Examining the Scope, Facilitators, and Barriers to Active Transportation Patterns in Kingston, Ontario: A Seasonal Analysis Daphne Mayer, MPH, Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington Public Health Patricia Collins, PhD, Queens University Canadian Public Health Association 2012 Conference Public Health in Canada: Creating and Sustaining Health Environments Edmonton, Alberta June 21 22, 2011
2008 Ontario Public Health Standards 1 Establishes requirements for fundamental public health programs and services in Ontario 4 principles: Need, Impact, Capacity, and Partnership and Collaboration Public health programs and services that are informed by evidence are the foundation for effective public health practice. 1. Ontario. Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Ontario public health standards. Toronto, ON: Queen s Printer for Ontario; 2008. Available from: http://www.health.gov.on.ca
Rationale We do not have good picture of what active transportation use looks like in our community Partnership between KFL&A Public Health & Kingston Coalition for Active Transportation (KCAT)
Objectives To obtain baseline information about active transportation use in the City of Kingston. To identify barriers to walking, cycling and other forms of active transportation in the City of Kingston To identify opportunities to enhance active transportation use in the City of Kingston
Active transportation survey study area: Kingston, Ontario
Research question Are there seasonal differences in self-reported active transportation engagement? Demographics Gender, employment status, income, age, car ownership Time spent using A.T. Physical activity guidelines Modal split Destinations travelled to using A.T. Barriers to using A.T.
Method: Sample Telephone surveys of 4 independent random samples of Kingston adults ( 18 years) Spring 2009, fall 2009, summer 2010, and winter 2011 N=1400 (350 completed surveys per cycle) Average response rate was 21.2%. Residential postal codes (N=1265)
Definitions A.T. user: Engaged in A.T. at least once in the previous 7 days Non-user: Did not engage in A.T. in the previous 7 days
Results
A.T. users vs. non-users Figure 1: Proportion of A.T. Users and non-users (N=1400)
A.T. users were... A.T. user vs. Non user More likely to be younger p<.0001 47.5 years (C.I. 46.5 48.5) 55.0 years (C.I. 53.4 56.6) More likely to be employed p=.04 62.4% (C.I. 59.4 65.4) Less likely to own a car p<.0001 77.7% (C.I. 75.1 80.2) 56.5% (C.I. 51.5 61.4) 94.5% (C.I. 92.2 96.8) More likely to have household incomes <$40K p=.003 26.4% (CI.I.23.7 29.1) 19.4 % (C.I. 15.5 23.4) A.T. users have similar demographic characteristics across all seasons.
A.T. Users and the seasons Table 2: Odds ratios for the association between A.T. use and season Season % Unadjusted odds ratio (C.I. 95%) Adjusted odds ratio (C.I. 95%) Winter 60.3 1.00 1.00 Spring 76.5 2.15 (1.55 2.99)* 2.05 (1.44 2.9)* Summer 74.9 1.96 (1.42 2.71)* 1.93 (1.36 2.74)* Fall 75.1 1.99 (1.44 2.75)* 2.12 (1.49 3.02)* *significant at p<.05; Adjusted for gender, employment status, household income, car ownership, age
Time engaged in A.T. and the seasons Table 3: Duration of A.T. engagement in the previous 7 days N Mean (min) Median (min) Range (min) Overall 1400 49.1 36 1 365 Winter* 211 43.8 30 1 365 Spring* 268 54.5 40 2 269 Summer 262 49.1 37.5 1 290 Fall 263 48.1 40 1 310 * significant at Bonferroni adjusted p<.008 Winter A.T. users spent significantly less time using A.T. than spring A.T. users.
Meeting physical activity guidelines through A.T. Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines 2 : at least 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous intensity aerobic physical activity per week A.T. is positioned as one way to contribute to meeting the physical activity guidelines 2 Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (http://www.csep.ca/)
Meeting physical activity guidelines through A.T. Figure 2: Contribution of time spent engaged in A.T. in the previous 7 days to minimum physical activity recommendations
Figure 3: Modal split by season
Destinations and A.T. Table 5: Top 3 destinations* of previous 7 day A.T. trips by any mode, by season Overall (n=3843) Winter (n=728) Spring (n=1078) Summer (n=1010) Fall (n=1027) Destination % (n) Destination % (n) Destination % (n) Destination % (n) Destination % (n) Corner store 13.9 (536) Corner store 13.7 (100) Corner store 13.5 (146) Corner store 13.6 (137) Corner store 14.9 (153) Grocery store 11.8 454) Grocery store 10.2 (74) Park 13.2 (142) Park 13.1 (132) Grocery store 12.9 (132) Park 11.2 (432) Park 7.6 (55) Grocery store 12.2 (131) Grocery store 11.6 (117) Park 10.0 (103) Work 7.6 (55) *Destinations included travel to: work, grocery store/supermarket, shopping mall, corner store/convenience store, pharmacy, bank, medical appointment, personal appointment, pickup/drop off someone, restaurant, home of a friend, home of a family member, library, movies, park, recreation centre, place of worship, bus stop
Figure 4: Perceived barriers to A.T. in Kingston
Limitations Self report Time data was measured for travel to destination only.underestimate Did not measure other types of physical activity
Summary Kingstonians are engaging in A.T. (primarily walking) on a year-round basis; in winter months.
Summary Across all seasons, Kingstonians are engaging in A.T. to destinations types that are characteristically in close proximity and have short travel times.
Summary Kingstonians are meeting some of the physical activity guidelines through A.T. (< 37.5 min/week); in spring months.
Summary Kingstonians perceive most barriers to engaging in AT to be in the built environment.
KFL&A Public Health & A.T. Table 6: Selected KFL&A Public Health activities addressing barriers in the physical, social, and individual environments Activity Audience Bicycle parking advocacy Recommendations re: reducing pedestrian and cycling deaths Segregated bicycle lane advocacy Knowledge exchange (KE): Annual A.T. forum Kingston cycling route map Projects with Queen s University students (advocacy, KE) Active Commute to Work Week June 2-8, 2012 Municipality, businesses, developers Provincial government Various committees at municipality Decision makers and general public General public Municipality, general public http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybibwvic 2xk&feature=youtu.be Workplaces
Questions? Acknowledgements: Kingston Coalition for Active Transportation Anne MacPhail, KFL&A Public Health Dr. Kathleen O Connor, KFL&A Public Health Danielle Amey, KFL&A Public Health Matthew Hodgetts, KFL&A Public Health Thank you!