Evaluating the performance of spatial indicators of destination accessibility for physical activity research: a comparative international analysis

Ester CERIN; Marc A. ADAMS; Terry L. CONWAY; Lawrence D. FRANK; Kelli L. CAIN; Poh-Chin LAI; Scott DUNCAN; Ana QUERALT; Anna TIMPERIO; Jasper SCHIPPERIJN; Rodrigo S. REIS; Delfien VAN DYCK; Paulina P.Y. WONG; Jan DYGRÝN; Erica HINCKSON; Javier MOLINA-GARCIA; James F. SALLIS

doi:10.1016/j.cities.2025.106044

Evaluating the performance of spatial indicators of destination accessibility for physical activity research: a comparative international analysis

Ester CERIN^*, Marc A. ADAMS, Terry L. CONWAY, Lawrence D. FRANK, Kelli L. CAIN, Poh-Chin LAI, Scott DUNCAN, Ana QUERALT, Anna TIMPERIO, Jasper SCHIPPERIJN, Rodrigo S. REIS, Delfien VAN DYCK, Paulina P.Y. WONG, Jan DYGRÝN, Erica HINCKSON, Javier MOLINA-GARCIA, James F. SALLIS

^*Corresponding author for this work

Science Unit

Research output: Journal Publications › Journal Article (refereed) › peer-review

Abstract

Neighbourhoods with good access to various destinations facilitate engagement in physical activity. Because spatial indicators of destination accessibility can be operationalised in numerous ways, it is important to evaluate their ability to explain physical activity in various geographical and cultural contexts. We evaluated established as well as novel spatial indicators of destination accessibility using data from 12 cities/regions participating in an international study on adolescents' physical activity. Twelve spatial indicators of destination accessibility were developed using land use data. Five indicators represented measures of destination intensity (density), two were indicators of destination heterogeneity [land use mix (LUM) indices], and the remaining five were novel measures of combined destination intensity and heterogeneity. To evaluate these spatial indicators, we examined their performance as correlates of parent-perceived destination accessibility and adolescents' physical activity, and the extent to which the findings were generalisable across cities/regions. Substantial differences in ability to explain physical activity and comparability across geographical locations were observed across the indicators. The best performing indicator, defined as being a consistent correlate of parental perceptions of destination accessibility and adolescents' physical activity in the expected direction and across cities/regions, was a novel hybrid intensity + heterogeneity indicator: gross density of non-residential destinations weighted by a novel parcel-count-based LUM index. Indicators based on ratios of non-residential land/parcels to residential land/dwelling units performed poorly on most criteria, while LUM indices performed well in relation to transport-related physical activity. We provide recommendations regarding the usage of spatial destination accessibility indicators in physical activity research.

Original language	English
Article number	106044
Journal	Cities
Volume	163
Early online date	3 May 2025
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2025.106044
Publication status	E-pub ahead of print - 3 May 2025

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Authors

Funding

Funding for the International Physical Activity and Environment Network Adolescent study was made possible by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant: R01 HL111378 . Data collection in Belgium was supported partially by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) grant: FWO12/ASP/102 . Data collection in Brazil was supported partially by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development grant: 306836/2011\u20134 . Data collection in the Czech Republic was funded by the Czech Science Foundation grants: GA14-26896S and GA17-24378S . Data collection in Denmark was supported partially by the University of Southern Denmark . The Hong Kong study (iHealt(H) was supported by the Health and Medical Research Fund (Food and Health Bureau, Government of the Hong Kong SAR, PR of China) grant: 10111501 . Data collection in New Zealand (BEANZ study) was funded by the Health Research Council (HRC) of New Zealand grant: HRC12/329 . Data collection in Spain was supported partially by Generalitat Valenciana , Spain grant: GV-2013-087 . Data collection in the USA (TEAN) was supported by NIH grant: R01 HL083454 . EC was supported by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship grant: FT140100085 . AT was supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship (Award 100046) during the conduct of this study. JD is supported by Palack\u00FD University Olomouc grant no. JG_2023_007 .

