Can anyone hate the bicycle? The hunt for an optimal local transportation policy to encourage bicycle usage

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fenp20 Environmental Politics ISSN: 0964-4016 (Print) 1743-8934 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fenp20 Can anyone hate the bicycle? The hunt for an optimal local transportation policy to encourage bicycle usage José I. Castillo-Manzano & Antonio Sánchez-Braza To cite this article: José I. Castillo-Manzano & Antonio Sánchez-Braza (2013) Can anyone hate the bicycle? The hunt for an optimal local transportation policy to encourage bicycle usage, Environmental Politics, 22:6, 1010-1028, DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2012.740936 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2012.740936 Published online: 04 Dec 2012. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1464 View related articles Citing articles: 9 View citing articles Can anyone hate the bicycle? The hunt for an optimal local transportation policy to encourage bicycle usage Jose ´I. Castillo-Manzano* and Antonio Sa ´nchez-Braza Facultad de Ciencias Econo ´micas y Empresariales, University of Seville, Spain Policies to promote bicycle usage in the city of Seville, Spain, are analysed, focusing on the development of a public hire-cycle system, and utilising a survey sample of 1530 citizens in the main parts of the historical old town and generalised ordered logit models. Despite the system being wellreceived and there being a growing number of users and a major modal shift towards the bicycle, it has had to contend with protests and reticence from some sectors of the population. Political and ideological variables are significant, and citizens’ philosophy of a ‘global city’. A policy of this type demands a proper citizen consultation process and a suitable communication campaign to illustrate its advantages in terms of environmental protection and social justice, otherwise the risk is run of hostility turning to vandalism and endangering the scheme’s economic viability. Keywords: sustainable cities; smart bikes; need for consensus; generalised ordered logit; vandalism Introduction The bicycle has developed immensely as a mode of urban transportation in many towns and cities. Interest in the bicycle is on the rise and due to its innumerable advantages the number of cities that are pursuing policies to promote its usage is increasing (Martens 2007). The bicycle would appear to be a mode of transportation that offers many benefits for the environment (see, for example, Chapman 2007). It is also a cheap mode of transportation with low maintenance costs (Horton 2006). Very flexible and relatively fast, it helps to reduce urban traffic congestion levels (Hopkinson and Wardman 1996), which is why it is a very practical means of travelling to one’s place of study or work (see Kingham et al. 2001) or to the shops (see Moudon et al. 2005). Thanks to all these advantages it comes as no surprise that the bicycle has come to be seen as a lifestyle choice (Horton 2006) that should be *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] Environmental Politics, 2013 Vol. 22, No. 6, 1010– © 2013 Taylor & Francis 1028, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2012.740936 encouraged in order to reduce the number of negative marginal effects involved in the usage of private automobiles (Vandenbulcke et al. 2009) while also attempting, on many occasions, to mitigate the flaws of public transportation as an alternative to the private automobile (see Beira ˜o and Cabral 2007, and Gardner and Abraham 2007 regarding commuters’ attitudes towards public transportation and the private automobile). In fact, some authors go further and are very critical of the automobile. They propose support for automobile-free futures and put forward the bicycle as a clear strategy for sustainable future transport. They consider that the automobile and the political, cultural and economic institutions, norms and practices that sustain and promote an automobile-dependent type of transport and its centrality to global capitalism, are a great contributor to the environmental problems and socioeconomic injustice faced by contemporary society (see Paterson 2007). There are many ways that bicycle usage can be encouraged, including the building of an extensive bicycle path/lane network (we refer you to the various proposals in this regard in Dill and Carr 2003, Krizek 2006). To complement this, a large number of cycle parks must be provided throughout the whole town/city (Pucher and Buehler 2005). Bicycle intermodality with the various types of public transportation must also be catered for (see Martens 2007 for example). Another possibility is to develop a public network of single-use hire bicycle stations for one-way trips. This policy has been well received in recent years thanks to the development of smart bicycles (see Bouf and Hensher 2007 or Pucher and Buehler 2008 for examples of these systems) which have reduced the threat of theft and vandalism, two of the greatest risks to bicycle development (see Line et al. 2010) and ones that can become deterrents to its usage (Vandenbulcke et al. 2009). To optimise the success of all the previously mentioned public policies for promoting bicycle usage, firstly, any possible factors that might deter people from using bicycles as a mode of urban transportation must be taken into account, such as long distances (Kingham et al. 2001), the terrain (Rodrı´guez and Joo 2004), adverse climate (Parkin et al. 2008), a high likelihood of theft (Line et al. 2010) and high accident risk (Vandenbulcke et al. 2009). Other factors that need to be taken into account are an appropriately-designed cycle lane network (Dill and Carr 2003), the right choice of cycle lane/track for each area (Tilahun et al. 2007), and the carefully studied distribution both of bicycle parks (Pucher and Buehler 2005) and hire stations (Bouf and Hensher 2007, Pucher and Buehler 2008). And, as is logical, the personal characteristics of potential cyclists, such as age, level of physical fitness, lifestyle and general patterns of activity should also be borne in mind (see Rietveld and Daniel 2004). Last, but by no means least, citizen attitude to these measures should not be overlooked and any marginal effects that might produce rejection by some citizen collective, often inherent in any public works project (see Castillo- Manzano and Lo ´pez-Valpuesta 2009), must be minimised. Rejection by a large 1011 Environmental Politics number of automobile drivers should not be undervalued, either, as projects of this type are often accompanied by a large reduction in the number of parking places (Krizek 2006) or, when they are part of wider ranging urban development, by the pedestrianisation of certain streets (Mun ˜uzuri et al. 2005) often with the aim of reorganising the ‘old town’ and the historical parts of the town/city (Beriatos and Gospodini 2004), which results in restrictions on automobile access to these areas. This rejection might come in part from some residents in the pedestrianised areas and retailers’ associations which, given the lack of alternative public transportation, see projects such as these as a deterrent to the access of potential customers who, for a variety of reasons, might oppose pedestrianisation (see Southworth 2005 for an analysis of the different effects of pedestrianisation). Measures such as these for promoting bicycle usage often get a cool reception specifically in the historical old parts of the city and even face open opposition. And this despite the benefits of bicycles helping to reduce both traffic congestion and pollution there (Guiver et al. 2008), and thus contributing towards the upkeep and conservation of these areas and their historical buildings (Tweed and Sutherland 2007). In this respect, the automobile and the range of social and political institutions which sustain its dominance across urban space play an important role in these attitudes. The automobile has become deeply embedded in individual identities with an intricate constitutive association between automobiles, progress and modernity. So, in order to understand the possibilities for moving towards sustainability, it is first necessary to understand the social and political forces that have made cars so dominant (Paterson 2007). The main purpose of this paper is to try to analyse, and if possible, understand, how it is possible for there to be movements that oppose bicycle usage and how these movements might be reconciled ideologically by a significant percentage of the population. At one extreme, this social response can degenerate into vandalism and theft, i.e. the main threat to the survival of a hire cycle system. This painful lesson was learned when the system first originated, with the collapse for these very reasons of the ‘White Bike Plan’ that had been launched in Amsterdam in 1965. The development of a public network of bike hire schemes can also be the target of legitimate citizen opposition, particularly when the systems can affect the aesthetics of specific places and a proper consultation process is not carried out about issues such as what the scheme might look like, or where to put the hire stations. This is compounded if we also bear in mind that in many cities bike hire schemes are used as a vehicle for advertising. For this analysis we shall use as our context a specific and undoubtedly successful experience, the policies used to promote bicycle usage in the city of Seville, Spain. We shall analyse the development of a public bicycle hire system in this city. For this purpose, we have carried out a survey in the main pedestrian zones of the historical old town and used generalised ordered logit models. We shall try to discover what lessons can be learned from this 1012 J.I. Castillo-Manzano and A. Sa ´nchez-Braza experience that can be extrapolated to other towns and cities and analyse, on the basis of what is learned, how an optimal local transportation and environmentally friendly policy to encourage bicycle usage should be taken forward. Policies to promote bicycles in the city of Seville Over the last five years, the city of Seville (pop. 704,198) has instigated a full and successful policy to promote bicycle usage. This policy has been accompanied by the progressive pedestrianisation of a large part of the historical old town, one of the most extensive in Europe, with a surface area of 335 hectares (830 acres), and other areas with large influxes of people, along with the reorganisation of traffic in a number of areas and restricted private vehicle access into the old town, except for residents. Bicycle promotion in Seville has been carried out against the backdrop of unsurpassable climate and terrain conditions and has led to a 10-fold increase in bicycle mobility in the city in the 2006–2009 period and usage peaking at 6.6% of mechanised trips, which is not only an unprecedented success on the national scale, but also worldwide. The main actions taken were the construction of an extensive bicycle lane network, which will soon reach a length of 120 km (72 miles), and the development of a public bicycle system managed by the JCDecaux company. The model is similar to others that the company has in place in cities in France, such as Lyon and Paris (see DeMaio 2009), and Spain, such as Cordoba, Gijon and Santander. The public bicycle system came into operation in July 2007, under the name of SEVICI. There are currently over 2500 bicycles at more than 250 stations located throughout the whole city. The system receives no type of direct aid or subsidy from the city hall, although the company (JCDecaux) has been granted certain advertising rights for 20 years in exchange for implementing and managing the system and keeping it at a low, almost symbolic cost for citizens. The system has been extremely successful and already has more than 70,000 yearly commutation ticket holders, i.e. over 10% of the city’s population. This policy for promoting bicycle usage has been complemented with other measures, such as the creation of a Bicycle Registration Plate Scheme with electronic anti-theft systems; the building of new facilities for parking bicycles in areas with the greatest influx of people, and specific measures to favour the intermodality of bicycles with other modes of transportation, such as the Bus– Bicycle project that provides metropolitan bus users with a free pass to use a bicycle to move around the city. A specific department was created within the city hall to implement this integrated plan called the ‘Department for Sustainability’. This was run by the minority party in the left-wing municipal coalition that governed the city, the Communist Party to be precise. From that time on, the Communist Party was therefore in charge of running this new department whilst the deputy mayor became the visible face behind the initiative. 1013 Environmental Politics Nevertheless, despite the public bicycle system and the major modal shift towards the bicycle being both highly successful and well received, this experience of promoting bicycle usage also had to face a variety of problems. Thus, the implementation and development of these policies has had to contend with protests and reticence from some sections of the population, and cycle hire stations have systematically been rendered inoperative. Sabotage was especially virulent during the first two years that the system was up and running. According to JCDecaux, the company had to deal with a situation unlike that found in any other European city where the system was in place, and, especially, other cities with a comparable population. By way of example, only 15 months after the system had been brought into operation, 62% of the hire cycles had been stolen at least once and, of these, 12% of the total had not been recovered. There were also frequent episodes of all the cycle stations in a single district being put out of use over a single weekend – this usually coincided with construction work to extend the cycle lane in the district – and at the beginning of June 2008, 15% of all the bicycles, some 200 machines, had punctured tires. The stations and the bicycles themselves were vandalised by groups of people who did not hesitate to upload videos of their actions onto YouTube and who, compared to bicycle thieves, obviously had no profit motive in mind. The situation became so serious that it put the financial sustainability of the system at risk and required solutions to be investigated. Eventually, the concessionary was compelled to introduce improvements in the system and these, together with greater policing and the passing of time, have led to a fall in the vandalism rate. Despite there being a significant fall in vandalism and theft, these are still the greatest threats to the hire system, and during the 12 months from September 2009 to September 2010, of the on-average 2650 bicycles available during this period, 213 were stolen and 1442 vandalised. Two hundred