Neighbourhood, Route and Workplace-Related
Environmental Characteristics Predict Adults’ Mode of
Travel to Work
Alice M. Dalton1,3*, Andrew P. Jones2,3, Jenna R. Panter3,4, David Ogilvie3,4
1 School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom, 2Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom,
3UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 4Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, Institute of
Public Health, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Abstract
Objective: Commuting provides opportunities for regular physical activity which can reduce the risk of chronic disease.
Commuters’ mode of travel may be shaped by their environment, but understanding of which specific environmental
characteristics are most important and might form targets for intervention is limited. This study investigated associations
between mode choice and a range of objectively assessed environmental characteristics.
Methods: Participants in the Commuting and Health in Cambridge study reported where they lived and worked, their usual
mode of travel to work and a variety of socio-demographic characteristics. Using geographic information system (GIS)
software, 30 exposure variables were produced capturing characteristics of areas around participants’ homes and
workplaces and their shortest modelled routes to work. Associations between usual mode of travel to work and personal
and environmental characteristics were investigated using multinomial logistic regression.
Results: Of the 1124 respondents, 50% reported cycling or walking as their usual mode of travel to work. In adjusted
analyses, home-work distance was strongly associated with mode choice, particularly for walking. Lower odds of walking or
cycling rather than driving were associated with a less frequent bus service (highest versus lowest tertile: walking OR 0.61
[95% CI 0.20–1.85]; cycling OR 0.43 [95% CI 0.23–0.83]), low street connectivity (OR 0.22, [0.07–0.67]; OR 0.48 [0.26–0.90]) and
free car parking at work (OR 0.24 [0.10–0.59]; OR 0.55 [0.32–0.95]). Participants were less likely to cycle if they had access to
fewer destinations (leisure facilities, shops and schools) close to work (OR 0.36 [0.21–0.62]) and a railway station further from
home (OR 0.53 [0.30–0.93]). Covariates strongly predicted travel mode (pseudo r-squared 0.74).
Conclusions: Potentially modifiable environmental characteristics, including workplace car parking, street connectivity and
access to public transport, are associated with travel mode choice, and could be addressed as part of transport policy and
infrastructural interventions to promote active commuting.
Citation: Dalton AM, Jones AP, Panter JR, Ogilvie D (2013) Neighbourhood, Route and Workplace-Related Environmental Characteristics Predict Adults’ Mode of
Travel to Work. PLoS ONE 8(6): e67575. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0067575
Editor: Harry Zhang, Old Dominion University, United States of America
Received November 19, 2012; Accepted May 22, 2013; Published June 19, 2013
Copyright: � 2013 Dalton et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: The Commuting and Health in Cambridge study was developed by David Ogilvie, Simon Griffin, Andy Jones and Roger Mackett, and initially funded
under the auspices of the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart
Foundation, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices
of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. The study is now funded by the National Institute for Health Research Public Health
Research programme (project number 09/3001/06: see http://www.phr.nihr.ac.uk/funded_projects). David Ogilvie is also supported by the Medical Research
Council (Unit Programme number MC_U106179474). The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the
NIHR PHR programme, NHS or the Department of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation
of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
* E-mail: a.dalton@uea.ac.uk
Introduction
People who engage in physical activity are less likely to suffer
from a range of preventable chronic diseases [1]. However, most
people do not meet government guidelines for physical activity [2],
which contributes to the burden of disease in the UK [3] and
globally [4]. One way of increasing population activity levels may
be to build it into daily routines, for example in the form of active
travel (cycling and walking) for part or all of the journey to work
[5]. This has the potential to make a significant contribution to
physical activity, as commuting to and from work constitutes 15%
of the journeys made in the UK and the United States [6,7] and
19% of the distance travelled [7]. There has been a steady decline
in cycling and walking to work during the last few decades as the
car has become a more popular choice [8] and people have tended
to live further from work [9]. Nevertheless, there is evidence that
regular active travellers are physically fitter and have higher levels
of mental wellbeing and lower sickness absence from work [10,11].
In addition, public transport may provide an alternative to the car
for those living further from work and offer health as well as
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e67575
environmental benefits, with US research finding that people
walking to transit stops can accrue around 30% of their
recommended daily activity levels by doing so [12]. A recent
modelling study has suggested that a step-change in the prevalence
of walking and cycling in England and Wales could save the
National Health Service approximately £17bn in healthcare costs
associated with chronic conditions such as type-2 diabetes, cancer,
heart disease and depression over the next 20 years [13].
Features of the built and natural environments within which
people live and work may influence the mode of travel used [1],
such as for journeys to work, by either supporting or acting as a
barrier against walking and cycling. In order to develop
environments more supportive of a modal shift towards more
active travel at the population level, we therefore need to better
understand the importance of characteristics of the home, work
and journey environments [14,15]. Whilst there is good evidence
that modal choice is associated with travel distance, evidence is
more equivocal regarding the importance of many other
characteristics of the physical environment including street
network connectivity, urban design, walkable destinations (includ-
ing schools, shops, leisure and cultural facilities), land use,
infrastructure for walking or cycling, and the availability of or
access to public transport [1,16,17]. It is also noteworthy that
despite the constraints of distance, some people do use active
modes of travel even if they live a relatively long way from work.
