Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Scoping Review of Bikeability Assessment Methods

  • Review
  • Published:
Journal of Community Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Bicycling holds promise as a healthy and sustainable means of transportation and physical activity. Despite the growing interest in community-based environmental approaches to promoting physical activity, bikeability has received relatively little attention. This paper provides a scoping review of the instruments developed to measure bikeability along with practice-based analyses of the tools related to user expertise, estimated cost, and required time to implement. The review summarizes the literature, identifies research gaps, and informs stakeholders with articles from EBSCO and transportation databases published after 2003 when the previous bikeability instrument review paper was published. Data extraction included the tool name, data collection method, study location, data collection scale, type of measure, and description. Two reviewers independently reviewed articles included in the full text review, and the inter-rater agreement exceeded 90%. The database search yielded 388 unique articles, and 17 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Most of the studies, 11 of 17, were applied to settings outside of the U.S. Five studies employed a self-report survey, and five studies examined bikeability using geospatial data, like GIS. Seven studies used a direct observation audit tool—one specifically using a mobile app and another using virtual observation techniques with Google Street View. Bikeability tools are useful for assessing communities and their supports for bicycling. Our primary finding is that advances in technology over the past two decades have driven innovative and useful methodologies, in a variety of disciplines, for assessing the environment, but more consensus is needed to provide a universal definition of bikeability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Benefits of Physical Activity | Physical Activity | CDC. Retrieved April 19, 2020, from https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/pa-health/index.htm.

  2. Tucker, J. M., Welk, G. J., & Beyler, N. K. (2011). Physical activity in U.S.: Adults compliance with the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(4), 454–461.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. McGuire, S. (2014). Centers for disease control and prevention state indicator report on physical activity, 2014 Atlanta, GA: U.S. department of health and human services. Advances in Nutrition, 5(6), 762–763.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Oja, P., Vuori, I., & Paronen, O. (1998). Daily walking and cycling to work: Their utility as health-enhancing physical activity. Patient Education and Counseling, 33(1 Suppl), S87-94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. de Bruijn, G.-J., Kremers, S. P. J., Singh, A., van den Putte, B., & van Mechelen, W. (2009). Adult active transportation: Adding habit strength to the theory of planned behavior. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(3), 189–194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Litman, T. (2010). Short and sweet: Analysis of shorter trips using national personal travel survey data.

  7. Pucher, J., Dill, J., & Handy, S. (2010). Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review. Preventive Medicine, 50(Suppl 1), S106-25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pucher, J., Buehler, R., Merom, D., & Bauman, A. (2011). Walking and cycling in the United States, 2001–2009: Evidence from the National Household Travel Surveys. American Journal of Public Health, 101(Suppl 1), S310-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Porter, C., Suhrbier, J., & Schwartz, W. (1999). Forecasting bicycle and pedestrian travel: State of the practice and research needs. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1674, 94–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Muhs, C. D., & Clifton, K. J. (2015). Do characteristics of walkable environments support bicycling? Toward a definition of bicycle-supported development. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 9(2), 147–188.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Nielsen, T. A. S., & Skov-Petersen, H. (2018). Bikeability – Urban structures supporting cycling. Effects of local, urban and regional scale urban form factors on cycling from home and workplace locations in Denmark. Journal of Transport Geography, 69, 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pucher, J., & Dijkstra, L. (2000). Making walking and cycling safer: Lessons from Europe. Transportation Quarterly, 54(3), 25–50.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Koh, P. P., & Wong, Y. D. (2013). Influence of infrastructural compatibility factors on walking and cycling route choices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 202–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Saghapour, T., Moridpour, S., & Thompson, R. G. (2017). Measuring cycling accessibility in metropolitan areas. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 11(5), 381–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Moudon, A. V., & Lee, C. (2003). Walking and bicycling: An evaluation of environmental audit instruments. American Journal of Health Promotion, 18(1), 21–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McNeil, N. (2011). Bikeability and the 20-min neighborhood. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2247, 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Brownson, R. C., Hoehner, C. M., Day, K., Forsyth, A., & Sallis, J. F. (2009). Measuring the built environment for physical activity: State of the science. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(4 Suppl), S99-123.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Maghelal, P. K., & Capp, C. J. (2011). Walkability: A review of existing pedestrian indices. Journal of the Urban & Regional Information Systems Association, 23(2), 5–9.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sallis, J. F. (2009). Measuring physical activity environments: A brief history. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(4 Suppl), S86-92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Botma, H. (1995). Method to determine level of service for bicycle paths and pedestrian-bicycle paths. Transportation Research Record, 1502, 38–44.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hoehner, C. M., Brennan Ramirez, L. K., Elliott, M. B., Handy, S. L., & Brownson, R. C. (2005). Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity among urban adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2 Suppl 2), 105–116.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dixon, L. B. (1996). Bicycle and pedestrian level-of-service performance measures and standards for congestion management systems. Transportation Research Record, 1538(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Harkey, D. L., Reinfurt, D. W., & Sorton, A. (1998). The Bicycle Compatibility Index: A level of service concept, implementation manual.

  24. Eddy, N. (1996). Developing a level of service for bicycle use. ProBike Pro-Walk, 96, 3–6.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Landis, B., Vattikuti, V., & Brannick, M. (1997). Real-time human perceptions: Toward a bicycle level of service. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1578, 119–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Landis, B. W. (1994). Bicycle interaction hazard score: A theoretical model.

  27. Landis, B. W. (1996). Bicycle system performance measures. ITE Journal, 66(2), 18–26.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mescher, P. J., & Souleyrette, R. R. (1996). Use of an internet-based delphi technique and geographic information system for bicycle facility planning. Ninth symposium on geographic information systems for transportation (GIS-T) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; Highway Engineering Exchange Program; Urban and Regional Information Systems Association; Transportation Resear.

  29. Pikora, T., Bull, F., Jamrozik, K., Knuiman, M., Giles-Corti, B., & Donovan, R. (2002). Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan (SPACES). In Survey of the Physical environment in local neighborhoods: Observer’s Manual, Nedlands, Western Australia: University of Western Australia.

  30. Sorton, A., & Walsh, T. (1994). Bicycle stress level as a tool to evaluate urban and suburban bicycle compatibility. Transportation Research Record. https://doi.org/10.3141/1636-03

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Teichgraber, W., & Ambrosius, P. H. (1983). Potential demand for bicycle traffic in relation to existing bikeway networks. In World Conference on Transport Research: Research for Transport Policies in a Changing World, World Conference on Transport Research Society.

