Transport Policy 17 (2010) 496–504

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transport Policy

0967-07

doi:10.1

n Corr

E-m

m.burke

m.dona1 Th

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol

Perceptions of representatives of public, private, and community sectorinstitutions of the barriers and enablers for physically active transport

Rachel Cole a,n, Matthew Burke b, Eva Leslie c, Maria Donald d, Neville Owen e

a Health Promotion Branch, Queensland Health, PO Box 2368, Fortitude Valley BC QLD 4006, Australiab Urban Research Program, School of Environmental Planning, Nathan Campus, Griffith University, 170 Kessles Road, Nathan QLD 4111, Australiac School of Psychology, Deakin University, Waterfront Campus, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, Australiad School of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Herston QLD 4006, Australiae Cancer Prevention Research Centre, School of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Herston QLD 4006, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Available online 31 May 2010

Keywords:

Active transport

Barriers

Enablers

Inter-sectoral

Institutions

Decision-makers

0X/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. A

016/j.tranpol.2010.05.003

esponding author. Tel.: 61 7 3328 9258; fax:

ail addresses: rachel_cole@health.qld.gov.au (

@griffith.edu.au (M. Burke), evie.leslie@deak

ld@sph.uq.edu.au (M. Donald), n.owen@sph.u

at is, walking trips made not in conjunction

a b s t r a c t

Active transport bridges many shared concerns in the public health and transport sectors. To positively

affect opportunities for active transport, public health and transport professionals are engaging with

other sectors, including urban planning, housing, recreation, retail, education, and employer groups.

A first step in such inter-sectoral collaboration is to understand the perceptions of key players in all of

these sectors. This paper describes the results of structured interviews with senior and middle-level

administrators from public, private, and community groups in a rapidly developing region in

Queensland, Australia, to assess the perceived barriers and enablers to active transport. Key themes

emerged relating to infrastructure delivery, public transport services, walk- and cycle-friendly

community attributes, political leadership and government coordination, and societal travel norms

and culture. There were also themes relating to limits due to resources and limited relevant technical

expertise, institutional and practitioner cultures, and agencies not identifying with their roles in active

transport. Policies and cross-government initiatives were seen to hold promise, including economic

incentives and built environment guidelines, campaigns targeting public attitudes and opinions, and

community participation in policy-making. These elements are potential keys to positively promoting

comprehensive active transport initiatives among gatekeepers and leaders across different sectors.

& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

‘Active transport’ refers to human-powered forms of travel,such as walking, cycling, skating, and manual wheelchairs(Litman, 2003). Journeys by public transport also elicit walkingto transit stops at the beginning of the journey and/or todestinations at the end (Frank et al. 2003), so that public transportis also included within definitions of active transport (NationalPublic Health Partnership, 2001).

Most countries in the late 20th century have observedsignificant declines in active transport. In the USA, where NationalPersonal Transportation Survey data provide a longitudinalperspective, walking1 has fallen from approximately 9.3% in1969 to only 8.6% of all recorded trips in 2001, although changesin survey methods suggest the earlier figure may be artificially

ll rights reserved.

61 7 3328 9296.

R. Cole),

in.edu.au (E. Leslie),

q.edu.au (N. Owen).

with any other mode.

low (Florida Department of Transportation and Center for UrbanTransportation Research, 2006:4). In the USA, bicycling increasedmarginally from 0.7% of all trips in 1969 to 0.9% of all trips in 2001(Florida Department of Transportation and Center for UrbanTransportation Research, 2006:4).

In UK and Australian cities, cycling was more prevalent in thepast, but has declined to the point where it is now commensuratewith the USA at around 1% of all trips (Burke and Brown,2007:18–19; National Statistics and Department for Transport,2007; Transport and Population Data Centre, 2001). Of particularconcern are declines in children’s active transport, particularly thejourney to school. For the USA, McDonald (2007) reports a declinefrom over 40% of students walking or cycling to school in 1969,falling to less than 15% by 2001. In the UK, the proportion of sevenyear olds travelling to school alone and by non-car modesdropped from 72% in 1971 to just 7% in 1990 (Hillman et al.,1991). In Australia, the best evidence indicates that similardeclines have occurred. In some cities the walking mode sharefor education trips decreased from 32% to 24% in the eight yearsbetween 1991 and 1999 alone (Transport and Population DataCentre, 2001).

R. Cole et al. / Transport Policy 17 (2010) 496–504 497

Despite these declines, walking accounts for a significant (andin some jurisdictions a growing) proportion of all trips. Even inthe USA, where the mode share for walking is lower than mostcountries (see Vivier, 2001), about 10% of all daily trips are madeon foot (either walking alone or walking to or from publictransport; Agrawal and Schimek, 2007:551). Cycling may offersignificant potential but today captures a trivial proportion of alltrips in many cities.

In exploring the reasons for these declines, researchers havefound a range of demographic and environmental factors to beassociated with walking and cycling (Goodman and Tolley, 2003;Institution of Highways and Transportation, 2000; Owen et al.,2004; Tolley and Lumsdon (2003); Mokhtarian et al., 2001;Saelens et al., 2003). These include perceptions of traffic and busyroads, the presence and the condition of pathways, highlywalkable neighborhoods, aesthetically pleasing environments,accessibility, safety, and weather. Not possessing a driver’slicence, not having access to a car, travel time, and buildingdesign are also of relevance, as are other urban design factors suchas street access and lighting, and social issues such as feeling apart of the community, sense of safety in, or identification with, aparticular locality, and community spirit. Commonly citedbarriers for children’s walking or cycling have included longdistances, dangerous motor vehicle traffic, adverse weatherconditions, hilly routes, safety, crossing busy intersections, pooraccess to pedestrian crossings, laziness, and having too much tocarry (National Public Health Partnership, 2001; Dellinger, 2002;DiGuiseppi et al., 1998; Timperio et al., 2006, 2004).

It is important to note that active transport (i.e., walking andcycling for transportation purposes—to get to and from places) isa behavior that is distinct from walking or cycling for recreationor exercise. Walking and cycling for transport attracts a differentgroup of the population to walking and cycling for recreation.Studies have shown that compared with high socio-economicstatus areas, low socio-economic status areas have 33% higherprevalence of walking for transport and 21% lower prevalence ofwalking for recreation or exercise (Giles-Corti and Donovan,2002). This is important from a public health perspective. Publichealth initiatives on active transport aim to activate sub-population groups not currently engaged in sufficient physicalactivity for health benefit. This is where the greatest healthbenefits may be gained. Also, different attributes of the builtenvironment will be relevant for transport and for recreation, andthe relevant interventions will be different. For example, researchhas found that walking for transport is associated with living inneighborhoods that have connected street networks, good accessto destinations and public transport, and higher residentialdensities. By contrast, neighborhood aesthetics and access tofacilities, parks, and beaches are attributes that are more stronglyassociated with walking for recreation or exercise (Gebel et al.,2008).

1.1. Institutional dimensions of active transport

The benefits of active transport are now well documented,ranging from air quality and sustainability issues to tourism,access and equity, and crime prevention (Goodman and Tolley,2003; Cavill et al., 2006). The broader political climate andconcern for global issues relating to climate change, sustainabilityand transport challenges also elicit political impedance forconcerting efforts on active transport. This wide range of benefitsmeans there are a number of sectors and domains, partnershipsand cross-sector responsibilities involved in, and that havesynergies with, active transport (Wright et al., 1996; Cavillet al., 2006).

In Australia, state and local governments are the main playersin transport policy and program implementation. Reducing trafficcongestion and vehicle emissions motivate the transport sector.Quality of life and socially connected and safe community issuesmotivate local government. The urban planning sector is drivenby ecological sustainability and system efficiency. Physicallyactive transport is also a key public health objective in reducingthe burden of non-communicable chronic diseases to the healthsystem. Active transport has advantages over types of physicalactivity behaviors in activating the most inactive in the popula-tion (Cole et al., 2006), being equitable and accessible, posing fewbarriers to participation (Bauman et al., 2003), being purposefuland included within daily routines, and having better adoptionand adherence rates than other structured or organised physicalactivities (Frank et al., 2003). The World Health Organisation(WHO) has recognised the importance of active transport inincreasing health-enhancing physical activity and improvinghealth outcomes. The WHO has produced a range of reports andcharters that present the evidence and provide recommendationson multi-level interventions that target the individual and socialand built environment for a wide range of influencing sectors(e.g., Cavill et al., 2006). This has also included the development ofguidance on including health effects in the economic appraisal oftransport infrastructure and policies (Cavill et al., 2007).

There is evidence of active transport emerging as a governmentobjective (e.g., in Australia, the emergence of bicycle network plansand policies, pedestrian and mobility access, pedestrian priorityzones, sharing main streets, and urban design for young people).However, much of this work is impeded by conventional transportideals (that have prioritised the motor vehicle) being entrenched inmainstream professional practice, legislation, road authority guide-lines, and budgets (Sauter, 2003). For example, conventionaltransport planning deals with active transport as a safety andinfrastructure issue in mitigating the impact of motorised trafficsubsequently restricting active transport movement rather thanencouraging it (Goodman and Tolley, 2003).

Transport researchers have argued the primary barriers toactive transport as being institutional (Stough and Rietveld, 2005).Institutions are defined as the formal and informal rules and rulestructures that guide both public and private actions, and describehow society operates and is maintained (North, 1990). Organisa-tions are the agents that act (Stough and Rietveld, 2005).Technical and operational barriers are often thought to be wellunderstood over short and intermediate terms and involverelatively routine actions for implementation once institutionalimpediments are overcome, and therefore viewed as a lesserimpediment (Stough and Rietveld, 2005). Four types of institu-tions have been described: informal institutions (conditioners ofbehavior, e.g., values, norms, practices, customs, and traditions),formal institutions (codified statutes, constitutional provisions,laws, regulations and high level administrative orders), govern-

ance institutions (rules, minor laws, administrative orders, regula-tions, and policy directives), and, agency decision environment

(allocation of resources; see Williamson, 1994).There is an emerging literature citing the key actors that

impact on walking and cycling in professional and public domains(Goodman and Tolley, 2003; Sauter, 2003; Black et al., 1999;Crane, 1996; Roberts-James, 2003; Napier, 2003). Perceivedbarriers among such groups include: inadequate data,car-oriented evaluation frameworks, limited research, lack oftechnical expertise and professional interest/attraction, omissionof active transport from transport strategy formation, difficulty incross-government coordination, lack of resourcing, invisibility inpublic domain, perceptions of public acceptance, lack of politicalsupport, small-scale nature of the issue, and unsupportive fundingstructures. For reviews of the institutional barriers to active

R. Cole et al. / Transport Policy 17 (2010) 496–504498

transport, see Banister (1998, 2005), Clarke (2003), and Tolley andLumsdon (2003).

Review and consensus documents have also identified anumber of enablers of active transport (Banister, 2005; Gaffron,2003; Stone et al., 2003; VanGeenhuizen et al., 2002; Kuriyamaet al., 2004; Dueker, 2002; Moeng and Lewis, 2005; Tolley andLumsdon, 2003). Enablers are argued to be based in leadershipand commitment to change and having a national policy frame-work on spatial development, decentralisation of powers andresponsibilities for transport, consistency in policy direction, andpublic and private campaigns and community participation andempowerment in decision-making.

1.2. Purpose of this study

The purpose of this study is to assess the perceptions ofinstitutional barriers to, and enablers of, active transport, andmore broadly, opinions on barriers and enablers at a personallevel, among officials and senior members of public and privatesectors and community groups with a responsibility for aspects ofactive transport in a rapidly developing regional area in Australia.

2. Study methodology

The study is set in a geographically defined regional centreoutside of Brisbane in South-East Queensland, Australia. Thecentre has a community centre and services, including fourschools, a tertiary institution, and a major retail centre. It ischaracterised by low-density residential housing (separatehouses), and has a higher than average proportion of youngfamilies. The area is isolated from the broader surroundingcentres by major road corridors. The area is comparable to manyother developing regional centres in Australia.

This study reports on in-depth interviews with active transportpublic officials as part of a broader collaborative active transportinitiative. The qualitative case-study design provided a practicalreal life context within which to explore and understand thecommunity, organizational, and policy environments in whichactive transport takes place across different sectors. Destinations,as an environmental attribute, play a key role in active transport.The case study, set in a particular regional area, provided theopportunity for key officials with an influence on active transportat various levels of government and across sectors to considertheir roles in active transport. It assisted in focusing officials onexisting policies and practices, and how these may impact onactive transport for that area. It also provided clues as to whattopics and issues might become important to investigate moreextensively in future research.

2.1. Study participants

Study participants included officials and senior members ofthe public sector, the private sector, and community groups whohad key roles and responsibilities in determining the availabilityof infrastructure that may influence active transport in thedefined study area. Participants represented areas of: urban/landuse planning, transport planning, walking and cycling infrastruc-ture (pathways, facilities), travel management, active transportpolicies and programs, public transport services and facilities,community safety and crime prevention, education, awarenessand capacity building programs, funding allocation, advocacyinitiatives, and data collection and monitoring. Potential partici-pants were recruited using a ‘snowballing-type’ procedure. Thisinvolved members of the active transport initiative Steering

Committee identifying relevant community agencies, governmentdepartments, and individual officers. Managers and individualproject officers were contacted to determine whether they metthe inclusion criteria to participate in the study.

Planning and providing for active transport involves manyagencies, levels of government, and sectors. Officials with aninfluence on active transport for a specific local area can vary fromregion to region. Some agencies of influence operate at a state-widelevel, while others are based locally or regionally. No formal forumor network for these officials that could be used to identify keyinformants existed at the time of sampling. However, the initiativeSteering Committee had representation from many agenciesresponsible for active transport and these representatives alsoworked with, or knew of, other relevant and influential agencies.On this basis, snowball sampling was used to identify the keyinformants for the study. Snowball sampling, however, is consideredby some critics as not necessarily representative of the targetpopulation group (Abramson and Abramson, 1999). Furthermore,informants recruited by this method can represent a sample that isexcessively homogenous (Abramson and Abramson, 1999). Anattempt was made to minimize the likelihood of recruiting anoverly homogenous sample, by requesting that the gatekeeperorganisation identified all agencies with a responsibility for activetransport.

A total of 33 key informants were interviewed (participationrate 92%). Two participants reported that their organisation didnot influence active transport-related outcomes and were there-fore removed from the sample. Participants represented one localgovernment authority, two ‘regional organisations of councils’,three private developers, fifteen state government agencies, andtwo non-government agencies. Fourteen key sectors in total wererepresented: transport, sport and recreation, education, police,public works, human services, local government, land useplanning, urban development, environment, tourism, naturalresources, state development, disability services, and housing.

2.2. Study procedure

Twenty-nine individual and two small group (two people) in-depth interviews were conducted during October and November2004. The two small group interviews involved two key officialsworking in the same departmental unit within the governmentsector. In both the cases the two informants had highly interrelatedroles and requested that they be interviewed together. Prior tointerviewing, all participants were provided with verbal and writteninformation about the study and the interview process, includinginterview questions. This information included a definition of activetransport as: ‘‘public transport, walking and cycling as a means of

transport to pick-up and drop-off points, such as to work, to school, to

visit a friend, to shops or to the post box’’. Face-to-face interviews werethe preferred data collection methods, but when this was notpossible telephone interviews were conducted. Ten interviews wereconducted by telephone and 21 in person.

Evidence does not clearly demonstrate that there is adifferential effect between telephone and face-to-face interview-ing for topics of this nature. Researchers have reported that thesocial cues available in a telephone interview such as voice andintonation are enough for directing the interview without aproblem (Abramson and Abramson, 1999), and the study inter-viewer ensured that the interviewee was not ‘‘visible’’ to otheremployees and managers in the agency so the interviewee couldspeak freely (Bradburn, 1984).

Comprehensive written notes were taken during each interview.Data recording by audio-tape was rejected to allow participants tospeak frankly (Abramson and Abramson, 1999). Given the potentialpolitical sensitivity of the topic, particularly for government

Table 1Public, private, and community officials’ perceptions of institutional and personal barriers and enablers to active transport.

Themes Key points Representative statements

Land use planning and

development

Difficulty in, and lack of, integrating land

use, transportation, and social and human

services (destinations) across all interests

of government sectors

Decisions on land use, and the placement of attractors, are made in isolation and

dollar driven, often associated with low cost land. As a result, development is

fragmented and has dispersed trip generating land use, nodal connections, and

places of residence. This makes it difficult to consolidate trip-making facilities.

Lack of supportive policy and legislation

frameworks specifically on active

transport within land use planning

Active transport needs to be embedded in state and local government policies.

Make people do it. There needs to be a planning policy or position on this issue

and for it to be implemented. It must be government policy, not what the

organisation wants

Inability of sectors outside of transport to

respond to active transport issues within

government land use planning processes

Lack of decision-maker recognition of the roles departments outside the

traditional transport sector have in influencing active transport, as well as the

impact active transport has on other interests of the state government.

There is currently no legitimate backing within Integrated Planning Act (IPA) for

the uptake of sustainable transport. Currently departments can only provide

comment into IPA processes within their own portfolio.

There needs to be a shift in thinking to a holistic destination management

approach that includes working with new partners. This is slowly evolving in this

state

Lack of recognition by local government

in its role in providing for active transport

Council requirements on developers for active transport are not very high. There

are words in most planning schemes, but it is the import given to it that matters.

Better master plans across developments are needed, as well as better local area

planning for series of communities; including structure planning.

Public transport

infrastructure and

functionality

Unattractive and inefficient existing

public transport

Public transport is perceived by the public as a form of transport used by ‘losers’

that had no alternative transport options.

systems in terms of time, timetabling,

routes, cost, and comfort

Public transport needs to be the attractive alternative to using the car.

Need for land use to be designed around

public transport to enable the provision

of effective and efficient services

Local government zoning plans may not align around transport.

Spread out land use patterns make public transport choices challenging

Solutions to increasing community

mobility are geared toward the car as

opposed to more sustainable options

Public transport infrastructure is not always included in transport planning and

road network design.

There has been a mind-set that more roads is the solution to transport needs for

more capacity.

Historically the focus of the transport sector has been on roads and rail and

engineering solutions. A paradigm shift is starting to happen, but tends to be

dependent on the departmental regional manager.

There is a shift starting to happen in transport planners’ and engineers’ ways of

thinking about mobilising the population, away from duplicating road corridors to

cater for increase in private motor vehicle movements to mass transit and more

sustainable alternative solutions

Barriers to incorporating sustainable

transport options into transport planning

and delivery—breaking out of the

traditional core business of transport

departments, lack of supportive policy

environments, lack of technical expertise

of departments, lack of collaboration

between departments, lack of technical

expertise of transport planners, and

personal views of planners on active

transport as a means of mobilising the

population

There is an inability of Q Transport, Q Rail, and Department of Main Roads to look

at alternatives and other solutions. There needs to be a paradigm shift in thinking

and the way they work.

Sustainable transport is often incorporated into plans, but not always delivered on

the ground.

Mayors acknowledge the benefits of sustainable transport, but do not know how

to go about it. Local councils realise there is a better way of providing transport

other than duplicating road corridors, but do not realise what the implications are

for alternative transport.

Transport planners are unsure what works best on roadways or what they should

be doing for public transport. There are currently no set policies for public

transport other than allowing space for it.

Intra- and inter-government cooperation between local government and state

agencies in coordinating transport. Planning needs to more closely aligned. Work

units within departments work in silos when it comes to program delivery

Under-utilisation of community

engagement in identifying attractive

public transport options

We need to identify what attracts people to public transport and to gain a clear

understanding of what the community wants so we know what road networks are

needed.

Walking and cycling

infrastructure

Lack of pedestrian infrastructure and

indirect and unconnected and

impermeable routes within local

communities

Engineer the built environment to be

walkable

Community planning and design so the car is not required, and services, stores,

and doctors are within walking distance.

Transport planners not viewing walking

or cycling as a legitimate mode of

transport that should be planned for and

infrastructure allocated to

A pro-active approach to cycle and walk networks is needed. Department of Main

Roads is not pro-active on delivery and they do not seek advice from Q Transport

on issues as instructed in departmental memo to consult.

Physical barriers are often in the way of pedestrians, for example, when road work

is being carried out. They are not viewed as legitimate users. Pedestrians are often

forced into highly polluted areas to walk. And, streets are not often permeable

enough for pedestrians.

Designing road hierarchies to control for

traffic flow and traffic volume to increase

the safety active commuters

In highly concentrated areas, there should be more pedestrian zones where cars

are allowed but at reduced speed limits and conditions. Pedestrians should have

priority over vehicles. Traffic speed should be slowed particularly in urban areas

to 30 km and traffic calming used as they do in Europe

R. Cole et al. / Transport Policy 17 (2010) 496–504 499

Table 1 (continued )

Themes Key points Representative statements

Political commitment and

institutional practice

The importance, and current lack, of high

level political commitment and

supportive funding to achieve real active

transport

There is a lack of political commitment at all levels. Federally investment is in

rural, remote, and freight. State is in road programs over passenger transport and

passenger programs. Locally it is in road programs over passenger transport and

programs. Local government steer away from passenger transport because it is

perceived that it may become an expectation by other levels of government to

provide those services and as a consequence funding is taken away.

Sustainable transport needs to be placed on the political agenda by bike user

groups and advisory councils to keep pushing the agenda.

Stop spending money on roads and put it toward alternative transport. Force

people out of cars through congestion.

Lack of a whole of government stand on

active transport

Where the responsibility for active transport lies between local government, state

government and between state government departments needs addressing.

Networks and relationships with local government and other parts of Q Transport

to deliver better outcomes.

Pooling resources that meet a number of organisations core business that is

issues-based versus organisation-based. There is a need to better understand

what is out there; undertaking as audit of existing people and resources.

It requires a stand by council not to let the area be road infrastructure dominated.

Instead having roundabouts in place of signals; reducing roads and parking, and

putting in free bus transport in peak seasons.

Working with developers to understand alternative transport concepts using ‘case

study’ examples.

Q Transport has to show they are serious about sustainable transport. Often

sustainable transport outcomes are pushed off onto Q Transport core business.

The Environmental Protection Agency can forget. There needs to be advocacy of

holistic messages.

Changing skill set required by transport

planners—planning for active transport,

community education and engagement,

and collaborative partnering with non-

traditional stakeholders

Develop the capacity with decision-makers to deal with these issues. For example,

transport planners were engineers. Now the other side is being recognised. Staff

need increased skill sets to work with stakeholders to develop actions around

active transport and to work with stakeholders involved in that and identify who

stakeholders are that need to come in and out of strategies as key players.

Organisational support for this direction with people with the personal drive to

make it happen.

There is a need to increase community awareness of the issues. It is not an issue

for the community until it is an individual’s issue, like when there is an increase in

petrol prices or frustration with congestion. The community does not understand

the issues. We need to generate community debate about what is sustainable

transport. There needs to be a regional community solution and an integrated

approach that recognises that people want to travel different ways and should

have a choice.

Societal culture Australian car culture Australians have developed a routine of driving which is hard to change.

There are perceptions by the community that there are no alternatives to the car.

There is a general apathy to the alternatives, and busy lifestyles and family

commitments make using the alternatives more difficult.

Lack of incentives that encourage

alternative transport or discourage

private motor vehicle

Vehicle use is convenient and there are no financial disincentives to vehicle use

Personal safety, particularly in relation to

children

Public perception of personal safety, particularly for children’s travel.

There is often articles in school newsletters reporting abduction attempts.

R. Cole et al. / Transport Policy 17 (2010) 496–504500

representatives who through ethical obligations to governmentmust not be seen to be disparaging of government policy, writtennotes taken during the interview process were preferable to audio-taping. Even if audio-taping was found to be acceptable by some,there were other participants who indicated that they would notconsent to have their interview audio-taped. This would have led toinconsistency in recording methods across interviews. It is im-portant to acknowledge that relying on written notes rather thanaudio-tapes may increase the risk of interviewer bias. However,written notes were taken by the same interviewer in each interviewusing standardised and consistent data recording methods andforms to assist in alleviating these potential problems.

The average interview length was 25 min (ranging from20 min to 1.5 h).

2.3. Study variables/instrument

Participants were asked two questions regarding their per-ceived barriers to active commuting: (1) ‘‘From an organisational

perspective, what are the main barriers to incorporating ortargeting/influencing active means of transport for the region?’’,and (2) ‘‘In your personal opinion, what are the main barriers toincreasing active transport for the region?’’ Two questionsconcerning perceived enablers to active commuting were alsoasked: (1) ‘‘From an organisational perspective, what wouldencourage or assist your organisation with undertaking initiativesto incorporate or target/influence active means of transport forthe region?’’, and (2) ‘‘In your personal opinion, what wouldencourage or assist the use of active transport generated trips inthe region more often?’’ Probing questions to encourage elabora-tion and to clarify thoughts were used throughout the interviews.

2.4. Study analyses

The written notes transcribed during the interviews werereviewed and a thematic analysis was undertaken. An index ofkey themes was developed for each question, and coding wasassessed for conceptual consistency across all categories by two

R. Cole et al. / Transport Policy 17 (2010) 496–504 501

investigators. Transcribed notes were paraphrased back toparticipants during the interview to ensure their accuracy.Alterations indicated to be appropriate by participants wereincorporated into the final thematic analysis. As the interviewswere not audio-taped, representative statements rather thandirect quotes from participants are used to paraphrase responsesthroughout the results section.

3. Study findings

Key themes capturing participants’ perceived institutional andpersonal barriers to active transport emerged from the interviewdata. Themes included: (1) integrated planning of land uses andinfrastructure, (2) attractive public transport services, (3) walk-and bicycle-friendly environments, (4) political will and cross-government coordination, and (5) societal travel norms andculture. Table 1 summarises the key findings and representativestatements from interview participants for each theme.

3.1. Land use planning and development

Land use planning and the timing of infrastructure deliverywith development were commonly reported as influencing factorsof active transport. Integrated planning and development acrossagencies and levels of government was regarded as challenging.There were also concerns about the lack of priority afforded toactive transport by land use decision-makers and the dismissal bysome key agencies of their role in active transport. Privatedevelopers reinforced this, reporting very limited regulatoryenvironments on the development industry for active transport.Specific high-order policy frameworks on active transport wereviewed as enablers in consolidating the agenda.

3.2. Public transport infrastructure and functionality

Most participants, particularly those from the transport sector,noted the role of public transport in increasing physicallyactive transport behavior. The public transport service in the‘study-area’ was described by participants as unattractive andinefficient. Effectual integration of land use and transportplanning was viewed as being key in providing attractive publictransport services. There was a particular focus on transit-oriented community planning and design that included quality‘active transport’ networks. A number of institutional barrierswere identified, including: a lack of leadership, resourcing andtechnical expertise for active transport issues; departments beingfocused on motor vehicles; and a lack of, or ineffective,collaboration between stakeholders. Better community engage-ment and education on active transport issues and communityinvolvement in transport policy and planning were also commonideas.

3.3. Walking and cycling infrastructure

A lack of walking and cycling infrastructure and indirect,unconnected, and impermeable routes were commonly reportedas barriers to active transport. Concerns were also raised aboutthe lack of multi-modal transport links and end of trip facilities, aswell as road hierarchies not being designed to reduce trafficvolume and flow for safe active commuting. Another key concernwas transport planners not viewing active transport as alegitimate mode of travel and it not appropriately being plannedfor or resourced. Mixed views emerged on whether providing

infrastructure for active transport would increase walking andcycling behavior.

3.4. Political commitment and institutional processes of working

High-level political (state Premier) commitment and whole-of-government support for active transport was a key enablerreported by participants. Integral to this was the view thattransport planners and engineers needed to prioritise activetransport as a mode of transport (as opposed to the car), as wellas, the profession adopting a different approach and way ofworking. For example, planning for active transport was thoughtto have to involve partnering with non-traditional transportstakeholders, as well as, engaging with the public to identifyattractive active transport options.

3.5. Societal factors

A frequently reported barrier to increasing active transportbehavior was the Australian ‘car culture’. Participants reportedpublic apathy toward alternative forms of transport, as well asbarriers of busy lifestyles and family commitments. In addition,there was a view that there were very few publicly visibleincentives that encouraged alternative transport or discouragedthe use of the car. Personal safety was also raised as a barrier forchildren participating in active transport.

4. Study discussion and conclusion

Active transport-related issues are an emerging and evolvingfocus across government agencies and advocacy groups in localregions of Australia. We found that representatives of public,private, and community-sector institutions with an influence onactive transport identified explicitly with this role. Activetransport was viewed as part of core business for the transportand environment sectors. For other sectors, such as humanservices, state development, and police services, active transportwas consistent and/or synergistic with departmental objectives(e.g., in the provision and location of affordable housing). Forprivate developers, active transport was used in marketing(however, the effectiveness of use of active transport in marketinghad not substantiated by local research). Agencies clearlyrecognised the need for the concept of transport to extendbeyond the motor vehicle to include the planning and delivery ofalternative forms of transport, as priority. However, this conceptwas yet to be fully embraced by government agencies. Activetransport-specific policies or activities described by participantsthroughout the study existed mainly in concept or development,or were being undertaken randomly not in a strategic orsystematic way.

We identified key concerns that impacted on the delivery ofcommunity-level active transport across formal, informal, gov-ernance, and decision-making institutions. At the highest level,there was lack of political will, state government leadership, andpolicy framework for active transport. There were a numberof factors identified that contributed to this. Of these, the carbeing seen as the transport mode of choice of constituents wasmost prominent. The absence of lobby groups, particularlyfor walking, and a lack of community engagement on transportissues were also notable, consistent with findings elsewhere(Goodman and Tolley, 2003; Sauter, 2003; Tolley and Lumsdon,2003).

At a government level, there were concerns about the lack ofcross-government coordination for active transport. Participants

R. Cole et al. / Transport Policy 17 (2010) 496–504502

reported there being no clear lead agency or jurisdiction for activetransport, and agencies with an influence or role in activetransport-related issues not clearly delineating or identifyingwith their specific-active transport role. Previous research hascited numerous factors attributed to a lack of cross-governmentcoordination (Gaffron, 2003; Goodman and Tolley, 2003; Kuriya-ma et al., 2004; Banister 1998, 2005; Tolley and Lumsdon, 2003;VanGeenhuizen et al., 2002). These have included: active trans-port not being included in government strategy formation andplanning and transport activities; inconsistent policy directionand programs across stakeholders; and a lack of committedresources. This study identified concerns about active transportbeing omitted from land use and infrastructure policy andplanning, despite the state of Queensland having policy andplanning frameworks designed to integrate the range of stateinterests within planning processes. Participants reported activetransport not being formally recognised as an interest of the stategovernment or being within the jurisdiction of the transportsector under legislation at the time of the study. The need forplanning outputs to include active transport decision-makingcriteria as a key strategy has been identified by transportresearchers elsewhere (Moeng and Lewis, 2005).

Concerns for the coordination of active transport were notrestricted to being across government sectors. There were alsomixed ideas about the roles and responsibilities of different levelsof government. We found that local government leaders con-sidered active transport to be a role of the state government, notlocal government. In contrast, state government administratorsreported local government having a critical role in activetransport at the local level. Participants representing ‘RegionalOrganisation of Councils’ suggested local government may havereservations in administering active transport due to thatbecoming an expectation of state and federal governments, whichmay result in a reduction in financial resourcing. Transportresearchers have argued that state-level transport agenciescannot adequately deal with the small-scale and local-levelnature of active transport influences (Clarke, 2003). However, itis also argued that for local government to effectively manageactive transport, powers and responsibilities for transport,including resources and revenue raising, need to be de-centralised(Banister 1998, 2005).

At an institutional level, technical expertise and working practices,as well as more broadly, institutional culture emerged as barriers.Active transport is a new area of work for many transport plannersand engineers requiring a different skill set and expertise beyondtraditional road programs that include community engagement,collaboration with non-traditional transport sector partners, andtechnical skills for planning and design of public transport, andwalking and cycling networks. For example, public and privateacceptability of policy measures and developing appropriate andbalanced transport and people-oriented transport systems has beenargued to lie in having community participation strategies intransport decision-making processes (Banister, 2005; VanGeenhui-zen et al., 2002). There was concern that the profession in the mainwas yet to acquire these skills.

Transport planners and engineers in this study also identified theabsence of policies to guide action on active transport. Currenttransport solutions and practice was still viewed as beingcar-oriented. Further, administrators of other sectors reportedwalking and cycling as not being viewed by engineers as legitimateforms of travel. Institutional barriers reported elsewhere haveincluded: a lack of well-trained, knowledgeable policy-makers andprofessionals for active modes; car-orientated attitudes of decision-makers and traffic engineers; a lack of administrative and technicalexpertise and measures; and a lack of committed resources andfunding for active transport (Clarke, 2003; Goodman and Tolley,

2003; Napier, 2003; Tolley and Lumsdon, 2003; Banister, 1998,2005; Kuriyama et al., 2004; Roberts-James, 2003; VanGeenhuizenet al., 2002; Gaffron, 2003). Broader issues reported in the literaturealso include: transport programs not typically funding programswhere active transport issues may be addressed; and inadequatedesign standards and/or state and local agency unawareness orignorance of accepted guidelines (Clarke, 2003). Transport research-ers have identified the key role of having dedicated active transportstaff (Clarke, 2003).

There are some limitations to generalisability of this study tothe broader transport-planning context. Study participation wasby identification and nomination by community groups andagencies. These respondents may not be representative of theoverall attitudes and opinions of all administrators for the studycommunity or representative of the broader state or nationalopinion; however, most participants operated at a level beyondjust the study community at a regional or state level. The strengthof this study is in the opportunity to explore the relevant issueswithin a real life local-community context.

4.1. Taking the active transport agenda forward

Declines in levels of daily active transport behavior over the pastcentury have been attributed to changes in economies, technology,urban form, and lifestyles (Clarke, 2003). For the transport sector, thishas been most evident in approaches to developing transportnetworks, from urban models built upon walking and transit tomodels designed to expand road capacity for motor vehicles (Blacket al., 1999). More recently there has been a planning movement toreassert walking within city character, for economy, environment andsocial, heritage, and ‘life between buildings’ aspirations. However,there remains an ingrained conventional road planning and designstandards that discourage active modes of travel (Untermann, 1987).

Perhaps the best gain for progressing active transport in ourstudy community at the moment may be in establishing high-order policies for the adoption and deployment of active transportmeasures. To be effective, this will need to include comprehensiveapproaches to active transport at all levels of government, as wellas establishing measures targeting goals, politics, economics andbuilt environment. Vital to this work will be re-framing values,culture, interest groups, laws and statutes, regulations, andentrenched and existing practices (Stough and Rietveld, 2005),and interventions targeting practitioner and decision-makerattitudes (Goodman and Tolley, 2003; Sauter, 2003). Macro-levelpolicies that impact on transport are often outside the transportsector (Banister, 2005). However, there are existing enablers thatmay help take the agenda forward both at a macro- and agency-level. For instance, stakeholder views on active transport arealready high, and new urbanism principles are being commonlyemployed (Dueker, 2002; Kuriyama et al., 2004; Moeng andLewis, 2005; Tolley and Lumsdon, 2003). Such collaborativeefforts will be required to serve an advocacy role for the desiredchanges (Roberts-James, 2003).

Beyond approaches targeting government policy and practice,working closer with the community to change public attitudes andopinions in favour of active transport will be of benefit (Gaffron,2003; Goodman and Tolley, 2003; Napier, 2003; Tolley andLumsdon, 2003). In Australia, we are starting to witness prefer-ences for residence in city areas with walkability and transit(Dodson and Sipe, 2008, p. 385). Using such democratic approachesto transport funding in the US has led to a more rapid increase infunds for active transport (Clarke, 2003). Transport policy-makingis currently taken at a level that is remote from those affected by it.Public debates about transport and cross-sectoral impacts on policyformation may be useful (Banister, 2005).

R. Cole et al. / Transport Policy 17 (2010) 496–504 503

There is also a strong argument for a health sector role in activetransport. Researchers have suggested that inclusion of health-related benefits within transport planning can assist in justifyingmobility management approaches, where traditional transporta-tion cost-benefit analysis cannot (Litman, 2003). The focus onhealth also fits with broader well-being policies central to localgovernment. Traditionally, little collaboration has occurred be-tween the transport and health sectors beyond the involvement ofenvironmental health officers in the monitoring of air and noisepollution and the health services on traffic causalities (Davis, 2003).Protective health and health promotion is a new concept tomany policy-makers. Finding common values related to transportpolicies (e.g., quality of life, economic benefits, environment,congestion, alternative transport) may serve to start inter-sectoralcollaboration aimed at progressing active transport (Schmid et al.,2006).

4.2. Conclusion

A better understanding of the perceived barriers and enablersof active transport for key players across multiple sectors mayassist in establishing and building collaborative efforts intaking the active transport agenda forward. They providepotential keys to positively promoting comprehensive activetransport initiatives among gatekeepers and leaders acrossdifferent sectors. Formal, informal, governance, and decision-making institutions all appear to play a role in influencing activetransport. Efforts to further understand and address these barriersand enablers are required across influencing agencies and alllevels of government, in order to establish comprehensive andconsistent approaches. Active transport needs to be recognised asan important and legitimate mode in its own right. Just asimportantly, it needs to be recognised as a key health interventionin reducing the burden of chronic diseases and as cross-governmental priority.

Acknowledgment

We thank the participants for taking part in the study.Matthew Burke’s participation was supported by the AustralianResearch Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (projectnumber DP0451532). Eva Leslie was supported by a NationalHealth and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Public HealthFellowship #301261. Neville Owen’s participation was supportedby a Core Research Infrastructure Grant from Queensland Healthand by a Program Grant (#301200) from the NHMRC.

References

Abramson, J., Abramson, Z., 1999. Survey Methods in Community Medicine.Churchill Livingstone, London.

Agrawal, A.W., Schimek, P., 2007. Extent and correlates of walking in the USA.Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 12 (8), 548–563.

Banister, D., 1998. Barriers to implementation of urban sustainability. Interna-tional Journal of Environment and Pollution 10, 65–83.

Banister, D., 2005. Overcoming barriers to the implementation of sustainabletransport. In: Rietveld, P., Stough, R. (Eds.), Barriers to Sustainable Transport:Institutions, regulation and sustainability. Spon Press, New York.

Bauman, A., Armstrong, T., Davies, J., Owen, N., Brown, W., Bellew, B., Vita, P., 2003.Trends in physical activity participation and the impact of integratedcampaigns among Australian adults, 1997–99. Australian and New ZealandJournal of Public Health 27 (1), 76–79.

Black, J., Mason, C., Stanley, K., 1999. Travel demand management: policy contextand an application by the University of News South Wales as a large tripgenerator. Transport Engineering in Australia 5 (2), 64–73.

Bradburn, N., 1984. Discussion: telephone service methodology. In: Cannell, C.,Groves, R. (Eds.), Health Survey Research Methods. National Centre for HealthServices Research, Washington, DC.

Burke, M., Brown, A.L., 2007. Distances people walk for transport. Road & TransportResearch 16 (3), 16–29.

Cavill, N., Kahlmeier, S., Racioppi, F. 2006. Physical and Health in Europe: Evidencefor action. /http://www.euro.who.int/S: World Health Organisation.

Cavill, N., Kahlmeier, S., Rutter, H., Racioppi, F., Oja, P. 2007. Economic assessmentof transport infrastructure and policies: methodological guidance on theeconomic appraisal of health effects related to walking and cycling. /http://www.euro.who.int/S: World Health Organisation.

Clarke, A., 2003. Green modes and US transport policy: TEA-21. In: Tolley, R. (Ed.),Sustainable Transport: Planning for walking and cycling in urban environ-ments. Woodhead Pty Ltd., Cambridge, UK.

Cole, R., Leslie, E., Bauman, A., Donald, M., Owen, N., 2006. Socio-demographicvariations in walking for transport and for recreation or exercise among adultAustralians. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 3 (2), 164–178.

Giles-Corti, B., Donovan, R., 2002. Socioeconomic status differences in recreationalphysical activity levels and real and perceived access to a supportive physicalenvironment. Preventive Medicine 35, 601–611.

Crane, R., 1996. On form versus function: will the new urbanism reducetraffic, or increase it? Journal of Planning Education and Research 15117–126.

Davis, A., 2003. Health conscious transport planning: barriers and opportunities tointer-sector collaboration. In: Tolley, R. (Ed.), Sustainable Transport: Planningfor walking and cycling in urban environments. Woodhead Pty Ltd.,Cambridge, UK.

Dellinger, A.M., 2002. Barriers to children walking and biking to school—UnitedStates, 1999. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review 51 (32), 701–704.

DiGuiseppi, C., Roberts, I., Li, L., Allen, D., 1998. Determinants of car travel on dailyjourneys to school: cross sectional survey of primary school children. BritishMedical Journal 316, 1426–1428.

Dodson, J., Sipe, N., 2008. Shocking the suburbs: urban location, homeownershipand oil vulnerability in the Australian city. Housing Studies 23 (3),377–401.

Dueker, K., 2002. Ideas in motion: a critique of the urban transportation planningprocess: the performance of Portland’s 2000 Regional Transportation Plan.Transportation Quarterly 56 (2), 15–21.

Florida Department of Transportation and Center for Urban TransportationResearch. 2006. Trends and Conditions: Report, 2006—Transportation System:Bike and Pedestrian. Tallahassee, Florida DOT, Florida.

Frank, L., Engelke, P., Schmid, T., 2003. Health and Community Design: The Impactof the Built Environment on Physical Activity. Island, Washington, DC.

Gaffron, P., 2003. The implementation of walking and cycling policies in Britishlocal authorities. Transport Policy 10 (3), 235–244.

Gebel, K., Bauman, A., Owen, N., Foster, S., Giles-Corti, B., 2008. Heart FoundationPosition Statement: The built environment and walking. www.heartfoundation.org.au: Heart Foundation.

Goodman, R., Tolley, R., 2003. The decline of everyday walking in the UK:explanations and policy implications. In: Tolley, R. (Ed.), Sustainable Trans-port: Planning for walking and cycling in urban environments. Woodhead PtyLtd., Cambridge, UK.

Hillman, M., Adams, J., Whitelegg, J., 1991. One False Move: A study of Children’sIndependent Mobility. Policy Studies Institute, London.

Institution of Highways and Transportation. 2000. Guidelines for Providing forJourneys on Foot. London, Institution of Highways and Transportation.

Kuriyama, K., Donghai, C., Kato, H., Sugimoto, J., Black, J., Hayashi, Y. 2004.Sustainable Transport Policies in Japanese Cities: Barriers to Implementation.Presented at Urban Transport X. Urban Transport and the Environment in the21st Century.

Litman, T., 2003. Integrating public health objectives in transportation decision-making. The Science of Health Promotion 18 (1), 103–108.

McDonald, N.C., 2007. Active transportation to school: trends among U.S.schoolchildren, 1969–2001. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 32 (6),509–516.

Moeng, T., Lewis, C., 2005. An assessment of criteria used for transit friendlydecision-making.http://swutc.tamu.edu/publications/technicalreports/167322-1.pdf: Texas Southern University, Southwest Region UniversityTransportation Centre.

Mokhtarian, P.L., Salomon, I., Redmond, L.S., 2001. Understanding the demand fortravel: it’s not purely ’derived’. Innovation 14 (4), 355–380.

Napier, I., 2003. The walking economy. In: Tolley, R. (Ed.), Sustainable Transport:Planning for walking and cycling in urban environments. Woodhead Pty Ltd.,Cambridge, UK.

National Public Health Partnership, 2001. Promoting Active Transport: AnIntervention Portfolio to Increase Physical Activity as a Means of Transport.National Public Health Partnership, Melbourne.

National Statistics and Department for Transport, 2007. Cycling—Personal TravelFactsheet. Department for Transport, London.

North, D., 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance.Cambridge University Press, New York.

Owen, N., Humpel, N., Leslie, E., Bauman, A., Sallis, J.F., 2004. Understandingenvironmental influences on walking: a review and research agenda. AmericanJournal of Preventive Medicine 27 (1), 67–76.

Roberts-James, C., 2003. Creating a better walking environment. In: Tolley, R. (Ed.),Sustainable Transport: Planning for walking and cycling in urban environ-ments. Woodhead Pty Ltd, Cambridge, UK.

R. Cole et al. / Transport Policy 17 (2010) 496–504504

Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F., Frank, L.D., 2003. Environmental correlates of walking andcycling: Findings for the transportation, urban design, and planning litera-tures. Ann Behav Med 25, 80–91.

Sallis, J.F., Frank, L.D., Saelens, B.E., et al., 2004. Active transportation and physicalactivities: opportunities for collaboration on transportation and public healthresearch. Transportation Research Part A 38, 249–268.

Sauter, D., 2003. Perceptions of walking—ideologies of perception. In: Tolley, R.(Ed.), Sustainable Transport: Planning for walking and cycling in urbanenvironments. Woodhead Pty Ltd., Cambridge, UK.

Schmid, T.L., Pratt, M., Witmer, L., 2006. A framework for physical activitypolicy research. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 3 (Suppl. 1),S20–S29.

Stone, G., Giles-Corti, B., McBride, S., Jackson, B., 2003. Walk it, bike it, bus it:perceptions of active modes of transport. World Transport Policy and Practice9 (3), 15–25.

Stough, R., Rietveld, P., 2005. Institutional dimensions of sustainable transport. In:Rietveld, P., Stough, R. (Eds.), Barriers to Sustainable Transport: Institutions,Regulation and Sustainability. Spon Press, New York.

Timperio, A., Ball, K., Salmon, J., Roberts, R., Gilles-Corti, B., Simmons, D., Baur, L.A.,Crawford, D., 2006. Personal, family, social, and environmental correlates of activecommuting to school. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 30 (1), 45–51.

Timperio, A., Crawford, D., Telford, A., Salmon, J., 2004. Perceptions about the localneighborhood and walking and cycling among children. Preventive Medicine38, 39–47.

Tolley, R., Lumsdon, L., 2003. Social and cultural influences on the future ofwalking—the experts’ opinion. In: Tolley, R. (Ed.), Sustainable Transport:Planning for Walking and Cycling in Urban Environments. Woodhead Pty Ltd.,Cambridge, UK.

Transport and Population Data Centre, 2001. Household Travel Survey—

Summary Report 2001: Sydney Statistical Division. Transport NSW, Sydney, NSW.Untermann, R., 1987. Changing design standards for streets and roads. In:

Moudon, A. (Ed.), Public Streets for Public Use. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.,Inc., New York.

VanGeenhuizen, M., Nijkamp, P., Black, W., 2002. Social change and sustainabletransport: a manifesto on transatlantic research opportunities, Social Changeand Sustainable Transport. Indiana University Press.

Vivier, J., 2001. Millenium Cities Database for Sustainable Mobility: Analyses andRecommendations. UITP, Brussels.

Williamson, O., 1994. Institutions and Economic Organisation: The GovernancePerspective. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Wright, C., Atkinson, R., Cox, R., Booth, B., 1996. Exercise in Daily Life: SupportiveEnvironments. Commonwealth of Australia, Adelaide, South Australia.