Skip Navigation


Journal of Public Health Advance Access originally published online on January 25, 2006
Journal of Public Health 2006 28(1):49-55; doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdi075
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
28/1/49    most recent
fdi075v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Trayers, T.
Right arrow Articles by Lawlor, D. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Trayers, T.
Right arrow Articles by Lawlor, D. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006, Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health. All rights reserved.

Improving health through neighbourhood environmental change: are we speaking the same language? A qualitative study of views of different stakeholders



Tanya Trayers
Tanya Trayers, Research Assistant, Department of Exercise and Health Sciences, University of Bristol, UK


Rosemary Deem
Rosemary Deem, Professor of Education, Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, UK


Kenneth R. Fox
Kenneth R. Fox, Professor of Exercise and Health Sciences, Department of Exercise and Health Sciences, University of Bristol, UK


Chris J. Riddoch
Chris J. Riddoch, Professor, Head of London Sport Institute, London Institute for Sport and Exercise, Middlesex University, UK


Andy R. Ness
Andy R. Ness, Consultant Senior Lecturer and Deputy Director of ALSPAC, Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, Department of Community-Based Medicine, University of Bristol, UK


Debbie A. Lawlor
Debbie A. Lawlor, Consultant Senior Lecturer, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, BS8 2PR, UK

Address correspondence to Tanya Trayers. Email: t.trayers{at}bristol.ac.uk

Objective To explore the perspectives of four groups of stakeholders to proposed improvements to the built environment—a neighbourhood renewal consisting of a home zone development and an extension of the National Cycle Network (NCN).

Design Qualitative focus group study.

Setting A deprived neighbourhood.

Sample Four focus groups were conducted with 10 residents from the neighbourhood undergoing change, nine pupils from a local primary school, 10 students and tutors from a local further education college and three local authority planners overseeing the developments.

Results We identified four main themes relating to the impact of environmental change. These were safety, space, antisocial behaviour and physical activity and health, the latter being the least important to all groups. A mismatch regarding environmental change emerged in perspectives between different stakeholders. The residents were most concerned about home and car (parking) safety and in particular felt that the new cycle/walk way would reduce their safety, whereas the planners felt that the environmental change would provide a safer and healthier environment for the residents.

Conclusion The assumption that planned provision of supportive environments will improve levels of physical activity, health and lifestyle may not be true if the developments do not take account of community concerns regarding personal safety.

Keywords: environmental change, focus groups, physical activity


   Introduction
TOP
 Introduction
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations of the study
 Study ethics
 Author contributions
 Funding
 Competing interest
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Physical activity is an important health behaviour. The scientific evidence is compelling that regular physical activity, even at moderate levels, reduces the risk of premature mortality, and of developing various chronic diseases, improves psychological well-being and helps prevent weight gain and obesity.1,2 The recent focus on the influence of neighbourhood environments on physical activity in adults has in part been driven by evidence of the limited effectiveness of individual-level interventions.3 Certain aspects of the built environment have been consistently associated with physical activity in adults, especially walking. They include aesthetics, safety, convenience and access to places to be active.4–8

The present UK National Strategy for neighbourhood renewal includes improving health status as one of its key outcome measures.9 Area-based regeneration schemes have the potential to improve health in many ways,9,10 including creating a more supportive environment for activity.11,12 However, the effects of these schemes on health are not clear.9 Further, it has been suggested that any effect on health outcomes is most likely to be realized if there is genuine community participation in the renewal process.9,13

Qualitative assessments of neighbourhood renewal programmes, including assessments of Home Zones,14 suggest that residents generally feel positive about the results.15,16 However, we are unaware of any study that has examined the attitudes of groups of different stakeholders—including planners, residents and others who use the neighbourhood—to the likely effects of a planned renewal programme on health outcomes. Obtaining this information is important to understand the expectations of planners, neighbourhood residents and users.

The aim of our study was to examine the attitudes of four groups of stakeholders—adult community residents, school children, adult students and tutors from a college in the area and local authority planners—on the perceived benefits (with a particular focus on health benefits and physical activity) of a planned neighbourhood renewal.