In part, our limited understanding of the correlates of active
travel may reflect methodological limitations of some previous
studies. A recent systematic review of the environmental correlates
of cycling noted that few studies had measured the environment
objectively and none of the 21 studies identified could be regarded
as methodologically strong [16]. Reasons included failing to
control for confounders, such as gender and age; failing to carry
out analysis at the individual level; and using inappropriate
statistical methods. Many studies have examined environmental
attributes, public transport (transit) accessibility, or restrictions on
car use singly but not in combination, meaning that the relative
importance of these factors is not known. For these reasons, a
recent review concluded that empirical research either does not
include or provides inconclusive evidence on the influence of the
transport environment on travel behaviour [1]. In addition,
research has tended to treat walking and cycling as a singular
behaviour, whereas they are distinct behaviours likely to have
different correlates [18,19]. A further limitation is that character-
istics of the home neighbourhood have often been the focus for
analysis, yet the workplace environment and that of the route
between home and work may also be important [20,21,22].
Although some research has considered distances to public
transport (transit) stops [23], overall accessibility and the ease by
which that transport may be used to reach work has rarely been
considered [16,24]. In general, previous studies on active travel
suggest that existing models fail to account for a significant
proportion of the variance in travel behaviour. Environmental
attributes have been shown to explain some of this variance, but
prior empirical research has typically tested a limited range of
independent variables in rather environmentally homogeneous,
often urban, settings.
Using a much wider range of objective environmental measures
than have commonly been tested, the aim of this study is to
investigate the extent to which features of the environment are
associated with modal choice amongst a sample of commuters in
Cambridge, UK. We focus on the individual level and assess
correlates for travel by all modes. In doing so, we aim to identify
modifiable environmental characteristics that might form the
targets of future interventions to increase the prevalence of active
travel.
Methods
Study design and setting
This research analysed cross-sectional data obtained from a
sample of commuters taking part in the Commuting and Health in
Cambridge study in Cambridge, UK. The details of this study
have been outlined previously [25]. Participants were aged 16 and
over, working in Cambridge and living within 30 km of the city.
They were sampled using a workplace recruitment strategy that
targeted a variety of workplaces and employers in a range of
geographical locations across the city centre and urban fringe.
The data used for this analysis were collected between May and
November 2009 using postal questionnaires [26]. Participants
reported their recent physical activity (at home, at work and for
recreation), general health, and travel to and from work and for
other purposes. Personal characteristics such as age, gender,
weight, height and highest educational attainment were also
reported. 1168 respondents returned questionnaires, 1155 of
whom provided valid postcodes which could be used to identify
their home and work locations.
Ethics statement
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the
Hertfordshire Research Ethics Committee (reference number
08/H0311/208) and written informed consent was provided by
each participant. No minors/children participated in this study.
Determining modal choice
Two sections of the survey questionnaire were relevant to this
analysis. The first comprised the Recent Physical Activity
Questionnaire (RPAQ), a validated instrument that measures
physical activity in the previous four weeks [27]. RPAQ was used
to classify participants according to their usual mode of travel to
work. The survey listed four modes (car/motor vehicle, works or
public transport, bicycle, or walking) and participants were asked
to specify if they ‘always’, ‘usually’, ‘occasionally’ or ‘never or
rarely’ travelled to work by each mode. Most participants selected
the option of ‘always’ for one mode of transport, and their usual
mode was classified accordingly. For the 178 cases in which more
than one mode was identified, rules were established to classify
participants according to their predominant modal choice based
on the most frequently reported travel mode: if participants stated
that they always or usually walked and/or cycled but that they also
always or usually used the car, they were coded as using the car as
it was presumed this would constitute the main component of the
journey (n = 92); if they stated they always or usually walked and/
or cycled but also always or usually used public transport, they
were coded as using public transport (n = 39); if they reported
always or usually walking and cycling they were coded as cycling
(n = 9); and if they stated that they sometimes used the car and
sometimes the bicycle, they were coded as using the car (n = 3).
For 35 participants, no predominant mode could be determined
at this stage. In these cases, a question from the second relevant
section of the questionnaire, ‘About your travel to and from work in the
last seven days’, was used to identify the predominant mode or
modes used in the previous seven days. Of those always reporting
more than one mode per journey, 19 using the car and bus were
classified as car users, one reporting walking and using the train
was classified as using the train, and one using the train and the car
was classified as using the train. For those reporting a mixture of
different modes which varied throughout the week, six used the car
Environment, Travel Mode and the Commute to Work
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 2 June 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 6 | e67575
most frequently and one used the train most frequently. One
participant did not answer the RPAQ question but responded as
only using the car to the ‘last seven days’ question. Six participants
could not be attributed to one predominant mode because they
reported using a mixture of different modes of transport
throughout the week with equal frequency, and were therefore
not included in subsequent analyses.
Environmental measures, neighbourhood delineation
and route identification
For each participant, environmental measures were calculated
for the home neighbourhood, the work neighbourhood, and the
route between home and work. Table 1 presents a total of 30
different measures together with the data sources that were used to
calculate them, grouped into themes of ‘roads and routes’, ‘public
transport’ and ‘land use’.
