Socio-ecological Perspective on Walking
Marta Anna Zurawik
——————————————————————
Creative Commons License:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Citation:
Zurawik, Marta Anna. “Socio-ecological Perspective on Walking.” Coldnoon: Travel Poetics 3.1 (2014): 81-98.
| PUB. JAN ‘14 | 3(1) | DOWNLOAD PDF |
Walking is the nearest activity to perfect exercise (Morris, Hardman 1997, Tolley 2003) as it is effortless and simple for healthy humans. It is the most common form of a daily activity ideal for everyone and can be regularly undertaken, intentionally, when walking for leisure or not when playing golf or shopping. However, walking as an activity is hardly noticeable, mainly because it is very easily performed.
The concept of walking is complex as the activity can be viewed from many perspectives. From a physiological standpoint, walking is an aerobic exercise that uses large muscle-groups, it is a weight-bearing and can be practiced at various intensity levels (Tolley). From a sociological point of view, Mike Oliver regards walking not only as a capacity of biological organism. It is a rule-following behaviour, a system of communication which is specific and unique for everyone. In other words, walking is a biological experience for people to move around but also a way of displaying and communicating various moral, gendered, sexual, age, ethnic and subcultural identities (Green, 2009).
Walking-education starts very early and never ends. “(…) we work toward being active from birth, learning how to sit up, to crawl, to walk, and then, for most people, to be active in (a) range of ways” (Tolley, 402). Throughout life, people practice different types of walking appropriate for various social and cultural circumstances. Walking patterns are also regulated by time and characteristics of particular spaces. People walk differently in busy streets, shopping-malls, parks, beaches and in various times of day, weather or season. Good examples of how walking rhythm depends on place and time are daily routines: people rush to work, children hurry to school, women surge in shops and elderly either stroll leisurely or wander slowly around towns.
A Brief History of Walking
Human bodies have evolved in order to live a physically active life. From the prehistoric era people led nomadic lifestyles as hunters and gatherers, in which the only way to survive was walking for food and shelter. This particular active lifestyle required a high total energy expenditure and high level of exertion to which human bodies were adapted by having “abundance of muscle fibres with high oxygen capacity, and little body hair and numerous sweat glands to allow efficient dissipation of heat from the body” (Blair, Brill et al., 25). 10,000 years ago people began to settle in relatively more fecund geographic areas, develop agriculture, domesticate animals and grow plants. This settled lifestyle provided regular food supply and with further consequences, enabled to establish towns and cities. The early agriculturalists still were physically active, as most of the power needed for manufacturing and farming was supplied by humans and animals. However, due to development of a more sedentary lifestyle, walking was no longer the main daily physical activity. Major changes in society took place during the Industrial Revolution, in the 18th century, when the steam engine was developed. This invention instantly helped to supply energy for manufacturing and transportation as engines increased the capacity of production, and caused a dramatic drop in the levels of physical exertion across populations. With further advances in means of transport, labour-saving devices at work and home, and the increase of urbanisation, the active lifestyle, which involved walking, spectacularly decreased in favour of sedentary behaviours. During the industrial period (1800-1945), the levels of physical activity, including walking, continued decreasing in populations in the developed societies. After World War II, scientific and technological progress has been even faster and more extensive, what further induced physical inactivity. Nowadays, in industrialized societies, people lead inactive lifestyles, in which high levels of job-related exertion has almost disappeared due to machines performing the work. Labour-saving devices are everywhere and have changed work-lives, home activities and people’s lifestyles forever (Gauvin, Wall et al.). In present times, western societies, on an average, live over 70 years, which is double of the life expectancy in pre-industrial times, and medical statistics claim that the modern populations’ health and lifespan are superior to any previous societies. However, the sudden change in lifestyle from active to sedentary, where food is easily available and the car is the dominant mode of transport, is responsible for the hypokinetic diseases or health problems related to inactive behaviours, such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, low back pain and some types of cancer (Biddle, Mutrie; Tolley).