   Methods
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 Limitations of the study
 Study ethics
 Author contributions
 Funding
 Competing interest
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
The neighbourhood and planned environmental change
The neighbourhood undergoing regeneration is in the southwest of England and located in one of the 10 per cent most deprived wards in the United Kingdom. The regeneration of the neighbourhood includes creation of a home zone and an extension of the National Cycle Network (NCN) into the neighbourhood. A home zone is a street system designed primarily to meet the needs of pedestrians and cyclists that opens up the outside space for social use. Features include traffic calming, shared surfaces, (no separate raised pavements), a variety of surface treatments that encourage pedestrian use of the street environment, trees and planters, benches and play areas (Fig. 1).14 The NCN joins together miles of cycle and walking ways on traffic free and calmed routes.11 Specifically, the extension of the NCN into this neighbourhood will convert a disused railway path, passing directly through the residential area, providing links to an existing traffic-free path and access to city centre shops, the local school and the central railway station (Fig. 2A–C).


Figure 1
View larger version (147K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1 ‘Computerised image of the future Home Zone, by Sustrans Bristol UK’. A Home Zone is where residential streets are redesigned for equity between pedestrians, cyclists, social use and vehicles, to be completed in autumn 2005.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (66K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2 Development of the cycle/walk way from a disused over grown railway bed to a traffic free path, providing a link from the neighbourhood to the city centre and an existing traffic free path. (A) Cycle/walk way (December 2003), (B) cycle/walk way (vegetation cleared; May 2004) and (C) cycle/walk way (completed; June 2005). Photographs by author (T.T.).

 

Participants and focus group interviews
Four focus groups were conducted in 2004 (before the environmental change). The deliberate order in which the focus groups were conducted, because of a wish to funnel information from the stakeholders’ groups to the planner’s group, was as follows; (i) local residents (1 group, n = 10), (ii) primary school pupils (aged 9–10 years) from a local school (1 group, n = 9), (iii) college students and tutors (1 group, n = 10) from a local further education (post-school) college and (iv) local authority planners overseeing the developments (1 group, n = 3). Local residents were recruited by letter, delivered to all 117 houses in the community, and children and students were recruited through the local school and college. Planners were recruited from an open invitation to the planners specifically working on the developments.

The focus group interviews
Two of the authors acted as facilitators at each of the focus groups (T.T. and R.D.). They used a brief topic guide, informed by a literature review. Participants were also encouraged to talk freely. The main focus of the topic guide was on potential health benefits of the environmental change, with a particular emphasis on the potential for the change to increase levels of physical activity. We asked similar questions of each group, with appropriate adaptations relevant to their situation, e.g. pupils were asked where they played and how they travelled to school, and residents and students/tutors were asked about their perceptions of the current neighbourhood and opportunities for physical activity.

Identification of themes
An iterative version of grounded theory was used for analysis, where constant comparison of incidents/themes17 that emerged from the groups of residents, pupils and college students were made. These themes were subsequently re-introduced with the planners’ focus group to explore their perspectives. We deliberately adopted this strategy to employ a ‘bottom up approach’ of initial engagement with stakeholders and then obtain feedback from planners.14 At each session the discussion was audio-taped (with participants’ permission) and all sessions transcribed. Field notes were collected by R.D. to supplement the transcripts. The approximate length for each focus group was 90 minutes.

