Walking, cycling, and public transport for commuting and non-commuting travels across 5 European urban regions: Modal choice correlates and motivations

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103196Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Multilevel approach was used to assess individual/contextual correlates of active and public transport in European regions.

  • Both individual and contextual characteristics were identified as correlates.

  • The level of association differed according to trip purposes (commuting vs non-commuting).

  • For both commuting and non-commuting travels, similar main motivations were observed.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to explore individual and contextual-level characteristics associated with active (walking and cycling) and public transport as main travel modes for both non-commuting and commuting purposes, in residents of five European urban regions. We also described participant-reported motivations for modal choice for each journey purpose. The study used multilevel models to investigate cross-sectional associations of individual (i.e. age, gender, educational level) and contextual (defined by a combination of residential neighbourhood characteristics in typologies) characteristics with the choice of active and public transport as outcome. Based on an online survey of 6037 residents of Ghent and suburbs (Belgium), Paris and inner suburbs (France), Budapest and suburbs (Hungary), the Randstad (including the cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht in the Netherlands) and Greater London (United Kingdom), we observed associations with both individual and contextual characteristics.

Results of the multilevel modelling show that the probability of using active or public transport as main mode varies depending on both individual and contextual characteristics. At individual level, relations with gender, age, education, weight status and having at least one child varied according to main transport mode and/or purpose. For example, overweight participants reported lower level of cycling for commuting and non-commuting travels than normal-weight participants. In the context of non-commuting travels, participants with one or more child reported less public transport use and more walking (vs participants without children). Among contextual-level variables, urban characteristics of the residential neighbourhood defined by four clusters (according to food environment, recreational facilities and active mobility opportunities) were associated with public transport and walking but not with cycling. For active transport the most important reasons were “I like to travel (on foot or by bike)” and “I want to be physically active” for both travel purposes. “Public transport facilities nearby” was indicated as the most important reason for public transport (for both trip purposes) – the second was “Journey time”.

Our findings highlight the importance of exploring a combination of multiple correlates at individual and contextual level according to journey purposes and suggest that the role of health-related individual characteristics such as weight status need further exploration.

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)

  • C. Ding et al.

    Influences of built environment characteristics and individual factors on commuting distance: a multilevel mixture hazard modeling approach

    Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.

    (2017)
  • E. Dons et al.

    Transport mode choice and body mass index: cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence from a European-wide study

    Environ. Int.

    (2018)
  • D. Ettema et al.

    Residential self-selection and travel behaviour: what are the effects of attitudes, reasons for location choice and the built environment?

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2017)
  • T. Feuillet et al.

    A massive geographically weighted regression model of walking-environment relationships

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2018)
  • T. Feuillet et al.

    Modelling context-specific relationships between neighbourhood socioeconomic disadvantage and private car use

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2021)
  • E. Flint et al.

    Active commuting and obesity in mid-life: cross-sectional, observational evidence from UK Biobank

    Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol.

    (2016)
  • S. Goenka et al.

    Our health is a function of where we live

    Lancet

    (2016)
  • S. Haustein et al.

    European mobility cultures: a survey-based cluster analysis across 28 European countries

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2016)
  • J. Ko et al.

    Exploring factors associated with commute mode choice: an application of city-level general social survey data

    Transp. Policy

    (2019)
  • K. Mattisson et al.

    Modelling the association between health indicators and commute mode choice: a cross-sectional study in southern Sweden

    J. Transp. Health

    (2018)
  • D. Van Dyck et al.

    Perceived neighborhood environmental attributes associated with adults’ leisure-time physical activity: findings from Belgium, Australia and the USA

    Health Place

    (2013)
  • F.J. van Lenthe et al.

    Neighbourhood inequalities in physical inactivity: the role of neighbourhood attractiveness, proximity to local facilities and safety in the Netherlands

    Soc. Sci. Med.

    (2005)
  • D. Wang et al.

    Built environments, social environments, and activity-travel behavior: a case study of Hong Kong

    J. Transp. Geogr.

    (2013)
  • Y. Wang et al.

    A review on the effects of physical built environment attributes on enhancing walking and cycling activity levels within residential neighborhoods

    Cities

    (2016)
  • J.R. Bethlehem et al.

    The SPOTLIGHT virtual audit tool: a valid and reliable tool to assess obesogenic characteristics of the built environment

    Int. J. Health Geogr.

    (2014)
  • X. (Jason) Cao et al.

    Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behaviour: a focus on empirical findings

    Transp. Rev.

    (2009)
  • Cited by (13)

    • Comparing urban form influences on travel distance, car ownership, and mode choice

      2024, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text