In recent years, a substantial amount of research has examined the relationship between the built environment and physical activity engagement. Measures to assess urban form have become increasingly sophisticated as this field has developed, shifting from a reliance on broad environmental classifications, self-report measures, and total physical activity accumulation to the use of more confined settings, objective measurement tools, and specific activity domains. Transport-related physical activity (TPA), which incorporates walking and cycling for travel purposes, including accessing public transport (PT), has attracted attention from public health and planning disciplines as it can provide a valuable source of physical activity accumulation while reducing automobile infrastructure provision and congestion [1]. The commute route environment [2] and associated travel distances [3] have been identified as important correlates of TPA engagement, and there is scope to compare these variables with objective measurement tools, such as geographical information systems (GIS) and global positioning systems (GPS).
GIS is regarded as the gold standard for objectively assessing built environments. For example, a recent study investigated the agreement between self-reported proximity to a park with GIS-determined crow-fly distance [4]. Agreement was poor between the two measures (62%, kappa = 0.095), and the authors concluded that destination-specific data should be taken objectively wherever possible. Furthermore, GIS is becoming a progressively popular measure to objectively assess the built environment–TPA relationship as it allows complex physical variables, such as mixed land use, residential density, and street connectivity, to be examined with relative ease. Research suggests that these three urban form measures influence TPA [5]. A further strength of GIS is that it can be used to model commute routes at the individual level based on the shortest street network distance using the closest facility function. To date, several studies have applied GIS to simulate commute routes and examine built environment features that adults [6, 7] and children [8] travel through, comparing these environments by travel modes. One study delimited the sample to adults commuting less than 5 km to access their workplace and compared street connectivity, mixed land use, and residential density using GIS-estimated measures. The results showed those who commuted through the most connected street networks, as determined by the shortest GIS-estimated street network commute, were sixfold as likely to travel by TPA modes when compared with adults traveling through the least connected environments [6].
Duncan and Mummery [9] recently compared GPS- and GIS-determined trip lengths and traffic volume exposure in children walking or cycling short distances (mean 1.08 km, range 4.36 km) to travel to and from school. Travel distances were the same for the two approaches, but the GIS-estimated commute route crossed over significantly more busy streets than the GPS-measured network. This information is useful; however, it is also important to determine if simulated GIS commute routes are comparable to actual commute routes by different travel modes, for important urban form correlates beyond travel distance and busy streets, and for longer journeys, such as the commute to work. The application of GPS units to help answer these questions is ideal; these are non-obtrusive, objective monitoring devices that spatially track where an individual moves. However, the integration of GPS and GIS in TPA research is relatively new.
The pilot study reported here builds upon the emerging evidence base by comparing GPS- and GIS-estimated commute routes, built environment commute route variables, and travel modes for adults commuting between a residential and occupational setting and seeks to investigate whether the GIS-estimated shortest commute route can be appropriately used to estimate the types of environment that people travel through. These findings will determine in part whether it is appropriate to apply a GIS-estimated commute network, or if simultaneous actual route measures are required for travel research in the adult population. This has important implications for research methods in this field and provides a clearer understanding of how built environments are associated with travel behaviors in the adult population.