and forty anchorage points were also put out of use. According to JCDecaux, only three years after the system had been brought into operation all the bicycles had had to be replaced, either because of serious damages done to them or because they had been stolen. Apart from this virulent vandalism, which seeks no economic benefit of any kind, more civic protests from some sections of the population against this policy to promote bicycle usage must be highlighted. Examples of this are the numerous protests against the cycle lanes being extended by residents who blocked traffic; or the claims filed before courts by citizens’ platforms to demand greater sanctions for cyclists’ behaviour, or even protests by taxi associations against the cycle hire system for illegal professional practice and unfair competition, since the service in question is semi-free as it is financed by revenue from the concession of advertising space. However, in this last respect, despite their initial protests, taxi drivers currently seem to have understood that the public bicycle system does not really compete with their business. It must also be highlighted that retailers’ associations have also actively protested, especially against the removal of parking lots, which they regard as a strategic 1014 J.I. Castillo-Manzano and A. Sa ´nchez-Braza weapon to compete with shopping malls (Guy et al. 2005). These associations form a powerful lobby in Mediterranean towns and cities (see Castillo- Manzano and Lo ´pez-Valpuesta 2009 for the case of Spain, and Lopes Balsas 2000 for the case of Portugal). We must also bear in mind the difficulties of promoting bicycle use in the context of an automobile-centred culture (Horton 2007). Opinions on the importance of the automobile to the economy, to our culture and above all to individual freedom are very common (Rosen 2002). It might seem that the world of contemporary urban transportation politics is split between advocates for automobiles and champions of the bicycle, but this is not really true. There is little evidence to support this polarisation between automobile drivers and cyclists (Skinner and Rosen 2007), especially considering that bicycle usage can be very common among automobile owners too (Parkin et al. 2007), as has ended up being the case in Seville. There are other criticisms that are more difficult to classify which, a priori, also conceal a strong anti-bicycle feeling, such as the cycle stations and parks in the historical old town area detracting from the area’s aesthetics. It is said that these modern fittings contrast with the old, historical buildings, and thus have a negative effect on the correct running of the cultural and religious activities that are inherent in these areas in a city like Seville, which has over 100 religious brotherhoods being involved in frequent activities and processions on the public highway throughout the whole year (although most take place in Holy Week). To deal with the logical conflicts arising out of the shared usage of the public highway in a city such as Seville, which has no tradition of bicycle usage, on 18 April 2008 the city hall passed a new Bylaw on the Movement of Pedestrians and Cyclists. However, this new bylaw was also the cause of controversy. Two of its provisions have been especially controversial; that bicycles can be ridden at slow speed on sidewalks and in pedestrian zones, and that they can be chained to trees and urban furniture when there is no cycle park within a radius of 50 meters. The problems incurred by the co-existence of pedestrians and cyclists and the bad feeling between them that resulted from the application of this bylaw led to a number of claims being filed before courts. These all led to a ruling by the Andalusian High Court that annulled several articles in said bylaw and banned the usage of bicycles in certain downtown and shopping areas at times when these are crowded. These cases are yet another indicator of the degree of dispute that bicycle development is causing in the city (see Fell 2008 on the way that informal tradition and conflicts of interest might hinder the development of environmental policies), the determinants of which will be analysed in the following sections. Data A survey was carried out between June 2009 and June 2010 in the main pedestrian zones of the historical old town, always within visual range of a hire 1015 Environmental Politics bike station and cycle park, to analyse how well the Seville smart-bike system (SEVICI) has been received by citizens in the city. The survey was carried out in three different waves in order to observe any evolution in citizens’ opinions over the year as the system quickly consolidated. The total size of the sample considered was 1530. The specific data are set out in Table 1. These surveys were used to construct the variables used in the analysis, which are described in Table 2 along with the main descriptive statistics. The two variables in category e, uglyot and pedmobdiff, are the two possible negative marginal effects that we have asked citizens’ about. Table 3 gives scores for these over the three waves. As can be seen, although the majority of citizens do not perceive the existence of these negative marginal effects, the percentage that believes that they do exist is more important. To be precise, almost 35% agree or strongly agree that the facilities for parking and picking up public hire cycles detract from the aesthetics of the historical old town, and around 44% agree or strongly agree that these same facilities hamper pedestrian mobility in the historical old town. Analysis of the determinants of aversion to policies to promote bicycle usage We now go on to analyse the factors that affect the perception that inhabitants of the city and habitual visitors have of these possible negative marginal effects. For this, following Williams (2006), generalised ordered logit regressions are used in their partial proportional odds version. Generalised ordered logit models belong to the discrete choice model family and are used to estimate relationships between an ordinal dependent variable with more than two outputs and a vector of explanatory variables. In our case, these will be the results obtained from questions that score how much SEVICI facilities detract from the aesthetics of the historical old town or hamper pedestrian mobility in the area. This opinion is shown by variables e.1. uglyot, and e.2. pedmobdiff (see section e, Table 2). These variables can be scored from 1 to 4 depending on the degree of agreement or disagreement with the question Table 1. Interview campaign and data. Field work Place Entrance point to City Hall square from city’s main pedestrian streets Period June 2009 January 2010 June 2010 How information was obtained Interview with closed questionnaire 19 questions Universe Citizens of Seville or frequent visitors to its metropolitan area Sampling Sample size 297 527 706 Sampling method Random selection of passers-by 1016 J.I. Castillo-Manzano and A. Sa ´nchez-Braza Table 2. Variables and descriptive statistics. Name Explanation No. obs. Mean Std. dev. a) Date of survey and personal characteristics a.1. date 1 if survey is in Jun 09; 2 if Feb 10; 3 if Jun 10 – 2.267 0.765 a.2. gender 1 if male; 0 if female 781 0.511 0.500 a.3. age Age of person surveyed (between 14 and 82 years) – 32.687 14.714 a.4. education 0 if no formal education; 1 if school leaving certificate; 2 if high school diploma or professional training; 3 if upper grade professional training; 4 if shorter graduate degree; 5 if longer licentiate degree; 6 if PhD – 2.576 1.505 a.5. resident 1 if resident of city of Seville; 0 otherwise 1111 0.727 0.446 a.6. seviciuser 1 if is SEVICI user; 0 otherwise 480 0.314 0.464 b) Surveyee’s employment status. Base category includes unemployed b.1. full-time 1 if full-time worker; 0 otherwise 379 0.248 0.432 b.2. part-time 1 if part-time worker; 0 otherwise 155 0.101 0.302 b.3. self-employed 1 if self-employed; 0 otherwise 153 0.100 0.300 b.4. retired 1 if retired; 0 otherwise 45 0.030 0.169 b.5. homemaker 1 if homemaker; 0 otherwise 97 0.064 0.244 b.6. student 1 if student; 0 otherwise 649 0.425 0.495 c) Reasons for visiting or being in old town c.1. livethere 1 if lives downtown; 0 otherwise 241 0.158 0.365 c.2. work 1 if for reasons of work; 0 otherwise 348 0.228 0.420 c.3. leisureshop 1 if for leisure/shopping; 0 otherwise 1255 0.821 0.383 d) Scoring of SEVICI,or urban transportation policies and municipal government management d.1. userpubtransp 1 if frequent user of public transportation; 0 otherwise 718 0.477 0.500 d.2. scorepubtransp Score given to quality of public transportation in Seville, from 0 to 10 – 5.637 2.039 d.3. pedestcenter Degree of agreement with pedestrianisation of main streets in Seville old town, from 0 to 10 – 6.692 2.737 d.4. commanage Score given to Communist Party’s management within municipal government, from 0 to 10 – 3.512 2.492 (continued) 1017 Environmental Politics therefore opposed to the Communist Party, which was behind the measures. Many of these criticisms must surely have impacted on public opinion to a certain extent. However, these strong criticisms have also led to the creation of a more or less informal social movement in defence of bicycles. The movement made its voice heard by sending letters to these newspapers, for example, as well as posting numerous opinions on forums and blogs, not so much in defence of the bicycle as against such a critical attitude towards the bicycle. Its understanding was that many of these criticisms represented a systematic strategy of political opposition rather than the actual rejection of the bicycle itself. Obviously this has only furthered polarisation of the debate. In this line, there is a clear risk of citizens politically opposed to the political group that drives the policies to promote the bicycle taking up a strong contrary position irrespective of the successes achieved by the policies. The risk is greater still when – as in the case of Seville – the party behind the project develops a strategy to try to capitalise on all the electoral ‘returns’. A feature common to the increasing numbers of towns and cities championing sustainable mobility is the implementation of measures to prevent excessive automobile use, for which the use of alternative transportation is being encouraged, including the bicycle. This does not make it any easier for cities like Seville, where any measure to promote alternative modes of transportation is likely to clash head on with automobile users. In this scenario, proautomobile measures are defended, whilst pro-cycling measures are only promoted. Social movements have sprung up in this context demanding recognition of equal rights to enjoy the city framed within the principles of environmental sustainability and social justice. Sustainable development has three widely-agreed ‘meta goals’: sustained economic development; environmental protectionn – inter-generational equity; and social justice – intragenerational equity (Feitelson 2002). As there are trade-offs between these goals in the context of plans for sustainable transportation systems, all three must be addressed and considered collectively (Mitchell 2005). Seville City Hall has made a clear commitment to a sustainable city model until 2011 which has been well received by all the collectives that support these social movements and believe that environmental protection and social justice should be an essential ingredient of any sustainable transportation strategy (Agyeman and Evans 2004, Laurent 2011). In the framework of this sustainable urban transportation policy, the bicycle has become an object of environmental discourse. Thus, the bicycle is mobilised into the articulation of green discourse, as an iconic object of a green lifestyle (Horton 2006). Finally, one other issue that is crucial to the success of policies of this type is a suitable implementation procedure which must be carefully designed and widely agreed upon by all the stakeholders involved. This lesson can be learned from the findings in the case of Seville. An integrated policy for promoting the bicycle with the building of over 120 km (72 ml) of cycle lanes and the provision of thousands of cycle parks both for private bicycle owners and for public hire 1024 J.I. Castillo-Manzano and A. Sa ´nchez-Braza cycles must be a city project, and not, as it has been in Seville, the project of one political party, in this case the Communist Party, which barely represents 10% of the electorate in the city. This requires extreme care to be taken in dealings with the other political parties with whom agreement has to be reached on the strategic lines of these policies, and also with the different social agents involved, where intelligent pedagogy should be used as the basic tool. This pedagogy should highlight the advantages that the system has for everybody (see Latta 2007 on the need to enhance citizen participation in meaningful deliberation over decisions that affect them, as a public form of pedagogy). More open and participatory planning should also be sought for the specific construction work done on the public highway (the building of cycle lanes or large bicycle parks, for example). In major urban projects such as this, urban development managers should not simply hide behind the ordinary public information procedure, which gives a deadline for representations about projects to be presented. Experience shows that this is an imperfect procedure that often does not lead to the participation sought but on most occasions leads to the majority of affected parties’ representations being made too late and not in the right way (see Læssøe 2007 on citizen participation in the field of environmental policies). The solution therefore lies in putting more robust coordination, participation planning and control procedures in place for these strategic public works which allow the effective participation of professional and residents’ associations in key aspects, such as the setting of timeframes and scope (see Fell 2008 on the need for the legitimate consent of a majority of interested parties to avoid costly conflicts of interest in any kind of environmental policy). What was lacking when the bicycle hire system was developed in Seville was a suitable consultation process to gauge citizens’ opinions on issues such as the possible effects of the scheme on the aesthetics of historical areas, how the scheme might seek to minimise these effects or where to locate the hire stations (see Raco 2000 on the need to gain the support of citizens’ and retailers’ associations for new urban policies to be successful). Prior information campaigns would also have been very useful for heightening awareness of bicycle use and hire systems of this type (see Castillo-Manzano and Sa ´nchez- Braza 2011 for an example of the importance of a solid marketing policy to successfully implement urban transport planning policies), driving citizenship and respect among the various users of public space, and demonstrating their advantages and positive aspects in terms of environmental protection and social justice (see Tompkins and Adger 2005 and Wolsink 2010 on the need for careful strategic governance, especially when adopted measures cause shifts in citizens’ entrenched mindsets). In fact, instead of producing negative marginal effects in some more peripheral areas of the historical town centre, the development of the bicycle hire scheme has contributed to the areas’ regeneration, as the installation of the hire stations has also required the remodelling of deteriorated public spaces and squares that were refurbished for the facilities to be sited there. 1025 Environmental Politics Proper communication campaigns on these measures would have helped to give a positive image of the system’s utility and contributed to minimising the perception of its possible negative marginal effects, focusing on them positively and making citizens see them as a chance to regenerate and enhance certain areas, or as a positive symbol of a rejuvenated city that is aware of and committed to a sustainable mode of urban transportation, rather than regarding them as obstacles on the public highway or cycle stations that detract from the beauty of the old city canter (see Halperin and Scheld 2007 and Bader 2011 on the regeneration and gentrification of certain areas of the city, which makes them more appealing to live in; in any event, as Slater 2006 and Paton 2010 state, gentrification is not necessarily a universally positive process). In addition, the legal framework for municipal bylaws on which the new mobility model is based should also always appear well-balanced. Therefore, for the very reason that the weakest party is usually favoured, the cyclist should be favoured in any conflicts with automobiles, and the pedestrian should have primacy in any conflicts with the bicycle in the shared use of sidewalks. Finally, if success is achieved when all these measures have been implemented, it should be marketed once again as the joint success of the whole city and not just of the managers concerned. Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their gratitude to John Barry and the three anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments. References Agyeman, J. and Evans, B., 2004. ‘Just sustainability’: the emerging discourse of environmental justice in Britain? The Geographical Journal, 170 (2), 155–164. Bader, M.D.M., 2011. Reassessing residential preferences for redevelopment. City & Community, 10 (3), 311–337. Beira ˜o, G. and Cabral, J.A.S., 2007. Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: a qualitative study. Transport Policy, 14 (6), 478–489. Beriatos, E. and Gospodini, A., 2004. ‘Glocalising’ urban landscapes: Athens and the 2004 Olympics. Cities, 21 (3), 187–202. Bouf, D. and Hensher, D.A., 2007. The dark side of making transit irresistible: the example of France. Transport Policy, 14 (6), 523–532. Castillo-Manzano, J.I. and Lo ´pez-Valpuesta, L., 2009. Urban retail fabric and the metro: a complex relationship. Lessons from middle-sized Spanish cities. Cities,26 (3), 141–147. Castillo-Manzano, J.I., Lo ´pez-Valpuesta, L., and Gonza ´lez-Laxe, F., 2011. The effects of the LCC boom on the urban tourism fabric: the viewpoint of tourism managers. Tourism Management, 32 (5), 1085–1095. Castillo-Manzano, J.I. and Sa ´nchez-Braza, A., 2011. An evaluation of the establishment of a taxi flat rate from city to airport: the case of Seville. Urban Studies, 48 (9), 1909– 1924. Chapman, L., 2007. Transport and climate change: a review. Journal of Transport Geography, 15 (5), 354–367. DeMaio, P., 2009. Bike-sharing: history, impacts, models of provision, and future. Journal of Public Transportation, 12 (4), 41–56. 1026 J.I. Castillo-Manzano and A. Sa ´nchez-Braza Dill, J. and Carr, T., 2003. Bicycle commuting and facilities in major U.S. cities: if you build them, commuters will use them-another look. Transportation Research Record, 1828, 116–123. Feitelson, E., 2002. Introducing environmental equity dimensions into the sustainable transport discourse: issues and pitfalls. Transportation Research D, 7 (2), 99–118. Fell, P.T., 2008. Conflict and legitimacy: explaining tensions in Swedish hunting policy at the local level. Environmental Politics, 17 (1), 105–114. Gardner, B. and Abraham, C., 2007. What drives car use? A grounded theory analysis of commuters’ reasons for driving. Transportation Research F, 10 (3), 187–200. Guiver, J., Lumsdon, L., and Weston, R., 2008. Traffic reduction at visitor attractions: the case of Hadrian’s Wall. Journal of Transport Geography, 16 (2), 142–150. Guy, C., Bennison, D., and Clarke, R., 2005. Scale economies and superstore retailing: new evidence from the UK. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12 (2), 73–81. Halperin, R.H. and Scheld, S., 2007. Introduction: youth engage the city and global culture. City & Society, 19 (2), 169–178. Hopkinson, P. and Wardman, M., 1996. Evaluating the demand for new cycle facilities. Transport Policy, 3 (4), 241–249. Horton, D., 2006. Environmentalism and the bicycle. Environmental Politics, 15 (1), 41– 58. Horton, D., 2007. Fear of cycling. In: D. Horton, P. Rosen and P. Cox, eds. Cycling and society. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 133–152. Kingham, S., Dickinson, J., and Copsey, S., 2001. Travelling to work: will people move out of their cars. Transport Policy, 8 (2), 151–160. Krizek, K.J., 2006. Two approaches to valuing some of bicycle facilities’ presumed benefits. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72 (3), 309–320. Latta, P.A., 2007. Locating democratic politics in ecological citizenship. Environmental Politics, 16 (3), 377–393. Laurent, E ´., 2011. Issues in environmental justice within the European Union. Ecological Economics, 70 (11), 1846–1853. Line, T., Chatterjee, K., and Lyons, G., 2010. The travel behaviour intentions of young people in the context of climate change. Journal of Transport Geography, 18 (2), 238–246. Lopes Balsas, C.J., 2000. City center revitalization in Portugal: lessons from two medium size cities. Cities, 17 (1), 19–31. Læssøe, J., 2007. Participation and sustainable development: the post-ecologist transformation of citizen involvement in Denmark. Environmental Politics, 16 (2), 231–250. Martens, K., 2007. Promoting bike-and-ride: the Dutch experience. Transportation Research A, 41 (4), 326–338. Mitchell, G., 2005. Forecasting environmental equity: air quality responses to road user charging in Leeds, UK. Journal of Environmental Management, 77 (3), 212–226. Moudon, A.V., et al., 2005. Cycling and the built environment, a US perspective. Transportation Research D, 10 (3), 245–261. Mun ˜uzuri, J., et al., 2005. Solutions applicable by local administrations for urban logistics improvement. Cities, 22 (1), 15–28. Parkin, J., Ryley, T., and Jones, T., 2007. Barriers to cycling: an exploration of quantitative analyses. In: D. Horton, P. Rosen and P. Cox, eds. Cycling and society. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 67–82. Parkin, J., Wardman, M., and Page, M., 2008. Estimation of the determinants of bicycle mode share for the journey to work using census data. Transportation, 35 (1), 93– 109. Paterson, M., 2007. Automobile politics: ecology and cultural political economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1027 Environmental Politics Paton, K., 2010. Making working-class neighbourhoods posh? Exploring the effects of gentrification strategies on working-class communities. In: Y. Taylor, ed. Classed intersections: spaces, selves, knowledges. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 137– 157. Pucher, J. and Buehler, R., 2005. Cycling trends and policies in Canadian cities. World Transport Policy and Practice, 11 (1), 43–61. Pucher, J. and Buehler, R., 2008. Making cycling irresistible: lessons from The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transport Reviews, 28 (4), 495–528. Raco, M., 2000. Assessing community participation in local economic development: lessons for the new urban. Political Geography, 19 (3), 573–599. Rietveld, P. and Daniel, V., 2004. Determinants of bicycle use: do municipal policies matter? Transportation Research A, 38 (7), 531–550. Rodrı´guez, D.A. and Joo, J., 2004. The relationship between non-motorized mode choice and the local physical environment. Transportation Research D, 9 (2), 151– 173. Rosen, P., 2002. Pro-car or anti-car? ‘Environment’, ‘economy’ and ‘liberty?’ UK transport debate. In: G. Lyons and K. Chatterjee, eds. Transport lessons from fuel tax protests of 2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 27–46. Skinner, D. and Rosen, P., 2007. Hell is other cyclists: rethinking transport and identity. In: D. Horton, P. Rosen and P. Cox, eds. Cycling and society. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 83–96. Slater, T., 2006. The eviction of critical perspectives from gentrification research. Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30 (4), 737–757. Southworth, M., 2005. Reinventing main street: from mall to townscape mall. Journal of Urban Design, 10 (2), 151–170. Tilahun, N.Y., Levinson, D.M., and Krizek, K.J., 2007. Trails, lanes, or traffic: valuing bicycle facilities with an adaptive stated preference survey. Transportation Research A, 41 (4), 287–301. Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N., 2005. Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 8 (6), 562–571. Tweed, C. and Sutherland, M., 2007. Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83 (1), 62–69. Vandenbulcke, G., et al., 2009. Mapping bicycle use and the risk of accidents for commuters who cycle to work in Belgium. Transport Policy, 16 (2), 77–87. Williams, R., 2006. Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables. The Stata Journal, 6 (1), 58–82. Wolsink, M., 2010. Contested environmental policy infrastructure: socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30 (5), 302–311. 1028 J.I. Castillo-Manzano and A. Sa ´nchez-Braza