Abstract
Background Accurately quantifying people’s out-of-home environmental exposure is important for identifying disease risk factors. Several activity space-based exposure assessments exist, possibly leading to different exposure estimates, and have neither considered individual travel modes nor exposure-related distance decay effects.
Objective We aimed 1) to develop an activity space-based exposure assessment approach that included travel modes and exposure-related distance decay effects and 2) to compare the size of such spaces and the exposure estimates derived from them across typically used activity space operationalizations.
Methods We used 7-day-long global positioning system (GPS)-enabled smartphone-based tracking data of 269 Dutch adults. People’s GPS trajectory points were classified into passive and active travel modes. Exposure-related distance decay effects were modeled through linear, exponential, and Gaussian decay functions. We performed cross-comparisons on these three functional decay models and an unweighted model in conjunction with four activity space models (i.e., home-based buffers, minimum convex polygons, two standard deviational ellipses, and time-weighted GPS-based buffers). We applied non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests, pair-wise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and Spearman correlations to assess mean differences in the extent of the activity spaces and correlations across exposures to particulate matter (PM2.5), noise, green space, and blue space.
Results Participants spent, on average, 42% of their daily life out-of-home. We observed that including travel modes into activity space delineation resulted in significantly more compact activity spaces. Exposure estimates for PM2.5 and blue space were significantly (p<0.05) different between exposure estimates that did or did not account for travel modes, unlike noise and green space, for which differences did not reach significance. While the inclusion of distance decay effects significantly affected noise and green space exposure assessments, the decay functions applied appear not to have had any impact on the results. We found that residential exposure estimates appear appropriate for use as proxy values for the overall amount of PM2.5 exposure in people’s daily lives, while GPS-based assessments are suitable for noise, green space, and blue space.
Significance For some exposures, the tested activity space definitions, although significantly correlated, exhibited differing exposure estimate results based on inclusion or exclusion of travel modes or distance decay effect. Results only supported using home-based buffer values as proxies for individuals’ daily short-term PM2.5 exposure.
Impact statement Accurately quantifying people’s out-of-home environmental exposure is vital for identifying disease risk and protective factors. Although many activity space-based exposure assessments exist, these approaches possibly lead to different exposure estimates. We methodologically and conceptually innovate by developing an activity space-based exposure assessment considering people’s travel modes and exposure-related distance decay effect. Our comparison with other activity spaces provides novel insights into dynamic exposure assessment approaches. Despite most epidemiological studies still considering people’s homes as the sole exposure location, our study is fundamental because people are typically exposed to multiple out-of-home environmental contexts.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union′s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No 714993). The study was supported by EXPOSOME-NL, which is funded through the Gravitation program of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO grant number 024.004.017).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Ethics Review Board of Utrecht University gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
List of abbreviations: HB = home-based buffers; MCP = minimum convex polygon; SDE = two standard deviational ellipse; TWB = time-weighted GPS-based buffer; LM = linear model; EM = exponential model; GM = Gaussian model; UM = unweighted model.
Data Availability
The GPS data used in this analysis cannot be shared with third parties as per the policies of Statistics Netherlands.
