Impacts of an active travel intervention with a cycling focus in a suburban context: One-year findings from an evaluation of London's in-progress mini-Hollands programme
Impacts of an active travel intervention with a cycling focus in a suburban context: One-year findings from an evaluation of London's in-progress mini-Hollands programme
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.tra.2018.05.018
复制
发表时间：
2019-05-01
影响因子：
6.4
通讯作者：
Goodman, Anna
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Aldred, Rachel;Croft, Joseph;Goodman, Anna
背景：需要更多的证据来证明建设步行和骑自行车基础设施的影响。知识差距和执行差距是相互强化的。本文报告了一项纵向研究的影响，仍在进行中的“迷你荷兰计划”，旨在改变当地的环境，步行和骑自行车，在三个外伦敦区。相比，内伦敦，外伦敦有低水平的骑自行车和低水平的步行，是相对汽车dependent.Methods：我们进行了一项纵向研究，1712个人抽样家庭在迷你荷兰自治市镇（干预样本）和非迷你荷兰外伦敦自治市镇（对照样本）。干预样本被进一步先验地分为生活在“高剂量社区”的人和生活在“低剂量社区”的人，在“高剂量社区”，当地的步行和骑自行车基础设施已经有了很大的改变，而在“低剂量社区”，这种改善还没有（尚未）实现。在基线（2016年）和一年的随访（2017年），我们管理的旅行行为和态度的在线调查交通和当地environment.Results：一年的干预措施的价值与增加活跃的旅行中那些生活在被定义为“高剂量”的社区。具体而言，与生活在非小荷兰地区的人相比，高剂量地区的人在随访时进行任何过去一周骑自行车的可能性高24%（95% CI，2%至52%），同一组的主动旅行（步行加骑自行车）时间增加的中点估计值为额外的41.0分钟（95% CI 7.0，75.0分钟）。积极的变化，当地环境的看法记录在干预领域，自行车相关项目的感知改善的驱动。与干预措施有关的争议表现在人们越来越多地认为，干预地区的自行车运动花费了“太多”的钱。然而，干预领域也看到了减少的看法，“太少”的钱花（后一种观点是常见的基线和波1在控制areas）.Conclusion：总体而言，这里的研究结果表明，方案干预措施，而有争议的，有一个可衡量的和早期的影响，积极的旅行行为和当地的自行车环境的看法。
Background: More evidence is needed on the impacts of building infrastructure for walking and cycling. A knowledge gap and an implementation gap have been mutually reinforcing. This paper reports on a longitudinal study examining the impacts of the still in progress 'mini-Hollands programme', which seeks to transform local environments for walking and cycling, in three Outer London boroughs. Compared to Inner London, Outer London has low levels of cycling and low levels of walking, and is relatively car dependent.Methods: We conducted a longitudinal study of 1712 individuals sampled from households in mini-Holland boroughs (intervention sample) and from non mini-Holland Outer London boroughs (control sample). The intervention sample was further divided, a priori, into those living in "high-dose neighbourhoods", where substantial changes to the local walking and cycling infrastructure had been implemented, versus "low-dose neighbourhoods" where such improvements had not (yet) been made. At both baseline (2016) and one-year follow-up (2017), we administered an online survey of travel behaviour and attitudes to transport and the local environment.Results: One year's worth of interventions was associated with an increase in active travel among those living in areas defined as 'high-dose' neighbourhoods. Specifically, those in high-dose areas were 24% more likely to have done any past-week cycling at follow-up, compared to those living in non mini-Holland areas (95% CI, 2% to 52%), The mid-point estimate for increase in active travel (walking plus cycling) time for the same group was an additional 41.0 min (95% CI 7.0, 75.0 min). Positive changes in views about local environments were recorded in intervention areas, driven by a perceived improvement in cycling-related items. Controversy related to the interventions is expressed in a growth in perceptions that 'too much' money is spent on cycling in intervention areas. However, intervention areas also saw a reduction in perceptions that 'too little' money is spent (the latter view being common both at baseline and Wave 1 in control areas).Conclusion: Overall, the findings here suggest that programme interventions, while controversial, are having a measurable and early impact on active travel behaviour and perceptions of the local cycling environment.