Transport Policy 99 (2020) 314–328

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transport Policy
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol

The associations between older adults’ daily travel pattern and objective
and perceived built environment: A study of three neighbourhoods
in Singapore
Yuting Hou a, *, Winston Yap a, Rochelle Chua b, Siqi Song c, Belinda Yuen a
a
Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore
b
Singapore-ETH Centre for Global Environmental Sustainability, Singapore
c
National University of Singapore, Singapore

A B S T R A C T

The increasing preference for ageing-in-place highlights the pivotal role of the neighbourhood environment in meeting the mobility needs of older adults. This paper
examines the combined associations of objective and subjective measures of built environment features with older adults’ travel pattern in Singapore. A multivariate
ordered probit (OP) modelling framework is applied to examine older adults’ daily trip frequency by four transport modes: walking, public bus, Mass Rapid Transit/
Light Rapid Transit (MRT/LRT), and private motorized modes, while controlling for the correlations among the use of different modes. The results show that while
perceived access to recreational facilities exert independent positive effects on older adults’ daily walking trip frequency and enhance the effects of comparable
objective measures, other subjective measures do not significantly moderate the effects of objective features on walking trip-making, including those of actual access
to utilitarian destinations, the availability of sheltered walkways and unsafe pedestrian crossings near residence. The results also find independent positive effects of
perceptions of transit proximity and comfortable and safe pedestrian connections on older adults’ daily transit trip-making.

1. Introduction transport-related physical activity such as walking and cycling (Shige­

The influence of land use and the design of neighbourhoods on in­
dividual travel behaviour is an important aspect of transportation
research. Many empirical studies have indicated that various dimensions
of built environment characteristics, such as land use density and di­
versity, street connectivity, distance to public transit service and
accessibility to essential destinations, significantly influence people’s
travel pattern (e.g. travel tendency, mode choice, and trip duration/
length) (e.g. Cervero and Kockelman, 1997; Ewing and Cervero, 2001;
Ewing and Cervero, 2010). Older adults’ travel characteristics are ex­
pected to be more sensitive to the influences of the neighbourhood built
environment as they are less likely to travel far from their homes and
have higher demands for the safety and convenience of the built envi­
ronment (Böcker et al., 2017). While the travel impacts of the built
environment has been widely studied, much less is known about the
impacts of the built environment on different transportation options
among older adults (Figueroa et al., 2014).
Recent studies on physical activities and health have discussed the
importance of people’s perceptions of the built environment in affecting
matsu et al., 2009; Cerin et al., 2013a; Hoehner et al., 2005). Though the
perceived measures of environmental features are likely to be influenced
by the actual environment, previous studies suggest that perceived
(subjective) and objective measures of the built environment can be
weakly associated with each other and their impacts on physical activ­
ities differ (Orstad et al., 2017; Jack and Mccormack, 2014; Nyunt et al.,
2015). While many studies have incorporated both types of measures,
only a few of them have explored how perceptions of the built envi­
ronment affect the relationship between the objectively-assessed built
environment and walking/cycling (e.g. Ma and Cao, 2019, Jack and
Mccormack, 2014), and fewer studies have extended to look at other
non-active travel modes (e.g. Ma and Cao, 2019; Cao et al., 2009; Lee,
2013).
This paper aims to address these knowledge gaps and contribute to
the empirical literature by exploring older adults’ interactions with the
built environment in accomplishing their daily travel demands and ac­
tivities, using Singapore as a case study. Specifically, we employ both
the self-reported survey data as well as GIS data on transportation and
land use to examine how different built environment features influence

* Corresponding author. Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design, 8 Somapah Road, Buiding 3, Level 2, 487372,
Singapore.
E-mail addresses: yuting_hou@sutd.edu.sg, houyuting86@gmail.com (Y. Hou), winston_yap@sutd.edu.sg (W. Yap), chua92rochelle@gmail.com (R. Chua),
siqigracesong@gmail.com (S. Song), belinda_yuen@sutd.edu.sg (B. Yuen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.06.017
Received 15 August 2019; Received in revised form 26 March 2020; Accepted 27 June 2020
Available online 29 July 2020
0967-070X/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Hou et al.
older adults’ daily trip frequency by different transportation modes (e.g.
walking, public transit, private vehicle), and how the effects of the
objective and perceived built environment measures agree and enhance
with each other. Currently, we do not have much knowledge on the
travel impacts of subjective built environment beyond active modes,
especially for older people, nor do we know much about the combined
effects of the two measures of built environment on individual travel.
This study is the first to address these issues in the Singapore context.
Singapore as a city-state provides a good example of integrated land
use and transport planning with much emphasis on public transport
network as the backbone for promoting active mobility since the 1970s
(Centre for Liveable Cities and Urban Land Institute, 2014). By focusing
on the older population in Singapore, this study aims to provide insights
on the types of pedestrian-friendly urban fabrics that encourage walking
and the use of public transport—the two more often used modes of
transport with ageing (Shrestha et al., 2017; Webber et al., 2010;
Wretstrand et al., 2009). A secondary aim is to suggest urban planning
and design interventions that may promote healthy travel and active
living for older adults. These implications would be useful for Singapore
as well as other cities that are facing ever-increasing land use constraints
and a rapidly ageing population.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 conducts a brief review
of the empirical studies involving the relationship between the built
environment and older adults’ travel behaviour. Section 3 introduces
the research design and methods, while section 4 presents the main
findings from the regression analysis. Section 5 concludes with a dis­
cussion of the main findings and their implications for urban planning
and design.
2. Literature review
This section reviews recent empirical studies on the relationship
between older adults’ travel behaviour and the built environment,
which is defined as composing of both objective and perceived measures
(Davison and Lawson, 2006). We review studies in both transportation
and health literature that looks into transportation-related physical ac­
tivities and summarize the impacts of objective and subjective measures
of the built environment separately. We also discuss related empirical
studies that look into the structural relationship between objective and
perceived measures of the built environment to identify the potential
interactive effects of the two measures on the use of different transport
options in older age.
2.1. Travel impacts of objective measures of the built environment
The theoretical framework of land use-travel correlation widely used
in transportation research is derived from the random utility foundation
(Boarnet and Crane, 2001; Boarnet and Sarmiento, 1998; Cervero and
Kockelman, 1997). Individual travel demands for a given travel mode
are determined by time and costs of travel and their socio-demographic
characteristics, while land use and built environment features (e.g.
density, diversity, and design) can be factored into the travel demand
model by altering the time and costs of travel.
A wide range of studies present the associations between the objec­
tively determined built environment and transportation for older adults.
At the planning scale, residents in areas with higher population density
are less car-dependant (Mercado and Páez, 2009; Moniruzzaman et al.,
2015; Figueroa et al., 2014) and more likely to engage in active travel
(Moniruzzaman et al., 2013; Frank et al., 2010; Van Holle et al., 2014;
Choo et al., 2016). Similar results are observed when the density of
household units was measured (Böcker et al., 2017; Moniruzzaman
et al., 2015). These findings reflect the consensus that areas with high
population density generally have greater access to services, which
reduce the need for car travel.
In addition, many studies show that urban areas with greater land
use mix are associated with higher levels of transport-related walking (Li
315
Transport Policy 99 (2020) 314–328
et al., 2008; Frank et al., 2010; Cain et al., 2014; Etman et al., 2014, Van
Holle et al., 2014, Procter-Gray et al., 2015). Proximity to neighbour­
hood amenities such as social facilities (Etman et al., 2014; Cerin et al.,
2013a, Procter-Gray et al., 2015), transportation facilities (Figueroa
et al., 2014), retail facilities (King et al., 2003) and recreational facilities
(Choo et al., 2016; Moniruzzaman et al., 2015) are associated with
higher transport related walking among older people. A good urban mix
of amenities encourages trip chaining where older adults visit multiple
destinations in one trip, extending the amount of time spent walking per
trip.
In terms of the design dimension, street characteristics including
connectivity, aesthetics, safety and building diversity are found to in­
fluence transportation for older adults. Frank et al. (2010) and Van Holle
et al (2014) found that denser streets lead to more walking and shorter
car trip lengths. Also, traffic intersection control and pleasant aesthetics
are found to have a positive association with transport related walking
for older adults (Cain et al., 2014). Böcker et al. (2017) found that
building diversity along streets positively affect the probability of
transport related walking for older adults.
2.2. Travel impacts of perceived measures of the built environment
In addition to objective measures of the built environment, many
studies from physical activity literature have incorporated perceived
built environment measures when investigating the travel impacts of
living environment. As suggested by the ecological model created by
Sallis et al. (2006), individuals’ perceptions of environments are
distinguished from more objective aspects of environments and both are
likely to be significant influences.
Findings from various literature show that perceived built environ­
ment measures are commonly associated with transport related walking
and cycling, but not with driving (Ding et al., 2014; Owen et al., 2004;
Saelens and Handy, 2008). This makes intuitive sense as pedestrians
experience the urban environment on a perceptual scale whereas drivers
do not and hence may be less perceptive of the built environment. Ding
et al. (2014) found that older adults with driving capacities tend to be
more aware of park locations compared to non-drivers; however, no
indication of association with total physical activity was found.
Previous studies examined associations between perceived built
environment measures and transport related walking for older adults
(Koh et al., 2015; Pelclová et al., 2012; Cerin et al., 2013b). At the
planning scale, higher perceived residential density is found to be
positively associated with transport related walking (Shigematsu et al.,
2009; Pelclová et al., 2012). Similarly, residents who perceive their
residential neighbourhoods to be more urbanized engage in more
transport related walking than rural residents (Van Cauwenberg et al.,
2012). Perceived proximity to amenities is also found to be associated
with transport related walking for older adults. Cerin et al. (2013a,b)
and Corseuil et al. (2017) found that perceived proximity to social and
recreational facilities lead to higher probabilities of trip-making for
older people. Furthermore, perceived proximity to retail amenities is
associated with higher levels of transport related walking for older
adults (Inoue et al., 2011; Chudyk et al., 2015).
At the design scale, perceived street connectivity, aesthetics and
availability of pedestrian infrastructure are found to be positively
associated with transport related walking (Inoue et al., 2011; Corseuil
Giehl et al., 2017; Shigematsu et al., 2009; Cerin et al., 2013b). Streets
that are well-maintained and connected to a wider range of destinations
can help to encourage older people to walk more. On the other hand, the
relationship between perceived safety and transport related walking is
more complex. Cerin et al. (2013b) found perceived crime to be posi­
tively related to transport related walking. This is possibly due to the
need to take detours around unsafe areas. Other studies found perceived
safety to be negatively associated with physical activity (Van Cauwen­
berg et al., 2012; Corseuil Giehl et al., 2017). Depending on the urban
structure, the effects of safety on walking is ambiguous.
Y. Hou et al.
2.3. Relationship between objective and perceived measures
Many prior studies have examined both objective and perceived as­
pects of built environment effects on individual transport in the same
model (Ding et al., 2014; Van Dyck et al., 2012; Jack and Mccormack,
2014; Cerin et al., 2013a). The findings indicate that the two measures
do not correspond well with each other and their effects on active travel
and physical activity should be considered as independent of each other
instead of approximating each other (Nyunt et al., 2015; Orstad et al.,
2017). However, only a few studies posit a relationship between
objective and perceived measures of the built environment when
examining their travel impacts (Handy et al., 2006, Foster and
Giles-Corti, 2008). Some studies suggest that perceptions of the built
environment mediate the association between objectively-determined
built environment and individual transport-related activities (Jack and
Mccormack, 2014). For example, Ma and Cao, 2019 applied a structural
equation modelling approach to examine the structural relationship
between the two measures on individual travel and found that access to
specific destinations, including religious/civic buildings and shops,
significantly affects the propensity to walk or bike to those destinations
through their influences on people’s perceived access to those destina­
tions. Van Dyck et al. (2013) focused on women living in
socio-economically disadvantaged neighbourhoods and found that their
perceived physical activity environment significantly mediate the effects
of objectively-assessed destination access/street connectivity in the
neighbourhood on transport walking.
Other studies suggest that the two built environment measures
moderate each other’s effects on individual travel (Jack and Mccormack,
2014; Ding et al., 2012; Bracy et al., 2014), which is also supported by
the ecological model (Sallis et al., 2006). The revealed interactive effects
on walking produce mixed evidence. For example, Jack and McCormack
(2014) found that higher walkability of the neighbourhood environ­
ment, measured in objective terms, is associated with higher propensity
and longer transport walking duration. Meanwhile, the effects of
perceived environment features such as mix of utilitarian land use and
pedestrian infrastructure on transport walking are enhanced by higher
objectively-assessed walkability. Bracy et al. (2014), however, found no
significant interactive effects of objective walkability and perceived
traffic and pedestrian safety on total walking time for transportation
purposes per week, though their direct independent associations with
transport walking are significant. Koohsari et al. (2015), on the other
hand, examined how the mismatch between objective and subjective
measures of street connectivity and land use mix impacts individual
walking propensity. Their results indicate that higher perceptions of the
environment features compensate the negative impacts of the actual low
neighbourhood walkability on transport walking, while lower percep­
tions of walkability would reverse the impacts of high walkable features
on transport walking (Koohsari et al., 2015).
Evidence on the combined effects of the two measures on travel by
other modes is very limited. For example, Lee (2013) looked at both the
independent effects of perceived neighbourhood environment and their
interactive effects with the actual neighbourhood walkability on public
transport usage. Her results indicate that in mixed-land-use environ­
ment, the propensity of using public transport would be negatively
affected by unfavourable perceptions of personal safety on crime and
violence. Meanwhile negative perceptions of pedestrian safety in
low-density environment (e.g. unsafe crossings, fast traffic) would
further reduce transit use.
The mixed findings on walking travel and limited findings on other
modes of travel suggest that the interactions of objective built envi­
ronment features and their comparable perceived measures in relation
to individual travel need to be further explored.
3. Research approach
Based on the literature review, two basic hypotheses are developed:
316
Transport Policy 99 (2020) 314–328
1) pedestrian-friendly built environment features (e.g. density, street
connectivity, pedestrian infrastructure, access to transit and other ser­
vice destinations) are positively associated with older adults’ daily
walking and transit travel and negatively associated with car travel; 2)
the associations between walkable features and individual daily travel
are enhanced by higher levels of corresponding perceived measures of
those features. Both the objective aspect of built environment charac­
teristics and their perceived measures are included in the model and
their direct and combined effects on individual travel are explored.
3.1. Conceptual model
A disaggregate framework is developed to examine older adults’
daily trip frequency by four classes of transport modes: walking, public
bus, Mass Rapid Transit/Light Rapid Transit (MRT/LRT) trains, and
private motorized modes (including car driver, car passenger, motor­
cycle driver, motorcycle passenger). Following both the utility-based
travel demand theories and the ecological model, we consider individ­
ual travel demand for a given travel mode as a function of their socio-
demographic characteristics, neighbourhood built environment and its
perception, which also moderates the effects of actual environment
features. The conceptual model is indicated in Fig. 1.
Here we assume that the way that older adults’ perceptions towards
the built environment alter the association between the objective mea­
sures and individual travel follows a step-function. That is, when older
adults’ self-reported ratings of the built environment features reach
some level, the effects of corresponding objective measures on travel
behaviour is more pronounced than those with lower levels of perceived
built environment measures. This assumption is tested by dichotomizing
the moderating variable (i.e., perceived built environment measures) at
the point where the step in the function is likely to occur (Baron and
Kenny, 1986) (see detailed discussions in Section 3.5).
3.2. Analysis methods: A multivariate ordered probit model
Given that the travel outcome variable is ordinal and discrete in
nature, we apply an ordered probit (OP) approach (Badoe, 2007;
Boarnet and Sarmiento, 1998; Páez et al., 2007; Roorda et al., 2010). As
discussed by Train (2003), the observed number of trips (or classes of
trip frequency) made by individual i per day using travel mode m (Yim )
can be considered to be associated with some levels of utility (Uim )
through threshold cutoffs:
Uim = Zim βm + εim , Yim = j if Cutij < Uim ≤ Cutij+1 , j = 0, .., Jm (1)
where Zim represents the set of explanatory variables of individual i
associated with trip-making by mode m, βm is the corresponding vector
j j+1
of coefficients to be estimated, εim is the error term, and Cu ti and Cut i
are the lower and upper bound for j number of trip-making by mode m
(Cuti0 = − ∞, Cut Ji m +1 = +∞ for each mode type m). The probability that
individual i makes j number of trips (or trip frequency classes) per day
using mode m is (Badoe, 2007):
( )
Pr(Yim = j ) = Pr Cutj < Uim ≤ Cut( j+1
)
= Pr( Cutj < Zim βm + εim ≤ Cutj+1
= Pr( Cutj − Zim βm <) εim ≤
)
( Cutj+1 − Zim)βm
= ∅ Cutj+1 − Zim βm − ∅ Cutj − Zim βm
j = 0, …, Jm + 1
(2)
where ∅( ⋅) is the cumulative standard normal distribution function.
In the usual OP models, the εim terms are standard normally
distributed and assumed to be independent and identically distributed
across individuals for each mode type m. This assumption implies that
the frequencies of daily trip-making by different travel modes are in­
dependent of each other. In reality, however, this assumption may not
Y. Hou et al.
Fig. 1. The conceptual mode of individual travel modelling.
hold and individuals’ decisions on the level of trip-making across travel
modes are likely to be “complements” or “substitutes” to each other due
to the unobserved factors. For example, individuals who choose a more
active lifestyle may have a higher propensity in undertaking more trips
by both walking and public bus/MRT and fewer trips by cars in a day,
even after observed effects such as environmental factors are controlled.
This implies a complementary relationship between walking and transit
trip-makings and a substitution relationship between walking and car
trip-making.
To account for the possible unobserved factors/determinants of those
travel outcome variables, this study follows previous studies and extend
the standard OP model to a multivariate OP model system (Ferdous
et al., 2010; Bhat and Srinivasan, 2005; Greene and Hensher, 2009).
Using our notation in Equation (1), the εim terms in the system of m
underlying latent seemingly unrelated equations representing the or­
dered choices of trip frequency by m travel modes for individual i are
allowed to be correlated with each other. Defining εi = (εi1 , …, εim )T , εi
is multivariate normal distributed with a mean vector of zeros and a
correlation matrix R as follows (Ferdous et al., 2010):
⎡⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎤ interchange to a MRT station or a final destination. This means that
0 1 ρ12 … ρ1m ⎞
⎢⎜ 0 ⎟ ⎜ ρ21 1 … ρ2m ⎟⎥
εi ∼ N ⎢ ⎜ ⎟
⎣⎝ ⋮ ⎠, ⎝
⎥ or εi ∼ N[0, R] (3)
⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎠⎦
0 ρm1 ρm2 … 1
Positive elements in the correlation matrix reflect that the presence
of common unobserved factors that influence the propensity of indi­
vidual trip-making by two modes in the same direction, while negative
elements reflect the effects of common unobserved factors on the cor­
responding two modes to be opposite (Ferdous et al., 2010; Greene and
Hensher, 2009). If all the non-diagonal elements in R are zero, the modal
system in Equation (1) collapse to independent OP models of
trip-making by each type of travel mode.
The multivariate OP model system is estimated by the full-
information maximum likelihood approach and is implemented by
Roodman’s (2011) conditional mixed-process (CMP) estimator (in
STATA) (Roodman, 2011). To facilitate comparison of effects of built
environment features on trip-making by different modes, the same set of
explanatory variables is applied in all regression analyses.
3.3. Data and construction of variables
The main data used in this study are drawn from our resident survey
of 1002 senior citizens (aged 55+) in 3 pre-selected neighbourhoods of
Singapore as part of the ‘‘Innovative planning and design of age-friendly
neighbourhoods in Singapore’’ research project. Respondents were
selected from a Singapore Department of Statistics supplied sample of
2500 household addresses with one household representative aged 55
years or older residing in the 3 neighbourhoods. Each neighbourhood
was allocated with an equal number of selected addresses, which have a
distribution close to the actual distribution of housing unit type in that
neighbourhood. Each selected household address was sent an invitation
letter describing the purpose of the study about 1–2 weeks before the
surveyor visited the address. To mitigate possible selection bias, each
selected household was visited three visits across times and days before
317
Transport Policy 99 (2020) 314–328
they were coded as “no one at home”. The 1002 interviews were
completed in March 2018 and were evenly distributed across the 3
neighbourhoods, achieving a 40% response rate. To ensure that the re­
sults of the survey represent the population profile of the three study
neighbourhoods, the survey data were weighted based on the age,
gender and ethnic information of each neighbourhood obtained from the
2015 General Household Survey of Singapore (Singapore Department of
Statistics, 2018). Weighted data were used for all statistical tests in this
study.1
Except for the socio-demographic characteristics (e.g. age, gender,
ethnicity, dwelling unit type), the survey also collected information on
older adults’ perceptions of the neighbourhood environment and their
trip-making by different transportation modes in a typical day during
the past week of the survey period. Specifically, a single trip in our
survey is identified as any point-to-point travel in a whole journey (from
an origin to a final destination) made by an individual. For example, a
long-distance travel made by MRT usually includes multi-modal seg­
ments of trips, such as walking from home to a bus stop, taking a bus
from the original stop to a bus interchange, and walking from the
individuals’ choices of the number of trip-making by different transport
modes per day, as defined here, are naturally correlated, which further
justifies the multivariate OP modelling approach. We excluded those
infrequent travellers (who have not travelled during the past week) from
the regression analyses, as these people are less exposed to the neigh­
bourhood and more likely to have misperceptions of the built environ­
ment characteristics (Koohsari et al., 2015). This yields a total sample of
900 older adults from the 3 neighbourhoods. Table 1 shows that the
average trip-making per day for older adults in the 3 study neighbour­
hoods are around 4 trips by walking, 2 trips by public bus or MRT/LRT,
and 1 trip by private motorized modes. Compared with the 2012 na­
tional results based on the Household Interview Travel Survey (HITS)
conducted by the Land Transport Authority of Singapore, older adults of
the 3 neighbourhoods in the survey year 2018 seemed to prefer making
more trips by public bus and MRT/LRT per day and slightly lower
number of daily trips by walking and private modes.2
3.3.1. Objective measures of the built environment
Following the literature review, we constructed GIS measures of the
built environment features by focusing on the following 6 dimensions:
(a) residential density, (b) street connectivity, (c) pedestrian/cycling
infrastructure, (d) distance to public transport hubs (i.e. bus stops/in­
terchanges, MRT/LRT stations), (e) distance to retail and other service
destinations (e.g. wet markets, shops, community centres, senior activity
centres), and (f) distance to parks, open spaces, and other recreational/
exercise facilities. To examine the variations in the built environment
1
The mean value of sampling weights is 1. We also conducted statistical
analyses using the survey data without the weight but did not find the estimates
to differ significantly from those using weighted data.
2
Based on the 2012 HITS data, the average daily trip frequency for Singa­
porean residents aged 55 and over is about 4.62 trips by walking (including
walking-only trips and first and last mile walk trips), 0.73 trips by public bus,
0.33 trips per day by MRT/LRT, and 1.54 trips per day by private vehicle/taxi.
Y. Hou et al. Transport Policy 99 (2020) 314–328

Table 1
Descriptive statistics of objective and subjective measures of built environment characteristics.
Variable Description Expected Sign on N Mean Std. Min Max
walking trip frequency Dev.

Subjective measures of the built environment

Perceptions of connecting spaces/pedestrian facilities

High level + 900 0.57 0.49 0 1
Low level (reference) N/A 0.43 0.49 0 1
Perceptions of access to transit hubs
High level + 900 0.94 0.24 0 1
Low level (reference) N/A 0.06 0.24 0 1
Perceptions of access to utilitarian facilities
High level + 900 0.53 0.50 0 1
Low level (reference) N/A 0.47 0.50 0 1
Perceptions of access to recreational facilities
High level + 900 0.49 0.50 0 1
Low level (reference) N/A 0.51 0.50 0 1
Objective measures × Subjective measures of the built environment
Residential density
den400_du Density of dwelling units within a 400 m buffer zone1 of a residence + 900 9160.1 2951.3 678.4 14039.5
(number per square kilometres)
___ × High perceptions of pedestrian connection + 517 9307.9 2926.1 678.4 14039.5
___ × Low perceptions of pedestrian connection (reference) N/A 383 8960.6 2977.2 2120.7 14039.5
___ × Perceived transit access + 844 9294.5 2856.5 678.4 14039.5
___ × No perceived transit access (reference) N/A 56 7134.7 3585.8 2120.7 14039.5
___ × High perceptions of access to utilitarian facilities + 477 8873.7 3158.4 1132.0 14039.5
___ × Low perceptions of access to utilitarian facilities (reference) N/A 423 9414.0 2733.1 678.4 14039.5
___ × High perceptions of access to recreation facilities + 438 9289.8 3030.8 678.4 14039.5
___ × Low perceptions of access to recreation facilities (reference) N/A 462 9023.3 2862.2 1022.6 14039.5
Street connectivity
cnt400_3wayJun Number of road intersections that are at least 3-way within a 400 m + 900 8.18 4.63 2 38
buffer zone of a residence
___ × High perceptions of pedestrian connection + 517 8.14 4.60 3 38
___ × Low perceptions of pedestrian connection (reference) 383 8.24 4.67 2 37
Pedestrian infrastructure
cnt400_rdcwpedlght Number of road crossing with pedestrian/cyclists traffic signals within a + 900 11.19 5.29 1 23
400 m buffer zone of a residence
___ × High perceptions of pedestrian connection + 517 11.68 5.27 1 23
___ × Low perceptions of pedestrian connection (reference) N/A 383 10.52 5.25 1 23
cnt400_rdcnolght Number of road crossing without pedestrian/cyclists traffic signals + 900 1.93 1.58 0 5
within a 400 m buffer zone of a residence
___ × High perceptions of pedestrian connection + 517 2.07 1.56 0 5
___ × Low perceptions of pedestrian connection (reference) N/A 383 1.74 1.60 0 5
cnt400_pedpass Number of pedestrian overhead bridge & underpass within a 400 m – 900 0.84 1.03 0 4
buffer zone of a residence
___ × High perceptions of pedestrian connection + 517 0.77 0.98 0 4
___ × Low perceptions of pedestrian connection (reference) N/A 383 0.94 1.08 0 4
len400_covftpth Length of covered walkway within a 400 m buffer zone of a residence + 900 194.26 160.45 0 710.64
(m)
___ × High perceptions of pedestrian connection + 517 200.09 160.23 0 710.64
___ × Low perceptions of pedestrian connection (reference) N/A 383 186.38 160.62 0 710.64
len400_uncovftpth Length of unsheltered footpath within a 400 m buffer zone of a – 900 5189.22 837.96 2664.02 9363.21
residence (m)
___ × High perceptions of pedestrian connection + 517 5227.25 829.3 2664.02 9363.21
___ × Low perceptions of pedestrian connection (reference) N/A 383 5137.88 847.9 2664.02 8424.17
nrdist_cycnw Distance to nearest cycling path or park connector path (from each – 900 481.26 490.39 14.24 1602.53
respondent’s residential address)
___ × High perceptions of pedestrian connection – 517 501.11 495.39 17.96 1602.53
___ × Low perceptions of pedestrian connection (reference) N/A 383 454.48 482.92 14.24 1602.53
Distance to public transit (from each respondent’s residential address, unit: meter)
nrdist_busstp Distance to nearest bus stop – 900 123.02 54.79 26.84 320.69
___ × Perceived transit access – 844 122.58 54.96 26.84 320.69
___ × No perceived transit access (reference) 56 129.61 52.15 33.62 223.37
nrdist_mrtstn Distance to nearest transit station – 900 361.55 204.68 31.38 1040.02
___ × Perceived transit access – 844 361.36 204.58 31.38 1040.02
___ × No perceived transit access (reference) N/A 56 364.30 207.99 31.38 890.13
Distance to utilitarian destinations (from each respondent’s residential address, unit: meter)
nrdist_wetmkt Distance to nearest wet market – 900 1183.01 626.36 51.3123 2138.36
___ × High perceptions of access to utilitarian facilities – 477 1247.69 559.19 51.31 2083.06
___ × Low perceptions of access to utilitarian facilities (reference) N/A 423 1110.07 687.76 51.31 2138.36
nrdist_comm Distance to nearest community service facilities (e.g. Community – 900 147.49 115.08 0 621.09
centres/clubs, Senior Activity Centres/Daycare Centre Facilities)
___ × High perceptions of access to utilitarian facilities – 477 131.45 92.69 0 621.09
___ × Low perceptions of access to utilitarian facilities (reference) N/A 423 165.57 133.81 0 621.09
nrdist_hlcare Distance to nearest health care facilities (e.g. clinic/polyclinic, – 900 170.52 97.96 0 468.73
registered pharmacy)
___ × High perceptions of access to utilitarian facilities – 477 172.38 94.69 0 468.73
(continued on next page)

318
Y. Hou et al. Transport Policy 99 (2020) 314–328

Table 1 (continued )
Variable Description Expected Sign on N Mean Std. Min Max
walking trip frequency Dev.

Subjective measures of the built environment

___ × Low perceptions of access to utilitarian facilities (reference) N/A 423 168.42 101.59 0 466.27
nrdist_otherretail Distance to nearest (non-food) retail establishment – 900 322.56 373.65 0 1266.58
___ × High perceptions of access to utilitarian facilities – 477 265.04 358.22 0 1266.58
___ × Low perceptions of access to utilitarian facilities (reference) N/A 423 387.42 380.44 0 1266.58
nrdist_food Distance to nearest food/beverage service facility (e.g. hawker centres – 900 136.14 69.70 0 411.89
and food shops)
___ × High perceptions of access to utilitarian facilities – 477 139.83 69.99 0 411.89
___ × Low perceptions of access to utilitarian facilities (reference) N/A 423 131.99 69.22 0 371.00
nrdist_plwrshp Distance to nearest place of worship (e.g. Chinese temples, mosques, – 900 349.31 126.70 19.23 581.89
Indian temples)
___ × High perceptions of access to utilitarian facilities – 477 348.63 119.39 19.23 581.89
___ × Low perceptions of access to utilitarian facilities (reference) N/A 423 350.08 134.62 49.31 581.89
Distance to recreational destinations (from each respondent’s residential address, unit: meter)
nrdist_sptfac Distance to nearest sports facilities (e.g. gyms, swimming pools, sports – 900 498.29 278.30 89.64 1331.94
fields)
___ × High perceptions of access to recreation facilities – 438 459.30 262.72 89.64 1331.94
___ × Low perceptions of access to recreation facilities (reference) N/A 462 535.25 287.74 89.64 1331.94
nrdist_open Distance to nearest open space and playground – 900 324.70 154.12 42.69 728.27
___ × High perceptions of access to recreation facilities – 438 278.53 152.59 42.69 728.27
___ × Low perceptions of access to recreation facilities (reference) N/A 462 368.48 142.49 43.82 701.81
nrdist_parks Distance to nearest park (national park or neighbourhood park) – 900 288.27 136.16 42.33 690.00
___ × High perceptions of access to recreation facilities – 438 282.96 137.38 42.33 637.27
___ × Low perceptions of access to recreation facilities (reference) N/A 462 293.30 134.95 59.43 690.00

measures within a neighbourhood as well as across the 3 neighbour­
hoods, all measures are applied to an immediate zone surrounding each
respondent’s 6-digit postal code address.
The main data sources for developing the GIS measures are gathered
from Onemap.sg, which provides point-based GIS layers for various
service facilities; DataMall which provides geographic and attribute in­
formation on transportation infrastructure and facilities such as foot­
path, cycling path, road crossing, and traffic lights and land use data like
housing, retail, and social health facilities. Apart from the 3 data sour­
ces, we also employ other public data sources such as Google map to
collect information on the distribution of wet markets in Singapore.
3.3.2. Perceived measures of the built environment
The perceived measures of the neighbourhood environment are
derived using items in an abbreviated version of Neighbourhood Envi­
ronment Walkability Scale (NEWS-A) (Cerin et al., 2006), which was
modified in order to capture particular features of the built environment
in Singapore. Our survey collected information on respondents’ per­
ceptions of the following dimensions/subscales of built environment
characteristics: 1) land-use mix; 2) street connectivity; (3) pedes­
trian/cycling infrastructure (Hanibuchi et al., 2011); (4) aesthetics of
neighbourhood surroundings; (5) neighbourhood safety; and (6) ame­
nities of the neighbourhood. The first dimension was assessed by 16
survey questions that rate respondents’ perceptions on the presence of
various destinations (e.g. public transport hubs, shops, parks) within
10–15 min walk from home in a binary way (Yes = 1, No = 0).3 The
other 5 subscales were assessed by 23 questions capturing respondents’
ratings of pedestrian infrastructure and connecting spaces between
neighbourhood destinations based on a 5-point Likert scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Following Cerin et al. (2006), a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the items for the
latter 5 dimensions of the NEWS and the results show that the mea­
surement model with the 5 defined factors yields a good fit to the data
(Cerin et al., 2006) (see Table 1a in the appendix).
The perceived land use mix measures were not incorporated into the
3
We did not collect respondents’ perceptions on density because Singapore is
characterized by high-density development that is well recognized by its local
residents and its perceived measure would yield little variations.
CFA because of their variable formats. Instead, three indices are created:
(1) presence of public transport hubs (bus stops, interchanges and MRT/
LRT stations); (2) utilitarian land use mix that includes the self-reported
count of destinations (i.e., supermarket, shop, shopping centre, bank,
post office, senior activity/daycare centre, wet/dry markets, hawker
centre/food court, community club/centre, place of worship, clinics and
pharmacy); (3) recreational land use mix that includes the self-reported
count of destinations (open public space, parks, indoor sports facilities
such as gyms, swimming complex and recreation club).
As discussed in the conceptual model, interactions terms between
objective measures of built environment features and conceptually
matched subjective measures of the features need to be generated. To
create greater variability of self-ratings of the built environment, orig­
inal variables generated from NEWS scores were further converted into
categorical variables. Considering that the non-land-use subscales of
NEWS measures (the 5 dimensions derived from CFA) are related with
the comfort, convenience and safety of spaces connecting between
destinations, these measures were further classified through a two-step
K-means cluster analysis (Makles, 2012).4 The result detects a
two-class optimal solution to the participants’ overall ratings of the
neighbourhoods’ connecting spaces (i.e. high vs low), which implies
that the effects of non-land-use subscales of NEWS measures are repre­
sented by a categorical variable with dichotomous values. This cate­
gorical perception variable is interacted with all the objective measures
of pedestrian infrastructure and connections (street, footpath, park
connectors, crossings, etc.). In line with the results for the non-land-use
measures, perceived measures of both utilitarian and recreational land
use mix indices are also dichotomized using median splits. The dichot­
omized land use indices and transit access perception variables are
interacted with the related objective measures of land use and transit
access, respectively.5 Moreover, the objective measure of residential
density is interacted with all the dichotomized perception variables
4
Our preliminary analysis also used all the five non-land-use measures of
NEW items to generate interaction terms with each objective measure of street/
pedestrian infrastructure and included these interactive variables in the
regression analysis. However, the results were unstable and difficult to interpret
because of the high correlations among the interaction terms.
5
The descriptive statistics of original subjective built environment variables
by the dichotomous categories are shown in Table 2a in the appendix.

319
Y. Hou et al. Transport Policy 99 (2020) 314–328

since high-density places are usually more likely to have good transit Table 2
service and various destinations nearby with well-connected streets and Descriptive statistics of socio-demographic characteristics and travel outcome
pedestrian infrastructure (Sallis et al., 2012). measures (n = 900).
Table 1 shows the definition and descriptive statistics of subjective Variables Mean Std. Min Max
and objective variables and their interaction terms. Dev.

Dependent variables (trip frequency)

3.3.3. Socio-demographic characteristics of individuals Number of walking trips per day 3.59 2.44 0 14
Individual and households’ socio-demographic characteristics are Number of public bus trips per day 1.70 1.78 0 14
Number of MRT/LRT trips per day 1.56 1.89 0 14
controlled as background variables in this study. These data are also
Number of trips per day by private motorized 0.99 1.95 0 20
extracted from our resident survey. The socio-demographic variables are modes (car/motorcycle)
found to be weakly correlated with the perceived built environment Socio-demographic characteristics
variables defined above (the polychoric correlation coefficients ranging Age
between − 0.28 and 0.29).6 This implies that individual perceptions of 55-64 (reference) 0.43 0.50 0 1
65–74 0.32 0.47 0 1
the neighbourhood environment may play a relatively independent role 75–84 0.21 0.41 0 1
from individual/household characteristics in influencing travel 85+ 0.03 0.18 0 1
behaviour. Gender
The descriptive statistics for the chosen individual characteristics Male (reference) 0.4 0.49 0 1
Female 0.6 0.49 0 1
and travel outcome variables are illustrated in Table 2.
Ethnicity
Chinese 0.83 0.38 0 1
4. Results Malay 0.10 0.30 0 1
Indian 0.06 0.23 0 1
Table 3 reports the regression results on the number of trips per day Other (reference) 0.02 0.12 0 1
Education
by different modes of transport. The likelihood ratio (LR) statistics is No qualification 0.15 0.35 0 1
significant at p < 0.001 level, indicating that our model as a whole is Primary 0.33 0.47 0 1
statistically significant, as compared to the null model with no pre­ Lower secondary 0.28 0.45 0 1
dictors. We also find that for the same individuals, the cross-equation Post-secondary (non-tertiary) 0.12 0.32 0 1
Polytechnic 0.03 0.16 0 1
error correlations are all significant (at p < 0.05 level). The positive
Professional Qualification and other Diploma 0.02 0.14 0 1
correlations between walk, bus, and train trip-making suggest that the University 0.05 0.22 0 1
three modes are complements to each other, with the complementary Others (reference) 0.03 0.17 0 1
effects being the strongest between bus and train trips (ρ = 0.405). Work status
Meanwhile, the relationships between the above three modes and car/ Working full-time 0.25 0.43 0 1
Working part-time 0.15 0.35 0 1
motorcycle travel are likely to be substitutes and the most negative Working without pay in a family or other 0.002 0.05 0 1
correlation coefficient is found between bus and private motorized trip- organizations
making (ρ = − 0.345). The threshold parameters are found to be Not working (but able to work) 0.03 0.17 0 1
significantly different from each other in each equation, suggesting that Not working & not able to work (reference) 0.02 0.14 0 1
Retired 0.31 0.46 0 1
the number of daily trips is appropriately categorized to represent
Homemaker 0.24 0.43 0 1
different levels of utility (not reported in the table). Occupation
Because the signs of the estimated coefficients do not directly Professional, Manager, Executive, 0.09 0.28 0 1
represent the direction of effects of the corresponding explanatory var­ Other white collar workers 0.11 0.31 0 1
iables on the intermediate outcomes (Wooldridge, 2002), we also esti­ Sales or service workers 0.08 0.27 0 1
Blue collar worker 0.27 0.44 0 1
mate the (average) marginal probability effects on daily trip frequency
Others/Not know (reference) 0.45 0.50 0 1
at different levels of travel outcomes. The estimated marginal effects on Household income
the probability of travel outcome at levels higher than the average Below $2000 per month 0.43 0.50 0 1
values are found to have the same signs as the ordered probit co­ $2000 to $3999 per month 0.19 0.39 0 1
$4000 to $5999 per month 0.11 0.31 0 1
efficients, while those effects on trip-making below the average levels
$6000 to $9999 per month 0.06 0.24 0 1
usually have the opposite signs. Thus, to ease explanation, the following $10,000 and above 0.04 0.19 0 1
discussions mainly focus on the marginal effects on travel outcomes Declined/Don’t known (reference) 0.17 0.37 0 1
close to the average levels, which are 3–4 trips per day by walking, 2 Type of dwelling
trips per day by bus or MRT/LRT, and 1 trip per day by private motor­ HDB 1-Room 0.02 0.15 0 1
HDB 2-Room 0.06 0.24 0 1
ized modes. We set the significance level at α = 0.05 and focus on those
HDB 3-Room 0.49 0.50 0 1
significant variables. HDB 4-Room 0.25 0.44 0 1
HDB 5-Room or Executive Flat 0.08 0.27 0 1
4.1. Individual characteristics Condominium or Private Flat 0.06 0.24 0 1
Landed Property 0.02 0.14 0 1
Other (reference) 0.01 0.11 0 1
Results for age groups suggest that the oldest-old residents (85 years Dwelling owned/rented
and above) are the least active age group in terms of daily walking and Owned 0.95 0.22 0 1
train trip-making, followed by the mid-old group (75–84 years old). Not owned (reference) 0.05 0.22 0 1
Time living in the neighbourhood
Compared to the emerging-old (55–64) group, the oldest-old (85+) and
Less than 5 years (reference) 0.07 0.25 0 1
the mid-old (75–84) groups are significantly less likely to undertake an 5–19 years 0.29 0.46 0 1
above average level of walking trips per day (Y = 4) by 7.6% and 3.7%, 20–29 years 0.20 0.40 0 1
respectively, all else being equal. As such, it could be inferred that older 30–39 years 0.26 0.44 0 1
people’s ability to take frequent walks may be inhibited significantly 40 or more years 0.19 0.39 0 1
Household size 2.89 1.50 1 9
Household structure
Lives alone 0.17 0.38 0 1
6
See Uebersax (2015) on the calculation of polychoric correlation (continued on next page)
coefficients.

320
Y. Hou et al.
Table 2 (continued )
Variables Mean Std. Min Max
Dev.
Lives with spouse 0.55 0.50 0 1
Living with children but without spouse 0.17 0.38 0 1
Other 0.10 0.30 0 1
Needs aids or equipment when move outside
Yes (reference) 0.09 0.28 0 1
No 0.91 0.28 0 1
after the age of 75, possibly due to the worsening of their physical health
conditions. There is also a steady decrease in the daily train trip fre­
quency as older adults’ age increases: for the 65–74, 75–84, and 85+
groups, their respective probability of making 2 trips by train per day are
4.3%, 9.2% and 15.5% lower than that for the 55–64 group (at p <
0.001). However, no significant differences in bus or car/motorcycle
daily trip frequency have been found among various age groups.
Significant gender differences in daily bus and private motorized
trip-making are observed. On average, older females have 9.3% lower
chances of making at least 1 trip by car/motorcycle per day than older
males, all else equal, while their chances of making at least 2 bus trips
per day are 9.1% higher. No significant differences are observed in the
daily trip-making by various modes of transportation among older
adults of different educational qualifications.
Different ethnic groups are not found to differ in their daily trip-
making by walking, bus, or private motorized vehicles. In terms of
train travel, the Malays are significantly more likely to make no trip per
day by MRT/LRT than their cohorts of other ethnic groups by 21.4%, all
else equal.
Employment status is found to impose significant impact on walking
and car/motorcycle daily travel. Compared with those who are not able
to work, the average chances for those who have working abilities but
are not working, those retired, and homemakers to make 3 or more
walking trips per day are significantly higher by 21.6%, 25.9%, and
21.8%, respectively. Older adults who are working full time, on the
other hand, are more likely to make at least 1 trip per day by private
motorized modes by 18.3% than those of other employment status
groups.
Differences in daily travel demands are also observed across older
people of different occupations. Those who are professionals, managers,
executives, or businessmen (PMEBs) exhibit lower preferences for bus
travel that their probability of making 2 or more bus trips per day is
lower by 12.9%, compared with other occupation groups (at p < 0.05).
This could potentially be explained by the tight work schedules of those
PMEB jobs that do not allow for frequent motorized travel with slower
speeds.
Compared with those who rely on walking aids when travelling
outside home, older respondents who do not need walking aids exhibit
significantly higher likelihood of undertaking more frequent daily trips
by walking (Y ≥ 4), bus and train (Y ≥ 2), with the estimated marginal
effects for the three modes being 18.6%, 20.9%, and 19.7%, respec­
tively. The differences in travel by car/motorcycle between the two
groups of older people are not significant.
4.2. Household characteristics
Older adults with the lowest household income level (below $2000
per month) seem not to be able to afford frequent car/motorcycle trips,
which are likely to be more expensive than other modes. On average,
their probability of making a trip by car/motorcycle per day is 8% lower
than other groups. In contrast, these older adults are more likely to
321
Transport Policy 99 (2020) 314–328
favour bus travel that their probability of making 2 and more trips is on
average 8.9% higher than other groups.
Among older residents of all types of dwelling units, those living in 1-
room HDB flats7 are least likely to be train travellers that their pro­
pensity of making any train trips per day is on average lower than other
residents by 33.7%. Those living in 2-room and 3-room HDB flats are on
average less likely to make any trips by car/motorcycle per day than
other groups by 34.9% and 26.5%, respectively. Those living residing
within the landed property, by contrast, are found to be infrequent bus
travellers that their chances of making no bus trip per day are higher
than HDB or other flat dwellers.
The number of years residing in the current dwelling units is
observed to be negatively associated with train trip-making frequency.
Compared with those living within 5 years of their residence, those with
longer living years have significantly lower propensity of making 2 or
more train trips per day, with the estimated marginal probability
ranging between 11% and 15%. It is possible that those who have lived
in their neighbourhood for longer years are more familiar with the
neighbourhood surroundings and less often utilize services and facilities
outside their neighbourhoods for daily purposes by MRT/LRT, which are
usually for long-distance travel. Moreover, those living 30 years or more
in their current residence are found with significantly lower propensity
of making frequent bus trips than their cohorts living less than 30 years
of their current residence.
Household size is negatively associated with the probability of
making more bus trips per day (Y ≥ 2), with an estimated average
marginal effect of 3.5%. However, its effects on no daily trip-making by
other travel modes are not observed.
4.3. Perceptions of built environment
As discussed in Section 3, four aspects of individual perceptions of
the residential environment are summarized: convenience and safety of
pedestrian connections, availability of public transport hubs, access to
utilitarian facilities (e.g. shops, community centres) and recreational
facilities (gyms, parks and open spaces). The estimated results indicate
that the four aspects of perceived built environment measures exert
independent effects on daily trip-making that vary across travel modes.
Older adults who perceived their neighbourhoods’ pedestrian con­
nections to be highly walkable and safe are on average more likely than
those with lower perceptions of their neighbourhood connecting spaces
to undertake bus and train trips at an above-average level (Y ≥ 2) by
2.8% and 2.5%, respectively. Those who perceive the availability of
transit services within walking distance are 13% more likely to make at
least 2 trips per day by train than those who do not perceive the avail­
ability of nearby transit services. Higher perceptions of access to utili­
tarian facilities seem to render frequent daily train trips less important,
which suggests that older people’s reliance on long-distance travel by
train for reaching daily services and facilities outside their neighbour­
hoods would be reduced if they perceive nearby these facilities as
accessible. Moreover, higher perceived access to recreational facilities
plays an important role in increasing older adults’ propensity of making
more frequent walking trips per day.
4.4. Objective measures of the built environment and their interactions
with corresponding perceived measures
The effects of built environment characteristics are examined
through five dimensions: residential density, street connectivity and
design, walking infrastructure, and access to retail and service facilities.
Except for their independent travel impacts, interactive effects between
7
These are public housing units built by the Housing and Development Board
(HDB) and popularly referred to as ‘HDB flats’. They comprise different flat
types, size and rooms.
Y. Hou et al. Transport Policy 99 (2020) 314–328

Table 3
Results on daily trip frequency.
Walk trips Bus trips MRT/LRT trips Private motorized trips

Socio-demographic characteristics of individuals

Age bands (reference: 55–64)
65–74 0.009 0.116 ¡0.262** − 0.0404
(0.09) (1.18) (-2.59) (-0.37)
75–84 ¡0.413** − 0.103 ¡0.494*** 0.0814
(-3.24) (-0.79) (-3.66) (0.55)
85+ ¡0.763** − 0.431 ¡0.756** 0.115
(-3.21) (-1.71) (-2.76) (0.41)
Gender (reference: Male)
Female − 0.0818 0.261** 0.147 ¡0.286**
(-0.92) (2.86) (1.56) (-2.80)
Ethnicity (reference: others)
Chinese − 0.287 − 0.377 − 0.352 0.390
(-0.94) (-1.22) (-1.07) (1.09)
Malay − 0.465 − 0.309 ¡0.688* 0.567
(-1.44) (-0.94) (-1.97) (1.51)
Indian − 0.175 − 0.255 − 0.461 0.620
(-0.52) (-0.74) (-1.26) (1.58)
Work Status (reference: not working because of disability)
Working full-time 0.557 − 0.0525 0.0116 0.596*
(1.81) (-0.17) (0.04) (2.01)
Working part-time 0.520 0.0974 0.0465 0.386
(1.66) (0.30) (0.14) (1.01)
Working without pay in a family business − 0.260 − 0.878 − 1.191 1.378
(-0.31) (-0.91) (-1.31) (1.67)
Not working (but able to work) 0.798* − 0.266 − 0.208 0.400
(2.05) (-0.74) (-0.57) (0.95)
Retired 0.792** 0.0833 0.107 0.376
(2.70) (0.28) (0.35) (1.05)
Homemaker 0.673* − 0.181 − 0.378 0.362
(2.31) (-0.60) (-1.24) (1.02)
Occupation (reference: others)
Professional, Manager, Executive, Businessman 0.0611 ¡0.366* − 0.280 − 0.0277
(0.35) (-2.03) (-1.53) (-0.14)
Other white collar workers 0.0369 − 0.055 − 0.067 0.182
(0.23) (-0.34) (-0.41) (1.02)
Sales or service workers 0.303 0.0607 − 0.198 0.142
(1.72) (0.34) (-1.06) (0.72)
Blue collar worker 0.0124 − 0.132 − 0.259 − 0.244
(0.09) (-0.95) (-1.80) (-1.54)
Walking aid (reference: walking aid required)
No_aids needed 0.585*** 0.583*** 0.579*** − 0.252
(3.97) (3.75) (3.47) (-1.50)
Household characteristics
Income per month (reference: unknown/decline to supply)
Below $2000 − 0.120 0.252* 0.104 − 0.247*
(-0.97) (1.97) (0.80) (-2.05)
$2000 to $3999 − 0.174 0.196 − 0.0634 0.0591
(-1.24) (1.35) (-0.43) (0.37)
$4000 to $5999 − 0.020 0.150 0.101 0.0333
(-0.13) (0.93) (0.61) (0.19)
$6000 to $9999 − 0.276 0.271 0.0703 − 0.0571
(-1.45) (1.38) (0.35) (-0.27)
$10,000 and above abovemonth − 0.213 0.0524 − 0.444 0.174
(-0.81) (0.19) (-1.57) (0.63)
Dwelling units type (reference: others)
HDB 1-Room 0.245 − 0.734 ¡1.072*** − 0.727
(0.52) (-1.49) (-3.43) (-1.35)
HDB 2-Room − 0.227 − 0.093 0.244 ¡1.051*
(-0.57) (-0.23) (0.58) (-2.51)
HDB 3-Room in a family business − 0.0386 − 0.202 0.231 ¡0.774*
(-0.11) (-0.54) (0.61) (-2.10)
HDB 4-Room − 0.00068 − 0.218 0.0747 − 0.590
(-0.00) (-0.59) (0.20) (-1.65)
HDB 5-Room or Executive Flat 0.176 − 0.052 0.291 − 0.551
(0.47) (-0.13) (0.74) (-1.45)
Condominium or Private Flat 0.553 − 0.291 0.786 − 0.715
(1.08) (-0.54) (1.47) (-1.33)
Landed Property − 0.731 ¡1.323* − 0.923 − 0.386
(-1.23) (-2.16) (-1.43) (-0.61)
Years living in the house
5–19 years 0.0715 − 0.332 ¡0.414* 0.0791
(0.43) (-1.95) (-2.37) (0.42)
20–29 years 0.234 − 0.308 ¡0.364* 0.0874
(continued on next page)

322
Y. Hou et al. Transport Policy 99 (2020) 314–328

Table 3 (continued )
Walk trips Bus trips MRT/LRT trips Private motorized trips

(1.33) (-1.72) (-1.99) (0.44)

30–39 years 0.106 ¡0.374* ¡0.415* − 0.0215
(0.61) (-2.14) (-2.31) (-0.11)
40 or more years 0.225 ¡0.375* ¡0.474* − 0.348
(1.24) (-2.03) (-2.51) (-1.61)
Household size − 0.0212 ¡0.0997** − 0.00983 0.036
(-0.66) (-2.97) (-0.29) (1.00)
Walking aid (reference: require walking aid)
No_aids needed 0.585*** 0.583*** 0.579*** − 0.252
(3.97) (3.75) (3.47) (-1.50)
Subjective measures of the built environment
Perceptions of connecting spaces/pedestrian facilities (reference: low level)
High leve 0.344 1.634* 1.576* − 0.807
(0.49) (2.21) (2.00) (-0.99)
Perceptions of access to transit hubs (reference: low level)
High level − 0.322 1.540 2.850** 0.458
(-0.36) (1.59) (2.70) (0.44)
Perceptions of access to utilitarian facilities (reference: low level)
High level − 0.827 − 0.713 ¡1.532* 1.228
(-1.39) (-1.18) (-2.45) (1.78)
Perceptions of access to recreational facilities (reference: low level)
High level 1.076* − 0.180 0.512 0.528
(2.14) (-0.35) (0.98) (0.96)
Objective measures × Subjective measures of the built environment
Street connectivity
cnt400_3wayJun 0.0208 0.0505* 0.0508* − 0.0199
(0.88) (2.07) (2.00) (-0.74)
___ × high perceptions of pedestrian connection 0.00541 − 0.00648 − 0.0237 0.00362
(0.21) (-0.24) (-0.84) (0.12)
Pedestrian infrastructure
cnt400_ rdcnolght ¡0.244*** 0.00421 0.0831 − 0.109
(-3.39) (0.06) (1.09) (-1.34)
___ × high perceptions of pedestrian connection 0.0397 0.0411 0.00988 − 0.0181
(0.48) (0.49) (0.11) (-0.19)
len400_covftpth 0.00149** − 0.000372 0.0000837 − 0.00111
(2.65) (-0.62) (0.14) (-1.72)
___ × high perceptions of pedestrian connection − 0.00015 − 0.000177 − 0.00013 0.000621
(-0.29) (-0.32) (-0.23) (1.02)
Distance to public transit hubs
nrdist_busstp 0.00394 0.00628 0.0143** − 0.004
(0.99) (1.44) (2.93) (-0.87)
___ × perceived availability of transit access − 0.00348 − 0.00781 ¡0.0135** 0.00354
(-0.87) (-1.78) (-2.75) (0.76)
Distance to utilitarian destinations
nrdist_wetmkt ¡0.000893** ¡0.000497* ¡0.000858** 0.000126

(-3.24) (-2.02) (-2.91) (0.38)

___ × high perceptions of access to utilitarian facilities 0.0000617 0.0000294 0.000435* − 0.000296
(0.32) (0.15) (2.13) (-1.37)
nrdist_plwrshp ¡0.00188* − 0.000238 − 0.000367 0.000551
(-2.54) (-0.31) (-0.46) (0.63)
___ × high perceptions of access to utilitarian facilities 0.000626 0.000423 0.00121 − 0.000221
(0.74) (0.49) (1.34) (-0.23)
Distance to recreational facilities
nrdist_ sptfac − 0.000513 − 0.000782 − 0.000888 0.0000515
(-1.12) (-1.66) (-1.82) (0.10)
___ × high perceptions of access to recreation facilities ¡0.00115** 0.000268 − 0.0000877 0.000544
(-3.17) (0.72) (-0.23) (1.36)
nrdist_open 0.000858 0.000862 0.000416 − 0.000387
(1.51) (1.47) (0.68) (-0.60)
___ × high perceptions of access to recreation facilities ¡0.00211*** 0.0000171 0.00027 − 0.000198

(-3.47) (0.03) (0.42) (-0.30)

nrdist_park ¡0.00194** − 0.000455 0.0000401 − 0.0000342
(-2.93) (-0.67) (0.06) (-0.05)
___ × high perceptions of access to recreation facilities − 0.00111 − 0.000501 − 0.00116 0.000183
___ * high perceptions of access to recreational facilities (-1.53) (-0.68) (-1.51) (0.23)
Correlation matrix of the residuals
Walk trips Bus trips MRT/LRT trips Private motorized trips
Walk trips 1
–
Bus trips 0.282*** 1
(7.71) –
MRT/LRT trips 0.224*** 0.405*** 1
(5.83) (11.41) –
Private motorized trips − 0.13*** − 0.345*** − 0.246*** 1
(-2.95) (-7.73) (-5.19) –

323
Y. Hou et al.
N = 900; Log-likelihood = − 4541.24; LR chi2(340) = 857.61.
T statistics in parentheses; *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001.
1
The 400-metre buffer zone is applied for most measures of transportation infrastructure because 400-metre is the current planning service radius in Singapore.
relatively matched objective and subjective measures of the built envi­
ronment are also expected on older adults’ daily trip frequency. The
estimation results again indicate differential effects of various di­
mensions of the built environment on daily trip frequency by different
modes.
Residential density and its interaction terms with the four perceived
measures of the built environment are not found to have significant
travel impacts. This might be because the residential density within the
3 study neighbourhoods is already high and do not have much variation.
A more grid-like street pattern within 400 m of residences is found to
increase older adults’ probability of making bus or train trips at an
above-average level (Y ≥ 2), but the estimated marginal effects are very
small (less than 2%). Given the positive and significant correlations
between walking and transit trips, it might be inferred that bus and train
trips are more favoured by older people when the street network nearby
their homes give them more direct route choices for walking to the
transit stations. The effects of street connectivity do not differ signifi­
cantly by individual perceptions of connecting spaces in their
neighbourhoods.
Pedestrian infrastructure examined here includes pedestrian cross­
ings with or without traffic lights for pedestrians, footpaths with or
without shelters (covers), and proximity to cycling path. Results indicate
that older adults’ propensity of making more frequent walking trips per
day are hindered by pedestrian crossings without any pedestrian traffic
lights within 400 m of their homes; every additional crossing of that kind
are associated with 1.3% increase in the probability of making zero walk
trip per day and 6.1% increase in the probability of making only 1–2
walking trips per day, all else equal. The insignificant coefficient for the
interaction term implies that negative effects of those unsafe pedestrian
crossings on walking are not moderated by individuals’ positive evalu­
ations of the pedestrian facilities in their neighbourhood.
Covered walkways are also found to play positive roles in older
adults’ daily walking travel regardless of individuals’ perceptions of
their neighbourhoods’ pedestrian connections. On average, every 100 m
increase of those walkways within a 400-m buffer of each residence is
associated with 5% increase in the propensity of making more frequent
walking trips per day (Y ≥ 4). This result implies that in Singapore where
its tropical climate may pose frequent challenges such as hot tempera­
ture and heavy rain, an extended network of footpath with covers can be
important factors in encouraging older people to walk for transport
Fig. 2. Predicted probability of making 2 trips by MRT/LRT per day vs. distance to nearest bus stops/interchanges (m).
324
Transport Policy 99 (2020) 314–328
purposes by, for example, protecting them from adverse weather
conditions.
The estimated effects of access to bus stops on travel by MRT/LRT
show unexpected signs and vary by individuals’ perceptions of transit
access. However, we find that most of the surveyed respondents are
actually living within a 200-metre buffer of each bus stop/interchange
and the difference in the actual proximity to bus stops/interchanges
from homes between those who perceive the availability of transit ser­
vice nearby and who do not perceive as such is not statistically signifi­
cant as indicated by the t-test (result not shown). Thus, the result is
explained in another way as how the gaps in rail transit usage between
the two groups of different perceived accessibility to transit are likely to
be narrowed as distance to bus stops from home increases. For example,
for those living 100 metres away from bus stations, the differences in the
predicted probability of making 2 train trips per day between those who
perceive the availability of transit service and who do not is as high as
15.7%, while for those living at the 130 metres distance from the nearest
bus services, the gap in the train trip-making propensity at 2 trips per
day was reduced to 7.2% (see Fig. 2). Beyond the 140-m buffer of bus
stations, however, the difference in train usage at an average level of 2
trips per day between the two groups is still significant but with a
magnitude of less than 5%. The results imply that increasing people’s
awareness of their neighbourhoods’ transit access would promote their
propensity of MRT/LRT to a considerable degree (e.g. by more than 5%)
only if they live within close proximity of bus stops/interchanges.
Proximity to wet markets is significantly associated with an
increased propensity to make more frequent walking and bus trips per
day among older adults of all levels of perceived accessibility to retail
and service facilities. Assuming that wet markets are “brought closer” to
the older residents’ homes by 100 metres, for example, from the mean
value of 1183 to 1083 metres, the predicted probability of making 4 and
more walking trips per day would on average increase by about 2.8%
and the probability of making 2 and more bus trips per day would in­
crease by about 1.6%.
In terms of daily trip frequency by MRT/LRT, the effects of proximity
to wet markets are also found to be significantly positive but vary in
magnitude based on older residents’ perceived measures of access to
local utilitarian destination. For example, as distance to the nearest wet
market changes in the same range as above, the predicted probability of
making 2 and more train trips per day on average increases by 2.8% for
Y. Hou et al.
older adults with higher perceptions of accessibility to nearby utilitarian
facilities and 1.4% for those with lower perceptions. However, the gaps
in the propensity of making 2 MRT/LRT trips per day between older
adults of higher and lower levels of perceived access to local utilitarian
destinations are very small in general (less than 5%) and do not change
very much with distance to wet markets (see Fig. 3).
Places of worship seem to be another favoured walking trip desti­
nations for all older adults. For example, if the average distance between
homes and religious places is reduced by 100 metres, the average in­
crease in the probability of making 4 and more walking trips is about
5%. The positive effects of access to religious destinations on transport
walking do not vary by individuals’ subjective measure of accessibility
to utilitarian destinations. The effects of proximity to other retail and
service establishments on trip frequency by various modes of trans­
portations are not found to be statistically significant for either
perception groups.
Access to recreational facilities is examined in relation to the dis­
tance to three types of amenities, including the parks/green spaces, open
spaces, and sports facilities. Consistent with the corresponding subjec­
tive measures, proximity to parks and green spaces are observed to be
associated with more frequent walking trips per day for older people of
both high and low perception groups. With the average distance be­
tween homes and the nearest parks/green spaces decreasing by 100
metres, the average increase in the probability of making at least 4
walking trips per day is expected to be as high as 8.1%.
On the other hand, the positive effects of access to open spaces and
indoor sports facilities are only evident for those who report higher
perceptions of accessibility to the local recreational facilities. For these
older adults, the estimated marginal probability of a 100-metre decrease
in the distances between homes and the two types of recreational fa­
cilities on walking trip frequency is 4.2% and 5.5%, respectively, at the
mean value of the two distance variables. For those who do not consider
local recreational facilities as easily accessible, the actual proximity to
open spaces and sports facilities would not have significant impacts on
them.
5. Conclusion
In light of the common trend among older adults to become inactive
and sedentary with age, there is renewed interest on the neighbourhood
built environment, a place that people regularly interact with across
their lifespan. Using neighbourhood level data, this study examines
older adults’ interactions with the built environment in their daily travel
activities. By investigating how perceived and objective-determined
Fig. 3. Predicted probability of making 2 trips by MRT/LRT per day vs. distance to the nearest wet market (m).
325
Transport Policy 99 (2020) 314–328
built environment characteristics moderate each other’s effects on
older adults’ travel by different modes, this study adds to existing
literature on the built environment-travel links and older people’s
mobility.
Using a multivariate OP model to account for the correlations of
travel modes within each person, our results indicate that different di­
mensions of perceived and objective built environment characteristics
exert both independent and interactive effects on older adults’ daily trip-
making and their effects vary by travel modes. While better perceptions
of access to recreational facilities significantly increases older adults’
daily walking trip-making and enhances their travel responses to actual
proximity to those facilities by walking, the positive role of access to
utilitarian destinations such as wet markets and religious establishments
in older adults’ walking trip frequency is not moderated by individual
perceptions of access to these destinations. Better perceived access to
transit hubs is positively associated with older adults’ daily trip fre­
quency by rail transit. Moreover, perceptions of barrier-free and safe
pedestrian connections encourage daily trip-making by public bus and
MRT/LRT. This result complements previous findings of the negative
role of undesirable perceptions of personal and traffic safety in transit
usage (Lee, 2013). The actual provision of comfortable and safe pedes­
trian infrastructure is found to play important roles in influencing older
adults’ daily travel choices: covered walkways near residence that pro­
vide shade and protection from wet weather significantly increases older
adults’ trip frequency by walking and decreases their car trip-making. In
contrast, more unsignalized pedestrian crossings near residence signif­
icantly reduces daily walking travel, implying that these facilities would
be a potential barrier to traffic safety for older pedestrians.
The results of this study provide meaningful insights for designing
and implementing healthy travel-promoting interventions (e.g. walking
and public transit) among older adults. In addition to the suite of
frequently cited interventions such as the provision of comfortable and
attractive pedestrian infrastructure (e.g. sheltered walkways and safe
road crossings), mixed land use and daily amenities (e.g. markets)
within a walkable distance (Cerin et al., 2013a; Ewing and Cervero,
2010; Sallis et al., 2012), our findings also highlight the potential of a
more efficient and maybe easier way to enhance older adults’ travel
experience by fostering positive perceptions towards the existing phys­
ical environment and amenities within their neighbourhoods. For
example, urban planners and designers could consider introducing
walking maps, wayfinding signage, directional markings, or street
paintings on the first and last mile pathways to public transit hubs to
improve older adults’ perceptions of the safety, comfort and aesthetics of
those walking connections and consequently increase their transit usage.
Y. Hou et al. Transport Policy 99 (2020) 314–328

Based on previous findings (Cheng and Chen, 2015), maintaining a
safe walking environment would also be important to enhance older
residents’ perceived access to available facilities (e.g. transit hubs,
open/green space), which encourages more walking and transit trips for
them. Another important determinant of perceived ease of access is
neighbourhood walking conditions. Design inclusivity through adoption
of barrier-free standards (manageable stair riser elevation, slip-resistant
tiling, supporting handrails, etc.) can ameliorate perceived transport
disadvantages and help improve perceived access to transit and other
facilities for older adults (Hine and Mitchell, 2001). Other initiatives
and/or design strategies aiming at enhancing the legibility of transit
hubs and other facilities in the neighbourhood would further promote
older adults’ perceptions of local accessibility and more healthy travel.
However, future research is needed to better understand the causal
relationship between the built environment and travel behaviour among
older adults using longitudinal data incorporating older residents’ travel
and residential preferences in the analysis. Due to the cross-sectional
nature of the analysis, the results indicate only an association instead
of causality. Given the complexity of the subject being studied, it is
difficult to attribute the effects of built environmental factors as causing
the travel outcome without sequential evidence. The potential effects of
residential self-selection, where older adults who prefer walking tend to
live in neighbourhoods that are more walkable and therefore walk more,
cannot be ruled out either. Furthermore, the findings and implications
are drawn from only 3 local neighbourhoods of Singapore. While every
effort has been made to ensure a heterogeneous and comparable selec­
tion, the diversity of different communities and urban environments
across cities means that other locational factors (either regional or
community-based) could play a role in influencing older adults’ travel
pattern. Further research is needed to test this proposition. For other
metropolitan areas with car-oriented infrastructure design and mono-
functional land use, we expect that the interactive effects of built envi­
ronment features on daily travel pattern could be different. It would be
interesting to perform similar analyses at national level, for the whole
city-state of Singapore as well as in multi-country investigations of
metropolitan areas with different development patterns to clarify the
relationships between neighbourhood environment and older adults’
travel behaviour.
Ethics approval
The research protocol was approved by the Singapore University of
Technology and Design Institutional Review Board.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yuting Hou: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing -
review & editing, Visualization. Winston Yap: Writing - original draft,
Writing - review & editing. Rochelle Chua: Writing - original draft. Siqi
Song: Validation, Writing - review & editing. Belinda Yuen: Resources,
Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding
acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by the Singapore Ministry of National
Development and the National Research Foundation, Prime Minister’s
Office under the Land and Liveability National Innovation Challenge (L2
NIC) Research Programme (L2 NIC Award No. L2NICTDF1-2017-2).
Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the
views of the Singapore Ministry of National Development and National
Research Foundation, Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.06.017.

Appendix B

Table 1a
Confirmatory factor analysis for perceptions towards the neighbourhood build environment.

Factors Questions Loadings

Well-connected street network The streets in my neighbourhood are well-connected 0.720

The distance between intersections in my neighbourhood is usually short 0.675
There are many alternative routes for getting place to place in my neighbourhood 0.703

Pedestrian- & bicycle-friendly
infrastructure
The footpaths in my neighbourhood are free of barriers 0.584
The footpaths in my neighbourhoods are well-maintained 0.640
There are bicycle and/pedestrian trails (e.g. park connector networks) in or near my neighbourhood that are easy to get to 0.437
There are pedestrian crossings to help people cross busy streets in my neighbourhood 0.490
There are covered walkways in my neighbourhood that provide shade and protection from the weather 0.498
The street signs in my neighbourhood are readable making it easy for me to find my way between places 0.435

Clean & well-maintained surrounding
There are trees along the footpaths in my neighbourhood that provide shade 0.526
There are many interesting things to look at while walking in my neighbourhood 0.416
My neighbourhood is generally free from litter and rubbish 0.562
My neighbourhood is generally free from bad smells and odours 0.516
My neighbourhood is generally free of loud noises 0.533
There are many attractive nature sights in my neighbourhood 0.434
There are landmarks in my neighbourhood that help me find my way between places 0.441

Safe neighbourhood There is not much traffic on streets near my home that it makes it difficult or unpleasant to walk in my neighbourhood 0.303
The speed of traffic on most streets near my home is usually slow 0.413
No crime in my neighbourhood makes it safe to go outdoors 0.310
(continued on next page)

326
Y. Hou et al. Transport Policy 99 (2020) 314–328

Table 1a (continued )
Factors Questions Loadings

I see and speak to other people when I am walking in my neighbourhood 0.381

Street furniture There are many places to meetup with friends within easy walking distance of my home 0.509
There are convenient public toilets that I can use when I am out and about in my neighbourhood 0.477
There are many seats in my neighbourhood, making it easy to sit and rest when I am out and about 0.592

Fit statistics
RMSEA, 0.047; CFI, 0.905; SRMR, 0.048

Table 2a
Descriptive statistics of (original) subjective built environment variables by dichotomized categories.

Variable All High level Low level

Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.

Perceptions of connecting spaces/pedestrian facilities (NEWS scores)

N=900 N=517 N=383

Well-connected street network 11.81 1.69 12.52 1.23 10.84 1.75

Pedestrian- & bicycle-friendly infrastructure 22.84 3.35 24.61 2.47 20.45 2.87
Clean & well-maintained surrounding 24.01 4.26 26.23 3.27 21.01 3.56
Safe neighbourhood 14.50 2.17 15.27 2.05 13.45 1.86
Street furniture 10.27 2.28 11.40 1.80 8.75 1.94

Perceived availability of retail/service facilities within 10-15 minute walking distance

N=900 N=477 N=423

Supermarket 0.77 0.42 0.93 0.26 0.59 0.49

Shopping/Entertainment centres 0.16 0.37 0.22 0.41 0.10 0.30
Transaction Services (e.g. bank, post office) 0.29 0.46 0.33 0.47 0.25 0.43
Senior Activity Centres / Daycare Centre Facilities 0.47 0.50 0.71 0.45 0.19 0.39
Wet/Dry Markets 0.94 0.25 0.99 0.12 0.88 0.33
Community Club/Centre 0.62 0.49 0.91 0.28 0.29 0.45
Place of Worship (e.g. Church, Temple, Mosque, etc.) 0.40 0.49 0.66 0.47 0.12 0.32
Medical facilities (e.g. Hospital/Polyclinic/Pharmacy) 0.48 0.50 0.76 0.43 0.17 0.38
Hawker centres / Coffee houses / Food courts 0.94 0.25 1.00 0.06 0.87 0.34
Fast-food Restaurants 0.55 0.50 0.80 0.40 0.26 0.44
Total number of utilitarian facilities perceived as available 5.62 2.15 7.29 1.15 3.72 1.25
Perceived availability of recreational facilities within 10-15 minute walking distance

N=900 N=438 N=462

Indoor fitness facility (e.g. Gym, Recreation Club, Swimming Complex, etc.) 0.31 0.46 0.61 0.49 0.03 0.17
Open public spaces (e.g. void decks, senior citizen corners, playgrounds) 0.68 0.47 0.96 0.20 0.42 0.49
Green spaces (public parks) 0.44 0.50 0.84 0.36 0.06 0.24
Total number of recreational facilities perceived as available 1.43 1.07 2.41 0.49 0.51 0.50

References sectional study on what destinations matter and when. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys.
Activ. 10, 78.
Cerin, E., Macfarlane, D., Sit, C., Ho, S., Johnston, J., Chou, K.L., Chan, W., Cheung, M.,
Badoe, D.A., 2007. Forecasting travel demand with alternatively structured models of
Ho, K., 2013b. Effects of built environment on walking among Hong Kong older
trip frequency. Transport. Plann. Technol. 30, 455–475.
adults. Hong Kong Med. J. 19, S39–S41.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
Cerin, E., Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F., Frank, L.D., 2006. Neighborhood Environment
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers.
Walkability Scale: validity and development of a short form. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
Soc. Psychol. 51, 1173–1182.
38, 1682–1691.
Bhat, C.R., Srinivasan, S., 2005. A multidimensional mixed ordered-response model for
Cervero, R., Kockelman, K., 1997. Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and
analyzing weekend activity participation. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 39,
design. Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 2, 199–219.
255–278.
Centre for Liveable Cities and Urban Land Institute, 2014. Creating Healthy Places
Boarnet, M.G., Crane, R., 2001. The influence of land use on travel behavior:
Through Active Mobility. Retrieved from. https://www.clc.gov.sg/docs/default-sou
specification and estimation strategies. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 35, 823–845.
rce/books/active-mobility.pdf.
Boarnet, M.G., Sarmiento, S., 1998. Can land-use policy really affect travel behaviour? A
Cheng, Y., Chen, S., 2015. Perceived accessibility, mobility, and connectivity of public
study of the link between non-work travel and land-use characteristics. Urban Stud.
transportation systems. Transport. Res. Part A 77, 386–403.
35, 1155–1169.
Choo, S., Sohn, D., Park, M., 2016. Mobility characteristics of the elderly: a case for Seoul
Böcker, L., Van amen, P., Helbich, M., 2017. Elderly travel frequencies and transport
metropolitan area. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 20, 1023–1031.
mode choices in Greater Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Transportation 44, 831–852.
Chudyk, A.M., Winters, M., Moniruzzaman, M., Ashe, M.C., Gould, J.S., Mckay, H., 2015.
Bracy, N.L., Millstein, R.A., Carlson, J.A., Conway, T.L., Sallis, J.F., Saelens, B.E., Kerr, J.,
Destinations matter: the association between where older adults live and their travel
Cain, K.L., Frank, L.D., King, A.C., 2014. Is the relationship between the built
behavior. J. Transp. Health 2, 50–57.
environment and physical activity moderated by perceptions of crime and safety?
Corseuil Giehl, M.W., Hallal, P.C., Brownson, R.C., D’orsi, E., 2017. Exploring
Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activ. 11, 24.
associations between perceived measures of the environment and walking among
Cain, K.L., Millstein, R.A., Sallis, J.F., Conway, T.L., Gavand, K.A., Frank, L.D., Saelens, B.
Brazilian older adults. J. Aging Health 29, 45–67.
E., Geremia, C.M., Chapman, J., Adams, M.A., 2014. Contribution of streetscape
Davison, K.K., Lawson, C.T., 2006. Do attributes in the physical environment influence
audits to explanation of physical activity in four age groups based on the Microscale
children’s physical activity? A review of the literature. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys.
Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS). Soc. Sci. Med. 116, 82–92.
Activ. 3, 19.
Cao, J., Mokhtarian, P., Handy, S., 2009. The relationship between the built environment
Ding, D., Sallis, J.F., Conway, T.L., Saelens, B.E., Frank, L.D., Cain, K.L., Slymen, D.J.,
and nonwork travel: A case study of Northern California. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract.
2012. Interactive effects of built environment and psychosocial attributes on
43 (5), 548–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2009.02.001.
physical activity: a test of ecological models. Ann. Behav. Med. 44, 365–374.
Cerin, E., Lee, K.-Y., Barnett, A., Sit, C.H., Cheung, M.-C., Chan, W.-M., Johnston, J.M.,
Ding, D., Sallis, J.F., Norman, G.J., Frank, L.D., Saelens, B.E., Kerr, J., Conway, T.L.,
2013a. Walking for transportation in Hong Kong Chinese urban elders: a cross-
Cain, K., Hovell, M.F., Hofstetter, C.R., 2014. Neighborhood environment and

327
Y. Hou et al.
physical activity among older adults: do the relationships differ by driving status?
J. Aging Phys. Activ 22, 421–431.
Etman, A., Kamphuis, C.B., Prins, R.G., Burdorf, A., Pierik, F.H., Van lenthe, F.J., 2014.
Characteristics of residential areas and transportational walking among frail and
non-frail Dutch elderly: does the size of the area matter? Int. J. Health Geogr. 13, 7.
Ewing, R., Cervero, R., 2001. Travel and the built environment: a synthesis. Transport.
Res. Rec.: J. Transport. Res. Board 87–114.
Ewing, R., Cervero, R., 2010. Travel and the built environment: a meta-analysis. J. Am.
Plann. Assoc. 76, 265–294.
Ferdous, N., Eluru, N., Bhat, C.R., Meloni, I., 2010. A multivariate ordered-response
model system for adults’ weekday activity episode generation by activity purpose
and social context. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 44, 922–943.
Figueroa, M.J., Nielsen, T.A.S., Siren, A., 2014. Comparing urban form correlations of the
travel patterns of older and younger adults. Transport Pol. 35, 10–20.
Foster, S., Giles-Corti, B., 2008. The built environment, neighborhood crime and
constrained physical activity: an exploration of inconsistent findings. Prev. Med. 47,
241–251.
Frank, L., Kerr, J., Rosenberg, D., King, A., 2010. Healthy aging and where you live:
community design relationships with physical activity and body weight in older
Americans. J. Phys. Activ. Health 7, S82–S90.
Greene, W.H., Hensher, D.A., 2009. Modeling Ordered Choices.
Handy, S., Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., 2006. Self-selection in the relationship between the
built environment and walking: empirical evidence from Northern California. J. Am.
Plann. Assoc. 72, 55–74.
Hanibuchi, T., Kawachi, I., Nakaya, T., Hirai, H., Kondo, K., 2011. Neighborhood built
environment and physical activity of Japanese older adults: results from the Aichi
Gerontological Evaluation Study (AGES). BMC Publ. Health 11.
Hiine, J., Mitchell, F., 2001. Better for everyone? Travel experiences and transport
exclusion. Urban Stud. 38, 319–332.
Hoehner, C.M., Ramirez, L.K.B., Elliott, M.B., Handy, S.L., Brownson, R.C., 2005.
Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity among urban
adults. Am. J. Prev. Med. 28, 105–116.
Inoue, S., Ohya, Y., Odagiri, Y., Takamiya, T., Kamada, M., Okada, S., Oka, K.,
Kitabatake, Y., Nakaya, T., Sallis, J.F., 2011. Perceived neighborhood environment
and walking for specific purposes among elderly Japanese. J. Epidemiol. 21,
481–490.
Jack, E., Mccormack, G.R., 2014. The associations between objectively-determined and
self-reported urban form characteristics and neighborhood-based walking in adults.
Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activ. 11, 71.
King, W.C., Brach, J.S., Belle, S., Killingsworth, R., Fenton, M., Kriska, A.M., 2003. The
relationship between convenience of destinations and walking levels in older
women. Am. J. Health Promot. 18, 74–82.
Koh, P., Leow, B., Wong, Y., 2015. Mobility of the elderly in densely populated
neighbourhoods in Singapore. Sustain. Cities Soc. 14, 126–132.
Koohsari, M.J., Badland, H., Sugiyama, T., Mavoa, S., Christian, H., Giles-corti, B., 2015.
Mismatch between perceived and objectively measured land use mix and street
connectivity: associations with neighborhood walking. J. Urban Health 92, 242–252.
Lee, J., 2013. Perceived neighborhood environment and transit use in low-income
populations. Transport. Res. Rec. 2397, 125–134.
Li, F., Harmer, P.A., Cardinal, B.J., Bosworth, M., Acock, A., Johnson-Shelton, D.,
Moore, J.M., 2008. Built environment, adiposity, and physical activity in adults aged
50–75. Am. J. Prev. Med. 35, 38–46.
Ma, L., Cao, J., 2019. How perceptions mediate the effects of the built environment on
travel behavior. Transportation 46, 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-017-
9800-4.
Makles, A., 2012. Stata tip 110: how to get the optimal k-means cluster solution. STATA
J. 12, 347–351.
Mercado, R., Páez, A., 2009. Determinants of distance traveled with a focus on the
elderly: a multilevel analysis in the Hamilton CMA, Canada. J. Transport Geogr. 17,
65–76.
Moniruzzaman, M., Páez, A., Habib, K.M.N., Morency, C., 2013. Mode use and trip length
of seniors in Montreal. J. Transport Geogr. 30, 89–99.
Moniruzzaman, M., Páez, A., Scott, D., Morency, C., 2015. Trip generation of seniors and
the geography of walking in Montreal. Environ. Plann. 47, 957–976.
Nyunt, M.S.Z., Shuvo, F.K., Eng, J.Y., Yap, K.B., Scherer, S., Hee, L.M., Chan, S.P., Ng, T.
P., 2015. Objective and subjective measures of neighborhood environment (NE):
328
Transport Policy 99 (2020) 314–328
relationships with transportation physical activity among older persons. Int. J.
Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activ. 12, 108.
Orstad, S.L., Mcdonough, M.H., Stapleton, S., Altincekic, C., Troped, P.J., 2017.
A systematic review of agreement between perceived and objective neighborhood
environment measures and associations with physical activity outcomes. Environ.
Behav. 49, 904–932.
Owen, N., Humpel, N., Leslie, E., Bauman, A., Sallis, J.F., 2004. Understanding
environmental influences on walking: review and research agenda. Am. J. Prev.
Med. 27, 67–76.
Páez, A., Scott, D., Potoglou, D., Kanaroglou, P., Newbold, K.B., 2007. Elderly mobility:
demographic and spatial analysis of trip making in the Hamilton CMA, Canada.
Urban Stud. 44, 123–146.
Pelclová, J., Frömel, K., Bláha, L., Zając-gawlak, I., Tlučáková, L., 2012. Neighborhood
environment and walking for transport and recreation in Central European older
adults. Acta Gymnica 42, 49–56.
Procter-Gray, E., Leveille, S.G., Hannan, M.T., Cheng, J., Kane, K., Li, W., 2015.
Variations in community prevalence and determinants of recreational and utilitarian
walking in older age. J. Aging Res. 2015.
Roodman, D., 2011. Fitting fully observed recursive mixed-process models with cmp.
STATA J. 11, 159–206.
Roorda, M.J., Páez, A., Morency, C., Mercado, R., Farber, S., 2010. Trip generation of
vulnerable populations in three Canadian cities: a spatial ordered probit approach.
Transportation 37, 525–548.
Saelens, B.E., Handy, S.L., 2008. Built environment correlates of walking: a review. Med.
Sci. Sports Exerc. 40, S550.
Sallis, J.F., Cervero, R.B., Ascher, W., Henderson, K.A., Kraft, M.K., Kerr, J., 2006. An
ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annu. Rev. Publ. Health
27, 297–322.
Sallis, J.F., Floyd, M.F., Rodríguez, D.A., Saelens, B.E., 2012. Role of built environments
in physical activity, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. Circulation 125, 729–737.
Shigematsu, R., Sallis, J.F., Conway, T.L., Saelens, B.E., Frank, L.D., Cain, K.L.,
Chapman, J.E., King, A.C., 2009. Age differences in the relation of perceived
neighborhood environment to walking. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 41, 314–321.
Shrestha, B., Millonig, A., Hounsell, N., Mcdonald, M., 2017. Review of public transport
needs of older people in European context. J. Popul. Ageing 10, 343–361.
Singapore Department of Statistics, 2018. Statistics Singapore - general household survey
2015. viewed 4 April 2018. https://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/publications
-and-papers/GHS/ghs2015.
Train, K.E., 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Uebersax, J., 2015. Introduction to the tetrachoric and polychoric correlation
coefficients. https://www.john-uebersax.com/stat/tetra.htm.
Van Cauwenberg, J., Clarys, P., De bourdeaudhuij, I., Van Holle, V., Verté, D., De
witte, N., De donder, L., Buffel, T., Dury, S., Deforche, B., 2012. Physical
environmental factors related to walking and cycling in older adults: the Belgian
aging studies. BMC Publ. Health 12, 142.
Van Dyck, D., Cerin, E., Conway, T.L., De bourdeaudhuij, I., Owen, N., Kerr, J.,
Cardon, G., Frank, L.D., Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F., 2012. Perceived neighborhood
environmental attributes associated with adults’ transport-related walking and
cycling: findings from the USA, Australia and Belgium. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys.
Activ. 9, 70.
Van Dyck, D., Veitch, J., De bourdeaudhuij, I., Thornton, L., Ball, K., 2013.
Environmental perceptions as mediators of the relationship between the objective
built environment and walking among socio-economically disadvantaged women.
Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activ. 10, 108.
Van Holle, V., Van Cauwenberg, J., Van Dyck, D., Deforche, B., Van de Weghe, N., De
Bourdeaudhuij, I., 2014. Relationship between neighborhood walkability and older
adults’ physical activity: results from the Belgian Environmental Physical Activity
Study in Seniors (BEPAS Seniors). Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activ. 11, 110.
Webber, S.C., Porter, M.M., Menec, V.H., 2010. Mobility in older adults: a comprehensive
framework. Gerontol. 50, 443–450.
Wooldridge, J.M., 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. The MIT
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Wretstrand, A., Svensson, H., Fristedt, S., Falkmer, T., 2009. Older people and local
public transit: mobility effects of accessibility improvements in Sweden. J. Transp.
Land Use 2, 49–65.