Currently more than 1,000 NCAA member institutions have intercollegiate athletic programs. The athletic teams from all of these institutions must travel in order to participate in sanctioned competitions as well as some training sessions. Transportation methods vary and consist of airplanes, chartered buses, 12 and 15-passenger vans, university-owned vehicles, minibuses, and student-athlete vehicles. The purpose of this exploratory study was to determine and compare the current transportation practices of Division I, Division II, and Division III teams, in particular those transportation practices involving teams for sports which are typically non-revenue producing. A total of 120 colleges were randomly selected for this study, and 43% of these institutions responded. Results indicate that many teams are not using the safest methods to transport their athletes. Coaches are frequently called upon as drivers and 15-passenger vans are used at a high rate. Schools also failed to implement the majority of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations for the transportation of student-athletes.
Jennifer Beck, Bernie Goldfine, Susan Whitlock, Todd Seidler and Jin Wang
Jennifer D. Roberts, Lindsey Rodkey, Rashawn Ray and Brian E. Saelens
As obesity rates continue to increase among youth in the United States, methods for increasing physical activity have become a focal point of current research. Analyzing overall active transportation (AT) or active transportation to school (ATS) trends for youth, and the factors that influence this
Ka Man Leung and Pak-Kwong Chung
satisfaction with public transport are positively related to walking for transportation ( Cerin et al., 2017 ). The number of shops is positively related to walking for recreation, whereas feeling unsafe is negatively related ( Van Cauwenberg, Clarys, et al., 2012 ). Clearly, different physical
Allison Ross, Ja Youn Kwon, Pamela Hodges Kulinna and Mark Searle
Despite the known health benefits associated with active transportation to school (ATS), 1 – 5 rates have declined in the United States. In 1969, approximately 48% of all school children walked or biked to or from school. By 2014, overall rates dropped between 15.2% (to school) and 18.4% (from
Elizabeth Lorenzo, Jacob Szeszulski, Michael Todd, Scherezade K. Mama and Rebecca E. Lee
% among African American and Hispanic/Latina women aged 50 years or older. 5 Active transportation (AT) is walking or bicycling for all or part of a commute to any destination. 6 Systematic reviews conducted to evaluate AT use and health have found AT to be associated with a lower risk of diabetes and
Meera Sreedhara, Karin Valentine Goins, Christine Frisard, Milagros C. Rosal and Stephenie C. Lemon
Active transportation provides the opportunity to achieve recommended amounts of physical activity (PA) and is linked to reductions in adverse cardiovascular outcomes. 1 , 2 However, a small proportion of US adults and children report walking or biking for transportation. 3 , 4 Evidence
Richard Larouche, Joel D. Barnes, Sébastien Blanchette, Guy Faulkner, Negin A. Riazi, François Trudeau and Mark S. Tremblay
multiple benefits for physical and mental health ( 10 , 33 ). Furthermore, consistent evidence shows that PA participation declines with age ( 11 , 22 , 39 ), and disparities in participation by gender and socioeconomic status have often been reported ( 8 , 44 ). Active transportation (AT) is an important
Samantha M. Gray, Peggy Chen, Lena Fleig, Paul A. Gardiner, Megan M. McAllister, Joseph H. Puyat, Joanie Sims-Gould, Heather A. McKay, Meghan Winters and Maureen C. Ashe
life routines. Active travel modes (such as walking and cycling) and public transportation (such as train, shuttle, and bus) are important opportunities for older adults to increase daily activity. 5 – 7 According to a Metro Vancouver regional trip diary survey in Canada, adults aged 65–79 years make
Chanam Lee and Anne Vernez Moudon
Background:
Walking is a popular recreational activity and a feasible travel mode. Associations exist between walking and the built environment, but knowledge is lacking about specific environmental conditions associated with different purposes of walking.
Methods:
This cross-sectional study used a survey of 438 adults and objective environmental measures. Multinomial logit models estimated the odds of walking for recreation or transportation purposes.
Results:
Utilitarian destinations were positively associated with transportation walking, but recreational destinations were not associated with any walking. Residential density was correlated with both purposes of walking, and sidewalks with recreation walking only. Hills were positively associated with recreation walking and negatively with transportation walking.
Conclusions:
Physical environment contributed significantly to explain the probability of walking. However, different attributes of environment were related to transportation versus recreation walking, suggesting the need for multiple and targeted interventions to effectively support walking.
Amy I. Zlot, John Librett, David Buchner and Tom Schmid
Purpose:
This study examines environmental, transportation, social, and time barriers to physical activity.
Methods:
Survey questions from the nationally representative Greenstyles survey (N = 2181) were summed to create environmental, transportation, social, and time barrier variables. Logistic regression was used to determine if the barrier variables had a significant association with physical activity levels.
Results:
Those who have low barriers to physical activity are more likely to meet the recommended physical activity levels compared with those with medium and high barriers. In addition, transportation, social capital, and time barriers independently contributed to the low levels of physical activity.
Conclusions:
Removal of multiple barriers to physical activity may have an additive effect of increasing physical activity levels in Americans. Promoting physical activity requires strategies and research across multiple sectors to mitigate these barriers.
