sahlqvist-whousesnew-2013.pdf (518.93 kB)
Who uses new walking and cycling infrastructure and how? Longitudinal results from the UK iConnect study
journal contribution
posted on 2013-01-01, 00:00 authored by A Goodman, Shannon SahlqvistShannon Sahlqvist, D OgilvieObjective
To examine how adults use new local walking and cycling routes, and what characteristics predict use.
Methods
1849 adults completed questionnaires in 2010 and 2011, before and after the construction of walking and cycling infrastructure in three UK municipalities. 1510 adults completed questionnaires in 2010 and 2012. The 2010 questionnaire measured baseline characteristics; the follow-up questionnaires captured infrastructure use.
Results
32% of participants reported using the new infrastructure in 2011, and 38% in 2012. Walking for recreation was by far the most common use. In both follow-up waves, use was independently predicted by higher baseline walking and cycling (e.g. 2012 adjusted rate ratio 2.09 (95% CI 1.55, 2.81) for > 450 min/week vs. none). Moreover, there was strong specificity by mode and purpose, e.g. baseline walking for recreation specifically predicted walking for recreation on the infrastructure. Other independent predictors included living near the infrastructure, better general health and higher education or income.
Conclusions
The new infrastructure was well-used by local adults, and this was sustained over two years. Thus far, however, the infrastructure may primarily have attracted existing walkers and cyclists, and may have catered more to the socio-economically advantaged. This may limit its impacts on population health and health equity.
To examine how adults use new local walking and cycling routes, and what characteristics predict use.
Methods
1849 adults completed questionnaires in 2010 and 2011, before and after the construction of walking and cycling infrastructure in three UK municipalities. 1510 adults completed questionnaires in 2010 and 2012. The 2010 questionnaire measured baseline characteristics; the follow-up questionnaires captured infrastructure use.
Results
32% of participants reported using the new infrastructure in 2011, and 38% in 2012. Walking for recreation was by far the most common use. In both follow-up waves, use was independently predicted by higher baseline walking and cycling (e.g. 2012 adjusted rate ratio 2.09 (95% CI 1.55, 2.81) for > 450 min/week vs. none). Moreover, there was strong specificity by mode and purpose, e.g. baseline walking for recreation specifically predicted walking for recreation on the infrastructure. Other independent predictors included living near the infrastructure, better general health and higher education or income.
Conclusions
The new infrastructure was well-used by local adults, and this was sustained over two years. Thus far, however, the infrastructure may primarily have attracted existing walkers and cyclists, and may have catered more to the socio-economically advantaged. This may limit its impacts on population health and health equity.
History
Journal
Preventive medicineVolume
57Issue
5Pagination
518 - 524Publisher
Academic PressLocation
San Diego, CaliforniaPublisher DOI
Link to full text
ISSN
0091-7435eISSN
1096-0260Language
engPublication classification
C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journalCopyright notice
2013, ElsevierUsage metrics
Categories
No categories selectedKeywords
walkingcyclingbuilt environmentinftrastructureScience & TechnologyLife Sciences & BiomedicinePublic, Environmental & Occupational HealthMedicine, General & InternalGeneral & Internal MedicineInfrastructurePHYSICAL-ACTIVITYPROMOTE WALKINGINTERVENTIONSTRAILENVIRONMENTCHALLENGESTRAVELiConnect consortium
Licence
Exports
RefWorks
BibTeX
Ref. manager
Endnote
DataCite
NLM
DC