Wonder’s Way Bike Pedestrian Pathway on the Arthur Ravenel, Jr. Bridge:
A Successful Model for Facilitating Active Living in Lowcountry South Carolina1
Deborah McCarthy, Associate Professor
College of Charleston February 23, 2009
This project is a partnership with the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of
Governments and was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYAbstractA number of policies and interventions increasingly recommend the building of better infrastructure (such as the construction of sidewalks, paths, trails, and bike lanes) as a way to increase the public’s physical activity levels. These policies and interventions are a result of accumulating research which shows that physical infrastructure (such as living near a trail) and activity levels are connected. Documentation, however, of specific projects that have led to increased activity levels is scarce. This research project evaluates one particular path, the construction of the new Wonder’s Way bicycle and pedestrian path on the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge (Cooper River Bridge), in Charleston South Carolina. The objectives of this research included assessing the: (1) the impact of the path on users’ overall activity levels, (2) regularity and mode of path use, (3) reasons for path use, (4) mode of transportation to the path, (5) demographic correlates with patterns of path use, (6) characteristics desired in a path, and (7) attitudes towards the quality of the current bridge path.
MethodsThis study administered onsite surveys (both quantitative and qualitative) to 393 users of the new, 2.71 mile long, Wonder’s Way Path which connects Charleston and Mt. Pleasant South Carolina over the Cooper River. The surveys were administered in the winter, spring and summer of 2007 (from January through July).
Summary of Major FindingsSixty-seven percent of surveyed path users indicated that their activity levels had increased since the opening of the bridge path. Increases in activity levels were significantly related to race and whether or not the path user regularly walked the bridge.
Eight-five percent of Black respondents reported increased activity levels versus 64% of White respondents. In addition, 75% of those that indicated that they were Regular Walkers versus 56% of those that were not Regular Walkers reported increased activity levels. Gender was significantly associated with whether someone was a self-reported Regular Walker, Runner or Bicyclist. Women were more likely to report being regular bridge walkers (68% of women versus 40% of men), and men were more likely to report both being regular bridge runners (48% of men versus 37% of women) and bicyclists (36% of men versus 11% of women). In terms of the commuting behavior of respondents, 10% of the participants indicated that they utilized the path in order to commute to work or conduct chores. When asked to rate their reasons for why they
commute on the path, participants listed “To Fit Exercise in to Routine” at the top. It was found that two hundred and eighty six of the bridge users (73 %) drove to the bridge path in order to utilize it. Finally, participants were asked to rate what they find to be important in a hypothetical path and also the quality of the current path. While “Safety” received the highest rating of characteristics that are important in a hypothetical path, “Scenery” received the highest rating for the quality of characteristics of the new bridge path. These and other ratings are detailed in the document below.
2
3
I. INTRODUCTION
Literature:
The relationship between physical activity and good health is now well-
documented. Physical inactivity, which strongly influences obesity, is associated with
many chronic diseases, including heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, and diabetes,
among others.2 Not only has a strong association between physical inactivity and disease
been well documented, it has also become clear that the numbers of adults and children in
the U.S. that are either overweight or obese has grown substantially. In fact, the
proportion of youth who are overweight and adults who are obese more than doubled in
the last two decades of the 20th century.3 In South Carolina the rates of overweight and
obesity are among the highest in the nation. One in Four adults in South Carolina is
obese and 3 out of 5 adults are obese or overweight.4 Health conditions in the Berkeley,
Charleston, and Dorchester regions are consistent with statewide trends of poor health. A
2000 survey, for instance, shows that 58 % of the region's population is at risk for the
types of chronic diseases that are related to a sedentary lifestyle.5 The good news is that
going from a sedentary lifestyle to one which adopts exercise, even moderate exercise
such as walking, can produce large health benefits.6 Though the connection between
physical activity and health is well established, only 26% of adult Americans achieve the
recommended levels7 of physical activity and 28% report no active leisure time at all.8
A number of policies and interventions are increasingly aimed at promoting
physical activity by building and promoting better infrastructure.9 10 11 Sometimes
referred to as “New Urbanism,” one body of policy suggestions focuses on the creation
4
and revitalization of dense, pedestrian friendly, mixed-use communities.12 Additional
strategies that are recommended include the establishment of mall walking programs and
the building of infrastructure that encourages physical activity (such as bike lanes,
crosswalks, and trails, among others). These policies and interventions are a result of
accumulating research which shows that while automobile-oriented infrastructure, such
as sprawl, discourages physical activity,13 supportive infrastructure, such as sidewalks,
encourages both higher activity levels14 and non-motorized travel.15 Some of this
literature shows a direct link between living near trails and paths and higher overall
activity levels. 16
In addition to the health benefits that they offer, walking and bicycling are
effective means of low-cost, resource friendly, and environmentally sustainable
transportation for short distances. Our high level of dependency on cars for travel and the
related automobile infrastructure has come at a steep price. Costs include the increasing
hours spent at the wheel17; obesity from inactivity related to increased driving and limited
spaces for non-motorized mobility18; civil insecurity related to our dependency on oil and
global economic insecurity related to the growing gap between the supply and demand of
a finite resource19; and massive environmental degradation and pollution20. In addition,
both purchasing and maintaining a car is costly.21 Walking and biking provide potential
alternatives for those who cannot afford the purchase of a car and the $6,000 a year that
the average driver pays in fuel and maintenance costs. However, in automobile
dominated regions of the country that are under-resourced in terms of sidewalks and bike
lanes (especially areas experiencing suburban sprawl like greater Charleston) non-
motorized travel has become increasingly inefficient and dangerous.
5
Current census figures document the degree to which the automobile has become
dominant as other forms of travel have become marginalized. Consider, for example, the
2000 census report on travel to work rates: over 75.7% of trips in the U.S. are conducted
by people who traveled alone in automobiles, 12.2% by people who carpooled, 4.7% by
people who used public transit (this includes taxis), 2.9% by people who walked, and
1.2% by people who traveled by other means (3.3% worked at home).22 Data from the
Department of Transportation on walking and bicycling rates for all trips (not just travel
to work) estimates that walking makes up only 8.6 % of all trips and bicycling makes up
only .9% of all trips.23 While workers and travelers can not be expected to travel long
distances by foot or bike, it is striking to note while one quarter of all trips are less than
one mile, three-fourths of those short trips are made by automobile.24 It is these types of
short, yet frequent, small trips that citizens can be encouraged to take by foot or bike. In
fact, studies have shown that the building of sidewalks, paths, and trails does increase the
numbers of people who walk and bike for travel.25
The results, outlined below, of the Wonder’s Way study provides a step toward
understanding the relationship between infrastructure and activity/commuting levels and
understanding the key motivating interests of outdoor exercisers and non-motorized
commuters. More specifically, while there is substantial documentation of the existence
of a positive connection between infrastructure and activity levels, very little research
shows the direct impact that a new facility (such as a new trail/path) can have on
increasing the activity levels of community members. One study of trail users in rural
West Virginia did find that 98% of trail users on two new trails reported that their activity
levels had increased since beginning to use the new trails.26 27 However, another recent
6
study showed that the construction of a new trail in North Carolina had no impact on the
activity rates of community members living near the trail.28 In addition, there is no
documentation of how a bridge path, and especially a new bridge path, might impact
activity levels. Finally, there is also very little information (and the information available
is somewhat conflicting) on what community members actually want in a path, trail, or
other facility.29 In addition, while a few pieces on non-motorized commuters have
appeared over the past few decades, the literature lacks any sort of comprehensive
documentation of the rates, demographic profiles, and motivations of this type of traveler.
This study represents an attempt to contribute to some of these gaps that exist in our
current understanding of the relationship between non-motorized travel (both exercisers
and commuters) and infrastructure.
Charleston and the Wonder’s Way Bridge Path:
The 2.71 mile long and 12 foot wide Wonder’s Way30 path, which opened for
traffic on July 15, 2005,31connects the Charleston peninsula with the town of Mt. Pleasant
in South Carolina.32 Paths such as this one are uniquely important for communities like
Charleston and Mt. Pleasant that are bisected by rivers or other water ways.33
II. METHODS
Data Collection and Design:
This research is based on a cross-sectional, onsite, study which used data from an
interceptor34 interview survey (containing both quantitative and qualitative questions) of
7
adults exercising and commuting35 on the new bridge path in Charleston, SC. Surveys
were administered to 393 users and obtained data on (1) the impact of the path on users’
overall activity levels, (2) regularity and mode of path use, (3) reasons for path use, (4)
mode of transportation to the path, (5) demographic correlates with patterns of path use,
(6) characteristics desired in a path, and (7) attitudes towards the quality of the current
bridge path.
While the survey primarily collected quantitative data, it also contains three
qualitative, open-ended questions, including: 1) what do you like most about this bridge
path, 2) what could be done to improve this bridge path, and 3) is there anything else that
you’d like to comment on that I didn’t address today? All of comments on this section of
the survey were reported verbally by respondents and recorded by hand by the surveyors
and, therefore, should be read as paraphrases of the original comments.
Sample:
The sample (n=393) contains 57% walkers (n=225), 26% joggers/runners
(n=101), and 17% bike riders (n=67).36 Trained student-interviewers administered the
survey to 373 adult path users who live within 20 miles of the path. Surveys were
conducted for 7 months during three seasons, during both weekdays and weekends, and
during multiple times of the day. Surveys were not conducted on rainy days but were
conducted on overcast days. Each survey took approximately 5-10 minutes to complete.
The interviewers delivered the surveys orally and recorded the responses on a clip board
for the respondents. Respondents were offered a free water bottle for their time.37
8
Respondents who noted that they lived more than 20 miles from the path were not
included in the survey.38
III. RESULTS
The racial composition of the sample (n =3 93) was more White and less Black
than the SC population as a whole with 89% White and 11% Black.39 South Carolina, on
the other hand, is 67% White and 29% Black. The gender composition of the survey is
close to the gender composition of South Carolina as a whole. In the survey, gender
breaks down in to 56% women and 44% men40 while in South Carolina as a whole
women make up 51% and men make up 49% of the population.41 The age range of the
participants in the study is fairly well distributed with most of the participants (27%)
falling in the 18-27 age category, 20% falling in the 28-37 age category, 24% falling in
the 38-47 category, 18% falling in the 48-57 category, and the least of the participants
(11%) falling in the 58 and older category. 42 (See Table 1 for a summary of the key
demographic characteristics of survey participants).
In addition, note that 17% of the individuals who were approached and who
agreed to participate, but who were not actually surveyed, lived more than 20 miles from
the bridge (total number interviewed =3 93, total number approached =476). This fairly
high percent rate indicates that the path operates as a strong tourist attraction.
Impact of Path on Physical Activity Rates:
Sixty-seven percent43 of path users (n=262) indicated that their activity levels had
increased since the opening of the bridge path (See Table 1). The high use of the bridge
9
path for physical activity and exercise was mirrored in the open-ended portion of the
survey where respondents were asked what they like best about the bridge path. Sixty-three
of the comments in this section praised the exercise and workout benefits offered by the
bridge.
Increases in activity levels were significantly related to Race and whether or not
the path user regularly walked the bridge. In terms of race, 85% of Black respondents
reporting increased activity levels versus 64% of White respondents (see Table 2). This
finding fits with the literature which has found that Blacks are more likely than Whites to
utilize sidewalks and other amenities (for primarily walking), rather than going to gym,
as their exercise modality. 44 A few studies are also showing that paths, trails, and similar
facilities appear to be uniquely helpful for increasing the activity levels of Blacks given
that this part of the population reports higher activity levels while working or traveling to
work than during leisure time.45
In addition, the regularity (“regular” is defined as once a month or more) of
walking was significantly associated with reports of increases in activity levels. Seventy
Five percent of those that indicated that they are Regular Walkers46 versus 56% of those
that were not Regular Walkers reported increased activity levels (see Table 3). There
was no significant relationship between regularity of running or biking with increased
activity levels. This indicates that the availability of the bridge path has more of an
impact on moderate exercisers (the regular bridge walkers) than on more strenuous
exercisers (regular bridge runners or bikers). This finding also fits with the literature
which suggests that due to its affordability, convenience, and acceptability, walking may
10
be an activity that is easier to encourage than other activities like joining a gym. This is
especially true for hard-to-reach populations like minorities, the elderly, and women.47
Regular Modality:
Most of the participants were walking across the bridge on the day of the survey
(57%), while 26% were running, and 17% were biking. Walking was also the activity
that most participants engaged in “Regularly” on the bridge (56 %).48 Forty-two
percent49 were Regular Runners, and 22%50 were Regular Bicyclists (see Table 4). This
profile fits with government findings that walking is the most common form of physical
activity in the U.S.51
Gender was the only demographic factor that was significantly associated with
whether someone was a self-reported regular walker, runner or bicyclist. Women were
more likely to report being regular bridge walkers (68% of women versus 40% of men),
and men were more likely to report both being regular bridge runners (48% of men
versus 37% of women) and bicyclists (36% of men versus 11% of women) (see Table 5).
This finding fits with the literature which indicates that women are more likely to walk
for exercise than are men.52 It is also well established that men tend to be more likely to
cycle than women.53
What Participants Want in a Hypothetical Path:
Participants were asked both about the importance of characteristics on a
hypothetical path and also were asked to rate the quality of the new Wonder’s Ways path
on a list of characteristics.
