach statistical significance, but had point
estimates at least 20% greater or lower than the
reference category. However, variables with wide con-
fidence intervals were excluded from the model on the
basis of the strong possibility that the result had
occurred by chance. Finally, theoretically significant
variables were those that the literature suggested were
important for inclusion, regardless of the empirical
results. However, in the interest of parsimony, theore-
tical importance was assessed using the precision of the
estimates, before making a final decision to include a
variable in the final model. This approach made way for
the development of a new ecological model that
combined individual, social environmental and physical
environmental variables. The use of the parsimonious
model is justified on the grounds of maximum statistical
efficiency, while presenting a high degree of validity of
the point estimates (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 1989).
To enable examination of the relative influence of the
individual, social environmental and physical environ-
mental determinants, in the final stage of the analysis,
the three ‘classes’ of determinants (i.e., individual, social
environmental and physical environmental) (respectively
referred to as ‘determinant scores’) and the demographic
factors were summarised into multivariate summarisa-
tion scores as suggested by Miettinen (1976). The scores
were composite scores constructed using the beta
coefficients from the final parsimonious models for
recommended
P levels of exercising overall as
follows: i bi xi ; where bi is the beta coefficient for the
ith binary indicator variable of a particular class (i.e.,
individual, social environmental, physical environmental
determinants or demographic factors) included in the
final parsimonious logistic regression model, and xi is
the respondent’s value (0, 1) for the ith binary indicator
variable to be included in the score.
The multivariate summarisation score technique was
proposed by Miettinen (1976) to overcome inefficiency
in analyses which required control of a large number of
covariates considered to be confounding variables. In
situations where there are a large number of strata,
potential problems arise from small numbers of respon-
dents within each stratum. Thus, Miettinen proposed the
development of a single multivariate confounding
 B. Giles-Corti, R.J. Donovan / Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812
Table 1
Variables used in the model
Name of variable
Individual cognitive
Attitude toward trying
Attitude toward the process of trying
Subjective norm
Frequency of trying in the last three
months
Perceived behavioural control
Behavioural skills used in the last month
Intention to try in the next two weeks
Social environmental
Club membership
Frequency of participation in physical
activity by five significant others
Frequency of a significant other doing
physical activity with respondent
Physical environmental
Functional environment
Appeal of environment
1799
How measured Scale
‘All things considered, would you say the 7 point: 3 to 3
fact you tried to do a regular exercise
routinea over the next two weeks would
make you feely: foolish/wise, dissatisfied/
satisfied, bad/good’b
How ‘unpleasant/pleasant’, ‘difficult/ 7 point: 3 to 3
easy’, ‘bad/good’ the process of trying to
do a regular exercise routinea would be
‘regardless of whether you succeed or
fail’b
‘How likely or unlikely are each of the 7 point: 3 to 3
following people (your spouse or partner,
a family member, a friend, your doctor) to
think you should try to do a regular
exercise routinea during the next two
weeks?’b
During the past three months, how many 5 point: 1=Never, 5=Weekly
times, if any, did you try to do a regular
physical activity routinea?
Assuming that you tried to do a regular 7 point: 1=Very unlikely, 7=Very likely
exercise routinea over the next two weeks,
how likely or unlikely is it that you would
actually stick to your routine?’
How frequently in the last month did you: 5 point: 1=Never, 5=Weekly
set a goal for how much physical activity
you would like to do; plan particular days
on which you would do physical activity;
and arrange to meet someone to do
physical activity with?a
Before this interview, how likely or 7 point: 1=Very unlikely, 7=Very likely
unlikely is it that in the next two weeks
you would try to do a regular exercise
routinea?
Are you a member of a sport, exercise or 1=Yes, 0=No;
outdoor recreational group or club?
How often over the last month, did the 5 point: 1=Never, 5=More than once a
following peoplec do physical activity weekd,e
including walking?
Over the past three months, which of these 4 point: 0=Never, 4=weeklyd,f
people,c if any, did physical activity with
you including walking?
The interviewer noted whether the street 4 categories: no footpath or shop; no
that had a footpath (on both or one side footpath, but a shop; a footpath, but no
of street) or shop visible in the street shop; or both a footpath and a shop
The interviewer noted the type of street 4 categories: no trees and major traffic;
(cul de sac; minor local road; major local major traffic and some trees; minor traffic
road; highway or major thoroughfare) and no trees or minor traffic and some
and whether the street was tree lined; trees
had good coverage (more than one tree to
a house block); medium coverage (one tree
of a house block); poor coverage (less than
one tree to a house block); mixed tree
coverage; no trees
1800 B. Giles-Corti, R.J. Donovan / Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812

Table 1 (continued)

Name of variable How measured Scale

Overall spatial access to built facilities Total spatial access to a range of purpose- 4 categories: 1=Top quartile of access,
built recreational facilities including golf 4=Bottom quartile of access
courses, gym/health club/exercise centres;
sport and recreational centres; swimming
pools; tennis courts and public open
space.
Overall spatial access to natural facilities Total spatial access to naturally occurring 4 categories: 1=top quartile of access,
recoded into quartiles of access recreational facilities such as the river and 4=bottom quartile of access
beach)
a
Respondents were given a choice of preferred exercise, i.e., either three 20 min sessions of vigorous exercise each week, or 30 min to
one hour of light to moderate exercise each day.
b
Recoded as the mean of the sum of these items.
c
Spouse or partner; close family members; people at work; close friends and people in your neighbourhood. (Based on items
developed by Sallis et al. (1990).
d
After an initial examination of the results, these variables were recoded to ‘more than once a week’=1 and all other responses=0.
A single item was developed called the ‘Number of significant others who did physical activity’.
e
More than once a week in the last month.
f
Weekly with the respondent in the last three months.

