Health impacts of bike sharing systems in Europe

Otero, Isabel V.; Nieuwenhuijsen, Mark; Rojas-Rueda, David

doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.04.014

Cited by 174 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, many countries strongly support cycling. Bike share programs were implemented as alternatives to motor vehicle use in Europe, Asia, and America [44][45][46], which provided convenience, low cost, reduced carbon, more efficient travel, health benefits, and decreased risk of bicycle crashes [44,47,48]. Given the association between transportation and human health, it is imperative that public health issues are considered in designing urban and transportation systems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in Transportation Modes and Time among Chinese Population from 2002 to 2012

Gong

Yuan

Feng

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Giving the rising trends in obesity and chronic diseases in China, strategies to increase physical activity are important. Transport-related activity is a substantial source of physical activity and can be easily incorporated into the daily lives. It is a key social factor of health, which can help improve people’s mental and physical health and decrease environmental pollution. However, little is known about recent trends in transportation modes and time in China. Between 2002 and 2010–2012, information about transportation behaviors of Chinese population aged 15 years or older were collected within two Chinese Nutrition and Health Surveys. A stratified multistage cluster sampling method was conducted to select participants. Sociodemographic information, transportation modes, and time were collected during face-to-face interviews. The study included 82,377 (mean age 41.2 years) and 143,075 (mean age 48.7 years) participants in the 2002 and 2010–2012 surveys respectively. The weighted prevalence of active transportation (including walking and cycling) decreased from 83.8% in 2002 to 54.3% in 2010–2012 (p < 0.001). During the same period, the number of participants using public transportation (including taking the bus, subway, or shuttle bus) has doubled (7.5% and 15.7%, respectively, for 2002 and 2010–2012, (p < 0.001)), and the proportion of inactive transportation (including driving or taking a car, motorcycle, taxi, or electric bicycle) more than tripled. Concurrently, the transportation time almost doubled with an increase of 25.9 min over the 10 years (p < 0.001). The prevalence of active transportation increased with age. Participants with higher family income and education reported a lower prevalence of active transportation. Females were more likely to use active transportation (OR (95% CI): 4.41 (4.14–4.70) and 2.50 (2.44–2.57), respectively, for 2002 and 2010–2012, where males were the reference). Before the prevalence of active transportation and physical activity gets lower, there is a need for the public health sector and the transport and land use sector to work together to develop related policies and initiatives with the aim of promoting active transportation and public transportation to increase the levels of physical activity and to decrease the risks of chronic diseases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in Transportation Modes and Time among Chinese Population from 2002 to 2012

Gong

Yuan

Feng

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A panel dataset analysis of 96 urban areas in the US that have introduced local schemes argues that these schemes can reduce peak-hour congestion, at least in the context of larger cities [27]. The promotion of bike-sharing scheme use among car drivers can significantly increase health benefits [28]. Bike-sharing has great potential to reduce energy consumption and emissions based on its rapid development; in 2016 alone, bike-sharing in Shanghai saved 8358 tonnes of petrol and decreased CO 2 and NOX emissions by 25,240 and 64 tonnes, respectively [29].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers

Nikitas

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new mobility ethos is needed for cities looking to overcome the problems that have been accumulated for decades by a transport paradigm that prioritises automobiles over people. Bike-sharing, a measure promoting voluntary travel behaviour change, could be part of a refined toolbox that will help in forging this new ethos. Despite a rapid emergence during the last handful of years, as evidenced by 1956 operational local schemes and approximately 15,254,400 self-service public use bicycles across the world, bike-sharing has been attracting negative attention lately. Tens of schemes have closed down, deemed as financial or operational failures, stigmatising bike-sharing's brand and putting the future of the concept itself in jeopardy. However, discounting bike-sharing as flawed may not be fair or accurate. This paper identifies a formula of success for bike-sharing operations based on a state-of-the-art case study analysis, which is supported by primary data evidence from two survey-based studies in Sweden and Greece. This paper suggests that residents in cities hosting or looking to host bike-sharing schemes are usually very supportive of them but not always likely to use them. More importantly, this paper delivers some key policy and business lessons that form a survival guide for effectively introducing and running public bicycle schemes. These lessons include, among others, the need for: tailoring the system design and expansion strategy according to the host city needs, city-operator and commercial partner synergies, more bike-friendly infrastructure and legislation, pro-active cultural engagement, anti-abuse measures, enhanced fleet management and realistic profit expectations.'as-needed' basis that could extend the reach of public transit services to final destinations and be a door-opener for increased bicycle usage [11].Bike-sharing, typically framed as an ideal and innovative first-and last-mile travel solution for congested metropolitan environments [12,13], and less often tested for the context of smaller and medium cities [14], is now more relevant than ever before [15]. The recent game-changing introduction of stationless and free-floating schemes where bicycles are unleashed from docking stations, allowing users an extra layer of mobility freedom [16], expanded the traditional dock-based bike-sharing provision and transformed the concept into one with a door-to-door travel potential. Bike-sharing has, from that point onwards, emerged rapidly across the globe, with 1956 operational schemes and approximately 15,254,400 self-service public bicycles and pedelecs in use [17], as an easily implementable modal shift mechanism that is iconic for the host city's commitment to sustainable transport operations [18,19].However, at the same time bike-sharing, especially with a growing number of reckless and under-designed implementations of dockless systems, is attracting negative attention, with numerous schemes shutting down as huge financial or operational failures. This has forced usually smaller bike-sharin...

show abstract

“…The importance of relocating urban bike lanes to the calmer streets or nature predominated places has been stressed by many researchers [24]. The bicycle networks are planned to be separated and moved away from heavy traffic to safer and healthier environments like unused riversides, parks, and natural territories [25][26][27][28]. When implementing these measures, it must be taken into consideration that this infrastructure will be shared with e-PMV users, therefore new lanes must be designed according to requirements for higher speeds and, if possible, with divisions for walking, low speed, and higher speed lanes.…”

Section: Adaptation Of Existing Infrastructure For E-pmvsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges Caused by Increased Use of E-Powered Personal Mobility Vehicles in European Cities

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increased use of e-powered personal mobility vehicles is usually considered to be a positive change, while it is generally agreed that Personal Mobility Vehicles (PMVs) effectively and efficiently reduce the negative environmental impacts of transport and improve quality of life. There has been great technological progress made by all sectors in the field of personal mobility during the last decade. The use of PMVs for micro-mobility have been welcomed by the market, consumers, and governments and thus they are becoming increasingly popular in modern European society. New technology-driven PMVs provide opportunities to their users, but at the same time create problems with street space sharing, road safety, and traffic offenses. This study gives an overview of recent types of PMVs, offers some insights into upcoming changes and challenges, and raises a discussion on themes related to the increased use of e-powered personal transporters.

show abstract

Health impacts of bike sharing systems in Europe

Cited by 174 publications

References 26 publications

Trends in Transportation Modes and Time among Chinese Population from 2002 to 2012

Trends in Transportation Modes and Time among Chinese Population from 2002 to 2012

How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers

Challenges Caused by Increased Use of E-Powered Personal Mobility Vehicles in European Cities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About