HABITAT: A longitudinal multilevel study of physical activity change in mid-aged adults

Purpose. To explore the role of the neighborhood environment in supporting walking Design. Cross sectional study of 10,286 residents of 200 neighborhoods. Participants were selected using a stratified two-stage cluster design. Data were collected by mail survey (68.5% response rate). Setting. The Brisbane City Local Government Area, Australia, 2007. Subjects. Brisbane residents aged 40 to 65 years. Measures. Environmental: street connectivity, residential density, hilliness, tree coverage, bikeways, and street lights within a one kilometer circular buffer from each resident’s home; and network distance to nearest river or coast, public transport, shop, and park. Walking: minutes in the previous week categorized as < 30 minutes, ≥ 30 < 90 minutes, ≥ 90 < 150 minutes, ≥ 150 < 300 minutes, and ≥ 300 minutes. Analysis. The association between each neighborhood characteristic and walking was examined using multilevel multinomial logistic regression and the model parameters were estimated using Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation. Results. After adjustment for individual factors, the likelihood of walking for more than 300 minutes (relative to <30 minutes) was highest in areas with the most connectivity (OR=1.93, 99% CI 1.32-2.80), the greatest residential density (OR=1.47, 99% CI 1.02-2.12), the least tree coverage (OR=1.69, 99% CI 1.13-2.51), the most bikeways (OR=1.60, 99% CI 1.16-2.21), and the most street lights (OR=1.50, 99% CI 1.07-2.11). The likelihood of walking for more than 300 minutes was also higher among those who lived closest to a river or the coast (OR=2.06, 99% CI 1.41-3.02). Conclusion. The likelihood of meeting (and exceeding) physical activity recommendations on the basis of walking was higher in neighborhoods with greater street connectivity and residential density, more street lights and bikeways, closer proximity to waterways, and less tree coverage. Interventions targeting these neighborhood characteristics may lead to improved environmental quality as well as lower rates of overweight and obesity and associated chromic disease

Straight but Not Narrow; Within-Gender Variation in the Gender-Specificity of Women's Sexual Response.

Gender differences in the specificity of sexual response have been a primary focus in sexual psychophysiology research, however, within-gender variability suggests sexual orientation moderates category-specific responding among women; only heterosexual women show gender-nonspecific genital responses to sexual stimuli depicting men and women. But heterosexually-identified or "straight" women are heterogeneous in their sexual attractions and include women who are exclusively androphilic (sexually attracted to men) and women who are predominantly androphilic with concurrent gynephilia (sexually attracted to women). It is therefore unclear if gender-nonspecific responding is found in both exclusively and predominantly androphilic women. The current studies investigated within-gender variability in the gender-specificity of women's sexual response. Two samples of women reporting concurrent andro/gynephilia viewed (Study 1, n = 29) or listened (Study 2, n = 30) to erotic stimuli varying by gender of sexual partner depicted while their genital and subjective sexual responses were assessed. Data were combined with larger datasets of predominantly gyne- and androphilic women (total N = 78 for both studies). In both studies, women reporting any degree of gynephilia, including those who self-identified as heterosexual, showed significantly greater genital response to female stimuli, similar to predominantly gynephilic women; gender-nonspecific genital response was observed for exclusively androphilic women only. Subjective sexual arousal patterns were more variable with respect to sexual attractions, likely reflecting stimulus intensity effects. Heterosexually-identified women are therefore not a homogenous group with respect to sexual responses to gender cues. Implications for within-gender variation in women's sexual orientation and sexual responses are discussed

Genital response to female and male narratives by attraction group for Study 2.

<p>Exclusive Androphilia (<i>n</i> = 20), Predominant Androphilia (<i>n</i> = 19), Andro/Gynephilia (<i>n</i> = 24), Predominant/Exclusive Gynephilia (<i>n</i> = 10). Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.</p

Genital response to gender cues by attraction group for study 2.

<p>Genital response to gender cues by attraction group for study 2.</p

Subjective sexual arousal to female and male audiovisual stimuli by attraction group for Study 1.

<p>Exclusive Androphilia (<i>n</i> = 14), Predominant Androphilia (<i>n</i> = 19), Andro/Gynephilia (<i>n</i> = 21), Predominant/Exclusive Gynephilia (<i>n</i> = 22). Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.</p

Subjective sexual arousal to female and male narratives by attraction group for Study 2.

<p>Exclusive Androphilia (<i>n</i> = 23), Predominant Androphilia (<i>n</i> = 19), Andro/Gynephilia (<i>n</i> = 24), Predominant/Exclusive Gynephilia (<i>n</i> = 10). Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.</p

Subjective sexual arousal to gender cues by attraction group for Study 2.

<p>Subjective sexual arousal to gender cues by attraction group for Study 2.</p