International Journal of

Environmental Research
and Public Health

Article
Environmental Preferences and Concerns of Recreational
Trail Runners
Leah Rosenkrantz 1, * , Nadine Schuurman 1 and Scott A. Lear 2

1 Faculty of Environment, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada
2 Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Trail running is a fast-growing sport, linked to improvements in both physical and psycho-
logical well-being. Despite its popularity, the preferences of trail runners are not well known. The
objective of this study was to examine the environmental preferences and concerns of trail runners
with respect to age and gender. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of recreational trail runners.
A total of 548 people responded, of which 50.1% of respondents were women and 44.2% were men.
The sample was distributed relatively evenly across age groups, up to 54 years; respondents over
55 represented only 9.4% of the sample. Comparisons of runner characteristics by gender indicated
significant differences (p < 0.05) according to age, distance run per week, and number of days run
per week. Certain runner preferences also differed significantly by gender, including importance of
running around others, the type of trail races they seek, and whether or not they like to seek “vert” or
elevation in their runs. Major concerns for both genders while running included lack of cell reception
(Men: 33.8%; Women: 50.8%) and getting lost (Men: 26.8%; Women: 35.5%). Comparisons of the
results of this study help to strengthen our understanding of trail runners’ environmental preferences
and concerns and can be used to guide future design and maintenance of trail environments to
encourage greater participation in the sport.

Keywords: online survey; runnability; outdoor environments

Citation: Rosenkrantz, L.; Schuurman,

N.; Lear, S.A. Environmental
Preferences and Concerns of 1. Introduction
Recreational Trail Runners. Int. J.
Trail running, a sport and leisure activity that combines running and hiking, has been
Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 97.
growing at a global rate of 12% yearly for the last decade and has recently been recognized
https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph21010097
by the International Association of Athletics Federation as a new running discipline [1,2].
Already popular in Europe and North America, the sport is now rapidly expanding into
Academic Editor: Paul B. Asia and South America [3]. It comprises various natural off-pavement terrains, including
Tchounwou forest paths, dirt roads, and alpine trails. Trail running, like road running, can help improve
Received: 31 October 2023 physical and psychological well-being [4–9]. Studies have found that running reduces the
Revised: 9 January 2024 risk of hypertension, Type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis, and respiratory infection and, even
Accepted: 13 January 2024 in low doses, is associated with a considerable reduction in cardiovascular and all-cause
Published: 16 January 2024 mortality [10–13]. The mental health benefits are numerous, including a reduced risk of
depression, anxiety, and overall stress [7]. Trail running, in particular, has the added health
benefit of being immersed in nature, which is known to have its own wide-ranging health
benefits, including significant reductions in blood pressure, cortisol levels, incidence of
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. diabetes, and all-cause mortality, to name but a few [14,15]. In addition, trail running often
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. includes more vertical gain compared to road running, offering the possibility for trail
This article is an open access article runners to improve their cardiovascular fitness and strengthen different muscles as they
distributed under the terms and
run up hills or mountainsides.
conditions of the Creative Commons
Despite its growing popularity and health benefits, the preferences of runners, specif-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
ically trail runners—a diverse group with varying backgrounds and motivations—are
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
not well known [16,17]. The composition of outdoor spaces influences where and how
4.0/).

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21010097 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 97 2 of 14

people run, yet environments that positively influence participation in the sport are scarcely
studied [8]. The lack of studies on conducive running environments is surprising, given the
numerous health benefits of running and consensus on the impact of the built environment
on mobility.
Most of the literature focuses on environmental characteristics that improve walka-
bility and cycling, excluding the specific needs of runners [18,19]. Except for a handful of
studies, geographers have engaged little with running scholarship [5,15,18,20,21]. Extend-
ing geographic paradigms to running research holds great potential, given the necessity
to understand the space where this popular activity takes place and the opportunity to
modify the built environment to promote the adoption of the sport and its many health
benefits. Preferences for environments are likely to differ significantly among trail and road
runners, recreational and competitive runners, as well as commuting and leisure runners,
due to varying aims and motivations [16,22,23]. As such, research is needed on the varying
preferences within the trail running community to better design trails and improve their
safety for the runners that use them. Features like improved signage or increased cell
reception in a trailed area may be what encourages new runners to try the sport or assuage
the concerns of experienced runners looking to expand their routes.
The objective of this study is to examine the type of built and natural environments
trail runners prefer with respect to age and gender and the safety and health concerns that
may affect trail runners’ choice of environment. Results are examined in the context of
findings from our previous study on recreational road runners [23]. Our aim is to deepen
the understanding of what constitutes a positive trail running environment, to advance
and inform future planning decisions, and to create more places for individuals to pursue
this health-promoting activity.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was based on a cross-sectional survey. Methods for this study closely follow
that for a study on road running, with survey development and recruitment following
the same protocols [23]. A summary of methods specific to this study, including study
population and design are summarized below.

2.1. Study Population

The study population consisted of a sample of people who self-identify as trail runners.
No constraints were established concerning the gender, ethnicity, country of residence,
or ability of the respondent; however, for ethics purposes, we limited the survey to only
those aged 19 years and older. An a priori power analysis (G*Power) was conducted to
estimate the minimum sample size required to conduct the analysis. The power analysis
suggested a chi-square test of independence (df = 6) using a medium effect size, α = 0.05,
and 95% power suggested a minimum sample size of n = 232. We recruited trail runners
through advertisements placed in North American running magazines and running-specific
websites, as well as targeted social media ads on Facebook and Instagram. We also recruited
through local run clubs and running apparel stores with postcard-style handouts. We
incentivized participation in the survey with the chance to win one of three CDN 300 gift
cards from a running store.

2.2. Study Design

Trail runners who were interested in participating in the study were directed to fill
out the survey, hosted on the SurveyMonkey online platform. Those who self-identified
primarily as a trail runner were directed to fill out 10 questions, which included a variety
of Likert scale and multiple-choice questions (Table A1). Questions fell into one of three
categories: the respondents’ running profile (including age, gender, and running routines),
their environmental preferences for running, and their environmental concerns for running.
Written informed consent was sought prior to participation in the survey. Approval for this
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 97 3 of 14

study (ethics approval #2019s0322) was granted by Simon Fraser University’s Research
Ethics Board.

