Transportation

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-018-9878-3

Planning for cycling in the dispersed city: establishing

a hierarchy of effectiveness of municipal cycling policies

Lukas Adam1 · Tim Jones1 · Marco te Brömmelstroet2 

© The Author(s) 2018

Abstract  Urban utility cycling is being promoted widely due to various health, social,
economic and environmental benefits. This study seeks to identify and rank which munic-
ipal-level policies and other factors are most influential in increasing cycling as a means
of everyday transport and improving the real and perceived cycling safety in car-oriented
urban centres. This is achieved by identifying the key factors thought to influence cycle use
and by establishing a hierarchy of effectiveness of municipal cycling policies. Data was
collected through interviews with a panel of experts who also completed a Delphi study,
a technique rarely used in cycling policy research, to collect and compare expert opinions
to predict the outcomes of policies and external factors. Policies and external factors were
scored in a theoretical policy framework according to their perceived relative influence on
cycling levels and cycling safety. The results reinforce previous findings in the literature
but allow for generalisation in car-oriented urban centres due to the breadth of factors eval-
uated. It was found that providing cycling infrastructure is perceived to be a prerequisite
for inducing utility cycling mode share. External factors such as urban form, the relative
attractiveness of cycling to travel by car and wider governmental policy were perceived to
have a strong influence. The generation and maintenance of political and public support is
also suggested to be critical success factor.

Keywords  Cycling · Cycling policy · Delphi technique · Dispersed city

* Marco te Brömmelstroet
[email protected]
Lukas Adam
[email protected]
Tim Jones
[email protected]
1
Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK
2
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

13
 Transportation

Introduction

Mass utility cycling would go some way to addressing the pressing issues facing mod-
ern urban societies such as an obesity epidemic, fatalities and serious injuries resulting
from traffic crashes, local environmental degradation, social inequality and global climate
change (Blue 2013; Macmillan et al. 2014; Pucher and Buehler 2016). Developing mobil-
ity alternatives that work in car-oriented urban areas is a particularly pertinent issue given
the legacy of decentralisation and low density urban form (Mees 2010).
This paper examines utility cycling in the dispersed city. ‘Utility cycling’ refers to trips
made by bicycle for practical, transport purposes, for example to and from work, educa-
tion, for shopping or to visit family and friends. This is as opposed to recreational cycling,
which is undertaken purely for leisure or exercise. For the purposes of this study, the ‘dis-
persed city’ (Mees 2000) (also referred to as the ‘automobile city’ by Newman et al. 2016)
describes urban centres of any size with car-oriented urban form and transport network
design, together with high levels of car ownership and use. Due to common historical
trends in transport development, specifically mass motorisation, the dispersed city refers
principally to the North American, Australasian and European context, although it is also
relevant to other parts of the world that have followed a similar urban planning trajectory.
Countries with a majority of the population living in dispersed city urban fabric often have
low levels of cycling, which is partly explained by the lack of cycling facilities and traffic-
calmed streets and neighbourhoods (Mees 2010; Pucher and Buehler 2008).
The focus of this paper is how utility cycling in the dispersed city can be increased from
a low starting point through municipal cycling policy. It asks: What do cycling experts
perceive to be the most effective measures that could be implemented at a municipal level
to increase cycling mode share and improve real and perceived cycling safety in dispersed,
low-cycling urban centres?

Previous approaches to understanding effectiveness of municipal cycling policy

A number of studies have been conducted into the effectiveness of municipal cycling pol-
icy, with a bias toward cycling conducive environments. Typically, there are two types of
approach. The first type evaluates a single intervention or a more comprehensive analysis
of municipal cycling policy in a particular setting, often in countries with existing high
levels of cycling (such as Rietveld and Daniel 2004; Harms et al. 2014, 2016; Pucher and
Buehler 2006, 2008). The second type focuses on a particular element of policy related to
cycling, such as infrastructure, commuting, health or environmental conditions (including
Jacobsen and Rutter 2012; Jones 2012; Macmillan et al. 2014; Nielsen et al. 2013; Schoner
and Levinson 2014). Both of these approaches restrict the potential for generalisation due
to the difficulty of applying the findings to different settings or to other areas of policy
related to cycling. This study differs in that it allows potential for generalisation of the
results in different dispersed city settings and across all parts of municipal cycling policy
due to its theoretical standpoint and the Delphi methodology employed.
Numerous studies have been carried out which set out the range of physical infrastruc-
ture interventions can be made to improve conditions for cycling (including Pucher and
Buehler 2008; Pucher et al. 2010; Buehler and Dill 2015). This has been divided into those
factors which increase the attractiveness of cycling (‘pull factors’) and those that decrease
the attractiveness of alternatives to cycling (‘push factors’). In the context of this study, the

