UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Box 296, Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK; Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK.
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Nov;97:228-37. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.08.030. Epub 2013 Sep 25.
Cycling confers health and environmental benefits, but few robust studies have evaluated large-scale programmes to promote cycling. In England, recent years have seen substantial, town-wide cycling initiatives in six Cycling Demonstration Towns (funded 2005-2011) and 12 Cycling Cities and Towns (funded 2008-2011). The initiatives involved mixtures of capital investment (e.g. cycle lanes) and revenue investment (e.g. cycle training), tailored to each town. This controlled before-after natural experimental study used English census data to examine impacts on the prevalence of travelling to work by bicycle and other modes, comparing changes in the intervention towns with changes in three comparison groups (matched towns, unfunded towns and a national comparison group). We also compared effects between more and less deprived areas, and used random-effects meta-analysis to compare intervention effects between towns. Among 1.3 million commuters in 18 intervention towns, we found that the prevalence of cycling to work rose from 5.8% in 2001 to 6.8% in 2011. This represented a significant increase relative to all three comparison groups (e.g. +0.69 (95% CI 0.60,0.77) percentage points for intervention vs. matched towns). Walking to work also increased significantly compared with comparison towns, while driving to work decreased and public transport use was unchanged. These effects were observed across all fifths of area deprivation, with larger relative changes in deprived areas. There was substantial variation in effect sizes between towns, however, and the average town-level effect on cycling was non-significant (+0.29 (-0.26,0.84) percentage points for intervention vs. matched towns). We conclude that to date, cycling to work has increased (and driving to work decreased) in the intervention towns, in a relatively equitable manner. The variation in effects between towns indicates uncertainty regarding the likely impact of comparable investment in future towns. Nevertheless these results support the case for implementing and evaluating further town-wide cycling initiatives.
骑自行车具有健康和环境效益,但很少有强有力的研究评估过促进自行车出行的大规模项目。在英格兰,近年来六个自行车示范城镇(2005-2011 年资助)和 12 个自行车城市和城镇(2008-2011 年资助)在全镇范围内开展了大量的自行车出行倡议。这些倡议包括资本投资(如自行车道)和收入投资(如自行车培训)的混合,根据每个城镇的特点量身定制。本项基于控制的前后自然实验研究使用英国人口普查数据,比较干预城镇与三个对照组(匹配城镇、未资助城镇和全国对照组)之间的变化,评估对骑自行车和其他出行方式上班的流行率的影响。我们还比较了较贫困和较富裕地区的效果,并使用随机效应荟萃分析比较了城镇之间的干预效果。在 18 个干预城镇的 130 万通勤者中,我们发现,骑自行车上班的比例从 2001 年的 5.8%上升到 2011 年的 6.8%。与所有三个对照组相比,这是一个显著的增长(例如,干预组与匹配城镇相比,增加了 0.69(95%CI 0.60,0.77)个百分点)。与对照组相比,步行上班的比例也显著增加,而开车上班的比例下降,公共交通使用量保持不变。这些效果在所有五分制的贫困地区都存在,贫困地区的相对变化更大。然而,城镇之间的效果大小存在很大差异,骑自行车的平均城镇级效果不显著(干预组与匹配城镇相比,增加了 0.29(-0.26,0.84)个百分点)。我们的结论是,迄今为止,干预城镇的骑车上班人数有所增加(开车上班人数有所减少),而且这种增加方式相对公平。城镇之间的效果差异表明,未来在类似投资方面的效果存在不确定性。尽管如此,这些结果支持在未来城镇实施和评估更多的全镇范围的自行车出行倡议。