1. Physical Activity and the Environment EPHE 348

2. So what’s the big deal?  The rise of social cognition theories  Back to the behaviorists?  Big picture ecology

3. Blaming the Individual?

4. Streaming of Interventions (McKinlay & Marceau, 2000) Upstream: National Level Policies (laws) Midstream: Community, Worksite, Physician Policies Downstream: Self-regulation Intervention, Persuasion of Lifestyle Choice

5. Environment  Climate (small but consistent change in PA)  Suburbia – noticeable issue  Point of decision prompts have good evidence (still small #s)

6. What is important to the Built Environment….?  List in groups……

7. Features of the Neighborhood?  Movement/flow (connectivity)  Aesthetics  Safety  Quality  Access to retail  Access to recreation

8. Victoria: (Rhodes et al. 2006, 2007)

9. Canada: (CFLRI, 2006)  More than 90% of schools have access to gymnasiums, playing fields, or permit access to their outdoor facilities outside of school hours.  80% of municipalities indicate that there are multi-use trails and paths available for physical activity that prohibit motorized traffic.

10. Overall Results:  Duncan & Spence (2005)  Meta-analysis of physical activity & built environment showed very small-trivial ES  Some reliable but small results around aesthetics and access  Personal and Social factors contribute most to PA  Choice has been shown as an important variable  Not linked to exercise

11. Future Directions  1) Natural experiments (community environment change)  2) Integration with inter- and intra- personal constructs….

12. Proximity to Retail (Rhodes, Brown & McIntyre, 2006; Rhodes et al., 2007)

13. Proximity to Recreation (Rhodes et al., 2006; Rhodes et al., 2007)

14. Home Environment  Evidence for a relationship with PA and home equipment  Jakicic et al. (1999) showed experimental evidence for this effect

15. Canine Environment…..?  What about dog ownership?

16. Dog Ownership and Physical Activity (Brown & Rhodes, 2006)  Examined the relationship between walking, and physical activity between people who owned dogs, and those who did not own dogs in the Capital Region District of Greater Victoria  A random sample of men (n = 177) and women (n = 174) aged 20-80 years participated  Dog owners defined as primary  caregiver of the dog

18. Walking beyond Intention IntentionWalking Responsibility Dog Ownership

19. UVIC Study: Dog Walking and Park Use in Victoria Wharf Higgins et al. submitted  Limit of Self-report  Study observed six parks in the CRD over good and bad weather conditions  Results showed huge difference from weather in non- dog owners but no difference for owners  Dog owners were on the move whereas non-owners where very mixed in movement profiles…

20. What Can We Do with These Results?  Can’t tell people to go out and buy a dog!  Can we promote dog walking among current owners?  Approximately 20% of the Canadian population (Stats Can, 2004)  30-50% of dog owners do not walk their dogs

21. UVIC study  Collaborators (Holly Tuokko, Michelle Porter, Vivienne Temple, Joan Wharf Higgins)  Can we promote walking through dog responsibility?  Use of GPS tracking and pedometers

22. Dog Ownership: Physical Activity and Health Recruitment 150 Dog owners who do not regularly walk their dog will be randomly assigned to one of 3 groups: Control GroupExperimental Group A: Dog Dental Health Experimental Group B: Dog Physical Activity - Baseline questionnaire - Wear pedometer for 1 week - Baseline questionnaire - Wear pedometer for 1 week - Dog dental health brochure - Baseline questionnaire - Wear pedometer for 1 week - Dog physical activity brochure 6 Weeks later: All groups will receive a brief questionnaire to track their physical activity At three months all groups will receive a follow up questionnaire package including a questionnaire and pedometer to be worn for one week.