Estimating the Economic Benefits of Bicycling and Bicycle Facilities: an Interpretive Review and Proposed Methods

  • Kevin J. Krizec
Part of the Contributions to Economics book series (CE)


Physical Activity Contingent Valuation Conjoint Analysis Hedonic Price Transportation Research Record 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson ST, West SE (2004) The Value of Open Space Proximity and Size: City versus Suburbs. Macalester College, Department of Economics, working paper.Google Scholar
  2. Argys L, Mocan, N (2000) Bicycling and Walking in Colorado: Economic Impact and Household Survey Results. Colorado Department of Transportation.Google Scholar
  3. Aultman-Hall L, Kaltenecker MG (1999) Toronto bicycle commuter safety rates. Accident Analysis and Prevention 31: 675–686.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman S (1989) Discrete Choice Analysis-Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy.Google Scholar
  5. Benson ED, Hansen JL, Schwartz AL Jr, Smersh GT (1998) Pricing Residential Amenities: The Value of A View. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 16(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Betz C, Bergstrom J, Bowker JM (2003) A Contingent Trip Model for Estimating Rail-trail Demand. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46(1): 79–96.Google Scholar
  7. Blair SN, LaMonte MJ, Nichaman MZ (2004) The evolution of physical activity recommendations: how much is enough?. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 79(5): 913–920.Google Scholar
  8. Bradley M, Kroes PE (1990) Forecasting Issues in Stated Preference Survey Research. 3rd International Conference on Survey Methods in Transportation.Google Scholar
  9. Bricker SK, Powell KE, Parashar U, Rowe AK, Troy KG, Seim KM, Eidson PL, Wilson P S, Pilgrim VC, Smith EM (2001) Physical Activity Report. Georgia, Georgia Department of Human Resources, Division of Public Health and the American Heart Association, Southeast Affiliate.Google Scholar
  10. Buis J (2000) The Economic Significance of Cycling: A study to illustrate the costs and benefits of cycling policy. Den Haag, Interface for Cycling Expertise.Google Scholar
  11. Chenoweth D, DeJong G, Sheppard L (2003) The Economic Cost of Inactivity in Michigan. Lansing, Michigan Fitness Foundation.Google Scholar
  12. Claybrooke C (2001) Physical Activity in Washington State. Washington State Department of Health.Google Scholar
  13. Colditz GA (1999) Economic costs of obesity and inactivity. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 31(11 (Suppl)): S663–S667.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Crane R (2000) The Influence of Urban Form on Travel: An Interpretative Review. Journal of Planning Literature 15(1): 3–23.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Downs A (1992) Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak-Hour Congestion. Washington D.C., Cambridge, Brookings Institution, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.Google Scholar
  16. Dye Management Group (2002) Assessment of Techniques of Corridor Preservation in South Dakota, South Dakota Department of Transportation.Google Scholar
  17. Eilertpetersson E, Schelp L (1997) An epidemiological study of bicycle-related injuries. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29(3): 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Epperson B (1994) Evaluating Suitability of Roadways for Bicycle Use: Toward a Cycling Level-of-Service Standard. Transportation Research Record 1438: 9–16.Google Scholar
  19. Everett M (1976) Measuring the Economic Value of Exercise in Labor Intensive Urban Transportation Systems. Transportation Research Record 599.Google Scholar
  20. Everett M, Dorman J (1976) New Approach to Economic Evaluation of Labor-Intensive Transportation Systems. Transportation Research Record 599.Google Scholar
  21. Ewing R, Cervero R (2001) Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis. Transportation Research Record 1780: 87–112.Google Scholar
  22. Federal Highway Administration (1999) National Bicycling and Walking Study Five Year Status Report by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Transportation.Google Scholar
  23. Fix P, Loomis J (1997) The economic benefits of mountain biking at one of its Meccas: an application of the travel cost method to mountain biking in Moab, Utah. Journal of Leisure Research 29(3): 342–352.Google Scholar
  24. Fix P, Loomis J (1998) Comparing the economic value of mountain biking estimated using revealed and stated preference. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 41(2): 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Forester J (2001) The Bicycle Transportation Controversy. Transportation Quarterly 55(2): 7–17.Google Scholar
  26. Fowkes T Wardman M (1988) The design of stated preference travel choice experiments. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 22: 27–44.Google Scholar
  27. Frank LD (2000) Land Use and Transportation Interaction: Implications on Public Health and Quality of Life. Journal of Planning Education and Research (20): 6–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Garder P, Leden L, Pulkkinen U (1998) Measuring the Safety Effect of Raised Bicycle Crossings Using a New Research Methodology. Transportation Research Record 1636: 64–70.Google Scholar
  29. Garrett N, Brasure M, Schmitz K, Schultz M (2001) The Direct Cost of Physical Inactivity to a Health Plan. St. Paul, Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Health.Google Scholar
  30. Geoghegan J (2002) The Value of Open Spaces in Residential Land Use. Land Use Policy 19(1): 91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goetzel RZ, Anderson DR, Whitmer RW, Ozminkowski RJ, Dunn RL, Wasserman J (1998) The Relationship Between Modifiable Health Risks and Health Care Expenditures: An Analysis of the Multi-Employer HERO Health Risk and Cost Database. The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Management 40(10): 843–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Handy SL (1992) Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Neotraditional Development and its Implications for Non-work Travel. Built Environment 18(4): 253–267.Google Scholar
  33. Handy SL, Boarnet MG, Ewing R, Killingsworth R (2002) How the Built Environment Affects Physical Activity: Views from Urban Planning. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 23: 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hansen CJ, Stevens LC, Coast JR (2001) Exercise duration and mood state: How much is enough to feel better?. Health Psychology 20(4): 267–275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harkey DL, Reinfurt DW Mnuiman M (1998) Development of the Bicycle Compatibility Index. Transportation Research Record 1636: 13–20.Google Scholar
  36. Hunter WW (2000) Evaluation of Innovative Bike-Box Application in Eugene, Oregon. Transportation Research Record 1705: 101–115.Google Scholar
  37. Hunter WW, Harkey DL, Stewart JR, Birk ML (2000) Evaluation of Blue Bike Lane Treatment in Portland, Oregon. Transportation Research Record 1705: 107–115.Google Scholar
  38. Hunter WW, Pein WE, Stutts JC (1995) Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Crash Types: The Early 1990’s. Transportation Research Record 1502: 56–74 (1995).Google Scholar
  39. Hunter WW, Stewart JR, Stutts JC (1999) Study of Bicycle Lanes Versus Wide Curb Lanes. Transportation Research Record 1674: 70–77.Google Scholar
  40. Irwin EG, Bockstael NE (2001) The Problem of Identifying Land Use Spillovers: Measuring the Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(3): 698–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jackson N (2002) Bike Lane Design Guide. Chicago, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, City of Chicago Department of Transportation, Chicagoland Bicycle Federation.Google Scholar
  42. Krizek KJ, Birnbaum AS, Levinson D (2004) A Schematic for Focusing on Youth in Investigations of Community Design and Physical Activity. American Journal of Health Promotion 19(1): 57–63.Google Scholar
  43. Krizek KJ, Roland R (2004) What is at the End of the Road? Factors Affecting Discontinuities of On-Street Bicycle Lanes in Urban Settings. Active Communities Transportation (ACT) Research Group, University of Minnesota working paper.Google Scholar
  44. Lancaster KJ (1966) A New Approach to Consumer Theory. The Journal of Political Economy 74(2): 132–157.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  45. Landis BW (1994) Bicycle Interaction Hazard Score, A Theoretical Model. Transportation Research Record 1438: 3–8.Google Scholar
  46. Landis BW, Vattikuti VR, Brannick MT (1997) Real-Time Human Perceptions: Toward a Bicycle Level of Service. Transportation Research Record 1578: 119–126.Google Scholar
  47. Landis BW, Vattikuti VR, Ottenberg RM, Petritsch TA (2003) Intersection Level of Service for the Bicycle Through Movement. Journal of the Transportation Research Record. 1828: 101–106.Google Scholar
  48. Lindsey G, Knaap G (1999) Willingness to pay for urban greenway projects. Journal of the American Planning Association 65(3): 297–301.Google Scholar
  49. Lindsey G, Man J, Payton S, Dickson K (2003) Amenity and Recreation Values of Urban Greenways. The Association of European Schools of Planning Congress, Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
  50. Lindsey G, Przybylski M (1998) Economic Considerations in Planning Urban Greenways: A Brief Review. Indianapolis, Center for Urban Policy and the Environment, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, University of Indiana 20.Google Scholar
  51. Litman T (2004) Economic Value of Walkability. World Transport Policy & Practice 10(1): 5–14.Google Scholar
  52. Luttik J (2000) The Value of Trees, Water and Open Space as Reflected by House Prices in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning 48: 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Maine Department of Transportation (2001) Bicycle Tourism in Maine: Economic Impacts and Marketing Recommendations. Augusta, Maine Department of Transportation.Google Scholar
  54. Moore RL, Graefe AR, Gitelson RJ (1994) The economic impact of rail-trails. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 12(2): 63–72.Google Scholar
  55. Moritz WE (1998) Adult Bicyclists in the United States, Characteristics and Riding Experience in 1996. Transportation Research Record 1636: 1–7.Google Scholar
  56. Nelson C, Vogt C, van der Woud A, Valentine B, Lynch J (2001) 2000 Midland County Recreation Needs Assessment: The Pere Marquette Rail — Trail. East Lansing, Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources.Google Scholar
  57. Noakes TD (1995) Fatal Cycling Injuries. Sports Medicine 20(5): 348–362.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Osberg JS, Stiles SC, Asare OK (1998) Bicycle safety behavior in Paris and Boston. Accident Analysis and Prevention 30(5): 679–687.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pate R, Pratt M, Blair SN, Haskell W, Macera CA, Bouchard C, Buchner D, Ettinger W, Heath GW, King A, Kriska A, Leon A, Marcus BH, Morris JM, Paffenberger RSJ, Patrick K, Pollock ML, Rippe JM, Sallis J, Wilmore J (1995) Physical Activity and Public Health: A Recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association 273(5): 402–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. PKF Consulting (1994) Analysis of economic impacts of the Northern Central Rail Trail. Annapolis, Maryland Greenways Commission, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 47.Google Scholar
