A systematic review of the effect of infrastructural interventions to promote cycling: strengthening causal inference from observational data

Abstract

BackgroundPrevious reviews have suggested that infrastructural interventions can be effective in promoting cycling. Given inherent methodological complexities in the evaluation of such changes, it is important to understand whether study results obtained depend on the study design and methods used, and to describe the implications of the methods used for causality. The aims of this systematic review were to summarize the effects obtained in studies that used a wide range of study designs to assess the effects of infrastructural interventions on cycling and physical activity, and whether the effects varied by study design, data collection methods, or statistical approaches.MethodsSix databases were searched for studies that evaluated infrastructural interventions to promote cycling in adult populations, such as the opening of cycling lanes, or the expansion of a city-wide cycling network. Controlled and uncontrolled studies that presented data before and after the intervention were included. No language or date restrictions were applied. Data was extracted for any outcome presented (e.g. bikes counted on the new infrastructure, making a bike trip, cycling frequency, cycling duration), and for any purpose of cycling (e.g. total cycling, recreational cycling, cycling for commuting). Data for physical activity outcomes and equity effects was extracted, and quality assessment was conducted following previous methodologies and the UK Medical Research Council guidance on natural experiments. The PROGRESS-Plus framework was used to describe the impact on subgroups of the population.Studies were categorized by outcome, i.e. changes in cycling behavior, or usage of the cycling infrastructure. The relative change was calculated to derive a common outcome across various metrics and cycling purposes. The median relative change was presented to evaluate whether effects differed by methodological aspects.ResultsThe review included 31 studies and all were conducted within urban areas in high-income countries. Most of the evaluations found changes in favor of the intervention, showing that the number of cyclists using the facilities increased (median relative change compared to baseline: 62%; range: 4 to 438%), and to a lesser extent that cycling behavior increased (median relative change compared to baseline: 22%; range: − 21 to 262%). Studies that tested for statistical significance and studies that used subjective measurement methods (such as surveys and direct observations of cyclists) found larger changes than those that did not perform statistical tests, and those that used objective measurement methods (such as GPS and accelerometers, and automatic counting stations). Seven studies provided information on changes of physical activity behaviors, and findings were mixed. Three studies tested for equity effects following the opening of cycling infrastructure.ConclusionsStudy findings of natural experiments evaluating infrastructural interventions to promote cycling depended on the methods used and the approach to analysis. Stu...

The potential for bike riding across entire cities: quantifying spatial variation in interest in bike riding

“…Therefore, bicycling infrastructure is not equitably provided across differing regions of Greater Melbourne (12,13), likely contributing to both transport inequities (38), and health inequities through reduced physical activity participation (39) and a potentially increased risk of injury (40)(41)(42)(43)(44). The provision of protected bicycling infrastructure has the potential to address these inequities and support a potentially latent population of bike riders living in the outer urban fringe regions of Greater Melbourne (45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51). This would further enable current recommendations in Greater Melbourne of the "20-minute-neighbourhood" model, that supports people to meet most of their daily needs within a 20-minute trip from home (by walking, riding a bike or using public transport) (52).…”

Challenges for creating active living infrastructure in a middle-income country: a qualitative case study in Jamaica

“…There is a growing body of evidence about associations between urban environments and physical activity (McCormack and Shiell 2011, Sallis et al 2016, Schipperijn et al 2017, Kärmeniemi et al 2018, Mölenberg et al 2019, including from middle-income countries like Jamaica (Cunningham-Myrie et al 2015. However, lack of clarity about mechanistic pathways, which is a challenge in cross-sectional studies (Cunningham-Myrie et al 2015, Panter et al 2019 adds to the challenges of influencing active living infrastructure design and more research with natural experiments could be beneficial (Ogilvie et al 2019), particularly in middle-income countries to investigate transferability between contexts.…”

“…The built environment can influence population levels of physical activity (McCormack and Shiell 2011, Sallis et al 2016, Schipperijn et al 2017, Kärmeniemi et al 2018, Mölenberg et al 2019. However, most of the literature about environmental facilitators for everyday physical activity, such as safe and attractive walkways and cycleways (Kärmeniemi et al 2018, Panter et al 2019 has been conducted in high-income countries, despite physical inactivity and associated health risks being global problems (Lear et al 2017, Guthold et al 2018.…”

Evaluation of a New Urban Cycling Infrastructure in Caceres (Spain)

“…Thus, it would be of interest to know the evolution of acceptance of a new infrastructure during the first months after it has been put into service in a city with no previous cycling culture, which is the case of most Spanish cities. Some before-after studies have been developed concerning the implementation of bike sharing schemes [21][22][23], and an excellent review was recently made by Mölenberg et al [24], with an evaluation of 31 studies extracted from 125 full-text articles; although there are a wide range of experiences analyzed, none of them cover the evolution of the acceptance during the first 6 months and/or examines the case of a whole new cycling network in the city with no previous cycling culture. As an example, Vasilev et al [25] launched a survey for a research on a new infrastructure around a year after the changes took place, and Goodman et al [26] evaluated the impacts after the first and the second year of commissioning; moreover, a huge number of studies evaluated the impact of singular new infrastructures (a new bridge for bicycles and pedestrians [27], a street intervention [28], a new cycleway [25,29]), but to our knowledge, the case of a whole new infrastructure is yet to be researched.…”