Forestry, Faculty of
DSpace
UBCV
Wang, Yiyang
Master of Science - MSc
University of British Columbia
In response to increasing sustainability challenges and the critical need for equitable park access, this thesis investigates the development of Transit-to-Parks (T2P) initiatives that link public transit to natural areas across Canada, and analyzes factors influencing park visitors' transportation choices in Metro Vancouver. The thesis employs a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative insights gathered from semi-structured interviews with ten Transit-to- Parks (T2P) initiative practitioners and quantitative analyses of 430 park-user survey responses. The research uncovers three motivations for T2P initiatives: parking and traffic congestion, environmental impacts of traffic, and equity considerations. It highlights key facilitators such as policy advocacy, partnerships, and community engagement in the successful implementation of T2P initiatives while also pointing out challenges, including limited funding and labor shortages, inadequate infrastructure, and siloed agencies. Furthermore, analysis of park visitors' mode choices indicates that socio-demographic and trip-related factors significantly influence the decision to use sustainable transport options for park visits. These findings suggest that targeted infrastructure improvements, policy interventions, and planning efforts are essential to reducing car dependency and fostering a shift toward more sustainable transportation modes. This thesis contributes to the discourse on urban planning, green equity, transportation equity, and recreational management, offering practical insights for transit agencies, urban planners, and policymakers aiming to improve park accessibility through sustainable transportation. It advocates for the integration of transportation planning with park access strategies to foster more sustainable, equitable urban environments.
PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE ACCESS TO PARKS: A STUDY OF TRANSIT-TO-PARKS INITIATIVES AND USER PERCEPTIONS by Yiyang Wang BUF, The University of British Columbia, 2022 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Forestry) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) April 2024 © Yiyang Wang, 2024 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the thesis entitled: Promoting sustainable and equitable access to parks: a study of transit-to-parks initiatives and user perceptions submitted by Yiyang Wang in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Forestry Examining Committee: Keunhyun Park, Assistant Professor, Forest Resources Management, UBC Supervisor Alex Bigazzi, Associate Professor, Civil Engineering, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Lorien Nesbitt, Assistant Professor, Forest Resources Management, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Kelly Clifton, Professor, School of Community and Regional Planning, UBC Additional Examiner iii Abstract In response to increasing sustainability challenges and the critical need for equitable park access, this thesis investigates the development of Transit-to-Parks (T2P) initiatives that link public transit to natural areas across Canada, and analyzes factors influencing park visitors' transportation choices in Metro Vancouver. The thesis employs a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative insights gathered from semi-structured interviews with ten Transit-to-Parks (T2P) initiative practitioners and quantitative analyses of 430 park-user survey responses. The research uncovers three motivations for T2P initiatives: parking and traffic congestion, environmental impacts of traffic, and equity considerations. It highlights key facilitators such as policy advocacy, partnerships, and community engagement in the successful implementation of T2P initiatives while also pointing out challenges, including limited funding and labor shortages, inadequate infrastructure, and siloed agencies. Furthermore, analysis of park visitors' mode choices indicates that socio-demographic and trip-related factors significantly influence the decision to use sustainable transport options for park visits. These findings suggest that targeted infrastructure improvements, policy interventions, and planning efforts are essential to reducing car dependency and fostering a shift toward more sustainable transportation modes. This thesis contributes to the discourse on urban planning, green equity, transportation equity, and recreational management, offering practical insights for transit agencies, urban planners, and policymakers aiming to improve park accessibility through sustainable transportation. It advocates for the integration of transportation planning with park access strategies to foster more sustainable, equitable urban environments. iv Lay Summary With growing environmental concerns and the need for all communities to have equal access to natural spaces, finding sustainable ways to get to parks is more important than ever. This thesis explores how to make it easier and more appealing for people to visit large parks without relying on cars. It delves into Transit-to-Parks (T2P) initiatives that link public transit to natural areas, analyzing the motivations, hurdles, and effective strategies through interviews with ten program operators. Moreover, from 430 park-visitor survey responses, it discovers that personal and trip-related factors influence park visitors' decisions on sustainable transport. The insights from this thesis offer practical advice for those planning transportation and park access. By promoting sustainable ways to access parks, the thesis supports the broader goals of creating sustainable, equitable urban environments where everyone can enjoy nature without contributing to traffic and pollution. v Preface Chapter 2 is part of a collaborative project with University of Utah. I was responsible for Canadian part of the project, including preliminary web search data collection, conducting interviews, and qualitative analysis of the interview data. Dr. Alessandro Rigolon (University of Utah) was in charge of the initial design of the research and the U.S. part of data collection and analysis. Altogether, our work made up the manuscript submitted to and now under review in Transport Policy (as of March 2024). Chapter 2 was approved by the Behavioral Research Ethics Board of the University of British Columbia (UBC BREB Number: H22-02065). Chapter 3 was a part of the 2023 UBC Sustainability Project. I was responsible for the identification and design of the research, survey data collection, and data analysis. A version of Chapter 3 has been published in September 2023 as an online report. Wang, Y. (2023). Factors influencing travel mode decisions to access regional parks in Metro Vancouver. UBC Sustainability Scholars Report. Retrieved from [link to the report]. Chapter 3 was approved by the Behavioral Research Ethics Board of the University of British Columbia (UBC BREB Number: H23-01736). vi Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iv Preface .............................................................................................................................................v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ ix List of Figures .................................................................................................................................x Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... xi Dedication ................................................................................................................................... xiii Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................1 1.1 The benefits of accessing large public parks .................................................................. 1 1.2 Issues of car dependence for park visits ............................................................................... 2 1.2.1 Over-demand parking and traffic challenges ................................................................. 4 1.2.2 Environmental protection and climate resilience ........................................................... 4 1.2.3 Inequitable access to nature ........................................................................................... 5 1.3 Research gaps .................................................................................................................. 7 1.4 Thesis objectives and overview ...................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2: Transit-to-parks initiatives in Canada: What can we learn from the practitioners? ................................................................................................................................11 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 11 2.1.1 Background and research objectives ..................................................................... 11 2.1.2 The landscape of T2P initiatives in the Canada and the U.S.: a web search ........ 13 2.2 Data and methods .......................................................................................................... 17 vii 2.2.1 Recruitment and data collection ............................................................................ 17 2.2.2 Data analysis ......................................................................................................... 19 2.3 Results ........................................................................................................................... 20 2.3.1 Motivations ........................................................................................................... 20 2.3.2 Facilitators ............................................................................................................. 23 2.3.2.1 Policy advocacy ................................................................................................ 23 2.3.2.2 Partnership ........................................................................................................ 26 2.3.2.3 In-depth community engagement ..................................................................... 30 2.3.3 Challenges ............................................................................................................. 32 2.4 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 37 2.4.1 Summary of findings ............................................................................................. 37 Chapter 3: Determinants of Travel Modes to Access Metro Vancouver Regional Parks: Shifting from Cars towards Sustainable Modes .......................................................................40 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 40 3.1.1 Challenges of car dependency in Metro Vancouver ............................................. 40 3.1.2 Factors influencing park visitors’ mode choice .................................................... 41 3.2 Data and methods .......................................................................................................... 43 3.2.1 Study locations ...................................................................................................... 43 3.2.2 Data collection ...................................................................................................... 44 3.2.3 Data analysis ......................................................................................................... 47 3.2.3.1 Multinomial and binary logistic regression .......................................................... 47 3.2.3.2 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and further statistical analysis ................. 49 3.3 Results ................................................................................................................................. 50 viii 3.3.1 Factors related to regional park visitors' mode choice ................................................. 50 3.3.1.1 Descriptive statistics of mode choice .................................................................... 50 3.3.1.2 Logistic regression models of mode choice .......................................................... 52 3.3.2 Improvements motivating different park visitors’ sustainable travels ......................... 56 3.3.2.1 Descriptive statistics of preferred improvements ................................................. 56 3.3.2.2 Statistical analysis of socio-demographic differences .......................................... 59 3.4 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 65 Chapter 4: Conclusion .................................................................................................................69 4.1 Key findings and overall significance ........................................................................... 69 4.2 Practical implications .................................................................................................... 72 4.2.1 Recommendations for operating T2P initiatives ................................................... 72 4.2.2 Recommendations for encouraging sustainable travel to large parks ................... 74 4.3 Limitations and future directions .................................................................................. 77 References .....................................................................................................................................81 Appendices ....................................................................................................................................97 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................... 97 A.1 Interview protocol for practitioners of T2P initiatives in Canada ............................ 97 Appendix B ............................................................................................................................. 100 B.1 Questionnaire .......................................................................................................... 101 B.2 Summary statistics of independent variables .......................................................... 107 B.3 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) results ......................................................... 110 ix List of Tables Table 1. Types of T2P initiatives implemented in Canada and the U.S. (n=106). ....................... 14 Table 2. Information of the interviewees’ affiliated agencies in Canadian interviews ................ 18 Table 3. Coefficients of logistic regression models, by independent variables ............................ 53 Table 4. ANOVA and t-test results on the importance of different improvement factors by demographic groups ...................................................................................................................... 64 Table 5. Interventions tailored for communities with greater travel difficulties .......................... 76 Table 6. Demographic composition of survey participants compared with 2021 Census data in Metro Vancouver, British Columbia (n=430) ............................................................................. 107 Table 7. Descriptive statistics of the trip-to-park independent variables .................................... 109 Table 8. Full PCA results with Varimax with Kaiser rotated loadings ...................................... 110 x List of Figures Figure 1. The negative impacts related to high automobile mode-share visiting nature ................ 3 Figure 2. The location of T2P initiatives across Canada and the United States ........................... 16 Figure 3. Three major motivations for operating T2P initiatives with some relative quotes from practitioner interviews .................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 4. Map of the regional parks in the Metro Vancouver region, highlighting surveyed sites and annual visitations. ................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 5. Framework of independent and dependent variables in travel mode choice analysis ... 48 Figure 6. Comparison of travel mode share (%) between participants’ mode to regional parks and to other destinations (n=430). ....................................................................................................... 52 Figure 7. Top 5 preferred improvements on transit by socio-demographic groups (n=259). ....... 57 Figure 8. Top 5 preferred improvements on biking by socio-demographic groups (n=200). ...... 58 Figure 9. Top 5 preferred improvements on initiatives and technologies motivating sustainable travel modes by socio-demographic groups (n=430). .................................................................. 59 Figure 10. PCA results on aggregated improvements motivating transit use ............................... 60 Figure 11. PCA results on aggregated improvements motivating bike use .................................. 61 Figure 12. PCA results on aggregated initiative/technology improvements motivating sustainable travel ............................................................................................................................................. 62 xi Acknowledgements The completion of my master's thesis was made possible with the support of many individuals. Firstly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Keunhyun Park. From him, I learned invaluable habits for work and study, a rigorous academic attitude, a kind and tolerant character, and a continuous enterprising spirit. His support enabled me to engage with a variety of different projects and professionals during my master's studies, which greatly broadened my horizons. I would also like to thank my committee member, Dr. Alex Bigazzi, for his patient guidance and valuable suggestions on my thesis, providing me with different perspectives from the fields of engineering and planning. I want to thank Dr. Lorien Nesbitt, for her guidance, providing me insights from the field of green equity. I am also immensely grateful to Dr. Susan Day, the wonderful program director of Bachelor of Urban Forestry, whom I have admired as a female researcher since my undergraduate days. She has provided me with timely support and encouragement from then until now. I also want to extend my thanks to all members of the Urban Nature Design Research Lab. They fostered a friendly and supportive academic atmosphere that has been invaluable to me. Their willingness to share constructive feedback and encouragement has enabled us to make collective progress in our shared academic field. I would like to express my gratitude to the undergraduate research assistants, Tony Xiutong Jiang and Paul Liu for their assistance with the data collection of my research. I am deeply grateful to my parents, Rongji Qiu and Songliang Wang. Although they are far away in China, they have done everything within their power to support me in education and life, xii allowing me to pursue my academic goals. They are my strongest support and the role models of my life. Lastly, I would like to thank my friends, Lynne Kim, Qinyu Cai, Ruoxi (Roxy) Lin, Wendi Zhang, Ziyi (Iris) Xiong, who have always been there for me. They have provided me with encouragement and support to overcome challenges and have celebrated every achievement with me. xiii Dedication Dedicated to my family and friends, your endless love and support have not gone unnoticed. This achievement is as much yours as it is mine. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 The benefits of accessing large public parks Accessing green spaces is associated with numerous benefits, including stress reduction and fatigue recovery (Beyer et al., 2014; Lynch et al., 2020; Nutsford et al., 2013), increased physical health (Brown et al., 2014; Coombes et al., 2010), enhanced overall well-being (McCartan et al., 2023; Pretty et al., 2005). The COVID-19 pandemic has boosted the demand for accessing natural spaces as individuals attach greater importance on outdoor recreation and health benefits (Geng et al., 2020; Grima et al., 2020). Larger public parks (e.g., federal forests, and regional and national parks), compared to smaller green areas, offer a broader array of health and social benefits. Large parks serve broad population across extensive areas, providing a wealth of natural resources and amenities that encourage longer visits and more active involvement in physical, cultural, and social activities (Veitch et al., 2015; Czerniak et al., 2007; Markevych et al., 2017). Research by Rundle et al. (2013) suggests that larger parks are linked to lower Body Mass Index (BMI). Jansen et al. (2017) found that bigger green spaces attract visitors to do a wider variety of exercises, thus associated with higher physical activity levels. Schwartz et al. (2022) suggested that larger parks provide a greater opportunity for mental restoration and separation from the urban environment than smaller parks, contributing to increased happiness levels. Similarly, Brown et al. (2018) and Czerniak et al. (2007) noted the diverse physical and social advantages offered by these parks to their visitors. Furthermore, the advantages of visiting large, large public-owned parks are particularly significant for individuals from disadvantaged communities, who may have fewer recreational options in their neighborhoods and less access to quality green spaces than wealthier 2 groups (Nesbitt et al., 2019; Rigolon et al., 2021). Thus, enhancing access to these large parks emerges as a viable strategy to mitigate public health disparities and foster an equitable, sustainable society for everyone (Mell & Whitten, 2021; Litman, 2012). 