Citation

Stigell E, Schantz P. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011; 19(4): 563-574.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2011, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.06.006

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Distance is a variable of pivotal importance in transport studies. Therefore, after checking the validity of a potential criterion method for measuring active commuting route distances, this method was used to assess the validity and reproducibility of four methods of approximating the commuting route distances covered by pedestrians and bicyclists. The methods assessed were: self-estimated distance, straight-line distance, GIS shortest-route distance, and GPS-measured distance. For this purpose, participants were recruited when walking or bicycling in Stockholm, Sweden. Questionnaires and individually-adjusted maps were sent twice to 133 participants. The distances of map-drawn commuting routes functioned as criterion distances. The participants were also asked to estimate their distances. The straight-line distance between origin and destination was measured using map-drawn routes. The shortest route between home addresses and workplace addresses was calculated with three GIS algorithms. Eighty-six trips were measured with GPS. The main results were that test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) exceeded 0.99 for all methods, except for self-estimated distance (ICC = 0.76). No order effects existed between test and retest. Significant differences were, however, noted between criterion distance and self-estimated distance (114 ± 63%), straight-line distance (79.1 ± 10.5%), GIS shortest route (112 ± 18% to 121 ± 22%) and GPS distance (105 ± 4%). We conclude that commonly-used distance estimation methods produce systematic errors of differing magnitudes when used in a context of active commuting in suburban and urban environments. These errors can at average level be corrected for, whereas individual relative errors will remain.