Skip to main content
. 2021 Jul 20;18(14):7686. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18147686

Table 2.

Interview participant details.

Individual Social Environment Policy
Participant Center Age Sex PA Level HBB FR P SA SSSI DIC PS PF OPB W LWP SC
PUB1 Public 82 F Inactive
PUB2 Public 69 F Active
PUB3 Public 70 F Inactive
PUB4 Public 73 M Active
PUB5 Public 83 M Active
PUB6 Public 73 M Active
PUB7 Public 83 M Active
PUB8 Public 60 M Active
PUB9 Public 72 M Active
PUB10 Public 69 F Active
PUB11 Public 73 F Active
PUB12 Public 77 M Inactive
PUB13 Public 76 F Active
PUB14 Public 78 F Active
PUB15 Public 69 M Active
PUB16 Public 72 F Inactive
PUB17 Public 81 F Active
PUB18 Public 84 M Active
PUB19 Public 70 F Active
PUB20 Public 68 M Inactive
PRI1 Private 66 F Active
PRI2 Private 71 M Inactive
PRI3 Private 73 M Active
PRI4 Private 68 M Inactive
PRI5 Private 65 M Active
PRI6 Private 70 F Inactive
PRI7 Private 68 M Active
PRI8 Private 67 F Inactive
PRI9 Private 72 M Active
PRI10 Private 69 F Active
PRI11 Private 71 F Active
PRI12 Private 79 F Active
PRI13 Private 91 F Inactive
PRI14 Private 86 M Inactive
PRI15 Private 66 F Inactive
PRI16 Private 78 F Inactive
PRI17 Private 53 M Active
PRI18 Private 72 M Active

Note: HBB: health benefits and barriers; FR: fall risk; P: perseverance; SA: a suitable activity for older adults; SSSI: social support and social interaction; DIC: density, land-use mix, and connectivity; PS: perceived safety; PF: pedestrian facilities; OPB: other pedestrian behaviors; W: weather; LWP: lack of walking programs in the community; SC: supportive culture for an active lifestyle.