Elsevier

Health & Place

Volume 15, Issue 4, December 2009, Pages 971-980
Health & Place

Restorative qualities of indoor and outdoor exercise settings as predictors of exercise frequency

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.03.002Get rights and content

Abstract

Positive environmental determinants of exercise frequency remain poorly understood. Knowing that people often value exercise for psychological restoration, we investigated the restorative quality of indoor and outdoor exercise settings as predictors of exercise frequency. We surveyed 319 members of fitness centers in Zurich that offer indoor and outdoor exercise alternatives. Outdoor settings were rated as more restorative. For each type of environment, restorative quality predicted the frequency of exercise in the past 30 days, independent of socio-demographic characteristics, expectations of exercise benefits, and personal barriers. We discuss the results with regard to the provision of exercise settings for urban populations.

Introduction

The decline of physically active work and increased use of cars and other labor-saving devices have together reduced the need for people to be physically active (Brownson et al., 2005). However, in general, physical activity is seen as beneficial for physical, psychological, and social health (Pate et al., 1995; Biddle et al., 2000; WHO, 2006; Breckenkamp et al., 2004). So, while an absence of demands to be physically active reflects the high standard of living in economically developed societies, it also contributes to ill health from causes such as type II diabetes, heart disease, stroke, certain forms of cancer, and musculoskeletal problems (e.g., USDHHS, 1996; Martinez-Gonzales et al., 2001).

The increase of sedentary lifestyles has occurred during a historical period when human populations have also become concentrated in urban areas (WHO, 2006). With urbanization the availability of nearby outdoor environments for physical activity appears to have diminished (Owen et al., 2000; Giles-Corti et al., 2005; Sugiyama et al., 2008). This is not to say, however, that urban residents necessarily lack places for exercise, as those who want to exercise may also have access to suitable indoor settings for exercise. Some may have the possibility to choose modes of exercise according to the availability of appropriate indoor and outdoor settings and their preferences at the time. Having alternatives presumably affects the frequency with which those who want to exercise can do so, and so the degree to which they realize health benefits (e.g., Hug et al., 2008a).

Given the significance of frequent exercise, it is of practical importance to understand the characteristics of self-selected indoor and outdoor exercise settings that predict the exercise frequency of urban residents. Those characteristics, and possible differences across indoor and outdoor settings in those characteristics, might serve as targets of efforts to encourage and maintain physical activity in urban residential contexts. To date, however, little is known about the predictors of indoor versus outdoor exercise frequency for urban residents.

In the present study, we take interest in the exercise frequency of urban residents who have similar access to both indoor and outdoor exercise alternatives. We consider whether, independent of predictors that are already well-described in the research literature (e.g., Booth et al., 1997; Bouchard et al., 2007; Tucker and Gilliland, 2007), some positive characteristics of environments also predict exercise frequency. Of particular interest are restorative qualities that might be perceived in either type of exercise setting. The choice of this focus follows from the understanding that psychological restoration is a common and highly valued psychological benefit of exercise (e.g., Raglin et al., 2007).

Several categories of predictors are already well-described in the literature on exercise frequency. One category includes socio-demographic characteristics. Variations in exercise frequency have been described as a function of gender, age, and type of education. Women tend to participate less in physical activity and to have greater barriers in terms of time (e.g., Owen and Bauman, 1992; Vilhjalmsson and Kristjansdottir, 2003; Lamprecht et al., 2008). Older people tend to be less physically active and to have greater barriers due to poor health and injury (e.g., Owen and Bauman, 1992; Booth et al., 1997; Lamprecht et al., 2008). Furthermore, less well-educated people tend to be more inactive (e.g., Owen and Bauman, 1992; Lamprecht et al., 2008).

A second category of frequently studied predictors includes expectations regarding the benefits of exercise. People might choose to exercise because they expect enhanced physical and mental fitness and better overall health (e.g., Bouchard et al., 2007; Lamprecht et al., 2008). They may also anticipate that their exercise allows them to meet new people and to enjoy the company of friends (e.g., Carron et al., 1996; Ball et al., 2001; Lamprecht et al., 2008). While strong expectations of general health benefits may increase exercise frequency to a similar degree both indoors and outdoors, expectations of social benefits may be a stronger determinant of exercise done indoors (e.g., Hug et al., 2008a). The kind of exercise done indoors and the way of doing it may more readily permit people to meet, talk together, and encourage each other to continue exercising.

A third category of predictors includes barriers to participation. Some barriers have to do with the environment. The theories frequently used to explain exercise behavior have in common some acknowledgement that the socio-physical environment can limit participation, even for a person motivated to maintain regular exercise (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Ajzen and Driver, 1992; Proschaska and Marcus, 1994; Stokols, 1996). Empirical research indicates that the accessibility of facilities close to home, personal safety, the season, and weather are all relevant for physical activity (e.g., Humpel et al., 2002; Titze et al., 2005; Tucker and Gilliland, 2007; Tucker et al., 2009). For present purposes, it is important to point out that the same factor that presents a barrier to exercise in one type of environment may encourage exercise in another type of environment. For example, in any season, poor weather may discourage participation in exercise outdoors and increase participation indoors (Hug et al., 2008a). This is true not only for barriers imposed by the physical environment, but also for barriers that involve the amount and disposition of time that a person has available for exercise. Even when a person has nearby indoor and outdoor exercise alternatives, the frequency of exercise in either type of environment may be low due to a lack of time and/or scheduling constraints (Shaw et al., 1991; Owen and Bauman, 1992).

Representing the environment in terms of barriers to participation contributes to the prediction of exercise frequency, but it is not a sufficient account of the role that environment may play in promoting and facilitating exercise. The research literature on physical activity and exercise does, however, also include evidence concerning positive characteristics of environments that attract people for exercise. The aesthetic quality of the environment is a notable example; several studies have found associations between the aesthetic quality of the residential environment and the amount of walking done there (e.g., Corti et al., 1996; Ball et al., 2001; Humpel et al., 2002). However, this raises the question of just why more aesthetically pleasing environments might promote exercise.

Theory and research on restorative environments provide an answer to this question. More aesthetically pleasing environments might promote exercise because they amplify psychological benefits of exercise that involve the enhancement of emotional states and the renewal of cognitive capabilities that a person needs to manage the demands of everyday life (Bodin and Hartig, 2003). Aesthetic characteristics that attract people for exercise may also be those that promote the reduction of stress and anxiety, renewal of the ability to direct attention, and other forms of restoration that people may gain when they do exercise. Thus, those environments that people prefer over others because of their aesthetic qualities are also those environments that amplify the psychological benefits of exercise to a greater degree and in turn encourage exercise to a greater degree, on the given occasion and in the future. In this view, aesthetics have functional significance (see also Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989).

Relevant to the present concern for predictors of exercise frequency in indoor versus outdoor environments, several general observations bear on a functional link between aesthetic features of environments and exercise benefits. First, many studies indicate that people give higher preference and scenic beauty ratings to environments with natural features such as trees, vegetation, and water, compared to environments that lack such features (for a meta-analysis, see Stamps, 1999). Second, some surveys that have predicted physical activity on the basis of the aesthetic quality of the nearby environment have framed aesthetic quality at least in part with reference to natural features (e.g., Bedimo-Rung et al., 2005). Third, experimental evidence consistently indicates that, given a greater need of restoration, people consider walking in a natural environment more attractive than walking in a potentially less restorative urban environment (e.g., Staats and Hartig, 2004; Hartig and Staats, 2006). Fourth, survey evidence shows that people expect that forest walks provide a better opportunity for stress reduction than many other alternatives (Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2003; Hansmann et al., 2007). Finally, a number of experiments have found that urban forests and parks promote psychological restoration to a greater degree than other outdoor and indoor urban settings in which people might exercise (e.g., Hartig et al., 2003; Pretty et al., 2005; Hug et al., 2008b). In sum, there is substantial evidence of positive associations between the aesthetic quality of environments, the potential for restoration that they offer, and the performance of exercise and physical activity more generally.

Given evidence that restorative experiences provide a functional link between aesthetic features of environments and engagement in exercise, the present study takes a particular interest in restorative quality as a predictor of exercise frequency. To characterize exercise environments in terms of restorative quality, we build here on attention restoration theory (ART; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan, 1995). ART deals with the renewal of a depleted capacity for directing or focusing attention. According to this theory, restoration from attentional fatigue can occur when a person gains psychological distance from tasks, the pursuit of goals, and the like, in which he or she routinely must direct attention (being away). Restoration is then promoted if the person can rely on effortless, interest-driven attention (fascination) in the encounter with the environment. A person able to rely on fascination can rest the cognitive mechanism that would otherwise work to inhibit attention from going to things that are more interesting than some task at hand. Further, fascination can be sustained if the person experiences the environment as coherently ordered and of substantial scope; together these are thought to contribute to a sense of extent. The theory also acknowledges the importance of the match between the person's inclinations at the time, the demands imposed by the environment, and the environmental supports for intended activities (compatibility). While ART applies to environments in general, its authors have argued that these four restorative factors commonly hold at high levels in natural environments (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan, 1995). Studies conducted to develop measures of restorative quality consistently have found that, within urban areas, relatively natural environments are accorded higher restorative quality than built environments (Hartig et al., 1997; Laumann et al., 2001; Herzog et al., 2003). Relatively few studies have directly compared the restorative quality of indoor and outdoor settings (Hartig et al., 1997). Those done found that, while some indoor settings have higher restorative quality than some outdoor settings, restorative quality was generally perceived to be higher outdoors.

In sum, the frequency with which a person exercises may depend on a number of variables, including socio-demographic characteristics such as age, gender, and type of education; expectations regarding the health and social benefits of exercise; barriers to exercise such as excessive distance to facilities, too little time, and scheduling constraints; and positive environmental predictors, notably restorative quality. The explanatory power of these predictors may be contingent on the setting; some may be more potent predictors of exercise indoors, and others may be more predictive of exercise outdoors.

The aim in the present study was to predict the indoor and outdoor exercise frequency of residents in a densely populated European urban area. The main research question concerned whether and in which way restorative quality ratings given by visitors at peri-urban fitness centers predict their indoor and outdoor exercise frequency. To address this question, we investigated the contribution of 10 variables to the prediction of exercise frequency in both indoor and outdoor exercise environments. The variables included in our models are gender, age, type of education, expected health benefits, expected social benefits, personal time barriers, being away, fascination, coherence, and compatibility.

Our methodological approach had three important features. First, we recruited exercisers in their self-selected exercise settings. Field studies that use self-selected settings profit from high ecological validity; researchers can assess exercisers’ affective and evaluative responses concerning their preferred exercise settings and training modes, and avoid feelings of unfamiliarity with assigned environmental conditions and equipment (McAuley et al., 1996; Daley and Maynard, 2003; Parfitt and Gledhill, 2004; Kerr et al., 2006).

Second, our selection of study sites served to control for a variety of environmental barriers. All of the participants in our study were members of a fitness club offering possibilities for fitness activities both indoors and outdoors. This meant that they had indoor and outdoor exercise alternatives available at the same distance from the residence. It also implies that they had overcome a basic socioeconomic barrier to access to indoor exercise alternatives in their residential context (i.e., the cost of membership) (cf. Pascual et al., 2009). This nonetheless left room for the operation of personal time limitations and scheduling constraints to operate differently for each environment.

Third, we collected data during the late fall and winter months. Although this was dictated by time constraints of the research project, it did ensure that our sample included urban residents with a strong motivation to exercise outdoors. People who overcome more obstacles to the performance of a behavior reveal that they are more motivated to perform that behavior than people for whom the threshold of difficulty is lower (Kaiser, 1998). That cold weather presents obstacles to particular outdoor activities is affirmed by findings that people perform less leisure time physical activity outdoors during cold months (Matthews et al., 2001) and move their regular exercise indoors (Tucker and Gilliland, 2007).

The study addressed a number of hypotheses. First, we expected that our participants would report exercising more indoors than outdoors (Hypothesis 1). Second, we assumed they would have greater expectations of social interaction indoors than outdoors (Hypothesis 2).

We did not expect differences in terms of time barriers and scheduling constraints due to the fact that both types of settings were potentially available for all participants. However, we did expect that the outdoor exercise environment would be rated higher in terms of restorative quality than the indoor environment offered by fitness centers (Hypothesis 3). Of particular interest in this regard was how the profiles comprising the four restorative quality variables would differ across the indoor and outdoor environments. Specific exercise settings may have distinctive profiles (cf. Korpela and Hartig, 1996).

With regard to the prediction of exercise frequency, in each type of environment we expected socio-demographics, health expectations, and personal barriers to have explanatory power. We expected social expectations to be a stronger predictor for the indoor environment because of the relatively more immediate social salience of the social context indoors (Hypothesis 4). It was for us an open question as to which restorative qualities would prove most predictive of exercise frequency in each environment.

Section snippets

Research design and field sites

We collected cross-sectional data with questionnaires, which were distributed to exercisers in four fitness centers located in the peri-urban environment of Zurich. All four of the centers were approved by qualitop, a Swiss certifying institution for health and fitness clubs. Certification by qualitop indicates that a fitness center has satisfied a set of objective criteria. According to qualitop, the four fitness centers in this study had the same status concerning personal support, safety

Levels of exercise frequency and its predictors, indoors and outdoors

On average, the participants reported exercising roughly 1–3 times each week indoors and one time outdoors each week during the preceding 30 days. This difference between the environments in the level of exercise frequency was statistically significant (see Table 1).

Expectations of health benefits and personal barriers were not rated differently across the settings. Our participants apparently saw health benefits coming from exercise indoors and outdoors to a similarly high degree, and personal

Discussion

We investigated whether and in which way restorative quality ratings given by visitors at peri-urban fitness centers differed between their indoor and outdoor exercise settings and predicted their frequency of exercise in each type of setting. We also assessed the degree to which restorative quality predicted exercise frequency indoors and outdoors, independent of several other likely determinants.

In line with our expectations, our participants reported exercising more frequently indoors than

Acknowledgements

We thank Pitsch Fitness Center, Fitnesspark Puls 5, fit-x, Gym-Fit Fitness Center, and their respective personnel for supporting the conduct of this study. We also thank Nicole Munz, Marc Grossmann, and Claudio Amoroso for assistance with data collection and entry. The first author is grateful to COST Action E39 for supporting a Short Term Scientific Mission to the Institute for Housing and Urban Research at Uppsala University, and to that institute for supporting her visist.

References (69)

  • T. Hartig et al.

    The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences

    Journal of Environmental Psychology

    (2006)
  • T.R. Herzog et al.

    Assessing the restorative components of environments

    Journal of Environmental Psychology

    (2003)
  • N. Humpel et al.

    Environmental factors associated with adults’ participation in physical activity: a review

    American Journal of Preventive Medicine

    (2002)
  • S. Kaplan

    The restorative benefits of nature: towards an integrative framework

    Journal of Environmental Psychology

    (1995)
  • J.H. Kerr et al.

    Psychological responses to exercising in laboratory and natural environments

    Psychology of Sport and Exercise

    (2006)
  • K. Korpela et al.

    Restorative qualities of favorite places

    Journal of Environmental Psychology

    (1996)
  • K.M. Korpela et al.

    Determinants of restorative experiences in everyday favourite places

    Health & Place

    (2008)
  • K. Laumann et al.

    Rating scale measures of restorative components of environments

    Journal of Environmental Psychology

    (2001)
  • C. Milligan et al.

    Restorative places or scary spaces? The impact of woodland on the mental well-being of young adults

    Health & Place

    (2007)
  • G. Parfitt et al.

    The effect of choice of exercise mode on psychological responses

    Psychology of Sport and Exercise

    (2004)
  • C. Pascual et al.

    Socioeconomic environment, availability of sports facilities, and jogging, swimming, and gym use

    Health & Place

    (2009)
  • H. Staats et al.

    Alone or with a friend: a social context for psychological restoration and environmental preferences

    Journal of Environmental Psychology

    (2004)
  • T. Sugiyama et al.

    Associations of neighbourhood greenness with physical and mental health: do walking, social coherence and local social interaction explain the relationships?

    Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

    (2008)
  • S. Titze et al.

    Prospective study of individual, social, and environmental predictors of physical activity: women's leisure running

    Psychology of Sport and Exercise

    (2005)
  • P. Tucker et al.

    The effect of season and weather on physical activity: a systematic review

    Public Health

    (2007)
  • P. Tucker et al.

    Environmental influences on physical activity levels in youth

    Health & Place

    (2009)
  • R. Vilhjalmsson et al.

    Gender differences in physical activity in older children and adolescents: the central role of organized sport

    Social Science & Medicine

    (2003)
  • I. Ajzen et al.

    Application of the theory of planned behavior to leisure choice

    Journal of Leisure Research

    (1992)
  • C.J. Armitage et al.

    Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review

    British Journal of Social Psychology

    (2001)
  • A. Bandura

    Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory

    (1986)
  • A.E. Baumann et al.

    Toward a better understanding of the influences on physical activity: the role of determinants, correlates, causal variables, mediators, moderators, and confounders

    American Journal of Preventive Medicine

    (2002)
  • S.J.H. Biddle et al.

    Physical Activity and Psychological Well-Being

    (2000)
  • Bourdieu, P., 1982. Der Sozialraum und seine Transformationen. In Die feinen Unterschiede—Kritik der gesellschaftlichen...
  • C. Bouchard et al.

    Physical Activity and Health

    (2007)
  • Cited by (113)

    • Restorative benefits of everyday green exercise: A spatial approach

      2021, Landscape and Urban Planning
      Citation Excerpt :

      Additionally, the possible synergies between the different health benefits have received increasing interdisciplinary research interest. Evidence from studies focusing on green exercise, i.e., physical activity undertaken in green and natural settings, suggests that green exercise may be more positively associated with mood enhancement and emotional well-being than physical activity indoors (Hug et al., 2009; Thompson Coon, Boddy, Stein, Whear, Barton, & Depledge, 2011) or in other outdoor settings (Barton & Pretty, 2010; Mitchell, 2013; Pasanen, Tyrväinen, & Korpela, 2014). These positive effects have been reported particularly in association with exercising in natural environments (Mitchell, 2013; Pasanen et al., 2014) and near blue spaces, such as lakes and coastal areas (Barton & Pretty, 2010; White, Pahl, Ashbullby, Herbert, & Depledge, 2013), and with varying types of positive feedback on mental health.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text