Walking as a Social Activity
Walking is one of the primary examples of activity by which society educates individuals in physical movement to become a part of the social group. Walking education starts very early and most children are able to walk by the first 12 months. Since the minute people start walking, intentionally or not, they devote all life to practice and master different modes of it, appropriating it for various social and cultural circumstances, as walking is undeniably a social and cultural activity which is learned, regulated, stylized; it is communicative and productive of culturally oriented experiences (Edensor). Walking is embedded in cultural norms, habits and conventions which regulate social life, time and space (ibid). The walking “dressage” regulates its rhythms and paces so that people can walk properly according to social and cultural circumstances. Furthermore, through walking people indicate their social and cultural identities, and more importantly the positions or rankings in the society, and the network of relations which can be noticed within particular environments such as schools, hospitals, army and sub-cultured groups (Green). The rhythms and styles of walking vary from non-competitive and sociability modes such as sauntering, ambling, strolling, plodding, promenading, wandering and roaming to competitive, strenuous modes associated with sports, such as marching, trail-walking, trekking, hiking, hill-walking, yomping and peak-bagging (Edensor). Walking as a non-competitive mode is often chosen as a leisure-time physical activity. Leisure walking is a goal itself — the experience of consciousness and a slower, more relaxed way of life. Walkers, such as ramblers and pilgrims enjoy the experience of moving outdoors in attractive environments to achieve healthy physical and spiritual sensations (Green). The pleasure of walking is the main reason why the popularity of leisure walks appear to be growing as the number of British walks increased by 10% between 2006 and 2008 (Ramblers’ Association, 2010).
Socio-Ecological Perspective
The word ecology originated in biological science and refers to the interactions between organisms and their environments (Sallis, Owen et al., 2008) . Those ecological analyses of relationships between plant and animal populations and their natural habitats were later extended to the study of human communities and environments within the fields of sociology, psychology and public health. Explorations of the correlation between humans and their environments introduced the concept of social ecology in mid 1960s and early 1970s. Social ecology brought an attention to the social, institutional and cultural contexts of people — environment relations (Stokols, 1996). It also integrated person-focused effort to modify persons’ health behaviour with environment-focused interventions to enhance their physical and social surroundings (ibid) and reduce serious and prevalent health problems (Sallis, Owen et al. 2008) . Since 1970s there has been an increasing interest in ecological perspectives due to their comprehensive approaches for understanding multiple and interacting determinants of health behaviours, including physical-activity behaviour. The socio-ecological model has been developed by many researchers for instance; McLeroy created an ecological model of health behaviour that demonstrated multiple levels of influences: intrapersonal (knowledge, attitudes, beliefs), interpersonal (family, friends, peers), institutional (rules, regulations, informal structures), community (formal and informal social networks, norms and standards) and policy (laws that regulate or support healthy actions); these are independent (Spence, Lee), however they interact across the levels to achieve positive changes in health behaviours. (Eddy, Donahue et al.; McLeroy, Bibeau et al.; King, Stokols et al. 2002).
Fig I: Ecological model of health behaviour. Adapted from Mc Leroy (1988)
Intrapersonal factors explore the personal characteristics which influence health behaviour. They were adapted from social cognitive theories such as the health belief model, the Fishbein theory of reasoned actions, social learning theories, attribution theories, models of decision making and others. Interpersonal factors include relationship with family, friends, neighbours, and contacts at school and work which are essential aspects of social identity and health related decisions. They provide emotional support, information and assistance in fulfilling social responsibilities and health related changes. Organizational factors influence changes in health behaviour since they provide economic and social resources through work groups, socialization and organizational cultures people exist in. Community level shapes personal social and cultural identity. Communities, which people live in, provide emotional support and assistance in fulfilling social responsibilities and health related changes. The last level of influences is policy which includes public awareness about health issues. Public advocacy engages people into participating in political processes through voting, lobbying and monitoring the implementation of health policies. Policy analysis includes providing policy makers, general public and target populations with policy options, and promoting public input into policy making process (McLeroy, Bibeau et al.)
Based on McLeory’s socio-ecological model of health behaviour, Stokols created a social-ecological model of health promotion which integrates many concepts derived from systems theory to understand dynamics and mutual influences between individuals and their environments. In other words, our health decisions are influenced by multiple factors of physical and social environment as well as personal attributes and behavioural patterns.
The socio-ecological model of health promotion provides deeper understanding of the complexity of human environments which can be described as having actual (objective) and subjective (perceived) qualities. Furthermore, environments are characterised as set of individual attributes or combination of individual features (Stokols).
Socio-Ecological Perspective on Physical Activity and Walking
Research has recognised the importance of environmental influences on physical activity (McLeroy, Bibeau et al.; Stokols; Darker, Larkin et al.). Stokols’ socio-ecological model helps to identify opportunities to promote participation in physical activity by recognising multiple factors that influence its promotion or create barriers for individual engagement in physical activity, including walking. The socio-ecological framework provides the structure to understand how those factors affect leisure-walking behaviour (Zurawik) as it offers a comprehensive theoretical explanation or dynamic interactions between personal, behavioural and environmental correlations (Stokols; Stokols; Alfonzo; Moudon, Lee et al.).
The prime role in determining levels of physical activity plays as personal, social and environmental factors (Cerin, Leslie et al.). Within the socio-ecological framework many studies have focused on individual attributes which influence walking behaviour: personality has a strong influence on participation in physical activity as extraversion and conscientiousness are positively correlated with physical activity (Rhodes, Brown et al. 2006; McEachan, Sutton et al.; Rhodes, Courneya et al. 2007). Furthermore, age (Sport England, 2011; Ramblers’ Association, 2010; Kavanagh, Bentley), income (Edwards, Day; Rhodes, Courneya et al. 2007; Green; Kitchen, Williams et al.; Blacklock, Rhodes et al.), and gender (Agrawal, Schimek) are strongly associated with walking behaviour: many people from low income groups walk more for transportation than leisure; women, negatively associated with leisure walking, however spend considerably more time walking than men which is associated with other, mostly domestic works and responsibilities. On the other hand men’s walking increases with age and by 65 years men are tend to walk more than women. Walking behaviour is also influenced by physical and social environment. Leisure walking is associated with aesthetical character of natural and built environment, convenience, accessibility and safety (Hovell, Hofstetter et al. 1992; Hovell, Sallis et al. 1989; Ball, Timperio et al.; Giles-Corti, Donovan 2002; Humpel, Owen et al. 2004; Owen, Humpel et al. 2004; Addy, Wilson et al. 2004, Granner, Sharpe et al.; Saelens, Handy; Stokols). Adults are more likely to become active and maintain active lifestyle if they have an adequate social support as well as opportunity to interact and communicate with others (Cerin, Leslie et al.; Caperchione, Mummery et al.). Policy level positively influences participation in physical activity by creating and managing many health programmes and movements on both national and local levels.
The socio-ecological approach was recognized and utilised in many national and international policies and strategies. The approach was first advocated in Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (WHO, 1986) . The charter recognizes the influence of individual, social, economic and environmental factors in physical activity, health and well-being and different opportunities for interventions on individual and community levels. Consequently, the socio-ecological approach was promoted by WHO in “Health for All” (WHO, 1998) initiative.
Fig. II: The socio-ecological model. Adapted from Stokols (1996)
The socio-ecological framework also demonstrates barriers which prevent engaging in walking behaviour, as human behaviour is a product of dynamic personal, behavioural and environmental interactions. Individuals adapt or vary their behaviour or characteristics in response to available or changing influences in the environment which may create conditions that are favourable for some individuals, and less favourable for others (Spence, Lee). These barriers are linked to the concept of “walking needs,” which are presented in Fig II. The hierarchy of walking needs is based on Maslow’s motivational theory and organizes needs into five levels of prominence (Maslow; Alfonzo) — feasibility, accessibility, safety, comfort and pleasurability.