11
Participants rated characteristics for a hypothetical path on a scale of 1-5 (with 1
being “not at all important” and 5 being “very important”) in the following order: Safety,
Well Maintained, Adequate Space, Access On and Off, Adequate Lighting, Convenient
Location, Scenery, Accessible Parking, Paved Terrain, Restroom/H20 Facilities, Hilly
Terrain, Social Atmosphere, and Flat Terrain (see Table 6). The high rating of “Safety”
and “Well Maintained” is supported by the literature on trails which shows that users
highly value the safety and maintenance of paths. In fact it’s been found that trails that
are perceived to be well-maintained and safe are used more often.54
How Participants Rate the Wonder’s Way Bridge Path:
Bridge users gave the bridge path very high marks, 7 out of 11 characteristics
were rated above a 4 on a scale of 1-5 (with 1 being “very poor quality” and 5 being
“very good quality”). Participants rated the quality of the bridge path characteristics in
the following order: Scenery, Maintenance, Terrain, Lighting, Convenience of Location,
Safety, Access On and Off, Parking Near the Path, Social Atmosphere, Free of
Congestion, and Restroom/H20 Facilities (see Table 7). As two participants summed up
their enthusiasm on the open-ended section of the survey:
Great job on the bridge – love it (13)
It’s great, the best thing to happen to Charleston in years (248)
Only three qualities received mean ratings in the 3 level (“Parking Near the Path”,
“Social Atmosphere”, and “Free of Congestion”) and one quality received a rating in the 2
level (“Restroom/H20 Facilities”). The low rating for the access to “Restroom/H20”
facilities was echoed in the open-ended section of the survey with 91 comments naming
12
restrooms and/or H20 facilities as infrastructure in need of improvement. One
respondent made reference to the improvement to water facilities that had already been
made and commented that they were:
Happy to have the new water fountain (63)
The item that seems to point most to the need for future attention is the low rating
for the Wonder’s Way path quality in terms of “Free of Congestion.” This is important
because respondents rated “Adequate Space” as third in importance for hypothetical path
characteristics (see Table 6). The space problems on the path were echoed in the open-
ended section of the survey. In fact, when asked if respondents felt that the bridge path
needed any improvement, the biggest complaint was space. Specifically, 69 respondents
noted that space was a problem. And of those comments that listed problems with space,
the most common complaint was tension between bicyclists and pedestrians. Many noted
simply that the path needs “wider lanes”. Many more, however, pointed to specific
tensions between pedestrians and bicyclists. For instance, one respondent said:
Fix the Pedestrian and biker conflict of getting in the way of each other (139).55
The above comment is fairly neutral in tone. However the high levels of space-
related frustration that many pedestrians and bicyclists were feeling is evident in the
negative and divisive tones of many of the other comments. Negative comments were
directed at both pedestrians and bicyclists.
13
The negative comments directed against bicyclists and pedestrians tended to focus
on the perceived dangers imposed by one group or the other. The following pedestrian
comments reflect the concerns about perceived bicyclist imposed dangers:
Take bikers off! Bikers are dangerous to walkers (15)
Bikers are dangerous and “scary” to pedestrians, the path needs wider lanes (39)
Slow the bikers down (132)
The following is a sample of comments directed at the perceived dangers posed by
pedestrians:
Pedestrians should stay in a single file line to get out of the way of bikers (51)
Walkers need to stay out of the biking lane (52)
Walkers are in the way of bikers’ safety (150)
The frustration caused by the space conflicts and potential dangers are further reflected in
the way that some of the complaints were directed at the perceived “attitudes” of either
bikers or pedestrians. Some example comments are as follows:
Teach Pedestrians courtesy to bikers (57)
Bikers are rude (4)
Many respondents did offer suggestions for how to alleviate space conflicts.
Some are financially unrealistic now that the bridge and path have been completed
(widening the path or putting a separate path on other side). Other suggestions would be,
relatively speaking, simple to enact, such as installing a rubber barrier56 between
pedestrians and bicyclists and putting up more signs.
14
Though “Safety” only rated as number 6 for quality of the New Bridge, it rated as
number 1 for importance in hypothetical bridge path characteristics, and it did appear
often in the open-ended section of the survey. The following respondent, for instance,
praised the safety of the bridge and commented that:
It’s nice to know you are safe to come at any time of day (13)
A total of 29 comments noted that one of things they like about the bridge path is
safety. Most comments did not specify what they mean by “safety” but the majority of
those that did specify indicated that they felt safe from traffic on the bridge. For instance,
one respondent explained that:
The barrier makes it safe to walk with traffic (316)
However, 25 comments referred to unsafe qualities of the bridge path that need
improvement.57 Of those comments, most pointed to the feeling that the parking area and
the experience of crossing from the parking area to the bridge were unsafe (17) (several
of these named the Charleston side as being particularly unsafe). For instance, one
respondent noted that:
Even though people may live downtown they drive to the Mt. Pleasant access area
because it is safer, the parking on East Bay is dangerous. (This respondent also
noted that they know of many people who have had their cars broken into in the
Charleston side parking lot) (177)
It is important to note that only one respondent suggested that the path is easy to “get to”
safely.
15
Nine of the 25 comments suggested changes to the actual bridge path that would
make crossing it safer. Three of the 9 comments suggested that the bridge path would be
safer if a higher barrier were installed between cars and path users to prevent against
exposure to unsafe debris. For instance, one person said there needs to be a:
Chain link fence at the top to provide safety from the bridge debris (109)
In addition, five of these 9 comments suggested installing emergency phones on the
bridge and one of the 9 suggested that blue lights should be placed on the bridge.
Parking was also noted as a problem in the open-ended section of the survey;
forty-four58 comments indicated that parking should be improved.
Also, though “Social Atmosphere” was only rated as 9th in terms of the quality of
the New Bridge, a number of respondents did mention on the open-ended section of the
survey that one of the assets of the bridge path is that it offers a place to socialize. For
instance, one respondent commented that it provides:
Time to bond with the person you are going over with (314)
As noted above in the section titled “Impact of Path on Physical Activity Rates” path
users pointed to the opportunity to exercise as one of their favorite qualities of the new
bridge path. Sixty-three of the comments praised the exercise and workout benefits
offered by the bridge.
Note that “Terrain” is listed as 3rd in terms of its quality on the current bridge
path (see Table 7). However, when asked to rate hypothetical characteristics of bridge
paths (Table 6), “Hilly Terrain” was rated as 11th and “Flat Terrain” was rated as 13th.
Since the bridge path does have an incline and the surrounding Lowcountry in general is
flat, it appears that a number of participants are attracted to the bridge path for its
16
uniquely hilly character (relative to other local options). The open-ended questions show
that, indeed, bridge path users do value the hill. References to the incline were the 2nd
most frequent positive praise about the bridge path (81 positive comments were made
about the hill). Most participants simply noted, as in the following comments, that:
The hill is challenging (111)
Not many hills in Charleston, the incline is good (374)
Note also that participants rated “Scenery” on the Wonder’s Way path as very
high quality (see Table 7) but it only appeared as number 7 in terms of importance on
hypothetical path characteristics (see Table 6). “Safety”, on the other hand, as noted
above, was rated as 6th in terms of quality (see Table 7). The literature shows that both
safety59 and scenery60 are positively associated with activity levels. One recent article
also indicates that particular mixes of scenery and safety are especially appealing to path
users. This 2007 study found that Chicago urban residents seemed to prefer trail areas
that had a mix of both natural and built-environment views. This could be related to the
desire for feeling safe which may be compromised in settings where there is a lot of
vegetative overgrowth but minimal views of other activities, such as shops and cafes.61
The Wonder’s Way bridge path offers the benefits of scenery without the drawbacks of
the types of vegetative overgrowth that may make exercisers and commuters feel unsafe.
