| Literature DB >> 31212994 |
Kimihiro Hino1, Ayako Taniguchi2, Masamichi Hanazato3, Daisuke Takagi4.
Abstract
Mobility management is a transportation policy aiming to change travel behavior from car use to sustainable transportation modes while increasing people's physical activity. Providing pedometers and visualizing step counts, popular interventions in public health practice, may constitute a mobility management program. However, the ease of modal shifts and changeability of walking habits differ across neighborhood environments. Using questionnaire data from 2023 middle-aged and older participants from Yokohama, Japan, in May 2017, this study examined (1) the relationship between the physical and social environments of Yokohama Walking Point Program participants who volunteered to use free pedometers and their modal shifts from cars to walking and public transport, and (2) whether participants' modal shifts were associated with increases in step counts. Multivariate categorical regression analyses identified the frequency of greetings and conversations with neighbors as well as health motivation as important explanatory variables in both analyses. Participants living in neighborhoods far from railway stations and in neighborhoods with a high bus stop density tended to shift to walking and public transport, a modal shift that was highly associated with increased step counts. These results suggest that mobility management should be promoted in collaboration with public health and city planning professionals.Entities:
Keywords: city planning; compact city; mobility management; neighborhood; public transport; step counts
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31212994 PMCID: PMC6616637 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16122144
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Questions asked in the survey.
| Variables | Questions Asked in the Survey |
|---|---|
| Self-rated health (before participation) | How did you feel about your health? (before participation) |
| Diagnosis of metabolic syndrome (before participation) | Have you been diagnosed with metabolic syndrome in a periodic health examination or a medical examination? (before participation) |
| Frequency of greetings and conversations with neighbors | Did the frequency of greetings and holding conversations with neighbors increase compared to the frequency pre-participation in YWPP? |
| Modal shift | Did the frequency of walking or using public transport increase while decreasing the frequency of car or motor bike use when going out (e.g., commuting and going shopping) after participating in YWPP? |
| Change in step counts | Did your daily step count change after participating in YWPP? |
Motivation for participation in YWPP (multiple answer).
| Categories | Options |
| % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Health motivation | Can promote health while enjoying | 1406 | 69.5 |
| Good chance to begin walking | 666 | 32.9 | |
| Can feel healthy | 261 | 12.9 | |
| Profit motivation | Can get a pedometer | 926 | 45.8 |
| Can win prizes | 715 | 35.3 | |
| Can donate | 255 | 12.6 | |
| Data confirmation motivation | Can confirm data of step counts and rank | 945 | 46.7 |
| Interaction motivation | Can walk with families and friends | 502 | 24.8 |
| Can interact with other participants | 125 | 6.2 | |
| (None) | Can participate with office colleagues | 41 | 2.0 |
Measure: Phi 4-point correlation, cluster method: centroid clustering. Nine options were categorized into four using hierarchical cluster analysis. The last option (Can participate with office colleagues) was not included in any category because it was not clustered with any of the other nine options and its selection rate was the lowest. When a participant selected any options in category A, the binary variable of the category A was 1.
Characteristics of the study samples and questionnaire results (n = 2023).
| Variables | Options |
| % |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Sex | Male | 869 | 43.0 |
| Female | 1154 | 57.0 | |
| Age (years) | <65 | 781 | 38.6 |
| 65–74 | 778 | 38.5 | |
| 75+ | 464 | 22.9 | |
| Occupation | Full-time | 367 | 18.1 |
| Part-time/self-employed | 407 | 20.1 | |
| Non-worker/other | 1249 | 61.7 | |
| Self-rated health (before participation) | Healthy | 646 | 31.9 |
| Rather healthy | 1158 | 57.2 | |
| (Rather) unhealthy | 219 | 10.8 | |
| Diagnosis of metabolic syndrome (before participation) | Yes | 262 | 13.0 |
| Preliminary | 238 | 11.8 | |
| No | 1523 | 75.3 | |
| Motivation for participation in YWPP (Multiple Answers) | Health | 1607 | 79.4 |
| Profit | 1282 | 63.4 | |
| Data confirmation | 945 | 46.7 | |
| Interaction | 574 | 28.4 | |
| Months participating in YWPP | <12 | 421 | 20.8 |
| 12–24 | 512 | 25.3 | |
| 24+ | 1090 | 53.9 | |
|
| |||
| Frequency of greetings and conversations with neighbors | Increased | 195 | 9.6 |
| Slightly increased | 621 | 30.7 | |
| Not changed/(slightly) decreased | 1207 | 59.7 | |
| Distance to the nearest railway station | <500 m | 583 | 28.8 |
| 500–800 m | 556 | 27.5 | |
| 800–1100 m | 286 | 14.1 | |
| 1100 m+ | 598 | 29.6 | |
| Bus stop density (per km2) | <3 | 330 | 16.3 |
| 3–7.5 | 969 | 47.9 | |
| 7.5–12 | 534 | 26.4 | |
| 12+ | 190 | 9.4 | |
|
| |||
| Modal shift | Yes | 548 | 27.1 |
| Mostly yes | 578 | 28.6 | |
| Mostly no | 432 | 21.4 | |
| No | 465 | 23.0 | |
| Change in step counts | Increased | 910 | 45.0 |
| Slightly increased | 408 | 20.2 | |
| Not changed/decreased | 705 | 34.9 |
Results of categorical regression.
| Outcome Variables | Modal Shift | Change in Step Counts | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B |
| Importance | B |
| Importance | ||||
| Sex | 0.048 | 0.031 | * | 0.013 | 0.026 | 0.147 | 0.002 | ||
| Age (years) | 0.040 | 0.082 | 0.046 | 0.067 | 0.000 | *** | 0.020 | ||
| Occupation | 0.056 | 0.007 | ** | 0.057 | 0.062 | 0.001 | ** | 0.033 | |
| Self-rated health a | −0.001 | 1.000 | 0.000 | −0.039 | 0.141 | 0.007 | |||
| Diagnosis of metabolic syndrome a | 0.043 | 0.009 | ** | 0.019 | 0.016 | 0.294 | 0.002 | ||
| Motivation: | Health | 0.203 | 0.000 | *** | 0.383 | 0.158 | 0.000 | *** | 0.172 |
| rofit | 0.029 | 0.136 | 0.011 | 0.017 | 0.260 | −0.001 | |||
| Data confirmation | 0.036 | 0.079 | 0.007 | 0.027 | 0.123 | 0.004 | |||
| Interaction | 0.030 | 0.113 | 0.020 | 0.059 | 0.003 | ** | 0.030 | ||
| Months participating in YWPP | 0.057 | 0.001 | *** | 0.036 | 0.018 | 0.223 | 0.005 | ||
| Frequency of greetings and conversations with neighbors | 0.199 | 0.000 | *** | 0.375 | 0.103 | 0.000 | *** | 0.097 | |
| Distance to the nearest railway station | 0.038 | 0.008 | ** | 0.014 | 0.019 | 0.139 | 0.002 | ||
| Bus stop density (per km2) | 0.051 | 0.000 | *** | 0.019 | 0.035 | 0.006 | ** | 0.003 | |
| Modal shift | 0.369 | 0.000 | *** | 0.623 | |||||
|
| 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Adjusted R2 | 0.129 | 0.260 | |||||||
B: regression coefficient (beta); p: statistical significance of coefficient (* < 0.05, ** < 0.01, *** < 0.001); importance: Pratt’s relative importance measure of predictors; a before participation.
Numerical values assigned to the categories.
| Variables | Categories | Outcome Variables | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Modal Shift | Change in Step Counts | ||
| Sex | Male | −1.152 | −1.152 |
| Female | 0.868 | 0.868 | |
| Age (years) | <65 | 1.261 | 0.352 |
| 65–74 | −0.810 | −1.168 | |
| 75+ | −0.764 | 1.366 | |
| Occupation | Full-time | 1.684 | 1.310 |
| Part-time/self-employed | 0.807 | 1.234 | |
| Non-worker/other | −0.758 | −0.787 | |
| Self-rated health a
| Healthy | −0.598 | −0.390 |
| Rather healthy | −0.200 | −0.325 | |
| (Rather) unhealthy | 2.823 | 2.869 | |
| Diagnosis of metabolic syndrome | Yes | −1.157 | 1.468 |
| Preliminary | −2.254 | −2.453 | |
| No | 0.551 | 0.131 | |
| Motivation | |||
| Health | Yes | −0.509 | −0.509 |
| No | 1.965 | 1.965 | |
| Profit | Yes | 0.760 | −0.760 |
| No | −1.315 | 1.315 | |
| Data confirmation | Yes | −1.068 | −1.068 |
| No | 0.936 | 0.936 | |
| Interaction | Yes | −1.589 | −1.589 |
| No | 0.629 | 0.629 | |
| Months participating in YWPP | <12 | 1.824 | 0.975 |
| 12–24 | −1.061 | 1.164 | |
| 24+ | −0.206 | −0.923 | |
| Frequency of greetings and conversations with neighbors a | Increased | −2.455 | −2.027 |
| Slightly increased | −0.614 | −0.883 | |
| Not changed/(slightly) decreased | 0.713 | 0.782 | |
| Distance to the nearest train station | <500 m | 1.054 | 0.460 |
| 500–800 m | 0.516 | −0.380 | |
| 800–1100 m | −0.167 | 2.008 | |
| 1100 m+ | −1.428 | −1.056 | |
| Bus stop density (per km2) | <3 | 1.613 | -0.986 |
| 3–7.5 | −0.156 | 0.506 | |
| 7.5–12 | 0.154 | 0.607 | |
| 12+ | −2.436 | −2.573 | |
| Modal shift a | Yes | −1.394 | −1.146 |
| Rather yes | −0.191 | −0.498 | |
| Rather no | 0.655 | 0.503 | |
| No | 1.272 | 1.503 | |
| Change in step counts a | Increased | −0.887 | |
| Slightly increased | −0.334 | ||
| Not changed/decreased | 1.338 | ||
a The order of the categories is preserved in the optimally scaled variables.
Figure 1Spatial distribution of accessibility to public transport.