summarisation score which, when grouped into cate-
gories, could be used for cross-classification purposes.
The multivariate summarisation scores or determi-
nant scores are comparable to ‘risk scores’, which have
had various applications (Shaper, Pocock, Phillips, &
Walker, 1986; Lemeshow, Teres, Avrunin, & Pastides,
1988). In this study, the individual, socio-environmental
and physical environmental determinant scores were
grouped into tertiles representing low, medium and high
‘risk’ scores for each determinant. The demographic
score, used to adjust for confounding, was grouped into
deciles (Miettinen, 1976).
Results
Physical activity behaviour
In the two weeks before the survey, approximately
one-half of all respondents reported participating in
vigorous physical activity (47.8%), a similar proportion
that participated in light to moderate (52.5%) physical
activity, while 82.5% walked for either or both transport
(72.1%) and recreation (68.5%). Overall, 59.2% of
respondents exercised as recommended (see Table 2).
The prevalence in women was 0.90 (95% CI 0.83–0.98)
of that in men; and in households with one or more
children it was 0.88 (95% CI 0.81–0.95) of that in
households with no children. Conversely, education
level and household income were positively associated
with physical activity. Exercising as recommended was
17–26% higher in those with certificates (60.4%) or
tertiary education (65.6%) compared with those who did
not complete secondary school (51.8%). Similarly, the
prevalence of exercising as recommended increased with
household income.
Distance of decay parameters
Decay of distance parameters (b) were estimated for
nine formal and informal recreational facilities (see
Table 3). A decay of distance parameter >1 indicates
that as distance doubles, facility use reduces by more
than one-half. The results indicated that the public’s use
of public open space was more sensitive to distance
(b ¼ 1:91) than sporting and recreation centres
(b ¼ 1:16) and golf courses (b ¼ 1:06). The sensitivity
to distance for use of public open space is consistent
with the literature (Boyle, 1983; Just, 1989), which
suggests that most users of public open space live within
close proximity (i.e., around 500 m). The decay of
distance parameters was used to estimate individual
access indices for each respondent to each facility.
Use of recreational facilities
In the two weeks before the survey, 76.3% of
respondents used one or more community facilities
(including the streets) for their recreational physical
activity. The most popular facilities were informal
facilities, including the streets (45.6%), public open
space (28.8%) and the beach (22.3%). Some 8.9% of
respondents used the river. A number of formal facilities
were used by a sizeable proportion of the sample: 10.8%
used a gym, health club or exercise centre; 8.9% a
 B. Giles-Corti, R.J. Donovan / Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812 1801

Table 2
Relationship of exercising as recommended to demographic determinants

Demographic determinant Total sample

n % PRa 95% CI

Total 1773 59.2

Sex
Male 564 63.5 1.00
Female 1206 57.2 0.90 0.83–0.98
Males
Age group
18–29 169 69.2 1.00
30–34 68 60.3 0.87 0.70–1.08
35–39 77 63.6 0.92 0.76–1.12
40–44 62 53.2 0.77 0.60–0.99
45–49 81 71.6 1.03 0.87–1.23
50–54 66 54.5 0.79 0.62–1.00
55–59 41 58.5 0.85 0.64–1.11
Females
Age group
18–29 292 58.6 1.00
30–34 169 56.2 0.96 0.81–1.13
35–39 194 51.5 0.88 0.74–1.04
40–44 189 63.5 1.08 0.94–1.25
45–49 147 50.3 0.86 0.71–1.04
50–54 115 60.0 1.02 0.86–1.22
55–59 100 61.0 1.04 0.87–1.25

Marital status
Married/defacto 1074 57.8 1.00
Separated/widowed/divorced 212 54.2 0.94 0.82–1.07
Never married 483 64.2 1.11 1.02–1.21

Number of children under 18 years in household

None 916 62.8 1.00
One 305 55.4 0.88 0.79–0.99
Two 337 55.2 0.88 0.79–0.98
Three or more 215 55.3 0.88 0.77–1.00

Level of education completed

Sub-secondary 384 51.8 1.00
Secondary 417 58.8 1.13 1.00–1.29
Trade 94 53.2 1.03 0.83–1.27
Certificate 402 60.4 1.17 1.03–1.32
Tertiary 470 65.5 1.26 1.13–1.42

Adjusted household incomea

o$20,000 316 50.3 1.00
$20–$39,999 526 59.7 1.19 1.04–1.35
$40–$59,999 440 63.0 1.25 1.10–1.43
$60,000+ 244 64.3 1.28 1.11–1.48
Refused/missing 247 57.5 1.14 0.98–1.33
a
Prevalence ratio.

swimming pool; 8.7% a sport or recreation centre; and
7.1% a tennis court.
Regardless of the intensity of the physical activity
undertaken (i.e., vigorous, light to moderate or walk-
ing), the vast majority of respondents who undertook
physical activity in the previous two weeks reported
using one or more formal or informal facility ‘near
home’. Facilities located ‘at or near work’ were used by
substantially fewer respondents (o7.3% and o5.6%,
respectively). Similarly, only a minority of respondents
1802 B. Giles-Corti, R.J. Donovan / Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812
Table 3
Decay of distance parametersa for different types of facilities
Facility Decay of
distance parameter b
Public open space (i.e., parks and ovals) 1.91
River 1.71
Tennis court 1.64
Beach 1.48
Gym/health club/exercise centre 1.39
Swimming pool 1.27
Sporting complex and recreation centre 1.16
Golf course 1.06
Other facilities 1.03
Overall 1.57
a section (see Table 5). The likelihood of exercising as
Beta coefficient estimated from linear regression equation of
log of distance regressed on log of use.
claimed to use a facility that was located ‘on the way to,
or from work’. Conversely, 100.0% of those who
exercised vigorously reported using at least one facility
near their home, as did 100.0% of those who walked.
Overall, 68.0% of light to moderate exercisers reported
doing physical activity at home, and 40.6% also
reported using a facility near home. Compared with
respondents undertaking other types of physical activity,
the prevalence of reporting using a facility ‘elsewhere’
(i.e., not near home or work or on the way to and from
somewhere travelled regularly) was somewhat higher for
those who did vigorous exercise (45.7%). One third of
respondents who walked did so ‘elsewhere’ (33.3%), as
did 27.1% of light to moderate exercisers.
The effects of spatial access on the use of facilities
A series of unconditional logistic regression analyses
was undertaken to examine use of individual facilities in
relation to level of access (Table 4). Progressive control
of the effects of demographic determinants had little
impact on the odd ratios. The results indicated that, with
few exceptions, use of a facility was negatively asso-
ciated with lower levels of access.
After controlling for individual demographic determi-
nants, there was a strong relationship between use and
level of access to the beach (test for trend po0:001) and
river (test for trend p ¼ 0:006), as well as other formal
facilities including golf courses (test for trend p ¼ 0:007),
swimming pools (test for trend p ¼ 0:006) and tennis
courts (test for trend p ¼ 0:026). Compared with those
with the highest levels of access, the odds of using the
beach were 90% lower for those in the bottom 10th
percentile of access (95% CI 0.05–0.20); the odds of
using the river 96% lower (95% CI 0.01–0.14); and using
a tennis court 82% lower (95% CI 0.05–0.61). The odds
of using an attractive public open space were one-half as
likely in all those in the 2nd or lower quartile of access
(OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.40–0.64). For other facilities, the
trend for use with decreasing levels of access was less
clear.
Individual, social and physical environmental determinants
of physical activity
Fourteen individual, social and physical environmen-
tal variables were entered into a conditional logistic
regression model to examine determinants of exercising
as recommended. Ten were included in the final model in
accordance with the criteria outlined in the methods
recommended increased in respondents the more fre-
quently they had tried to exercise in the past three
months and had used behavioural skills in the last
month (test for trend po0:001). Similarly, the higher the
level of perceived behavioural control (test for trend
p ¼ 0:004) and intention to be physically active in the
next two weeks (test for trend po0:001), the more likely
recommended levels of activity were achieved. Contrary
to theoretical expectations, those with a positive
subjective norm were less likely to exercise as recom-
mended (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.51–1.01), although chance
could not be ruled out for this result.
After adjusting for other variables, three social
environmental variables predicted exercising as recom-
mended. The greater the number of significant others
who exercised weekly with the respondent, the more
likely recommended levels of activity were achieved (test
for trend po0:001). In addition, members of a sport,
recreation or outdoor club were 2.5 times more likely to
achieve recommended levels of physical activity (OR
2.45; 95% CI 1.86–3.22).
The role of the physical environment in influencing
activity levels was less convincing and chance could not
be ruled out for the results. Nevertheless, compared with
those in the top quartile of access, there was a decreased
likelihood of achieving recommended levels of activity
for those in the second to bottom quartile of access to
built facilities (combined OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.58–1.04;
test for trend p ¼ 0:185) and to a lesser extent, those in
the bottom level of access to natural facilities (OR 0.83;
95% CI 0.60–1.18; test for trend p=0.189).
Relative influence of individual, social environmental and
physical environmental determinants of physical activity
Table 6 examines the relative influence of individual,
social environmental and physical environmental deter-
minants. After adjustment for other determinants,
exercising as recommended was more strongly asso-
ciated with individual determinants than either social
environmental or physical environmental determinants.
 B. Giles-Corti, R.J. Donovan / Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812 1803