The high rating of “Scenery” was mirrored in respondent comments on the open-
ended section of the survey. One hundred and eighty comments on the open-ended
portion of the survey referred to the scenery (it was by far the most commonly cited
positive feature of the bridge). The following comments reflect the general positive
sentiments expressed about the views from the bridge path:
17
Scenery and the bridge itself is pretty (50)
Great view, the new ships on the harbor are fun to watch (85)
Scenery at night, it’s all lit up (270)
A great scene over the water (300)
Midpoint view is a sight to see! (319)
The draw that scenery can provide to potential exercisers is beginning to be documented
in other research as well.62
“Convenience of Location” was rated as 5th in terms of quality and showed up 13
times as a positive attribute in the open-ended section of the survey. Convenience of
location is also starting to appear in other research on path user attitudes.63 Though the
bridge path provides a convenient location for exercising and commuting, the need for
more connectivity between the bridge path and other non-motorized paths/trails/lanes or
sidewalks is evident in the numbers of bridge users that reported that they drove to, rather
than walked, ran, or biked, to the path. Specifically, two hundred and eighty six of the
bridge users (73 %)64 drove to the bridge path in order to utilize it. At the time of the
data collection for this survey, there was no adequate bridge path connectivity with other
paths and/or trails. Since the completion of the surveys for this project, construction of
additional paths has been started on the Charleston side of the bridge.65 In addition,
though not asked to comment on this topic, 7 separate respondents vocalized their wish
that Charleston and/or Mt. Pleasant would build more pedestrian and bike friendly
facilities. Three more separate respondents noted specifically that they would like to see a
similar path installed across the West Ashley Bridge.
18
Finally, a few items appeared on the open-ended portion of the survey that were
not addressed on the quantitative part of the survey. First, a few respondents (7)
commented that the bridge is uniquely beneficial for the type of structure that it offers to
the exerciser’s workout. For instance, two exercisers noted that:
It’s very goal oriented because you want to get to the other side (305)
It’s a structured workout because you can’t stop unless you go back down (220)
In addition, one unexpected criticism appeared frequently (23 times) on the open-
ended portion of the survey. Twenty-three respondents noted that pets, or pet waste,
posed a problem on the path. The following two comments are typical of the types of
concern expressed by respondents:
Pets get in the way of bikers, causing unsafe conditions when trying to avoid their
waste or presence on path (181)
There should not be dog poop on the bridge (263)
Commuting versus Recreating:
As quite a few participants pointed out, the path offers:
The only way to get downtown without a car, unless it’s a boat (84)
Ten percent of the participants indicated that they utilize the path in order to commute to
work or conduct chores (see Table 1). Only 67 of the 393 participants (see Table 1) were
bicyclists on the bridge on the day of the survey. This may be because bicyclists are
traveling at a faster speed than walkers (n=225) and runners (n=101) and are less likely,
therefore, to stop for a survey. Since the bicycle is so convenient for non-motorized
commuting to go to work or conduct chores, the overall numbers of commuters that use
the Wonder’s Way path are likely to be underrepresented.
19
Gender was significantly associated with the likelihood of using the path for
commuting with men being more likely to use the path for commuting (15%) than
women (6%) (see Table 8). This finding does fit with the bike commuting literature
which indicates that men have higher rates of bike commuting than women. The 2005
American Community Survey, for instance, found that men are three times as likely as
women to bike commute to work.66
Participants were asked to rate their reasons for why they commute on the path on a
1-5 scale in which (1 is a “low level reason” and 5 is a “high level reason”). With a mean
score of 4.8, “To fit Exercise in to the Routine” received a top rating. The rest of the
ratings, in order of “highest” to “lowest” level reason are as follows: For the Chance to be
Outside, For the Scenery, To Give Me Time to Reflect, For the Fun of It, To Contribute to
Less Resource Depletion, To Save on Gas and other Car Expenses, To Avoid Parking
Hassles and/or Costs, and To Save Time (see Table 9).
IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The results of this project support research and policy efforts over the past decade
which document and advocate that physical activity and non-motorized transit can be
facilitated by supportive infrastructure. Structures, such as bridge paths, clearly make it
easier for community members to fit exercise into their daily lives. Sixty-seven percent
of respondents attributed increased activity levels to the construction of the path and the
open-ended portion of the survey generated 63 comments that praised the path for its
exercise and work-out benefits. It appears, as well, that supportive infrastructure can be
especially successful at increasing the activity levels of the least active and hardest to
20
reach segments of the population. For this study, Black respondents and moderate
exercisers were most likely to report increases in activity from the opening of the bridge
path. Eighty-five percent of Black respondents versus 64% of White respondents
reported increases in activity levels with the construction of the new bridge path. The
connection between walking access and activity levels among Blacks is especially salient
given that this population has very high rates of obesity and other chronic diseases that
are related to inactivity67 and they are also among the groups, including women, which
are least likely to meet recommended levels of physical activity68.
Seventy-five percent of Regular Walkers, as opposed to 56% percent of non
Regular Walkers reported increases in activity levels attributed to the new bridge path.
While women did not report significantly higher levels of increased activity than men,
women were significantly more likely than men to report being Regular Walkers. This
indicates that Women’s and other moderate exercisers’ (walkers) needs, in addition to
Black exercisers’ needs, are uniquely facilitated by the local development of supportive
infrastructure. These results provide evidence that walking, a simple form of exercise, is
ideal for many people who do not currently meet recommended activity levels. It
requires low exertion levels, it can potentially be fit into daily routines (such as travel to
work, shopping, and running errands), and it doesn’t require any financial investment.69
These findings support other research which shows that the promotion of walking with
supportive infrastructure can be effective at increasing the activity levels among
populations with generally low activity levels.70
The ratings of the quality of the current path and the comments in the open-ended
section of the survey indicate that overall this Wonder’s Way path serves as a strong
21
model for how to construct successful pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along a
bridge. The survey responses also indicate that the path offers unique and desired
qualities that are specific to the needs of Lowcountry exercisers (the incline) and to
exercisers in general (the structured workout). The Scenery offered by the path was rated
as number one on the quality scale and it also generated the largest number of positive
comments from respondents. While the survey did not interview tourists, the 17% of all
the users that were “approached” were tourists. This indicates that the bridge path serves
as a significant tourist attraction. The results of the study also suggest that supportive
physical infrastructure development contributes to environmental sustainability by
encouraging non-motorized transit. Recall that ten percent of the surveyed bridge users
reported that they commute on the bridge path.
This study also points to some of the considerations that marketing campaigns
should take in to account when attempting to promote either physical activity or
alternative transit programs. For instance, “To Fit Exercise in to Routine” was rated as
the most important reason why commuters use the path. Future non-motorized transit
campaigns, such as “bike to work” campaigns, may benefit by focusing attention on the
most salient desires of potential non-motorized commuters. Likewise, promotion
materials that highlight certain characteristics of the bridge path that are most salient to
current users (for instance scenery and exercise, among others) would likely improve the
efficacy of any campaign aimed at increasing physical activity levels.
This project also documents several important lessons which should be
incorporated into future projects. These lessons are evident in the concerns and
frustrations that participants voiced in regards to a few of the path characteristics. One
22
unexpected frustration was directed at pet dangers and waste. This problem can be easily
remedied with better enforcement and public education. A more serious concern with
space was voiced in the surveys; respondents rated the quality of “Free of Congestion” as
only tenth. A look at the open-ended section of the survey indicates that most of the
congestion frustration is due to space conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists. A few
simple and low cost suggestions were offered, and detailed above, for addressing some of
this tension on the current bridge. “Restroom/H20 Facilities” was rated as eleventh on
the quality scale and frustration with inadequate facilities was echoed in the comments on
the open-ended section of the survey. Safety also came up as a recurring problem.
Though bridge users felt safe from traffic-related dangers on the bridge path, a few
respondents did suggest that a better job could be done in terms of protecting pedestrians
and bicyclists from traffic-related debris and a few suggested installing safety items, like
emergency telephones, on the bridge. In addition, access to the path was listed as a
problem (with the parking lot area on the Charleston side of the path generating the
greatest amount of concern in regards to crime-related safety).
The number one lesson from this study is that the bridge path has been an
enormous success in terms of encouraging increased activity levels of the population in
general and serving the particular needs of alternative commuters. The public’s desire for
more paths, and similar amenities, was made clear on the survey. For instance, while
“Convenience of Location” was rated as fifth on the quality scale; the high numbers of
users that drove to the path are suggestive that it could be made more convenient if it
were better connected to other established walking/biking routes. Several respondents
also directly voiced their hope that Charleston and Mt. Pleasant would invest in more
23
supportive infrastructure, like the bridge path, and that Charleston would invest in a
similar path over the Ashley River.
Finally, the Wonder’s Way path contributes to the “charm” of the city. The
potential for this path and similar future sites to act as tourist draws is significant and
would more than balance out any financial investment in the original infrastructure.
Charleston County and Mt. Pleasant should be encouraged by the results of this study and
are well advised to build on this success to create more pedestrian and bike friendly
forms of infrastructure in the region.
Limitations of this study include the cross-sectional design. It does not contain
baseline information on activity levels that existed prior to the construction of the path.
In addition, data from this study on activity levels and increased activity levels are all
based on self reports. There is, therefore, no way to know whether overall activity levels
really did increase. Also, the study utilized interceptor-based onsite surveys; since some
potential respondents passed by while interviews were being conducted a true response
rate (number of participants divided by total number of individuals using the path during
the interview session) was not attained. Note also that walkers were the most likely types
of users to participate in the survey, so bicyclists and possibly runners may be under-
represented in the study. Finally, since this study was conducted onsite by intercepting
path users, the activity levels and attitudes of the general Charleston community were not
represented in this study.
24
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project would not have been possible without generous support from the Robert
Woods Johnson Foundation and the Berkeley, Charleston, Dorchester Council of
Governments (BCD COGs). Numerous individuals also provided crucial help in the
undertaking of this project. Vonie Gilreath, Senior Planner at COG, provided the
original inspiration for this project and worked tirelessly to help design and implement
the bridge survey. Several College of Charleston students and BCD COGs interns also
made invaluable contributions to the project including administering the survey, entering
and coding the data, and searching the literature. This dynamo team included Mat Akery,
Maryann Hoyt, Kia Jenkins, Lindsay Kopp, Caroline Silverman, Mary Alice Springs, and
Meredith Trevino. Finally, many thanks go to the 393 survey participants who were
kind enough stop and contribute to the survey.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Deborah McCarthy is Associate Professor in the Sociology and Anthropology
Department at the College of Charleston specializing in environmental sociology and
urban studies. She has published pieces on the political economy of the environment, the
relationships between philanthropic organizations and grassroots environmental groups,
and the risk perceptions of migrant farm workers. Deborah has published two books.
One book is a collection that she co-edited with Daniel Faber titled Foundations for
Social Change: Critical Perspectives on Philanthropy and Popular Movements. The
25
other book was recently updated and is coming out in spring 2009 for its 2nd edition; this
reader is co-edited with Leslie King and is titled Environmental Sociology: From
Analysis to Action. Her articles have appeared in the Human Organization, Sociological
Inquiry, and Social Justice Research journals. Her current projects explore connections
between the built environment, physical health, and environmental sustainability.
ENDNOTES
1 Final Report prepared for Berkeley, Charleston, Dorchester Council of Governments COGs.
2 For examples of documentation see: Hahn, R. A., S. M. Teutsch, and R. B. Rothenberg. 1990. “Excess
Deaths from 9 Chronic Diseases in the United States, 1986.” JAMA. 264(20): 2654-2659; McKenna, et al.
1998. “Current Issues and Challenges in Chronic Disease Control.” In Chronic Disease Epidemiology and
Control, 2nd edition, Browson, R.C., P L. Remington, and J. R. Davis (Eds). Washington: American Public
Health Association, 1-26.
3 For documentation see: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2001. “The Surgeon General’s
Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity.” (can be found at
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=hstat5.chapter.2); and Centers for Disease Control. 2000.
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). 2000. (can be found at
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/).
4 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 2008. “Obesity Prevention and
Control.” (can be found at www.scdhec.gov).
5 SCDHEC. 2000. “2000 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Study for South Carolina.”
6 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1996. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the
Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
7 The Department of Health and Human Services updated its recommendations for physical activity in
2008. The current recommendation for aerobic activity is to be active throughout the week, for at least
three days a week for a minimum of 2.5 hours of moderate or 1.15 hours of vigorous activity. See U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. 2008. “2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.” (can
be found at www.health.gov/PAGuidelines/adultguide/default.aspx#toc).
8 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). 2000. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(can be found at http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/).
9 For a recent special journal issue on this topic see the March/April 2007 “Special Issue: Active Living
Research” in the American Journal of Health Promotion. 21 (4). For examples of two more articles in
academic journals on this topic see: Racioppi, F., C. Dora, and H. Rutter. 2008. “Urban Settings and
Opportunities for Healthy Lifestyles: Rediscovering Walking and Cycling and Understanding Their Health
Benefits.” Built Environment. 31(4): 302-314; and Killingsworth, R., J. Earp, and R. Moore. 2003.
“Supporting Health Through Design: Challenges and Opportunities.” American Journal of Health
Promotion. 18(1): 1-2.
10 For a key national government document that promotes improvements in infrastructure for increasing
physical activity levels see: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2000. Healthy People 2010:
Understanding and Improving Health. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (can be found at
http://www.healthypeople.gov/Document/). For a key international document that makes this promotion
see: World Health Organization. 2002. A Physically Active Life Through Everyday Transport: With Special
Focus on Children and Older People With Examples and Approaches From Europe. Copenhagen,
Denmark: WHO (can be found at http://www.euro.who.int/document/e75662.pdf).
11 For a national program that promotes these policies see the Active Living By Design website. This
program is funded by the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation and is part of the School of Public Health at
the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. As part of its public health advocacy, the program
promotes, funds and evaluates innovative approaches to utilizing community design to increase physical
activity (can be found at www.activelivingbydesign.org).
12 For a summary of New Urbanism see the following website: http://www.newurbanism.org/.
13
Rundle, A., A.V. Diez Roux, L.M. Freeman, et al. 2007. “The Urban Built Environment
and Obesity in New York City: A Multilevel Analysis.” American Journal of Health
Promotion. 21(4): 326-334; Ewing, R., T. Schmid, R. Killingsworth, et al. 2003. “Relationship between
urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity.” American Journal of Health Promotion 18(1):
47-57; Frank, L.D., P.O. Engelke, and T.L. Schmid. 2003. Health and Community Design: The Impact of
the Built Environment on Physical Activity. Washington: Island Press; and Ewing R., R. Pendall, and D.
Chen. 2002. Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact. Washington, D.C.: Smart Growth
26
America. (can be found at http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/sprawlindex/MeasuringSprawl.PDF).
14 * For four systematic reviews of the literature on this topic see Gebel, K., A.E. Bauman, M. Pettigrew.
2007. “The Physical Environment and Physical Activity a Critical Appraisal of Review Articles.” American
Journal of Preventive Medicine. 32: 361-369; Owen, N., N. Humpel, E. Leslie, et al. 2004. “Understanding
Environmental Influences on Walking: Review and Research Agenda.” American Journal of Preventive
Medicine. 27: 67-76; Saelens, B.E., J.F. Sallis, L.D. Frank. 2003. “Environmental Correlates of Walking
and Cycling: Findings from the Transportation, Urban Design, and Planning Literatures.” Annals of
Behavior Medicine. 25: 80-91; and see Kahn, E.B., L.T. Ramsey, R.C. Brownson, et al. 2002. “The
Effectiveness of Interventions to Increase Physical Activity. A Systematic Review.” American Journal of
Preventive Medicine. 22(4): 73-107. ** For a selection of over a decade of other journal articles that also
document this relationship see: McCormick, G.R., B. Giles-Corti, and M. Bulsara. 2008. “The
Relationship Between Destination Proximity, Destination Mix, and Physical Activity
Behaviors.” Preventive Medicine. 46: 33-40; Coogan, M.A., K.H. Karash, T. Adler, et al. 2007.
“The Role of Personal Values, Urban Form, and Auto Availability in the Analysis of Walking for
Transportation.” American Journal of Health Promotion. 21(4): 363-370; Librett, J.J., M.M. Yore, and T.L.
Schmid. 2006. “Characteristics of Physical Activity Levels Among Trail Users in a U.S. National
Sample.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 3 1(5): 399-405; Gordon, P.M., S.J. Zizzi, and J.
Pauline. 2004. “Use of a Community Trail Among New and Habitual Exercisers: A Preliminary
Assessment.” Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice, and Policy. 1(4): 1-11;
McCormick, G., B. Giles-Corti, A. Lange, et al. 2004. “An Udpate of Recent Evidence of the Relationship
Between Objective and Self-Report Measures of the Physical Environment and Physical Activity
Behaviors.” Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. 7: 81-92; Saelens, Brian E., James F. Sallis, Jennifer
B. Black, Diana Chen. 2003. “Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: An environmental scale
evaluation.” American Journal of Public Health 93:9, 1552-1558; King, W.C., J.S. Brach, S. Killinsworth,
et al. 2003. “The Relationship Between Convenience of Destinations and Walking Levels in Older
Women.” American Journal of Health Promotion. 18(1): 74-82; Brownson, R.C., E. H. Baker, R. A.
Housemann, et al. 2001. “Environmental Determinants of Physical Activity in the United States.”
American Journal of Public Health. 91(12): 1995-2003 ;Troped, P.J., R.P. Saunders, R. R. Pate,
et al. 2001. “Associations between self-reported and objective physical environmental factors and use of a
community rail-trail.” Preventive Medicine. 32(2):191-200. Brownson, R.C., R.A. Housemann, D.R.
Brown, et al. 2000. “Promoting Physical Activity in Rural Communities: Walking Trail Access, Use, and
Effects.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 18(3): 235-241; Sallis, J.F., A. Bauman and M. Pratt.
1998. “Environmental and Policy Interventions to Promote Physical Activity.” American Journal of
Peventative Medicine. 15: 379-397; King, A.C., R.W. Jeffery, F. Firdinger, et al. 1995. “Environmental
and Policy Approaches to Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Through Physical Activity: Issues and
Opportunities.” Health Education Quarterly. 22: 499-511; and Schmid, TL Pratt M. Howze E. “Policy as
intervention: environmental and policy approaches to the prevention of cardiovascular disease.” American
Journal of Public Health. 1995; 85: 1207-11.
15 Craig, C. L., R. C. Brownson, S.E. Cragg, et al. 2002. “Exploring the Effect of the Environment on
Physical Activity: A Study Examining Walking to Work.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 23:
36-43.
16 Reynolds, K.D., J. Wolch, J. Byrne, et al. 2007. “Trail Characteristics as Correlates of Urban Trail Use.”
American Journal of Health Promotion. 21 (4): 335-345; Takano, T. Nakamura K, Watanabe, M. 2002.
“Urban residential environments and senior citizens' longevity in megacity areas: the importance of
walkable green spaces.” Journal of Epidemiological Community Health. 56(12):913-91 8; Troped, P.J.,
R.P. Saunders, R. R. Pate, et al. 2001. “Associations between self-reported and objective physical
environmental factors and use of a community rail-trail.” Preventive Medicine. 32(2): 191-2000; and
Brownson, R.C., R.A. Housemann, D.R. Brown, et al. 2000. “Promoting Physical Activity in Rural
Communities: Walking Trail Access, Use, and Effects.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 18 (3):
235-241.
17 Nationally, between 1980 and 1995, the total vehicle miles driven each year grew by 59 percent. (Smith
GM. 1999. It's Official: Traffic is Worse. Atlanta-Journal Constitution, November 17: A1.
18 Frumkin H, Frank L, Jackson R. 2004. Urban Sprawl and Public Health: Designing, Planning, and
Building for Healthy Communities. Washington: Island Press: 90-107.
27
19 Most oil is used to fuel transport vehicles, especially the automobile. For a few examples of recent
discussions regarding both national and international security in relation to the production and trade of oil,
see Prugh T., C. Flavi, and J. Sawin. 2005. “Changing the Oil Economy.” In State of the World: Redefining
Global Security, Renner M., H. French, and E. Assadourian (Eds.). NY: W.W. Norton and Company;
Roberts, P. 2004. The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company: 237-258; and Heinberg R. 2003. The Party's Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial
Societies. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers: 191-201.
20 Automobile transportation is related to air and water pollution, land lost for the development of
infrastructure, global warming, sprawl, and public health problems such as asthma. For a few summaries
that document auto related pollution and degradation see Roberts P. 2004. The End of Oil: On the Edge of a
Perilous New World. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company: 116-140; Frumkin H, Frank L, Jackson R. 2004.
Urban Sprawl and Public Health: Designing, Planning, and Building for Healthy Communities.
Washington: Island Press; Porter R. 1999. Economics at the Wheel: The Costs of Cars and Drivers. San
Diego: Academic Press: 55-83; Sierra Club. 1998. The Dark Side of the American Dream: The Costs and
Consequences of Suburban Sprawl (a Sierra Club report that can be found at www.sierraclub.org); and
Whitelegg J. 1997. Critical Mass: Transport, Environment, and Society in the Twenty-first Century.
London: Pluto Press.
21 The average cost of maintaining a car each year (including gas, oil, maintenance, tires, tickets,
registration, insurance, and driver's license) is estimated by different sources to be between $5,000 and
$8,000 year. [For other published estimates see STPP. 2000. Driven to Spend. Surface Transportation
Policy Project Center for Neighborhood Technology (www.transact.org)]; Porter, R.C. 1999. Economics at
the Wheel: The Costs of Cars and Drivers, San Diego: Academic Press: 20; and Kay, J.H. 1997. Asphalt
Nation. Berkeley: University of California Press: 120.
22 U.S. 2000 Census (long form) (can be found at www.census.gov).
23 U.S. Department of Transportation. 2001. 2001 National Household Travel Survey. (can be found at
http://www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/).
24 National Highway Administration. 1995. Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
25 Pucher, J., and Dijkstra, L. 2003. “Promoting Safe Walking and Cycling to Improve Public Health:
Lessons from the Netherlands and Germany.” American Journal of Public Health. 93: 1509-1516.
26
Gordon, P.M., S.J. Zizzi, and J. Pauline. 2004. “Use of a Community Trail Among New and Habitual
Exercisers: A Preliminary Assessment.” Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice,
and Policy. 1(4): 1-11; and Brownson, R.C., R.A. Housemann, D.R. Brown, et al. 2000.“Promoting
Physical Activity in Rural Communities: Walking Trail Access, Use, and Effects.” American Journal of
Preventive Medicine. 18 (3): 235-241.
27 For another study documenting the positive impact of a new trail see Merom, D., A. Bauman, P. Vita, et
al. 2003. “An Environmental Intervention to Promote Walking and Cycling – the Impact of a Newly
Constructed Rail Trail in Western Sydney. Preventive Medicine. 3 6(2): 23 5-42.
28 Evenson, K.R., A.H. Herring, and S.L. Huston. 2005. “Evaluating Change in Physical Activity with the
Building of a Multi-Use Trail.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 28: 177-185.
29 For a general discussion of this topic see Corti, B., R.J. Donovan, and C.D.J. Holman. 1997. “Factors
Influencing the Use of Physical Activity Facilities: Results from Qualitative Research.” Health Promotion
Journal Australia. 7:16-21. Aspects most liked on trails in one 1997 study were scenic beauty, availability
as a place to exercise, convenient location, safe surface, and lighting (see Brownson, R.C., R.A.
Housemann, D.R. Brown, et al. 2000. “Promoting Physical Activity in Rural Communities: Walking Trail
Access, Use, and Effects.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 18(3): 235-241). A more recent
2004 study found that respondents rated the following as high in importance for trail quality: atmosphere,
scenery, and safety (Brownson, R.C., R.A. Housemann, D.R. Brown, et al. 2000. “Promoting Physical
Activity in Rural Communities: Walking Trail Access, Use, and Effects.” American Journal of Preventive
Medicine. 18 (3): 235-241). The findings of the Wonder’s Way study contribute to this developing
understanding of what exercisers and commuters want in a path and indicate that all of the above
characteristics, and more, are notable in terms of their importance to the bridge path users.
30 The Garrett P. Wonder’s Memorial Bicycle-Pedestrian Way, or Wonder’s Way, was dedicated in
memory of the late Garrett Patrick Wonders. Garrett Wonders was killed on his bicycle by a truck in
28
Moncks Corner South Carolina in 2004 (Quick, D. 2006. “Bike Lane Dedication Tops Week of Bicycle
Events.” The Post and Courier. May 15).
31 The new cable stay bridge replaced the two aging cantilever truss bridges (the 1929 Grace Bridge and the
1966 Pearman Bridge), neither of which offered safe bicycle pedestrian access. The bridge offers eight
travel lanes (12 foot wide each) for motorized vehicles. See the Cooper River Bridge Site for the South
Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) at www.cooperriverbridge.org.
32 The pedestrian path follows the Charleston Harbor side of the bridge between Morrison Drive in
Charleston and Coleman Boulevard in Mt. Pleasant. Viewing platforms extend out at the location of the
towers and offer bicyclists and pedestrians a place to view the harbor.
33 The Charleston peninsula is connected to the town of Mt. Pleasant over the Cooper River and is
connected to the Charleston communities of James Island and West Ashley over the Ashley River.
34 An interceptor-based approach to the collection of survey data was utilized instead of a population-based
survey approach because of its better ability to identify and probe for the activity levels and attitudes of the
users of this particular path.
35 The term “commute” will be utilized from this point on to refer to anyone who walks, runs, or cycles to
get to work or to conduct chores.
36 It is unclear whether this represents the distribution of the variety of user modalities on the bridge or
whether it was simply easier to attract the attention of walkers due to lower speed of modality.
Anecdotally, surveyors indicated that due to the low speed of travel of walkers, they were easier to attract.
Biking and jogging/running modalities are, therefore, potentially under-represented in the survey results.
37 On a few occasions water bottle supplies ran out and surveys were conducted without the distribution of
free water bottles.
38
After respondents were asked if they were interested in being interviewed, they were asked to indicate if
they lived 20 or more miles away from the bridge. Since it is unlikely that such individuals might utilize
the path on a regular basis, they were not administered the survey.
39 Due to low numbers of respondents that indicated “Asian American”, “Hispanic”, or “Other” as race
and/or ethnicity categories, the race variable was collapsed in to “Black” and “White” for analyses.
40 This finding reflects the literature which indicates that women and men have generally similar rates of
path and trail use. See Librett, J.J., M.M. Yore, and T.L. Schmid. 2006. “Characterisitics of Physical
Activity Levels Among Trail Users in a U.S. National Sample.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
31(5): 399-405; and Eyler, A.A., R.C. Brownson, S.J. Bacak, et al. 2003. “The epidemiology of Walking
for Physical Activity in the United States.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 35: 1529-1536
41 U.S. Census Bureau. 2005-2007 American Community Survey 3 Year Estimates. (can be found at
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en).
42 U.S. Census Bureau. 2005-2007 American Community Survey 3 Year Estimates. (can be found at
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en).
43 Of the 391 respondents that answered this question (2 of the total 393 survey participants are missing
data on this item), 262 (67%) indicated that their overall activity levels had increased.
44 For an example see Librett, J.J., M.M. Yore, and T.L. Schmid. 2006. “Characterisitics of Physical
Activity Levels Among Trail Users in a U.S. National Sample.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
31(5): 399-405. Physical inactivity is also more prevalent among women than men, Blacks and Hispanics
than Whites, among older than younger adults, and among the less affluent than the more affluent. See
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1996. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the
Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
45 Young, D.R., K.W. Miller, L.B. Wilder, et al. 1998. “Physical Activity Patterns of Urban African
Americans.” Journal of Community Health. 23(2): 99-112.
46 “Regular” walkers, runners, or bicyclists are those that indicate that they walk, run, or bike the bridge
more than one time a month.
47 Brownson, R.C., R.A. Housemann, D.R. Brown, et al. 2000. “Promoting Physical Activity in Rural
Communities: Walking Trail Access, Use, and Effects.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 18 (3):
235-241; and Siegal, P., R. Brakbill, and G. Heath. 1995. “The Epidemiology of walking for exercise:
Implications for Promoting Activity Among Sedentary Groups. American Journal of Public Helat.: 85:
707-710.
48 (n = 392, 1 missing case)
29
49 (n = 390, 2 missing cases)
50 (n = 392, 1 missing case)
51 Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2001. “Increasing Physical Activity: A Report on
Recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services.” MMWR Morbidity Weekly
Revue. 50: 1-14.
52 Brownson, R.C., R.A. Housemann, D.R. Brown, et al. 2000. “Promoting Physical Activity in Rural
Communities: Walking Trail Access, Use, and Effects.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 18 (3):
235-241
53 Federal Highway Administration. 1994. The National Bicycling and Walking Study. Case Study Number
1: Reasons Why Bicycling and Walking Are and Are Not Being Used More Extensively as Travel Modes.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation.
54 Reynolds, K.D., J. Wolch, J. Byrne, et al. 2007. “Trail Characteristics as Correlates of Urban Trail Use.”
American Journal of Health Promotion. 21 (4): 335-345; and Powell, K.E., L. Martin, P.P. Chowdhury.
2003. “Places to Walk: Convenience and Regular Physical Actitivty.” American Journal of Public Health.
93: 1519-1521.
55 These numbers refer to the numbering system used for keeping track of the surveys. Each survey was
assigned a number (1-3 93).
56 It should be noted, however, that community members not involved in the survey have indicated that a
rubber barrier may cause walkers to trip.
57 This number does not include comments that indicated that respondents felt unsafe due to the tensions
between bicyclers and pedestrians.
58 This figure includes those individuals who indicated specifically that parking is unsafe.
59 Reynolds, K.D., J. Wolch, J. Byrne, et al. 2007. “Trail Characteristics as Correlates of Urban Trail Use.”
American Journal of Health Promotion. 21 (4): 335-345; and Powell, K.E., L. Martin, P.P. Chowdhury.
2003. “Places to Walk: Convenience and Regular Physical Actitivty.” American Journal of Public Health.
93: 1519-1521.
60 Tilt, J.H., M. T.M. Unfried, and B. Roca. 2007. “Using Objective and Subjective Measures of
Neighborhood Greennes and Accessible Destinations for Understanding Walking Trips and BMI in Seattle,
Washington.” American Journal of Health Promotion. 21 (4): 371-379; Humpel, N., A. Marshall, E. Leslie,
et al. 2004. “Changes in Neighborhood Walking are Related to Changes in Perceptions of Environmental
Attributes.” Annals of Behavior Modification. 27: 60-67; Humpel, N., N. Owen, and E. Leslie. 2002.
“Environmental Factors Associated with Adults’ Participation in Physical Activity, A Review.” American
Journal of Preventive Medicine. 22: 188-1999; and Ball, K., A. Bauman, E. Leslie, et al. 2001. “Perceived
Environmental Aesthetics and Convenience and Company with Walking for Exercise among Australian
Adults.” Preventive Medicine. 33: 434-440.
61 Reynolds, K.D., J. Wolch, J. Byrne, et al. 2007. “Trail Characteristics as Correlates of Urban Trail Use.”
American Journal of Health Promotion. 21 (4): 335-345.
62 Gordon, P.M., S.J. Zizzi, and J. Pauline. 2004. “Use of a Community Trail Among New and Habitual
Exercisers: A Preliminary Assessment.” Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice,
and Policy. 1(4): 1-11; and Brownson, R.C., R.A. Housemann, D.R. Brown, et al. 2000. “Promoting
Physical Activity in Rural Communities: Walking Trail Access, Use, and Effects.” American Journal of
Preventive Medicine. 18 (3): 235-241.
63 Brownson, R.C., R.A. Housemann, D.R. Brown, et al. 2000. “Promoting Physical Activity in Rural
Communities: Walking Trail Access, Use, and Effects.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 18 (3):
235-241.
64 Of the 391 respondents that answered this question (2 of the total 393 survey participants are missing
data on this item), 286 (73%) indicated that they drove to the bridge path.
65 The East Bay Street Bike Lane and Pedestrian Path was connected to the Cooper River Bridge on June 5th
. The 12 foot wide and half-mile-long East Bay Path extends Wonder’s Way from the bridge to Chapel Street
downtown. Long term plans include the intention to connect the Greenway in West Ashley SC (a 10.5
dirt trail that runs through abandoned rail tracks adjacent to Highway 17), over the Ashley River Bridge,
through the Charleston Peninsula along East Bay Street, over the Cooper River Bridge, and in to Mt.
Pleasant where it would continue alongside route 17 in Mt. Pleasant.
66 U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. American Community Survey 2005. U.S. Census Bureau.
30
67 Jemal, A., R. Siegel, and E. Ward, et al. 2007. “Cancer Statistics 2007.” Cancer Journal for Clinicians.
57: 43-66. Also see the AOA fact sheets. Washington (DC): American Obesity Association. (can be found
at www.obesity.org/subs/fastfacts/obesity_Minorty_Pop.shtml.).
68 Physical inactivity is also more prevalent among women than men, Blacks and Hispanics than Whites,
among older than younger adults, and among the less affluent than the more affluent. See U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.1996. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For additional
documentation that lower income groups are less active than other population groups see U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. 1996. 1992 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
69 Frank, L.D., P.O. Engelke, and T.L. Schmid. 2003. Health and Community Design: The Impact of the
Built Environment on Physical Activity. Washington: Island Press, p. 65.
70 Brownson, R.C., R.A. Housemann, D.R. Brown, et al. 2000. “Promoting Physical Activity in Rural
Communities: Walking Trail Access, Use, and Effects.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 18 (3):
235-241; and Siegal, P., R. Brakbill, and G. Heath. 1995. “The Epidemiology of walking for exercise:
Implications for Promoting Activity Among Sedentary Groups. American Journal of Public Health.: 85:
707-710.
31
