Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Associations of Objectively Measured Built-Environment Attributes with Youth Moderate–Vigorous Physical Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
Sports Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Understanding attributes of the built environment that influence children’s and adolescents’ habitual physical activity can inform urban design.

Objective

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies linking aspects of the built environment with youth moderate–vigorous activity, including walking.

Data Sources

The PubMed, Embase, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases were searched using relevant key words for articles published between January 2000 and March 2013.

Study Selection

The included articles reported associations between children’s or adolescents’ objectively measured physical activity and residential neighbourhoods or activity settings defined with geographical information systems (GIS), street audits or global positioning systems (GPS). Excluded articles did not delineate neighbourhoods by residential address or were not written in English. Of 320 potentially relevant articles, 31 met the inclusion criteria, but only 23 (with a total of 6,175 participants, aged 8–17 years) provided sufficient data to derive effects (associations) of built-environment features on child or adolescent habitual moderate–vigorous activity.

Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods

Ten criteria were used to appraise the inclusion of studies. The effects were analysed as the difference in mean minutes of daily moderate–vigorous activity either between two levels of a dichotomous variable (e.g. neighbourhood park available or not within 800 m) or between predicted means corresponding to a difference of two standard deviations of a simple linear numeric variable (e.g. housing density per square kilometre). The magnitude of the difference in means was evaluated via standardization. The meta-analysis was performed with the 14 studies using GIS or street audits to relate a total of 58 specific built-environment features to daily activity. Each feature was categorized with two dichotomous variables to indicate whether the feature promoted playing and/or walking, and these variables were included in the meta-analytic model as moderators interacting with age and proportion of males in the study as linear numeric covariates.

Results

The meta-analysed effects of built-environment features that encourage play (including sports and fitness) and/or walking on youth moderate–vigorous activity ranged between trivial and small. There was a moderate effect of age (15 versus 9 years) whereby play facilities, parks, playgrounds and features that facilitate walking had negative effects on children’s activity but positive effects on adolescents’ activity. In studies that located youth physical activity with GPS, walking to school produced small increases in activity compared with transport by car or bus, greater proportions of activity took place in streets and urban venues (40–80 %) than in green spaces (20–50 %), and more than half of children’s outdoor activity occurred with a parent nearby.

Limitations

The meta-analysis cannot quantify the additive effect when several built-environment features are provided in a given neighbourhood.

Conclusions

Children do not benefit to the same extent as adolescents from built-environment features that encourage walking and those designed or used for neighbourhood play.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sallis JF, Glanz K. The role of built environments in physical activity, eating, and obesity in childhood. Future Child 2006 Spring; 16(1):89–108

  2. Giles-Corti B, Kelty SF, Zubrick SR, et al. Encouraging walking for transport and physical activity in children and adolescents: how important is the built environment? Sports Med. 2009;39(12):995–1009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fenton M. Community design and policies for free-range children: creating environments that support routine physical activity. Child Obes. 2012;8(1):44–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rainham D, Krewski D, McDowell I, et al. Development of a wearable global positioning system for place and health research. Int J Health Geogr. 2008;7:59.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Maddison R, Ni Mhurchu C, Jiang Y, et al. International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) and New Zealand Physical Activity Questionnaire (NZPAQ): a doubly labelled water validation. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2007;4:62.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Maddison R, Jiang Y, Vander Hoorn S, et al. Perceived versus actual distance to local physical-activity facilities: does it really matter? J Phys Act Health. 2010;7(3):323–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Prins RG, Oenema A, van der Horst K, et al. Objective and perceived availability of physical activity opportunities: differences in associations with physical activity behavior among urban adolescents. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009;6:70.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ball K, Jeffery RW, Crawford DA, et al. Mismatch between perceived and objective measures of physical activity environments. Prev Med. 2008;47(3):294–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. McGinn AP, Evenson KR, Herring AH, et al. Exploring associations between physical activity and perceived and objective measures of the built environment. J Urban Health. 2007;84(2):162–84.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Slootmaker SM, Schuit AJ, Chinapaw MJ, et al. Disagreement in physical activity assessed by accelerometer and self-report in subgroups of age, gender, education and weight status. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009;6:17.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ding D, Sallis JF, Kerr J, et al. Neighborhood environment and physical activity among youth: a review. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41(4):442–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Davison KK, Lawson CT. Do attributes in the physical environment influence children’s physical activity? A review of the literature. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2006;3:19.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McMillan TE. Urban form and a child’s trip to school: the current literature and a framework for future research. J Plan Lit. 2005;19:440–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ferreira I, van der Horst K, Wendel-Vos W, et al. Environmental correlates of physical activity in youth—a review and update. Obes Rev. 2007;8(2):129–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pont K, Ziviani J, Wadley D, et al. Environmental correlates of children’s active transportation: a systematic literature review. Health Place. 2009;15(3):827–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Leslie E, Coffee N, Frank L, et al. Walkability of local communities: using geographic information systems to objectively assess relevant environmental attributes. Health Place. 2007;13(1):111–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. D’Souza E, Forsyth A, Koepp J, et al. Twin Cities Walking Study. Environment and physical activity: GIS protocols, version 3.1. Minneapolis: Metropolitan Design Center, University of Minnesota; 2006.

