10 minutes/week (no vs. yes). RESULTS: Participants in the lowest educational group (OR 1.67 (95% CI, 1.18-2.35)) and lowest income group (OR 1.40 (95% CI, 0.98-2.01)) were more likely to report no recreational walking than their higher status counterparts. The association between SES and recreational walking attenuated when neighbourhood aesthetics was included in the model, and largely reduced when individual cognitions were added to the model (with largest effects of attitude, and intention regarding regular physical activity). The association between poor neighbourhood aesthetics and no recreational walking attenuated to (borderline) insignificance when individual cognitions were taken into account. CONCLUSIONS: Both neighbourhood aesthetics and individual cognitions regarding physical activity contributed to the explanation of socioeconomic differences in no recreational walking. Neighbourhood aesthetics may explain the association between SES and recreational walking largely via individual cognitions towards physical activity. Intervention and policy strategies to reduce socioeconomic differences in lack of recreational walking among older adults would be most effective if they intervene on both neighbourhood perceptions as well as individual cognition
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.