1. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Active travel’s contribution to physical activity levels in London:
Analysis of data from the Active People Survey 2011/12
Ogilvie F1, Klowdawski E2, Fitzpatrick J2, Saunders L3
1. PHE London Health Improvement, 2. PHE London Knowledge and Intelligence, 3. Greater London Authority
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
Physical activity has many health benefits, and it is recommended that adults undertake at least 150 minutes per week1. The percentage of adults who meet this recommended level (‘active adults’), as well as the percentage undertaking less than 30 minutes of physical activity per week (‘inactive adults’) are two of the Public Health Outcome Framework (PHOF) indicators that are used to monitor boroughs’ progress in improving the health of their population.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) provides clear guidance on the importance of increasing levels of active travel, or walking and cycling, as part of local physical activity strategies2. In London it has been estimated that around 25% of adults meet recommended weekly levels of physical activity through travel alone3, and the most recent regional Transport Action Plan acknowledges the ‘huge economic and social benefits’ that are delivered as a result of this4.
Yet borough-level commissioning to promote physical activity has historically focused on the commissioning of sport. There is no publicly available data to demonstrate the contribution that walking and cycling make to physical activity levels in individual boroughs, which makes it difficult to argue for increased investment in these areas.
We wanted to support those responsible for increasing physical activity in London by providing data showing the contribution that walking and cycling make to overall physical activity levels in each borough, allowing them to make comparisons with neighbouring and statistically similar boroughs.
We used data from the rolling national Active People Survey, which consisted of data from 151,912 adults aged over 16 surveyed between January 2012 and January The survey collects self-reported data on the number of minutes of physical activity conducted in a 28-day reference period, which divided is by 4, to provide a weekly average.
The types of activities that people report are categorised into five categories of sport; walking and cycling for leisure; walking and cycling for transport; dance and gardening. Respondents are categorised into four physical activity-level categories of <30; 30-89; and 150+ equivalent minutes of moderate activity per week, and the contribution that each of the five types of activity makes to overall physical activity for each of the activity-level categories is provided.
We used this data to calculate the contribution of walking and cycling for leisure and transport to overall levels of physical activity, levels of physical activity amongst ‘active people’ (those achieving 150+ equivalent minutes of moderate activity per week) for each of the London boroughs.
Figure 1 . Active People Survey
RESULTS
The percentages of active (55.6%) and inactive (28.4%) adults in London are similar to the national averages, and while there is some variation across the London boroughs, the majority of boroughs have levels of activity not statistically significantly different from the London average.
In England, 22% of time spent on physical activity comes from active travel, with a further 16% from walking and cycling for recreation. In London, active travel accounts for an even higher (28%) of total physical activity time, with walking and cycling for recreation making up a further 12%.
The contribution of different types of physical activity to total physical activity time differs for ‘active’ (achieving 150+ minutes per week) and ‘inactive’ (achieving <30 minutes per week) adults in London, although walking and cycling for recreation accounts for a similar proportion of total physical activity time in both groups.
Within London there is some variation in the contribution that walking and cycling for recreation makes to overall physical activity time, although there does not seem to be a particular geographical pattern in the differences.
There is greater variation in the contribution that walking and cycling for transport makes to overall physical activity time, with some geographical patterning showing lower levels of walking and cycling for transport in the outer London boroughs.
There is little borough-level correlation between the contribution of walking and cycling for recreation, and the contribution of walking and cycling for transport, and little correlation between the contribution of walking and cycling, either for recreation or transport, with borough-levels deprivation.
Contribution of walking and cycling to overall physical activity time in London
A – Walking and cycling for recreation B – Walking and cycling for transport
Figure 2. Contribution of different activities to overall physical activity time in England (A); London (B); and to physical activity time in London’s ‘active adults’ (C); and ‘inactive adults’ (D)
Figure 3. Contribution of walking and cycling for recreation (A), and walking and cycling for transport (B), as a percentage of average time spent physically active, by borough
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
These results support previous estimates that walking and cycling account for a high proportion of total physical activity time in Londoners.
There is variation across London in the contribution that walking and cycling make to total physical activity time, including variation between neighbouring boroughs with similar population demographics. There is therefore potential for boroughs to learn from each other about what works in promoting high levels of walking and cycling as part of overall physical activity.
Walking and cycling account greater proportion of physical activity time amongst ‘active adults’ than ‘inactive adults’, however the contribution to ‘inactive adults’ total physical activity time is still substantial. It can therefore be argued that this is an appropriate type of activity to promote to this ‘inactive’ group, and that by increasing the amount of time spent on these activities it might be possible to move some ‘inactive adults’ out of the inactive category.
When making comparisons it is however important to acknowledge the limitations of the data, including the fact that it is self-reported and that results have not been adjusted for age or other demographic differences. Comparisons between boroughs should therefore be interpreted with this in mind.
In conclusion, this analysis has demonstrated that walking and cycling, both for recreation and transport, make a substantial contribution to helping Londoners achieve their recommended weekly levels of physical activity, as measured through the Public Health Outcomes Framework. It is argued that investment to promote higher levels of physical activity should reflect this contribution.
With thanks to Caroline Hancock from the Public Health England Obesity Knowledge and Intelligence Team, for providing access to the data, and Jagdip Kang from the Public health England (London) Knowledge and Intelligence Team for creating the maps.
REFERENCES
Department of Health.UK Physical Activity Guidelines
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Physical Activity: Pathways, Advice and Guidelines.
Greater London Authority. Transport and health in London: The main impacts of London road transport on health. 2014
Transport for London. Improving the health of Londoners: Transport action plan
Sport England. How the Active People Survey works.