1.2 Issues of car dependence for park visits The reliance on automobiles for accessing large public parks (e.g., national parks/forests and regional parks) is particularly pronounced in the context of North American countries, presenting a distinct sustainability challenge shaped by the prevailing car-centric culture and urban planning prioritizing vehicular transportation (Furman, 2013; Hugill & McShane, 2015; Behren et al., 2018; Buehler, 2010). This over-reliance is exacerbated by the geographical placement of national parks/forests and regional parks, often situated at considerable distances from major transit networks and urban centers (Lumsdon et al., 2006; Arakaki et al., 2019). Moreover, the system of large public parks, established prior to the development of a comprehensive public transit network, was designed with a primary focus on accommodating the accessibility needs of private vehicle users (National Park service, 1999, 2005; McNamee & Finkelstein, 2022). For example, in the U.S., Yellowstone National Park sees 78% of visitors arriving by car, and Oregon State Parks record 87% car use, with an additional 7% in shared private vehicles (National Park Service, 2016; Bergerson, 2019). In Metro Vancouver, Canada, a similar pattern has been observed — 74% of visitors to regional parks choose to drive, while only 9% bike and 3% opt for public transit (Metro Vancouver, 2019). Depending on cars to access natural areas can lead to several social, environmental, and park operational challenges. These challenges highlighted in the global literature include parking 3 shortages, traffic congestion, increased pollution and emissions, heightened safety risks, diminished recreational experiences of visitors, decreased local and regional economics, and environmental inequality (Arakaki et al., 2019; Park et al., 2021; Swanteson-Franz et al., 2020; Kendal et al., 2011; Dickinson et al., 2004; Connell & Page, 2008; Figure 1). Figure 1 is a conceptual framework illustrating the multiple consequences of over-reliance on automobiles for accessing nature. To address these issues and increase accessibility to nature, organizations in various countries have implemented relevant services, including Canada, the U.S., Germany, Australia, England, Iceland, Norway, Austria, and Kenya (Gühnemann et al., 2021; Hassan et al., 2020; Herford, 1989; Høyem, 2020; Kassilly, 2008; Lumsdon et al., 2006; Manning et al., 2014; Thórhallsdóttir et al., 2021). The term “transit-to-parks” (T2P) refers to transit services (e.g., buses, shuttles, trains) connecting populated areas (e.g., cities, towns) to expansive public outdoor spaces Figure 1. The negative impacts related to high automobile mode-share visiting nature 4 1.2.1 Over-demand parking and traffic challenges In many large parks, the demand for parking spaces often exceeds the available supply, especially on peak visitation days, such as weekends during the summer or national holidays (Gramann, 1982; Swanteson-Franz et al., 2020; Pettebone et al., 2011). This situation leads to traffic congestion, with vehicles queuing for extended periods or parking inappropriately in nearby residential areas, causing inconvenience to visitors and potentially blocking emergency access, reducing safety for cyclists, and disrupting local community access (Fuentes et al., 2017). The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly increased the demand for accessing natural spaces as people seek outdoor recreation and health benefits (Dickinson et al., 2004; Geng et al., 2020; Grima et al., 2020; Metro Vancouver Regional Parks, 2020). This surge in interest has added pressure on parking facilities. Addressing the issue of over-demand parking has been a persistent challenge for regional park management. However, building more parking lots is often not feasible due to geographical constraints, limitations in nearby road infrastructure capacity, and concerns about protecting natural resources (Jiang, 2020; Metro Vancouver Regional Parks, 2020). 1.2.2 Environmental protection and climate resilience Large parks, with their rich and diverse natural resources, are increasingly susceptible to the impacts of human disturbances and contaminants, underscoring the heightened vulnerability of these ecosystems (Arakaki et al., 2019; Park Studies Laboratory, 2002; Czerniak et al., 2007). The increasing demand for vehicle access not only exacerbates pollution but also potentially risks the encroachment and loss of sensitive rural lands to accommodate car parking and related infrastructure. The energy consumption associated with constructing and maintaining roads and 5 parking facilities for automobile access further detracts from the ecological integrity of park areas (Stoffle et al., 2020). Thus, the automobile traffic into these areas can pose significant threats to water, soil, and air quality, consequently amplifying concerns regarding land degradation, habitat fragmentation, wildlife behavior disruption, and a decline in ecological resilience (Swanteson-Franz et al., 2020; Pettibone et al., 2011; Jiang, 2022; Connell & Page, 2008; Dickinson et al., 2004). Private vehicles emit substantially higher emissions per passenger mile in comparison to alternative transportation modes such as cycling and public transit (Bailey et al., 2008). Additionally, the occupancy rates of these vehicles tend to be low, further diminishing their efficiency. For instance, cars to Metro Vancouver's regional parks averaged fewer than two occupants, with a mean of 1.9 persons per vehicle, indicating an underutilization of available seating capacity (Metro Vancouver, 2019). Thus, in the thesis, the author refers to sustainable modes as major transportation means excluding private vehicles, encompassing public transit, cycling, and other micro-mobility devices, and walking and rolling. Increasing the use of sustainable transportation options and reducing reliance on private vehicles for park visits will foster a more resilient, low-carbon lifestyle for residents. Improving the connections to parks via these sustainable travel modes enhances the region's natural resource management efforts and advances local, regional, and global climate adaptation goals. 1.2.3 Inequitable access to nature The reliance on personal vehicles as a prerequisite for park access underscores a broader socio-economic divide, where those without the luxury of car ownership are left at a disadvantage. The 6 urban-rural divide in public transportation access further intensifies this inequity, as many of these parks are situated far from urban centers where public transit options are more readily available (Lumsdon et al., 2006; Arakaki et al., 2019). For example, a study discovered that most visitors to national parks are from high-income neighboring suburbs (Donaldson et al., 2016). This issue is not merely a matter of convenience but reflects deeper socio-economic and environmental justice concerns. Individuals from low-income backgrounds, those with disabilities, younger and older populations, communities living in inaccessible areas, and those opting not to own a vehicle due to personal or environmental reasons, are disproportionately affected. Their ability to engage with and benefit from natural spaces—crucial for mental health, recreation, and community building—is significantly hampered. Previous studies on park and transportation equity found that low-income populations, disabled people, seniors, children, and people of color are particularly dependent on alternative transportation, especially public transit, to access large parks, as they have limited mobility choices and restricted means to afford private recreation options (Rigolon, 2021; Park et al., 2021; Wolch, 2014; Litman, 2012). A study by Nesbitt et al. (2019) examining ten U.S. cities revealed that higher education and income levels correlate with better access to urban nature. Wen et al., (2013) found that poorer neighborhoods and people of color have less access to quality parks. Most visitors to the park are from high-income neighboring suburbs. Park et al. (2021) also identified disparities in transit accessibility to large parks, showing that predominantly white and younger communities have better access. These findings collectively highlight systemic inequalities in nature access, affecting marginalized groups disproportionately. Moreover, Rigolon et al. (2021) found that, lower-socioeconomic status 7 (SES) individuals gain more significant beneficial effects via visiting public green spaces compared to affluent populations with a wider array of recreational options. Consequently, enhancing access to large natural parks through improved alternative transportation methods, including public transit, emerges as a cost-effective strategy for current challenges of inequitable nature access and public health disparities. 1.3 Research gaps Integrating sustainable transportation methods (e.g., transit, biking, and walking; see Section 1.2.2) to improve park access directly addresses both sustainability and equity. This dual-focus approach recognizes that reducing reliance on personal vehicles not only mitigates environmental impacts (sustainability) but also makes park access more inclusive for all community segments, particularly those marginalized or economically disadvantaged (equity). Sustainable transportation options inherently promote environmental sustainability by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, lowering pollution levels, and lessening traffic congestion (see more in Sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2). This creates climate-resilient, healthier, more livable urban environments, which are particularly crucial for vulnerable social groups. Beyond environmental benefits, sustainable transportation opens pathways to social equity by providing affordable and accessible alternatives, ensuring that everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, can access natural spaces (expanded upon in Section 1.2.3). This access is vital, as proximity to parks and green spaces is associated with improved mental health, increased physical activity, and enhanced social cohesion (see Section 1.1). In certain situations, sustainability and equity may seem like separate or even opposing objectives. Examples include gentrification driven by green space development, the prohibitive costs of certain sustainable transportation options, and design 8 interventions that, while sustainable, restrict park access. Recognizing these circumstances, this thesis focuses on instances where sustainable transportation methods enhancing park access showcase the interconnection and mutual reinforcement between equity and sustainability. The research concerning connecting people to large parks with sustainable travel means spans multiple disciplines, including urban planning, recreational management, public well-being, transportation planning, green equity, and social and human behavior. Despite the breadth of these fields, there exist conceptual gaps in understanding the intricacies of this topic. Primarily, while the domains of transportation equity and green equity have received considerable attention, their studies have largely occurred in isolation. The integration of these disciplines—specifically, employing sustainable transportation to enhance park access—remains underexplored. Research on transportation equity has traditionally concentrated on the availability and diversity of transportation options for basic mobility, encompassing access to essential services such as employment, education, shopping, and healthcare (Ando et al., 2021; Barnett et al., 2019; Xia & Zhu, 2023). However, there is a notable scarcity of research focused on the role of transportation in supporting recreational travels. Furthermore, investigations into green space accessibility and park equity have predominantly analyzed the spatial distribution of green spaces (e.g., proximity, quality and quantity) (Rigolon et al., 2018; Nesbitt et al., 2019). There is a lot of literature so far focusing on the exposure to any types of residential green elements, rather than shedding lights particularly on the actively accessing parks with quality services and natural resources. Among studies looking at park accessibility via sustainable travel modes, most studies so far focus on cycling and walking, each 9 as a single mode. However, current studies have not sufficiently investigated all the modes together, nor have they taken into account possible multi-modal interactions and connections between modes. 1.4 Thesis objectives and overview This thesis falls under the broad theme of facilitating access to large parks through sustainable transportation methods. The main objectives of my thesis are to: 1. Study the current development of transit-to-parks initiatives in Canada, identifying the opportunities and barriers, and provide relevant agencies with practical guidance in planning and implementing these initiatives in the future. 2. Analyze factors related to park visitors’ mode choice in Metro Vancouver, and develop design and planning recommendations to promote behavior shifts from private vehicle to sustainable transport. My thesis is structured into four chapters: The Introduction (Chapter 1) sets the stage by elucidating the importance of connecting people to large parks with sustainable travel means and delineating the research gaps. Chapter 2, dedicated to the first research question, delves into the qualitative data gathered from the perspectives of practitioners, offering insights into the development of transit-to-parks initiatives. Chapter 3 addresses the second research question through quantitative analysis of data from the perspective of park visitors, focusing on factors affecting their mode of transportation choices. Finally, a concluding chapter (Chapter 4) 10 synthesizes the findings, discusses their implications for urban and transportation planning, and proposes directions for future research. 11 Chapter 2: Transit-to-parks initiatives in Canada: What can we learn from the practitioners? 2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 Background and research objectives Participating in outdoor activities and nature-based tourism plays a vital role in enhancing the well-being of individuals, communities, and the broader society (Nutsford et al., 2013; Halecki et al., 2023; Tian et al., 2021; Douglas et al., 2017). The active access to larger open spaces, such as national parks and forests, and regional parks, offers diverse opportunities for physical, cultural, and social activities, leading to a broader array of health and social benefits (Brown et al., 2014; Markevych et al., 2017; Rundle et al., 2013; Jansen et al., 2017). Nonetheless, the increasing attraction of these large natural parks among both tourists and locals poses notable challenges in terms of sustainability and capacity, particularly with respect to the dependence on cars for access (Monz et al., 2016; Song et al., 2022; Newton et al., 2020). Over-reliance on cars has caused issues like parking shortages, congestion, pollution, safety risks, and a diminished quality of visitor experience (Gramann, 1982; Swanteson-Franz et al., 2020; Pettebone et al., 2011). To address these issues and increase accessibility to nature, organizations in various countries have implemented relevant services, including Canada, the U.S., Germany, Australia, England, Iceland, Norway, Austria, and Kenya (Gühnemann et al., 2021; Hassan et al., 2020; Herford, 1989; Høyem, 2020; Kassilly, 2008; Lumsdon et al., 2006; Manning et al., 2014; Thórhallsdóttir et al., 2021). The term “transit-to-parks” (T2P) refers to transit services (e.g., buses, shuttles, trains) connecting populated areas (e.g., cities, towns) to expansive public outdoor spaces. In the 12 U.S., these initiatives were initially promoted by the National Park Service (NPS) to address traffic congestion and limit ecological impacts in environmentally sensitive areas, not only including the connectors within the park, between parks, and also some from nearby communities to parks (Holding & Kreutner, 1998; Monz et al., 2016; National Park Service, 1999; Pettebone et al., 2011; Manning et al., 2014). More recently, sustainability and transit advocates have called for transit connections to parks in both urban and rural areas globally, particularly in Canada and the U.S. (Arakaki et al., 2019; Swanteson-Franz et al., 2020; Metro Vancouver Regional Park, 2020). The reliance on automobiles for accessing large parks and open spaces is particularly pronounced in North American countries, presenting a distinct sustainability challenge shaped by the prevailing car-centric culture and urban planning prioritizing vehicular transportation (Buehler, 2010; Furman, 2013; Hugill & McShane, 2015). This over-reliance is exacerbated by the geographical placement of national parks/forests and regional parks, often situated at considerable distances from major transit networks and urban centers (Lumsdon et al., 2006; Arakaki et al., 2019). The car-centric culture ingrained in these societies has amplified the significance of personal vehicles in park travels, creating a unique landscape where alternative modes of transportation are less prioritized (Anderson et al., 1996; Kenworthy & Laube, 1999; Wells, 2013). These spatial and cultural dynamics underscore the critical need for effective transit-to-parks (T2P) initiatives in Canada and the U.S. Despite the increasing importance of T2P initiatives, the academic literature on this topic has been relatively limited (Park et al., 2021; Høyem, 2020). Much of the existing knowledge comes 13 from reports by advocacy organizations or press coverage (Arakaki et al., 2019; Sierra Club, 2021; Scauzillo, 2018; Scruggs, 2021; Swanteson-Franz et al., 2020). Notably, no research has examined the different types of T2P initiatives and has analyzed the planning and operation of these initiatives. Thus, in this study, I aim to fill this literature gap by investigating T2P initiatives in Canada. My research questions are as follows: 1. What are the main motivations for implementing T2P initiatives? 2. What are the facilitators for implementing T2P initiatives? 3. What are the main challenges to implementing T2P initiatives? My research questions address the motivations, facilitators, and challenges of implementing T2P initiatives. This analysis yields valuable insights for transit agencies, public land managers, and sustainability advocates striving to enhance access to open spaces. 2.1.2 The landscape of T2P initiatives in the Canada and the U.S.: a web search To gain insights into the current status and framework of existing T2P initiatives, and as an integral segment of a wider research effort, a web search was conducted to identify T2P initiatives in Canada and the U.S. For this search, a range of term combinations was used, such as “transit (or shuttles or buses) to parks,” “transit to trails,” and synonyms of “transit” and “parks”. 14 Through this web search, 106 T2P initiatives were identified, including 32 in Canada, and 74 in the U.S. They were subsequently classified into six main types: seasonal transit programs, permanent transit routes, informational campaigns, micro-transit on demand in areas with parks or trails, system-wide plans or studies, and legislation/funding programs (see Table 1). The most common T2P initiative type is seasonal transit programs, followed by permanent transit routes (Table 1). Table 1. Types of T2P initiatives implemented in Canada and the U.S. (n=106). Initiative type Initiative description Number of initiatives Seasonal transit programs Dedicated routes that operate during a specific time of year (e.g., summer) to provide connections to open space destination(s). 51 Permanent transit routes Permanent transit systems that connect to specific parks, forests, or other forms of open space. These services often utilize existing public transportation infrastructure. 25 Informational campaigns Informational maps, applications, blog posts, or other communication materials highlight which parks, trails, and other forms of open space are accessible via transit. 16 On-demand, micro-transit services Technology-assisted transit systems that utilize pooled vehicles (e.g., vans, shuttles) to provide on-demand transportation services to outdoor spaces. 6 System-wide plans or studies Documents that propose several changes to transit service to connect people with the outdoors. 6 15 Initiative type Initiative description Number of initiatives Legislation/funding programs Legislation and/or funding aimed at improving transit access to parks and open space, typically through the provision of funds for transit and/or green space projects. 2 The T2P initiatives identified are mostly located in densely populated regions, especially in the western U.S. and Canada (see Figure 2). Notably, these initiatives are implemented in large metropolitan areas (e.g., Los Angeles, Vancouver) as well as in smaller resort towns. T2P programs in rural areas generally offer lower service levels — often using a micro-transit or on-demand model — compared to services offered in metropolitan areas. In addition, nearly all T2P initiatives for which funding information relied on public resources to run. In terms of service cost, the fee of T2P services varied considerably, ranging from no cost (about half of the sample) to more than 50 U.S. dollars. 16 Figure 2. The location of T2P initiatives across Canada and the United States. The map was produced using Google My Maps by Paul Liu (n=106). (Link to the interactive web maps) 17 2.2 Data and methods 2.2.1 Recruitment and data collection In this qualitative study, the researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with professionals actively involved in T2P initiatives in Canada1. The web search mentioned earlier also helped identify potential interviewees. Specifically, the researchers approached professionals from a curated list of initiatives to assess their willingness to share information on their T2P programs. The researchers sought to recruit professionals working in transit agencies, public land agencies, and advocacy organizations working on either transit or public lands. Thus, they employed a thematically focused expert interview approach, known for its openness in capturing insiders' global knowledge (Wroblewski & Leitner, 2009; Trinczek, R., 2009). This method delves into the communicative practices within insider groups, revealing nuanced procedures of negotiating opinions and unveiling field-specific patterns of expert knowledge (Wroblewski & Leitner, 2009; Trinczek, R., 2009). After interviewing the first set of participants, the researchers expanded our sample in part based on referrals. After obtaining informed consent, the researchers conducted interviews via Zoom, each lasting 45 to 60 minutes. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed using an artificial intelligence program, Taguette. Questions focused on motivations, facilitators, and challenges of T2P initiatives, aligning with the three research questions (See Appendix A for the interview 1 As a part of the larger research project, the researchers in the University of Utah also recruited interviewees from the U.S. part of the list, and conducted interviews on the U.S. initiatives. 18 protocol). At the end of each interview, the researchers summarized what they learned and asked interviewees to provide feedback on our main takeaways. This process, known as member checking, enhances the credibility of the results of qualitative research (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). The study was approved by the Behavioral Research Ethics Board of the University of British Columbia (UBC BREB Number: H22-02065). In total, ten individuals working for seven agencies in Canada were interviewed. Interviewees were diversified regarding the initiative typology, locations, and types of hosting agencies (See Table 2). As the researchers conducted interviews and coded the transcripts, the theoretical saturation of information happened—when collecting more data about some research questions stops revealing new information (Hennink & Kaiser, 2021) Table 2. Information of the interviewees’ affiliated agencies in Canadian interviews No. Agency Initiative Type Agency Type Service Location(s) Number of practitioners 1 BC Transit Seasonal transit program Public / Regional transit agency British Columbia 2 2 Roam Transit Permanent transit routes Public / Regional transit agency Banff, Alberta 1 19 No. Agency Initiative Type Agency Type Service Location(s) Number of practitioners 3 Pacific Parklands Foundations Funding program Non-profit associated with a public agency Metro Vancouver, British Columbia 2 4 Metro Vancouver System-wide plan Public/ Regional planning agency Metro Vancouver, British Columbia 1 5 Tamarack Outdoors Seasonal transit program Private corporate Alberta 2 6 Winnipeg Transit System-wide plan Public City of Winnipeg, Manitoba 1 7 Parkbus Seasonal transit program Non-profit/ private corporate Toronto, Edmonton, Vancouver, and Whistler 1 Total 10 2.2.2 Data analysis I conducted content analysis on the interview transcripts. Deductive and inductive coding were used to make sense of the interview transcripts (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2008). Deductive coding 20 focused on content directly related to research questions, such as content about motivations, facilitators, and challenges. Inductive coding involved identifying other relevant content via a bottom-up approach, including content we did not expect to hear and that provided useful information to answer the research questions. A codebook was developed, comprising both deductive and inductive codes, in which codes were categorized based on research questions. 2.3 Results 2.3.1 Motivations The analysis of practitioner interviews revealed three main types of motivations behind the implementation of T2P initiatives in Canada: parking and traffic congestion, environmental impacts of traffic, and equity consideration (Figure 3). Figure 3. Three major motivations for operating T2P initiatives with some relative quotes from practitioner interviews 21 Parking and traffic congestion. Participants noted that traffic congestion and parking demand exceeding capacity result in hundreds of cars idling in traffic, which creates unnecessary pollution and safety hazards, while also degrading the experience of visiting regional or national parks. As such, we found that a strong motivation of many T2P initiatives is to reduce traffic congestion and parking issues by providing sustainable alternatives such as public transit, thus preventing subsequent management problems. Below are two quotes exemplying this motivation: We've noticed the impact of vehicle congestion, especially in the last two to three years. So I would say it was a pernicious combination of environmental reasons, but also just straight-up congestion issues. The roads were chock full of vehicles and cars. We have, in some parts of the park system, a crisis of parking. You know, there are some parks that are over-supplied with parking. They are just so popular, that the parking that we have, at peak hours, which is basically Saturdays and Sundays, and long weekends are oversubscribed. A related motivation of T2P initiatives involves environmental concerns related to traffic. By providing an alternative to driving, transit to parks can help reduce harmful emissions, noise, and deterioration of water, soil, and air quality. One noted, “we were one of the earlier early adopters of trying to keep as many vehicles off the highway as we could. So we started the [the T2P service]. We were way ahead of the game as far as climate change and energy initiatives.” Calls to reduce the use of cars in parks and protected areas by promoting transit also involve conversations about “carrying capacity,” which describes how many cars and visitors a specific park can host without degrading its environmental features. One from a public park management agency linked the traffic concerns to the carbon emission mandate, “Reduce carbon emissions by 22 getting people out of car… We aim to lower carbon demand a lower carbon emission.” Some interviewees underscored the environmental protection mandate associated with parks featuring sensitive and valuable ecological resources, which restricts their ability to expand parking facilities. Consequently, public transit is a means to accommodate more visitors without the need to increase parking availability. As one respondent working at a regional government expressed, “Because of our commitment to protecting the park system, the notion of utilizing sensitive ecosystems for additional parking development is not aligned with our objectives.” Equity in access to parks. As a third motivation, some T2P initiatives aimed to increase equitable access to the natural areas via transit. Several interviewees noted that their initiatives are motivated by equity goals and aim to connect people with limited access to private cars, such as low-income individuals, to nature. These equity-focused initiatives specifically consider the needs of transit-dependent populations and underserved areas, and/or aim to increase the diversity of people visiting open spaces. Interestingly, although many practitioners mentioned their underlying desire to connect diverse populations, equity is not explicitly stated as their primary motivation for initiating the T2P programs. The quotes below exemplify some motivations related to equity, such as providing access to the natural open spaces, removing transportation barriers, and moving toward health equity by increasing access to the outdoors for marginalized communities. Access to nature is super important, hence [the program name]. Because we realize that a lot of there are a lot of barriers to getting people into the regional parks, there's a lot of obstacles that they face, whether it's a lack of funds or they just can't get there. Transportation was a huge barrier to getting to the regional parks. 23 I think the equity came along just as a byproduct of public transit. So I don't know that it was considered a high priority as at the top of mind when it came to the initial thought of implementing [the program name], but it is certainly important and beneficial. Our job is really to make to be as welcoming as possible in our parks to people on foot or on a bicycle. A [T2P service] will allow somebody to kind of then walk safely or cycle safely from that bus stop or from that Greenway into our park. We found that it was a good way to ensure people who didn't have cars to have access to some open spaces… I think that was kind of maybe an unknown motivation at the time when starting out. But now we've realized that access is really important. And we're seeing that with a lot of hikers that don't have availability, and even just travelers wanting to come to [the city name] as well. 2.3.2 Facilitators Three key facilitators emerged from the analysis: policy advocacy, partnerships, and community engagement. We present these facilitators in the above order because such order somewhat represents the temporal order in which actions related to these facilitators occur. 2.3.2.1 Policy advocacy We found that many T2P initiatives were the results of advocacy efforts from either local non-profit organizations, larger non-profits, staff of public parks and/or transit agencies, or a combination of the above. Also, the findings show that advocacy efforts to encourage the implementation of T2P initiatives are linked to the motivations described in the previous section because such motivations are often parts of policy narratives used in this space. Based on the 24 interviews, the main policy advocacy strategies used to push for T2P initiatives included developing policy narratives about the need for such initiatives, creating advocacy coalitions, collecting, and disseminating data showing the need for such initiatives. We discuss each strategy in the paragraphs below. Narratives. We found that advocates see developing audience-specific narratives as a key strategy to push for T2P initiatives. For example, some interviewees pointed out the need to focus on economic development narratives when discussing T2P initiatives in politically conservative cities and states. Additionally, other interviewees suggested developing narratives focused on the public health benefits of T2P initiatives. Some noted that the emphasis on affordable riding fares, avoiding parking stress, and good in-vehicle experiences will effectively promote T2P initiatives to residents and tourists. Below are some quotes exemplifying these effective narratives: A big [narrative] is sort of avoid the stress of parking… And really try and stress the ease of transit. “Don't stress about the cost, it happens to be low cost or fares are very reasonable.” So it’s ease of use ease of access, and avoiding the stress of driving and parking in that National Park. Especially as a tourist you know, if you go anywhere and you haven't been there before, you're a little nervous on where am I supposed to go? Where is this place? How far is it? Not to worry about that? We really just promote the ease of use. The promotion that the bus is clean and safe. Some people or anywhere in what city you may be coming from are like “I don't use public transit. It's scary. It's confusing. It's dirty. It's nasty. I don't want to get on there.” So that's a fair point, we do promote the attractiveness of the buses, the cleanliness, friendly drivers, and amazing use. 25 Advocacy coalitions. Numerous interviewees talked about the importance of coalitions when advocating for T2P initiatives with elected officials, parks agencies, and transit agencies. In the transit to parks space, we learned that coalitions generally include nonprofits that work on environmental issues or access to open spaces and that advocate for transit service. Also, some interviewees highlighted the advantages of coalitions between environmental organizations and transit organizations because these different groups bring together diverse voices, diverse perspectives, and complementary strengths. This quote exemplifies these sentiments: “What we look to, oftentimes is the [the municipality]. Itself has a huge social media presence, they will often promote [the T2P service] for us, as well [the name of a federal agency managing national parks]. But there is also a second organization in the valley here called the [a local tourism corporate]. And they promote the [the name of the valley]as a destination for tourists, part of that it goes hand in hand with promoting [the T2P service] within that message to come to the valley. So for the promotions above us in our services, they do a fantastic job for us.” Data. Interviewees who work in policy advocacy for T2P initiatives also highlighted the importance of using data to make the case for such initiatives. The main data type that these advocacy organizations used are maps created via geographic information systems (GIS), but some respondents also talked about qualitative data collected via interviews and focus groups. A few other interviewees noted that showing service gaps in T2P access through GIS analyses has been an effective strategy. As a result of these analyses, some transit agencies have made changes to their services to provide better access to open space via transit from low-income communities. The quote describes data analysis to identify service gaps, “We are really 26 improving our data holdings and data structures. Over the last few years as highlighted, that there are various demands in transit systems on different routes…So there's more discussion on how to be responsive and moving resources to meet unmet needs.” Another interviewee noted how they monitor and utilize ridership data, “We record every recording that we have, we have a real deep understanding of ridership boardings…So we have years and years of really good ridership information that we pull. We use that every month we report to our commission and posted publicly on our website, our ridership trends and how we've been doing compared to previous months and compared to previous years. [The data] reinforce and reinstate a good insight into how we're how we're performing on a room by room basis.” 2.3.2.2 Partnership Respondents reported that partnerships between non-profits and public agencies, as well as between different public agencies, are key to the implementation of T2P initiatives. Based on what we learned from the web search and interviews, we identified different types of partnerships to implement T2P initiatives. First, we found some horizontal partnerships that include government agencies that operate at the metropolitan, state/provincial, and/or federal levels. For example, these partnerships include collaborations between metropolitan transit agencies and federal land managers, such as Translink (the transportation agency of Metro Vancouver) and Metro Vancouver Regional Parks. Second, we found examples of vertical partnerships between larger public agencies (metropolitan, state, or federal levels) and smaller levels of government, such as municipalities. These partnerships generally involve a transit agency (metropolitan level) working with the parks department of a municipality or a state agency providing funding for a municipality-run transit service. Third, we found numerous 27 examples of public-private partnerships wherein public agencies worked with nonprofits and/or businesses/corporations. We found that organizations within partnerships collaborate to carry out the following activities: 1) Combining funding sources, 2) Providing technical assistance and support, 3) Convening conversations among public agencies and nonprofits, and 4) Building transportation infrastructure. Combining funding sources. This practice is observed across all three partnership types mentioned earlier. An instance of combined funding in a vertical partnership is evident when a regional transportation agency secures funding from the provincial government. In return, they offer professional consultancy based on the program's daily operations. Combining funding sources enhances the establishment of a robust and sustainable financial mechanism, a crucial aspect, particularly in private-sector T2P service operations. An interviewee managing a private shuttle service to national parks emphasized the significance of public subsidization and support for program viability: "A private sector cannot operate without a key government partnership...If they choose to take the shuttle, that would be subsidized… it’s kind of important because it probably can’t be done without the support of [federal park agency]; it would be tough to implement privately." Government financial backing via public-private partnerships during the initial phase determines long-term feasibility, especially when facing unforeseen financial challenges, such as the impact of Covid-19. 28 Technical assistance. Partnerships in which one organization provided technical assistance to another involved statewide transportation organizations helping transit agencies optimize frequencies for T2P services, enhancing funding opportunities, helping coordinate infrastructure challenges with local police departments, and providing transportation planning services to public land agencies. The quotes below show how partnerships led to technical assistance: We support our local government’s progress. In return, they give our structural investment. And we will also try our best to facilitate those needs — monitoring how busy the bus stops are and recommending if they should improve some of infrastructures here or there… (Because of this exchange), our funding structure is pretty cemented. We are really improving our data holdings and data structures. Over the last few years as highlighted, that there are various demands in transit systems on different routes…So there's more discussion [with the partners] on how to be responsive and moving resources to meet unmet needs. Convening conversations. Participants also noted that some public agencies create partnerships by promoting convenings among numerous other public agencies and nonprofits. These convenings might be focused on solving transportation in a specific location (e.g., a sightseeing destination, or a park) or creating broader partnerships. In many circumstances, a state/province agency coordinates regular meetings with agencies working across different sectors, such as transportation, public lands, public safety, and recreation and hospitality. The quote below provided information about such convening. 29 My experience with most local governments suggests that if you provide your information timely, specifically when they're planning their infrastructure budgets and updating multi-year infrastructure plans, there's often significant support for enhancing transit-supportive infrastructure. This doesn't just mean paved or unpaved roads, but includes sidewalks and bus pads as well. Generally, there's a willingness to address challenges via the convenings, though incorporating these into budgets or planning at the right moment can be the hurdle. We actually support our local government partners in terms of their structural investments. We also do our best to facilitate those needs, including monitoring how busy the bus stops are. Additionally, we might recommend improvements to certain infrastructure components here and there. Building transportation infrastructure. Additionally, some partnerships involved several public agencies working together to implement capital improvement projects that facilitated transit to open spaces. These partnerships are often needed because roads that provide access to open spaces, such as national forests, are often owned and operated by cities or counties. The quote below is from interviewees working for the regional transit agency, talking about their collaborations with local municipalities. There's strong support from our local government partners regarding bus stop infrastructure. For instance, we have a bus shelter program that aids in the procurement of bus shelters, and we maintain a positive relationship concerning development referrals, where they share new developments with us for review on their suitability for transit-related development. One of the key areas where we collaborate closely with municipalities is in our strategic planning and long-range planning efforts. In these plans, we assess the needs of the transit system, identifying any gaps in amenities, infrastructure, or future requirements. 30 2.3.2.3 In-depth community engagement Multiple interviewees stated it was critical to conduct thoughtful community engagement with the future users of a T2P initiative when designing such an initiative. The quote below provides important details about T2P professionals' lesson learned concerning how engaging closely and wisely with the local community can help shape an impactful and effective T2P initiative: We were doing the [T2P initiative] planning process, so we used a lot of data [from the local partners] to figure out where people are going on transit, where they're going by other means. We tried to ascertain in the planning phase, where people from different communities are not going, where they would like to go, and that where the current transportation system doesn't give them the option of going. Many respondents also stressed the importance of community engagement to inform the public about new or existing T2P initiatives. “We found that there actually are a lot of good routes that just aren't advertised very well… I just think there's not a lot of information out there on these opportunities. And so that's an easy, relatively easy gap that could be filled.” Moreover, community engagement needs to continue after T2P initiatives are implemented to ensure that communities of interest are aware of such services. As explained in the quotes below, interviewees noted that advertising existing opportunities is a convenient way for transit agencies to help boost ridership, gain more funding, and expand the service. We do highlight different groups that come to the parks on our social media, and we touch on them in our newsletters. But at this point, it's saying, “Hey, did you 31 know you can fund a field trip…” We're seeking out to advocate more for [the T2P initiative]at the moment for gaining wider users. If we wanted to come into more funding and more capacity, I'm sure that was something that we would look into. There's a report that's kind of on hold right now, which we're developing to bring options for how they can improve the route, and some of that may shift more towards the awareness side. [The name of the city] is growing so quickly - there are a lot of newcomers who might not be aware of the regular offerings out there. And the high school demographic, to me, is just a huge opportunity. I believe it’s important that there are additional advertisings done this summer, over and above the usual service change. Some interviewees also mentioned that in-depth community engagement is particularly important to understand the recreational and transit needs of groups experiencing mobility barriers, and limited recreational opportunities, such as low-income people, people of color, and people with disabilities. The quotes below from practitioners working for government agencies noted the importance of considering Indigenous communities’ needs: In Canada, the focus is primarily linked to Indigenous communities, including both urban Indigenous people who have moved into Metro Vancouver from other areas and the First Nations, who are original inhabitants with their own lands and territories within the region. When developing [the system wide plan promoting T2P services], we made concerted efforts to improve engagement with these communities. Historically, local governments viewed engagement with First Nations as a responsibility of provincial or federal governments and largely 32 operated independently. This perspective is changing, signaling an evolving process aimed at better inclusion. As we strive to promote equity, engaging with Indigenous communities and recent immigrants, identified as equity-deserving groups requiring most support, becomes crucial. We believe in directly asking these communities about their needs for a genuine understanding and making strategic investments in programming or infrastructure to address those needs effectively. 