Increase the Number of People Choosing Walking, Cycling and Wheeling in Scotland

This Active Travel Framework outcome consists of four indicators. These include (1) the Proportion of short everyday journeys by walking and cycling; (2) Attitudes towards and propensity to walking, cycling, and wheeling; (3) Proportion of journeys to school by walking, cycling, and wheeling; and (4) Frequency of walking and cycling for pleasure/exercise.

1. Proportion of Short Every Day Journeys

When examining the proportion of short, every day journeys, the agreed definition for this indicator is journeys under two miles for walking, and those under five miles for cycling.

1.1. Walking Journeys under Two Miles

Overall, there is variation in the proportion of short journeys done by walking in recent years. In 2019, 47.6% of journeys under two miles were done on foot. Comparing across the previous five years, this is slightly lower than in 2014, when 51.3% of short everyday journeys were done by walking, but is shows an increase compared to the year, in 2018 (see Figure 2). In 2020, there is a sharp increase in the proportion of such journeys done on foot, to almost 60%. However, the 2020 data cannot be directly compared to previous years due to the impact of the pandemic. Thus, when presenting the 2020 data, where available, throughout the report the trend line will be discontinued and the value will be presented as a data point (see below).

As described in text.
Figure 2. Total walking journeys under two miles (2014-2020)

1.1.1. Walking Journeys under Two Miles by Gender

Figure 3 demonstrates the proportion of people walking for journeys under two miles by gender. Over the same time period, from 2014 until 2019, between 44 and 55% of males opted for walking a short journey, compared to between 42 and 49% of females.

As described in text.
Figure 3. Walking journeys under two miles by gender (2014-2020)

1.1.2. Walking Journeys under Two Miles by Age

Figure 4 shows journeys under two miles broken down by age group. Combined data for years 2014-2019 is used to provide reliable sample sizes for analysis by age. This suggests that people in younger age groups (16-19; 20-29; 30-39) are far more likely to walk the short journeys compared to older people. This also remained true when comparing the three younger age groups to the Scottish average (Figure 4).

As described in text.
Figure 4. Walking journeys under two miles by age (2014-2019 average)

The data for 2020, although not comparable to the previous years, shows a slightly different trend (see Figure 5). While those in age groups 16-19 still tend to be the age group that walks the most for journeys under two miles, the remaining age groups all show an increase in short walking journeys. 30-39 year olds increased the proportion of their journeys under two miles done on foot and reported the same frequency as those aged 20-29 (62% of all journeys under two miles are done on foot). As indicated in Figure 5, those aged 40-49 walk a lesser proportion of journeys under two miles than any other age group, and equal to those aged 80 and above.

As described in text.
Figure 5. Walking journeys under two miles by age (2020)

1.1.3. Walking Journeys under Two Miles by Household Income

When looking at the annual net household income for 2014-2019, on average, people in lower income households (up to £20,000) are more likely to use walking as their main mode of travel for short journeys compared to those in higher income households. Those from higher  income households walk the least (see Figure 6).

As described in text.
Figure 6. Walking journeys under two miles by annual net household income (2014-2019 average)

Looking at the 2020 data, the proportion of individuals who walked for journeys under two miles is less patterned by income. Those from lower income households still have the highest proportion of people walking for short journey but the proportion of those from higher income households is also high, relative to the average. As can be seen in Figure 7, those earning between £25,000 and £30,000 a year are reporting the lowest proportion of walking for short journeys, while those in the highest two income brackets undertook more journeys under two miles on foot than those earning between £20,000 and £25,000 a year.

As described in text.
Figure 7. Walking journeys under two miles by annual net household income (2020)

1.2. Cycling Journeys under Five Miles

The proportion of people whose main mode of travel is cycling for journeys of five miles or less has stayed the same over the seven-year period for which the latest data is available. This includes every year from 2014 until 2020, although 2020 data is not comparable with previous years due to Covid-19. Yet, unlike for walking, for which the 2020 data demonstrated a clear increase in the uptake among the population as a whole, as well as by gender, Figure 8 shows that the proportion of people cycling for journeys under five miles remained relatively stable across the seven years examined.

As described in text.
Figure 8. Total cycling journeys under five miles (2014-2020)

1.2.1. Cycling Journeys under Five Miles by Gender

Regarding gender, men are consistently more likely to cycle over this distance than women, and the within gender trend remained stable throughout the whole period.

As described in text.
Figure 9. Cycling journeys under five miles by gender (2014-2020)

1.2.2. Cycling Journeys under Five Miles by Age

When looking at the age distribution, contrary to the trend noticed with walking, whereby there was a slight, yet steady decline in the proportion of individuals walking under two miles as they got older, cycling peaks for the 20-29 age group. Likewise, it remains higher than the Scottish average for all age groups up to the age of 60, as demonstrated in Figure 10. 16-19 year olds use bicycles for journeys of under five miles less often than the national average and also less often than the 50-59 age group. However, they still use bicycles more often than those aged 60-69, 70-79, or 80 and above, which are the three age groups cycling the least, despite the slight uptick in cycling for journeys under five miles for the 70-79 age group.

As described in text.
Figure 10. Cycling journeys under five miles by age (2015-2019 average)

The age distribution of those cycling for journeys under five miles in 2020 demonstrates quite a different picture than the trend in previous years (see Figure 11). Although the 2020 data cannot be directly compared, 16-19 olds report cycling much more in the year of the pandemic than in the previous years. The converse is true for those aged 20-29. The remainder of the age brackets displays a similar distribution of the proportion of journeys cycled, although those in the 80 and above group did not use a bicycle for any of their journeys under five miles in 2020.

As described in text.
Figure 11. Cycling journeys under five miles by age (2020)

1.2.3. Cycling Journeys under Five Miles by Household Income

Looking at average household income figures over the period 2015-2019, and cycling, there is no clear pattern to the data. Journeys were high at both ends of the income distribution with levels fluctuating between household income bands (see Figure 12). The lowest proportion of journeys under five miles done by cycling was by those in the income brackets between £20,000 and £25,000, closely followed by those earning between £40,000 and £50,000 a year.

As described in text.
Figure 12. Cycling journeys under five miles by annual net household income (2015-2019 average)
As described in text.
Figure 13. Cycling journeys under five miles by annual net household income (2020)

As indicated in Figure 13, data for 2020 demonstrates that the highest proportion of cycling journeys under five miles were done by those in the income bracket between £20,000 and £25,000, closely followed by those earning over £50,000. The proportion of journeys that were cycled by those in the lowest two income brackets, earning either under £10,000 or between £10,000 and £15,000 a year, is the lowest.2. Attitudes towards / propensity to Walking,

Cycling and Wheeling

As can be seen later in this report, in section 15, Figures (43 and 44), the majority of respondents consistently failed to identify any specific reasons for not walking more. Apart from weather and health reasons, which were listed by less than a fifth of the sample for each option, no other significant reasons as to why people do not walk more than they do were given. This could indicate low propensity for walking among the individuals surveyed. No specific data is available on attitude to wheeling through Scottish Household Survey.

In contrast, and as presented in Figures (38 and 39) in section nine, the main barriers identified for cycling to work more often were distance (i.e. too far to cycle), concerns about cycling in traffic, and poor weather. This indicator was further examined by gender. Figure 14 (below) indicates relatively strong gender differences regarding safety concerns and access to bike (parts of this indicator are also discussed in section nine). The 2019 data show that about a quarter more women were concerned about cycling in traffic than men (24.4% and 17.4%, respectively). Also, while 8.3% of males were worried about their personal safety cycling on dark/lonely roads, the percentage of women raising the same concern was almost double (16.2%). Finally, 9.9% of males stated that they did not have a bicycle, yet 17.3% of women did not have one. These findings could imply the existence of bigger social issues regarding gender, safety, and equality.

As described in text.
Figure 14. Reasons for not cycling to work more by gender (2019)

More recently, however, Sustrans (2022) reported data from their survey of walking, wheeling, and cycling in urban areas across UK and Ireland (Walking and Cycling Index 2021). Their Scottish data indicated that from 9,681 people surveyed in Scotland, 58% walk at least five days a week. The respondents also reported walking or wheeling more often than using any other mode of transport, which would imply a high propensity for walking among Scottish residents. The data further indicate that 21% of respondents cycled at least once a week, although there were strong gender differences. While 29% of men reported cycling at least once a week, only 13% of women reported doing so. Likewise, slightly fewer women considered cycling safety to be good, compared to men (39% and 45%, respectively).

The main factors that would enhance the individuals’ propensity to walk or wheel were reported as fewer pavement parking (68%) and wider pavements (70%). Over three quarters of participants were also in favour of creating nicer places along streets to stop and rest, such as benches and trees, and the same proportion were in favour of creating more 20-minute neighbourhoods (79% for each indicator). Those neighbourhoods would have a variety of amenities and services within a 20-minute return walk or wheel from their place of residence.

3. Proportion of Journeys to School by Walking, Cycling and Wheeling

Data on journeys to school is taken from the Hands Up Scotland Survey. This survey started in 2008 and is run every September by Sustrans. It captures data from 32 local authorities in Scotland. The data presented in this report reflect the answers to the question asking which mode of travel children would normally use to travel to school or nursery.

3.1. Main Mode of Travel to School (Excluding Nursery)

Overall, Figure 15 demonstrates that walking remains the main mode of transport to all schools (excluding nurseries) across Scotland from 2008 to 2021.

As described in text.
Figure 15. Main mode of travel to school (excluding nursery) (2008-2021)

The proportion of other active modes used, for example cycling and scooting/skating, have been fairly static over the past 11 years with some increase in children using park and stride as their main mode of transport to school visible from 2015 onwards. On the other hand, the rate of children being driven to school has also slightly increased in recent years, but remains around 20%.

3.2. Mode of Travel by School Type

Separating the data into primary and secondary schools, walking still remains the main mode of transport for both age groups. However, as indicated in Figure 16, a much higher proportion of secondary school pupils use busses and a much lower proportion are driven to school, compared to primary school children. This seems to have remained consistent since 2008.

As described in text.
Figure 16. Main mode of travel by school type (2008-2021)

3.3. Mode of Travel by Year Group

Likewise, when comparing modes of travel across year groups for the 2021 data, Figure 17 demonstrates an increase in walking as the main mode of travel in primary schools between P1-P4 and P5-P7, and a decrease in the proportion of children being driven to school as they get older.

As described in text.
Figure 17. Main mode of travel to primary school by year group (2021)

Yet, this is in slight contrast to the trend established from 2008 onwards, whereby children in primary school demonstrated a decline in walking to school and an increase in cycling and using a scooter/skate. Being driven showed a downward trend from 2009 to 2014, but has been rising since (see Figures 18 and 19).

As described in text.
Figure 18. Main mode of travel to primary school for year group P1-P4 (2008-2021)
As described in text.
Figure 19. Main mode of travel to primary school for year group P5-P7 (2008-2021)

Note however, that the last two lines in each indicator (i.e., the blue and the purple) represent the years 2020 and 2021. Given the pandemic, those two years cannot be examined as a trend. Interestingly, there is a spike in walking for both those years, which would align with behavioural guidance during the pandemic, yet there does not seem to be a simultaneous decline in any other mode – at least not to the same extent (e.g., the increase in walking is around 4%, while the decrease in the use of bus is only 1%). Nevertheless, 2020 demonstrated the lowest level of bus use in the last ten years, which is likely to be the impact of the pandemic on public transport and traveling behaviours.

For secondary school pupils, as indicated in Figure 20, there is a slight decline in the use of active modes between S1-S3 and S4-S6 in 2021, but the proportion of children taking a bus to school is the second highest, after walking.

As described in text.
Figure 20. Main mode of travel to secondary school by year group (2021)

Between 2008 and 2019, the use of bus was almost as high as walking for year group S1-S3 (Figure 21), as well as for those S4-S6 (Figure 22), and was between the 2.6% and around 10% difference window. Unlike the primary school children, almost no high schoolers used scooter or skate as a mode of travel to school.

As described in text.
Figure 21. Main mode of travel to secondary school for year group S1-S3 (2008-2021)
As described in text.
Figure 22. Main mode of travel to secondary school for year group S4-S6 (2008-2021)

However, as with figures 18 and 19, the last two lines for each indicator represent years 2020 and 2021, and cannot be used to examine trends. Yet, when comparing the travel behaviours of high-schoolers to that of primary school children, the increase in walking evident for 2020 among the latter, is much less prominent for the former.

The figures for nursery children, presented in Figure 23, demonstrate that around 90% of journeys are either done by car or on foot, with car journeys being consistently higher over time and further increasing in 2021.

