Skip to main content
PMC home page
SpringerPlus logoLink to SpringerPlus
. 2015 Sep 19;4:527. doi: 10.1186/s40064-015-1336-5

Predictors of willingness to pay for physical activity of socially vulnerable groups in community-based programs

Marion C Herens 1,✉, Johan A C van Ophem 2, Annemarie M A E Wagemakers 1, Maria A Koelen 1
PMCID: PMC4575679  PMID: 26405646

Abstract

Willingness to pay (WTP) is used to assess individuals’ value attribution to health-related quality of life interventions. Little is known about predictors of WTP for sport and physical activity in socially vulnerable groups in community-based physical activity (CBHEPA) programs. This study addresses the questions: What is the WTP for sport and physical activity of participants in CBHEPA programs, expressed in WTPmoney and WTPtime? Which factors predict WTPmoney and WTPtime? From the literature, predictors for WTP for sport and physical activity were identified: (1) personal and socio-economic predictors: income, education, age, and ethnic origin, (2) health-related predictors: perceived health, life satisfaction, sense of coherence, self-efficacy, (3) sport and physical activity-related predictors: duration and frequency of participation, leisure-time sport or physical activity, sport club membership, enjoyment, and membership fee. Data were gathered for WTPmoney and WTPtime (n = 268) in 19 groups in an evaluation study of CBHEPA programs. Ordered probit was used for analyses. WTPmoney was a monthly average of €9.6. WTPtime was on average 17.6 min travel time. Income was found as predictor for both WTPmoney and WTPtime. Other predictors for WTPmoney were: duration and frequency of program participation, enjoyment, and (former) sport club membership. Low income and younger age were found as predictors for WTPtime. Predictors for WTPmoney are related to income and sport and physical activity experiences, for WTPtime to income and age. Short-term program satisfaction is probably more decisive for WTPmoney than long-term perspectives of improving health-related quality of life.

Keywords: Sport and physical activity, Community-based, Willingness to pay, Socially vulnerable groups, Health-related quality of life

Background

Physical inactivity has been identified by the World Health Organisation as the fourth leading risk factor for global mortality, causing globally an estimated 3.2 million deaths per year (GAPA 2012; WHO 2012). Health disorders associated with inactivity, including impaired health-related quality of life as well as direct and indirect economic costs, exert a substantial burden on societies and health systems (Craig et al. 2012). In the Netherland, socially vulnerable groups, e.g. those with low socio-economic status (SES), unemployed or of non-Dutch origin, are less engaged in sport and physical activity than higher SES groups (Wendel-Vos et al. 2009; Hildebrandt et al. 2013). In response to the observed inequalities, Dutch policy has been to promote community-based health-enhancing physical activity (CBHEPA) programs in order to improve the health and wellbeing of socially vulnerable groups (Ministry of Health Welfare and Sports 2006, 2012). Approximately €60 m are spent on campaigns, research, and institutions to promote healthy and active lifestyles, and healthy social and physical environments (Post et al. 2010; De Wit et al. 2010). In 2010 (local) sports-related government expenditures were ca. €3.5 bn, spent on exploitation costs, maintenance of sports facilities and subsidy schemes enhancing sport and physical activity (Centre for Policy-related Statistics 2013). A substantial portion of the subsidy schemes is dedicated to enhancing physical activity behaviour in socially vulnerable groups. Not much is known, however, about the extent to which socially vulnerable groups themselves are able and willing to invest in sport or physical activity in order to achieve active and heathy lifestyles.

Over the past two decades, the contingent valuation method (CVM) asking people’s stated preferences for a good or a health service (Morris et al. 2007), is being used more often in health economics research to assess value attribution at individual level to health-related quality of life interventions (Klose 1999; Donaldson and Shackley 2003; Drummond et al. 2005; Olsen et al. 2004; Cawley 2004; Lorgelly et al. 2010; Murphy et al. 2012). CVM assumes a direct relationship between the amount of money or time invested and the health benefits experienced (Borghi and Jan 2008). Assessment of willingness to pay (WTP) is a relatively easy CVM to study perceived benefits at individual level of CBHEPA programs. WTP reflects the extent to which people are willing to pay for positive health improvements (Drummond et al. 2005; Remonnay et al. 2008). Usually, WTP is expressed in monetary terms (WTPmoney). Willingness to spend time travelling to sport and physical activity (WTPtime)—which in transportation models is seen as a disutility that should be minimised—should be regarded as an additional estimator of positive value attribution (Dijst and Vidakovic 2000), since it expresses willingness to make an effort to participate.

Relevant literature on WTP for recreational sport and physical activity is, however, fairly limited. Johnson et al. (2007) argued that published CVM studies of sports public goods have mostly focused on WTP for professional or spectator sports. The fact that governments also subsidise other sport and physical activities, such as amateur and recreational sport or CBHEPA programs, is usually not taken into account. The underlying idea of these subsidy schemes is that participation in sport and recreational physical activities is supportive to the development of social capital by contributing to community bonding, hence enhancing quality of life in a community (Putnam 2000; Lindström et al. 2001; Skinner et al. 2008). It may also improve the health and well-being of participants and reduce health-care costs (Hawe and Shiell 2000; Johnson et al. 2007).

In view of these expected societal benefits, it is unclear whether predictors for WTP for health improvements also predict WTP for sport and physical activity in CBHEPA programs. In this study we use WTP as a particular measure to assess value attribution to the experienced benefits of CBHEPA programs by individual participants, in addition to physical activity and health-related outcome measures, in order to contribute to a broader recognition of the (non)sense of government investments in CBHEPA programs. In order to assess the capacity and willingness to invest in sport and physical activity of socially vulnerable groups, our study addresses the following questions: What is the WTP for sport and physical activity of participants in CBHEPA programs in terms of money and time (WTPmoney and WTPtime)? Which factors predict WTPmoney and WTPtime?

Predictive factors for WTP for sport and physical activity

Little is known about predictors for WTP for sport and physical activity. WTP values drawn from a CVM survey are determined by personal and behavioural characteristics of the respondent and characteristics of the service specified (Smith 2003). Regarding personal and behavioural characteristics, studies on WTP for health improvements indicate that personal and socio-economic factors as well as health-related quality of life factors are relevant predictors (Bauman et al. 2002; Hagger et al. 2002; Rhodes et al. 2007). Regarding service characteristics, sport and physical activity behaviour and program-related factors may be relevant predictors. For our study, we assume that factors predicting health-related quality of life may be relevant for predicting WTP for health improvements, and factors predicting WTP for health improvements may be relevant for WTP for sport and physical activity.

  1. Personal and socio-economic predictors relate to an individual’s non-behavioural conditions, setting the boundaries for individual demand. Some studies suggest that WTP is positively related to income (Donaldson et al. 1997; Romé et al. 2010), others report no significant relationships (Johannesson and Johansson 1997; Olsen and Smith 2001). In line with a utilitarian perspective, WTP for sport and physical activity is expected to increase with increasing income. Some studies also suggest that WTP is positively related to educational level (Romé et al. 2010). More highly educated people are generally more health literate, i.e. more knowledgeable on healthy lifestyles and potential risk factors (Ross and Wu 1995). Some studies suggest that WTP is negatively related to age, indicating that older people are less willing to pay for health improvements than younger people (Johannesson and Johansson 1997; Krupnick et al. 2002; Romé et al. 2010). In addition, socially vulnerable groups tend to become less healthy and active with increasing age (WHO 2006; Cockerham 2007). Studies on the relation between WTP and ethnic origin seem scarce. A negative relationship between WTP and ethnic origin can be assumed, since ethnic origin is related to impaired health (Bos et al. 2004; Pampel et al. 2010) and higher levels of physical inactivity (Crespo et al. 2001; Hildebrandt et al. 2013).

  2. Health-related quality of life predictors relate to an individual’s behaviour and perceived health benefits. Although many instruments, consisting of different components, have been developed to measure health-related quality of life (Bowling 2005), less is known about the relation of each component to WTP for health improvements or sport and physical activity. Components of health-related quality of life that may be relevant for WTP for sport and physical activity are perceived health status (Rütten et al. 2001; Van Stralen et al. 2009), life satisfaction (Downward and Rasciute 2011; Lehnert et al. 2012), the ability to cope with life stressors (Antonovsky 1996; Van Stralen et al. 2009), and self-efficacy relating to physical activity behaviour (Marcus et al. 1992; McAuley and Blissmer 2000; Nickel and Spink 2010). Several studies suggest a positive relationship between WTP for health improvements and perceived health status (Donaldson and Shackley 2003; Bayoumi 2004; Borghi and Jan 2008; Victoor et al. 2012), whereas others report no significant relationships (Donaldson 1999). A positive relationship between WTP for health improvements and life satisfaction can be expected, since life satisfaction is positively related to health-related quality of life and physical activity. Furthermore, we expect a positive relationship between WTP for health improvements and the ability to cope, or sense of coherence (SoC). SoC relates to the way people cope with life stressors and is highly correlated with health-related quality of life (Eriksson and Lindström 2007). Similarly, we expect a positive relationship between WTP and self-efficacy, i.e. one’s confidence in one’s ability to manage and succeed in specific situations (Bandura 1995), since previous studies show that self-efficacy is positively related to health-related quality of life and physical activity (Marcus et al. 1992; McAuley and Blissmer 2000; Hagger et al. 2002; Bauman et al. 2002; Van Stralen et al. 2009). To our knowledge, however, no previous studies include life satisfaction, sense of coherence, or self-efficacy in WTP research.

  3. Sport and physical activity-related predictors relate to individual behaviour in relation to CBHEPA program characteristics. Recreational literature based on experience use theory suggests that WTP is positively related to duration and frequency of participation in a certain activity or program (Kyle et al. 2006; López-Mosquera and Sánchez 2013). Some studies suggest that WTP is positively related to experiences in leisure-time sport and (former) sports club membership (Pawlowski et al. 2009; Prins et al. 2010; Downward and Rasciute 2011). People who are or were member of a sport club are more willing to pay for leisure-time sport and physical activity than people with no history in sports (Bauman et al. 2002), and are good estimators of the costs. McCarville (1991) indicates that the level of membership fee can be regarded as the reference fee. In our study, we also include enjoyment as a variable, since some studies suggest that people engage in sport and physical activity for pleasure rather than for health benefits (Henderson 2009; Mullen et al. 2011). Therefore, we expect a positive relation between enjoyment and WTP. To our knowledge, no previous studies include enjoyment in WTP research.

Based on this overview, the expected relations between the main predictive factors and WTP for sport and physical activity are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1.

Summary of expectations for WTP for sport and physical activity

Cluster Predicting factor Known predictor for health-related quality of life and physical activity Known predictor WTP health improvements Expectation
Personal and socio-economic Income + +/− 1. Income is positively related to WTPmoney and WTPtime
Educational level + + 2. Educational level is positively related to WTPmoney and WTPtime
Age + +/− 3. Age is negatively related to WTPmoney and WTPtime
Ethnic origin + ? 4. Non-Dutch origin is negatively related to WTPmoney and WTPtime
Health-related quality of life Perceived health status + + 5. Individual perceived health status is positively related to WTPmoney and WTPtime
Life satisfaction + ? 6. Life satisfaction is positively related to WTPmoney and WTPtime
Sense of coherence + ? 7. Sense of coherence is positively related to WTPmoney and WTPtime
Self-efficacy + ? 8. Self-efficacy is positively related to WTPmoney and WTPtime
Sport and physical activity Duration + ? 9. Duration of participation in the CBHEPA program is positively related to WTPmoney and WTPtime
Frequency + ? 10. Frequency of participation is positively related to WTPmoney and WTPtime
Physical activity enjoyment + ? 11. Physical activity enjoyment is positively related to WTPmoney and WTPtime
Leisure-time physical activity + ? 12. Additional leisure-time physical activity is positively related to WTPmoney and WTPtime
Leisure time sport + ? 13. Additional leisure-time sport is positively related to WTPmoney and WTPtime
Sports club membership + + 14. (Former) sports club membership is positively related to WTPmoney and WTPtime
Membership fee ? ? 15. Paying membership fee is positively related to WTPmoney
Open in a new tab

+, known relation; −, known lack of relation; ?, unknown relation

Methods

Participants

We studied respondents’ WTPmoney and WTPtime in on-going Dutch CBHEPA programs, summarised under the denominator ‘communities on the move’ (CoM). CoM was developed and disseminated by the Netherlands Institute for Sports and Physical Activity (NISB) from 2003 to 2012. Since 2012, there has been an on-going evaluation study of CoM (Herens et al. 2013). CBHEPA groups were recruited to participate in the evaluation study in collaboration with NISB and local CBHEPA program representatives (purposive sampling). CBHEPA groups were selected on the basis of their participants’ socio-economic criteria (income, education, employment status). A total of 268 respondents were included, active in 19 CBHEPA groups (10–20 participants) distributed over seven Dutch municipalities. Assuming an average group size of 15, the estimated response rate was 94 %.

Data collection

Standardised paper-and-pencil questionnaires were developed for evaluating CoM. Data collection for WTPmoney and WTPtime formed an integral part of the standardised questionnaire. WTPmoney and WTPtime were measured using ordinal closed-ended questions. WTPmoney was measured as the maximum amount (in whole euro’s) people were willing to spend monthly on sport and physical activity [nine-point scale: (1) 0 euro; (2) 1–5 euro; (3) 6–10 euro; … (9) more than 35 euro, namely ….]. WTPtime was measured as the maximum time (in minutes) people were willing to spend on travel time to the sport venue (Pawlowski et al. 2009) [nine-point scale: (1) 0 min; (2) 1–5 min; (3) 6–10 min; … (9) more than 35 min, namely …]. The closed-ended data collection was chosen, based on the assumption that it provided for simplicity and uniformity, suitable for use in diverse socially vulnerable groups in CBHEPA programs.

Data on socio-economic indicators (age, income, education, employment status, living conditions) were measured in accordance with standardised questions of the Local and National Monitor Public Health in the Netherlands (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) 2005).

Health-related quality of life data were measured using: a visual analogue scale for perceived health (EQ-VAS), ranging from 0 to 100 (The EuroQol Group 1990); Cantril’s ladder for life satisfaction, ranging from 0 to 10 (Cantril 1965; Peters et al. 2012); and the SoC three-item, three-point scale for sense of coherence (Eriksson and Lindström 2005; Olsson et al. 2009). Questions were: ‘Do you usually see solutions to problems and difficulties that other people find hopeless?’ (manageability), ‘Do you usually feel that your daily life is a source of personal satisfaction?’ (meaningfulness) and ‘Do you usually feel that the things that happen to you in your daily life are hard to understand?’ (comprehensibility).

Sport and physical activity behaviour were measured using the validated Short Questionnaire for Sport and Physical Activity (SQUASH), measuring self-reported work-related, domestic, leisure-time and sport-related physical activities in minutes per week (Wendel-Vos et al. 2003; De Hollander et al. 2012). Physical activity enjoyment was measured using a nine-item, five-point scale, translated and adapted from the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (Mullen et al. 2011). Statements were for example: ‘When I do exercise or sports, I enjoy it’, or ‘When I do exercise or sports, I feel bored’. Self-efficacy for physical activity behaviour was measured using a six-item, five-point scale (Bandura 2006). Statements were for example: ‘I am confident that I am able to continue to participate in the physical activity program during the coming months’, and ‘I am confident that I am able to continue to participate in the physical activity program when I am tired’.

Questionnaires were individually filled in during or after a group training session at the sports venue. Informed consent was arranged orally on the spot and confirmed in writing. The researcher explained the purpose of the study at each session. Both the researcher and trained assistants helped respondents who had difficulty filling out the questionnaire by giving instructions or by adopting an interview style. The number of assistants varied with group composition: from one for groups with only Dutch native speakers to a maximum of five in groups with migrant respondents. Dutch was the working language, since ethnic diversity within groups was large (>10 countries of origin). Interpretation, if needed, was provided by an assistant or a fellow group member from a similar background, sufficiently proficient in Dutch. Completion of the questionnaire took on average 30–35 min. After filling out the questionnaire, respondents received a small treat.

Data analysis

The dependent variables WTPmoney and WTPtime were recoded into seven categories. Assumptions for normality were explored. The income variable was recoded and tested with a Pearson Chi square test to check for the assumption that it could be used as independent test variable, despite the fact that 28.1 % of the respondents did not specify income (not knowing, not wanting to). There was no significant association between WTPmoney categories and whether or not respondents had specified their income (χ2 = 6.208; p > 0.05); this led to the conclusion that income could be used in the model.

The variables for age and education were recoded into categories, and assumptions for normality were checked. The scale variables Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (Cronbach’s α = 0.87) and self-efficacy (Cronbach’s α = 0.69) were calculated, recoding each item into the same direction, and excluding system missing values. An ordered probit analysis was used (SPSS22) to assess factors predicting WTPmoney and WTPtime. The different expectations for WTPmoney and WTPtime were tested, using p < 0.10 as the upper limit for statistical significance (Greene 2003; Jackson 2008).

The authors declare that the study was conducted in accordance with general ethical guidelines for behavioural and social research in the Netherlands. Participation was on a voluntary basis and guarantees of anonymity were given prior to each data collection session.

Results

Descriptive statistics

A total of 268 respondents were included, 86.6 % women and 13.4 % men, with a mean age of 58.6 years old (sd 14.0). One-third of the respondents (35.4 %) were of Dutch origin, 64.6 % of non-Dutch origin, living on average 25.5 years in the Netherlands (sd 11.4). About 25 % had a household income <€1000/month, and 26.6 % had a household income <€1350/month. Nearly half had low educational levels (48.6 %). The majority were not professionally employed (88.1 %).

Mean score on the health-related visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS scale 0–100) was 70.2 (sd 15.7), indicating reasonably good perceived health. Mean score for life satisfaction (scale 0–10) was 7.8 (sd 1.5). Most participants had a weak (34.3 %) or moderate (51.4 %) SoC, and 14.3 % had a strong SoC. Mean score on the scale for self-efficacy (scale 6–30) was 22.6 (sd 5.9), indicating fairly high levels of self-efficacy. Mean score on the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (scale 9–45) was 14.0 (sd 6.0), indicating high levels of physical activity enjoyment. About half of the respondents (52.8 %) participated <3 months in the CBHEPA programs, 47.2 % participated more than 3 months. The majority (68.9 %) exercised once a week, 28.5 % exercised more frequently. Fifty percent of the respondents paid a membership fee for the CBHEPA program, 50 % participated for free (Table 2). Membership fees ranged from €2.50 to €15.40, with an average of €6.95 (sd €4.64).

Table 2.

Characteristics of WTP respondents

Variable Value
Predictors relating to personal conditions
Gender (n = 268)
 Women 86.6 %
 Men 13.4 %
 Age (n = 253)
 Mean (sd) 58.6 (14.0)
 Range 26.64–90.64
Ethnic origin (n = 268)
 Dutch 35.4 %
 Non-Dutcha 64.6 %
Predictors relating to socio-economic conditions
Income (n = 256)
 < €1000 25.4 %
 €1001–€1350 26.6 %
 €1351–€1800 12.1 %
 > €1800 7.8 %
 Income not specified 28.1 %
Education (n = 256)
 No/primary education 48.6 %
 Secondary education 42.4 %
 College/university education 9.0 %
Predictors relating to health-related quality of life conditions
EQ-VAS (0–100) (n = 259)
 Mean (sd) 70.24 (15.74)
 Range 0–100
Life satisfaction (0–10) (n = 262)
 Mean (sd) 7.78 (1.49)
 Range 1–10
Sense of coherence (SoC3) (n = 245)
 Strong SoC (3) 14.3 %
 Moderate SoC (4–5) 51.4 %
 Weak SoC (6–9) 34.3 %
Self-efficacy scale (n = 242)
 Mean (sd) 22.56 (5.85)
 Range 8–30
Predictors relating to sport and physical activity
Participation duration in CBHEPA program (n = 254)
 <3 months 52.8 %
 3–6 months 15.4 %
 >6 months 31.9 %
Frequency (n = 267)
 <1× week 2.6 %
 1× week 68.9 %
 2× week 19.1 %
 >2× week 9.4 %
Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (n = 250)
 Mean (sd) 14.04 (5.98)
 Range 9–44
(Former) sports club member (n = 245)
 Yes 59.2 %
 No 40.8 %
Leisure-time physical activity yes/no/(n = 265)
 Yes 85.3 %
 No 14.7 %
Leisure-time sport yes/no (n = 264)
 Yes 42.8 %
 No 57.2 %
Membership fee yes/no (n = 267)
 Yes 50.2 %
 No 49.8 %
Open in a new tab

aNumber of countries of origin: 29

Willingness to pay for sport and physical activity

The average monthly WTPmoney was €9.6 (sd 10.6) (Table 3). Variation in responses was fairly large. Over 16 % of the respondents were not willing to pay at all for sport and physical activity, mostly respondents in free CBHEPA programs. A little over 25 % were willing to pay to a maximum of €5/month, 45.5 % between €6 and €20; 13.0 % were willing to pay more than €20. The maximum WTPmoney reported was €80 (n = 1). The average WTPtime was 17.6 min (sd 15.1) single journey travel time (Table 3). Two-thirds reported a maximum willingness to travel of between 5 and 20 min. The maximum WTPtime reported was 120 min (n = 1) to attend competition matches.

Table 3.

WTP for sport and physical activity across groups

Variable Amount Respondents (%)
WTPmoney (€/month) (n = 261) €0 16.4
€0–1 3.1
€2–5 22.1
€6–10 19.5
€11–15 16.8
€16–20 9.2
>€20 13.0
Mean (sd) 9.6 (10.6)
Median 7.5
WTPtime (min/single-journey) (n = 246) 0–1 2.0
2–5 6.4
6–10 16.9
11–15 27.7
16–20 17.3
21–25 7.2
>25 22.5
Mean (sd) 17.6 (15.1)
Median 12.5
Open in a new tab

Factors predicting willingness to pay for sport and physical activity

The dependent ordinal variables WTPmoney and WTPtime were entered in an ordered probit model in SPSS22. Predictors measured as ordinal or categorical variables were entered as factors, predictors measured as scale variables were entered as covariates. Cases with missing values were excluded from analysis.

As expected for WTPmoney (n = 176), our findings showed that low income (<€1000) was negatively related to WTPmoney, whereas perceived health (EQ-VAS) was positively related to WTPmoney. We also found that duration (>3 months) and frequency of participation (1× week or more), actual or former leisure-time sport participation, and physical activity enjoyment were positively related to WTPmoney (Table 4).

Table 4.

Ordered probit estimates of predictors for WTP for sport and physical activity

Variable WTPmoney (n = 176) WTPtime (n = 172)
Estimate sd Estimate sd
Personal and socio-economic
Income
 <€1000 −0.750 0.434* 1.154 0.424***
 €1001–€1350 −0.027 0.413 0.374 0.404
 €1351–€1800 0.302 0.499 0.100 0.496
 >€1800 0.381 0.665 0.197 0.656
 Not specified Reference group Reference group
 Educational level (low) 0.040 0.315 −0.442 0.314
  Age
 <50 years −0.805 0.550 −0.935 0.549*
  50–64 years −0.508 0.521 0.064 0.518
 65–75 years −0.0131 0.543 0.317 0.547
 >75 years Reference group Reference group
Ethnic origin (Dutch or non-Dutch) −0.621 0.426 0.401 0.413
Health-related quality of life
EQ-VAS 0.016 0.010* 0.013 0.010
Life satisfaction 0.004 0.099 0.128 0.096
Sense of coherence (SoC3)
 Weak SoC 0.325 0.511 −0.222 0.500
 Moderate SoC 0.250 0.478 −0.302 0.457
 Strong SoC Reference group Reference group
Self-efficacy scale −0.032 0.030 0.006 0.031
Sport and physical activity
 Duration of participation
 <3 months −0.849 0.435* −0.181 0.391
 3–6 months −0.684 0.516 0.046 0.496
 6–12 months 0.337 0.539 −0.851 0.560
 >1 year Reference group Reference group
Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale −0.048 0.026* 0.035 0.026
Frequency
 <1× week −2.920 1.152** −0.199 0.892
 1× week −0.297 0.518 −0.650 0.525
 2× week −0.351 0.546 −0.458 0.538
 >2× week Reference group Reference group
Leisure-time physical activity (no) −0.098 0.478 −0.713 0.475
Leisure-time sport (no) −0.604 0.315* −0.419 0.317
Sports club membership
 (Former) member −0.801 0.344** −0.361 0.339
 Never Reference group Reference group
Membership fee (no) −0.064 0.362 – –
−2Log Likelihood 548.914 558.589
Nagelkerke’s pseudo R2 0.393 0.199
Open in a new tab

* p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01

Contrary to our expectations, we found no relationships between educational level or ethnic origin and WTPmoney, between life satisfaction, self-efficacy or SoC and WTPmoney, and no relationship between leisure-time physical activity and WTPmoney (Table 4).

As expected for WTPtime (n = 172), our findings showed that low income (<€1000) was negatively related to WTPtime. Contrary to our expectations, age was positively related to WTPtime. People younger than 50 years of age were less willing to travel for a longer time than people over 50 years of age. Contrary to our expectations, other personal and socio-economic predictors, the health-related and the sport and physical activity-related predictors did not seem relevant for predicting WTPtime (Table 4).

In sum, sport and physical activity program-related predictors were more relevant for predicting WTPmoney than socio-economic or health predictors. Also, leisure-time physical activity did not seem relevant. For WTPtime, only two of the socio-economic predictors, income and age, seemed to be relevant. Young age is related to lower WTPtime. The expectation is confirmed for the lowest income level (<€1000) that income predicts WTP in terms of time and money. Educational level and ethnic origin seem unrelated to WTP, as well as sense of coherence, leisure-time physical activity, and paying membership fee (Table 5).

Table 5.

Summary of results for WTP for sport and physical activity

Cluster Predicting factor Expectation Who will be more likely to spend money on sport and physical activity? Who will be more likely to spend travel time on sport and physical activity? Expectation WTP accepted
Personal and socio-economic Income 1. Income is positively related to WTP Those with household incomes higher than €1000/month Those with household incomes higher than €1000/month Yes WTPmoney/time
Educational level 2. Educational level is positively related to WTP No difference between no, low, or high educational levels No difference between no, low, or high educational levels No
Age 3. Age is negatively related to WTP No difference between younger and older age Those who are over 50 years of age No, significant in opposite direction WTPtime
Ethnic origin 4. Non-Dutch origin is negatively related to WTP No difference between those of Dutch and non-Dutch origin No difference between those of Dutch and non-Dutch origin No
Health and wellbeing Perceived health status 5. Individual perceived health status is positively related to WTP Those who score higher on perceived health status No difference between those who score low or high on perceived health status Yes WTPmoney
Life satisfaction 6. Life satisfaction is positively related to WTP No difference between those who score low or high on life satisfaction No difference between those who score low or high on life satisfaction No
Sense of coherence 7. Sense of Coherence is positively related to WTP No difference between those who score low or high on SoC No difference between those who score low or high on SoC No
Self-efficacy 8. Self-efficacy is positively related to WTP No difference between those who score low or high on self-efficacy No difference between those who score low or high on self-efficacy No
Sport and physical activity program Duration 9. Duration of participation in the CBHEPA program is positively related to WTP Those who participate more than three months No difference between those who participate a shorter or longer period Yes WTPmoney
Frequency 10. Frequency of participation is positively related to WTP Those who participate once a week or more No difference between those who participated less or more frequently Yes WTPmoney
Physical activity enjoyment 11. Physical activity enjoyment is positively related to WTP Those who score higher on physical activity enjoyment No difference between those who score low or high on physical activity enjoyment Yes WTPmoney
Leisure-time physical activity 12. Additional leisure-time physical activity is positively related to WTP No difference between those who are or are not additionally physically active in leisure time No difference between those who are or are not additionally physically active in leisure time No
Leisure-time sport 13. Additional sport in leisure-time is positively related to WTP Those who do additional sport in leisure time No difference between those who do or do not do additional sport in leisure time Yes WTPmoney
Sports club membership 14. (Former) sport membership is positively related to WTP Those who are or used to be engaged in sport No difference between those who are or did not used to be engaged in sport Yes WTPmoney
Membership fee 15. Paying membership fee is positively related to WTP No difference between those who are or are not paying a membership fee for the CBHEPA program No expectation tested No
Open in a new tab

Discussion

We conducted this study to assess the WTP for sport and physical activity of participants in CBHEPA programs targeting socially vulnerable groups, expressed in money and time. Furthermore, we explored which factors predict WTP for sport and physical activity. We found relatively low WTPmoney values, with a monthly average of <€10. This can be explained by the fact that around half of our study population represent, as intended, the lowest income levels in the Netherlands (Statistics Netherlands 2014). WTP research indicates that WTP is associated with a person’s ability to pay, in other words, person’s income (Donaldson 1999; Remonnay et al. 2008; Romé et al. 2010). The fact that particularly the lowest income category (<€1000) relates negatively to WTP suggests that the association between WTP for sports and physical activity in higher income groups might be more strongly related to other factors.

Respondents’ average WTPtime is around 17 min of single journey travel time. Our findings are consistent with other studies. A Dutch study reported a value for willingness to travel to sport facilities of 15 min (Prins et al. 2010). A German study reported values for willingness to travel ranging from 16 to 35 min among adult sports consumers (Pawlowski et al. 2009). This same study suggests that willingness to travel is related to type of sport and competition enrolment, and to how people prioritise their sport and physical activities.

In selecting variables to include in this study, we expected that predictors of health-related quality of life and physical activity behaviour would also predict WTP for sport and physical activity. However, we found several differences. As expected, the personal and socio-economic predictors, income and age, are related to WTPmoney. Low income (<€1000) is significantly negatively related to both WTPmoney and WTPtime. However, contrary to our expectations and findings of other studies (Krupnick et al. 2002), age (<50 years) is negatively related to WTPtime. Probably, younger people face higher opportunity costs, i.e. benefits that could have been gained from an alternative use of the same resources (time and money) (Pampel et al. 2010), having to balance their time between household obligations, work, and leisure time. We did not find a relationship with other personal and socio-economic predictors, educational level or ethnic origin.

Of the health-related quality of life predictors, we found that perceived health is positively related to WTPmoney. This is consistent with other studies (Donaldson and Shackley 2003; Borghi and Jan 2008). We did not, however, find a relationship between WTP and life satisfaction, self-efficacy, and coping abilities (SoC). As mentioned before, we included these factors because they are well-known predictors of health-related quality of life and physical activity behaviour (Bauman et al. 2002; Hagger et al. 2002). Possibly, the reciprocal relationships between these factors have clouded our analysis used to study their relation to WTP for sport and physical activity.

Sport and physical activity-related predictors are most strongly related to WTPmoney—in particular how long and how often people participate in the program—and leisure-time sport experiences. On the basis of social cognitive theory, it can be argued that people who are or were members of a sports club haveknowledge of and experiences with sport. They might have more positive attributions to sport (Humpel et al. 2002; Nickel and Spink 2010) and are used to paying for sport (Higgins and Scholer 2009).

Our findings also indicate that respondents’ WTPmoney exceeds the actual membership fee by approximately one-third (€2.64). This suggests that socially vulnerable groups attribute positive value to sport and physical activity in CBHEPA programs (Morris et al. 2007). On the other hand, we found a substantial percentage (16 %) of participants not willing to pay at all for sport and physical activity, in particular those enrolled in free CBHEPA programs. Future research could explore further whether or not respondents’ characteristics differ between those who were willing to pay and those who were not.

It may be argued that short-term program satisfaction is probably more decisive for WTPmoney than long-term perspectives of improved health. Our findings indicate a possible time preference effect, i.e. an individual’s preference balancing between direct satisfaction from certain behaviour versus possible negative health consequences in the future (Jusot and Khlat 2013). Socially vulnerable groups generally show higher time preferences, focusing substantially on their wellbeing in the present, than high SES groups who place more emphasis on their wellbeing in the future (Chapman 2005). In this respect, our findings suggest that sport and physical activity program-related predictors best explain WTP for sport and physical activity, since these relate to actual physical activity experiences and short-term benefits. Physical activity enjoyment is an example of such a short-term benefit, as opposed to other positive health benefits (i.e. weight loss), which are future gains and therefore hard to predict (Dacey et al. 2003; Henderson 2009; Mullen et al. 2011). Our findings are consistent with research by Romé et al. (2010), who concluded that people report the highest WTP for immediate health improvements.

Assessment of WTP is presented in the health economics literature as a relatively easy method to study perceived benefits at individual level of health-related quality of life interventions in different communities and different contextual settings (Bayoumi 2004). Compared to assessing quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), estimating individual WTP has indeed some advantages, as stated in the literature: (1) WTP is theoretically grounded in welfare economics, (2) WTP does not need specification of which parts of the intervention need to be valued by respondents, and (3) WTP values express benefits in monetary terms (Donaldson et al. 1997; Olsen and Smith 2001; Shackley and Donaldson 2002). We faced, however, some methodological challenges in assessing WTP in socially vulnerable groups. First, about 16 % of our respondents are not willing to pay for sport and physical activity, and the lowest income level is negatively related to WTP, indicating that answers are probably more reflective of people’s actual income positions than of their willingness to pay (Hagberg and Lindholm 2006). As a result, our study might underestimate rather than overestimate WTPmoney values. Second, Hagberg and Lindholm (2006) state that less educated respondents may show less understanding of the real and hypothetical situations as examined in WTP. This is consistent with our observations during the study, in which respondents occasionally seemed unable to distinguish between what they could afford and what they were willing to pay for sport and physical activity. It is also consistent with the negative relationship we found between WTP and low income. Third, respondents may have responded strategically in the hope that their answers would influence the actual pricing of their CBHEPA programs, as has been found in other studies (Smith 2003; Morris et al. 2007).

We addressed the methodological challenges by using closed-ended WTP questions. As the WTP data collection was integrated in a more comprehensive questionnaire to evaluate CBHEPA program outcomes, we tried to keep questions concerning different topics as concise and clear as possible, in view of our target group. Questionnaire use can be difficult in socially vulnerable groups. Lack of health literacy, lack of basic skills in reading and writing, and different beliefs about (health) concepts across cultures may lead to difficulties in understanding and interpreting the questions (Bonevski et al. 2014), eventually leading to non-response (Feskens et al. 2006). Our approach contributed to clarity and uniformity of data collection procedures within and between groups. In line with recommended procedures for WTP data collection, suggested by Smith (2003), offering the necessary specifications of the context and the service that people are valuing, our data collection in context, i.e. during the exercise class, contributes to the methodological robustness of our WTP study. On the other hand, our predefined WTP response categories may have limited people’s choice. Group-wise data collection may also have had an impact on individual WTP responses.

Conclusion

Our assumptions that factors predicting health-related quality of life and WTP for health improvements may be relevant for predicting WTP for sport and physical activity are not unequivocally supported in this study. People from socially vulnerable groups, active in CBHEPA programs, are willing to pay for sport and physical activity, albeit low amounts. WTP in terms of money is significantly related to income and (former) experiences in sport and physical activity. WTP in terms of travel time is significantly related to income and age. Our findings for WTP for sport and physical activity are in line with studies reporting that WTP is not responsive to changes in health over time, indicating that health improvements over time do not simply result in a positive change in WTP (Harris et al. 2013). Income and short-term program satisfaction are probably more decisive for WTPmoney than long-term perspectives of improving health-related quality of life. Awareness of these factors predicting WTP could contribute to future policy and development of CBHEPA programs, focusing on service provision to enhance people’s behavioural competences for physical activity maintenance and program satisfaction rather than aiming at long-term health improvements.

Authors’ contributions

MH was the first author of the manuscript and conducted the study. JO and MH jointly conducted the analyses. All authors contributed to the drafting and revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The study is funded by ZonMw, the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (Project No. 50-51505-98-103). The Netherlands Institute for Sport and Physical Activity (NISB) developed the Communities on the Move program and is the collaborating agency. We express our appreciation to the experts who peer-reviewed the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Abbreviations

CBHEPA

community-based health enhancing physical activity

CoM

communities on the move

CVM

contingent valuation method

EQ-VAS

EuroQoL visual analogue scale

NISB

Netherlands Institute for Sport and Physical Activity

QALY

quality-adjusted life years

SES

socio-economic status

SoC

sense of coherence

SQUASH

Short Questionnaire for Sport and Physical Activity

WTP

willingness to pay

Contributor Information

Marion C. Herens, Phone: +31 (0) 6 3175 3714, Email: marion.herens@wur.nl

Johan A. C. van Ophem, Email: johan.vanophem@wur.nl

Annemarie M. A. E. Wagemakers, Email: annemarie.wagemakers@wur.nl

Maria A. Koelen, Email: maria.koelen@wur.nl

References

  1. Antonovsky A. The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion. Health Promot Int. 1996;11(1):11–18. doi: 10.1093/heapro/11.1.11. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bandura A. Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bandura A (2006) Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In: Pajares F, Urdan T (eds) Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Information Age Publishing Inc., pp 307–337
  4. Bauman AE, Sallis JF, Dzewaltowski DA, Owen N. Toward a better understanding of the influences on physical activity: the role of determinants, correlates, causal variables, mediators, moderators, and confounders. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23(2):5–14. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00469-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bayoumi AM. The measurement of contingent valuation for health economics. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(11):691–700. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200422110-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bonevski B, Randell M, Paul C, Chapman K, Twyman L, Bryant J, Brozek I, Hughes C. Reaching the hard-to-reach: a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:42. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Borghi J, Jan S. Measuring the benefits of health promotion programmes: application of the contingent valuation method. Health Policy. 2008;87(2):235–248. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.01.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bos V, Kunst AE, Keij-Deerenberg IM, Garssen J, Mackenbach JP. Ethnic inequalities in age-and cause-specific mortality in The Netherlands. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33(5):1112–1119. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyh189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bowling A. Measuring health; a review of quality of life measurement scales. 3. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cantril H. The pattern of human concerns. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press; 1965. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cawley J. An economic framework for understanding physical activity and eating behaviors. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27(3, Supplement):117–125. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.06.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Centre for Policy-related Statistics . Sport in beeld: De bijdrage van sport aan de Nederlandse economie in 2006, 2008 en 2010 [Sports in the picture: the contribution of sports to the Dutch economy in 2006, 2007 and 2010] Den Haag/Heerlen: Statistics Netherlands; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chapman GB. Short-term cost for long-term benefit: time preference and cancer control. Health Psychol. 2005;24(4S):S41. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cockerham WC. New directions in health lifestyle research. Int J Public Health. 2007;52(6):327–328. doi: 10.1007/s00038-007-0227-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Craig CL, Lambert EV, Inoue S, Alkandari JR, Leetongin G, Kahlmeier S. The pandemic of physical inactivity: global action for public health. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):294–305. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60898-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Crespo CJ, Smit E, Carter-Pokras O, Andersen R. Acculturation and leisure-time physical inactivity in Mexican American adults: results from NHANES III, 1988–1994. Am J Prev Med. 2001;91(8):1254–1257. doi: 10.2105/ajph.91.8.1254. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dacey M, Baltzell A, Zaichkowsky L. Factors in women’s maintenance of vigorous or moderate physical activity. Women Sport Phys Act J. 2003;12(1):87–111. [Google Scholar]
  18. De Hollander EL, Zwart L, de Vries SI, Wendel-Vos W. The SQUASH was a more valid tool than the OBiN for categorizing adults according to the Dutch physical activity and the combined guideline. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(1):73–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.05.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. De Wit GA, Tariq L, Van Gils PF, Panneman MJM. Over euro en effect: handleiding voor economisch evaluatieonderzoek bij gezondheidsbevordering [About euro and impact: manual for economic evaluation in health promotion] Arnhem: Consumer Safety Institute; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  20. Dijst M, Vidakovic V. Travel time ratio: the key factor of spatial reach. Transportation. 2000;27(2):179–199. doi: 10.1023/A:1005293330869. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Donaldson C. Valuing the benefits of publicly-provided health care: does ‘ability to pay’ preclude the use of ‘willingness to pay’? Soc Sci Med. 1999;49(4):551–563. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00173-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Donaldson C, Shackley P. Willingness to pay for health care. In: Scott A, Maynard A, Elliott R, editors. Advances in health economics. Sussex: Wiley Online Library; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  23. Donaldson C, Farrar S, Mapp T, Walker A, Macphee S. Assessing community values in health care: is the ‘willingness to pay’ method feasible? Health Care Anal. 1997;5(1):7–29. doi: 10.1007/BF02678452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Downward P, Rasciute S. Does sport make you happy? An analysis of the well-being derived from sports participation. Int Rev Appl Econ. 2011;25(3):331–348. doi: 10.1080/02692171.2010.511168. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  26. Eriksson M, Lindström B. Validity of Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2005;59(6):460–466. doi: 10.1136/jech.2003.018085. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Eriksson M, Lindström B. Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale and its relation with quality of life: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2007;61(11):938–944. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.056028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Feskens R, Hox J, Lensvelt-Mulders G, Schmeets H. Collecting data among ethnic minorities in an international perspective. Field Method. 2006;18(3):284–304. doi: 10.1177/1525822X06288756. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. GAPA (2012) WHO monitoring framework and targets for the prevention and control of NCDs; position statement #2 support for the inclusion of a global target on physical activity. Global Advocacy for Physical Activity (GAPA)
  30. Greene WH. Econometric analysis. 5. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall International; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hagberg LA, Lindholm L. Review article: cost-effectiveness of healthcare-based interventions aimed at improving physical activity. Scand J Public Health. 2006;34(6):641–653. doi: 10.1080/14034940600627853. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hagger MS, Chatzisarantis NLD, Biddle SJH. A meta-analytic review of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior in physical activity: predictive validity and the contribution of additional variables. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2002;24(1):3–32. [Google Scholar]
  33. Harris A, Youd J, Buchbinder R. A comparison of directly elicited and pre-scored preference-based measures of quality of life: the case of adhesive capsulitis. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(10):2963–2971. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0415-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hawe P, Shiell A. Social capital and health promotion: a review. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(6):871–885. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00067-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Henderson KA. A paradox of sport management and physical activity interventions. Sport Man Rev. 2009;12(2):57–65. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2008.12.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Herens M, Wagemakers A, Vaandrager L, Van Ophem J, Koelen M. Evaluation design for community-based physical activity programs for socially disadvantaged groups—the case of communities on the move. JMIR Res Proc. 2013 doi: 10.2196/resprot.2327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Higgins ET, Scholer AA. Engaging the consumer: the science and art of the value creation process. J Consum Psychol. 2009;19(2):100–114. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2009.02.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Hildebrandt V, Bernaards C, Stubbe J. Trend report physical activity and health 2010/2011. Leiden: TNO Innovation for Life; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  39. Humpel N, Owen N, Leslie E. Environmental factors associated with adults’ participation in physical activity: a review. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22(3):188–199. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00426-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Jackson D. The significance level of meta-regression’s standard hypothesis test. Commun Stat. 2008;37(10):1576–1590. doi: 10.1080/03610920801893863. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Johannesson M, Johansson PO. Quality of life and the WTP for an increased life expectancy at an advanced age. J Public Econ. 1997;65(2):219–228. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(97)00014-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Johnson BK, Whitehead JC, Mason DS, Walker GJ. Willingness to pay for amateur sport and recreation programs. Contemp Econ Policy. 2007;25(4):553–564. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.00072.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Jusot F, Khlat M. The role of time and risk preferences in smoking inequalities: a population-based study. Addict Behav. 2013;38(5):2167–2173. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.12.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy. 1999;47(2):97–123. doi: 10.1016/S0168-8510(99)00010-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Krupnick A, Alberini A, Cropper M, Simon N, O’Brien BJ, Goeree R, Heintzelman M. Age, health and the willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: a contingent valuation survey of Ontario residents. J Risk Uncertain. 2002;24(2):161–186. doi: 10.1023/A:1014020027011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Kyle GT, Absher JD, Hammitt WE, Cavin J. An examination of the motivation—involvement relationship. Leis Sci. 2006;28(5):467–485. doi: 10.1080/01490400600851320. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Lehnert K, Sudeck G, Conzelmann A. Subjective well-being and exercise in the second half of life: a critical review of theoretical approaches. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act. 2012;9(2):87–102. doi: 10.1007/s11556-012-0095-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Lindström M, Hanson BS, Östergren P-O. Socioeconomic differences in leisure-time physical activity: the role of social participation and social capital in shaping health related behaviour. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(3):441–451. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00153-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. López-Mosquera N, Sánchez M. Direct and indirect effects of received benefits and place attachment in willingness to pay and loyalty in suburban natural areas. J Environ Psychol. 2013;34:27–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.11.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Lorgelly PK, Lawson KD, Fenwick EAL, Briggs AH. Outcome measurement in economic evaluations of public health interventions: a role for the capability approach? Int J Environ Res Pub Health. 2010;7(5):2274–2289. doi: 10.3390/ijerph7052274. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Marcus BH, Selby VC, Niaura RS, Rossi JS. Self-efficacy and the stages of exercise behavior change. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1992;63(1):60–66. doi: 10.1080/02701367.1992.10607557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. McAuley E, Blissmer B. Self-efficacy determinants and consequences of physical activity. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2000;28(2):85–88. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. McCarville RE. An empirical investigation of the influence of cost information on willingness to pay for public aerobics classes. Leis Sci. 1991;13(2):85–96. doi: 10.1080/01490409109513128. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Ministry of Health Welfare and Sports (2006) Samen voor sport [together for sport]. Implementation program 2006–2010. Ministry of Health Welfare and Sports, Den Haag
  55. Ministry of Health Welfare and Sports (2012) Sport en bewegen in de buurt [sport and physical activity in the neighbourhood]. Ministry of Health Welfare and Sports. http://www.sportindebuurt.nl/buurtsportcoaches/wat-zijn-buurtsportcoaches/. Accessed 02 Dec 2014
  56. Morris S, Devlin N, Parkin D. Economic analysis in health care. Chichester: Wiley; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  57. Mullen SP, Olson EA, Phillips SM, Szabo AN, Wójcicki TR, Mailey EL, Gothe NP, Fanning JT, Kramer AF, McAuley E. Measuring enjoyment of physical activity in older adults: invariance of the Physical ACtivity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) across groups and time. Int J Behav Nutr Phy. 2011;8(1):103. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Murphy SM, Edwards RT, Williams N, Raisanen L, Moore G, Linck P, Hounsome N, Din NU, Moore L. An evaluation of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the National Exercise Referral Scheme in Wales, UK: a randomised controlled trial of a public health policy initiative. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2012;66(8):745–753. doi: 10.1136/jech-2011-200689. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) (2005) Local and national health monitor. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). https://www.monitorgezondheid.nl/. Accessed 24 Sept 2014
  60. Nickel D, Spink KS. Attributions and self-regulatory efficacy for health-related physical activity. J Health Psychol. 2010;15(1):53–63. doi: 10.1177/1359105309345172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of ‘willingness to pay’ in health and health care. Health Econ. 2001;10(1):39–52. doi: 10.1002/1099-1050(200101)10:1&#x0003c;39::AID-HEC563&#x0003e;3.0.CO;2-E. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Olsen JA, Donaldson C, Pereira J. The insensitivity of willingness-to-pay to the size of the good: new evidence for health care. J Econ Psychol. 2004;25(4):445–460. doi: 10.1016/S0167-4870(03)00029-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Olsson M, Gassne J, Hansson K. Do different scales measure the same construct? Three sense of coherence scales. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2009;63(2):166–167. doi: 10.1136/jech.2007.063420. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Pampel FC, Krueger PM, Denney JT. Socioeconomic disparities in health behaviors. Annu Rev Sociol. 2010;36(August):349. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Pawlowski T, Breuer C, Wicker P, Poupaux S. Travel time spending behaviour in recreational sports: an econometric approach with management implications. Eur Sport Manag Q. 2009;9(3):215–242. doi: 10.1080/16184740903023971. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Peters LL, Boter H, Buskens E, Slaets JPJ. Measurement properties of the Groningen frailty indicator in home-dwelling and institutionalized elderly people. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012;13(6):546–551. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2012.04.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Post NAM, de Bekker-Grob EW, Mackenbach JP, Slobbe LCJ (2010) Kosten van preventie in Nederland 2007 [costs of prevention in the Netherlands 2007]. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven
  68. Prins RG, van Empelen P, te Velde SJ, Timperio A, van Lenthe FJ, Tak NI, Crawford D, Brug J, Oenema A. Availability of sports facilities as moderator of the intention–sports participation relationship among adolescents. Health Educ Res. 2010;25(3):489–497. doi: 10.1093/her/cyq024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Putnam RD. Bowling alone. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  70. Remonnay R, Havet N, Morelle M, Carrère MO (2008) Analyzing the determinants of willingness-to-pay values for testing the validity of the contingent valuation method: application to home care compared to hospital care, vols 08–20. HAL Open Archives, Écully
  71. Rhodes RE, Courneya KS, Blanchard CM, Plotnikoff RC. Prediction of leisure-time walking: an integration of social cognitive, perceived environmental, and personality factors. Int J Behav Nutr Phy. 2007;4(1):51. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-4-51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Romé A, Persson U, Ekdahl C, Gard G. Willingness to pay for health improvements of physical activity on prescription. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38(2):151–159. doi: 10.1177/1403494809357099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Ross CE, Wu CL. The links between education and health. Am Sociol Rev. 1995;60(5):719–745. doi: 10.2307/2096319. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Rütten A, Abel T, Kannas L, Von Lengerke T, Lüschen G, Diaz JAR, Vinck J, Van der Zee J. Self reported physical activity, public health, and perceived environment: results from a comparative European study. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2001;55(2):139–146. doi: 10.1136/jech.55.2.139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Shackley P, Donaldson C. Should we use willingness to pay to elicit community preferences for health care? New evidence from using a ‘marginal’ approach. J Health Econ. 2002;21(6):971–991. doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(02)00052-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Skinner J, Zakus DH, Cowell J. Development through sport: building social capital in disadvantaged communities. Sport Man Rev. 2008;11(3):253–275. doi: 10.1016/S1441-3523(08)70112-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Smith RD. Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. Health Econ. 2003;12(8):609–628. doi: 10.1002/hec.755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Statistics Netherlands (2014) Welvaart in Nederland 2014 [prosperity in the Netherlands]. Statistics Netherlands, Heerlen
  79. The EuroQol Group EuroQol: new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Van Stralen MM, De Vries H, Mudde AN, Bolman C, Lechner L. Determinants of initiation and maintenance of physical activity among older adults: a literature review. Health Psychol Rev. 2009;3(2):147–207. doi: 10.1080/17437190903229462. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Victoor A, Delnoij DMJ, Friele RD, Rademakers JJDJM. Determinants of patient choice of healthcare providers: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):272. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Wendel-Vos GCW, Schuit AJ, Saris WHM, Kromhout D. Reproducibility and relative validity of the short questionnaire to assess health-enhancing physical activity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(12):1163–1169. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00220-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Wendel-Vos G, Dutman AE, Verschuren W, Ronckers ET, Ament A, van Assema P, van Ree J, Ruland EC, Schuit AJ. Lifestyle factors of a five-year community-intervention program: the Hartslag Limburg intervention. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37(1):50–56. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.03.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. WHO . Physical activity and health in Europe: evidence for action. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  85. WHO (2012) Comprehensive global monitoring framework and voluntary global targets for the prevention and control of NCDs. World Health Organisation. http://www.who.int/nmh/events/2011/consultation_dec_2011/WHO_Discussion_Paper_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 24 Sept 2014

Articles from SpringerPlus are provided here courtesy of Springer-Verlag

RESOURCES