2.3.3 Challenges Interviewees noted that the implementation of T2P initiatives faces many challenges, and some of such challenges are similar to those faced by transit in general. The three main challenges mentioned by participants are 1) limited funding and labor, 2) inadequate infrastructure, and 3) siloed agencies. The first and fourth challenges affect most transit services, whereas the second and third seem more specific to T2P initiatives. Limited funding and labor. Transit agencies in Canada struggle to secure enough funding to provide basic transit services, and such struggles seem particularly strong for T2P initiatives, which are seen as less essential than transit to jobs, essential services, and educational settings. When talking about securing funding, one practitioner working for a regional transit agency noted, “You've got access to a hospital before access to a college. So, there can be a lot of competing priorities. And so, being able to squeeze in or maintain support for some of the leisure routes, often pulls very much on the priorities of the local government partner.” Another 33 interviewee noted, “It was a pretty minor component… because it was wrapped within sort of a larger, holistic redesign of the transit network, there's a very minimal discussion on the transit to parks component… the master plan focuses on the higher level.” Some interviewees noted that funding has become a bigger issue after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has seen decreased transit ridership and lower revenue for transit agencies. For example, one interviewee noted, “Unfortunately, that [funding partner’s] pool dried up when COVID hit 2020. …because they weren't getting the revenue anymore after that. That was when they kind of ended their relationship with us simply because the revenue wasn't there.” A related issue affecting most transit agencies during the recovery period of the COVID-19 pandemic has been a shortage of labor. Many interviewees lamented that transit agencies have trouble finding bus drivers, due in part to relatively low wages, and especially for T2P initiatives because they are seen as less essential than other services. Another practitioner talked about the limited labor, “Probably the biggest barrier is staffing trying to find available drivers to help provide this service…the regulatory framework within [the region] is becoming so complex that to hire a fully qualified driver for a three-month position is just about impossible.” Inadequate infrastructure. A set of barriers limiting the rollout of T2P initiatives deals with infrastructure. The main infrastructural barriers that hinder the implementation of T2P initiatives involve difficulties in accessing locations in mountainous locations, and they were not generally mentioned for T2P initiatives that focus on urban parks. These barriers mentioned by the practitioners include but are not limited to, narrow roads and limited spaces for buses to turn around, transit service conflicts with cars, lack of cell phone coverage, road closure due to forest 34 fire, and last-mile connections. For example, one talked about the conflicts between the T2P program conflict with the presence of many private vehicles on roads with limited capacity and the lack of dedicated bus lanes, “We just had a host of issues, unreliability caused by transit infrastructural factors and caused by vehicular traffic factors.” One participant noted that the inadequate and unsuitable road conditions made it hard for them to allocate service to places potentially needing T2P service connection. “The geometry of the road is such that there is not a safe place to put bus stops… it is frustrating because it means that you are skipping a population that could otherwise have access to the bus. Since [the regional transit agency name] doesn't control the roadways or the infrastructure, it's not something that we really have a say in.” The infrastructural barriers also made the transit time longer, unreliable, and limited the use of people facing mobility challenges. Below are some quotes exemplifying the issue: Often, leisure destinations are situated several kilometers off a main arterial or road, and we will have a service connecting A to B. All of a sudden, their travel time will be twice as long as it used to be to deviate, off-route to service a remote leisure area. Our buses, don't operate on gravel. That's one of the big impediments that some locations have to providing bus service. We had an inquiry for [the community’s name]in the West, where they were interested in having transit service, and the road was just not suitable for a bus from [the T2P program]to use. If we don't have a bus pad (on the road) that the ramp can deploy to, then that bus is not accessible… If you need to get back and get on the from the other side, and that is just a 35 huge challenge, especially concerning me because often people with mobility devices. They don't have other transportation choices, but they don't have as many other transportation choices as other groups do.” The lack of cell phone coverage was mentioned primarily as a safety issue in case of disasters or sudden need for evacuation of mountainous areas. One put, “Communication is another barrier. We don't have a good wireless network in the forest. … You lose your cell phone coverage.” Other participants mentioned infrastructure damage and service suspension caused by forest fire. One noted, “It definitely was after another bad event, which was a forest fire that we had in 2017, which burned a large section of [the park] and created a lot of closures.” Siloed agencies. Numerous participants have pointed out that T2P initiatives could be inherently difficult to implement because they often require collaborations between government agencies that traditionally operate in different silos. Those siloed agencies include park agencies and transit agencies, but also transit agencies operating in nearby jurisdictions. Various participants highlighted these related issues. One specifically noted that funding for parks and funding for transit tends to be siloed and often not available at the same time. Another side of this issue is that public land agencies generally do not control the design of the roads that give access to certain trailheads. Local departments or state departments of transportation design and manage those roads. One noted, “Since [the transit agency name] doesn't control the roadways or the infrastructure, it's not something that we really have a say in. It’s the [the name of the higher-level government] that's who owns the 36 road at that point. Besides, it's a priority that they can make it happen, but they have more priorities across the province.” In addition, the lack of collaboration between governmental agencies can also manifest between various transit agencies serving nearby areas. Below are some quotes exemplifying the challenges: The challenge is that the jurisdiction may not always fall under the local partner but rather another organization altogether, such as universities. We often need to collaborate with these entities. Nonetheless, in our strategic planning, there's usually keen interest from all parties in understanding what additional infrastructure is necessary to support development, continue operations, or enhance the safety of existing services. The road network defines the efficiency of the route, and looking at it now, it could be like a circle loop. There's one road that doesn't connect, which could enable greater efficiency. Whether that's something the regional district would entertain, or if it's a strata subdivision, I don't know the land tenure of that specific housing development right there. But there are a lot of unknowns in how it could be shaped, and if there's even an appetite to shape it, or how they're going to prioritize which communities they serve. I think, operationally, there are seasonal challenges, exacerbated by a lack of collaboration and siloed agencies. I recall, but the pandemic interrupted this, that cars parked in areas needed for bus turnarounds cause issues. Popular destinations often lack bylaw enforcement for critical no parking zones necessary for bus operation. Many regional districts struggle enforcing these rules due to limited resources, and a lack of cooperative efforts among agencies. 37 2.4 Discussion 2.4.1 Summary of findings In this paper, we presented the first comprehensive investigation of the motivations, facilitators, and challenges of T2P initiatives in Canada. We undertook this research due to the emerging interest globally in sustainable access to large public-owned natural spaces (Park et al., 2021; Han et al., 2023; Rigolon et al., 2018). We conducted interviews using a thematically focused expert interview protocol on 28 professionals involved in the operation of T2P initiatives (Wroblewski & Leitner, 2009; Trinczek, R., 2009). To better understand the context of such initiatives, before carrying out the interviews, we conducted a web search collecting initiatives in Canada and the U.S., and categorized the existing initiatives into six distinctive types. For the first research question (motivations), we found three factors motivating the implementation of T2P initiatives, including parking and traffic congestion, environmental impacts, and equity in access to parks. Some similar initiatives occur within many national parks but without connection to the nearby towns and cities, which also share the common objectives of reducing congestion within the parks (Hassan et al., 2020; National Park Service, 1999). Although many initiatives started with the goal of relieving traffic and parking stress, many of them have multiple goals, including protecting ecosystems and providing equitable access to nature, especially for disadvantaged groups. Specifically, equity-oriented T2P initiatives can be considered as part of broader efforts to advance green space equity in Canada and beyond (Yañez et al., 2021; Rigolon et al., 2019; Xiao et al., 2017; Mears et al., 2019; Oscilowicz et al., 2021). This has made the initiatives’ objectives often align with governmental mandates, gaining initial support from the government, local and regional non-profits, and residents. 38 The findings for the second research question (facilitators) identified three major facilitators and strategies that contribute to the implementation of such initiatives, which are policy advocacy, partnerships to implement initiatives, and community engagement. Specifically, policy advocacy efforts are often needed to jumpstart T2P initiatives. These efforts have included tailored narratives, coalition-building, and data dissemination. Developing targeted narratives was found to be effective in related research about green space equity policy advocacy (Rigolon et al., 2022). After developing some general support for initiatives via policy advocacy, partnerships were often used to implement them. We identified horizontal, vertical, and public-private partnerships as different types of partnerships for T2P initiatives, and such partnerships provided combined funding, technical assistance, and spaces for collaboration. Prior research on transit implementation reinforces the notion that partnerships, particularly those involving public sectors, are crucial for advancing transit adoption (Bond & Steiner, 2006; Li & Love, 2020; Schwieterman et al., 2018). In addition, in-depth community engagement emerged as a cornerstone of effective T2P initiatives. Many park equity policies are crafted through community engagement (Rigolon et al., 2019; Nesbitt et al., 2019; Khazaei et al., 2019). Engaging residents not only helps design initiatives that take into account various needs, including those of marginalized groups, but it also helps better inform the public about the initiative and boost awareness and ridership. For the third research question on the challenges of implementing T2P services, we uncovered three interconnected challenges faced by operators: limited funding and labor, inadequate infrastructure, and siloed agencies. The overarching challenge of limited funding and labor 39 scarcity, exacerbated by the post-COVID-19 recovery phase, and lower priority given to transit services to recreational destinations. Indeed, many transit agencies in Canada still have not reached their pre-COVID-19 ridership levels (Ziedan et al., 2023; Kapatsila et al., 2022). Challenges specific to T2P initiatives, such as infrastructure inadequacies and navigating inter-agency dynamics, underscore the unique hurdles in implementing transit solutions to parks. Previous studies on transit operations within large parks have similarly identified recurring challenges, including issues with low and unstable ridership, inadequacies in transit infrastructure that lacks accessibility and sightseeing focus, and conflicts among transit users and visitors using other modes of transportation (Taff et al., 2013; Nelson et al., 2008). Overall, the findings on T2P initiatives in Canada reveal a complex interplay between motivations, facilitators, and challenges. The findings underscore the importance of holistic, community-centered approaches, leveraging partnerships and advocacy to overcome obstacles to promote transit connections to large parks and open spaces. 40 Chapter 3: Determinants of Travel Modes to Access Metro Vancouver Regional Parks: Shifting from Cars towards Sustainable Modes 3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 Challenges of car dependency in Metro Vancouver Large parks cater to diverse populations over vast areas, offering an abundance of natural resources and amenities that promote prolonged stays and active participation in physical, cultural, and social activities (Veitch et al., 2015; Czerniak et al., 2007; Markevych et al., 2017). The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened interest in outdoor recreational activities in these natural spaces, presenting a surge of visits to Metro Vancouver's regional parks. In 2021, 16.3 million people visited regional parks, a 37% increase from 2019 (Metro Vancouver, 2022). The tendency towards automobile use among park visitors is notable, with a considerable majority (74%) choosing to drive, a figure that vastly exceeds those who opt for cycling (9%) or public transit (3%) (Metro Vancouver, 2019). Additionally, the low occupancy rates of these vehicles, averaging 1.9 occupants per vehicle, indicate inefficient use of available seating capacity and further underscore the environmental impact (Metro Vancouver, 2019). The demand for parking often outstrips supply on peak visitation days, leading to potential damage to sensitive ecosystems if additional parking is constructed. Furthermore, this reliance on automobiles suggests that individuals without access to a car may face barriers to experiencing the natural benefits offered by Metro Vancouver’s regional parks, highlighting issues of equitable access. Recognizing these challenges related to relying on cars to access parks, Metro Vancouver has embarked on strategic initiatives aimed at reducing car dependency through the promotion of 41 active transportation and public transit, aligning with regional goals of fostering climate resilience. For example, a relevant objective in this regard is Strategic Area 2 - Reduce Driving through Active Transportation and Public Transit (Metro Vancouver, 2021). In addition, Strategy 5 of the Metro Vancouver Regional Parks Plan (2022) sheds light on planning for climate change and other hazards, particularly Strategy 5.4 on incorporating climate change considerations into the design and development of regional parks infrastructure. A recent study by Metro Vancouver Regional Parks (2022) revealed that park visitors' use of transit is not solely determined by the quality of transportation infrastructure linked to the park. In addition to enhancing public transit accessibility, Metro Vancouver needs to understand the behavioral and perceptual factors that influence visitors' mode choices when traveling to regional parks. By developing infrastructure and service delivery strategies based on a comprehensive understanding of visitors' mode choice behavior, the Regional Parks service can better facilitate people's connection to nature through sustainable transportation modes. 3.1.2 Factors influencing park visitors’ mode choice Research into transportation choices for recreation identifies many factors that shape individuals' decisions on how to travel for leisure. These determinants encompass both demographic characteristics—such as age, group size, and whether children are present—and trip-specific considerations, including waiting times, costs, the experience during transit, parking difficulties, and the ease of last-mile connectivity (Pettebone et al., 2011; White, 2007; Youngs et al., 2008; Shiftan et al., 2006; Sims et al., 2005; Rigolon et al., 2022). Key studies highlight the pivotal role of transportation mode in enhancing or detracting from the leisure experience, underscoring attributes like "freedom" and "solitude" as significant factors influencing choice (Gramann, 42 1982; Bell et al., 2007; Dilworth, 2003; White, 2007). The preference for private vehicles, perceived to offer greater flexibility and freedom to explore and find solitude, is a common theme (Youngs et al., 2008; Pettebone et al., 2011; Connell & Page, 2008). Further contributions to this body of work include Porter et al.’s (2018) analysis of recreation bicycling behavior in the U.S. and how it is affected by the built environment. Huang et al. (2012) discuss recreationists' preference for fast and comfortable modes of transportation, offering suggestions for improving recreational transport services. Richards et al. (2016) explore the integration of choice sets into models of recreational demand and transportation. Similarly, Pozsgay and Bhat (2001) investigate destination choice modeling for home-based recreational trips and its effects on land use, transportation, and air quality planning. Kang et al. (2021) examine tourists’ valuation of recreational services in national forest parks, focusing on utility-maximizing behavior and consumption choices. Research into the behavioral and perceptual factors influencing mode choice for park visits is currently limited. While prior studies have shown that the transit mode share among park visitors is not solely determined by the quality of alternative transportation infrastructure connected to the parks (e.g., bike lanes, improved transit coverage), the majority of research on factors influencing transportation mode choice has focused on commuting trips (Metro Vancouver Regional Park, 2022; Swanteson-Franz et al., 2020). Thus, this research addresses this gap by comprehensively examining the diverse factors that shape park visitors' mode choices and decision-making processes. Building on the existing literature, this study will emphasize the significance of socio-demographic and trip-related factors in influencing visitors' mode choices, 43 while exploring the perceived barriers and motivators for shifting from private vehicles to sustainable modes. Recognizing these challenges, this study investigates the potential to increase park access through sustainable modes of transportation, encompassing public transit, biking, and walking. This study asks two research questions: 1) Which socio-demographic and trip-related attributes of park visitors are associated with their current and future mode choices? 2) What improvements can motivate different park visitors to use sustainable travel modes? By understanding the factors influencing visitors’ travel decisions, we aim to inform better the design and planning of urban parks, and transport systems. This approach seeks to mitigate car dependence in travels to large parks, ultimately advancing equitable and sustainable nature access. 3.2 Data and methods 3.2.1 Study locations Metro Vancouver comprises 21 municipalities, one electoral area, and one treaty First Nation, collectively serving a population of 2.8 million residents. In 2021, the region boasted 13,824 hectares of parkland, spanning 23 regional parks, five regional greenways, two regional park reserves, and two ecological conservancy areas. This study focuses on six regional parks in Metro Vancouver: Pacific Spirit Park, Lynn Headwaters Regional Park, Tynehead Regional Park, Burnaby Lake Regional Park, Colony Farm Regional Park, and Belcarra Regional Park (Figure 4). These parks were selected due to their diverse geographical locations, relatively high 44 visitor numbers, good public transit access, and cycling infrastructures (The Sentis Group, 2023; Metro Vancouver, 2020; See Figure 4) Figure 4. Map of the regional parks in the Metro Vancouver region, highlighting surveyed sites and annual visitations. 3.2.2 Data collection Intercept surveys were conducted at the selected regional parks during the summer peak visitation period from June 17th to July 24th, 2023. This sampling period was strategically chosen to coincide with the highest park visitation levels, typically occurring in Metro 45 Vancouver's regional parks in June, July, and August. For each park, I selected one weekday and one weekend day to ensure a representative sample. We conducted survey from 9 AM to 1 PM on weekdays (Mondays or Fridays) and 10 AM to 2 PM on weekend days (Saturdays or Sundays). This was determined based on the analysis of park visitation data from the summer of 2022, focusing on weekly and daily peaks. To maintain randomness and account for potential variations in park visitation patterns, we avoided clustering of sampling days for each park (e.g., Friday and Saturday of the same week for the same park). Two surveyors used an intercept and convenience sampling method to gather study data (Robinson, 2014). In each surveyed park, the surveyors worked around high foot traffic locations, including washrooms, visitors’ information centers, beaches, and trail intersections. Parking lots are also included since they are often located near major park entrances or trailheads. These locations were recommended by managers of each park and Metro Vancouver staff who conducted visitor surveys in 2013 and 2019. At these locations, the surveyors approached potential participants in easy proximity, while also aiming to intercept visitors with diverse travel modes and purposes of visit. For example, jogging and biking visitors are less likely to pause and take the survey than other visitors, so the surveyors paid more attention to intercepting and obtaining their responses. Notably, for legal and ethical considerations, the surveyors explicitly communicated, both in the written preamble of the survey and verbally during participant recruitment, that individuals under the age of 19 were excluded from participating. Other implicit exclusions included people who cannot read English, and those with visual impairment (e.g., blind individuals or poor vision). 46 Participants were given the flexibility to complete the survey on-site using paper forms or tablets, or off-site by scanning a QR code on business cards distributed by the surveyors, which directed them to an online platform called CivilSpace. For paper surveys, data were manually entered into an Excel spreadsheet, while responses from the web form were automatically recorded by the CivilSpace system and exported as an Excel output. These two datasets were subsequently combined into a final database and underwent thorough cleaning and conditioning. The questionnaire employed in the surveys was developed after reviewing questions from previous visitor programs conducted by Metro Vancouver in 2013 and 2019 (See Appendix I for the questionnaire). Additionally, I drew upon relevant research on recreational mode choice decisions, including studies by Park et al. (2020) and Pettebone et al. (2011). The final questionnaire consisted of 27 questions, organized into three sections: (1) Travel mode and park visitation, (2) Likelihood of using sustainable travel modes, and (3) Personal characteristics. This study received approval from the UBC Research Ethics Board (UBC BREB Number: H23-01736). In addition, I computed the trip distance using Google Maps API based on respondents’ postal codes and destination parks identified in the survey. The walkability index of the visitors' residential neighborhoods was assessed using the Neighborhood Active Living Environments index, sourced from the Canadian Urban Environmental Health Research Consortium (CANUE; Ross et al., 2018). This evaluation utilized the postal codes submitted by survey participants. The index integrates various metrics, such as transit accessibility and the characteristics and density 47 of the built environment, all of which influence walking frequency and the adoption of active transportation modes, including walking, cycling, and the use of public transit (Ross et al., 2018). 3.2.3 Data analysis Before cleaning, I gathered a total of 463 survey responses (301 from CivilSpace and 162 from manual input). Due to missing responses to critical questions (e.g., main mode choice to parks and demographics), 7.1% of the data entries were removed, resulting in a final sample size 430. First, I analyzed the survey responses using descriptive statistics, focusing on the sample's representativeness, travel mode share, the likelihood of adopting sustainable mode in the future, and preferences for improvements that could promote sustainable travel to parks. 3.2.3.1 Multinomial and binary logistic regression Then, I used logistic regression to address the first research question - the factors related to park visitors’ current and future mode choices (Figure 5). Logistic regression is a prevalent method in analyzing survey data and investigating behavioral outcomes, especially in mode choice studies (Murat & Uludag, 2018; Assi et al., 2018; Shao et al., 2015; Roberts et al., 1987). Figure 5 is a conceptual framework showing the independent and dependent variables used for each specification of the regression models. First, a multinomial logistic regression model examined the relationship between independent variables (including park visitors’ and trip-to-park attributes) and current mode choices in regional parks (including private vehicles, transit, biking, and walking). Additionally, two binary logistic regression models were applied to predict future considerations for using public transit and biking to regional parks, based on the same 48 independent variables (Figure 5). A p-value of <0.05 was established as the threshold for significance in all models. Figure 5. Framework of independent and dependent variables in travel mode choice analysis. This diagram presents the variables employed in multinomial and binary logistic regression to evaluate the determinants of current and future travel mode choices to parks. For multinomial logistic regression analyzing the current mode choice to parks, I set the private vehicle as the reference category for dependent variables, aiming to compare private vehicles with the other three sustainable travel modes. Considering the exponentiated coefficients here informs the risk of the outcome falling in the comparison group compared to the risk of the outcome falling in the referent group changes, they are interpreted and referred to as RRRs (Relative Risk Rations) in this analysis (Fitzhugh et al., 2023; UCLA: Statistical Consulting 49 Group, n.d.). For the binary logistic regression, visitors answering “No” were set as the reference category, exponentiated coefficients here are interpreted as OR (Odds Ratio). To compare between the impact of changes in one continuous independent variable to the other, I used marginal rate of substitution (MRS). 3.2.3.2 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and further statistical analysis For the second research question on preferred improvements encouraging sustainable mode use, I applied Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to the data collected from questions on the likelihood that each specific improvement would motivate future sustainable travel behaviors for park visits. Respondents rated whether the potential motivators would encourage their sustainable travels on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from "a lot more likely" to "no effect." (See Q1.2, 2.2 and 3 in Appendix A). PCA, commonly utilized in large-scale survey analyses, facilitates the identification of patterns among variables and reduces their complexity for analysis (Anable, 2005; Figler et al., 2011; Grisé et al., 2018). To elucidate the underlying structure and associations among variables related to transit and biking improvements, as well as initiatives and programs that could motivate sustainable travel to parks, I conducted an exploratory PCA. To assess the appropriateness of the data for structure detection, we employed Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy. Results from both tests suggested that the data were suitable for factor analysis, indicating the potential utility of PCA in analyzing the variables under study. 50 During the initial exploratory phase, which included all factors identified in the questionnaire as potential motivators for transit use, I excluded the factor related to the ability to bring pets in transit from the final analysis. This decision was based on two considerations: first, it was the only variable with a non-significant p-value (>0.05) in the correlation matrix, and second, it exhibited the lowest communality value at 0.379. This indicated that, after factor extraction, it accounted for less than 50% of the variance in the original data. Guided by the criterion of a minimum eigenvalue of 1 and the inspection of the scree plot, PCA analysis extracted two distinct factors across the three categories of motivators, resulting in a total of six final extracted components. To enhance interpretability, we applied a Varimax Rotation Method to the component loadings, thereby orthogonally rotating the axes to minimize the number of variables with high loadings on each factor (See Appendix B.2 for full PCA results). To explore the demographic difference in the preference for improvements, the six components from PCA were further examined using ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) and t-tests, maintaining a significance level of p-value <0.05 for all statistical tests. All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics. 3.3 Results 3.3.1 Factors related to regional park visitors' mode choice 3.3.1.1 Descriptive statistics of mode choice Table 5 in Appendix B.1 shows the demographics of survey participants compared to 2021 Canadian Census data for the Metro Vancouver region (Statistics Canada, 2023). Overall, respondents to the survey represent the regional population in most of the categories. However, 51 the sample tends to overrepresent individuals aged 19-34, white people, people residing in Canada for less than 20 years, and those who speak a language other than English at home. Additionally, the sample underrepresents people who are not working, with household income over $100,000, and Chinese and South Asian people. Over three-quarters of the park visitors (76.7%) used a private vehicle as the main mode of transportation to visit the regional park. The second most commonly used mode is public transit (11.2%), followed by walking (8.8%), and bicycle/micro-mobility (3.3%; Figure 6). Compared with the general mode choice to get around the region, participants’ mode share to regional parks showed a higher percentage using cars and a lower percentage using public transit (Figure 6). A cross-tabulation shows that, for those who typically used public transit for travel in Metro Vancouver, almost forty percent (39.5%) used private vehicles instead when visiting regional parks. Regarding mode choice for future park visits, six in ten (60.2%) of all the participants indicated that they would consider taking public transit (Figure 6). In addition, almost half of all the participants (47%) said they would consider using bike/micro-mobility devices (Figure 6). 52 Figure 6. Comparison of travel mode share (%) between participants’ main mode to regional parks (Q1 in Appendix II) and general travel mode to other destinations (e.g., work, study, and other activities; Q2 in Appendix II); Percentage of respondents who would consider using public transit or bikes (Q1.1 and Q2.1 in Appendix II) for their future visits to regional parks (n=430). 3.3.1.2 Logistic regression models of mode choice Table 3 summarizes the results of multinomial and binary logistic regressions. The result highlights the impact of socio-demographics and trip-to-park attributes on participants’ mode currently and choices for future trips. For multinomial logistic regression analyzing the current mode choice to parks, I set the private vehicle as the reference category for dependent variables, aiming to compare private vehicles with the other three sustainable travel modes. For the binary logistic regression, I set visitors answering “No” is set as the reference category. 53 Table 3. Coefficients of logistic regression models, by independent variables (***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1). Current Mode Choice. Vehicle ownership emerged as a pivotal factor associated with visitors’ mode choice, with car owners less likely to opt for transit, biking, and walking (p<.05). RRRs indicate that, compared with choosing driving, individuals with car access are substantially less likely to choose public transit, biking, or walking, with the likelihood decreasing by approximately 94.8%, 92%, and 87.1%, respectively. This highlights the challenge of encouraging car owners towards sustainable travel options. Discounted transit pass holders, showed an increased likelihood of using public transit (p<0.05, RRR=3.505). They may also represent individuals with limited mobility in the Metro Vancouver context (Concession Pass for those under 18, over 65, and individuals with disabilities; U-Pass for university students). Compared to choosing driving, individuals with discounted transit 54 passes are over three times more likely to opt for public transit. This underscores the importance of accessible and affordable public transport options in enhancing park accessibility for diverse populations, especially those facing mobility challenges. The likelihood of choosing walking over driving was significantly higher among visitors from neighborhoods with a higher walkability index (p<0.05, RRR= 20.753). For each unit increase in the walkability index score, the probability of a visitor walking to parks rather than driving is about 21 times higher, suggesting that pedestrian-friendly designs in visitors' home neighborhoods can support increased walking behaviors for park visits. In addition, walkability positively correlates with the choice of transit (p<0.10, RRR=1.658), with each unit increase in walkability linked to a 66% higher likelihood of using transit for park visits. Proximity to parks similarly influenced the choice of biking and walking, with closer distances being associated with a higher likelihood for the two modes (p<0.05, RRR= 0.768). For each kilometer increase in distance to parks, the probability of choosing walking over driving decrease by approximately 23%, illustrating the inhibiting factor of long distances on sustainable mode selection. When estimating the comparative impact of choosing biking over driving, having a car has approximately the same effect (on the log odds) of biking for over 10km in discouraging biking behavior (MRS=10.866). Future Mode Choice. Gender differences were pronounced, with other genders (including cisgender women, transgender people, and non-binary individuals) expressing a lower willingness to bike in the future than cisgender men (p<0.05, RRR= 0.799). Cisgender males are 21% more likely to choose biking to parks. This variance highlights the importance of 55 considering travel safety concerns and addressing gender-specific challenges in biking infrastructure promotion strategies. Car ownership negatively impacted the willingness to consider transit and biking for future visits (p<0.05). RRRs reveal that visitors with cars are about 98.1% less likely to consider transit and about 98.7% less likely to consider biking, reflecting the entrenched mobility habits among car owners. In contrast, bike ownership was positively associated with future biking intentions (p<0.05, RRR=2.805), suggesting that visitors’ personal investment in biking facilitates sustained use. The analysis also highlighted the role of residency duration in Canada, with newcomers residing less than five years showing a greater openness to walking and biking options (p<0.1), indicating potential leverage points for early intervention in sustainable transport habits among immigrants. Age-related preferences were evident, with older individuals less willing to use public transit for future visits (p<0.1), pointing to the necessity of age-inclusive transport planning. Our analysis further revealed that the location and accessibility of certain parks influenced the mode of transportation chosen by visitors. Specifically, Pacific Spirit, Lynn Headwaters, and Burnaby Lake were associated with a significantly higher choice of transit as a current mode of transportation due to their favorable location and accessibility (p<0.05). However, park location was not found to be a significant factor in the current choice of biking or walking. Interestingly, Burnaby Lake was positively associated with a higher openness to both transit and biking for 56 future visits compared to other parks surveyed (p<0.05), suggesting that specific park attributes may play a crucial role in shaping sustainable transportation intentions among park visitors. 3.3.2 Improvements motivating different park visitors’ sustainable travels 3.3.2.1 Descriptive statistics of preferred improvements The figures below illustrate the top five preferred improvements that could enhance the likelihood of choosing sustainable travel options among various socio-demographic groups. The improvements were ranked based on the percentage of respondents indicating they were “somewhat more likely” or “a lot more likely” to engage in transit and biking. The analysis contrasts the overall sample's preferences with those of demographics facing mobility barriers: individuals without car access, low-income earners (annual household income below $50,000), and seniors aged 65 and above. The data suggest a higher probability for individuals without car access to be motivated by these improvements for transit use compared to the whole sample (Figure 7). In contrast, seniors are the least likely to be motivated by these changes. The preference for improvements like stops close to parks and homes, and increased transit frequency were pronounced, with these options ranking highly for the overall sample, individuals without car access, and seniors. Dedicated shuttle services were notably favored by the low-income group and seniors, less so by those without car access. Furthermore, reduced fees emerged as a significant incentive for all three groups facing mobility challenges, whereas this preference did not rank in the top five for the whole sample, underscoring the importance of affordability in promoting sustainable transportation choices in low-mobility populations. 57 Figure 7. Top 5 preferred improvements on transit by socio-demographic groups (n=259). For improvements that encourage biking to parks, individuals without car access report the greatest potential impact, suggesting a higher likelihood of a mode shift following such improvements (Figure 8). This trend aligns with that observed for transit motivators, where the no-car-access group appears most responsive to change, in contrast to seniors who are comparatively less influenced (Figure 7). The top five preferred biking improvements are consistent across groups, with routes offering natural views ranking highest, except among seniors. Notably, secure bike storage is a priority for both the no-car-access demographic and seniors. Across all groups, the common critical factor influencing biking choices for park visits is 58 the comfort and safety of cycling routes, evidenced by a preference for routes with natural views, physical separation from traffic, and flat terrain. Figure 8. Top 5 preferred improvements on biking by socio-demographic groups (n=200). In alignment with prior findings, individuals without car access demonstrate a markedly higher interest in initiative and technology improvements (Figure 9), indicating a greater possibility to adopt sustainable practices when such enhancements are available. Real-time information at stops and on phones stands out as a widely favored improvement, with the notable exception of seniors. Interestingly, greenways connecting parks feature as a top preference for the general sample but not for the no-car-access group. Park-and-ride options are less appealing to seniors 59 and those without car access (Figure 9). Additionally, while discount campaigns for park visitors using sustainable modes are not a priority in the whole sample, they hold appeal for the no-car-access group, highlighting their sensitivity to cost incentives. Figure 9. Top 5 preferred improvements on initiatives and technologies motivating sustainable travel modes by socio-demographic groups (n=430). 3.3.2.2 Statistical analysis of socio-demographic differences Principal Component Analysis on improvements. The PCA extracted two distinct factors across the three categories of motivators, resulting in a total of six variables. The PCA results, summarized in the table (See Appendix B.3), include the loadings of individual variables included in the six extracted factors. The first factor that encourages future transit use was 60 interpreted as "1.1 Gear and Amenities." The aggregated variables are improvements in transit and park amenities, highlighting the necessity of user-friendly facilities to encourage transit use (Figure 10). The second factor was termed "1.2 Transit Connectivity," encompassing enhancements in first-mile/last-mile connections for park visits and more convenient transit services. Together, these two components explain 55% of the variance, with their rotated factor scores exceeding the acceptable threshold of 0.5. Figure 10. PCA results on aggregated improvements motivating transit use, presented with Varimax with Kaiser rotated loadings. The size of the circle represents the loadings of each variable in the grouped factor (See Appendix B.3 for full PCA results). Regarding future bike use, the PCA analysis revealed two significant motivators (Figure 11). "2.1 Facilities and Programs" groups variables related to park and transit amenities improvements and biker programs, such as secure bike storage and maintenance facilities, indicating the role of supportive infrastructure and program hosting in fostering bike travels. "2.2 Quality of Cycling Routes" highlights the need for safer and more navigable cycling paths, 61 capturing efforts to enhance route quality for visitors of all abilities. Combined, these components account for 59% of the variance, affirming a robust factor structure. Figure 11. PCA results on aggregated improvements motivating bike use, presented with Varimax with Kaiser rotated loadings. The size of the circle represents the loadings of each variable in the grouped factor (See Appendix B.3 for full PCA results). Lastly, we examine all the improvements that are related to initiatives and technologies that would potentially motivate people’s sustainable mode choices (Figure 12). The first initiative and technology factor were interpreted as "3.1 Programs and facilities," aggregating variables related to workshops and campaigns and facilities enhancement. The second factor was termed "3.2 Real-time information & resources," encompassing enhancements in technologies that offer real-time accessible information convenient for sustainable travellers’ trip planning. These factors together explain 65% of the variance. 62 Figure 12. PCA results on aggregated initiative/technology improvements motivating sustainable travel, presented with Varimax with Kaiser rotated loadings. The size of the circle represents the loadings of each variable in the grouped factor (See Appendix B.3 for full PCA results). Demographic differences. The preference in transit use motivators identified in PCA (1.1 Gear and Amenities; 1.2 Transit Connectivity) exhibit significant demographic variations (Table 4). Compared to cisgender males, other genders demonstrated a stronger preference for 1.1 Gear and Amenities, suggesting that amenities and gear facilities are crucial for encouraging marginal gendered groups’ sustainable travels. Additionally, younger adults (ages 19-34) emphasized 1.1 Gears and Amenities more than seniors over 65, indicating generational differences in valuing park and transit enhancements. Income analysis further showed a trend where lower-income groups expressed greater interest in 1.1 Gear and Amenities, highlighting the potential of targeted amenities to particularly influence the travel modes of economically disadvantaged visitors. 63 The importance of 1.2 Transit Connectivity also varied across demographics, although marginally for some. Individuals without car access were more likely to view improvements in transit connectivity as a critical factor when deciding whether to take public transit to parks, with a noted marginal significance (p<0.1). This suggests a potential shift towards public transit use if FMLM (first-mile/last-mile) experience and transit coverage and frequency are enhanced. Employment status also influenced this preference, with working individuals valuing transit connectivity more highly, likely seeking efficient travel options that accommodate their limited time flexibility (p<0.1). Regarding improvements motivating biking use, only 2.1 Facilities and Programs exhibit significant demographic variations, while no significant difference was uncovered for 2.2 Quality of Cycling Routes. Among individuals without bike access, 2.1 Facilities and Programs emerged as a distinct motivator, indicating a clear demand for infrastructure and support services that enable biking to parks. This preference was notably higher among newcomers to Canada and younger demographics, suggesting that these groups may be more responsive to the improvements in biking facilities and programs. 64 Table 4. ANOVA and t-tests of the importance of different improvement factors by demographic groups (***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1). 65 Some demographic differences were observed among broad appeal as initiatives and technological improvements (3.1 Programs and Facilities; 3.2 Real-time Information & Resources) that could motivate sustainable travels. Preferences for 3.1 Programs and Facilities varied significantly with gender, residency time, and age. Non-male genders and individuals with discounted transit passes (indicative of limited mobility in Metro Vancouver) showed a heightened interest in using sustainable modes due to this factor. Moreover, the analysis indicated that newcomers and younger individuals are more inclined to improve programs and facilities, emphasizing the need for targeted educational and infrastructural enhancements to support diverse visitor groups in adopting sustainable travel modes. The significance of 3.2 Real-time Information & Resources was particularly pronounced among individuals without car access, emphasizing the value of timely and accessible travel information in making sustainable travel decisions. This factor also showed marginal differences across employment statuses, with working individuals prioritizing access to real-time information, likely due to the importance they attached to flexibility in planning for park visits. 3.4 Discussion In this study, we examined the factors associated with the park visitors’ travel mode choices. We also studied the improvements that could facilitate sustainable travels for visitors of different demographics, focusing on transport infrastructure, park planning, initiatives, and technology enhancements. We identified a predominant reliance on cars for trips to regional parks, with over 75% of visits made by private vehicles. Despite this, a significant openness among respondents towards adopting public transit and biking for future park visits suggests a potential for transitioning to more sustainable travel modes. 66 Vehicle ownership negatively correlates to current sustainable mode choice, and significantly decreases the likelihood of choosing transit and biking in the future. Moreover, we found that car owners are significantly less amenable to all the improvements that would potentially encourage sustainable travels. This highlights the challenge of encouraging visitors with cars to opt for sustainable modes due to their entrenched car dependence on travel habits (Kenworthy & Laube, 1999; Metz, 2023). Previous studies suggested that car owners’ travel behavior can be potentially changed by a higher density of built environment (Eenoo et al., 2020), and through informational interventions on the benefits of environment and health (Geng et al., 2020), external taxes, and charges of the trip (e.g., gas and parking) (Pan et al., 2020; Mayburov & Leontyeva, 2017). This implies, to modify car owners travel decision to visit parks, there is a long-term joint effort needed. The findings also underscored the importance of walkable neighborhoods in promoting sustainable travel behaviors, with a higher walkability index associated with an increased probability of walking and using transit for park visits. This finding aligns with previous research of Dyck et al that higher walkability in neighborhoods lead to more individuals walking to parks from their homes. Pedestrian-friendly designs in a neighborhood can significantly enhance visitors’ first-mile journey to transit stops, promoting more active travels and increased transit usage (Park et al., 2019; Freeman et al., 2012; Riggs & Sethi, 2020). Making every visitor’s neighborhood safer and more convenient for walking can be powerful in reducing reliance on car travel, including during their trips to parks (Weinberger & Sweet, 2012; Hsieh & Chuang, 2021). 67 Offering discounted transit passes is a potent tool for enhancing public transit usage of groups facing mobility challenges, including travels to parks. In Metro Vancouver, the discounted transit holders are populations that tend to face greater mobility challenges (Concession Pass for those under 18, over 65, and individuals with disabilities; U-Pass for university students); our analysis found a significantly higher likelihood for discounted transit pass holders to use transit to parks. This aligns with the other findings that lower fees serve as distinctive motivators for all three low-mobility demographics we focused on (i.e., low-income earners, individuals without car access, and seniors). This reinforces the argument that improving fare affordability for all sustainable modes is crucial in reducing car dependency, and improving equitable access to regional parks. These findings echo with previous research that fare policies prioritizing equity can help mitigate the transport burden of low-income riders (Darling et al., 2021), and those living in less walkable and transit-accessible neighborhoods (Wang et al., 2022; El-Geneidy et al., 2016; Cheng et al., 2016). Differences in gender and age regarding willingness to adopt sustainable modes underscore the necessity for inclusive urban planning and infrastructure enhancements. We found marginalized genders demonstrated a hesitancy towards biking for future park visits. This aligns with previous literature that women cycle at a lower rate because of limited access to bikes (Bekkum et al., 2011), safety concerns and preferences for cycling in areas with lower traffic speeds or segregated bike paths (Le et al., 2019; Garrard et al., 2008), and higher susceptibility to harassment and attacks (Gorrini et al., 2021; Heesch et al., 2012). We also found older adults (65+) displayed the least openness to using public transit for future visits, with their interest in sustainable travel improvements being markedly lower than the other low-mobility populations 68 we investigated (e.g., low-income earners, individuals without car access). This suggests that there is a gap in current infrastructure addressing higher travel risks and constraints perceived by marginalized travellers to parks as well as variability in the needs and circumstances of populations facing greater travel barriers (Buys et al., 2012; Sundling et al., 2015; Khan et al., 2019). The distinct responsiveness of certain low-mobility groups to proposed improvements highlights opportunities for targeted interventions. Newcomers to Canada and young individuals showed a higher willingness to adopt sustainable travel modes, perhaps reflecting their limited travel options, less ingrained car-centric values and habits, and a higher awareness of pro-environmental travel behaviors (Ozcan, 2021; Møller et al., 2018; Rajevan, 2022; Bhat et al., 2013). This suggests that it may be easier to foster a higher sustainable mode share targeting on younger generations and new immigrants, thus contributing significantly to reducing overall car dependence for park visits. 69 Chapter 4: Conclusion 4.1 Key findings and overall significance The thesis delves into facilitating access to large parks via sustainable transportation methods, aiming to comprehensively bridge the gap in research between park equity and transportation equity from both practitioners’ and users’ perspectives. One study in the thesis focused on the development and operational challenges of transit-to-parks (T2P) initiatives across Canada, and the other examined park visitors' transportation choices in Metro Vancouver. Together, these studies reveal a multifaceted understanding of how policy, community engagement, design and planning interventions, and infrastructural developments influence sustainable travel behaviors and access to recreational open spaces. By integrating the perspectives of both transit practitioners and park users, the research highlights the interdependencies between effective policy implementation and user-oriented design in enhancing park accessibility. In Chapter 2, we addressed the first thesis objective: To study the development of transit-to-parks (T2P) initiatives in Canada, identifying opportunities and barriers to provide practical guidance for future planning and implementation by relevant agencies. This chapter identified three main motivations: parking and traffic congestion, environmental impacts of traffic, and equity considerations; three key facilitators: policy advocacy, partnerships, and in-depth community engagement; and three challenges: limited funding and labor, inadequate infrastructure, and siloed agencies. Overall, our findings from T2P practitioner interviews in Canada reveal a complex interplay between motivations, challenges, and facilitators. The motivations for solving parking, 70 environmental, and equity problems are often aligned with governmental mandates, making these initiatives easier to gain initial support from the government and local residents. The overarching challenges of operating such initiatives lie in the lower priority given to transit services to recreational destinations and the current car-centric infrastructure connected to parks, with all these pressures tending to intensify in the COVID-19 recovery period. Lastly, to facilitate the success and ensure the sustainability of these initiatives over the long term, policy advocacy efforts need to be made to jumpstart the initiatives. Partnerships of different types are important to solidify funding sources, gain reliable data and technical support, and keep the conversations going for high-level plans and implementing infrastructural improvements. The significance of Chapter 2 lies in its foundational contribution to the emerging field of transit connections to large parks and open spaces. The study represents an original effort to comprehensively investigate T2P initiatives across Canada. By addressing critical gaps in existing literature, the findings contribute essential insights into the motivations, facilitators, and challenges associated with the implementation of sustainable transportation initiatives to access large open spaces. Practically, the findings offer actionable recommendations for transit agencies, public land managers, and sustainability advocates. Grounded in nuanced understandings of community engagement, partnership development, pilot project implementation, narrative creation, and barrier mitigation, this research holds real-world applicability. Although focused on Canada, the study has global relevance. The insights and recommendations provided can serve as a valuable reference for countries facing similar challenges, fostering cross-cultural learning and adaptation. 71 Chapter 3 tackled the second objective of the thesis: To understand factors related to park visitors’ mode choice in Metro Vancouver and inform design and planning efforts to encourage a shift from private vehicles to sustainable transport. This chapter identified socio-demographic and trip-related attributes influencing park visitors' current and future travel choices, which included vehicle ownership, availability of discounted transit passes, neighborhood walkability, trip distance, and gender. The findings on demographic differences on improvements also helped pinpoint interventions incentivizing diverse populations, especially low-mobility groups toward sustainable travel. The findings of Chapter 3 suggested that targeted improvements in transport infrastructure, park design and planning, policy, and technology initiatives, has the significant potential to increase the adoption of sustainable travel modes. Future strategies should prioritize inclusivity, tailoring approaches to meet the specific needs of various demographic groups, especially those with limited mobility options to access nature, such as seniors, low-income earners, and those without car access, to foster more equitable use of natural open spaces. By addressing financial, infrastructural, and informational barriers, policymakers and planners can mitigate traffic and parking issues, foster healthier travels and lifestyles, enhance park accessibility, and contribute to broader environmental sustainability goals. The key lies in designing interventions that are grounded in the real-world experiences of park-goers, taking into account the varied needs of different populations. With carefully crafted, evidence-based strategies that consider specific local contexts, there is a promising path forward to reducing car dependency, contributing to urban sustainability goals, and minimizing the ecological footprint of leisure activities. 72 4.2 Practical implications 4.2.1 Recommendations for operating T2P initiatives The findings of our research carry significant practical implications for the implementation of T2P initiatives in Canada, and relevant programs globally. These recommendations aim to enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of T2P programs, providing valuable insights for both North American and global T2P initiatives. The study underscores the pivotal role of community engagement in shaping successful T2P initiatives. Agencies initiating such programs should prioritize community involvement from the outset, gaining insights into local transportation and recreational needs. This ongoing engagement strategy ensures that T2P initiatives are tailored to specific community contexts. For instance, Parkbus, a successful non-profit T2P initiative, initially funded by the Ontario provincial government, expanded its services across to provinces in Canada via collaborations with local municipalities (Parkbus, n.d.). By engaging closely communities, Parkbus adeptly tailored its services to diverse local contexts, fostering trust and gaining private and public support. Partnering with local community-based organizations, especially in disadvantaged communities, is crucial for fostering trust and meaningful engagement. Establishing continuous community engagement practices, including post-implementation awareness efforts, contributes to the long-term success of T2P initiatives. Robust partnerships among various entities emerge as key facilitators for successful T2P initiatives. Effective collaboration between public agencies, non-profits, and transit organizations can address challenges and ensure the sustainability of initiatives. Establishing partnerships at 73 the outset, outlining shared expectations and policies through memoranda of understanding, provides a solid foundation. Seeking diverse federal and state/provincial funding sources and recognizing the essential role of partnerships are crucial for financial sustainability, especially for private-sector-led T2P initiatives. Implementing pilot projects emerges as a strategic approach for testing and evaluating the viability of T2P initiatives. These projects serve as a valuable testing ground, providing data for advocacy and further development. Initiating T2P initiatives with pilot projects, such as seasonal shuttles, allows agencies to assess their impact and feasibility. Evaluation of pilots should extend beyond ridership data, including surveys to understand rider experiences, motivations, barriers, and demographics. Crafting compelling narratives for advocacy is identified as a crucial element for garnering support for T2P initiatives, as also shown in other research (Rigolon et al., 2022). Focused on key motivations, these narratives should leverage data and storytelling to drive public understanding and engagement. Storytelling based on the lived experiences of low-income residents can be particularly effective, according to the interviewees (for an example, see The Wilderness Society, 2021). Narratives highlighting the main motivations behind T2P initiatives, such as congestion relief, environmental sustainability, equity, and economic development, enhance the effectiveness of advocacy efforts. Embedding data and storytelling from affected communities within T2P narratives creates a more impactful advocacy strategy. 74 Addressing barriers through effective partnerships and robust community engagement is pivotal for the success of T2P initiatives. Leveraging effective partnerships to overcome barriers related to limited funding, infrastructure, and coordination among siloed agencies is essential. Robust community engagement emerges as a key strategy for navigating political and bureaucratic challenges. 4.2.2 Recommendations for encouraging sustainable travel to large parks Transit service and infrastructure. The study highlights an evident preference for transit stops near parks and homes, underscoring the need for urban design to enhance the first-/last-mile experience for park visitors. Shortening and facilitating the last-mile connection from transit stops to park entrances is crucial, as access and egress times significantly impact overall transit travel time. The implementation of amenities such as sidewalks, street lighting, bus shelters, seating, and comprehensive wayfinding signage can help improve visitor comfort, safety, and navigation. Additionally, targeted fare reductions and discount campaigns for sustainable travel may be important incentives for low-mobility groups. Introducing dedicated shuttle services and increasing the frequency of transit services to parks could significantly boost their appeal. As the study results also indicate that transit connectivity is a key motivator for working individuals and those without car access, these improvements may be important in addressing these demographics’ access barriers to regional parks. Park design and planning. The study suggests park design should incorporate more secure bike storage, emphasizing essential features such as sturdy locks, well-lit parking areas, and CCTV coverage. To encourage more sustainable travels, improvements should also encompass shelters 75 and food vending areas, catering not only to cyclists but also those walking or using transit. In a broader and longer-term context, we advocate for strategic park planning that creates interconnected parks via designated, accessible, and safe bicycle routes. This strategy should welcome visitors of all mobility levels, fostering an inclusive environment that encourages biking to reach parks. Moreover, the development of greenways — multi-use recreational paths, exemplifies a measure designed to fulfill cyclists' needs for secure, dedicated bicycle paths with natural views, while also supporting other sustainable travel modes. Intelligent Transportation System (ITS), online information, and community programs. The study reveals that real-time travel information, such as bus arrival and departure times, significantly motivates park visitors to choose sustainable travel methods, particularly when this information is available through displays at transit stations and mobile applications. Furthermore, we discovered that accurate updates on parking availability and road conditions are highly valued, as they can deter individuals from using private vehicles to access regional parks. An Intelligent Transportation System (ITS), which encompasses road traffic monitoring, parking lot conditions, electronic message signs, and real-time transit updates, can effectively deliver this crucial information to park visitors (Collum & Daigle, 2015). Enhancing ITS to better cater to sustainable travel modes, including seamless transfers between them, and improving its accessibility for regional park visitors could significantly promote the use of sustainable transportation methods. The findings also highlight a clear need for easy and convenient access to accurate trip planning information, allowing for flexible travel scheduling—this is particularly important for working individuals, those without car access, and younger people. In addition to ITS, providing online trip-planning resources (via multiple social media and blog posts) focused 76 on sustainable travel options could meet this need, enriching the overall experience of visiting parks. Lastly, given the pronounced environmental awareness of park visitors, especially among younger generations and newcomers open to alternative modes of transport, advertising initiatives and community programs (e.g., seminars and workshops) that advocate for and educate on the benefits of choosing sustainable modes of transport to parks could further encourage this trend. Lastly, in addressing the current gap in service and infrastructure that hampers equitable access to parks through sustainable travel options, it is crucial to not only implement general recommendations mentioned above but also to recognize and cater to the unique needs of specific demographics facing travel barriers. Table 5 presents a summary on the list of interventions shown in the analysis results to be preferred by groups facing travel barrier than other demographics. Implementing these interventions requires extra efforts tailored to the distinct preferences and challenges these populations face. Table 5. Interventions tailored for communities with greater travel difficulties (based on results in Section 3.3.2) Type Interventions Visitor groups facing greater travel barriers to parks Transit service and infrastructure Fare reduction / discounted transit pass for more users Low-income group, seniors, and people without cars Transit service and infrastructure; Park design and planning Improve vehicle and park amenities friendly for transit taker (e.g., bring gear to transit, food place in parks, and shelters from weather) Non-male genders and low-income group 77 Type Interventions Visitor groups facing greater travel barriers to parks Park design and planning Improve park facilities friendly for bikers (e.g., secure bike storage, gear renting, and ebike-charging) Newcomers to Canada and low-income group Initiative, policy, and community programs Support programs and public initiatives advocating sustainable travels to parks Non-male genders and newcomers to Canada Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Facilitate delivery of real-time information and trip-planning resources People without cars and newcomers to Canada 4.3 Limitations and future directions There are some overarching limitations on the conceptual foundation of my thesis. The thesis builds under the assumption that facilitation of access to large parks through sustainable transportation methods inherently contribute positively to both sustainability and equity by reducing reliance on private vehicles and making park access more inclusive. However, this perspective may overlook scenarios where increased access leads to negative consequences, such as park overcrowding, degradation of natural resources, and a diminished visitor experience, which in turn could challenge the very sustainability and equity goals it seeks to promote (Mace et al., 2013; Holding & Kreutner, 1998). Additionally, the thesis acknowledges sustainability and equity as dual, mutually reinforcing objectives, yet it does not delve into circumstances where these goals may diverge. For instance, the introduction of new or enhanced transit services to underserved areas might inadvertently contribute to gentrification, thereby limiting access for the very communities they aim to serve (Delmelle, 2021; Wolch et al., 2014; Lung-Amam et al., 2019). This oversight underscores a critical conceptual limitation: the failure to fully explore and 78 discuss instances where efforts to increase park accessibility might lead to outcomes that contradict equity objectives, such as increased property values and living costs. Such scenarios highlight the need for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between accessibility, sustainability, and equity, including the recognition that these goals may not always align and that achieving an optimal balance between them requires careful, context-specific considerations. Chapter 2 has several limitations. First, T2P initiatives vary widely in scale, from localized programs to expansive nationwide endeavors. The list of T2P initiatives derived from the web search is not exhaustive and comprehensive, reflecting only a portion of such initiatives in the Canada and the U.S. This may result in overlooking professionals engaged in other distinct initiative types who did not have the opportunity to participate in the interviews. This limits the ability to capture insurmountable barriers, and can cause missing some motivations to managing T2P initiatives. Secondly, we did not assess the severity and urgency of each identified challenge. Understanding the magnitude of these challenges is useful for prioritizing recommendations in practical applications. Future