Built Environment Influences on Healthy Transportation Choices: Bicycling versus Driving

Abstract

A growing body of evidence links the built environment to physical activity levels, health outcomes, and transportation behaviors. However, little of this research has focused on cycling, a sustainable transportation option with great potential for growth in North America. This study examines associations between decisions to bicycle (versus drive) and the built environment, with explicit consideration of three different spatial zones that may be relevant in travel behavior: trip origins, trip destinations, and along the route between. We analyzed 3,280 utilitarian bicycle and car trips in Metro Vancouver, Canada made by 1,902 adults, including both current and potential cyclists. Objective measures were developed for built environment characteristics related to the physical environment, land use patterns, the road network, and bicycle-specific facilities. Multilevel logistic regression was used to model the likelihood that a trip was made by bicycle, adjusting for trip distance and personal demographics. Separate models were constructed for each spatial zone, and a global model examined the relative influence of the three zones. In total, 31% (1,023 out of 3,280) of trips were made by bicycle. Increased odds of bicycling were associated with less hilliness; higher intersection density; less highways and arterials; presence of bicycle signage, traffic calming, and cyclist-activated traffic lights; more neighborhood commercial, educational, and industrial land uses; greater land use mix; and higher population density. Different factors were important within each spatial zone. Overall, the characteristics of routes were more influential than origin or destination characteristics. These findings indicate that the built environment has a significant influence on healthy travel decisions, and spatial context is important. Future research should explicitly consider relevant spatial zones when investigating the relationship between physical activity and urban form.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2

References

  1. 1.

    Transportation Research Board & Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Does the built environment influence physical activity?: examining the evidence. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Frumkin H, Frank LD, Jackson R. Urban sprawl and public health: designing, planning and building for healthy communities. Washington, DC: Island; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Frank LD, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Chapman JE, Saelens BE, Bachman W. Many pathways from land use to health—associations between neighborhood walkability and active transportation, body mass index, and air quality. J Am Plann Assoc. 2006; 72: 75–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Ewing R, Schmid T, Killingsworth R, Zlot A, Raudenbush S. Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity. Am J Health Promot. 2003; 18(1): 47–57.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Leyden KM. Social capital and the built environment: the importance of walkable neighborhoods. Am J Public Health. 2003; 93(9): 1546–1551.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Center for Disease Control (CDC). Physical activity and health: a report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: CDC; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Nelson AC, Allen D. If you build them, commuters will use them: association between bicycle facilities and bicycle commuting. Trans Res Rec. 1997; 1578: 79–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Dill J, Carr T. Bicycle commuting and facilities in major U.S. cities: if you build them, commuters will use them—another look. Trans Res Rec. 2003; 1828: 116–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Winters M, Teschke K. Route preferences among adults in the near market for cycling: findings of the Cycling in Cities Study. Am J Health Promot. 2010; 25(1): 40–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Hunt JD, Abraham JE. Influences on bicycle use. Transportation. 2007; 34(4): 453–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Stinson MA, Bhat CR. Frequency of bicycle commuting Internet-based survey analysis. Trans Res Rec. 2004; 1878: 122–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Winters M, Cooper A. What makes a neighbourhood bikeable: reporting on the results of focus group sessions. Vancouver: University of British Columbia/Translink; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Wendel-Vos GCW, Schuit AJ, De Niet R, Boshuizen HC, Saris WHM, Kromhout D. Factors of the physical environment associated with walking and bicycling. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004; 36: 725–730.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Moudon AV, Lee C, Cheadle AD, Collier CW, Johnson D, Schmid TL, Weather RD. Cycling and the built environment, a US perspective. Trans Res Part D. 2005; 10: 245–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Cervero R, Duncan M. Walking, bicycling, and urban landscapes: evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Am J Pub Health. 2003; 93(9): 1478–1483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Kwan M-P. Gender, the home-work link, and space–time patterns of nonemployment activities. Econ Geogr. 1999; 75: 370–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Lovasi G, Moudon A, Pearson A, et al. Using built environment characteristics to predict walking for exercise. Int J Health Geogr. 2008; 7: 10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Dill J. Bicycling for transportation and health: the role of infrastructure. J Public Health Policy. 2009; 30(Suppl 1): S95–S110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Winters M, Davidson G, Kao D, Teschke K. Motivators and deterrents of bicycling: factors influencing decisions to ride. Transportation. 2010; doi:10.1007/s11116-010-9284-y.

  20. 20.

    Translink. Greater Vancouver Trip Diary Survey. Vancouver: Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Cormen TH, Leiserson CE, Rivest RL, Stein C. Introduction to algorithms. 2nd ed. Cambridge: MIT; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    BC Government, 2006. Digital Road Atlas. December 2006 version. http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/crgb/products/mapdata/digital_road_atlas_products.htm. Accessed May 20, 2008.

  23. 23.

    ESRI. ArcGIS 9.3. Redlands: ESRI; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Oliver L, Schuurman N, Hall A. Comparing circular and network buffers to examine the influence of land use on walking for leisure and errands. Int J Health Geogr. 2007; 6: 41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Brownson RC, Hoehner CM, Day K, Forsyth A, Sallis JF. Measuring the built environment for physical activity: state of the science. Am J Prev Med. 2009; 36(4 Suppl): S99–S123.e12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Forsyth A, D’Sousa E, Koepp J, et al. Environment and physical activity: GIS protocols, version 4.1, June 2007, work in progress. University of Minnesota and Cornell; 2007.

  27. 27.

    Su JG, Brauer M, Buzzelli M. Estimating urban morphometry at the neighborhood scale for improvement in modeling long-term average air pollution concentrations. Atmos Environ. 2008; 42: 7884–7893.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Henderson SB, Beckerman B, Jerrett M, Brauer M. Application of land use regression to estimate long-term concentrations of traffic-related nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter. Environ Sci Technol. 2007; 41: 2422–2428.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Transportation Association of Canada. Geometric design guide for Canadian roads, part 2. Ottawa: Transportation Association of Canada; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Statistics Canada, 2006 Data. Complete cumulative profile, including income and earnings, and shelter costs, Canada, provinces, territories, census divisions, census subdivisions and dissemination areas. http://data.library.ubc.ca/java/jsp/database/production/detail.jsp?id=1057. Accessed April 20, 2008.

  31. 31.

    BC Assessment. 2006. http://www.bcassessment.bc.ca/products/index.asp. Accessed May 2, 2008.

  32. 32.

    Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD. Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: findings from the transportation, urban design and planning literatures. Ann Behav Med. 2003; 25: 80–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Hess PM, Moudon AV, Logsdon MG. Measuring land use patterns for transportation research. Trans Res Rec. 2001; 1780: 17–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Song Y, Rodríguez DA. The measurement of the level of mixed land uses: a synthetic approach. Chapel Hill: Carolina Transportation Program; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Dill J. Measuring network connectivity for bicycle and walking. TRB Annual Meeting. Washington, DC: TRB; 2004.

  36. 36.

    Tresidder M. Using GIS to measure connectivity: an exploration of issues. An exploration of issues [field area paper]. Portland: Portland State University, School of Urban Studies and Planning; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Dill J, Voros K. Factors affecting bicycling demand: initial survey findings from the Portland, Oregon, region. Trans Res Rec. 2007; 2031: 9–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Cervero R, Sarmiento OL, Jacoby E, Gomez LF, Neiman A. Influences of built environments on walking and cycling: lessons from Bogota. Int J Sustain Transp. 2009; 3: 203–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Badland HM, Schofield GM, Garrett N. Travel behavior and objectively measured urban design variables: associations for adults traveling to work. Health Place. 2008; 14: 85–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Saelens B, Handy S. Built environment correlates of walking: a review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008; 40(7 Suppl): S550–S566.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Forsyth A, Oakes JM, Schmitz KH, Hearst M. Does residential density increase walking and other physical activity? Urban Stud. 2007; 44(4): 679–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Frank LD, Schmid TL, Sallis JF, Chapman JF, Saelens BE. Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: findings from SMARTRAQ. Am J Prev Med. 2005; 28(2 Suppl 2): 117–125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Krizek KJ. Operationalizing neighborhood accessibility for land use-travel behavior research and regional modeling. J Plann Educ Res. 2003; 22(3): 270–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Brown BB, Yamada I, Smith KR, Zick CD, Kowaleski-Jones L, Fan JX. Mixed land use and walkability: variations in land use measures and relationships with BMI, overweight, and obesity. Health Place. 2009; 15(4): 1130–1141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Ewing R, Handy S, Brownson RC, Clemente O, Wintston E. Identifying and measuring urban design qualities related to walkability. JPAH. 2006; 3(Suppl 1): S223–S240.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Titze S, Stronegger WJ, Janschitz S, Oja P. Association of built-environment, social–environment and personal factors with bicycling as a mode of transportation among Austrian city dwellers. Prev Med. 2008; 47(3): 252–259.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    McGinn AP, Evenson KR, Herring AH, Huston SL. The relationship between leisure, walking, and transportation activity with the natural environment. Health Place. 2007; 13(3): 588–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    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; 3(92): 191–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Aultman-Hall L, Hall FL, Baetz BB. Analysis of bicycle commuter routes using geographic information systems: implications for bicycle planning. Trans Res Rec. 1997; 1578: 102–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Winters M, Teschke K, Grant M, Setton E, Brauer M. How far out of the way will we travel? Built environment influences on route selection for bicycle and car travel. Trans Res Rec. 2010; in press.

  51. 51.

    Krizek KJ, Johnson PJ. Proximity to trails and retail: effects on urban cycling and walking. J Am Plan Assoc. 2006; 72: 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    de Geus B, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Jannes C, Meeusen R. Psychosocial and environmental factors associated with cycling for transport among a working population. Health Educ Res. 2008; 23: 697–708.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Int Panis L, de Geus B, Vandenbulcke G, Willems H, Degraeuwe B, Bleux N, Mishra V, Thomas I, Meeusen R. Exposure to particulate matter in traffic: a comparison of cyclists and car passengers. Atmos Eviron. 2010; 44(19): 2263–2270.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Hillman M. Cycling: towards health and safety (a report for the British Medical Association). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Woodcock J, Edwards P, Tonne C, et al. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: urban land transport. Lancet. 2009; 374(9705): 1930–1943.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Dunn AL, Marcus BH, Kamper JB, Garcia ME, Kohl HW, Blair SN. Comparison of lifestyle and structured interventions to increase physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness: a randomized control trial. JAMA. 1999; 281(4): 327–334.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Moudon AV, Lee C. Walking and bicycling: an evaluation of environmental audit instruments. Am J Health Promot. 2003; 18(1): 21–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Prochaska JO, Redding CA, Evers KE. The transtheoretical model and stages of change. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM, eds. Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002: 99–120.

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Dill J, Gliebe J. Understanding and measuring bicycle behavior: a focus on travel time and route choice. Portland: Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium; 2008. OCREC-RR-08-03, Center for Urban Studies/Center for Transportation Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Pikora T, Giles-Corti B, Bull F, Jamrozik K, Donovan R. Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Soc Sci Med. 2003; 56(8): 1693–1703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Krizek K, Handy S, Forsyth A. Explaining changes in walking and bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation research. Environ & Plann B. 2009; 36(4): 725–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the following: participants of the Cycling in Cities study for their time, Translink and the NRG market research group for survey administration, Melissa Nunes and Michael Grant for geocoding and GIS analysis, peer reviewers for their incisive comments, and the Moving on Sustainable Transportation Program, Heart and Stroke Foundation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research for financial support.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meghan Winters.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Winters, M., Brauer, M., Setton, E.M. et al. Built Environment Influences on Healthy Transportation Choices: Bicycling versus Driving. J Urban Health 87, 969–993 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-010-9509-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Bicycle
  • Built environment
  • Physical activity
  • Urban form
  • Non-motorized transportation