IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i20p13014-d938977.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Review with Framework Synthesis of the Ways That Urban Environments Influence Opportunities for Healthy and Sustainable Mobility in Older Age

Author

Listed:
  • Tracey Ma

    (School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia)

  • Jinhee Kim

    (Centre for Health Equity Training, Research & Evaluation (CHETRE), UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia)

  • Myron Anthony Godinho

    (School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia)

  • Evelyne de Leeuw

    (Healthy Urban Environments Collaboratory, Maridulu Budyari Gumal SPHERE, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia)

  • Kathleen Clapham

    (Ngarruwan Ngadju First Peoples Health and Wellbeing Research Centre, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia)

  • Conrad Kobel

    (Australian Health Services Research Institute (AHSRI), University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia)

  • Rebecca Ivers

    (School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia)

Abstract

Supporting older people’s use of sustainable transport is important for both population health and sustainable development, especially in the context of global population ageing. This systematic review identifies individual and environmental factors that influence older people’s sustainable transport use and synthesises findings using a framework approach. Factors influencing older people’s walking (n = 10 studies), bus use (n = 11), community transport use (n = 1), bicycling (n = 1), and e-bicycling (n = 1) were found to be physical, geographical, facility-based, economic, time-based, fear-based, space-based, information-based, or interpersonal. Many factors were common across transport modes. One reason for this is that environmental features designed to facilitate the use of one particular transport mode also influenced the use of other modes (e.g., bus shelters influence not only bus use but also walking as they provide pedestrian seating). Thus, environments need to be considered from the perspective of multiple, different types of road users. Another reason is that many factors related to the ways individuals experienced their environment (e.g., finding information guiding behaviour in public spaces to be unclear), regardless of any specific transport mode. This review highlights the important need for greater cross-sectoral action and input from older people.

Suggested Citation

  • Tracey Ma & Jinhee Kim & Myron Anthony Godinho & Evelyne de Leeuw & Kathleen Clapham & Conrad Kobel & Rebecca Ivers, 2022. "A Systematic Review with Framework Synthesis of the Ways That Urban Environments Influence Opportunities for Healthy and Sustainable Mobility in Older Age," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-37, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:20:p:13014-:d:938977
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/20/13014/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/20/13014/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cottrill, Caitlin D. & Brooke, Sarah & Mulley, Corinne & Nelson, John D. & Wright, Steve, 2020. "Can multi-modal integration provide enhanced public transport service provision to address the needs of vulnerable populations?," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    2. Ottoni, Callista A. & Sims-Gould, Joanie & Winters, Meghan & Heijnen, Myrthe & McKay, Heather A., 2016. "“Benches become like porches”: Built and social environment influences on older adults’ experiences of mobility and well-being," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 33-41.
    3. De Witte, Astrid & Hollevoet, Joachim & Dobruszkes, Frédéric & Hubert, Michel & Macharis, Cathy, 2013. "Linking modal choice to motility: A comprehensive review," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 329-341.
    4. Battista, Geoffrey A. & Manaugh, Kevin, 2018. "Stores and mores: Toward socializing walkability," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 53-60.
    5. Broome, Kieran & Worrall, Linda & Fleming, Jennifer & Boldy, Duncan, 2012. "Evaluation of flexible route bus transport for older people," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 85-91.
    6. Astrid De Witte & Joachim Hollevoet & Frédéric Dobruszkes & Michel Hubert & Cathy Macharis, 2013. "Linking modal choice to motility: a comprehensive review," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/138176, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Ann Forsyth & Kevin Krizek, 2011. "Urban Design: Is there a Distinctive View from the Bicycle?," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(04), pages 531-549.
    8. Desley Vine & Laurie Buys & Rosemary Aird, 2012. "Experiences of Neighbourhood Walkability Among Older Australians Living in High Density Inner-City Areas," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 421-444.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bouscasse, Hélène & de Lapparent, Matthieu, 2019. "Perceived comfort and values of travel time savings in the Rhône-Alpes Region," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 370-387.
    2. Mathieu Lambotte & Sandrine Mathy & Anna Risch & Carole Treibich, 2022. "Spreading active transportation: peer effects and key players in the workplace," Post-Print hal-03702684, HAL.
    3. Chaloupka, Christine & Kölbl, Robert & Loibl, Wolfgang & Molitor, Romain & Nentwich, Michael & Peer, Stefanie & Risser, Ralf & Sammer, Gerd & Schützhofer, Bettina & Seibt, Claus, 2015. "Nachhaltige Mobilität aus sozioökonomischer Perspektive – Diskussionspapier der Arbeitsgruppe "Sozioökonomische Aspekte" der ÖAW-Kommission "Nachhaltige Mobilität" (ITA-manu," ITA manu:scripts 15_02, Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA).
    4. Zhihao Duan & Jinliang Xu & Han Ru & Yaping Dong & Xingliang Liu, 2019. "Analysis of Emergency Evacuation Modal Choice Behavior with Spatial Indicators: Case Study in Xi’an, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Maurici Ruiz-Pérez & Joana Maria Seguí-Pons, 2020. "Transport Mode Choice for Residents in a Tourist Destination: The Long Road to Sustainability (the Case of Mallorca, Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-31, November.
    6. Laureti, Tiziana & Montero, José-María & Fernández-Avilés, Gema, 2014. "A local scale analysis on influencing factors of NOx emissions: Evidence from the Community of Madrid, Spain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 557-568.
    7. Bouscasse, H., 2018. "Integrated choice and latent variable models: A literature review on mode choice," Working Papers 2018-07, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    8. Shoki Kosai & Muku Yuasa & Eiji Yamasue, 2020. "Chronological Transition of Relationship between Intracity Lifecycle Transport Energy Efficiency and Population Density," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, April.
    9. Hamidi, Zahra, 2021. "Decomposing cycling potentials employing the motility framework," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    10. Timothée Cuignet & Camille Perchoux & Geoffrey Caruso & Olivier Klein & Sylvain Klein & Basile Chaix & Yan Kestens & Philippe Gerber, 2020. "Mobility among older adults: Deconstructing the effects of motility and movement on wellbeing," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(2), pages 383-401, February.
    11. François Sprumont & Ariane Scheffer & Geoffrey Caruso & Eric Cornelis & Francesco Viti, 2022. "Quantifying the Relation between Activity Pattern Complexity and Car Use Using a Partial Least Square Structural Equation Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-16, September.
    12. Dėdelė, Audrius & Miškinytė, Auksė & Andrušaitytė, Sandra & Nemaniūtė-Gužienė, Jolanta, 2020. "Dependence between travel distance, individual socioeconomic and health-related characteristics, and the choice of the travel mode: a cross-sectional study for Kaunas, Lithuania," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    13. Joshi, Saakshi & Bailey, Ajay, 2023. "What happens next? Exploring women's transport motility through the story completion method," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    14. Obregón-Biosca, Saúl A., 2022. "Choice of transport in urban and periurban zones in metropolitan area," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    15. Shliselberg, Rebecca & Givoni, Moshe & Kaplan, Sigal, 2020. "A behavioral framework for measuring motility: Linking past mobility experiences, motility and eudemonic well-being," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 69-85.
    16. Ko, Joonho & Lee, Sugie & Byun, Miree, 2019. "Exploring factors associated with commute mode choice: An application of city-level general social survey data," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 36-46.
    17. Querini, Florent & Benetto, Enrico, 2014. "Agent-based modelling for assessing hybrid and electric cars deployment policies in Luxembourg and Lorraine," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 149-161.
    18. Bouscasse, H. & Bonnel, P., 2016. "Socio-psychological determinants of mode choice habits," Working Papers 2016-05, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    19. Gascon, Mireia & Marquet, Oriol & Gràcia-Lavedan, Esther & Ambròs, Albert & Götschi, Thomas & Nazelle, Audrey de & Panis, Luc Int & Gerike, Regine & Brand, Christian & Dons, Evi & Eriksson, Ulf & Iaco, 2020. "What explains public transport use? Evidence from seven European cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 362-374.
    20. Arbués, Pelayo & Baños, José F. & Mayor, Matías & Suárez, Patricia, 2016. "Determinants of ground transport modal choice in long-distance trips in Spain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 131-143.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:20:p:13014-:d:938977. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.