research could extend the effort to conduct a comprehensive search, aiming to develop a mechanism to capture all T2P initiatives across North America, and potentially worldwide. Moreover, building on the findings, future studies delving into the policy landscape surrounding these initiatives in depth would offer insights into the regulatory frameworks and funding structures that either support or hinder their implementation. Lastly, combining and comparing the practitioners’ perspective with the end-users of these services can offer a more nuanced view 79 of the effectiveness of different T2P strategies, the contextual challenges faced by various stakeholders, and the socio-political dynamics influencing the success of T2P initiatives. Chapter 3 has some limitations. The data collection was confined to peak summer months and to high-traffic locations within the parks, which may not capture the full diversity of park visitors' experiences and travel behaviors throughout the year. Additionally, the convenience sampling method, while practical in obtaining sufficient responses, introduces potential selection bias, as certain visitor demographics, such as joggers and cyclists, may be underrepresented. The focus on parks with relatively good transit and cycling infrastructure, such as those in Metro Vancouver, was strategic to capture a sufficient sample of users employing sustainable travel modes. However, this means that parks with lower accessibility were not included, potentially overlooking the travel behaviors of visitors to these parks. The survey did not capture and non-park visitors (populations who cannot visit the park because of inevitable difficulties), and failed to distinguish between the perspectives of local residents and temporary tourists, which could offer diverse insights into park usage and the feasibility of sustainable travel options. Such delineation could provide a more nuanced understanding of travel choices and motivations, which could be particularly varied between residents familiar with the area and tourists who may have different access to information and resources. Future research could consider a wider array of parks, especially those with limited transit and biking infrastructure, across different seasons and weather conditions to gain a more holistic understanding of visitor travel behaviors. Additionally, future studies should aim to capture and compare the travel behaviors and preferences of both local residents, temporary tourists, and 80 non-park visitors. This approach could elucidate 1) how familiarity with local infrastructure and resources affects the adoption of sustainable travel modes and how these patterns may differ for temporary visitors; 2) using comparative analysis, inform targeted interventions that help those experiencing the greatest travel barriers to visit parks, enabling cater specifically to the needs and circumstances of these distinct visitor groups. Researchers may also employ qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus groups, to explore individual motivations and perceived barriers to accessing parks sustainably. A mixed-methods approach could yield rich, actionable insights, combining quantitative data on travel patterns with qualitative feedback on visitor decision-making processes. Furthermore, examining the interplay between the availability of local green spaces, such as neighborhood parks or street trees, and the frequency or mode of visitation to larger regional parks could reveal patterns that inform urban planning and public transportation policy aimed at promoting sustainable recreation. 81 References Anable, J. (2005). ‘Complacent car addicts’ or ‘aspiring environmentalists? Identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory. Transport policy, 12(1), 65-78. Anderson, W. P., Kanaroglou, P. S., & Miller, E. J. (1996). Urban form, energy and the environment: a review of issues, evidence and policy. Urban studies, 33(1), 7-35. Ando, H., Ikegami, K., Nagata, T., Tateishi, S., Eguchi, H., Tsuji, M., … & Ogami, A. (2021). Effect of commuting on the risk of covid-19 and covid-19-induced anxiety in Japan, December 2020. Archives of Public Health, 79(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-021-00751-9 Arakaki, E., Craig, K., & Stevenson, M. (2019). Connecting people to parks in King County: A transit-to-parks GIS analysis. The Wilderness Society. Assi, K. J., Nahiduzzaman, K. M., Ratrout, N. T., & Aldosary, A. S. (2018). Mode choice behavior of high school goers: Evaluating logistic regression and MLP neural networks. Case studies on transport policy, 6(2), 225-230. Bailey, L., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Little, A. (2008). The Broader Connection between Public Transportation, Energy Conservation and Greenhouse Gas Reduction. ICF International, 1-29. Barnett, A., Akram, M., Sit, C. H., Mellecker, R. R., Carver, A., & Cerin, E. (2019). Predictors of healthier and more sustainable school travel mode profiles among hong kong adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-019-0807-4 Behren, S., Minster, C., Esch, J., Hunecke, M., Vortisch, P., & Chlond, B. (2018). Assessing car dependence: Development of a comprehensive survey approach based on the concept of a travel skeleton. Transportation Research Procedia, 32, 607-616. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRPRO.2018.10.015. Bekkum, J. E. v., Williams, J., & Morris, P. G. (2011). Cycle commuting and perceptions of barriers: stages of change, gender and occupation. Health Education, 111(6), 476-497. https://doi.org/10.1108/09654281111180472 82 Bell, S., Tyrväinen, L., Sievänen, T., Pröbstl, U., & Simpson, M. (2007). Outdoor recreation and nature tourism: A European perspective. Living Reviews in Landscape Research, 1(2), 1-46. Bergerson, T. (2019). Visitor Survey of Day use and Overnight use at Oregon State Parks. Beyer, K., Kaltenbach, A., Szabó, A., Bogar, S., Nieto, F. J., & Malecki, K. (2014). Exposure to neighborhood green space and mental health: evidence from the survey of the health of wisconsin. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(3), 3453-3472. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110303453 Bhat, C. R., Paleti, R., Pendyala, R. M., Lorenzini, K., & Konduri, K. C. (2013). Accommodating immigration status and self-selection effects in a joint model of household auto ownership and residential location choice. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2382(1), 142-150. https://doi.org/10.3141/2382-16 Boarnet, M. G., Giuliano, G., Hou, Y., & Shin, E. J. (2017). First/last mile transit access as an equity planning issue. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 103, 296–310. Bond, A., & Steiner, R. (2006). Sustainable campus transportation through transit partnership and transportation demand management: A case study from the University of Florida. Berkeley Planning Journal, 19(1). Brown, G., Rhodes, J. R., & Dade, M. C. (2018). An evaluation of participatory mapping methods to assess urban park benefits. Landscape and Urban Planning, 178, 18-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.018 Brown, G., Schebella, M. F., & Weber, D. (2014). Using participatory GIS to measure physical activity and urban park benefits. Landscape and urban planning, 121, 34-44. Buehler, R. (2010). Transport policies, automobile use, and sustainable transport: a comparison of germany and the united states. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 30(1), 76-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x10366302 Buys, L., Snow, S., Megen, K., & Miller, E. (2012). Transportation behaviours of older adults: An investigation into car dependency in urban Australia. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6612.2011.00567.x. 83 Buys, L., Snow, S., Megen, K., & Miller, E. (2012). Transportation behaviours of older adults: An investigation into car dependency in urban Australia. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6612.2011.00567.x. Cheng, S., Gao, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2016). Evaluating the impacts of bus fare on social equity based on IC card data in China. Sustainability, 8(10), 1032. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8101032 Chun J, Kim C K, Kim G S, et al. Social big data informs spatially explicit management options for national parks with high tourism pressures[J]. Tourism Management, 2020, 81: 104136. Collum, K. K., & Daigle, J. J. (2015). Combining attitude theory and segmentation analysis to understand travel mode choice at a national park. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 9, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2015.03.003 Connell, J., & Page, S. J. (2008). Exploring the spatial patterns of car-based tourist travel in Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park, Scotland. Tourism Management, 29(3), 561–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.03.019 Coombes, E., Jones, A., & Hillsdon, M. (2010). The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Social Science &Amp; Medicine, 70(6), 816-822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.11.020 Czerniak, J., Hargreaves, G., & Beardsley, J. (2007). Large parks. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Darling, W., Carpenter, E. J., Johnson-Praino, T., Brakewood, C., & Voulgaris, C. T. (2021). Comparison of reduced-fare programs for low-income transit riders. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2675(7), 335-349. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211017900 Delmelle, E. (2021). Transit-induced gentrification and displacement: the state of the debate.. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/5ka2g Dickinson, J. E., Calver, S., Watters, K., & Wilkes, K. (2004). Journeys to heritage attractions in the UK: a case study of National Trust property visitors in the southwest. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2), 103-113. 84 Donaldson, R., Ferreira, S., Didier, S., Rodary, E., Swanepoel, J., 2016. Access to the urban national park in Cape Town: where urban and natural environment meet. Habitat Int. 57, 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.04.010. Douglas, O., Lennon, M., & Scott, M. (2017). Green space benefits for health and well-being: A life-course approach for urban planning, design and management. Cities, 66, 53–62. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.03.011 Eenoo, E. V., Fransen, K., & Boussauw, K. (2022). Car dependency beyond land use: can a standardized built environment indicator predict car use? Journal of Transport and Land Use, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2022.2073 Figler, S. A., Sriraj, P. S., Welch, E. W., & Yavuz, N. (2011). Customer loyalty and Chicago, Illinois, transit authority buses: Results from 2008 customer satisfaction survey. Transportation Research Record, 2216(1), 148-156. Fitzhugh, N., Rasmussen, L. R., Simoni, A. H., & Valentin, J. B. (2023). Misuse of multinomial logistic regression in stroke related health research: A systematic review of methodology. European Journal of Neuroscience, 58(4), 3116-3131. Freeman, L., Neckerman, K. M., Schwartz-Soicher, O., Quinn, J. W., Richards, C., Bader, M., … & Rundle, A. (2012). Neighborhood walkability and active travel (walking and cycling) in new york city. Journal of Urban Health, 90(4), 575-585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-012-9758-7 Fuentes, A., Heaslip, K., D’Antonio, A., Khalilikhah, M., & Soltani-Sobh, A. (2017). Evaluation of vehicle parking queueing in a national park: case study of the laurance s. rockefeller preserve in grand teton national park. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2654(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3141/2654-01 Furman, A. (2013). Mobility and the role of the automobile as the central device in modern north american residential spatial. The Sustainable City VIII : Urban Regeneration and Sustainability, 179. https://doi.org/10.2495/SC130021 Garrard, J., Rose, G., & Lo, S. K. (2008). Promoting transportation cycling for women: the role of bicycle infrastructure. Preventive Medicine, 46(1), 55-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.07.010 85 Geng, D. C., Innes, J. L., Wu, W., & Wang, G. (2020). Impacts of covid-19 pandemic on urban park visitation: a global analysis. Journal of Forestry Research, 32(2), 553-567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-020-01249-w Geng, J., Long, R., Yang, L., Zhu, J., & Birhane, G. E. (2020). Experimental evaluation of information interventions to encourage non-motorized travel: a case study in Hefei, China. Sustainability, 12(15), 6201. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156201 Gorrini, A., Choubassi, R., Federico, M., Saleh, W., Ababio-Donkor, A., Leva, M. C., … & Aragón, P. (2021). Unveiling women’s needs and expectations as users of bike sharing services: the h2020 diamond project. Sustainability, 13(9), 5241. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095241 Gramann, J. H. (1982). Toward a behavioral theory of crowding in outdoor recreation: An evaluation and synthesis of research. Leisure sciences, 5(2), 109-126. Grima, N., Corcoran, W., Hill-James, C., Langton, B., Sommer, H., & Fisher, B. (2020). The importance of urban natural areas and urban ecosystem services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Plos one, 15(12), e0243344. Grisé, E., & El-Geneidy, A. (2018). Where is the happy transit rider? Evaluating satisfaction with regional rail service using a spatial segmentation approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 114, 84-96. Gühnemann, A., Kurzweil, A., & Mailer, M. (2021). Tourism mobility and climate change - A review of the situation in Austria. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 34, 100382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2021.100382 Halecki, W., Stachura, T., Fudała, W., Stec, A., & Kuboń, S. (2023). Assessment and planning of green spaces in urban parks: A review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 88, 104280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104280 Han, Y., He, J., Liu, D., Zhao, H., & Huang, J. (2023). Inequality in urban green provision: A comparative study of large cities throughout the world. Sustainable Cities and Society, 89, 104229. Hassan, M. S., Radzi, S. F. M., Wahid, F., Mohd, S., Muhammad, Z., & Saputra, J. (2020). Study of supply chain strategy for achieving sustainable transport near national park, Jerantut, Pahang, Malaysia. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 9(4), 276–290. 86 Heesch, K. C., Sahlqvist, S., & Garrard, J. (2012). Gender differences in recreational and transport cycling: a cross-sectional mixed-methods comparison of cycling patterns, motivators, and constraints. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(1), 106. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-106 Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social science & medicine, 292, 114523. Herford, I. (1989). The use of mass visitor transport systems to manage peak usage days. Australian Parks & Recreation, 25(4), 7–11. Holding, D. M., & Kreutner, M. (1998). Achieving a balance between “carrots” and “sticks” for traffic in National Parks: the Bayerischer Wald project. Transport Policy, 5(3), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(98)00014-6 Høyem, J. (2020). Outdoor recreation and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 31, 100317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2020.100317 Hsieh, H. and Chuang, M. (2021). Association of perceived environment walkability with purposive and discursive walking for urban design strategies. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 14(1), 1099-1127. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2021.1869 https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2019.1698529. Huang, J., Zhang, L., Lai, X. J., & Hong, X. (2012). Modal choice of recreational tourists under regional transportation integration: a case study of pearl river delta. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 253-255, 287-292. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.253-255.287 Hugill, P., & McShane, C. (1995). Down the Asphalt Path: The Automobile and the American City. Technology and Culture, 36, 420. https://doi.org/10.2307/3106392. Jansen, F. M., Ettema, D. F., Kamphuis, C. B. M., Pierik, F. H., Dijst, M. J., (2017). How do type and size of natural environments relate to physical activity behavior? Health Place 46, 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.05.005. Jiang, Y. (2022). Parked in the park: pandemic traffic congestion in Acadia National Park based on regression analysis. BCP Business & Management, 27, 195-203. https://doi.org/10.54691/bcpbm.v27i.1964 87 Kang, N., Wang, E., Yu, Y., & Duan, Z. (2021). Valuing recreational services of the national forest parks using a tourist satisfaction method. Forests, 12(12), 1688. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12121688 Kapatsila, B., Grisé, E., van Lierop, D., & Bahamonde-Birke, F. J. (2022). From Riding to Driving: The Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Public Transit in Metro Vancouver. Findings. Kassilly, F. N. (2008). Towards promotion of local tourism: A case study of the Kenya Wildlife Service outreach program. Tourism, 56(2), 199–203. Kendal, J., Ison, S., & Enoch, M. P. (2011). UK national parks: a role for road-pricing? International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 5(1), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568310903312143 Kenworthy, J., & Laube, F. (1999). Patterns of automobile dependence in cities: an international overview of key physical and economic dimensions with some implications for urban policy. Transportation Research Part A-policy and Practice, 33, 691-723. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(99)00006-3. Khan, M. J., Chelliah, S., Khan, F., & Amin, S. (2019). Perceived risks, travel constraints and visit intention of young women travelers: the moderating role of travel motivation. Tourism Review, 74(3), 721-738. https://doi.org/10.1108/tr-08-2018-0116 Khazaei, A., Joppe, M., & Elliot, S. (2019). Mapping a diverse community's engagement in parks planning. Leisure Sciences, 41(4), 294-312. Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092 Le, H., West, A., Quinn, F., & Hankey, S. (2019). Advancing cycling among women: an exploratory study of north american cyclists. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2019.1461 Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2008). Qualitative data analysis: A compendium of techniques and a framework for selection for school psychology research and beyond. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 587–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.4.587 88 Li, X., & Love, P. E. (2020). State-of-the-art review of urban rail transit public–private partnerships. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 26(3), 03120002. Litman, T. (2012). Evaluating public transportation health benefits. Victoria, BC, Canada: Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Lumsdon, L. M., Downward, P., & Rhoden, S. (2006). Transport for tourism: Can public transport encourage a modal shift in the day visitor market? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580608669049 Lung-Amam, W., Pendall, R., & Knaap, E. (2019). mi casa no es su casa: the fight for equitable transit-oriented development in an inner-ring suburb. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(4), 442-455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x19878248 Lynch, M., Spencer, L. H., & Edwards, R. T. (2020). A systematic review exploring the economic valuation of accessing and using green and blue spaces to improve public health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11), 4142. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17114142 Mace, B. L., Marquit, J. D., & Bates, S. C. (2013). Visitor Assessment of the Mandatory Alternative Transportation System at Zion National Park. Environmental Management, 52(5), 1271–1285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0164-z Manning, R., Lawson, S., Newman, J., Hallo, J., & Monz, C. (2014). Sustainable transportation and the national parks: From Acadia to Zion. University Press of New England. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2015.04.005 Markevych, I., Schoierer, J., Hartig, T., Chudnovsky, A., Hystad, P., Dzhambov, A. M., de Vries, S., Triguero-Mas, M., Brauer, M., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Lupp, G., Richardson, E. A., Astell-Burt, T., Dimitrova, D., Feng, X., Sadeh, M., Standl, M., Heinrich, J., & Fuertes, E. (2017). Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environmental Research, 158, 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.06.028 Mayburov, I. and Leontyeva, Y. (2017). Comparative analysis of the tax burden on car ownership and car use in the eu countries and russia. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 9-14. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2017.v8n2p9 89 McCartan, C., Davidson, G., Bradley, L., Greer, K., Knifton, L., Mulholland, A., … & White, C. M. (2023). ‘lifts your spirits, lifts your mind’: a co‐produced mixed‐methods exploration of the benefits of green and blue spaces for mental wellbeing. Health Expectations, 26(4), 1679-1691. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13773 McNamee, K., & Finkelstein, M. (2022). National Parks of Canada. The Canadian Encyclopedia. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/national-parks-of-canada Mears, M., Brindley, P., Maheswaran, R., & Jorgensen, A. (2019). Understanding the socioeconomic equity of publicly accessible greenspace distribution: The example of Sheffield, UK. Geoforum, 103, 126-137. Mell, I. and Whitten, M. (2021). Access to nature in a post covid-19 world: opportunities for green infrastructure financing, distribution and equitability in urban planning. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 1527. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041527 Metro Vancouver Regional Parks. (2020). Alternative Transportation Study Part I: Access Inventory. Metro Vancouver Regional Parks. (2022). Alternative Transportation Study Part II: Access to Regional Parks. Metro Vancouver Regional Parks. (2022). Regional Parks Plan - Protect and Connect. Metro Vancouver. (2013). Metro Vancouver Regional Parks Visitor Survey 2013. Metro Vancouver. (2019). Metro Vancouver Regional Parks Visitor Survey 2019. Metro Vancouver. (2020). Regional Greenways 2050. Metro Vancouver. (2021). Climate 2050 - Transportation Roadmap. Metz, D. (2023). Drivers’ Perspectives of Car Dependence. Urban Planning. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v8i3.6286. Møller, M., Haustein, S., & Bohlbro, M. S. (2018). Adolescents’ associations between travel behaviour and environmental impact: a qualitative study based on the norm-activation model. Travel Behaviour and Society, 11, 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2017.12.005 90 Monz, C., D’Antonio, A., Lawson, S., Barber, J., & Newman, P. (2016). The ecological implications of visitor transportation in parks and protected areas: Examples from research in US National Parks. Journal of Transport Geography, 51, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.11.003 Mullick, A. (1993). Accessibility issues in park design: The national parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 26(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(93)90005-X Murat, Y. S., & Uludag, N. (2008). Route choice modelling in urban transportation networks using fuzzy logic and logistic regression methods. National Association of City Transportation Officials. (2016). Transit Street Design Guide. Island Press. National Park Service, (1999). Transportation Planning Guidebook. Park Facility Management Division. National Park Service, (2005). The National Parks: Shaping the System. National Park Service. (2016). Yellowstone National Park Visitor Use Study. Nelson, B., Taylor, V., & Nabti, J. (2008). Shifting Modes of Travel to National Parks: Pilot Study at Muir Woods National Monument, California. Transportation research record, 2077(1), 166-174. Nesbitt, L., Meitner, M. J., Girling, C., & Sheppard, S. R. (2019). Urban green equity on the ground: Practice-based models of urban green equity in three multicultural cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 44, 126433. Nesbitt, L., Meitner, M., Girling, C., Sheppard, S., & Lu, Y. (2019). Who has access to urban vegetation? a spatial analysis of distributional green equity in 10 us cities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 181, 51-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.007 Newton, J. N., Newman, P., Taff, B. D., Shr, Y. H., Monz, C., & D’Antonio, A. (2020). If I can find a parking spot: A stated choice approach to Grand Teton National Park visitors’ transportation preferences. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 32, 100172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2018.04.001 Nutsford, D., Pearson, A. L., & Kingham, S. (2013). An ecological study investigating the association between access to urban green space and mental health. Public health, 127(11), 1005-1011. 91 Oscilowicz, E., Lewartowska, E., Levitch, A., Luger, J., Hajtmarova, S., O’Neill, E., Planas Carbonell, A., Cole, H. V. S., Rivera Blanco, C., & Monroe, E. (2021). Policy and planning tools for urban green justice: Fighting displacement and gentrification and improving accessibility and inclusiveness to green amenities. Barcelona Laboratory for Urban Environmental Justice and Sustainability. http://www.bcnuej.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Toolkit-Urban-Green-Justice.pdf Ozcan, A. E. (2021). Marketing a startup targeting millennial travellers. https://doi.org/10.32920/ryerson.14647548 Pan, S., Guijun, Z., & Chen, Q. (2020). The psychological decision-making process model of giving up driving under parking constraints from the perspective of sustainable traffic. Sustainability, 12(17), 7152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177152 Park Studies Laboratory, (2002). Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Survey: Study Completion Report. University of Vermont, Burlington (Report dated 2002). Park, K., Choi, D.-A., Tian, G., & Ewing, R. (2019). Not Parking Lots but Parks: A Joint Association of Parks and Transit Stations with Travel Behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(4), 547. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16040547 Park, K., Farb, A., Chen, S., (2020). Toward an understanding of the UTA customer experience: Focusing on out-of-vehicle environments. Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City, UT. Park, K., Rigolon, A., Choi, D., Lyons, T., & Brewer, S. (2021). Transit to parks: An environmental justice study of transit access to large parks in the U.S. West. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 60, 127055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127055 Pettebone, D., Newman, P., Lawson, S. R., Hunt, L., Monz, C., & Zwiefka, J. (2011). Estimating visitors’ travel mode choices along the Bear Lake Road in Rocky Mountain National Park. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6), 1210–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.05.002 Porter, A. K., Salvo, D., Pérez, A., Reininger, B. M., & Kohl, H. W. (2018). Intrapersonal and environmental correlates of bicycling in U.S. adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 54(3), 413-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.10.008 92 Pozsgay, M. A. and Bhat, C. R. (2001). Destination choice modeling for home-based recreational trips: analysis and implications for land use, transportation, and air quality planning. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1777(1), 47-54. https://doi.org/10.3141/1777-05 Pretty, J., Peacock, J., Sellens, M., & Griffin, M. (2005). The mental and physical health outcomes of green exercise. International journal of environmental health research, 15(5), 319-337. Rajevan, N. (2022). Travel behaviour of Asian &European immigrants in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area. https://doi.org/10.32920/19083371 Richards, T. J., Hamilton, S. F., & Yonezawa, K. (2016). Variety and the cost of search in supermarket retailing. Review of Industrial Organization, 50(3), 263-285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-016-9535-y Riggs, W., & Sethi, S. (2020). Multimodal travel behaviour, walkability indices, and social mobility: how neighbourhood walkability, income and household characteristics guide walking, biking & transit decisions. Local Environment, 25, 57 - 68. Rigolon, A. (2019). Nonprofits and park equity in Los Angeles: A promising way forward for environmental justice. Urban Geography, 40(7), 984-1009. Rigolon, A., Browning, M. H. E. M., McAnirlin, O., & Yoon, H. (Violet). (2021). Green Space and Health Equity: A Systematic Review on the Potential of Green Space to Reduce Health Disparities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), 2563. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052563 Rigolon, A., Browning, M. H., Lee, K., & Shin, S. (2018). Access to urban green space in cities of the global south: a systematic literature review. Urban Science, 2(3), 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci2030067 Rigolon, A., Park, K., Choi, D., Benson, J., Wang, Y., & Liu, P. (2022). Evaluating and Promoting Transit Connections to Regional Open Spaces in Utah. Utah Transit Authority. Roberts, G., Rao, N. K., & Kumar, S. (1987). Logistic regression analysis of sample survey data. Biometrika, 74(1), 1-12. 93 Robinson, O. (2014). Sampling in Interview-Based Qualitative Research: A Theoretical and Practical Guide. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11, 25 - 41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2013.801543. Ross, N., Wasfi, R., Herrmann, T., and Gleckner, W., 2018. Canadian Active Living Environments Database (Can-ALE) User Manual Rundle, A., Quinn, J., Lovasi, G., Bader, M. D., Yousefzadeh, P., Weiss, C., & Neckerman, K. (2013). Associations between body mass index and park proximity, size, cleanliness, and recreational facilities. American journal of health promotion, 27(4), 262-269. Scauzillo, S. (2018). First modern transit-to-trails from Pasadena to San Gabriel Mountains starts in April. San Gabriel Valley Tribune. https://www.sgvtribune.com/2018/03/12/first-modern-transit-to-trails-from-pasadena-to-san-gabriel-mountains-starts-in-april/ Schwieterman, J. P., Livingston, M., & Van Der Slot, S. (2018). Partners in transit: A review of partnerships between transportation network companies and public agencies in the united states. Scruggs, G. (2021). The cities trailblazing transit service into the wilderness. Next City. https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/the-cities-trailblazing-transit-service-into-the-wilderness Shao, C., Xia, J. C., Lin, T. G., Goulias, K. G., & Chen, C. (2015). Logistic regression models for the nearest train station choice: A comparison of captive and non-captive stations. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 3(4), 382-391. Shiftan, Y., Vary, D., Geyer, D., (2006). Demand for park shuttle services: a stated preference approach. Journal of Transport Geography, 14(1), 52–59. Sierra Club. (2021). Closing the nature equity gap with public transit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFgjnBX7kWM Sims, C. B., Hodges, J. M., Fly, Stephens B., (2005). Modeling acceptance of a shuttle system in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 23, 25–44. 94 Song, Y., Newman, G., Huang, X., & Ye, X. (2022). Factors influencing long-term city park visitations for mid-sized US cities: A big data study using smartphone user mobility. Sustainable Cities and Society, 80, 103815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103815 Statistics Canada. (2023). Census Profile. 2021 Census of Population. Retrieved from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1,4&HEADERlist=0&DGUIDlist=2021S0503933&SearchText=Vancouver Stoffle, R., Seowtewa, O., Kays, C., & Van Vlack, K. (2020). Sustainable heritage tourism: Native American preservation recommendations at arches, canyonlands, and hovenweep national parks. Sustainability, 12(23), 9846. Sundling, C. (2015). travel behavior change in older travelers: understanding critical reactions to incidents encountered in public transport. International Journal of Environmental Research and public Health, 12(11), 14741-14763. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph121114741 Swanteson-Franz, R., Arakaki, E., Bounkeua, K., & Lopez-Ledesma, Y. (2020). Next stop: Equitable access. A transit to parks analysis. The Wilderness Society. https://www.wilderness.org/sites/default/files/media/file/abq-transit-report-updated.pdf Taff, D., Newman, P., Pettebone, D., White, D. D., Lawson, S. R., Monz, C., & Vagias, W. M. (2013). Dimensions of alternative transportation experience in Yosemite and Rocky Mountain National Parks. Journal of Transport Geography, 30, 37-46. The Sentis Group. (2023). Metro Vancouver Sustainable Transportation Research. Metro Vancouver Regional Parks. The Wilderness Society. (2021, October 21). Eya goes to the park [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQvLVFGAmDY Thórhallsdóttir, G., Ólafsson, R., & Jóhannesson, G. T. (2021). A methodology of estimating visitor numbers at an Icelandic destination using a vehicle counter and a radar. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 35, 100378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2021.100378 Tian, M., Yuan, L., Guo, R., Wu, Y., & Liu, X. (2021). Sustainable development: Investigating the correlations between park equality and mortality by multilevel model in Shenzhen, 95 China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 75, 103385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103385 Transdev. (2018). Today’s Challenges for Tomorrow’s Mobility 2018 Survey Results. Retrieved from https://www.transdevna.com/industry-report/ (accessed on January 25, 2020) Trinczek, R. (2009). How to interview managers? Methodical and methodological aspects of expert interviews as a qualitative method in empirical social research. In Interviewing experts (pp. 203-216). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. UCLA: Statistical Consulting Group. "Multinomial Logistic Regression." UCLA Institute for Digital Research and Education, n.d., https://stats.oarc.ucla.edu/spss/output/multinomial-logistic-regression/. Veitch, J., Carver, A., Abbott, G., Giles-Corti, B., Timperio, A., & Salmon, J. (2015). How active are people in metropolitan parks? an observational study of park visitation in australia. BMC Public Health, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1960-6 Volenec, Z., Abraham, J., Becker, A., & Dobson, A. (2021). Public parks and the pandemic: How park usage has been affected by COVID-19 policies. PLoS ONE, 16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251799. Wang, Y., Cao, M., Liu, Y., Ye, R., Gao, X., & Ma, L. (2022). Public transport equity in shenyang: using structural equation modelling. Research in Transportation Business &Amp; Management, 42, 100555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100555 Weinberger, R. and Sweet, M. N. (2012). Integrating walkability into planning practice. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2322(1), 20-30. https://doi.org/10.3141/2322-03 Wells, C. W. (2013). Car country: An environmental history. University of Washington Press. White, D. D., (2007). An interpretive study of Yosemite National Park visitors’ perspectives toward alternative transportation in Yosemite Valley. Environmental Management, 39, 50–62. Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and urban planning, 125, 234-244. 96 Wroblewski, A., & Leitner, A. (2009). Between Scientific Standards and Claims to Efficiency: Expert Interviews in Programme Evaluation. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Interviewing Experts (pp. 235–251). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244276_12 Xia, Y. and Zhu, W. (2023). The social equity and the spatial accessibility of general hospitals in big chinese cities: an exploration based on different income groups and transportation modes in shenzhen. Interdisciplinary Nursing Research, 2(3), 135-143. https://doi.org/10.1097/nr9.0000000000000034 Xiao, Y., Wang, Z., Li, Z., & Tang, Z. (2017). An assessment of urban park access in Shanghai–Implications for the social equity in urban China. Landscape and urban planning, 157, 383-393. Yañez, E., Aboelata, M. J., Rigolon, A., & Bennett, R. (2021). Changing the landscape: People, parks, and power. Prevention Institute. https://preventioninstitute.org/publications/changing-landscape-people-parks-and-power Youngs, Y. L., White, D. D., Wodrich, J. A., (2008). Transportation systems as cultural landscapes in National Parks: the case of Yosemite. Society & Natural Resources, 21 (9), 797–811. Ziedan, A., Brakewood, C., & Watkins, K. (2023). Will transit recover? A retrospective study of nationwide ridership in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Public Transportation, 25, 100046. 97 Appendices Appendix A A.1 Interview protocol for practitioners of T2P initiatives in Canada T2P Practitioner Interview Questions Introduction Thank you for participating in our Transit-to-parks initiatives research study, and for signing the survey consent letter form in advance. Please note that the interview process will be recorded, and any data collected through this interview will be anonymized. Do you have any questions about the study you would like me to answer at this time? If not, we will start by introducing ourselves and the research we have done so far. • Self intro (research team) • 2 min introduction of our research progress so far o Funded by UBC o Web search, information of 105 initiatives around US and Canada have been compiled and created into a web map. o Next step, we are seeking to interview staff members of transportation agencies, nonprofits, planning departments, and parks and recreation agencies that have been involved in transit-to-parks initiatives About the Organization and the Practitioner • Can you briefly introduce your agency and the work you do in your organization? Part I: About the Initiative • Can you tell us more about Roam Transit as well as the type of services offered? Timeline • Probe: When was the first day of service? • Probe: Was the service ever suspended or put on hold? Why? Motivations • Probe: What were the main motivations for starting this transit system? • Probe: Was traffic congestion, equity, or other environmental issues one of the primary motivations for this initiative? • Probe: Did your planning team consult any relevant regional planning goals, research, or empirical data prior to implementing this service? 98 • Probe: Who are the main targeted demographics or users of this initiative? (i.e. tourists, local residents) Partnership • Probe: Did you partner with any other organizations during the planning and implementation process of this service? • Probe: Specifically, what kind of assistance have they provided as partners? • Probe: How did this partnership facilitate the success of this service’s implementation? • Probe: What are some takeaways from this collaboration? Are you planning to reach for more partnerships in the future? • Probe: What advocacy strategies have been used to push for the implementation of this transit-to-parks initiative? (e.g., narratives, partnerships, data, pilot programs) Funding • Probe: How is this transit-to-parks service funded? • Probe: Is it funded differently compared to other seasonal services/permanent routes? Impacts/Outcomes • Probe: What are some positive/negative outcomes (ridership, visitors, social, environmental, economic) of this initiative? • Probe: What are some secondary benefits of this service? (i.e. equity) • Probe: Do you measure/monitor these outcomes? Did you have an evaluation system to assess the success of the initiative? Part II: Opportunities and barriers • What barriers did you encounter when planning and operating this service? (could be the aspects mentioned in Section I or others) • Probe: What about any resistance from local residents? • Probe: What about the challenges of working with other agencies? • Probe: What about resistance to funding and seeking partnership? • Probe: In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, did you have to cope with any additional barriers? • What are some of the opportunities, or things you can improve? (could be the aspects mentioned in Section I or others) • Probe: Are there any potential opportunities coming with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic? • Probe: What about creating partnerships with other agencies (e.g., transportation, transit, park, urban planning)? • Probe: What about getting funding from public or private donors? • Probe: In the future, do you plan to consult more empirical research/data to improve the current system? • Probe: Any future plans for community engagement (in the planning/implementation process)? Lessons learned and next steps 99 • What are the biggest two or three lessons you have learned from the T2P initiative(s) you have been involved in? • What are some next steps of the transit-to-parks initiative(s) you have been involved in? • Do you know any other Transit-to-parks initiatives? (Please connect us to them if possible; could be the one in your agency or others) • Based on takeaways and learning from operating Roam Transit, do you have any recommendations or suggestions other T2P service providers that would set them up for success? Member checking for interviews Before we wrap up, I would like you to hear my main takeaways from your interview. Specifically, I seem to have learned that [insert main takeaways based on notes taken.] Does that sound accurate to you? Wrap up for interviews - Thank you again for participating in our research study! 100 Appendix B 101 B.1 Questionnaire 102 103 104 105 106 107 B.2 Summary statistics of independent variables Table 6. Demographic composition of survey participants compared with 2021 Census data in Metro Vancouver, British Columbia (n=430) Variables Category This survey (%) 2021 Census (%) Gender Female 47.0 51.0 Male 50.0 49.0 Others (non-binary or prefer not to say) 3.0 n/a Age group 19-34 37.1 27.4 35-44 17.0 17.7 45-54 11.2 16.7 55-64 16.8 16.6 65+ 17.9 21.6 Employment status Working (full-time and part-time) 67.4 64.6 Not working (e.g., students, retired) 28.1 35.5 Others (prefer not to say) 4.4 n/a Time residing in Canada Less than 5 years 13.6 5.9 5-20 years 20.7 15.1 More than 20 years 20.2 20.8 Born in Canada 45.4 53.1 Household income (before taxes) Less than 50,000 $ 19.1 25.2 50,000 - 100,000 $ 25.8 30.1 More than 100,000 $ 20.0 44.7 Others (prefer not to say) 25.1 n/a 108 Variables Category This survey (%) 2021 Census (%) Physical disability Yes 6.0 n/a No or prefer not to say 94.0 n/a Another language other than English spoken at home Yes 41.6 34.1 No 58.4 65.9 Race/ethnicity White/ Caucasian 57.3 45.5 Chinese 12.3 19.0 South Asian/Indian/Pakistani 6.0 14.2 Others (including indigenous, and prefer not to say) 24.3 14.0 Private vehicle ownership Yes 86.3 85.0 No 13.7 15.0 Discounted transit pass Yes 19.8 n/a No 80.2 n/a Bike/micro-mobility ownership Yes 48.6 n/a No 51.4 n/a 109 Table 7. Descriptive statistics of the trip-to-park independent variables Variable Mean Min Max Std. Walkability index of home neighborhood 0.0160 -2.09 6.56 0.76 Trip distance (km) 19.587 1 400 33.22 Visit frequency Percentage (%) Less often 32.5 About once every two months 9.8 About once a month 11.0 2-3 times a month 14.5 About once a week 10.7 More than once a week 21.5 Destination park Percentage (%) Pacific Spirit 23.7 Lynn Headwaters 18.8 Tynehead 11.2 Burnaby Lake 16.3 Colony Farm 12.3 Belcarra 17.7 110 B.3 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) results Table 8. Full PCA results with Varimax with Kaiser rotated loadings 1. Components promoting transit use to parks (n=259) Variables 1.1 Gears and amenities 1.2 Transit connectivity Secure place to store gear at parks 0.766 0.147 Take bikes to transit conveniently 0.719 0.235 Rent gear at parks 0.714 0.143 Shelters at parks 0.702 0.187 Buy food at parks 0.695 0.140 Bring gears to transit vehicles 0.650 0.274 Lower transit fee 0.469 0.466 Transit station close to parks 0.112 0.867 Transit station close to homes 0.037 0.755 Sidewalks connecting stops to park entrances/trailheads 0.298 0.713 More frequent transit 0.376 0.629 Dedicated shuttle to parks 0.239 0.592 2. Components promoting bike use to parks (n=200) Variables 2.1 Facilities and amenities 2.2 Quality of biking cycling routes Buy food/beverage at parks 0.686 0.091 Attend programs/events at parks 0.778 0.175 Rent gear at parks 0.762 0.153 Shelters at parks 0.734 0.187 111 Bike maintenance facilities at parks 0.664 0.244 Ebike charging facilities 0.639 0.146 Secure bike storage at parks 0.509 0.404 Cycling routes on designated trails with views 0.087 0.888 Cycling routes separated from traffic 0.167 0.883 Flat cycling routes 0.281 0.615 3. Components (initiatives and technologies) promoting sustainable uses to parks (n=430) Variables 3.1 Programs and facilities 3.2. Real-time information and resources Workshops on the benefits of using sustainable modes 0.780 0.222 Organized group trips to parks 0.775 0.146 Campaigns offering discounts/deals for park users using sustainable modes 0.713 0.378 More bike-sharing facilities near parks 0.677 0.296 More park&ride facilities connecting parks and transit stops 0.634 0.409 More greenways connecting the neighborhoods with parks 0.611 0.279 Real-time travel info on phones 0.246 0.894 Real-time travel info at bus stops 0.244 0.892 Phone app/text alerts on parking capacity&road congestion 0.328 0.816 Online resources on trip planning 0.448 0.675
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Forestry
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Park, Keunhyun
Promoting sustainable and equitable access to parks : a study of transit-to-parks initiatives and user perceptions
Text