The economic value for cycling – a methodological assessment for Starter Cities

Hábitat y Sociedad (issn 2173-125X), n.º 13, noviembre de 2020, Universidad de Sevilla, pp. 29-45 29 http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/HabitatySociedad.2020.i13.03 Abstract The concerns about climate change, the effects of congestion and pollution in urban areas have led to the debate about the need for alternative mobility patterns to reduce the negative impacts of transport. At the same time, research on sustainable urban mobility highlights the value of cycling as a mean of transport and its economic, social and environmental benefits. Despite the proven benefits, investments in cycling are not always considered a priority, especially in contexts where cycling is residual, such as Portuguese cities, with an average modal share of 0.5%. In this context, the Boost project is developing a Starter Cities Roadmap to promote cycling. This article aims to discuss the methodological steps beyond a comprehensive Economic Value for Cycling (EVC) tool. This tool is aimed to analyze the impacts of a higher use of the bicycle as a transportation mode and its multi-dimensional impacts in the economy. Departing from the example of starter cities in Portugal and the available statistical information, a full description of the methodology applied (and challenges) is offered. This method covers from the calculation of the bicycle industry value chain; economic impacts of reduced fuel consumption caused by modal shift; and the value of environmental, energy and health benefits at a local level. Key words Value of Cycling; Cycling Impacts; Cycling Benefits; Economic Impacts Resumen Las preocupaciones sobre el cambio climático, los efectos de la congestión y la contaminación en las áreas urbanas han puesto en evidencia la necesidad de patrones de movilidad alternativos que reduzcan los impactos negativos del transporte. Al mismo tiempo, la investigación sobre movilidad urbana sostenible destaca la bicicleta como un medio de transporte eficaz y sus beneficios económicos, sociales y medioambientales. A pesar de esto, la inversión en la bicicleta no siempre se considera una prioridad, especialmente en contextos donde el uso de la bicicleta es residual. Esto ocurre en las ciudades portuguesas con una participación modal promedio de 0,5%. En este contexto, el proyecto Boost desarrolló un guion de “Starter Cities” para promover el uso de la bicicleta. Este artículo tiene como objetivo discutir los pasos metodológicos para desarrollar una herramienta multidimensional a partir Valor Económico para la Bicicleta (VEB), para analizar los impactos directos e indirectos de un mayor uso de la bicicleta sobre la economía. Partiendo del ejemplo de las “Starter Cities” en Portugal y de la información estadística disponible, se ofrece una descripción completa de los desafíos y metodología aplicada. Este método abarca el cálculo de la cadena de valor de la industria de la bicicleta; los impactos económicos del consumo reducido de combustible causado por el cambio modal; y el valor de los beneficios ambientales, energéticos y para la salud a nivel local. Palabras clave Valor del ciclismo; Impactos de la bicicleta; Beneficios del ciclismo; Impactos económicos The economic value for cycling – a methodological assessment for Starter Cities El valor económico del ciclismo - una evaluación metodológica para las “Starter Cities” João Pedro Ferreira,1 Catarina Isidoro,2 Frederico Moura Sá3 y José Carlos Baptista Da Mota4 Fecha de recepción: v – Fecha de aceptación: 06-07-2020 Hábitat y Sociedad (issn 2173-125X), n.º 13, noviembre de 2020, pp. 29-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/HabitatySociedad.2020.i13.03 1 University of Florida, USA. E-mail: [email protected]. 2 Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, University of Aveiro, Portugal E-mail: [email protected]. 3 Ibídem. E-mail: [email protected]. 4 Ibídem. E-mail: [email protected]. João Pedro Ferreira, Catarina Isidoro, Frederico Moura Sá y José Carlos Baptista Da Mota 30 Hábitat y Sociedad (issn 2173-125X), n.º 13, noviembre de 2020, Universidad de Sevilla, pp. 29-45 http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/HabitatySociedad.2020.i13.03 Introduction The promotion of soft (or active) mobility and the use of bicycles as a means of transport for daily urban mobility has gained recognition in recent years (Banister, 2008; Zayed, 2017). The growing concern about climate change, congestion and pollution in urban areas have led to the need to rethink transport policy and urban planning policy (Ferreira, Ramos, Cruz & Barata, 2017; Moura & Sá, 2017). In terms of mobility, this has translated into promoting the use of bicycles as a daily means of transport (Dill & Carr, 2003; Lindsay, Macmillan & Woodward, 2011). From mobility and transport policies point of view, this has translated into new guidelines and the allocation of funds for sustainable mobility. In 2009 the concept of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) is introduced, whose implementation should consider the growth of active modes as a determining factor for long-term change of urban mobility (Rupprecht Consult, 2019). In the European Commission’s White Paper on Transport (2011)5 which will guide transport policy for the period 2010-2050, it is mentioned the importance of promoting cycling as an alternative to car use, and cycling as an opportunity to provide urban clean and sustainable urban mobility, and also to improve safety by reducing the number of road transport victims. The European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility (2016)6 reinforces the importance of SUMPs to enable and encourage cycling.7 Although there is no official European Union (EU) bicycle strategy, in 2017 the European Cycling Federation (ECF) has developed its own strategy and a set of recommendations - EU Cycling Strategy. Recommendations for Delivering Green Growth and Effective Mobility in 2030 – that has 4 general objectives are: place cycling as an equal partner in the mobility system; increase bicycle use in the EU by 50%; reduce deaths and serious injuries among cyclists for miles traveled; and increase EU investment on cycling to € 3 billion over the period 2021-27 and € 6 billion over 2028- 34 (European Cyclists’ Federation, 2017). Regarding the funding policy, there are € 70 billion of the Cohesion Fund and the European Regional Development Fund for the for 2014-2020 period to support and co-finance investments to help create smarter, efficient and safer transport systems, including investments for pedestrian and bicycle mobility.8 In Portugal, the program “Portugal Ciclável 2030” was launched in September 2018 by the Assistant Secretary of State of the Environment, with a 300 million euros budget to build 960 kilometers of cycle paths over 12 years (Ministério do Ambiente, 2018) and in the following the National Strategy for Cyclic Active Mobility 2020-20309 was approved. Other major investments are planned in countries such as the United Kingdom or Italy, among others (ECF & COLIBI-COLIPED, 2014; Vergnani, 2019). At the same time, as infrastructure investment is taking place, there is an increase in research on soft mobility, namely to understand what may motivate bicycle use instead of motor vehicles (Cox, 2019; Delso et al., 2018; Dill, 2009; Held et al., 2015; Marqués et al., 2014; Tiwari et al., 2008). Even within the ECF, the emergence of the Scientists for Cycling10 network reflects the need to produce knowledge and bring it to decision makers. In this context, this work aims to discuss the concept of the economic value for cycling and the appropriated calculation methodologies. The paper begins by listing the main advantages of cycling. It then describes the reality of modal split in Portugal. Finally, it summarizes part 5 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/strategies/2011_white_paper_en 6 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:e44d3c21-531e- 11e6-89bd- 0 1aa75ed71a1.0002.02/ DOC_1&format=PDF 7 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/ themes/urban/cycling/guidance-cycling- projects-eu/cycling-policy- a nd-back- ground_en 8 Cf. 6 COM (2017)283 final. 9 https://dre.pt/application/conteudo/123666113 10 https://ecf.com/community/scientists-cycling The economic value for cycling – a methodological assessment for Starter Cities Hábitat y Sociedad (issn 2173-125X), n.º 13, noviembre de 2020, Universidad de Sevilla, pp. 29-45 31 http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/HabitatySociedad.2020.i13.03 of the ambition and objective of the Boost project,11 a research project promoted by the University of Porto and University of Aveiro and funded by the FCT, and the methodology chosen to calculate the economic value for cycling, considering the Portuguese reality, but also the available statistical information. In this work, we will look to a specific type of cities. BYPAD (2008) and Silva et al., (2019) there are the “champion cities” (modal split above 20%), “climber cities” (between 20 and 10 %) and the “starter cities” (modal split below 10%). These “starter cities” are in an unfavorable situation, with no tradition of cycling, and without information and tools that specifically consider their problems and respective solutions. Focused on Portugal, the economic impacts of bicycle use will be studied at national and local levels. At the national scale, the bicycle value chain and impact of changing the commuting patterns will be analyzed. At the local level and in a context where the majority of the municipalities fit a profile of “starter cities”, it will be assessed the environmental, energy impacts and health benefits related to the use of bicycles for the 308 Portuguese municipalities. It is expected that the developed tool, which includes an evaluation model of the Economic Value for Cycling (EVC), will be useful and noteworthy to policy makers in order to encourage policies that promote soft/active mobility. In the end of the project, it should be readily apparent to various audiences and agents, the costs and advantages of promoting cycling in the Portuguese economy. The Economic Value for Cycling – a multidimensional approach Many studies have underline the benefits associated with the modal shift to bicycle, ranging from the promotion of a flexible mobility (Fishman, Washington & Haworth, 2014); reduction of fossil fuel consumption and pollutant emissions (Blondel, Mispelon & Ferguson, 2011); congestion reduction (Litman, 2016) public health and quality of life benefits (Oja et al., 2011). In other words, we can say that cycling brings economic benefits to both users and society (European Cyclists’ Federation, 2017; Fishman et al., 2014). According to the estimate presented by the ECF in 2016, the economic benefits associated with cycling in Europe were € 513 billion per year (Neun & Haubold, 2016). As recently underline by Brey et al. (2017), in Seville, investment in the remarkable economic benefits of the bicycle promotion policy in Seville, with significant savings in travel times, vehicle use and infrastructure maintenance, health, traffic accidents, and air pollution for both cyclists and society as a whole. However, investment in cycling is not considered a priority (Krizec, 2007) and is not evenly distributed throughout the territory. In this context, we highlight the “bike friendly cities” that are characterized by the adoption of transport policies, the creation of infrastructures and the awareness of society to prioritize bicycle use (Zayed, 2017). Beyond an object or a good, a bicycle is a means of transport that induces action by its user. Its usefulness lies in either serving to move faster or more efficiently than by other means or the fact that its use generates joy and pleasure. In any case, it has impacts that can influence the way society organizes itself: in the daily consumption, in the time we spend, in jobs and production of our economy and country, in the 11 https://boost.up.pt/ João Pedro Ferreira, Catarina Isidoro, Frederico Moura Sá y José Carlos Baptista Da Mota 32 Hábitat y Sociedad (issn 2173-125X), n.º 13, noviembre de 2020, Universidad de Sevilla, pp. 29-45 http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/HabitatySociedad.2020.i13.03 means of transportation that we choose, the speed at which we move, or even the diseases we may or may not have. This has been recently recognized in by Bullock, Brereton & Bailey (2017). In their work, these authors conclude that wider economic benefits are a significant and often overlooked benefit of bike-share. Generally, all these benefits (which include economic, cultural, social, environmental dimensions among others), as underlined by Gössling et al. (2019), can be translated into a monetary framework as a way to allow comparison. In this way, it turns out to be more useful for decision makers when dealing with a multiplicity of phenomena and distinct needs. However, from a methodological point of view this assessment according to a general framework is not that simple. In terms of the available statistical information, Raje & Saffrey (2008) and Weston et al. (2012) highlight the problems associated with the lack of data. The ECF considers that the bicycle counts are ad hoc and linked to specific infrastructure projects, making it impossible to evaluate and analyze its evolution (European Cyclists’ Federation, 2017).The lack of statistics is an even more critical phenomenon when, as stated by Krizec (2007), there is an advantage in identifying benefits at the municipal or regional level. Additionally, Steenberghen et al. (2017) underline the absence of a standard methodology as well as methods that incorporate the full extent of the benefits associated with cycling (also underlined by Raje & Saffrey, 2008). Thus, it is common to simplify when assessing the direct benefits of cycling, based on indicators such as turnover, bicycle sales and rental activity, or jobs generated. Alternatively, ECF limits these indicators to a microeconomic benefits category associated with the bicycle manufacturing industry and bicycle components and accessories (including bicycle rental and tourism services).12 Such a narrow view diminishes the calculation of the possible benefits of bicycles compared to other modes of transport (Zeebroeck & Charles, 2014). According to Krizec (2007) and Gössling et al. (2019), a particular case of undervaluation of the economic value of cycling occurs in Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA). This methodology usually includes criteria such as: travel time, vehicle operation costs, accidents/collisions, noise, air pollution and environmental impacts. This excludes from the generality of CBAs the externalities of transport.13 One exception is the Copenhagen study (Gössling et al., 2019; Gössling & Choi, 2015) where important concepts such as contingent assessment, hedonic price index, travel cost assessment, avoided social costs, health costs, and shadow prices are included. This work, as well as others that followed (Blondiau & Zeebroeck, 2014; Macmillan et al., 2013; Sustrans, 2019) had the merit of assessing the impact of cycling not just as an alternative to the car that generates a certain financial impact, but by also incorporating different societal dimensions. More recently, Pelechrinis, Zacharias, Kokkodis & Lappas (2017) in a study about the introduction of a bike sharing system in Pittsburgh, have recently concluded that being close to a station contributed for the increase of housing prices and rents. In their study, they also argue that the positive impact on the housing values is consequently translated to increased income for the local government due to increased property taxes. In this line, the ECF, in addition to the already listed microeconomic benefits, also highlights other key factors, in particular those related to environment, energy, natural resources and health issues14 (Macmillan et al., 2014; Neun & Haubold, 2016). The following table summarizes the benefits and indicators presented in this paper. 12 A report by the League of American Bicyclists and the Alliance for Biking & Walking (Flusche, 2012) attributed more than € 5 billion to the US bicycle manufacturing industry. In the European case, Blondiau et al. (2014; 2016) conclude that over 650,000 jobs are linked to cycling and over 400,000 new jobs can be created with duplication of bicycle users in the EU-27, particularly in the most vulnerable population groups. 13 Some examples are: There is no public participation in the definition of the criteria to be included and in some cases only those aspects that translate into monetary values are considered, leaving out relevant social aspects. Raje & Saffrey (2008) goes beyond this explanation and also considers that the benefits of cycling are only measured when a modal shift occurs. 14 Other benefits of a more qualitative nature linked to the bicycle culture are also identified in this paper. The economic value for cycling – a methodological assessment for Starter Cities Hábitat y Sociedad (issn 2173-125X), n.º 13, noviembre de 2020, Universidad de Sevilla, pp. 29-45 33 http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/HabitatySociedad.2020.i13.03 BENEFITS INDICATORS Environment and Climate CO2 Emission Savings Air pollution reduction Noise reduction Environmental assets Energy and Resources Fuel savings Resource savings in vehicle production + infrastructure construction Active Mobility and E- Mobility Health Benefits Mortality Reduction Healthier Lifestyles - Reduction of Morbidity Mental Health Benefits Children Health Benefits Road Safety Benefits - Accidents Avoided Decrease of employee absenteeism Economic Benefits Bicycle industry Sales and Repairs Cycling tourism Material damage prevented (car accidents) Shopping by bike - Local retailers/business Social Benefits Social equality Gender equality Children’s Welfare Security Accessibility Connectivity between people Mobility Traffic congestion Construction and maintenance of road infrastructure Public transport Connectivity - inter and multi mobility The “starter cities” in Portugal and the Boost Project After decades of over-reliance on cars, many cities around the world are adopting non-motorized modes of transportation to meet environmental challenges and improve urban quality of life (Zayed, 2017). In Europe, the promotion of a modal split in urban travels, such as the shift from motorized individual transport to cycling, is part of the EU policy, expressed on the Urban Mobility Package (COM(2013) 913 final) and Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (European Commission, 2013). But, the introduction of such measures is happening at different rates, and in 2008 the BYPAD had considered “champion cities” Table 1. -Summary of the benefits associated with the cycling and the indicators for assessing the associated economic value. Source: Own elaboration based on Neun & Haubold, 2016. João Pedro Ferreira, Catarina Isidoro, Frederico Moura Sá y José Carlos Baptista Da Mota 34 Hábitat y Sociedad (issn 2173-125X), n.º 13, noviembre de 2020, Universidad de Sevilla, pp. 29-45 http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/HabitatySociedad.2020.i13.03 those with modal share above 20% (e. g. Copenhagen 35% and Amsterdam 32%), “climber cities” when the modal split varies between 10 and 20% (e. g. Helsinki with 11% and Berlin with 13%) and “starter cities” which have a cycling modal split below 10%.15 The central challenge of European public policy is to maintain the cycling rates where they are high, and in other places to boost its growth (BYPAD, 2008; Deffner, Hefter, Rudolph & Ziel, 2012). Nowadays, Portuguese cities overwhelmingly correspond to “starter cities”. According to the Mobility Survey in the Porto and Lisbon Metropolitan Areas, commuting by bicycle represents 0.4% in AMP and 0.5% in AML (INE, 2018). In AMP, Póvoa do Varzim is the municipality with the highest percentage (1.96%), while in AML the highest value observed is in Cascais (1.41%) (INE, 2018).The 2011 Census also show residual values of bicycle use in Portugal, with a national average of 0.5% per municipality. It is in the Baixo Vouga sub-region that most people regularly ride bicycles (3.9%). In this region, Murtosa stands out with 17% of trips made by bicycle (INE, 2011; Mota, 2015). These numbers reflect the motorization of Portuguese society (in 2011, 60% of trips were made by private car), a consequence of the territorial transformations that have been taking place based on individualized mobility, which are characterized by an extensive and fragmented occupation of the territory that requires the use of individual motorized transport (Ferreira, 2016; Moura e Sá, 2017). So, among urban planners and national and regional entities there is the consensus that it is necessary to start by qualifying urban spaces and implement basic cycling infrastructures (bicycle lanes, bicycle parking, traffic calming zones). Only then, it is more adequate to implement information and promotion campaigns, communicating the measures and the advantages of cycling (BYPAD, 2008; Deffner et al., 2012). At the same time, more authors support that cycling is an opportunity for a orderly transformation of the territory, enabling to achieve a better quality of life with minimum energy, environmental and financial costs (Moura e Sá, 2017). Within this context, project Boost – Boosting starter cycling cities aims to promote change and bridge the knowledge gap in starter cities by developing a planning support system for cycling: The Starter City Roadmap. The Roadmap that provides specific technical knowhow and support to local authorities and urban planners, comprises three main tools: an assessment framework of the Gross Potential for Cycling-aims to identify the areas with the higher and lower potential for cycling in relation to the target-population, given their willingness to cycle, and the target-areas, due to their built environment, land use and geographic conditi ons; an assessment framework of the Economic Value for Cycling (EVC) —aims to reveal the economic value of the cycling both at the local and at the and national levels, by providing a set of economic indicators considering the bicycle industry and environmental, energy impacts, and health benefits, among others; and (3) a Cycling Measures Selector (CMS)— aims to support the identification of the most appropriate mobility management measures to encourage cycling in starter cities, depending on specific contexts and objectives. Next, we will detail how the EVC tool is going to be developed. 15 https://ecf.com/resources/cyclingfacts-and-figures/capital-cities The economic value for cycling – a methodological assessment for Starter Cities Hábitat y Sociedad (issn 2173-125X), n.º 13, noviembre de 2020, Universidad de Sevilla, pp. 29-45 35 http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/HabitatySociedad.2020.i13.03 A comprehensive methodology for economic assessment Bearing in mind the difficulties and limitations previously reported, we propose a new methodology for the assessment of economic value for cycling in Portugal. As any other study, the methodology applied is restricted to the data available and to the specific circumstances concerning the bicycle implementation in Portugal. Unfortunately, data collection and availability are even more critical when the goal is to develop a tool that can be used on a municipal scale and which results should be simple to interpret based on clear assumptions. Thus, the methodology developed seeks to anticipate four distinct indicators to highlight the benefits of increased bicycle use. Firstly, an economic indicator linked to the generate value added chain that will seek to improve the analysis of production and sales. A second linked to the change in the consumption patterns of the Portuguese induced by a greater use of the bicycle. A third dimension associated with the effect of reducing fuel consumption and its effects on greenhouse gas emissions and other local pollutants. And finally, a fourth dimension that corresponds to the health benefits. The value-added of bicycle production Any product or good that is produced results from the use of other goods as intermediate products. To produce a bicycle a set of other materials and inputs are necessary to make the product final assembly possible. There are no bicycles without roller chains or without plastic or similar materials. In turn, there are no roller chains without the production and exploitation of metals. And ultimately, nothing could happen without electricity production. Thus, among the central aspects of the economic valorization of cycling, one that has been neglected is the bicycle production chain and the value added and employment during its final assembly but also in all its components and components inputs. This assessment aims to better understand how promoting cycling can generate gains in the national economy or the different regions. Other studies have focused on other economies and different production processes. Tzeng, Tang, Hung & Chang (2006) have classified the bicycle production as a conventional industry and concluded that the material costs represent 70% of the production cost. The second most important cost was the labor costs, followed by export-related costs and importation taxes from places of demand that could make international trade of this product more expensive. In its turn, Randall & Ulrich (2001) stressed the need for producers to obey and compete for the best product differentiation strategies. Somehow, since bicycle production (and concurrence) is made to serve the international public, then also manufacturing, distribution and sales practices tend to follow international rules (Tzeng et al., 2006). However, Towill & Christopher (2010) states that there is still room to obey to the customer proximity logic, and product customization is a way to respond to the customers’ demands from different markets. Recently Gylling, Heikkilä, Jussila & Saarinen (2015) reported the advantages of small and medium-sized enterprises to maintain local production close to customers and market where they operate because they are less expose to currency fluctuations, but essentially because they know better the market in which they operate. João Pedro Ferreira, Catarina Isidoro, Frederico Moura Sá y José Carlos Baptista Da Mota 36 Hábitat y Sociedad (issn 2173-125X), n.º 13, noviembre de 2020, Universidad de Sevilla, pp. 29-45 http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/HabitatySociedad.2020.i13.03 In any case, all this analysis has still to be done regarding the Portuguese market, and the perception of the value of cycling is limited to its direct indicators. This approach is even more relevant considering how this industry has evolved in recent years (more than 75% in the last 8 years, according to the national statistical office). Considering this direct method, the Portugal Bike Value project16 had already estimated that the bicycle sector in Portugal was in 3rd place among the European counterparts in 2014, with 1.6 million units produced, ten leading companies, twenty component companies and 7500 associated jobs. A significant part of this production was for the external market. This is the opposite situation of the car sector, since in Portugal 98% of purchased cars are imported (Ferreira, Ramos, Cruz, Barata & Lahr, 2018; INE, 2012). From the Portuguese economy perspective, this factor immediately reveals a comparative advantage of bicycles “consumption” over cars. To ascertain the contribution of bicycles production to the Portuguese economy, it is necessary to use models capable of integrating the dependency relations between this industry and the components required for assembling and selling the bicycles. In turn, these components also use other components. Thus, the final contribution of bicycles, as other products, corresponds to an intricate relationship between various products that can be produced either domestically or abroad and in different industries. In summary, analyzing the value added chain is to estimate the contribution of all activities that create value for a specific product or service (Gylling et al., 2015), since the raw materials development to the final product that is delivered to the consumer (Humphrey, 2003). In our case, we will use the methodology of Ferreira, Ramos & Lahr (2020), based on the adaptation of the multi-regional input-output model (MRIO) that accounts for all the contributions required in the national and international context for a bicycle to reach the market. Other dimensions of the production chain are also considered, namely, employment, taxes and subsidies (Ferreira et al., 2020). At the same time, this contribution is allocated to the regions with the most value added generated. Commuting and changes of the consumption patterns The decision to use or not to use a bicycle as a means of transport is a decision made by a member or several members of a family and that results from the weighting of several factors. Saelens, Frank & Med (2003) begins by pointing out two factors for choosing non-motorized transport: proximity (distance) and connectivity (direct direction). In turn, Parkin, Wardman & Page (2008) listed different aspects that may determine the preference for cycling, grouped into different categories: (1) socioeconomic (age, gender, car ownership, income, qualifications, ethnicity, household and marital status, type of employment, experience in cycling, and practice in other physical activities); (2) geographical (travel distance, house location); (3) weather (rain and wind); and (4) associated with the transportation system (cycling infrastructures, motorized traffic volume and public transportation systems) (Parkin et al., 2008). This factors heterogeneity shows that the decision to change the commuting mode choice may be subject to a multitude of variables, some of which are difficult to control, while others may be the subject of political intervention at national, regional or local level. 16 http://portugalbikevalue.pt/0/pt/ The economic value for cycling – a methodological assessment for Starter Cities Hábitat y Sociedad (issn 2173-125X), n.º 13, noviembre de 2020, Universidad de Sevilla, pp. 29-45 37 http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/HabitatySociedad.2020.i13.03 Another important advantage of cycling is its potential impact on the local economy over other modes of transport. Blondiau & Zeebroeck (2014) and Haubold (2016) conclude that cyclists go more to local shops, restaurants and cafes (Blondiau, Van Zeebroeck & Haubold, 2016) and customers arriving by bike spend more than those arriving by car, shop closer to home and are loyal customers (Haubold, 2016). More recently, Blondiau et al. (2016) estimated that 111 billion euros a year are spent by people bike in the EU-28. Other study estimates that 60 million recreational cyclists per year in the US spend over 40 billion euros on meals, transportation, accommodation, souvenirs and entertainment (Flusche, 2012). Also in Europe with the expected growth of tourism and the increasing pressure on resources, particularly on fossil fuels, low-carbon tourism agendas are becoming more important (Weston & Mota, 2012). In this context, to calculate the economic value of bicycle tourism in Europe, the Cycle Route Demand Forecast Model was created, designed to generate estimates per year of the number of vacation trips, daily trips and direct expenses of those trips on a cycle route, by region and in total. The total economic impact of the estimated 2,295 billion trips —2,274 billion one-day trips and 20,4 million overnight stays in Europe in 2012 was 44 billion euros per year— € 35 billion in daily trips and € 9 billion in overnight stays (Piket, Eijgelaar & Peeters, 2013; Weston et al., 2012). What is clear is that from an economic point of view, replace cars with bicycles has direct implications for the family’s consumption structure and this phenomenon is happening worldwide. The proliferation of Bike Sharing systems around the world precisely reveals this phenomenon. In 2010 there were around 100 Bike Sharing programs worldwide and by 2015 this number has increased to 800 cities (Ferreira, Barata, Ramos & Cruz, 2014; Ricci, 2015). This significant increase had consequences for the modal split. In Barcelona, the modal share of bicycles went from 0.75% in 2005 to 1.76% in 2007, while in Paris there was a 1.5% increase in the modal share between 2001 and 2007 (Demaio, 2009). This data shows thousands of people using less income and car-related products (in Europe, households spend on average 13.2% of their income on transports (Eurostat, 2018)) and thereby changing their consumption patterns. In short, when the car is replaced by the bicycle, there is a reduction in fuel consumption and other costs associated with commuting (parking, tolls) so families have two possibilities: or save more money or spend on other products. Either way, this money will return to the economy, in the form of other expenses that the families will have because they will have more money available. Ferreira et al. (2014) measure the economic and environmental impacts of these changes and estimate the important economic gains associated with the fuel consumption reduction which in turn generates less fossil fuel imports. More recently, the same authors applied this type of study to commuting patterns and mode-switching behavior commuting patterns scenarios in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area. This type of benefits, which results from changes on the consumption patterns, is usually included in the literature, among others, as one of the “shadow benefits” that result from investments in transport infrastructure or from behavioral changes Ferreira et al. (2018). João Pedro Ferreira, Catarina Isidoro, Frederico Moura Sá y José Carlos Baptista Da Mota 44 Hábitat y Sociedad (issn 2173-125X), n.º 13, noviembre de 2020, Universidad de Sevilla, pp. 29-46 http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/HabitatySociedad.2020.i13.03 Litman, Todd (2016). Evaluating Active Transport Benefits and Costs. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Available at: https://www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm. pdf (access: 27-01-2020). Macmillan, Alexandra, Connor, Jennie, Witten, Karen, Kearns, Robin, Rees, David & Woodward, Alistair (2013). The Societal Costs and Benefits of Commuter Bicycling : Simulating the Effects of Specific Policies Using System Dynamics Modelling. Environmental Health Perspectives. 122(4), 1-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307250 Marqués, Ricardo, Hernández-Herrador, Vicente & Calvo-Salazar, Manuel (2014). Sevilla: a successful experience of bicycle promotion in a Mediterranean context. In Marchettini, Nadia; Brebbia, Carlos Alberto; Pulselli, Riccardo; & Bastianoni, Simone (eds.), The Sustainable City IX. Urban Regeneration and Sustainability (pp. 769-781). Southampton: Witt Press. DOI: https://doi. org/10.2495/SC140651 Mason, Jacob, Fulton, Lew & McDonald, Zaane (2015). A Global High Shift Scenario: The Potential for Dramatically Increasing Bicycle and E-bike Use in Cities Around the World, with Estimated Energy, CO2, and Cost Impacts (November 12, 2015). New York: ITDP and UC Davis. Available at: https://www.itdp. org/2015/11/12/a-global-high-shift-cycling-scenar- io/ (access: 27-01-2020). Médard de Chardon, Cyrille (2016). A Geographical Analysis of Bicycle Sharing Systems (PhD. Thesis). University of Luxembourg and Université catholique de Louvain. Available at: http://hdl.handle. net/2078.1/178080 (access: 27-01-2020). Ministério do Ambiente (2018). Programa Portugal Ciclável 2030. República Portuguesa Mota, José Carlos (2014). Cidades e Regiões Bike- Friendly de Segunda Geração, Desafios do Período de Programação 2014-2020. In Seminário “Os novos desafios dos transportes e mobilidade e a mobilidade suave, ESTGA Águeda, Portugal. Available at: https://pt.slideshare.net/zemota/cidades-e-re- gies-bike-friendly-apresentaovf (access: 27-01-2020). Moura e Sá, Frederico (2016). A Infraestrutura como Referencial para o Ordenamento do Território (PhD Thesis). FAUP - Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade do Porto. Available at: https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/handle/10216/87913 (access: 27-01-2020). Moura e Sá, Frederico (2017). A integração da bicicleta em meio urbano principais desafios e orientações. In Seminário “Mais Bicicletas, Melhores Cidades” Norte On Bike, UPTEC - Parque de Ciência e Tecnologia da Universidade do Porto. Neun, Manfred & Haubold, Holger (2016). THE EU CYCLING ECONOMY - Arguments for an integrated EU cycling policy. Brussels: ECF. Available at: https://ecf.com/sites/ecf.com/files/FINAL%20 THE%20EU%20CYCLING%20ECONOMY_ low%20res.pdf (access: 27-01-2020). Oja, Pekka, Titze, Sylvia, Bauman, Adrian de Geus, Bas, Krenn, Patricia, Reger-Nash, Bill & Kohlberger, T. (2011). Health benefits of cycling: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 21(4), 496-509. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01299.x Parkin, John, Wardman, Mark & Page, Matthew (2008). Estimation of the determinants of bicycle mode share for the journey to work using census data. Transportation 35, 93-109. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1007/s11116-007-9137-5 Pelechrinis, Konstantinos, Zacharias, Christos, Kokkodis, Marios & Lappas, Theodoros (2017). Economic impact and policy implications from urban shared transportation: The case of Pittsburgh’s shared bike system. PLoS ONE, 12(8); e0184092. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184092 Piket, Pieter, Eijgelaar, EKE & Peeters, Paul (2013). European cycle tourism: a tool for sustainable regional rural development. Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, 7(2-3), 115-119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19041/Apstract/2013/2-3/19 Raje, Fiona & Saffrey, Andrew (2008). The Value of Cycling. UK: Phil Jones Associated & University of Birmingham. Available at: Https://Www.Gov.Uk/ Government/Uploads/System/Uploads/Attachment_Data/File/509587/Value-of-Cycling.Pdf (access: 25-01-2020). Randall, Taylor; & Ulrich, Karl (2001). Product Variety, Supply Chain Structure, and Firm Performance : Analysis of the U.S. Bicycle Industry. Management Science, 47(12), 1588-1604. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1287/mnsc.47.12.1588.10237 Ricci, Miriam (2015). Bike sharing: A review of evidence on impacts and processes of implementation and operation. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 15, 28-38. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2015.03.003 Rojas-Rueda, David, de Nazelle, Audrey, Tainio, Marko & Nieuwenhuijsen, Mark J. (2011). The health risks and benefits of cycling in urban environments compared with car use: health impact assessment study. BMJ, 343, d4521. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmj.d4521 Rupprecht Consult (2019). Guidelines For Developing and Implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan, Second Edition. Rutter, Harry, Cavill, Nick, Racioppi, Francesca, Dinsdale, Hywell, Oja, Pekka; & Kahlmeier, Sonja (2013). Economic impact of reduced mortality due to increased cycling. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(1), 89-92. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.09.053 Saelens, Brian. E.; Sallis, James. F.; & Frank, Lawrence. D. (2003). Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transpor- The economic value for cycling – a methodological assessment for Starter Cities Hábitat y Sociedad (issn 2173-125X), n.º 13, noviembre de 2020, Universidad de Sevilla, pp. 29-46 45 http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/HabitatySociedad.2020.i13.03 tation, urban design, and planning literatures. In Annals of Behavioral Medicine (Vol. 25, Issue 2, pp. 80-91). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15324796ABM2502_03 Silva, Cecília, Teixeira, João, Proença, Ana, Bicalho, Tamara, Cunha, Isabel & Aguiar, Ana (2019). Revealing the cycling potential of starter cycling cities: Usefulness for planning practice. Transport Policy, 81, 138-147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.05.011 Steenberghen, Thérèse, Tavares, Thiago, Richardson, James, Himpe, Willem & Crabbé, Ann (2017). Support study on data collection and analysis of active modes use and infrastructure in Europe (Final report). Work Order: MOVE/A3/SER/2015-669/SI2.730093. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c02a2c8c-ffed-11e6- 8a35-01aa75ed71a1 (access: 27-01-2020). Sustrans. (2019). Bike Life - The potential of everyday cycling. Available at: https://www.sustrans.org.uk/ media/2940/2940.pdf (access: 27-01-2020). Teschke, Kay, Reynolds, Conor C.O., Ries, Francis J., Gouge, Brian & Winters, Meghan (2012). Bicycling: Health Risk or Benefit? UBCMJ, 3(2), 6–11. Available at: https://ubcmj.med.ubc.ca/past-issues/ubcmj-volume-3-issue-2/bicycling-health-risk-or-bene- fit/ (access: 21-01-2020). Tiwari, Geetam, Arora, Anvita & Jain, Himani (2008). Bicycling in Asia. Position Paper, ITrans, Tripp, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi., 154. Tolley, Rodney. (1996). Green campuses: cutting the environmental cost of commuting. Journal of Transport Geography, 4(3), 213-217. Towill, Denis & Christopher, Martin (2010). The Supply Chain Strategy Conundrum: to be lean or agile or to be lean and agile? International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 5(3), 299-309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1367556021000026736 Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, Tang, Tzung-I; Hung, Yu-Min & Chang, Min-Lan (2006). Multiple-objective planning for a production and distribution model of the supply chain: Case of a bicycle manufacturer. Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research, 65(4), 309-320. Vergnani, Raffaele (2019, March 13th). Cycle paths and bike sharing: new funds from the Italian Ministry for the Environment. Eltis. Avaailable at https:// www.eltis.org/discover/news/cycle-paths-and-bike- sharing-new-funds-italian-ministry-environment (access: 30-05-2020). Weston, Richard; Davies, Nick; Lumsdon, Les; McGrath, Peter; Peeters, Paul; Eijgelaar, Eke; & Piket, Peter (2012). The European Cycle Route Network EuroVelo - Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Tourism. Brrussels: European Union Weston, Richard; & Mota, José Carlos (2012). Low carbon tourism travel: cycling, walking and trails. Tourism Planning and Development, 9(1), 1-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2012.658168 WHO (2009). Global health risks: mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks. World Health Organization. Available at: https://apps.who.int/ iris/handle/10665/44203 (access: 30-05-2020). WHO (2011). Health economic assessment tools (HEAT) for walking and for cycling: Methodology and user guide. World Health Organization. Available at: https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_ file/0010/352963/Heat.pdf (access: 30-05-2020). WHO (2002). A Physically active life through everyday transport. in regional office for Europe. World Health Organization. Available at: https://apps.who.int/ iris/handle/10665/107405 (access: 30-05-2020). Zayed, Mohamed A. (2017). Towards an index of city readiness for cycling. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, 5(3), 210-225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtst.2017.01.002 Zeebroeck, B. Van, & Charles, Julie. (2014). Impact et potentiel de l’usage du vélo sur l’économie et l’emploi en Région de Bruxelles-Capitale. Les effets directs et indirects de l’usage du vélo en 2002, 2012 et 2020. Rapport pour le Ministère de la Régon de Bruxelles-Capitale. https://www.gracq.org/sites/ default/files/2014rbceconomievelo.pdf Zhang, Yongping & Mi, Zhifu (2018). Environmental benefits of bike sharing: A big data-based analysis. Applied Energy, 220, 296-301. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.101 Pedro Ferreira, João; Isidoro, Catarina; Moura Sá, Frederico; y Baptista Da Mota, José Carlos (2020). The economic value for cycling – a methodological assessment for Starter Cities. Hábitat y Sociedad, 13, 29-45. <http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/HabitatySociedad.2020.i13.03> João Pedro Ferreira, Catarina Isidoro, Frederico Moura Sá y José Carlos Baptista Da Mota 46 Hábitat y Sociedad (issn 2173-125X), n.º 13, noviembre de 2020, Universidad de Sevilla, pp. 29-46 http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/HabitatySociedad.2020.i13.03