Next Article in Journal
Optimal Politics of Conflict over Physical-Industrial Development Using a Technique of Cooperative Game Theory in Iran
Next Article in Special Issue
A Multimodal Transport Model to Evaluate Transport Policies in the North of France
Previous Article in Journal
Seasonal Performance Evaluation of Pavement Base Using Recycled Materials
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 22
10.3390/su132212717
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Integrated Urban Mobility for Our Health and the Climate: Recommended Approaches from an Interdisciplinary Consortium

by
Shilpa Dogra
1,*,
Nicholas O’Rourke
1,
Michael Jenkins
1 and
Daniel Hoornweg
2
1
Faculty of Health Sciences (Kinesiology), University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, ON L1G-0C5, Canada
2
Faculty of Energy Systems and Nuclear Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, ON L1G-0C5, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(22), 12717; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212717
Submission received: 12 October 2021 / Revised: 5 November 2021 / Accepted: 10 November 2021 / Published: 17 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Transport Planning under Conditions of Uncertainty)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: The purpose of this paper is to suggest an approach to aid with the creation of an interdisciplinary team and evidence-informed solutions addressing the urban mobility challenges facing many communities. Methods: We created a local Urban Mobility Consortium with experts from different disciplines to discuss the development of healthy, accessible communities, electrification, ride-sharing, and overarching issues related to urban mobility. A workshop and survey data collected during COVID-19 are presented in this paper. Results: Several evidence-informed recommendations are provided. Broadly, these were: (1) support the creation and development of accessible and safe active-transportation infrastructure; (2) incentivize and prioritize the use of active, public, and shared transportation over use of personal vehicles; (3) ensure connectivity of active transportation infrastructure with major destinations and public transportation options; (4) work towards electrification of personal and public transportation; and (5) work across siloes to improve integrated mobility to impact climate and health related outcomes, and enhance overall efficiency. Conclusions: An integrated approach is needed to improve mobility, access, and environmental impact. This needs to be carried out in the local context and requires government and non-governmental leadership.

1. Introduction

The issue of optimizing urban transportation for improved efficiency has been studied for decades by engineers and city planners. However, traditionally, the definition of transportation has been narrow, leading to the creation of “car-centric” communities, where cars (or automotive vehicles) are prioritized over people. This car-centric approach has made our communities more dangerous. According to data from the World Health Organization, the number of road traffic deaths has reached 1.35 million, annually; it has also become the number one cause of death for children and youth [1]. While there is variability between high, middle, and low-income countries, the burden is consistently borne by pedestrians and cyclists. Importantly, the increasing size of personal use vehicles (e.g., pick-up trucks and sport utility vehicles) has made injuries more severe and increased the risk of serious injuries, such as brain trauma [2]. Unfortunately, these vehicles are increasing in prevalence on our roads, particularly in North America [3,4]. Programs such as Vision Zero are supported by many municipalities; however, investments are rarely sufficient to meet the needs of communities, and traffic fatalities remain stubbornly high.
Efforts to make our roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists are partially responsible for an increase in active transportation [5]. This is important because transportation is responsible for a large portion of greenhouse gas emissions. Data from the United States Environment Protection Agency indicate that the transportation sector is responsible for the largest proportion of greenhouse gas emissions (29%) [6]. Data from Canada suggest that greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation have increased by 27% in the past decade, and that this is at least partly due to the fact that the size of personal vehicles has increased [7]. Not surprisingly, this increase in emissions is associated with significant detriments to health. In a comprehensive analysis of global data, it was estimated that vehicle tailpipe emissions led to 385,000 (95% CI, 274,000–493,000) premature deaths in 2015 [8].
Mobility in our communities is critical for access to services, stores, healthcare, and social activity, across all ages and abilities. However, current transportation systems do not adequately cater to those without access to a personal vehicle; in fact, they encourage the use of a personal vehicle. This has led to a situation that is detrimentally affecting the health of our planet and people. A systems approach that is interdisciplinary and addresses sustainable, accessible, and efficient urban mobility is needed. The purpose of this paper is to provide a suggested approach to creating an interdisciplinary team and evidence-informed solutions to aid in addressing the urban mobility challenges facing our communities.

2. Suggested Approach

2.1. Urban Mobility Consortium: Creating a Local Interdisciplinary Network

An interdisciplinary human-centered approach is needed to address current urban mobility impacts. This requires multi-sectoral government involvement (Figure 1). Thus, we endeavored to create a local ad hoc Urban Mobility Consortium (UMC) led by SD, a human health and exercise scientist with expertise in active transportation, e-bikes, and chronic disease prevention, and DH, a civil engineer with expertise in sustainable cities, energy systems, transportation, and greenhouse gas emissions. The first step in developing the UMC was to apply for funding to host an event that brought multiple stakeholder groups together. We received funding from the Institute of Community Support, Planning and Dissemination grant program through the Canadian Institutes for Health Research.
Funds supported a one-day summit entitled “Improved Transportation: Moving Together” in October 2019. Four panels were scheduled, each with a researcher and/or a government stakeholder serving as the moderator. These panels were: Healthy Inclusive Cities, Electrification and Automation, Role of Ridesharing, and The Big Picture. Audience members engaged in discussion with the panels, and with one another, throughout the day, via panel sessions, lunch, and breaks. This event drew over 100 registrants from the local community, local and regional government, and relevant stakeholder groups (not for profits and private sector).
A report was developed and circulated in December 2019 outlining the current challenges, equity and access issues, five-year goals, and a future vision that evolved from each panel. The next step was to bring people together to create a working group focused on various high priority aspects of urban mobility. However, COVID-19 hit in March 2020, and the landscape of urban mobility drastically changed overnight. Nevertheless, the UMC created a network that has worked together on several projects over the past year, including one looking at the local impacts of COVID-19 on commuting changes and choices (see below).
In order to ensure continued collaboration across disciplinary siloes, it is important to create an organized group. Thus, our next steps are:
-
To create an ad hoc UMC Committee: A formal committee will be created with the governance requiring representation from researchers, government, and stakeholder groups from various sectors, levels, and disciplines, in order to ensure continued collaboration and to support local efforts to improve urban mobility. The committee will create a vision, mission, and annual plan to ensure that contemporary, evidence-based solutions are being prioritized and addressed.
-
Working Groups: The committee will create working groups based on current priorities and feasibility. These will be driven by the local context.
-
Funding:The committee will work to acquire funds for projects, and support other groups with their applications. As the UMC grows, funding for a staff member will become critical.
A key aspect of the UMC will be its ability to cross political jurisdictions while connecting with relevant agencies and stakeholder groups. An apolitical group such as this is necessary to ensure continuity of the work as new governments come into power.

2.2. COVID-19 Case Study

Here we present a case study highlighting the benefits of the UMC. When COVID-19 hit North America, the sudden change in urban mobility patterns created uncertainty regarding daily traffic. Due to the unprecedented nature of the pandemic and the drastic changes to commuter habits, it was difficult to understand what re-opening, or return to work commuter patterns, would look like. With this in mind, we partnered with our local municipal government to explore commuter habits and intentions upon return to work. We created a survey in consultation with government staff from various departments (public transit, roads department, active transportation committee) through the UMC network, and we launched the survey in the fall of 2020 after receiving research ethics approval from the Ontario Tech University Research Ethics Board. All participants provided informed consent. Recruitment was carried out via online posts through social media, newsletters, and email in the local community.
Over 220 adults completed the online survey. Of these, 68% were full time post-secondary students, and 86% indicated that the University campuses were their primary commuting destinations prior to the pandemic. The results of this study indicated that prior to the pandemic, the average commuting distance of this sample was 19 km/day (range: 0–110 km), with 59% of the sample indicating that they commuted daily and only 4% of the sample commuting 0 times per week. The primary mode of transportation was a personal vehicle (47%). Figure 2 shows the transportation modes used.
Due to the pandemic, 81% of the sample indicated that their primary daily destination changed. The number of days that participants in the sample commuted changed such that 43% were now commuting 0 days per week. Figure 3 shows the number of days the sample was commuting at the time of completing the survey.
Over 20% of the sample intended to change their mode of transportation (10%) or were unsure if they would use the same mode of transportation (11%) once they returned to normal activities after the pandemic. Of these, 60% indicated that they intended to change to the use of a personal vehicle. Several individuals indicated concerns with the use of public transit; crowding on vehicles (n = 108) and cleanliness/sanitation (n = 106) were the main concerns. Participants also indicated concerns with cycling and walking. For cycling, the main concerns were a lack of cycling lanes (n = 24), safety of intersections (n = 20), traffic (n = 19), the poor condition of sidewalks (n = 18), and a lack of secure bike racks (n = 17). For walking, the main concerns were safety of intersections (n = 45), touching push buttons (n = 42), the poor condition of sidewalks (n = 33), and traffic (n = 23). Finally, when asked whether commuters would use ridesharing apps or bike share programs, 72% and 79%, respectively indicated that they were very unlikely or unlikely to use them. A report with these data was submitted to the University and municipality for planning purposes.
Of note, this survey-based study may have limited generalizability, given the small sample size from a unique geographical region. It is also subject to sample-selection bias and, thus, may not be representative of the entire community being studied. Nevertheless, this case study highlights the importance of having a UMC so that researchers can quickly work with partners to provide meaningful data to municipalities, and so that established networks allow work that would otherwise be too taxing for already overburdened municipal staff to take on.

3. Results and Recommendations

Based on the multi-stakeholder workshop described above, we provide several recommendations and evidence-based strategies to create a sustainable urban mobility plan (Table 1). The budget realities and contexts of individual communities may render some suggested strategies impractical, premature, or unnecessary; however, communities who have declared a climate emergency should prioritize as many strategies as possible to accomplish their emissions targets, as well as to improve the health and well-being of their residents. As highlighted in the case study above, this pandemic has provided an opportunity to spark changes to urban mobility patterns; however, appropriate supports are immediately needed to ensure this opportunity is not missed.

3.1. Recommendation 1. Support the Creation and Development of Accessible and Safe Active Transportation Infrastructure

Suggested Strategies
  • Create policies and practices that prioritize people over cars. Some of these can be revenue generating [9].
    • Only allow for creation of complete streets; that is, do not allow for new roads to be developed without the inclusion of appropriate sidewalks, bike lanes, or multi-use pathways [10,11,12,13].
    • Construction sites, delivery vehicles, service vehicles, or personal use vehicles should not be allowed to obstruct sidewalks or bike lanes. Heavy fines should be introduced for such offenders [14,15,16].
    • Snow clearance and maintenance of sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use pathways should be prioritized over roads [17,18,19,20].
  • Create high quality infrastructure that encourages active and public transportation.
    • Painted lines should not be considered bike lanes as they are not safe and do not encourage active transportation [21,22,23].
    • Increase awareness related to active transportation infrastructure in the community [24,25,26,27,28,29].
    • Prioritize active and public transportation infrastructure to major destinations along major routes, such as train stations, universities, hospitals, etc. [30,31,32].
    • Maintain infrastructure regardless of initial usage [20,33,34].
    • Create bike parking infrastructure to minimize theft and encourage cycling to local destinations [35,36,37].
  • Include a diverse group of individuals from your community in planning.
    • Apply an age-friendly lens to transportation planning and include older adults, as well as advocates of vulnerable older adults such as representatives from dementia, elder abuse, and ageism groups [38,39,40].
    • Aim to be barrier-free for those with physical, intellectual, and sensory disabilities by including representatives with disabilities or advocates from disability groups [41,42,43].
    • Include women, individuals from the LGBT-Q community, and individuals from other under-represented groups in conversations to ensure their needs and safety concerns are appropriately addressed [44,45,46,47].

3.2. Recommendation 2. Incentivize and Prioritize Use of Active, Public, and Shared Transportation over Use of Personal Vehicles

Suggested Strategies
  • Remove certain vehicles from the roads to improve air quality and health [48,49,50].
  • Provide incentives for purchasing and using e-bikes for short trips [51,52,53].
  • Provide incentives for leaving the car at home [54,55,56,57].
  • Increase parking costs at all municipal facilities [58,59,60,61].
  • Make public transportation free of charge [62,63,64].
  • Provide discounted parking fees to those who carpool [65,66,67].
  • Shift to levying charges per vehicle-kilometers travelled (VKT), starting with delivery vehicles [68].
  • Provide real-time monitoring and communication of greenhouse gas emissions by the community, with data from the transportation sector delineated [69,70,71].

3.3. Recommendation 3. Ensure Connectivity of Active Transportation Infrastructure with Major Destinations and Public Transportation Options

Suggested Strategies
  • Develop an integrated transportation system.
    • Integrate train and bus stations with active transportation to ensure that individuals are not forced to use a personal vehicle to get to major public transportation hubs (first mile, last mile) [72,73,74].
  • Increase connectivity throughout the community and through well-known routes. This can include the creation of overpasses and bridges for cyclists and pedestrians so that they do not have to wait at lights or cross busy intersections [75,76,77].
  • Do not have bike lanes or sidewalks come to abrupt ends, forcing commuters onto the road [78,79].
  • Ensure that all ride sharing companies operating in rural and urban communities are providing accessible options to residents [80,81,82,83].

3.4. Recommendation 4. Work towards Electrification of Personal and Public Transportation

Suggested Strategies
  • Ensure charging stations are available throughout the community and have the capacity to deal with increasing demand [84,85,86].
  • Provide financial incentives for parking of electric cars and bikes [87,88,89].
  • Subsidize prices of electric cars and bikes [87,88,89,90,91].
  • Electrify public transit vehicles, starting with the oldest vehicles in the fleet [92,93,94].

3.5. Recommendation 5. Work across Siloes to Improve Integrated Mobility to Impact Climate and Health Related Outcomes

Suggested Strategies
  • Different levels of government need to work together to develop a systems level approach to ensure services and infrastructure across government levels and departments are inter-connected and are facilitating healthy, eco-friendly transportation options. This includes smooth transitions between active and public transportation [95,96,97].
  • Put a price on carbon to reduce personal vehicle use:
  • Connectivity and integrated planning need to be prioritized, particularly in new communities. This is critical for reducing personal vehicle use [106,107].
  • Encourage multi-modal transportation that is equitable and barrier free. This is critical for ensuring that people of all ages, colors, income levels, and ability levels are able to move in their community [108,109,110].
  • Integrated mobility can lead to household savings of CAD 8000 per year from reduced vehicle operation costs. Additional recommendations related to integrated mobility and climate impacts can be found here: https://shared.ontariotechu.ca/shared/faculty-sites/sustainability-today/publications/uoit_improved_transportation_2018.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2021).

4. Conclusions

Transportation (personal mobility and deliveries) is one of the most pressing complex issues facing metropolitan areas. Today, transportation emissions are one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, leading to detrimental climate and health outcomes. The placement and structure of communities are dictated by transportation. Congestion and fractured mobility services are one of the largest drags on the economy and detractors of well-being. Increasing the use of multi-modal transportation, and emphasizing active transportation, public transportation, and the electrification of transportation provide an opportunity to enhance the health of humans and broadly reduce environmental impacts. This can lead to a strengthened and more stable economy. It is time that we move towards an integrated mobility approach. This needs to be carried out in the local context and requires non-governmental leadership. Specifically, future research must design, implement, and evaluate interventions that target an increase in use of active and public transportation in consultation with local residents, advocates, professionals, municipalities, and senior levels of government. A non-governmental approach is needed to ensure continuity of projects during changes in government and shifting government priorities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.D. and D.H.; data collection, S.D., D.H., M.J. and N.O. All authors contributed to manuscript preparation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant number 165017), and the APC was funded by The Metcalf Foundation.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Research Ethics Board at Ontario Tech University (protocol code 15941, 25 June 2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Road Safety 2018; CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ballesteros, M.F.; Dischinger, P.C.; Langenberg, P. Pedestrian injuries and vehicle type in Maryland, 1995–1999. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2004, 36, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Statistics Canada. New Motor Vehicle Registrations. Table: 20-10-0021-01; Statistics Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. US Environmental Protection Agency. 2020 EPA Automotive Trends Report; EPA-420-R-21-003; EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  5. Aziz, H.M.A.; Nagle, N.N.; Morton, A.M.; Hilliard, M.R.; White, D.A.; Stewart, R.N. Exploring the impact of walk–bike infrastructure, safety perception, and built-environment on active transportation mode choice: A random parameter model using New York City commuter data. Transportation 2018, 45, 1207–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. US Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2019; 430-R-21-005; EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  7. Environment and Climate Change Canada. National Inventory Report 1990–2019: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada 2021; Environment and Climate Change Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  8. Anenberg, S.; Miller, J.; Henze, D.; Minjares, R. A Global Snapshot of the Air Pollution-Related Health Impacts of Transportation Sector Emissions in 2010 and 2015; International Council on Clean Transportation: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sevtsuk, A.; Davis, D.E. Future of streets. In The Mathematics of Urban Morphology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 537–546. [Google Scholar]
  10. Zaccaro, H.N.; Atherton, E. Bright spots, physical activity investments that work—Complete Streets: Redesigning the built environment to promote health. Br. J. Sports Med. 2018, 52, 1168–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jordan, S.W.; Ivey, S. Complete Streets: Promises and Proof. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2021, 147, 04021011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Stavroulaki, I.; Pont, M.B. A Systematic Review of Multifunctional Streets; Chalmers University of Technology: Göteborg, Sweden, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ferguson, M.; Higgins, C.; Lavery, T.; Haj-Abotalebi, E. Shaping Hamilton with Complete Streets; McMaster Institute for Transportation and Logistics: Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  14. Perez, V.C. Reclaiming the Streets—Iowa Law Review; Texas A&M University School of Law Legal Studies: College Station, TX, USA, 2021; p. 106. [Google Scholar]
  15. Aghaabbasi, M.; Moeinaddini, M.; Asadi-Shekari, Z.; Shah, M.Z. The equitable use concept in sidewalk design. Cities 2019, 88, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Arellana, J.; Saltarín, M.; Larrañaga, A.M.; Alvarez, V.; Henao, C.A. Urban walkability considering pedestrians’ perceptions of the built environment: A 10-year review and a case study in a medium-sized city in Latin America. Transp. Rev. 2020, 40, 183–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Klicnik, I.; Dogra, S. Perspectives on Active Transportation in a Mid-Sized Age-Friendly City: “You Stay Home”. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. O’Rourke, N.; Dogra, S. Constraints to active transportation in older adults across four neighbourhoods: A descriptive study from Canada. Cities Health 2020, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Corning-Padilla, A.; Rowangould, G. Sustainable and equitable financing for sidewalk maintenance. Cities 2020, 107, 102874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Corazza, M.V.; Di Mascio, P.; Moretti, L. Managing sidewalk pavement maintenance: A case study to increase pedestrian safety. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 2016, 3, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. McNeil, N.; Monsere, C.M.; Dill, J. Influence of Bike Lane Buffer Types on Perceived Comfort and Safety of Bicyclists and Potential Bicyclists. Transp. Res. Rec. 2015, 2520, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cicchino, J.B.; McCarthy, M.L.; Newgard, C.D.; Wall, S.P.; DiMaggio, C.J.; Kulie, P.E.; Arnold, B.N.; Zuby, D.S. Not all protected bike lanes are the same: Infrastructure and risk of cyclist collisions and falls leading to emergency department visits in three U.S. cities. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 141, 105490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Hourdos, J.; Duhn, M.; Dirks, P.; Lindsey, G. Guidance for Separated/Buffered Bike Lanes with Delineators; Minnesota Traffic Observatory, Department of Civil, Environmental & Geo-Engineering: St Paul, MN, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  24. Barata, A.F.; Fontes, A.S. Tactical Urbanism and Sustainability: Tactical Experiences in the Promotion of Active Transportation. Int. J. Urban Civ. Eng. 2017, 11, 734–739. [Google Scholar]
  25. Villa-González, E.; Barranco-Ruiz, Y.; Evenson, K.R.; Chillón, P. Systematic review of interventions for promoting active school transport. Prev. Med. 2018, 111, 115–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ly, H.; Irwin, J.D. Skip the wait and take a walk home! The suitability of point-of-choice prompts to promote active transportation among undergraduate students. J. Am. Coll. Health 2020, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Young, D.R.; Cradock, A.L.; Eyler, A.A.; Fenton, M.; Pedroso, M.; Sallis, J.F.; Whitsel, L.P. Creating Built Environments That Expand Active Transportation and Active Living Across the United States: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation 2020, 142, e167–e183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Papageorgiou, G.; Efstathiadou, T.; Efstathiades, A.; Maimaris, A. Promoting Active Transportation via Information and Communication Technologies. In Proceedings of the IEEE EUROCON 2019 18th International Conference on Smart Technologies, Novi Sad, Serbia, 1–4 July 2019; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  29. Buehler, R.; Götschi, T.; Winters, M. Moving toward Active Transportation: How Policies Can Encourage Walking and Bicycling; University of Zurich: Zurich, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  30. Rothman, L.; Macpherson, A.K.; Ross, T.; Buliung, R.N. The decline in active school transportation (AST): A systematic review of the factors related to AST and changes in school transport over time in North America. Prev. Med. 2018, 111, 314–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, L.; Wen, C. The Relationship between the Neighborhood Built Environment and Active Transportation among Adults: A Systematic Literature Review. Urban Sci. 2017, 1, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Kärmeniemi, M.; Lankila, T.; Ikäheimo, T.; Koivumaa-Honkanen, H.; Korpelainen, R. The Built Environment as a Determinant of Physical Activity: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Studies and Natural Experiments. Ann. Behav. Med. 2018, 52, 239–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Panter, J.; Ogilvie, D. Theorising and testing environmental pathways to behaviour change: Natural experimental study of the perception and use of new infrastructure to promote walking and cycling in local communities. BMJ Open 2015, 5, e007593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Glazener, A.; Khreis, H. Transforming Our Cities: Best Practices Towards Clean Air and Active Transportation. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2019, 6, 22–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Chen, P.; Liu, Q.; Sun, F. Bicycle parking security and built environments. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 62, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Heinen, E.; Buehler, R. Bicycle parking: A systematic review of scientific literature on parking behaviour, parking preferences, and their influence on cycling and travel behaviour. Transp. Rev. 2019, 39, 630–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Van der Spek, S.C.; Scheltema, N. The importance of bicycle parking management. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2015, 15, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dabelko-Schoeny, H.; Maleku, A.; Cao, Q.; White, K.; Ozbilen, B. “We want to go, but there are no options”: Exploring barriers and facilitators of transportation among diverse older adults. J. Transp. Health 2021, 20, 100994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Carroll, S.; Jespersen, A.P.; Troelsen, J. Going along with older people: Exploring age-friendly neighbourhood design through their lens. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2020, 35, 555–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Patch, C.M.; Conway, T.L.; Kerr, J.; Arredondo, E.M.; Levy, S.; Spoon, C.; Butte, K.J.; Sannidhi, D.; Millstein, R.A.; Glorioso, D.; et al. Engaging older adults as advocates for age-friendly, walkable communities: The Senior Change Makers Pilot Study. Transl. Behav. Med. 2021, 11, 1751–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Sze, N.N.; Christensen, K.M. Access to urban transportation system for individuals with disabilities. IATSS Res. 2017, 41, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sabella, S.A.; Bezyak, J.L. Barriers to Public Transportation and Employment: A National Survey of Individuals with Disabilities. J. Appl. Rehabil. Couns. 2019, 50, 174–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lindsay, S. Accessible and inclusive transportation for youth with disabilities: Exploring innovative solutions. Disabil. Rehabil. 2020, 42, 1131–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Boggs, J.M.; Dickman Portz, J.; King, D.K.; Wright, L.A.; Helander, K.; Retrum, J.H.; Gozansky, W.S. Perspectives of LGBTQ Older Adults on Aging in Place: A Qualitative Investigation. J. Homosex. 2017, 64, 1539–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Cummings, C.R.; Dunkle, J.S.; Mayes, B.C.; Bradley, C.A.; Petruzzella, F.; Maguire, K. As we age: Listening to the voice of LGBTQ older adults. Soc. Work Public Health 2021, 36, 509–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zajac, C.; Godshall, K.C. Empowerment through Accessibility: Community Needs Assessment Data for LGBTQ Communities. Soc. Work Public Health 2020, 35, 483–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Herman, L.; Walker, R.; Rosenberg, M.W. An age-friendly city? LGBTQ and frail older adults. In Aging People, Aging Places: Experiences, Opportunities, and Challenges of Growing Older in Canada; Bristol University Press: Bristol, UK, 2021; p. 89. [Google Scholar]
  48. Gately, C.K.; Hutyra, L.R.; Peterson, S.; Sue Wing, I. Urban emissions hotspots: Quantifying vehicle congestion and air pollution using mobile phone GPS data. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 229, 496–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Vozmilov, A.G.; Ilimbetov, R.Y.; Astafev, D.V. Environmental Aspects of Trucks Transition to Alternative Type of Fuel; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 1348–1357. [Google Scholar]
  50. Mahesh, S.; Ramadurai, G.; Nagendra, S.M.S. On-board measurement of emissions from freight trucks in urban arterials: Effect of operating conditions, emission standards, and truck size. Atmos. Environ. 2019, 212, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Heitz, C.; Blume, M.; Scherrer, C.; Stöckle, R.; Bachmann, T. Designing Value Co-Creation for a Free-Floating e-Bike-Sharing System; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 113–125. [Google Scholar]
  52. De Kruijf, J.; Ettema, D.; Kamphuis, C.B.M.; Dijst, M. Evaluation of an incentive program to stimulate the shift from car commuting to e-cycling in the Netherlands. J. Transp. Health 2018, 10, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bigazzi, A.; Berjisian, E. Modeling the impacts of electric bicycle purchase incentive program designs. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2021, 44, 679–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Liao, F.; Molin, E.; Timmermans, H.; van Wee, B. Carsharing: The impact of system characteristics on its potential to replace private car trips and reduce car ownership. Transportation 2020, 47, 935–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Ettema, D.; Knockaert, J.; Verhoef, E. Using incentives as traffic management tool: Empirical results of the "peak avoidance" experiment. Transp. Lett. 2010, 2, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Carroll, P.; Caulfield, B.; Ahern, A. Appraising an incentive only approach to encourage a sustainable reduction in private car trips in Dublin, Ireland. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2021, 15, 474–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hayden, A.; Tight, M.; Burrow, M. Is Reducing Car Use a Utopian Vision? Transp. Res. Proc. 2017, 25, 3944–3956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kazemi, A.; Mirbaha, B.; Kordani, A.A. Effect of on-street parking pricing on motorists’ mode choice. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Munic. Eng. 2019, 172, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yan, X.; Levine, J.; Marans, R. The effectiveness of parking policies to reduce parking demand pressure and car use. Transp. Policy 2019, 73, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Čuljković, V. Influence of parking price on reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 41, 706–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. McCahill, C.T.; Garrick, N.; Atkinson-Palombo, C.; Polinski, A. Effects of Parking Provision on Automobile Use in Cities: Inferring Causality. Transp. Res. Rec. 2016, 2543, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Grzelec, K.; Jagiełło, A. The Effects of the Selective Enlargement of Fare-Free Public Transport. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Tuisk, T.; Prause, G. Socio-Economic Aspects of Free Public Transport; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 3–13. [Google Scholar]
  64. Cats, O.; Susilo, Y.O.; Reimal, T. The prospects of fare-free public transport: Evidence from Tallinn. Transportation 2017, 44, 1083–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Mitropoulos, L.; Kortsari, A.; Ayfantopoulou, G. Factors Affecting Drivers to Participate in a Carpooling to Public Transport Service. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Liu, X.; Titheridge, H.; Yan, X.; Wang, R.; Tan, W.; Chen, D.; Zhang, J. A passenger-to-driver matching model for commuter carpooling: Case study and sensitivity analysis. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2020, 117, 102702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Neoh, J.G.; Chipulu, M.; Marshall, A.; Tewkesbury, A. How commuters’ motivations to drive relate to propensity to carpool: Evidence from the United Kingdom and the United States. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 110, 128–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Zhao, P.; Li, P. Rethinking the determinants of vehicle kilometers traveled (VKT) in an auto-dependent city: Transport policies, socioeconomic factors and the built environment. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2021, 44, 273–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wang, S.J.; Moriarty, P. Can new communication technology promote sustainable transport? Energy Proc. 2017, 142, 2132–2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Robles Algarín, C.; Callejas Cabarcas, J.; Polo Llanos, A. Low-Cost Fuzzy Logic Control for Greenhouse Environments with Web Monitoring. Electronics 2017, 6, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Dan, L.; Hongli, W.; Mengya, Z.; Jianqiu, X. Intelligent Agriculture Greenhouse Environment Monitoring System Based on the Android Platform. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Smart Grid and Electrical Automation (ICSGEA), Changsha, China, 27–28 May 2017; pp. 358–361. [Google Scholar]
  72. Chan, K.; Farber, S. Factors underlying the connections between active transportation and public transit at commuter rail in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Transportation 2020, 47, 2157–2178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Florindo, A.A.; Barrozo, L.V.; Turrell, G.; Barbosa, J.P.d.A.S.; Cabral-Miranda, W.; Cesar, C.L.G.; Goldbaum, M. Cycling for Transportation in Sao Paulo City: Associations with Bike Paths, Train and Subway Stations. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Van Soest, D.; Tight, M.R.; Rogers, C.D.F. Exploring the distances people walk to access public transport. Transp. Rev. 2020, 40, 160–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Smith, M.; Hosking, J.; Woodward, A.; Witten, K.; MacMillan, A.; Field, A.; Baas, P.; Mackie, H. Systematic literature review of built environment effects on physical activity and active transport—An update and new findings on health equity. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017, 14, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wahab, S.N.; Lay, Y.F.; Koay, W.L.; Hussin, A.A.A. Usage of pedestrian bridges among the urban commuters in Kuala Lumpur: A conceptual analysis and future direction. Int. J. Oper. Res. 2021, 41, 352–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Stankov, I.; Garcia, L.M.T.; Mascolli, M.A.; Montes, F.; Meisel, J.D.; Gouveia, N.; Sarmiento, O.L.; Rodriguez, D.A.; Hammond, R.A.; Caiaffa, W.T.; et al. A systematic review of empirical and simulation studies evaluating the health impact of transportation interventions. Environ. Res. 2020, 186, 109519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Jeong, J.; Park, Y.; Park, S. Safety-critical events in bicycle lanes in Jongno, Seoul. J. Urban. Int. Res. Placemaking Urban Sustain. 2021, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sultan, Z.; van der Jagt, A.; Cianflone, A.; Kouzoukas, E.; Christopher, G. Reclaiming Our Streets: A Review of the Relationship between Race, Street Safety, and Comfort in Public Places; McMaster University: Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  80. Bascom, G.W.; Christensen, K.M. The impacts of limited transportation access on persons with disabilities’ social participation. J. Transp. Health 2017, 7, 227–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Payyanadan, R.P.; Lee, J.D. Understanding the ridesharing needs of older adults. Travel Behav. Soc. 2018, 13, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Huff, E.W., Jr.; Brinkley, J. Ridesharing Drivers and Persons with Disabilities. J. Technol. Pers. Disabil. 2020, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Brewer, R.N.; Kameswaran, V. Understanding Trust, Transportation, and Accessibility through Ridesharing. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, UK, 4–9 May 2019; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  84. Hardman, S.; Jenn, A.; Tal, G.; Axsen, J.; Beard, G.; Daina, N.; Figenbaum, E.; Jakobsson, N.; Jochem, P.; Kinnear, N.; et al. A review of consumer preferences of and interactions with electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 62, 508–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Perera, P.; Hewage, K.; Sadiq, R. Electric vehicle recharging infrastructure planning and management in urban communities. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 250, 119559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Viswanathan, S.; Appel, J.; Chang, L.; Man, I.V.; Saba, R.; Gamel, A. Development of an assessment model for predicting public electric vehicle charging stations. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2018, 10, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Münzel, C.; Plötz, P.; Sprei, F.; Gnann, T. How large is the effect of financial incentives on electric vehicle sales?—A global review and European analysis. Energy Econ. 2019, 84, 104493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Clinton, B.C.; Steinberg, D.C. Providing the Spark: Impact of financial incentives on battery electric vehicle adoption. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2019, 98, 102255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Macioszek, E. The Role of Incentive Programs in Promoting the Purchase of Electric Cars—Review of Good Practices and Promoting Methods from the World. In Research Methods in Modern Urban Transportation Systems and Networks; Macioszek, E., Sierpiński, G., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 41–58. [Google Scholar]
  90. Breetz, H.L.; Salon, D. Do electric vehicles need subsidies? Ownership costs for conventional, hybrid, and electric vehicles in 14 U.S. cities. Energy Policy 2018, 120, 238–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Bobeth, S.; Matthies, E. New opportunities for electric car adoption: The case of range myths, new forms of subsidies, and social norms. Energy Effic. 2018, 11, 1763–1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Quarles, N.; Kockelman, K.M.; Mohamed, M. Costs and Benefits of Electrifying and Automating Bus Transit Fleets. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Holland, S.P.; Mansur, E.T.; Muller, N.Z.; Yates, A.J. The environmental benefits of transportation electrification: Urban buses. Energy Policy 2021, 148, 111921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Parsons, R.V. Moving Forward with Transit Bus Electrification in Canada; I.H. Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba: Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  95. Okraszewska, R.; Romanowska, A.; Wołek, M.; Oskarbski, J.; Birr, K.; Jamroz, K. Integration of a Multilevel Transport System Model into Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning. Sustainability 2018, 10, 479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Khreis, H.; Verlinghieri, E.; Mueller, N.; Rojas-Rueda, D. Participatory quantitative health impact assessment of urban and transport planning in cities: A review and research needs. Environ. Int. 2017, 103, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Chowdhury, S.; Hadas, Y.; Gonzalez, V.A.; Schot, B. Public transport users’ and policy makers’ perceptions of integrated public transport systems. Transp. Policy 2018, 61, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Perera, L.; Thompson, R.G.; Wu, W. A multi-class toll-based approach to reduce total emissions on roads for sustainable urban transportation. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 63, 102435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Milenković, M.; Stepanović, N.; Glavić, D.; Tubić, V.; Ivković, I.; Trifunović, A. Methodology for determining ecological benefits of advanced tolling systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 258, 110007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Kono, T.; Mitsuhiro, Y.; Yoshida, J. Simultaneous optimization of multiple taxes on car use and tolls considering the marginal cost of public funds in Japan. Jpn. Econ. Rev. 2021, 72, 261–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Glavic, D.; Mladenovic, M.; Luttinen, T.; Cicevic, S.; Trifunovic, A. Road to price: User perspectives on road pricing in transition country. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 105, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Di, X.; Liu, H.X.; Ban, X.; Yang, H. Ridesharing User Equilibrium and Its Implications for High-Occupancy Toll Lane Pricing. Transp. Res. Rec. 2017, 2667, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Christiansen, P.; Engebretsen, Ø.; Fearnley, N.; Usterud Hanssen, J. Parking facilities and the built environment: Impacts on travel behaviour. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 95, 198–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Becker, N.; Carmi, N. Changing trip behavior in a higher education institution: The role of parking fees. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2019, 13, 268–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Lehner, S.; Peer, S. The price elasticity of parking: A meta-analysis. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 121, 177–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Zuo, T.; Wei, H. Bikeway prioritization to increase bicycle network connectivity and bicycle-transit connection: A multi-criteria decision analysis approach. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 129, 52–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Ross, C.; Hylton, P.; Wang, F. Chapter 2—Integrating health into metropolitan transportation planning. In Transportation, Land Use, and Environmental Planning, Deakin, E., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 17–34. [Google Scholar]
  108. McCoy, K.; Andrew, J.; Glynn, R.; Lyons, W. Integrating Shared Mobility into Multimodal Transportation Planning: Improving Regional Performance to Meet Public Goals; U.S. Department of Transportation: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  109. Bekiaris, E.; Loukea, M.; Panou, M.; Földesi, E.; Jammes, T. Seamless Accessibility of Transportation Modes and Multimodal Transport Across Europe: Gaps, Measures and Best Practices. In Towards User-Centric Transport in Europe 2: Enablers of Inclusive, Seamless and Sustainable Mobility, Müller, B., Meyer, G., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 43–59. [Google Scholar]
  110. Woodcock, A.; Tovey, M. Designing Whole Journey, Multimodal Transport Provision. Des. J. 2020, 23, 91–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 12717 g001 550
Figure 1. Government Influence and Roles of Various Ministries in an Integrated Urban Mobility Approach.
Figure 1. Government Influence and Roles of Various Ministries in an Integrated Urban Mobility Approach.
Sustainability 13 12717 g001
Sustainability 13 12717 g002 550
Figure 2. Modes of Transportation PRIOR to the Pandemic.
Figure 2. Modes of Transportation PRIOR to the Pandemic.
Sustainability 13 12717 g002
Sustainability 13 12717 g003 550
Figure 3. Number of Days Commuting DURING the Pandemic.
Figure 3. Number of Days Commuting DURING the Pandemic.
Sustainability 13 12717 g003
Table
Table 1. Recommendations and Benefits of Sustainable Transportation.
Table 1. Recommendations and Benefits of Sustainable Transportation.
RecommendationIntended Transportation EffectsHealth and Environmental Effects
Support the creation and development of accessible and safe active transportation infrastructure.Increase in the number of residents who choose to participate in active transportation will lead to a reduction in personal vehicle use.Direct health benefits to the users of active transportation.

Decrease in GHG associated with reduced number of vehicles.

Improved air quality associated with reduced particulate emissions.
Incentivize and prioritize use of active, public, and shared transportation over use of personal vehicles.Increase in the number of residents who use active or public transportation will lead to a reduction in personal vehicle use.
Ensure connectivity of active transportation infrastructure with major destinations and public transportation options.Connectivity is a significant barrier to active transportation and public transportation use. Thus, work should be prioritized to facilitate greater uptake of both modes of transportation. This will lead to a reduction in personal vehicle use.
Work towards low-carbon, personal and public transportation, e.g., electrification and hydrogen.A higher proportion of low-carbon vehicles will lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from personal vehicles and public transportation.
Work across siloes to improve integrated mobility to impact climate and health related outcomes.Equitable, barrier free, eco-friendly mobility.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dogra, S.; O’Rourke, N.; Jenkins, M.; Hoornweg, D. Integrated Urban Mobility for Our Health and the Climate: Recommended Approaches from an Interdisciplinary Consortium. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12717. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212717

AMA Style

Dogra S, O’Rourke N, Jenkins M, Hoornweg D. Integrated Urban Mobility for Our Health and the Climate: Recommended Approaches from an Interdisciplinary Consortium. Sustainability. 2021; 13(22):12717. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212717

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dogra, Shilpa, Nicholas O’Rourke, Michael Jenkins, and Daniel Hoornweg. 2021. "Integrated Urban Mobility for Our Health and the Climate: Recommended Approaches from an Interdisciplinary Consortium" Sustainability 13, no. 22: 12717. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212717

APA Style

Dogra, S., O’Rourke, N., Jenkins, M., & Hoornweg, D. (2021). Integrated Urban Mobility for Our Health and the Climate: Recommended Approaches from an Interdisciplinary Consortium. Sustainability, 13(22), 12717. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212717

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop