Assessing the Policy Environment for Active Mobility in Cities—Development and Feasibility of the PASTA Cycling and Walking Policy Environment Score

The importance of setting a policy focus on promoting cycling and walking as sustainable and healthy modes of transport is increasingly recognized. However, to date a science-driven scoring system to assess the policy environment for cycling and walking is lacking. In this study, spreadsheet-based scoring systems for cycling and walking were developed, including six dimensions (cycling/walking culture, social acceptance, perception of traffic safety, advocacy, politics and urban planning). Feasibility was tested using qualitative data from pre-specified sections of semi-standardized interview and workshop reports from a European research project in seven cities, assessed independently by two experts. Disagreements were resolved by discussions of no more than 75 minutes per city. On the dimension “perception of traffic safety”, quantitative panel data were used. While the interrater agreement was fair, feasibility was confirmed in general. Validity testing against social norms towards active travel, modal split and network length was encouraging for the policy area of cycling. Rating the policy friendliness for cycling and walking separately was found to be appropriate, as different cities received the highest scores for each. Replicating this approach in a more standardized way would pave the way towards a transparent, evidence-based system for benchmarking policy approaches of cities towards cycling and walking.

Has the bicycle / walking reestablished itself as mode of transport among regular citizens or only sub-cultures? no pedestrians / cyclists on the urban landscape / only hiking to mainstream acceptance Here the actual practice of walking / cycling should be taken into account rather than the social perception on those modes (rate those under "social acceptance") below.
interview questions on: 1) walking/cycling-friendlines: "How pedestrian and cyclist friendly is the city? What are greatest challenges? What has to be changed / improved?" 2) current AM measures: "Which overall strategies exist to support AM in x?" Social Acceptance How do drivers and the community at large regard urban cyclists / pedestrians? no social acceptance to widespread social acceptance.
How are walkers and cyclists regarded? This refers to the image, as reflected in media reports (esp. for cyclists -mostly positive or negative press reports?) as well as in statements by politicians and stakeholders (interviews, workshops). For walking being regarded as a "normal behaviour" not warranting media reports (=high score) or not being accepted as a mode of transport (= low score 0-1) could apply.
Interview questions on: 1) framework conditions: "Role of the institution, AM measures/policies they are involved in, how was health argument considered? " 2) walking/cycling-friendliness: "How pedestrian and cyclist friendly is the city? What are greatest challenges? What has to be changed / improved?" 3) barriers: "What are the challenges supporting AM and implementing AM measures in x?" Workshop section on: 4) Framework conditions: "Which framework conditions were advantageous in city x (for the implementation of AM measures)?" 5) Success factors: "what are the most important conditions which need to be in place for measures to be successful" 6) Barriers: "What are the main barriers? What are the reasons for the fact that the measures suggested were not implemented so far? Is there a reason why they failed?"

Perception of Safety
With your day-to-day travel needs in mind, would you say that cycling / walking "for travel" is safe (with regards to traffic)?
(data: 5-pt scale -very much disagree -very much agree) Score will be constructed using PASTA BLQ data, do not enter a score yourself. For later validation, please also list any statemens made regarding traffic safety (perceived or real) of pedestrians/ cyclists in the respective city (e.g. in interview qu's on barriers, walking-/cycling-friendliness) (e.g. search for "accid", "injur", "safe"). Don't list general statements like "safety is important for cycling" but things like "there are many accidents in city x so cyclists feel unsafe").
search interviews for key words, see left No organized advocacy to strong advocacy with political influence Both the existence of an advocacy group as well as their actual activities should be taken into account. E.g. in some cases no specific adovcacy group may exist for walking (low score 0-1), or a general advocacy for sustainability may be very active on walking (high score 2-3). Strong specific advocacy group with political influence = score 4. Accordingly, no advocacy because the topic is already well established would also be a low score.
Interview with one of these groups, if existing Workshop report on: 1) framework conditions: "Which framework conditions were advantageous in city x (for the implementation of AM measures)? " 2) success factors: "what are the most important conditions which need to be in place for measures to be successful?" 3) barriers: "What are the main barriers? What are the reasons for the fact that the measures suggested were not implemented so far? Is there a reason why they failed?" or knowledge of the local team

Politics
Political climate regarding urban cycling / walking being non-existent on a political level to active and passionate political involvement Here the political practice and processes should be the main basis for decision, e.g. the existence of political leadership, reflection in political discussions and recognition of cycling/walking by politicians and policy makers. Reflection in policy documents, allocation of dedicated funding can also be taken into account but this is mostly about the "climate".

Interview questions on:
1) current AM measures: "Which overall strategies exist to support AM in x? " 2) collaboration: "Is there cooperation between health and transport/mobility sector?" 3) walking/cycling-friendliness: "How pedestrian and cyclist friendly is the city? What are greatest challenges? What has to be changed / improved?" 4) barriers:"What are the challenges supporting AM and implementing AM measures in x? "

Urban Planning
How much emphasis do the city's planners place on pedestrian/cycling infrastructure car-centric urban planners to planners who think (bicycle -and) pedestrian -first This should mostly reflect current practice in transport planning but can also contain an element of existence of policy documents meant to influence planning practice.

Interview questions on:
1) current AM measures: "Which overall strategies exist to support AM in x? " 2) walking/cycling-friendliness:""How pedestrian and cyclist friendly is the city? What are greatest challenges? What has to be changed / improved?" 3) barriers:"What are the challenges supporting AM and implementing AM measures in x? 4) framework conditions:"Role of the institution, AM measures/policies they are involved in, how was health argument considered? " Workshop section on: 5) framework conditions: "Which framework conditions were advantageous in city x (for the implementation of AM measures)? " 6) success factors: "what are the most important conditions which need to be in place for measures to be successful?" 7) barriers: "What are the main barriers? What are the reasons for the fact that the measures suggested were not implemented so far? Is there a reason why they failed?" Figure S1 -continued 2 Figure S1 -continued 3. Score levels (0-4) Additional explanations 0 not existing, no evidence of recogition or reflection 1 existing but quite limited, low level of recognition or reflection 2 some reflection, existence and recognition -ok but not perfect, average 3 quite a lot existing, good reflection and recognition 4 very much existing, great reflection and recogntion, we could not wish for much more (we are probably not that far from Copenhagen or Amsterdam) * based on Copenhagenize, except for perception of safety ° Note: Questions were not asked the same way in all cities and sometimes questions were amended or dropped -pls scan the reports for sections that address such themes.

Further specifications regarding useful questons in the interviews / workshops: Theme
Interview question(s) walking/cycling-friendlinHow pedestrian and cyclist friendly is the city? What are greatest challenges? What has to be changed / improved? current AM measure Which overall strategies exist to support AM in x? barriers What are the challenges supporting AM and implementing AM measures in x? collaboration Is there cooperation between health and transport/mobility sector? In which way cooperation takes place? framework conditions Role of the institution, AM measures/policies they are involved in, how was health argument considered?
Workshop questions/sections framework conditions Which framework conditions were advantageous in city x (for the implementation of AM measures)? success factors what are the most important conditions which need to be in place for measures to be successful? barriers What are the main barriers? What are the reasons for the fact that the measures suggested were not implemented so far? Is there a reason why they failed? Figure S2: Example of empty scoring sheets for cycling and for walking 1 , Based on question "With your day-to-day travel needs in mind would you say that cycling ʹfor travelʹ is safe (with regards to traffic)." (category: never-cyclists). Score value = sum of percentages: ʺagreeʺ plus ʺvery much agreeʺx 2 minus ʺdisagreeʺ minus ʺvery much disagreeʺx 2. 2 Scoring scale: ≥ -125 = 0, -100 --124.9 = 1, -75 --99.9 = 2, -50 --74.9 = 3, ≤ -50 = 4 3 Due to a slightly different approach taken to the workshops and interviews, data was used for sensitivity analysis only 1 , Based on question "With your day-to-day travel needs in mind would you say that walking ʹfor travelʹ is safe (with regards to traffic)." (category: never-walkers). Score value = sum of percentages: ʺagreeʺ plus ʺvery much agreeʺx 2 minus ʺdisagreeʺ minus ʺvery much disagreeʺx 2. 2 Scoring scale: <9 = 0, 28.9 -9 = 1, 48.9 -29 = 2, 69.9 -49 = 3, ≥ 70 = 4