How Does Usual Commuting Mode of Transport Affect Perceptions of Accessibility to Work and Study?. (June 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Standen, Chris; Greaves, Stephen
• Is Part Of: Journal of transport & health. Volume 5(2017)Supplement
• Page Start: S24
• Publication Date: 2017-06
• Subjects: Transportation -- Health aspects -- Periodicals; Transportation -- Periodicals; Public Health -- Periodicals; Noise, Transportation -- Periodicals; Air Pollutants -- Periodicals; 388
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jth.2017.05.306
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2214-1405

Abstract

Abstract : Background: In both the transport and public health literature, there is a growing focus on people's accessibility to economic and social opportunities. Prior research has found a relationship between accessibility and social isolation, and mental and physical wellbeing. Accessibility levels are typically estimated using objective location-based, person-based or utility-based measures. In this study, we sought to measure individuals' perceived level of accessibility to economic and social opportunities, and to determine whether perceived work/study accessibility is related to usual commuting mode. Methods: As part of the Sydney Travel and Health Study, 608 inner city residents (aged 18-55) completed an online questionnaire in September/October 2014. Respondents were asked how easy it was for them to get to work, study, shopping, social gatherings and medical services. They were also asked to state their usual commuting mode, and to provide demographic details. Logistic regression was used to investigate the association between perceived accessibility to work/study (dichotomised as somewhat/very easy, and somewhat/very difficult or indifferent) and usual commuting mode, adjusting for gender, age, employment status, postcode and household composition. Results: As expected for a densely populated inner city area, the large majority of respondents reported that it was somewhat/very easy to get to study (83%), grocery shopping (93%), social gatherings (83%) and medical services (90%). However, only 61% reported that it was somewhat/very easy to get to work. This may reflect the reality that most people are constrained to a single workplace, whereas objective accessibility measures typically count all employment opportunities reachable by an individual. Those respondents who reported that it was somewhat/very easy to get to their place of work or study were more likely to commute by walking (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 8.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.34-23.70), bicycle (AOR 7.77, 95% CI 2.64-22.83) or public transport (AOR 3.73, 95% CI 2.03-6.85) than by private car. Gender, age employment status, postcode and household composition were not significant. Conclusions: Inner-city residents who commute on foot or by bicycle rate their ease of access to work/study higher than those who normally drive. Perceptions of accessibility, and therefore population wellbeing, could be improved by giving more people the option to commute on foot or by bicycle.