The link between socioeconomic position, access to cycling infrastructure and cycling participation rates: An ecological study in Melbourne, Australia

Abstract

Objective: Promoting cycling has moved up the policy agenda in recent years, but debate still exists surrounding the role played by socioeconomic barriers to participation in low cycling countries. This ecological study aimed to examine whether there are systematic socioeconomic disparities in access to cycling infrastructure and investment in Melbourne, Australia. Methods:We used Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques to measure the density of on-road, off-road and informal cycling routes in 58 neighbourhoods of inner Melbourne. We examined whether small-area socioeconomic indicators were associated with the density of these three types of cycling infrastructure or with local government spending on cycling. We additionally examined how small-area socio-economic position and infrastructure density were associated with the prevalence of cycling to work in the 2011 census. Results:The density of on-and off-road cycling infrastructure was positively associated with cycle modal share (both p<0.0001), and there was no evidence that the strength of this association differed between the two infrastructure types. The density of informal routes was not associated with cycling to work. There was no evidence that small-area socioeconomic position was systematically associated with the presence of on-road or quiet roads cycling infrastructure or with levels of investment. Levels of off-road infrastructure were somewhat higher in richer areas (r=0.32, p=0.02), although much of this was located in parkland and may have a predominant recreational function. Conclusion:In Melbourne, cycling infrastructure is positively correlated with cycle prevalence and is generally distributed equitably with respect to area-level socioeconomic position. In part this reflects the high levels of cycling infrastructure and spending in some relatively disadvantaged areas. Further studies that seek to understand the drivers behind successful policies in these areas may provide lessons for other areas, and aid our understanding of the complex relationships between cycling infrastructure, cycling behavior and socioeconomic position.

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

“…In this study, a higher proportion of people in the lower income categories rode a bike for transport purposes, and rode four or more days per week, compared to people in the higher income groups. Similar findings have been shown both in Australia and internationally, where there was an association between increased household income, and a decreased proportion of people riding a bike for transport (12, 59, 60). People in lower income groups may ride a bike out of necessity for commuting, rather than as a recreational activity.…”

“…While variation in Geller typologies was observed across Greater Melbourne, one of the most important findings was that interest in bike riding was consistently high, including in outer urban fringe regions of Greater Melbourne, revealing a high latent demand across a vast geographical area of an entire metropolitan region. Currently, however, bicycling infrastructure is concentrated in inner-Melbourne to support higher volumes of bike traffic (12,13). 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).…”

“…Currently, however, bicycling infrastructure is concentrated in inner-Melbourne to support higher volumes of bike traffic (12,13). 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).…”

“…While the use of typologies to quantify the near-market of bicyclists across large cities and regions has been helpful in informing bike riding strategies, prior studies have not explored whether interest in bike riding varies within these geographies, such as across smaller spatial areas of cities and states (8)(9)(10)(11). The availability and quality of transport infrastructure often varies within cities depending on zoning, distance from the city, topography, socioeconomic status and community demographics (12)(13)(14). Identifying interest in bike riding at this small spatial scale is useful in understanding geographical variation in bike riding potential and how protected infrastructure can be implemented to maximise bike riding participation and address inequities in participation and infrastructure.…”

Equity in new active travel infrastructure: a spatial analysis of London’s new Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

“…It often finds inequitable distribution, with lower access to cycling infrastructure in more deprived areas (e.g. Braun et al, 2019;Flanagan et al, 2016;Hirsch et al 2017;Parra et al, 2018;Teunissen et al, 2015;Tucker and Manaugh, 2018); although this is not always the case (Pistoll and Goodman, 2014;Houde et al, 2018). Equity analyses of pedestrian infrastructure or walkability have more mixed results.…”