2.3. Data Analysis

Descriptive analysis was conducted on all survey answers using Excel, V.16.45. Chi-
square tests of independence were performed using SPSS, V.27 to assess whether mean-
ingful differences between genders existed in respondent’s answers to survey questions.
Missing responses and respondents who identified as other or did not identify their gender
were excluded from this analysis.
Chi-square tests of independence require a minimum expected cell count and inde-
pendence of responses. For these reasons, respectively, chi-square tests could neither be
conducted to assess the presence of meaningful differences across age groups by question
(due to not meeting the minimum cell count requirement) nor for the one question permit-
ting more than one response (due to lack of independence of responses). As such, we only
present these results descriptively.
NVivo, version 12.6.0 was used to conduct thematic and content analysis on ques-
tions that allowed free text responses when “other” was selected. Responses to free text
were coded by gender to determine whether common themes diverged between men
and women.

3. Results
Five-hundred and forty-eight trail runners responded to the survey. Respondents
were included in the analysis if they answered at least one question in the survey. Response
rates varied by question, ranging from 88.7% to 92.2%.

3.1. Trail Runner Profile

Two-hundred and sixty-two (50.1%) respondents identified as a woman, 231 respon-
dents (44.2%) identified as a man, and one respondent (0.2%) identified as another gender;
29 respondents (5.5%) did not answer this question. The sample was distributed relatively
evenly across age groups, up to 54 years (Table 1) (Table A2).

Table 1. Comparisons of runner characteristics between men and women.

Overall Sample Men Women Chi-Square Tests of

Variable
n (%) n (%) n (%) Independence
Age in Years
19–24 115 (22.0) 35 (15.2) 79 (30.2) X2 (5) = 22.321
25–34 124 (23.7) 60 (26.0) 64 (24.4) p = 0.000
35–44 120 (22.9) 66 (28.6) 54 (20.6) V = 0.213 ***
45–54 86 (16.4) 43 (18.6) 43 (16.4) N = 493
55–64 34 (6.5) 15 (6.5) 19 (7.3)
65+ 15 (2.9) 12 (5.2) 3 (1.1)
Missing 29 (5.5) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Total 523 (100.0) 231 (100.0) 262 (100.0)
No. of Years
Running
0–5 171 (32.7) 77 (33.3) 93 (35.5) X2 (6) = 18.143
6–10 139 (26.6) 65 (28.1) 74 (28.2) p = 0.316
11–15 57 (10.9) 25 (10.8) 32 (12.2) V = 0.067
16–20 50 (9.6) 23 (10.0) 27 (10.3) N = 483
21–25 19 (3.6) 9 (3.9) 10 (3.8)
26–30 23 (4.4) 12 (5.2) 11 (4.2)
30+ 25 (4.8) 13 (5.6) 12 (4.6)
Missing 39 (7.5) 7 (3.0) 3 (1.1)
Total 523 (100.0) 231 (100.0) 262 (100.0)
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 97 4 of 14

Table 1. Cont.

Overall Sample Men Women Chi-Square Tests of

Variable
n (%) n (%) n (%) Independence
Distance
(Km)/Week
<10 54 (10.3) 12 (5.2) 42 (16.0) X2 (6) = 53.904
10–20 98 (18.7) 28 (12.1) 69 (26.3) p = 0.000
21–30 84 (16.1) 35 (15.2) 49 (18.7) V = 0.331 **
31–40 58 (11.1) 28 (12.1) 30 (11.5) N = 492
41–50 63 (12.0) 39 (16.9) 24 (9.2)
51–60 44 (8.4) 23 (10.0) 21 (8.0)
60+ 92 (17.6) 65 (28.1) 27 (10.3)
Missing 30 (5.7) 1 (0.4) 0 (0.0)
Total 523 (100.0) 231 (100.0) 262 (100.0)
No. of Days
Running/Week
1 19 (3.6) 7 (3.0) 12 (4.6) X2 (6) = 31.256
2 54 (10.3) 15 (6.5) 39 (14.9) p = 0.000
3 135 (25.8) 47 (20.3) 87 (33.2) V = 0.252 ***
4 103 (19.7) 55 (23.8) 48 (18.3) N = 492
5 93 (17.8) 53 (22.9) 40 (15.3)
6 65 (12.4) 36 (15.6) 29 (11.1)
7 24 (4.6) 18 (7.8) 6 (2.3)
Missing 30 (5.7) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.4)
Total 523 (100.0) 231 (100.0) 262 (100.0)
V = effect size (Cramer’s V). ** A significant difference with a “medium” effect size as per Cohen’s definition.
*** A significant difference with a “large” effect size as per Cohen’s definition.

On average, respondents had been running for 11.43 years (range = 0.5–55 years). Over
half of respondents (59.2%) had been running for 10 years or less. For women, this average
was 11.1 years (range: 1–55 years); for men, it was 11.9 years (range: 0.5–50 years), but the
difference between gender was not statistically significant. The person who identified as
another gender had been running for less than five years. With the increasing age category,
the years of running also increased from an average of 5.7 years in those 19–24 up to
26.9 years for those ≥ 65 years.
Respondents ran, on average, 4.0 days/week, with men running more days a week
(4.4 days/week) on average than women (3.7 days/week) (Figure 1). There was a significant
association between gender and the number of days run per week (X2 (6, N = 492) = 31.256,
p = 0.000), with a strong effect size (V = 0.252). The percentage of respondents running less
than 30 km in a week was 45.1%, with a greater percentage of women running less than
30 km (61.0%) than for men (32.5%) (Figure 1). There was a significant association between
gender and distance run per week (X2 (6, N = 492) = 53.904, p = 0.000), with a medium
effect size (V = 0.331). The person who identified as another gender ran 3 days/week.

3.2. Social and Environmental Preferences for Trail Running

Most respondents (35.2%) indicated it was not very important for them to run around
others (e.g., a social run with a partner or group) (Table 2) (Table A3). However, among
those that did indicate some degree of importance (selecting a 3, 4, or 5 on the sliding scale),
women represented a significantly greater percentage (27.5%, 11.5%, and 7.3%, respectively)
than men (13.0%, 10.0%, and 1.7%, respectively) (X2 (4, N = 466) = 25.086, p = 0.000, with a
medium effect size (V = 0.232)). The person who identified as another gender indicated it
was somewhat important (i.e., a 3 on the scale) to run around others.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 97 5 of 14

*** *

**

Figure1.1.Graphical
Figure Graphical comparison
comparison of runner
of runner preferences
preferences between men between men *and
and women. women. * A si
A significant
differencewith
difference with a “small”
a “small” effect
effect size
size as perasCohen’s
per Cohen’s definition.
definition. ** A significant
** A significant difference difference
with a wit
dium” effect
“medium” effectsize as per
size as perCohen’s
Cohen’s definition.
definition. *** A significant
*** A significant differencedifference with
with a “large” a “large”
effect size effe
per
as Cohen’s
per definition.
Cohen’s definition.

