Journal of Transport & Health 6 (2017) 327–334

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Transport & Health

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jth

Determinants of walking as an active travel mode in a Nigerian MARK

city☆
⁎
Olorunfemi Olojedea, , Adewale Yoadeb, Blessing Olufemia
a
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
b
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Wesley University, Ondo, Nigeria

AR TI CLE I NF O AB S T R A CT

Keywords: This study examined factors that influenced the choice of walking as an active travel mode in
Walking Ilesa, a major city in Osun State, Nigeria. By using a multistage sampling technique, 524 re-
Bicycling spondents were surveyed across the three main residential zones of the city: the high-density, the
Active travel medium-density and the low-density zones. Among others, socioeconomic characteristics of re-
Pedestrian
sidents such as age and income varied across the residential zones (F = 54.731, p < 0.001; F =
Automobile dependency
Ilesa
68.278, p < 0.001). It was found that the factors that greatly influence respondents’ decision to
walk include its relative cheapness, the non-possession of personal vehicles by the traveller and
favourable weather. However, vehicle ownership, the relative slowness of the mode and the
absence of pedestrian facilities constituted the most significant barriers to walking as an active
travel mode in the city. The study also found that the strongest predictor of walking among
residents was the non-possession of personal vehicles (R2 = .551). Other predictors were income,
trip length, travel costs and health benefits, with a cumulative R2 value of 0.168. The trans-
portation planning implications of the findings are discussed, and policy recommendations are
proffered towards engendering a walkable environment, which would in turn encourage active
travelling in the city.

1. Introduction

Active travel is any self-propelled, human-powered mode of transportation, such as walking or bicycling (Lavin et al., 2011;
National Centre for Environmental Health, 2011). Being emission free, both walking and bicycling are environment-friendly modes.
They are popular travel modes as they involve physical activity rather than any form of motorisation for moving between locations.
They are also relatively inexpensive and, to a large extent, accessible to all except those who are physically challenged and can
neither walk nor cycle. However, in every respect, walking is by far cheaper than bicycling as no financial cost whatsoever is
required. Thus, walking is the most common form of active travel. In fact, no other travel mode is totally independent of walking as it
serves as the link between modes.
According to the International Transport Forum (2011), active travel constitutes a source of great pleasure for many citizens. In
many countries with higher incomes, non-motorised transports are considered important transport modes. These modes are, to a
large extent, chosen especially because of the associated health benefits. Such benefits include increased cardiovascular fitness,
increased muscle strength and flexibility, improved joint mobility, decreased stress levels, improved posture and coordination,
strengthened bones, decreased body fat levels and prevention or management of disease (State of Victoria, 2016). In addition, they

☆
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: olorunfemiolojede@gmail.com (O. Olojede), yoadewale@yahoo.com (A. Yoade), bennyliz4real@yahoo.com (B. Olufemi).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.06.008
Received 17 February 2017; Received in revised form 27 June 2017; Accepted 28 June 2017
Available online 19 July 2017
2214-1405/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
O. Olojede et al. Journal of Transport & Health 6 (2017) 327–334

play a dominant and indispensable role as affordable modes for low-income households in developing and less developed countries.
However, active transport is generally considered undesirable, unpleasant and unsafe in most developing countries (Rietveld, 2001).
In addition, general disposition in these countries tends to work against its popularity, as it is often associated with poverty, low
social status and low technology.
More often than not, active transport plays a second fiddle to motorised traffic in transportation planning research, policies and
investments. According to the International Transport Forum (2011), active transport is rarely captured in government statistics on
mobility and is often neglected in planning and policy development. Lending credence to this is the submission of Beaumont and
Pianca (2002), cited by McMillan et al. (2006), that the environment in which we live is traditionally best planned for a single travel
mode on the road for the automobile, whereas multimodal road travel mode is incorporated into the planning but hardly im-
plemented.
Furthermore, active travellers are vulnerable travellers. For instance, most of the estimated 30,000 people who are seriously
injured in road traffic crashes are from low- and middle-income countries, and most of the casualties are pedestrians and cyclists
(Murray and Lopez, 1996; Roberts et al., 2006). In addition, according to the Federal Road Safety Commission (FRSC) (2010) of
Nigeria, many victims of road traffic crashes are vulnerable road users or active travellers. This is partly because highway planning
standards do not consciously recognise them as an integral part of traffic in the planning of new transport facilities. The implication is
that they are marginalised in terms of highway facilities investments as conscious provisions are not made for walkways and street
furniture that cater for their need. Thus, in a way, their existence could be viewed by reckless drivers as an ‘illegal encroachment’ on
the designed road space.
Despite the realities of active travel, it has a lot of social, economic, and health benefits. These, according to Litman (2016),
include road and parking facility cost savings, reduced chauffeuring burdens, increased traffic safety, pollution reductions, energy
conservation, transport cost savings, increased security, higher property values, open space preservation, improved public fitness and
health, and increased community cohesion. These are enough reasons to support active travel. However, whether we have an un-
derstanding of the factors that encourage or discourage this highly beneficial and environment-friendly travel mode is a major
consideration.
Understanding the factors that work for/or and against active travel has significant implications for public health, transportation
planning, and transport facilities investments. However, a dearth of empirical studies on active travel has been noted in Nigeria,
where the majority are active travellers. It is therefore imperative to conduct an empirical study of the factors that influence the
decision of Nigerians to walk or to not walk. A good understanding of this could help in formulating policies that could enhance
active transport. The findings will also contribute considerably to the literature of active travel behaviour. It was against this
background that this study examined factors influencing the active travel behaviour of travellers in Ilesa, a major Nigerian city.

2. Previous studies

Many studies on active travel were conducted in developed countries. What obtains in developing countries is almost unknown.
The study of Basset et al. (2008) examined the relationship between active transport (defined as the percentage of trips taken by
walking, bicycling and public transit) and obesity rates in different countries spanning Europe, North America and Australia. National
surveys of travel behaviour and health indicators were conducted from 1994 to 2006. It was found that countries with the highest
levels of active transport generally had the lowest obesity rates. Even though the findings from the study are of considerable im-
portance, the study was tilted towards public health.
Shannon et al. (2006) and Whalen (2011) worked on commuting patterns and travel preferences of members of university
communities. While Shannon et al. conducted their study in the University of Western Australia through an online survey, the case
study for Whalen's study was in McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada. Both studies examined the barriers and motivators that
affect transport decision and choice of university students and staff. These studies came up with findings that can enhance our
understanding of commuting patterns and travel preferences. However, similar studies outside the university setting, and especially
in a developing country, would further deepen the understanding.
Wegman et al. (2012) conducted a study on how to make more cycling good for road safety. They discussed the current level of
the various road safety problems of cycling. The study illustrated how the safe system approach, such as the Dutch Sustainable Safety
Vision, is effective for vulnerable road users such as cyclists in dealing with inherent traffic risks. They concluded that when the
number of cyclists increased, the number of fatalities might increase, but would not necessarily do so, depending on specific con-
ditions. In other words, increased cycling would not necessarily increase fatality with effective control in place. However, the re-
search ignored pedestrians by isolating cyclists.
Burbidge and Goulias (2008) examined active travel behaviour. They provided an overview of existing travel behaviour analysis
on active mode choice, presented potential threats to validity in that type of research and analysed existing intervention meth-
odologies. They then presented and discussed a conceptual model of active travel behaviour, arguing that by applying the rigour of
travel behaviour research to active travel behaviour research and incorporating the conceptual model provided, great strides could be
made relatively quickly in understanding the mode choice and active travel behaviour. Their model was a considerable contribution
to understanding active travel behaviour; however, they developed only a conceptual model without any empirical investigation.
Ogilvie et al. (2008) developed and established the test-retest reliability of a new scale for use in a study of the correlates of active
travel and overall physical activity in deprived urban neighbourhoods in Glasgow, Scotland. They did this by developing and piloting
a 14-item scale. However, the study was conducted for establishing a test-retest reliability of a new scale to study the correlates of
active travel and physical activity in Glasgow. The emphasis was not on the determinants of active travel.

328
O. Olojede et al. Journal of Transport & Health 6 (2017) 327–334

Even though the previous studies on active travel reviewed here came up with useful findings, none of them emphasised the
determinants of active travel. In addition, many of them were usually conducted to investigate the relationship between physical
activity (as against sedentary lifestyle/auto-dependency) and physical fitness. The implications for transportation planning and
policies were not addressed. On a positive note, other studies have established a link between active travel behaviour and age, as well
as health (Mattson, 2012; Morelli, 1998; Ryley, 2005); gender, security concerns, time of the day, and social concerns (Gropp, 2012;
Morelli, 1998); marital status (Ryley, 2005); income (Morelli, 1998); and fitness, environmental concerns, and domestic responsi-
bilities (Interface for Cycling Expertise, 2000; Morelli, 1998; Ryley, 2005; Whalen, 2011).
Litman (2016) evaluated active transport benefits and costs and came up with a useful guide on factors that affect active travel
demand. He based the guide on the works of Dill and Gliebe (2008) and Pratt (2012) and identified age, physical ability, income and
education, dogs, vehicles and driver's licenses, travel costs, facilities, roadway conditions, trip length, land use, promotion, and public
support as the major determinants of active travel demand. However, dogs and public support are not likely to be among the
determinants of active travel demand in Ilesa as dog walking and bicycling are quite rare in the city. Meanwhile, other factors that are
unlikely to influence active travel in developed countries would most likely influence it in Ilesa. This study, therefore, was embarked
on with a view to examine the situation in the city.

3. Methodology

3.1. Study area

Ilesa, Osun State, is one of Nigeria's major cities. It lies between Latitude 7°48' and 7°6' north of the Equator and between
Longitude 4°5' and 4°7' east of the Greenwich Meridian. According to the 2006 population census, the population of Ilesa was
210,141. The township comprises two local government areas: Ilesa East and Ilesa West, which have 11 and 10 political wards,
respectively. As such, Ilesa consists of 21 political wards overall. These wards are conventionally classified by planning authorities in
the town into three main residential density areas: low-, medium-, and high-density areas. There are 12 wards in the high-density
area, five in the medium-density area and the remaining four in the low-density area (Table 1).
A fourth residential zone can also be identified as the suburbs or outlying residential area of Ilesa. It is of its own peculiar class as
it does not share the characteristics of any of the three main residential zones. In addition, it is the farthest from the city centre. The
low-density area is towards the suburbs, the high-density area is at the core, and the medium-density area is flanked by both the high-
and low-density areas (Fig. 1). This study concentrated on the three residential zones that are away from the suburbs of the town, the
reason being that several little settlements, which have their own identities, are part of the suburbs.
Today, the city has no conventional mass transit system. The residents have access only to four major types of paratransit systems
for their intra-urban travel. These are the taxi; korope (a micro minibus with no conductor, which conveniently seats seven pas-
sengers); kėkė NAPEP (a commercial tricycle first introduced in Lagos State by the military administration of Colonel Mohammed
Buba Marwa (1996–1999) as keke Marwa, and later reintroduced nationwide in 2001 as keke NAPEP under the auspices of the
National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) during the regime of President Olusegun Obasanjo); and ȯkada (a commercial
motorcycle originally named after Okada, a town in Edo State, where commercial motorcycles were first used in Nigeria in the
1980s). The taxis and koropes shuttle the major roads, while kėkė NAPEP and okadas operate on both major and local roads.
No conscious provision is made for active travellers in the transport network of Ilesa: cyclist lanes and walkways are con-
spicuously non-existent. Meanwhile, it is obvious that the majority of residents in the city do not have personal vehicles. Thus,
pedestrians and cyclists share the vehicle lane with other road users some of whom might be reckless. These days, bicycle is not a
popular mode in Ilesa; you hardly come across it in the city. Instead, the number of motorcyclists increases daily. In fact, in the course
of this study, no bicyclist was sighted along any road in the city. Consequently, only pedestrians were considered active travellers by
this study.

3.2. Sampling procedure

In this study, 50% of the political wards in Ilesa were randomly selected: six from the high-density area, three from the medium-
density area and two from the low-density area. The selected political wards were Ifosan/Oke-Eso, Ijamo, Ita Akogun, Lower Egbedi,
Ikoti/Araromi and Ereja (high-density); Okesa, Ilaje and Isokun (medium-density); and Ilerin and Biladu (low-density). No official
information was available on the housing population of Ilesa at the time of the survey. However, it was observed that buildings in the
same residential density area were to a large extent homogeneous. Therefore, 50 residential buildings were randomly picked without

Table 1
Classification of political wards in Ilesa.

Density of the area Wards

High Ifosan/Oke-Eso, Itisin/Ogudu, Ijamo, Upper and Lower Ijoka, Iloro/Iroye, Ita Akogun, Lower Egbedi, Upper and Lower Igbogi, Ikoti/
Araromi, Omofe/Idasa, Isida/Adeti, Ereja
Medium Okesa, Isare, Bolorunduro, Ilaje, Isokun
Low Imo, Ilerin, Biladu, Ayeso

329
O. Olojede et al. Journal of Transport & Health 6 (2017) 327–334

Fig. 1. Residential Density Zones in Ilesa.

replacement from each of the 11 selected political wards. From each selected building, a household was randomly selected, and the
household head or any other adult was picked for the survey. A total of 550 respondents were surveyed. Of the total questionnaires
administered, 524 (95.3%) were successfully retrieved and analysed.

3.3. Survey instrument

The data used for the study were collected with the aid of a questionnaire. The questionnaire had both open-ended and close-
ended questions. With a view to avoiding restrictions at the analysis stage, questions on continuous variables were open ended. On
the basis of the findings of previous studies and familiarity with the study area, there were questions on the socioeconomic char-
acteristics of respondents, factors influencing their decision to walk and factors that tend to discourage them from making the
decision to walk.

3.4. Data analysis

Data obtained were analysed using percentages and the relative importance index (RII), which was used to weigh the relative
influence of the factors that affect the decision to walk or not walk. The respondents were asked to rate the importance of each of the
factors influencing their decision to walk and to not walk following the principle of the Likert Scale (Likert, 1961). In each case, the
scale was from 1 to 5, in an ascending order of importance (Very Low, Low, Average, High and Very High). These values were
transformed into RIIs for each factor. Mathematically, this is expressed as follows:
∑W
RII =
A*N (1)

where W is the weighting given to each factor by the respondents to the survey (i = 1–5), A is the highest weight (which is 5 in this
case) and N is the total number of respondents. The higher the value of RII, the more important was the factor in influencing the
decision to walk or to not walk by the respondents. The identified factors were ranked using the RII. This ranking helped in de-
termining the relative importance of the factors as perceived by the respondents. The RII of each factor as perceived by the re-
spondents was used to assess the rankings to have an overall picture of the factors that influenced the respondents’ decision to walk or
to not walk in Ilesa.

3.5. Organisation of the paper

There are five major sections in the paper. Section 1 provides the background to the study. Previous studies are reviewed in Section 2.
Section 3 gives information on the methods of data collection, data analysis and the structure of the paper. In Section 4, the findings of the
study are discussed. Section 5 concludes the paper, and recommendations are provided based on the findings of the study.

330
O. Olojede et al. Journal of Transport & Health 6 (2017) 327–334

Table 2
Socioeconomic characteristics of residents.

Category/Group Freq. % Category/Group Freq. %

Age Gender
< 21 45 8.6 Male 275 52.5
21–40 245 46.8 Female 249 47.5
41–60 200 38.2 Total 524 100.0
> 60 34 6.4 Highest Academic Qualification
Total 524 100.0 No formal education 15 2.8
Marital status Primary/Adult education 30 5.7
Single 119 22.7 Junior secondary certificate 167 31.8
Married 337 64.3 Senior secondary certificate 161 30.8
Separated/Divorced/Widowed 68 13.0 A Level/ND/NCE 105 20.1
Total 524 100.0 HND/First degree 42 8
Employment status Postgraduate 4 0.8
Schooling/Apprenticeship 97 18.6 Total 524 100.0
Employed 313 59.8 Average Monthly Income in Nairaa (N)
Unemployed 46 8.8 < 25,001 124 23.7
Retired 68 12.8 25,001–50000 206 39.3
Total 524 100.0 50,001–75,000 130 24.8
Private vehicle ownership 75,001–100,000 51 4.7
None 391 74.6 > 100,000 13 2.5
Bicycle 1 0.2 Total 524 100.0
Motorcycle 85 16.2 Faith
Car 43 8.2 Christianity 457 87.2
Other 4 0.8 Islam 67 12.8
Total 524 100.0 Total 524 100.0

a
As on 18th April, 2017, the US$ exchanges for N302.25 officially.

4. Results and discussion of findings

4.1. Socioeconomic profile of residents

Apparently, socioeconomic characteristics play a major role in determining the mode choice of residents. Consequently, a number
of socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents were examined, with a view to aiding our understanding of their active travel
behaviour. These are age, gender, marital status, religion, private vehicle ownership, education, income and employment status.
Information on these is summarised in Table 2.
The age distribution of the respondents shows that the single largest age group category was 21–40 years (46.8%). This group was
followed by the 41–60 age bracket (38.2%). The mean age was 38 years, and the distribution of the respondents’ ages varied
significantly across the residential zones (F = 54.731, p < 0.001). The percentages of male and female respondents were 52.5 and
47.5, respectively. In addition, 22.7% and 64.3% of the respondents were single and married, respectively, and 13% were married but
living separately from their spouses, divorced or widowed. The respondents were generally literate as only 2.8% had no formal
education. In fact, almost 1% had a postgraduate qualification. The employment status distribution of the respondents reveals that
18.7% were either schooling or learning a trade/skill, almost 60% were employed and 21.6% were currently not in any employment.
The income distribution of the respondents reveals that the majority (39.3%) of the respondents earned between 25,001 and
50,000 naira per month on average. Only 2.5% earned more than 100,000 naira a month. Significant variation existed in the income
distribution of the respondents across the residential zones (F = 68.278, p < 0.001), the average income was 32,485.35, 54,438.76
and 69,874.89 naira in the high-, medium- and low-residential density areas of the city, respectively. The overall mean average
monthly income, however, was 46,525.34 naira.
Private vehicle ownership among the respondents was rather low with as high as almost 75% not having any private vehicle.
Bicycle was found to be very unpopular as only one of the 524 respondents (0.2%) claimed to have a bicycle. Approximately 16.2%
and 8.2% had motorcycles and cars, respectively, while less than 1% laid a claim to other vehicle types. The specification of these
other vehicles, according to the respondents, showed that three of them were minibuses, while one was a tricycle. The distribution of
the respondents by religious predilection shows that 87.2% claimed to be Christians, whereas only 12.8% were Muslims. This was as
expected because the majority of Ijesa people are churchgoers.

4.2. Factors influencing walking in Ilesa

According to the respondents who participated in the survey, several factors affect their decision to walk rather than use another
mode. The quanta of influence of these factors are summarised in Table 3.
With an RII value of 0.891, cheapness topped the chart of factors that influenced the respondents’ decision to walk. This was
followed by the non-possession of personal vehicle, favourable weather and short trip length, with their respective indices as 0.883,
0.858 and 0.754. Other factors were road condition (in terms of traffic congestion), easy access, safety and security considerations,

331
O. Olojede et al. Journal of Transport & Health 6 (2017) 327–334

Table 3
Factors influencing the decision to walk.

SN Factor N A*N SW RII Rank

1. Awareness of health benefits 524 2620 1567 0.598 8

2. Cheapness/no financial cost 524 2620 2334 0.891 1
3. Shortness of distance (trip length) 521 2605 1965 0.754 4
4. No personal vehicle 523 2615 2309 0.883 2
5. Safety and security considerations 518 2590 1785 0.689 6
6. Environmental walkability (pedestrian facilities) 520 2600 1466 0.564 9
7. Easy access 524 2620 1806 0.689 6
8. Favourable weather 524 2620 2248 0.858 3
9. Avoidance of traffic congestion (road condition) 523 2615 1956 0.748 5

awareness of health benefits and availability of pedestrian facilities, with RII values of 0.748, 0.689, 0.689, 0.589, and 0.564 re-
spectively.

4.3. Barriers to walking

Just as there are factors that encourage the respondents to walk rather than use another mode, there are perceived barriers to
walking in Ilesa. The respective relative indices of the magnitude of these factors are as presented in Table 4.
Vehicle ownership was rated as the most influential factor constituting a barrier to walking in Ilesa, according to the respondents
(RII 0.912). Relative slowness of walking was rated as the second strongest barrier to walking (0.856), while absence of pedestrian
facilities, road busyness, unfavourable weather, safety and security issues, physical disability/health issues and unfriendly terrain/
topography were the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth, respectively, in terms of their relative strength of influence with
RII values of 0.848, 0.652, 0.625, 0.619, 0.583 and 0.571, respectively.

4.4. Predictors of walking in Ilesa

In developing this model, walking (an active travel mode) was the outcome variable, while the predictor variables were the
identified determinants of active travel behaviour as found in the literature and as validated by this study with the aid of RII.
Respondents were asked to indicate the frequency of their active travel on a 5-point Likert scale. The scores for each item were
summed up to create a composite measure of active travel. The categorical responses were then transformed into interval data. Based
on regression analysis, a model of active travel in Ilesa was developed. This model was developed with a view to attempt an empirical
explanation for the decision to embark on active travel in Ilesa. The regression models summarises these factors in relation to active
travel.
To retain only the useful predictors in the model, the statistical method of stepwise regression was used to enter the predictors. Of
the nine predictors determining walking in Ilesa that were entered into the model, five were retained, while the remaining four were
excluded. The predictors non-possession of personal vehicle, income, trip length, travel costs and health benefits were retained
(Table 5). However, age, education, road condition and physical ability were excluded from the model.
As presented in Table 5, the non-possession of personal vehicle is the strongest predictor of walking in Ilesa, with R and R2 values
of 0.742 and 0.551, respectively (p < 0.001). This came with a large F Ratio (23.182). In other words, over 55% of the variability in
walking could be explained by the non-possession of private vehicle. This implies that the non-possession of private vehicle most
likely accounts for much of the tendency towards automobile dependency among private vehicle owners in the city. Further, the
addition of income increased the R2 value to 0.643, implying that both private vehicle ownership and income could explain over 64%
of the total variation in the decision of the respondents to walk. In the same way, trip length, travel costs and health benefits added
another 4.6%, 2.3% and 0.7%, respectively, to our understanding of the decision of the respondents to walk.
Altogether, the predictors retained in the model explained as much as 71.9% of the total variation in the decision of the re-
spondents to walk rather than use any other mode of transport. As such, 28.1% of the variation in the decision to walk in Ilesa was

Table 4
Barriers to walking.

SN Factor N A*N SW RII Rank

1. Physical disability/health issues 524 2620 1527 0.583 7

2. Unfavourable weather 522 2610 1631 0.625 5
3. Safety and security issues 521 2605 1612 0.619 6
4. Absence of pedestrian facilities 521 2605 2209 0.848 3
5. Relative slowness 523 2615 2238 0.856 2
6. Road busyness 524 2620 1708 0.652 4
7. Unfriendly terrain/topography 522 2610 1490 0.571 8
8. Vehicle ownership 524 2620 2389 0.912 1

332
O. Olojede et al. Journal of Transport & Health 6 (2017) 327–334

Table 5
Predictors of active travel (Walking).

SN Factor Beta R R2 F Ratio Sig.

1. No personal vehicle .583 0.742 .551 23.182 .000

2. Income .237 0.802 .643 19.762 .000
3. Trip length −.118 0.830 .689 17.987 .005
4. Travel costs .283 0.844 .712 11.834 .011
5. Health benefits .231 0.848 .719 7.325 .009

*Constant = 1.867.

unexplained by this model. The coefficients of the five predictors were 0.583, 0.237, −0.118, 0.283 and 0.231, respectively
(Table 5), while the constant as obtained in the regression analysis was 1.867. Consequently, the regression equation for walking in
Ilesa is as follows:
y = 1.867 + 0.583 + 0.237−0.118 + 0.283 + 0.231 + ε
where y = walking, x1 = having no personal vehicle, x2 = income, x3 = trip length, x4 = travel costs, x5 = health benefits and ε =
error term.
From the above equation, it is obvious that the most influential determinants of active travel in Ilesa are the non-possession of
personal vehicle, income, trip length, travel costs and health benefits. In a way, it would be difficult to ignore the socioeconomic
characteristics of people as far as their decision to walk is concerned. This finding is comparable with those of the earlier works of
Gliebe (2008), Pratt (2012) and Litman (2016), in which age, physical ability, income and education, dogs, vehicles and driver's
licenses, travel costs, facilities, roadway conditions, trip length, land use, promotion and public support were found as the major
determinants of active travel demand. Furthermore, the findings are not surprising as cities are continually being developed and/or
redesigned for car use. The implication is that automobile dependency is on the increase. The differences in the findings could be
attributed to cultural and racial peculiarities, as well as social and institutional factors. In other words, if the respondents were to be
swapped in terms of study areas, there might not be any significant differences in the findings. This suggests that even the en-
vironment (physical, social, institutional and cultural milieux), arguably an important determinant of socioeconomic factors, is a
potential determinant of the decision to walk.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

This study identified the major factors that influence walking as an active travel mode in Ilesa. They are awareness of health
benefits, relative cheapness, trip length, non-possession of personal vehicle, safety and security considerations, environmental
walkability, easy access, favourable weather and road condition. Further analysis also identified inferentially the real predictors of
walking in the city, namely non-possession of personal vehicle, income, trip length, travel costs and health benefits. Barriers to
walking were identified to include physical disability/health issues, unfavourable weather, safety and security issues, and poor or
absence of pedestrian facilities.
Findings revealed that transport facilities investments in Ilesa apparently work against active travel as no conscious provision is
made for active travellers. Specifically, there are neither bicycle lanes nor pedestrian walkways. It is deducible that many would
choose to not walk if they had personal vehicles. Examining this in the light of the finding that the awareness of the health benefits
did not contribute significantly to the decision to walk in the city, it can be inferred that non-motorised transport is not a choice mode
in the city. Consequently, public enlightenment is needed for residents to understand the benefits of active travel. In addition, active
travel facilities should be integrated into the transport infrastructure in the city by the government through relevant agencies.
Furthermore, traffic calming policies and speed limits should be introduced and/or enforced according to a functional classification of
spaces, streets and road networks in the city, supported by appropriate infrastructure design criteria to create a low-risk and
amenable environment for active travellers.

References

Basset, D.R., Pucher, J., Buehler, R., Thompson, D.L., Crouter, S.E., 2008. Walking, cycling and obesity rates in Europe, North America and Australia. J. Phys. Act.
Health 5, 795–814.
Beaumont, C., Pianca, E.G., 2002. Historic Neighbourhood Schools in the Age of Sprawl: Why Johnny Can’t Walk to School. National Trust for Historic Preservation,
Washington, DC.
Burbidge, K.S., Goulias, G.K., 2008. Active Travel Behaviour. Paper submitted for presentation at In: Proceedings of the 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board only. Available at 〈http://www.uctc.net/research/papers/873.pdf〉.(Accessed 13 June 2016).
Dill, J., Gliebe, J., 2008. Understanding and Measuring Bicycling Behavior: A Focus on Travel Time and Route Choice. Oregon Transportation Research and Education
Consortium (OTREC). Available at 〈www.lulu.com/items/volume_64/5687000/5687029/1/print/OTREC-RR-08-03_Dill_BicyclingBehavior_FinalReport.pdf〉.
(Accessed 13th June 2016).
Federal Road Safety Commission, 2010. Road Mirror. Research Monograph No. 2.
Gropp, K.M., 2012. Active Transportation to School among Canadian Youth: An Exploration of Correlates and Associated Injury. Unpublished thesis, Department of
Community Health and Epidemiology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Interface for Cycling Expertise, 2000. The Significance of Non-motorised Transport for Developing Countries: Strategy for Policy Development. Interface for Cycling
Expertise, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

333
O. Olojede et al. Journal of Transport & Health 6 (2017) 327–334

International Transport Forum, 2011. Pedestrian Safety, Urban Space and Health. Research Report. Available at 〈www.internationationaltransportforum.org〉.
(Accessed 4 September 2014).
Lavin, T., Metcalfe, O., Higgins, C., 2011. Active Travel - Healthy Lives. Institute of Public Health in Ireland, Purdy's Lane, Belfast.
Likert, R., 1961. New Patterns of Management. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Litman, T., 2016. Evaluating Active Transport Benefits and Costs: Guide to Valuing Walking and Cycling Improvements and Encouragement Programs. Victoria
Transport Policy Institute. Available at 〈http://www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf〉. (Accessed 11 August 2016).
Mattson, J., 2012. Travel Behaviour and Mobility of Transportation-disadvantaged Populations: Evidence from the National Household Travel Survey. Upper Great
PlainsTransportation Institute, North Dakota State University, Fargo.
McMillan, T., Day, K., Boarnet, M., Alfonzo, M., Anderson, C., 2006. Johnny walks to school -does Jane? Sex differences in children's active travel to school. Child.
Youth Environ. 16 (1), 75–89.
Morelli, J.C., 1998. Suburban Non-Motorised Access to Transit: A Framework for Evaluation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Murray, C.J.L., Lopez, A.D., 1996. Global Health Statistics: A Compendium of Incidence, Prevalence and Mortality Estimates for over 200 Conditions. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
National Centre for Environmental Health, 2011. Strategies: Promote Active Transportation. Available at 〈www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/transportation/promote_
strategy.htm〉. (Accessed 25 July 2016).
Ogilvie, D., Mitchell, R., Mutrie, N., Petticrew, M., Platt, S., 2008. Perceived characteristics of the environment associated with active travel: development and testing
of a new scale. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 5, 32.
Pratt, R.H., 2012. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes: Chapter 16, TCRP Report 95. Available at 〈http://www.
tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/tcrp_rpt_95c1.pdf〉. (Accessed 14 February 2017).
Rietveld, P., 2001. Biking and walking: the position of non-motorised transport modes in transport systems. Tinbergen Inst. Discuss. Pap. 111, 3.
Roberts, I., Wentz, R., Edwards, P., 2006. Car manufacturers and global road safety: a word frequency analysis of road safety documents. Inj. Prev. 12, 320–322.
Ryley, T.J., 2005. A study of individual travel behaviour in edinburgh to assess the propensity to use non-motorised modes, Unpublished thesis. Napier University.
Shannon, T., Giles-Corti, B., Pikora, T., Busara, M., Shilton, T., Bull, F., 2006. Active commuting in a university setting: assessing commuting habits and potential for
modal change. Transp. Policy 13, 240–253.
State of Victoria, 2016. Cycling - Health Benefits. Available at 〈www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/cycling-health-benefits〉. (Accessed 18 April 2017).
Wegman, F., Zhang, F., Dijkistra, A., 2012. How to make more cycling good for road safety. Accid. Anal. Prev. 44, 19–29.
Whalen, K.E., 2011. Travel preferences and choices of university students and the role of active travel, Unpublished MA thesis. School of Graduate Studies, McMaster
University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

334