Bikeability and methodological issues using the active commuting route environment scale (ACRES) in a metropolitan setting

Abstract

BackgroundRoute environments can positively influence people's active commuting and thereby contribute to public health. The Active Commuting Route Environment Scale (ACRES) was developed to study active commuters' perceptions of their route environments. However, bicycle commuters represent a small portion of the population in many cities and thus are difficult to study using population-based material. Therefore, the aim of this study is to expand the state of knowledge concerning the criterion-related validity of the ACRES and the representativity using an advertisement-recruited sample. Furthermore, by comparing commuting route environment profiles of inner urban and suburban areas, we provide a novel basis for understanding the relationship between environment and bikeability.MethodsBicycle commuters from Greater Stockholm, Sweden, advertisement- (n = 1379) and street-recruited (n = 93), responded to the ACRES. Traffic planning and environmental experts from the Municipality of Stockholm (n = 24) responded to a modified version of the ACRES. The criterion-related validity assessments were based on whether or not differences between the inner urban and the suburban route environments, as indicated by the experts and by four existing objective measurements, were reflected by differences in perceptions of these environments. Comparisons of ratings between advertisement- and street-recruited participants were used for the assessments of representativity. Finally, ratings of inner urban and suburban route environments were used to evaluate commuting route environment profiles.ResultsDifferences in ratings of the inner urban and suburban route environments by the advertisement-recruited participants were in accord with the existing objective measurements and corresponded reasonably well with those of the experts. Overall, there was a reasonably good correspondence between the advertisement- and street-recruited participants' ratings. Distinct differences in commuting route environment profiles were noted between the inner urban and suburban areas. Suburban route environments were rated as safer and more stimulating for bicycle-commuting than the inner urban ones. In general, the findings applied to both men and women.ConclusionsThe overall results show: considerable criterion-related validity of the ACRES; ratings of advertisement-recruited participants mirroring those of street-recruited participants; and a higher degree of bikeability in the suburban commuting route environments than in the inner urban ones.

Exploring bikeability in a metropolitan setting: stimulating and hindering factors in commuting route environments

“…A more detailed description of the development of the ACRES, its items and its validity and reliability has been reported elsewhere [7,8]. The ACRES was characterized by considerable criterion-related validity and reasonable test-retest reproducibility.…”

“…It is based on a complete spatial matching of the environment and the physical activity variable, and has shown considerable criterion-related validity and reasonable test-retest reproducibility [7,8]. …”

Changes in Active Commuting to School in Czech Adolescents in Different Types of Built Environment across a 10-Year Period

“…Kerr [ 11 ] found that a greater walkability of a neighborhood was associated with more active commuting in respondents aged 5–18 years. However, findings for the association of active commuting with land use mix, street connectivity, and presence of busy road have been mixed [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. High land use mix around the place of residence and high connectivity facilitates zone permeability.…”

Exploring Bikeability in a Suburban Metropolitan Area Using the Active Commuting Route Environment Scale (ACRES)

“…While the ratings for aesthetics were about the same, the ratings for greenery were about 60% higher in the suburban compared with the inner urban areas [5]. In Figure 2, this is illustrated with mean values from the present as well as the previous study of the inner urban areas [15].…”