Examining Capacity and Functioning of Bicycle Coalitions: A Descriptive Study
Examining Capacity and Functioning of Bicycle Coalitions: A Descriptive Study
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fpubh.2017.00296
复制
发表时间：
2017-11-08
影响因子：
5.2
通讯作者：
Hentz-Leister, Emily
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bopp, Melissa;Sims, Dangaia;Hentz-Leister, Emily
背景资料：自行车联盟是通过倡导物理基础设施，鼓励骑自行车或安全教育来创建自行车友好社区的强大合作伙伴。尽管它们具有多功能性，但人们对其功能知之甚少。因此，本研究的目的是检查能力，优势，和弱点，这些organization.Methods：自行车联盟/倡导团体从英语国家被招募参加通过电子邮件邀请在网上调查。调查涉及的联盟（社区人口统计，位置），领导，沟通策略，联盟的优先事项，障碍规划/活动，和partners.Results的基本信息：联盟（n = 56）从四个国家完成了调查。大多数联盟作为非营利组织运作（n = 44，95.7%），45%（n = 21）的领导者是有报酬的工作人员，而37%（n = 17）的领导者是志愿者。联盟的领导能力包括以下技能：筹款（n = 31，53.4%）、活动策划（n = 31，53.4%）、城市规划（n = 26，44%）和政策/立法专业知识（n = 26，44.8%）。教育（n = 26，63.4%）和鼓励（n = 25，61.6%）被视为最优先事项，骑自行车者的安全（n = 21，46.7%）和宣传基础设施和政策（n = 22，48.9%）是大多数活动的重点。缺乏财政资源（n = 36，81.8%）和有能力的人员（n = 25，56.8%）是在社区提供方案的重大障碍，（n = 38，86.4%）将是改善的最大动力。自行车联盟是创造活动友好型环境的重要合作伙伴，了解他们的能力可以创造技能/能力建设干预计划，开发有效的工具包，促进强有力的合作，以解决缺乏身体活动的问题。
Background: Bicycle coalitions represent a strong partner in creating bike-friendly communities through advocacy for physical infrastructure, encouragement for biking, or education about safety. Despite their versatility, little is known about their functioning. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine capacity, strengths, and weaknesses of these organizations.Methods: Bicycle coalitions/advocacy groups from English-speaking countries were recruited to take part in an online survey via email invitation. The survey addressed basic information about the coalition (community demographics, location), leadership, communication strategies, coalition priorities, barriers to programming/activities, and partners.Results: Coalitions (n = 56) from four countries completed the survey. Most coalitions operated as a non-profit (n = 44, 95.7%), 45% (n = 21) have paid staff as leaders, while 37% (n = 17) have volunteers as leaders. The following skills were represented in coalitions' leadership: fundraising (n = 31, 53.4%), event planning (n = 31, 53.4%), urban planning (n = 26, 44%), and policy/legislation expertise (n = 26, 44.8%). Education (n = 26, 63.4%) and encouragement (n = 25, 61.6%) were viewed as top priorities and the safety of bicyclists (n = 21, 46.7%) and advocacy for infrastructure and policy (n = 22, 48.9%) is the focus of most activities. A lack of financial resources (n = 36, 81.8%) and capable personnel (n = 25, 56.8%) were significant barriers to offering programming in the community and that the availability of grants to address issues (n = 38, 86.4%) would be the top motivator for improvements.Conclusion: Bike coalitions represent a critical partner in creating activity-friendly environments and understanding their capacity allows for creating skill/capacity building intervention programs, development of effective toolkits and fostering strong collaborations to address physical inactivity.