Elsevier

Social Science & Medicine

Volume 56, Issue 8, April 2003, Pages 1693-1703
Social Science & Medicine

Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00163-6Get rights and content

Abstract

The focus for interventions and research on physical activity has moved away from vigorous activity to moderate-intensity activities, such as walking. In addition, a social ecological approach to physical activity research and practice is recommended. This approach considers the influence of the environment and policies on physical activity. Although there is limited empirical published evidence related to the features of the physical environment that influence physical activity, urban planning and transport agencies have developed policies and strategies that have the potential to influence whether people walk or cycle in their neighbourhood. This paper presents the development of a framework of the potential environmental influences on walking and cycling based on published evidence and policy literature, interviews with experts and a Delphi study. The framework includes four features: functional, safety, aesthetic and destination; as well as the hypothesised factors that contribute to each of these features of the environment. In addition, the Delphi experts determined the perceived relative importance of these factors. Based on these factors, a data collection tool will be developed and the frameworks will be tested through the collection of environmental information on neighbourhoods, where data on the walking and cycling patterns have been collected previously. Identifying the environmental factors that influence walking and cycling will allow the inclusion of a public health perspective as well as those of urban planning and transport in the design of built environments.

Introduction

Recent guidelines for physical activity recommend that adults accumulate, on most days, 30 min or more of moderate-intensity physical activity (such as brisk walking), in minimum bouts of around 10 min (Egger, Donovan, Swinburn, Giles-Corti, & Bull, 1999; US Department of Health and Human Services, 1996; Pate et al., 1995). As in many other industrialised nations (US Department of Health and Human Services, 1996; National Audit Office, 2001; National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability, 1998), one half of the Australian adult population does not meet these recommendations (Armstrong, Bauman, & Davies, 2000; Smith, Owen, Leslie & Bauman, 1999).

Social ecological models of health promotion have increasingly been adopted to gain a greater understanding of the relative influence of the social and physical environment, and policies on physical activity (Giles-Corti & Donovan, 2002; Corti, 1998; Sallis, Bauman & Pratt, 1998; Stokols, 1996). This is predicated on the potential to influence individual behaviour and thus influence health by changing the physical and social environments (Stokols, 1992). Corti used a social ecological model to examine the individual, social environmental and physical environmental determinants of planned recreational activity (see Fig. 1) (Corti, 1998). In her study walking behaviour of people living in socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged areas differed. This suggested that the physical environments in which people live may influence their walking behaviour (Giles-Corti & Donovan, 2002; Corti, 1998).

Studying walking and cycling behaviours is important because the focus of physical activity interventions and research has moved away from vigorous exercise to moderate-intensity activities of these kinds. This move has resulted from the epidemiological evidence that regular participation in moderate-intensity activity provides benefits to health similar to those accrued from vigorous activity (Blair & Connelly, 1996; Pate et al., 1995; US Department of Health and Human Services, 1996). Although walking is popular, there has been little public health research examining factors that influence walking and even less examining factors that influence recreational and transport-related cycling.

Interest in the influence of the physical environment on physical activity is relatively new and the evidence collected to date has been limited. Thus, it is unclear which specific features of the environment are important and how they influence physical activity. Most studies that have examined the relationship between the environment and activity have focused either on the availability or proximity of facilities for exercise and recreation (Bauman, Smith, Stoker, Bellew, & Booth, 1999; Corti, 1998; Macintyre, Maciver, & Sooman, 1993; Linenger, Chesson, & Nice, 1991; Sallis et al., 1990), or on a limited set of features of the physical surroundings (Hahn & Craythorn, 1994; Craythorn, 1993; Sallis et al., 1989). A number of qualitative studies have also explored perceptions about how the environment influences patterns of physical activity (Rutten et al., 2001; Corti, Donovan, & Holman, 1996; Wright, MacDougall, Atkinson, & Booth, 1996; Bauman, Wallner, Miners, & Westley-Wise, 1996).

Several investigators, including Corti (Corti et al., 1996) and Wright (Wright et al., 1996), have used focus groups, while others have used either written or telephone surveys (Sallis, Johnson, Calfas, Caparosa, & Nichols, 1997; Bauman et al., 1996; Hawthorne, 1989; National Consumer Council, 1987). Corti and colleagues found that people claimed they were more likely to want to walk locally if there were footpaths available, traffic control measures were in place to reduce the flow of traffic, and there were shops nearby (Corti et al., 1996). In addition, aesthetic features, such as the presence of trees and greenery, were said to be important. Wright and colleagues found that factors that appeared to encourage walking were: being close to facilities and services (including parks, shops, recreation areas and schools); having shaded footpaths; low traffic flow in the locality; and having an attractive area with street trees, wide grassy verges and parks (Wright et al., 1996).

Sallis and colleagues conducted a study of individual's perception of their neighbourhood (Sallis et al., 1997). This study looked at features such as neighbourhood features, including enjoyable scenery and footpaths; safety; and neighbourhood characteristics, such as whether neighbourhood is residential, mainly commercial or a mixture of both commercial and residential. Although there were limitations to this study, such as a lack of environmental variation and self-reported measures, no associations were found between the neighbourhood score and walking behaviour (Sallis et al., 1997). In another study, Bauman and colleagues found that the most important environmental qualities were: an area that was safe by day; an attractive local area that was pleasant for walking; the proximity of facilities, including shops, parks and the beach; and little noisy traffic (Bauman et al., 1996).

Urban planning and transport-related research has produced similar findings to the qualitative and quantitative public health research. In Canada, Hawthorne found that the most appealing features of the walking environment included: trees, parks, open space and landscaping; the availability of shade on hot days; the presence of benches and other places to rest; streets and footpaths that are quiet; the presence of historic neighbourhoods and buildings; and safety from crime (Hawthorne, 1989). Unappealing environmental qualities included air pollution; litter and garbage; dangerous street crossings; traffic noise; poorly maintained footpaths; and the presence of skateboarders and cyclists on footpaths. Overall, this study emphasised the importance of green, clean and safe walking environments (Hawthorne, 1989). Similarly, the National Consumer Council in the United Kingdom reported that a pedestrian environment should be: clean and visually attractive; free from conflict with and threat from vehicles and the side-effects of traffic, such as noise and pollution; comfortable and convenient; and personally safe (National Consumer Council, 1987). Thus the features that emerge as important across multiple studies include aesthetics (parks, trees, shade), safety (lighting, traffic) and convenience of nearby facilities (shops, schools).

Research on cycling is less extensive and appears to focus mostly on the compatibility of roadways for bicycles and motor vehicles. Harkey and colleagues found that provision of a wide bicycle lane or paved shoulder and the presence of on-street parking increased the perceived comfort of cyclists (Harkey, Reinfurt, Knuiman, Stewart, & Sorton, 1998). In contrast, they found that greater traffic volume and speed decreased the level of comfort.

Urban planning and transport policies and day-to-day practice provide additional insights into factors that could affect patterns of physical activity, although there is limited empirical research in this area. Among urban design and planning agencies, the policy focus is on the creation and development of “healthy” or “liveable” communities. Transport agencies, on the other hand, are primarily concerned with the transportation of goods, the management of traffic, and only more recently has their attention turned toward the provision of routes for people to walk and cycle.

Safety, both traffic and personal, is an important issue related to both the liveability of communities and transportation. Factors related to traffic safety include the design of roads and traffic volume and speed (Unterman, 1987). Several strategies are employed to improve traffic safety, including slowing vehicles through the use of traffic calming devices; narrowing the street; providing a footpath for pedestrians; and providing a safe means to cross the street such as pedestrian crossing devices or traffic islands (Pucher & Dijkstra, 2000; Burden, Wallwork, Sides, Trias, & Rue, 1999; Nelessen, 1994; Atash, 1994; Federal Highway Administration, 1992; Dean, 1990; Unterman, 1987; Appleyard, Gerson, & Lintell, 1981). Issues related to personal safety include the fear of other persons and dogs in the neighbourhood, adequate lighting, improved surfaces on which to walk or cycle, and urban design that provides natural surveillance of streets by occupants of houses and other buildings (Burden et al., 1999; Worpole, 1992; Federal Highway Administration, 1992).

The liveability of communities is partially related to how convenient it is to walk and cycle in the neighbourhood (Burden et al., 1999). This is highlighted in urban design policies and practice which address aspects that can be modified such as the availability of destinations for walking or cycling, and the directness and continuity of routes to frequently visited destinations. Other aspects of convenience include ensuring that paths are present and that they are free from obstacles and form a continuous and integrated network that allows linkages between destinations such as public transport, shops and parks (Burden et al., 1999; Atash, 1994; Nelessen, 1994; Federal Highway Administration, 1993; Federal Highway Administration, 1992; Hillman, 1990; Dean, 1990; Untermann, 1984). These latter factors are also determined by transport policy and practice.

The level of satisfaction with the walking and cycling environment is determined by both the physical and visual experience. If a neighbourhood is pleasant, relatively quiet, landscaped, well-maintained and well-lit, people will take pleasure in it (Burden et al., 1999; Untermann, 1984). Factors such as trees, shrubs and gardens, a range of views and building designs, a well-maintained area free from litter, and short blocks that allow people to change direction and view frequently, further enhance pleasure (Jacobs, 1993; Untermann, 1984; Appleyard, Geison, & Lintell, 1976).

Previous qualitative and quantitative research and urban planning and transport policies and practices indicate that a wide range of potential factors may influence walking and cycling. In reviewing this literature key themes emerge as shown in Fig. 2. At the top of the framework are four features: functional, safety, aesthetic and destination.

