| Literature DB >> 29558379 |
Yi Lu1,2, Zhonghua Gou3, Yang Xiao4, Chinmoy Sarkar5, John Zacharias6.
Abstract
A sharp drop in physical activity and skyrocketing obesity rate has accompanied rapid urbanization in China. The urban planning concept of transit-oriented development (TOD) has been widely advocated in China to promote physical activity, especially walking. Indeed, many design features thought to promote walking-e.g., mixed land use, densification, and well-connected street network-often characterize both TODs and established urban neighborhoods. Thus, it is often assumed that TODs have similar physical activity benefits as established urban neighborhoods. To verify this assumption, this study compared walking behaviors in established urban neighborhoods and transit-oriented new towns in Hong Kong. To address the limitation of self-selection bias, we conducted a study using Hong Kong citywide public housing scheme, which assigns residents to different housing estates by flat availability and family size rather than personal preference. The results show new town residents walked less for transportation purpose than urban residents. New town residents far from the transit station (800-1200 m) walked less for recreational purpose than TOD residents close to a rail transit station (<400 m) or urban residents. The observed disparity in walking behaviors challenges the common assumption that TOD and established urban neighborhoods have similar impact on walking behavior. The results suggest the necessity for more nuanced planning strategies, taking local-level factors into account to promote walking of TOD residents who live far from transit stations.Entities:
Keywords: new towns; physical activity; transit-oriented development (TOD); transportation; urban planning; walking
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29558379 PMCID: PMC5877100 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15030555
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The 20 estates in Study 2 are shown, along with the urban areas established before 1970 and New Territories in Hong Kong. The New Territories feature nine transit-oriented development (TOD) new towns, which accommodate half of the population.
Figure 2The aerial view of Tin Shui Wai in 2016 [26]. It is a typical Hong Kong new town, confined by open rural areas and connected to other districts with mass transit railway (MTR) and other public transportation services.
Figure 3The Hong Kong new towns are often confined by surrounding open areas (a & c). The established urban areas are continuously developed, and different parts are immediately adjacent to each other (b & d). The new town housing estates far from MTR stations are adjacent to open rural areas (e), while urban housing estates far from MTR stations are still surrounded by dense urban developments (f). Legend: red dots represented MTR stations. (Source: Microsoft Bing maps.).
Characteristics of 616 participants in this study (Hong Kong SAR, China in 2016).
| Variables | Number of Participants | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 18–34 | 320 | 51.9 |
| 35–49 | 165 | 26.8 |
| 50–64 | 131 | 21.3 |
| Male | 299 | 48.5 |
| Female | 317 | 51.5 |
| Low (<12 K) | 175 | 28.8 |
| Medium (12–15 K) | 227 | 37.4 |
| High (>15 K) | 205 | 33.8 |
Figure 4The mean transportation walking (a) and recreational walking time (b) (in minutes/7 days) by neighborhood types (urban vs. TOD) and distance to MTR stations (close vs. far). The error bars represent standard errors. Public housing residents within 400 m walking distance to a MTR station were classified in the close group; those within 800–1200 m were classified in the far group.
Multilevel regression models for predicting transportation walking and recreational walking time in different public housing estates by the predictors of neighborhood type (urban vs. TOD) and distance to MTR (close vs. far) (Hong Kong SAR, China in 2016, N = 616).
| Model Predictors | Transportation Walking | Recreational Walking | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Urban-Reference | ||||
| TOD | −0.6 (−1.18, −0.03) | 0.04 | 0.43 (−0.22, 1.08) | 0.17 |
| Close-Reference | ||||
| Far | −0.26 (−0.88, 0.35) | 0.37 | 0.52 (−0.18, 1.21) | 0.12 |
| 0.08 (−0.70, 0.86) | 0.83 | −0.23 (−0.43, −0.03) | 0.02 | |
* CI: Confidence Interval. Public housing residents within 400 m walking distance to a MTR station were classified in the close group; those within 800–1200 m were classified in the far group.