  61. Powell EC, Tanz RR (2000) Cycling injuries treated in emergency departments-Need for bicycle helmets among preschoolers. Archives of Pediatrics Adolescent Medicine 154(11): 1096–1100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Powell KE, Greaney ML, Huang Y, Whitt M (1999) Physical Activity in South Carolina. Columbia, University of South Carolina School of Public Health.Google Scholar
  63. Pratt M, Macera CA, Wang G (2000) Higher Direct Medical Costs Associated with Physical Inactivity. The Physician and Sports Medicine 28(10).Google Scholar
  64. Pronk NP, Goodman MJ, O’Connor PJ, Martinson BC (1999) Relationship Between Modifiable Health Risks and Short-term Health Care Charges. Journal of the American Medical Association 292(23): 2235–2239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Przybylski M, Lindsey G (1998) Economic Evaluation of Major Urban Greenway Projects. Indianapolis, Center for Urban Policy and the Environment.Google Scholar
  66. Pucher J (2001) Cycling Safety on Bikeways vs. Roads. Transportation Quarterly 55(4), 9–11.Google Scholar
  67. Pucher J, Dijkstra L (2003) Promoting Safe Walking and Cycling to Improve Public Health: Lessons From The Netherlands and Germany. American Journal of Public Health 93(9): 1509–1516.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Quang DoA, Grudnitski G (1995) Golf Courses and Residential House Prices: An Emprirical Examination. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 10: 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Randall A (1994) A difficulty with the travel cost method. Land Economics 70(1): 88–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rankinen T, Bouchard C (2002) Dose-Response Issues Concerning the Relations Between Regular Physical Activity and Health. Washington, D.C., President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. Series 3.Google Scholar
  71. Rasanen M, Summala H (1998) Attention and Expectation Problems in Bicycle-Car Collisions: An In-Depth Study. Accident Analysis and Prevention 30(5): 657–666.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rosen S (1974) Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition. The Journal of Political Economy 82(1).Google Scholar
  73. Saelensminde K (2002) Walking-and cycling-track networks in Norwegian cities: Costbenefit analyses including health effects and external costs of road traffic. Oslo, Institute of Transport Economics, 50.Google Scholar
  74. Sallis J, Frank LD, Saelens BE, Kraft MK (2004) Active Transportation and Physical Activity: Opportunities for Collaboration on Transportation and Public Health Research. Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice 38: 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schutt AM (1998) Trails for Economic Development: A Case Study. Journal of Applied Recreation Research 23(2): 127–145.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  76. Sharples R (1995a) A framework for the evaluation of facilities for cyclists-Part 1. Traffic Engineering and Control: 142–149.Google Scholar
  77. Sharples R (1995b) A framework for the evaluation of facilities for cyclists-Part 2. Traffic Engineering and Control: 221–223.Google Scholar
  78. Siderlis C, Moore RL (1995) Outdoor recreation net benefits of rail-trails. Journal of Leisure Research 27(4): 344–359.Google Scholar
  79. Sirmans GS, Macpherson DA (2003) The Composition of Hedonic Pricing Models: A Review of the Literature. National Association of Realtors.Google Scholar
  80. Smith RL Jr, Walsh T (1988) Safety Impacts of Bicycle Lanes. Transportation Research Record 1168: 49–56.Google Scholar
  81. Sorton A, Walsh T (1994) Bicycle Stress Level as a Tool to Evaluate Urban and Suburban Bicycle Compatibility. Transportation Research Record 1438: 17–25.Google Scholar
  82. Sumathi NR, Berard DA (1997) Mountain biking in the Chequamegon Area of Northern Wisconsin and Implications for Regional Development, University of Wisconsin-Extension.Google Scholar
  83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services PHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity (2003, 1999) Promoting physical activity, a guide for community action, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity.Google Scholar
  84. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, P. H. S., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity (2004, 2003) How active do adults need to be to gain some benefit?, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity.Google Scholar
  85. U.S. Department of Transportation (2000) Bicycle and Pedestrian Data: Sources, Needs, & Gaps. Washington, D.C., Bureau of Transportation Statistics.Google Scholar
  86. U.S. Department of Transportation (2003) National Survey of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Attitudes and Behaviors. Washington D.C., National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Bureau of Transportation Statisitics.Google Scholar
  87. Wang GJ, Macera CA, Scudder-Soucie B, Schmid T, Pratt M, Buchner D (2004) Cost effectiveness of a bicycle/pedestrian trail development in health promotion. Preventive Medicine 38(2): 237–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wardman M (1988) A Comparison of Revealed Preference and Stated Preference Models of Travel Behavior. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 22: 71–91.Google Scholar
  89. Wilkinson WC, Eddy N, MacFadden G, Burgess B (2002) Increasing Physical Activity Through Community Design: A Guide for Public Health Practitioners. Washington, D.C., National Center for Bicycling and Walking.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin J. Krizec
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MinnesotaUSA

Personalised recommendations