Annals of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 80–91 | Cite as

Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures

  • Brian E. Saelens
  • James F. Sallis
  • Lawrence D. Frank
Article

Abstract

Research in transportation, urban design, and planning has examined associations between physical environment variables and individuals’ walking and cycling for transport. Constructs, methods, and findings from these fields can be applied by physical activity and health researchers to improve understanding of environmental influences on physical activity. In this review, neighborhood environment characteristics proposed to be relevant to walking/cycling for transport are defined, including population density, connectivity, and land use mix. Neighborhood comparison and correlational studies with nonmotorized transport outcomes are considered, with evidence suggesting that residents from communities with higher density, greater connectivity, and more land use mix report higher rates of walking/cycling for utilitarian purposes than low-density, poorly connected, and single land use neighborhoods. Environmental variables appear to add to variance accounted for beyond sociodemographic predictors of walking/cycling for transport. Implications of the transportation literature for physical activity and related research are outlined. Future research directions are detailed for physical activity research to further examine the impact of neighborhood and other physical environment factors on physical activity and the potential interactive effects of psychosocial and environmental variables. The transportation, urban design, and planning literatures provide a valuable starting point for multidisciplinary research on environmental contributions to physical activity levels in the population.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. (1).
    Pate RR, Pratt M, Blair SN, et al.: Physical activity and public health: A recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1995,273:402–407.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. (2).
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. (3).
    Manson JE, Hu FB, Rich-Edwards JW, et al.: A prospective study of walking as compared with vigorous exercise in the prevention of coronary heart disease in women.New England Journal of Medicine. 1999,341:650–658.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. (4).
    Wagner A, Simon C, Ducimetiere P, et al.: Leisure-time physical activity and regular walking or cycling to work are associated with adiposity and 5y weight gain in middle-aged men: The PRIME Study.International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders. 2001,25:940–948.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. (5).
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Healthy People 2010. Washington, DC, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. (6).
    Sallis JF, Owen N:Physical Activity and Behavioral Medicine. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. (7).
    Sallis JF, Prochaska JJ, Taylor WC: A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents.Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2000,32:963–975.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. (8).
    Hovell MF, Sallis JF, Hofstetter CR, et al.: Identifying correlates of walking for exercise: An epidemiologic prerequisite for physical activity promotion.Preventive Medicine. 1989,18:856–866.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. (9).
    Sallis JF, Owen N: Ecological models. In Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK (eds),Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996, 403–424.Google Scholar
  10. (10).
    Booth SL, Sallis JF, Ritenbaugh C, et al.: Environmental and social factors affect food choice and physical activity: Rationale, influences, and leverage points.Nutrition Reviews. 2001,59:S21-S39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. (11).
    King AC, Jeffery RW, Fridinger F, et al.: Community and policy approaches to cardiovascular disease prevention through physical activity: Issues and opportunities.Health Education Quarterly. 1995,22:499–511.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. (12).
    Sallis JF, Bauman A, Pratt M: Environmental and policy interventions to promote physical activity.American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1998,15:379–397.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. (13).
    Brownson RC, Eyler AA, King AC, et al.: Patterns and correlates of physical activity among women aged 40 years and older, United States.American Journal of Public Health. 2000,90:264–270.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. (14).
    Ross CE: Walking, exercise, and smoking: Does neighborhood matter?Social Science and Medicine. 2000,51:265–274.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. (15).
    Yen IH, Kaplan GA: Poverty arearesidence and changes in physical activity level: Evidence from the Alameda County Study.American Journal of Public Health. 1998,88:1709–1712.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. (16).
    Frank LD: Land use and transportation interaction: Implications on public health and quality of life.Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2000,20:6–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. (17).
    Ross CL, Dunning AE:Land Use Transportation Interaction: An Examination of the 1995 NPTS Data. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration, 1997.Google Scholar
  18. (18).
    Randall TA, Baetz BW: Evaluating pedestrian connectivity for suburban sustainability.Journal of Urban Planning and Development. 2001,127:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. (19).
    Apogee/Hagler Bailly:The Effects of Urban Form on Travel and Emissions: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature. Report prepared for U.S. Department of Environmental Protection Agency, Bethesda, MD, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. (20).
    Frank LD, Engelke P, Schmid TL, Killingsworth RE: How Land Use and Transportation Systems Impact Public Health: A Literature Review of the Relationship Between Physical Activity and Built Form. Retrieved June 5, 2000, from http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/pdf/aces-workingpaper1.pdfGoogle Scholar
  21. (21).
    Cervero R: Land uses and travel at suburban activity centers.Transportation Quarterly. 1991,45:479–491.Google Scholar
  22. (22).
    Hess PM, Vernez Moudon A, Snyder MC, Stanilov K: Site design and pedestrian travel.Transportation Research Record. 1999,1674:9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. (23).
    Loutzenheiser DR: Pedestrian access to transit: Model of walk trips and their design and urban form determinants around Bay area rapid transit stations.Transportation Research Record. 1997,1604:40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. (24).
    Shriver K: Influence of environmental design on pedestrian travel behavior in four Austin neighborhoods.Transportation Research Record. 1997,1578:64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. (25).
    Turner S, Shunk G, Hottenstein A:Development of a methodology to estimate bicycle and pedestrian travel demand. College Station: Texas Transportation Institute, 1998.Google Scholar
  26. (26).
    Cervero R, Gorham R: Commuting in transit versus automobile neighborhoods.Journal of the American Planning Association. 1995,61:210–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. (27).
    Cervero R, Radisch C: Travel choices in pedestrian versus automobile oriented neighborhoods.Transport Policy. 1996,3:127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. (28).
    Handy SL: Regional versus local accessibility: Neo-traditional development and its implications for non-work travel.Built Environment. 1992,18:253–267.Google Scholar
  29. (29).
    Handy SL: Urban form and pedestrian choices: Study of Austin neighborhoods.Transportation Research Record. 1996,1552:135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. (30).
    Handy SL, Clifton KJ: Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automobile travel.Transportation. 2001,28:317–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. (31).
    Matley TM, Goldman LM, Fineman BJ: Pedestrian travel potential in northern New Jersey: A metropolitan planning organization’s approach to identifying investment priorities.Transportation Research Record. 2000,1705:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. (32).
    Kockelman KM: Travel behavior as function of accessibility, land use mixing, and land use balance: Evidence from San Francisco Bay area.Transportation Research Record. 1997,1607:116–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. (33).
    McNally MG, Kulkarni A: Assessment of influence of land use-Transportation system on travel behavior.Transportation Research Record. 1997,1607:105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. (34).
    Friedman B, Gordon SP, Peers JB: Effect of neotraditional neighborhood design on travel characteristics.Transportation Research Record. 1994,1466:63–70.Google Scholar
  35. (35).
    Cervero R: Mixed land-uses and commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey.Transportation Research-A. 1996,30:361–377.Google Scholar
  36. (36).
    Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas I:The Pedestrian Environment (Vol. 4A). Portland: 1,000 Friends of Oregon, 1993.Google Scholar
  37. (37).
    Frank LD, Pivo G: Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: Single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking.Transportation Research Record. 1994,1466:44–52.Google Scholar
  38. (38).
    Newman PW, Kenworthy JR: Transport and urban form in thirty-two of the world’s principal cities.Transport Reviews. 1991,11:249–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. (39).
    Hanson S, Schwab M: Accessibility and intraurban travel.Environment and Planning A. 1987,19:735–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. (40).
    Kitamura R, Mokhtarian PL, Laidet L: A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay area.Transportation. 1997,24:125–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. (41).
    Cervero R, Kockelman KM: Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design.Transportation Research-D. 1997,2:199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. (42).
    Troped PJ, Saunders RP, Pate RR, et al.: Associations between self-reported and objective physical environmental factors and use of a community rail-trail.Preventive Medicine. 2001,32:191–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. (43).
    Brownson RC, Housemann RA, Brown DR, et al.: Promoting physical activity in rural communities: Walking trail access, use, and effects.American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2000,18:235–241.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. (44).
    Mokhtarian PL, Salomon I: How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations.Transportation Research-A. 2001,35:695–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. (45).
    Forward S:Analysis and Development of New Insight Into Substitution of Short Car Trips by Cycling and Walking—ADONIS: Behavioral Factors Affecting Modal Choice. Linkoping, Sweden: European Union Transport RTD Programme, 1998.Google Scholar
  46. (46).
    Mokhtarian PL, Salomon I, Redmond LS: Understanding the demand for travel: It’s not purely “derived”.Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research. 2001,14:355–380.Google Scholar
  47. (47).
    Huang HF, Cynecki MJ:The Effects of Traffic Calming Measures on Pedestrian and Motorist Behavior, Report No. FKWA-RD-00-104.McLean, VA: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. (48).
    Aultman-Hall L, Roorda M, Baetz BW: Using GIS for evaluation of neighborhood pedestrian accessibility.Journal of Urban Planning and Development. 1997,123:10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. (49).
    Krizek KJ: Pretest-posttest strategy for researching neighborhood-scale urban form and travel behavior.Transportation Research Record. 2000,1722:48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. (50).
    Bell AC, Ge K, Popkin BM: The road to obesity or the path to prevention: Motorized transportation and obesity in China.Obesity Research. 2002,10:277–283.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. (51).
    Lewis CE, Jacobs {jrJr.} DR, McCreath H, et al.: Weight gain continues in the 1990s: 10-year trends in weight and overweight from the CARDIA study.American Journal of Epidemiology. 2000,151:1172–1181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. (52).
    Orleans CT: Promoting the maintenance of health behavior change: Recommendations for the next generation of research and practice.Health Psychology. 2000,19:76–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. (53).
    Ewing R, Haliyur P, Page GW: Getting around a traditional city, a suburban planned unit development, and everything in between.Transportation Research Record. 1994,1466:53–62.Google Scholar
  54. (54).
    McHarg I:Design With Nature (25th anniversary ed.). New York: Wiley, 1992.Google Scholar
  55. (55).
    Moore DA, Carpenter TE: Spatial analytic methods and geographic information systems: Use in health research and epidemiology.Epidemiology Reviews. 1999,21:143–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. (56).
    Porter C, Suhrbier J, Schwartz WL: Forecasting bicycle and pedestrian travel: State of the practice and research needs.Transportation Research Record. 1999,1674:94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. (57).
    U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics:Bicycle and Pedestrian Data: Sources, Needs, & Gaps, Report No. BTS00-02. Washington, DC: Author, 2000.Google Scholar
  58. (58).
    Black A: Analysis of census data on walking to work and working at home.Transportation Quarterly. 1990,44:107–120.Google Scholar
  59. (59).
    Murakami E, Young J:Daily Travel by Persons With Low Income, Report No. FHWA-PL-99-003. Silver Spring, MD: Federal Highway Administration, 1999.Google Scholar
  60. (60).
    Olzewski P, Tan C-S: Walking lessons: Pedestrian travel in Singapore.Traffic Engineering and Control. 1999,40:480–483.Google Scholar
  61. (61).
    Sallis JF, McKenzie TL, Elder JP, Broyles SL, Nader PR: Factors parents use in selecting play spaces for young children.Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 1997,151:414–417.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. (62).
    Boarnet MG, Sarmiento S: Can land-use policy really affect travel behaviour? A study of the link between non-work travel and land-use characteristics.Urban Studies. 1998,35:1155–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. (63).
    Bowman JL, Ben-Akiva ME: Activity-based disaggregate travel demand model system with activity schedules.Transportation Research-A. 2000,35:1–28.Google Scholar
  64. (64).
    Masse LC, Dassa C, Gauvin L, Giles-Corti B, Motl R: Emerging measurement and statistical methods for studying mediators and moderators in physical activity intervention research. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  65. (65).
    Nankervis M: The effect of weather and climate on bicycle commuting.Transportation Research-A. 1999,33:417–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. (66).
    Nankervis M: The effects of weather and climate on urban bicycle commuters’ decision to ride: A pilot survey.Road and Transport Research. 1999,8:85–97.Google Scholar
  67. (67).
    Lumsdon L, Mitchell J: Walking, transport, and health: Do we have the right prescription?Health Promotion International. 1999,14:271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. (68).
    Jackson RJ, Kochtitzky C: Creating a Healthy Environment: The Impact of the Built Environment on Public Health.Retrieved February 26, 2002, from http://www.sprawlwatch.org/health.pdfGoogle Scholar
  69. (69).
    Chen DDT: The science of smart growth.Scientific American. 2000,283:60–67.Google Scholar
  70. (70).
    Humpel N, Owen N, Leslie E: Environmental factors associated with adults’ participation in physical activity: A review.American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2002,22:188–199.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Behavioral Medicine 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian E. Saelens
    • 1
  • James F. Sallis
    • 3
  • Lawrence D. Frank
    • 4
  1. 1.University of Cincinnati College of MedicineUSA
  2. 2.Division of Psychology MLC 3015Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical CenterCincinnati
  3. 3.San Diego State UniversityUSA
  4. 4.Georgia Institute of TechnologyGeorgia

Personalised recommendations