Trail Conditions and Community Use: Utilizing Geospatial Video to Guide the Adoption of a Spatial-Temporal Trail Audit Tool (STAT)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Importance of Physical Activity
1.2. Inequities for PA in Rural Environments and the Socio-Ecological Model
1.3. Importance of Trails for PA
1.4. Need for Increased Accuracy and Efficiency in Trail Quality and Use Measures and Methods
1.5. Geospatial Video
1.6. Study Purpose
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Phase 1
2.1.1. Step 1: Geospatial Video Collection
2.1.2. Step 2: STAT Creation
2.1.3. Step 3: STAT Revision
2.2. Phase 2
2.2.1. Step 4: Test STAT Focus Group
2.2.2. Step 4: Test STAT Survey
2.2.3. Step 5: Final STAT Revisions
3. Results
3.1. Step 2 Content Adopted from Validated Instruments
3.2. Step 3 STAT Test Results
3.3. Step 4 Focus Group Responses
3.4. Step 4 Survey Responses
4. Discussion
4.1. STAT Uses
4.2. Rural Implications
4.3. Future Research Directions
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Access | No Not at All |
Yes Very Much (Circle One) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | There is adequate parking at the respective trailhead. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2 | The trail’s design enables easy access to connecting routes and paths. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
3 | The trail is easily accessible by both cyclists and pedestrians. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
4 | The trail is free of many four-way intersections. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
5 | There is adequate signage throughout the length of the trail. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
6 | The trail is not interrupted by long street segments. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Trail Conditions | |||||||
7 | The trail is groomed, even, and easy to navigate. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
8 | The trail is generally free from litter and debris. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
9 | The distance between the trail’s intersections is short (100 yards or less). | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Amenities | |||||||
10 | There are bridges where applicable. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
11 | Benches and/or picnic tables can be found along the trail. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
12 | There are adequate restroom facilities near the trailhead along the trail. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
13 | Trees provide ample shade along the trail. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Safety | |||||||
14 | There is adequate separation between the street and the trail. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
15 | The speed of traffic on nearby streets is slow (30 mph or less). | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
16 | The trail is free of blind spots. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
17 | The trail is free of loitering/suspicious activity. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
18 | The trails is free of graffiti. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
19 | The trail is well lit at dusk and dawn. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
20 | Walkers and bikers can easily be seen by other trail users. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Lower intensity exercise (Walking) | |||||||
1 | The trail is not overly crowded. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2 | The area around the trail has pedestrian destinations. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
3 | Trail promotes walking with others (wide enough, social interaction). | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
4 | There is natural scenery throughout the trail. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
5 | The trail is in close proximity to my home. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Higher intensity exercise (Running, Cycling) | |||||||
1 | The trail is free from congestion and traffic to allow safe pass through. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2 | The trail has ideal surface for (select one of the below for scoring): | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
-Running: natural surface (uneven and even surfaces) | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
-Road bicycling: asphalt (hard, even surfaces) | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
-Mountain bicycling: dirt (uneven surfaces) | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
-Hybrid bicycling: sandstone (even surfaces) | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
3 | The trail provides adequate mileage for higher intensity exercise. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
4 | The trail provides adequate facilities (bike rack, water fountain, etc.). | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
5 | The trail is in route to a destination (home, work, recreation, etc.). | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
References
- Towne, S.D.; Li, Y.; Lee, S.; Smith, M.L.; Han, G.; Quinn, C.; Du, Y.; Benden, M.; Ory, M.G. Physical Activity and Associated Medical Cost Savings Among At-Risk Older Adults Participating a Community-Based Health & Wellness Program. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0198239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kokkinos, P. Physical Activity, Health Benefits, and Mortality Risk. Int. Sch. Res. Not. 2012, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- World Health Orangization Physical Activity. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-activity (accessed on 6 May 2021).
- Arem, H.; Moore, S.C.; Patel, A.; Hartge, P.; de Gonzalez, A.B.; Visvanathan, K.; Campbell, P.T.; Freedman, M.; Weiderpass, E.; Adami, H.O.; et al. Leisure Time Physical Activity and Mortality: A Detailed Pooled Analysis of the Dose-Response Relationship. JAMA Intern. Med. 2015, 175, 959–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2018 Trend Tables. 2019. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus18.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2021).
- Clarke, T.C.; Norris, T.; Schiller, J.S. Early Release of Selected Estimates Based on Data from the 2016 National Health Interview Survey; Division of Health Interview Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics. 2017. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/earlyrelease201705.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2021).
- Ball, K.; Carver, A.; Downing, K.; Jackson, M.; O’Rourke, K. Addressing the Social Determinants of Inequities in Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviours. Health Promot. Int. 2015, 30, ii8–ii19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Beck, A.M.; Eyler, A.A.; Hipp, J.A.; King, A.C.; Tabak, R.G.; Yan, Y.; Reis, R.S.; Duncan, D.D.; Gilbert, A.S.; Serrano, N.H.; et al. A Multilevel Approach for Promoting Physical Activity in Rural Communities: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Whitfield, G.P. Trends in Meeting Physical Activity Guidelines Among Urban and Rural Dwelling Adults—United States, 2008–2017. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2019, 68, 513–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Census, B. of the Urban Areas for the 2020 Census—Proposed Criteria. Fed. Regist. 2021, 86, 10237–10243. [Google Scholar]
- Meyer, M.R.U.; Moore, J.B.; Abildso, C.; Edwards, M.B.; Gamble, A.; Baskin, M.L. Rural Active Living: A Call to Action. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 2016, 22, E11–E20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Osuji, T.; Lovegreen, S.; Elliott, M.; Brownson, R.C. Barriers to Physical Activity Among Women in the Rural Midwest. Women Health 2006, 44, 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walsh, S.M.; Meyer, M.R.U.; Gamble, A.; Patterson, M.S.; Moore, J.B. A Systematic Review of Rural, Theory-Based Physical Activity Interventions. Am. J. Health Behav. 2017, 41, 248–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chrisman, M.; Nothwehr, F.; Yang, G.; Oleson, J. Environmental Influences on Physical Activity in Rural Midwestern Adults: A Qualitative Approach. Health Promot. Pract. 2015, 16, 142–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Park, T.; Eyler, A.A.; Tabak, R.G.; Valko, C.; Brownson, R.C. Opportunities for Promoting Physical Activity in Rural Communities by Understanding the Interests and Values of Community Members. J. Environ. Public Health 2017, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aranow, C. Vitamin D and the Immune System. J. Investig. Med. 2011, 59, 881–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Demir, M.; Demir, F.; Aygun, H. Vitamin D deficiency is associated with COVID-19 positivity and severity of the disease. J. Med. Virol. 2021, 93, 2992–2999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reynolds, K.D.; Wolch, J.; Byrne, J.; Chou, C.-P.; Feng, G.; Weaver, S.; Jerrett, M. Trail Characteristics as Correlates of Urban Trail Use. Am. J. Health Promot. 2007, 21, 335–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Petrella, R.J.; Kennedy, E.; Overend, T.J. Geographic Determinants of Healthy Lifestyle Change in a Community-Based Exercise Prescription Delivered in Family Practice. Environ. Health Insights 2008, 1, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abildso, C.G.; Haas, V.; Daily, S.M.; Bias, T.K. Field Test of a Passive Infrared Camera for Measuring Trail-Based Physical Activity. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mills, J.W.; Curtis, A.; Kennedy, B.; Kennedy, S.W.; Edwards, J.D. Geospatial Video for Field Data Collection. Appl. Geogr. 2010, 30, 533–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curtis, A.; Curtis, J.W.; Shook, E.; Smith, S.; Jefferis, E.; Porter, L.; Schuch, L.; Felix, C.; Kerndt, P.R. Spatial Video Geonarratives and Health: Case Studies in Post-Disaster Recovery, Crime, Mosquito Control and Tuberculosis in the Homeless. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2015, 14, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Creswell, J.W.; Plano Clark, V.L. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Greene, J.C.; Caracelli, V.J.; Graham, W.F. Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 1989, 11, 255–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rink, M. Stadium Park Walking Track to be Replaced. 2014. Available online: https://www.cantonrep.com/article/20140403/NEWS/140409616 (accessed on 16 June 2021).
- United States Census Bureau Data. Available online: https://www.census.gov/data (accessed on 16 June 2021).
- Ermagun, A.; Lindsey, G.; Loh, T.H. Urban Trails and Demand Response to Weather Variations. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 63, 404–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curtis, A.; Duval-Diop, D.; Novak, J. Identifying Spatial Patterns of Recovery and Abandonment in the Post-Katrina Holy Cross Neighborhood of New Orleans. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2010, 37, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerin, E.; Saelens, B.E.; Sallis, J.F.; Frank, L.D. Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale: Validity and Development of a Short Form. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2006, 38, 1682–1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sallis, J.F.; Floyd, M.F.; Rodríguez, D.A.; Saelens, B.E. Role of Built Environments in Physical Activity, Obesity, and Cardiovascular Disease. Circulation 2012, 125, 729–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lerner, M.R.; Kocher, J.G.; Mathieu, M.C.; EBSCOhost. Walk Score Management LLC Gets Patent for Systems, Techniques, and Methods for Providing Location Assessments Global IP News: Information Technology Patent News, Gale MI USA, 2014. Available online: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=edsinc&AN=edsinc.A390574362&site=eds-live (accessed on 16 June 2021).
- Carr, L.J.; Dunsiger, S.I.; Marcus, B.H. Validation of Walk Score for estimating access to walkable amenities. Br. J. Sports Med. 2011, 45, 1144–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duncan, D.T.; Aldstadt, J.; Whalen, J.; Melly, S.J.; Gortmaker, S.L. Validation of Walk Score® for Estimating Neighborhood Walkability: An Analysis of Four US Metropolitan Areas. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 4160–4179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Troped, P.J.; Cromley, E.K.; Fragala, M.S.; Melly, S.J.; Hasbrouck, H.H.; Gortmaker, S.L.; Brownson, R.C. Development and Reliability and Validity Testing of an Audit Tool for Trail/Path Characteristics: The Path Environment Audit Tool (PEAT). J. Phys. Act. Health 2006, 3, S158–S175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Liamputtong, P. Focus Group Methodology: Principles and Practice; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Saldana, J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-1-4739-0248. [Google Scholar]
- The IPAQ Group IPAQ Scoring Protocol. Available online: https://sites.google.com/site/theipaq/scoring-protocol (accessed on 30 April 2019).
- Craig, C.L.; Marshall, A.L.; Sjorstrom, M.; Bauman, A.E.; Booth, M.L.; Ainsworth, B.E.; Pratt, M.; Ekelund, U.L.F.; Yngve, A.; Sallis, J.F. International Physical Activity Questionnaire: 12-Country Reliability and Validity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2003, 35, 1381–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Vaughan, K.B.; Kaczynski, A.T.; Stanis, S.A.W.; Besenyi, G.M.; Bergstrom, R.; Heinrich, K.M. Exploring the Distribution of Park Availability, Features, and Quality Across Kansas City, Missouri by Income and Race/Ethnicity: An Environmental Justice Investigation. Ann. Behav. Med. 2013, 45, S28–S38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bhuiyan, N.; Singh, P.; Harden, S.M.; Mama, S.K. Rural Physical Activity Interventions in the United States: A Systematic Review and RE-AIM Evaluation. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2019, 16, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cai, Y.; Richards, E.A. Systematic Review of Physical Activity Outcomes of Rural Lifestyle Interventions. West. J. Nurs. Res. 2016, 38, 909–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cleland, V.; Squibb, K.; Stephens, L.; Dalby, J.; Timperio, A.; Winzenberg, T.; Ball, K.; Dollman, J. Effectiveness of Interventions to Romote Physical Activity and/or Decrease Sedentary Behaviour Among Rural Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Obes. Rev. 2017, 18, 727–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moore, M.; Warburton, J.; O’Halloran, P.D.; Shields, N.; Kingsley, M. Effective Community-Based Physical Activity Interventions for Older Adults Living in Rural and Regional Areas: A Systematic Review. J. Aging Phyiscal Act. 2016, 24, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Measure (Max Score) | Trail A: Canton | Trail B: Kent |
---|---|---|
Access (30) | 26 | 24 |
Conditions (15) | 15 | 14 |
Amenities (20) | 18 | 20 |
Safety (35) | 30 | 32 |
Composite Score (100) | 89 | 90 |
Lower intensity exercise (25) | 21 | 23 |
Higher intensity exercise (25) | 19 | 12 |
Measure | n | Mean/Percentage * |
---|---|---|
Age | 30 | 46 |
Race | ||
White | 28 | 93.3% |
Choose not to answer | 2 | 6.7% |
Sex | ||
Male | 16 | 53.3% |
Female | 14 | 46.7% |
Income | 30 | $70,000 |
Minutes per trail session | 30 | 69.6 |
Days per week trail session | 30 | 4.2 |
Trail determines activity | 30 | 100% |
Theme | Sample Quote | Frequency |
---|---|---|
Safety | “It is important to have no poison ivy, oak on the trails”. | 30 |
Amenities | “Water at trailhead. Information board at trailhead with maps and information about connecting trails”. | 26 |
Conditions | “Split litter and debris into two different items. No one wants litter, but I don’t care about downed branches, leaves etc”. | 23 |
Access | “Proximity of a trailhead that I can actually ride my bike to vs. driving”. | 21 |
Selection decision | “overall length of trails-high priority” | 19 |
Motivation | “Whether the trail can be a challenge” | 12 |
Measure | n | Mean/Percentage * |
---|---|---|
Age | 38 | 46 |
Race | ||
White | 35 | 92.1% |
Choose not to answer | 2 | 5.3% |
Asian/Pacific Islander | 1 | 2.6% |
Sex | ||
Male | 21 | 55.3% |
Female | 17 | 44.7% |
Income | 35 | $74,000 |
Minutes per trail session | 38 | 100.8 |
Days per week trail session | 35 | 2.3 |
Trail determines activity | 37 | 91.9% |
Construct | Measure | Mean/Percentage * |
---|---|---|
Access | Parking | 3.93 |
Connecting | 3.79 | |
Cyclists/Pedestrians | 2.54 | |
4-way intersections | 2.62 | |
Signage | 3.80 | |
Segments | 4.23 | |
Conditions | Groomed | 2.38 |
Litter Free | 3.77 | |
Short Intersections | 2.02 | |
Amenities | Bridges | 2.80 |
Picnic Tables | 1.50 | |
Restrooms | 3.02 | |
Shade | 3.25 | |
Safety | Street Separation | 3.68 |
Traffic Speed | 1.96 | |
Blind Spots | 2.09 | |
Loitering | 4.14 | |
Graffiti | 3.29 | |
Well lit | 1.91 | |
Can see others | 2.56 |
Measure | Construct | Mean/Percentage * |
---|---|---|
Geospatial Video | Planning | 2.14 |
Motivating | 2.26 | |
STAT Constructs | Access | 2.63 |
Conditions | 2.91 | |
Amenities | 2.83 | |
Safety | 2.86 | |
All constructs used to select trail | 2.91 | |
Geospatial video used to select trail | 2.71 | |
STAT used to select trail | 2.94 |
Construct | Focus Group | Survey |
---|---|---|
Access | 4th | 1st |
Conditions | 3rd | 3rd |
Amenities | 2nd | 4th |
Safety | 1st | 2nd |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Smock, C.; Carlson, N.; Kirkland, C. Trail Conditions and Community Use: Utilizing Geospatial Video to Guide the Adoption of a Spatial-Temporal Trail Audit Tool (STAT). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8741. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168741
Smock C, Carlson N, Kirkland C. Trail Conditions and Community Use: Utilizing Geospatial Video to Guide the Adoption of a Spatial-Temporal Trail Audit Tool (STAT). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(16):8741. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168741
Chicago/Turabian StyleSmock, Carissa, Naomi Carlson, and Chelsey Kirkland. 2021. "Trail Conditions and Community Use: Utilizing Geospatial Video to Guide the Adoption of a Spatial-Temporal Trail Audit Tool (STAT)" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 16: 8741. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168741