As described in text.
Figure 23. Main mode of travel nursery (2009-2021)

3.4. Main Mode of Travel to Special Educational Needs Schools

Children traveling to special educational needs schools are mostly doing so by private taxi or bus, although there is a sharp increase in the use of other modes of transport in 2021 (see Figure 24).

As described in text.
Figure 24. Main mode of travel to special educational needs (SEN) schools (2008-2021)

4. Frequency of Walking and Cycling for Pleasure or Exercise

The Scottish Household Survey provides information on the proportion of the population walking and cycling for pleasure or exercise in the seven days before taking the survey. This data was collected every two years since 2012, and then in 2019, rather than 2018. By the time of writing this report, data for 2020 was not available.

4.1. Walking for Pleasure or to keep Fit

4.1.1. Walking for Pleasure or to keep Fit by Gender

For walking, as indicated by Figure 25, there was a constant increase in the proportion of people walking at least once a week for pleasure or exercise from 2012 onwards with very slight differences in gender. Regardless, men seem to consistently walk for this purpose more than women, according to this indicator.

As described in text.
Figure 25. Walking at least once a week for pleasure or to keep fit (2012-2019)

This is interesting, as gender differences in walking the short, under two miles journeys, are sharp and variable each year (see Figure 3 above).

4.1.2. Walking for Pleasure or to keep Fit by Age

Looking at age, Figure 26 shows that, on average, the proportion of people who walk at least once a week peaks for the 40-49 age group and starts to decrease below the average from the age of 70 onwards.

As described in text.
Figure 26. Walking at least once a week for pleasure or to keep fit by age (2010-2019)

4.1.3. Walking for Pleasure or to keep Fit by Household Income

The available data suggests the opposite trend in walking for pleasure by household income compared to the one examining the frequency of walking for short journeys (see Figure 7). Namely, the frequency of people who walk for journeys under two miles decreases as the annual net household income increases, yet those earning between £40-50,000 and over £50,000 a year (net income) consistently tend to walk for pleasure the most (Figure 27). However, as can be seen in Figure 27, individuals in the lowest income bracket, earning up to £10,000 per year, are in the middle of the frequency scale for walking for pleasure, while those with net income between £10-15,000, as well as those on £15-20,000 walk the least for pleasure.

As described in text.
Figure 27. Walking at least once a week for pleasure or to keep fit by annual net household income (2010-2019)

4.1.4. Walking for Pleasure or to keep Fit by Location

Finally, as indicated by Figure 28, people living in rural areas are more likely to walk at least once a week for pleasure or to keep fit, than those in urban.

As described in text.
Figure 28. Walking at least once a week for pleasure or to keep fit by urban/rural classification (2010-2019)

4.2. Cycling for Pleasure or to keep Fit

4.2.1. Cycling for Pleasure of to keep Fit by Gender

As indicated by Figure 29, the proportion of people who cycle at least once a week for pleasure or to keep fit has stayed relatively flat over time. Throughout the period examined, from year 2012 to 2019, men were more than twice as likely to cycle as women for pleasure or to keep fit.

As described in text.
Figure 29. Cycling at least once a week for pleasure or to keep fit (2012-2019)

4.2.2. Cycling for Pleasure of to keep Fit by Age

When looking at the age of those who cycle for pleasure or to keep fit, similarly to what was seen for walking, the peak is for the age group 40-49 with a sharp decline for those aged band 60 and over (see Figure 30). Figure 30 shows the average for years 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2019, and further demonstrates that 16-19 year olds comprise the second highest proportion of those who cycle at least once a week. All age groups under the age of 60 cycle more than the national average for this indicator.

As described in text.
Figure 30. Cycling at least once a week for pleasure or to keep fit by age (average 2012-2019)

4.2.3. Cycling for Pleasure of to keep Fit by Household Income

Taking into account annual net household income, Figure 31 shows a steep increase in the uptake of cycling at least once a week for those earning £30,000 and above. Likewise, the proportion of people cycling for pleasure or to keep fit while earning under £30,000 is below the national average for this indicator. However, as with walking for pleasure or to keep fit, those earning under £10,000 a year cycle more often, on average, than those with the annual net income between £10-15,000 and £15-20,000. Yet, the disparity among those in highest income bracket(s) and the others is more prominent for cycling for pleasure or to keep fit than for walking.

As described in text.
Figure 31. Cycling at least once a week for pleasure or to keep fit by annual net household income (average 2012-2019)