The functional feature in the framework relates to the physical attributes of the street and path that reflect the fundamental structural aspects of the local environment. Factors that influence this feature include: the specific attributes of the path; the type and width of the street; the volume, speed and type of traffic; and the directness of routes to destinations. The safety feature reflects the need to provide safe physical environments for people. The framework incorporates two elements of safety: personal (such as presence of lighting and level of passive surveillance) and traffic (such as the availability of crossings). As walking and cycling are influenced by access to an interesting and pleasing physical environment (Burden et al., 1999; Jacobs, 1993; Untermann, 1984), factors in the aesthetic feature include: the presence, condition and size of trees; the presence of parks and private gardens; the level of pollution; and the diversity and interest of natural sights and architectural designs within the neighbourhood. The destination features relate to the availability of community and commercial facilities in neighbourhoods. Where there are appropriate local destinations, there is an increased chance that people will walk (Burden et al., 1999; Atash, 1994; Federal Highway Administration, 1993; Untermann, 1984). Relevant facilities in the neighbourhood include post boxes, parks, schools, shops, and transport facilities such as bus stops and train stations.

Fig. 2 illustrates the wide range of potential environmental factors that could influence walking and cycling. Clearly, empirical research is required to identify which factors are important. However, to facilitate this work, a coherent framework is required to collate all potentially relevant factors. Without such a framework, research efforts in this area will remain uncoordinated and segmented. Moreover it is likely that different environmental features will be important for different types of physical activity (Corti, 1998). Thus, we set out to develop separate frameworks for four specific behaviours: walking for recreation, walking for transport, cycling for recreation and cycling for transport. Transport journeys were defined as short trips within the neighbourhood.

This paper presents the process undertaken to define the variables to be included in an observational tool to measure the physical environmental influences on walking and cycling among adults in local neighbourhoods. Using the draft framework we conducted in-depth interviews and a Delphi study with a group of international experts to clarify factors that could influence walking and cycling and to determine the perceived relative importance of these.

Section snippets

Methods

We used a two-phased approach to develop four separate conceptual frameworks to depict the environmental factors that influence walking and cycling in local neighbourhoods. The first phase was a series of semi-structured interviews with local key experts from a cross-section of relevant disciplines. As the question of determining environmental influences of physical activity is relatively new, the second phase involved a Delphi study with a panel of local, national and international experts to

Interviews

The interviewees suggested three broad issues as being most important for walking in the local neighbourhood. The first was personal safety, which was perceived to depend on whether people walking could be seen by others in the neighbourhood and whether telephone boxes were present in the local area for use in an emergency. The second influence was related to aesthetics, whether the streetscape was attractive and was there an interesting walk with diverse views. The final influence was the

Discussion

Our study points to the important differences in the factors that influence walking and cycling behaviour and recreational and transport behaviour. While previous investigators have identified physical environmental factors that are significant correlates of physical activity behaviour (Corti et al., 1996; Wright et al., 1996; Sallis et al., 1997; Bauman et al., 1996; Hawthorne, 1989; National Consumer Council, 1987), the relative importance of specific environmental factors and how they

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the National Health Medical Research Council of Australia. Ongoing advice and guidance was provided by two colleagues from the Department of Public Health, as well as from a reference committee. Their assistance with the development of the questionnaires and tools and practical issues is greatly appreciated. The members of the study team were: A/Prof. Matthew Knuiman and Dr. Johanna Clarkson. The members of this reference group were: Mr. John Seaton, Mr. Gary John and

References (43)

  • Bauman, A., Wallner, F., Miners, A., & Westley-Wise, V. (1996). No ifs no buts Illawarra physical activity project:...
  • S. Blair et al.

    How much physical activity should we do? The case for moderate amounts and intensities of physical activity

    Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

    (1996)
  • Burden, D., Wallwork, M., Sides, K., Trias, R., & Rue, H. (1999). Street design guidelines for healthy neighbourhoods....
  • Corti, B. (1998). The relative influence of, and interaction between, environmental and individual determinants of...
  • B. Corti et al.

    Factors influencing the use of physical activity facilitiesResults from qualitative research

    Health Promotion Journal of Australia

    (1996)
  • Craythorn, E. (1993). Inactivity and the environment report, Orana and Far West Region Health Promotion Unit, Dubbo,...
  • J. Dean

    Walking in the city

  • Egger, G., Donovan, R., Swinburn, B., Giles-Corti, B., & Bull, F. (1999). Physical activity guidelines for Australians:...
  • Federal Highway Administration (1992). The FHWA National Bicycling and Walking Study case study No. 3: What needs to be...
  • Federal Highway Administration (1993). The FHWA National Bicycling and Walking Study case study No. 4: Measures to...
  • A. Hahn et al.

    Inactivity and the physical environment in two regional centres

    Health Promotion Journal of Australia

    (1994)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text