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

Angie L. Cradock, Jessica L. Barrett, Jamie F. Chriqui, Kelly R. Evenson, Karin Valentine Goins, Jeanette Gustat, Katie M. Heinrich, Cynthia Perry, Michele Scanze, Thomas L. Schmid, Rachel G. Tabak, M. Renee Umstattd Meyer, Cheryl Valko

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)657-666
Number of pages10
JournalAmerican Journal of Health Promotion
Volume32
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2018

Fingerprint

transportation policy
public support
funding
pedestrian
tax increase
Taxes
bicycle
Telephone
taxes
Health Status
health status
telephone
Cluster Analysis
Motivation
Linear Models
employer
Obesity
incentive
Exercise
resident

Keywords

  • active tranpsort
  • active transportation
  • car use
  • driving
  • physical activity
  • policy
  • public transit

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health(social science)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Cradock, A. L., Barrett, J. L., Chriqui, J. F., Evenson, K. R., Goins, K. V., Gustat, J., ... Valko, C. (2018). Driven to Support: Individual- and County-Level Factors Associated With Public Support for Active Transportation Policies. American Journal of Health Promotion, 32(3), 657-666. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117117738758

Driven to Support : Individual- and County-Level Factors Associated With Public Support for Active Transportation Policies. / Cradock, Angie L.; Barrett, Jessica L.; Chriqui, Jamie F.; Evenson, Kelly R.; Goins, Karin Valentine; Gustat, Jeanette; Heinrich, Katie M.; Perry, Cynthia; Scanze, Michele; Schmid, Thomas L.; Tabak, Rachel G.; Umstattd Meyer, M. Renee; Valko, Cheryl.

In: American Journal of Health Promotion, Vol. 32, No. 3, 01.03.2018, p. 657-666.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cradock, AL, Barrett, JL, Chriqui, JF, Evenson, KR, Goins, KV, Gustat, J, Heinrich, KM, Perry, C, Scanze, M, Schmid, TL, Tabak, RG, Umstattd Meyer, MR & Valko, C 2018, 'Driven to Support: Individual- and County-Level Factors Associated With Public Support for Active Transportation Policies', American Journal of Health Promotion, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 657-666. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117117738758
Cradock, Angie L. ; Barrett, Jessica L. ; Chriqui, Jamie F. ; Evenson, Kelly R. ; Goins, Karin Valentine ; Gustat, Jeanette ; Heinrich, Katie M. ; Perry, Cynthia ; Scanze, Michele ; Schmid, Thomas L. ; Tabak, Rachel G. ; Umstattd Meyer, M. Renee ; Valko, Cheryl. / Driven to Support : Individual- and County-Level Factors Associated With Public Support for Active Transportation Policies. In: American Journal of Health Promotion. 2018 ; Vol. 32, No. 3. pp. 657-666.
@article{b5f3e9af41bd467cbffe02d828d82753,
title = "Driven to Support: Individual- and County-Level Factors Associated With Public Support for Active Transportation Policies",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "active tranpsort, active transportation, car use, driving, physical activity, policy, public transit",
author = "Cradock, {Angie L.} and Barrett, {Jessica L.} and Chriqui, {Jamie F.} and Evenson, {Kelly R.} and Goins, {Karin Valentine} and Jeanette Gustat and Heinrich, {Katie M.} and Cynthia Perry and Michele Scanze and Schmid, {Thomas L.} and Tabak, {Rachel G.} and {Umstattd Meyer}, {M. Renee} and Cheryl Valko",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0890117117738758",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "657--666",
journal = "American Journal of Health Promotion",
issn = "0890-1171",
publisher = "American Journal of Health Promotion",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Driven to Support

T2 - Individual- and County-Level Factors Associated With Public Support for Active Transportation Policies

AU - Cradock, Angie L.

AU - Barrett, Jessica L.

AU - Chriqui, Jamie F.

AU - Evenson, Kelly R.

AU - Goins, Karin Valentine

AU - Gustat, Jeanette

AU - Heinrich, Katie M.

AU - Perry, Cynthia

AU - Scanze, Michele

AU - Schmid, Thomas L.

AU - Tabak, Rachel G.

AU - Umstattd Meyer, M. Renee

AU - Valko, Cheryl

PY - 2018/3/1

Y1 - 2018/3/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - active tranpsort

KW - active transportation

KW - car use

KW - driving

KW - physical activity

KW - policy

KW - public transit

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042128579&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042128579&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0890117117738758

DO - 10.1177/0890117117738758

M3 - Article

C2 - 29108441

AN - SCOPUS:85042128579

VL - 32

SP - 657

EP - 666

JO - American Journal of Health Promotion

JF - American Journal of Health Promotion

SN - 0890-1171

IS - 3

ER -