Does Flinders University Enable Physical Forms of Transport for Students Classes at Sturt Campus - Research Paper Example

Flinders HLTH3105 Quantitative Methods for Social Health Research Quantitative research on ‘Does Flinders enable physical formsof transport for students’ classes at Sturt campus’ Hiroki MATSUMIYA 2081586 Abstract This study seeks to establish whether Flinders University promotes physical forms of transport for students attached to the Sturt Campus. Whereas physical forms of transport have accompanying health benefits, the researcher sought to investigate the sensitivity of the university towards the issue. These physical forms revolve around walking and running as well as bicycle riding. A random sample of 30 students was considered for the survey and the results used to make conclusions for the study. It was found that the percentage of students who use physical transport means were slightly more than an eighth, spread across varied reasons for their choice of this mode of transport. The study concludes that the desire for use of physical means of transport is higher among students than it is actually practised. In deed, 80% of those who would like to use it but fail to suggest they would do so for health benefits, listed in the survey as fitness. Analysis of the survey data leads to the conclusion that Flinders University should initiate ways of enabling physical forms of transport among students at the Sturt Campus. Introduction Different commuting methods can impact on individuals’ health. There are a variety of everyday transport methods such as car, bus, train, walking, cycling, or running, which people employ to reach their destinations. Among these transport methods, physical form transport methods can be important alternative choices of transport to improve health, in that it can be a practical source of regular physical activity (Brockman & Fox 2011; Faulkner et al. 2009; Ogilvie et al. 2004). Physical form transport can help to increase daily activity levels, and research show that physical activity can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, in addition to mortality and morbidity rates, incidence of diabetes, while also helping in maintenance of body weight (Brockman & Fox 2010; Nazelle et al., 2011). In addition, there are also significant potential benefits for mental health including, reduced risk of depression and dementia, as well as increased mental well-being (Brockman & Fox 2010; NazInelle et al., 2011). Others have found that physical activity levels of adolescents and young adults can influence their mental health (Shannon et al. 2006). Moreover, in meta-analysis research showed that physical form commuting, including walking and cycling, can promote health benefits (Faulkner et al., 2009). Hamer and Chida (2008) emphasis that people who use active commuting such as walking and cycling can have 11 per cent of reduction in disease associated with cardiovascular. These findings suggest that increases in physical form transport amongst university students can have positive environmental impacts and it is also in students’ health. Universities around the world tend to provide car parks for students’ private vehicles. (Shannon et al. 2006) However this has been shifting to reduce the number of university student private vehicle usage to improve university students’ and staff health, and the universities’ environment (Shannon et al. 2006). In addition to this, the reductions of car usage for transport can help reduction of emissions (Brockman & Fox 2010). However, the social change in universities towards physical form transport should be more promoted (Shannon et al. 2006). Health professionals and transport planners have been investigating a solution to improve promotion of physical form transport in the public realm (Brockman & Fox 2010; NazInelle et al., 2011; Oilvie 2004). Because many studies show that countries that have high physical form transport rates often have lower obesity rates (Wanner et al. 2012). However, many studies indicate that individuals’ transport methods can be influenced by individuals’ transportation behavior and build environment associated with socio-demographic variables (NazInelle et al., 2011). The high levels of vehicle use in urban and suburban areas is associated with population (Ubillos & Sainz 2006). The build environment, such as transportation infrastructure can also impact on peoples’ choice of physical form transport in walking and cycling, particularly in regards to safety concerns and distance (NazInelle et al., 2011). Faulkner et al (2009) suggest that early intervention in childhood should be adopted to develop physical form transport practice and it should be supported constantly by the environment. Physical active behavior, if improved in one’s childhood, can increase individuals’ motivation to choose physical form transport in later life (Wanner et al. 2012) Nutbeam, Harris and Wise (2010) write that theory can provide a potential guide to develop a research framework and heath promotion interventions. This study is focusing on the factors that influence between students’ transport choice and build environment which is that human behavior, psychological factor and environment can be significant key words in this research. Social cognitive theory which evolved my Albert Bandura has been widely known as an applicable theory which can suggest the interaction factors between individuals and their environment (Nutbeam, Harris & Wise 2010). Flinders University is located about 20 kilometers from the Adelaide CBD. Therefore, there is less accessibility to public transport compared to other university campuses in the Adelaide CBD, though providing ample car parking allocation for students and staff. However, levels of usage of physical form transport by students and staff at Flinders University Sturt campus is uncertain. Aim of this study The aim of this study is to examine the influential factors on students’ transport choice when commuting to Sturt campus in Flinders University and determine the solution to increase levels of physical form transport amongst university students studying at this campus. Consequently, the research question is ‘Does Flinders University enable physical forms of transport for students’ classes at Sturt campus’. The hypotheses of this research are: H1: Students who use physical form transport will be more likely to live close to university and H1: People who do not use physical form transport to university will be unlikely to use physical form transport to get to other destinations. Method Study Design The central objective of this research is analysis of factors which influence choices in a certain population in a particular time. Cross-sectional studies have been widely used to investigate the relationships between environment and choices of individuals’ transport choice (Saelens & Handy 2008). Therefore, cross-sectional study design can be used as a study design. Moreover, due to limited access to budget into this research cross-sectional study can allow managing the survey in low cost, therefore it can be considered as an appropriate design (Creswell 2003). The research articles also provided important insights into specific information of the health benefits correlate with physical form transport behaviour. Walking and cycling are most common result to distinguish in the article reviews. Participants In order to collect raw data of Flinders University students’ transport choice, cross-sectional studies can be appropriately applied for survey to define the characteristics of the population at one time. Data collection Data collection conducted with completing questionnaire which created by researcher. 19 questions 30 participants Ethical implication The introduction letter of this research survey and consent form from Social Health Sciences at Flinders University will be conducted to the participants. Results The leading parts of the questionnaire have been treated as the orientation section of the survey, but questions leading to the findings reported in the study arose from the eighth question which sought to establish the number of days a respondent makes to the university. 73.3% of the respondents attend classes at Sturt three to four days a week. This group constitutes the majority. Those attending classes between a day and two constituted only 16.7% of the sample size, while a further 10% attends studies at Sturt at least five times in a week. Section nine of the survey sought to establish the percentage of the sample that relied on physical means of transport and the reasons behind their choice. It was found that only 23.3% adopted the physical means, against a whooping 76.7%, who picked on other forms of transport to attend their studies. Among those who agreed to having been using the physical means of transport to Sturt economic reasons featured prominently as their main motivation for this means. In deed they form 13.3% of the sample, and 57.1% of those who adopted the physical means. Other reasons attributed to the adoption of this means of transport included fun, fitness and environmental reasons, all tying at 3.3% of the entire sample and 14.3% of those using physical means of transport each. The next section of the survey sought to link the means of transport to the distances covered by students each time they go to Sturt. Those who cover between zero and five kilometres were classified together as well as those who covered between six and ten kilometres. However, those asked to respond to this question were those who adopted physical means of transport. 57.1% fell in the category that lived closest to the institution, the furthest being 5 kilometres. 42.9% constituted those who travel between 6 and 10 kilometres in order to reach Sturt. Of the total sample, the two groups constituted 13.3% and 10% respectively. The students who adopted physical means of transport were further asked to record the lengths of time they spent on average to reach Sturt. To this, 42.9% listed in the fast category of up to fifteen minutes at most, whereas 57.1% ranked in the category that spent 16 to 30 minutes on their way to Sturt daily. The study further sought to establish whether students who did not use physical means of transport to the campus really wished to do so had there been a choice. 43.5% responded in the affirmative while 56.5% seemed disinterested to adopt physical means at all. Combining the number of those either using or in favour of the physical means of transport would have 56.6% being in favour of the means against 43.4% who voted against taking interest in adopting such means. This formed one of the most important finds of the study. Asked why they would like to use physical means of transport, the group that did not adopt the means initially but voted in favour of the means answered overwhelmingly to wanting to do so for fitness. 