Advertisement

Transportation

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 53–77 | Cite as

Built environment impacts on walking for transport in Brisbane, Australia

  • Md. Kamruzzaman
  • Simon Washington
  • Douglas Baker
  • Wendy Brown
  • Billie Giles-Corti
  • Gavin Turrell
Article

Abstract

This study examines the association between urban form and walking for transport in Brisbane, Australia based on both panel and cross-sectional data. Cross-sectional data are used to determine whether urban form was associated with walking for transport in 2011. Panel data are used to evaluate whether changes in the built environment altered walking behaviour between 2009 and 2011. Results from the cross-sectional data suggest that individuals are significantly more likely to be walkers if they live in an area with a well-connected street network and an accessible train station. The longitudinal analysis confirms these relationships; there also was however, a significant impact of travel attitudes and perceptions on walking behaviour. The findings suggest that the built environment continues to be an important factor to encourage walking; however, interventions are also required to change social norms in order to increase the receptiveness for and participation in walking.

Keywords

Urban form Residential self-selection Walking for transport Travel attitudes 

References

  1. Aditjandra, P.T., Cao, X., Mulley, C.: Understanding neighbourhood design impact on travel behaviour: an application of structural equations model to a British metropolitan data. Transp. Res. Part A 46, 22–32 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. Bagley, M., Mokhtarian, P.: The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: a structural equations modeling approach. Ann. Reg. Sci. 36, 279–297 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhat, C., Guo, J.: A comprehensive analysis of built environment characteristics on household residential choice and auto ownership levels. Transp. Res. Part B 41, 506–526 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boarnet, M.G., Sarmiento, S.: Can land use policy really affect travel behaviour? A study of the link between non-work travel and land-use characteristics. Urban Stud. 35, 1155–1169 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brisbane City Council Brisbane active transport strategy: walking and cycling plan 2005–2010, Brisbane (2005) Google Scholar
  6. Brisbane City Council Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008–2026, Brisbane (2008)Google Scholar
  7. Brown, W., Burton, N., Marshall, A., Miller, Y.: Reliability and validity of a modified selfadministered version of the active Australia physical activity survey in a sample of mid-age women. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 32, 535–541 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., Handy, S.L.: Do changes in neighborhood characteristics lead to changes in travel behavior? A structural equations modeling approach. Transportation 34, 535–556 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cerin, E., Leslie, E., Owen, N.: Explaining socio-economic status differences in walking for transport: an ecological analysis of individual, social and environmental factors. Soc. Sci. Med. 68, 1013–1020 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cervero, R., Duncan, M.: Residential self-selection and rail commuting: a nested logit analysis. University of California Transportation Center (2008)Google Scholar
  11. Cools, M., Moons, E., Janssens, B., Wets, G.: Shifting towards environment-friendly modes: profiling travelers using Q-methodology. Transportation 36, 437–453 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Vos, J., Derudder, B., Van Acker, V., Witlox, F.: Reducing car use: changing attitudes or relocating? The influence of residential dissonance on travel behavior. J. Transp. Geogr. 22, 1–9 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duncan, M.J., Winkler, E., Sugiyama, T., Cerin, E., duToit, L., Leslie, E., Owen, N.: Relationships of land use mix with walking for transport: do land uses and geographical scale matter? J. Urban Health 87, 782–795 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elias, W., Shiftan, Y.: The influence of individual’s risk perception and attitudes on travel behavior. Transp. Res. Part A 46, 1241–1251 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. Ewing, R., Cervero, R.: Travel and the built environment. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 76, 265–294 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frank, L.D., Schmid, T.L., Sallis, J.F., Chapman, J., Saelens, B.E.: Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: findings from SMARTRAQ. Am. J. Prev. Med. 28, 117–125 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giles-Corti, B.: People or places: what should be the target? J. Sci. Med. Sport 9, 357–366 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giles-Corti, B., Bull, F., Knuiman, M., McCormack, G., Van Niel, K., Timperio, A., Christian, H., Foster, S., Divitini, M., Middleton, N., Boruff, B.: The influence of urban design on neighbourhood walking following residential relocation: longitudinal results from the RESIDE study. Soc. Sci. Med. 77, 20–30 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenwald, M., Boarnet, M.: The built environment as a determinant of walking behavior: analyzing non-work pedestrian travel in Portland, Oregon. Transp. Res. Rec. 1780, 33–42 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greenwald, M.J.: The relationship between land use and intrazonal trip making behaviors: evidence and implications. Transp. Res. Part D 11, 432–446 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guo, J.Y., Chen, C.: The built environment and travel behavior: making the connection. Transportation 34, 529–533 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guo, Z.: Does the pedestrian environment affect the utility of walking? A case of path choice in downtown Boston. Transp. Res. Part D 14, 343–352 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Handy, S., Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.: Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transp. Res. Part D 10, 427–444 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Handy, S., Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.: Self-selection in the relationship between the built environment and walking—empirical evidence from northern California. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 72, 55–74 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Handy, S., Clifton, K.: Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automobile travel. Transportation 28, 317–346 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Humpel, N., Owen, N., Iverson, D., Leslie, E., Bauman, A.: Perceived environment attributes, residential location, and walking for particular purposes. Am. J. Prev. Med. 26, 119–125 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kamruzzaman, M., Baker, D., Washington, S., Turrell, G.: Residential dissonance and mode choice. J. Transp. Geogr. 33, 12–28 (2013a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kamruzzaman, M., Baker, D., Washington, S., Turrell, G.: Advance transit oriented development typology: case study in Brisbane, Australia. J. Transp. Geogr. 34, 54–70 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kamruzzaman, M., Hine, J.: Participation index: a measure to identify rural transport disadvantage? J. Transp. Geogr. 19, 882–899 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kamruzzaman, M., Washington, S., Baker, D., Turrell, G.: Does residential dissonance affect residential mobility? Transp. Res. Rec. 2344, 59–67 (2013b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Khattak, A.J., Rodriguez, D.: Travel behavior in neo-traditional neighborhood developments: a case study in USA. Transp. Res. Part A 39, 481–500 (2005)Google Scholar
  32. Krizek, K.J.: Residential relocation and changes in urban travel: does neighborhood-scale urban form matter? J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 69, 265–281 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krizek, K.J., Handy, S.L., Forsyth, A.: Explaining changes in walking and bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation research. Environ. Plan. 36, 725–740 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee, C., Moudon, A.V.: The 3Ds+R: quantifying land use and urban form correlates of walking. Transp. Res. Part D 11, 204–215 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee, I.M., Ewing, R., Sesso, H.D.: The built environment and physical activity levels: the harvard alumni health study. Am. J. Prev. Med. 37, 293–298 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leslie, E., Coffee, N., Frank, L., Owen, N., Bauman, A., Hugo, G.: Walkability of local communities: using geographical information systems to objectively assess relevant environmental attributes. Health Place 13, 111–122 (2007a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leslie, E., McCrea, R., Cerin, E., Stimson, R.: Regional variations in walking for different purposes: the South East Queensland quality of life study. Environ. Behav. 39, 557–577 (2007b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leslie, E., Saelens, B., Frank, L., Owen, N., Bauman, A., Coffee, N., Hugo, G.: Residents’ perceptions of walkability attributes in objectively different neighbourhoods: a pilot study. Health Place 11, 227–236 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Manaugh, K., El-Geneidy, A.M.: Does distance matter? Exploring the links among values, motivations, home location, and satisfaction in walking trips. Transp. Res. Part A 50, 198–208 (2013)Google Scholar
  40. Matthies, E., Kuhn, S., Klöckner, C.A.: Travel mode choice of women: the result of limitation, ecological norm, or weak habit? Environ. Behav. 34, 163–177 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meurs, H., Haaijer, R.: Spatial structure and mobility. Transp. Res. Part D 6, 429–446 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mokhtarian, P.L., Cao, X.: Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: a focus on methodologies. Transp. Res. Part B 42, 204–228 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nkurunziza, A., Zuidgeest, M., MarkBrussel, Maarseveen, M.V.: Examining the potential for modal change: motivators and barriers for bicycle commuting in Dar-es-Salaam. Transp. Policy 24, 249–259 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oakes, J.M., Forsyth, A., Schmitz, K.H.: The effects of neighborhood density and street connectivity on walking behavior: the Twin Cities walking study. Epidemiol. Perspect. Innov. 4 (2007)Google Scholar
  45. OECD: compact city policies: a comparative assessment. OECD publishing (2012)Google Scholar
  46. Pinjari, A., Pendyala, R., Bhat, C., Waddell, P.: Modeling residential sorting effects to understand the impact of the built environment on commute mode choice. Transportation 34, 557–573 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Queensland Government toward Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland, Brisbane (2008)Google Scholar
  48. Queensland Government Action Plan for Walking 2008–2010, Brisbane (2009a)Google Scholar
  49. Queensland Government: South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009–2031. Queensland Department of Infrastructure and Planning, Brisbane (2009)Google Scholar
  50. Ramon, M.-R.: Walking accessibility to bus rapid transit: does it affect property values? The case of Bogotá, Colombia. Transp. Policy 17, 72–84 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saelens, B., Sallis, J., Frank, L.: Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Ann. Behav. Med. 25, 80–91 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Salon, D.: Neighbourhoods, cars, and commuting in New York City: a discrete choice approach. Transp. Res. Part A 43, 180–196 (2009)Google Scholar
  53. Schwanen, T., Mokhtarian, P.: What affects commute mode choice: neighbourhood physical structure or preferences toward neighbourhoods? J. Transp. Geogr. 13, 83–99 (2005a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schwanen, T., Mokhtarian, P.: What if you live in the wrong neighborhood? The impact of residential neighborhood type dissonance on distance traveled. Transp. Res. Part D 10, 127–151 (2005b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shimura, H., Sugiyama, T., Winkler, E., Owen, N.: High neighborhood walkability mitigates declines in middle-to-older aged adults’ walking for transport. J. Phys. Act. Health 9, 1004–1008 (2012)Google Scholar
  56. Singleton, R.A., Straits, B.C.: Approaches to Social Research. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford (1999)Google Scholar
  57. Smith, P.N., Taylor, C.J.: A method for the rationalisation of a suburban railway network. Transp. Res. Part A 28, 93–107 (1994)Google Scholar
  58. Stangl, P., Guinn, J.M.: Neighbourhood design, connectivity assessment and obstruction. Urban Des. Int. 16, 285–296 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thøgersen, J.: Understanding repetitive travel mode choices in a stable context: a panel study approach. Transp. Res. Part A 40, 621–638 (2006)Google Scholar
  60. Transportation Research Board.: Does the built environment influence physical activity? Examining the evidence. TRB Special Report 282, Washington, DC (2005)Google Scholar
  61. Turrell, G., Haynes, M., Burton, N., Giles-Corti, B., Oldenburg, B., Wilson, L.-A.M., Giskes, K.M., Brown, W.J.: Neighborhood disadvantage and physical activity: baseline results from the HABITAT multilevel longitudinal study. Ann. Epidemiol. 20, 171–181 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. UCLA: Academic Technology Services (2012) Stata FAQ: How can I use countfit in choosing a count model? Statistical Consulting Group. http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/faq/countfit.htm. 11.06.2012
  63. Van Cauwenberg, J., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., De Meester, F., Van Dyck, D., Salmon, J., Clarys, P., Deforche, B.: Relationship between the physical environment and physical activity in older adults: a systematic review. Health Place 17, 458–469 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vance, C., Hedel, R.: The impact of urban form on automobile travel: disentangling causation from correlation. Transportation 34, 575–588 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Washington, S., Matthew, K., Mannering, F.: Statistical and Econometric Methods for Transportation Data Analysis. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Md. Kamruzzaman
    • 1
  • Simon Washington
    • 1
  • Douglas Baker
    • 1
  • Wendy Brown
    • 2
  • Billie Giles-Corti
    • 3
  • Gavin Turrell
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Civil Engineering and the Built EnvironmentQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Human Movement StudiesUniversity of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia
  3. 3.McCaughey VicHealth Centre for Community Wellbeing, Melbourne School of Population and Global HealthThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.School of Public Health and Social WorkQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations