Developing and implementing 20-mph speed limits in Edinburgh and Belfast: mixed-methods study

R. Jepson, G. Baker, C. Cleland, A. Cope, N. Craig, Charlie Foster, R. Hunter, F. Kee, M. Kelly, P. Kelly, K. Milton, Glenna F. Nightingale, K. Turner, A. Williams, J. Woodcock
{"title":"Developing and implementing 20-mph speed limits in Edinburgh and Belfast: mixed-methods study","authors":"R. Jepson, G. Baker, C. Cleland, A. Cope, N. Craig, Charlie Foster, R. Hunter, F. Kee, M. Kelly, P. Kelly, K. Milton, Glenna F. Nightingale, K. Turner, A. Williams, J. Woodcock","doi":"10.3310/xazi9445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Transport initiatives such as 20-mph (≈30-km/h) speed limits are anticipated to result in fewer road casualties and improve perceptions of safety, leading to increases in active travel. Lower speeds may also lead to more pleasant environments in which to live, work and play.\n \n \n \n The main objective was to evaluate and understand the processes and effects of developing and implementing 20-mph speed limits in Edinburgh and Belfast. The focus was on health-related outcomes (casualties and active travel) that may lead to public health improvements. An additional objective was to investigate the political and policy factors (conditions) that led to the decision to introduce the new speed limits.\n \n \n \n This was a mixed-methods study that comprised an outcome, process, policy and economic evaluation of two natural experiments.\n \n \n \n The study was set in Edinburgh, Scotland, and Belfast, Northern Ireland, from 2000 to 2018.\n \n \n \n The whole population of each city were participants, as well as stakeholders involved in implementation and decision-making processes.\n \n \n \n The intervention was the implementation of 20-mph legislation, signage, enforcement, and education and awareness-raising in Edinburgh (citywide) and Belfast (city centre).\n \n \n \n The main outcomes measured were speed; number, type and severity of road collisions; perceptions; and liveability.\n \n \n \n The following data sources were used – routinely and locally collected quantitative data for speed, volume of traffic, casualties and collisions, and costs; documents and print media; surveys; interviews and focus groups; and Google Street View (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA).\n \n \n \n Collisions and casualties – the overall percentage reduction in casualty rates was 39% (the overall percentage reduction in collision rates was 40%) in Edinburgh. The percentage reduction for each level of severity was 23% for fatal casualties, 33% for serious casualties and 37% for minor casualties. In Belfast there was a 2% reduction in casualties, reflecting differences in the size, reach and implementation of the two schemes. Perceptions – in Edinburgh there was an increase in two factors (support for 20 mph and rule-following after implementation) supported by the qualitative data. Liveability – for both cities, there was a small statistical increase in liveability. Speed – mean and median speeds reduced by 1.34 mph and 0.47 mph, respectively, at 12 months in Edinburgh, with no statistically significant changes in Belfast. History, political context, local policy goals, local priorities and leadership influenced decision-making and implementation in the two cities.\n \n \n \n There was no analysis of active travel outcomes because the available data were not suitable.\n \n \n \n The pre-implementation period is important. It helps frame public and political attitudes. The scale of implementation and additional activities in the two cities had a bearing on the impacts. The citywide approach adopted by Edinburgh was effective in reducing speeds and positively affected a range of public health outcomes. The city-centre approach in Belfast (where speeds were already low) was less effective. However, the main outcome of these schemes was a reduction in road casualties at all levels of severity.\n \n \n \n Future work should develop a statistical approach to public health interventions that incorporates variables from multiple outcomes. In this study, each outcome was analysed independently of each other. Furthermore, population measures of active travel that can be administered simply, inexpensively and at scale should be developed.\n \n \n \n This study is registered as ISRCTN10200526.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":32306,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/xazi9445","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Transport initiatives such as 20-mph (≈30-km/h) speed limits are anticipated to result in fewer road casualties and improve perceptions of safety, leading to increases in active travel. Lower speeds may also lead to more pleasant environments in which to live, work and play. The main objective was to evaluate and understand the processes and effects of developing and implementing 20-mph speed limits in Edinburgh and Belfast. The focus was on health-related outcomes (casualties and active travel) that may lead to public health improvements. An additional objective was to investigate the political and policy factors (conditions) that led to the decision to introduce the new speed limits. This was a mixed-methods study that comprised an outcome, process, policy and economic evaluation of two natural experiments. The study was set in Edinburgh, Scotland, and Belfast, Northern Ireland, from 2000 to 2018. The whole population of each city were participants, as well as stakeholders involved in implementation and decision-making processes. The intervention was the implementation of 20-mph legislation, signage, enforcement, and education and awareness-raising in Edinburgh (citywide) and Belfast (city centre). The main outcomes measured were speed; number, type and severity of road collisions; perceptions; and liveability. The following data sources were used – routinely and locally collected quantitative data for speed, volume of traffic, casualties and collisions, and costs; documents and print media; surveys; interviews and focus groups; and Google Street View (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA). Collisions and casualties – the overall percentage reduction in casualty rates was 39% (the overall percentage reduction in collision rates was 40%) in Edinburgh. The percentage reduction for each level of severity was 23% for fatal casualties, 33% for serious casualties and 37% for minor casualties. In Belfast there was a 2% reduction in casualties, reflecting differences in the size, reach and implementation of the two schemes. Perceptions – in Edinburgh there was an increase in two factors (support for 20 mph and rule-following after implementation) supported by the qualitative data. Liveability – for both cities, there was a small statistical increase in liveability. Speed – mean and median speeds reduced by 1.34 mph and 0.47 mph, respectively, at 12 months in Edinburgh, with no statistically significant changes in Belfast. History, political context, local policy goals, local priorities and leadership influenced decision-making and implementation in the two cities. There was no analysis of active travel outcomes because the available data were not suitable. The pre-implementation period is important. It helps frame public and political attitudes. The scale of implementation and additional activities in the two cities had a bearing on the impacts. The citywide approach adopted by Edinburgh was effective in reducing speeds and positively affected a range of public health outcomes. The city-centre approach in Belfast (where speeds were already low) was less effective. However, the main outcome of these schemes was a reduction in road casualties at all levels of severity. Future work should develop a statistical approach to public health interventions that incorporates variables from multiple outcomes. In this study, each outcome was analysed independently of each other. Furthermore, population measures of active travel that can be administered simply, inexpensively and at scale should be developed. This study is registered as ISRCTN10200526. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
在爱丁堡和贝尔法斯特制定和实施时速20英里的限速:混合方法研究
预计限速20英里/小时(≈30公里/小时)等交通举措将减少道路伤亡,提高安全意识,从而增加主动出行。较低的速度也可能带来更舒适的生活、工作和娱乐环境。主要目的是评估和了解在爱丁堡和贝尔法斯特制定和实施20英里/小时限速的过程和效果。重点关注可能导致公共卫生改善的健康相关结果(伤亡和积极旅行)。另一个目标是调查导致决定引入新限速的政治和政策因素(条件)。这是一项混合方法研究,包括两个自然实验的结果、过程、政策和经济评估。这项研究于2000年至2018年在苏格兰爱丁堡和北爱尔兰贝尔法斯特进行。每个城市的全体居民以及参与执行和决策过程的利益攸关方都是参与者。干预措施是在爱丁堡(全市)和贝尔法斯特(市中心)实施时速20英里的立法、标识、执法、教育和提高认识。测量的主要结果是速度;道路碰撞的数量、类型和严重程度;感知;以及宜居性。使用了以下数据来源——常规和本地收集的速度、交通量、伤亡和碰撞以及成本的定量数据;文件和印刷媒体;调查;访谈和焦点小组;和谷歌街景(谷歌股份有限公司,山景,加利福尼亚州,美国)。碰撞和伤亡——爱丁堡的伤亡率总体下降了39%(碰撞率总体下降40%)。每种严重程度的致命伤亡减少23%,严重伤亡减少33%,轻微伤亡减少37%。贝尔法斯特的伤亡人数减少了2%,这反映出两个计划在规模、范围和实施方面的差异。感知——在爱丁堡,有两个因素(支持20 mph和实施后的规则遵循)。宜居性——这两个城市的宜居性都有小幅的统计增长。速度-平均速度和中间速度降低1.34 英里/小时和0.47 爱丁堡在12个月时分别为每小时12英里,贝尔法斯特没有统计上的显著变化。历史、政治背景、地方政策目标、地方优先事项和领导力影响了这两个城市的决策和实施。由于现有数据不合适,因此没有对积极旅行结果进行分析。实施前阶段很重要。它有助于形成公众和政治态度。这两个城市的实施规模和额外活动对影响产生了影响。爱丁堡采取的全市范围的方法有效地降低了速度,并对一系列公共卫生结果产生了积极影响。贝尔法斯特市中心的方法(那里的速度已经很低)效果较差。然而,这些计划的主要成果是减少了各级严重程度的道路伤亡。未来的工作应该制定一种纳入多种结果变量的公共卫生干预统计方法。在这项研究中,对每种结果进行了独立分析。此外,应该制定可以简单、廉价和大规模管理的积极旅行的人口指标。本研究注册号为ISRCTN10200526。该项目由国家卫生与保健研究所公共卫生研究计划资助,并将在《公共卫生研究》上全文发表;第10卷,第9期。有关更多项目信息,请访问NIHR期刊图书馆网站。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
46 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信