How equitable are the distributions of the physical activity and accessibility benefits of bicycle infrastructure?
Accessibility
Bicycle
Health equity
Physical activity
Journal
International journal for equity in health
ISSN: 1475-9276
Titre abrégé: Int J Equity Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101147692
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 09 2021
15 09 2021
Historique:
received:
24
05
2021
accepted:
31
08
2021
entrez:
16
9
2021
pubmed:
17
9
2021
medline:
7
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cycling for transport provides many health and social benefits - including physical activity and independent access to jobs, education, social opportunities, health care and other services (accessibility). However, some population groups have less opportunity to reach everyday destinations, and public transport stops, by bicycle - owing in part to their greater aversion to riding amongst motor vehicle traffic. Health equity can therefore be improved by providing separated cycleway networks that give more people the opportunity to access places by bicycle using traffic-free routes. The aim of this study was to assess the health equity benefits of two bicycle infrastructure development scenarios - a single cycleway, and a complete network of cycleways - by examining the distributions of physical activity and accessibility benefits across gender, age and income groups. Travel survey data collected from residents in Sydney (Australia) were used to train a predictive transport mode choice model, which was then used to forecast the impact of the two intervention scenarios on transport mode choice, physical activity and accessibility. The latter was measured using a utility-based measure derived from the mode choice model. The distributions of the forecast physical activity and accessibility benefits were then calculated across gender, age and income groups. The modelled physical activity and accessibility measures improve in both intervention scenarios. However, in the single cycleway scenario, the benefits are greatest for the male, high-income and older age groups. In the complete network scenario, the benefits are more equally distributed. Forecast increases in cycling time are largely offset by decreases in walking time - though the latter is typically low-intensity physical activity, which confers a lesser health benefit than moderate-intensity cycling. Separated cycleway infrastructure can be used to improve health equity by providing greater opportunities for transport cycling in population groups more averse to riding amongst motor vehicle traffic. Disparities in the opportunity to access services and economic/social activities by bicycle - and incorporate more physical activity into everyday travel - could be addressed with connected, traffic-free cycleway networks that cater to people of all genders, ages and incomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cycling for transport provides many health and social benefits - including physical activity and independent access to jobs, education, social opportunities, health care and other services (accessibility). However, some population groups have less opportunity to reach everyday destinations, and public transport stops, by bicycle - owing in part to their greater aversion to riding amongst motor vehicle traffic. Health equity can therefore be improved by providing separated cycleway networks that give more people the opportunity to access places by bicycle using traffic-free routes. The aim of this study was to assess the health equity benefits of two bicycle infrastructure development scenarios - a single cycleway, and a complete network of cycleways - by examining the distributions of physical activity and accessibility benefits across gender, age and income groups.
METHODS
Travel survey data collected from residents in Sydney (Australia) were used to train a predictive transport mode choice model, which was then used to forecast the impact of the two intervention scenarios on transport mode choice, physical activity and accessibility. The latter was measured using a utility-based measure derived from the mode choice model. The distributions of the forecast physical activity and accessibility benefits were then calculated across gender, age and income groups.
RESULTS
The modelled physical activity and accessibility measures improve in both intervention scenarios. However, in the single cycleway scenario, the benefits are greatest for the male, high-income and older age groups. In the complete network scenario, the benefits are more equally distributed. Forecast increases in cycling time are largely offset by decreases in walking time - though the latter is typically low-intensity physical activity, which confers a lesser health benefit than moderate-intensity cycling.
CONCLUSIONS
Separated cycleway infrastructure can be used to improve health equity by providing greater opportunities for transport cycling in population groups more averse to riding amongst motor vehicle traffic. Disparities in the opportunity to access services and economic/social activities by bicycle - and incorporate more physical activity into everyday travel - could be addressed with connected, traffic-free cycleway networks that cater to people of all genders, ages and incomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34526041
doi: 10.1186/s12939-021-01543-x
pii: 10.1186/s12939-021-01543-x
pmc: PMC8444547
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
208Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Public Health. 2013 Oct 17;13:963
pubmed: 24131667
Prev Med. 2017 Oct;103S:S7-S14
pubmed: 28223189
Lancet. 2005 Mar 19-25;365(9464):1099-104
pubmed: 15781105
Health Promot J Austr. 2011 Dec;22(3):178-83
pubmed: 22497060
Health Promot J Austr. 2014 Dec;25(3):174-81
pubmed: 25435098
Health Promot J Austr. 2016 Apr;27(1):80-83
pubmed: 26650670
Prev Med. 2015 Jul;76:103-14
pubmed: 25900805
BMC Public Health. 2017 Oct 16;17(1):809
pubmed: 29037235
Health Place. 2018 Sep;53:135-149
pubmed: 30138827
Public Health. 2017 Nov;152:157-171
pubmed: 28915435
Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Aug;118(8):1109-16
pubmed: 20587380
Inj Prev. 2012 Feb;18(1):e1
pubmed: 21933934
Eur J Public Health. 2013 Jun;23(3):356-60
pubmed: 22645236
Accid Anal Prev. 2015 May;78:29-38
pubmed: 25732133