O Acesso Aos Espaços Públicos e a Atividade Física em Mulheres Adultas Mexicanas

Por: Ietza Bojorquez, Lina Ojeda-revah e Rolando Diaz.

Cadernos de Saúde Pública - v.34 - n.4 - 2018

Send to Kindle


.Resumo

O artigo buscou explorar a associação entre o acesso aos espaços públicos e a atividade física em mulheres adultas mexicanas, controlando e testando para interações entre características sociodemográficas e ambientais urbanas. Combinamos dados sociodemográficos de uma pesquisa feita na população feminina adulta (18-65 anos) de Tijuana, México, realizada em 2014 (N = 2.345), e os dados de um estudo (2013) sobre espaços públicos na mesma cidade. Avaliamos o acesso aos espaços públicos pela presença e área total de espaços públicos dentro de raios de 400, 800, 1.000 e 1.600 metros em torno dos domicílios das participantes. Medimos a atividade física com a versão breve do International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ-short). Foram utilizados modelos logísticos multinomiais para avaliar a associação entre o acesso aos espaços públicos e a atividade física, testando para interações entre acesso aos espaços públicos e qualidade dos espaços públicos e características sociodemográficas. Não constatamos nenhuma interação entre o acesso aos espaços públicos e a qualidade dos espaços públicos, no efeito sobre a atividade física. Houve uma associação entre a presença de espaços públicos no raio de 400 metros e maior probabilidade de estar no nível baixo de atividade física (quando comparado ao nível moderado) (coeficiente: 0,50; IC95%: 0,13; 0,87). As participantes que usavam transporte público mostraram menor probabilidade de nível baixo de atividade física (coeficiente: -0,57; IC95%: -0,97; -0,17). Sugerimos que, nesta população, o acesso aos espaços públicos pode ser menos relevante para a atividade física do que outros elementos do ambiente urbano e características sociodemográficas.

REFERENCES

1. World Health Organization. Global recommendations on physical activity for health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010. [ Links ]

2. Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U, et al. Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet 2012; 380:247-57. [ Links ]

3. Bedimo-Rung AL, Mowen AJ, Cohen DA. The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: a conceptual model. Am J Prev Med 2005; 28(2 Suppl 2):159-68. [ Links ]

4. Koohsari MJ, Mavoa S, Villanueva K, Sugiyama T, Badland H, Kaczynski AT, et al. Public open space, physical activity, urban design and public health: concepts, methods and research agenda. Health Place 2015; 33:75-82. [ Links ]

5. Kaczynski AT, Henderson KA. Environmental correlates of physical activity: a review of evidence about parks and recreation. Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2007; 29:315-54. [ Links ]

6. McCormack GR, Shiell A. In search of causality: a systematic review of the relationship between the built environment and physical activity among adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2011; 8:125. [ Links ]

7. Sallis JF, Cerin E, Conway TL, Adams MA, Frank LD, Pratt M, et al. Physical activity in relation to urban environments in 14 cities worldwide: a cross-sectional study. Lancet 2016; 387:2207-17. [ Links ]

8. Koohsari MJ, Kaczynski AT, Giles-Corti B, Karakiewicz JA. Effects of access to public open spaces on walking: Is proximity enough? Landsc Urban Plan 2013; 117:92-9. [ Links ]

9. King TL, Thornton LE, Bentley RJ, Kavanagh AM. Does parkland influence walking? The relationship between area of parkland and walking trips in Melbourne, Australia. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012; 9:115. [ Links ]

10. Hillsdon M, Panter J, Foster C, Jones A. The relationship between access and quality of urban green space with population physical activity. Public Health 2006; 120:1127-32. [ Links ]

11. Kaczynski AT, Besenyi GM, Stanis SA, Koohsari MJ, Oestman KB, Bergstrom R, et al. Are park proximity and park features related to park use and park-based physical activity among adults? Variations by multiple socio-demographic characteristics. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2014; 11:146. [ Links ]

12. Boone CG, Buckley GL, Grove JM, Sister C. Parks and people: an environmental justice inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. Ann Am Assoc Geogr 2009; 99:767-87. [ Links ]

13. Reyes S, Figueroa IM. Distribución, superficie y accesibilidad de las áreas verdes en Santiago de Chile. EURE (Santiago) 2010; 36:89-110. [ Links ]

14. García-Pérez H, Lara-Valencia F. Equidad en la provisión de espacios públicos abiertos: accesibilidad, percepción y uso entre mujeres de Hermosillo, Sonora. Sociedad y Ambiente 2016; 4:28-56. [ Links ]

15. Carlson SA, Brooks JD, Brown DR, Buchner DM. Racial/ethnic differences in perceived access, environmental barriers to use, and use of community parks. Prev Chronic Dis 2010; 7:A49. [ Links ]

16. Giles-Corti B, Broomhall MH, Knuiman M, Collins C, Douglas K, Ng K, et al. Increasing walking: how important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am J Prev Med 2005; 28(2 Suppl 2):169-76. [ Links ]

17. de Vries S, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP, Spreeuwenberg P. Natural environments-healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environ Plan A 2003; 35:1717-31. [ Links ]

18. Ruijsbroek A, Droomers M, Kruize H, van Kempen E, Gidlow CJ, Hurst G, et al. Does the health impact of exposure to neighbourhood green space differ between population groups? An explorative study in four European cities. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017; 14:E618. [ Links ]

19. Maas J, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP, de Vries S, Spreeuwenberg P. Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? J Epidemiol Community Health 2006; 60:587-92. [ Links ]

20. Mitchell R, Popham F. Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. Lancet 2008; 372:1655-60. [ Links ]

21. Dumith SC, Hallal PC, Reis RS, Kohl 3rd HW. Worldwide prevalence of physical inactivity and its association with human development index in 76 countries. Prev Med 2011; 53:24-8. [ Links ]

22. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. Encuesta intercensal: principales resultados. Ciudad de México: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía; 2015. [ Links ]

23. Sánchez-Rodríguez R. Urban and social vulnerability to climate variability in Tijuana, Mexico. In: Kasperson RE, Berberian M, editors. Integrating science and policy: vulnerability and resilience in global environmental change. New York: Routledge; 2011. p. 187-214. [ Links ]

24. Monkkonen P. Do Mexican cities sprawl? Housing-finance reform and changing patterns of urban growth. Urban Geography 2011; 32:406-23. [ Links ]

25. Gobierno del Estado de Baja California. Reglamento de fraccionamientos del Estado de Baja California. Periódico Oficial del Estado de Baja California 1971; Sección I Tomo LVXXVIII(10). [ Links ]

26. Huizar H, Ojeda-Revah L. Los parques de Tijuana: una perspectiva de justicia ambiental. In: Ojeda-Revah L, Espejel I, editors. Cuando las áreas verdes se transforman en paisaje: la visión de Baja California. Tijuana: Colegio de la Frontera Norte; 2014. p. 87-120. [ Links ]

27. Canosa E, Saez E, Sanabria C, Zavala I. Metodología para el estudio de los parques urbanos: la comunidad de Madrid. GeoFocus 2003; 3:160-85 [ Links ]

28. Secretaría de Desarrollo Social. Sistema normativo de equipamiento urbano. Tomo V. Recreación y deporte. http://www.inapam.gob.mx/es/SEDESOL/Documentos (accessed on 07/Apr/2016). [ Links ]

29. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35:1381-95. [ Links ]

30. IPAQ Group. Guidelines for data processing and analysis of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ): short and long forms, 2005. http://www.ipaq.ki.se (accessed on 07/Apr/2016). [ Links ]

31. Barbosa O, Tratalos JA, Armsworth PR, Davies RG, Fuller RA, Johnson P, et al. Who benefits from access to green space? A case study from Sheffield, UK. Landsc Urban Plan 2007; 83:187-95. [ Links ]

32. Veitch J, Abbott G, Kaczynski AT, Wilhelm SA, Besenyi GM, Lamb KE. Park availability and physical activity, TV time, and overweight and obesity among women: findings from Australia and the United States. Health Place 2016; 38:96-102. [ Links ]

33. Salvo D, Reis RS, Stein AD, Rivera J, Martorell R, Pratt M. Characteristics of the built environment in relation to objectively measured physical activity among Mexican adults, 2011. Prev Chronic Dis 2014; 11:E147. [ Links ]

34. Ekelund U, Sepp H, Brage S, Becker W, Jakes R, Hennings M, et al. Criterion-related validity of the last 7-day, short form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire in Swedish adults. Public Health Nutr 2006; 9:258-65. [ Links ]

35. Finger JD, Gisle L, Mimilidis H, Santos-Hoevener C, Kruusmaa EK, Matsi A, et al. How well do physical activity questions perform? A European cognitive testing study. Arch Public Health 2015; 73:57. [ Links ]

Endereço: https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311x00065217

Comentários


:-)





© 1996-2021 Centro Esportivo Virtual - CEV.
O material veiculado neste site poderá ser livremente distribuído para fins não comerciais, segundo os termos da licença da Creative Commons.