Content uploaded by Oddrun Samdal
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Oddrun Samdal
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC 2.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
The characteristics of the outdoor school environment
associated with physical activity
Ellen Haug
1
*, Torbjørn Torsheim
1
, James F. Sallis
2
and Oddrun Samdal
1
Abstract
The school is an important setting for physical
activity. The purpose of the present study was to
examine the association between physical envi-
ronmental characteristics and participation in
daily physical activity during school breaks.
Data from 130 schools and 16 471 students
(Grades 4–10) in Norway were obtained in
2004 through self-administered questionnaires
to principals and students. Multilevel logistic re-
gression models revealed that boys at secondary
level with a larger number of outdoor facilities
at school had 2.69 times [95% confidence inter-
val (CI) = 1.21–5.98] and girls 2.90 times (95%
CI = 1.32–6.37) higher odds of being physically
active compared with students in schools with
fewer facilities. Boys at secondary level with
areas for hopscotch/skipping rope had 2.53
times (95% CI = 1.55–4.13), with a soccer field
1.68 times (95% CI = 1.15–2.45), with play-
ground equipment 1.66 times (95% CI = 1.16–
2.37) and with a sledding hill 1.70 times (95%
CI = 1.23–2.35) higher odds to be physically ac-
tive compared with students in schools without
these facilities. A sledding hill was also associ-
ated with girls’ physical activity participation
in secondary school (odds ratio = 1.58, 95%
CI = 1.11–2.24). Outdoor facilities in secondary
schools are associated with students’ daily phys-
ical activity participation during school breaks.
Therefore, improving the outdoor environment
should be considered in physical activity promo-
tion school programs in secondary schools.
Introduction
Large proportions of children and adolescents in
western countries [1, 2] report that they do not par-
ticipate in moderate to vigorous physical activity
(VPA) for 60 min on most days as recommended
[3] to achieve health benefits [4]. The health con-
sequences of an inactive lifestyle together with the
rising prevalence of childhood obesity from early
age have become global concerns [3, 5–7]. Effec-
tive programmes are needed to increase physical
activity levels and such interventions should be based
on evidence of efficacy. Until recently, studies mainly
examined individual correlates of physical activity,
such as demographic differences and cognitive, affec-
tive and social correlates [8]. Such correlates have,
however, captured a relatively small percentage of
the variance of physical activity behaviour [9].
There has been growing attention given to the
use of ecological models as frameworks for
addressing multiple levels of influences on an indi-
vidual’s engagement in physical activity [10].
Levels of influence generally included are intraper-
sonal, interpersonal, sociocultural and the physical
environment [9]. By taking into account the envi-
ronmental impact on physical activity, ecological
1
Faculty of Psychology, Research Centre for Health
Promotion, University of Bergen, Christiesgate 13, N-5020
Bergen, Norway and
2
Department of Psychology, San Diego
State University, 3900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 310, San Diego,
CA 92103, USA
*Correspondence to: E. Haug. E-mail: ellen.haug@psyhp.
uib.no
HEALTH EDUCATION RESEARCH Vol.25 no.2 2010
Pages 248–256
Advance Access publication 20 October 2008
Ó2008 The Author(s). doi:10.1093/her/cyn050
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http:/ /creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original workis
properly cited.
models distinguish themselves from earlier theories
by considering a broader range of potential
approaches for promoting physical activity. Identi-
fying the factors in the physical environment that
are associated with young people’s physical activity
can reveal promising determinants and lead to more
effective intervention strategies [11]. However, so
far research on environmental influences on young
peoples’ physical activity behaviour has been lim-
ited and revealed ambiguous results [8, 12, 13].
As nearly all children attend school, international
and national policy documents have identified the
school as a key setting for promoting physical
activity for young people [3, 14–18]. The school
arena provides several opportunities for students
to be physically active, including lunch breaks
and recess periods [19–21]. Recess can be defined
as regularly scheduled time for unstructured phys-
ical activity and play [21]. Norwegian schools pro-
vide students in general with several recess periods
daily throughout secondary school and a longer
after lunch break. A recent review found that stu-
dents’ involvement in physical activity during such
non-curricular school time can contribute to 5–40%
of the recommended daily 60 min [22]. Only a small
number of studies have examined the impact of
characteristics of the school environment on stu-
dents’ activity during recess and lunch breaks.
One study found that area type, size and fixed
outdoor equipment, together with supervision
and organized activities, explained 59% of the var-
iance for boys’ and 42% for girls’ observed non-
curricular physical activity [23]. However, another
observational study found no associations with
equipment availability, except for number of balls
and VPA, and with a linear decrease in physical
activity observed with school size [24]. Also, the
provision of extra equipment and supervision [25],
extra game equipment [26] and painting the school
playgrounds [27] have demonstrated increased
physical activity throughout the school day, one
with effect sustained over time [28]. In addition,
factors such as provision of more storage amenities,
fewer facilities barriers and fewer school equipment
barriers have been associated with physical activity
opportunities (time) in schools [29].
Earlier studies have mostly examined one or
a small number of physical environmental factors
[12, 13]. The purpose of the current study was to
determine the availability of a variety of outdoor
characteristics at schools and the associations with
students’ participation in physical activity during
recess time and lunch break.
Methods
School recruitment
The study was based on the cross-sectional baseline
data of schools and students participating in a
Norwegian nationwide project called ‘Physical
activity and healthy meals in school’ aimed at
developing feasible school models for integrating
60-min daily physical activity into school hours.
Of the 300 schools that applied in spring 2004,
208 representing all counties and geographical
regions in Norway met the criteria for becoming a
project school and were invited to participate in the
project. In one county (Nordland), all 50 schools
met the criteria; half of these schools were randomly
selected to take part in the evaluation study. Thus, in
total 183 schools were recruited for the baseline
study: 115 primary schools (Grades 1–7, age 6–12),
31 secondary schools (Grades 8–10, age 13–15) and
37 combined schools (Grades 1–10). In can be noted
that in Norway, almost all students are allocated to
a secondary school in the area where they live. Only
a few per cent choose to attend another school.
Procedures
Data were collected from September to November
2004. A school-level questionnaire and a student
questionnaire to be distributed to all students were
sent to the school administration, together with in-
formation letters and a standardized description of
procedures for the teachers. Information letters
were sent to the parents/guardians before the survey
with a notification of their right to withdraw their
child from the study. Data collection procedures
followed the standards for the Health Behaviour
in School-aged Children (HBSC) study [30]. The
school-level questionnaire was to be completed by
School environment and physical activity
249
the principal/school leader. The student survey was
carried out as an anonymous in-school survey.
Schools that did not return the questionnaires
within the deadline received two reminders by
e-mail. The study was approved by the Privacy
Ombudsman for Research, The Norwegian Social
Science Data Services.
Study sample and student participation
Of the 183 schools invited to take part in the study,
130 (71%) completed the school-level question-
naire. The final school sample consisted of 80 pri-
mary, 21 secondary and 29 combined schools. The
mean number of student enrollment for all grades
across schools was 215 students (SD = 146). The
student survey was, however, only administered to
students from Grade 4 (age 8–9) through Grade 10
(age 14–15), in total 19 582 students. Of these,
16 471 (84%) students completed the question-
naire. Some schools reported that not all classes
participated due to practical and organizational
issues. However, such information was not system-
atically reported. Of the final student sample, 9613
(58%) were primary level students (Grades 4–7)
and 6858 (42%) were secondary level students
(Grades 8–10). Sample sizes were equally distrib-
uted across genders and ranged across grades from
2084 (Grade 10) to 2487 (Grade 5) students.
Measures
School-level questionnaire
Each principal received a 14-page questionnaire on
school policies, environmental and organizational
structures related to the possibilities for students
to be physically active and eat healthily at school.
The items were derived from a questionnaire used
in a Norwegian national school survey in 2000 [31].
To assess physical school characteristics, the
following item was asked: ‘What facilities exist in
the indoor environment and the school surround-
ings available for physical activity’. The item con-
tained a list of 11 features found or assumed to be
relevant for physical activity in a Nordic school
setting. A hall for gymnastics or a sports hall
was available in all schools, and a swimming hall
was not considered relevant for school breaks.
Therefore, the following eight outdoor facilities that
were included in the study: soccer field, courts for
other ball activities, areas with marks for hopscotch/
skipping rope, an outdoor obstacle course, a sled-
ding hill, areas for boarding/skating, green spaces/
forest areas and playground equipment. An
‘outdoor facility index’ was computed by adding
facilities and standardizing the score to the range
of facilities (0–8), with a score of 1 indicating
the maximum number of facilities and a score
of 0 indicating the lowest number of facilities.
To assess total recess time, the following item
was asked: ‘The list below presents various alter-
natives for the duration recess periods. How many
recess periods of the following categories did
students at each grade level have in the course of
a regular school day?’ [Less than 10 minutes, 10–14
minutes, 15–19 minutes, 20–24 minutes, 25 minutes
or more]. In Norway, it is educational policy to
provide students with several daily recess periods
from Grades 1 to 10 in addition to the extended
recess following the lunch. However, based on
known variations in the structural composition,
responses were reported separately for 1–4 Grades,
5–7 Grades and 8–10 Grades. A sum score of daily
recess minutes was created, with the time categories
converted to the following middle scores: <10 = 7,
10–14 = 12, 15–19 = 17, 20–24 = 22 and
>25 = 30 min.
Student questionnaire
The students received a two-page questionnaire,
with three items assessing physical activity during
school classes, transportation to school and
during recess. The recess item was ‘How OFTEN
during recess are you physically active in a way that
makes you out of breath and/or sweat?’ [Every
recess, two recesses or more per day, less than
two recesses per day, not every day but still every
week, not every week, never]. The wording of the
item refers to engagement in activities generally
thought of as VPA [32]. However, children charac-
teristically involve in alternating moderate to vigor-
ous activity with small rest periods [32]. The physical
activity quantified by this item should consequently
not be interpreted only as vigorous activity, but
E. Haug et al.
250
participation in typical non-organized physical ac-
tivities. The item has been used in the Norwegian
part of the HBSC studies [33], and in a test–retest
study of students aged 13 and 15 years, the intra-
class correlation coefficient score was 0.68, indicat-
ing moderate stability [34].
Prior to the Norwegian HBSC study data collec-
tions, also comprehensive qualitative pilot studies
have been conducted for both primary and second-
ary schools to ensure psychometric quality and to
verify item comprehension, clarity face validity and
ease of completion.
Data analysis
Using SPSS for Windows v. 13.0, the student
sample was split by gender, and separate analyses
were conducted for students at primary school
(Grades 4–7) and secondary school (Grades 8–10)
levels. The response categories of the item assess-
ing participation in physical activity during recess
were converted to dichotomous variables, with the
first three responses categorized as being ‘daily
physically active in recess time’. Pearson’s correla-
tion was used to test for total recess time as a pos-
sible confounder. The correlation between number
of facilities and total recess time was not significant
(Grades 5–7; r=0.017 and Grades 8–10; r=
0.049, NS). Therefore, the association between
physical activity time and number of facilities could
not be explained by total recess time. The chi-
square test with Yates’ correction for continuity
was used to examine gender and grade differences
in physical activity participation. A multilevel lo-
gistic regression analysis with random effects for
schools was conducted using the xtlogit command
in STATA 9.0 SE. In separate analyses for primary
and secondary school-level students, the regression
was calculated for physical activity against each of
the outdoor facilities.
Results
Participation in physical activity
Overall, 73% of the boys and 57% of the girls at the
primary school level reported daily participation in
physical activity during recess. For students at the
secondary school level, the prevalence was 38 and
21%, respectively. The participation in physical ac-
tivity during recess for each grade is presented in
Table I. For all grades, significantly more boys than
girls were engaged in physical activity. The partic-
ipation reached a peak in Grade 6 for both genders.
A significant reduction in physical activity from the
previous grade was observed in the higher grades,
starting from Grade 7 for girls and Grade 8 for boys.
Recess time
The mean sum score for daily recess time was 52.0
(615.6) min for Grades 1–4, while for Grades 5–7
it was 57.8 (612.7) and for Grades 8–10 it was 57.8
(611.1).
Facilities for physical activity
The most frequently available outdoor facilities for
students across schools were areas for hopscotch/
skipping rope, soccer fields and courts for other ball
games (Table II). It can be seen that the proportion
of students having each of the included facilities
available was highest among primary school-level
students.
Considerable variations were observed in the to-
tal number of outdoor facilities that students were
offered. While 65% of the students at primary level
had six or more facilities available, only 20% of the
students at secondary level were offered this num-
ber. Among students at secondary level, 47% had
three or fewer facilities available.
Table I. Prevalence (%) of boys and girls being daily
physically active during recess by grade
Gender Grade
45678910
Boys 72
a
71
a
76
ab
73
a
46
ab
39
ab
28
ab
Girls 58 59 60 54
b
28
b
21
b
13
b
a
P<0.05, Yates chi-square test indicating significant
differences between genders.
b
P<0.05, Yates chi-square test indicating significant difference
from previous grade.
School environment and physical activity
251
Associations between the characteristics of
school environment and participation in
physical activity
Table III shows the bivariate associations between
daily physical activity during recess and the avail-
ability of facilities and the relationship between
physical activity and the outdoor facility index.
Higher odds for recess activity are observed for
boys at secondary level in schools with soccer field,
playground equipment, sledding hill and area for
hopscotch/skipping available, compared with those
without each of these facilities. Access to a sledding
hill was also a predictor for daily recess activity for
secondary level girls. It can be seen that students at
the secondary level with a larger number of outdoor
facilities available had almost three times higher
odds to be daily active during recess compared with
students with fewer facilities. No associations were
observed for students at primary school level.
Discussion
In the present study, schools scheduled on average
almost 1 hour daily for recess time, which make this
context to a promising complementary setting for
physical activity promotion. So far, few studies
Table II. Proportion of students (%) having each of the
specific facilities available according to school grade level
Facilities Primary
level
students
Secondary
level
students
Total
Areas for hopscotch/skipping
rope
100 76 90
Soccer field 93 81 88
Areas for other ball games 90 77 85
Green spaces/forest areas 73 63 69
Playground equipment 90 21 61
Sledding hill 72 30 55
Areas for boarding/skating 27 26 27
Outdoor obstacle course 31 14 24
Table III. ORs and 95% CIs from multilevel logistic regression models predicting daily physical activity participation during
recess—primary and secondary school level
Variables Primary level students (Grades 4–7) Secondary level students (Grades 8–10)
OR 95% CI OR 95% CI
Soccer field Boys 1.01 0.71–1.44 1.68* 1.15–2.45
Girls 0.78 0.49–1.2 0.98 0.64–1.52
Areas for other ball games Boys 1.22 0.34–4.33 1.06 0.79–1.43
Girls 1.19 0.82–1.72 1.49 0.88–2.53
Areas for hopscotch/skipping rope Boys 1.19 0.88–1.60 2.53* 1.55–4.13
Girls 0.39 0.09–1.69 1.60 0.97–2.66
Playground equipment Boys 1.20 0.88–1.63 1.66* 1.16–2.37
Girls 1.33 0.91–1.96 1.39 0.95–2.04
Outdoor obstacle course Boys 1.07 0.88–1.30 1.11 0.60–2.08
Girls 1.16 0.91–1.47 1.44 0.93–2.25
Sledding hill Boys 1.10 0.90–1.35 1.70* 1.23–2.35
Girls 1.09 0.84–1.42 1.58* 1.11–2.24
Green spaces/forest areas Boys 1.08 0.87–1.34 0.95 0.73–1.25
Girls 1.26 0.96–1.65 1.22 0.84–1.79
Areas for boarding/skating Boys 1.06 0.86–1.32 0.89 0.64–1.23
Girls 1.03 0.79–1.35 0.99 0.67–1.45
Outdoor facility index (0–1)
a
Boys 1.43 0.86–0.40 2.69* 1.21–5.98
Girls 1.57 0.82–2.99 2.90* 1.32–6.37
OR, odds ratio.
a
Summarized and standardized score, with 1 indicating the maximum and 0 lowest number of facilities. *P<0.05.
E. Haug et al.
252
have examined how the physical school environ-
ment can influence participation in physical activity
during recess periods. The present study demon-
strates that secondary level students with larger
number of outdoor facilities available had almost
three times higher odds to participate in daily phys-
ical activity during recess compared with students
with fewer facilities. In addition, four of eight
characteristics (soccer fields, areas for hopscotch/
skipping rope, playground equipment and sledding
hill) were significant predictors for daily physical
activity for boys and one (sledding hill) for girls.
The findings correspond to previous research sug-
gesting that improvements of the physical school
environment can increase physical activity partici-
pation in recess and lunch time [23, 25–27, 35] and
give support to the World Health Organization
guidelines recommending that appropriate facilities
and equipment can promote physical activity in
schools [3].
No significant relationships were found for stu-
dents at the primary school level, which could be
due to several factors. Younger children are thought
to have a stronger biological drive to be physically
active [36]. In the study, the overall participation in
recess physical activity for primary school children
was high, resulting in less variance. There was in
addition less variation in available facilities across
primary school. Along with the probability of more
inaccurate reporting among primary school stu-
dents, these factors may have suppressed associa-
tions. It can also be that children’s activity is not as
specific in primary school and that they consider the
environment as an opportunity to be active regard-
less of the facilities available. For both genders, the
peak in physical activity participation was observed
in Grade 6, followed by a significant reduction for
each grade level starting from Grade 7 for girls and
Grade 8 for boys. However, the biggest change was
observed from Grade 7 to Grade 8 for both genders.
This period represents the transition to secondary
school. In the study, secondary level students had
considerably less facilities available, which could
explain part of the reduced participation at second-
ary grade level. Lack of motivating school environ-
ments has been reported as one of the main reasons
why adolescents are less physically active during
school time than desired [37].
At every grade level, a higher percentage of boys
compared with girls were daily physically active
during recess, in line with several other studies
[22, 26, 38, 39]. Differences in physical activity
have been liked to gender role patterns. Girls seems
to be more interested in using recess time to social-
ize with others and less interested in vigorous sport
activities compared with boys [40–42]. Sport activ-
ities are often related to competition and achieve-
ment, these elements have been reported as reasons
for not participating in physical activity in school
among girls [43]. In the present study, soccer fields
and hopscotch/skipping rope areas, the most com-
mon facilities across schools, were only associated
with recess activity for boys. The latter character-
istics could be an indicator of having additional
asphalt fields that can be used for ball activities.
These findings are in accordance with several ob-
servational studies reporting that school fields pre-
dominantly have been used by boys for soccer and
football during breaks, with girls remaining passive
and not claim their share of the activity settings [39,
41]. Thus, although areas and facilities are physi-
cally available for all students, not all girls may
perceive these as accessible or enjoyable as boys.
Despite the finding that schools were a frequent
neighbourhood resource for physical activity up-
take, two American studies found no association
between number of schools in the neighbourhood
and weekend physical activity among sixth-grade
girls [44] or total physical activity among 12th-
grade girls [45]. These findings support the assump-
tion that school grounds and the available facilities
may not be attractive for girls’ physical activity
interests. To increase their physical activity levels,
girls have suggested more equal opportunities and
more choices of activities in school and pro-
grammes, including activities such as dancing
and gymnastics [37, 43]. Interestingly, soccer is
one of the most popular organized sport activities
in after-school hours among Norwegian girls [46],
which demonstrates that physical activity preferen-
ces may vary across settings. Nevertheless, the
present study demonstrated that the likelihood for
School environment and physical activity
253
girls to be active increased significantly with higher
accumulated numbers of facilities. This could be
related to less competition for existing spaces or
facilities.
As acknowledged by ecological models [9], sev-
eral context-specific factors should be taken into
account when addressing a complex behaviour like
physical activity. Especially among young people,
physical activity should to a large extent be
regarded as a social activity [47]. The influences
of school specific psychosocial factors have so far
received little attention. However, in a recent study
of urban 9- and 15-year-old Norwegian students,
general enjoyment of physical activity, enjoyment
of Physical Education, support from peers and sup-
port from teachers were all predictors of informal
games play in school, but the associations were
strongly moderated by age [48]. Interestingly, per-
ceived physical competence was negatively related
to physical activity in recess and after-school hours.
The author suggests that a less explicit focus on
physical skills and abilities makes this context via-
ble for less competent students [48]. More in-depth
research that simultaneously addresses the impact
of individual level factors, sociocultural factors and
a wide range of environmental factors, and the in-
teraction between them, is required to get a better
understanding of the pathway to physical activity
participation in this setting.
A limitation of the study was the use of self-
report assessment of physical activity and the lack
of psychometric information on the use of the re-
cess physical activity item for children under the
age of 13. It is recognized that the sporadic nature
of children’s physical activity and their cognitive
functioning reduces children’s ability to accurately
recall intensity, frequency and duration, and only
moderate correlations have been found between self-
reports and more objective measurements [49, 50].
In the present study, the physical activity item re-
ferred to a specific setting and level of intensity that
could have increased the accuracy in reporting. The
dichotomizing of the physical activity responses
may also have increased the numbers of students
correctly categorized. Other individual level data
known to be associated with physical activity such
as indicators of socio-economic status (SES) was
not collected and could not be controlled for.
However, a study of a representative sample of
Norwegian school children found no differences
in recess physical activity across SES family status
[51]. The subjective assessment of the characteris-
tics of the school environment could also have re-
duced the accuracy of the data, as it is not clear if
the principals interpreted each area in the same way.
Direct observation of the available facilities
could have increased the quality of the data and
identified if the characteristics were used for pur-
poses other than the activity they were designed
or labelled for. In this study, it was, however, not
feasible.
Conclusions and implications
Low rates of daily recess physical activity together
with few facilities available for students in second-
ary schools demonstrates a great potential for
improvements. It is thus encouraging that the avail-
ability of outdoor facilities in secondary schools
was found to be associated with students’ engage-
ment in physical activity during recess. Since envi-
ronmental changes can influence the whole student
population, with new groups continuously being
exposed to the environment, effects of such im-
provements can be multiplied. Involving the stu-
dents in the identification of attractive settings
seems like a promising approach to promote recess
physical activity.
The findings support an ecological approach to
the promotion of physical activity and should en-
courage researchers and practitioners to apply
a multilevel framework that includes a focus on
the physical environment, when developing poli-
cies and interventions in schools. Studies using
more objective methods to assess physical activity
and to identify modifiable school facilitators are
warranted to more accurately assess associations.
A step further would also be to include more factors
on different levels like social, psychological and
cognitive factors as well as more organizational
school environmental factors.
E. Haug et al.
254
Funding
Research Council of Norway’s Public Health Pro-
gram (167022).
Acknowledgements
We thank The Norwegian Directorate for Education
and Training and The Norwegian Directorate of
Health and Social Affairs for the collaboration
and funding of the data collection.
Conflict of interest statement
None declared.
References
1. Currie C, Roberts C, Morgan A et al. Young people’s health
in context: international report from the HBSC 2001/02 sur-
vey. In: Series WP, (ed.). Health Policy for Children and
Adolescents. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for
Europe, 2004, 237.
2. Booth M, Okely A, Denney-Wilson E et al.NSW Schools
Physical Activity and Nutrition Research (SPANS) 2004:
Full Report. Sydney: NSW Department of Health, 2006,
264.
3. World Health Organization. Global Strategy on Diet, Phys-
ical Activity and Health. Geneva: World Health Organiza-
tion, 2004, 20.
4. Strong WB, Malina RM, Blimkie CJR et al. Evidence based
physical activity for school-age youth. J Pediatr 2005; 146:
732–7.
5. Reilly J. Descriptive epidemiology and health consequences
of childhood obesity. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab
2005; 19: 327–41.
6. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR et al. Prevalence of over-
weight and obesity in the United States, 1999–2004. JAMA
2006; 295: 1549–55.
7. World Health Organization. Obesity. Preventing and Man-
aging the Global Epidemic. Report WHO/NUT/981.
Geneva: World Health Organization, 2000, 253.
8. Sallis JF, Prochaska JJ, Taylor WC. A review of correlates
of physical activity of children and adolescents. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 2000; 32: 963–75.
9. King AC, Stokols D, Talen E et al. Theoretical approaches
to the promotion of physical activity: forging a transdisci-
plinary paradigm. Am J Prev Med 2002; 23: 15–25.
10. Sallis JF, Cervero R, Asher W et al. An ecological approach
to creating active living communities. Annu Rev Public
Health 2006; 27: 297–322.
11. Sallis JF, Bauman A, Pratt M. Environmental and policy
interventions to promote physical activity. Am J Prev Med
1998; 15: 379–97.
12. Ferreira I, van der Horst K, Wendel-Vos W et al. Environ-
mental correlates of physical activity in youth—a review and
update. Obes Rev 2007; 8: 129–54.
13. Davison KK, Lawson CT. Do attributes in the physical en-
vironment influence children’s physical activity? A review
of the literature. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2006; 3: 19.
14. Nordic Council of Ministers. Health, Food and Physical
Activity: Nordic Plan of Action on Better Health and Quality
of Life through Diet and Physical Activity. Copenhagen:
Nordic Council, 2006, 61.
15. The Ministry of Health and Care Services. The Action Plan
on Physical Activity 2005–2009: Working Together for
Physical Activity. Oslo: Directorate for Health and Social
Affairs, 2005, 43.
16. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Sur-
geon General’s Call To Action To Prevent and Decrease
Overweight and Obesity. Washington, DC: Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office
of the Surgeon General, 2001.
17. Commonwealth of Australia: Department of Health and
Aged Care. National Physical Activity Guidelines for Aus-
tralians. Canberra: Department of Health and Age Care,
1999.
18. Commission of the European Communities. White Paper on
a Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity
Related Health Issues. White Paper. Brussels: Commission
of the European Communities, 2007, 12.
19. Trudeau F, Shephard R. Contribution of school programmes
to physical activity levels and attitudes in children and
adults. Sports Med 2005; 35: 89–105.
20. Story M, Kaphingst KM, French S. The role of schools in
obesity prevention. Future Child 2006; 16: 109–42.
21. Wechsler H, Devereaux RS, Davis M et al. Using the school
environment to promote physical activity and healthy eating.
Prev Med 2000; 31: S121–37.
22. Ridgers ND, Stratton G, Fairclough SJ. Physical activity
levels of children during school playtime. Sports Med
2006; 36: 359–71.
23. Sallis JF, Conway TL, Prochaska JJ et al. The association of
school environments with youth physical activity. Am J
Public Health 2001; 91: 618–20.
24. Zask A, van Beurden E, Barnett L et al. Active school play-
grounds—myth or reality? Results of the ‘‘move it groove
it’’ project. Prev Med 2001; 33: 402–8.
25. Sallis JF, McKenzie TL, Conway TL et al. Environmental
interventions for eating and physical activity: a randomized
controlled trial in middle schools. Am J Prev Med 2003; 24:
209–17.
26. Verstraete S, Cardon G, De Clercq D et al. Increasing child-
ren’s physical activity levels during recess periods in ele-
mentary schools: the effects of providing game equipment.
Eur J Public Health 2006; 16: 415–9.
27. Stratton G, Mullan E. The effect of multicolor playground
markings on children’s physical activity level during recess.
Prev Med 2005; 41: 828–33.
28. Ridgers ND, Stratton G, Fairclough SJ et al. Long-term
effects of a playground markings and physical structures
on children’s recess physical activity levels. Prev Med
2007; 44: 393–7.
29. Barnett TA, O’Loughlin J, Gauvin L et al. Opportunities
for student physical activity in elementary schools:
School environment and physical activity
255
a cross-sectional survey of frequency and correlates. Health
Educ Behav 2006; 33: 215–32.
30. Roberts C, Currie C, Samdal O et al. Measuring the health
and health behaviours of adolescents through cross-national
survey research: recent developments in the Health Behav-
iour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study. J Public Health
2007; 15: 179–86.
31. Bjelland M, Klepp KI. The School Meal and Physical Ac-
tivity in Compulsory School (In Norwegian). Oslo: Institute
of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, 2000, 45.
32. Welk GJ, Corbin CB, Darren D. Measurement issues in the
assessment of physical activity in children. Res Q Exerc
Sport 2000; 71: 59–73.
33. Torsheim T, Samdal O, Wold B et al.Health Behaviours
Among Children and Youth: Norwegian Results from the
Study ‘‘Health Behaviours in School-aged Children. A
WHO Cross-National Study (In Norwegian). Bergen:
Research Centre for Health Promotion, University of
Bergen, 2004, 74.
34. Torsheim T, Wold B, Samdal O et al.Test-Retest Reliability
of Survey Indicators Measuring Adolescent Health and
Health Behaviour. Bergen: Research Centre for Health Pro-
motion, University of Bergen, 1995, 14.
35. Jago R, Baranowski T. Non-curricular approaches for in-
creasing physical activity in youth: a review. Prev Med
2004; 39: 157–63.
36. Rowland T. The biological basis of physical activity. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 1998; 30: 392–9.
37. Hohepa M, Schofield G, Kolt GS. Physical activity: what
do high school students think? J Adolesc Health 2006; 39:
328–36.
38. Tudor-Locke C, Lee SM, Morgan CF et al. Children’s pe-
dometer-determined physical activity during the segmented
school day. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006; 38: 1732–8.
39. Beighle A, Morgan CF, Le Masurier G et al. Children’s
physical activity during recess and outside of school. J Sch
Health 2006; 76: 516–20.
40. Blatchford P, Baines E, Pellegrini A. The social context of
school playground games: sex and ethnic differences, and
changes over time after entry to junior school. Br J Dev
Psychol 2003; 21: 481–505.
41. Schmidt L. Outdoor Spaces–Jungle or Exercise Yard? A
Study of Facilities, Children and Physical Activity at School.
Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research
(NIBR). Oslo; 2004, 179.
42. Bauer KW, Yang YW, Austin SB. ‘‘How can we stay
healthy when you’re throwing all of this in front of us?’’
Findings from focus groups and interviews in middle
schools on environmental influences on nutrition and phys-
ical activity. Health Educ Behav 2004; 31: 34–46.
43. Rees R, Kavanagh J, Harden A et al. Young people
and physical activity: a systematic review matching their
views to effective interventions. Health Educ Res 2006;
21: 806–25.
44. Scott MM, Cohen DA, Evenson KR et al. Weekend school-
yard accessibility, physical activity, and obesity: the Trial of
Activity in Adolescent Girls (TAAG) study. Prev Med 2007;
44: 398–403.
45. Pate RR, Colabianchi N, Porter D et al. Physical activity and
neighborhood resources in high school girls. Am J Prev Med
2008; 34: 413–9.
46. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of
Sports. Sport and Physical Activity in Norway (In Norwe-
gian). Oslo: Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confeder-
ation of Sports (NIF) and the Ministry of Culture and Church
Affairs (KKD), 2003, 77.
47. Wold B, Hendry L. Social factors influencing physical ac-
tivity. In: Biddle S, Sallis J, Cavill N (eds). Young and
Active? Young People and Health-enhancing Physical Ac-
tivity-evidence and Implications. London: Health Education
Authority, 1998, 119–32.
48. Ommundsen Y, Klasson-Heggebo L, Anderssen SA. Psy-
cho-social and environmental correlates of location-specific
physical activity among 9- and 15-year-old Norwegian boys
and girls: the European Youth Heart Study. Int J Behav Nutr
Phys Act 2006; 3: 32.
49. Sallis JF. Self-reported measures of children’s physical
activity. J Sch Health 1991; 61: 215–9.
50. Sirard JR, Pate RR. Physical activity assessment in children
and adolescents. Sports Med 2001; 31: 439–54.
51. Haug E, Samdal O, Torsheim T. Physical environmental
characteristics and individual interests as correlates of phys-
ical activity in Norwegian secondary schools: the Health
Behaviour in School-Aged Children study. Int J Behav Nutr
Phys Act 2008; 5: 47.
Received on March 12, 2008; accepted on August 25, 2008
E. Haug et al.
256