  18. Wong BY, Faulkner G, Buliung R. GIS measured environmental correlates of active school transport: a systematic review of 14 studies. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:39.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pikora T, Giles-Corti B, Bull F, et al. Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(8):1693–703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Boarnet MG, Day K, Alfonzo M, et al. The Irvine–Minnesota inventory to measure built environments: reliability tests. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30(2):153–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rainham D, McDowell I, Krewski D, et al. Conceptualizing the healthscape: contributions of time geography, location technologies and spatial ecology to place and health research. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(5):668–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Krenn PJ, Titze S, Oja P, et al. Use of global positioning systems to study physical activity and the environment: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41(5):508–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kerr J, Duncan S, Schipperijn J. Using global positioning systems in health research: a practical approach to data collection and processing. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41(5):532–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Humpel N, Owen N, Leslie E. Environmental factors associated with adults’ participation in physical activity: a review. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22(3):188–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Giles-Corti B, Timperio A, Bull F, et al. Understanding physical activity environmental correlates: increased specificity for ecological models. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2005;33(4):175–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Owen N, Humpel N, Leslie E, et al. Understanding environmental influences on walking: review and research agenda. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27(1):67–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Westerterp KR. Assessment of physical activity: a critical appraisal. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2009;105(6):823–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tudor-Locke C, Johnson WD, Katzmarzyk PT. Accelerometer-determined steps per day in US children and youth. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(12):2244–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Craig CL, Cameron C, Griffiths JM, et al. Descriptive epidemiology of youth pedometer-determined physical activity: CANPLAY. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(9):1639–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Van Dyck D, Cardon G, Deforche B, et al. Lower neighbourhood walkability and longer distance to school are related to physical activity in Belgian adolescents. Prev Med. 2009;48(6):516–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Aytur SA, Rodriguez DA, Evenson KR, et al. The sociodemographics of land use planning: relationships to physical activity, accessibility, and equity. Health Place. 2008;14(3):367–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Neckerman KM, Lovasi GS, Davies S, et al. Disparities in urban neighbourhood conditions: evidence from GIS measures and field observation in New York City. J Public Health Policy. 2009;30(Suppl 1):S264–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cooper AR, Page AS, Wheeler BW, et al. Mapping the walk to school using accelerometry combined with a global positioning system. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(2):178–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, et al. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(1):3–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Smith TB, Hopkins WG. Variability and predictability of finals times of elite rowers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43:2155–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Yang M. A review of random effects modelling in SAS (release 8.2). London: Centre for Multilevel Modelling; 2003.

