Driven to Support: Individual- and County-Level Factors Associated With Public Support for Active Transportation Policies.

PURPOSE: To assess predictors of stated support for policies promoting physically active transportation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: US counties selected on county-level physical activity and obesity health status. PARTICIPANTS: Participants completing random-digit dialed telephone survey (n = 906). MEASURES: Survey measures assessed stated support for 5 policies to promote physically active transportation, access to active transportation facilities, and time spent in a car. County-level estimates included household car dependence and funding for bicycle-pedestrian projects. ANALYSIS: Multivariable generalized linear mixed models using binary distribution and logit link, accounting for clustering within county. RESULTS: Respondents supported policies for accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians through street improvements (89%), school active transportation programs (75%), employer-funded active commuting incentives (67%), and allocation of public funding (68%) and tax support (56%) for building and maintaining public transit. Residents spending >2 h/d (vs <0.7 hours) in cars were more likely to support street (odds ratio [OR]: 1.87; confidence interval [CI]: 1.09-3.22) and public transit (OR: 1.85; CI: 1.24-2.77) improvements. Residents in counties investing >$1.6 million in bicycle and pedestrian improvements expressed greater support for funding (OR: 1.71; CI: 1.04-2.83) and tax increases (OR: 1.73; CI: 1.08-2.75) for transit improvements compared to those with lower prior investments (<$276 100). CONCLUSION: Support for policies to enable active transportation is higher where relevant investments in active transportation infrastructure are large (>$1.6 M), public transit is nearby, and respondents drive >2 h/d.

Contextualizing Walkability: Do Relationships Between Built Environments and Walking Vary by Socioeconomic Context?

PROBLEM RESEARCH STRATEGY AND FINDINGS: Supportive built environments for walking are linked to higher rates of walking and physical activity, but little is known about this relationship for socioeconomically disadvantaged (e.g., low-income and racial/ethnic minority) populations. We review 17 articles and find that most show that the built environment has weaker effects on walking and physical activity for disadvantaged than advantaged groups. Those who lived in supportive built environments walked more and were more physically active than those who did not, but the effect was about twice as large for advantaged groups. We see this difference because disadvantaged groups walked more in unsupportive built environments and less in supportive built environments, though the latter appears more influential. TAKEAWAY FOR PRACTICE: Defining walkability entirely in built environment terms may fail to account for important social and individual/household characteristics and other non-built environment factors that challenge disadvantaged groups, including fear of crime and lack of social support. Planners must be sensitive to these findings and to community concerns about gentrification and displacement in the face of planned built environment improvements that may benefit more advantaged populations. We recommend five planning responses: Recognize that the effects of the built environment may vary by socioeconomics; use holistic approaches to improve walkability; expand walkability definitions to address a range of social and physical barriers; partner across agencies, disciplines, and professions; and evaluate interventions in different socioeconomic environments.