Built environment impacts on walking for transport in Brisbane, Australia

Kamruzzaman, M.; Washington, S.; Baker, D.; Brown, W.; Giles-Corti, B.; Turrell, G., 2016, in Transportation

Location	Brisbane, Australia
Population	Other (specify)
Sample size	3612
Factor analysis type	exploratory factor analysis, oblimin rotation
Stepwise regression	nan
Removal of insignificant variables	yes
Reviewed by	DS

Abstract

This study examines the association between urban form and walking for transport in Brisbane, Australia based on both panel and cross-sectional data. Cross-sectional data are used to determine whether urban form was associated with walking for transport in 2011. Panel data are used to evaluate whether changes in the built environment altered walking behaviour between 2009 and 2011. Results from the cross-sectional data suggest that individuals are significantly more likely to be walkers if they live in an area with a well-connected street network and an accessible train station. The longitudinal analysis confirms these relationships; there also was however, a significant impact of travel attitudes and perceptions on walking behaviour. The findings suggest that the built environment continues to be an important factor to encourage walking; however, interventions are also required to change social norms in order to increase the receptiveness for and participation in walking. © 2014, Springer Science+Business Media New York.

Factors

Variable	Pattern loading
I need a car to do many of the things that I do (Convenience)	0.81
I could not manage pretty well without a car (Convenience)	0.64

Variable	Pattern loading
Public transport is inconvenient and unreliable (Convenience)	0.809
Travelling by public transport is not very pleasant (Mode-liking)	0.614
Using public transport takes too much time (Convenience)	0.685
Public transport can sometimes be difficult than driving (Convenience)	0.644

Variable	Pattern loading
Travelling by car is safer overall than taking public transport (Safety)	0.694
Travelling by car is safer overall than walking (Safety)	0.665

Variable	Pattern loading
People need to walk and cycle more to improve the environment (Environmentalism)	0.927
People need to walk and cycle more to reduce global warming (Environmentalism)	0.785
People need to walk and cycle more to reduce traffic congestion (Transport policy)	0.755
People need to use public transport more often to reduce traffic congestion (Transport policy)	0.514

Variable	Pattern loading
I need a car to do many of the things that I do (Convenience)	0.806
I could not manage pretty well without a car (Convenience)	0.634

Variable	Pattern loading
Public transport is inconvenient and unreliable (Convenience)	0.803
Travelling by public transport is not very pleasant (Mode-liking)	0.631
Using public transport takes too much time (Convenience)	0.699
Public transport can sometimes be difficult than driving (Convenience)	0.44

Variable	Pattern loading
Travelling by car is safer overall than taking public transport (Safety)	0.704
Travelling by car is safer overall than walking (Safety)	0.658

Variable	Pattern loading
People need to walk and cycle more to improve the environment (Environmentalism)	0.926
People need to walk and cycle more to reduce global warming (Environmentalism)	0.789
People need to walk and cycle more to reduce traffic congestion (Transport policy)	0.754
People need to use public transport more often to reduce traffic congestion (Transport policy)	0.51

Variable	Pattern loading
Closeness to public transport (Res preference/perception)	0.734
Wanted to live close to shops (Res preference/perception)	0.708
Ease of walking to places (Res preference/perception)	0.69

Variable	Pattern loading
Closeness to schools (Res preference/perception)	0.783
Closeness to childcare (Res preference/perception)	0.583

Variable	Pattern loading
Closeness to the city (Res preference/perception)	0.596
Closeness to work (Res preference/perception)	0.521
Access to freeways or main roads (Res preference/perception)	0.432

Variable	Pattern loading
Closeness to open space (e.g. parks) (Res preference/perception)	0.865
Near to green-space or bushland (Res preference/perception)	0.695

Models

Dependent variable	Time spent walking for transport in a week in 2011
Model type	Zero-inflated negative binomial regression model (NBRM)
Sample size	3612.0
R²	nan
Adjusted R²
Pseudo R² (nan)	nan
AIC	nan
BIC	nan
Log-likelihood at zero	nan
Log-likelihood at constants	nan
Log-likelihood at convergence	nan

Count (negative binomial)
Variable	Incidence_rate_ratio	p-value
Perceived access to train station within 10 min: yes (ref: no)	1.095	0.063
Travel attitudes and perceptions: car dependency (2011): car dependent (ref: alternative mode seeker)	0.882	0.004
Travel attitudes and perceptions: safety of car (2011): car unsafe (ref: car-safer)	0.884	0.004
Age	0.987	0.0
Car availability: yes, sometime (ref: yes, always)	1.146	0.038
Car availability: no (ref: yes, always)	1.204	0.04
Car availability: do not drive (ref: yes, always)	1.297	0.021
Employment: full time (ref: non-working)	1.279	0.0
Household size	0.943	0.002

Zero inflation (logit)
Variable	Incidence_rate_ratio	p-value
Network connectivity	0.997004495503373	0.0
Perceived access to train station within 10 min: yes (ref: no)	0.751262615946886	0.005
Travel attitudes and perceptions: perception about PT (2011): positive perception of PT (ref: negative perception)	0.6524635522279004	0.0
Travel attitudes and perceptions: sensitivity to environmental externalities (2011) (ref: insensitive)	0.7889912880176098	0.004
Travel attitudes and perceptions: car dependency (2011): car dependent (ref: alternative mode seeker)	1.568312185490169	0.0
Travel attitudes and perceptions: safety of car (2011): car unsafe (ref: car-safer)	1.3634251141321778	0.0
Self-selection: accessibility and mobility of places	0.7953285335050939	0.0
Self-selection: child centric facilities	1.1491241000036052	0.008
Female (ref: male)	1.2904616208728898	0.0
Age	1.0294245944751308	0.0
Education: diploma/certificates (ref: up to year 12)	0.8244819741391082	0.018
Education: graduates (ref: up to year 12)	0.4852941873885002	0.0
Car availability: yes, sometime (ref: yes, always)	0.3395955256449391	0.0
Car availability: no (ref: yes, always)	0.31727067661374364	0.0
Car availability: do not drive (ref: yes, always)	0.4282706172126597	0.0
Constant	0.703983753855621	0.294

Dependent variable	change in time spent walking per week, 2009 to 2011
Model type	OLS
Sample size	3612.0
R²	0.561
Adjusted R²
Pseudo R² (nan)	nan
AIC	nan
BIC	nan
Log-likelihood at zero	nan
Log-likelihood at constants	nan
Log-likelihood at convergence	nan

Variable	Coefficient	p-value
Changes in net residential density	0.393	0.024
Perceived access to train station within 10 min: yes (ref: no)	8.232	0.0
Network connectivity	0.027	0.089
Perception about PT (2011): Developed a negative perception of PT (vs 2009)	-7.511	0.001
Sensitivity to environmental externalities (2011): Became insensitive to environmental externalities (vs 2009)	-5.675	0.01
Car dependency (2011): Became car dependent (vs 2009)	-9.453	0.001
Safety of car (2011): From car unsafe to car safer (vs 2009)	-4.515	0.039
Travel attitudes and perceptions: perception about PT (2009): positive perception of PT (ref: negative perception)	4.66	0.005
Travel attitudes and perceptions: sensitivity to environmental externalities (2009): sensitive to env. ext. (ref: insensitive)	4.063	0.008
Travel attitudes and perceptions: car dependency (2009): car dependent (ref: alternative mode seeker)	-9.878	0.0
Travel attitudes and perceptions: safety of car (2009): car safer (ref: car unsafe)	-4.829	0.005
Car availability: decreased (ref: unchanged)	16.246	0.0
Working hour: decreased (ref: unchanged)	-7.682	0.0
Changes in household sizes	-3.096	0.007
Age	-0.623	0.0
Female (ref: male)	-3.39	0.032
Part time working (ref: non-working	3.679	0.05
Full time working (ref: non-working)	6.34	0.0
Household size	-2.204	0.003
Graduate (ref: up to year 12)	7.152	0.0
Walking for transport in 2009	-7.21	0.0
Constant	52.798	0.0