Understanding Environmental Influences on Walking Review and Research Agenda Neville Owen, PhD, Nancy Humpel, PhD, Eva Leslie, PhD, Adrian Bauman, PhD, James F. Sallis, PhD Background: Understanding how environmental attributes can influence particular physical activity behaviors is a public health research priority. Walking is the most common physical activity behavior of adults; environmental innovations may be able to influence rates of participation. Method: Review of studies on relationships of objectively assessed and perceived environmental attributes with walking. Associations with environmental attributes were examined sepa- rately for exercise and recreational walking, walking to get to and from places, and total walking. Results: Eighteen studies were identified. Aesthetic attributes, convenience of facilities for walking (sidewalks, trails); accessibility of destinations (stores, park, beach); and perceptions about traffic and busy roads were found to be associated with walking for particular purposes. Attributes associated with walking for exercise were different from those associated with walking to get to and from places. Conclusions: While few studies have examined specific environment–walking relationships, early evi- dence is promising. Key elements of the research agenda are developing reliable and valid measures of environmental attributes and walking behaviors, determining whether envi- ronment– behavior relationships are causal, and developing theoretical models that account for environmental influences and their interactions with other determinants. (Am J Prev Med 2004;27(1):67–76) © 2004 American Journal of Preventive Medicine Introduction P romoting higher levels of participation by adults in regular, moderate-intensity physical activity is a public health priority. 1,2 Recent evidence from Australia suggests that, although public campaigns and other initiatives to increase participation have been underway for more than 10 years, population levels of physical activity have been static and may have declined in some groups. 3 There is a strong case that substantial and long-lasting environmental and policy initiatives are an important opportunity for making physically active choices easier and more realistic choices. 4–6 If advocacy for this public health agenda is to be pursued with confidence, research is needed to determine whether environmental changes (such as providing cycle paths and walkways, or public outdoor recre- ational settings) do increase the likelihood of more active behavioral choices. However, there are signifi- cant conceptual and methodologic challenges in iden- tifying how such physical-environment factors might act to influence such choices. 7 Conceptually, there is a plausible case that environmental influences can play a direct role in shaping habitual behavior patterns. Ex- perimental evidence from several behavioral domains identifies circumstances in which direct environmental influence can be a stronger determinant of behavioral choice than are cognitively mediated influences. 8,9 Because cognitive social theories have been a predom- inant influence on behavioral studies of physical activ- ity, 10 –13 the field has been shaped by assumptions that choices to be active or inactive are conscious and deliberate—that is, consequent upon attitudes, inten- tions, self-efficacy, and other cognitive mediators of behavioral change. 11,12 Social cognitive models do, however, identify a strong role for environmental influ- ences under some circumstances. Bandura 14 has ar- gued that when behavior is strongly facilitated or constrained by attributes of the environment in which it takes place (and plausibly this is often likely for physical activity), direct environmental influences would be the predominant class of determinants. Studies of environment–activity relationships, if they are to be of practical use in public health policy, ought to focus on the environmental influences that may From the Cancer Prevention Research Centre, School of Population Health, University of Queensland (Owen, Leslie), Brisbane, Queens- land, Australia; Health & Productivity Research Centre, University of Wollongong (Humpel), Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia; School of Public Health, University of Sydney (Bauman), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; and Department of Psychology, San Diego State University (Sallis), San Diego, California Address correspondence to: Neville Owen, PhD, Cancer Preven- tion Research Centre, School of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Herston Road, Herston QLD 4006, Australia. E-mail: n.owen@sph.uq.edu.au. 67 Am J Prev Med 2004;27(1) 0749-3797/04/$–see front matter © 2004 American Journal of Preventive Medicine • Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.03.006