13
Transportation

latter refers principally to the reduction of travel by private automobile as opposed to pub-
lic transport use, walking and other non-motorised modes.
Measures designed to increase utility cycling mode share through programmes of non-
infrastructural interventions are promoted by several authors as being important facets of
a cycling policy package. This includes a wide variety of initiatives at the local level that
generally focus on raising awareness of the benefits of cycling and also opportunities for
cycling. Programmes intend to induce psychological changes in individuals and encour-
age positive social interaction and learning associated with the bicycle (Harms et al. 2016;
Forsyth and Krizek 2010). Conclusions on the effectiveness of programmes vary, although
it is generally recognised that the impacts of such measures are not often thoroughly and
systematically evaluated (Pucher and Buehler 2012b; Pucher et al. 2010, 2011; Forsyth and
Krizek 2010).
Several studies postulate that the success of municipal cycling policy is influenced by
the governmental setting in which policy is formulated, funded and delivered. This cov-
ers areas such as policy formulation, funding and implementation, citizen engagement and
civic leadership (see Pucher et al. 2011; Pucher and Buehler 2008).
Socio-spatial contextual factors or ‘exogenous factors’, are also thought to have an influ-
ence on cycling mode share. Exogenous factors can be divided into those that can be influ-
enced by some level of policy (although are typically outside of the remit of municipal
cycling policies)—policy amenable factors—and physical environment and climate vari-
ables that cannot reasonably be impacted by any policy—non-policy amenable factors.
An overarching theme in the literature is that no single solution suffices to induce
increased utility cycling mode share (Pucher and Buehler 2012b; Pucher et al. 2010; For-
syth and Krizek 2010). Successful programmes commonly employ a coordinated, inte-
grated suite of cycling-specific, land use, urban form and transport planning interventions
which influence the relative attractiveness of modes (Pucher and Buehler 2012b; Forsyth
and Krizek 2010). Pucher et  al. (2010) observed that isolating the impacts of individual
policy interventions is almost impossible and recommended that pro-cycling policies
should be designed to interact with one another and leverage synergies.
There is a consensus in studies in mature cycling countries such as the Netherlands that
a combination of pull and push conditions must be applied in order to increase cycling
mode share and improve real and perceived safety of cycling (Harms et al. 2016; Pucher
and Buehler 2008). Recommendations are commonly made to transpose this approach to
low-cycling environments. This paper outlines a study that applied an innovative method
to investigate what are perceived by professionals to be the most effective combination of
measures that could be implemented in dispersed, low-cycling urban centres, to improve
cycling safety and increase cycling mode share.

Methodology

In this study, the Delphi technique was used in combination with semi-structured inter-
views to elicit the professional opinions of a panel of cycling experts on the best meth-
ods of inducing increased levels of utility cycling in dispersed cities globally (as opposed
to in their home countries) (Fig. 1). Experts from diverse professional backgrounds were
brought together from the Netherlands and New Zealand. These countries are at opposite
ends of the spectrum of levels urban cycling—cycling is a mainstream mode of transport in
the Netherlands, while NZ has very low levels of utility cycling (Table 1).

13
 Transportation

Fig. 1  Study methodology
showing qualitative and quantita-
tive data collection and analysis

13
Transportation

Table 1  Key statistics on the Netherlands and NZ. Source: 1. CBS (2015), 2. Statistics NZ (2013), 3. 2008
data (Pucher and Buehler 2012b), 4. NZ Household Travel Survey 2015–2017 (2018), 5. The World Bank
(2016), 6. OECD transport data (2016)

Netherlands NZ

Population (millions) 16.91 4.22

3
Cycling mode share (% total trips by bicycle) 26% 1%4
Gross domestic product (USD per capita, nationally)5 42,295 39,427
Private vehicle ownership rate (passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants 476 626
nationally)6

A total of 54 experts from the Netherlands and New Zealand were approached to take
part in the study. The final panel experts consisted of 28 individuals from research, pro-
fessional practice, policy and advocacy backgrounds (Table 2). Data collection took place
between May and July 2016.

Delphi technique

The Delphi technique is a systemic group communication process that examines or dis-
cusses a particular issue. It has been used previously for policy investigation (Hsu and
Sandford 2007).
The Delphi technique is used in diverse types of futures research to achieve a conver-
gence of opinion based on the real-world knowledge of experts in a specific field. It is
applied to predict future events or scenarios where imperfect or limited knowledge exists
(Tolley et al. 2001; Pikora et al. 2003; Hsu and Sandford 2007). Where conventional sur-
veys seek to establish “what is”, the Delphi technique is centred on the question “what
could/should be?” (Hsu and Sandford 2007). The data collected is based on intuitive judge-
ments in multiple iterations, which can be used to complement the extrapolation of trends
generated through other types of enquiry (Tolley et al. 2001). The Delphi technique encour-
ages a problem-solving orientation by maintaining anonymity of participants and allowing
initial judgements to be revisited based on the responses of the wider group in a controlled
feedback process. This reduces the effects of distortion of the data through dominant actors
or individual or group interests (Hsu and Sandford 2007).
The Delphi technique was chosen for this study as it allows the perceived likelihood
of the potential success of particular municipal cycling policies and the influence of
exogenous factors in dispersed, car-oriented urban centres. Limited knowledge of the

Table 2  Summary of study Professional group Location Total

participants
Netherlands NZ

Research 5 5 10
Practice 6 – 6
Policy 4 2 6
Advocacy 1 5 6
Total 16 12 28

13
 Transportation

Fig. 2  Conceptual framework (adapted from Harms et al. (2016))

most successful cycling policies exists due to a shortage of policy and research experi-
ence in dealing with cycling specifically.
Although the selection of subjects for the Delphi study is identified as the most
important step in the process, the literature reviewed did not offer strict standards for
the selection of panellists. The list of potential participants was compiled from the cor-
responding authors’ professional networks and authors of relevant publications.
The Delphi technique was used to establish a hierarchy of effectiveness of poten-
tially relevant policy measures. The hierarchy of policy measures was structured on a
framework developed by Harms et al. (2016) for the assessment of the performance of
municipal cycling policy in medium-sized cities in the Netherlands. This was organised
into policy inputs, policy outputs, socio-cultural and individual factors, and policy out-
comes (Box 1, Fig. 2).

Box 1: Conceptual framework

In the conceptual framework, municipal cycling policy is conceived to operate within a socio-spatial
context (referred to as exogenous factors in this study).

13
Transportation

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

The first method of data collection was semi-structured, conversational style interviews.
While each of the questions was asked in all interviews, the sequence of the questions
changed as responses were provided to allow the conversation to flow and new themes to
emerge organically. The seven interview questions were developed based on the abovemen-
tioned conceptual framework and were designed to stimulate broader conversation. Themes
included modal segregation, real and perceived safety and cycling culture. The qualitative
data collected in the interviews was analysed in a three-step process: transcription of key
messages and two-phase coding. An example of the qualitative data analysis carried out is
provided in Box 2.

