Walking, cycling, and public transport for commuting and non-commuting travels across 5 European urban regions: Modal choice correlates and motivations
Introduction
According to the European Environment Agency (EEA), walking, cycling and public transport stand out as the best options to improve sustainable mobility in urban settings (European Environment Agency, 2020). Promoting active transport modes (i.e. walking and cycling) and the use of public transport has therefore become a main objective of environmental, transport and health policies. Such policies seek to shift individual motorized transport (car, motorbike) to active and public transport to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, air and noise pollution, while increasing physical activity (Goenka and Andersen, 2016). Indeed, walking and cycling are considered as key elements of physical activity promotion for health in everyday life. They can also complement public transport travels that start or end with a short walk or cycle ride.
Choice of transport mode results from a complex process involving the interaction of multiple individual and contextual determinants (De Witte et al., 2013). During the last decade, a large body of research in transport studies, urban planning, social, behavioural sciences and public health has investigated correlates of travel behaviour and more specifically active transport modes (Ewing and Cervero, 2010; Small, 2007). However, most previous studies have focused on just one specific aspect of travel in a specific geographical context. This paper seeks to illustrate the individual and contextual (built and social) determinants that influence active transport (walking, cycling) and public transport for commuting and non-commuting travel (i.e. utility trips such as for shopping) across European urban areas. In this paper, we hypothesized that both individual and contextual correlates of transport mode are likely to vary according to travel purposes with main categories being commuting and non-commuting (Scheepers et al., 2013). Dieleman et al. (2002) showed that the effect of residential context (level of urbanization, center/suburban localization) on travelled distance was stronger for commuting compared to shopping or leisure (Dieleman et al., 2002). This underlines the relevance of splitting models according to travel purposes as adopted in this paper.
In a recent study in the framework of a European research project (SPOTLIGHT), we have explored individual and neighbourhood-level correlates of car driving (in minutes per week) in adults from five urban areas across Europe (den Braver et al., 2020). At individual level, this study showed that higher age, male gender, being employed and having a household of more than 3 persons were associated with higher weekly minutes of car driving. At neighbourhood level, residents engaged in fewer weekly minutes of car driving when they lived in neighbourhoods characterized by both higher residential density and higher land-use mix. Individual and contextual-level correlates of active and public transport were not addressed in that study.
In addition, we will explore the main reasons for using different modes of transportation according to the study participants in each European urban regions of the study. For example, De Witte et al. (2008) observed that the main reason for car users in Brussels Capital Region for using their car was a bad public transport connection (De Witte et al., 2008). For older adolescent (for whom driving a car is not yet an option), the reasons to use cycling was that it is a faster transport mode (than walking) to offer freedom mobility (in place and time) (Simons et al., 2013).
The main aims of the present study were to i) analyze individual and contextual correlates of active transport and public transport use, for commuting and non-commuting purposes in residents of five European urban regions, ii) considering the main reasons reported for their modal choices. There are two main parts in our analyses.
- -
First, we identified individual- and contextual-level correlates of walking, cycling and using public transport (as main transport mode) for both travel purposes. The question asked is how does the probability of using an active mode or public transport varies depending on individual and environmental characteristics?
- -
Second, we described the main reasons reported by participants for both travel purposes to gain a better understanding of active mode or public transport for commuting and non-commuting travels. The question asked is whether there are some specific motivations according to travel purposes?
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides an overview of current literatures on the main individual and contextual correlates that influence travel mode. Section 3 describes the study design, data collection and modelling strategy. Section 4 presents the results of the descriptive analyses and multilevel analyses to assess the individual- and contextual-level correlates of active mode and public transport choice. This part is followed by the description of motivations reported by subjects. The last section (Section 5) discusses results and draws general conclusions.
Section snippets
Overview of literature
Understanding how citizens choose a travel mode and which individual and contextual determinants affect travel mode choice are important pre-requisite for the design of transport and urban planning policies. However, literature on these issues present a heterogeneous mix of different designs, measures, methodological approaches, populations studied, scales of study and geographical contexts which make it difficult at present to draw a comprehensive picture of the topic. Such mixed evidence and
Data and methods
Data were collected in a cross-sectional survey conducted as part of the European Commission-funded SPOTLIGHT (‘Sustainable prevention of obesity through integrated strategies’) project. This project was established to increase and combine knowledge on overweight and obesity-related determinants (at individual and contextual levels) to support effective health promotion approaches (Lakerveld et al., 2012).
Characteristics of the study population
Characteristics and main transport mode of study participants according to commuting status are described in Table 1. In each sample, around 55% of participants were women. About two thirds of participants had at least one child (70%) and at least one car (71.5%). The mean (SD) age was 43.3 (12.1) and 51.8 (16.4) years, for commuters and non-commuters respectively.
More than a third of participants was overweight. A majority of participants reported distance to work and easy access to transport
Discussion and conclusion
In this study, we identified correlates of walking, cycling and public transport use as main mode of transport for commuting and non-commuting travels in five European urban regions. We additionally explored main reasons, reported by participants, to use a mode of transport to better understand the choice of using active or public transport.
Our main findings indicated that both individual and contextual characteristics were significant correlates of walking, cycling, and using public transport
Conclusion
Overall, our paper contributes to the body of literature on correlates of walking, cycling, and using public transport as main mode of transport, by providing information and analysis considering both individual and contextual (at residential neighbourhood) levels for commuting and non-commuting purposes in European urban areas. The results suggest that trip purposes (e.g. commuting vs. non commuting) should be taken into account when promoting a shift from motorized transport use to active
Acknowledgements
This work is part of the SPOTLIGHT project funded by the Seventh Framework Programme (CORDIS FP7) of the European Commission, HEALTH (FP7-HEALTH-2011-two-stage), Grant agreement No. 278186. The content of this article reflects only the authors' views, and the European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
References (52)
- et al.
Addressing issues in the use of Google tools for assessing pedestrian built environments
J. Transp. Geogr.
(2018) - et al.
Urban land uses, socio-demographic attributes and commuting: a multilevel modeling approach
Appl. Geogr.
(2011) - et al.
Determinants of ground transport modal choice in long-distance trips in Spain
Transp. Res. A Policy Pract.
(2016) - et al.
Bikeway networks: a review of effects on cycling
Transp. Rev.
(2016) Residential self-selection in the relationships between the built environment and travel behavior: introduction to the special issue
JTLU
(2014)- et al.
The factors influencing car use in a cycle-friendly city: the case of Cambridge
J. Transp. Geogr.
(2013) - et al.
Network design, built and natural environments, and bicycle commuting: evidence from British cities and towns
Transp. Policy
(2019) - et al.
Using remote sensing to define environmental characteristics related to physical activity and dietary behaviours: a systematic review (the SPOTLIGHT project)
Health Place
(2014) - et al.
How persuasive is ‘free’ public transport?
Transp. Policy
(2008) - et al.
Linking modal choice to motility: a comprehensive review
Transp. Res. A Policy Pract.
(2013)
Influences of built environment characteristics and individual factors on commuting distance: a multilevel mixture hazard modeling approach
Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.
Transport mode choice and body mass index: cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence from a European-wide study
Environ. Int.
Residential self-selection and travel behaviour: what are the effects of attitudes, reasons for location choice and the built environment?
J. Transp. Geogr.
A massive geographically weighted regression model of walking-environment relationships
J. Transp. Geogr.
Modelling context-specific relationships between neighbourhood socioeconomic disadvantage and private car use
J. Transp. Geogr.
Active commuting and obesity in mid-life: cross-sectional, observational evidence from UK Biobank
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol.
Our health is a function of where we live
Lancet
European mobility cultures: a survey-based cluster analysis across 28 European countries
J. Transp. Geogr.
Exploring factors associated with commute mode choice: an application of city-level general social survey data
Transp. Policy
Modelling the association between health indicators and commute mode choice: a cross-sectional study in southern Sweden
J. Transp. Health
Perceived neighborhood environmental attributes associated with adults’ leisure-time physical activity: findings from Belgium, Australia and the USA
Health Place
Neighbourhood inequalities in physical inactivity: the role of neighbourhood attractiveness, proximity to local facilities and safety in the Netherlands
Soc. Sci. Med.
Built environments, social environments, and activity-travel behavior: a case study of Hong Kong
J. Transp. Geogr.
A review on the effects of physical built environment attributes on enhancing walking and cycling activity levels within residential neighborhoods
Cities
The SPOTLIGHT virtual audit tool: a valid and reliable tool to assess obesogenic characteristics of the built environment
Int. J. Health Geogr.
Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behaviour: a focus on empirical findings
Transp. Rev.
Cited by (13)
Comparing urban form influences on travel distance, car ownership, and mode choice
2024, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and EnvironmentBarriers and enablers for cycling: A COM-B survey study of UK schoolchildren and their parents
2024, Journal of Transport and HealthUniversity commuting during the COVID-19 pandemic: Changes in travel behaviour and mode preferences
2024, Research in Transportation Business and ManagementNeighbourhood characteristics and bicycle commuting in the Greater London area
2023, Transport PolicyZooming in and out on everyday mobility practices in a rural, mountainous area of Switzerland
2023, Journal of Transport Geography