The limits of 'evidence' on planning policy: A case study of urban cycling infrastructure investment.

在后真相社会中，“证据”在影响规划政策方面的作用被认为是有限的，暴露了“权力”和“叙事”作为公共决策的解释，而不管事实如何支持它们（史密斯，2017）。然而，研究可以对公共政策产生影响。这个博士探讨了证据是否以及如何影响地方当局的规划政策叙述和决策，使用城市自行车基础设施投资作为案例研究。城市自行车一直被认为是成功城市的标志。除了对空气质量议程的明确贡献外，骑自行车上班等日常身体活动对个人健康和福祉具有深远的影响（Rojas-Rueda等人，2011年）。在城市发展方面，骑自行车的比率在全球排名中也很突出（例如宜居性），这将为投资、创造就业和增长提供信息。此外，最近以英国为重点的研究表明，骑自行车享有广泛的公众支持，78%的人表示他们欢迎增加自行车基础设施的供应-即使这意味着道路空间的减少（Sustrans，2017）。因此，结合起来，有一个令人信服的社会经济案例，最大限度地为那些寻求在日常生活中骑自行车旅行的人提供机会。

The role of 'evidence' in influencing planning policy in a post-truth society is supposedly limited, exposing 'power' and 'narrative' as explanations of public decision-making regardless of the facts to support them (Smith, 2017). Yet, research can have an impact upon public policy. This PhD explores whether and how evidence influences local authority planning policy narratives and decisions using urban cycling infrastructure investment as a case study. Urban cycling has been long-regarded as a hallmark of successful cities. As well as clear contributions to air quality agendas, daily physical activity such as cycling to work is shown to have a profound effect on individual health and wellbeing (Rojas-Rueda et al., 2011). In urban development terms, cycling rates also feature prominently in global rankings (e.g. liveability), which go on to inform investment, job creation and growth. Moreover, recent UK-focused research suggests that cycling enjoys broad public support, with 78% of people indicating they would welcome an increase in cycling infrastructure provision - even if that meant reductions in road space (Sustrans, 2017). Combined, therefore, there is a compelling socio-economic case for maximising the opportunities for those seeking to travel by bicycle in their daily lives.