Search

Benchmarking and monitoring of urban design and transport features is crucial to achieving local and international health and sustainability goals. However, most urban indicator frameworks use coarse spatial scales that either only allow between-city comparisons, or require expensive, technical, local spatial analyses for within-city comparisons. This study developed a reusable, open-source urban indicator computational framework using open data to enable consistent local and global comparative analyses. We show this framework by calculating spatial indicators-for 25 diverse cities in 19 countries-of urban design and transport features that support health and sustainability. We link these indicators to cities' policy contexts, and identify populations living above and below critical thresholds for physical activity through walking. Efforts to broaden participation in crowdsourcing data and to calculate globally consistent indicators are essential for planning evidence-informed urban interventions, monitoring policy effects, and learning lessons from peer cities to achieve health, equity, and sustainability goals., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests GB reports grants from The Public Good Projects during the conduct of the study. BG-C reports Senior Principal Research Fellowship (GNT1107672) and grant support (numbers 1061404 and 9100003) from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) during the conduct of the study. CH reports grant support (numbers 1061404 and 9100003) from the NHMRC. SL reports an experiential fellowship from the College of Social Science and Humanities, Northeastern University during the conduct of this study. JFS reports personal fees from SPARK programmes of Gopher Sport, and serving on the board of directors for Rails to Trails Conservancy, outside the submitted work. JFS also has a copyright on SPARK physical activity programmes with royalties paid by Gopher Sport. EC and JFS report support from the Australian Catholic University during the conduct of this study. DS reports support from Washington University in St Louis, Center for Diabetes Translation Research (number P30DK092950 from the US National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [NIDDK] and the US National Institutes of Health [NIH]) and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cooperative agreement number U48DP006395) during the conduct of this study. MAA reports grants from the US National Cancer Institute at the NIH (R01CA198915) during the conduct of the study. LVB reports grants from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (grant number 304636/2020-7) during the conduct of the study. All other authors report no competing interests. The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent the official views of any of the NIDDK, NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or of any of the funding agencies supporting this work., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

City planning policies influence urban lifestyles, health, and sustainability. We assessed policy frameworks for city planning for 25 cities across 19 lower-middle-income countries, upper-middle-income countries, and high-income countries to identify whether these policies supported the creation of healthy and sustainable cities. We systematically collected policy data for evidence-informed indicators related to integrated city planning, air pollution, destination accessibility, distribution of employment, demand management, design, density, distance to public transport, and transport infrastructure investment. Content analysis identified strengths, limitations, and gaps in policies, allowing us to draw comparisons between cities. We found that despite common policy rhetoric endorsing healthy and sustainable cities, there was a paucity of measurable policy targets in place to achieve these aspirations. Some policies were inconsistent with public health evidence, which sets up barriers to achieving healthy and sustainable urban environments. There is an urgent need to build capacity for health-enhancing city planning policy and governance, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests BG-C reports Senior Principal Research Fellowship (GNT1107672) and grant (number 1061404) support from National Health and Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study. CH was also supported by National Health and Medical Research Council through the Centre for Research Excellence in Healthy Liveable Communities (grant number 1061404). GB reports grants from the Public Good Projects, during the conduct of the study. JFS reports personal fees from Sports, Play, and Active Recreation for Kids (SPARK) physical activity programmes of Gopher Sport, and travel support from Rails to Trails Conservancy, outside the submitted work. JFS also has a copyright on SPARK physical activity programmes with royalties paid by Gopher Sport. DA was supported by an Impact Acceleration Award from the Economic and Social Research Council and funding from the Global Challenges Research Fund administered by the Department for the Economy, Northern Ireland, UK. SL was supported by the experiential fellowships from the College of Social Science and Humanities, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA. EC and JFS were supported by the Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. AAF is supported by a research fellowship from the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) (#309301/2020-3). TB was supported by a Doctoral Scholarship from Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. AP-R was supported by the Centre for Health and Social Care Research at the University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia, Vic, Spain, and funding was provided by the Barcelona Provincial Council, Barcelona, Spain and City Council of Vic, Vic, Spain. CDGR is supported by the Portugal National Funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Instituto Público, Lisbon, Portugal, under the Research Fellowship (UI/BD/152231/2021). DS was supported by Washington University in St Louis, Center for Diabetes Translation Research, St Louis, MO, USA (P30DK092950 from National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health) and by the Cooperative Agreement Number U48DP006395 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. RFH was supported by the UK Research and Innovation—National Health and Medical Research Council (project reference MR/T038934/1). The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent the official views of any of the funding agencies supporting this work. Funding sources had no role in writing the manuscript or in the decision to submit for publication. All other authors report no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: BG-C and MS were supported by National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Principal Research Fellowship funding (grant numbers: 1107672 and 1136250); BG-C and HB were also supported by RMIT Vice-Chancellor's Fellowships; CH was supported through an NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Healthy Liveable Communities (grant number: 1061404) and The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre (grant number: 9100003); DA was supported by an Impact Acceleration Award from the Economic and Social Research Council and funding from the Global Challenges Research Fund administered by the Department for the Economy, Northern Ireland, UK. EC's research was supported by the Australian Catholic University. APR was supported by the Centre for Health and Social Care Research of the University of Vic, Central University of Catalonia. The Barcelona Provincial Council and City Council of Vic provided funding for the Barcelona and Vic data collection. AAF was supported by a research fellowship from the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (grant number: 309301/2020-3). GB was supported by a grant from The Public Goods Projects. SL was supported by the experiential fellowships from College of Social Science and Humanities, Northeastern University. JFS was supported by Australian Catholic University. DS was supported by the Center for Diabetes Translation Research, Washington University in St Louis, MO, (grant number: P30DK092950 from National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [NIDDK] at the National Institutes of Health [NIH]) and by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (grant number: U48DP006395). MAA was supported by the National Cancer Institute at the NIH (grant number: R01CA198915). GV was supported by Ayudas para contratos Juan de la Cierva-formación 2019 (grant number: FJC2019-041233-I), and the Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa 2019–23 Program (grant number: CEX2018-000806-S) from the Spanish Government. RFH was supported by the UK Research and Innovation—National Health and Medical Research Council (grant number: MR/T038934/1). All other authors declare no competing interests. The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent the official views of any of the NIDDK/NIH, CDC, or of any of the funding agencies supporting this work. We thank Karel Frömel, Faculty of Physical Culture, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic; David Vale, Lisbon School of Architecture, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal; Andreia Pizarro, Research Center in Physical Activity, Health and Leisure (CIAFEL), Faculty of Sports, and Laboratory for Integrative and Translational Research in Population Health (ITR), University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; Javier Molina-García, Department of Teaching of Musical, Visual and Corporal Expression, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain; Hannah Hook, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA; Adetoyeje Y Oyeyemi, Department of Physiotherapy, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Nigeria; Belinda Nemec, Melbourne; Judy Boyce, Healthy Liveable Cities Lab, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Objectives: To examine (1) the effect of new dock-less bicycle-sharing programmes on change in travel mode and (2) the correlates of change in travel mode., Design: A retrospective natural experimental study., Setting: 12 neighbourhoods in Shanghai., Participants: 1265 respondents were recruited for a retrospective study in May 2017., Main Outcome Measures: Prevalence of cycling before and after launch of dock-less bicycle-sharing programme., Results: The proportion of participants cycling for transport increased from 33.3% prior to the launch of the bicycle-sharing programmes to 48.3% 1 year after the launch (p<0.001). Being in the age group of 30-49 years (OR 2.28; 95% CI 1.30 to 4.00), living within the inner ring of the city (OR 2.27; 95% CI 1.22 to 4.26), having dedicated bicycle lanes (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.68) and perceiving riding shared bicycles as fashionable (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.76) were positively associated with adopting cycling for transport. Access to a public transportation stop/station (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.99) was inversely correlated with adopting cycling for transport., Conclusions: Dock-less bicycle sharing may promote bicycle use in a metropolitan setting. Findings from this study also highlight the importance of cycling-friendly built environments and cultural norms as facilitators of adopting cycling., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)