Introduction

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines physical activity as “any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that require energy expenditure.”¹Some activities that meet this definition are walking, bicycling, swimming and playing in sports. The four most common domains used to capture physical activity are occupational, transport, household and leisure.^2,3

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity (i.e., brisk walking) every week and muscle-strengthening (activities that increases muscle strength, power, endurance or mass) activities on 2 or more days a week that work all major muscle groups (e.g., legs, chest, shoulders and arms).⁴Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders (NHPI) are among the most obese people in the world. They also suffer from the highest rates of diabetes in the world.^5,6 They also suffer from the highest rates of diabetes in the world.⁷These, and other non-communicable diseases (NCDs) account for more than 70 of deaths among NHPI.⁷

Physical activity has been shown to reduce the risk of NCDs such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity and hypertension.^8,9Very low rates of NHPI meet physical activity recommendations.^10-12 Nearly half of all NHPI (48.1%) do not meet the physical activity recommendations.¹³ Physical activity programs have been implemented throughout the Pacific to try and combat physical inactivity and prevent NCDs.¹⁴ Even with the implementation of physical activity programs, progress towards improving health outcomes and increasing opportunities for physical activities among NHPI has been minimal.⁵

As society moved away from farming and agriculture, physical activity related activities reduced. Technological advancements and changes in modes of transportation reduced the need of physical activity and manual labor. Urbanization, changes in diet and physical activity behaviors have all contributed to the rise of NCDs.^15,16

With an increase in NCDs and an increase in physical inactivity, there has been a recent movement to examine the relationship of the built environment and health.^17-19The built environment encompasses zoning, parks, buildings and transportation infrastructure.²⁰ Specific domains and characteristics in the built environment have been associated with NCDs and physical activity behaviors.^21,22

Most studies examining the built environment and physical activity behaviors have focused on urban areas.¹⁷ Existing literature indicate that characteristics of the built environment can increase physical activity in urban areas.²³ A literature review in 2015 identified very few studies that targeted rural areas, and of those studies, even fewer have targeted minority or indigenous populations.^24-26

The aim of this study was to assess the built environment, and existing policies and programs of three rural towns in Hawaiʻi that have a high proportion of NHPI. To the author’s knowledge, no previous studies have assessed the built environment among NHPI in rural areas. Completing this assessment will help to fill that gap in the literature.

The social ecological model suggests that multiple levels and environments can influence health behaviors.²⁷ These levels include the individual, social, physical and policy environments. This social ecological model was adapted to assess how the different environments can influence physical activity.²⁸

At the center of the theory is the individual (Figure 1). Factors that influence the individual at this level may include age, sex, income, knowledge and beliefs. Surrounding the individual is the social environment. The social environment has been shown to greatly influence an individual’s behavior.^29,30 The social environment includes social and cultural norms, social support groups (church groups, teammates, coworkers). Surrounding the social environment is the physical or built environment. Recreational amenities such as parks, exercise equipment, bike paths and swimming pools all make up the built environment. The built environment also includes busy highways, dark streets and sidewalks or walkways. The policy environment encompasses all other environments in the adapted social ecological model. This study used the same framework to assess the current political, built and social environments of three rural towns in Hawaiʻi.

Figure 1. Social ecological model. Adapted from Sallis et al, 2006.

Materials and Methods

Three rural towns in Hawaiʻi were selected for this assessment. The towns were assessed in September and October 2016. Street segments for the RALA were also assessed in the same months, on a non-holiday weekday between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. The sample for this study was selected primarily because of its location, and the high proportion of NHPI living in the selected areas. A two-lane road connects the three towns with more urban areas of the island. The selected towns are described in Table 1. By population, Town 1 is the smallest of the three with 3292; Town 2 has the most residents with 6419. Town 3 has the highest proportion of residents who self-identify as NHPI 70.2% of total residents. Town 2 has the lowest proportion of NHPI residents, however, that proportion is still more than half of the current residents (51.1%). Income levels in Town 1 ($61 250) and Town 3 ($65 265) are lower than the state median ($68 201). All three towns have a higher percentage of people living under the poverty level than the state.

Rural areas have facilitators and barriers to physical activity that are different than those in urban areas.^31-34Access to physical activity facilities may be easier in some areas. Time may be a factor for some populations where they do not have to spend so much time traveling to and from work. These are some examples that reflect the importance of filling gaps in the literature to include assessments of the built environment in rural areas.

Results

The TWA scores individual domains in the town, and provides an overall town-wide score for available physical activity amenities (Table 3). Total scores for TWA ranged from 59 to 77. Two towns have a public park operated by the city and county government. Each of the three towns had access to at least one public beach. All three towns scored the highest possible in the Trails domain (20 points possible).

The PPA, as with the TWA, provides domain-specific scores and an overall score for the town’s physical activity programs and policies (Table 4). The highest possible score was 100 points. The scores ranged from 28 to 48 with Town 1 scoring the lowest and Town 3 scoring the highest of the three towns. There were no town policies and each town received a score of zero in that domain. Town 2 received the highest score in the School Programs domain.

A total of 60 SSA were completed; 20 from each town in the study. Unlike the TWA and PPA, the SSA portion of the RALA tools is not scored. The items in the SSA in each town were individually examined (Table 2). Fisher’s exact tests were performed for segment features and amenities by town. There was a significant difference between the frequency of sidewalk shoulders and buffers between the three towns (P < 0.00).

Discussion

The lack of town policies to promote physical activity were obvious in the PPA scores. All three towns scored a zero when assessing the Town Policy domain. These scores are similar to a previous study that has used the RALA to assess towns in the southern US.³⁷ The same study also reported that several towns did not have any existing town polices and also scored very low or zero. It is also important to consider that the PPA only has one item that was used to identify the Town Policy: Town has policy requiring bikeways/pedestrian walkways in new public infrastructure projects (response: Yes [10 points] or No [0 points]). Adding more items to the PPA or using another policy assessment tool may change the policy environment score of the three towns.

Town 2 scored the highest in the School Programs domain. All three towns offer programs that promote physical activity. Organizers of local youth sports leagues include the American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO), Police Activities League (PAL), and Pop Warner, and recreational programs offered by the Honolulu City & County. The fees for these programs ranges from $0 (free) to $230. Some fees may not be affordable for everyone in these communities. Organizations may consider using a sliding scale for individuals/families so that these programs can be accessible to the entire community. Studies examining accessibility to physical activity amenities have also recommended using a sliding-scale fees.^38,39

Of the 60 segments audited in the SSA, only three did not have any safety features (traffic light, stop sign, school flashing light, speed bump, or public lighting). Town 2 had the highest proportion of crosswalks (65%), sidewalks on both sides of the street (30%), sidewalk buffers and shoulders (45%), and route connections (40%). Town 2 also has marked bike lanes in selected street segments, and Towns 1 and 3 did not have any bike lanes. With sidewalks and crosswalks and a bike lane being more available in Town 2, the elementary school may be more likely to promote programs that encourage walking and biking to school.

A strength of this study is that this used an assessment tool made specifically for rural towns with a population of less than 10 000 residents. The RALA tools take a comprehensive approach and audits the town and school policies, as well as features and available amenities with the town.

It should also be noted that other studies have used the RALA tools.^26,27 However, this is the first study to use the RALA in towns that have a high proportion of NHPI. There were limitations to this study. Since only three towns were assessed, results and findings may not be generalizable to all rural towns in Hawaii. Another limitation to this study is that there was one auditor for the SSA portion. Future research should include an assessment of community physical activity behavior and perceptions to identify possible associations with the results from this study.

The 2009 the State of Hawaii adopted Complete Streets, and in 2012 the Honolulu City & County adopted a Complete Streets policy and ordinance. Although the City & County “is taking aggressive steps to implement Complete streets,” none of the 16 study sites on Oahu are in small rural towns.⁴⁰ Findings from the 16 urban areas may not be generalizable to rural areas, as there are significant differences – infrastructure, transportation, zoning, health status and risks.⁴¹

Conclusion

The RALA tools can provide a comprehensive assessment of the built environment and policy environment of rural towns. Similar to previous studies, this study has identified both supports and barriers in the built and political environments (town and school policies) of a rural community. The results can be used as a “baseline” in the future for policy makers and community members to make improvements or modifications to the existing built and policy environments.

In order to create a healthy policy environment, and built environment for physical activity, collaborative efforts must be done across different sectors and organizations – policy makers, school officials, local leaders, and community members together. One example of how collaborative efforts have already happened, is that there have been bike paths and bike lanes constructed on private property and private roads. These amenities allow for community members to use bicycles in marked lanes, and bike paths for getting to work, school or to exercise. More work with active living should focus on areas with high proportions of NHPI and other minority groups, to reduce and eliminate health disparities.

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa’s Institutional Review Board prior to its initiation.

Competing interests

No funding conflicts or other conflicts of interest to declare.

Author’s contribution

SFH proposed the study, collected the data and prepared the manuscript for publication.

References

1. World Health Organization. Global recommendations on Physical Activity for health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.
2. Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, Pratt MI, Ekelund U, Yngve AG, Sallis JF, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003;35(8):1381-95. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000078924.61453.FB. [Crossref]
3. Bauman A, Bull F, Chey T, Craig CL, Ainsworth BE, Sallis JF, et al. The international prevalence study on physical activity: results from 20 countries. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2009;6(1):21. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-6-21. [Crossref]
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2015. Physical Activity Basics. 2015. Available from https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/. Accessed September 1, 2016.
5. Hawley NL, McGarvey ST. Obesity and diabetes in Pacific Islanders: the current burden and the need for urgent action. Curr Diab Rep 2015;15(5):29. doi: 10.1007/s11892-015-0594-5. [Crossref]
6. Madan A, Archambeau OG, Milsom VA, Goldman RL, Borckardt JJ, Grubaugh AL, et al. More than black and white: differences in predictors of obesity among Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders and European Americans. Obesity 2012;20(6):1325-8. doi: 10.1038/oby.2012.15. [Crossref]
7. Tuitama LT, Young-Soo S, Clark H, Tukuitonga C, Beaglehole R. Acting on the Pacific crisis in non-communicable diseases. Lancet 2014;384(9957):1823. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61824-9. [Crossref]
8. Warburton DE, Nicol CW, Bredin SS. Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence. CMAJ 2006;174(6):801-9. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.051351. [Crossref]
9. Janssen I, LeBlanc AG. Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2010;7:40. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-7-40. [Crossref]
10. Moy KL, Sallis JF, David KJ. Health indicators of native Hawaiian and pacific islanders in the United States. J Community Health 2010;35(1):81-92. doi: 10.1007/s10900-009-9194-0. [Crossref]
11. Moy KL, Sallis JF, Ice CL, Thompson KM. Physical activity correlates for native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders in the United States. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2010;21(4):1203-4. doi: 10.1353/hpu.2010.0943. [Crossref]
12. Behrens TK, Moy K, Dinger MK, Williams DP, Harbour VJ. Objectively assessed physical activity among Tongans in the United States. Res Q Exerc Sport 2011;82(3):565-9. doi: 10.1177/1010539511408068. [Crossref]
13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Summary Health Statistics for US Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2010. January 2012. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_252.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2016.
14. Siefken K, Macniven R, Schofield G, Bauman A, Waqanivalu T. A stocktake of physical activity programs in the Pacific Islands. Health Promot Int 2012;27(2):197-207. doi: 10.1186/s13104-016-1849-1. [Crossref]
15. Popkin BM. The shift in stages of the nutrition transition in the developing world differs from past experiences. Public Health Nutr 2002;5(1A):205-14. doi: 10.1079/PHN2001295. [Crossref]
16. Waxman A. Why a global strategy on diet, physical activity and health? In: Simopoulos AP, ed. Nutrition and Fitness: Mental Health, Aging, and the Implementation of a Healthy Diet and Physical Activity Lifestyle (vol 95). Basel: Karger Publishers; 2005. p. 162-166. doi: 10.1159/000088302. [Crossref]
17. Handy SL, Boarnet MG, Ewing R, Killingsworth RE. How the built environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning. Am J Prev Med 2002;23(2):64-73. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00475-0. [Crossref]
18. Frank L, Engelke P, Schmid T. Health and community design: The impact of the built environment on physical activity. Washington DC: Island Press; 2003.
