Park proximity, quality and recreational physical activity among mid-older aged adults: moderating effects of individual factors and area of residence

Table 1 Sample characteristics, perceived park proximity and quality and physical activity

Individual factors
Age (M ± SD, years)^a	62.3 ± 3.1
Gender (% women)	52.9
Education level (%)
<12 years of education	33.9
Year 12/trade/apprenticeship/certificate/diploma^a	36.2
University degree	29.9
Marital status (%)
Living with a partner	78.1
Separated/divorced/never married	16.9
Widowed	5.0
Retirement status (% retired)	44.3
Years living at current address (Mdn; Q1-Q3)^b	15.0; 7.0 – 28.1
Functional limitations (M ± SD, number)	2.7 ± 2.6
Area of residence (%)
Rural	52.2
Fringe	1.7
Urban	46.1
Park characteristics
Perceived park proximity (M ± SD, /5)^c	3.9 ± 1.3
Perceived park quality (M ± SD, /5)^d	3.8 ± 0.9
Dependent variables
Walking for recreation, mins/week (Mdn; Q1-Q3)	70.0; 0.0 – 210.0^e
Other recreational PA, mins/week (Mdn; Q1-Q3)	0.0; 0.0 – 120.0^e

M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; Mdn = Median; Q1 = quartile 1; Q3 = quartile 3.
^aIn Australia this refers to non-university tertiary education.
^bFor normally distributed continuous variables, means and standard deviations were presented. For non-normally distributed continuous variables, medians and interquartile ranges were presented.
^cPerceived park proximity was assessed by asking the participants how long it would take them to walk from their home to the nearest park: 1–5 mins (5), 6–10 mins (4), 11–20 mins (3), 21–30 mins (2), 31+ mins (1), or don’t know (1). The option ‘don’t know’ was selected by 2.8% of the participants.
^dPerceived park quality was measured on a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) with the statement ‘I am satisfied with the quality of parks in my neighbourhood’.
^eWalking for recreation, mins/week (M ± SD) = 152.4 ± 212.3.
Other recreational MVPA, mins/week (M ± SD) = 97.1 ± 201.7.

ISSN: 1479-5868