Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

Living Edition
| Editors: Walter Leal Filho, Anabela Marisa Azul, Luciana Brandli, Pinar Gökcin Özuyar, Tony Wall

Active Modes and Sustainability

  • Filipe MouraEmail author
  • Sofia Kalakou
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71059-4_7-1

Synonyms

Definition

Active mobility modes are all modes of transportation that involve physical activity and do not require the use of motorized vehicles. Although active modes of mobility include walking, jogging, running, bicycling, small-wheeled transport (skates, skateboards, push scooters, and hand carts, among others – also referred to as micro-mobility), and wheelchair travel, the designation active modes refers commonly to walking and biking.

Active modes are a crucial component of sustainable urban mobility development because (i) they are more energy and environmentally efficient, as they are human-powered; (ii) they promote health as they involve physical activity; (iii) they are socially active, as walking and cycling are often related to collective and socializing activities; and (iv) they are inclusive, since they are free or cheaper transportation modes facilitating the access of people to...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abley S, Turner S (2011) Predicting walkability (No. 452). NZ Transport AgencyGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Herrmann SD, Meckes N, Bassett DR, Tudor-Locke C, Greer JL, Vezina J, Whitt-Glover MC, Leon AS (2011) Compendium of Physical Activities: a second update of codes and MET values. Medicine & science in sports & exercise, 43(8):1575–1581Google Scholar
  3. American Planning Association (2014) Investing in place: two generations’ View on the future of communities. American Planning Association. Available online: https://www.planning.org/policy/polls/investing/. Accessed 1 Oct 2018
  4. Appleyard D, Lintell M (1972) The environmental quality of City streets: the Residents’ viewpoint. J Am Inst Plann 38(2):84–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Australian Cycling Promotion Foundation (2018) We ride Australia [WWW Document]. https://www.cyclingpromotion.org. Accessed 22 June 2018
  6. Austroads (2014) Cycling aspects of Austroads guides. Project No. NT2011. Published by Austroads, LdaGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradshaw C (1993) Creating – and using – a rating system for neighborhood walkability: towards an agenda for “local heroes. In: 14th international pedestrian conference, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  8. Broseta MT (2015) Urban quality improvement programs in the sustainable urban mobility plan of Valencia (Spain). WIT Trans Built Environ 146:351–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell R, Wittgens M (2004) The Business Case for Active Transportation: the Economic Benefits of Walking and Cycling. NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials). Programme “Go for Green”. Gloucester, ONGoogle Scholar
  10. Cervero R, Kockelman K (1997) Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 2:199–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chester MV, Horvath A (2009) Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains. Environ Res Lett 4(2):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daamen W, Hoogendoorn SP, Bovy PHL (2005) First-order pedestrian traffic flow theory. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1934:43–52.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198105193400105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Nazelle A, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Antó JM, Brauer M, Briggs D, Braun-Fahrlander C, Cavill N, Cooper AR, Desqueyroux H, Fruin S, Hoek G, Panis LI, Janssen N, Jerrett M, Joffe M, Andersen ZJ, van Kempen E, Kingham S, Kubesch N, Leyden KM, Marshall JD, Matamala J, Mellios G, Mendez M, Nassif H, Ogilvie D, Peiró R, Pérez K, Rabl A, Ragettli M, Rodríguez D, Rojas D, Ruiz P, Sallis JF, Terwoert J, Toussaint JF, Tuomisto J, Zuurbier M, Lebret E (2011) Improving health through policies that promote active travel: a review of evidence to support integrated health impact assessment. Environ Int 37:766–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dekoster J, Schollaert U (1999) Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities. Published by the European Community, DG XI, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  15. Dill J, McNeil N (2013) Four types of cyclists? Examination of typology for better understanding of bicycling behavior and potential. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2387(1):129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dufour D (2010) PRESTO cycling policy guide – general framework. European Cyclist Federation 8ECF, available at www.presto-cycling.eu
  17. ELTIS (2014) Guidelines: developing and implementing a sustainable urban mobility plan. European Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans. Available online: http://www.eltis.org/guidelines/sump-guidelines. Accessed 1 Oct 2018
  18. Evans GW (2003) The built environment and mental health. J Urban Health 80:536–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ewing R, Cervero R (2010) Travel and the built environment. J Am Plan Assoc 76:265–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Felix R, Moura F, Clifton KJ (2017) Typologies of urban cyclists: a review of market segmentation methods for planning practice. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2662:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fewings R (2001) Wayfinding and airport terminal design. J Navig 54(2):177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Front Seat. Walk Score Methodology (2011) Available online: http://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml. Accessed 7 June 2011
  23. Fruin JJ (1971) Pedestrian planning and design, revised edn. Elevator World, MobileGoogle Scholar
  24. Ghel J (2011) Cities for people. Island Press, available at https://islandpress.org/books/cities-people
  25. Giles-Corti B, Bull F, Knuiman M, McCormack G, Van Niel K, Timperio A, Christian H, Foster S, Divitini M, Middleton N, Boruff B (2013) The influence of urban design on neighborhood walking following residential relocation: longitudinal results from the RESIDE study. Soc Sci Med 77:20–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.10.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Handy SL (2005) Critical assessment of the literature on the relationships among transportation, land use, and physical activity. Report TRB Special, 102Google Scholar
  27. Handy SL, Niemeier DA (1997) Measuring accessibility: an exploration of issues and alternatives. Environ Plan A 29:1175–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. HCM (2010) Highway capacity manual – 2010. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Hillier B (2005) The art of place and the science of space. World Architecture 185: 96–102. Available online: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1678/. Accessed 1 Oct 2018
  30. Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Keck S, Harms L, Jorritsma P, Kalf N (2007) Beleving en beeldvorming van mobiliteit. Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  32. Lamíquiz PJ, López-Domínguez J (2015) Effects of built environment on walking at the neighborhood scale. A new role for street networks by modeling their configurational accessibility. Transp Res A Policy Pract 74:148–163.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Litman T (2013) TDM Encyclopedia – Glossary [WWW Document]. Victoria Transp Policy Inst. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm. Accessed 19 June 2018
  34. Litman T (2018) Evaluating active transport benefits and costs. Guide to valuing walking and cycling improvements and encouragement programs 11 April 2018. Evaluating Active Transport Benefits and Costs Victoria Transport Policy InstituteGoogle Scholar
  35. Macmillan A, Connor J, Witten K, Kearns R, Rees D, Woodward A (2014) The societal costs and benefits of commuter bicycling: simulating the effects of specific policies using system dynamics modeling. Environ Health Perspect 122:335–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meijer R (2012) Traffic planning in Amsterdam shared spaces Shared mobility. IMPACTS annual conference, Paris – JuneGoogle Scholar
  37. Moura F, Magalhães J, Santos LP (2017) Growing from incipient to large cycle networks in hilly consolidated urban areas: the case of Lisbon. Eur J Transp Infrastruct Res 1:170–190Google Scholar
  38. NACTO (2014) Urban bikeway design guide. ed. National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). Published by Island PressGoogle Scholar
  39. Newman PW, Kenworthy JR (1989) Gasoline consumption and cities: a comparison of US cities with a global survey. J Am Plan Assoc 55(1):24–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pucher J, Buehler R, Bassett DR, Dannenberg AL (2010) Walking and cycling to health: a comparative analysis of city, state, and international data. Am J Public Health 100:1986–1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rabl A, de Nazelle A (2012) Benefits of the shift from car to active transport. Transp Policy 19:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. LTA (2011) Passenger transport mode shares in world cities. Journeys. Singapore: Land Transport Authority, 2011Google Scholar
  43. Rüetschi UJ (2007) Wayfinding in scene space modelling transfers in public transport. Doctoral dissertation, University of Zurich, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  44. Ryus P, Ferguson E, Laustsen KM, Schneider RJ, Proulx FR, Hull T, Miranda-Moreno L (2014) Guidebook on pedestrian and bicycle volume data collection – NCHRP REPORT 797. Transportation Research BoardGoogle Scholar
  45. Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Black JB, Chen D (2003) Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: an environment scale evaluation. Am J Public Health 93:1552–1558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Frank LD, Conway TL, Slymen DJ, Cain KL, Chapman JE, Kerr J (2009) Neighborhood built environment and income: examining multiple health outcomes. Soc Sci Med 68:1285–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Singleton PA, Schneider RJ, Muhs CD, Clifton KJ (2014) The pedestrian index of the environment (PIE): representing the walking environment in planning applications. In: Presented at the 93rd annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  48. SUSTRAN (2014) Handbook for cycle-friendly design. SUSTRAN. https://www.sustrans.org.uk
  49. The City of New York (2010) planNYC Progress report 2010: a greener, greater New York. The City of New York, New York. available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc/downloads/pdf/publications/planyc_progress_report_2010.pdf
  50. Transport for London (2014) London cycling design standards. TfL - Transport for London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. UN Habitat (2016) The New Urban Agenda, adopted by the United Nations on 20 October 2016 [WWW Document]. https://unhabitat.org/new-urban-agenda-adopted-at-habitat-iii/. Accessed 26 Sept 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CERISInstituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Section editors and affiliations

  • Heather Jones
    • 1
  1. 1.CERIS Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal