Inactive lifestyles in peri‐urban Australia: A qualitative examination of social and physical environmental determinants

Abstract

Despite activity-supportive social and environmental characteristics, most participants reported inactive lifestyles. The barriers to active lifestyles in peri-urban environments may negate these activity-supportive features. Some barriers are difficult to modify (eg, distance and accessibility). However, some may be alleviated through the adoption of activity-supportive policy and urban design (eg, pedestrian mobility infrastructure). SO WHAT?: Strategies to support active lifestyles in peri-urban environments must take into account unmodifiable contextual barriers, whilst encouraging utilisation of existing activity-supportive infrastructure and resources. The enhancement of activity-supportive environments through improved neighbourhood walkability and the usability of public transport may encourage some peri-urban residents to undertake more active forms of transport and recreational physical activity.

Not quite city and not quite rural: Active lifestyle beliefs in peri‐urban Australians

“…Investigation of the differential impact of living within and outside of towns may be useful to build more specific understanding of the inactive lifestyles of these sub‐populations. It is possible that participation in the parent study raised participant awareness of contextual influences upon active lifestyles in peri‐urban environments. However, the 3‐month delay between the studies, and the differing focus of the studies (ie, environmental factors vs beliefs about behaviours) should minimise any potential risk of bias.…”

“…It is possible that participation in the parent study 19 instances. The need for social interaction appears to be highly salient in peri-urban environments, and those who considered sports participation as an opportunity for social interaction reported sustained physical activity.…”

“…Ethical approval was obtained from the host institution's Human Research Ethics Committee. Participants were recruited from the participant pool of a related study which has been described elsewhere . In summary, participants of the parent study took part in semi‐structured interviews 3 months prior to taking part in the present study, and were asked to describe the physical and social environment in their local neighbourhood.…”

“…Participants were recruited from the participant pool of a related study which has been described elsewhere. 19 In summary, participants of the parent study took part in semi-structured interviews 3 months prior to taking part in the present study, and were asked to describe the physical and social environment in their local neighbourhood. Specific individuals were purposefully targeted for the present study to maximise the diversity between the participants, informed by the analysis of the first study (eg, the range of views expressed, inclusion of those living within townships and those living in more rural areas, by gender, approximate age and descriptions of active lifestyle participation).…”

Exploring Australian residents cycling engagement – Differences in self‐reported cycling behaviour between urban and rural dwelling Queenslanders

“…The benefits of our modern, technology‐driven life are abundant; however, a sedentary lifestyle can be an unfortunate accompaniment . Patterns of sedentary behaviour and physical activity have been found to differ based on geographical location, with rural residents both in Australia and the United States reported to be insufficiently active . Given that insufficient physical activity engagement is a key driver in non‐communicable disease presentations and mortality worldwide, stimulating and maintaining physical activity engagement is a timely public health priority .…”