{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05026582890285162, 'fraction_numerical': 0.029966167230546157, 'mean_word_length': 4.461741424802111, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 9, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An Examination of Workplace Influences on Active Commuting in a Sample of University Employees.

CONTEXT
Active commuting (AC; walking or biking) to work is associated with many benefits, though rates remain low. Employers can benefit from greater employee AC, through improved employee physical activity, though how the workplace is related to AC is unclear.


OBJECTIVE
The current study sought to examine how the workplace environment is related to AC participation.


DESIGN
This was a cross-sectional, online survey conducted in April-May 2014.


PARTICIPANTS
A volunteer sample of university employees (n = 551) was recruited.


SETTING
A large university in the northeastern United States.


MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The online survey addressed travel habits, demographics, and workplace social and physical environment for AC. Pearson correlations and t tests were used to examine relationships between the percentage of all trips as AC and workplace influences and a multivariate regression analysis predicted AC participation.


RESULTS
Participants reported 0.86 ± 2.6 AC trips per week. Percentage of trips as AC trips associated with perceived coworker AC (P < .001), parking availability (r = -0.22, P < .001), and bike parking availability (r = 0.24, P < .001). Individuals reporting greater walking time from their parking spot to their workplace reported a higher percentage of trips as AC compared with those with closer parking (P < .001). Individuals with a parking pass were less likely to AC than those with no permit (P < .001). The full multivariate model explained 42.5% of the variance in percentage of trips per week via AC (P < .001), having a parking pass (B = 0.23, P < .001), parking availability (B = -0.17, P < .001), perceived coworkers AC (B = 0.08, P = .02), and greater perceived walk time to campus (B = -0.43, P < .001) as significant predictors.


CONCLUSIONS
This study provided insight into institutional influences on AC, indicating that policy, infrastructure, and programmatic initiatives could be used to promote workplace AC.