Active Travel in Ogbomoso, Nigeria: Between Socioeconomic Necessity and Sustainable Mobility Choice

In the bustling cities of the developing world, the way people move is often a story of two very different realities. On one hand, there is the ideal of sustainable mobility, where walking and cycling are chosen freely for their health benefits and their gentle touch on the environment. On the other hand, there is the stark reality of economic necessity, where these same modes of travel are the only options available to those who cannot afford a car or a bus ticket. For decades, urban planners and researchers have debated whether the people walking through the streets of African cities are making a conscious, eco-friendly choice or simply walking because they have no other way to get to work. This question sits at the heart of a new study conducted in Ogbomoso, a large, growing city in southwestern Nigeria. The researchers wanted to understand if the people walking and cycling there were doing so because they loved the environment, or because the cost of everything else was simply too high.

To answer this, a team of researchers from the Federal Polytechnic Ayede set out to listen to the people of Ogbomoso. They did not just look at traffic patterns from a distance; they went into the neighborhoods, schools, and markets to ask 450 residents about their daily lives. They asked simple but revealing questions: How do you get to work? How far is it? How much money do you make? And most importantly, would you choose to drive if you could afford it? The study focused on the concept of "active travel," which is a plain way of describing any movement powered by human energy, like walking or riding a bicycle. The researchers were trying to untangle whether this movement was a "captive" situation, where people are forced into a mode of transport by a lack of money or options, or a "discretionary" choice, where people pick it because they want to.

The results painted a clear and somewhat sobering picture of life on the streets of Ogbomoso. The most common way to get around was walking, but it was rarely a choice made for fun or fitness. The data showed that for the vast majority of people, walking was a necessity driven by their bank accounts. The researchers found that income was the single strongest factor predicting whether someone walked or cycled. People with lower incomes walked far more often than those with higher incomes. Similarly, students and self-employed workers, who often have tighter budgets or irregular schedules, were much more likely to be on foot than those with stable, higher-paying jobs. In fact, when the researchers asked the residents directly, 84.8 percent said they would switch to a motorized vehicle like a car or a motorcycle immediately if it were cheaper and more convenient. This single statistic revealed that the desire to walk was not the primary driver; the desire to save money was.

The study also highlighted a significant gap between the two main forms of active travel: walking and cycling. While walking was common, with nearly half the respondents doing it daily, cycling was almost non-existent. Only a tiny fraction of the people surveyed rode a bicycle regularly, and two-thirds said they had never cycled at all. The reason for this silence on two wheels was not a lack of interest in the idea, but a lack of support from the city itself. When the researchers asked about the infrastructure, the response was overwhelmingly negative. Residents reported that there were almost no safe sidewalks, no dedicated lanes for bicycles, and that the road designs were hostile to anyone not in a car. The weather was also cited as a major deterrent, with many saying the heat and rain made walking unpleasant. Without safe, dedicated spaces, the bicycle remained a dormant option, while the foot remained the only reliable tool for the poor.

Perhaps the most telling finding was that the residents themselves understood their situation perfectly. When asked if they walked because of socioeconomic factors, the majority agreed that it was a necessity rather than a choice. They did not view their daily walk as a green lifestyle statement or a health regimen, but as a survival strategy. The researchers found that the idea of walking for the sake of the environment was a very weak motivator; very few people said they walked to reduce carbon emissions. Instead, the decision to walk was a direct result of structural conditions: low income, the high cost of fuel, and the absence of affordable public transport. The study suggests that in cities like Ogbomoso, the current high rate of walking is not a sign of a successful, green society, but rather a sign of a society where the poor are left with no other option.

This distinction is crucial for how cities plan for the future. If city officials believe that people are walking because they love the environment, they might focus only on building more bike lanes to encourage a trend that isn't really there. But if they understand that people are walking because they are forced to, the solution changes. The researchers argue that the goal should not be to simply celebrate the walking that already exists, but to create an environment where walking and cycling become a safe, attractive choice for everyone, including those who can currently afford a car. The study concludes that for active travel to truly become a sustainable choice rather than a socioeconomic burden, the city must invest heavily in pedestrian walkways and cycling infrastructure. Until then, the people of Ogbomoso will continue to walk, not because they chose to, but because they have to.