Analysis of data
T.T. and R.D. analysed the transcripts and field notes for major issues and emerging themes using an established framework18 for analysing qualitative data. This framework involved five key stages; familarization, identifying themes, indexing, charting and mapping and interpretation. Having agreed independently on appropriate themes and categories using the framework, T.T. and R.D. initially coded printouts of the data manually using fluorescent pens and then transferred this to a Microsoft word file and used the cut and paste function in Word to group the quotes in the transcripts by each theme.19 To establish inter-rater reliability, the application of the framework approach to data analysis was carried out by further reviewers (K.R.F., residents’ transcript, A.R.N., college and primary school pupils’ transcript and C.J.R. planners’ transcript) and these were compared to the initial application. Each theme was thoroughly examined for different viewpoints, how frequently or strongly a view was expressed and any alternative views. A high level of agreement was found between all raters across all themes utilized, and hence it was not felt necessary to apply a formal measure of this. A process of abduction20 involving both inductive and deductive methods (use of a questioning schedule to examine the stakeholders’ perceptions), progressing to deductive reasoning was employed to draw conclusions21 from a combination of introduced and emerged themes. After sorting, categorizing and interpreting the responses, we constructed a matrix22 of transcript excerpts to support the themes. Some of the excerpts were chosen to illustrate the themes (Tables 1–GoGo4).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1 Perceptions relating to safety

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2 Perception relating to space

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3 Perceptions relating to antisocial behaviour

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4 Perception relating to physical activity

 


   Results
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 Limitations of the study
 Study ethics
 Author contributions
 Funding
 Competing interest
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
The main themes
Four main themes emerged (Table 5). Their order reflects the priority placed by groups on the particular theme. Although these themes emerged as separate identifiable issues, there was clear overlap between them. For example, antisocial behaviour and issues of space were related to each other and each of them impacted upon attitudes towards being physically active. There were also some cross-cutting issues. For example, the language used by both the residents and planners gave a strong sense of ‘us’ and ‘them’. The adult residents had a strong feeling of pride and ownership of their neighbourhood (us) and expressed concerns about ‘invasion’ of their space by ‘them’. ‘Them’ included people from outside the area who worked in the city and who used their streets for parking during the day, criminals coming into the area from outside and individuals from outside the area who were developing the current regeneration plans. The planners would refer to residents in the area as ‘them’ with the implication that they could all be summarized as one.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 5 Emergent themes relating to environmental change in a deprived ward in southwest United Kingdom

 

Safety
All four groups discussed various aspects of safety (Table 1). An important issue for the adult residents was concern about outsiders entering the area along the new cycle/walk way and possibly vandalizing or stealing from cars and generally making the area less safe. For some residents the new cycle/walk way changed the area directly at the back of their house from one that was inaccessible, because of barbed wire covered with an over growth of greenery, to one that was very accessible to anyone from outside the area, and this had created a direct link from the city centre into the back of their houses (Fig. 2A–C). For all residents the new cycle/walk way provided a new route of entry into the neighbourhood. The college students spontaneously expressed similar anxieties about the potential lack of safety on the new path. A key concern among school pupils related to cars, with reports that busy traffic and parked cars made it unsafe for them to play or move around in the neighbourhood; they welcomed planned changes that might improve this situation. The planners were able to reflect on previous experiences of similar developments and on the themes that had emerged in the focus groups with the residents, college students and school pupils. They acknowledged that these developments did not necessarily result in completely safe environments but felt on balance the regeneration was likely to make the area safer than it was currently.

Space
Residents viewed the space outside their house as a defensible space, a place they had to protect, in particular for car parking. This subject was remarked upon with some frustration by the planners. In response to a general question which simply asked what it was like ‘around here’, almost all of the school children spontaneously mentioned points relating to neighbourhood aesthetics. Pupils were aware of the lack of care for space, commenting upon dirt, litter and graffiti. They wanted a safe, clean place to play. College students considered the current area to be isolated. Ironically, even with the link provided by the new cycle/walk way, isolation on paths of this type was mentioned repeatedly by the college students. This contrasted with views of planners who considered that the path would provide better links to local amenities (Table 2).

Antisocial behaviour
All four groups reported problems relating to antisocial behaviour in the community, focusing on the contribution of ‘youths’ (Table 3). The adult residents saw the rundown nature of the neighbourhood as contributing to the problem of antisocial behaviour and yet were skeptical that the proposed changes would improve matters. Planners suggested that the improvements would result in less antisocial behaviour.

Physical activity and health
Adult residents did not appear to expect that the proposed development would bring health related benefits to them. A built environment that encouraged physical activity was not seen as a priority; they were more concerned with safety and vandalism of their cars. When asked about physical activity, the pupils described many activities they enjoyed, particularly group-based activities. An interest in health and the benefits of physical activity were voiced among school children and they also commented on the importance of their parents doing activities with them. However, little forethought was given to the future developments and the potential for increased physical activity, possibly because of their young age. In addition, when the new developments were described to the school children in the focus groups, very few of them had any previous knowledge of these plans. Only the college students appeared to welcome the extension of the path as a means of providing them with possible alternative travel options that might result in increased physical activity and health benefits, though this was tempered by their concerns about safety on isolated pathways. Planners were confident of the benefits of traffic free paths; however, they recognized that the impact on physical activity among residents was likely to be modest (Table 4).


   Discussion
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
Limitations of the study
 Study ethics
 Author contributions
 Funding
 Competing interest
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Main findings of this study
Whilst similar themes emerged in each of the groups, we found important differences in attitudes between the four groups of stakeholders studied here. Primary-school children interviewed, who all live in the area perceived their neighbourhood as dirty and unsafe. Adult resident respondents were mainly concerned about their own personal car parking space and were worried that the new development might bring in outsiders and increase vandalism and crime in the area. Planner interviewees expressed some frustration with the residents ‘obsession’ with car parking in front of their house and felt that overall the new development would make the neighbourhood safer and provide a healthier environment. Student participants from the local college shared the residents concerns that the NCN extension might result in increased antisocial behaviour in the area but also saw some potential for increased physical activity from the new development, supporting a change in mode of transport. However, the potential impact of the development on physical activity opportunities was not central to any of the four groups. A clear mismatch in perspectives between the planners and residents existed, particularly relating to the benefits of the new cycle/walk way.

What is already known on this topic
Environmental strategies such as the one described in this paper aim to regenerate neighbourhoods, with the additional aims of providing supportive environments for improved health and physical activity in both adults and children through the provision of safe play areas and a means of walking or cycling to local amenities. Variation exists among population groups in physical activity behaviour. Although no comparative intervention from an affluent neighbourhood exists, concerns relating to safety were reported to have less of an impact on physical activity levels in more affluent neighbourhoods.23 Living in a deprived neighbourhood often necessitates walking as a mode of transport, particularly among women, because of the lack of car ownership.24 Subsequently, Bostock25 reported high stress levels in low income mothers when looking after young children, that was related to littered and neglected areas and having to walk near busy roads. Thomson,26 found that neighbourhood aesthetics and perceptions of safety were associated with use of local facilities and self-rated health.

What this study adds
Our data, whilst small scale and exploratory, provides some useful insights and possible directions for future research, planning and policy. For example, the data suggests that supportive environments may require more than just hard landscaping, i.e. creative street design for a home zone and opening of a traffic free path. Attention to adequate lighting on the paths, possible CTV cameras and identifying solutions for antisocial behaviour and litter may be equally important. In addition, attempts to introduce residents to the potential benefits for health and activity of supportive environments may improve their perceptions.

In a related element of this study we measured physical activity levels in school pupils, using accelerometers, and found that the vast majority of these pupils were as active as children from more affluent areas that had been the subject of other studies.27 However, the present qualitative work revealed that these pupils felt that their neighbourhood was unsafe and antisocial as a place for outdoor play. Work carried out by Mullan et al.28 suggests that if safety concerns of children are addressed, they are more likely to remain active as they grow up. Thus, although children in the study appear to be active, our recent findings from this focus group suggests addressing their safety concerns is likely to be important for their enjoyment and maintaining levels of activity in the future.

Our most important finding was the mismatch in perceptions between the different stakeholders interviewed. The intervention, with its broad aims of addressing the adverse effects of deprivation, increasing physical activity levels and improving lifestyle factors, was viewed differently by each group. The assumption that an environmental intervention will convince users that their lives will be enhanced was found here to be not necessarily the case. Planners need to accommodate the concerns and opinions of the community.29,30 Consultation was carried out with this community; however, despite this, a mismatch in perceptions appeared from our data to remain. The proposed environmental change was not perceived by the residents as a better option to their current situations, since those interviewed felt that it failed to address (and possibly exacerbated) their most pressing concerns relating to fear of crime and antisocial behaviour.