In order to generate neighbourhoods, participants’ home and
work postcodes were georeferenced using the Ordnance Survey
(OS) Address Layer 2Hdatabase [28]. A pedestrian route network
dataset was constructed in the ArcGIS 9.3 [29] geographic
information system (GIS) software package by combining road
data, excluding motorways, from the OS MasterMapH Integrated
Transport NetworkTM (ITN) database with local authority rights-
of-way data (public footpaths, bridleways and byways), cycle route
information from the charity Sustrans [30], and other informal
pathways recorded on OpenStreetMap.com. Using this informa-
tion, home neighbourhoods were delineated to represent areas
that could be accessed within an approximate ten-minute walking
time (equating to 800 m along the pedestrian network). This
distance has been used in previous accessibility analysis to
represent a practically walkable neighbourhood area [19,31,32].
To delineate the route between home and work for each
participant, ArcGIS was used to identify sections of the pedestrian
network that comprised the shortest route between the two
locations. Subsequently, the characteristics of the environment
within a 100 m distance of the route were quantified.
The ‘roads and routes’ environmental variables that were
computed included a measure of distance to work (length of
shortest route between home and work), route directness (ratio of
route network to straight line distance), whether participants were
travelling into or out of the city centre on their journey from home
to work (a participant was defined as working in the city if they
worked within 2 km of Cambridge central bus station, and defined
as living in the city if they lived in the Cambridge urban area
according to the 2001 census [33]) and the proportion of route
length that was along A or B (major) roads. In addition, five
measures of the walkability of the streets in the home neighbour-
hood were calculated, including road density, junction density,
road connectivity, existence of A class (major) roads, the
proportion of foot/cycle paths, and the general ‘walkable area’
(defined as the area walkable within 800 m along the route
network buffer from participants’ home location divided by the
area within an 800 m straight line distance).
Public transport variables were derived using the route network
dataset in combination with the National Public Transport Access
Nodes (NAPTAN) and Data Repository (NPTDR) datasets
[34,35]. Firstly, it was established whether or not there was a
bus service passing through the neighbourhood that would take
the participant to work, either directly or with one or more
changes. The other variables calculated for both the home and
work locations were the distance to the nearest bus stop, bus
service frequency, the number of bus stops, the number of bus
routes served and the distance to the nearest railway station. These
indicators used the pedestrian route network, the frequency of bus
services from the nearest bus stop on a typical weekday, the
number of serviced bus stops present, and the number of bus
routes available in the neighbourhood based on a count of unique
service numbers.
Land use variables included an indicator of land use mix - the
Herfindahl-Hirschmann Index (HHI) [36] - and building density
at the home location and on the route to work. A count of the
number of destinations (schools, eating and drinking establish-
ments, stage and screen venues, sports complexes, and retail units)
was taken after they were mapped along the route to work and in
the home and work neighbourhoods. A measure of local area
deprivation was calculated for the home neighbourhood, based on
the proportion of people in lower socioeconomic classes (semi-
routine occupations, routine occupations, never-worked and long-
term unemployed categories) living within the relevant Census
Output Area. In addition, the availability of workplace car parking
(none, charged or free) reported by each participant in their
questionnaire was used.
Data analysis
Unadjusted associations between usual travel mode (car, public
transport, cycling or walking) and home, work, and route
characteristics were examined using chi-square tests and analyses
of variance. Continuous variables were categorised as tertiles or
using other appropriate groupings. Prior to model fitting, multi-
collinearity was managed using a pair-wise correlation matrix to
identify variables that were highly associated, defined as having a
Pearson’s correlation coefficient of .0.55 based on previous
empirical research [37]. Only one variable from each correlated
pair was added into each model, the chosen one being that with
the strongest association in the expected direction with the
outcome variable. Multinomial regression models were then fitted
to examine adjusted associations, using commuting by car as the
reference category for the outcome variable. The models were
fitted in a number of stages. First, a personal model was created by
entering all potential individual and household-level covariates
into a multinomial logistic regression. Prior empirical evidence has
shown mixed associations between individual factors and active
travel [17], therefore all such variables were included at this stage.
After all these potential predictors were added, those for which
p.0.1 were removed in a backwards stepwise manner leaving only
those which were statis
本文档为【pone.0067575】,请使用软件OFFICE或WPS软件打开。作品中的文字与图均可以修改和编辑,
图片更改请在作品中右键图片并更换,文字修改请直接点击文字进行修改,也可以新增和删除文档中的内容。
该文档来自用户分享,如有侵权行为请发邮件ishare@vip.sina.com联系网站客服,我们会及时删除。
[版权声明] 本站所有资料为用户分享产生,若发现您的权利被侵害,请联系客服邮件isharekefu@iask.cn,我们尽快处理。
本作品所展示的图片、画像、字体、音乐的版权可能需版权方额外授权,请谨慎使用。
网站提供的党政主题相关内容(国旗、国徽、党徽..)目的在于配合国家政策宣传,仅限个人学习分享使用,禁止用于任何广告和商用目的。