Qualitative data: using spatial narratives to explore how relocating to East Village influenced perceptions of the environment and active travel decision-making

Introduction

Physical activity is not represented by a single behaviour; it is an outcome underpinned by a series of behaviours, which may have different determinants. In adults, these behaviours or domains commonly include occupational (work-related), domestic (household, active child care, chores), work transportation (walking or cycling for commuting), non-work transportation (non-work walking or cycling trips) and leisure time (discretionary or recreational time, active hobbies, sports and exercise). These domains are also not exclusive; for example, walking or cycling to shops to buy food combines two domains (non-work transport and domestic). For a move to a new neighbourhood to influence physical activity, it must increase activity in these domains by influencing their domain-specific determinants either directly or indirectly.238 New opportunities to take up active travel or change from passive to active travel can particularly increase daily levels of physical activity. For example, Sahlqvist et al.239 reported that, after controlling for differences in demographic characteristics, adults who used active travel (i.e. walking or cycling) for either commuting purposes or non-commuting purposes engaged in an additional 321 and 279 minutes of self-reported physical activity per week, respectively, compared with individuals who travelled solely by motorised transportation. The combined use of active and motorised travel was also associated with greater physical activity than exclusively motorised travel. Prospectively, a positive change in active travel was related to an increase in total physical activity, in part because it was not related to a decrease in recreational physical activity.240 Similar studies based on objective measures of physical activity highlight the importance of active travel for adult physical activity, which contributes on average nearly half of total weekday MVPA (47.3%). This represents a 60% difference in physical activity between those who do and those who do not use active forms of transport.241 Furthermore, 11.25 metabolic equivalent hours per week of walking or cycling (akin to meeting the current recommendation of 150 minutes of moderate intensity activity per week) is associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality of one-tenth. This relationship held after adjusting for leisure-time physical activity, emphasising the value of promoting transport-related and leisure-time physical activity for health.

However, there are significant barriers to sustainably increasing physical activity in adults for both leisure-related and transport-related activity. For leisure-time or recreational activity, these include lack of facilities and time, feeling too tired or weak and having no one to exercise with.242 Environmental barriers are particularly influential for transport-related activity: high traffic volume and speeds, distance to amenities, lack of pavements or cycle infrastructure, and unpleasant surroundings all dissuade individuals from walking and cycling.238

Aspects of environmental design can help to increase levels of active commuting. Grid-based street layouts lend themselves more to walkability243 and cycle lanes segregated from motorised traffic can encourage more people to use bicycles.244 Long-term policies to develop cycling-friendly infrastructure in European countries have resulted in increased cycling journeys and improved health and productivity.245 Positive policy determinants include a mixture of hard and soft measures, ranging from laws relating to speed limits and urban design favouring bicycle transport to education and car-sharing initiatives. In addition, policy decisions involve consulting the population on their wishes and concerns about cycling before implementation.246

In more recent policy recommendations, UK policy now includes environmental approaches to increase physical activity such as recommendations to promote urban design that encourage active travel at all levels, including transport and regeneration planning, in both urban and rural areas.247 Research from the RESIDE study in Perth, Western Australia, supports evidence for considering the wider environmental levels of influence on active travel.94 After relocating to a new area, both transport and recreational walking changed in response to local transport provision, local facilities and attractiveness of the area. Over the first 12 months after relocating, transport walking declined overall but those with a greater number of destinations such as places of work, schools and green spaces increased their transport walking on average by 6 minutes per week with an additional 3 minutes per week for each additional local facility.

In addition to using objective measures to assess the use of the environment and the environmental elements most related to physical activity, qualitative data can add important complementary information. Qualitative enquiry can highlight the most salient perceptions for individuals, provide a temporal frame beyond the short-term objective measures of behaviour and provide additional contextual information that can help explain behaviour as well as the complex interactions between determinants, which is not possible with quantitative data. Qualitative semistructured interviews were carried out with a group of the ENABLE London study participants living in East Village61 to investigate their perceptions of the new environment compared with their previous neighbourhood, and how these environmental factors influenced subsequent transport-related and leisure-related decisions and behaviours. These analyses, therefore, sought to investigate whether or not moving to the East Village resulted in improved perceptions of the environment and whether or not this influenced levels of activity in different domains, particularly transportation and leisure-time domains.

The East Village development has housing in blocks of apartments, with green areas and pathways among the buildings. It is situated next to the Queen Elizabeth Park, also built for the 2012 Olympic Games, which includes various leisure facilities that are open to the public and a large area of parkland known as the Waterglades (Figure 5). The design of the development included deliberate restriction of car parking, extensive bicycle lanes and storage in the form of outdoor stands, as well as various exercise classes and similar activities available to residents free of charge. There are numerous shops and eateries in close proximity to the residential accommodation, as well as an underground station at Stratford and a station for the Docklands Light Railway. There is a very large nearby shopping centre known as Westfield, which is situated between the apartment block complex and the Stratford underground station; security guards patrol the development regularly. The area also includes world-class sports venues [main stadium, aquatics centre, velodrome, BMX (bicycle motorcross) and mountain-bike tracks, road and cycle routes]. In comparison, the type of neighbourhoods from which these participants moved can be seen in Figure 6.

FIGURE 5 The East Village development. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

FIGURE 6 Street of terraced housing in Newham. ©2020 Google. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

Methods

Design

This was a qualitative study based on an analysis of semistructured interview data generated with individuals living in East Village.

Participants and sampling

Purposeful recruitment was used to select participants with regard to change in travel behaviour over a 2-year period based on measures derived via an algorithm developed for the ENABLE London study, which used GPS, accelerometry and GIS measures (see Chapter 5).166 Participants eligible for recruitment were selected on the following basis:

• They all were living in East Village at the follow-up interview.
• They met the ActiGraph compliance threshold at both phases (including ≥ 1 day at both time points).
• Participants from all housing sectors were included (social, n = 40; intermediate, n = 92; and market-rent, n = 14 adults).
• Information on age, sex and ethnicity was also provided.

From this sampling frame, three groups were targeted based on change in travel behaviour:

1. Those who were in the lowest quartile for the proportion of time spent in active travel at baseline and who had increased the proportion of time spent in active travel (walking and/or cycling) by ≥ 5%.
2. Those who were in the lowest quartile for active travel but did not change the proportion of their time spent in active travel over the 2-year period.
3. Those who decreased the time spent in active travel by ≥ 5% over the 2-year period.

Participants from the control group were not invited, as comparing perceptions of new and old neighbourhoods and the change in travel behaviour in response to the move was a key element of data generation. Exclusion criteria were limited to anyone who was non-English-speaking and all participants were offered a voucher incentive. All participants were given information about the study and gave their written consent before interviews took place, including for the recording of the interview. Focusing on those in the lowest activity levels is important because they potentially have the most to gain; for example, Kelly et al.248 found in their systematic review that reduced risk of all-cause mortality was greatest in individuals with the lowest levels of activity (i.e. ≤ 120 minutes of walking or ≤ 101 minutes of cycling per week).

Qualitative data generation

Semistructured interviews were conducted in participants’ homes between November 2017 and January 2018 by two experienced qualitative researchers (Rachel Hahn and Bina Ram). The responses were recorded on a digital recorder, transcribed verbatim, anonymised and stored on a University of Bristol secure server before being imported into NVivo10 (QSR International, Warrington, UK) for data organisation. The interview schedule was based around comparative perceptions of individuals’ old and new neighbourhoods, aspects of everyday travel and leisure and how moving to the East Village had influenced this (see Appendix 2 for the questionnaire used). This study provided a unique opportunity to use individual travel patterns, which were generated by a programme using GPS, accelerometry and GIS data as part of the ENABLE London study166 to provide the framework for a spatial narrative whereby residents could describe their routines, influences and decision-making within a spatial framework. Individual maps were generated for the interviews, which described patterns and places before and after moving to East Village. The interview schedule was developed in discussion between a researcher from the ENABLE London study (AP), a PhD student who was analysing interviews as part of her PhD (ER) and the researcher who conducted the majority of the interviews (RH). Interviews were structured to take no longer than 45 minutes (see Appendix 2 for the interview schedule). One-to-one interviews were selected as the method of inquiry because of the highly variable activity patterns of individuals, which meant that the interviews could be tailored more effectively.

Data analysis

For the purposes of this analysis, inductive thematic analysis was used.235 Inductive thematic analysis followed the six steps outlined in Figure 7 and themes were generated from the data inductively rather than by imposing a predetermined coding framework.

FIGURE 7 Thematic analysis steps. Information sourced from Braun and Clarke.235 (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

Results

Table 23 outlines characteristics of the 26 participants who agreed to be interviewed. Overall for the increase in active travel and no change in active travel groups, there was good representation from the social and intermediate housing sectors and by gender and ethnicity. The profile was different for the decrease in active travel group but was representative of the smaller pool eligible for invite, whereby the majority of participants who were active at baseline but decreased their activity by at least 5% were from the intermediate housing sector, male, white and relatively young. Across all three groups the age of participants represented a relatively narrow range, which skewed towards younger participants. The market-rent sector was under-represented in the sample largely owing to the small number who met the eligibility criteria.

Perceptions of the environment and relationships with physical activity

The majority of participants generally expressed more positive perceptions of their new built environment in the East Village irrespective of gender, type of housing or whether or not their travel had changed since moving to East Village. The initial preliminary themes generated from the interviews are extracted and summarised below in relation to change in four key features of the built environment: Functional features, Feeling safer, Aesthetics and Destination features. This structure allows interpretation in relation to existing frameworks249 and the most contemporary systematic review on qualitative studies on the perceptions of the built environment and physical activity in adults.250 Examples of functional features include direct routes, street and path design and maintenance, traffic control and vehicle parking. Safety features include surveillance, crossing aids and lighting. Aesthetic features include cleanliness, interesting sights, maintenance, greenery, architecture, noise and pollution. Destination features include proximity, accesses and availability of local facilities, green spaces, shops, health care, sports facilities, parking facilities, public transport and other destinations.

Functional features

The main functional feature that emerged from the interviews was parking and its impact on regular access to a car. Perceptions on the feasibility of owning a car varied. Negative perceptions included:

Now if you have a car, it’s a problem, the biggest problem is having a car here.

It’s too expensive to drive.

Some residents had a more positive view, and indeed owned a car, mainly because of the option to purchase a dedicated car parking space in or close to the building in which they lived. Although a significant cost, this was seen as attractive, even if it was not used that often, and affordable relative to other costs and income, largely for those in the intermediate housing sector. Car ownership was reported less by those in the social housing sector, who tended to rely on friends and taxis for access. Other transport options influenced the decision whether to own a car or not, which was expressed as a weighing-up of options, for example the cost of car parking versus the cost of train travel at weekends:

From this side of London you’ve got access to quite a few different sort of bigger places and the train fare [sic] sometimes are just ridiculously high for a spur-of-the-moment kind of thing that you want to do.

Cars were rarely used during the week if a participant was commuting for work into London, as public transport was a more viable option. Good public transport infrastructure was frequently cited as a key reason for not needing a car:

There’s no point having a car.

Furthermore, the view was expressed that it would be different if public transport infrastructure was not available:

If I lived somewhere with minimal transport . . . I’d get a car.

Other than differences between housing sectors (e.g. less likely to own a car in the social housing sector), car ownership did not vary particularly between the activity change groups (increase, no change, decrease).

Feeling safer

A consistently reported change across all groups since moving was an improved perception of safety to be out at night. This was largely a result of improved lighting and the presence of other people, and led to more reported walking at night both for leisure and to get to destinations than was reported in their old neighbourhood:

It’s going to be 9:30 or 10, so there’s still activity and there’s lighting, whereas where I lived before, that whole side I had to walk it was a very quiet road, there’s no lighting there, so that makes a difference for me . . . you can even walk at 11 p.m. There’s always activity . . .

This was most frequently reported by women in relation to personal safety and removed what was a recognised barrier to activity:

. . . the perception is it’s safer and then when you actually see like the crime stats and things it is safer, so that kind of makes you think, right, I’ll go out for a run, I’ll be fine.

This was also reported in relation to the general design, which had wider open spaces to increase visibility:

I’ve never felt unsafe . . . feel more unsafe in areas where there are more cars because there’s more potential for me not to see something coming up on me, whereas here . . . you can tell someone’s intention when they’re on foot, so in that respect, I feel safer here.

Therefore, the combination of good lighting, other people being around and space to observe those around were key to the improved perceptions of safety at night.

Aesthetics

Participants reported the advantages of wider pavements and diverse buildings, with the combination of more green spaces amid the built spaces seen as a positive compared with previous neighbourhoods. Noise, although not traditionally included as an aesthetic feature, is included here as it was mentioned by many participants in several contexts both positive and negative.

A reduction in traffic-related noise was consistently reported as a positive aspect of the residents’ new environment; however, noise within East Village was also reported as a potential negative. This was dependent to some extent on familial status, with residents without children commenting on children’s noise from playing outside whereas those with children commented on loud parties/groups sometimes in the communal areas, such as the barbecue areas. This affected the use of space and the choice of spaces to go to (e.g. to avoid identified ‘play spaces’ or those that attract crowds, such as barbecue spaces). This led to clear patterns in use of space with residents matching their needs and led, to some extent, to spatial segregation. However, the large amount of space and diversity of options meant that this did not necessarily restrict the use of outdoor space although to some extent it limited social interaction between some groups:

I don’t use the central courtyard at all. I just find that really awkward. It’s a nice space to have but . . . it doesn’t feel very adult to me, so there’s lots of different sized families and people that live here and the kids use that space quite a lot, but it doesn’t really feel very grown-up to me, so I just don’t bother with it.

Destination features

Use of sports facilities in East village

Despite awareness and positive views about living in a neighbourhood with sporting facilities and the status of being connected to the Olympics, very few participants reported using the facilities. The most consistent reason was price:

The gym is too expensive . . . the swimming pool . . . no I haven’t used that . . . due to expenses again.

There was awareness of potential subsidies and possible use in the future when eligible:

I feel that when I become a pensioner I will take off whatever they do there . . .

Others reported limited interest, as some participants did not feel that the sports facilities were appropriate for them as they had little experience or interest in sport.

There were a small number of examples of participants taking up new sports activities in the village, mainly those who had previous experience of running or playing sport. Social media was a key way to communicate for group-based activities:

By Facebook [Facebook, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, USA] so there’s lots of Facebook groups for East Village, different things, all sorts of things, umm, football being one of them, so yes, I play with my neighbour, B, and he’s a teacher at the school so he was like the initial contact and then I met other people through the football . . .

Flexible public transport options

Public transport was a dominant component of most conversations owing to the multiple options available to residents of East Village. This affected their active travel decisions and behaviour but did not necessarily have an impact on increased active travel compared with where they used to live. The active component was largely unchanged:

. . . same distance, 10-minute walk . . . but it’s just different routes.

In some instances, public transport options actually reduced travel-related physical activity since moving to East Village, either through direct factors (e.g. participant moved there to be nearer work) or because transport connections were improved compared with their previous residence. Participants generally felt that wayfinding was relatively easy within East Village and took advantage of the variable transport options when planning their journey. They invested considerably in minimising journey times by having highly planned use of public transport routes, which included minimising the amount of walking as part of the journey. This was related more to time saving than to avoid walking, but had probably affected the length of the walking component of regular journeys (e.g. to work) since moving to East Village. Participants also selected travel options to avoid certain places, particularly Westfield Shopping Centre, which was seen as a busy and uninviting through-route unless participants were actually shopping. Options included using the Docklands Light Railway or taking the bus:

But I use the bus a bit more now because it’s so convenient because it’s literally a 5- or 10-minute walk to the bus stop and it drops me off pretty much right outside work . . . but also it’s a short walk through Stratford, through Westfield, to get to the Central Line and then it’s two stops on the Central Line. I don’t like going that way because it feels like I’m walking ages and I hate going through shopping centres in the mornings, but yes, I can get the bus, so it’s more tempting if I don’t want to cycle.

Participants also valued through-routes where changes were not required or that were less busy, which was often the case for bus routes:

I know, because before, when I was travelling to . . . there was no direct route, really. You’d have to change and . . . the one thing about public transport [here] is I love it, I love a smooth journey, or I just sit there and I go A to B, which is why the bus journey is so attractive because it just/it’s just there, and it just takes you right to the station. You don’t have to get off and change for a second one or anything like that. So I think that’s probably why I use it a bit more than I did.

Indeed, public transport was often a factor in the decision to move and stay in the East Village:

. . . the transport links are better from here, so that’s kind of the appeal for staying here, I kind of think, you know, why would I want to move somewhere that’s going to be harder to get to work.

Green space

Many residents appeared to consider walking or cycling in the local area in a more positive light than they did in their previous area, but more in relation to leisure activity. Some residents found walking or cycling an enjoyable activity regardless of their location, but the addition of a more pleasant green environment influenced both their journey decisions and their decision to move to East Village:

. . . you know, we’re not near any main roads, tick, that’s really nice. We’ve got the park, tick . . .

That park out there, as well, it’s quite small now . . . half of it has now been built on, but the other half is kind of a little/I call it a glen-style with trees wrapping around a kind of a very large grassy area and there’s lots of just trees and convenient seating and that on the walk up, so those are very heavily used.

Better access to resources: shopping, health care and destinations

Many participants commented on the resources being more easily accessible than in their previous neighbourhood, that is they were close by with minimal travel required. It was perceived to be easy to get to local resources such as general practice surgeries and dental practices as well as local shops and cafés:

Yes. If you wanted to go for a walk you could/2 minutes out there and you’re walking around the Olympic Park. If you want to go to shop, 5 minutes and you’re in Westfield. It’s/you can have whatever you want here. As much . . . as you want, so it’s quite/it’s well placed.

However, some residents articulated that they felt that East Village was less diverse in relation to destinations and places to go and was less centrally located to link to other neighbourhoods, which might prompt less planned or structured physical activity:

Not small shops . . . No. There’s just/around here there’s no sweet shops sort of thing.

But we don’t walk into town as much as we used to, only because it’s not quite a central location as [before] . . . we might have walked into other neighbourhoods . . . We tend to go to the park for a stroll, umm, but otherwise not really I’ll just be on the couch for a couple of hours, umm, whereas before we might have gone for a stroll a bit more I think.

Positive perceptions not enough

Although, as highlighted above, the residents’ perceptions of environmental features in the East Village were generally very positive, these positive perceptions were not in themselves enough to promote increased physical activity overall. Other factors mediated the relationship between the environment and the participants’ behaviour. Some of these were individual factors related to motivation to be active for health reasons and a sense of being active to take responsibility for your own health:

. . . if I have to lose weight, let me discipline myself and walk up and down [I don’t need a gym].

The environment was a prompt for participants with a lot of previous activity experience to reintroduce old practised behaviours, such as re-joining a gym or taking up running again. A change in circumstances also superseded environmental influences, for example new work patterns (e.g. working long hours), change in capacity (e.g. because of surgery) or age, which was a reported barrier to taking up new activities owing to high levels of perceived risk, even within a supportive environment:

No, not going to ride a bicycle, not at my age now. Even if I did it would be in a very safe place. I’m not Lara Croft!

Early stages of neighbourhood development

It was also acknowledged by participants that East Village was still developing and did not feel as vibrant as more established areas:

I think it’s because we . . . could kind of walk down . . . which was kind of cool, a bit snazzy and then make our way back through the back streets or something, whereas here it’s not quite the same, like you haven’t quite got the same vibes.

However, it was also noted that the East Village was changing and evolving into a more interesting space as new facilities were introduced, albeit they were relatively limited:

. . . it feels like its grown into itself so there’s much more going on, like you said, the café’s downstairs, there’s some restaurants . . .

Part of this evolution that was particularly slow was the social development between residents within the village. Many residents reported having positive experiences with visitors to East Village and maintaining contact with their old neighbourhood by visiting or by using social media, but there were few examples of social interactions between residents apart from among children within families and for structured activities, for example playing football. Residents were aware of group activities but did not report participation in activity. There was, however, participation in more static social events, such as when football was screened outside or in the barbecue area.

The level of social connection was to some extent influenced by a sense of connectedness to East Village. Some were less connected as a result of strong ties to their previous neighbourhood; this was particularly true for younger adults for whom the move was more of a family decision than their own decision. In most cases this was the result not necessarily of a negative view of the new neighbourhood but of a specific connection to their old neighbourhood. Others had little connection to their old neighbourhood and were keen to explore their new neighbourhood, extending their range and sense of place as time went on. They were keen to invest in their new neighbourhood environment marked by, for example, walking and/or testing new neighbourhoods, appreciating new activities and shops, and having a clear sense of pride in where they lived.

Discussion

The spatial narrative interviews show that the majority of residents felt that East Village had many positive elements and, in many cases, was an improvement on their previous neighbourhood. These perceptions generally reflected a positive view of their move and some were directly related to their travel patterns and activity (e.g. availability of facilities, green space, perceived safety owing to lighting of walkways), whereas others potentially had an indirect effect (e.g. nice buildings to view, perceptions of space).

Consistent with the findings from the quantitative data reported in Ram et al.,64 those living in social housing particularly emphasised the positive environment of their new neighbourhood relative to their old neighbourhood. This was not necessarily because they found the new environment any more positive than did other groups but rather because they had more negative perceptions of the built environment in their old neighbourhood than the other housing sectors. Safety was a particularly consistent positive change, particularly feeling safe to be out at night, and is consistent with the shift in crime perceptions reported in the survey data (see Chapter 6).

The improvement in perceived personal safety is an important finding as it is a consistent correlate of physical activity, particularly for women,250 and demonstrates that effective design such as good-quality lighting can extend the time period available for activity (i.e. to include dark hours). Improved lighting may also prompt more people to be out, which in turn was cited as a reason for increased confidence to walk at night.

One of the factors normally associated with increased opportunities to be active is a good public transport system. However, the relatively sophisticated options in East Village may in fact have diluted this effect, as participants were able to effectively minimise walking time by using a range of options. Although cycle lanes were acknowledged, there was little evidence in these interviews of their regular use for commuting; they were used more for leisure than for routine physical activity. The high level of accessibility of destinations is similarly a recognised determinant of increased activity,94,250 and this was viewed as an advantage by residents. Although distances to destinations were short, for example there were facilities such as general practice surgeries, dental care and shops on site, this may have limited the need for sustained walking. These observations may help to explain the very limited change in active travel based on the GPS and accelerometry data highlighted in Chapter 5. This in turn may have affected the potential change in overall activity, as transport-related activity is such a strong component of activity profiles.241 These qualitative findings are also consistent with objective indicators of the environment, as reported in Chapter 4, with the East Village demonstrating high levels of walkability, green space and access to destinations.

The limited potential for change in the transport-related activity highlighted above emphasises the important role that leisure activity plays in physical activity levels. Interviews supported the view that many elements in East Village stimulated physical activity, but these examples were often infrequent and ‘one-off’ events rather than routine activities that would have an impact on daily physical activity levels. However, these were highly valued by residents, and it is possible that with time these examples would grow into more habitual activity. On the other hand, it should be acknowledged that for many these were new or different behaviours compared with their previous experience (e.g. going for a bike ride or longer walks, taking part in exercise groups outside), so environmental stimulus alone will have only limited impact. Social–ecological frameworks acknowledge that change at individual, social and environmental levels is required to promote and sustain significant change. This also explains to some extent why significantly improved perceptions of the environment do not necessarily have an impact on physical activity behaviour. Other factors (e.g. personal capacity, motivation) as well as social and familial factors mediate the relationship between the environment and physical activity. There is less evidence that these have changed since moving to the East Village, particularly social relations between residents within East Village. Many social activities are still dependent on social activities outside the village. There is evidence that this ‘social infrastructure’ is developing as the built environment develops, but the effect is subtle and takes time. It relies on places to meet, share and engage beyond the provision of green space or large shopping centres. The provision of smaller shops and cafes is an example of how the environment is becoming more diversified and one successful social space does attract residents (the barbecue area and screening of events). As acknowledged in other similar studies,94 changes can take some time to develop, particularly if they are not a result of shifts to routine behaviour via transport activity. These qualitative data emphasise how a newly built environment takes time to evolve; this is reflected in residents’ reported early interactions with the environment. This is described both practically in terms of knowing where to go to fulfil daily life activities, but also emotionally in terms of where to feel comfortable in terms of a sense of neighbourhood. This process can be accelerated by environmental shifts; as facilities and businesses become established, clusters to represent known and comfortable destinations for residents emerge. Although the sporting facilities are generally seen as an asset to the neighbourhood, price remains a barrier to participation.

The strengths of these findings include the use of participants’ own spatial data both to select a group of participants who have changed differently from baseline to follow up in the ENABLE London study and to provide a basis for participants to describe their use of the environment and their perceptions of it. Although reports were retrospective in relation to participants’ previous environments, having examples of traces both before and after from the GPS data provided an important memory prompt, as well as a dynamic basis for discussion of change. These qualitative one-to-one interviews were also able to capture temporal shifts and how these may oscillate over time. This provides an important complement to the objective measures that, although longitudinal, can provide only a snapshot at baseline and follow-up. This is particularly important because participants’ spatial patterns are highly variable, which makes it difficult to capture them with short-term measures. Participants were also able to focus on the factors most salient to them and explain how they interact to influence behaviour, which is challenging with quantitative data even with sophisticated analyses.

Limitations include the relatively unusual transport structure within London, which provides residents with transport options and a decision-making structure that may not relate to other, less urban or smaller, areas. Although the use of participant data and information at baseline allowed sampling to be targeted to reflect a range of participants, those who were interviewed were relatively young compared with both the wider sample and the population, so these findings may not necessarily translate to the perceptions of older adults. Participants were also sampled based on travel patterns, which may not necessarily reflect overall activity for some individuals.

Conclusions

East Village is seen as a very attractive place to live, with the majority of participants expressing more positive perceptions of their built environment than of their previous neighbourhoods. It was also seen as a place that included many environmental elements, to encourage increased activity. However, these positive perceptions in themselves were not enough to prompt use of the environment to the extent that it increased physical activity overall. It did stimulate use of the space for leisure, but any change was offset to some extent by the limited options available to increase transport-related activity. This was in part explained by the sophisticated use of an extensive public transport network close to East Village. It is clear that the built environmental structure of East Village is still evolving, with smaller facilities, shops and cafes opening that will continue to diversify and build the neighbourhood. This alongside a more developed social infrastructure may have an impact on physical activity in the long term, encouraging residents to make use of their environment more frequently for activity and leisure.