19. Jackson RJ. The impact of the built environment on health: an emerging field. Am J Public Health 2003;93(9):1382-4.
20. Sallis JF, Floyd MF, Rodríguez DA, Saelens BE. Role of built environments in physical activity, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. Circulation 2012;125(5):729-37. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.969022. [Crossref]
21. Gordon-Larsen P, Nelson MC, Page P, Popkin BM. Inequality in the built environment underlies key health disparities in physical activity and obesity. Pediatrics 2006;117(2):417-24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-0058. [Crossref]
22. Malambo P, Kengne AP, De Villiers A, Lambert EV, Puoane T. Built environment, selected risk factors and major cardiovascular disease outcomes: a systematic review. PloS One 2016;11(11):e0166846. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166846. [Crossref]
23. Sallis JF, Adams MA, Ding D. Physical Activity and the Built Environment. In: Cawley J, ed. The Oxford Handbook of the Social Science of Obesity. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199736362.013.0025. [Crossref]
24. Hansen AY, Meyer MR, Lenardson JD, Hartley D. Built environments and active living in rural and remote areas: a review of the literature. Curr Obes Rep 2015;4(4):484-93. doi: 10.1007/s13679-015-0180-9. [Crossref]
25. Baillie CP, Johnson AM, Drane S, LePage R, Whitecrow D, Lévesque L. For the community, by the community: working with youth to understand the physical activity-environment relationship in first nations communities. Youth Engagement in Health Promotion 2016;1(2):1-33.
26. Perry CK, Nagel C, Ko LK, Duggan C, Linde S, Rodriguez EA, Thompson B. Active living environment assessments in four rural Latino communities. Prev Med Rep 2015;2:818-23. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2015.09.001. [Crossref]
27. Fielding JE, Breslow L. A framework for public health in the United States. Public Health Rev 2010;32(1):174.
28. Sallis JF, Owen N. Ecological models of health behavior. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, eds. Health Behavior: Theory, Research, and Practice. Wiley; 2015. p. 43-64.
29. Giles-Corti B, Donovan RJ. The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Soc Sci Med 2002;54(12):1793-812.
30. McNeill LH, Kreuter MW, Subramanian SV. Social environment and physical activity: a review of concepts and evidence. Soc Sci Med 2006;63(4):1011-22. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.03.012. [Crossref]
31. Sandercock G, Angus C, Barton J. Physical activity levels of children living in different built environments. Prev Med 2010;50(4):193-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.01.005. [Crossref]
32. Frost SS, Goins RT, Hunter RH, Hooker SP, Bryant LL, Kruger J, et al. Effects of the built environment on physical activity of adults living in rural settings. Am J Health Prom 2010;24(4):267-83. doi: 10.4278/ajhp.08040532. [Crossref]
33. Forsyth A, Oakes JM, Lee B, Schmitz KH. The built environment, walking, and physical activity: is the environment more important to some people than others? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 2009;14(1):42-9. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2008.10.003. [Crossref]
34. Seguin R, Connor L, Nelson M, LaCroix A, Eldridge G. Understanding barriers and facilitators to healthy eating and active living in rural communities. J Nutr Metab 2014;2014:146502. doi: 10.1155/2014/146502. [Crossref]
35. Yousefian A, Hennessy E, Umstattd MR, Economos CD, Hallam JS, Hyatt RR, et al. Development of the rural active living assessment tools: measuring rural environments. Preventive medicine 2010;50:S86-92. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.08.018. [Crossref]
36. Yousefian A, Ziller E, Swartz J, Hartley D. Active living for rural youth: addressing physical inactivity in rural communities. J Public Health Manag Pract 2009;15(3):223-31. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181a11822. [Crossref]
37. Robinson JC, Carson TL, Johnson ER, Hardy CM, Shikany JM, Green E, et al. Assessing environmental support for better health: active living opportunity audits in rural communities in the southern United States. Prev Med 2014;66:28-33. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.05.021. [Crossref]
38. Sallis JF, Glanz K. The role of built environments in physical activity, eating, and obesity in childhood. Future Child 2006;16(1):89-108.
39. Kohl HW III, Cook HD. Educating the Student Body: Taking Physical Activity and Physical Education to School.Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2013.
40. City & County of Honolulu. What Are Complete Streets? Available from: http://www.honolulu.gov/completestreets. Accessed October 4, 2016.
41. Hansen AY, Hartley D. Promoting Active Living in Rural Communities. San Diego, CA: Active Living Research; 2015.