A natural experimental study of new walking and cycling infrastructure across the United Kingdom: The Connect2 programme

Anna Le Gouais; Jenna R. Panter; Andy Cope; Jane E. Powell; Emma L. Bird; James Woodcock; David Ogilvie; Louise Foley

doi:10.1016/j.jth.2020.100968

A natural experimental study of new walking and cycling infrastructure across the United Kingdom: The Connect2 programme

Anna Le Gouais^*, Jenna R. Panter, Andy Cope, Jane E. Powell, Emma L. Bird, James Woodcock, David Ogilvie, Louise Foley

^*Corresponding author for this work

Bristol Medical School (PHS)

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article (Academic Journal) › peer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)

59 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Introduction: High quality evaluations of new walking and cycling routes are scarce and understanding contextual mechanisms influencing outcomes is limited. Using different types of data we investigate how context is associated with change in use of new and upgraded walking and cycling infrastructure, and the association between infrastructure use and overall physical activity.

Methods: We conducted repeat cross-sectional pre-post analysis of monitoring data from a variety of walking and cycling routes built in 84 locations across the United Kingdom (the Connect2 programme, 2009–2013), using four-day user counts (pre n = 189,250; post n = 319,531), next-to-pass surveys of route users (pre n = 15,641; post n = 20,253), and automatic counter data that generated estimates of total annual users. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified contextual features associated with 50% increase and doubling of pedestrians, cyclists, and sub-groups of users. We combined insights from monitoring data with longitudinal cohort data (the iConnect study) from residents living near three Connect2 schemes. Residents were surveyed by post at baseline, one-year (n = 1853) and two-year follow-up (n = 1524) to investigate associations between use of the new infrastructure and meeting physical activity guidelines.

Results: The routes were associated with increased use (median increase in cyclists 52%, pedestrians 38%; p < 0.001). Large relative increases were associated with low baseline levels (e.g. odds of doubling cycling were halved for each additional 10,000 annual cyclists at baseline: OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31, 0.77). Use was associated with meeting physical activity guidelines in both repeat cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses (users vs. non-users after one year, OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.37, 3.21; after two years, OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.37, 2.96).

Conclusions: This examination of use, users, benefit-cost ratios, and physical activity associated with new walking and cycling infrastructure across contexts, using multiple types of data, suggests that building walking and cycling infrastructure could improve population health and reduce inequalities.

Original language	English
Article number	100968
Number of pages	23
Journal	Journal of Transport and Health
Volume	20
Early online date	18 Dec 2020
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2020.100968
Publication status	Published - 1 Mar 2021

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The work was undertaken by the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation , Cancer Research UK , Economic and Social Research Council , Medical Research Council , the National Institute for Health Research , and the Wellcome Trust , under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged.

Funding Information:
ALG, DO and JRP were supported by the Medical Research Council [grant number MC_UU_12015/6 ].

Funding Information:
This paper was written on behalf of the iConnect consortium ( http://www.iconnect.ac.uk ; Christian Brand, Fiona Bull, Ashley Cooper, Andy Day, Nanette Mutrie, David Ogilvie, Jane E Powell, John Preston and Harry Rutter), in conjunction with Andy Cope, who is employed by Sustrans. The iConnect consortium was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [grant reference EP/G00059X/1 ].

Funding Information:
LF is funded and JW is partially funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Group and Network on Diet and Activity. Funding from NIHR is gratefully acknowledged (grant reference 16/137/34 ). The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Funding Information:
This paper was written on behalf of the iConnect consortium (http://www.iconnect.ac.uk; Christian Brand, Fiona Bull, Ashley Cooper, Andy Day, Nanette Mutrie, David Ogilvie, Jane E Powell, John Preston and Harry Rutter), in conjunction with Andy Cope, who is employed by Sustrans. The iConnect consortium was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [grant reference EP/G00059X/1].The work was undertaken by the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged.ALG, DO and JRP were supported by the Medical Research Council [grant number MC_UU_12015/6].LF is funded and JW is partially funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Group and Network on Diet and Activity. Funding from NIHR is gratefully acknowledged (grant reference 16/137/34). The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Authors

Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

Keywords

Context
Cycling
Evaluation
Infrastructure
Physical activity
Walking

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jth.2020.100968

Full-text PDF (final published version)
This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Elsevier at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140520301729 . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.
Final published version, 1.71 MBLicence: CC BY

Handle.net

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{1539586607ef42a28c7f933708d22755,

title = "A natural experimental study of new walking and cycling infrastructure across the United Kingdom: The Connect2 programme",

abstract = "Introduction: High quality evaluations of new walking and cycling routes are scarce and understanding contextual mechanisms influencing outcomes is limited. Using different types of data we investigate how context is associated with change in use of new and upgraded walking and cycling infrastructure, and the association between infrastructure use and overall physical activity.Methods: We conducted repeat cross-sectional pre-post analysis of monitoring data from a variety of walking and cycling routes built in 84 locations across the United Kingdom (the Connect2 programme, 2009–2013), using four-day user counts (pre n = 189,250; post n = 319,531), next-to-pass surveys of route users (pre n = 15,641; post n = 20,253), and automatic counter data that generated estimates of total annual users. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified contextual features associated with 50% increase and doubling of pedestrians, cyclists, and sub-groups of users. We combined insights from monitoring data with longitudinal cohort data (the iConnect study) from residents living near three Connect2 schemes. Residents were surveyed by post at baseline, one-year (n = 1853) and two-year follow-up (n = 1524) to investigate associations between use of the new infrastructure and meeting physical activity guidelines.Results: The routes were associated with increased use (median increase in cyclists 52%, pedestrians 38%; p < 0.001). Large relative increases were associated with low baseline levels (e.g. odds of doubling cycling were halved for each additional 10,000 annual cyclists at baseline: OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31, 0.77). Use was associated with meeting physical activity guidelines in both repeat cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses (users vs. non-users after one year, OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.37, 3.21; after two years, OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.37, 2.96).Conclusions: This examination of use, users, benefit-cost ratios, and physical activity associated with new walking and cycling infrastructure across contexts, using multiple types of data, suggests that building walking and cycling infrastructure could improve population health and reduce inequalities.",

keywords = "Context, Cycling, Evaluation, Infrastructure, Physical activity, Walking",

author = "{Le Gouais}, Anna and Panter, {Jenna R.} and Andy Cope and Powell, {Jane E.} and Bird, {Emma L.} and James Woodcock and David Ogilvie and Louise Foley",

note = "Funding Information: The work was undertaken by the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation , Cancer Research UK , Economic and Social Research Council , Medical Research Council , the National Institute for Health Research , and the Wellcome Trust , under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. Funding Information: ALG, DO and JRP were supported by the Medical Research Council [grant number MC_UU_12015/6 ]. Funding Information: This paper was written on behalf of the iConnect consortium ( http://www.iconnect.ac.uk ; Christian Brand, Fiona Bull, Ashley Cooper, Andy Day, Nanette Mutrie, David Ogilvie, Jane E Powell, John Preston and Harry Rutter), in conjunction with Andy Cope, who is employed by Sustrans. The iConnect consortium was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [grant reference EP/G00059X/1 ]. Funding Information: LF is funded and JW is partially funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Group and Network on Diet and Activity. Funding from NIHR is gratefully acknowledged (grant reference 16/137/34 ). The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Funding Information: This paper was written on behalf of the iConnect consortium (http://www.iconnect.ac.uk; Christian Brand, Fiona Bull, Ashley Cooper, Andy Day, Nanette Mutrie, David Ogilvie, Jane E Powell, John Preston and Harry Rutter), in conjunction with Andy Cope, who is employed by Sustrans. The iConnect consortium was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [grant reference EP/G00059X/1].The work was undertaken by the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged.ALG, DO and JRP were supported by the Medical Research Council [grant number MC_UU_12015/6].LF is funded and JW is partially funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Group and Network on Diet and Activity. Funding from NIHR is gratefully acknowledged (grant reference 16/137/34). The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020 The Authors Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.",

year = "2021",

month = mar,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.jth.2020.100968",

language = "English",

volume = "20",

journal = "Journal of Transport and Health",

issn = "2214-1413",

publisher = "Amsterdam:Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A natural experimental study of new walking and cycling infrastructure across the United Kingdom

T2 - The Connect2 programme

AU - Le Gouais, Anna

AU - Panter, Jenna R.

AU - Cope, Andy

AU - Powell, Jane E.

AU - Bird, Emma L.

AU - Woodcock, James

AU - Ogilvie, David

AU - Foley, Louise

N1 - Funding Information: The work was undertaken by the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation , Cancer Research UK , Economic and Social Research Council , Medical Research Council , the National Institute for Health Research , and the Wellcome Trust , under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. Funding Information: ALG, DO and JRP were supported by the Medical Research Council [grant number MC_UU_12015/6 ]. Funding Information: This paper was written on behalf of the iConnect consortium ( http://www.iconnect.ac.uk ; Christian Brand, Fiona Bull, Ashley Cooper, Andy Day, Nanette Mutrie, David Ogilvie, Jane E Powell, John Preston and Harry Rutter), in conjunction with Andy Cope, who is employed by Sustrans. The iConnect consortium was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [grant reference EP/G00059X/1 ]. Funding Information: LF is funded and JW is partially funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Group and Network on Diet and Activity. Funding from NIHR is gratefully acknowledged (grant reference 16/137/34 ). The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Funding Information: This paper was written on behalf of the iConnect consortium (http://www.iconnect.ac.uk; Christian Brand, Fiona Bull, Ashley Cooper, Andy Day, Nanette Mutrie, David Ogilvie, Jane E Powell, John Preston and Harry Rutter), in conjunction with Andy Cope, who is employed by Sustrans. The iConnect consortium was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [grant reference EP/G00059X/1].The work was undertaken by the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged.ALG, DO and JRP were supported by the Medical Research Council [grant number MC_UU_12015/6].LF is funded and JW is partially funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Group and Network on Diet and Activity. Funding from NIHR is gratefully acknowledged (grant reference 16/137/34). The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Authors Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

PY - 2021/3/1

Y1 - 2021/3/1

N2 - Introduction: High quality evaluations of new walking and cycling routes are scarce and understanding contextual mechanisms influencing outcomes is limited. Using different types of data we investigate how context is associated with change in use of new and upgraded walking and cycling infrastructure, and the association between infrastructure use and overall physical activity.Methods: We conducted repeat cross-sectional pre-post analysis of monitoring data from a variety of walking and cycling routes built in 84 locations across the United Kingdom (the Connect2 programme, 2009–2013), using four-day user counts (pre n = 189,250; post n = 319,531), next-to-pass surveys of route users (pre n = 15,641; post n = 20,253), and automatic counter data that generated estimates of total annual users. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified contextual features associated with 50% increase and doubling of pedestrians, cyclists, and sub-groups of users. We combined insights from monitoring data with longitudinal cohort data (the iConnect study) from residents living near three Connect2 schemes. Residents were surveyed by post at baseline, one-year (n = 1853) and two-year follow-up (n = 1524) to investigate associations between use of the new infrastructure and meeting physical activity guidelines.Results: The routes were associated with increased use (median increase in cyclists 52%, pedestrians 38%; p < 0.001). Large relative increases were associated with low baseline levels (e.g. odds of doubling cycling were halved for each additional 10,000 annual cyclists at baseline: OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31, 0.77). Use was associated with meeting physical activity guidelines in both repeat cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses (users vs. non-users after one year, OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.37, 3.21; after two years, OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.37, 2.96).Conclusions: This examination of use, users, benefit-cost ratios, and physical activity associated with new walking and cycling infrastructure across contexts, using multiple types of data, suggests that building walking and cycling infrastructure could improve population health and reduce inequalities.

AB - Introduction: High quality evaluations of new walking and cycling routes are scarce and understanding contextual mechanisms influencing outcomes is limited. Using different types of data we investigate how context is associated with change in use of new and upgraded walking and cycling infrastructure, and the association between infrastructure use and overall physical activity.Methods: We conducted repeat cross-sectional pre-post analysis of monitoring data from a variety of walking and cycling routes built in 84 locations across the United Kingdom (the Connect2 programme, 2009–2013), using four-day user counts (pre n = 189,250; post n = 319,531), next-to-pass surveys of route users (pre n = 15,641; post n = 20,253), and automatic counter data that generated estimates of total annual users. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified contextual features associated with 50% increase and doubling of pedestrians, cyclists, and sub-groups of users. We combined insights from monitoring data with longitudinal cohort data (the iConnect study) from residents living near three Connect2 schemes. Residents were surveyed by post at baseline, one-year (n = 1853) and two-year follow-up (n = 1524) to investigate associations between use of the new infrastructure and meeting physical activity guidelines.Results: The routes were associated with increased use (median increase in cyclists 52%, pedestrians 38%; p < 0.001). Large relative increases were associated with low baseline levels (e.g. odds of doubling cycling were halved for each additional 10,000 annual cyclists at baseline: OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31, 0.77). Use was associated with meeting physical activity guidelines in both repeat cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses (users vs. non-users after one year, OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.37, 3.21; after two years, OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.37, 2.96).Conclusions: This examination of use, users, benefit-cost ratios, and physical activity associated with new walking and cycling infrastructure across contexts, using multiple types of data, suggests that building walking and cycling infrastructure could improve population health and reduce inequalities.

KW - Context

KW - Cycling

KW - Evaluation

KW - Infrastructure

KW - Physical activity

KW - Walking

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85097862560&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jth.2020.100968

DO - 10.1016/j.jth.2020.100968

M3 - Article (Academic Journal)

AN - SCOPUS:85097862560

VL - 20

JO - Journal of Transport and Health

JF - Journal of Transport and Health

SN - 2214-1413

M1 - 100968

ER -

A natural experimental study of new walking and cycling infrastructure across the United Kingdom: The Connect2 programme

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Handle.net

Other files and links

Fingerprint

ICONNECT

Cite this

A natural experimental study of new walking and cycling infrastructure across the United Kingdom: The Connect2 programme

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Handle.net

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Projects

ICONNECT

Cite this