editorial the effect of active transport, transport systems, and...

Hindawi Publishing CorporationJournal of Environmental and Public HealthVolume 2013, Article ID 457159, 2 pageshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/457159

EditorialThe Effect of Active Transport, Transport Systems, andUrban Design on Population Health

Li Ming Wen,1,2 Chris Rissel,1 and Hua Fu3

1 Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Australia2Health Promotion Service, Sydney Local Health District, NSW, Australia3 School of Public Health, Fudan University, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Li Ming Wen; [email protected]

Received 22 September 2013; Accepted 22 September 2013

Copyright © 2013 Li Ming Wen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Without doubt, active transport (working, cycling, and theuse of public transport), transport systems, and urban designsignificantly impact population health. A 2013 systematicreview of the relationships between active transport andhealth outcomes found that active transport was significantlyassociated with improved cardiovascular health and lowerbody weight. However, the strength of the evidence variedfrom weak (mental health and cancer), moderate (bodyweight), to strong (cardiovascular health). The evidence waslimited by lack of comparability of study outcomes, weakstudy designs, small sample sizes, and lack of experimentalstudies [1].

Although the links between active transport and popu-lation health are still emerging, the evidence linking activetransport directly to health outcomes has not been examinedextensively and the relationship between active transportand health still remains unclear. More research is needed tobetter understand the important correlates related to activetransport and its contributors to population health, anddevelop effective strategies to promote active transport. Withthis in mind we selected the theme for this special issue. Wewish to highly commend the authors for their well writtenpapers exploring a range of issues related to promoting activetransport, which include health benefits associated with itand potential strategies to promote active transport as well aschallenges inmeasuring the effectiveness of promoting activetransport.

The paper by M. Bopp et al. examined the associationbetween health-related factors and mode of travel to theworkplace.The study used a convenience sample of employed

adults who completed an online survey regarding demo-graphics, health-related factors, and the number of times perweek of walking, biking, driving, and using public transit towork. Logistic regressionwas used to predict the likelihood ofeach mode of transport and meeting physical activity (PA).The study found that about 10 percent of respondents metPA recommendations based on the use of active transport towork alone, which has an important implication for promot-ing physical activity through active transport.

The paper by R. Zhou et al. examined the perceivedneighborhood environment characteristics associated withPA in urban areas in China. Cross-cultural comparisons ofhow the environment can influence behaviour warrant moreattention. In this study, adult cross-sectional data was col-lected using accelerometers, the International Physical Activ-ity Questionnaire (IPAQ), and Neighborhood EnvironmentWalkability Scale-Abbreviated (NEWS-A) survey. Consistentwith western countries, residents from downtown areas hadhigher levels of transportation PA and leisure-time PA thanrespondents living in the suburbs. Residential density waspositively associated with recreational and leisure-based PA,and moderate-vigorous PA was found to be negatively asso-ciated with traffic safety.

An interesting paper by S. R. Lu et al., however, foundthat, contrary to expectations, there was no benefit to popula-tion health from active transport. They conducted a popula-tion-based cross-sectional study in Jiangsu, China. 8400community residents aged 18 or above were interviewed fol-lowing a multistage random sampling method. Face-to-facequestionnaire survey data, anthropometric measurements,

2 Journal of Environmental and Public Health

and biochemical data from blood tests were collected. Resultsshowed an inverse correlation between active transport andsome health outcomes, including cholesterol disorder, risk ofdiabetes, and risk of obesity.

Another paper focused on cycling was the paper by N. T.R. Romanow et al., which used a case-control study designto examine environmental risk factors for bicycling injuries.They combined data on bicyclist injuries collected by inter-views in the emergency department with street-level environ-mental audits of injury locations, capturing path, roadway,safety, land use, and aesthetic characteristics. They focusedon more severe injuries—being struck by a motor vehicle orcyclists that were hospitalized. Adjusted logistic regressionanalyses found that the factors contributing to motor vehicleevents included greater traffic volume intersections, retailestablishments, and path obstructions. Protective factorsincluded locations where the road was in good condition andwhere there was high surveillance from surrounding build-ings. Safety issues are an ongoing concern in the promotionof cycling.

C. Rissel et al. conducted two pilot studies on the effectof bicycling on balance and leg strength among older adults.The preliminary results showed that participants who hadcycled in the last month performed significantly better onbalance measures of decision time and response time inStudy 1; and cycling at least one hour a week was associatedwith significant improvements in balance (decision time andresponse time) and timed single leg standing from Study 2.

In addition, the paper by T. Xia et al. reviewed theevidence of links between vehicle emissions and air quality,as well as the health and economic benefits from alternativetransport use and methodological issues relating to themodeling of these cobenefits. The review concluded thatcurrent analyses of transport mitigation strategies in terms ofhealth and economic aspects are still at an early stage. Mostof the previous research regarding the transport sector hasonly focused on one of those possible benefits and has rarelyquantified the overall cobenefits of alternative transportationplanning. Additionally, most of the current co-benefit studiesare more interested in the long-term effect of alternativetransportation, while the short-term effect has not been con-sidered adequately. Some other benefits, such as social ben-efits from alternative transport are also valuable for furtherinvestigation.

The paper byN. Petrunoff et al. assessed the reliability andvalidity of survey questions used to measure workplace travelbehavior. Sixty-five respondents completed a travel diary fora week, wore an accelerometer over the same period, andtwice completed an online travel survey (21 days apart). Theyconfirmed that the survey question “How did you travel towork this week?” with daily response options over seven daysis reliable and agrees well with a travel diary.

D. Cooley and S. Pedersen conducted a pilot study to testthe feasibility of a workplace e-health intervention based ona passive approach to increase nonpurposeful movement as ameans of reducing sitting time.The study that was trialed in aprofessional workplace with forty-six participants had somepromising results, but there is a need for further investigation.S. Crawford and J. Garrard presented a mixed method study

describing a comprehensive impact process evaluation of theRide2School program in metropolitan and regional areasin Victoria, Australia. The paper highlights the benefits ofundertaking both qualitative and quantitative methods inevaluating active transport to school programs that enablesboth measurement and understanding of program impacts.

Finally, the paper by D. Fuller and P. Morency called fora population approach to transportation planning: reducingexposure to motor-vehicles.This paper provided an overviewof Geoffrey Rose’s strategy of preventive medicine applied toroad traffic fatalities and concluded that interventions shouldaddress the large number of people exposed to the funda-mental causes of diseases. Public health and transportationresearch must critically appraise their practice and engage ininformed dialogue with the objective of improving mobilityand productivity while simultaneously reducing the publichealth burden of road deaths and injuries.

Li Ming WenChris Rissel

Hua Fu

References

[1] H. Xu, L. M. Wen, and C. Rissel, “The relationships betweenactive transport to work or school and cardiovascular health orbody weight: a systematic review,” The Asia-Pacific Journal ofPublic Health, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 298–315, 2013.

Submit your manuscripts athttp://www.hindawi.com

Stem CellsInternational

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014


MEDIATORSINFLAMMATION

of


Behavioural Neurology

EndocrinologyInternational Journal of



Disease Markers


BioMed Research International

OncologyJournal of



Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity


PPAR Research

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Immunology ResearchHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of

ObesityJournal of



Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

OphthalmologyJournal of


Diabetes ResearchJournal of



Research and TreatmentAIDS


Gastroenterology Research and Practice


Parkinson’s Disease

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Volume 2014Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com

editorial the effect of active transport, transport systems, and...

Documents