80% said they favoured physical means of transport in order to keep fit. Other reasons included economical and environmental, both of which were voted at 10% each for their roles. Curiously, the percentage of respondents who did not use physical means of transport at the time but who would have willingly adopted the means for fitness reasons were 26.7%. Cycling to the campus appeared as the one most admired mode for those who wished to use physical means but had not been doing so. The remaining 40% said they would to go to Sturt on foot, by either walking or running. Therefore the bicycle appeared as the most favoured means of physical transport amongst those who wished to adopt the means, albeit sometime in the future. All those who did not employ physical means of transport to school further responded to the question whether they used the means to reach other destinations of interest to them. 78.3% responded in the affirmative, which in effect translated to 60% of the entire sample. Only 21.7% did entirely without physical means, which was only 16.7% of the entire sample. With these figures, the percentage that used physical means of transport to reach some destination in their lives was 83.3%, obviously a huge majority. A chi-square test was carried out to establish whether there existed any relation between the distances lived by students and the means of transport they adopted to reach the institution. The proposition that students who use physical form transport will be more likely to live close to university was fund not to hold, which led o the rejection of the null hypothesis at 5% level of significance. The Chi-Square test is used to determine whether the probability of each category, that is, the students who adopt physical means of transport and those who do not, is equal. The significance of the results is 0.0, therefore there exists a difference in distributions. The binomial test is used to compare observed and expected frequencies under a distribution conditioned to have two likely outcomes. The test was carried out with a hypothesised proportion of 0.5, for fair distribution. With a 0.011 significance of the test value, it is unlikely that the frequencies share the same distribution. Therefore the two sets of frequencies are differently distributed. This serves to show that there is little relation in the way the respondents’ frequencies are distributed between those who use physical and those who use non-physical means. Distance covered to Sturt Sturt campus Distance (km) 0-5 N=4=13.3% 5-10 N=3=10.0% Reason for use of physical form of transport reason Frequency & Percentage fun N=1=3.3% fitness N=1=3.3% economical N=4=13.3% environmental N=1=3.3% Preferred physical form of transport form Frequency & percentage cycling N=6=20% Walking/running N=4=13.3% I would like to use physical means of transport for this reason Fitness N=8=26.7% economical N=1=3.3% environmental N=1=3.3% Wish to use physical means of transport response Frequency & percentage YES N=10=33.3% NO N=13=43.3% Length of time it takes to get to sturt for users of physical means of transport Time interval Frequency & percentage 0-15 minutes N=3=10% 15-30 minutes N=4=13.3% Discussion: The study has raised many findings. However, there are some that are of greater magnitude than others, by value of their implication to the conclusions of the study. Most outstanding among these was the fact that the distributions for the students who adopted physical means and those that did not were different. This means that the two frequencies are uniquely distinguishable. The most effective test is a k-related samples non-parametric test. Using this method, the treatment factor has two levels, Yes and No for the treatments (Lee & Famoye n.d.) The results further indicate that most students understand and desire the benefits that arise from physical means of transport. As an indicator this, 80% of the respondents who at the moment did not use physical means of transport said they would do so for fitness purposes. Studies show active travel has been promoted as a means of reducing GHG emissions, alongside producing health co-benefits (Goodman et al 2012) A WHO proposal suggests that all journeys less than five kilometers could best be considered for physical means of transport (Genter et al 2008). The media has effectively taken on the role of sensitizing the public about the benefits of being physically fit, and how to achieve this feat. Limitations of the Study: The data used is gathered from a self reported survey, which has in effect made the study less robust. Inclusion of personal bias was not fully avoidable, which means that some information provided by respondents in the questionnaires might have been influenced by the responses of their colleagues. Bridging the gap between theory and practice also seemed a big challenge for interviewees- for example most of those who adopt physical means of transport do so for economic purposes, as opposed to the 80% of those who do not use physical means but would prefer physical means for health reasons. Conclusion From the results obtained, it is obvious that the majority of students are in favour of physical means of transport, as opposed to the suggestion raised by a simple tally of the data that puts the number of those using the physical means of transport at an oddly small percentage. This is determined when the numbers of those who currently use the means and those who are willing but reluctant to engage the physical means at the moment are put together. The finding that the distance lived by students from Sturt Campus is not influenced by the means of transport used to reach the institution is curious indeed. It has the implication that some students living close to the institution still prefer to use motor vehicles to go to the institution. Coupled with the observation that many more students willing to use physical means of transport have over time kept away from initiating the move, and for such an important issue as self fitness, it then suggests a missing link between the students’ willingness and springing into action. Realistically, this missing link is their institution. Sturt, on realising the great importance with which the students value their physical fitness, should set up modalities to enable those among its student population willing to commute by physical means to do so without obstacles. These could include advocating for security and safety of those who walk and ride bicycles along the avenue leading to the institution. From the non-parametric tests, that are the binomial test and chi-square test, there is no direct relation between the distributions of the frequencies of respondents categorized as either users of physical means or users of non-physical means of transport to Sturt Campus. Bibliography Brockman, R & Fox, K, R 2011, ‘Physical activity by stealth? The potential health benefits of a workplace transport plan’, Public Health, vol. 125, pp. 210-216. Creswell, J, W 2009, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, SAGE Publications, California. Faulkner, G, E, J, Buliung, R, N, Flora, P, K & Fusco, C 2009, ‘Active school transport, physical activity levels and body weight of children and youth: A systematic review’, Preventive Medicine, vol. 48, pp. 3-8. Fraser, S, D.S, Lock, K 2010, ‘Cycling for transport and public heath: a systematic review of the effect of the environment on cycling’, European Journal of Public Health, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 738-743. Lewisa, N, Dollmanb, J &Dalea, M 2007, ‘Trends in physical activity behaviors and attitudes among South Australian youth between 1985 and 2004’, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, vol. 10, pp. 418-427. Nazelle, A, D, Nieuwenhuijsen, MJ, Antó, J, M, Brauer, M, Briggs, D, Braun-Fahrlander, C, Cavill, N, Cooper, A, R, Desqueyroux, H, Fruin, S, Hoek, G, Panis, C, I, Janssen, N, Jerrett, M, Joffe, M, Andersen, Z, J, Kempen, E, V, Kingham, S, Kubesch, N, Leyden, K, M, Marshall, J. D, Matamal, Mellios, J, Mendez, M, Nassif, H, Ogilvie, D, Peiró, R, Pérez, K, Rabl, A, Ragettli, M, Rodríguez, D, Rojas, D, Ruiz, P, Sallis, J, F, Terwoert, J, Toussaint, J-F, Tuomisto, J, Zuurbier, M & Lebret, E, L 2011, ‘Improving health through policies that promote active travel: A review of evidence to support integrated health impact assessment’, Environmental International, vol. 37, pp. 766-777. Ogilvie, D, Egan, M, Hamilton, V & Petticrew, M 2004, ‘Promoting walking and cycling as an alternative to using cars: systematic review, BMJ Journal, vol. 22, pp. 1-5. Ogilvie, D, Mitchell, Mutrie, R, Petticrew, M & Platt, S 2006, ‘Evaluating Health Effects of Transport Interventions - Methodologic Case Study’, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 118-126. Shannon, T, Giles-Corti, B, Pikora, T, Bulsara, M, Shilton , T & Bull, F 2006, ‘Active commuting in a university setting: Assessing commuting habits and potential for modal change’, Transport Policy, vol. 13, pp. 240-253. Ubillos, J. B & Sainz, A. F 2004, ‘The influence of quality and price on the demand for urban transport: the case of university students’, Transportation Research Part A, vol. 38, pp. 607-614. Wanner, M, Götschi, T, Martin-Diener, E, Kahlmeier, S & Martin, B, W 2012, ‘Active Transport, Physical Activity, and Body Weight in Adults - A Systematic Review’, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 493- 502. Nutbeam D, Harris E and Wise M, 2010, Theory in a nutshell: a practical guide to health promotion theories, third edition, McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd. Hamer, M and Chida, Y 2008, ‘Active commuting and cardiovascular risk: A meta-analytic review’ Preventive Medicine, vol. 46, pp. 9-13. Creswell, J. W., V. L. Plano Clark, M. Gutmann, and W. Hanson. 2003. Advanced mixed methods research designs. In Handbook on mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences, ed. A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie, 209–40. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lee, Carl, Famoye, Felix. SPSS On-line training Workshop n.d. Non-Parametric Methods. Par. 8 Goodman, A., Brand, C., and Ogilvie, D. Science for Environment Purposes: links Between Obesity, Physical Activity, transport and Carbon Dioxide Emissions (2012).Par3 Genter, J. A., Donovan, S., and Petrenas, B. Valuing the Health Benefits of Active Transport Modes. (2008) Read More