Fig III: Hierarchy of walking needs. (Adapted from Alfonzo M, 2005)
Feasibility is the most basic level of needs within the hierarchy and refers to the viability of walking. At this level lack of enjoyment, lack of time, poor health, occupational duties, low income and self-efficiency (Cerin, Leslie et al.) may prevent engagements in the walking activity. Accessibility refers to patterns, quantity, quality, and variety. It considers presence of pavements, paths, trails or barriers (ibid). Individuals’ safety levels vary and depend on urban forms and presence of certain threatening groups or individuals. Comfort is THE next level of need and it refers to individual convenience and happiness. Satisfaction with walking may be affected by environmental qualities that make the exercise more comfortable and less distressing. Pleasurability refers to diversity, complexity, liveliness and aesthetic appeal that environments provide, with regard to walking experience (Saelens, Handy; Addy, Wilson et al.; Granner, Sharpe et al.; Owen, Humpel et al. 2004). It is worth noticing that in this hierarchical structure, the higher needs are not to be satisfied if the basic needs are not met. However, the levels of needs in the hierarchy might not always proceed in the correct order, or the order might be reversed for some levels, for example when people are deprived of the need for long time, they might exclude it from hierarchy and satisfy the higher needs. Besides, walking might be motivated by several needs from different levels of hierarchy (Alfonzo).
According to the socio-ecological perspective and hierarchy of walking needs, engaging in walking does not depend only on individual beliefs and attitudes; it also depends on characteristics of the local environment, the social context, and social relationships.
There is a body of growing body of evidence on correlations between physical activity including walking and social and physical environments. Several research studies acknowledged the importance of natural environment in individual’s decision to be physically active and the fact that various weather characteristics may affect outdoor activity levels. For example, heat and humidity interfere with body’s natural cooling process and increases the risk of dehydration, heat exhaustion and heat stroke. On the other hand, cold weather causes construction of surfaces blood vessels which elevates blood pressure, causing more strain on the heart and decreased muscle power. Moreover, precipitation, wind, and a number of daylight hours are often weather related environmental factors that may affect physical activity. Moreover, the frequency and duration of leisure time physical activity decreases during winter months compared to warmer months due to changes in monthly temperature, daylight and precipitation. The degree of area hilliness affects outdoor activity by increasing intensity of physical activity, which leads to avoidance of walking, jogging and cycling in those areas (McGinn, Evenson et al.).
Corti and Donovan (2002) examined environmental and individual determinants of physical activity in Western Australia. The study results suggested that access to supportive physical environment is necessary but may be an insufficient determinant to increase levels of physical activity, as complex strategies are required to influence both individual and social environmental factors to enhance recreational physical activity in communities.
Several studies found strong positive correlations, since friend and family support have been found to influence participation in physical activity across wide range of populations (Stahl, Rutten et al.; Granner, Sharpe et al.). By contrast, lack of social support from family and friends is associated with lower levels of physical activity especially for women (Stahl, Rutten et al.). These findings suggest that promotion of physical activity needs to focus on making activity more socially accepted among wider population groups.
Conclusion
Walking is a part of everyday life and every person creates their own styles and paces according to their roles and positions in society. However, walking does not only depend on personal attitudes and motives; it is associated with networks of social groups people live in and their local environments. The socio-ecological perspective is very popular approach among researches and offers a comprehensive theoretical background for leisure studies. Socio-ecological perspectives together with the theory of human motivation, suggest that psychological, sociological and cultural attributes towards walking and environmental characteristics encourage people to engage in walking behaviour.
A key strength of the socio-ecological perspective is a focus on multiple levels of influences on health decisions on the other hand the lack of specification about the most important influences may be considered as a weakness for some. Nevertheless, the socio- ecological model is not to demonstrate the supremacy of some influences over others; it is to show the balanced relationship between those influences and the interactions between the parameters that govern the ideologies of the walk.