  37. Almanza E, Jerrett M, Dunton G, et al. A study of community design, greenness, and physical activity in children using satellite, GPS and accelerometer data. Health Place. 2012;18(1):46–54.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Dunton GF, Liao Y, Almanza E, et al. Joint physical activity and sedentary behavior in parent–child pairs. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(8):1473–80.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Jones AP, Coombes EG, Griffin SJ, et al. Environmental supportiveness for physical activity in English schoolchildren: a study using global positioning systems. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009;6:42.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rainham DG, Bates CJ, Blanchard CM, et al. Spatial classification of youth physical activity patterns. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42(5):e87–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Dowda M, McKenzie TL, Cohen DA, et al. Commercial venues as supports for physical activity in adolescent girls. Prev Med. 2007;45(2–3):163–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Scott MM, Cohen DA, Evenson KR, et al. Weekend schoolyard accessibility, physical activity, and obesity: the Trial of Activity in Adolescent Girls (TAAG) study. Prev Med. 2007;44(5):398–403.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Jago R, Baranowski T, Zakeri I, et al. Observed environmental features and the physical activity of adolescent males. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29(2):98–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Jago R, Baranowski T, Baranowski JC. Observed, GIS, and and self-reported environmental features and adolescent physical activity. Am J Health Promot. 2006;20(6):422–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Stevens RB, Brown BB. Walkable new urban LEED_Neighborhood-Development (LEED-ND) community design and children’s physical activity: selection, environmental, or catalyst effects? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:139.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Lachowycz K, Jones AP, Page AS, et al. What can global positioning systems tell us about the contribution of different types of urban greenspace to children’s physical activity? Health Place. 2012;18(3):586–94.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Oreskovic NM, Blossom J, Field AE, et al. Combining global positioning system and accelerometer data to determine the locations of physical activity in children. Geospat Health. 2012;6(2):263–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Southward EF, Page AS, Wheeler BW, et al. Contribution of the school journey to daily physical activity in children aged 11–12 years. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(2):201–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Jago R, Anderson CB, Baranowski T, et al. Adolescent patterns of physical activity differences by gender, day, and time of day. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(5):447–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Patnode CD, Lytle LA, Erickson DJ, et al. The relative influence of demographic, individual, social, and environmental factors on physical activity among boys and girls. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:79.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Prins RG, Ball K, Timperio A, et al. Associations between availability of facilities within three different neighbourhood buffer sizes and objectively assessed physical activity in adolescents. Health Place. 2011;17(6):1228–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Ries AV, Voorhees CC, Roche KM, et al. A quantitative examination of park characteristics related to park use and physical activity among urban youth. J Adolesc Health. 2009;45(3 Suppl):S64–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Roemmich JN, Epstein LH, Raja S, et al. The neighborhood and home environments: disparate relationships with physical activity and sedentary behaviors in youth. Behav Med. 2007;33(1):29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wheeler BW, Cooper AR, Page AS, et al. Greenspace and children’s physical activity: a GPS/GIS analysis of the PEACH project. Prev Med. 2010;51(2):148–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Carver A, Timperio AF, Crawford DA. Neighborhood road environments and physical activity among youth: the CLAN study. J Urban Health. 2008;85(4):532–44.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Timperio A, Giles-Corti B, Crawford D, et al. Features of public open spaces and physical activity among children: findings from the CLAN study. Prev Med. 2008;47(5):514–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Norman GJ, Nutter SK, Ryan S, et al. Community design and access to recreational facilities as correlates of adolescent physical activity and body-mass index. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3(Suppl 1):S118–28.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Trost SG, Loprinzi PD, Moore R, et al. Comparison of accelerometer cut-points for predicting activity intensity in youth. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(7):1360–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Frank L, Kerr J, Chapman J, et al. Urban form relationships with walk trip frequency and distance among youth. Am J Health Promot. 2007;21(4 Suppl):305–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Sallis JF, Floyd MF, Rodriguez DA, et al. Role of built environments in physical activity, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. Circulation. 2012;125(5):729–37.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Carver A, Timperio A, Crawford D. Perceptions of neighborhood safety and physical activity among youth: the CLAN study. J Phys Act Health. 2008;5(3):430–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Carver A, Timperio A, Hesketh K, et al. Are children and adolescents less active if parents restrict their physical activity and active transport due to perceived risk? Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(11):1799–805.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Kerr J, Rosenberg D, Sallis JF, et al. Active commuting to school: associations with environment and parental concerns. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(4):787–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Timperio A, Crawford D, Telford A, et al. Perceptions about the local neighborhood and walking and cycling among children. Prev Med. 2004;38(1):39–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Valentine G, McKendrick J. Children’s outdoor play: exploring parental concerns about children’s safety and the changing nature of childhood. Geoforum. 1997;28(2):219–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Weir LA, Etelson D, Brand DA. Parents’ perceptions of neighborhood safety and children’s physical activity. Prev Med. 2006;43(3):212–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Jago R, Thompson JL, Page AS, et al. Licence to be active: parental concerns and 10–11-year-old children’s ability to be independently physically active. J Public Health (Oxf). 2009;31(4):472–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Edwardson CL, Gorely T. Parental influences on different types and intensities of physical activity in youth: a systematic review. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2010;11:522–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Carver A, Timperio AF, Crawford DA. Young and free? A study of independent mobility among urban and rural dwelling Australian children. J Sci Med Sport. 2012;15(6):505–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Villanueva K, Giles-Corti B, Bulsara M, et al. How far do children travel from their homes? Exploring children’s activity spaces in their neighborhood. Health Place. 2012;18(2):263–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Maddison R, Jiang Y, Vander Hoorn S, et al. Describing patterns of physical activity in adolescents using global positioning systems and accelerometry. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2010;22(3):392–407.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Karsten L. It all used to be better? Different generations on continuity and change in urban children’s daily use of space. Child Geogr. 2005;3(3):275–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Villanueva K, Giles-Corti B, Bulsara M, et al. Where do children travel to and what local opportunities are available? The relationship between neighborhood destinations and children’s independent mobility. Environ Behav. 2012;45(6):679–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Feldman SS, Rosenthal DA. Age expectations of behavioural autonomy in Hong Kong, Australian and American youth: the influence of family variables and adolescents’ values. Int J Psychol. 1991;26(1):1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Passon C, Levi D, del Rio V. Implications of adolescents’ perceptions and values for planning and design. J Plan Educ Res. 2008;28(1):73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Gopinath S, Huntingford D, McCarthy T, et al. White paper: the SiRFstarIV advantage breaking through the GPS performance–power compromise. Cambridge: SiRF Technology, Inc.; 2009.

  77. Voorhees CC, Catellier DJ, Ashwood JS, et al. Neighborhood socioeconomic status and non school physical activity and body mass index in adolescent girls. J Phys Act Health. 2009;6(6):731–40.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Navalpotro L, Regidor E, Ortega P, et al. Area-based socioeconomic environment, obesity risk behaviours, area facilities and childhood overweight and obesity: socioeconomic environment and childhood overweight. Prev Med. 2012;55(2):102–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Borrestad LA, Andersen LB, Bere E. Seasonal and socio-demographic determinants of school commuting. Prev Med. 2011;52(2):133–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Franzini L, Taylor W, Elliott MN, et al. Neighborhood characteristics favorable to outdoor physical activity: disparities by socioeconomic and racial/ethnic composition. Health Place. 2010;16(2):267–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Evenson KR, Catellier DJ, Gill K, et al. Calibration of two objective measures of physical activity for children. J Sports Sci. 2008;26(14):1557–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. McDonald K, Hearst M, Farbakhsh K, et al. Adolescent physical activity and the built environment: a latent class analysis approach. Health Place. 2012;18(2):191–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Rodriguez DA, Cho GH, Evenson KR, et al. Out and about: association of the built environment with physical activity behaviors of adolescent females. Health Place. 2012;18(1):55–62.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Cooper AR, Page AS, Wheeler BW, et al. Patterns of GPS measured time outdoors after school and objective physical activity in English children: the PEACH project. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:31.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Quigg R, Gray A, Reeder AI, et al. Using accelerometers and GPS units to identify the proportion of daily physical activity located in parks with playgrounds in New Zealand children. Prev Med. 2010;50(5–6):235–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Roemmich JN, Epstein LH, Raja S, et al. Association of access to parks and recreational facilities with the physical activity of young children. Prev Med. 2006;43(6):437–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Carver A, Timperio A, Hesketh K, et al. Are safety-related features of the road environment associated with smaller declines in physical activity among youth? J Urban Health. 2010;87(1):29–43.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Crawford D, Cleland V, Timperio A, et al. The longitudinal influence of home and neighbourhood environments on children’s body mass index and physical activity over 5 years: the CLAN study. Int J Obes (Lond). 2010;34(7):1177–87.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Scott MM, Evenson KR, Cohen DA, et al. Comparing perceived and objectively measured access to recreational facilities as predictors of physical activity in adolescent girls. J Urban Health. 2007;84(3):346–59.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Treuth MS, Schmitz K, Catellier DJ, et al. Defining accelerometer thresholds for activity intensities in adolescent girls. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(7):1259–66.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Brage S, Wedderkopp N, Franks PW, et al. Reexamination of validity and reliability of the CSA monitor in walking and running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(8):1447–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Puyau MR, Adolph AL, Vohra FA, et al. Validation and calibration of physical activity monitors in children. Obes Res. 2002;10(3):150–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Freedson PS, Melanson E, Sirard J. Calibration of the computer science and applications, Inc. accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30(5):777–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors declare that nil funding was provided for the preparation of the paper, that there were no conflicts of interest and that no other persons met the criteria for authorship or made a substantial contribution to the work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Sport and Recreation, Akoranga Campus, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand

    Leslie J. McGrath & Erica A. Hinckson

  2. College of Sport and Exercise Science, Victoria University, PO Box 14428, Melbourne, VIC, 8001, Australia

    Will G. Hopkins

Authors
  1. Leslie J. McGrath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Will G. Hopkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erica A. Hinckson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leslie J. McGrath.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 948 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McGrath, L.J., Hopkins, W.G. & Hinckson, E.A. Associations of Objectively Measured Built-Environment Attributes with Youth Moderate–Vigorous Physical Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med 45, 841–865 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0301-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0301-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation