VOLUME 1: NO. 4
OCTOBER 2004
Use of a Community Trail Among 
New and Habitual Exercisers: A
Preliminary Assessment
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Suggested citation for this article: Gordon PM, Zizzi SJ,
Pauline J. Use of a community trail among new and habit-
ual exercisers: a preliminary assessment. Prev Chronic Dis
[serial online] 2004 Oct [date cited]. Available from: URL:
http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2004/oct/04_0058.htm.
PEER REVIEWED
Abstract
Introduction
We evaluated physical activity patterns and trail use
among new and habitually active exercisers using onsite
trail interviews.
Methods
Using a cross-sectional study design, 414 adults who
accessed two new trails that bisect a rural community of
26,809 residents were interviewed during the first summer
of the trails’ official operation (2001). The trails comprise 12
miles of level and paved surface and run parallel to adja-
cent water sheds, businesses, and neighborhoods. Recent
trail activity patterns were obtained, including the follow-
ing: frequency of use, mode of activity, duration, distance
traveled on trail, access points, time of day used, use of
exercise companions, and distance traveled to get to trail.
Perceived enablers and barriers related to trail use were
also obtained. Data were compared between newly adopted
exercisers (new exercisers) and individuals active prior to
development of the trails (habitually active exercisers).
Results
Twenty-three percent of the trail users were new exercis-
ers. New exercisers were more dependent on the trails as a
primary outlet for physical activity than were habitually
active exercisers (P < .001). New exercisers traveled short-
er distances to access the trails and rated convenience as a
primary reason for using them. Both safety and terrain
issues emerged as enablers for trail use, and unsafe condi-
tions emerged as a concern among new exercisers.
Conclusion
A community trail may be an important vehicle for pro-
moting physically active lifestyles. However, new exercis-
ers must overcome issues of proximal and safe access from
residential areas in addition to other safety concerns to
achieve regular physical activity.
Introduction
Although the health benefits of physical activity are now
well established (1), 55% of Americans do not meet the
minimal physical activity recommendations for health (2).
Environmental and policy approaches to promoting physi-
cal activity have been recommended to change the physi-
cal and social environments that individuals inhabit.
Public health officials theorize that when suitable facilities
are available to community residents, physical activity lev-
els increase (3,4). Healthy People 2010 objectives recom-
mend creating and enhancing access to places and facili-
ties where people can be physically active (5).
Furthermore, the Task Force on Community Preventive
Services has recently issued a strong recommendation for
policy and environmental approaches that create or
enhance access to places for physical activity, along with
information outreach activities, as an intervention to
increase community physical activity levels (6). 
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only
and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2004/oct/04_0058.htm • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1
Paul M. Gordon, PhD, MPH, Samuel J. Zizzi, EdD, Jeff Pauline, EdD
VOLUME 1: NO. 4
OCTOBER 2004
One example of an environmental and policy approach
to increase physical activity in the community is the devel-
opment of a walking/bicycling trail. A community walk-
ing/bicycling trail can be a relatively low-cost intervention
that may facilitate physical activity by reducing barriers
related to cost, convenience, and accessibility (7,8).
Moreover, because the trail is a permanent fixture within
the community, it may facilitate the maintenance of a
physically active lifestyle. Brownson et al examined the
characteristics and possible impact of walking-trail devel-
opment and suggested that walking trails may be particu-
larly effective at reaching populations at high risk for inac-
tive behaviors (9). Although recent studies have included
trails as examples of physical environmental attributes of
an active community (10), community walking/biking
trails in particular have not been well studied. One recent
investigation in Australia found that a newly constructed
rail trail accompanied by a local promotional campaign
increased cycling (11). More studies are needed to assess
the importance of a community walking/biking trail on
influencing physical activity levels.
It is not known how important a trail is among individ-
uals who have newly adopted exercise habits. Nor is it
known if the types of physical activity and patterns of trail
use differ between new exercisers and habitually active
exercisers. Although health officials have theorized that
community recreation trails can provide convenient and
accessible opportunities for engaging in regular physical
activity, little data are available to describe the trails’
importance, particularly among those who are transition-
ing toward an active lifestyle. In addition, the barriers and
enablers to trail use, which may differ between new and
habitually active exercisers, are important to understand-
ing how to facilitate this transition. This information will
provide health officials with insights that may be useful
for promoting trail use and active lifestyles among resi-
dents within their communities.
Methods
Design
A cross-sectional study used data from an onsite inter-
view survey of physical activity patterns, barriers, and
enablers to trail use among adults using two new rail
trails within the city of Morgantown, WVa.
The Caperton and Decker’s Creek trails comprise 12
miles of paved trails that bisect the town and run adjacent
to the Monongahela River and Decker’s Creek, respective-
ly. These trails also extend outside the city limits with an
additional 14 miles of unpaved trails. Construction on
these trails was completed in spring 2001. Rail trails are
multiuse pathways constructed on abandoned railway
beds and can be used for both recreational and trans-
portation-related physical activity (12). In addition to
stretching along waterways, these level trails intersect
neighborhoods and business establishments within 
city limits.
Sample
An interceptor-based survey approach was used
instead of a population-based survey approach because
of its better ability to identify and probe for trail users’
perceptions and attitudes. Trained interviewers admin-
istered the Recreation Trail Evaluation Survey (RTES)
to a sample of 414 adult trail users who lived in
Monongalia County, West Virginia. Graduate students
were trained to interview participants using skills train-
ing developed from other physical-activity interview-
driven questionnaires (13). During training, interview-
ers reviewed and discussed the RTES questionnaire,
rehearsed several practice interviews, and received
grades on proficiency. Important features of the training
sessions included clear explanations of the frame of ref-
erence for each question, how to control the pace and
structure of the interview, and how and when to use
prompts and other questions. To assure consistency, the
same interviewers participated in the RTES pilot study
prior to the study’s initiation. Interviews were conducted
two times per day using a randomized schedule that
included predetermined blocks of time (7-10:00 AM, 11-
2:00 PM, 3-6:00 PM, and 6-9:00 PM) and five different trail
access points to ensure that samples fairly represented
time of day, location on trail, and time of week (i.e., week-
end vs weekday). The influence of weather was recognized
as a possible limitation to data collection, but poor weath-
er rarely occurred during data collection. The trail inter-
view took approximately five to 10 minutes per participant
to complete. Trail interviews took place for four weeks
from June–July 2001. A true survey response rate (num-
ber of participants divided by total number of individuals
who used the trails during the interview sessions) was not
attained because of the way data were collected: some indi-
viduals may have passed by while interviews were being
2
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention • www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2004/oct/04_0058.htm
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only
and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
conducted. Nevertheless, 98% of all individuals who were
approached were willing to participate. Willingness to par-
ticipate in the study was high perhaps due to the novelty
of newly developed trails in a smaller community and
because the investigation took place shortly after their
opening. Moreover, we did not infringe upon the partici-
pants’ right to exercise. Rather, participants were inter-
viewed as they entered or exited the various trailheads,
and interviewers sometimes walked along with the exer-
cisers during interviews. To prevent duplication, partici-
pants were asked at the start of the survey if they had pre-
viously been interviewed.
Measures
The RTES measured recent trail physical activity pat-
terns and included information on up to two types of phys-
ical activity performed on the trails (Appendix). The sur-
vey’s exercise components queried participants on fre-
quency and duration of activity, distance traveled on trail,
and points of access for each type of activity. The question
format used for the exercise components was similar to the
format used by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
System (BRFSS) (14). In addition, information was
obtained on time of day, exercise companions, and method
and distance traveled to get to the trail. Additionally, all
respondents were asked if they participated in any of 10
non-trail physical activities in the previous month. These
activities included walking, aerobic dance, bicycling, golf-
ing, strength training, gardening, jogging/running, swim-
ming/water exercises, organized team sports, and house-
work. Non-trail recreational patterns were assessed based
on each activity’s type, duration, and frequency.
In addition to self-reported distance traveled on the trail,
actual distances were also calculated by premeasuring dis-
tances between access points and landmarks using an
odometer wheel. Subjects were asked to identify points
traveled on the trail (entry, turnaround, and exit) and the
actual distance was calculated. Because there were no sig-
nificant differences between self-reported and actual dis-
tance traveled on the trail, actual distance traveled is
reported in the present study.
Each perceived enabler and barrier to trail use was
measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 =
not at all important to 5 = most important.  Enablers were
defined as reasons for using the trail and included safety,
scenery/environment, terrain (e.g., flat, paved), conven-
ience, and atmosphere. Barriers were defined as items
that 
may 
prevent 
participants 
from 
using 
the 
trail more and included safety issues, parking, 
accessibility, facilities, maintenance, and congestion.
Using an open-ended question format, interviewers 
also asked participants to identify their primary 
enabler or barrier. Social and demographic information
was collected on age, sex, marital status, race, employment
status, educational attainment, and individual income
level.
An initial pilot survey was developed from several
existing documents that were obtained from similar stud-
ies (9,15) and tested over a three-week period. A sample
was obtained at five key access points along the trail
within the city limits to yield 161 users that included 90
female and 71 male adult respondents ranging in age
from 18 to 82. Three expert reviewers analyzed results
from the pilot survey to identify possible issues of clarity.
Minor revisions to the trail user survey were made to
address problems. While reliability measures are known
for questions obtained from the BRFSS, no specific psy-
chometric measures were obtained for the completed
RTES survey. The finalized survey consisted of 33 closed
and open-ended items.
Of primary interest to this investigation was to deter-
mine if the addition of the trail into the community
caused any trail users to adopt new physical activity pro-
grams. Consequently, participants were asked, “Did you
exercise regularly [more than three times per week for 20
minutes] before using this trail?” Three times per week
was used as the frequency threshold for regular exercisers
because of the associated health benefits that may exist
among vigorous exercisers (1). This construct was
designed to determine whether participants were cur-
rently engaged in a pattern of regular physical activity
rather than to identify the prevalence of individuals meet-
ing physical activity recommendations for health. Ninety-
three (22.5%) trail users responded “no” to this question
and were classified as new exercisers. The remaining 321
(77.5%) participants who answered “yes” were classified
as habitually active exercisers. To determine differences
that might exist between new exercisers and habitually
active exercisers, comparisons of physical activity pat-
terns and preferences for trail use were analyzed. Among
all survey respondents, 94% were attaining 150 minutes
of leisure-time physical activity per week, the amount 
recommended by the surgeon general (1).
VOLUME 1: NO. 4
OCTOBER 2004
www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2004/oct/04_0058.htm • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
3
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only
and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
VOLUME 1: NO. 4
OCTOBER 2004
This investigation was approved by the Human
Subject’s Institutional Review Board at West Virginia
University.
Analysis
Survey data were analyzed to determine the uses and
usefulness of newly developed trails for physical activity
within a community. The primary research question relat-
ed to how many of the trail users in the sample were new
exercisers and how many were habitually active prior to
trail completion. After grouping participants, a series of
analyses were conducted to explore potential demograph-
ic, behavioral, and motivational differences related to trail
use between groups. All data were coded and entered into
an SPSS 10.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill) statistical software
database for analyses. Chi-square analyses were conduct-
ed to determine differences in proportions. In addition, an
independent t-test was used to test for differences in phys-
ical activity variables (e.g., frequency, duration, distance)
between groups.
Results
The sample (n = 414) was 94.4% white (n = 391), 44.9%
male (n = 186), and 55.1% female (n = 228). Table 1 sum-
marizes the primary demographic characteristics of the
community trail users in this survey. These characteristics
are representative of the community population.
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Monongalia County,
West Virginia, is 93% white and 50% female (16). The age
distribution for the county is as follows: 18–25 years =
22.0%; 26–35 years = 19.2%; 36–45 years = 17.8%; 46–64
years = 26.8%; and older than 65 years = 14.2%. The age
distribution of the survey sample is comparable to the cen-
sus distribution, except the sample had fewer respondents
older than 65 (6.5%).
Impact of trail on physical activity rates
Ninety-three (22.5%) trail users were classified as new
exercisers, and 321 (77.5%) participants were classified as
habitually active exercisers. A two-way chi-square analy-
sis was performed to determine differences between
groups across sex, age, and employment status. These
analyses revealed no significant differences, suggesting
that new exercisers and habitually active exercisers share
similar demographic profiles. Analyses were also used to
compare the frequency of additional physical activity
reported between new and previously active exercisers. All
respondents were asked if they had participated in any of
10 various physical activities (e.g., aerobic dance, swim-
ming, team sports, housework, gardening) in the previous
month. The total number of activities for each participant
was computed, and an independent t-test was conducted to
test the hypothesis. Habitually active exercisers reported
significantly more frequency of additional physical activi-
ty (mean = 1.83 occurences; SD = 1.2) than new exercisers
(mean = 1.2 occurences; SD = 1.1), t (412) = 4.51, P < .001.
Additionally, more than twice as many new exercisers
(31%) than habitually active exercisers (15%) reported
that the trail was their only form of physical activity.
Nearly all (98%) of the new exercisers reported that
their exercise amounts had increased when asked, “Since
using the trail, has the amount of exercise that you do
increased, decreased, or stayed the same?” Only 52% of
the habitually active exercisers reported an increase.
Conversely, 48% of habitually active exercisers and only
2% of new exercisers reported that their exercise amounts
stayed the same. These data suggest that the physical
activity patterns of nearly one half of habitually active
exercisers were not impacted by the addition of the trail.
Moreover, the perceived improvement in physical activity
levels between new and habitually active exercisers was
significantly different (X2[4] = 120.54, P < .001), with new
exercisers reporting much greater increases in physical
activity than habitually active exercisers with the addi-
tion of the trail (Figure).
Types and patterns of physical activity on the trail
New exercisers traveled shorter distances to access the
trails compared with habitually active exercisers (2.9 ± 3.4
miles vs 3.9 ± 6.0 miles; P = .03). The majority of respon-
dents traveled to the trails by vehicle (81%). However, new
exercisers were more likely to walk (18%) to the trails than
habitually active exercisers (10.1%) (P = .04). Overall,
these two groups differed in their patterns of physical
activity on the trails. New exercisers were also more like-
ly to walk (58% to 42%), less likely to run or jog (11% to
17%), and less likely to in-line skate (4% to 11%) than
habitually active exercisers (X2[3] = 9.15, P = .02).
Comparisons of average time and distance on the trails
provide further support to the hypothesis that habitually
active exercisers are engaging in different modes or high-
4
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention • www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2004/oct/04_0058.htm
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only
and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
er exercise intensities com-
pared with new exercisers.
Habitually active exercisers
traveled greater distances
(P = .03) on the trail (6.64 ±
5.7 miles) than new exercis-
ers (5.41 ± 3.7 miles) but did
not spend a longer amount
of time exercising (57.2 ±
30.1 min) than new exercis-
ers (59.6 ± 30.2 min).
Additionally, the frequency
of weekly trail use averaged
3.4 (± 2.1) days per week in
the entire sample. No sig-
nificant difference in week-
ly trail use was observed
between new exercisers
(3.63 ± 1.5 days) and habit-
ually active individuals (3.3
± 2.3 days).
Enablers and barriers to trail use
Table 2 presents the mean Likert-scale ratings of per-
ceived enablers and barriers to trail use among new and
habitually active exercisers. Participants were asked to
rank each enabler and barrier, and rankings for enablers
and barriers based on their aggregate level of importance
were assigned by the investigators. New exercisers ranked
enablers in the following order of importance: 1) conven-
ience, 2) terrain, 3) safety, 4) scenery, and 5) atmosphere.
In contrast, habitual exercisers ranked enablers in this
order: 1) terrain, 2) convenience, 3) scenery, 4) safety, and
5) atmosphere. Mean ratings of enablers differed between
groups. New exercisers rated safety (P = .03), terrain (P =
.04), and convenience (P = .001) as significantly more
important than habitually active exercisers. New exercis-
ers rated unsafe conditions as a significantly higher barri-
er than habitually active exercisers (P = .04), although
mean scores (3.1 ± 1.6) were in the middle of the five-point
scale. All other perceived enablers and barriers were sim-
ilar for both groups.
Discussion
In this preliminary investigation, improvements in
physical activity behavior occurred as a result of adding a
community walking/biking
trail, particularly among
previously inactive partici-
pants. Approximately 25% of
the trail users became regu-
lar exercisers (three or more
times a week) as a result of
the development of the trail.
Moreover, new exercisers
were much more dependent
on the trail as a principal
place for engaging in physi-
cal activity than those who
exercised regularly prior to
trail development. Thirty-
one percent of new exercisers
used the trail as the only
venue for physical activity.
This suggests that recre-
ational trails may be a pow-
erful vehicle for physical
activity promotion, particu-
larly among previously inactive individuals. Brownson et
al suggested that within rural communities, sedentary
individuals may be the most likely to benefit from walking
trails (9). Although Morgantown, WVa, is a city of 26,809
residents, it is located in a rural region where there is lit-
tle opportunity to safely engage in walking for physical
activity. With narrow streets that lack traffic-calming
strategies, bike lanes, and sidewalks, the community is not
conducive for walking or bicycling. The introduction of a
safe and convenient area to walk may be an excellent
physical activity promotion tool. In a recent review of the
effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity,
the Guide to Community Preventive Services proposed that
creating access to places for physical activity, combined
with informational outreach, is an effective means for
increasing physical activity levels (6). The current investi-
gation supports this recommendation.
New exercisers also traveled shorter distances to access
the trail, implying that residential proximity to the trail
may play an important role in whether individuals will use
the trail. In further support of this, new exercisers were
more likely to rate convenience as a primary reason for
using the trail. Residential proximity to trails and their
usage has previously been documented (10,11,17).
Increases in self-reported and geospatial distance were
associated with a decreased likelihood of using a bikeway
VOLUME 1: NO. 4
OCTOBER 2004
www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2004/oct/04_0058.htm • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
5
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only
and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
Figure.
Percentage of increase in physical activity reported by new and habitually
active exercisers when asked, “Since using the trail, approximately how much
has your exercise level increased?”
VOLUME 1: NO. 4
OCTOBER 2004
(17). Moreover, King et al found that walking levels among
older women were higher among those living in areas
where parks or trails existed (10). Their study, however,
did not specifically measure the impact of a walking trail.
Nevertheless, they concluded that the ability to engage in
walking trips from home and the perception of having
favorable neighborhood surroundings for walking are
associated with increased physical activity levels (10).
Merom et al found that trail usage was increased among
cyclists, particularly among individuals in close proximity
to a trail (11). In our study, data suggest that convenient,
safe, and proximal community walking trails provide an
incentive for community residents to engage in regular
physical activity. This offers further support to the impor-
tance of closely linking recreational trails with residential
communities to provide safe and convenient access.
The type and pattern of physical activity on the trail also
differed between new exercisers and habitually active indi-
viduals. It appears that newer exercisers begin with a
more conservative physical activity (walking), whereas
habitually active trail users more commonly select moder-
ate- to high-intensity activities (e.g., running, in-line skat-
ing). Choosing more conservative physical activities like
walking may also be related to a concern for personal safe-
ty and injury prevention. Both safety and terrain issues
emerged as significant enablers for trail use among new
exercisers. Consequently, new exercisers may be more con-
cerned with injury prevention during physical activity and
may use the trail because they feel it is safe and appropri-
ate for exercise. Similarly, new exercisers were more like-
ly to rate unsafe conditions as a barrier when asked,
“What issues may prevent you from using the trail more
frequently?” These data suggest that new exercisers are
more sensitive to safety concerns than habitually active
individuals.
How individuals perceive their environment may be
more important in persuading a physically active lifestyle
(18,19). Carnegie et al (20) identified a link between per-
ceptions of the environment and stage of change for phys-
ical activity (21). In their study, contemplators (21) (inac-
tive but intend to become more physically active) had more
negative perceptions of the environment for physical activ-
ity. Similarly, it is reasonable to believe that the new exer-
cisers in the present study were still embracing more neg-
ative perceptions of the environment than those who are
habitually active. Developing strategies to address safety
concerns along with other negative perceptions may be
necessary if individuals are to progress to being habitual-
ly active. As such, trail advocates should prioritize and
address safety concerns among new exercisers to promote
the appeal of a trail for the long-term pursuit of enhancing
physical activity within a community.
Although this preliminary investigation found that new
exercisers appear to be more dependent on a recreational
trail for achieving a pattern of regular physical activity
compared with habitually active exercisers, this study has
the following limitations:
• This investigation used a cross-sectional design that pro-
hibited us from obtaining a baseline assessment of phys-
ical activity levels prior to the development of the trail. 
• We relied on trail interviews, which may be subject to a
potential response bias. Although we were unable to
determine a true response rate, nearly all individuals
(98%) approached on the trail were willing to partici-
pate. 
• We used self-reported physical activity data, so there is
no direct evidence that trail activities reported were
actually performed. Nevertheless, every effort was made
to conduct the interviews in a standardized format. 
• The construct used to classify new vs habitual exercisers
was not validated. We relied on individual recall.
Consequently, it is possible that some trail users were
misclassified. However, nearly all of the respondents
(94%) were meeting physical activity recommendations
(engaged in 150 minutes of leisure-time physical activi-
ty per week). Furthermore, to prevent a response bias,
we asked participants about the type, frequency, and
duration of their physical activity before asking them
whether they were exercising regularly (more than three
times per week for 20 minutes). 
• Finally, we used an interceptor-based survey approach
to probe respondents’ views of the trail and identify their
perceptions of the environment. Thus, while the infor-
mation presented helps to identify perceptions of the
environment for the trail user, it does not necessarily
reflect the impact of the trail on the overall community.
However, community-wide phone-survey data (unpub-
lished data), which were obtained during the same time,
indicate that 20% of regular exercisers use the trail as
their primary exercise venue and only neighborhood
6
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention • www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2004/oct/04_0058.htm
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only
and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
streets provided a more common exercise location among
community residents. Perhaps a lack of connectivity to
the trail prevented many community members from
using the trail as a primary site for regular physical
activity. Given that there are very few walkable neigh-
borhoods (e.g, no sidewalks, bike lanes, traffic-calming
strategies) within the community, trail use would likely
further increase if pedestrian connectivity from the trail
to residential areas improved. 
Regardless, these data provide a preliminary assess-
ment of the importance of physical environmental
changes, such as the development of a walking and biking
trail, for promoting physically active lifestyles. Although a
community trail can provide opportunities for all residents
to engage in regular physical activity, both proximal and
safe access from residential areas and safety on the trail
may be important issues to encourage trail use among 
new exercisers.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by the West Virginia University
Prevention Research Center and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. The authors would like to
acknowledge David Goodrich, Emily Spangler, and Amy
Sindler for their contributions.
Author Information
Corresponding author: Paul M. Gordon, PhD, MPH,
West Virginia University, School of Medicine, Department
of Human Performance and Exercise Science, P.O. Box
9227, Morgantown, WV 26506. Telephone: 304-293-0442.
E-mail: pgordon@hsc.wvu.edu.
Author affiliations: Samuel J. Zizzi, EdD, West Virginia
University, School of Physical Education, Morgantown,
WVa; Jeff Pauline, EdD, Ball State University, School of
Physical Education, Muncie, Ind.
References
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Physical activity and health: a report of the Surgeon
General executive summary. Atlanta  (GA): Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center
for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion,
The President's Council on Physical Fitness and
Sports; 1996. 
2. Macera CA, Jones DA, Yore MM, Ham SA, Kohl HW,
Kimsey CD Jr, et al. Prevalence of physical activity,
including lifestyle activities among adults - United
States 2000-2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
2003;52(32):764-769. 
3. Schmid T, Pratt M, Howze E. Policy as intervention:
environmental and policy approaches to the preven-
tion of cardiovascular disease. Am J Pub Health
1995;85(9):1207-11. 
4. King AC. Community and public health approaches to
the promotion of physical activity. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 1994;26(11):1405-12. 
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Healthy people 2010: understanding and improving
health. Washington (DC): U.S. Government Printing
Office; 2000. 
6. Kahn EB, Ramsey LT, Brownson RC, Heath GW,
Howze EH, Powell KE, et al. The effectiveness of inter-
ventions to increase physical activity. A systematic
review. Am J Prev Med 2002;22(4 Suppl):73-107. 
7. Wang G, Macera C, Scudder-Soucie B, Schmid T,
Pratt M, Buchner D. Cost effectiveness of a
bicycle/pedestrian trail development in health promo-
tion. Prev Med 2004;38(2):237-42. 
8. Wang G, Macera CA, Scudder-Soucie B, Schmid T,
Pratt M, Buchner D, et al. Cost analysis of the built
environment: the case of bike and pedestrian trials in
Lincoln, Neb. Am J Public Health 2004;94(4):549-53. 
9. Brownson RC, Housemann RA, Brown D, Jackson-
Thompson J, King A, Malone B, et al. Promoting phys-
ical activity in rural communities: walking trail
access, 
use, 
and 
effects. 
Am 
J 
Prev 
Med
2000;18(2):235-41. 
10. King WC, Brach JS, Belle S, Killingsworth R, Fenton
M, Kriska AM. The relationship between convenience
of destinations and walking levels in older women. Am
J Health Promot 2003;18(1):74-82. 
11. Merom D, Bauman A, Vita P, Close G. An environ-
mental intervention to promote walking and cycling -
the impact of a newly constructed Rail Trail in
Western Sidney. Prev Med 2003;36(2):235-42. 
12. Flink CA, Olka K, Searns RM. Trails for the twenty-
first century: planning, design, and management man-
ual for multi-use trails. 2nd ed. Washington (DC):
Island Press; 2001. 
VOLUME 1: NO. 4
OCTOBER 2004
www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2004/oct/04_0058.htm • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
7
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only
and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
VOLUME 1: NO. 4
OCTOBER 2004
13. Kriska AM, Casperson C. A collection of physical activ-
ity questionnaires for health-related research. Med Sci
Sports 1997;29(6):s94-s99. 
14. Hahn RA, Heath GW, Chang MH. Cardiovascular dis-
ease risk factors and preventive practices among
adults - United States, 1994: a behavioral risk factor
atlas. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
State Coordinators. MMWR CDC Surveill Summ
1998;47(5):35-69. 
15. Neff LJ, Ainsworth BE, Wheeler FC, Krumwiede SE,
Trepal AJ. Assessment of Trail Use in a Community
Park. Fam Community Health 2000;23(3):76-84. 
16. Compliance with physical activity recommendations
by walking for exercise--Michigan, 1996 and 1998.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2000;49(25):560-5. 
17. Troped PJ, Saunders RP, Pate RR, Reininger B,
Ureda JR, Thompson SJ. Associations between self-
reported and objective physical environmental factors
and use of a community rail-trail. Prev Med
2001;32(2):191-200. 
18. Kirtland KA, Porter DE, Addy CL, Neet MJ, Williams
JE, Sharpe PA, et al. Environmental measures of
physical activity supports: perception versus reality.
Am J Prev Med 2003;24(4):323-31. 
19. Ball K, Bauman A, Leslie E, Owen N. Perceived envi-
ronmental aesthetics and convenience and company
are associated with walking for exercise among
Australian adults. Prev Med 2001;33(5):434-40. 
20. Carnegie MA, Bauman A, Marshall AL, Mohsin M,
Westley-Wise V, Booth ML. Pereptions of the physical
environment, stage of change for physical activity, and
walking among Australian adults. Res Q Exerc Sport
2002;73(2):146-55. 
21. Marcus BH, Simkin LR. The stages of exercise behav-
ior. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1993;33(1):83-8. 
Tables
Table 1.  Socio-demographic Characteristics of Trail Users 
(n = 414), Morgantown, WVa, 2001
8
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention • www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2004/oct/04_0058.htm
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only
and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
Characteristic 
No. (%) 
Sex
Female 
228 (55.1) 
Male 
186 (44.9) 
Age (years) 
18-25 
96 (23.2) 
26-35 
92 (22.2) 
36-45
89 (21.5) 
46-65 
110 (26.6) 
65+ 
27 (6.5) 
Race/ethnicity 
White 
391 (94.4) 
Black 
7 (1.7) 
Other 
13 (3.1) 
Declined 
3 (0.7) 
Annual household income, $ 
<$10,000 
111 (26.8) 
$10,000 to 30,000 
105 (25.4) 
$31,000 to 60,000 
114 (27.5) 
>$60,000 
54 (13.0) 
Declined 
30 (7.2) 
Education
High school/GED 
145 (35.0) 
Technical school 
16 (3.9) 
College graduate 
160 (38.6) 
Graduate school 
61 (14.7) 
Professional degree 
30 (7.2) 
Declined 
2 (0.5) 
Employment Status 
Homemaker 
28 (6.8) 
Self-employed 
30 (7.2) 
Student 
100 (24.2) 
Employed for wages 
213 (51.4) 
Retired 
33 (8.0) 
Unemployed 
7 (1.7) 
Declined/Other 
3 (0.7) 
Table 2.  Perceived Enabling Factors and Personal Barriers to Trail Use for New Exercisers and Habitually Active Exercisers 
(n = 414), Morgantown, WVa, 2001
VOLUME 1: NO. 4
OCTOBER 2004
www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2004/oct/04_0058.htm • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
9
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only
and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
Difference between
Habitually active
New exerciser
new and habitually 
(n = 321) 
(n = 93) 
active exercisers
Mean 
Mean
Characteristic
(±SD)a
Rankb
(±SD) 
Rank 
Pc
Enablers
Safety 
3.9 (1.3) 
4 
4.2 (1.0) 
3 
.03 
Scenery/environment 
4.0 (1.0) 
3 
4.1 (1.0) 
4 
.16 
Terrain (flat, paved) 
4.3 (0.9) 
1 
4.6 (0.7) 
2 
.04
Convenience 
4.3 (0.9) 
2 
4.7 (0.5) 
1
<.001 
Atmosphere 
3.8 (1.1) 
5 
4.1 (1.2) 
5
.19 
Barriers
Unsafe 
2.7 (1.7) 
3 
3.1 (1.6) 
2
.04 
Parking 
2.1 (1.3) 
6 
2.1 (1.4) 
6
.78 
Accessibility 
2.2 (1.3) 
5
2.4 (1.6) 
5
.11 
Facilities 
3.1 (1.4) 
1 
3.4 (1.4) 
1
.08 
Maintenance 
3.0 (1.5) 
2 
2.8 (1.6) 
3
.28 
Congestion 
2.6 (1.4) 
4 
2.5 (1.4) 
4 
.53 
aMean values represent a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not important at all to 5 = most important.
bRank is based on the aggregate level of importance placed on each variable.
cBased on independent t-test.
VOLUME 1: NO. 4
OCTOBER 2004
Appendix 
Recreational Trail Evaluation Survey, Morgantown, WVa,
2001 
Interviewer name:
Interview date: 
Interview time: 
Trailhead location:
Statement: Hello, We are conducting an interview about the recre-
ational trail on behalf of the Division of Exercise Physiology and the
Prevention Research Center at West Virginia University. We would
like to get your opinions about the usage of the trail. The interview
will take approximately five minutes to complete. Your responses
are confidential and no identifying information will be obtained.
Participation is voluntary and you may refuse to answer any ques-
tions.
1.
Have you already been interviewed? Yes (Stop — not eligible)
or No (Continue) 
2.
Would you like to participate? Yes (Continue to question 3) or
no (Stop — not eligible) 
3.
Are you 18 or older? Yes (Continue to question 4) or no
(Stop — not eligible) 
4.
How long have you been using the trail? (Weeks, months, or
year) 
5.
What type of activity do you usually do on the trail? (Walk,
run, bike, or inline skate) 
6.
How far do you usually perform [stated activity]? (Miles) 
7.
Where do you usually enter and exit the trail? (Caperton Trail:
start, turn around, or finish) (Decker’s Creek Trail: start, turn
around, or finish) 
8.
How many minutes does this usually take you? 
9.
How many times (days) per week do you use the trail for
[stated activity]? 
10. Is there a second activity that you do on the trail? (If no, skip
to 15) 
11. How far do you usually perform [stated activity]? (Miles) 
12. Where do you usually enter and exit the trail? (Caperton Trail:
start, turn around, or finish) (Decker’s Creek Trail: start, turn
around, or finish) 
13. How many minutes does this usually take you? 
14. How many times (days) per week do you use the trail for
[stated activity]? 
15. Did you exercise regularly (three or more times per week for
20 minutes per session) before using this trail? Yes or no 
16. a. Since using the trail, has the amount of exercise that you
do: Increased (Skip to question 16b); decreased (why?);
stayed the same; or don’t know
b. Since using the trail, approximately how much has your
exercise increased? (0–25%; 26–50%; 51–75%; 76–100%;
over 100%) 
17. On most days, where do usually come from to get to the
trail? (Work, home, school, or other [identify other]) 
18. On most days how do you get to the trail? (Walk, drive, bicy-
cle, bus, or other [identify other]) 
19. How far do you travel to use the trail? (Miles) 
20. How long does it take you to get to the trail by walking?
(Minutes) 
21. While on the trail do you usually exercise: with others or
alone? (If alone, skip to question 23) 
22. Who do you usually exercise with? (Friends, other family
members/relatives, spouse/partner, walk/run club, children,
pets, or other [identify other]) 
23. What time of the day do you usually use the trail? [Read cat-
egories aloud] Early morning (5–8:00 AM), Morning (8–11:00
AM), Midday (11:00 AM–2:00 PM), Afternoon (2-6:00 PM),
Evening (after 6:00 PM), Varies, Refuse to answer 
24. Please rate the following reasons on why you use this trail
instead of other facilities on a scale of 1 to 5: 
25. What is the primary reason why you use the trail instead of
other facilities? 
26. Please rate the following concerns you have about the trail
on a scale of 1 to 5: 
Least important = 1 
to most important = 5
Safety (free from personal injury)  
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
Scenery (beauty of environment) 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
Access (no cost associated with use)  
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
Terrain (paved, flat)  
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
Convenience (location)  
1 
2 
3
4 
5 
Friendly atmosphere (social environment)
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
Other (please identify) 
1 
2 
3 
4
5 
Least important = 1 
to most important = 5
Unsafe  
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
Parking (cost, lack of) 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
Accessibility of the trail  
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
Facilities (restrooms, water fountains)
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
Maintenance
1 
2 
3
4 
5 
Space/congestion on the trail
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
Fear of injury
1 
2 
3 
4
5 
Lack of police patrol
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
Visibility of distance/mile markers
1 
2 
3 
4 
5
Other (please identify)
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
10
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention • www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2004/oct/04_0058.htm
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only
and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
27. What concerns you the most about the trail? 
28. Apart from your trail activities, in the past month, have you
participated in any of the following? 
29. Age: 18–25, 26–35, 36–45, 46–65, 65 and above, declined
to answer 
30. Sex: Male, female, declined to answer 
31. Race/ethnic origin: White, African American, Asian American,
Hispanic, other (identify other), declined to answer 
32. Employment status: Homemaker, self-employed, student,
employed for wages, retired, unemployed, other (identify
other), declined to answer 
33. Educational attainment: Eighth grade or less, high school or
GED, technical school, college graduate, graduate school,
professional degree, declined to answer 
34. Income level: Under $10,000; $10-30,000; $31-60,000;
more than $60,000; declined to answer 
VOLUME 1: NO. 4
OCTOBER 2004
www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2004/oct/04_0058.htm • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
11
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only
and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
Number of 
Minutes per
Yes
No
days per week  
session 
Aerobic dance         
Bicycling         
Strength training         
Golf         
Jogging/running         
Walking         
Gardening         
Swimming/water exercises         
Organized team sports         
Housework         
Other          

Use of a community trail among new and habitual exercisers: a preliminary assessment.
Gordon, Paul M,Zizzi, Samuel J,Pauline, Jeff