References
Addy, C. L., et al. “Associations of Perceived Social and Physical Environmental Supports with Physical Activity and Walking Behaviour.” American Journal of Public Health 94.3 (2004): 440-43.
Agrawal, Asha, Weinstein, and Paul Schimek. “Extent and Correlates of Walking in the USA.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 12.8 (2007): 548-63.
Alfonzo, Mariela. “To Walk or Not to Walk? The Hierarchy of Walking Needs.” Environment and Behavior 37.6 (2005): 808.
Ball, Kylie, et al. “Personal, Social and Environmental Determinants of Educational Inequalities in Walking: A Multilevel Study.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 61.2 (2007): 108-14.
Biddle, Stuart, and Nanette Mutrie. Psychology of Physical Activity: Determinants, Well-being and Interventions. London: Routledge, 2008.
Blacklock, Rachel, Ryan Rhodes, and Shane Brown. “Relationship between Regular Walking, Physical Activity, and Health-Related Quality of Life.” Journal of Physical Activity & Health 4.2 (2007): 138-52.
Blair, S., P. Brill, and C. Barlow. “Physical Ativity and Disease Prevention.” Toward Active Living. Eds. A. Quinney, L. Gauvin, and T. Wall. Human Kintetics, 1994: 25.
Caperchione, Cristina, W. Kerry Mummery, and Mitch Duncan. “Investigating the Relationship between Leader Behaviours and Group Cohesion within Women’s Walking Groups.” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 14.4 (2011): 325-30.
Cerin, Ester, et al. “Perceived Barriers to Leisure-Time Physical Activity in Adults: An Ecological Perspective.” Journal of Physical Activity & Health 7.4 (2010): 451-59.
Darker, Catherine, Michael Larkin, and David French. “An Exploration of Walking Behaviour-an Interpretative Phenomenological Approach.” Social Science & Medicine 65.10 (2007): 2172-83.
Eddy, James, et al. “Application of an Ecological Perspective in Worksite Health Promotion: A Review.” American Journal of Health Studies 17.4 (2002): 197.
Edensor, Tim. “Walking in Rhythms: Place, Regulation, Style and the Flow of Experience.” Visual Studies 25.1 (2010): 69-79.
Edwards, Helen, and Derek Day. “Passionbrands: Getting to the Heart of Branding.” Young Consumers 6.3 (2005): 41-43.
Gauvin, Lise, E. Wall, and Arthur Quinney. Toward Active Living: Proceedings of the International Conference on Physical Activity, Fitness, and Health. Leeds: Champaign, Human Kinetics, 1994.
Giles-Corti, Billie, and Robert Donovan. “The Relative Influence of Individual, Social and Physical Environment Determinants of Physical Activity.” Social Science and Medicine 54.12 (2002): 1793-812.
Granner, Michelle, et al. “Perceived Individual, Social, and Environmental Factors for Physical Activity and Walking.” Journal of Physical Activity & Health 4.3 (2007): 278-93.
Green, Judith. “’Walk this Way': Public Health and the Social Organization of Walking.” Social Theory & Health 7.1 (2009): 20-38.
Hovell, M., F, et al. “Correlates of Change in Walking for Exercise: An Exploratory Analysis.” Research quarterly for exercise and sport 63.4 (1992): 425-34.
Hovell, Melbourne, et al. “Identifying Correlates of Walking for Exercise: An Epidemiologic Prerequisite for Physical Activity Promotion.” Preventive Medicine 18.6 (1989): 856-66.
Humpel, Nancy, et al. “Perceived Environment Attributes, Residential Location, and Walking for Particular Purposes.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 26.2 (2004): 119-25.
Kavanagh, Anne Marie, and Rebecca Bentley. “Walking: A Gender Issue?” Australian Journal of Social Issues 43.1 (2008): 45-64.