Keywords

Active transport
Destination density
Device-assessed physical activity
Land use mix
Multi-site international study

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.cities.2025.106044Licence: CC BY

https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0264275125003440

Cite this

CERIN, E., ADAMS, M. A., CONWAY, T. L., FRANK, L. D., CAIN, K. L., LAI, P.-C., DUNCAN, S., QUERALT, A., TIMPERIO, A., SCHIPPERIJN, J., REIS, R. S., VAN DYCK, D., WONG, P. P. Y., DYGRÝN, J., HINCKSON, E., MOLINA-GARCIA, J., & SALLIS, J. F. (2025). Evaluating the performance of spatial indicators of destination accessibility for physical activity research: a comparative international analysis. Cities, 163, Article 106044. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2025.106044

@article{91fb3c0c806f48f586b005da78e92e06,

title = "Evaluating the performance of spatial indicators of destination accessibility for physical activity research: a comparative international analysis",

abstract = "Neighbourhoods with good access to various destinations facilitate engagement in physical activity. Because spatial indicators of destination accessibility can be operationalised in numerous ways, it is important to evaluate their ability to explain physical activity in various geographical and cultural contexts. We evaluated established as well as novel spatial indicators of destination accessibility using data from 12 cities/regions participating in an international study on adolescents' physical activity. Twelve spatial indicators of destination accessibility were developed using land use data. Five indicators represented measures of destination intensity (density), two were indicators of destination heterogeneity [land use mix (LUM) indices], and the remaining five were novel measures of combined destination intensity and heterogeneity. To evaluate these spatial indicators, we examined their performance as correlates of parent-perceived destination accessibility and adolescents' physical activity, and the extent to which the findings were generalisable across cities/regions. Substantial differences in ability to explain physical activity and comparability across geographical locations were observed across the indicators. The best performing indicator, defined as being a consistent correlate of parental perceptions of destination accessibility and adolescents' physical activity in the expected direction and across cities/regions, was a novel hybrid intensity + heterogeneity indicator: gross density of non-residential destinations weighted by a novel parcel-count-based LUM index. Indicators based on ratios of non-residential land/parcels to residential land/dwelling units performed poorly on most criteria, while LUM indices performed well in relation to transport-related physical activity. We provide recommendations regarding the usage of spatial destination accessibility indicators in physical activity research.",

keywords = "Active transport, Destination density, Device-assessed physical activity, Land use mix, Multi-site international study",

author = "Ester CERIN and ADAMS, {Marc A.} and CONWAY, {Terry L.} and FRANK, {Lawrence D.} and CAIN, {Kelli L.} and Poh-Chin LAI and Scott DUNCAN and Ana QUERALT and Anna TIMPERIO and Jasper SCHIPPERIJN and REIS, {Rodrigo S.} and {VAN DYCK}, Delfien and WONG, {Paulina P.Y.} and Jan DYGR{\'Y}N and Erica HINCKSON and Javier MOLINA-GARCIA and SALLIS, {James F.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2025 The Authors",

year = "2025",

month = may,

day = "3",

doi = "10.1016/j.cities.2025.106044",

language = "English",

volume = "163",

journal = "Cities",

issn = "0264-2751",

publisher = "Elsevier Ltd",

}

CERIN, E, ADAMS, MA, CONWAY, TL, FRANK, LD, CAIN, KL, LAI, P-C, DUNCAN, S, QUERALT, A, TIMPERIO, A, SCHIPPERIJN, J, REIS, RS, VAN DYCK, D, WONG, PPY, DYGRÝN, J, HINCKSON, E, MOLINA-GARCIA, J & SALLIS, JF 2025, 'Evaluating the performance of spatial indicators of destination accessibility for physical activity research: a comparative international analysis', Cities, vol. 163, 106044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2025.106044

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating the performance of spatial indicators of destination accessibility for physical activity research: a comparative international analysis

AU - CERIN, Ester

AU - ADAMS, Marc A.

AU - CONWAY, Terry L.

AU - FRANK, Lawrence D.

AU - CAIN, Kelli L.

AU - LAI, Poh-Chin

AU - DUNCAN, Scott

AU - QUERALT, Ana

AU - TIMPERIO, Anna

AU - SCHIPPERIJN, Jasper

AU - REIS, Rodrigo S.

AU - VAN DYCK, Delfien

AU - WONG, Paulina P.Y.

AU - DYGRÝN, Jan

AU - HINCKSON, Erica

AU - MOLINA-GARCIA, Javier

AU - SALLIS, James F.

PY - 2025/5/3

Y1 - 2025/5/3

N2 - Neighbourhoods with good access to various destinations facilitate engagement in physical activity. Because spatial indicators of destination accessibility can be operationalised in numerous ways, it is important to evaluate their ability to explain physical activity in various geographical and cultural contexts. We evaluated established as well as novel spatial indicators of destination accessibility using data from 12 cities/regions participating in an international study on adolescents' physical activity. Twelve spatial indicators of destination accessibility were developed using land use data. Five indicators represented measures of destination intensity (density), two were indicators of destination heterogeneity [land use mix (LUM) indices], and the remaining five were novel measures of combined destination intensity and heterogeneity. To evaluate these spatial indicators, we examined their performance as correlates of parent-perceived destination accessibility and adolescents' physical activity, and the extent to which the findings were generalisable across cities/regions. Substantial differences in ability to explain physical activity and comparability across geographical locations were observed across the indicators. The best performing indicator, defined as being a consistent correlate of parental perceptions of destination accessibility and adolescents' physical activity in the expected direction and across cities/regions, was a novel hybrid intensity + heterogeneity indicator: gross density of non-residential destinations weighted by a novel parcel-count-based LUM index. Indicators based on ratios of non-residential land/parcels to residential land/dwelling units performed poorly on most criteria, while LUM indices performed well in relation to transport-related physical activity. We provide recommendations regarding the usage of spatial destination accessibility indicators in physical activity research.

AB - Neighbourhoods with good access to various destinations facilitate engagement in physical activity. Because spatial indicators of destination accessibility can be operationalised in numerous ways, it is important to evaluate their ability to explain physical activity in various geographical and cultural contexts. We evaluated established as well as novel spatial indicators of destination accessibility using data from 12 cities/regions participating in an international study on adolescents' physical activity. Twelve spatial indicators of destination accessibility were developed using land use data. Five indicators represented measures of destination intensity (density), two were indicators of destination heterogeneity [land use mix (LUM) indices], and the remaining five were novel measures of combined destination intensity and heterogeneity. To evaluate these spatial indicators, we examined their performance as correlates of parent-perceived destination accessibility and adolescents' physical activity, and the extent to which the findings were generalisable across cities/regions. Substantial differences in ability to explain physical activity and comparability across geographical locations were observed across the indicators. The best performing indicator, defined as being a consistent correlate of parental perceptions of destination accessibility and adolescents' physical activity in the expected direction and across cities/regions, was a novel hybrid intensity + heterogeneity indicator: gross density of non-residential destinations weighted by a novel parcel-count-based LUM index. Indicators based on ratios of non-residential land/parcels to residential land/dwelling units performed poorly on most criteria, while LUM indices performed well in relation to transport-related physical activity. We provide recommendations regarding the usage of spatial destination accessibility indicators in physical activity research.

KW - Active transport

KW - Destination density

KW - Device-assessed physical activity

KW - Land use mix

KW - Multi-site international study

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105003935857&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cities.2025.106044

DO - 10.1016/j.cities.2025.106044

M3 - Journal Article (refereed)

SN - 0264-2751

VL - 163

JO - Cities

JF - Cities

M1 - 106044

ER -

Evaluating the performance of spatial indicators of destination accessibility for physical activity research: a comparative international analysis

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Funding

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this