Written evidence submitted by Understanding Society, the UK Household Longitudinal Study (Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex) (ATR0040)

1. Introduction

1.1.   Understanding Society, the UK Household Longitudinal Study is a word leading longitudinal survey of continuity and change in UK life. From an initial sample of around 40,000 households, the same people are invited to participate in annual surveys. Alongside its predecessor, the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) the data now span 25 years.

1.2.   The survey is multi-topic, covering a range of social, economic and behavioural factors of interest to research and policy. It includes questions relating to access to public and private transport, travel behaviours and travel-related environmental behaviours.

1.3.   Although not available yet, colleagues at the Department for Transport are currently linking Understanding Society data to information on the nearest transport pick-up points (e.g. bus stops and train stations), which might help researchers understand the opportunities for active commuting as well as behaviour. In addition, we are asking respondents for their employer’s address, which will give us accurate information on distance to work to inform this research area.

1.4.   Understanding Society is primarily funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), part of UK Research and Innovation, and has received funding from a number of Government departments, devolved administrations and agencies. Anonymised data from the surveys are made available to registered researchers to use in their own research projects.

1.5.   Several research papers have used Understanding Society data to address the questions of this inquiry, with the key findings presented here. The research focuses on people’s commutes to work; some questions are asked on this topic annually, and there is a dedicated biennial commuting behaviour module. The research included here was not conducted by members of the Understanding Society team, but is summarised for the benefit of the Committee. As such, any errors of interpretation remain our own.

2. The benefits and risks of active travel, and the extent to which they are properly understood by the public and Government

Wellbeing

2.1. Chatterjee et al.’s (2017) study of commuting and wellbeing in England found that active commuting increases people’s satisfaction with their leisure time, particularly for women. Further, people’s self-reported strain decreased when they walked to work, rather than commuting by other means of transport. Switching from driving to active commuting was linked to reduced self-reported strain and increased job satisfaction in the short-term, but not in the longer-term (using reports one and two years later). Chng et al. (2016) found that walking to work was associated with higher life satisfaction (but not with lower mental distress), compared to driving, for those living in Greater London.

Body Mass Index (BMI) and percentage body fat

2.2. Flint et al. (2014) found that active commuters in the UK had lower BMI and percentage body fat than commuters by private transport; the size of the effect of active commuting was larger than what is usually seen in individual obesity prevention interventions. The authors also found similar benefits for public transport users, who were assumed to be including an element of active travel in their commute.

3. The balance of responsibilities for active transport between central Government and local bodies and whether the current arrangements achieve an appropriate balance

3.1. Clark et al. (2016) found that people’s residential context is an important factor for the likelihood of active commuting for those living in England, the results showed:

• People living in a mixed land use area were more likely to have an active commute
• People living in an area with good access to bus services were more likely to have an active commute
• People living in a more deprived area were less likely to have an active commute
• People living in non-metropolitan urban areas were most likely to have an active commute, compared to metropolitan and rural areas.

References

Chatterjee, K., Clark, B., Martin, A. and Davis, A. (2017) The Commuting and Wellbeing study: understanding the impact of commuting on people’s lives. Bristol: University of the West of England. Available at: https://travelbehaviour.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/caw-summaryreport-onlineedition.pdf

Chng, S., White, M., Abraham, C. and Skippon, S. (2016) Commuting and wellbeing in London: the roles of commute mode and local public transport connectivity. Preventative medicine, 82: 182-188. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.04.014

The accepted manuscript version of this paper is available, open access, at: https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/22589/Chng%2c%20White%2c%20Abraham%20%282016%29%20PM.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Clark, B., Chatterjee, K. and Melia, S. (2016) Changes to commute mode: the role of life events, spatial context and environmental attitude. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 89: 89-105. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.05.005

Flint, E., Cummins, S. and Sacker, A. (2014) Associations between active commuting, body fat, and body mass index: population based, cross sectional study in the United Kingdom. BMJ, 349. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4887

October 2018