3.2. Social and Environmental Preferences for Trail Running

Most respondents (35.2%) indicated it was not very important for them to run
others (e.g., a social run with a partner or group) (Table 2) (Table A3). However,
those that did indicate some degree of importance (selecting a 3, 4, or 5 on the
scale), women represented a significantly greater percentage (27.5%, 11.5%, and 7
spectively) than men (13.0%, 10.0%, and 1.7%, respectively) (X2 (4, N = 466) = 25
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 97 6 of 14

Table 2. Comparisons of runner preferences and concerns between men and women.

Overall Sample Men Women Chi-Square Tests of

Variable
n (%) n (%) n (%) Independence
Importance of Running
around Others
1 (Not important) 192 (36.7) 98 (42.4) 89 (34.0)
2 104 (19.9) 57 (24.7) 44 (16.8) X2 (4) = 25.086
3 108 (20.7) 30 (13.0) 72 (27.5) p = 0.000
4 54 (10.3) 23 (10.0) 30 (11.5) V = 0.232 **
5 (Very important) 26 (5.0) 4 (1.7) 19 (7.3) N = 466
Missing 40 (7.6) 19 (8.2) 8 (3.1)
Total 523 (100.0) 231 (100.0) 262 (100.0)
Preferred Running
Surface
Buffed out trail 293 (56.0) 120 (51.9) 164 (62.6) X2 (1) = 5.5143
Rocky terrain 211 (40.3) 111 (48.1) 97 (37.0) p = 0.019
ϕ = −0.110
Missing 19 (3.6) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.4)
N = 492
Total 523 (100.0) 231 (100.0) 262 (100.0)
Concerns for Running
(more than one response
permitted)
Bears 145 (27.7) 62 (26.8) 78 (29.8)
Fear of people 135 (25.8) 29 (12.6) 102 (38.9)
Cougars 136 (26.0) 49 (21.2) 85 (32.4)
Other wildlife 81 (15.5) 34 (14.7) 43 (16.4)
Gear issues 107 (20.5) 57 (24.7) 44 (16.8)
No cell reception 222 (42.4) 78 (33.8) 133 (50.8) NA
Slips and falls 288 (55.1) 123 (53.2) 151 (57.6) N = 523
Navigational challenges 162 (31.0) 62 (26.8) 93 (35.5)
Cliffs or precipices 75 (14.3) 37 (16.0) 35 (13.4)
Sudden weather/storms 184 (35.2) 88 (38.1) 84 (32.1)
None 79 (15.1) 48 (20.8) 27 (10.3)
Other 152 (29.1) 77 (33.3) 74 (28.2)
What types of trail race
challenges do you seek?
Fairly flat 85 (16.3) 25 (10.8) 55 (21.0) X2 (2) = 30.086
Steep 118 (22.6) 71 (30.7) 46 (17.6) p = 0.000
Undulating 299 (57.2) 134 (58.0) 159 (60.7) V = 0.086 *
Missing 21 (4.0) 1 (0.4) 2 (0.8)
N = 490
Total 523 (100.0) 231 (100.0) 262 (100.0)
Are you an
elevation/vert seeker?
Yes 140 (26.8) 71 (30.7) 66 (25.2) X2 (2) = 12.087
No 154 (29.4) 53 (22.9) 98 (37.4) p = 0.002
Depending on next
211 (40.3) 107 (46.3) 98 (37.4) V = 0.157 *
race/season
Missing 18 (3.4) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) N = 493
Total 523 (100.0) 231 (100.0) 262 (100.0)
V = effect size (Cramer’s V). * A significant difference with a “small” effect size as per Cohen’s definition.
** A significant difference with a “medium” effect size as per Cohen’s definition. ϕ = Phi coefficient; can range
from −1 to 1, with −1 indicating a perfect negative relationship and +1 indicating a perfect positive relationship.

A narrow majority (56%) of those that identified as trail runners preferred to run on
buffed out trails compared to rocky, more technical terrain (40.3%). Significantly more
women preferred buffed out trails (62.6%) to technical terrain (37.0%), and the same was
true for men (58.9% and 48.1%, respectively) (X2 (1 N = 492) = 5.51, p = 0.019, with a weak
 A narrow majority (56%) of those that identified as trail runners preferred to run on
buffed out trails compared to rocky, more technical terrain (40.3%). Significantly more
women preferred buffed out trails (62.6%) to technical terrain (37.0%), and the same was
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 97 7 of 14
true for men (58.9% and 48.1%, respectively) (X2 (1 N = 492) = 5.51, p = 0.019, with a weak
negative relationship (ϕ = −0.110)). The person who identified as another gender preferred
buffed out trails.
negative relationship
A total of 57.2% of = −0.110)).
(ϕ trail runner The person who
participants seekidentified as anothertrail
out “undulating” gender preferred
races, 22.6%
buffed out trails.
seek out steep trail races, and 16.3% seek out flat trail races. Both men and women and the
person A who
total of 57.2% ofastrail
identified runner
another participants
gender seekundulating
preferred out “undulating” trailsteep
trails over races,or22.6%
flat
seek out steep trail races, and 16.3% seek out flat trail races. Both
trails. Significantly more men prefer steeper trails (30.7%) than women (17.6%) (X2 men and women
(2, N
=and
490)the personpwho
= 30.086, identified
= 0.000), with a as another
small effectgender
size (Vpreferred undulating
= 0.086)) (Figure 1). trails over steep
or flat trails. Significantly more men prefer steeper trails (30.7%) than women (17.6%)
A total of 26. 8% of participants self-identified as an “elevation/vert seeker”, while
(X2 (2, N = 490) = 30.086, p = 0.000), with a small effect size (V = 0.086) (Figure 1).
29.4% did not. However, for most participants, “being an elevation/vert seeker” is largely
A total of 26. 8% of participants self-identified as an “elevation/vert seeker”, while
dependent on the next race/season (40.3%). Women and men differed significantly in how
29.4% did not. However, for most participants, “being an elevation/vert seeker” is largely
they self-identified in this regard, with less women (25.2%) identifying as being an eleva-
dependent on the next race/season (40.3%). Women and men differed significantly in how
tion or vert seeker than men (30.7%) ((X2 (2, N = 493) = 12.087, p = 0.0002), with a small
they self-identified in this regard, with less women (25.2%) identifying as being an elevation
effect size (V = 0.157)) (Figure 1). The person who identified as another gender responded
or vert seeker than men (30.7%) ((X2 (2, N = 493) = 12.087, p = 0.0002), with a small effect
that seeking elevation depended on their next race/season.
size (V = 0.157)) (Figure 1). The person who identified as another gender responded that
seeking elevation depended on their next race/season.
3.3. Concerns for Trail Running
Out of the
3.3. Concerns forten listed
Trail items, the leading concern for respondents while trail running
Running
was having a slip or fall (55.1%).
Out of the ten listed items, the Of least concern
leading for all
concern forrespondents
respondentswas encountering
while trail runninga
cliff
wasor precipice
having (14.3%).
a slip or fall (55.1%). Of least concern for all respondents was encountering a
cliff Women respondents
or precipice (14.3%). reported a much greater fear of people (38.9%) and cougars
(32.4%) than men
Women (12.6% and
respondents 21.2%, arespectively).
reported much greater They
fearwere also more
of people concerned
(38.9%) with
and cougars
not
(32.4%) than men (12.6% and 21.2%, respectively). They were also more concerned withand
having cell phone reception in case of emergency while out trail running (50.8%) not
navigational challenges
having cell phone (35.5%)
reception thanofmen
in case were (33.8%
emergency while and 26.8%,
out trail respectively).
running Mennavi-
(50.8%) and re-
ported
gational a greater
challengesfear(35.5%)
of havingthangear
menissues (24.7%)and
were (33.8% than women
26.8%, (16.8%) and
respectively). were
Men more
reported
likely to respond
a greater with “none”
fear of having (20.8%)
gear issues for concerns
(24.7%) while(16.8%)
than women running and than women
were (10.3%)
more likely to
(Figure
respond2).with “none” (20.8%) for concerns while running than women (10.3%) (Figure 2).

Figure
Figure2.2.Graphical
Graphicalcomparison
comparisonof
ofrunner
runnerconcerns
concernsby
bygender.
gender.

Seventy-seven men and seventy-four women responded to the question about con-
cerns for running with their own responses. Injury, specifically injury while running alone
or in a remote area, was the most commonly recurring concern among these responses
(41.1%), followed by other wild animals or dogs (13.9%), vehicles (e.g., four-wheelers, cars
near trail heads, or on-road sections), or mountain bikes (11.3%), and being harassed or
assaulted (9.3%). More men were concerned about injury (51.9%), other wild animals or
dogs (15.6%), and vehicles or mountain bikes (13.0%) than women (29.7%, 12.2% and 8.1%,
 or in a remote area, was the most commonly recurring concern among these responses
(41.1%), followed by other wild animals or dogs (13.9%), vehicles (e.g., four-wheelers, cars
near trail heads, or on-road sections), or mountain bikes (11.3%), and being harassed or
assaulted
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public (9.3%).
Health 2024,More
21, 97 men were concerned about injury (51.9%), other wild animals or 8 of 14
dogs (15.6%), and vehicles or mountain bikes (13.0%) than women (29.7%, 12.2% and 8.1%,
respectively). Conversely, more women were concerned with being harassed or assaulted
respectively). Conversely, more women were concerned with being harassed or assaulted
(16.2%) than men (16.2%) (2.6%).than men (2.6%).
The results of theThe trail runner
results survey
of the are approximated
trail runner in Figure
survey are approximated in 3Figure
which illustrates
3 which illustrates
the main concernsthe and preferences
main concerns and ofpreferences
trail runners.
of trail runners.

Figure 3. Graphical Figure

rendering of principle
3. Graphical results
rendering of theresults
of principle survey.of the survey.

4. Discussion
4. Discussion
This study is the first of its kind to examine the preferences and concerns of recreational
This study is trail
the runners.
first of its kindpreferences
While to examine vary the preferences
among and our
trail runners, concerns
results of recrea-
indicate many
tional trail runners. While preferences
respondents vary among
preferred buffed out trailstrail
withrunners, our results
a mix of steep and flat indicate many
sections. Improving
cell phone
respondents preferred reception
buffed in trailed
out trails withareas, increasing
a mix of steepthe and
numberflatand visibilityImproving
sections. of trail markers,
and addressing trail hazards that may cause injury (e.g., removing downed trees, missing
cell phone reception in trailed areas, increasing the number and visibility of trail markers,
planks in board walks, etc.) would alleviate some of the biggest concerns identified by
and addressing trail hazards in
respondents that
thismay
studycause injury
and may make (e.g., removing
certain downed
environments trees,
safer and missing
more appealing
planks in board walks, etc.) would alleviate some of the biggest concerns identified by
for running.
respondents in this study Manyandof these
maypreferences
make certain and concerns have yetsafer
environments to be and
investigated in the broader
more appealing
runnability literature, making it difficult to place our findings in relation to other studies.
for running.
We could only find one study that investigated route popularity and slope for recreational
Many of these preferences
road and concerns
runners in Helsinki, have yet
Finland, finding to be relationship
a positive investigated in the
between thebroader
two [21]. Far
runnability literature,
moremaking it difficult
research has to placeinour
been conducted findings
the area in relation
of walkability withto othertostudies.
respect preferences
We could only find one study that investigated route popularity and slope for recreational
road runners in Helsinki, Finland, finding a positive relationship between the two [21].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 97 9 of 14

around slope and trail type, though it remains difficult to compare walking to recreational
trail running for which objectives may differ widely (e.g., utility vs. recreation) [24,25].
There may be more fruitful comparisons to other sports when examining divergences
between genders. In our study, though men and women shared many of the same pref-
erences and concerns regarding trail running environments, some significant differences
existed. For example, men reported running 4.4 days per week compared to women’s
3.7 days per week. Similarly, close to 60% of men report running over 30 km on average
per week, while less than 40% of women do the same. Similar findings have been reported
for other types of recreational physical activity. For example, studies have found more men
than women participate in team sports in the USA and Europe [26,27]. However, when it
comes to walking for leisure, studies seem to point to the reverse trend, though a systematic
review of this literature points to a small effect size, with gender differences diminishing
progressively with age [28]. While more research is needed to determine the root of these
differences, particularly for running, there have been several studies which suggest that
traditional notions of gender norms prioritize recreational activities for men and women
within other expected behaviors [29–31]. That is, as societal norm dictates that women are
expected to provide for the needs of others first, they subsequently neglect their own wants
and needs, including leisure participation.
Differences in gender also persisted in concerns respondents had while trail running.
More women than men reported a fear of other people while out running. This finding is
similar to what was found in road runners and may stem from a fear of being assaulted or
harassed, as 12 women reported this fear in the free-text response [23]. It may also be one of
the reasons why more women than men reported that it was important for them to run with
others and may also be why more woman than men reported to be concerned about not
having cell phone reception while out on the trails. Research in this area by Allen-Collinson
(2008) supports this thinking, finding that, for women, running with others present could
reduce feelings of discomfort and “un-safety” created by negative social interactions such
as verbal or physical harassment [22].
Taken together, women’s fears about other people while out running may be limiting
the places they run, as well as the frequency and amount they run compared to men.
For example, women may choose to run less or for shorter distances if they only feel
comfortable running in a certain area or during daylight hours. The desire to run with or
around others to mediate or reduce these fears may also hinder the frequency and amount
run given the need to co-ordinate schedules with others.
Aside from social and environmental preferences, it is also possible to compare the run-
ning profiles of trail versus road runners, based on the study by Schuurman, Rosenkrantz,
and Lear (2021) [23]. For example, a greater percentage of trail runners ran 60+ km weeks
(16.8%) than road runners (9.1%); however, the number of days per week were similar
(4.0 days on average for trail runners and 3.9 days on average for road runners). Other
aspects such as the number of years running differ slightly between the studies, with the
road runners averaging 10.3 years while the trail runners averaged 11.4 years. Further
investigation is warranted to determine whether these differences are significant and what
leads to longer participation in trail running compared to road running or vice versa. It
may be that trail running has less impact on the body’s joints given the softer running
surface of on trails compared to concrete, or that there is greater community aspects in
trail running that keep people engaged for longer. However, more research is needed to
ascertain the reasons for longevity in the sport and what may extend participation over
the lifetime.
Though this research has identified several new findings, there are limitations to the
study that require acknowledgement. Respondents from any geography were allowed to
participate in the study, allowing for a large sample size and range of responses from both
urban and rural areas. While this is an asset to the study, our findings could have been better
contextualized had we asked respondents to geographically identify where they typically
run and when. This missing information would have allowed us to split the inherent
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 97 10 of 14

relationships between the data, allowing us to analyze and compare runners of similar
geography with each other (e.g., the preferences of trail runners living in urban centers
could be distinguished from those living in rural towns). A future study that better accounts
for these geographical differences would likely highlight more nuanced preferences and we
suggest further investigation along these lines. Our recruitment of runners was also heavily
targeted to running groups and magazines based in Canada and the United States, due to
the authors’ networks and knowledge of running communities in these areas. It is almost
certain that trail runners from these countries are over-represented in our sample, though,
as mentioned earlier, geographical context is lacking. This may reduce the generalizability
of our study, especially for countries beyond Canada and the United States. It is possible
that certain ages and genders are also over or under-represented; however, no literature
has defined what representative means for this population. Finally, although we could
not conduct statistical analysis to determine if respondents’ preferences and concerns for
trail running significantly differed according to age, our descriptive analysis of the data
suggests that certain age groups differ from others in this respect. Additional research
on these differences is warranted to determine whether and how age groups should be
considered in planning trail running routes.

5. Conclusions
In summary, this study strengthens our understanding of the recreational trail runner,
including their social and environmental preferences and concerns. This information is
vital to designing and maintaining environments that encourage trail running, and which
promote the many mental and physical health benefits associated with the sport. Continued
research into this area is critical to furthering active lifestyles and developing conducive
trail running environments for all.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.S. and S.A.L.; methodology, N.S.; formal analysis, L.R.;
writing—original draft preparation, L.R.; writing—review and editing, N.S. and S.A.L.; visualization,
L.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada, grant number 435 2018 0114.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Simon Fraser
University (ethics approval #2019s0322).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are openly available at www.
runnerstudy.ca.
Acknowledgments: The authors would also like to acknowledge Vivian (Chongwei) Jiang for helping
to create Figure 2.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 97 11 of 14

Appendix A
Table A1. Questionnaire.

No. Question
How important is it for you to run around/with others? (scale from 1 to 5, with 1
1
being not important and 5 being very important)
What are your primary concerns for your safety while running? (Check all that
apply)
a. Bears;
b. Fear of people;
c. Cougars;
d. Other wildlife;
2 e. Not having the right gear/malfunctioning gear;
f. Not having cell phone reception in case of emergencies;
g. Slips and falls;
h. Navigation challenges;
i. Cliffs or precipices;
j. Sudden weather changes/storms;
k. None.
l. Other (please specify)
What is your preferred running surface?
3 a. Technical trails (photo of a rocky, single-track trail);
b. Buffed out trails (photo of a smooth, wider trail).
What type of trail races/challenges do you seek?
4 a. Undulating;
b. Fairly flat;
c. Steep.
Are you an elevation (“vert”) seeker?
5 a. Yes;
b. No;
c. Depending on my next race/season.
6 How many years have you been running? (single-line text box)
Approximately how many kilometers do you run a week?
a. Less than 10;
b. 10–20;
7 c. 20–30;
d. 30–40;
e. 40–50;
f. 50–60;
g. 60+.
How many days a week do you run?
a. One;
b. Two;
8 c. Three;
d. Four;
e. Five;
f. Six;
g. Seven.
What is your gender?
9 a. Woman;
b. Man;
c. Other.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 97 12 of 14

Table A1. Cont.

No. Question
What is your age?
a. 19–24;
b. 25–34;
10 c. 35–44;
d. 45–54;
e. 55–64;
f. 65+.

Table A2. Breakdown of trail runner characteristics by age.

Overall Age Not

Variable Sample n (%) 19–24 n (%) 25–34 n (%) 35–44 n (%) 45–54 n (%) 55–64 (%) 65+ (%) Answered
Gender
Man 231 (44.2) 35 (30.4) 60 (48.4) 66 (55.0) 43 (50.0) 15 (44.1) 12 (80.0) 0 (0.0)
Woman 262 (50.1) 79 (68.7) 64 (51.6) 54 (45.0) 43 (50.0) 19 (55.9) 3 (20.0) 0 (0.0)
Other 1 (0.2) 1 (0.9) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Missing 29 (5.5) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 29 (100.0)
Total 523 (100.0) 115 (100.0) 124 (100.0) 120 (100.0) 86 (100.0) 34 (100.0) 15 (100.0) 29 (100.0)
No. of years running
0–5 171 (32.7) 64 (55.7) 57 (46.0) 33 (27.5) 14 (16.3) 1 (2.9) 2 (13.3) 0 (0.0)
6–10 139 (26.6) 39 (33.9) 31 (25.0) 38 (31.7) 23 (26.7) 6 (17.6) 2 (13.3) 0 (0.0)
11–15 57 (10.9) 8 (7.0) 21 (16.9) 17 (14.2) 8 (9.3) 3 (8.8) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
16–20 50 (9.6) 2 (1.7) 9 (7.3) 15 (12.5) 14 (16.3) 7 (20.6) 3 (20.0) 0 (0.0)
21–25 19 (3.6) 1 (0.9) 2 (1.6) 7 (5.8) 7 (8.1) 2 (2.9) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
26–30 15 (2.9) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.8) 10 (8.3) 1 (1.2) 3 (8.8) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
30+ 33 (6.3) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 15 (17.4) 11 (32.4) 7 (46.7) 0 (0.0)
Missing 39 (7.5) 1 (0.9) 3 (2.4) 0 (0.0) 4 (4.7) 1 (2.9) 1 (6.7) 29 (100.0)
Total 523 (100.0) 115 (100.0) 124 (100.0) 120 (100.0) 86 (100.0) 34 (100.0) 15 (100.0) 29 (100.0)
Km distance/week
<10 54 (10.3) 31 (27.0) 9 (7.3) 7 (5.8) 4 (4.7) 2 (5.9) 1 (6.7) 0 (0.0)
10–20 98 (18.7) 34 (29.6) 25 (20.2) 16 (13.3) 12 (14.0) 8 (23.5) 3 (20.0) 0 (0.0)
21–30 84 (16.1) 22 (19.1) 17 (13.7) 22 (18.3) 17 (19.8) 4 (11.8) 2 (13.3) 0 (0.0)
31–40 58 (11.1) 12 (10.4) 13 (10.5) 7 (5.8) 11 (12.8) 12 (35.3) 3 (20.0) 0 (0.0)
41–50 63 (12.0) 3 (2.6) 17 (13.7) 21 (17.5) 16 (18.6) 4 (11.8) 2 (13.3) 0 (0.0)
50–60 44 (8.4) 5 (4.3) 14 (11.3) 15 (12.5) 7 (8.1) 2 (5.9) 1 (6.7) 0 (0.0)
60+ 92 (17.6) 7 (6.1) 29 (23.4) 32 (26.7) 19 (22.1) 2 (5.9) 3 (20.0) 0 (0.0)
Missing 30 (5.7) 1 (0.9) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 29 (100.0)
Total 523 (100.0) 115 (100.0) 124 (100.0) 120 (100.0) 86 (100.0) 34 (100.0) 15 (100.0) 29 (100.0)
No. of Days
Running/Week
1 19 (3.6) 7 (6.1) 6 (4.8) 4 (3.3) 1 (1.2) 0 (0.0) 1 (6.7) 0 (0.0)
2 54 (10.3) 21 (18.3) 16 (12.9) 6 (18.3) 6 (7.0) 3 (8.8) 2 (13.3) 0 (0.0)
3 135 (25.8) 35 (30.4) 30 (24.2) 32 (26.7) 23 (26.7) 13 (38.2) 2 (13.3) 0 (0.0)
4 103 (19.7) 15 (13.0) 23 (18.5) 25 (20.8) 25 (29.1) 12 (35.3) 3 (20.0) 0 (0.0)
5 93 (17.8) 17 (14.8) 25 (20.2) 26 (21.7) 17 (19.8) 5 (14.7) 3 (20.0) 0 (0.0)
6 65 (12.4) 15 (13.0) 13 (10.5) 22 (18.3) 12 (14.0) 1 (2.9) 2 (13.3) 0 (0.0)
7 24 (4.6) 5 (4.3) 10 (8.1) 5 (21.7) 2 (2.3) 0 (0.0) 2 (13.3) 0 (0.0)
Missing 30 (5.7) 0 (0.0) 1 (4.8) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 29 (100.0)
Total 523 (100.0) 115 (100.0) 124 (100.0) 120 (100.0) 86 (100.0) 34 (100.0) 15 (100.0) 29 (100.0)

Table A3. Breakdown of trail runner preferences and concerns by age.

Overall Age Not

Variable Sample n (%) 19–24 n (%) 25–34 n (%) 35–44 n (%) 45–54 n (%) 55–64 (%) 65+ (%) Answered
Importance of running
around Others
1 (not important) 192 (36.7) 40 (34.8) 38 (30.6) 49 (40.8) 39 (45.3) 16 (47.1) 5 (33.3) 5 (17.2)
2 104 (19.9) 23 (20.0) 28 (22.6) 27 (22.5) 17 (19.8) 5 (14.7) 1 (6.7) 3 (10.3)
3 108 (20.7) 28 (24.3) 34 (27.4) 16 (13.3) 16 (18.6) 3 (8.8) 6 (40.0) 5 (17.2)
4 54 (10.3) 12 (10.4) 14 (11.2) 12 (10.0) 5 (5.8) 8 (23.5) 2 (13.3) 1 (3.4)
5 (very important) 25 (4.8) 7 (6.1) 5 (4.0) 5 (4.2) 5 (5.8) 1 (2.9) 0 (0.0) 2 (6.8)
Missing 40 (7.6) 5 (4.3) 5 (4.0) 11 (9.2) 4 (4.7) 1 (2.9) 1 (6.7) 13 (44.8)
Total 523 (100.0) 115 (100.0) 124 (100.0) 120 (100.0) 86 (100.0) 34 (100.0) 15 (100.0) 29 (100.0)
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 97 13 of 14

Table A3. Cont.

Overall Age Not

Variable Sample n (%) 19–24 n (%) 25–34 n (%) 35–44 n (%) 45–54 n (%) 55–64 (%) 65+ (%) Answered
Concerns for safety
while running
(>1 response allowed)
Bears 158 (9.1) 29 (7.6) 45 (10.6) 37 (8.6) 20 (7.8) 9 (7.7) 14 (24.1) 4 (5.8)
Fear of people 135 (7.8) 34 (8.9) 32 (7.5) 33 (7.7) 22 (8.6) 7 (6.0) 3 (5.2) 4 (5.8)
Cougars 136 (7.8) 26 (6.8) 42 (9.9) 36 (8.4) 17 (6.6) 9 (7.7) 4 (6.9) 2 (2.9)
Other wildlife 81 (4.7) 22 (5.8) 16 (3.8) 21 (4.9) 13 (5.1) 3 (2.6) 2 (3.4) 4 (5.8)
Gear issues 107 (6.2) 28 (7.3) 28 (6.6) 23 (5.3) 14 (5.4) 7 (6.0) 1 (1.7) 6 (8.7)
No cell reception 222 (12.8) 57 (15.0) 53 (12.4) 52 (12.1) 29 (11.3) 16 (13.7) 5 (8.6) 10 (14.5)
Slips and falls 288 (16.6) 56 (14.7) 66 (15.5) 67 (15.5) 51 (19.8) 26 (22.2) 9 (15.5) 13 (18.8)
Navigation issues 162 (9.3) 37 (9.7) 37 (10.0) 43 (10.0) 21 (8.2) 14 (12.0) 3 (5.2) 7 (10.1)
Cliffs or precipices 75 (4.3) 12 (3.1) 17 (5.1) 22 (5.1) 12 (4.7) 5 (4.3) 4 (6.9) 3 (4.3)
Sudden weather 184 (10.6) 46 (12.1) 48 (9.3) 40 (9.3) 26 (10.1) 8 (6.8) 5 (8.6) 11 (15.9)
None 79 (4.5) 17 (4.5) 16 (4.2) 18 (4.2) 12 (4.7) 5 (4.3) 7 (12.1) 4 (5.8)
Other 112 (6.4) 17 (4.5) 26 (9.0) 39 (9.0) 20 (7.8) 8 (6.8) 1 (1.7) 1 (1.4)
117
Total 1739 (100.0) 381 (100.0) 426 (100.0) 431 (100.0) 257 (100.0) (100.0) 58 (100.0) 69 (100.0)

Preferred running
surface
Buffed out trails 293 (56.0) 97 (84.3) 62 (50.0) 50 (41.7) 45 (52.3) 21 (61.8) 10 (66.7) 8 (27.6)
Technical trails 211 (40.3) 18 (15.7) 62 (50.0) 70 (58.3) 41 (47.7) 12 (35.3) 5 (33.3) 3 (10.3)
Missing 19 (3.6) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.9) 0 (0.0) 18 (62.1)
Total 523 (100.0) 115 (100.0) 124 (100.0) 120 (100.0) 86 (100.0) 34 (100.0) 15 (100.0) 29 (100.0)
Prefers elevation
Yes 140 (26.8) 24 (20.9) 43 (34.7) 35 (29.2) 24 (27.9) 8 (23.5) 3 (20.0) 3 (5.6)
No 154 (29.4) 46 (40.0) 33 (26.6) 29 (24.2) 22 (25.6) 14 (41.2) 7 (46.7) 3 (5.6)
Depending on next
211 (40.3) 45 (39.1) 48 (38.7) 56 (46.7) 40 (46.5) 12 (35.3) 5 (33.3) 5 (9.3)
race/season
Missing 18 (3.4) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 18 (79.6)
Total 523 (100.0) 115 (100.0) 124 (100.0) 120 (100.0) 86 (100.0) 34 (100.0) 15 (100.0) 29 (100.0)
Preferred trail race
challenges
Undulating 299 (57.2) 62 (53.9) 67 (54.0) 72 (60.0) 55 (64.0) 26 (76.5) 11 (73.3) 6 (20.7)
Fairly flat 85 (16.3) 39 (33.9) 17 (13.7) 9 (7.5) 8 (9.3) 4 (11.8) 4 (26.7) 4 (13.8)
Steep 118 (22.6) 13 (11.3) 40 (32.3) 38 (31.7) 23 (26.7) 3 (8.8) 0 (0.0) 1 (3.4)
Missing 21 (4.0) 1 (0.9) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.8) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.9) 0 (0.0) 18 (62.1)
Total 523 (100.0) 115 (100.0) 124 (100.0) 120 (100.0) 86 (100.0) 34 (100.0) 15 (100.0) 29 (100.0)

References
1. Cejka, N.; Rüst, C.A.; Lepers, R.; Onywera, V.; Rosemann, T.; Knechtle, B. Participation and Performance Trends in 100-Km
Ultra-Marathons Worldwide. J. Sports Sci. 2014, 32, 354–366. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Bob, C. Head, Heart and Soul: The Future of Trail Running. Ultra Running Magazine (Blog). 24 February 2021. Available online:
https://ultrarunning.com/featured/head-heart-and-soul-the-future-of-trail-running/ (accessed on 5 July 2023).
3. World Athletics: Trail Running. World Athletics (Webpage). (n.d). Available online: https://worldathletics.org/disciplines/trail-
running/trail-running (accessed on 5 July 2023).
4. Kozlovskaia, M.; Vlahovich, N.; Rathbone, E.; Manzanero, S.; Keogh, J.; Hughes, D.C. A Profile of Health, Lifestyle and Training
Habits of 4720 Australian Recreational Runners—The Case for Promoting Running for Health Benefits. Health Promot. J. Aust.
2019, 30, 172–179. [CrossRef]
5. Lee, K.; Lee, P.; Macfarlane, D. Associations between Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity and Neighbourhood Recreational
Facilities: The Features of the Facilities Matter. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 12594–12610. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Maclagan, L.C.; Tu, J.V. Using the Concept of Ideal Cardiovascular Health to Measure Population Health: A Review. Curr. Opin.
Cardiol. 2015, 30, 518–524. [CrossRef]
7. Oswald, F.; Campbell, J.; Williamson, C.; Richards, J.; Kelly, P. A Scoping Review of the Relationship between Running and
Mental Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 17, 8059. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Van Renswouw, L.; Bogers, S.; Vos, S. Urban Planning For Active And Healthy Public Spaces With User-Generated Big Data. In
Proceedings of the Data for Policy 2016—Frontiers of Data Science for Government: Ideas, Practices and Projections (Data for
Policy), Cambridge, MA, USA, 15–16 September 2017; 2017. [CrossRef]
9. Wolf, I.D.; Wohlfart, T. Walking, Hiking and Running in Parks: A Multidisciplinary Assessment of Health and Well-Being Benefits.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 130, 89–103. [CrossRef]
10. Lavie, C.J.; Lee, D.; Sui, X.; Arena, R.; O’Keefe, J.H.; Church, T.S.; Milani, R.V.; Blair, S.N. Effects of Running on Chronic Diseases
and Cardiovascular and All-Cause Mortality. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2015, 90, 1541–1552. [CrossRef]
11. Wang, Y.; Lee, D.; Brellenthin, A.G.; Eijsvogels, T.M.H.; Sui, X.; Church, T.S.; Lavie, C.J.; Blair, S.N. Leisure-Time Running Reduces
the Risk of Incident Type 2 Diabetes. Am. J. Med. 2019, 132, 1225–1232. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 97 14 of 14

12. Nieman, D.C.; Sakaguchi, C.A. Physical Activity Lowers the Risk for Acute Respiratory Infections: Time for Recognition. J. Sport
Health Sci. 2022, 11, 648–655. [CrossRef]
13. Mehta, A.; Kondamudi, N.; Laukkanen, J.A.; Wisloff, U.; Franklin, B.A.; Arena, R.; Lavie, C.J.; Pandey, A. Running Away
from Cardiovascular Disease at the Right Speed: The Impact of Aerobic Physical Activity and Cardiorespiratory Fitness on
Cardiovascular Disease Risk and Associated Subclinical Phenotypes. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2020, 63, 762–774. [CrossRef]
14. Caoimhe, T.B.; Jones, A. The Health Benefits of the Great Outdoors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Greenspace
Exposure and Health Outcomes. Environ. Res. 2018, 166, 628–637. [CrossRef]
15. Paraskevopoulou, A.T.; Chletsou, M.; Malesios, C. Runners Experience Lower Heart Rate, Increased Speed, and Joy/Calm
on Routes with Trees, by the Sea and through Parks: Implications for Climate Change Design. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16280.
[CrossRef]
16. Cook, S.; Shaw, J.; Simpson, P. Jography: Exploring Meanings, Experiences and Spatialities of Recreational Road-Running.
Mobilities 2016, 11, 744–769. [CrossRef]
17. Schnohr, P.; Marott, J.L.; Lange, P.; Jensen, G.B. Longevity in Male and Female Joggers: The Copenhagen City Heart Study. Am. J.
Epidemiol. 2013, 177, 683–689. [CrossRef]
18. Ineke, D.; Janssen, M.; Vos, S.; Kamphuis, C.B.M.; Ettema, D. Attractive Running Environments for All? A Cross-Sectional Study
on Physical Environmental Characteristics and Runners’ Motives and Attitudes, in Relation to the Experience of the Running
Environment. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 366. [CrossRef]
19. Sun, Y. Exploring potential of crowdsourced geographic information in studies of active travel and health: Strava data and
cycling behaviour. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Info. Sci. 2017, XLII-2/W7, 1357–1361. [CrossRef]
20. Shashank, A.; Schuurman, N.; Copley, R.; Lear, S.A. Creation of a Rough Runnability Index Using an Affordance-Based
Framework. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2022, 49, 321–334. [CrossRef]
21. Dengkai, H.; Tian, M.; Yuan, L. Sustainable Design of Running Friendly Streets: Environmental Exposures Predict Runnability by
Volunteered Geographic Information and Multilevel Model Approaches. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 89, 104336. [CrossRef]
22. Collinson, J.A. Running the Routes Together: Corunning and Knowledge in Action. J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 2008, 37, 38–61.
[CrossRef]
23. Schuurman, N.; Rosenkrantz, L.; Lear, S.A. Environmental Preferences and Concerns of Recreational Road Runners. Int. J. Environ.
Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6268. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Meeder, M.; Aebi, T.; Weidmann, U. The Influence of Slope on Walking Activity and the Pedestrian Modal Share. In Proceedings
of the 20th EURO Working Group on Transportation Meeting, EWGT 2017, Transportation Research Procedia, Budapest, Hungry,
4–6 September 2017; pp. 141–147. [CrossRef]
25. Zhang, X.; Mu, L. The Perceived Importance and Objective Measurement of Walkability in the Built Environment Rating. Environ.
Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2020, 47, 1655–1671. [CrossRef]
26. Vaz de Almeida, M.D.; Graca, P.; Alfonso, C.; D’Amicus, A.; Lappalainen, R.; Damkjaer, S. Physical Activity Levels and Body
Weight in a National Representative Sample in the European Union. Public Health Nutr. 1999, 2, 105–113. [CrossRef]
27. Deaner, R.O.; Geary, D.C.; Puts, D.A.; Ham, S.A.; Kruger, J.; Fles, E.; Winegard, B.; Grandis, T. A sex difference in the predisposition
for physical competition: Males play sports much more than females even in the con-temporary US. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, 11.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Pollard, T.M.; Wagnild, J.M. Gender differences in walking (for leisure, transport and in total) across adult life: A systematic
review. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 341. [CrossRef]
29. Henderson, K.A.; Allen, K.R. The ethic of care: Leisure possibilities and constraints for women. Soc. Leis. 1991, 14, 97–113.
[CrossRef]
30. Miller, Y.D.; Brown, W.J. Determinants of active leisure for women with young children—An “ethic of care” prevails. Leis. Sci.
2005, 27, 405–420. [CrossRef]
31. Wegner, C.E.; Ridinger, L.L.; Jordan, J.S.; Funk, D.C. Get serious: Gender and constraints to long-distance running. J. Leis. Res.
2015, 47, 305–321. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.