Build environment

and green space as

determinants for

cycling and walking

among Finns

Tomi Mäki-Opas, PhD

Senior researcher

Population Health Unit

National Institute for Health and Wellfare (THL), Helsinki, Finland

tomi.maki-opas@thl.fi

Friday seminar,

AMC 21.3.2014

1

1 Environmental determinants for cycling and

walking – what we know so far?

2 Built environment and green space as

determinants for walking and cycling among

Finns (BEGACYS)

- Aims

- Datasets

- Spatial and statistical methods

- Preliminary results for commuting PA

3 Challenges in ecological research

4 Conclusions

Friday seminar, AMC

21.3.2014 2

Friday seminar, AMC

21.3.2014 3

1 Environmental determinants for cycling

and walking –What we know so far?

The evidence of green space and built

environment on cycling and walking is

inconsistent

Built environment and green space might be

important for cycling and walking in the sense of

Accessibility, connectivity

Presence, locality, density,

Walkability, quality

Aesthetics, safety

(References: Charreire et al. 2012; Hanibuchi et al. 2011; Van Holle et al., 2012; Kramer et al. 2013)

2 Built Environment and Green Areas as

Determinants for Cycling and Walking

– A Longitudinal Study using

Geographic Information Systems

(BEGACYS-project),

2013-2016,

funded by the Academy of Finland

Friday seminar, AMC

21.3.2014 4

Friday seminar, AMC

21.3.2014 5

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

- Urban form

- Pedestrian/cycling routes

- Neigbourhood’s safety

(perceived)

GREEN AREAS

- Forests, parks

- Recreation areas

- Neighborhood aesthethics

(perceived)

Model adopted and

modified from JP

Elder et al Health

Education Research

2007

CYCLING & WALKING - Transportation

- Recreation

- Fitness

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS

AND OTHER FACTORS

- Socioeconomic position

(education, occupation,

income)

- Social environment (social

support and social

participation)

- Health status

URBAN POLICY AND PLANNING

- Comparison

between the five

largest cities in

Finland

Our hypotheses are that:

Infrastructure and recreation areas have a small but

positive effect on cycling and walking

Social support and socioeconomic background has

an influence on the effect size

Green areas and recreation areas are more positively

associated with walking in Finland than elsewhere.

Cycling and walking are more prevalent in those cities

having a good infrastructure and a proximity to green

areas

Friday seminar, AMC

21.3.2014 6

Main datasets Health 2000 / 2011 follow-up study

Health examination, interviews, questionnaires

Background information, health, diseases, environmental factors and PA behaviours etc.

Geographical Information systems (GIS)

Corine Landcover and Urban Zones (Finnish Environmental Institute)

Digiroad – A national Road and Street Database (Finnish Transport Agency)

Population registers

Education, occupation, income, migration history

Friday seminar, AMC

21.3.2014 7

Friday seminar, AMC

21.3.2014 8

Outcome = Commuting PA

Friday seminar, AMC

21.3.2014 9

Urban and rural classifications 2011

Friday seminar, AMC

21.3.2014 10

© SYKE/Urban Rural classification

Urban Zones 2000 & 2011

Friday seminar, AMC

21.3.2014 11

© SYKE/YKR

Corine Landcover 2002, 2006, 2012(?)

Friday seminar, AMC

21.3.2014 12

© SYKE/CORINE

Spatial and statistical methods ArcGIS 10.1 and raster analyses was used to modify

and combine the GIS-information and link it to the Health 2011 Shortest euclidean distance to the green space and

water area and urban zone and urbanisation level was linked based

on individual’s home geocoordinates

Statistical analyses were conducted with STATA 11 Logistic regression, odds ratios (OR) and 95%

confidence intervals (95CI)

Adjusting for age, gender, education, chronic diseases

Analyses limited to five biggest cities in Finland (Helsinki, Turku, Tampere, Kuopio and Oulu) and with information on commuting PA (n=4322)

Friday seminar, AMC

21.3.2014 13

Preliminary results for

commuting PA

Friday seminar, AMC

21.3.2014 14

Figure 1. The association of urbanization level on

commuting PA, fully adjusted model

Friday seminar, AMC

21.3.2014 15

OR

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Sparsely

populated

rural areas

Rural

heartland

area

Rural area

close to urban

area

Local centre

in a rural area

Pre-urban

area

Outer urban

area

Inner urban

area

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

car-oriented zone public transit zone pedestrian zone

Figure 2. The association of urban zones

on commuting PA, fully adjusted model

Friday seminar, AMC

21.3.2014 16

OR

Figure 3. The association between green space

and commuting PA, Fully adjusted model.

Friday seminar, AMC

21.3.2014 17

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0-50 50-100 100-150 150-200 200-250 250-300 300+

OR

Shortest distance in meters

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0-50 50-100 100-150 150-200 200-250 250-300 300+

Figure 4. The association of water areas

on commuting PA, fully adjusted model

Friday seminar, AMC

21.3.2014 18

Shortest distance in meters

OR

4 Challenges in ecological research

Few longitudinal studies?

Urban vs rural?

Quality of GIS?

Advanced statistical methods?

Friday seminar, AMC

21.3.2014 19

5 To conclude…

Our prelimary results suggest that…

Proximity to green space and to water

areas in home neighborhood may have a

positive role on commuting PA

Living close to urban area may have a

positive role but living in urban area a

negative role on commuting PA

Location in pedestrian zone may not have

a role, but living in transport zone may

have a negative role on commuting PA

GIS-methods provide interesting “new” tools

to study social determinants for PA

Friday seminar, AMC

21.3.2014 20