Dataset Information

Title: Can changing the physical environment promote walking and cycling? A systematic review of what works and how.

ABSTRACT: Environmental changes aimed at encouraging walking or cycling may promote activity and improve health, but evidence suggests small or inconsistent effects in practice. Understanding how an intervention works might help explain the effects observed and provide guidance about generalisability. We therefore aimed to review the literature on the effects of this type of intervention and to understand how and why these may or may not be effective. We searched eight electronic databases for existing systematic reviews and mined these for evaluative studies of physical environmental changes and assessed changes in walking, cycling or physical activity. We then searched for related sources including quantitative or qualitative studies, policy documents or reports. We extracted information on the evidence for effects ('estimation'), contexts and mechanisms ('explanation') and assessed credibility, and synthesised material narratively. We identified 13 evaluations of interventions specifically targeting walking and cycling and used 46 related sources. 70% (n?=?9 evaluations) scored 3 or less on the credibility criteria for effectiveness. 6 reported significant positive effects, but higher quality evaluations were more likely to report positive effects. Only two studies provided rich evidence of mechanisms. We identified three common resources that interventions provide to promote walking and cycling: (i) improving accessibility and connectivity; (ii) improving traffic and personal safety; and (iii) improving the experience of walking and cycling. The most effective interventions appeared to target accessibility and safety in both supportive and unsupportive contexts. Although the evidence base was relatively limited, we were able to understand the role of context in the success of interventions. Researchers and policy makers should consider the context and mechanisms which might operate before evaluating and implementing interventions.

SUBMITTER: Panter J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6737987 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Title: Can changing the physical environment promote walking and cycling? A systematic review of what works and how.

Panter Jenna J Guell Cornelia C Humphreys David D Ogilvie David D

Health & place 20190710

Environmental changes aimed at encouraging walking or cycling may promote activity and improve health, but evidence suggests small or inconsistent effects in practice. Understanding how an intervention works might help explain the effects observed and provide guidance about generalisability. We therefore aimed to review the literature on the effects of this type of intervention and to understand how and why these may or may not be effective. We searched eight electronic databases for existing sy ...[more]

PMID: 31301599

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine what interventions are effective in promoting cycling, the size of the effects of interventions, and evidence of any associated benefits on overall physical activity or anthropometric measures.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesPublished and unpublished reports in any language identified by searching 13 electronic databases, websites, reference lists, and existing systematic reviews, and papers identified by experts in the field. Review methods Controlled "before and after" experimental or observational studies of the effect of any type of intervention on cycling behaviour measured at either individual or population level.ResultsTwenty five studies (of which two were randomised controlled trials) from seven countries were included. Six studies examined interventions aimed specifically at promoting cycling, of which four (an intensive individual intervention in obese women, high quality improvements to a cycle route network, and two multifaceted cycle promotion initiatives at town or city level) were found to be associated with increases in cycling. Those studies that evaluated interventions at population level reported net increases of up to 3.4 percentage points in the population prevalence of cycling or the proportion of trips made by bicycle. Sixteen studies assessing individualised marketing of "environmentally friendly" modes of transport to interested households reported modest but consistent net effects equating to an average of eight additional cycling trips per person per year in the local population. Other interventions that targeted travel behaviour in general were not associated with a clear increase in cycling. Only two studies assessed effects of interventions on physical activity; one reported a positive shift in the population distribution of overall physical activity during the intervention.ConclusionsCommunity-wide promotional activities and improving infrastructure for cycling have the potential to increase cycling by modest amounts, but further controlled evaluative studies incorporating more precise measures are required, particularly in areas without an established cycling culture. Studies of individualised marketing report consistent positive effects of interventions on cycling behaviour, but these findings should be confirmed using more robust study designs. Future research should also examine how best to promote cycling in children and adolescents and through workplaces. Whether interventions to promote cycling result in an increase in overall physical activity or changes in anthropometric measures is unclear.

Project description:IntroductionWalking and cycling bring health and environmental benefits, but there is little robust evidence that changing the built environment promotes these activities in populations. This study evaluated the effects of new transport infrastructure on active commuting and physical activity.Study designQuasi-experimental analysis nested within a cohort study.Setting/participantsFour hundred and sixty-nine adult commuters, recruited through a predominantly workplace-based strategy, who lived within 30 kilometers of Cambridge, United Kingdom and worked in areas of the city to be served by the new transport infrastructure.InterventionThe Cambridgeshire Guided Busway opened in 2011 and comprised a new bus network and a traffic-free walking and cycling route. Exposure to the intervention was defined using the shortest distance from each participant's home to the busway.Main outcome measuresChange in weekly time spent in active commuting between 2009 and 2012, measured by validated 7-day recall instrument. Secondary outcomes were changes in total weekly time spent walking and cycling and in recreational and overall physical activity, measured using the validated Recent Physical Activity Questionnaire. Data were analyzed in 2014.ResultsIn multivariable multinomial regression models--adjusted for potential sociodemographic, geographic, health, and workplace confounders; baseline active commuting; and home or work relocation-exposure to the busway was associated with a significantly greater likelihood of an increase in weekly cycle commuting time (relative risk ratio=1.34, 95% CI=1.03, 1.76) and with an increase in overall time spent in active commuting among the least active commuters at baseline (relative risk ratio=1.76, 95% CI=1.16, 2.67). The study found no evidence of changes in recreational or overall physical activity.ConclusionsProviding new sustainable transport infrastructure was effective in promoting an increase in active commuting. These findings provide new evidence to support reconfiguring transport systems as part of public health improvement strategies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Investigating the association of the neighborhood social environment on physical activity is complex. A systematic scoping review was performed to (1) provide an inventory of studies assessing the influence of the neighborhood social environment on physical activity since 2006; (2) describe methodologies employed; and (3) formulate recommendations for the field. METHODS:Two databases were searched using terms related to 'physical activity,' 'neighborhood,' and 'social environment' in January 2017. Eligibility criteria included: 1) physical activity as an outcome; 2) neighborhood social environment as a predictor; 3) healthy population (without diagnosed clinical condition or special population); 4) observational or experimental design. Of 1352 studies identified, 181 were included. Textual data relevant to the social environment measurement and analysis were extracted from each article into qualitative software (MAXQDA) and coded to identify social environmental constructs, measurement methods, level of measurement (individual vs. aggregated to neighborhood), and whether authors explicitly recognized the construct as the social environment. The following measures were generated for each construct: number of unique measurements; % of times measured at an aggregate level; % of times authors referred to the construct as the social environment. Social environmental constructs were then grouped into larger descriptive dimensions. RESULTS/FINDINGS:Fifty-nine social environmental constructs were identified and grouped into 9 dimensions: Crime & Safety (n?=?133 studies; included in 73% of studies); Economic & Social Disadvantage (n?=?55, 33%); Social Cohesion & Capital (n?=?47, 26%); Social Relationships (n?=?22, 12%); Social Environment (n?=?16, 9%); Disorder & Incivilities (n?=?15, 8%); Sense of Place/Belonging (n?=?8, 4%); Discrimination/Segregation (n?=?3, 2%); Civic Participation & Engagement (n?=?2, 1%). Across all articles, the social environment was measured using 176 different methods, was measured at an aggregate-level 38% of the time, and referred to as the social environment 23% of the time. CONCLUSIONS:Inconsistent terminology, definitions, and measurement of the social environment and the lack of explicit language identifying constructs as the social environment make it challenging to compare results across studies and draw conclusions. Improvements are needed to increase our understanding of social environmental correlates and/or determinants of physical activity and facilitate cross-disciplinary conversations necessary to effectively intervene to promote physical activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017059580.

Project description:Urban health indicator (UHI) tools provide evidence about the health impacts of the physical urban environment which can be used in built environment policy and decision-making. Where UHI tools provide data at the neighborhood (and lower) scale they can provide valuable information about health inequalities and environmental deprivation. This review performs a census of UHI tools and explores their nature and characteristics (including how they represent, simplify or address complex systems) to increase understanding of their potential use by municipal built environment policy and decision-makers. We searched seven bibliographic databases, four key journals and six practitioner websites and conducted Google searches between January 27, 2016 and February 24, 2016 for UHI tools. We extracted data from primary studies and online indicator systems. We included 198 documents which identified 145 UHI tools comprising 8006 indicators, from which we developed a taxonomy. Our taxonomy classifies the significant diversity of UHI tools with respect to topic, spatial scale, format, scope and purpose. The proportions of UHI tools which measure data at the neighborhood and lower scale, and present data via interactive maps, have both increased over time. This is particularly relevant to built environment policy and decision-makers, reflects growing analytical capability and offers the potential for improved understanding of the complexity of influences on urban health (an aspect noted as a particular challenge by some indicator producers). The relation between urban health indicators and health impacts attributable to modifiable environmental characteristics is often indirect. Furthermore, the use of UHI tools in policy and decision-making appears to be limited, thus raising questions about the continued development of such tools by multiple organisations duplicating scarce resources. Further research is needed to understand the requirements of built environment policy and decision-makers, public health professionals and local communities regarding the form and presentation of indicators which support their varied objectives.

Project description:BACKGROUND: In the past decade, various reviews described the relationship between the physical environment and different physical activity (PA) domains. Yet, the majority of the current review evidence relies on North American/Australian studies, while only a small proportion of findings refer to European studies. Given some clear environmental differences across continents, this raises questions about the applicability of those results in European settings. This systematic review aimed at summarizing Europe-specific evidence on the relationship between the physical environment and different PA domains in adults. METHODS: Seventy eligible papers were identified through systematic searches across six electronic databases. Included papers were observational studies assessing the relationship between several aspects of the physical environment and PA in European adults (18-65y). Summary scores were calculated to express the strength of the relationship between each environmental factor and different PA domains. RESULTS: Convincing evidence on positive relationships with several PA domains was found for following environmental factors: walkability, access to shops/services/work and the composite factor environmental quality. Convincing evidence considering urbanization degree showed contradictory results, dependent on the observed PA domain. Transportation PA was more frequently related to the physical environment than recreational PA. Possible evidence for a positive relationship with transportation PA emerged for walking/cycling facilities, while a negative relationship was found for hilliness. Some environmental factors, such as access to recreational facilities, aesthetics, traffic- and crime-related safety were unrelated to different PA domains in Europe. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, findings from this review of European studies are in accordance with results from North American/Australian reviews and may contribute to a generalization of the relationship between the physical environment and PA. Nevertheless, the lack of associations found regarding access to recreational facilities, aesthetics and different forms of safety are likely to be Europe-specific findings and need to be considered when appropriate interventions are developed. More research assessing domain-specific relationships with several understudied environmental attributes (e.g., residential density) is needed.

Dataset Information

Title: Can changing the physical environment promote walking and cycling? A systematic review of what works and how.

Publications

Title: Can changing the physical environment promote walking and cycling? A systematic review of what works and how.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets