Análisis transversal de las actividades

Measures of transport policy can be divided into both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ measures. It is here where issues arise with the over exertion and emphasis on softer measures which further emphasises the need of the individual to change and alter to fit the system.

Hard measures generally relate to improvement in infrastructure and public transport services as well as increased stipulation on car use such as congestion charging or other increases in cost in order to prohibit or ration car use. Buehler and Dill’s (2016) review on bicycle networks effects of cycling reveals that bikeway networks have a positive relationship with cycling levels, with separate paths and/or cycle lanes

preferred over cycling in roadways with motorised traffic. Whilst Yang et al.’s (2019) review of the relationships between cycling and built environment characteristics

(2007-2017) highlights the importance of street connectivity and the presence of cycling paths in enabling cycling for commuting and other transportation purposes.

Other built environment factors however, such as land use mix and density have a weaker or mixed association to benefiting cycling (ibid). What is also apparent according to Buehler and Dill (2016) is a hierarchy of preferences by cyclists and non-cyclists, in which some more experienced cyclists preferred riding in traffic with cars over that of cycling on separate facilities (Buehler and Dill, 2016).

Implementing hard measures however is difficult due to public opposition or political infeasibility (Bamberg et al., 2011). The importance of soft measures has therefore become increasingly important. The dissemination of information and encouragement through promotional activities, media campaigns, and educational events are used in the attempt to influence the switch from the car to more sustainable methods of travel through voluntary means and behavioural strategies. Examples of these soft

interventions to promote cycling include travel programs (personalized travel planning, workplace travel plans and school travel plans), marketing of public transport, travel awareness programs, trip reduction programmes, individualised marketing (aka smart trips), safe routes to school, bicycling specific programs, and education and training (Bamberg et al., 2011; Pucher et al., 2010). These programmes are suggested in being successful in reducing vehicle use but the shift towards cycling is rather minimal. Rather, increases in walking and transit use far exceed cycle use in all the studies reviewed by Pucher et al. (2010) relating to these programs.

When attempting to attribute the increase of cycle usage in relation to a particular intervention, difficulty arises due to the general coupling or multiple uses of

interventions (Scheepers et al., 2014; Pucher et al., 2010). Pucher et al. (2010, p.121) admit, “It would be virtually impossible to disentangle the impacts of each individual measure”. Their extensive review of 139 studies, conducted since 1990 on both peer reviewed journal articles and non-peer-reviewed studies by both governmental organisations and non-governmental organisations concluded that a mixed approach of both soft and hard measures is necessary in encouraging cycling, something that is seconded by Oosterhuis (2014). Buehler and Dill (2016) comment that quantitative studies typically fail to control for many soft policies and thus remains unclear to what extent hard infrastructure entices “individuals to cycle and to what degree car

restrictive policies ‘push’ people to consider cycling as an option” (Buehler and Dill, 2016, p.22). Although, particular interventions may be suitable and more effective to be marketed together such as cycle to school programs being promoted in areas where traffic calming polices are also being implemented (Scheepers et al., 2014; Pucher et al., 2010).

With this being said, the coupling of push and pull factors has been somewhat limited.

The lack of political will in implementing push factors due to the fear of losing electoral votes has led to an:

“Unwillingness of most British politicians (from any major party) to commit to policies that are perceived as targeting motorists: they are happy to support strategies to promote more sustainable forms of travel so long as the freedom of the motorist is not affected” (Pooley et al., 2013, p.169).

A wide problem is disconnecting from this car culture and connecting towards a cycling culture for the fear of the perceived attack on the former (being ‘anti-car’). As Batterbury (2003) interprets, transport policy in the 1990s in Britain was a victim of this with proposals including eco-taxation later ‘watered down’ and onus past down to local government level without substantial funding provided. The automobility

system configures all around it to justify its means and to disrupt the ‘other’,

resultantly leading to the abandonment of the push and pull dual approach. As a result of push factors being abandoned, a policy discourse on cycling that promotes and encourages individuals to navigate the current status quo of the transportation system exists.

In considering practice theory and its opportunity to understand interventions further, Shove (2010a) illustrates that practices are not relevant to the issues of behaviour change as it is currently narrowly defined. Watson’s (2012, p.488) acknowledgement of the lack of success regarding ‘soft’ interventions such as ‘education, persuasion and economic incentives’ leads him to suggest that an alternative approach of human action is necessary to inform interventions. Spotswood et al. (2015) argue that the current lack of success on soft measures, which target the individual, is seemingly down to the lack of altering contemporary structures of practice. It is these structures

that reproduce the current status quo and therefore the simple persuasive tactics targeted at the individual’s psychology does little to overcome this. By approaching cycling cultures through Shove et al.’s (2012) social practice framework of analysis, the approach provides a benefit in shifting the debate away from the individualistic blaming to a support of interdisciplinary intervention design. As a result then, practice theory posits, “humans, artefacts, organisms and things of nature are variously but unavoidably enmeshed in social life” (Shove, 2017, p.1). Schwanen et al. (2012) consider that the individuals behavioural decision-making is relatively insignificant when compared to automated meanings and connotations embedded within society currently. None-the-less, they contribute to the formulation of social practices, which can be succinctly outlined through Shove et al.’s (2012) materials, competence, and meanings.