Display options
Cite
Dalton AM, Jones AP, Panter J, et al. Are GIS-modelled routes a useful proxy for the actual routes followed by commuters?. J Transp Health. 2015;2(2):219-229doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2014.10.001.
Dalton, A. M., Jones, A. P., Panter, J., & Ogilvie, D. (2015). Are GIS-modelled routes a useful proxy for the actual routes followed by commuters?. Journal of transport & health, 2(2), 219-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2014.10.001
Dalton, Alice M, et al. "Are GIS-modelled routes a useful proxy for the actual routes followed by commuters?." Journal of transport & health vol. 2,2 (2015): 219-229. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2014.10.001
Dalton AM, Jones AP, Panter J, Ogilvie D. Are GIS-modelled routes a useful proxy for the actual routes followed by commuters?. J Transp Health. 2015 Jun 01;2(2):219-229. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2014.10.001. PMID: 26682132; PMCID: PMC4678602.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Transp Health. 2015 Jun 01;2(2):219-229. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2014.10.001.

Are GIS-modelled routes a useful proxy for the actual routes followed by commuters?.

Journal of transport & health

Alice M Dalton, Andrew P Jones, Jenna Panter, David Ogilvie

Affiliations

  1. Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK ; UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
  2. UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK ; Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

PMID: 26682132 PMCID: PMC4678602 DOI: 10.1016/j.jth.2014.10.001

Abstract

Active commuting offers the potential to increase physical activity among adults by being built into daily routines. Characteristics of the route to work may influence propensity to walk or cycle. Geographic information system (GIS) software is often used to explore this by modelling routes between home and work. However, if the validity of modelled routes depends on the mode of travel used, studies of environmental determinants of travel may be biased. We aimed to understand how well modelled routes reflect those actually taken, and what characteristics explain these differences. We compared modelled GIS shortest path routes with actual routes measured using QStarz BT-Q1000X Global Positioning System (GPS) devices in a free-living sample of adults working in Cambridge and using varying travel modes. Predictors of differences, according to length and percentage overlap, between the two route sets were assessed using multilevel regression models and concordance coefficients. The 276 trips, made by 51 participants, were on average 27% further than modelled routes, with an average geographical overlap of 39%. However, predictability of the route depended on travel mode. For route length, there was moderate-to-substantial agreement for journeys made on foot and by bicycle. Route overlap was lowest for trips made by car plus walk (22%). The magnitude of difference depended on other journey characteristics, including travelling via intermediate destinations, distance, and use of busy roads. In conclusion, GIS routes may be acceptable for distance estimation and to explore potential routes, particularly active commuting. However, GPS should be used to obtain accurate estimates of environmental contexts in which commuting behaviour actually occurs. Public health researchers should bear these considerations in mind when studying the geographical determinants and health implications of commuting behaviour, and when recommending policy changes to encourage active travel.

Keywords: Global Positioning System; active travel; commute environment; geographic information system

References

  1. Biometrics. 1989 Mar;45(1):255-68 - PubMed
  2. BMJ. 2014 Aug 19;349:g4887 - PubMed
  3. Eur J Public Health. 2011 Dec;21(6):738-43 - PubMed
  4. Am J Prev Med. 2013 Feb;44(2):e19-29 - PubMed
  5. Front Public Health. 2014 Mar 10;2:21 - PubMed
  6. Int J Health Geogr. 2014 Feb 14;13:5 - PubMed
  7. Am J Prev Med. 2002 Apr;22(3):188-99 - PubMed
  8. Health Place. 2008 Mar;14(1):85-95 - PubMed
  9. Am J Prev Med. 2010 Mar;38(3):268-78 - PubMed
  10. Health Place. 2013 May;21:46-51 - PubMed
  11. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013 Jun 27;10 :85 - PubMed
  12. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999 Jun;8(2):135-60 - PubMed
  13. BMJ. 2014 Mar 13;348:g1464 - PubMed
  14. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013 Oct;45(10):1981-7 - PubMed
  15. J Phys Act Health. 2010 Jan;7(1):102-8 - PubMed
  16. Am J Prev Med. 2011 Nov;41(5):532-40 - PubMed
  17. Soc Sci Med. 2012 Jul;75(1):233-9 - PubMed
  18. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013 Apr 20;10:48 - PubMed
  19. Qual Res. 2015 Apr;15(2):201-218 - PubMed
  20. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009 Nov 04;6:73 - PubMed
  21. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013 Sep;67(9):788-94 - PubMed
  22. Am J Prev Med. 2007 Jul;33(1):51-3 - PubMed
  23. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013 Jul;45(7):1419-28 - PubMed
  24. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011 Nov 10;8:124 - PubMed
  25. Lancet. 2012 Jul 21;380(9838):258-71 - PubMed
  26. Environ Health Prev Med. 2010 Sep;15(5):327-30 - PubMed
  27. J Phys Act Health. 2010 Jul;7(4):551-61 - PubMed
  28. Am J Prev Med. 2011 Nov;41(5):508-15 - PubMed
  29. BMC Public Health. 2010 Nov 16;10:703 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support