   Limitations of the study
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations of the study
Study ethics
 Author contributions
 Funding
 Competing interest
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
The weakness of the study related to the small numbers included in each focus group. Owing to the purposive sampling strategy used, the variety and diversity of opinions that emerged cannot be generalized to all residents of the area under investigation. Those who volunteered were likely to be a relatively well-motivated sample from the community, who wanted to voice their opinions. However, despite this, the structure imposed by the facilitator and the formal environment of the group setting may have resulted in some viewpoints remaining unspoken. The study was conducted in one geographically defined area and therefore results cannot be generalized to other communities undergoing regeneration. The work nevertheless highlights a policy implication, namely the extent to which future environmental interventions may need to stress the full participation of communities in neighbourhood regeneration programmes from their initiation to their completion.

As the renewal in this neighbourhood is completed, it is possible that the views of all four of the groups that we have assessed here will change. However, if the reported residents’ views regarding the safety of the neighbourhood are realized, the net effect of the development may be to widen, rather than narrow, health inequalities. Simply, listening to resident concerns without actually addressing them could decrease the potential of any beneficial effects of the renewal.


   Study ethics
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations of the study
 Study ethics
Author contributions
 Funding
 Competing interest
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
The University of Bristol ethics committee approved the study.


   Author contributions
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations of the study
 Study ethics
 Author contributions
Funding
 Competing interest
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
T.T. helped to develop the study design, recruited the focus group participants, carried out the interviews with R.D., analysed the transcripts with feedback from K.R.F., A.R.N. and C.J.R. and wrote the first draft of the paper.

R.D. contributed to obtaining funding for the study, to the study design, acted as a facilitator for the focus groups, contributed to analysis of transcripts and final version of the paper.

K.R.F. contributed to obtaining funding for the study, to the study design, analysis of transcripts and final version of the paper.

A.R.N. contributed to obtaining funding for the study, to the study design, analysis of transcripts and final version of the paper.

C.J.R. contributed to obtaining funding for the study, to the study design, analysis of transcripts and final version of the paper.

D.A.L. contributed to obtaining funding for the study, to the study design, advised on the analysis and final version of the paper.


   Funding
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations of the study
 Study ethics
 Author contributions
 Funding
Competing interest
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
This study, including T.T.’s salary, is funded by the British Heart Foundation. D.A.L. is funded by a (UK) Department of Health Career Scientist Award. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of any funding body. Researchers were independent from the funders and were not influenced in the conduct and writing up of this study.


   Competing interest
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations of the study
 Study ethics
 Author contributions
 Funding
 Competing interest
Acknowledgements
 References
 
None.


   Acknowledgements
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations of the study
 Study ethics
 Author contributions
 Funding
 Competing interest
 Acknowledgements
References
 
We thank all of the teachers and students from the school and further education college, the residents and planners, who participated in the study.


   References
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations of the study
 Study ethics
 Author contributions
 Funding
 Competing interest
 Acknowledgements
 References
 

  1. Department of Health Strategy. Statement on physical activity. London: Department of Health, 1996.
  2. Department of Health. At least five a week: evidence of the effect of physical activity and its relationship to health. London: Department of Health, 2004: A report from the Chief Medical Officer.
  3. Hillsdon M, Foster C, Thorogood M. Interventions for promoting physical activity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; 1: CD003180.[Medline]
  4. Craig CL, Brownson RC, Cragg SE, Dunn AL. Exploring the effect of the environment on physical activity: a study examining walking to work. Am J Prev Med 2002; 23: 36–43.[Web of Science][Medline]
  5. Brownson RC, Housemann RA, Brown DR et al. Promoting physical activity in rural communities: walking trail access, use, and effects. Am J Prev Med 2000; 18: 235–241.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  6. Hoehner CM, Ramirez LKB, Elliott MB, Handy SL, Brownson RC. Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity among urban adults. Am J Prev Med 2005; 28(2 Suppl 2): 105–116.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  7. Giles-Corti B, Donovan RJ. The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Social Sci Med 2002; 54: 1793–1812.
  8. Giles-Corti B, Broomhall MH, Knuiman M et al. Increasing walking: how important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am J Prev Med 2005; 28(2 Suppl 2): 169–176.[Medline]
  9. Parry J, Laburn-Peart K, Orford J, Dalton S. Mechanisms by which area-based regeneration programmes might impact on community health: a case study of the new deal for communities initiative. Public Hlth 2004; 118: 497–505.
  10. Blackman T, Harvey J, Lawrence M, Simon A. Neighbourhood renewal and health: evidence from a local case study. Health Place 2001; 7: 93.
  11. Lawlor DA, Ness AR, Cope AM et al. The challenges of evaluating environmental interventions to increase population levels of physical activity: the case of the UK National Cycle Network. J Epidemiol Commun Hlth 2003; 57: 96–101.[Free Full Text]
  12. Owen N, Leslie E, Salmon J, Fotheringham M. Environmental determinants of physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Ex Sport Sci Rev 2000; 28: 153–158.
  13. Yassi A, Fernandez N, Fernandez A et al. Community participation in a multisectoral intervention to address health determinants in an inner-city community in central Havana. J Urban Hlth 2003; 80: 61–80.[Web of Science][Medline]
  14. Biddulph M. Towards successful home zones in the UK. J Urban Design 2003; 8: 217–241.
  15. Layfield R, Chinn L, Nicholls D. Pilot home zone schemes: evaluation of The Methleys, Leeds. Berkshire: DfT, 2003.
  16. Maconachie MC, Elliston KM, Trim AR. Home zones in the UK. Findings from a prospective health impact assessment. Int J Hlth Promot Edu 2003; 41: 77–83.
  17. Strauss A, Corbin J. Grounded theory methodology. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. Strategies of qualitative enquiry. London: Sage, 1998: 158–183.
  18. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess RG, eds. Analysing qualitative data. London: Routledge, 1992: 173–194.
  19. Strauss A. A qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
  20. Blaikie N. Designing social research. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000.
  21. Holloway I. Basic concepts for qualitative research. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 1997.
  22. Miles M, Huberman A. Qualitative data analysis. 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  23. Parks SE, Housemann RA, Brownson RC. Differential correlates of physical activity in urban and rural adults of various socioeconomic backgrounds in the United States. J Epidemiol Commun Hlth 2003; 57: 29–35.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Department of Transport. Developing a strategy for walking. London: Department of Transport, 1996.
  25. Bostock L. Pathways of disadvantage? Walking as a mode of transport among low-income mothers. Health Soc Care Comm 2001; 9: 11–18.
  26. Thomson H, Kearns A, Petticrew M. Assessing the health impact of local amenities: a qualitative study of contrasting experiences of local swimming pool and leisure provision in two areas of Glasgow. J Epidemiol Commun Hlth 2003; 57: 663–667.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Trayers T, Cooper AR, Riddoch CJ et al. Do children from an inner city British school meet the recommended levels of physical activity? Results from a cross sectional survey using objective measurements of physical activity. Arch Dis Child in press.
  28. Mullan E. Do you think that your local area is a good place for young people to grow up? The effects of traffic and car parking on young people’s views. Health Place 2003; 9: 351–360.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  29. Scott A. Assessing public perception of landscape: from practice to policy. J Environ Pol Plan 2003; 5: 123–144.[CrossRef]
  30. Coulson A. Land-use planning and community influence. a study of Selly Oak, Birmingham. Plan Pract Res 2003; 18: 179–195.[CrossRef]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
28/1/49    most recent
fdi075v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Trayers, T.
Right arrow Articles by Lawlor, D. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Trayers, T.
Right arrow Articles by Lawlor, D. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?