Table 4
Odds ratios from logistic regression associating use of each individual facility to level of access

Access to facility Logistic regression odds ratios for use of facility

Single factor Models with Models with 95% CI p value

models age and sex all demographic variablesa

Access to beach
Top quartile of access 1.00 1.00 1.00
2nd top quartile 0.56 0.52 0.51 0.42–0.93 0.000
3rd quartile 0.28 0.25 0.26 0.19–0.37 0.000
10th–25th percentile 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.09–0.23 0.000
Bottom 10th percentile 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.05–0.20 0.000

Access to golf course

Top quartile of access 1.00 1.00 1.00
2nd top quartile 0.90 0.92 0.84 0.43–1.63 0.603
3rd quartile 0.48 0.46 0.44 0.20–0.99 0.047
10th–25th percentile 0.36 0.44 0.46 0.16–1.30 0.142
Bottom 10th percentile 0.32 0.31 0.36 0.10–1.30 0.119

Access to gym, health club, exercise centre

Top quartile of access 1.00 1.00 1.00
2nd top quartile 1.20 1.28 1.19 0.79–1.78 0.416
3rd quartile 0.86 0.92 0.91 0.59–1.40 0.661
10th–25th percentile 0.73 0.78 0.84 0.49–1.45 0.539
Bottom 10th percentile 0.50 0.58 0.64 0.32–1.28 0.208

Access to attractive public open spaceb

Top quartile of access 1.00 1.00 1.00
2nd top quartile 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.44–0.78 0.000
3rd quartile 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.32–0.59 0.000
10th–25th percentile 0.40 0.39 0.40 0.28–0.57 0.000
Bottom 10th percentile 0.64 0.64 0.66 0.45–0.97 0.036

Access to river
Top quartile of access 1.00 1.00 1.00
2nd top quartile 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.23–0.47 0.000
3rd quartile 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.14–0.32 0.000
10th–25th percentile 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.02–0.13 0.000
Bottom 10th percentile 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.01–0.14 0.000

Access to sport and recreation centres

Top quartile of access 1.00 1.00 1.00
2nd top quartile 0.90 0.87 0.86 0.53–1.40 0.536
3rd quartile 1.01 1.09 0.97 0.59–1.57 0.891
10th–25th percentile 1.09 0.91 1.03 0.60–1.77 0.924
Bottom 10th percentile 0.91 0.89 0.85 0.44–1.64 0.623

Access to swimming pools

Top quartile of access 1.00 1.00 1.00
2nd top quartile 0.71 0.72 0.70 0.45–1.06 0.092
3rd quartile 0.55 0.55 0.62 0.39–0.97 0.039
10th–25th percentile 0.37 0.37 0.42 0.23–0.79 0.007
Bottom 10th percentile 0.41 0.41 0.58 0.28–1.19 0.138

Access to tennis courts

Top quartile of access 1.00 1.00 1.00
2nd top quartile 0.77 0.79 0.78 0.49–1.24 0.295
3rd quartile 0.44 0.44 0.46 0.27–0.78 0.004
10th–25th percentile 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.36–1.13 0.121
1804 B. Giles-Corti, R.J. Donovan / Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812
Table 4 (continued)
Access to facility Logistic regression odds ratios for use of facility
Single factor Models with
models age and sex
Bottom 10th percentile 0.15 0.15
Access to other facilities
Top quartile of access 1.00 1.00
2nd top quartile 1.23 1.17
3rd quartile 1.25 1.29
10th–25th percentile 1.15 1.23
Bottom 10th percentile 0.91 0.96
a
Age, sex, number of children under 18 years in household, household income, education. Missing=14.
b
Adjusted for attractiveness.
Compared with those in the lowest determinant score
categories, those in the highest individual determinant
score category were 8.14 times more likely to exercise as
recommended (95% CI 6.00–11.05; test for trend
p ¼ 0:000). This was twice as high as the influence of
the highest social environmental determinant score (OR
3.72; 95% CI 2.76–4.98; test for trend p ¼ 0:000) and
five times as high as the highest physical environmental
determinant score (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.09–1.88; test for
trend p ¼ 0:017). There was no evidence of multi-
plicative interaction, indicating that the results were
consistent with no effect modification on a multiplicative
scale. This suggests that the relative effect of each
determinant was consistent across the categories of each
of the other determinants.
Overall, the results suggest that the likelihood of
exercising as recommended was greatly enhanced in
those with positive individual factors and a positive
social environment conducive to exercising. A suppor-
tive physical environment as measured by this study had
a significant, but a more moderate, influence.
Discussion
This study found that the influence of individual and
social environmental determinants outweighed the role
played by physical environmental determinants of
exercising as recommended. Nevertheless, access to
recreational facilities determined whether or not they
were used, and in this way, support and enhance the
achievement of recommended levels of physical activity
behaviour by providing opportunities. Individual and
social environmental determinants on the other hand,
appeared more important in directly determining
whether or not recommended levels of activity were
achieved. In this sense, it appears that having good
access to recreational facilities is necessary but insuffi-
Models with 95% CI p value
all demographic variablesa
0.18 0.05–0.61 0.006
1.00
1.19 0.63–2.24 0.587
1.21 0.64–2.28 0.557
1.30 0.62–2.72 0.485
1.21 0.48–3.01 0.690
cient to achieve recommended levels of recreational
activity in the community.
Study limitations
Before discussing the results in detail, the study
limitations are considered. By national and international
standards the city of Perth enjoys a comparatively high
standard of living and is a relatively homogeneous
society. Moreover, the study was confined to a defined
area of Perth rather than including the entire metropo-
litan area. The decision to limit the study area was based
on the resources available to undertake the environ-
mental scan component of the study which involved a
survey of all formal recreational facilities in the study
area (Corti, 1998) and an observational study of all
public open space (Broomhall, 1996). The creation of an
artificial boundary is likely to have resulted in non-
differential measurement error, particularly for those
living close to the coast and in the north- and south-west
corners of the study area.
The study conceptualised spatial access using a model
taken from the geography literature (Hansen, 1959).
However, the application of the model was somewhat
different because we examined the influence of spatial
access on achieving a ‘gold standard’ of behaviour (i.e.,
achieving recommended levels of activity). It is possible
that an alternative approach may have been more
appropriate for assessing ‘gold standard’ behaviours.
In addition, distance-only access models were used for
assessing spatial access to built and natural facilities
without adjustment for ‘attractiveness’. This assumes
that all facilities were equally attractive, and represents a
somewhat limited approach to adopting the accessibility
model. Initially, we adjusted for the attractiveness of
public open space (Corti, 1998). However, in the absence
of additional research to guide decision-making, it
became clear that examination of the attractiveness of
 B. Giles-Corti, R.J. Donovan / Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812 1805

Table 5
Odds ratios from logistic regression associating exercising as recommended with individual, social environmental and physical
environmental determinants

Determinant Logistic regression odds ratios

Model with all variablesa p value Final modelb 95% CI p value

Attitude towards trying

Very positive 1.00
Negative/neutral 0.95 0.923
Positive 1.16 0.255

Attitude towards process

Negative/neutral 1.00
Positive 1.04 0.834
Very positive 1.12 0.591

Subjective norm
Negative/neutral 1.00 1.00
Positive 0.69 0.007 0.68 0.51–0.89 0.005
Very positive 0.75 0.109 0.72 0.51–1.01 0.059

Frequency of past trying in past three months

Never 1.00 1.00
1–2 times in three months 1.27 0.353 1.18 0.72–1.94 0.506
Once a month 1.61 0.152 1.62 0.86–3.08 0.136
2–3 times a month 0.77 0.293 0.75 0.47–1.20 0.225
Weekly 1.93 0.000 1.87 1.35–2.59 0.000

Perceived behavioural control

Low 1.00 1.00
Uncertain 1.69 0.001 1.72 1.26–2.33 0.001
High 1.47 0.109 1.52 0.95–2.38 0.080

Behavioural skills used in last month

Never used 1.00 1.00
Used 1–2 times 1.06 0.732 1.03 0.73–1.45 0.852
Used 2–3 times 1.58 0.014 1.54 1.08–2.19 0.018
Used weekly 2.42 0.000 2.41 1.60–3.61 0.000
More than once a week 2.01 0.009 2.05 1.22–3.45 0.007

Intention to be physically active in the next two weeks

Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.18 0.351 1.24 0.88–1.74 0.215
High 1.99 0.000 2.09 1.45–3.01 0.000

Sport, recreation or outdoor club membership

No 1.00 1.00
Yes 2.56 0.000 2.45 1.86–3.22 0.000

Number of significant others known to exercise weekly in last month

None 1.00 1.00
One 1.06 0.720 1.01 0.73–1.40 0.929
Two 1.17 0.394 1.13 0.79–1.62 0.506
Three 1.12 0.580 1.07 0.72–1.60 0.739
Four or more 1.45 0.153 1.37 0.83–2.25 0.222

Number of significant others who exercised with respondent weekly over the three months
None 1.00 1.00
One 1.75 0.000 1.76 1.34–2.29 0.000
Two 2.18 0.000 2.11 1.46–3.04 0.000
1806 B. Giles-Corti, R.J. Donovan / Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812

Table 5 (continued)

Determinant Logistic regression odds ratios

Model with all variablesa p value Final modelb 95% CI p value

Three 1.92 0.038 1.94 1.05–3.59 0.036

Four or more 2.03 0.307 2.06 0.54–7.86 0.290

Functional environment
No footpath, no shop 1.00 N/S
No footpath, shop 3.50 0.192
Footpath, no shop 1.12 0.437
Footpath, shop 0.82 0.468

Appeal of environment
No trees, major traffic 1.00 N/S
Major traffic, some trees 0.96 0.795
Minor traffic, no trees 1.18 0.565
Minor traffic, some trees 1.03 0.884

Access to built facilities

Top quartile of access 1.00 1.00
2nd top quartile 0.73 0.072 0.71 0.51–1.00 0.051
3rd quartile 0.80 0.205 0.79 0.59–1.10 0.165
Bottom quartile 0.85 0.385 0.88 0.62–1.26 0.487

Access to natural facilities

Top quartile of access 1.00 1.00
2nd top quartile 0.86 0.427 0.86 0.60–1.23 0.404
3rd quartile 0.95 0.764 0.96 0.67–1.37 0.815
Bottom quartile 0.83 0.318 0.83 0.60–1.18 0.291
a
Adjusted for age, sex, number of children under 18 years at home, work outside home, household income, education.
b
n ¼ 1697: Interactions were examined, but none entered the final model.

many different types of recreational facilities was beyond
the scope of the current study. This could be the subject
of future research because adjustment for attractiveness
of public open space was found to influence the
likelihood of use (Corti, 1998).
Finally, as social ecological approaches are new to
public health research, it was decided from the outset to
include not only statistically significant variables in final
models, but also variables that were empirically and
theoretically important. The approach taken is consis-
tent with an epidemiologist’s view of data analysis
(Kleinbaum, Kupper, & Morgenstern, 1982; Rothman,
1986) which considers the size and precision of estimates
rather than simply focussing on statistical significance.
However, chance cannot be ruled out as an explanation
for some of these findings and should be the subject of
future research.
Despite these limitations, this initial attempt at
creating an individual index of a physical environmental
factor associated with a preventive behaviour, paves the
way for a much wider application of this technique to
the study of physical activity and other health beha-
viours. This approach is relevant in situations where
distance, as well as individual and social environmental
factors are likely to influence the uptake of opportunities
available in the physical environment.
Physical activity behaviour
In this study, less than 60% of respondents achieved
recommended levels of activity, findings consistent with
those elsewhere (Armstrong, Bauman, & Davies, 2000;
Bull, Milligan, Rosenberg, & MacGowan, 2001). Given
the popularity of walking (Siegel, Brackbill, & Heath,
1995; Armstrong et al., 2000; Bull et al., 2001) and the
potential public health benefits, there is an opportunity
for public health messages to promote brisk walking for
recreation and transport as a means of increasing
community physical activity levels. However, to increase
community physical activity levels, it appears that there
is need for more guidance about how to gain maximum
health benefits from all activities undertaken throughout
the day (e.g., getting to work; while at work; doing
housework; working in the garden) (US Department of
Health and Human Services, 1996).
 B. Giles-Corti, R.J. Donovan / Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812 1807

