Next Article in Journal
Bisphenol A Exposure and Sperm ACHE Hydroxymethylation in Men
Next Article in Special Issue
Obesogenic Environment Case Study from a Food and Nutrition Security Perspective: Hermosillo City
Previous Article in Journal
Carbon Information Disclosure, Marketization, and Cost of Equity Financing
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Impact of a City-Level Minimum Wage Policy on Supermarket Food Prices by Food Quality Metrics: A Two-Year Follow Up Study
Open AccessArticle

Improving Physical Activity among Residents of Affordable Housing: Is Active Design Enough?

1
Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA
2
Department of Primary Care, James J Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, NY 10468, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(1), 151; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16010151
Received: 23 October 2018 / Revised: 22 December 2018 / Accepted: 3 January 2019 / Published: 8 January 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Built Environments, Food Environments, and Public Health)
Physical inactivity increases risk of chronic disease. Few studies examine how built environment interventions increase physical activity (PA). Active design (AD) utilizes strategies in affordable housing to improve resident health. We assessed how AD housing affects PA among low-income families in Brooklyn, New York. Participants were recruited at lease signings in 2016 from a new AD apartment complex and two recently renovated comparison buildings without AD features. Eligibility included age ≥18 years with no contraindications to exercise. Anthropometric data were collected. PA was self-reported using the Recent and Global Physical Activity Questionnaires. Smartphone users shared their tracked step. Data collection was repeated one year after move-in. All data were analyzed using SPSS. Eighty-eight eligible participants completed the initial questionnaire (36 AD and 52 from 2 comparison buildings) at baseline (T0). There were no differences between AD and comparison cohorts in: stair use, PA, sitting time or, mean waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) at T0. However, the AD cohort had a lower baseline BMI (27.6 vs. 31.0, p = 0.019). At one-year follow-up (T1), 75 participants completed our survey including a 64% retention rate among those who previously completed the T0 questionnaire. Among T0 questionnaire respondents, mean daily steps increased at T1 among AD participants who moved from an elevator building (∆6782, p = 0.051) and in the comparison group (∆2960, p = 0.023). Aggregate moderate work-related activity was higher at T1 in the AD building (746 vs. 401, p = 0.031). AD building women reported more work-related PA overall but AD men engaged in more moderate recreational PA. Living in an AD building can enhance low-income residents’ PA. More research with objective measures is needed to identify strategies to sustain higher PA levels and overall health. View Full-Text
Keywords: active design; physical activity; affordable housing; health behaviors; built environment active design; physical activity; affordable housing; health behaviors; built environment
MDPI and ACS Style

Tannis, C.; Senerat, A.; Garg, M.; Peters, D.; Rajupet, S.; Garland, E. Improving Physical Activity among Residents of Affordable Housing: Is Active Design Enough? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 151.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop