Introduction
Where people choose or are required to live is a dynamic and multi-faceted construct
with many factors underpinning the decision. ‘Place’ factors such as the availability
and affordability of housing, school siting, employment locations, and public transport
availability may be important considerations, while at the individual- and household-level,
‘people’ factors, such as raising a family, employment status, household income, mobility
requirements, and responsibilities for care may influence area preference and choices/necessities
(Cummins et al., 2007). Not withstanding the fact that people are frequently limited
by their financial resources, conceptually these factors are aligned with the three
tenets of the residential self-selection hypothesis (Chatman, 2009); first, households
choose their location based on their travel preferences and anticipated commute patterns;
second, neighbourhood characteristics and preferences are highly correlated; and third,
those who strongly prefer a certain type of neighbourhood are more responsive to the
built environment attributes of that setting. Yet, preference and selection issues
are largely overlooked in the neighbourhood and health literature, potentially biasing
area-level findings (Boone-Heinonen et al., 2011). Furthermore, it remains unknown
how work-related travel behaviours are influenced by neighbourhood residence and preference.
Putting neighbourhood preference aside, established evidence suggests it is beneficial
for health and community wellbeing to live in more walkable neighbourhoods (Bean et al.,
2008; du Toit et al., 2007; Kawachi & Subramanian, 2007; Sallis et al., 2006). Such
environments have street networks that are better connected, higher residential and
employment densities, more diverse land uses and easier access to public transport
(Sallis et al., 2006). There is a suggestion that people residing in these environments
tend to walk more for transport purposes and have reduced reliance on automobiles
for travel (du Toit et al., 2007), and, perhaps as a consequence they also report
higher levels of physical activity, and greater neighbourhood cohesion and social
interactions when compared with those who live in less walkable neighbourhoods (du
Toit et al., 2007; Kawachi & Subramanian, 2007). For example, in suburban settings,
distances between residents’ homes and many daily destinations, such as place of employment,
are often greater than those observed in urban environments (du Toit et al., 2007).
Inherently this leads to greater reliance on automobiles to meet daily transport needs
within these settings. On one hand, cars afford increased mobility and the ability
to travel independently to diverse and remote destinations, as well as encouraging
flexibility in social networks and allowing compression of time. On the other hand,
commuting by car may isolate individuals from the environment they travel through
by removing the human negotiation and interaction that is required when travelling
by other modes, leading to a reduction in unstructured and passing neighbourhood-level
social interactions (Bean et al., 2008).
Physical activity patterns have been compared across diverse neighbourhoods. Rodriquez
et al. (2006) found that the total volume of self-reported physical activity for residents
living either in urban (more walkable) or conventional suburban neighbourhoods (less
walkable) in the United States (US) did not actually differ. However, adults living
in the more walkable neighbourhoods spent the most time engaged in physical activities
within their neighbourhood and undertook higher levels of transport-related physical
activity when compared with residents from less walkable neighbourhoods (Rodriquez
et al., 2006). In addition, Handy et al. (2006) examined whether neighbourhood self-selection
and travel attitudes mediated the relationship between walking and the built environment.
Relationships between neighbourhood designs and self-reported walking behaviours of
residents who had moved into the area within the previous year were examined. In the
cross-sectional models, those who lived in more walkable neighbourhoods walked more
frequently and for longer, and importantly, held more supportive attitudes towards
walking, biking, and public transport than residents who lived in suburban settings.
When the data were examined retrospectively, those who had a more positive attitude
to walking had either a smaller decrease or a larger increase in walking when they
moved between different neighbourhood types. In addition, substantial changes (i.e.,
4 standard deviation points) in built environment factors were needed to alter walking
behaviour. Based on these findings, the authors identified a built environment effect
on walking that was independent of neighbourhood preference and travel attitudes (Handy
et al., 2006), although preferences (as suggested by the residential self-selection
hypothesis) remained important correlates for physical activity behaviours and attitudes.
Building on these findings, neighbourhood self-selection and preferences have been
examined simultaneously in conjunction with walking for all purposes, vehicle miles
travelled, and body size in US adults (Frank et al., 2007). Those who lived in, and
preferred a more automobile dominant environment (i.e., less walkable), made more
car trips, and the inverse was observed for those who preferred and lived in more
urban (i.e., more walkable) neighbourhoods. Overall, 25% of the sample was mismatched;
that is residents were not living in the neighbourhood context they preferred. Although
not investigated in the study, possible explanations for the ‘mismatched’ findings
are that neighbourhood selection at the individual level may be constrained by housing
availability or adequate income sources to purchase in preferred neighbourhoods. Interestingly,
however, neighbourhood preferences seemed to override a portion of the location effect.
After controlling for demographic factors, those who preferred a more urban neighbourhood
but lived in a suburban neighbourhood demonstrated higher levels of walking when compared
with others who lived in and preferred suburban neighbourhoods. Those who preferred
suburban neighbourhoods walked the least regardless of what type of neighbourhood
they lived in.
Taken together, these findings highlight the importance of considering both area preference
and residential selection when attempting to understand of how neighbourhood exposures
relate to specific health behaviours and outcomes. As such, in this study we seek
to examine associations between neighbourhood residence, preferences, and work-related
travel behaviours and infrastructure in a sample of employed adults. To date the relationships
between neighbourhood selection, neighbourhood preference, and work travel behaviours
have not been explicitly examined, yet commuting to work contributes a substantial
portion of all journeys made by adults (US Department Transportation and Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, 2003), and walking and cycling to work have been associated
with positive health gains (Andersen et al., 2000; Badland & Schofield, 2008a, 2008b).
Commute distance to work (Badland et al., 2007), public transport access (Chen et al.,
2008), and private motor vehicle (PMV) access (Badland & Schofield, 2008a, 2008b)
have shown to be important predictors of work travel modes. It is unknown how these
are related to neighbourhood selection and preference. As such, the aim of this study
is to examine the relationships between neighbourhood residence, preference, transport
infrastructure, and work-related travel behaviours in an employed sample of New Zealand
adults. It is likely that understanding these complex relationships more fully will
inform urban policy development through planning or retro-fitting of neighbourhoods
to support healthy behaviours, namely transport-related physical activity.
Methods
Participants and setting
This study uses a sub-sample of data drawn from the Understanding the Relationship
between Activity and Neighbourhoods (URBAN) study conducted in New Zealand. New Zealand
has a population of 4.2 million residents, with 85% of the population living in urban/suburban
settings, and has many physical and cultural similarities to Australia and North America
(Statistics New Zealand, 2009). Detailed recruitment methodology is described elsewhere
(Badland et al., 2009).
Briefly, data were collected between April 2008 and September 2010 when trained interviewers
identified participants aged 20–65 years from selected neighbourhoods using a pre-determined
door-to-door recruitment strategy. Forty-two households were randomly selected per
neighbourhood, with one usually resident adult surveyed per household. This recruitment
process was repeated in 12 selected neighbourhoods across four cities (totalling 48
neighbourhoods) in New Zealand, being Waitakere and North Shore (Auckland), Wellington,
and Christchurch. For this study, only adults engaged in full- or part-time employment
were included, resulting in the mean number of respondents per neighbourhood being
33.7 (range 24–43 residents).
Within each city, neighbourhoods comprising five contiguous mesh-blocks (smallest
census area unit) were identified and selected on two constructs: ‘walkability’ (high/low)
and population density of Māori residents (the indigenous population) (high Māori/low
Maori). At a population level Maori experience both lower socio-economic status and
poorer health outcomes (Ajwani et al., 2003). The rationale for selecting according
to high/low Maori population density was to increase the proportion of Maori in the
sample and the explanatory power of Maori specific-analyses. The walkability measure
was generated using geographical information systems (GIS) to create neighbourhood-level
indices based on street connectivity, dwelling density, land use mix, and retail floor
area ratio. This measure is described in more detail elsewhere (Badland et al., 2009)
and has been used in other countries to examine relationships between neighbourhood
design and physical activity (Owen et al., 2007). The distribution of usual Māori
residents domiciled in the neighbourhoods was estimated using 2006 census data. For
each city, neighbourhood selection was as follows: 3× high walkable, high Māori neighbourhoods;
3× high walkable, low Māori neighbourhoods; 3× low walkable, high Māori neighbourhoods;
and 3× low walkable, low Māori neighbourhoods. Neighbourhood selection was dichotomised
as high or low walkability, and termed ‘neighbourhood residence’. All participants
provided informed consent and ethical approval to conduct the study was provided by
the host institution research ethics committee.
Measures
Once recruited into the study, participants completed a computer-assisted personal
interview (CAPI) with a trained interviewer. The face-to-face survey interview lasted
approximately 40 min and covered various topics; the items relevant to this study
included individual- and household-level demographics, employment status, primary
workplace physical address, number of registered automobiles available within the
household (a measure of private motor vehicle access), and neighbourhood preference.
Many items and scales were taken from existing surveys that have been tested for reliability
and validity as indicated elsewhere (Badland et al., 2009); however, aside from pilot
testing, the URBAN study survey in its entirety has not undergone any formal reliability
or validity testing.
Neighbourhood preference
Neighbourhood preference was assessed using items developed by Levine et al. (2005).
Assuming housing cost, quality of schools, and mix of people were similar in both
neighbourhoods, participants were asked to identify whether they would prefer to live
in a more suburban or urban environment. A show card with ‘urban’ and ‘suburban’ images
drawn was presented to participants alongside the verbal descriptions of hypothetical
neighbourhoods.
The suburban neighbourhood was verbally described as being convenient for driving;
with most destinations being a 10–15 min drive away from home, and place of work being
within a 20-min commute on a motorway (freeway). This hypothesised neighbourhood did
not support walking or public transport journeys to work. Dwellings were solely single-family
houses on larger sections. In contrast, the hypothesised urban neighbourhood was verbally
described as having good public transport and walking infrastructure with destinations
(shopping, entertainment, libraries) being a 10–15 min walk away. Commute destinations
were 20 min by public transport. Dwellings were close together and were a mixture
of apartments, town houses, and small single-family houses on smaller parcel lots.
After selecting their preferred neighbourhood (suburban style or urban style), participants
rated strength of preference on a five-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = very slight
preference to 5 = very strong preference, later collapsed to ‘no strong preference’
(1, 2) and ‘strong preference’ (3, 4, 5)). Derived variables were formed, being: urban
style, no strong preference; suburban style, no strong preference; urban style, strong
preference; and suburban style, strong preference. These derived variables were combined with
the high/low walkability neighbourhood residence classifications.
Work-related travel modes, commute distance, and public transport access
Participants completed a trip diary for work-related journeys in the seven days prior
to survey administration. Respondents self-reported their primary travel mode taken
to and from their main place of work for each day. This was defined as the mode used
for the greatest distance during the journey. To account for the variation in the
days worked, the number of trips made by each travel mode (car, active travel (walking,
cycling), and public transport) was calculated as a percentage of total work trips
made during this period. Home to work commute distance was determined by geocoding
participant’s home and primary workplace addresses using GIS. The closest facility
function in ArcView v 9.2. software (ESRI, Redlands, CA) was used to model each participant’s
shortest street network commute between his or her home and primary work address (Badland
et al., 2008). The number of public transport (bus and train) stops inside each neighbourhood
was identified on a GIS map overlay using ArcView v. 9.2. Neighbourhood boundaries
were buffered by 20 m to capture any peripheral public transport stops. A summed score
of public transport stops was derived for each neighbourhood and divided by the size
of the neighbourhood area to create a measure of public transport density.
Statistical analysis
Firstly, Spearman correlations were conducted to identify associations between demographic
differences and neighbourhood residence, neighbourhood preferences, and a combined
measure of these two variables. Secondly, linear regression models compared neighbourhood
residence and neighbourhood preference with workplace commute distance, neighbourhood
public transport density, and PMV access. Thirdly, logistic regression analyses were
employed to examine the association between work travel modes compared by neighbourhood
residence and neighbourhood preference. All regression models were adjusted for potential
confounders, being sex, age, ethnicity, education, household income, housing tenure,
and residential neighbourhood clustering (using robust standard errors). All analyses
were conducted using Stata SE v.12 IC (StataCorp, College Station, TX) and p-values
of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. This study was powered
to detect the smallest between neighbourhood change in r
2 of ≤2.3% and logistic regression models odds ratio (OR) of ≤1.27.
Results
Overall, 1616 adults participated in this study. Findings shown in Table 1 identified
differences in demographic characteristics when neighbourhood residence was compared;
significant differences existed within age and housing tenure groups, with those preferring
an urban setting being younger and living in rented dwellings. Across the sample,
more people preferred to live in an urban, rather than suburban environment.
When neighbourhood residence and preference were combined (Table 2), significant differences
existed within age, education attainment, and housing tenure groups. More owner–occupiers
lived in low walkable neighbourhoods. Those who preferred an urban environment, regardless
of where they lived, had the highest levels of education. After excluding those with
no strong preference, approximately 43% of the sample was mismatched, with 26% of
respondents preferring to live in a more urban style environment.
Differences in neighbourhood walkability and preferences by household- and neighbourhood-level
features that were likely to influence travel behaviours are shown in Table 3. Employed
adults who lived in less walkable neighbourhoods had significantly longer commute
distances to their place of work than those living in more walkable neighbourhoods.
Those who preferred a suburban style neighbourhood had an approximately 1.5 km further
commute distance to their place of work when compared with participants who preferred
urban settings. Respondents living in, and preferring suburban settings commuted 2.7 km
extra to their place of work when compared with those who lived in and preferred an
urban environment. Public transport stop density was greater in more walkable neighbourhoods
and for those who preferred more suburban environments or had no strong preference
had significantly less access to public transport than those preferring more urban
neighbourhoods. As expected, those who lived in, or preferred suburban environments
had greater automobile access.
Neighbourhood residence, neighbourhood preference, and a combined measure of these
were significantly associated with the proportion of work trips made by car, public
transport, and active travel (Table 4). Neighbourhood residence was significantly
related to public transport and active transport work-related trips and these associations
were in the expected direction. In the logistic regression models, the only significant
relationship for car travel existed for those who lived in a low walkable neighbourhood,
and had no neighbourhood preference. This group was more likely to commute by car
compared with the group living in high walkable neighbourhoods with an urban style
preference. Those who preferred a suburban style neighbourhood were less likely to
take public or active transport to/from work when compared with those who preferred
an urban setting. Similarly, those who lived in low walkable neighbourhoods, and preferred
suburban style settings were less likely to travel using public transport or active
transport, and these relationships were stronger than when the preference data were
considered alone.
Discussion
The aims of this study were to: gain a deeper understanding of the complex relationships
between neighbourhood residence, preferred neighbourhood types, demographic variables,
and environmental factors, and to understand how these were associated with work-related
travel behaviours. Consistent with the residential self-selection hypothesis, our
findings showed that 57% of the sample reported a ‘matched’ strong preference for
the type of neighbourhood they lived in; however, 26% of the sample preferred to live
in a more walkable environment than where they were current residing (compared with
17% preferring more suburban settings). Similar findings have been reported elsewhere
(Frank et al., 2007). This mismatch may be due to a lack of more walkable neighbourhoods
being available within New Zealand cities, particularly considering that the mismatch
was found across all demographic and socio-economic groups. Furthermore, the respondent
profile matched the neighbourhood demographic profile, so there is confidence that
our findings are representative. It is important to reiterate, however, that respondents
were asked to ignore important issues such as housing cost, schooling, and mix of
people in selecting their preferred neighbourhood. This may have confounded the findings.
As expected, distance to work was shorter and the number of cars available in the
household fewer for those who were living in more walkable neighbourhoods. Also, public
transport stop density was greater in neighbourhoods with higher walkability, and
those who rented were more likely to live in high walkable neighbourhoods. We do acknowledge,
however, that the absolute number of public transport stops in the neighbourhood may
not be the optimal measure of public transport access; service frequency, route variation,
and access to meaningful destinations may be more relevant (Stone & Mees, 2010), yet
we were unable to source this spatial data layer. It could be that people choose,
in part, to live in suburban environments because these environments facilitate and
reinforce car travel over other existing travel modes; for example, suburban neighbourhoods
will likely have greater opportunity for unrestricted on-road and garage car-parking
availability when compared with urban settings. These relationships were also reflected
in the ‘no strong preference’ groups. The lack of associations between the reference
group (high walkable neighbourhoods with an urban style preference) and those who
lived in a low walkable neighbourhood, but preferred an urban style environment suggests
that the attitudinal effects may at least in part mediate work-related travel behaviours.
A culture of car ownership exists in New Zealand, with 89.9% of households having
access to at least one car (Statistics New Zealand, 2001); this compares to 92.1%
of households in the US (US Department Transportation and Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, 2003) and 73.0% of households in the United Kingdom (Office for National
Statistics, 2011). This hegemony in car access likely hindered the ability to find
more definitive relationships between neighbourhood residence, neighbourhood preference
variables, and work-related automobile travel in our sample. Future research may benefit
from assessing preferred mode of travel and travel demand modelling. In particular,
work that identifies what features or interventions would encourage people residing
in low walkable (but high public transport access) neighbourhoods to shift to public
or active transport modes from car travel would be worthwhile, particularly considering
that commute distances were not excessive for this sample irrespective of neighbourhood
type. An avenue for this work may be to focus on identifying and reducing the time
and monetary cost, as well as improving the service of public transport modes (either
perceived or actual) when compared with car use (Wang, 2011).
Limitations
When considering the contribution to knowledge, this study has identified relationships
between neighbourhood residence, neighbourhood preferences, and work-related travel
behaviours in a large representative sample of employed adults. As this is an observational
(cross-sectional) study, causality and directionality cannot be inferred, and the
investigation is limited by self-reported travel behaviours. Although we controlled
for neighbourhood clustering and socio-economic position, our analysis approach may
have over- or underestimated some of the associations identified. We did not attempt
to tease out how specific sociodemographic indicators were related to PMV access,
public transport use, or residential location choice and complexity in the first instance.
These variables are influenced by socio-economic status (Dargay, 2001; Mutchler &
Krivo, 1989), and as such, may have impacted on the relationships evident. Neighbourhoods
were defined on the basis of New Zealand Statistics-derived administrative units.
This synthetic application of aggregating administrative spatial units into neighbourhoods
may or may not reflect how respondents define their neighbourhood, potentially over-
or under-estimating the effect work travel behaviours have with neighbourhood preference.
Furthermore, employment status and job type are important contributors in determining
residential location, neighbourhood preference, and mode of travel to work, and these
were not examined in any detail in this study. Further consideration of these factors
alongside understanding neighbourhood selection, neighbourhood social constructs,
travel mode preferences, and travel demand modelling is now needed. Neighbourhood
preferences now need to be examined beyond the hypothetical construct utilised here.