Table 6 sensitive to travelling to facilities such as public open

Odds ratios from logistic regression associating exercising as space, tennis courts and the river (in this case, the Swan
recommended with individual, social environmental and River). The influence of distance on use of public open
physical environmental scoresa space is particularly important, given the popularity of
Determinant score Logistic regression odds ratios walking and the high prevalence of use of public open
space as discussed in the next section.
Model with 95% CI p value
all variablesb,c Use of facilities
Individual determinant score
Low 1.00 Consistent with findings reported elsewhere (Teraslin-
Medium 3.16 2.44–4.10 0.000 na et al., 1969; Sallis et al., 1990), the likelihood of using
High 8.14 6.00–11.05 0.000 the different types of recreational facilities decreased
with decreasing levels of access. The vast majority of
Social environmental determinant score respondents used one or more community facility for
Low 1.00 their recreational physical activity and the majority of
Medium 1.56 1.20–2.04 0.001
facility use took place near the respondent’s home rather
High 3.72 2.78–4.98 0.000
than near work or on the way to or from somewhere
Physical environmental determinant score else. Other studies have found that convenience is an
Low 1.00 important determinant of use (Andrew et al., 1981). In a
Medium 1.09 0.83–1.45 0.527 study by Sallis et al. (1990), many vigorous exercisers
High 1.43 1.09–1.88 0.010 reported that facilities on a frequently used route were
a considered more ‘convenient’ than those closer to their
(n ¼ 1697).
b home. This latter finding was not fully supported in this
Adjusted for the demographic determinant score.
c
No multiplicative interactions were eligible for inclusion in study.
the model. In the international literature, there is little published
data on recreational facilities used for physical activity.
Consistent with other Australian research (DASETT,
1988; Bull et al., 2001), this study found that the most
Application of a spatial access model to understanding frequently used recreational facilities were informal: the
recreational facility use streets; public open space; and the beach. This may
reflect the popularity of walking for transport and
In this study, access to nine formal and informal recreation. However, despite community preferences for
facilities was considered. The empirically estimated walking and the use of the streets for physical activity,
distance of decay parameters for each facility provide the main focus of recreational service and infrastructure
some insight into ‘the desire and ability’ of individuals to provision in Australia is on infrastructure to support
overcome distance to use each facility. Few published formal sport (Carroll, 1995; Hahn & Craythorn, 1994).
studies appear to have measured differential distance of For example, according to Carroll (1995), Australian
decay parameters for recreational facilities. Goodchild local government expenditure on sport and recreation in
and Booth (1980) studied customers of eleven local 1989/90 totalled $1.127 billion, 30% of which (i.e., $340
pools in London Ontario. The distance of decay million) was spent on facilities including swimming
parameter for swimming pool use in Ontario was pools, fitness centres, tennis centres, playgrounds, public
somewhat higher than in this study (i.e., b ¼ 1:84 vs open space and indoor sport, and recreational centres.
b ¼ 1:27). In Ontario, where the average maximum The current study suggests that informal facilities
summer temperature is 241C, pool users may be more (including streetscapes) deserve recognition as an
sensitive to distance than adult pool users in Perth important component of the community infrastructure
Western Australia, where seasonal variation in tempera- to support physical activity behaviour. In particular,
ture is less extreme and average summer temperatures more attention is required to the design and safety
are somewhat higher (281C). The Canadian study also aspects of streetscapes if their full potential for recrea-
sampled 10% of pool users, presumably including tional activities and non-motorised transportation is to
children as well as adults, and it is likely that children be fully realised (Francis, 1987; Health Canada, 1997;
unaccompanied by parents would be more sensitive to SSH, 1998; HEA, 1999).
distance. The level of use of public open space suggests that the
The distance of decay results suggested that users provision of safe and accessible public open space is also
appeared less sensitive to travelling to use regional an important community resource. While one could
formal facilities such as golf courses, sporting com- argue that ‘any’ public open space is suitable for walking
plexes, swimming pools or recreation centres; and more or jogging, qualitative research (Corti, Donovan, &
1808 B. Giles-Corti, R.J. Donovan / Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812
Holman, 1996) suggests that the mere provision of
proximate space is insufficient to encourage its use for
physical activity. Park usage can be predicted by its
proximity to the user, as well as its size and its design
characteristics (Boyle, 1983; Just, 1989). Moreover, the
design of public open space influences perceived and
actual safety; as well as providing environmental cues
about whether to engage in active or passive behaviour
(Rutledge, 1971; Gold, 1977; Whyte, 1980).
Determinants of achieving recommended levels of physical
activity
A main aim of this study was to explore a social
ecological model of recreational physical activity that
considered individual, social and physical environmental
determinants of behaviour. After adjustment for other
social and physical environmental factors, achieving
recommended levels of planned recreational physical
activity was more likely in those with a high level of
perceived behavioural control; those with high levels of
behavioural intention; those for whom exercise had
become a habit and those with whom they had someone
to exercise.
Social support is important for the maintenance of
physical activity (Sallis & Owen, 1999), and in this study,
those with exercise partners or who were members of
sporting clubs were more likely to achieve recommended
levels of activity. Subjective norms (i.e., perceptions of
what others think one should do) were positively
associated with forming an intention to exercise (Blue,
1995), but paradoxically, negatively associated with
achieving recommended levels of activity. Previous
reviews have found inconsistent evidence for the role
played by subjective norms in influencing behaviour (US
Department of Health and Human Services, 1996). It is
possible that the conceptualisation of subjective norms
as a form of ‘social pressure’ (Courneya & McAuley,
1995) as adopted in this study, may have contributed to
the finding. The results suggest that those who know
that others think that they should try to be regularly
active may form an intention to do so, but do not
necessarily translate their ‘good intentions’ into action.
This finding supports the notion of an intention-
behaviour gap (Norman & Conner, 1996).
Consistent with numerous other studies (Godin,
Valois, & Lepage, 1993; Wankel, Mummery, Stephens,
& Craig, 1994; Kimiecik, 1992), the importance of
perceived behaviour control was confirmed in this social
ecological study. Perceived behavioural control and the
use of behavioural skills were both determinants of
physical activity behaviour. Although not explored, it is
possible that the effect of behavioural skills was
mediated through perceived behavioural control, as it
is likely that the use of behavioural skills increases
confidence in achieving behavioural outcomes (Bandura,
1997).
It is noteworthy that the final social ecological model
did not include attitudes. Previous reviews have found
that, in general, attitudes are weakly associated with
behaviour (Sallis & Owen, 1999), despite their role in
predicting behavioural intention. However, the model
examined in this study included attitudes as well as more
objective proximate determinants of behaviour (e.g.,
recent use of behavioural skills, club membership,
number of regular exercise partners, exercise habit and
spatial access to natural or built facilities). In this
circumstance, attitudinal variables became insignificant
and were dropped from the final ecological model.
It seems self-evident that people who regularly
exercised in the past are more likely to do so in the
future. Although previous research (DASET, 1992) has
shown that even those who exercise as recommended
complain about having insufficient time to exercise or to
exercise more, many have developed an exercise habit
which they are able to maintain or to re-establish even
after a periodic relapse (Aarts, Paulussen, & Schaalma,
1997). It is tempting to ignore this group because of their
very positive attitude towards the target behaviour.
However, it has been argued that gains to public health
are likely to accrue from preventing the already active
from slipping into inactivity rather than focussing solely
on the completely sedentary (Bull, 1997). Thus, in
accordance with advice from Sheth and Frazier (Sheth &
Frazier, 1982), a communication reinforcement strategy
targeting those who already exercise regularly is required
to ensure that positive exercise habits are maintained
(Donovan & Owen, 1994).
In this study, after adjusting for individual and social
environmental factors, the physical environment ap-
peared to have only a weak direct influence on
behaviour. Sallis et al. (1990) examined the influence
of the environment on vigorous activity. They found a
weak positive association between the density of ‘pay’
facilities and vigorous activity, but no such association
for ‘free’ facilities. This was in contrast to findings by
Bauman et al. (1999) who found that after adjustment
for other demographic factors, urban and rural ‘coastal
dwellers’ were more physically active than urban and
rural inland dwellers due to the so-called ‘coastal-effect’
(Bauman et al., 1999).
Relative influence and interaction between determinants
Despite the lack of empirical evidence, contemporary
health promotion places considerable emphasis on
creating supportive environments (World Health Orga-
nization, 1986). Consistent with this trend, there have
been calls for greater consideration of the physical
environment in physical activity research and practice
(Sallis & Owen, 1999). This seems self-evident: a
 B. Giles-Corti, R.J. Donovan / Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812
supportive environment is likely to provide opportu-
nities which, in Nancy Milio’s words, make ‘health
choices, easy choices’ (Milio, 1986).
Thus, perhaps the most striking finding of this study
was that the influence of the physical environment on
physical activity levels, generally was relatively weak and
secondary to individual and social environmental
determinants. The significance of the results is not that
those with high determinant scores were most likely to
achieve recommended levels of activity, but rather that
those with high individual and social determinant scores
were substantially more likely to do so than those with a
high physical environmental determinant score.
Conclusion
Based on the findings of this study, it is tempting to
conclude that the physical environment may be of
limited importance to achieve overall recommended
levels of physical activity in the community. Such a
conclusion would be premature given the limitations of
the approach taken in this study and the early stage of
development of methods to study environmental deter-
minants of behaviour. Moreover, in accordance with
health promotion rhetoric, this study found that
accessible recreational facilities determined use of those
facilities and thus, good access is necessary to create a
supportive environment. Nevertheless, in line with the
work of others (Brownell et al., 1980; Sallis et al., 1990;
Blamey et al., 1995), it appears that access to a
supportive physical environment alone may be insuffi-
cient to increase community recreational activity levels.
Rather, it would seem that environmental modification
must be complemented by strategies that aim to
influence individual and social environmental factors
to support participation.
This study also showed that only a small proportion
of healthy Western Australian adults use many of the
recreational facilities available in the community,
particularly formal facilities. In cities where there is
relatively easy access to recreational facilities, designing
campaigns that promote the use of existing facilities
(rather than solely focussing on promoting physical
activity per se) may be helpful. These campaigns might
provide some useful information concerning whether
providing cues to use existing facilities can influence
planned recreational activity in the same way that visual
cues have been shown to increase use of stairs (Brownell
et al., 1980; Blamey et al., 1995).
Given the popularity of walking for recreation and
transport, there needs to be greater emphasis on the
streetscape as an important component of the physical
activity facility infrastructure. While more research is
required to fully understand the role played by
streetscapes in influencing physical activity, greater
1809
consideration needs to be given to streetscape design
to maximise physical activity levels (Sallis et al. (1998);
HEA, 1999).
Finally, the results of this study suggest that public
education campaigns aimed at increasing recreational
physical activity need to address five direct determinants
of physical activity: perceived behavioural control;
behavioural skills; behavioural intention; encouraging
physical activity habit; and creating social support by
encouraging regular physical activity with exercise
partners. The results suggest that public education
campaigns could focus on providing more concrete
cognitive training focussing on behavioural skills that
translate good intentions into action.
Acknowledgements
The Western Australian Health Promotion Founda-
tion (Healthway) provided funding for this project. A
number of colleagues from the Department of Public
Health provided advice in relation to the spatial access
component of this study including Ms Jilda Hyndman
(road network analysis) Dr. John Bass, Dr. Richard
Parsons, Ms. Diana Rosman, Mr. Mark Divitini and
Mr. Michael Winter. Mr. David Blackmore also
provided advice. Dr. Ray James provided editorial
advice for this manuscript.
References
Aarts, H., Paulussen, T., & Schaalma, H. (1997). Physical
exercise habit: On the conceptualization and formation of
habitual health behaviours. Health Education Research,
12(3), 363–374.
Ainsworth, B. E., Haskell, W. L., Leon, A. S., Jacobs, D. R.,
Montoye, H. J., Sallis, J. F., & Paffenbarger, R. S. (1993).
Compendium of physical activities: Classification of energy
costs of human physical activities. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 25(1), 71–80.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to action: A theory of planned
behavior. In J. Kuhl, & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control:
from cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Heidelberg: Springer.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organisa-
tional Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50,
179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and
predicting social behaviour. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall, Inc..
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed
behaviour: Attitudes, intentions and perceived behavioral
control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22,
453–474.
Andrew, G. M., Oldridge, N. B., Parker, J. O., Cunningham,
D. A., & Rechnitzer, P. A. (1981). Reasons for dropout
from exercise programs in post-coronary patients. Medical
and Science in Sports and Exercise, 13(3), 164–168.
1810 B. Giles-Corti, R.J. Donovan / Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812
Armstrong, T., Bauman, A., & Davies, J. (2000). Physical
activity patterns of Australian adults. Results of the 1999
national physical activity survey. Canberra: Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1990). Trying to consume.
Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 127–140.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New
York: WH Freeman and Company.
Bauman, A., Bellew, B., Booth, M., Hahn, A., Stoker, L., &
Thomas, M. (1996a). NSW Health Promotion Survey 1994.
Towards best practice for the promotion of physical activity
in the Areas of NSW. NSW Health Department, Centre for
Disease Prevention & Health, NSW.
Bauman, A., Wallner, F., Miners, A., & Westley-Wise, V.
(1996b). No ifs. No buts. Illawara physical activity project.
Baseline research report. Illawarra: Illawarra Area Health
Service.
Bauman, A., & Smith, B. (1999). Geographical influences upon
physical activity participation: Evidence of a ‘coastal effect’.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 23(3),
322–324.
Baxter, M., & Ewing, G. (1981). Models of recreational trip
distribution. Regional Studies, 15(5), 327–344.
Blamey, A., Mutrie, N., & Aitchison, T. (1995). Health
promotion by encouraged use of stairs. British Medical
Journal, 311, 289–290.
Blue, C. L. (1995). The predictive capacity of the Theory of
Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behaviour in
exercise research: An integrated literature review. Research
in Nursing and Health, 18, 105–121.
Booth, M., Owen, N., & Bauman, A. (1995). Active & inactive
Australians. Assessing and understanding levels of physical
activity. Canberra: Department of the Environment, Sport
and Territories.
Boyle, R. (1983). Survey of the use of small parks. Australian
Parks and Recreation, 41–43.
Broomhall, M.H. (1996). Study of the availability and environ-
mental quality of urban open space used for physical activity.
Master of public health dissertation, Department of Public
Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth.
Brownell, K. D., Stunkard, A. J., & Albaum, J. M. (1980).
Evaluation and modification of exercise patterns in the
natural environment. American Journal of Psychiatry,
137(12), 1540–1545.
Bull, F. (1997). The role of general practitioners in the promotion
of physical activity. Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Depart-
ment of Human Movement, The University of Western
Australia; Burgess, J., Harrison, C.M., & Limb, M. (1988).
People, parks and the urban green: A study of popular
meanings and values for open spaces in the city. Urban
Studies, 25, 455–473.
Bull, F., Milligan, R., Rosenberg, M., & MacGowan, H. (2001).
Physical activity levels of Western Australian Adults 1999.
Perth: Health Department of Western Australia and
Sport and Recreation Way2Go, Western Australian
Government.
Carroll, J. (1995). Local government sport & recreation
provision in Australia. A report examining local govern-
ment involvement in sport and recreation provision and
associated issues. Confederation of Australian Sport,
Canberra.
Corti, W. (1998). The relative influence of, and interaction
between, environmental and individual determinants of
recreational physical activity in sedentary workers and home
makers. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Public Health, The
University of Western Australia, Perth.
Corti, B., Donovan, R., & Holman, C. J. (1996). Factors
influencing the use of physical activity facilities: Results
from qualitative research. Health Promotion Journal of
Australia, 6(1), 16–21.
Courneya, K. S., & McAuley, E. (1995). Cognitive mediators of
the social influence-exercise adherence relationship: A test of
the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 18(5), 499–515.
DASET (Department of the Arts Sport the Environment and
Territories). (1992). Pilot survey of the fitness of Australians.
Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
DASETT (Department of the Arts Sport the Environment,
Tourism and Territories). (1988). Physical activity levels of
Australians. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing
Service.
Dishman, R. K. (1988). Exercise adherence research: Future
directions. American Journal of Health Promotion, 3(1), 52–
56.
Donovan, R. J., & Owen, N. (1994). Social marketing and
population interventions. In R. Dishman (Ed.), Advances in
Exercise Adherence. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (1994). ArcInfo
Version 7. Redlands, California, CA: Environmental Sys-
tems Research Institute, Inc.
Fotheringham, A. S. (1981). Spatial structure and distance-
decay parameters. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 71(3), 425–436.
Francis, M. (1987). Urban open spaces. In E. H. Zube, & G. T.
Moore (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior and design,
vol. 1 (pp. 71–106). New York: Plenum Press.
Godin, G. (1993). The theory of reasoned action and planned
behaviour: Overview of findings, emerging research pro-
blems and usefulness for exercise promotion. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 5, 141–157.
Godin, G., Valois, P., & Lepage, L. (1993). The pattern
of influence of perceived behavioral control upon exercis-
ing behavior: An application of Ajzens Theory of
Planned Behaviour. Journal of Behavioural Medicine,
16(1), 81–102.
Gold, S. M. (1977). Neighbourhood parks. The non-use
phenomenon. Evaluation Quarterly, 1(2), 319–328.
Goodchild, M., & Booth, P. (1980). Location and allocation of
recreation facilities: Public swimming pools in London,
Ontario. Ontario Geography, 15, 35–51.
Hahn, A., & Craythorn, E. (1994). Inactivity and the physical
environment in two regional centres. Health Promotion
Journal of Australia, 4(2), 43–45.
Hansen, W. G. (1959). How accessibility shapes land use.
Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 15, 73–76.
Health Canada, Health Promotion and Programs Branch.
(1997). Framework for action. 1998–99–2001. Health
Canada.
Health Education Authority. (1999). Making T.H.E. links.
Integrating sustainable transport, health and environmental
policies: A guide for local authorities and health authorities.
London: Health Education Authority.
 B. Giles-Corti, R.J. Donovan / Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812
Hofstetter, C. R., Hovell, M. F., & Sallis, J. F. (1990). Social
learning correlates of exercise self-efficacy: Early experiences
with physical activity. Social Science & Medicine, 31(10),
1169–1176.
Hofstetter, C. R., Hovell, M. F., Macera, C., Sallis, J. F., Spry,
V., Barrington, E., Callender, L., Hackley, M., & Rauh, M.
(1991). Illness, injury, and correlates of aerobic exercise and
walking: A community study. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 62(1), 1–9.
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic
regression. New York: John Wiley.
Just, D. (1989). Appropriate amounts and design of open
spaces. Australian Parks and Recreation, 25(2), 32–39.
Kim, S.-I., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1990). Evaluating spatial
structure effects in recreation travel. Leisure Sciences, 12,
367–381.
Kimiecik, J. (1992). Predicting vigorous physical activity of
corporate employees: Comparing the Theories of Reasoned
Action and Planned Behavior. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 14, 192–206.
King, A. C., Jeffery, R. W., Fridinger, F., Dusenbury, L.,
Provence, S., Hedlund, S. A., & Spangler, K. (1995).
Environmental and policy approaches to cardiovascular
disease prevention through physical activity: Issues and
opportunities. Health Education Quarterly, 22(4), 499–511.
Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., & Morgenstern, H. (1982).
Epidemiologic research. Principles and quantitative methods.
London: Lifetime Learning Publications.
Knox, P. (1978). The intraurban ecology of primary medical
care: Patterns of accessibility and their policy implications.
Environment and Planning, 10, 415–435.
Lemeshow, S., Teres, D., Avrunin, J., & Pastides, H. (1988).
Predicting the outcome of intensive care unit patients.
Journal of American Statistical Association, 83, 348–356.
Linenger, J. M., Chesson, C. V., & Nice, D. S. (1991). Physical
fitness gains following simple environmental change. Amer-
ican Journal of Preventive Medicine, 7(5), 298–310.
Macintyre, S., Maciver, S., & Sooman, A. (1993). Area, class
and health: Should we be focusing on places or people?
Journal of Social Policy, 22(2), 213–234.
Mapping Information Systems Corporation. (1992). MapInfo
(Version 2.1.1 for Windows). Troy, New York: Mapping
Information Systems Corporation.
McKenzie, T. L., Sallis, J. F., Nader, P. R., Broyles, S. L., &
Nelson, J. A. (1992). Anglo– and Mexican–American
preschoolers at home and at recess: Activity patterns and
environmental influences. Developmental and Behavioral
Pediatrics, 13(3), 173–180.
McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988).
An ecological perspective on health promotion programs.
Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 351–377.
Miettinen, O. S. (1976). Stratification by a multivariate
confounder score. American Journal of Epidemiology,
104(6), 609–620.
Miettinen, O. (1985). Theoretical epidemiology: Principles of
occurrence research in medicine. New York: Wiley.
Milio, N. (1986). Promoting health through public policy.
Ottawa: Canadian Public Health Association.
Minkler, M. (1989). Health education, health promotion and
the open society: An historical perspective. Health Educa-
tion Quarterly, 16, 17–30.
1811
Norman, P., & Conner, M. (1996). The role of social cognition
models in predicting health behaviours: Future directions.
In M. Conner, & P. Norman (Eds.), Predicting health
behaviour. Research and practice with social cognition
models. Buckingham: Open University Press.
RFPS (Risk Factor Prevalence Study) Management Commit-
tee. (1990). Risk factor prevalence study survey no 3 1989.
Canberra: National Heart Foundation of Australia and
Australian Institute of Health.
Rothman, K. J. (1986). Modern epidemiology. Little Brown:
Boston.
Rutledge, A. J. (1971). Anatomy of a park. The essentials of
recreation area planning and design. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company.
Sallis, J. F., Bauman, A., & Pratt, M. (1998). Environmental
and policy interventions to promote physical activity.
Preventive Medicine, 15(4), 379–397.
Sallis, J. F., Hovell, M. F., Hofstetter, C. R., Elder, J. P.,
Hackley, M., Caspersen, C. J., & Powell, K. E. (1990).
Distance between home and exercise facilities related to
frequency of exercise among San Diego residents. Public
Health Reports, 105(2), 179–185.
Sallis, J. F., & Owen, N. (1996). Ecological models. In K.
Glanz, F. M. Lewis, & B. K. Rimer (Eds.), Health behavior
and health education: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.)
(pp. 403–424). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sallis, J. F., & Owen, N. (1999). Physical activity and behavioral
medicine. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Secretary of State for Health. (1998). Our healthier nation.
A contract for health. London: Her Majestys Stationery
Office.
Shaper, A., Pocock, S., Phillips, A., & Walker, M. (1986).
Identifying men at high risk of heart attacks: Strategy for
use in general practice. British Medical Journal, 293(23),
474–479.
Sheth, J. N., & Frazier, G. L. (1982). A model of strategy mix
choice for planned social change. Journal of Marketing, 46,
15–26.
Siegel, P. Z., Brackbill, R. M., & Heath, G. W. (1995). The
epidemiology of walking for exercise: Implications for
promoting activity among sedentary groups. American
Journal of Public Health, 85(5), 706–710.
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The
theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research
with recommendations for modifications and future re-
search. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325–343.
Stephens, T., Jacobs, D., & White, C. (1985). A descriptive
epidemiology of leisure-time physical activity. Public Health
Reports, 100(2), 147–158.
Stevenson, H. M., & Burke, M. (1992). Bureaucratic logic in
new social movement clothing: The limits of health
promotion research. Canadian Journal of Public Health
Supplement, 1, s47–s53.
Stokols, D. (1992). Establishing and maintaining healthy
environments. American Psychologist, 47(1), 6–22.
Stokols, D. (1996). Translating social ecological theory into
guidelines for community health promotion. American
Journal of Health Promotion, 10(4), 282–298.
Teraslinna, P., Partanen, T., Koskela, A., & Oja, P.
(1969). Characteristics affecting willing of executives to
participate in an activity program aimed at coronary heart
1812 B. Giles-Corti, R.J. Donovan / Social Science & Medicine 54 (2002) 1793–1812
disease prevention. Journal of Sports Medicine, 9(4),
224–229.
Tesh, S. N. (1988). Hidden arguments: Political ideology and
disease prevention policy. New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press.
US Department of Health, Human Services. (1996). Physical
activity and health. A report of the Surgeon General. US
Department of Health and Human Services, Centres for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Atlan-
ta, Georgia.
Wankel, L. M., Mummery, W. K., Stephens, T., & Craig, C. L.
(1994). Prediction of physical activity intention from social
psychological variables: Results from the Campbells survey
of well-being. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16,
56–69.
Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces.
Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.
Wolf, A. M., Hunter, D. J., Colditz, G. A., Manson, J. E.,
Stampfer, M. J., Corsano, K. A., Rosner, B., Kriska, A., &
Willett, W. C. (1994). Reproducibility and validity of a self-
administered physical activity questionnaire. International
Journal of Epidemiology, 23(5), 991–999.
World Health Organization. (1986). The Ottawa Charter for
health promotion. Health Promotion International, 1, 3–5.