Assessment methods for bicycle environment safety and comfort: A scoping review

IF 4.9 2区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Sustainable Futures Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-20 DOI:10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100457
Tufail Ahmed , Ali Pirdavani , Irene Febryana Sitohang , Geert Wets , Davy Janssens
{"title":"Assessment methods for bicycle environment safety and comfort: A scoping review","authors":"Tufail Ahmed ,&nbsp;Ali Pirdavani ,&nbsp;Irene Febryana Sitohang ,&nbsp;Geert Wets ,&nbsp;Davy Janssens","doi":"10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100457","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Bicycle use is associated with health benefits due to increased physical activity. Encouraging cycling in cities requires the establishment of supportive infrastructure. Various assessment methods have been developed to evaluate bicycle infrastructures' safety, comfort, and efficiency. This scoping review provides an overview of the methods used to assess bicycle infrastructure, as reported in relevant studies. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in three scientific databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar) using the PRISMA guideline extension for scoping the reviews. The retrieved articles were screened, coded, and synthesized according to the eligibility criteria. Fifty-five articles met the criteria and were included in the scoping review. The assessment methodologies primarily focused on four aspects: vibration or roughness index, Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS), Bikeability Index (BI), and Bicycle Safety Index (BSI). Questionnaires (evaluation platforms), bicycles, GIS, and video cameras were the most commonly used equipment/resources. Roughness index assessments relied on objective data, such as acceleration values, and some studies validated their findings using cyclists' subjective comfort perception. On the other hand, subjective data were predominantly used for BLOS assessment. The BIs present a more comprehensive analysis of bicycles by including more components of bicycle infrastructure design. Methodologies have been developed to evaluate various aspects of the bicycle infrastructure. However, selecting appropriate methods for specific contexts cannot be undermined. This review article provides a helpful guide on selecting an appropriate methodology for the unique characteristics of the study area that enhances the effectiveness of bicycle infrastructure evaluation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34478,"journal":{"name":"Sustainable Futures","volume":"9 ","pages":"Article 100457"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainable Futures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666188825000279","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Bicycle use is associated with health benefits due to increased physical activity. Encouraging cycling in cities requires the establishment of supportive infrastructure. Various assessment methods have been developed to evaluate bicycle infrastructures' safety, comfort, and efficiency. This scoping review provides an overview of the methods used to assess bicycle infrastructure, as reported in relevant studies. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in three scientific databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar) using the PRISMA guideline extension for scoping the reviews. The retrieved articles were screened, coded, and synthesized according to the eligibility criteria. Fifty-five articles met the criteria and were included in the scoping review. The assessment methodologies primarily focused on four aspects: vibration or roughness index, Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS), Bikeability Index (BI), and Bicycle Safety Index (BSI). Questionnaires (evaluation platforms), bicycles, GIS, and video cameras were the most commonly used equipment/resources. Roughness index assessments relied on objective data, such as acceleration values, and some studies validated their findings using cyclists' subjective comfort perception. On the other hand, subjective data were predominantly used for BLOS assessment. The BIs present a more comprehensive analysis of bicycles by including more components of bicycle infrastructure design. Methodologies have been developed to evaluate various aspects of the bicycle infrastructure. However, selecting appropriate methods for specific contexts cannot be undermined. This review article provides a helpful guide on selecting an appropriate methodology for the unique characteristics of the study area that enhances the effectiveness of bicycle infrastructure evaluation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自行车环境安全性与舒适性评价方法综述
由于增加了体力活动,使用自行车对健康有益。鼓励在城市骑自行车需要建立支持性的基础设施。自行车基础设施的安全性、舒适性和效率评价方法层出不穷。这一范围审查提供了用于评估自行车基础设施的方法的概述,如相关研究报告。在三个科学数据库(Web of Science、Scopus和b谷歌Scholar)中进行了全面的文献检索,使用PRISMA指南扩展来确定综述的范围。根据入选标准对检索到的文章进行筛选、编码和合成。55篇文章符合标准,纳入了范围审查。评估方法主要集中在四个方面:振动或粗糙度指数、自行车服务水平(BLOS)、自行车可骑行性指数(BI)和自行车安全指数(BSI)。问卷(评价平台)、自行车、GIS和摄像机是最常用的设备/资源。粗糙度指数评估依赖于客观数据,如加速度值,一些研究使用骑自行车者的主观舒适度来验证他们的发现。另一方面,主观数据主要用于BLOS评估。BIs通过纳入自行车基础设施设计的更多组成部分,对自行车进行了更全面的分析。已经开发出评估自行车基础设施各个方面的方法。然而,为特定的上下文选择适当的方法是不能被破坏的。这篇综述文章提供了一个有益的指导,以选择合适的方法,研究区域的独特特点,提高自行车基础设施评价的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Sustainable Futures
Sustainable Futures Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
9.30
自引率
1.80%
发文量
34
审稿时长
71 days
期刊介绍: Sustainable Futures: is a journal focused on the intersection of sustainability, environment and technology from various disciplines in social sciences, and their larger implications for corporation, government, education institutions, regions and society both at present and in the future. It provides an advanced platform for studies related to sustainability and sustainable development in society, economics, environment, and culture. The scope of the journal is broad and encourages interdisciplinary research, as well as welcoming theoretical and practical research from all methodological approaches.
期刊最新文献
Exploring the impact of climate change anxiety and social media information overload on unusual purchase behavior Why direct payments are more effective for combatting poverty than fair prices Exploring the role of media in climate change awareness and adaptation among university students in Islamabad, Pakistan Sustainable leather processing: A critical review of emerging green technologies and practices The impact mechanism of ESG ratings on firm value: An empirical study based on the multi-period difference-in-differences approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1