Box 2: Example of quantitative data analysis

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

13
 Transportation

The second method of data collection was through a Delphi study which asked panel
members to enter scores into a theoretical policy framework (‘the framework’) for cycling
policies in low-cycling cities. This was based on their experience and intuition. The struc-
ture of the framework was based on literature reviewed, specifically Harms et  al. (2016)
(categorisation of interventions) and Pikora et al. (2003) (hierarchy of components). The
framework’s content was further informed by interview responses.
The Delphi study was conducted in three rounds. In the first round, participants were
asked to validate the contents of the framework and make suggestions for additions, dele-
tions and re-categorisations. In the second round, participants were asked to distribute a
total score of 100 at each level of the framework according to the relative perceived impor-
tance of each component. This took place across two levels of the framework; features and
elements. At the first level, six features were scored: infrastructure-pull factors, infrastruc-
ture-push factors, programmes, governance, exogenous factors-policy amenable and exog-
enous factors-non-policy amenable. At the second level, scores were distributed across ele-
ments under each feature (between one and four in number). In the third round, participants
were presented with average framework scores alongside their round two scores and given
the opportunity to revise their scores.
After the three rounds of the Delphi study were completed, the quantitative data gath-
ered was collated and a statistical analysis was carried out. This comprised calculation
of mean and interquartile range (the difference between the ­25th and ­75th percentiles as
a measure of statistical dispersion) of the scores entered at each level of the framework.
Scores across the six features were compared, and within each feature scoring of the ele-
ments was analysed. Detailed characteristics of the results were also distilled by calculating
the mean scores of the responses according to the country of location (the Netherlands
or NZ) and the professional backgrounds (research, practice, policy or advocacy) of the
panellists.

Findings

Interviews

The interviewees’ responses suggested a broad categorisation of issues influencing cycling

mode share in low-cycling urban environments. The six categories have been defined
largely following the structure used in the Delphi study.

Infrastructure

There was a consensus on the importance of providing a basic level of safe, high quality
infrastructure as an essential starting point for inducing utility cycling mode share. It fol-
lowed that without this, changes in other measures and exogenous factors would make little
difference. Safety was a constant theme present through many of the interviews, especially
prevalent in discussions regarding the provision of physical infrastructure. Aspects such as
personal safety (from criminal attack, as opposed to traffic safety) were referred to. Other
themes included strategies for developing a network of cycling infrastructure, segregating

13
Transportation

modes, integrating with public transport to overcome large distances and re-purposing dis-
used transport infrastructure.

Programmes

Frequent references were made to understanding the perspectives of people who do not
cycle for transport and catering to their needs. This was seen as crucial to broadening the
appeal of utility cycling to a broad spectrum of people with different backgrounds and
motivations in car centric environments.
There was a consensus that, to increase mode share, attention needs to be paid to utility
cycling familiarisation, marketing and messages being emitted through policy decisions.
Proposed initiatives included cycling education, local cycling ‘champions’, cycle-based
tourism and ‘ciclovía’ or ‘open streets’ type events (temporary weekend closures of roads
to motor traffic to allow carriageway use by pedestrians and cyclists).

Governance

The expert panel members demonstrated strong awareness of the importance of the formu-
lation and crucially the implementation of policies, with references frequently being made
to the political nature of road space re-allocations in particular. It was acknowledged that
a specific approach and a fundamental shift in policy direction is required by municipali-
ties to induce a significant increase in utility cycling from a low base. Interview responses
commonly included an opinion that this could be achieved by developing a critical mass of
cycle infrastructure and encouraging the normalisation of cycling and increases in diversity
of cycling culture. This requires the relative attractiveness of different modes of transporta-
tion for different trip distances and types to be taken into account.
Recurring themes included political will, courage and capital, social capital, funding
and the economy of interventions. Broadly it was agreed that behaviour change would most
likely be achieved by applying incentives for cycling in combination with disincentives for
car use, with the incentives employed first. Equity was raised as an important issue with
regard to the geographical distribution of cycling policy interventions, for example the
favouring of high income suburbs associated with predominantly European ethnicity.

Exogenous factors

The context sensitivity required to formulate and implement effective cycling policy was
mentioned in a third of the interviews. The socio-demographic and the physical character-
istics of an urban centre in particular were deemed to have a significant influence on levels
of utility cycling according to a number of participants. Some underlined the importance
of proximity for cycling to be attractive and promoted urban planning policy as a means of
addressing dispersion. Others cited data which demonstrated that trip distances in dispersed
city environments often remain comfortably within most people’s range when travelling by
bicycle. Physical environment factors which have an impact on cycling mode share were
mentioned, particularly topography in the context of the potential for the increased useful-
ness and popularity of power-assisted bicycles (e-bikes).

13
 Transportation

Socio‑cultural factors

Social and cultural factors were often mentioned across different topics of conversation.
Social and cultural norms and acceptance of cycling was seen as an important factor, both
through interview responses and in feedback on the content of the theoretical policy frame-
work used in the Delphi study. Physical interventions should be carefully implemented to
exploit the symbolic value of public bodies providing for cycling as well as the practical
benefits. Other topics covered included cyclist-motorist relationships; the role of confident,
assertive cyclists; encouraging cultural diversity perceived biases within the cycling com-
munity and profession; and providing for utility cycling as opposed to recreational cycling.

Individual factors

Emotions, rational considerations, attitudes and beliefs at the individual level gained some
attention during the interviews. These were thought to influence the amenability to modal
switch to cycling. Themes covered included the comfort and convenience of cycling infra-
structure; the relative attractiveness of available modes; safety and risk aversion; and feel-
ings of freedom and individuality.

Delphi study

Eighteen people from the original pool of 28 experts took part in the first round of the Del-
phi study with 19 experts taking part in Round 2 and Round 3 (Table 3).

Round 1

Of the participants who responded to Round 1 of the Delphi study, 10 did not make any
recommendations for changes to the framework, while eight made recommendations rang-
ing from suggesting the addition of a small number of items through to a comprehensive
review of its contents. As a result of the recommendations, a total of 27 amendments were
made.

Final results (Rounds 2 and 3): general characteristics

Table  4 and Fig.  3 show the results of Rounds 2 and 3 of the Delphi study. Participants
scored the framework by dividing scores of 100 at two levels. At the first level of the
framework, scores were divided across six features; at the second level scores were divided
between one and for elements within each feature.
At the features level, infrastructure attracted almost a half share (47%) of the scores
on average. This comprises two features. A mean score of 27% was attributed to

Table 3  Response to rounds of Country Country Total

the Delphi study
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

13
Transportation

Table 4  Delphi study results

Component code Component title Average Consen-
score (%) sus 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 d­ ynamicsa 22 ***
F Exogenous factors-non-policy amenable 9 ***
1 Physical environment and climate 100b –
N.B. Average feature scores are in bold, average element scores are not bolded
*** High level of consensus (IQR < 10); ** moderate level of consensus (IQR = 10); * low level of consen-
sus (IQR > 10)
a
 Referred to as socio-cultural factors in the Delphi study
b
 No score assigned as only one element included i.e. weight = 100.00

‘infrastructure-pull factors’, and 21% to ‘infrastructure-push factors’. This represents a sig-

nificant divergence from the equal share (17%). Programmes and governance were also
attributed relatively low scores with means of 11 and 15% respectively, though the latter
is close to equal share. A moderate level of importance was placed on exogenous factors,
with a combined score of 27%. Within this figure, a far greater proportion corresponds to
policy amenable aspects (19%) than to non-policy amenable aspects (9%). Levels of con-
sensus at this highest level of the framework were generally high, with four of the six fea-
tures’ scores having an interquartile range (IQR) of below 10 and two equal to 10.
As shown in Fig. 4, within each feature, the mean scores generally demonstrate some
divergence from equal share.
Under infrastructure-pull factors, there was notable emphasis on ‘linear components’
(A1) and ‘network quality, completeness and integration’ (A4) and a notably lower score

13
 Transportation

30% 12

25% 10

20% 8
Mean percentage score

Interquartile range
15% 6

10% 4

5% 2

0% 0
Exogenous Exogenous
Infrastructure Infrastructure factors - factors - non-
Programmes Governance
- pull factors - push factors policy policy
amenable amenable
Feature score 26% 21% 11% 15% 19% 9%
IQR 10 10 2.5 7.5 5 5
Axis Title

Fig. 3  Mean percentage score and interquartile range versus theoretical policy framework features for Del-
phi study expert panel

was attributed to ‘discrete components’ such as bicycle parking at end-of-trip facilities.

The lack of importance placed on nodal components (A2) is not consistent with several
interview responses, which emphasised the importance of intersections in cycling safety.
The levels of consensus for ‘linear components’ and ‘nodal components’ were relatively
high and relatively low for the ‘discrete components’ and ‘network quality, completeness
and integration’.
Elements scores for the infrastructure-push factors feature were weighted toward ‘rela-
tive network speed interventions’, such as motor traffic calming and localised prohibition of
motor traffic. Levels of consensus for this feature were low relative to other features.
Under the programmes and governance features, mean elements scores were close to
equal share. Governance demonstrated very high levels of consensus in scoring its four
constituent elements, while overall very low levels of consensus were reached under
programmes.
Elements that make up the ‘exogenous factors-policy amenable’ feature diverged some-
what more from equal share and had varying and generally high levels of consensus.
‘Media and social dynamics’ and especially ‘socio-demographic and household character-
istics’ were attributed lower scores than ‘spatial characteristics’ and ‘quality of provision
and cost of alternatives to cycling’. The latter two elements are related to the spatial envi-
ronment and are influenced by transport and urban planning policy, which is an area of
expertise of a number of the panellists, which could in part explain this characteristic.

13
Transportation

30%

25%
Mean percentage score

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
A - Infrastructure: pull B - Infrastructure: C - Programmes D - Governance E - Exogenous factors
factors push factors - policy amenable
Feature
Element 1 Element 2 Element 3 Element 4

Legend
Feature Element 1 Element 2 Element 3 Element 4
A - Infrastructure: Linear Nodal Discrete Network quality,
pull factors components components components completeness
and integration
B - Infrastructure: Relative network Private motor Changes to the -
push factors speed vehicle 'system' cost of travel by
interventions supply car
C - Programmes Education Information and Traffic laws and -
promotional police presence
campaigns
D - Governance Policy formation Policy Involvement of Strong
implementation stakeholders leadership
E - Exogenous Socio- Spatial Quality of Media and social
factors - policy demographic and characteristics provision and dynamics
amenable household cost of
characteristics alternatives to
cycling
F - Exogenous Physical - - -
factors - non- environment and
policy amenable climate

Fig. 4  Mean percentage scores versus theoretical policy framework features and elements for Delphi study
expert panel

Effect of country and professional background

Scoring of the framework varied according to both the country in which the panel
members are based, as well as their professional background. The level of variation is
generally minor to moderate, with some notable exceptions.

13
 Transportation

Results by country

Figure 5 summarises responses at the features level according to the location of the expert
panel members (the Netherlands or NZ). Overall, most of the patterns in responses could
be at least in part explained by the comprehensive, consistent nature of municipal cycling
policies in the Netherlands. Dutch participants may regard this as a baseline situation and
therefore allocated lower scores to the policy output components of the system. Conversely,
participants in NZ placed greater importance on those policy outputs which are not neces-
sarily common place.
Significantly more importance was placed on infrastructure-pull factors by NZ partici-
pants (mean score of 29%) than Dutch participants (24%). This could be at least partly
explained by the lack of cycle specific infrastructure in NZ contrasting with its ubiquity in
the Netherlands.
NZ participants (mean score of 17%) scored the governance feature notably higher than
Dutch participants (13%). Again, this could be explained by the fact that comprehensive,
consistent municipal cycling policies are commonplace in the Netherlands, where they are
much less so in NZ.
In terms of exogenous factors, the Dutch participants scored the policy amenable and
non-policy amenable features considerably higher than the NZ participants. The expla-
nation for this characteristic is not obvious. One hypothesis is that Dutch experts are
more attuned to the influence of exogenous factors due to the recent research which
has been carried out on this matter in the Netherlands (for example Harms et al. 2014;

35%

30%

25%
Mean percentage scores

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Infrastructure - Infrastructure - Programmes Governance Exogenous Exogenous
pull factors push factors factors - policy factors - non-
amenable policy amenable
Features
Expert panel mean Dutch panel members mean NZ panel members mean

Fig. 5  Mean percentage scores versus theoretical policy framework features for Delphi study expert panel’s
Dutch and NZ members

13
Transportation

Rietveld and Daniel 2004). The ubiquity of the Dutch cycling system may also allow
experts to more easily examine variations in cycling numbers according to external fac-
tors such as land use mixing, age and ethnicity.

Results by professional background

Figure 6 describes differences according to the professional background of respondents.

Here the small sizes of the subsamples must be recognised, which reduce the signifi-
cance of the patterns identified. The number of responses received and therefore scores
analysed are: research—7, practice—3, policy—2 and advocacy—5. The following
characteristics are noted:

• Those participants who work in policy placed a markedly higher score on infrastruc-
ture-pull factors.
• Participants in professional practice emphasised the importance of programmes.
• Governance received notably less attention from those working in policy.

45%

40%

35%

30%
Mean percentage scores

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Infrastructure Infrastructure Programmes Governance Exogenous Exogenous
- pull factors - push factors factors - policy factors - non-
amenable policy
amenable
Features
Expert panel mean Research mean Practice mean Policy mean Advocacy mean

Fig. 6  Mean percentage scores versus theoretical policy framework features for Delphi study expert panel’s
professional groups

13
 Transportation

Interpretation of findings

This section examines the findings of this study in the context of the literature, presents a
theoretical example of the application of the study’s findings and reflects on research prob-
lems and limitations.

Summary of findings

The results of this study demonstrate a number of themes in municipal cycling policy and
go some way to quantifying the relative effectiveness of various strategies for increasing
cycling mode share in low-cycling urban centres.
The Delphi study demonstrated the order of most effective policy measures, as shown in
Table 5.
Key themes in the qualitative analysis include:

• 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 else-
where. 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 vari-
ations population density and degree of land use mixing. Generalisation in formulat-
ing 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.

Relevance to the research question, literature and conceptual framework

This study broadly reinforces findings in the literature but uses a seldom-used methodol-
ogy for cycling policy research which allows for generalisation in the dispersed city set-
ting. It achieves this by eliciting the views of a diverse panel of utility cycling experts on a
theoretical basis on all aspects of municipal cycling policy and quantifying their views by
ranking policies.
The findings suggest there is optimism over the potential to encourage cycling in car-
oriented urban environments. The single most effective measure to increase cycling mode
share and improve real and perceived cycling safety was judged to be the provision of
infrastructure. In combination with measures to improve conditions for cycling, the poten-
tial benefits of disincentivising travel by car was also recognised. The participants all

13
 Transportation

Table 5  Hierarchy of effectiveness of municipal cycling policy

Rank Feature Definition Examples

1 Infrastructure-pull factors Physical infrastructure interventions that increase the attrac- Cycle lanes and paths, intersection treatments, bicycle parking
tiveness of cycling
2 Infrastructure-push factors Physical infrastructure interventions that decrease the attrac- Modal filtration devices restricting movement by car, restric-
tiveness of alternatives to cycling tions on car parking supply
3 Exogenous factors-policy amenable Socio-spatial contextual factors that can be influenced by Population density, degree of land use mixing, level of public
some level of public policy transport service
4 Governance Governmental setting in which policy is formulated, funded Policy coherence with regional and national levels, authorita-
and delivered tive/charismatic leaders, involvement of external actors
5 Programmes Providing education, awareness-raising, information and Cycling education for children, promotional events, traffic
promotion of cycling at different scales to induce psy- laws
chological changes in individuals and encourage positive
social interaction and learning associated with the bicycle
6 Exogenous factors-non-policy amenable Physical environment and climate variables that cannot Topography, rainfall, average temperatures
reasonably be impacted by any public policy

13
 Transportation

demonstrated a belief that people’s modal choices are made in response to their physical
environments, and hence have scope to change based on modifications to transport infra-
structure and urban form. This was evident in that a high degree of influence is also per-
ceived to be exerted by policy amenable exogenous factors. This belief was grounded with
caveats relating to the political setting in which they are proposed, as demonstrated in the
interviews and the medium weighting placed on governance (policy inputs) in the Del-
phi study. Interview results also suggest that socio-cultural and individual factors have a
moderate degree of influence on policy outcomes. Measures aimed at changing behaviour
through non-infrastructural means (programmes) and non-policy amenable exogenous fac-
tors were suggested to have a low degree of influence.
The revised conceptual framework is shown in Fig. 7 based on the results of the study.

Policy outputs

The framing of this study is centred on policy outputs, as evident in the research question
and objectives and methodology. Interview responses as well as the results of the Delphi
study indicate a strong degree of consensus at the highest level of the hierarchy of policy
levers.
The provision of physical infrastructure, for example, physically protected cycle paths
and intersections, is emphasised as an indispensable starting point for inducing increases
in cycling mode share. This functions principally through improving the real and perceived
safety of cycling, and also increasing the level of convenience and comfort of the facili-
ties (pull factors), especially as a means of increasing competition with the automobile. It
was broadly agreed that in parallel, disincentives for car use need to be put in place (push
factors) to induce substantial modal shifts to alternative modes. Actions that discourage
car use by limiting traffic volumes or speeds, such as traffic calming and modal filtration
devices that restrict movement by car, are seen to automatically incentivise cycling. Many
cycle network developments require the reallocation of road space away from automobiles,
such as a protected cycle path requiring the removal of on-street parking.
Effective policy strategies were, however, conceived to be a more complex interplay
than a simple balancing of incentives and disincentives. Cycling policy should be formu-
lated and implemented to be responsive to the broader policy context, including urban
planning policy, such as degree of mixing facilitated in land use planning. The combination
of ‘carrot’ and ‘stick’ approaches are seen as both necessary and effective.
Broadly speaking, these findings are aligned to the literature, which shows a bias toward
physical interventions through the breadth, depth and frequency of the coverage of such
considerations. Cycling policy overviews such as Pucher and Buehler (2008), Buehler
and Dill (2015) and Pucher et al. (2010) demonstrate this trend. Harms et al. (2016) also
emphasise the importance of cycling infrastructure in combination with policies that dis-
courage car use.
Participants were asked about their position on a spectrum with ‘vehicular cycling’ at
one end and a fully segregated cycle network at the other. This references the Forester ver-
sus Pucher debate on whether efforts should be focused on promoting vehicular cycling
(i.e. through ‘effective’ cycle training) on the existing transport network (as Forester advo-
cates) or to build segregated bike specific infrastructure to protect cyclists and cater for
a wider range of cycling abilities (as Pucher advocates) (Pucher 2001). The participants
unanimously supported Pucher’s promotion of segregated infrastructure, although there
was some variation in positions. Assessments of the historical development or maintenance

13
Transportation

Fig. 7  Revised conceptual framework

of high levels of utility cycling in high-cycling countries underline this view, however, it is
cast as one important element in the development of a comprehensive, integrated cycling
system as opposed to the only prerequisite. Oldenziel et al. (2016) provide a comprehen-
sive review of the European experience of cycling policy. Hence, constructing a network of
cycle infrastructure is seen as crucial, however the recipe for progress contains further key
ingredients, so the adage ‘build it and they will come’ cannot be applied in an unqualified
manner.
Programmes also received significant attention in the literature but in contrast to infra-
structure were given relatively little weight in the results of this study. The majority of

13
 Transportation

studies conclude that programmes have a role to play in successful cycling policy packages
(refer Pucher et al. 2010; Pucher and Buehler 2012a). The success of such programmes is,
however, not often systematically evaluated and some authors conclude that they only have
a modest potential to induce utility cycling (refer Forsyth and Krizek 2010; Pucher et al.
2011 and Pucher et al. 2010). Programmes received the second-lowest score behind non-
policy amenable exogenous factors at the features level of the Delphi study. This is perhaps
related to the commentary in the above referenced literature as the participants may have
experienced or had insight into real-world examples of where programmes have not made a
significant lasting impact.

Exogenous factors

The socio-spatial context of municipal cycling policy is given significant weight in the
results of the Delphi study with a high level of consensus, with those defined as being
amenable to wider public policy scoring particularly highly. Similarly, interview responses
showed strong awareness of the context dependent nature of cycling policy. Among ele-
ments under the exogenous factors features, spatial characteristics and quality of provision
and cost of alternatives to cycling received the highest scores. Awareness of such factors is
also notable in part of the literature, as is evident in selected recent studies such as Harms
et al. (2014), Pucher and Buehler (2006) and Heinen et al. (2010), which point to the signif-
icance of factors such as socio-demographics and the built and natural environments. This
evidence suggests that an understanding of the local context in which municipal cycling
policies are implemented is crucial to their success.

Policy inputs

Policy inputs or governance is recognised as having some influence in selected areas of the
literature (see Pucher et al. 2011; Pucher and Buehler 2008). The governmental setting of
cycling policy and political strategies were a common theme in interview responses and
were given moderate weight in the Delphi study with a high degree of consensus within the
expert panel. The elements under the governance feature scored relatively evenly, which
aligns to findings in the literature which emphasise the need for comprehensive, consistent
cycling policy. The results of this study reinforce the need for municipal cycling policies to
be formulated and implemented in a politically strategic manner and that they benefit from
strong leadership and community and stakeholder involvement. This is seen both in wider
conversations about cycling policy as well as through this study as being a core issue. The
critical obstacle to implementing cycling infrastructure in the low-cycling environment is
seen as principally political in nature rather than technical.

Socio‑cultural and individual factors

Socio-cultural and individual factors received significant attention during the interviews
and have been focused on in selected previous studies, notably Heinen and Handy (2012).
Due to the indirect nature of the influence of municipal cycling policies on these factors,
they were not included in the Delphi study. The results of this study suggest that a thorough
understanding of local socio-cultural conditions and prevalent norms, attitudes and beliefs
forms an essential part of the formulation of cycling policy.

13
Transportation

Policy outcomes

Utility cycling mode share and cycling safety were conceptualised as coupled policy
outcomes for the purposes of this study, with reference to Harms et  al. (2016). The
results of the interviews and Delphi study support this decision in the sense that improv-
ing safety was a constant theme. Generally, the view among panellists was that munic-
ipalities cannot expect to see improvements in utility cycling numbers until real and
crucially perceived safety is increased to such a level that safety is no longer the main
barrier to cycling for the majority of the population. The idea of ‘safety in numbers’;
that crashes involving motorists and pedestrians or cyclists are less likely as levels of
walking and cycling increase (Jacobsen 2003). This concept was questioned by some
respondents, who proposed that the concept of ‘numbers in safety’ is equally as rel-
evant. These findings support the pattern of safety being the most important considera-
tion in cycling policy in low-cycling urban centres.

Theoretical example of findings

The findings of this study have been applied to a theoretical example to illustrate a pos-
sible physical manifestation of a selection of the most effective municipal cycling poli-
cies. Figure  8 represents a street and land use pattern typical of mid-late ­20th century
suburbs in developed countries. It features a motorway and a dendritic pattern of arterial
and collector roads and residential crescents and culs-de-sac. Three types of interven-
tion are shown: infrastructure-pull and push factors and changes to exogenous factors.
The infrastructure-pull factors make cycling more attractive by improving the real
and perceived safety of travelling by bicycle and by modifying the street network. More
direct trips by bicycle are facilitated by new connections which complete street blocks,
go through public open spaces and cross the motorway. A long distance cycle path or
‘cycle superhighway’ allows for commuting trips or trips to the next centre. Intersec-
tion treatments improve conditions for cyclists at key points in the network ranging
from subtle changes to side street junctions to complete restructuring of major signal-
ised intersections with regard to geometry and signal phasing. The bicycle network is
integrated with a rapid transit network. Bicycle parking and end of trip facilities are
provided at the train station, and transition between the two modes is facilitated in the
station’s design.
The infrastructure—push factors make driving less attractive by restricting the move-
ment of motor vehicles and through pricing of parking. Traffic calming and filtration
devices, coupled with a 30 km/h zone simultaneously discourage driving for local trips
and make the street environment safer for all street users and more pleasant for vulner-
able street users, including cyclists.
Changes to exogenous factors such as road pricing and mixed use urban intensifi-
cation could have a positive impact on cycling levels, although these measures would
realistically not be implemented for the purpose of inducing demand for cycling exclu-
sively. Road pricing disincentivises driving and dense urban development increases the
demand for short trips, which are more likely to be taken on foot or by bicycle.

13
 Transportation

Fig. 8  Map showing theoretical example of findings

Research difficulties and limitations

A number of research difficulties were identified, the most significant of which was time
constraints. The time constraints imposed by the study’s original purpose as a post-
graduate dissertation with a fixed due date meant that interview transcripts were not
provided for review and validation by participants. This may have influenced the par-
ticipants’ willingness to take part and the accuracy of and completeness of the data,
although no feedback was received during or after the study to this effect.
The principal limitation of this study is the external validity of its findings. Firstly, as
was raised by several of the study’s participants, the effectiveness of many of the policies
may not be able to be judged reasonably in the absence of knowledge of the context. Sec-
ondly, the ‘dispersed city’ as a case for the research was purposefully not precisely defined.

13
Transportation

This may have implications for the application of the findings of the research to specific
urban centres, which may not be seen universally as being dispersed or car-oriented, for
example. Thirdly, data collection for this study was limited to participants from the Nether-
lands and NZ, two Western nations belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-opera-
tion and Development (OECD) with high gross domestic products per capita relative to the
global average. Furthermore, the Netherlands and NZ are not necessarily typical examples
of OECD countries with high and low levels of cycling, respectively. It is assumed that
drawing on expertise from a wider variety of nations within the OECD member states and
adding participants from non-OECD countries would influence the results of this study due
to differences in context. This could be overcome in future research by including experts
from other OECD countries width high levels of cycling such as Denmark, Finland and
Germany; and experts from low cycling countries such as the UK, USA, Canada and Aus-
tralia. Other research may look into cycling policy in non-OECD countries for comparison.

Conclusion

This study contributes to addressing the discrepancy in utility cycling numbers between
high and low-cycling countries. Some lessons applicable to fulfilling this aspiration have
been gathered by drawing on the knowledge of Dutch and NZ cycling experts using the
Delphi method, which is seldom used in cycling policy research. The Delphi technique
allowed opinions to be gathered for a theoretical setting, improving the understanding of
the relative merits of all municipal cycling policy options and allowing application to dif-
ferent dispersed city contexts. The study quantified the respondents’ positions and pro-
duced a hierarchy of municipal cycling policy effectiveness.
The opinions of the panel of utility cycling experts polled reinforce the findings in
the literature that the most effective measures to increase utility cycling mode share and
improve real and perceived cycling safety in dispersed, low-cycling urban centres are
physical infrastructure interventions. The next most influential factor is the socio-spatial
environment. Cycling is unlikely to become a mainstream mode of transport without an
adequate network of cycle lanes and paths, intersection treatments and bicycle parking.
Measures that make driving less attractive relative to cycling such as managing car parking
supply and restricting motor vehicle movements are likely to induce demand for cycling.
This must, however, be balanced with the generation and maintenance of political and pub-
lic support, which is also a critical success factor.
As indicated by the results of this study, the spatial characteristics which define low
density, car-oriented urban environments are likely to provide limitations to the potential
of cycling in dispersed urban centres (Heinen et al. 2010). In this regard, the policy shift
toward the compact city model and placing greater value on place making in many cities
will contribute toward creating an environment which is more conducive to non-motorised
modes of transport including cycling (Harms et al. 2014). While the evolution of the urban
form is likely to take considerable time in most cases, international examples show that
substantial increases in cycling mode share can be reached in settings where concerted pol-
icy efforts are made to provide for it (Pucher and Buehler 2012b; Mees 2010).

Author’s Contributions  L Adam: Data gathering, Analysis, and Manuscript Writing. T Jones: Supervi-
sion of Data Gathering and Analysis, and Manuscript Editing. M te Brömmelstroet: Manuscript writing and
Editing.

13
 Transportation

Open Access  This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Inter-
national License (http://creat​iveco​mmons​.org/licen​ses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

References
Blue, E.: Bikenomics: How Bicycling can Save the Economy. Microcosm Publishing, Portland (2013)
Buehler, R., Dill, J.: Bikeway networks: a review of effects on cycling. Transp. Rev. 36(1), 9–27 (2015)
Forsyth, A., Krizek, K.J.: Promoting walking and bicycling: assessing the evidence to assist planners. Built
Environ. 36(4), 429–446 (2010)
Harms, L., Bertolini, L., Te Brömmelstroet, M.: Spatial and social variations in cycling patterns in a mature
cycling country; exploring differences and trends. J. Transp. Health 1(4), 232–242 (2014)
Harms, L., Bertolini, L., Te Brömmelstroet, M.: Performance of municipal cycling polices in medium-sized
cities in the Netherlands since 2000. Transp. Rev. 36(1), 134–162 (2016)
Heinen, E., Handy, S.: Similarities in attitudes and norms and the effect on bicycle commuting: evidence
from the bicycle cities davis and delft. Int. J. Sustain. Trans. 6(5), 257–281 (2012)
Heinen, E., van Wee, B., Maat, K.: Commuting by bicycle: an overview of the literature. Transp. Rev. 30(1),
59–96 (2010)
Hsu, C.C., Sandford, B.A.: The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval.
12(10), 1–8 (2007)
Jacobsen, P.L.: Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling. Inj. Prev. 9(3),
205–209 (2003)
Jacobsen, P.L., Rutter, H.: Cycling safety. In: Pucher, J., Buehler, R. (eds.) City Cycling, pp. 141–156. MIT
Press, Cambridge (2012)
Jones, T.: Getting the British back on bicycles—the effects of urban traffic-free paths on everyday cycling.
Transp. Policy 20, 138–149 (2012)
Macmillan, A., Connor, J., Witten, K., Kearns, R., Rees, D., Woodward, A.: The societal costs and benefits
of commuter bicycling: simulating the effects of specific policies using system dynamics modelling.
Environ. Health Perspect. 122(4), 335–344 (2014)
Mees, P.: A very public solution: Transport for the dispersed city. Melbourne University Publishing, Mel-
bourne (2000)
Mees, P.: Transport for Suburbia: Beyond the Automobile Age. Earthscan, London (2010)
Newman, P., Kosonen, L., Kenworthy, J.: Theory of urban fabrics: planning the walking, transit/public
transport and automobile/motor car cities for reduced car dependency. Town Plan. Rev. 87(4), 429–458
(2016)
Nielsen, T.A.S., Olafsson, A.S., Carstensen, T.A., Skov-Petersen, H.: Environmental correlates of cycling:
evaluating urban form and location effects based on Danish micro-data. Transp. Res. Part D Trans.
Environ. 22, 40–44 (2013)
Oldenziel, R., Emanuel, M., de la Bruhèze, A.A., Veraart, F. (eds.): Cycling Cities: The European Experi-
ence. Foundation for the History of Technology, Eindhoven (2016)
Pikora, T., Giles-Corti, B., Bull, F., Jamrozik, K., Donovan, R.: Developing a framework for assessment of
the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Soc. Sci. Med. 56(8), 1693–1703 (2003)
Pucher, J.: Cycling safety on bikeways versus roads. Transp. Q. 55(4), 9–11 (2001)
Pucher, J., Buehler, R.: Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: a comparative analysis of bicycling
trends and policies. Transp. Policy 13(3), 265–279 (2006)
Pucher, J., Buehler, R.: Making cycling irresistible: lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany.
Transp. Rev. 28(1), 495–528 (2008)
Pucher, J., Buehler, R.: Introduction: cycling for sustainable transport. In: Pucher, J., Buehler, R. (eds.) City
Cycling, pp. 1–7. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012a)
Pucher, J., Buehler, R.: Promoting cycling for daily travel: conclusions and lessons from across the globe.
In: Pucher, J., Buehler, R. (eds.) City Cycling, pp. 347–364. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012b)
Pucher, J., Buehler, R.: Safer cycling through improved infrastructure. Am. J. Public Health 106(12), 2089–
2091 (2016)
Pucher, J., Dill, J., Handy, S.: Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: an international
review. Prev. Med. 50(Suppl. 1), 106–125 (2010)
Pucher, J., Garrard, J., Greaves, S.: Cycling down under: a comparative analysis of bicycling trends and poli-
cies in Sydney and Melbourne. J. Transp. Geogr. 19(2), 332–345 (2011)

13
Transportation

Rietveld, P., Daniel, V.: Determinants of bicycle use: Do municipal policies matter? Transp. Res. Part A
Policy Pract. 38(7), 531–550 (2004)
Schoner, J.E., Levinson, D.M.: The missing link: bicycle infrastructure networks and ridership in 74 US cit-
ies. Transportation 41(6), 1187–1204 (2014)
Tolley, R., Lumsdon, L., Bickerstaff, K.: The future of walking in Europe: a Delphi project to identify expert
opinion on future walking scenarios. Transp. Policy 8(4), 307–315 (2001)

Lukas Adam  is Senior Walking and Cycling Consultant at MRCagney in Auckland, New Zealand. His
work focuses on planning and design for active transport modes, including cycle network planning, public
transport integration and street design. He recently completed a post-graduate degree in Spatial Planning at
Oxford Brookes University.

Tim Jones  is Reader in Urban Mobility at Oxford Brookes University, UK. His interests are related to
how physical and social environments can be (re)configured to support and promote sustainable and healthy
urban mobility, particularly walking and cycling. He currently leads the ESRC Newton funded UK-Brazil
Healthy Urban Mobility project (http://www.hum-mus.org/) and previously led the EPSRC funded cycle
BOOM study on older people’s cycling mobility (http://www.cycle​boom.org/). Tim is also interested in the
potential of electric bikes for promoting health and wellbeing and as part of a broader sustainable transport
mix.

Marco te Brömmelstroet  holds the position of Associate Professor in Urban Planning at the University of
Amsterdam. He is the foundaing academic director of the Urban Cycling Institute. His research and teach-
ing revolve around issues of relations between land use and mobility behavior and the role of cycling in our
cities and societies.

13