Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33499420›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Assessing the Policy Environment for Active Mobility in Cities-Development and Feasibility of the PASTA Cycling and Walking Policy Environment Score.

Sonja Kahlmeier, Esther Anaya Boig, Castro Fernandez A, Emilia Smeds, Fabrizio Benvenuti, Ulf Eriksson, Francesco Iacorossi, Mark J Nieuwenhuijsen, Luc Int Panis, David Rojas-Rueda and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The 2019 Conference on Health and Active Transportation: Research Needs and Opportunities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 8 institutions in 8 countries.

Sonja KahlmeierDepartment of Health, Swiss Distance University of Applied Science (FFHS), 3900 Brig, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6905-9244
Esther Anaya BoigCentre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London SW7 1NE, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9204-534X
Castro Fernandez ABiostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), Epidemiology, University of Zurich, 8001 Zurich, Switzerland.
Emilia SmedsTechnology, Engineering and Public Policy (STEaPP), Department for Science, University College London, London WC1E 6JA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8968-3500
Fabrizio BenvenutiRoma Servizi per la mobilità, 00143 Rome, Italy.
Ulf ErikssonTrivector, 11123 Stockholm, Sweden.
Francesco IacorossiRoma Servizi per la mobilità, 00143 Rome, Italy.
Mark J NieuwenhuijsenInstitute for Global Health (IS Global), 08003 Barcelona, Spain.
Luc Int PanisFlemish Institute for Technological Research VITO, 2400 Mol, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-2558-4351
David Rojas-RuedaBarcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), 08003 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5854-2484
Sandra WegenerInstitute for Transport Studies (ITS-), University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences BOKU, 1180 Vienna, Austria.
Audrey de NazelleCentre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London SW7 1NE, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1092-3971
Barcelona Institute for Global Health · ESImperial College London · GBRoma Servizi per la Mobilità (Italy) · ITUniversity of Zurich · CHBOKU University · ATFlemish Institute for Technological Research · BETrivector (Sweden) · SEUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S019669/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The importance of setting a policy focus on promoting cycling and walking as sustainable and healthy modes of transport is increasingly recognized. However, to date a science-driven scoring system to assess the policy environment for cycling and walking is lacking. In this study, spreadsheet-based scoring systems for cycling and walking were developed, including six dimensions (cycling/walking culture, social acceptance, perception of traffic safety, advocacy, politics and urban planning). Feasibility was tested using qualitative data from pre-specified sections of semi-standardized interview and workshop reports from a European research project in seven cities, assessed independently by two experts. Disagreements were resolved by discussions of no more than 75 minutes per city. On the dimension "perception of traffic safety", quantitative panel data were used. While the interrater agreement was fair, feasibility was confirmed in general. Validity testing against social norms towards active travel, modal split and network length was encouraging for the policy area of cycling. Rating the policy friendliness for cycling and walking separately was found to be appropriate, as different cities received the highest scores for each. Replicating this approach in a more standardized way would pave the way towards a transparent, evidence-based system for benchmarking policy approaches of cities towards cycling and walking.

Indexed as

BicyclingWalkingCitiesEnvironment DesignFeasibility StudiesHumansPolicyTransportationactive travel policy assessmentcyclingscoringtransport planningwalking

Identifiers

PMID33499420
PMCPMC7908172
OpenAlexW3123592458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.