Preferences for urban street space reallocation to encourage cycling: A Best-Worst Scaling profile case approach

IF 5.8 2区 工程技术 Q1 TRANSPORTATION
Travel Behaviour and Society Pub Date : 2026-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-02 DOI:10.1016/j.tbs.2025.101205
Isabella Malet Lambert , Wouter Poortinga , Dimitris Potoglou , Dimitrios Xenias
{"title":"Preferences for urban street space reallocation to encourage cycling: A Best-Worst Scaling profile case approach","authors":"Isabella Malet Lambert ,&nbsp;Wouter Poortinga ,&nbsp;Dimitris Potoglou ,&nbsp;Dimitrios Xenias","doi":"10.1016/j.tbs.2025.101205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Traffic restrictions and the construction of cycling infrastructure are effective strategies to reduce private car use and promote active travel in urban areas. However, implementing these measures often involves reallocating existing street space, which can lead to public resistance. This study employed a Best-Worst-Scaling (BWS) profile case approach to examine preferences for different types of street space reallocation to encourage cycling and to explore how these preferences are influenced by psychological factors such as driver and cyclist identities, perceived infringement on freedom, and place attachment. A Britain-based sample of participants (N = 509) evaluated images depicting various configurations of bike lanes, traffic restrictions, and cycle parking, where road or pedestrian space was reallocated to accommodate cycling infrastructure. Participants identified the most and least preferred features of these designs. The findings indicate broad public support for cycling infrastructure and traffic restrictions, although preferences varied significantly across street layouts. Participants particularly opposed the removal of car parking and showed a strong preference for reallocating road space rather than pedestrian space. Both cyclists and drivers favoured segregated cycling infrastructure over painted bike lanes on roads. While place attachment had limited impact on preferences, perceptions of cycling infrastructure as infringing on individual freedom emerged as a significant factor shaping space reallocation preferences. These findings offer insights for policymakers and urban planners, highlighting design strategies that may be more publicly acceptable and identifying areas where resistance to urban redesigns is likely to emerge.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51534,"journal":{"name":"Travel Behaviour and Society","volume":"43 ","pages":"Article 101205"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Travel Behaviour and Society","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214367X25002236","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"TRANSPORTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Traffic restrictions and the construction of cycling infrastructure are effective strategies to reduce private car use and promote active travel in urban areas. However, implementing these measures often involves reallocating existing street space, which can lead to public resistance. This study employed a Best-Worst-Scaling (BWS) profile case approach to examine preferences for different types of street space reallocation to encourage cycling and to explore how these preferences are influenced by psychological factors such as driver and cyclist identities, perceived infringement on freedom, and place attachment. A Britain-based sample of participants (N = 509) evaluated images depicting various configurations of bike lanes, traffic restrictions, and cycle parking, where road or pedestrian space was reallocated to accommodate cycling infrastructure. Participants identified the most and least preferred features of these designs. The findings indicate broad public support for cycling infrastructure and traffic restrictions, although preferences varied significantly across street layouts. Participants particularly opposed the removal of car parking and showed a strong preference for reallocating road space rather than pedestrian space. Both cyclists and drivers favoured segregated cycling infrastructure over painted bike lanes on roads. While place attachment had limited impact on preferences, perceptions of cycling infrastructure as infringing on individual freedom emerged as a significant factor shaping space reallocation preferences. These findings offer insights for policymakers and urban planners, highlighting design strategies that may be more publicly acceptable and identifying areas where resistance to urban redesigns is likely to emerge.
鼓励骑行的城市街道空间重新分配偏好:最佳-最差尺度案例方法
交通限制和自行车基础设施建设是减少私家车使用和促进城市主动出行的有效策略。然而,实施这些措施往往涉及重新分配现有的街道空间,这可能会引起公众的抵制。本研究采用best - worst scaling (BWS)案例分析方法,考察了不同类型街道空间重新分配的偏好,以鼓励骑自行车,并探讨了这些偏好如何受到心理因素的影响,如司机和骑自行车者的身份、对自由的感知侵犯和地方依恋。英国的参与者样本(N = 509)评估了描绘各种自行车道配置、交通限制和自行车停车场的图像,其中道路或行人空间被重新分配以容纳自行车基础设施。参与者确定了这些设计中最受欢迎和最不受欢迎的特征。调查结果表明,公众广泛支持自行车基础设施和交通限制,尽管不同街道布局的偏好差异很大。与会者特别反对取消停车场,并强烈倾向于重新分配道路空间,而不是行人空间。骑自行车的人和开车的人都喜欢隔离的自行车基础设施,而不是道路上涂漆的自行车道。虽然地点依恋对偏好的影响有限,但对骑行基础设施侵犯个人自由的看法成为塑造空间再分配偏好的重要因素。这些发现为政策制定者和城市规划者提供了见解,突出了可能更容易被公众接受的设计策略,并确定了可能出现城市重新设计阻力的领域。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: Travel Behaviour and Society is an interdisciplinary journal publishing high-quality original papers which report leading edge research in theories, methodologies and applications concerning transportation issues and challenges which involve the social and spatial dimensions. In particular, it provides a discussion forum for major research in travel behaviour, transportation infrastructure, transportation and environmental issues, mobility and social sustainability, transportation geographic information systems (TGIS), transportation and quality of life, transportation data collection and analysis, etc.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书