The document summarizes a presentation on frameworks for cycling research. It discusses 4 conceptual frameworks from different fields that include elements of individual strength, administration, education, and infrastructure/urban design. However, the element of infrastructure is often absent from studies in low-cycling countries. The document argues that future research on cycling needs to acknowledge the role of urban design and infrastructure in order to have a complete socio-ecological understanding of cycling behavior and avoid blaming individuals. Interventions aimed at increasing cycling rates may have limited success without addressing urban environment factors.

1. Nudging towards
a communal concept
for cycling research
Scientists for Cycling Colloquium
12 June 2017 in Nijmegen
Katja Leyendecker
PhD researcher
Northumbria University, GB
Nijmegen 2017
S4C : Velo-city

2. Framework search
Literature search (academic articles)
Last 20 years
Different research fields (concerned with
transport)
Graphic illustration (not just descriptive)

3. Conceptual elements
Conservative
Individual strength
Administrative
“You”
Name
Characteristic
State role
Action level
Symbol
Liberal
Societal learning
Educational
“Us”
Radical
Systems
Social-supportive
“Bigger than us”
Based on Stone (2001)

4. Framework 1: psychology
Acker et al (2010)

5. Framework 2: public health
Barton & Grant (2006)

6. Framework 3: planning/health
Hanson et al (2005)

7. Framework 4: sociology
Jensen (2013)

8. Summary
 the 3 policy elements are included in each model
 in varying constellations
The radical element (infrastructure, urban design) is absent in low-cycling countries :
Pucher & Buehler (2012:351)
No city in Europe or North America
has achieved high level of cycling
without an extensive network of
well-integrated bike lanes and paths
that provide separation from motor
vehicle traffic. […] Separate cycling
facilities are a crucial first step
towards increasing cycling and
making it socially inclusive.”
(my emphases)
Fiona Spotswood et al (2015:22)
“Despite significant national and
local efforts over the last decade
to stimulate uptake of cycling in
the UK, levels of cycling
(particularly utility cycling)
remain at around 2% of
journeys.”

9. Where’s the urban environment?
[O]ur results also indicate low use of cycle helmets and very low use
of high-visibility clothing in adolescence. Additionally, very few girls
cycled as part of their school commute. There is therefore the
potential for interventions to have an even greater impact on
encouraging cycling, and safe cycling behaviours, in young people. For
interventions to be more successful they will
̶ need to address not only rates of cycling and
̶ the teaching of safety skills and knowledge,
̶ but also confront such biases as ‘unrealistic optimism’ and the
assumption of above-average skill, which may mean that for some
cyclists safety knowledge is learned but not considered relevant
to the self.
For knowledge to affect behaviour, hazard awareness needs to be
augmented by hazard relevance.
Concluding words (my emphases) from source:
Alison Teyhan, Cornish, R., Boyd, A., Sissons Joshi, M., Macleod, J., 2016. The impact of cycle
proficiency training on cycle-related behaviours and accidents in adolescence: findings from ALSPAC,
a UK longitudinal cohort. BMC PUBLIC Health 16. doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3138-2
Apropos?
Eh?
Focus why?
Ok…
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal

10. Conclusion
High-cycling
Low-cycling
Cycling in policy, education and marketing campaigns
Emphasis :
Illustrative!
= maintenance
= building infrastructure
Personal
responsibility
Socialnorm
Urbandesign

11. Future. Suggestions.
Acknowledge urban design in academic studies
• So the study is complete and complies with
socio-ecological models
• To avoid victim blaming (putting agency where
it cannot / ought not exist)
• To allow urban-design campaigners to use the
study findings

12. References
1. Acker, V., Wee, B., & Witlox, F. (2010). When transport geography meets
social psychology: toward a conceptual model of travel behaviour.
Transport Reviews, 30(2), 219–240.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640902943453
2. Barton, H., & Grant, M. (2006). A health map for the local human
habitat. Journal of The Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 126(6),
252–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466424006070466
3. Hanson, S., Berkowitz, B. A., Ainsworth, B. E., Blair, S. N., Cervero, R. B.,
Chen, D. D. T., … Voith, R. P. (2005). Does the Built Environment Influence
Physical Activity? Examining the Evidence - TRB Special Report 282.
Transportation Research Board: Institute of Medicine of the National
Academies.
4. Jensen, O. B. (2013). Staging mobilities. Routledge.
5. Pucher, J. R., & Buehler, R. (2012). City cycling. MIT Press.
6. Spotswood, F., Chatterton, T., Tapp, A., Williams, D., 2015. Analysing
cycling as a social practice: An empirical grounding for behaviour change.
Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 29, 22–33.
doi:10.1016/j.trf.2014.12.001
7. Stone, D. (2001). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making
(Revised Edition) 2nd Edition.

13. Thank you!
Katja Leyendecker
@katsdekker
katja.leyendecker@unn.ac.uk