4.4 Article

Activity Space of Older and Working-Age Adults in the Puget Sound Region, Washington

Journal

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD
Volume -, Issue 2494, Pages 37-44

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.3141/2494-05

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This work investigated the effect of personal, household, and neighborhood characteristics on variations in activity space through the use of a shortest network path buffer approach. A special focus was on the comparison of older adults (age 65 years and older, sample size of 591) with working-age adults (age 25 to 59 years, sample size of 1,806) to understand better the changes in activity space with age. Because activity space was a limited measure of social activity dependent on assumptions, this work investigated relative differences in the geographic reach of activity space and factors that increased or decreased that reach. The data were from the 2006 Household Activity Survey conducted in the Puget Sound, Washington, region. Descriptive data analysis showed that older adults on average had a substantially smaller (23%) geographic reach of activity space compared with working-age adults and that older adults who did not drive had the smallest geographic reach of activity space, only 16.7% of the overall average. The regression model results showed that low household income, often correlated with reduced mobility, was associated with a reduced geographic reach of activity space for older adults. Activity frequency significantly increased the geographic reach of activity space, and the effect was larger for older adults. The geographic reach of activity space was associated with neighborhood characteristics. Living in suburban and exurban neighborhoods led to a larger geographic reach of activity space for both older and working-age adults, while living in mixed use neighborhoods led to a smaller geographic reach of activity space.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available