  32. Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, P. R. I. S. M. A. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269. (W64, Aug).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 210.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Mertens, L., Van Dyck, D., Ghekiere, A., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Deforche, B., Van de Weghe, N., & Van Cauwenberg, J. (2016). Which environmental factors most strongly influence a street’s appeal for bicycle transport among adults? A conjoint study using manipulated photographs. International Journal of Health Geographics, 15(1), 31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Wahlgren, L., Stigell, E., & Schantz, P. (2010). The active commuting route environment scale (ACRES): Development and evaluation. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 7, 58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wahlgren, L., & Schantz, P. (2011). Bikeability and methodological issues using the active commuting route environment scale (ACRES) in a metropolitan setting. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1), 6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Wahlgren, L., & Schantz, P. (2012). Exploring bikeability in a metropolitan setting: stimulating and hindering factors in commuting route environments. BMC Public Health, 12, 168.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Wahlgren, L., & Schantz, P. (2014). Exploring bikeability in a suburban metropolitan area using the Active Commuting Route Environment Scale (ACRES). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(8), 8276–8300.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Winters, M., Brauer, M., Setton, E. M., & Teschke, K. (2013). Mapping bikeability: A spatial tool to support sustainable travel. Environment and Planning B, 40(5), 865–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Winters, M., Teschke, K., Brauer, M., & Fuller, D. (2016). Bike Score®: Associations between urban bikeability and cycling behavior in 24 cities. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 13, 18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Fuller, D., & Winters, M. (2017). Income inequalities in Bike Score and bicycling to work in Canada. Journal of Transport & Health, 7, 264–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Li, W., & Joh, K. (2016). Exploring the synergistic economic benefit of enhancing neighbourhood bikeability and public transit accessibility based on real estate sale transactions. Urban Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016680147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Dannenberg, A. L., Cramer, T. W., & Gibson, C. J. (2005). Assessing the walkability of the workplace: A new audit tool. American Journal of Health Promotion, 20(1), 39–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Horacek, T. M., White, A. A., Greene, G. W., Reznar, M. M., Quick, V. M., Morrell, J. S., et al. (2012). Sneakers and spokes: An assessment of the walkability and bikeability of US postsecondary institutions. Journal of Environmental Health, 74(7), 8–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Horacek, T. M., Dede Yildirim, E., Kattelmann, K., Brown, O., Byrd-Bredbenner, C., Colby, S., et al. (2018). Path analysis of campus walkability/bikeability and college students’ physical activity attitudes, behaviors, and body mass index. American Journal of Health Promotion, 32(3), 578–586.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hoedl, S., Titze, S., & Oja, P. (2010). The bikeability and walkability evaluation table reliability and application. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 39(5), 457–459.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kalvelage, K., Dorneich, M. C., Seeger, C. J., Welk, G. J., Gilbert, S., Moon, J., et al. (2018). Assessing the validity of facilitated-volunteered geographic information: Comparisons of expert and novice ratings. GeoJournal, 83(3), 477–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Gullón, P., Badland, H. M., Alfayate, S., Bilal, U., Escobar, F., Cebrecos, A., et al. (2015). Assessing walking and cycling environments in the streets of Madrid: Comparing on-field and virtual audits. Journal of Urban Health, 92(5), 923–939.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Manton, R., Rau, H., Fahy, F., Sheahan, J., & Clifford, E. (2016). Using mental mapping to unpack perceived cycling risk. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 88, 138–149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Cain, K. L., Geremia, C. M., Conway, T. L., Frank, L. D., Chapman, J. E., Fox, E. H., et al. (2018). Development and reliability of a streetscape observation instrument for international use: MAPS-global. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 15(1), 19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Find Apartments for Rent and Rentals - Get Your Walk Score. Retrieved from April 22, 2020, from https://www.walkscore.com/.

  53. Clifton, K. J., Livi Smith, A. D., & Rodriguez, D. (2007). The development and testing of an audit for the pedestrian environment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80(1–2), 95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Pikora, T. J., Bull, F. C. L., Jamrozik, K., Knuiman, M., Giles-Corti, B., & Donovan, R. J. (2002). Developing a reliable audit instrument to measure the physical environment for physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(3), 187–194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Pikora, T. J., Giles-Corti, B., Knuiman, M. W., Bull, F. C., Jamrozik, K., & Donovan, R. J. (2006). Neighborhood environmental factors correlated with walking near home. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38(4), 708–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Cain, K. L., Millstein, R. A., Sallis, J. F., Conway, T. L., Gavand, K. A., Frank, L. D., et al. (2014). Contribution of streetscape audits to explanation of physical activity in four age groups based on the Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS). Social Science and Medicine, 116, 82–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific Grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198, USA

    Debra K. Kellstedt

  2. Texas A&M School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA

    John O. Spengler & Jay E. Maddock

  3. Texas A&M University Libraries, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA

    Margaret Foster

  4. Texas A&M College of Architecture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA

    Chanam Lee

Authors
  1. Debra K. Kellstedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John O. Spengler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Margaret Foster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chanam Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jay E. Maddock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debra K. Kellstedt.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kellstedt, D.K., Spengler, J.O., Foster, M. et al. A Scoping Review of Bikeability Assessment Methods. J Community Health 46, 211–224 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-020-00846-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-020-00846-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation