IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v65y2007i9p1898-1914.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stepping towards causation: Do built environments or neighborhood and travel preferences explain physical activity, driving, and obesity?

Author

Listed:
  • Frank, Lawrence Douglas
  • Saelens, Brian E.
  • Powell, Ken E.
  • Chapman, James E.

Abstract

Evidence documents associations between neighborhood design and active and sedentary forms of travel. Most studies compare travel patterns for people located in different types of neighborhoods at one point in time adjusting for demographics. Most fail to account for either underlying neighborhood selection factors (reasons for choosing a neighborhood) or preferences (neighborhoods that are preferred) that impact neighborhood selection and behavior. Known as self-selection, this issue makes it difficult to evaluate causation among built form, behavior, and associated outcomes and to know how much more walking and less driving could occur through creating environments conducive to active transport. The current study controls for neighborhood selection and preference and isolates the effect of the built environment on walking, car use, and obesity. Separate analyses were conducted among 2056 persons in the Atlanta, USA based Strategies for Metropolitan Atlanta's Regional Transportation and Air Quality (SMARTRAQ) travel survey on selection factors and 1466 persons in the SMARTRAQ community preference sub-survey. A significant proportion of the population are "mismatched" and do not live in their preferred neighborhood type. Factors influencing neighborhood selection and individual preferences, and current neighborhood walkability explained vehicle travel distance after controlling for demographic variables. Individuals who preferred and lived in a walkable neighborhood walked most (33.9% walked) and drove 25.8 miles per day on average. Individuals that preferred and lived in car dependent neighborhoods drove the most (43 miles per day) and walked the least (3.3%). Individuals that do not prefer a walkable environment walked little and show no change in obesity prevalence regardless of where they live. About half as many participants were obese (11.7%) who prefer and live in walkable environments than participants who prefer car dependent environments (21.6%). Findings suggest that creating walkable environments may result in higher levels of physical activity and less driving and in slightly lower obesity prevalence for those preferring walkability.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank, Lawrence Douglas & Saelens, Brian E. & Powell, Ken E. & Chapman, James E., 2007. "Stepping towards causation: Do built environments or neighborhood and travel preferences explain physical activity, driving, and obesity?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(9), pages 1898-1914, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:9:p:1898-1914
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(07)00313-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saelens, B.E. & Sallis, J.F. & Black, J.B. & Chen, D., 2003. "Neighborhood-Based Differences in Physical Activity: An Environment Scale Evaluation," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(9), pages 1552-1558.
    2. Patricia L. Mokhtarian & Michael N. Bagley, 2002. "The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: A structural equations modeling approach," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 36(2), pages 279-297.
    3. repec:cdl:uctcwp:qt9w56k7x8 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Sallis, James F. & Frank, Lawrence D. & Saelens, Brian E. & Kraft, M. Katherine, 2004. "Active transportation and physical activity: opportunities for collaboration on transportation and public health research," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 249-268, May.
    5. Lopez, R., 2004. "Urban sprawl and risk for being overweight or obese," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 94(9), pages 1574-1579.
    6. repec:cdl:uctcwp:qt07q5p340 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Khattak, Asad J. & Rodriguez, Daniel, 2005. "Travel behavior in neo-traditional neighborhood developments: A case study in USA," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 481-500, July.
    8. repec:cdl:uctcwp:qt5hh713d6 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. John Holtzclaw & Robert Clear & Hank Dittmar & David Goldstein & Peter Haas, 2002. "Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socio-Economic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use - Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 1-27, January.
    10. Tim Schwanen & Patricia L Mokhtarian, 2004. "The Extent and Determinants of Dissonance between Actual and Preferred Residential Neighborhood Type," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 31(5), pages 759-784, October.
    11. repec:cdl:uctcwp:qt4nq9r1c9 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Kevin J. Boyle & Thomas P. Holmes & Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe, 2001. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 441-454.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Guo, Zhan, 2013. "Does residential parking supply affect household car ownership? The case of New York City," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 18-28.
    2. Bhat, Chandra R. & Guo, Jessica Y., 2007. "A comprehensive analysis of built environment characteristics on household residential choice and auto ownership levels," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 506-526, June.
    3. Sehatzadeh, Bahareh & Noland, Robert B. & Weiner, Marc D., 2011. "Walking frequency, cars, dogs, and the built environment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 741-754, October.
    4. Kamruzzaman, Md. & Baker, Douglas & Washington, Simon & Turrell, Gavin, 2013. "Residential dissonance and mode choice," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 12-28.
    5. De Vos, Jonas, 2018. "Do people travel with their preferred travel mode? Analysing the extent of travel mode dissonance and its effect on travel satisfaction," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 261-274.
    6. De Vos, Jonas & Ettema, Dick & Witlox, Frank, 2018. "Changing travel behaviour and attitudes following a residential relocation," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 131-147.
    7. Lin, Tao & Wang, Donggen & Guan, Xiaodong, 2017. "The built environment, travel attitude, and travel behavior: Residential self-selection or residential determination?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 111-122.
    8. Xinyu Cao & Patricia L. Mokhtarian, 2012. "The connections among accessibility, self- selection and walking behaviour: a case study of Northern California residents," Chapters, in: Karst T. Geurs & Kevin J. Krizek & Aura Reggiani (ed.), Accessibility Analysis and Transport Planning, chapter 5, pages 73-95, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Wolday, Fitwi & Cao, Jason & Næss, Petter, 2018. "Examining factors that keep residents with high transit preference away from transit-rich zones and associated behavior outcomes," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 224-234.
    10. Young-Jae Kim & Ayoung Woo, 2016. "What’s the Score? Walkable Environments and Subsidized Households," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-20, April.
    11. Anura Amarasinghe & Gerard D'Souza & Cheryl Brown & Tatiana Borisova, 2006. "A Spatial Analysis of Obesity in West Virginia," Working Papers Working Paper 2006-13, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
    12. van de Coevering, Paul & Maat, Kees & van Wee, Bert, 2018. "Residential self-selection, reverse causality and residential dissonance. A latent class transition model of interactions between the built environment, travel attitudes and travel behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 466-479.
    13. Faizeh Hatami & Jean-Claude Thill, 2022. "Spatiotemporal Evaluation of the Built Environment’s Impact on Commuting Duration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-19, June.
    14. Thomas Klinger & Martin Lanzendorf, 2016. "Moving between mobility cultures: what affects the travel behavior of new residents?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 243-271, March.
    15. Sun, Bindong & Yan, Hong & Zhang, Tinglin, 2017. "Built environmental impacts on individual mode choice and BMI: Evidence from China," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 11-21.
    16. Lake Sagaris, 2015. "Lessons from 40 years of planning for cycle‐inclusion: Reflections from Santiago, Chile," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 39(1), pages 64-81, February.
    17. Haixiao Pan & Qing Shen & Ming Zhang, 2009. "Influence of Urban Form on Travel Behaviour in Four Neighbourhoods of Shanghai," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 46(2), pages 275-294, February.
    18. De Vos, Jonas & Mouratidis, Kostas & Cheng, Long & Kamruzzaman, Md., 2021. "Does a residential relocation enable satisfying travel?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 188-201.
    19. Donggen Wang & Tao Lin, 2019. "Built environment, travel behavior, and residential self-selection: a study based on panel data from Beijing, China," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 51-74, February.
    20. Su, Qing, 2011. "The effect of population density, road network density, and congestion on household gasoline consumption in U.S. urban areas," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 445-452, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:9:p:1898-1914. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.