̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Jenna Panter

Children switch to walking and cycling to school after introduction of London’s Ultra-Low Emission Zone

cjb250 — Wed, 04 Sep 2024 23:01:29 +0000

Car travel contributes to air pollution, a major cause of heart and lung diseases including asthma attacks. Beyond this, it limits children's opportunities for physical activity, hindering their development and mental health, and increasing their risk of obesity and chronic illnesses.

Despite UK guidelines recommending a daily average of 60 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity for school-aged children and adolescents, less than half (45%) of children aged 5-16 met these levels in 2021. One in three children aged 10-11 in the UK are overweight or obese.

In April 2019, London introduced the ULEZ to help improve air quality by reducing the number of vehicles on the road that do not meet emissions standards. According to Transport for London, the central London ULEZ reduced harmful nitrogen oxides by 35% and particulate matter by 15% in central London within the first 10 months of its introduction.

In a study published on 5 September in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, a team led by researchers at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and Queen Mary ̽��ֱ�� of London examined the impact of the ULEZ on how children travelled to school. ̽��ֱ��research was part of the CHILL study (Children’s Health in London and Luton).

̽��ֱ��study examined data from almost 2,000 children aged 6 to 9 years attending 84 primary schools in London and the control area, Luton. 44 schools were located with catchment areas within or bordering London’s ULEZ, and these were compared to a similar number in Luton and Dunstable (acting as a comparison group). ̽��ֱ��inclusion of the comparison site enabled the researchers to draw more robust conclusions and increased confidence in attributing the observed changes to the introduction of the ULEZ.

̽��ֱ��researchers collected data from the period June 2018 to April 2019, prior to ULEZ implementation, and again in the period June 2019 to March 2020, the year after implementation of the ULEZ but prior to COVID-19-related school closures.

Among those children in London who travelled by car prior to the introduction of the ULEZ, 4 in 10 (42%) switched to active modes, while one in 20 (5%) switched from active to inactive modes.

In contrast, only one in 5 (20%) children in Luton swapped from car travel to active modes, while a similar number (21%) switched from active to car travel. This means that children in London within the ULEZ were 3.6 times as likely to shift from travelling by car to active travel modes compared to those children in Luton and far less likely (0.11 times) to switch to inactive modes.

̽��ֱ��impact of the ULEZ on switching to active travel modes was strongest for those children living more than half a mile (0.78km) from school. This was probably because many children who live closer to school already walked or cycled to school prior to the ULEZ and therefore there was more potential for change in those living further away from their school.

̽��ֱ��study’s first author, Dr Christina Xiao from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Epidemiology Unit at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, said: “ ̽��ֱ��introduction of the ULEZ was associated with positive changes in how children travelled to school, with a much larger number of children moving from inactive to active modes of transport in London than in Luton.

“Given children's heightened vulnerability to air pollution and the critical role of physical activity for their health and development, financial disincentives for car use could encourage healthier travel habits among this young population, even if they do not necessarily target them.”

Joint senior author Dr Jenna Panter from the MRC Epidemiology Unit, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, said: “ ̽��ֱ��previous Government was committed to increasing the share of children walking to school by 2025 and we hope the new Government will follow suit. Changing the way children travel to school can have significant effects on their levels of physical activity at the same time as bringing other co-benefits like improving congestion and air quality, as about a quarter of car trips during peak morning hours in London are made for school drop-offs.”

After ULEZ was introduced in Central London, the total number of vehicles on the roads fell by 9%, and by one-third (34%) for vehicles that failed to meet the required exhaust emission standards, with no clear evidence of traffic moving instead to nearby areas.

Joint senior author Professor Chris Griffiths from the Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary ̽��ֱ�� of London, said: “Establishing healthy habits early is critical to healthy adulthood and the prevention of disabling long term illness, especially obesity and the crippling diseases associated with it. ̽��ֱ��robust design of our study, with Luton as a comparator area, strongly suggests the ULEZ is driving this switch to active travel. This is evidence that Clean Air Zone intervention programmes aimed at reducing air pollution have the potential to also improve overall public health by addressing key factors that contribute to illness.”

Due to the introduction of COVID-19 restrictions in late March 2020, the study was paused in 2020/2021 and results are only reported for the first year of follow-up. However, as both London and Luton, the study areas, were similarly affected, the researchers believe this disruption is unlikely to have affected the results. ̽��ֱ��study has restarted following up with the children to examine the longer-term impacts of the ULEZ. This will identify if the changes they observed in the year following the introduction of the ULEZ persist.

̽��ֱ��study was conducted in collaboration with Queen Mary ̽��ֱ�� of London, Imperial College, ̽��ֱ�� of Bedfordshire, ̽��ֱ�� of Edinburgh, ̽��ֱ�� of Oxford and ̽��ֱ�� of Southern California and funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Public Health Research (NIHR), NIHR Applied Research Collaboration North Thames, and Cambridge Trust.

Reference
Xiao, C et al. Children’s Health in London and Luton (CHILL) cohort: A 12-month natural experimental study of the effects of the Ultra Low Emission Zone on children’s travel to school. IJBNPA; 5 Sept 2024; DOI: 10.1186/s12966-024-01621-7

Four in ten children in Central London who travelled to school by car switched to more active modes of transport, such as walking, cycling, or public transport, following the introduction of the Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), according to new research. In the comparison area with no ULEZ, Luton, only two in ten children made this switch over the same period.

Changing the way children travel to school can have significant effects on their levels of physical activity at the same time as bringing other co-benefits like improving congestion and air quality

Jenna Panter

Matt Brown

ULEZ signs (cropped)

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution

Planning for action

jg533 — Thu, 17 Feb 2022 09:14:18 +0000

Free online tools built by Cambridge researchers are helping planners design exercise into our towns and cities.

Ditching the car may reduce your risk of dying from heart disease and stroke by almost a third

cjb250 — Tue, 22 May 2018 08:35:21 +0000

Swapping your car for more physically active forms of travel may reduce your risk of heart disease, stroke and premature death, our latest research shows. Walking, cycling and even using public transport are all more physically active than using the car, so switching to one of these modes of transport can help you be more active and healthy.

Most physical activity studies focus on sport and recreational activity – intense activities often lasting many minutes. We are interested in understanding the impact of everyday activity on health. People lead busy lives. ̽��ֱ��challenge is to find ways for people to be active and stay active throughout life. For many, everyday activity, like walking or cycling for travel, may be more acceptable, attractive and practical than going to the gym.

For our analysis, we used a large cohort of over 350,000 adults, aged 37 to 73, from the UK Biobank study. At the start of the study people told us about their travel habits, as well as other important health behaviours, such as smoking. We compared people who only used the car for travel with those who undertook some walking, either alone or in combination with the car or public transport. People who cycled were also included in the active group, although few people in our study cycled.

We carried out separate analyses for those who regularly commuted and those who did not.

Some people prefer stairs to a Stairmaster. JuneChalida/Shutterstock.com

Clear pattern

This was an observational study, so we can’t say definitively that car use causes harm. However, we took many steps to rule out other factors, such as what people eat or underlying illness that might explain the findings. For example, people with poor health might have to use the car because their poor health limits their ability to get around. Their poor health might explain their higher risk of disease. We used statistical methods to adjust for this, and, in some cases, we removed these people from the analysis. While we have tried to eliminate these other factors, we can never be sure we have done this entirely.

Among people who commuted, more active patterns of commuting compared with exclusive car use were associated with an 11% lower relative risk of developing heart disease or stroke and a 30% lower relative risk of death from heart disease or stroke. ̽��ֱ��association was even stronger when we looked across all forms of travel, both commuting and everyday travel.

Nearly half our sample did not commute. These people were retired, not in employment or they worked from home. Few studies have looked at these people. Among these people, more active patterns of travel compared with exclusive car use were associated with an 8% lower relative risk of death.

Although not all of our findings reached statistical significance, there was an overall pattern. More active patterns of travel, compared with exclusive car use, were associated with reduced risk of heart disease, stroke and death.

Areas still to explore

It would have been interesting to dig deeper and understand the relative importance of different patterns of travel. How beneficial is public transport compared with car use? Is there an additional benefit of cycling over walking? But, unfortunately, we couldn’t do that with the data we had.

Different data might also have allowed us to better understand why. Other people have suggested that snacking in cars might be a contributory factor, although we think the most likely explanation is differences in physical activity.

Our research builds on what is already widely known about the health benefits of physical activity. Some people may choose to use cars less when they understand the impacts on health. But many people may not have a choice. Others may just do what is convenient, comfortable and normal.

̽��ֱ��large differences in travel patterns between cities in developed countries seem most likely to be explained by differences in infrastructure. There have been large increases in public transport use and consequently walking in London, after investment in these travel modes. ̽��ֱ��Netherlands made a conscious choice to invest in cycling infrastructure in the 1960s and now has high rates of cycling.

While decisions about transport infrastructure may be made for a variety of non-health reasons, our study provides further evidence that health needs to be integrated into decisions that are made about transport.

Oliver Mytton, Clinical Lecturer in Public Health, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and Jenna Panter, Senior Research Associate, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

Is it time to ditch the car and find a more active way of getting to work? It could save your life, say Oliver Mytton and Jenna Panter from the MRC Epidemiology Unit, writing for ̽��ֱ��Conversation.

Max Bender

Travel to work

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Licence type:

Public Domain