A Cost Benefit Analysis of an Active Travel Intervention with Health and Carbon Emission Reduction Benefits

Ralph Chapman, Michael Keall, Philippa Howden-Chapman, Mark Grams, Karen Witten, Edward Randal and Alistair Woodward
Additional contact information
Ralph Chapman: Environmental Studies Programme, School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
Michael Keall: NZ Centre for Sustainable Cities, Wellington 6242, New Zealand
Philippa Howden-Chapman: NZ Centre for Sustainable Cities, Wellington 6242, New Zealand
Mark Grams: Environmental Studies Programme, School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
Karen Witten: NZ Centre for Sustainable Cities, Wellington 6242, New Zealand
Edward Randal: NZ Centre for Sustainable Cities, Wellington 6242, New Zealand
Alistair Woodward: NZ Centre for Sustainable Cities, Wellington 6242, New Zealand

IJERPH, 2018, vol. 15, issue 5, 1-10

Abstract: Active travel (walking and cycling) is beneficial for people’s health and has many co-benefits, such as reducing motor vehicle congestion and pollution in urban areas. There have been few robust evaluations of active travel, and very few studies have valued health and emissions outcomes. The ACTIVE before-and-after quasi-experimental study estimated the net benefits of health and other outcomes from New Zealand’s Model Communities Programme using an empirical analysis comparing two intervention cities with two control cities. The Programme funded investment in cycle paths, other walking and cycling facilities, cycle parking, ‘shared spaces’, media campaigns and events, such as ‘Share the Road’, and cycle-skills training. Using the modified Integrated Transport and Health Impacts Model, the Programme’s net economic benefits were estimated from the changes in use of active travel modes. Annual benefits for health in the intervention cities were estimated at 34.4 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and two lives saved due to reductions in cardiac disease, diabetes, cancer, and respiratory disease. Reductions in transport-related carbon emissions were also estimated and valued. Using a discount rate of 3.5%, the estimated benefit/cost ratio was 11:1 and was robust to sensitivity testing. It is concluded that when concerted investment is made in active travel in a city, there is likely to be a measurable, positive return on investment.

Keywords: cost benefit analysis; active travel; health; climate change; co-benefit; discounting; ACTIVE; ITHIM (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (11)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/5/962/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/5/962/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:5:p:962-:d:145768

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().