Transportation networks effect how people move about in the built environment, both through the levels of access they afford to a range of activities and destinations and through the amount of mobility they allow. I.e. the number of things you can get to and the ease with which you can get to them.

In our review of planning (link) it has been suggested that traditional walkable neighbourhoods which contain high levels of facilities within easy walking/cycling distance and provide a high level of accessibility i.e. lots of easy, attractive routes through the neighbourhood, may increase peoples’ willingness to undertake active travel which in turn have positive health benefits.

In contrast many sprawling suburban areas discourage active travel, encourage private car use and in turn studies have shown direct links between the amount people spend driving and obesity [1]. Discouraging private car use may, therefore, be an important factor in reducing obesity levels.

In contrast public transportation, bus, trams etc are seen as a positive influence. This is because you have to walk at the beginning and end of your journey, therefore such transportation can be integrated with a high quality pedestrian environment. Studies have shown that where this is the case, there are positive health benefits [2].  

Transportation issues may be particularly important for children. The numbers of children who walk or cycle to school has dramatically declined since the 1970s in the UK. One fact is that many children are regularly travelling mcuh longer distances. Some studies suggest that this time spent commuting eats into opportunities for physical activity, for example by reducing participation in after school clubs, this time is not made up for in other ways, reducing overall physical activity levels [3]. 

Townshend TG, Ogilvie JA, Lake AA

References

1. Frank LD, Andresen MA, Schmid TL. Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2004;27(2):87-96.
2. Rundle, A, diez Roux, A.V., Freeman, L.M.Miller, D, Neckerman, K.M. & Weiss, C.C. (2007) The Urban Built Environment and Obesity in New York: A multilevel analysis, The Science of Health Promotion 21 (4) 326-334
3. Cohen, D.A., Ashwood, S., Scott, M., Overton, A., Evenson, KR., Voorhees, C.C, Bedimo-Rung, A. & McKenzie, T.L (2006) Proximity to School and Physical Activity Among Middle School Girls: The Trial of Activity for Adolescent Girls Study, Journal of Physical Activity and Health (3) 1 pp 129-137.

Further reading

Bricker, S.K., et al., (2002). School Transportation Modes-Georgia 2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 51: p. 704-705.

Timperio, A., et al., (2006). Personal, Family, Social, and Environmental Correlates of Active Commuting to School. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30(1): p. 45-51.

Wen, L.M. Orr, N. Millett, C., & Rissel, C. Driving to work and overweight and obesity: findings from 2003 New South Wales Health Survey, Australia, Journal of Obesity, 30 pp782-786

Links

http://www.sustrans.org.uk

< back

© NEON 2007

Email: info@neoen.org.uk