Purpose: Natural experiments are considered a priority for examining causal associations between the built environment (BE) and physical activity (PA) because the randomised controlled trial design is rarely feasible. Following the original 2014-2015 Built Environment and Active Transport to School (BEATS) Study conducted in Dunedin, New Zealand, cycling infrastructure construction has occurred in some neighbourhoods, including those of six secondary schools. Pedestrian-related infrastructure changes began in 2018. The BEATS Natural Experiment (BEATS-NE) will examine the effects of these recent cycling and pedestrian infrastructure changes on adolescents’ active transport to school (ATS). 

Methods: BEATS-NE is guided by ecological models for active transport that account for individual, social, environmental, and policy factors. Follow-up data for BEATS-NE will be collected in 2020-2021 and will include an online survey (1,600 adolescents), accelerometers (420 adolescents), school route mapping (750 adolescents), focus groups (10 sessions; 62 adolescents), Geographic Information Science analysis of the BE, environmental scans of school neighbourhoods (MAPS Global; 12 schools) and participatory mapping (200 adolescents).

Results: At baseline (2014/2015), only 17.9% of adolescents met minimal PA guidelines, 24.2% used ATS and the average distance to school was 6.2±7.4 km. Common ATS barriers included long distance, personal factors (e.g. sweating), lack of social support, convenience of being driven, the weather, BE factors, and traffic safety concerns. School neighbourhoods’ intersection density, land use mix and walkability correlated with adolescents’ perceptions of traffic volume, crossings, walking/cycling safety, and pedestrian/cycling infrastructure along the school route. Adolescents’ perception of safety of walking to school was the strongest correlate of ATS. Compared to walking, cycling to school was less common, perceived as less safe, and received less social and infrastructure support. The six ‘exposure’ and six ‘control’ schools are similar with respect to the number of students enrolled [‘exposure’ vs. ‘control’ school: 658 (360-869) vs. 514 (388-872)], school-level baseline ATS rates [24% (10%-45%) vs. 21%(14%-31%)] and topography (3 schools on a hillside and 3 on the flat in each group).

Conclusions: Natural experiment design and comprehensive data collection will extend current knowledge to inform planning of future school-, neighbourhood- and city-wide BE changes to encourage ATS in adolescents.

Purpose: Te Ara Mua - Future Streets is the first study of its kind - an area level randomised, controlled before and after community intervention study with the goal of making streets safer and easier for people to travel around actively. Components of the intervention included traffic calming, widening footpaths, cycle lane installation, and cultural landscaping (see www.futurestreets.org.nz). This presentation will share the research methods used to evaluate intervention effectiveness, and outline preliminary results with a focus on the pathway to increasing mobility and physical activity (PA).

Methods: The study was conducted in Māngere, Auckland, New Zealand, with baseline measures conducted in 2014, and early follow-up in 2016/17. Every household in the intervention and control area was enumerated to obtain a random sample of children/young people aged 7-13 years and those aged 14 years and older. Participants were revisited at follow-up and replenishment sampling was employed to replace participants who were no longer available to participate. The survey collected sociodemographic information, travel patterns, PA, neighbourhood perceptions, social wellbeing, road traffic injuries, and physical abilities. Video footage of road user characteristics and behaviours, and measures of traffic volume and speeds were also collected. In the intervention area only, qualitative interviews, go-along interviews, school focus groups, and participatory mapping were undertaken to understand neighbourhood use, accessibility, perceptions, and barriers for active travel (AT). Generalized linear mixed models are being used to analyse changes in outcomes, accounting for repeated measures and intra-cluster dependencies. Qualitative data have been analysed using thematic analysis.

Results: In total, 1243 adults and 658 children participated in the survey at baseline, and 1280 adults and 630 children participated at follow-up. Improved perceptions of walking and cycling and significant reductions in vehicle speeds and volumes have been found in the intervention area. Sociocultural norms, safety concerns and practical limitations were identified as barriers to AT. Changes in PA and AT are currently being examined.

Conclusions: Early findings from Te Ara Mua – Future Streets demonstrate the potential of community-wide infrastructural interventions to improve safety from traffic and improve resident perceptions for mobility and PA.

Purpose: Evidence suggests that living in neighbourhoods that support active transport (AT) to local destinations such as shops, services, and parks is beneficial for residents’ health. Improving park design/facilities has been shown to promote visitation rates and park-based physical activity, however it is unknown whether such interventions increase AT to parks. This study examined the impact of a playscape installation in a large metropolitan park in Melbourne, Australia, on AT to/from the park, compared with an unaltered control park.

Methods: Using a natural experiment design, intercept interviews were conducted to record adults’ AT to the intervention and control parks pre- (T1, 2013) and post-intervention at 2 (T2, 2014) and 14 months (T3, 2015). Both parks were accessible via shared walking/cycling paths external to and within each park. At each time-point, participants also reported: purpose of visit, accompaniment by child(ren), and frequency of visits. To examine habitual AT, analyses focused on frequent visitors (>once/week).

Results: Total participant numbers (and response rates) were: T1, 794 (75%); T2, 1166 (81%); T3, 1042 (75%). Around one third visited at least once/week (T1, 36%; T2, 34%; T3, 32%). Among frequent visitors, AT rates were consistently higher to the intervention park (T1, 22%; T2, 19%; T3, 18%) compared with the control park (T1, 14%; T2, 18%; T3, 12%). Among AT users, their main reason for visiting was to walk (T1, 39%; T2, 53%, T3, 47%), walk a dog (T1, 17%; T2, 18%; T3, 18%), or cycle within the park (T1, 16%; T2, 18%; T3, 20%). AT among those accompanying a child to the intervention park were low and increased only slightly, post-intervention, then dropped to pre-intervention levels (T1, 11%; T2, 14%; T3, 11%), while these rates dipped at T2 at the control park (T1, 19%; T2, 12%; T3, 19%).

Conclusions: Rates of AT to parks were low, despite the presence of walking/cycling paths. The introduction of a playscape had little impact on AT. Future studies of varying park size/location should investigate which features/facilities would encourage visitors to travel there by AT.