King, Abby, et al. “Theoretical Approaches to the Promotion of Physical Activity: Forging a Transdisciplinary Paradigm.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 23.2 (2002): 15-25.
Kitchen, Peter, Allison Williams, and James Chowhan. “Walking to Work in Canada: Health Benefits, Socio-Economic Characteristics and Urban-Regional Variations.” BMC Public Health 11 (2011): 212.
Maslow, A. H. “A Theory of Human Motivation.” Psychological Review 50.4 (1943): 370-96.
McEachan, Rosemary, Stephen Sutton, and Lynn Myers. “Mediation of Personality Influences on Physical Activity within the Theory of Planned Behaviour.” Journal of Health Psychology 15.8 (2010): 1170-80.
McGinn, Aileen, et al. “The Relationship between Leisure, Walking, and Transportation Activity with the Natural Environment.” Health & Place 13.3 (2007): 588-602.
McLeroy, Kenneth, et al. “An Ecological Perspective on Health Promotion Programs.” Health Education Quarterly 15.4 (1988): 351-77.
Morris, J. N., and A. E. Hardman. “Walking to Health.” Sports Medicine 23.5 (1997): 306-32.
Moudon, Anne Vernez, et al. “Attributes of Environments Supporting Walking.” American Journal of Health Promotion 21.5 (2007): 448-59.
Oliver, M. J. “What’s Wonderful about Walking? Inaugural Professorial Lecture.” University of Greenwich, 1993.
Owen, Neville, et al. “Understanding Environmental Influences on Walking: Review and Research Agenda.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27.1 (2004): 67-76.
Ramblers’ Association. Walking Facts and Figures 2: Participation in Walking. Ramblers’ Association, 2010.
Rhodes, Ryan, Shane Brown, and Carolyn McIntyre. “Integrating the Perceived Neighborhood Environment and the Theory of Planned Behavior when Predicting Walking in a Canadian Adult Sample.” American Journal of Health Promotion 21.2 (2006): 110-18.
Rhodes, Ryan, et al. “Prediction of Leisure-Time Walking: An Integration of Social Cognitive, Perceived Environmental, and Personality Factors.” International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 4 (2007): 51.
Saelens, Brian, and Susan Handy. “Built Environment Correlates of Walking: A Review.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 40.7 (2008): 550-66.
Sallis, James, Neville Owen, and Edwin Fisher. “Ecological Models of Health Behavior.” Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. Eds. Karen Glanz, Barbara Rimer, and Kasisomayajula Viswanath. 4, illustrated ed.John Wiley & Sons, 2008. 245-85.
Spence, John, and Rebecca Lee. “Toward a Comprehensive Model of Physical Activity.” Psychology of Sport and Exercise 4.1 (2003): 7-24.
Sport England. 3×30 Sports Participation Indicator. Active People Survey 5 Vol. , 2011.
Stahl, T., et al. “The Importance of the Social Environment for Physically Active Lifestyle – Results from an International Study.” Social Science and Medicine 52.1 (2001): 1-10.
Stokols, Daniel. “Establishing and Maintaining Healthy Environments: Toward a Social Ecology of Health Promotion.” American Psychologist 47.1 (1992): 6-22.
——. “Translating Social Ecological Theory into Guidelines for Community Health Promotion.” American Journal of Health Promotion 10.4 (1996): 282-98.
Tolley, Rodney. Sustainable Transport : Planning for Walking and Cycling in Urban Environments. Cambridge: Woodhead, 2003.
WHO. Health 21: An Introduction to the Health for all Policy Framework for the WHO European Region. European Health for All Series; No. 5 Vol. World Health Organisation, 1998.
——. Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. WHO/HPR/HEP/95.1 Vol. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1986.
Zurawik, M. “Nordic Walking and Well-being of Senior Walkers”. Salford postgraduate annual research conference (SPARC) 2012 proceedings. May 2012.