Introduction
Previous approaches to understanding effectiveness of municipal cycling policy
Methodology
Netherlands | NZ | |
---|---|---|
Population (millions) | 16.91 | 4.22 |
Cycling mode share (% total trips by bicycle) | 26%3 | 1%4 |
Gross domestic product (USD per capita, nationally)5 | 42,295 | 39,427 |
Private vehicle ownership rate (passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants nationally)6 | 476 | 626 |
Professional group | Location | Total | |
---|---|---|---|
Netherlands | NZ | ||
Research | 5 | 5 | 10 |
Practice | 6 | – | 6 |
Policy | 4 | 2 | 6 |
Advocacy | 1 | 5 | 6 |
Total | 16 | 12 | 28 |
Delphi technique
In the conceptual framework, municipal cycling policy is conceived to operate within a socio-spatial context (referred to as exogenous factors in this study). |
Policy inputs, or ‘governance’ is thought of as the governmental setting in which policies are formulated. Policy outputs are divided into two sub-categories: infrastructure—physical interventions including cycling-specific provision, which improves conditions of cycling; and programmes—measures aimed at altering perceptions, beliefs and attitudes which could induce a voluntary change of transport mode. The infrastructure category is further divided into pull factors (increasing the attractiveness of cycling) and push factors (decreasing the attractiveness of alternatives to cycling). |
Policy outcomes are determined by policy inputs, policy outputs, socio-cultural and individual factors and exogenous factors and represent measures of success of municipal cycling policy. For the purpose of this study, two of the definitions of success from Harms et al. (2016) are adapted to the low-cycling environment and taken forward. The first is cycling mode share, the proportion of journeys to work and education made by bicycle. The second is real cycling safety (in terms of the number of people killed or seriously injured per million kilometres cycled) as well as perceived cycling safety (as measured by surveying cyclists as well as non-cyclists). |
Socio-cultural and individual factors, such as social norms and personal beliefs are not taken forward for testing through the data collection and analysis. Despite being likely to be influenced by public policy over the long term and shown to have an influence on individual decisions on whether to cycle (for example, Heinen and Handy 2012), socio-cultural and individual factors are considered to be too remote to the purpose of this study to be included. |
Process of gathering data
Interview question: “One approach to cycling policy in low-cycling cities is to focus on those communities which are most likely to respond based on social and spatial characteristics. If you were advising a municipality with a majority of low density suburban housing and high levels of car use, what you suggest as priority interventions?” |
Transcript of interview answer (partial): “You are probably already aware of the idea of ‘if you build it, they will come’—if you build very good infrastructure people will cycle. There is a lot of discussion around whether that is true or not, whether you should start with good infrastructure as a base. I think it’s more complex. If you’re looking at low density suburbs in a way you should have a good base of cycle-friendly infrastructure.” |
Initial code (abbreviation into themes): Not as simple as ‘if you build it, they will come’ A good base of infrastructure essential |
Focus code (grouped with other interview responses): Base level of on-street infrastructure |
Findings
Interviews
Infrastructure
Programmes
Governance
Exogenous factors
Socio-cultural factors
Individual factors
Delphi study
Country | Country | Total | |
---|---|---|---|
Netherlands | NZ | ||
Round 1: framework validation | 8 | 10 | 18 |
Round 2: framework scoring | 9 | 10 | 19 |
Round 3: scoring review and amendments | 9 | 10 | 19 |
Round 1
Final results (Rounds 2 and 3): general characteristics
Component code | Component title | Average score (%) | Consensus level | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Features | Elements | |||
A | Infrastructure-pull factors | 26 | ** | |
1 | Linear components | 30 | *** | |
2 | Nodal components | 22 | *** | |
3 | Discrete components | 15 | * | |
4 | Network quality, completeness and integration | 33 | *** | |
B | Infrastructure-push factors | 21 | ** | |
1 | Relative network speed interventions | 44 | ** | |
2 | Private motor vehicle ‘system’ supply | 27 | ** | |
3 | Changes to the cost of travel by car | 29 | * | |
C | Programmes | 11 | *** | |
1 | Education | 33 | * | |
2 | Information and promotional campaigns | 29 | *** | |
3 | Traffic laws and police presence | 39 | * | |
D | Governance | 15 | *** | |
1 | Policy formation | 27 | *** | |
2 | Policy implementation | 25 | *** | |
3 | Involvement of stakeholders | 21 | *** | |
4 | Strong leadership | 27 | *** | |
E | Exogenous factors-policy amenable | 19 | *** | |
1 | Socio-demographic and household characteristics | 13 | *** | |
2 | Spatial characteristics | 35 | ** | |
3 | Quality of provision and cost of alternatives to cycling | 30 | *** | |
4 | Media and social dynamicsa | 22 | *** | |
F | Exogenous factors-non-policy amenable | 9 | *** | |
1 | Physical environment and climate | 100b | – |
Effect of country and professional background
Results by country
Results by professional background
- Those participants who work in policy placed a markedly higher score on infrastructure-pull factors.
- Participants in professional practice emphasised the importance of programmes.
- Governance received notably less attention from those working in policy.
Interpretation of findings
Summary of findings
Rank | Feature | Definition | Examples |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Infrastructure-pull factors | Physical infrastructure interventions that increase the attractiveness of cycling | Cycle lanes and paths, intersection treatments, bicycle parking |
2 | Infrastructure-push factors | Physical infrastructure interventions that decrease the attractiveness of alternatives to cycling | Modal filtration devices restricting movement by car, restrictions on car parking supply |
3 | Exogenous factors-policy amenable | Socio-spatial contextual factors that can be influenced by some level of public policy | Population density, degree of land use mixing, level of public transport service |
4 | Governance | Governmental setting in which policy is formulated, funded and delivered | Policy coherence with regional and national levels, authoritative/charismatic leaders, involvement of external actors |
5 | Programmes | Providing education, awareness-raising, information and promotion of cycling at different scales to induce psychological changes in individuals and encourage positive social interaction and learning associated with the bicycle | Cycling education for children, promotional events, traffic laws |
6 | Exogenous factors-non-policy amenable | Physical environment and climate variables that cannot reasonably be impacted by any public policy | Topography, rainfall, average temperatures |
- Safety strong emphasis was placed on real and perceived safety and the importance of physical infrastructure in influencing safety in both interviews and the Delphi study.
- Infrastructure it was mostly agreed that a basic level of infrastructure is a prerequisite for inducing utility cycling mode share. This included facilities segregated from motor traffic where traffic speeds and volumes necessitate and low speed, shared streets elsewhere. Effective implementation strategies were discussed.
- Context dependency the importance of responding to local conditions was emphasised, particularly the physical characteristics of urban centres, such as topography, local variations population density and degree of land use mixing. Generalisation in formulating and implementing cycling policy, for example the simple copying of infrastructure design, was cautioned against.
- Political dimensions the expert panel demonstrated strong awareness to the political aspects of cycling policy formulation and outputs, although this was not reflected in the scoring of the framework. A holistic view which sought to improve the attractiveness of cycling relative to travel by car and is integrated with other policy areas was agreed to be the optimal approach.
- Cycling cultures and sub-cultures the majority view was that the cycling system needs to be shaped around the needs and sensitivities of those who do not currently cycle for utility purposes in order to encourage more diversity in cycling.