<%BANNER%>

The Influence of Perception of Crime on Leisure Time Physical Activity (LTPA) in Hispanic Communities

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024276/00001

Material Information

Title: The Influence of Perception of Crime on Leisure Time Physical Activity (LTPA) in Hispanic Communities
Physical Description: 1 online resource (96 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Suau, Luis
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: fear, hispanics, ltpa
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Health and Human Performance thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: THE INFLUENCE OF PERCEPTION OF CRIME ON LEISURE TIME PHYSICAL ACTIVITY (LTPA) IN HISPANIC COMMUNITIES By Luis J. Suau May 2009 Chair: John O. Spengler Major: Health and Human Performance The purpose of this study was to understand the relationships between income and perception of crime in Hispanic communities and how these perceptions affect participation in leisure time physical activity resulting in improved health. Obesity has been being one of leading causes of coronary heart diseases. Also the expenses to treat them are taking a toll in today?s economy. The study focused on Hispanic areas with different socio economic status, since African American and Hispanic had a higher tendency of cardio vascular diseases and has shown to engage in less physical activity that white people. The area was divided in 12 parks spread through the city of Orlando, FL Latino population. The study showed similar participation between gender but differences in age, with most of the participants being between 18 and 40 years old. Ethnicity was selected using the U.S. census data. Within Hispanic areas, only 60% of the residents consider themselves to be Hispanic. Males where 3 to 1 more active, while females mostly participated on moderate physical activity. Most of the participants do not percived incivilities or are afraid to walk in their neighborhood. Also about 44% of the people that did not participated in physical activity were afraid of walking around their neighborhood. When we asked about their fear of walk in their neighborhoods about 70% of the participants reported no fear of walking. However, almost half of the participants, especially in low income areas, are worried to become a victim of a crime in the future. High and low income neighborhoods showed age to have a negative association with moderate and vigorous physical activity while age and gender had a positive relation. This study can help determine why people in Hispanic communities engage or fail to engage in physical activity and how social and environmental variables influence participation.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Luis Suau.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Spengler, John O.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024276:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024276/00001

Material Information

Title: The Influence of Perception of Crime on Leisure Time Physical Activity (LTPA) in Hispanic Communities
Physical Description: 1 online resource (96 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Suau, Luis
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: fear, hispanics, ltpa
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Health and Human Performance thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: THE INFLUENCE OF PERCEPTION OF CRIME ON LEISURE TIME PHYSICAL ACTIVITY (LTPA) IN HISPANIC COMMUNITIES By Luis J. Suau May 2009 Chair: John O. Spengler Major: Health and Human Performance The purpose of this study was to understand the relationships between income and perception of crime in Hispanic communities and how these perceptions affect participation in leisure time physical activity resulting in improved health. Obesity has been being one of leading causes of coronary heart diseases. Also the expenses to treat them are taking a toll in today?s economy. The study focused on Hispanic areas with different socio economic status, since African American and Hispanic had a higher tendency of cardio vascular diseases and has shown to engage in less physical activity that white people. The area was divided in 12 parks spread through the city of Orlando, FL Latino population. The study showed similar participation between gender but differences in age, with most of the participants being between 18 and 40 years old. Ethnicity was selected using the U.S. census data. Within Hispanic areas, only 60% of the residents consider themselves to be Hispanic. Males where 3 to 1 more active, while females mostly participated on moderate physical activity. Most of the participants do not percived incivilities or are afraid to walk in their neighborhood. Also about 44% of the people that did not participated in physical activity were afraid of walking around their neighborhood. When we asked about their fear of walk in their neighborhoods about 70% of the participants reported no fear of walking. However, almost half of the participants, especially in low income areas, are worried to become a victim of a crime in the future. High and low income neighborhoods showed age to have a negative association with moderate and vigorous physical activity while age and gender had a positive relation. This study can help determine why people in Hispanic communities engage or fail to engage in physical activity and how social and environmental variables influence participation.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Luis Suau.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Spengler, John O.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024276:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THE INFLUENCE OF PERCEPTION OF CRIME ON LEISURE TIME PHYSICAL ACTIVITY (LTPA) IN HISPANIC COMMUNITIES By LUIS J. SUAU A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF T HE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Luis J. Suau

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS During my life I have encounter many great individuals that have contributed on what I am today. I want to first thank m y lovely wife, Maricarmen for providing me the inspiration, and heart to pursue this project. Mary has always infused me with the energy necessary to put thoughts into motion. My parents who had never faltered; they had always been solid and caring, provi ding me with, advice and encouragement when needed. I cannot thank enough both of my parents for all they have done for me. My dad is my hero; his example of being the best one can be never fails to amaze me. He has been, and continues to be an inspiration since day one. My mother, who sure if words can say how lucky I am to have them as parents. My sisters: Nina and Maru, who had always helped me without quest ion. Maru had provided with support in his unique humorous way and Nina had a tireless willingness to help in any situation. and Oscarito. They have assisted us in countles s ways with a continuous unconditional support and encouragement in our lives. Dr. Tim Martin who has been great friend from the first day we met and until this day the best mentor and teacher I ever had. Without his generous help, guidance and support thi s would shaped the completion of my PhD degree. Also I will be eternally grateful to him for treating me as a friend and not a student; it has been fun! Dr. Myron Floyd deserves many thanks for helping me with the writing and analysis of this document. His help has gone beyond his duty as a committee member. His help in providing work opportunity, letters of recommendation, and many other boring, tedious, but otherw ise

PAGE 4

4 important tasks helped the process go smoothly. Dr. Floyd has trusted with an involvement in his research and has always treated me as a close friend. I will never forget that! Dr. Jodi Lane for her valuable input on this project. Dr. Lane understanding of crime issues had given me direction for this research. Thanks also to Stanley Latimer who provided me with help and guidance toward spatial analysis and the GIS part of this p also should be mentioned here. My sincere appreciation goes to Nancy Gullic, Donna Walker and Judy Hopper. Their efforts and cheery demeanor were always uplifting. Special thanks also go to John Jett, his wife Ma rla and their precious Maya. I cannot measure how much their friendship mans to me. John always pushed me to focus on this degree and he never let me go off the rails. His example and willingness to do everything right has been an example to follow. My wif have a brother like him. Last but not least Mario Quintero (Neno) whom I had many laugh and few sorrows since the beginning. Also, Mayito, whose way of teaching us how to solve problems h elped us to become what we are today. They called you too soon. Finally, thanks to Jose, O. Garca and Arnaldo Daz whose unconditional friendship has been there through many good and few bad times.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 3 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 9 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 11 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 11 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 16 Sub problems of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 16 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 16 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 17 Delimitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 18 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 18 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 18 METHODOLOGY AND PROTOCOLS EMPLOYED ................................ ................................ 19 Neighborhood Characteristics ................................ ................................ ................................ 19 Sampling ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 25 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 27 Dependent Variable ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 27 Independent Variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 27 Ethnicity ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 27 Neighborhood Cohesion ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 27 Incivilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 28 Fear of Crime ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 29 Fear of Walking ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 29 Victimization ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 30 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 31 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 32 FIRST ARTICLE MANUSCRIPT ................................ ................................ ................................ 35 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 35 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 38 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 39 Dependent Variable ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 39 Independent Variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 39 Ethnicity ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 39 Incivilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 40

PAGE 6

6 Fear of crime ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 40 Fear of walking ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 41 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 41 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 42 Physical Activity ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 42 Fear of C rime ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 43 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 44 Tables ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 47 SECOND ARTICLE MANUSCRIPT ................................ ................................ ........................... 52 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 52 Healthy Living ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 52 Fear of Crime ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 54 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 56 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 57 Dependent Variable ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 57 Independent Variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 58 Ethnicity ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 58 Neighborhood cohesion ................................ ................................ ............................ 58 Incivilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 59 Fear of crime ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 59 Fear of walking ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 60 Victimization ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 60 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 60 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 61 High Income ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 62 Low Income ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 63 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 65 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 67 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 75 SAMPLE LETTER OF INFORMED CONCENT ................................ ................................ ........ 80 SURVEY INSTRUMENT ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 81 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 88 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 96

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Selected neighborhood demographics vs. survey r esults. ................................ ................... 2 6 2 2 Survey interviews response r ate. ................................ ................................ ......................... 26 2 3 Multicollinearity a nalysis. ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 31 3 1 Variables s ummary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 47 3 2 Summary statistics for H ispanic n eighborhoods by socio economic status ....................... 48 3 3 Hispanic n eighborhoods by socio economic status ................................ ............................ 49 3 4 Bivariate associations of socio demographic characteristics and physical a ctivity. ........... 50 3 5 Multinomial logistic r egr ession odds r atios f or physical activity in H ispanic n eighborhoods ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 51 4 1 Variables s ummary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 69 4 2 Hispanic n eighborhoods by socio economic status ................................ ............................ 70 4 3 Multinomial logistic regression odds ratios for sedentary to moderate physical a ctivity in high income n eighborhoods. ................................ ................................ ........................... 71 4 4 Multinomial logist ic r egression odds ratios for sedentary to moderate physical activity in high income n eighborhoods. ................................ ................................ .............. 72 4 5 Multinomial logistic regression odds r atios for s edentary to m oderate p hysical a cti vity in l ow i ncome n eighborhoods. ................................ ................................ ............................ 73 4 6 Multinomial logistic regression odds ratios for sedentary to vigorous physical activity in low income neighborhoods ................................ ................................ ........................... 74

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Orange C ounty, Orlando, FL. ................................ ................................ .............................. 19 2 2 Orlando high and l ow income a reas with selected parks. ................................ .................... 20 2 3 Demetree p ark and mile buffer over census block file in Orlando, FL. .......................... 23 2 4 Aerial pi cture of Demetree p ark and mile buffer in Orlando, FL. ................................ ... 24

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE INFLUENCE OF PERCEPTION OF CRIME ON LEISURE TIME PHYSICAL ACTIVITY (LTPA) IN HISPANIC COMMUNITIES By Luis J. Suau Gonzlez August 2009 Chair: John O. Spengler Major: Health and Human Performance The purpose of th is study was to understand the relationships between income and perception o f crime in Hispanic communities and how these perceptions affect participation in leisure time physical activity resulting in improved health. Obesity has been being one of leading causes of coronary heart diseases. Also the The study focused on Hispanic areas with different socio economic status, since African American and Hispanic had a higher tendency of cardio vascular diseas es and has shown to engage in less physical activity that white people. The area was divided in 12 parks spread through the city of Orlando, FL Latino population. The study showed similar participation between gender but differences in age, with most of th e participants being between 18 and 40 years old. Ethnicity was selected using the U.S. census data. Within Hispanic areas, only 60% of the residents consider themselves to be Hispanic. Males where 3 to 1 more active, while females mostly participated on moderate physical activity. Most of the participants do not percived incivilities or are afraid to walk in their neighborhood. Also about 44% of the people that did not

PAGE 10

10 participated in physical activity were afraid of walking around their neighborhood. Whe n we asked about their fear of walk in their neighborhoods about 70% of the participants reported no fear of walking. However, almost half of the participants, especially in low income areas, are worried to become a victim of a crime in the future. High an d low income neighborhoods show ed age to have a negative association with moderate and vigorous physical activity while age and gender had a positive relation. This study can help determine why people in Hispanic communities engage or fail to engage in ph ysical activity and how social and environmental variables influence participation.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background The aim of this paper is to understand the relationship between fear of crime and its influence on self reported leisure time physical a ctivity participation in Hispanic neighborhoods. The organization of this document is as follows: Chapter 1 provides a brief literature review of physical activity and fear of crime. The statement of the problem, delimitations, limitations and research qu estions are also found in this chapter. Chapter 2 is focused on the setting of the study and data collection procedures. A detailed explanation of the measurements is also present in this chapter, as well as a statement of the experiences the researcher fa ced while collecting the data. Chapter 3 is based on a set of analyses using measures of association to understand how fear of crime affects participation by Hispanics in areas of differ ing socioeconomic status. C hapter 3 will be submitted to a professiona l, peer reviewed journal for publication. Chapter 4 will also be submitted to a peer reviewed journal to be consi dered for publication. In C hapter 4 multinomial regression analysis will be used to explain how the study variables affect the odds of partici pants reporting participation in physical activity. Finally C hapter 5 provides the concluding remarks of the study and suggestions for future studies and future policy. Obesity and related health conditions are among the primary health issues facing Amer icans today. In the last three decades, the incidence of obesity has doubled for both adults and children (Powers et al 2007). African Americans and Hispanics, especially in low income neighborhoods, have shown some of the highest rates of cardiovascular d isease in the U.S. (Center of Disease and Control P revention, 2004). Reasons for low levels of physical activity among these groups include lack of access to facilities and community services promot ing

PAGE 12

12 exercise (Powell et al., 2004). Other important factor s limiting the use of recreation facilities and communal areas are crime and fear of crime due to the neighborhood physical environment (Gordon Larsen P et al. 2006). Other studies have focused on social issues like fear of crime as a factor leading to c ommunity decline and reducing community participa tion in physical activity (Pendleton 2000; Manning et al. 2001; Bairner & Shirlow, 2003 Tynon & Chavez, 2006). According to The National Health and Nutrition Examination (NHANES) survey, the prevalence of ob esity in the United States for men ( 2005 2006 ) was up two percent (33.3%) from the previous year. Among women the prevalence of obesity in 2005 2006 was 35.3%. In 2007 only one state (Colorado) ha d a prevalence of obesity less than 20%. Obesity is still a big problem even with a slight increase of physical activity among adults (US DHHS 2008). According to the CDC, the proportion of the U.S. p opulation that reported no LTPA, in 36 states surveyed, decreased from 31% in 1989 to about 24% in 2007. In 2002, chronic diseases associated with obesity accounted for 5 of the leading 6 causes of death in the United States (Center of Disease and Control Prevention, 2006). The problem of physical inactivity is even higher among African Americans and Hispanics that t end to have higher rates of obesity and cardiovascular diseases (Crespo et al., 2000; Giles Corti & Donavan, 2003 ) Also, people in Hispanic neighborhoods with low socioeconomic status usually have fewer resources for physical activity, and are at higher r isk for obesity related problems than those in high income neighborhoods ( Eyler et al., 1998 ; Baker et al., 2000; Sundquist et al., 2004). In an effort to promote physical activity researchers have found that park and trail use can promote healthier lifes tyles ( Brown et al., 2000 ) The use of facilities that promote physical activity can be beneficial for individuals of all ages, regardless of gender, ethnicity and socio

PAGE 13

13 economic status ( Sallis et al., 2000; Gobster, 2002). There has been evidence to show that people with access to areas that promote physical activity like trails, sidewalks, and parks, tend to be more active (Estabrooks et al., 2003). There ha ve been investigations of the types of constraints that influence the non use of recreational faci lities ( Godbey et al., 1992; Brown et al., 2000; Giles Corti & Donavan, 2003). Lack of access to facilities is one of the greatest perceived impediments to participation in physical activities (Godbey et al., 1992). Other physical characteristics, such as limited access (to parks, trails, sidewalks, and recreational centers), unsafe zones, and environmental characteristics, are among the most important factors that must be considered in attempt s to increase physical activity (Romero et al., 2001). People i n activity friendly environments are more likely to engage in physical activity (Eyler et al., 1999; Giles Corti & Donavan, 2003). Estabrooks et al. (2003) found out that people are more physically active when they have greater access to recreational facil ities. Similarly, Sallis et al. (2009) found that obesity was lower in neighborhoods that enjoy high levels of walkability or areas for walking. However, lower socio economic and neighborhoods with a high percentage of minority residents had reduced access to facilities, which in turn was associated with decreased PA and increased overweight (Gordon Larsen et al., 2006). Powell (2006) found that facilities for physical activity were less likely to be present in lower income neighborhoods, especially in thos e with more African American and Hispanic residents. Other factors include perceived environmental characteristics that might negatively influence levels of physical activity and participation ( Sallis et al., 1997; Giles Corti. & Donavan, 2003). For exa mple, a fully lighted, clean and well signed area might reflect safety. However, an area where trash, graffiti, abandoned cars and buildings exist might reflect

PAGE 14

14 abandonment and social disorganization, giving the impression of an unsafe area. Previous resea rch suggests that neighborhood conditions and other physical characteristics can act as determinants for levels of physical activity among different populations ( Andrews, 1997, Donavan, 2003). Perceived safety is one of the most influential external facto rs affecting engagement in physical activity, especially in areas with high criminal activity (Godbey et al., 1992; Estabrooks et al., 2003). Powell et al. (2003) identified a significant relationship among those who reported having a place where they felt safe walking for exercise or recreation and their likeliness to engage in regular physical activity. P hysical activity rates were more than twice as high among those who perceived their neighborhoods to be safe (Romero et al., 2001). Perceptions of neighb orhood safety may be particularly salient among residents in lower income urban settings who are from racial or ethnic minority groups (Boslaugh, S.E. et al., 2004). Huston, S. et al (2003) found that neighborhood environmental characteristics and access to places for physical activity were strongly associated with race, education, and income, with generally less favorable environments and less access reported among African Americans and American Indians and among those with low education and income. Acces s to public parks and recreational facilities has been linked to reductions in crime and delinquency by keeping at risk youth off the streets and providing a safer environment to interact with others thereby increasing community strength (Sherer, 2003). Fear of crime in the United States has contributed to increased societal insecurity and reduced community unity (Romero et al., 2001). In addition, fear of crime has reduced social interaction and community organization (Romero et al., 2001). Some scholar s have exposed the negative aspects of fear of crime and its effect on the quality of community life and social

PAGE 15

15 control that is responsible for community decline (Skogan & Maxfield, 1981; Taylor & Hale, 1986). McGinn et al. (2008) found that perception of crime in the neighborhood is detrimental to outdoor leisure activity. Similarly, Estabrooks et al. (2003) found that perceived safety is one of the most influential external factors in the decision to engage in physical activity. Also, fear of crime has be en a serious problem in public urban areas, negatively affecting participation (Tynon & Chavez 2006). Social disorganization and changes of behavior influenced by crime are even more evident in underrepresented communities ( O'Neill & Reid, 1991 ). Among th e areas that benefit less from social interaction are low income neighborhoods (Sampson & Groves, 1989). Low income areas are of importance given that they are co nsidered to be among the most important determinants of differences in delinquency rates ( Pend leton & Thompson, 2000 ). Studies have shown that a higher percentage of the non white population is positive ly related to crime and delinquency ( Andrews, 1997; Bowers & Hirschfield, 1999). However some studies have suggested that for black communities it is socio economic status, and not race, that is the source of high crime levels ( Pendleton & Thompson, 2000 ). Participation in physical activity might be affected by social barriers such as crime and fear of crime (Bairner & Shirlow, 2003; Gordon Larsen P. et al. 2006). Frequency and location of crime also have a direct impact on perception of crime in different neighborhoods (Romero et al., 2001). Other types of crime that influence perception of crime are indirect crimes, such as prostitution, drug use, and vagrancy (Taylor, 1988). Crimes that occur multiple times cause people to consider taking precautions versus a crime that occurs only once. Also, there is evidence that crime in an area one frequents causes more fear than crime occurring in less used a reas (Bowers & Hirschfield, 1999; Bairner & Shirlow, 2003).

PAGE 16

16 Statement of the Problem The aim of th is study was to investigate the relationship between self reported leisure time physical a ctivity (LTPA) and perceived crime in Hispanic communities of diffe ring socio economic status (SES) in Orlando, Fl. Sub problems of the S tudy 1. To determine the relationship between SES and self reported participation in leisure time physical activity 2. To determine the relationship between fear of crime self reported participation in leisure time physical activity and walking in the neighborhood. 3. To determine the relationship between individual and environmental variables and self reported participation in leisure time physical activity. Purpose of the Study Econo mic disadvantage and neighborhood instability are key contributors to social disorganization (Romero et al., 2001). In addition, fear of crime has reduced social interac tion and community organization while also reducing quality of life ( Chavez, 2006 ). Sk ogan (1990) found that community deterioration leads to social disorganization and presents challenges to social control, increasing perception s of social and physical disorder and heightening fear of crime. This problem is more evident in low income neigh borhoods that lack the resources to maintain an organized community (Taylor, 2001). Also, persons living in areas with high crime tend to be more exposed to victimization ; this will likely be reflected by an increase in fear of crime (Taylor, 2001).

PAGE 17

17 The pu rpose of th is study is to understand the relationships between SES and perception of crime in Hispanic communities, and how these variables might affect park and neighborhood participation as they offer increased opportunities for physical activity and imp roved health. Significance of the Study Fear of crime has been studied in a variety of neighborhoods and ethnic groups (Taylor & Hale, 1986; Skogan, 1990; Taylor, 2001; La ne, 2002 ). F ear of crime has been proven to be a factor that prevents an individual or community from engaging in daily activities (R.J. et al. 2002). However, no research has studied the relationship between fear of crime and engagement in leisure time physical activity in parks, especially in Hispan ic communities. N eighborhoods with low socioeconomic status tend to have fewer resources for physical activity than higher income neighborhoods ( Eyler et al., 1998 Baker et al., 2000; Sundquist, et al., 2004). For example, Gordon Larsen et al (2006) found that l ower income and high minority block groups had reduced access to facilities. Access to public parks and recreational facilities has been strongly linked to reductions in crime and delinquency (Sherer, 2003). Other studies have shown that physical ac tivity rates were more than twice as high among those who perceiv ed their neighborhoods to be safe (Romero et al., 2001). Some studies have shown that people in activity friendly environments are more likely to engage in physical activity (Eyler et al., 19 99; Giles Corti & Donavan, 2003). If fear of crime is shown to be a factor that prevents physical activity in Hispanic communities, then stronger safety measures including community campaigns, safety education, and evidence based improv ements to the qua lity and safety of these neighborhoods must be taken to reduce the problem.

PAGE 18

18 Delimitations The study will be delimited to Hispanic residents of Orlando Florida as denoted by the U.S. Census Bureau. Within these areas, neighborhood residents 18 years and older were studied. The study area included residents liv ing no further than mile from urban parks. Limitations This study was limited by sampling only from the Hispanic ethnic population for one county in Florida; consequently, the results of the stud y may not apply to the entire state or other ethnic groups in the state. For this study, ethnicity is considered a cultural trait that is not mutually exclusive like race. People belonging to a Hispanic ethnic group can be of any race (e.g., black or white ) and from any country of origin (e.g., Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc). Also, the study relied on self reported measures of physical activity. Limitations with this method are over reporting of physical activity, or otherwise unreliable answers from part icipants. This approach, however, was necessary given economic and time considerations. Finally, questions used to evaluate walking did not specif y if walking was done for the purpose of physical activity, leisure or necessity. Research Questions Question 1: Does self reported LTPA differ between high and low SES Hispanic neighborhood s? Question 2: Does fear of crime prevent neighborhood residents from participating in LTPA? Question 3: Does fear of crime prevent neighborhood residents from walking? Q uestion 4: How does neighborhood cohesion affect self reported LTPA? Question 5: How do neighborhood incivilities affect self reported LTPA?

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY AND PROT OCOLS EMPLOYED Neighborhood Characteristics The study area include d a geographica lly defined area in the city of Orlando, FL (Figure 2 1) The data for the study w ere collected during the months of June and July of 2008. Figure 2 1. Orange County, Orlando, FL. According to the US census, Orlando has a population of 357 ,637 and nearly eighteen percent of residents are Hispanic s The median income for a household in the city was $35,732. About 13.3% of families were below the poverty line, including 27% of those below the age of

PAGE 20

20 18 ( U S Census Bureau). Neighborhood selec tion w as made using U.S. Census Bureau 2002 (TIGER files) and geographic information system (GIS) software (ArcGIS. 9.2). Manipulating U.S. Census Bureau 2002 ( TIGER files) at the block level with geographic information system (GIS) software (ArcGIS. 9.2) the city was divided into Hispanic or Non Hispanic using 50% or more as cut point of Hispanic s residing in each block group. The area was divided into high income and low income from which all urban parks were identified. The parks were used as the center point of the area for collecting data (Figure 2 2) For the study, 9 parks in high income areas and 8 parks in low income areas were selected. Figure 2 2. Orlando high and l ow income areas with selected parks.

PAGE 21

21 The focus of the study wa s Hispanic communities of high and low income status. Self reported measures of leisure time physical activity were collected. It has been stated that Hispanics and African Americans in lower income areas are more likely to demonstrate cardiovascular risk f actors than those in neighborhoods with higher incomes (Sundquist et al. 1999; Baker et al., 2000). Gordon Larsen et al., (2006) also found that lower SES and high minority block groups had reduced access to facilities, which in turn was associated with d ecreased physical activity and increased overweight. Similarly Powell (2006) found that facilities for physical activity were less likely to be present in lower income neighborhoods, especially in those with more African American or Hispanic residents. Ho wever, it has been found that the availability and use of park facilities and trails in and around neighborhoods can be beneficial in promoting physical activity among groups of all ages, regardless of gender, ethnicity and socio economic status (Sallis et al., 2000; Gobster, 2002). If this is true, why do most Hispanic people fail to engage in recommended levels of physical activity? Huston, S. et al (2003) found that neighborhood environmental characteristics and access to places for physical activity we re strongly associated with race, education, and income, with generally less favorable environments and less access reported among minorities and among those with low education and income. This study focuses on houses near urban parks with facilities th at encourage and promote physical activity among residents In addition to the proximity to parks as a place for residents to by physically active, neighborhoods themselves can be used to engage in activities like bicycling, walking and jogging. The study will also measure s ocial and environmental

PAGE 22

22 characteristics of the neighborhood to better understand their influence on physical activity participation. Only houses adjacent or close to urban parks (up to mile) were surveyed. The purpose was to assure th at houses were selected that had accessibility to parks and physical activity areas. The mile limit was selected as a precautionary method in case parks might not have enough houses mile from them (Figures 2 3 and 2 4). In 90% of the neighborhoods, the mile boundary was not violated. Some studies have used different distances when selecting houses with proximity to parks. For example: Aultman Hall, et al. 1997 found that mile distance was at the associations between PA and park proximity was strongest up to a half mile and diminished significantly for parks that were farther away. Similarly, Cohen et al. (2007) found that people living within 1 mile of the park were positively associated wi th park use and LTPA. People living within 1 mile of the parks were more likely to engage in 38% more exercise sessions than those living farther away. Schlossberg and Brown (2004) explained that to mile is the standard distance in the literature for h ow far people can be assumed to walk to urban services, including parks. Figures 3 and 4 are examples of Demetree Park (a park used as a center point in the study) at the mile and mile buffer respectively.

PAGE 23

2 3 Figure 2 3. Demetree p ark and mile b uffer over census block file in Orlando, FL.

PAGE 24

24 Figure 2 4. Aerial picture of Demetree p ark and mile buffer in Orlando, FL.

PAGE 25

25 Sampling The sampling design ensure d an equal chance of participation among households. The data were collected weekdays from 5:30 to 7:30pm and 10:00am to 12:00 pm and from 3:00 to 6:00 pm on weekends. The stratum, or population subset, was determined by income level, since our sample focused only on one race/ethnicity. To reduce sampling error, a systematic sampling for house selection was used to select the first house in each neighborhood (Groves et al., 2004). With s ystematic sampling, selection usually begins at a random place in the population list to identify the first case, then cases ar e selected at regular intervals from the list (Freedman and Taub, 2006). This type of sampling is considered as accurate and unbiased as a simple random sample, provided that there is no repetitive pattern to the sampling frame list (Freedman and Taub, 200 6). In this study after the first house was indentified, every 3 rd house was interviewed to obtain a representative sample from each neighborhood (n=30 per neighborhood). Face to face interviews were collected in English and Spanish. Hispanic areas in Orl ando have 63,678 residents according to the US census. To calculate our sample size the Raosoft sample size calculation program was used resulting in a minimum sample size of 382 for that population. Respondents completed 500 usable interviews, 250 f rom hi gh income neighborhoods and 250 fr om low income neighborhoods. Table 2 1 shows the neighborhood demographics for the selected neighborhoods compared to the results from the survey interviews.

PAGE 26

26 Table 2 1 Selected neighborhood demographics vs. survey r esults. Variables Census Data (n) Census Data (%) Survey Results (n) Survey Results (%) Total Population 7,949 500 100 Caucasians 3,274 41.19 325 65 African American 492 6.19 95 19 Hispanic 3,413 42.94 298* 59.6* Other 770 9.69 80 16 Males 3,89 3 48.97 265 53 Females 4,056 51.03 235 47 Children 1,409 17.73 Adults 6,540 82.27 500 100 Mean age 38.9 38.15 Mean income 35,732. 41,555 Participants can be Hispanics of any race (African American, Caucasian and other) and also be of His panic ethnicity. 813 houses were visited including houses with no response s (n=216), avoided houses (n=7), vacant houses (n=35) or those that provided incomplete surveys (n=55) for a response rate of 61.5% (Table 2 2) Table 2 2 Survey interviews resp onse r ate. Variables Survey Response (n) Survey Response (%) Total visited houses 813 No Response 216 26.6 Avoided houses 7 0.9 Vacant houses 35 4.3 Incomplete surveys 55 6.77 Complete surveys 500 61.5 Participation in survey interviews was co mpletely voluntary and subjects were not identified. Those eligible for participation in the survey were 18 or older and residing at that particular address. The research protocol was approved by IRB a t the University of Florida.

PAGE 27

27 Measures Dependent Variab le The instrument was developed using validated questions from existing surveys including the 2005 Questionnaire for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), 2005 Neighborhood Survey created by Roman and The Urban Institute and a survey ab out Victimization: An Alternative and Reliable Measure for Fear of Crime (Williams, et. al. 2000). engage in physical activity, what type of physical activity d o you do? Would you say it is moderate, vigorous or no physical activity ( s Lee and Moudon (2008) used a similar measure of self reported survey data with moderate physical activity and vigorous physical activity as indicators of active living. Also Floyd, et al. (2007) and Gobster (2005) used the same measures for observational data in urban parks Independent Variables Ethnicity ethnicity. Respondents were asked: Participants responded R esponses were re s were obtained from BRFSS. Participants that consider themselves to be of Hispanic ethnicity c an belong to any race (e.g., black or white). Neighborhood Cohesion Neighborhood cohesion was measured using a 4 point Likert scale in which participants offered their opinions about the level of cohesion or unity in their neighborhoods. Respondents

PAGE 28

28 were a sked to indicate the extent of their agreement with cohesion questions by answering Cohesion were: (1) This is a unified neighborhood; (2) People around here are willi ng to help other s ; (3) People in this neighborhood do not know each other; (5) People in this neighborhood can be trusted;(6) People in this neighborhood watch out for each other; (7) People in this neighborhood do favors for each other; (8) People in this neighborhood have parties for each other; and (9) People in this neighborhood visit each other. Questions 3 and 4 are negatively stated so a reverse coding was implemented where answers ranged s were obtained from Roman and The Urban Institute. Incivilities The physical characteristics of the area were addressed by asking residents their opinions and perceptions of their neighborhood. Incivilities were measured using a 3 point Likert scale in which participants provided their opinions about a specific uncivil behavior. We asked residents to describe problems fro m a Questions for incivilities addressed : litter, broken glass, trash on the sidewalks and streets; graffit i on buildings and walls; vacant houses; trash in the neighborhood; drinking in public; people selling drugs; groups of rowdy teenagers; abandoned cars; prostitution; police not patrolling the area; and police not responding to calls from the area. The stu dy showed this scale s were obtained from Roman and The Urban Institute.

PAGE 29

29 Fear of C rime Neighborhood level fear of crime is a five item construct representing how worried residents are a bout specific crimes. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement on a ten specific answer about each type of crime ( e.g., assault, rape, burglary, theft, murder etc.) instead of asking the more general question: Are you afra id of crime? (Williams, et. al. 2000). The variable was re coded into a 3 level ordinal measure 1 3 (not worried), 4 6 (somewhat worried) and 7 10 (very worried) where 1 3 represents low fear, 4 6 medium fear and 7 10 high level of fear of crime. Items for fear of crime were: Assault with a weapon, assault without This measure was obtained from Williams, et al 2000. Fear of Walking Fear of walking is a scale composed of a series of questions where respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their fear about walking outside. Respondents were asked to respond on a four point scale: never, rarely, somet imes and often. The item was developed to capture a behavior resulting from fear of crime. Questions for fear of walk ing were: (1) How often does worry about crime prevent you from walking someplace in your neighborhood during the day?; (2) How often doe s worry about crime prevent you from walking someplace in your neighborhood during the night?, (3) How often does worry about crime prevent you from walking someplace around or in the park during the day?, (4) How often does worry about crime prevent you f rom walking someplace around or in the park during the night? The scale was shown to have a high internal consistency s were obtained from Roman and The Urban Institute.

PAGE 30

30 Victimization Victimiza tion was a series of dichoto mous questions asking respondents about their past experience with crime Victimization questions were: (1) Have you been a victim of a crime in the last 4 years ? ; (2) Have you been a victim of a crime in the last 10 years ? ; (3) Do you know if a member of your family or someone you know ha s been a victim of a crime in the last 4 years ? ; and (4) Do you know if a member of your family or someone you know ha s been a victim of a crime in the last 10 years ? onses were re coded into ( 1 ) ( 2 This measure was obtained from Williams, et al, 2000. Table 2 3 shows the results of the multicolin ea rity tests to find if two or more explanatory variables we re highly correlated. The variance infl ation factor (VIF) is an index which measures how much the variance of a coefficient is increased because of multicollinearity. If the largest VIF is greater than 5, this might indicate a multicollinearity problem (Myers, 1990; O'Brien 2007). Results of t he VIF test for this study showed none of the variables to have a VIF value higher than 1.8, well below the critical value of 5. Also results were obtained for tolerance. A small tolerance value indicates that the variable s under consideration are almost i n a perfect linear combination of the independent variables already in the equation Variables with very small tolerance values (.1 for serious multicollinearity problem and .2 for concern of a potential problem) should not be added to the regression equat ion (Menard, 1995; O'Brien 2007). Our study showed all tested variables to have a tolerance well above the .2 value of concern for a potential multicollinearity problem (Table 2 3).

PAGE 31

31 Table 2 3. Multicollinearity a nalysis. Variable Tolerance VIF Hispani c ethnicity .925 1.081 Gender .881 1.135 Cohesion .839 1.193 Incivilities .851 1.175 Fear of walk .566 1.767 Fear of crime .561 1.784 Victimization .861 1.162 Data Analysis Descriptive statistics were generated including frequency distributions, m eans, standard deviations, standard errors and confidence intervals to summarize all variables. Correlations and cross tabulations for categorical variables and chi square tests were used to determine whether level s of physical activity and fear of crime varie d significantly across the independent variables. For multivariate tests, multinomial logistic regression was employed to examine the influence of individual and neighborhood predictors on leisure time physical activity since the dependent variable w as categorical with three levels (i.e., sedentary, moderate and vigorous). Dichotomous variables kept their original coding for the multinomial regression due to the fact that the test in the software categorizes the variables automatically. The moderate a nd vigorous categories were contrasted against sedentary as the reference category. Odds ratios (OR) at the 95% confidence intervals are reported to indicate the association between independent variables and the three levels of physical activity. Data was analyzed using SPSS Statistical Software, version 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

PAGE 32

32 Data Collection Data collection is probably the most exciting and important part of any research. It is without question the most demanding step if secondary data is not us ed Some types of data collection are fun and exciting, such as observational data or when mail in surveys arriv e. However, other techniques, such as face to face interviews can be challenging, tedious and even a bit unsafe. Below are my experiences from collecting the data in this study. I think that one of the most important aspects of door to door data collection is to familiarize one self with the surroundings. It is important to obtain as much information as possible about the area being stud ied I to ok it upon myself to drive around for a few days through all of the neighborhoods in which I was going to interview. I spent time observing residents, house conditions, evidence of incivilities, evidence of police patrolling and usage of the park or neigh borhood. I also drove about two miles around the selected areas since neighborhoods can change from street to street. Finally I spen t some time visiting the nearest community center and ask ing about the safety of the neighborhood. This provided me with a n idea of what I was likely to encounter and what level of safety to expect. Once I got a feeling about the neighborhood and in which areas I was going to focus, the data collection began. D ata collection took place during weekday and weekend morning s and afternoons to assure equal participation among residents. I tried to survey every third house per neighborhood until the desired amount of interviews for that area was reached. For the whole study I only intentionally avoided about 23 houses because the y look ed unsafe or abandoned For my first set of houses, I chose the safest neighborhood and the easiest one to walk around. Since I was doing all of the data collection by myself, I needed to feel as safe as possible

PAGE 33

33 and build from there. The ideal scena rio was to find some people to help me. I think that hav ing two or more interviewers improves the chances of collecting the data more quickly and mak ing the environment safer. Due to financial constraints I was on my own (apart from receiving regular call s from my wife ) If I failed to call her, she would ha ve called me back ; if after two attempts she had no repl y she would have called a contact in the city However, this was never necessary. I tried to contact the police department to see if they could p rovide some sort of patrol but they ignored my request. The most anxious part of door to door surveying is definitely the first house. This is the initial test for how well one is prepared to get satisfactory results from the participants. T here are many risks when approach ing a house: uncertainty of who lives there; their response to you; if they own a dog and if the dog is on a lea s h; and their willingness to participate. I n my case being able to speak Spanish helped me o n more that few occasions even though most of the Spanish speak ers chose to talk in English I had to conduct about 6 surveys in Spanish. After the first response, it is necessary to identify participant interest in the survey. It is important to notice if they are talkative, smiling, an d friendly or if they seem to be in a hurry. W ith experience one learn s how to push the issue of people failing to complete the whole survey. The first two minutes are critical: if someone open s the door the first thing a researcher must do is smile and step back half a step to offer a sense of security. Then tone must pitch the study like a salesman. It is crucial to be quick and to the point with introductions explaining how the data is going to be use d and most importantly how the interviewee will b enefit. If a researcher manages to get this far without having the door slammed in his face, chances are he will be able to secure an interview.

PAGE 34

34 After the interview, people might wish to discuss the neighborhood or ask some questions and it is important to give them the time. I felt that as they had been kind enough to open their door for me to answer my questions I should stay and make them feel as useful as possible. Once several interviews have been conducted it is possible to get into a pattern and develop a more systematic approach. I focus ed on a goal of 15 surveys per day. Some days I almost reached that goal, while on other days I fell short of it ; the most important thing wa s to keep moving forward and follow the research protocol. For example, in my study there were two or three days that I had to cut the interviews short owing to potential conflicts with people who did not want me o n their property. One of them keep screaming and shouting so in the spirit of avoiding confrontation I left. Othe r days fell to the weather. T he last thing that I did which I recommend to other researchers, was to enter the data the same day. This provided an accurate count of how many surveys had been completed and how many more were required B y entering the dat a the same day, once the goal has been reached work is complete

PAGE 35

35 CHAPTER 3 FIRST ARTICLE MANUSC RIPT Introduction The benefits of physical activity for reducing obesity and promoting a healthier life style are well established (Kesaniemi et al. 2001). I n the last three decades, the incidence of obesity has doubled for both adults and children (Powers et al 2007). Among groups that have shown some of the highest rates of cardiovascular disease in the U.S. are minority groups like Hispanics and African Ame rican s especially in low income neighborhoods (Center of Disease and Control Prevention, 2004). The problem of physical inactivity is also higher among African Americans and Hispanics (Crespo et al., 2000; Giles Corti & Donavan, 2003 ) I mportant factors l imiting the use of recreation facilities and communal areas for physical activity among minority and low income populations are actual crime and fear of crime (Gordon Larsen, P. et al. 2006). Obesity is one of the primary health issues facing the U.S. pop ulation today. In 2002, chronic diseases associated with obesity accounted for 5 of the leading 6 causes of death in the United States (CDC, 2006). According to The National Health and Nutrition Examination (NHANES) survey, the prevalence of obesity in the U.S. ( 2005 2006 ) increased two percent (33.3%) for men and remained about the same for women (35.3%). In 2007 only one state (Colorado) ha d a prevalence of obesity less than 20%. The CDC also found that the proportion of the U.S. population that reported no LTPA of 36 states surveyed, decreased from 31% in 1989 to about 24% in 2007. Even with a slight increase in physical activity participation overall, obesity is still a problem. According to the % of all American s are overweight and over 30 % are obese (Sundquist et al., 2004; U.S. Surgeon General Report, 2006). S ome studies have found that regular physical activity improves quality of life and reduces the risk of coronary heart

PAGE 36

36 disease, colon cancer, hypertensio n, diabetes, and early mortality (Sundquist et al., 2004). Physical inactivity is even greater among African American and Hispanic populations which tend to have higher rate s of obesity and cardiovascular disease (Crespo et al. 2000; Giles Corti & Donav an, 2003). Also, people in Hispanic neighborhoods with low socioeconomic status usually have fewer resources for physical activity, and are at higher risk for obesity related problems than those in high income neighborhoods ( Eyler et al., 1998 ; Baker et a l., 2000; Sundquist et al., 2004). This problem of inactivity is more evident in neighborhoods with lower income (Estabrooks, P.A et al. 2003; Wilson D K et al. 2004). One of the reasons might be the lack of physical activity resources in these neig hborhoods (Baker et al., 2000; Sundquist et al., 2004). Lack of access to facilities is one of the greatest perceived impediments to participation in physical activities (O'Neill & Reid, 1991; Godbey et al., 1992). For example, open areas for recreation (i .e., playgrounds, fields, courts) that are close to residential areas enjoy high use and a reputation of help ing to increase community level s of physical activity and perceived safety (Bowers & Hirschfield, 1999; Romero et al., 2001). Other factors influe ncing physical activity might include perceived environmental characteristics that might negatively influence levels of physical activity and participation ( Sallis et al., 1997; Giles Corti. & Donavan, 2003). Parks, facilities and trail use can be benefi cial in promoting physical activity among groups of all age s regardless of gender, ethnicity and socio economic status (Brown et al., 2000; Sallis et al., 2000; Gobster, 2002). However, people are often active only in places where they feel safe, given th at p erceived safety is one of the most influential factors affecting engagement in physical activity (Godbey et al., 1992; Estabrooks et al., 2003 ; Boslaugh, S.E. et al., 2004 ). For example, Romero et al (2001) found that p hysical activity rates were more than twice as high

PAGE 37

37 among those who perceived their neighborhoods t o be safe. Huston et al (2003) found that neighborhood environmental characteristics and access to places for physical activity were strongly associated with race, education, and income, wit h generally less favorable environments and less access reported among minorities and those with low education and income. O ther factors such as perceived environmental characteristics might negatively influence behavior towards physical activity and par ticipation (Sallis et al., 1997; Giles Corti & Donavan, 2003). These are factors that indicate the condition or safety level of the park or neighborhood ; an area where trash, graffiti, abandoned cars and buildings exist might reflect abandonment and social disorganization giving the impression of an unsafe area (Bairner & Shirlow, 2003; Gordon Larsen P ., et al. 2006). Previous research suggests that neighborhood conditions and other physical characteristics can act as determinants for levels of physical a ctivity among different populations (Murray et al., 1995; Andrews, 1997). The presence of groups of teenagers or others considered socially dissimilar is associated with perceptions of greater crime in urban recreation areas (Schroeder, H. & Anderson, L. M., 1984). Powell et al. (2003) found that there was a significant relationship between those who reported having a place where they felt safe walking for exercise or recreation and the likeli hood that they would engage in regular physical activity. Some s tudies have shown that people in activity friendly environments are more likely to engage in physical activity (Eyler et al., 1999; Giles Corti & Donavan, 2003). Several studies have shown that residents located closer to other houses tend to feel safer be cause of the societal interaction (Hartnagel, T.H., 1979; Sampson, R.J. et al. 2002). Other studies have shown that physical activity rates were more than twice as high among those who perceived their neighborhoods to be safe (Romero et al., 2001). Also u rban parks and

PAGE 38

38 recreational facilities keep at risk youth off the streets and provide a safer environment to interact with others and increase community strength (Sherer, 2003). The objectives of this study were to examine the associations of self reported leisure time physical activity in Hispanic neighborhoods that differ by socio economic status (SES), and determine the relationship between perceived crime and self reported participation in leisure time physical activity. Methods Setting and Sample : The data for this study was collected during the summer of 2008 within the city limits of Orlando, ( total population 357,637 ) The city has a median household income of $35,732 with 13.3% of families liv ing below the poverty line (U.S. Census Bureau). Orl ando was of interest due to the higher than average Hispanic population (17.70%). House selection for this study involved several steps: First, using a U.S. Census Bureau 2002 data (TIGER files) at the block level, and geographic information system (GIS) s oftware (ArcGIS ), the city was divided into high and low income areas Second, the data w ere manipulated to show Hispanic and non Hispanic areas. The next step was to select all the parks available in areas that met the previous criteria. Finally 9 parks were chosen in high income areas and 8 in low income areas with high density population around them. To ensure access to areas for physical activity, only houses close to these parks (up to mile) were selected. The s ampling design ensure d equal particip ation among residents. Trained interviewers visited 813 households during weekdays from 5:30 to 7:30 pm and from 10:00 am to 12:00 p m and 3:00 to 6:00 pm on weekends. Participants were 18 years of age or older and reside d at th e address selected To reduce sampling error, a random sampling technique was implemented to select every third house until we obtained a sample size large enough for us to be reasonably

PAGE 39

39 confident that the stratum represented the population (Groves et al., 2004). After removing houses with no response or incomplete surveys, a total of 500 complete surveys were collected for a 61.5% response rate. Using census data we found that Hispanic areas in Orlando have 63,678 individuals. The Raosoft sample size calculation program was used to ob tain a minimum sample size of 382. The research protocol was approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board. Measures Dependent Variable The instrument was developed using validated questions from existing surveys including the 2005 Quest ionnaire for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), the 2005 Neighbo rhood Survey created by Roman and The Urban Institute and a survey about Victimization: An Alternative and Reliable Measure for Fear of Crime (Williams, et. al. 2000). engage in physical activity, what type of physical activity do you do? Would you say it is Lee and Moudo n (2008) used a similar measurement using self reported survey data as moderate physical activity and vigorous physical activity as indicators of active living. Independent Variables Ethnicity Hispanic ethnicity was assessed by a single item to measure pa Participants responded R esponses were re coded to represent The me asure was obtained from the BRFS S instrument

PAGE 40

40 Incivilities The physical characteristics of the area were addressed by asking residents their opinions and perceptions of their neighborhood. Incivilities were measured using a 3 point Likert scale in which participants provided their opinio ns about a specific uncivil behavior. R esidents were asked to describe problems from a specific list of incivilities. Respondents were allowed a choice Questions for inciv ilities centered on the existence of : litter, broken glass, trash on the sidewalks and streets; graffiti on buildings and walls; vacant houses; trash in the neighborhood; drinking in public; people selling drugs; groups of rowdy teenagers; abandoned cars; prostitution; police not patrolling the area; and police not responding to calls from the area. The study showed this scale to have a high internal consistency (Cr were obtained from Catherina Roman and The Urban Institute. Fear of c rime Neighborhood level fear of crime is a five item construct representing how worried residents are about specific crimes. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement on a ten point scale from "Not worried" to "Very worried. specific answer about each type of crime ( e.g., assault, rape, burglary, theft, murder, etc.) instead of asking the more general question: Are you afraid of crime? (Williams, et. al. 2000). The variable was re coded into a 3 level ordinal measure 1 3 (not worried), 4 6 (somewhat worried) and 7 10 (very worried) where 1 3 represents low fear, 4 6 medium fear and 7 10 high level of fear of crime. Items for fear of crime were: Assault with a weapon, assault without a weapon, r This me asure was obtained from Williams, et al, 2000.

PAGE 41

41 Fear of w alking Fear of walking is a scale composed of a series of questions where respondents were asked to indicate the extent o f their fear about walking outside. Respondents were asked to respond on a four point scale: never, rarely, sometimes and often. The item was developed to capture a behavior resulting from fear of crime. Questions for fear of walk ing were: (1) How often does worry about crime prevent you from walking someplace in your neighborhood during the day?; (2) How often does worry about crime prevent you from walking someplace in your neighborhood during the night?, (3) How often does worry about crime prevent you from walking someplace around or in the park during the day?, (4) How often does worry about crime prevent you from walking someplace around or in the park during the night? The scale was shown to have a high internal consistency Measure s were obtained from Roman and The Urban Institute. Data Analysis Descriptive statistics including frequency distributions, means, standard deviations, standard er rors and confidence intervals were generated to summarize all variables. Correlatio ns and cross tabulations for categorical variables and chi square tests were used to determine whether levels of physical activity varied significantly across the independent variables. All d ata was analyzed using SPSS Statistical Software, version 16.0 (S PSS Inc., Chicago, IL). A single multinomial logistic regression was employed to examine the influence of individual and neighborhood predictors on leisure time physical activity, since the dependent variable was categorical with three levels (i.e., seden tary, moderate and vigorous). The moderate and vigorous categories were contrasted against sedentary as the reference category. Odds ratios (OR) at the 95% confidence intervals are reported to indicate association s between independent variables and physica l activity.

PAGE 42

42 Results A total of 12 neighborhoods around parks were selected producing a total of 500 interviews of which 250 were in h igh income neighborhoods and 250 in low income. Gender distribution for this study was 53% ma les and 47% females (Table 3 2 ). No significant differ ences were found between genders from different SES neighborhoods (Table 3 3 ) Of the selected population living in Hispanic neighborhoods, only 61.2% of the participants consider themselves to be Hispanics. High income areas showe d 58 % of the Hispanic population living in Hispanic areas while low income areas had 64.4% of the participants being Hispanics of any race. About 70% of the respondents were between th e ages of 18 and 45 years old (mean = 38.15). Physical Activity Overa ll 60.8% of the participants reported that they had engaged in leisure time physical activity during the last month, with 63.6% being active in lo w income neighborhoods versus 57% for high income neighborhoods (Table 3 2 ). Of t hose who participate d in phys ical activity, 42.8% reported they had engaged in moderate activity while only 18% engaged in vig orous physical activity (Table 3 2 ). Significant difference s were found between genders with 76.4% of males being vigorously active versus 23.6% of females. I n contrast female participants showed more physical inactivity (66.3%) than males for both SES neighborhoods (Table 3 4 ). There was no significant difference found for levels of phys ical activity between neighborhoods with different SES (Table 3 4 ) Males were more active in low income areas (42.1% vigorous) than in high income areas (30%). Analyses were made to understand the association between levels of physical activity and demographic independent variables. Only age (X =74.330, p<.000) and gender (X =48.207, p<.000) were shown to be significantly different (Table 3 4 ).

PAGE 43

43 Results for the multinomial logistic regression showed that only age have a significant negative relationship with moderate and vig orous physical activity (Table 3 5 ). Gender showed to increase significantly the odds of participants reporting vigorous physical activity but not moderate PA. Participants in high income showed a significant negative relationship with moderate physical activity, however no relationship was found for vigorou s physical activity. For neighborhood variables, fear of walk, fear of crime and incivilities help predict participation in Physical activity by increasing significantly the odds of reporting parti cipation in moderate PA (Table 3 5 ). Only fear of walk had a positive significant relationship with vigorous PA participation. Fear of Crime Forty two percent of the respondents showed a fear of crime, w hile 36% express ed little or no fear (Table 3 5 ). Fear of crime in high i ncome areas was shown to be slightly lower than in low income neighborhoods (Table 3 3 ). Similarly, Table 3 3 shows high income neighborhoods demonstrating significantly less fear of walking around their neighborhoods than low income areas. About 70% of th e participants showed no Hispanic neighborhoods (Table 3 2 ). Close to 90% of the participants reported no problems with incivilities in their neighborhoods (Table 3 2 ). A significant difference was found in incivilities betwe en high income and l ow income neighborhoods (Table 3 3 ). For the dependent variable physical activity, analyses were made to understand the association between levels of physical activity, and fear of crime variables. Fear of crime was shown to be signific antly different over the three levels of physical activity (X=100.862,

PAGE 44

44 p<.000) with most of the sedentary respondent s being more worried t han active participants (Table 3 4 ). Fear of walk ing showed significant differences (X=30.335, p<.000) between par ticipants in all three levels of physical activity with most of the participants showing no fear of walk ing (Table 3 4 ). Forty four percent of the people that did not participate in physical activity were afraid of walking around their neighb orhood. Neighb orhood incivilities was also significantly associated with physical activity (X=27.658, p<.000) with participants reporting moderate physical activity having more problems with incivilities than those sedentary or vigorous (Table 2 3). Discussion Gender d istribution for this study was fairly even, with slightly more physical activity participation among males (53%) than females (47%). For the study, only about 60% of the participants in this study consider ed themselves to be Hispanic, and there was a highe r concentration of Hispanic residents in low income areas than in high income areas. Overall, 60.8% of the participants reported that they had engaged in physical activity during the last month. This finding mirrors national levels of physical activity am ong adults as reported by a 2007 US Department of Health and Human Services survey that found that 64.5% percent of respondents reported meeting the acceptable levels of physical activity. Similar to national statistics, o ur study also showed 63% in low in come areas and 57% participation in high income areas Results for gender participation in moderate and vigorous physical activity (MVPA) show ed a male to female ratio of almost 3:1. Some studies in the literature have found women to be just slightly less physically active than men (Brownson, R.C. et al., 2004; Eyler, A.E. et al.,

PAGE 45

45 2002). In our study, female participants were shown to be significantly more inactive (66.3%) than males. A follow up, in depth study of female behavior should be conducted to be tter understand the extent of physical inactivity among females in Hispanic communities. No significant differences were found between MVPA participation among high and low income communities. Sallis et al. (2009) also did not f i nd significant differences in MVPA between low and high income neighborhoods. Fear of crime has been identified as one factor that might prevent the use of parks and neighborhoods for physical activity (Eyler et al., 1999; Giles Corti & Donavan, 2003). I n this study, 42% of respond ents showed a high level of concern about crime (versus 36% who expressed little or no fear), while 70% of the participants reported no fear of walking in their neighborhoods. This may be due to perceptions that the types of crime, or locations of other cr imes, were not particularly worrisome to participants. Whether for the purpose of leisure of physical activity, walking has positive health outcomes. Future studies should determine the purpose of walking, and investigate the differences between fear of cr ime and walking for recreation versus necessity. One of the most interesting findings of this study was that sedentary respondent s were more worried about crime than active participants. A bout 44% of people who did not participate in physical activity were afraid of walking around their neighborhood. Also, w e found that females had a higher frequency of physical inactivity. We can hypothesize th at females were more afraid than males. This is consistent with some of the crime literature that has found female s to be more afraid than males (Fetchenhauer, D. & Buunk, B. 2005 ; Ferraro, 1995, 1996; Fisher and Sloan, 2003; Warr, 1984; Young, 1992 ). However, some studies have found that males are more afraid than females when fear is measure d by specific crimes ( Ma driz, 1997; Wesely and Gaarder, 2004 ; Hollander, 2001; Stanko, 1990 ). Different types of crime might

PAGE 46

46 produce a dissimilar effect o n perception of criminal safety (Brantingham and Brantingham, 1990). For example, physical assault produces more fear than bu rglary or vagrancy (Dubow et al., 1979). Previous studies have found that l evels of fear in neighborhoods can be attributed to the presence of incivilities (Bairner & Shirlow, 2003; Gordon Larsen, P. et al., 2006). Examples of incivilities are: panhandlin g, rowdy behavior, drug use, public drinking, prostitution, litter, vandalism, abandoned cars and buildings. In the present study, 90% of participants report ed no problems with incivilities in their neighborhoods. T his study has several limitations. Thi s study does not represent the broader Hispanic population that lives in Florida or the U.S. Second, the physical activity data was self reported Respondents often over report levels of physical activity leading to some level of inaccuracy in results. Th ird, the questions used to evaluate walking did not specif y if walking was done for physical activity, leisure or necessity. The present results emphasize the need to better understand the effects of crime and fear of crime on physical activity at a micro level for specific minority communities. Future studies should investigate how neighborhoods in diverse Hispanic communities can improve female participation in MVPA Park managers should focus on providing safe and easy access to recreational facilities, especially those that are at low cost for the cities and free for the users. S ince walking is one of the most reported activit ies for physical health and is inexpensive or free future research should continue to focus on policies and behavior to promote this activity. If neighborhoods in diverse and disadvantaged communities are to benefit from physical activity, more research is needed to explore resident behavior and how this is affected by possible external (individual and social) factors.

PAGE 47

47 Tables Gender (1= male, 2 = female); Hispanic ethnicity (1= yes, 2= no); Physical activity (1= No PA, 2 = sedentary, 3= vigorous); Fear of crime (1 = not worri ed to 10 = very worried ). Table 3 1 Variables s ummary Variable % N Mean Age 490 39.44 Gender Male 53 265 Female 47 235 Hispanic ethnicity Hispanic 61.2 298 Not Hispanic 38.8 192 Physical activity Sedentary 39.2 195 1.79 Moderate 42.8 215 Vigorous 18 90 Fear of crime Low 36 180 4.98 .972 Medium 22 110 High 42 210 Fear of walk Often 6.4 27 3.10 .852 Sometimes 23.3 98 Rarely 23.8 100 Never 4 6.4 195 Incivilities A big problem 2 20 2.81 .941 Somewhat of a problem 10.4 51 Not a problem 87.6 439

PAGE 48

48 Gender (1= male, 2 = female); Hispanic ethnicity (1= yes, 2= n o); Physical activity (1= No PA, 2= sedentary, 3= vigorous); Fear of crime (1 = not worri ed to 10 = very worried ). Table 3 2 Summary statistics for Hispanic n eighborhoods by socio economic status Variables (n=500) Total High Income Low Income % Freq. % Freq. % Age ( Years) 18 30 28.6 92 37 50 20 31 45 41.6 88 35 114 45.6 46 60 22.9 41 16.4 71 28.4 Over 61 6.9 19 7.6 15 6 Gender Male 53 130 52 135 54 Female 47 120 48 115 46 Hispani c ethnicity Hispanic 61.2 145 58 161 64.4 Not Hispanic 38.8 105 42 89 35.6 Physical activity No PA 39.2 109 43 91 36.4 Moderate 42.8 101 41 109 43.6 Vigorous 18 40 16 50 20 Fear of c rime Low 36 100 40 80 32 Medium 22 45 18 65 26 High 42 105 42 105 42 Fear of walk Often 6.4 19 9.3 8 3.7 Sometimes 23.3 60 29.4 38 17.6 Rarely 23.8 50 24.5 50 23.1 Never 46.4 75 36.8 120 55.6 Incivilities A big problem 2 20 7 0 0.00 Somewhat of a problem 10.4 39 13.6 12 38.4 Not a problem 87.6 201 79.4 238 61.6

PAGE 49

49 ***p< .000, **p< .01, *p< .05 Note: Income percentages should add to 100% if read horizontally. Table 3 3 Hispanic n eighborhoods by socio economic status Variables (n=500) High Income Low Income Freq. % Freq. % X P Age (Years) 18 30 92 64.3 50 35.7 22.564 .000*** 31 45 88 44.1 114 55.9 46 60 41 36.6 71 63.4 Over 61 19 55.9 15 44.1 Gender Male 130 49.1 135 50.9 201 .654 Female 120 51.1 115 48.9 Hispanic ethnicity Hispanic 145 47 161 53 2.691 .101 Not Hispanic 105 54.5 89 45.5 Physical activity Sedentary 109 54.8 91 45.2 2.381 .304 Moderate 101 48.8 109 51.2 Vigorous 40 44.4 50 55.6 Fear of crime Low 120 58.8 84 41.2 11.020 .004** Medium 40 41.7 56 58.3 High 90 45 110 55 Fear of walk Often 19 70.4 8 29.6 19.478 .000*** Sometimes 60 61.2 38 38.8 Rarely 50 50 50 50 Never 75 38.5 120 61.5 Incivilities A big problem 9 45.6 11 54.4 7.906 .019* Somewhat of a problem 30 58.1 21 41.9 Not a problem 201 43.6 238 56.4

PAGE 50

50 Table3 4 Bivariate associations of s ocio demograph ic characteristics and p hysical a cti vity Levels of Physical Activity Variables No PA Moderate Vigorous X P Age (Years) (%) (%) (%) 18 30 25.5 34.3 22.2 74.330 .000*** 31 45 37.8 29.4 77.8 46 60 27 28.9 0.00 Over 61 9.7 7.4 0.00 Gend er Male 35.7 58.4 76.4 48.207 .000*** Female 66.3 41.6 23.6 Hispanic ethnicity Hispanic 65.8 56.5 62.2 3.754 .153 Not Hispanic 34.2 43.5 37.8 SES Low Income 53.6 49.1 44.4 2.186 .335 High Income 46.4 50.9 56.6 Fear of crime Low 15.3 46.7 55.6 100.862 .000*** Medium 23.5 29.9 0.00 High 61.2 23.4 44.4 Fear of walk Yes 44.4 19.2 31.1 30.335 .000*** No 55.6 80.8 68.9 Incivilities A big problem 0.00 4.7 0.00 27.658 .000*** Somewhat of a problem 11.3 14 0.00 Not a problem 88.7 81.3 100 ***p< .000, **p< .01, *p< .05 Note: Income percentages sh ould add to 100% if read vertically.

PAGE 51

51 Table 3 5 M ultinomia l logistic regression odds ratios for physical a ctivity in Hispanic n eighborhoods A djusted Sedentary (Ref.) vs. Moderate Physical Activity Adjusted Sedentary (Ref.) vs. Vigoro us Physical Activity 95% CI 95% CI Parameter Exp( B ) Low High p Exp( B ) Low High p Age .952 .930 .975 .000*** .924 .888 .961 .000*** Gender Male 1.260 .710 2.236 .430 4.935 2.250 10.821 .000*** Female (Ref.) Hispanic Yes 1.173 .654 2.102 .592 .457 .205 1.020 .056 No (Ref.) Income High .288 .162 .511 .000*** .564 .252 .1.263 .164 Low (Ref.) Fear of Walk Often 4.218 1.027 17.322 .046* 6.155 1.311 28.889 .0 21* Sometimes 1.279 .599 2.708 .531 .158 .032 .775 .023* Rarely 1.051 .550 2.007 .881 .901 .342 2.374 .833 Never (Ref.) Incivilities A big problem 1.367 .637 2.934 .422 .519 .177 1.525 .233 Somewhat of a problem 7.575 3.869 14.442 .000*** .078 .130 1.115 .078 Not a problem (Ref.) Fear of crime Low 3.105 1.695 5.687 .000*** 1.686 .739 3.845 .215 Medium 6.188 3.015 12.700 .000*** 1.997 .639 6.239 .234 High (Ref.) Intercept cut points are excluded from the output. p < .05; **p<.01; ***p < .001 OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval

PAGE 52

52 CHAPTER 4 SECOND ARTICLE MANUS CRIPT Introduction Today Americans face many health issues. Among them are problems like obesity and related conditions like cardiovascular disease ( Powers et al 2007 ). In the last three decades, the prevalence of obesity has doubled for both adults and children (Powers et al 2007). African Americans and Hispanics living in low income neighbor hoods a lso have shown high rates of cardiovascular disease (Center of Disease and Control Prevention, 2004; Powell et al., 2004). These populations also suffer from physical inactivity. Reasons for low levels of physical activity among these groups include lack of access to facilities and community services promoting exercise (Powell et al., 2004). Other important factors limiting the use of recreation facilities and communal areas and subsequent physical activity, are crime and fear of crime due to the ne ighborhood physical environment (Gordon Larsen, P. et al. 2006). The purpose of this study is to understand how fear of crime might affect participation in leisure time physical activity in Hispanic communities that different by income level. Healthy L i ving In the last three decades, the obesity rate has doubled for Americans (Powers et al 2007). According to The National Health and Nutrition Examination (NHANES) survey, the obesity rate among men has increased by two percent (33.3%) in 2006 from the pr evious year. Among women the obesity rate in 2006 was 35.3%. It is safe to say that obesity is still a big problem even with a slight increase in physical activity among adults (US DHHS 2008). According to the CDC, the proportion of the U.S. population th at reported no leisure time physical activity ( LTPA ) decreased from 31% in 1989 to about 24% in 2007 for the 36 states that participated in the study A ccording to a US Department of Health and Human Services survey 64.5% percent

PAGE 53

53 of respondents in 2007 re ported meeting the guidelines for acceptable levels of physical activity. But even with wider recognition of the benefits of exercise, obesity rates are still climbing (US DHHS 2008). One third of U.S. adults report ed not meeting minimum levels of aerobic physical activity as defined by the 2008 guidelines. Also, higher rates of physical inactivity are more severe in minority and low income communities, and people in these communities are more likely to demonstrate cardiovascular risk factors than in neigh borhoods with higher incomes (Sundquist et al., 1999; Baker et al., 2000). Crespo et al. (2000) found that African Americans and Hispanics in low income neighborhoods have shown some of the highest rates of cardiovascular disease in the U.S. One of the m ain problems among these groups is the lack of access to facilities and community services that promote physical activity (Estabrooks et al., 2003). Lower SES and high minority block groups had reduced access to facilities, which in turn was associated wit h decreased physical activity (PA) and increased overweight (Gordon Larsen et al., 2006). Powell et al (2006) found that differences in access to facilities for physical activity may contribute to ethnic and income ( SES ) disparities in PA and overweight pa tterns since physical activity facilities were less likely to be present in lower income communities and communities with higher proportions of African American and Hispanic residents (Powell et al. 2006). Also, people living within 1 mile of parks were po sitively associated with LTPA and engage in 38% more exercise sessions than those living farther away (Cohen et al. 2007). Further, Wilson et al. (2004) found that respondents from low SES neighborhoods had about 2 miles of trails around or in, their nei ghborhoods This was substantially less than in high income communities that enjoy on average, 37 miles of trails in or around their neighborhoods

PAGE 54

54 Access is not the only factor that may prevent physical activity. There has been a considerable amount of ac ademic discussion of the types of constraints that influence the non use of recreational facilities (Godbey et al., 1992; Brown et al., 2000; Giles Corti & Donavan, 2003). These analyses have taken into consideration such factors as gender, social class, a ge and mobility, and at least some of these include the fear of entering certain spaces as an additional constraint (O'Neill & Reid, 1991; Estabrooks et al., 2003; Giles Corti & Donavan, 2003). Social barriers such as neighborhood crime and safety might n egatively affect physical activity participation (Bairner & Shirlow, 2003). Some studies have shown that physical activity rates were more than twice as high among those perceiving their neighborhoods to be safe (Booth et al., 2000; Romero et al., 2001). Also, neighborhood residents limit their mobility as they tend to stay closer to other houses to feel safer (Brown et al., 2000; Booth et al., 2000). Zhu and Lee (2008) found that low income Hispanic areas not only have poorer environments than high income area s but they also have mo r e danger from crime and lower street level walkability. Fear of C rime One of the problems with crime is the indirect effect or fear that it can produce in a community This is referred to as fear of crime. Fear is an emotion al and physical response to a threat and is usually related to a fear of victimization (Maxfield, 1984). F ear of crime is considered to be a significant factor in reducing community quality (Moore & Trojanowicz, 1988; Pendleton 2000; Manning et al., 2001; Tynon & Chavez, 2006). Studies show that e ven in cities where crime had decreased, the fear of crime remained consistently high (Skogan, 1990). Fear of crime usually arises from community disorder. For example, areas where trash, graffiti, abandoned car s and buildings are present might reflect abandonment and social disorganization, giving the impression of an unsafe area (Bairner & Shirlow, 2003; Gordon

PAGE 55

55 Larsen, P. et al., 2006). Once fear is established, it can be a factor in community decline and a br eakdown in community quality (Moore & Trojanowicz, 1988; Pendleton, 2000; Manning et al., 2001; Tynon & Chavez, 2006). For example, we tend to feel safer in areas we know or control, but when crime arrives in an area we frequent, this causes more fear tha n crime occurring in other areas (Bowers & Hirschfield, 1999; Bairner & Shirlow, 2003). Pendleton & Thompson (2000) found that in non white populations, socioeconomic status, rather than race, was the source of high crime rates. This creates a problem whe n attempts are made to increase levels of physical activit y in lower income areas, especially since perceived safety is one of the most influential external factors for different SES groups to engage in physical activity (Boslaugh, S.E. et al., 2004). Wen et al. (2007) showed that perceived safety and cohesion was lowest among low income Hispanic groups. Previous research suggests that physical characteristics and neighborhood conditions can act as determining factors in levels of physical activity (Murray et al., 1995; Andrews, 1997). Crime and safety issues have been found to act as barriers to physical activity participation (Bairner & Shirlow, 2003; Gordon Larsen, P. et al. 2006). Some studies have found that perceived safety is one of the most influent ial factors et al., 2004). The purpose of th is analysis is to examine the relationships between socio economic status and perception of crime in Hispanic comm unities, and how personal and environmental variables like fear of crime, cohesion, fear or of walking and incivilities might affect physical activity participation as they offer increased opportunities for improved health.

PAGE 56

56 Methods The study was conducted in the city of Orlando, FL during the summer of 2008. Orlando has a median income of $35,732 with 13.3% of families living below the poverty line (US Census Bureau). According to the US census, Orlando has a population of 357,637 and n early eighteen percent of those are Hispanics. Neighborhood and park selection was made m anipulating U.S. Census Bureau 2002 (TIGER files) at the block level with geographic information system (GIS) software (ArcGIS. 9.2). T he city was divided into areas w ith 50% or more Hispanic population. Then the area was divided into high income and low income from which urban parks were identified The final park selection was made by choosing 9 parks in high socio economic areas and 8 parks in lower socioeconomic are as with a dense population around them. Only houses adjacent or close to the parks (up to mile) were selected to assure accessibility to parks and physical activity areas. Face to face interviews were collected in English and Spanish. Hispanic areas in Orlando have 63,678 individuals according to the US census. To calculate our sample size the Raosoft sample size calculation program was used, resulting in a minimum sample size of 382 for that population. Interviewers completed 500 usable interviews, 250 for high income neighborhoods and 250 for low income neighborhoods. 813 houses were visited including houses with no response s (n=216), avoided houses (n=7), vacant houses (n=35) or those that provided incomplete surveys (n=55) for a response rate of 61.5 % (Table 2 2) A systematic sampling for house selection was used to select the first house in each neighborhood (Groves et al., 2004). With s ystematic sampling, selection usually begins at a random place in the population list to identify the first case to be selected; then cases are selected at regular intervals from the list (Freedman and Taub, 2006). This type of sampling is considered as accurate and unbiased as a simple random sample, provided that there is no

PAGE 57

57 repetitive pattern to the sampling fram e list (Freedman and Taub, 2006). In our study after the first house was indentified, every 3 rd house was interviewed to obtain a fair r epresentativeness of each neighborhood since only about 30 houses were selected by neighborhood. All participants were o f 18 years of age or older residing at that particular address. The sample structure was design ed to assure equal chance of participation between households. The data were collected week days from 5:30 to 7:30 pm and from 10:00 am to 12:00 p m and 3:00 to 6 :00 pm weekends. The research protocol was approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board Measures Dependent Variable The instrument was developed using validated questions from existing surveys including the 2005 Questionnaire for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), the 2005 Neighborhood Survey created by Catherina Roman and The Urban Institute and a survey about Victimization: An Alternative and Reliable Measure for Fear of Crime (Williams, et. al. 2000). The de engage in physical activity, what type of PA do you do? Would you say it is moderate, vigorous Lee and Moudon (2008) used a simila r measurement using self reported survey data as moderate physical activity and vigorous physical activity as indicators of active living. Also Floyd, et al. (2007) and Gobster (2005) measures the same levels of physical activity, but their data collection method was observation, not self reported.

PAGE 58

58 Independent Variables Ethnicity Participants resp onded R esponses were re obtained from the BRFSS. Neighborhood c ohesion Neighborhood cohesion was measured using a 4 point Likert scale in which participants offered their opi nions about the level of cohesion or unity in their neighborhoods. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement with cohesion questions by answering d Cohesion were: (1) This is a unified neighborhood; (2) People around here are willing to help other s ; (3) People in this neighborhood do not know each other; (5) People in this neighborhood can be trusted;(6) People in this neighborhood watch out for each other; (7) People in this neighborhood do favors for each other; (8) People in this neighborhood have parties for each other; and (9) People in this neighborhood visit each other. Questions 3 and 4 are negatively stated so a reverse coding was s were obtained from Catherina Roma n and The Urban Institute.

PAGE 59

59 Incivilities The physical characteristics of the area were addressed by asking residents their opinions and perceptions of their neighborhood. Incivilities were measured using a 3 point Likert scale in which participants provide d their opinions about a specific uncivil behavior. R esidents were asked to describe problems from a specific list of incivilities. Respondents were allowed a choice Quest ions for incivilities were in reference to : litter, broken glass, trash on the sidewalks and streets; graffiti on buildings and walls; vacant houses; trash in the neighborhood; drinking in public; people selling drugs; groups of rowdy teenagers; abandoned cars; prostitution; police not patrolling the area; and police not responding to calls from the area. The study showed this scale s were obtained from Roman and The Urban Institute. Fear of c rime Neighborhood level fear of crime is a five item construct representing how worried residents are about specific crimes. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement on a ten is allowed for a more specific answer about each type of crime (assault, rape, burglary, theft, murder, etc.) instead of asking the more general question: Are you afraid of crime? (Williams, et. al. 2000). The variable was re coded into a 3 level ordinal m easure 1 3 (not worried), 4 6 (somewhat worried) and 7 10 (very worried) where 1 3 represents low fear, 4 6 medium fear and 7 10 high level of fear of crime. Items for fear of crime were: Assault with a weapon, assault without a weapon, rape, burgl This measure was obtained from Williams, et al 2000.

PAGE 60

60 Fear of w alking Fear of walking is a scale composed of a series of questions where respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their fea r about walking outside. Respondents were asked to respond on a four point scale: never, rarely, sometimes and often. The item was developed to capture a behavior resulting from fear of crime. Questions for fear of walk were: (1) How often does worry abo ut crime prevent you from walking someplace in your neighborhood during the day?; (2) How often does worry about crime prevent you from walking someplace in your neighborhood during the night?, (3) How often does worry about crime prevent you from walking someplace around or in the park during the day?, and (4) How often does worry about crime prevent you from walking someplace around or in the park during the night? The scale was shown to have a high internal consistency s were obtained from Roman and The Urban Institute. Victimization Victimiza tion was a series of dichotomous questions asking respondents about their past experience with crime Victimization questions were: (1) Have you been a victim of a crime in the last 4 years ? ; (2) Have you been a victim of a crime in the last 10 years ? ; (3) Do you know if a member of your family or someone you know have been a victim of a crime in the last 4 years ? ; and (4) Do you know if a member of your family or someone you know ha ve been a victim of a crime in the last 10 years ? Responses were re coded into ( 1 ) ( 2 This measure was obtained from Williams, et al, 2000. Data Analysis Descriptive statistics, i ncluding frequency distributions, means, standard deviations, standard errors and confidence intervals were generated to summarize all variables. Correlations

PAGE 61

61 and cross tabulations with chi square tests for categorical variables were used to determine whe ther level s of physical activity varie d significantly across the independent variables. For m ultivariate tests, multinomial logistic regression was employed to examine the influence of individual and neighborhood predictors on leisure time physical activi ty, since the dependent variable was categorical with three levels (i.e., sedentary, moderate and vigorous). The moderate and vigorous categories were contrasted against sedentary as the reference category. Odds ratios (OR) at the 95% confidence intervals are reported to indicate association s between independent variables and physical activity. Results of the VIF test for our study showed none of the variables to have a VIF value higher than 1.8, well below the critical value of 5. Also results were obtaine d for tolerance. A small tolerance value indicates that the variable s under consideration are almost in a perfect linear combination of the independent variables already in the equation Variables with very small tolerance values (.1 for serious multicolli nearity problem and .2 for concern of a potential problem) should not be added to the regression equation (Menard, 1995; O'Brien 2007). Our study showed all tested variables to have a tolerance well above the .2 value of concern for a potential multicollin earity problem (Table 2 3). All data were analyzed using SPSS Statistical Software, version 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Results The results show that only 61.2 percent of the participants cons idered themselves to be of Hispanic ethnicity. Fifty eight p ercent of those who reported to be Hispanic s reside in high income neighborhoods, while 64.4 % of those who consider themselves to be Hispanic live in low income areas (Table 4 2 ). About 70 percent of the respondents were between th e ages of 18 and 45 year s old (mean = 38.15). Female participants showed more physical inactivity (66.3%) than males in both SES neighborhoods. Close to 70 % of the participants showed no fear of

PAGE 62

62 walking in Orland 90 percent of the participants rep orted no problems with incivilities in their neighborhoods (Table 4 2 ). High Income Unadjusted m ultinomial logistic regression results show that when the moderate category of PA was contrasted against the sedentary category, only the variables of age, ge nder cohesion and ethnicity significantly predicted an association in the moderate category (Ta ble 4 3 ). A ge was associated with lower odds of moderate physical activity ( OR=0.968, 95% CI, .968 .947) In other words, age showed a negative association wit h moderate to vigo rous physical activity (Table 4 3 ). Gender was positively associated with moderate to vigorous physical activity. Males had 5 times higher odds of moderate and vigorous physical activity (MVPA) than females (OR=5.00, 95% CI, 2.782 8.988). Hispanics also showed positive association MVPA than non Hispanics (OR = 1.787, CI 95%, 1.032 3.096). C ohesion (OR = .379, 95% CI, .217 .661) was negatively associated with increased odds of being classified as moderate ( Table 4 3 ). None of the neighborho od predictors of fear were statistically significant. Adjusted odds ratio results show the effects of each variable controlling for all others. Age gender, ethnicity cohesion and incivilities were significantly associated with moderate activity. The res ults of the adjusted model were similar to the unadjusted results. However, the effects of gender and Hispanic identity were more pronounced (Table 4 3). Males were 7.2 times ( OR=7.236, 95% CI, 3.569 14.669) more likely than females to report moderate phys ical activity. Hispanics were 2.2 times (OR = 2.260, CI 95%, 1.129 4.526) more likely to report moderate physical activity that non Hispanics. Two of the neighborhood measures were significant in the adjusted model. C ohesion (OR = .352, 95% CI, .205 .656) was associated with increased odds of being classified as moderate ly active (Table 4 3). I ncivilities w ere associated with decreased odds of moderate activity The

PAGE 63

63 (OR = .191, 95% CI, .041 .884) was associated with 81% lower odds When examining the effects of the predictor variables on vigorous category versus the sedentary category for unadjusted regression in h igh income neighborhoods, only age, gender, Hispanic ethnicity and cohesion were significant predictors. Similar to the model for moderate physical activity, age, gender and Hispanic identity were significant predictors of vigo rous physical activity (Table 4 4 ). The directions of the relationships were the same. Age ( OR =0.889, 95% CI, .845 .934 ) was associated with 11% lower odd s of vigorous activity (Table 4 4 ). Males (OR=7.50, 95% CI, 3.265 17.226) were 7.5 times more likely than females to report vigorous physical activity. Respondents of Hispanic ethnicity ( OR = 3.3 00, CI 95%, 1.466 7.431 ) were 3.3 times more likely than non Hispanic to report vigorous activity. One of the neighborhood measures was significant in the adjusted model. C ohesion (OR = .352, 95% CI, .205 .656) was associated with increased odds of being c lassified as moderate (Table 4 4 ). For the model showing the effects of the predictor variables on vigorous activity versus sedentary for adjusted regression in h igh income neighborhoods, only age, gender, ethnicity and cohesion were significant predictors The a djusted model for vigorous physical activity showed the similar results as the unadjusted model. However results for gender (19.382, 95% CI, 6.433 58.400 ) were more pronounced (Table 4 4 ). Low Income Unadjusted m ultinomial logistic regression resu lts for low income show that when the moderate category was contrasted against the sedentary category, only Hispanic ethnicity significantly predicted an association in the moderate category (Table 4 5 ). Hispanic ethnicity was associated with lower odds of moderate physical activity ( OR= 233 95% CI, 122 .445 ) In

PAGE 64

64 other words, Hispanic ethnicity showed a negative association with moderate to vigo rous physical activity (Table 4 5 ). None of the neighborhood predictors of fear were statistically significant. Adjusted odds ratio results show the effects of each variable controlling for all others. Similar to the unadjusted model, only Hispanic ethnicity ( OR= 235 95% CI, 118 .467 ) was associated with lower odds of preference of sedentary to moderate physical activity (Table 4 5 ). When examining the effects of the predictor variables on the vigorous category versus the sedentary category for unadjusted regression in low income neighborhoods, only gender, Hispanic ethnicity and cohesion were significant predicto rs (Table 4 6 ) Males (OR=5.000, 95% CI, 2.228 11.218) were 5 times more likely than females to report vigorous physical activity. Respondents of Hispanic ethnicity ( OR = .349 CI 95%, .161 .757) were associated with 65% lower odds of vigorous activity. One of the significant neighborhood measures in the adjusted model was c ohesion Cohesion (OR = .353, 95% CI, .160 .775) was associated with increased odds of being classified as moderate ly active (Table 4 6 ). For the adjusted model for low income areas, o nly age, gender, Hispanic ethnicity and cohesions were significant predictors of vigorous physical activity. Age ( OR= 956 95% CI, 918 .996) was associated with 5% lower odds of vigorous activity (Table 4 7 ). Males (OR=7.205, 95% CI, 2.794 18.582) were 7 times more likely than females to report vigorous physical activity. Respondents of Hispanic ethnicity ( OR = .313 CI 95%, .125 .782) were associated with 69% lower odds of vigorous activity. Only one of the neighborhood measures was significant in the a djusted model. C ohesion (OR = .269, 95% CI, .111 .653) was associated with increased odds of being classified as moderate (Table 4 7 ).

PAGE 65

65 Discussion This study sought to understand the relationship s between socio economic status and perception of crime in Hispanic communities. Social and environmental variables were measured to better understand these relationships. Result s for our study show that sixty percent of participants reported they had engaged in physical activity in the last month This is inconsi stent with the extant literature which reports that only about 25% of American adults participate in the recommended levels of physical activity. McKenzie et al. (2006) reported that park users were sedentary 66% of the time. Surprisingly, in our study, physical activity participation was more evident in low SES areas (63%) than high income (57%). According to some studies low income areas have been shown to be less active than high income areas (Evans & Katrowski, 2002; Estabrooks, P.A et al. 2003; Gme z et al., 2004; Wilson DK, et al. 2004). Results for m ultinomial logistic regression for high and low income show ed that when the sedentary category was contrasted against the moderate or vigorous, age showed a negative association with moderate and vigo rous physical activity In other words, as age groups increase, the reported preference for s edentary activity also increased This result is similar to some studies indicating that few older persons engage in regular physical activity (Talbot, L.A. et al. 2002; U.S. HHS, 2000). This study showed more participation by males (53%) than females (47%). G ender was a significant predictor of moderate and vigorous physical activity for both income groups For vig orous physical activity, males exceeded females by a 3 to 1 ratio. This contrasted with some studies in the literature that found women to be a little less physically active than men but still

PAGE 66

66 showed a higher level of physical activity among women than our study (McKenzie et al., 2000; Brownson, R.C. et al., 2004; McKenzie et al., 2006). Close to 60% of the participants reported to be from Hispanic ethnicity of any race, with more present in low income areas (64.4 %) than in high income areas (58 %). Hispanic ethnicity also showed a positive association with moderate and vigorous physical activity ; more than non Hispanics in high income areas. However, for low income neighborhoods, Hispanic ethnicity showed a negative association with moderate and vigorous physical activity S tudies have found that Hispa nics fail to participate in physical activity (Gordon Larsen, P., et al. 2000, Kesaniemi, Y.K. et al. 2001). Also, several studies have found less access to facilities for physical activity in unacceptable conditions in low income areas (Wilson et al. 2004 ; Gordon Larsen et al. 2006; Powell et al. 2006; Zhu & Lee, 2008) O ne factor that might prevent the use of parks and neighborhoods for physical activity is the fear of crime (Eyler et al., 1999; Giles Corti & Donavan, 2003). Our study shows 70% of partic ipants reporting no fear of walking in their neighborhoods. This makes sense since l evels of fear in neighborhoods can be attributed to the presence of incivilities or previous experience with crime (Bairner & Shirlow, 2003; Gordon Larsen, P. et al. 2006). A bout 90% of the participants reported no evidence of incivilities in their neighborhoods. Participants that registered no participation in physical activity were more worried about crime than active participants. However, about 44% of people that did not participate in physical activity were afraid of walking around their neighborhood. Two of the neighborhood measures were significantly associated with physical activity in the study. Cohesion and incivilities w ere associated with decreased odds of moder ate and vigorous physical activity in both SES Fear or crime, fear of walking and victimization were

PAGE 67

67 not significantly associated with moderate activity for any neighborhood in this study. This contradicts the literature where fear of crime has been fou nd to be a factor affecting physical activity participation in parks ( Pendleton 2000; Manning et al. 2001; Tynon & Chavez 2006 ). Conclusions The present study emphasize s the need to better understand the effects of crime and fear of crime on physical acti vity at a micro level for specific minority communities. Perceptions of fear and incivilities may af fect leisure time physical activity. T his study has several limitations. First, the study area was a selection of Hispanic areas in Orlando, Fl. This does not represent the broader Hispanic population that lives in Florida or the U.S. The study was done with a random sample that included Hispanic neighborhoods only. We focus ed o n this region because of the high propensity for cardiovascular diseases in this population (Mokdad AH, et al. 2001 ; Giles Corti & Donavan, 2003). Second, data were self reported ; each participant might not accurate ly (e.g., they may over report levels of PA) or truthfully report their response s. Finally the questions used to evaluat e fear of walking do not specif y if the activity was done for physical activity or as a necessity. Future studies should investigate how neighborhoods in diverse communities can adopt policies to i mprove safety perception s and minimize risks ; especially i n low income areas If neighborhoods in diverse and disadvantaged communities are to benefit from physical activity, more research is needed to explore resident behavior and how this is affected by possible external (individual and social) factors. Also policy makers should focus on low cost physical activities like walking. W alking is one of the most reported activit ies for physical health and is fairly inexpensive F uture research should focus on policies and behavior to promote walking; either for rec reation or other purposes Additionally, f urther studies should be made to study factors that decrease female

PAGE 68

68 physical activity participation in Hispanic communities. Finally more in depth studies should be made to focus on physical activity in Hispanic ar eas with different income levels Differences in moderate and vigorous physical activity preferences for different incomes in Hispanic areas left some unanswered questions about what might prevent PA participation.

PAGE 69

69 Tables Gende r (1= male, 2 = female); Hispanic ethnicity (1= yes, 2= no); Physical activity (1= No PA, 2= sedentary, 3= vigorous); Fear of crime (1 = not worri ed to 10 = very worried ). Table 4 1. Variables s ummary Variable % N Mean Age 490 39.44 Gender Male 53 265 Female 47 235 Hispanic ethnicity Hispanic 61.2 298 Not Hispanic 38.8 192 Physical activity Sedentary 39.2 195 1.79 Moderate 42.8 215 Vigorous 18 90 Cohesion Agree 44.2 221 .913 Disagree 55.8 279 Fear of crime Low 36 180 4.98 .972 Medium 22 110 High 42 210 Fear of walk Often 6.4 27 3.10 .851 Sometimes 23.3 98 Rar ely 23.8 100 Never 46.4 195 Victimization Yes 8 40 .793 No 92 460 Incivilities A big problem 2 20 2.81 .941 Somewhat of a problem 10.4 51 Not a problem 87.6 439

PAGE 70

70 Gender (1= male, 2 = female); Hispanic ethnicity (1= yes, 2= no); Physical activity (1= No PA, 2= sedentary, 3= vigorous); Fear of crime (1 = not worri ed to 10 = very worried ). Table 4 2 Hispanic n eighborhoods by socio economic status Variables (n =500) High Income Low Income Freq. % Freq. % Age (Years) 18 30 92 37 50 20 31 45 88 35 114 45.6 46 60 41 16.4 71 28.4 Over 61 19 7.6 15 6 Gender Male 130 52 135 54 Female 120 48 115 46 Hispanic ethnicity Hispanic 145 58 161 64.4 Not Hispanic 105 42 89 35.6 Physical activity Sedentary 109 43 91 36.4 Moderate 101 41 109 43.6 Vigorous 40 16 50 20 Cohesion Agree 115 46 106 42.4 Disagree 135 54 144 57.6 Fear of crime Low 100 40 80 32 Medium 45 18 65 26 High 105 42 105 42 Fear of walk Yes 6 0 24 96 38.4 No 190 76 154 61.6 Victimization Yes 20 8 38 15.2 No 230 92 212 84.8 Incivilities A big problem 20 7 0 0.00 Somewhat of a problem 39 13.6 12 38.4 Not a pro blem 201 79.4 238 61.6

PAGE 71

71 Ta ble 4 3 Multinomial l ogistic r egression o dds r atios for s edentary to m oderate p hysical a ctivity in h igh i ncome n eighborhoods Unadjusted Sedentary (Ref.) vs. Moderate Physical Activity Adjusted Sedentary (Ref.) vs. Moderate Physical Activity 95% CI 95% CI Parameter Exp( B ) Low High p Exp( B ) Low High p Age .968 .947 .988 .002** .957 .932 .983 .001** Gender Male 5.00 2.782 8.988 .000*** 7.236 3.569 14.669 .000*** Female (Ref.) Hispanic Yes 1.787 1.032 3.096 .0 38* 2.260 1.129 4.526 .021* No (Ref.) Cohesion Agree .379 .217 .661 .001** .352 .205 .656 .002** Disagree (Ref.) Fear of Walk Often .927 .176 4.875 .929 Sometimes .927 .448 1.918 .838 Rarely .859 .460 1.603 .633 Never (Ref.) Incivilities A big problem .363 .106 1.239 .106 .191 .041 .884 .034* Somewhat of a problem .645 .357 1.165 .146 Not a problem (Ref.) Fear of cr ime Low 1.200 .584 2.467 .620 Medium 1.337 .633 2.827 .447 High (Ref.) Victimization Yes 1.651 .733 3.719 .226 No (Ref.) Intercept cut points are excluded from the output. p < .05; **p<.01; ***p < .001 OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval

PAGE 72

72 Table 4 4 Multinomial l ogistic r egression o dds r atios for s edentary to vigorous p hysical a ctivity in high income neighborhoods Unadjusted Sedentary (Ref.) vs. Vigorous Physical Activity A djusted Sedentary (Ref.) vs. Vigorous Physical Activity 95% CI 95% CI Parameter Exp( B ) Low High p Exp( B ) Low High p Age .889 .845 .934 .000*** .862 .812 .915 .000*** Gender Male 7.50 3.265 17.226 .000*** 19.382 6.433 58.400 .00 0*** Female (Ref.) Hispanic Yes 3.300 1.466 7.431 .004** 7.985 2.570 24.810 .000*** No (Ref.) Cohesion Agree .205 .091 .464 .000*** .203 .101 .458 000.*** Disagree (Ref.) Fear of Walk Often 1.900 .351 .10.291 .456 Sometimes .330 .100 1.088 .069 Rarely .602 2.64 4.376 .226 Never (Ref.) Incivilities A big problem .667 .168 2.651 .565 Somewhat of a problem 421 .174 1.018 .055 Not a problem (Ref.) Fear of crime Low .989 .382 2.540 .986 Medium 1.067 .398 2.858 .898 High (Ref.) Victimization Yes .450 .095 2.125 .313 No (Ref.) Intercept cut points are excluded from the output. p < .05; **p<.01; ***p < .001 OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval

PAGE 73

73 Table 4 5 Multinomial l ogistic r egression o dds r atios for s edentary to m oderate p hysical a ctivity in low income ne ighborhoods Unadjusted Sedentary (Ref.) vs. Moderate Physical Activity Adjusted Sedentary (Ref.) vs. Moderate Physical Activity 95% CI 95% CI Parameter Exp( B ) Low High p Exp( B ) Low High p Age 1.012 .988 1.037 .326 Gender Male 1.250 .715 2.186 .434 Female (Ref.) Hispanic Yes .233 .122 .445 .000*** .235 .118 .467 .000*** No (Ref.) Cohesion Agree 1.250 .715 2.186 .434 Disagree (Ref.) Fear of Walk Often .530 .137 2.045 .357 Sometimes .762 .363 1.599 .472 Rarely 1.206 .620 2.345 .581 Never (Ref.) Incivilities A big problem 1.192 .256 5.546 .823 Somewhat of a problem 1.277 703 2.320 .422 Not a problem (Ref.) Fear of crime Low 1.163 .566 2.390 .681 Medium .699 .340 1.435 .329 High (Ref.) Victimization Yes .798 .329 1.936 .618 No (Ref.) Intercept cut points are excluded from the output. p < .05; **p<.01; ***p < .001 OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval

PAGE 74

74 Table 4 6 Multinomial l ogistic r egression o dds r atios for s edentary to vigorous p hysical a ctivity in low income ne ighborhoods Unadjusted Sedentary (Ref.) vs. Vigorous Physical Activity Adjusted Sedentary (Ref.) vs. Vigorous Physical Activity 95% CI 95% CI Parameter Exp( B ) Low High p Exp( B ) Low High p Age .970 .939 1.002 .063 .956 .918 .996 .031* Gender Male 5.000 2.228 11.218 .000*** 7.205 2.794 18.582 .000*** Female (Ref.) Hispanic Yes .349 .161 .757 .008** .313 .125 .782 .013* No (Ref.) Cohesion Agree .353 .160 .775 .009** .269 .111 .653 .0 07** Disagree (Ref.) Fear of Walk Often .738 .132 4.123 .729 Sometimes .830 .308 2.240 .714 Rarely 1.909 .835 4.366 .126 Never (Ref.) Incivilities A big problem 1.269 .201 7.99 9 .800 Somewhat of a problem 1.156 .550 2.429 .703 Not a problem (Ref.) Fear of crime Low .688 .281 1.680 .411 Medium .688 .295 1.604 .386 High (Ref.) Victimization Yes .458 .122 1.728 .249 No (Ref.) Intercept cut points are excluded from the output. p < .05; **p<.01; ***p < .001 OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval

PAGE 75

75 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS The purpose of th is study was to understand the rel ationships between income and perception o f crime in Hispanic communities and how these perceptions affect participation in leisure time physical activity resulting in improved health. Several research questions were developed to better understand the rela tionship between fear of crime and LTPA. The first question asked if self reported LTPA differ ed between high and low SES and neighborhood conditions. Th e results indicate that there were no significant difference between neighborhoods with higher income a nd neighborhoods with lower income. The second question asked if fear of crime prevent ed neighborhood residents from self reported LTPA participation. The results indicate that fe ar o f crime significantly increased the odds of those participants that repor ted moderate levels of physical activity. However, no association was found between fear of crime and those who reported vigorous physical activity. The third question asked if fear of walk ing prevent ed neighborhood residents from self reported LTPA partic ipation. The results indicate that fear of walk ing significantly help ed predict participation in LTPA. Participants who answered that they often feel fear of walk ing increased their odds of reporting engagement in moderate and vigorous physical activity. The fourth question asked how neighborhood cohesion affects self reported LTPA. Differences between levels of LTPA and cohesion w ere supported by the findings of the study Results indicated that for all income levels and all physical activity levels, exce pt low income moderate, neighborhood cohesion was found to significantly reduce the odds of reporting participation in physical activity. The last question asked if neighborhood incivilities affect self reported LTPA. The results indicated that only one l evel (a big problem) of incivility showed to have a significant negative

PAGE 76

76 effect on high income moderate physical activity. For high income vigorous and low income levels of PA, incivilities failed to predict participation in LTPA. Physical activity is imp ortant for everyone. Parks and neighborhoods play an important role in facilitating physical activity in low income and minority communities. However, further studies are needed to understand preferences of facilities and types of physical activity. For ex ample, some studies have shown that walking is the most common type of physical activity (Simpson, M.E. et al. 2003). Since most people like to walk, making parks and neighborhoods suitable for walking should be a priority. Cities can improve the design of parks and neighborhoods to focus on creating more walking paths and tracks. I t should be interesting almost necessary, to understand differences b etween walking for recreation versus walking as a necessity and the role of fear on this Further studies sh ould focus on specific questions about the purpose of walking around parks and neighborhoods; as this study fails to ask why participants engaged in walking. Walking can play a significant role in increasing physical activity in low income and minority co mmunities. Walking is not only the most reported physical activity but is free to do and almost everyone has access to a street or a sidewalk, while others may have access to parks (Simpson, M.E. et al. 2003). For our study fear of walk ing fail to predic t participation in physical activity, but other measures should be developed to better understand this relationship. For example Sallis et al (2009) found that o besity was lower for high walkability neighborhoods. Also, l ittle is known about who use s park s and neighborhoods for LTPA in these communities, how frequent they use it and for how long Policymakers and city planners should work with community associations to promote the use of neighborhood s and parks for leisure

PAGE 77

77 time physical activity. Studies l ike this one should be replicated with a focus o n more detailed physical activity participation Physical activity is important for everyone, and since most people who engage in LTPA choose to walk, making parks and neighborhoods suitable for walking shou ld be a priority. Perceptions of safety may affect the use of recreational areas for physical activity. However, participation in LTPA around parks and neighborhoods can be affected by fear and crime concerns (Zhu & Lee, 2008). Perceptions of safety may a ffect the use of recreational areas and leisure time physical activity. For example, w hen we asked about their fear of walk ing in their neighborhoods about 70% of the participants reported no fear of walking. We assume that crimes that worried people in t hese neighborhoods might not be present while walking. Further studies should be conducted to understand levels of fear of crime during other non recreational activities since in our study sedentary respondent s were more worried about crime than active par ticipants. Fear of crime has been identified as one factor that might inhibit the use of parks and neighborhoods for physical activity. However, this study showed that 60.8% of the participants reported participation in physical activity during the last m onth. This level of participation was similar to the National levels of LTPA for 2007 w here about 65% of adults participated in the recommended levels of PA according to the 2008 US DHHS report. Of those physically active in this study, males participated three times more than females A follow up, in depth study of female behavior should be conducted to better understand the extent of physical inactivity in this area Also, sedentary respondents were more worried about crime than active participants; speci fically 44% of people who did not participate in physical activity were afraid of walking around their neighborhood. Roman (2007) found that females have 52% higher odds of

PAGE 78

78 reporting a higher level of fear than males. This concurs with the crime literatur e where females have been found to be more concern ed with some crimes than males (Fetchenhauer, D. & Buunk, B., 2005; Ferraro, 1995, 1996; Fisher and Sloan, 2003 ). However, some studies have found that males are more afraid than females when fear is measur ed by specific crimes ( Wesely and Gaarder, 2004; Hollander, 2001 ). This study found that while perceptions of fear and incivilities may affect the use of recreational areas, they fail to predict park use in this study. Our study was limited to a few parks in Hispanic neighborhoods in Orlando; maybe a larger sample of neighborhoods with different ethnic backgrounds might provide different results. In this setting, Park and Recreation departments should work hand in hand with local police to develop policies to provide a safer feel to our parks and neighborhoods. Further studies should be made to understand levels of fear of crime during other non recreational activities since our study found that sedentary respondent s were more worried about crime than acti ve participants. New questions should be formulated to better understand how levels of fear of crime change through the day for different activities including work. For example, future studies should focus on the difference b etween fear of walking for recr eation and fear of walking as a necessity. This study focused on general questions about walking around the neighborhoods, they did not specify the purpose of the activity. The present study emphasizes the need to better understand the effects of crime an d fear of crime on physical activity at a micro level for specific minority communities. However, this study has several limitations. First, t he study area is limited to the Hispanic population in Orlando, Fl. This does not represent the broader Hispanic population that lives in Florida or the U.S. A more detailed study about the relationship of fear and physical activity should focus on

PAGE 79

79 wider populations of Hispanics. Second, the interviews were self reported ; each participant might not accurate ly report their responses Future studies should include observations to monitor physical activity participation. Finally the questions used to evaluate fear of walking do not specify if the activity was done for physical activity or as a necessity. Future studies should address this issue in more detail.

PAGE 80

80 APPENDIX A SAMPLE LETTER OF INFORMED CONCENT Health and Human Performance 300 FLG PO Box 118208 Department of Tourism, Recreation Gainesville, FL 32611 8208 and Sport Management 352 392 4042 ext. 1395 Dear Resident: The University of Florida, Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management along with the cities of Orlando, FL; Tampa, FL and Chicago, IL are conducting a study to learn about residents understanding and opinion of urban park participation and fear of crime. Your participation of this study is important in understanding these issues. The survey shall not take more than 15 minutes to complete. Nowhere in this survey will we ask you to provide any information that can be u sed to identify you This survey is completely anonymous and confidential and the information will only be used by our researchers. If you do not want to answer a particular question, you can always refuse to answer. Also, you are free to withdraw your con sent to participate and may discontinue your participation in the interview at any time without consequence. The only people who will be able to view your comments with will be the principal investigator. Instructions: 1. Please answer all the questions in the survey. You can use a pencil or a pen. 2. After you finish, simply put the filled survey back in the door. Our researchers will collect the survey during the next 3 days from the day it was posted. 3. If you decide not to help with this study, simply leave the survey at the door and it will be collected within 3 days. If you have any questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant or about this rese arch please contact Luis Suau at (352) 392 4042, ext. 1395 or via e mail at: luisj@ufl.edu Thank you in advance for the time you will take answer these questions. Your participation will help us and city planners to be tter understand these problems.

PAGE 81

81 A PPENDIX B SURVEY INSTRUMENT Hello, I'm [Luis Suau] from the University of Florida and we are conducting a survey on people's use of neighborhood and community parks for Leisure Time Physical Activity The purpose of this s tudy is to learn more about how people feel about using their neighborhoods and parks for physical activity The study will help park planners design parks and neighborhoods that lead to more active use for health benefits. T his interview will take about 1 5 minutes and will ask questions about your physical activity routine Your name will not be used in any way. Your identity will remain anonymous. Your participation is completely voluntary. And you may withdraw or end the interview at any time without pen alty. Do you wish to volunteer to be interviewed? Yes No [If yes, provide informed consent information]. 1. How long, in years and months, have you lived in this neighborhood? ______Years ______ Months 2. How many members of your househol d are under 18 ________ under 12_________ 3. Not counting those who live with you, how many friends do you have in your neighborhood? Would you say none, one or two, three to five, six to nine or ten or more? Physical Activity measures 4. During the past month, did you participate in any voluntary physical activities or exercises such as running, calisthenics, golf, gardening, or walking for exercise? Yes (1) No (2) (99) 5. Usually when you engage in physical activity, what type of PA do you do? Would you say it is moderate or vigorous physical activity? No physical activity (1) Moderate (2) Vigorous (3) 6. Where do you do most of your physical activity? Inside your house (1) Around your house (2) Around your neighborhood (3) Around the park (4) Inside the park (5) 7. Around what time do you do most of your physical activity? During the morning (1) In the afternoons (2) At night (3) 8. How many days per week do you usually do these physical activities? 1 2 (1) 3 4 (2) 5 7(3) No PA (4) if other explain________________________

PAGE 82

82 9. Within the LAST MONTH (i.e., last 30 days), did you visit a park? (if no s kip to question 12) Yes (1) No (2) (99) 10. DURING your LAST park visit, how many minutes did you spend in a park? Number of minutes__________________________ 11. Of those ___ minutes you said you spent in a park during your LAST park visit, how many of those total minutes did you spend being physically active? Number of minutes__________________________ 12. On a typical visit (in general) to a park which of the following BEST describes your level of activity when visiting parks ? Please circle one response. 1. Mostly sitting 2. Mostly light activities (standing, walking or strolling at a slow pace) 3. Mostly moderate activities (walking at a moderate pace, playing tennis) 4. Mostly vigorous activities (jogging, soccer, playing basketball) 99. 13. When you go to a park, who do you usually go with? ( Please select all that apply. Please Read) No one (I usually go alone) Family Friends Family and Friends Organized group Other (please list) _____________ ______________ Now we would like to know about some things you might do with people in your neighborhood. 14. Does your neighborhood have any type of crime watch group, like block watch or Citizens on Patrol? Yes (1) No (2) t know (99) 15. In the past 12 months have you or anyone in your household participated in this organization?

PAGE 83

83 Yes (1) No (2) (99) 16. For each of these statements, please indicate whether or not you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree. (Please check one box.) Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Know a. This is a unified neighborhood. b. People around here are willing to help their neighbors c. People in this neighborhood each other d. People in this neighborhood do not know each other e. People in this neighborhood can be t rusted f. People in this neighborhood watch out for each other g. The park closest to where I live is safe during the day. h. The park or playground closest to where I live is safe at night 17. About how often do you and people in your neighborhood do favors for each other? By lending garden or house tools, and other small acts of kindness. Would you say often, sometimes, rarely o r never?

PAGE 84

84 Often (1) Sometimes (2) Rarely (3) Never (4) (99) 18. How often do you and people in this neighborhood have parties or other get together where other people in the neighborhood are invited? Would you say of ten, sometimes, rarely or never? Often (1) Sometimes (2) Rarely (3) Never (4) (99) street? Would you say often, sometimes, ra rely or never? Often (1) Sometimes (2) Rarely (3) Never (4) (99) 20. How often does worry about crime prevent you from walking someplace in your neighborhood? Would you say often, sometimes, rarely, or never? A: During t he day Often (1) Sometimes (2) Rarely (3) Never (4) (99) B: During the Night Often (1) Sometimes (2) Rarely (3) Never (4) (99) 21. How often does worry about crime prevent you from walking someplace around or in the park? Would you say often, sometimes, rarely, or never? A: During the day Often (1) Sometimes (2) Rarely (3) Never (4) (99) B: During the Night Often (1) Sometimes (2) Rarely (3) Never (4) (99)

PAGE 85

85 22. This question lists things that are problems in some neighborhoods. For each, please indicate how much of a problem it is in your neighborhood. (Please check one box.) A big problem Some what of a problem Not a problem Know a. litter, broken glass trash on the sidewalks and streets? 1 2 3 99 b. graffiti on buildings and walls? 1 2 3 99 c. vacant houses? 1 2 3 99 d. trash in the neighborhood? 1 2 3 99 e. drinking in public? 1 2 3 99 f. people selling drugs? 1 2 3 99 g. groups of rowdy teenagers hanging out in the neighborhood? 1 2 3 99 h. different social groups who do not get along with each other? 1 2 3 99 i. abandon ed cars? 1 2 3 99 j. prostitution? 1 2 3 99 k. police not patrolling the area? 1 2 3 99 l. police not responding to calls from the area? 1 2 3 99 23. The 1 point is defined as "Not worried at all about crime in general," and the 10 point is labeled "Very worried about crime in general." "On a scale of 1 to 10, how concerned are you about cri me in this neighborhood ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 24 Is there any area within four blocks of your home where you would be worried about walking alone? A. during the day? Yes (1) No (2) (99) B. at night? Yes (1) No (2) (99 ) 25. Is there any area within four blocks of your home where you would be worried about walking even if someone else were with you? Yes (1) No (2) (99)

PAGE 86

86 26. Is there any area within one block of your home where you would be worried abo ut walking alone? Yes (1) No (2) (99) 27. Is there any area within one block of your home where you would be worried about walking even if someone else were with you? Yes (1) No (2) (99) 28. Are you worried about being in your home alone? Yes (1) No (2) (99) 29. Overall, how worried are you about becoming a victim of any of these crimes during the next year." The end points of the 1 to 10 scale are labeled "Not worried at all" and "Very worried." Not Worried Very Worried 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Assault with a weapon DK Assault without a weapon DK Rape or attempted rape DK Burglary DK Theft DK Rape or attempted rape DK Vandalism DK Murder DK 30. Have you be en a victim of a crime in the last 4 years ? Yes (1) No (2) (99) 30.A. In the last 10 years? Yes (1) No (2) (99) 31. Do you know if a member of your family or someone you know have been a victim of a crime in the last 4 years ?? Yes (1) No (2) (99) 31.A In the last 10 years? Yes (1) No (2) (99) 32 In what year were you born?_____________

PAGE 87

87 33 What is the highest grade of regular school you have completed? Less than high school (1) High school/GED (2) Some college (3) 2 year college degree (4) 4 year college degree (5) Graduate school (6) 34 Which of these categories best describe your marital status? Never married (1) Separated (2) Divorced (3) Married (4) Domestic Pa rtnership (5) Widow/Widower (6) 35. Which of the following group or groups represents your race? Black or African American, White, Asian or Pacific Islander, Native American or some other race? [CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] Black or African American (1) White (2) Asian or Pacific Islander (3) Native American (4) Some other race (5) Which race is that?__________________ 36(A) Do you consider yourself to be Hispanic? Yes (1) No (2) (99) 37 Is English your primary language (speak at home)? (if not which language you speak at home with your family). Yes (1) No (2) If NO__________________ 37 A. Is English your primary language you speak at work? Yes (1) No (2) If NO___ _______________ 3 8 Please think about your total combined family income during the past 12 months for all members of the family in this household. Less than $10,000 (1) 10,000 to 19,999 (2) 20,000 to 29,999 (3) 30,000 to 39,999 (4) 40,000 to 49,999 (5) 50,000 to 59,999 (6) 60,000 or over (7) 39 Respondent Gender : Male (1) Female (2)

PAGE 88

88 LIST OF REFERENCES Abercrombie, L.C., Sallis, J.F., Conway, T.L., Frank, L.D., Saelens, B.E., & Chapman, J.E. (2008). Income and rac ial disparities in access to public parks and private recreation facilities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34 (1), 9 15. Adair, L. & Gordon Larsen, P. (2001). Maturational Timing and Overweight Prevalence in US Adolescent Girls. American Journal of Public Health, 91(4), 642 644. Addy, C.L., Wilson, D.K., Kirtland, K.A., Ainsworth, B.E., Sharpe, P., & Kimsey, D. (2004). Associations of perceived social and physical environmental supports with physical activity and walking behavior. American Journ al of Public Health, 94, 440 443. Bairner, A. & Shirlow, P. (2003). When leisure turns to fear: fear, mobility, and ethno sectarianism in Belfast. Leisure Studies, 22, 203 221. Bennett, G., McNeill, L.H., Wolin, K.Y., Duncan, D.T., Puleo, E., & Emmons, K.M. (2007). Safe To Walk? Neighborhood Safety and Physical Activity Among Public Housing Residents. PLOS Medicine, 4(10), 1599 1607. Booth, S.L., Sallis, J.F., & Ritenbaugh, C., (2001). Environmental and societal factors affect food choice and physical activity: rationale, influences, and leverage points. Nutrition Reviews, 59, 3. Boslaugh, S.E., Kreuter, M.W., Nicholson, R.A. & Naleid, K. (2004). Comparing demographic, health status and psychosocial strategies of audience segmentation to promote physic al activity .Health Education Research, 20, 4, 430 438 Bowers, K. & Hirschfield, A. (1999). Exploring links between crime and disadvantage in northwest England: an analysis using geographical information systems. Geographical Information Science, 13(2), 1 59 184. Brantingham, P.J. & Brantingham, P.L. (1990). Situational Crime Prevention in Practice. Canadian Journal of Criminology Jan.17 40. Brownson R.C., Schmid, T.L. & King, A.C. (1998). Policy interventions to increase physical activity in rural Misso uri. American Journal of Health Promotion 12(4), 263 266. Brownson, R. C., Baker, E. A., Housemann, R. A., Brennan, L. K., & Bacak, S. J. (2003). Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity in the United States. American Journal of Public Health 91(12), 1995 2003.

PAGE 89

89 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2006). Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report MMWR, 55, 529 552. Chavez, D. J., Tynon, J. F., & Knap, N. (2004). Reducing crime and violence on public lands: Case studies in the us da forest service. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 22, 22 38. Transactions in GIS 3(2), 175 186. Crawford, D., Timperio, A., Giles Corti, B., Ball, K., Hume, C., Roberts, R., et al. (20 08). Do f eatures of public open spaces vary according to neighbourhood socio economic status? Health & Place, 14 889 893. Crespo, C.J., Smit, E., Anderson, R.E., Carter Pokras, O., Ainsworth, B.E. (2000). Race/ethnicity, social class and their relation to physic al inactivity during leisure time: Results from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 1994. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 18, 46 53. Crespo, C. J., Smit, E., Andersen, R. E., Carter Pokras, O., & Ainsworth, B. E. (200 0). Race/ethnicity, social class and their relation to physical inactivity during leisure time: Results from the third national health and nutrition examination survey, 1988 1994. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 18(1), 46 53. Conklin, J.E. (1975) The Impact of Crime New York: Macmillan. Crowe, T. D. (2000). C rime prevention through environmental design (2nd ed). Woburn, MA: Butterworth Heinemann. Day, K. (2006). Active living and social justice: Planning for physical activity in low income, Bl ack and Latino communities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72 (1), 88 99. DuBow, F., McCabe, E., & Kaplan, G. (1979). Reactions to crime: A critical review of the literature U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 1 90. Estabrooks, P. A Lee, R. E., & Gyurcsik, N. C. (2003). Resources for physical activity participation: Does availability and accessibility differ by neighborhood SES? Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 100 104. Eyler, A. A., Brownson, R. C., Donatelle, R. J., King, A. C., Brown, D., & Sallis, J. F. (1999). Eyler, A.A., Brownson, R.C., Bacak, S.J., & Housemann, R.A. (2003). The epidemiology of walking for physical activity in the United States. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 35, 1529 1536.

PAGE 90

90 Farrall, S., & Gadd, D. (2004). The frequency of the fear of crime British Journal of Criminology, 44, 127 132. Frank L D Schmid T L Sallis J F. Chapman I. & Sealens B E. (2005) Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: Findings from SMARTRAQ. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28(2S2): 7 125. Ferraro, K.F. (1995). Fear of Crime: Interpreting Victimization Risk, New York State University of New York Press. Fetchenhau er, D., & Buunk, A.P. (2005). How to explain gender differences in fear of crime: Towards an evolutionary approach. Sexualities, Evolution and Gender, 7, 95 113. Fisher, B. S., & Sloan, J.J. (2003). Unraveling the fear of victimization among college women : Is the shadow of sexual assault hypotheses supported? Justice Quarterly, 20, 633 659. Freedman, R. & Taub, S. (2006). Sampling: A Practical Guide for Quality Management in Home & Community Based Waiver Programs. Cambridge, MA: Human Services Research In stitute and the MEDSTST Group, Inc. Giles Corti, B., & Donovan, R.J. (2002). Socioeconomic status differences in recreational physical activity levels and real and perceived access to a supportive physical environment. Preventive Medicine, 35 601 611. Giles Corti, B., & Donovan, R.J. (2003). Relative influences of individual, social environmental, and physical environmental correlates of walking. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1583 1589. Gobster, P.H. & Managing, R. (2002). Urban parks for a ra cially and ethnically diverse clientele. Leisure Sciences 24, 143 159. Godbey. G.C., Graefe, A., & James, S.W. (1992). Th services: a nationwide study of the perceptions of the American public. Washington, DC: National Recreation and Park Association. Goodman, R.M., Wandersman, A., Chinman, M., Imm, P., & Morrissey, E. (1996). An ecolo gical assessment of community based interventions for prevention and health promotion: approaches to measuring community coalitions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 33 61 Gordon Larsen, P., McMurray, R.G., & Popkin, B.M. (2000). Determinant s of adolescent physical activity and inactivity patterns. Pediatrics, 105(6), 83 90.

PAGE 91

91 Gordon Larsen, P., Nelson, M.C., Page, P., & Popkin, B.M. (2006). Inequality in the built environment underlies key health disparities in physical activity and obesity. Pediatrics, 117 (2), 417 424. Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. J., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey methodology. Hoboken, NJ: John A. Wiley & Sons. Hammitt, W.E. (1982). Cognitive dimensions of wilderness solitude. Env ironmental Behavior ,14, 478 493. Hartnagel, T.F. (1979). The Perception and Fear of Crime: Implications for Neighborhood Cohesion, Social Activity, and Community Affect. Social Forces, 58, 1. Hjelm, K., Sundquist, J. & Apelquist, J. (2002). The influence of socio economic status and life style on self reported health in diabetics and non diabetics: a comparison of foreign born and Swedish born individuals. Primary Health Care Research and Development 3, 249 259 Hollander, J. A. (2001). Vulnerability an d dangerousness: The construction of gender through conversation about violence. Gender and Society 15, 83 109. Hutchinson, R. (1987). Ethnicity and urban recreation: Whites, Blacks and Hispanics in Chicago's public parks. Journal of Leisure Research 19 205 222. Kesaniemi, Y.K., Danforth, E., Jr., Jensen, M.D., Kopelman, P.G., Lefebvre ,P., & Reeder, B.A. (2001). Dose response issues concerning physical activity and health: an evidence based symposium. Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise, 33 (6), 351 358. Lane, Jodi. ( 2002 ). Fear of crime: A qualitative examination of the four perspectives. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 39 437 471. Lee, C. (2007). Environment and active living: The roles of health risk and economic factors. Amer ican Journal of Health Promotion 21 293 304. Madriz, E. (1997). Berkeley: University of California Press. Manning, R., J. Bacon, A., Graefe, G., Lee, K. R, & Burns, R. (2001). I never hike alone: Security on the Appalachian Trail. Parks and Recreation 37(7), 50 56. McGinn, A.P., Evenson, K.R., Herring, A.H., Huston, S.L. &. Rodriguez, D.A. (2008) The Association of Perceived and Objectively Measured Crime With Physical Activity: A C ross Sectional Analysis. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, Vol. 5 117 113. Menard, S. ( 1995 ) Applied logistic regression analysis. Sage University Paper Series 07 106. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.

PAGE 92

92 Mokdad, A.H., Ford, E.S., & Bowm an, B.A. (2003). Prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and obesity related health risk factors, 2001. Jama, 289(1), 76 79. O'Brien, Robert M. ( 2007 ). A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors. Quality and Quantity 41(5)673 690. O'Ne ill, K., & Reid, G. (1991). Perceived barriers to physical activity by older adults. Canadian Journal of Public Health 82, 392 396. Otis, M. D. (2007). Perceptions of risk and fear of victimization among lesbians and gay men. Journal of Interpersonal Vio lence, 22 (2), 198 218 Pendleton, M. R. (1996). Crime, criminals and guns in natural settings: Exploring the basis for disarming federal rangers. American Journal of Police 5, 3 25. Pendleton, M.R. & Thompson, H.L. (2000). The criminal career of parks and recreation hotspots. Parks & Recreation, 35(7). American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 63 107. Physical activity social support and middle and older aged minority women: results from a US survey. Social Science & Medicine, 49 (6), 781 789. Powell L.M., Slater. S., & Chaloupka, F.J. (2004). The relationship between community physical activity sett ings and race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Preventive Medicine, 1, 135 44. Powell, L.M., Slater, S., Chaloupka, F.J., & Harper, D. (2006). Availability of physical activity related facilities and neighborhood demographic and socioeconomic characte ristics: A national study. American Journal of Public Health, 96 (9), 1676 1680. Roman, C.G. & Chalfin, A. (2008) Fear of Walking Outdoors: A Multilevel Ecological Analysis of Crime and Disorder. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 34(4) :306 312. Rom ero, A.J. (2005). Low physical activity. Journal of Adolescent Health 36, 253 259. Rowe P Mars H Schuldheisz J & Fox S. (2004). Measuring students' physical activity levels: Validating SOFIT for use with high school students. J ournal of Teaching Phys ical Educ ation 23 235 51. Sallis, J.F., & Bauman, M.P. (1998). Environmental & policy interventions to promote physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 15, 379 97.

PAGE 93

93 Sall is J.F., Cervero, R.B., Ascher, W., Henderson, K.A., Kraft, M.K., & Kerr, J. (2006). An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annual Review of Public Health. 27, 297 322. Sallis J F & Glanz K. (2006). The role of built environments in physical activity, eating, and obesity in childhood. The Future of Children 16 89 108. Sallis J & Owen N. (1996). Ecological models. In: Glanz K, Lewis F. Rimer B, eds. Health behahavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice. 2nd e d. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 403 424. Sampson R J Raudenbush S & Earls F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multi level study of collective efficacy. Science 277 918 924. Sampson, R.J., & Raudenbush, S.W. (2005). Neighborhood stigma a nd the perception of disorder Focus 24, 1. Schilling, J.M., Billie Giles Corti B. & Sallis, J. F. (2009) Connecting Active Living Research and Public Policy: Transdiciplinary Research and Policy interventions to increase physical activity, Journal of Pub lic Health Policy 30, S1 S15. Schroeder, H.W. & Anderson, L.M. (1984). Perception of personal safety in urban recreation sites. Journal of Leisure Research, 16, 178 194. Simpson, M.E., Serdula, M., & Galuska, D.A. (2003). Walking trends among U.S. adults : The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 1987 2000. American journal of preventive medicine 25, (2) 95 100. Skogan W. (1990). Disorder and decline. New York: Free Press. Skogan, W. G., & Maxfield, M.G. (1981). Coping with Crime: Individual and Neighborhood Reactions, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. SPSS Inc., (2008) Chicago, IL. Stanko, E. (1990). Everyday Violence: How Women and Men Experience Sexual and Physical Danger. London: Pandora. Sundquist, J., Winkleby, M.A., & Pudaric, S.(2001). Cardiova scular Disease Risk Factors Among Older Black, Mexican American, and White Women and Men: An Analysis of NHANES III, 1988 1994. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 49 (2), 109 113. Sundquist, K., Qvist, J., Johansson, S.E., & Sundquist, J. (2005) The long term effect of physical activity on incidence of coronary heart disease: a 12 year follow up study. Preventive Medicine, 41, 219 225.

PAGE 94

94 Talbot, L.A., Morrell, C.H. & Metter, J. (2002). Comparison of cardio respiratory fitness versus leisure time physical activity as predictors of coronary events in men aged < 65 Years and >65 Years. American Journal of Cardiology 89(11), 87 92. Taylor, R. B. (1999). Crime, Grime, Fear and Decline: A Longitudinal Look, Washin gton D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Taylor, R. B. ( 2001 ) Breaking Away from Broken Windows: Baltimore Neighborhoods and the Nationwide Fight Against Crime, Grime, Fear, and Decline. Boulder: Westview Press. Taylor, R, B., & Hale, M. (1986). Testin g Alternative Models of Fear of Crime. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 77(1), 151 89. Taylor, R. B., & Covington, J. (1993). Community structural change and fear of crime. Social Problem, 40, 374 397. Tyno n J. F., & Chavez D. J. (2006 ) Adapti ng a tourism crime typology: Classifying outdoor recreation crime Journal of Travel Research 44, 298 307 Tynon, J. F. & Chavez, D. J (2006 ). Crime in national forests: A call for research. Journal of Forestry 104, 154 157. U.S. 2000 Census ( www.cens us.gov ) United States Census Bureau. American Fact Finder http://factfinder.census.gov. Retrieved on 2008 2/24.) U.S. DHHS (1996). Physical activity and health: a report of the Surgeon General Atlanta GA: Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion USDHHS (2005) D ietary Guidelines for Americans Washington DC Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion USDHHS (2001). Overweight and Obesity Threaten U.S. Health Gains Washington DC Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Warr, M. (1984). Fear of victimization: Why are women and the eld erly more afraid? Social Science Quarterly, 65, 681 702. negotiating fear of violence. Gender and Society 18, 645 663.

PAGE 95

95 Williams, F.P., McShane, M.D., & Akers, R.L. ( 2000). Worry About Victimization: An Alternative and Reliable Measure for Fear of Crime. Western Criminology Review 2(2), Wilson, D.K., Kirtland, K.A., Ainsworth, B.E. & Addy, C.I. (2004). Socioeconomic status and perceptions of access and safety for phy sical activity. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 28(1), 20 8. Wilson, J.Q. & G.L. Kelling (1982). Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety. The Atlantic Monthly 249, 29 38. Wyant, Brian (2008) Multilevel Impacts of Perceived Incivilities and Pe rceptions of Crime Risk on Fear of Crime Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45(1) 39 64. Young, V. D. (1992). Fear of victimization and victimization rates among women: A paradox? Justice Quarterly 9, 419 441. Vanderveen, G. (2006), Interp reting Fear, Crime, Risk and Unsafety. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

PAGE 96

96 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Luis Jos Suau Gonzlez was born to Luis J. Suau Ferrer and Est er Gonzlez Gonzlez in Rio Piedras Puerto Rico but was raised in Mayaguez He is the second of thre e children. He ogy and environmental sciences from The Interamerican University in San German, P.R., in December 1996. He worked in Jacksonville, FL for a reforestation company and subsequently entered the Graduate Sch ool in the Department of program under the supervision of Dr. Tim Martin in the fall of 2002. He continued enrolled in a Ph.D. program in the Department of Touri sm, Recreation and Sport Management in the spring of 2003 and finished his degree under Dr. John Spengler. After completion of the PhD degree, he plans to work as a postdoctoral fellow in North Carolina State University under Dr. Myron Floyd in Raleigh, NC Luis has been Married to Maricarmen Antommattei for 8 years.