Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFoster, Sarah
dc.contributor.authorHooper, Paula
dc.contributor.authorBurton, Nicola
dc.contributor.authorBrown, Wendy
dc.contributor.authorGiles-Corti, Billie
dc.contributor.authorRachele, Jerome
dc.contributor.authorTurrell, Gavin
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Residents in socio-economically disadvantaged areas are typically exposed to more crime and tend to be more fearful about crime than those in advantaged areas – but often walk in spite of these heightened exposures. This study examines whether crime is a barrier to walking, and tests whether associations differ by area disadvantage. Methods: HABITAT participants (n = 6680) lived in 200 neighbourhoods that spanned the most and least disadvantaged areas in Brisbane, Australia. They completed questions on their perceived crime and walking behaviours, and objective crime and walkability measures were generated for the 1000 m euclidean distance around participants’ homes. Multi-level models examined associations between perceived and objectively measured ‘crime’ and recreational and transport walking, with progressive adjustment for area-level socio-economic disadvantage and walkability components (density, land-use mix, street connectivity). Interactions tested whether patterns differed by area-level disadvantage. Results: Higher actual and perceived crime were associated with reduced odds of recreational walking (albeit non-significant). In contrast, actual crime and perceived crime were significantly associated with transport walking, but patterns differed. High perceived crime was associated with reduced odds of transport walking (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.54-0.77), whereas high objective crime was associated with increased odds of transport walking (OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.23-2.17). Patterns did not differ by area-level disadvantage. Conclusion: The counter-intuitive positive association between objective crime and transport walking was partly explained by the correlation between crime and more walkable environments. Inter-relationships between crime, the built environment and area disadvantage may help explain the inconsistencies in the crime and walking evidence base.en_US
dc.publisherHuman Kineticsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofconferencename7th International Society for Physical Activity and Health Congressen_US
dc.relation.ispartofconferencetitleJournal of Physical Activity and Healthen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchHuman Movement and Sports Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPublic Health and Health Servicesen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchCurriculum and Pedagogyen_US
dc.subject.keywordsScience & Technologyen_US
dc.subject.keywordsLife Sciences & Biomedicineen_US
dc.subject.keywordsPublic, Environmental & Occupational Healthen_US
dc.titleSafe HABITATS: Does the association between crime and walking differ by area disadvantage?en_US
dc.typeConference outputen_US
dc.type.descriptionE3 - Conferences (Extract Paper)en_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationFoster, S; Hooper, P; Burton, N; Brown, W; Giles-Corti, B; Rachele, J; Turrell, G, Safe HABITATS: Does the association between crime and walking differ by area disadvantage?, Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 2018, 15 (s1), pp. S52-S52en_US
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorBurton, Nicola W.

Files in this item


There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Conference outputs
    Contains papers delivered by Griffith authors at national and international conferences.

Show simple item record