A scoping review on cycling network connectivity and its effects on cycling

Figures & data

Figure 1. Search terms applied. Terms within boxes are separated by “OR”.

Figure 2. Diagram of literature review.

Figure 3. Main classification into methods with sub-classification into measures/models. Parentheses indicate the number of publications. CO = cumulative opportunities; OD = origin-destination; DDM = direct demand model; NGA/NDP = network growth algorithm/network design problem.

Figure 4. Number of (a) methods, (b) measures/models per year. The black line indicates the total number of publications.

Table 1. Overview of methods, measures, models and data.

Authors	Method	Measure /Model	Spatial Unit Origin	Spatial Unit Destination	Other Factors	Scenario	Network	SP Metric	Distance	Location	Empirical
Abad and van der Meer (2018)	LTS	CO accessibility	Area	Point	●		OSM	Metric	6.0 km	Portugal
Bearn et al. (2018)	LTS	CO accessibility	Point	Link + Area	●	●	RCL	Metric	4.8 km	USA
Beecham et al. (2023)	LOS + Circuity	OD pair conn.	Area	Area	●		OSM	Metric	Decay	England	●
Boisjoly et al. (2020)	LOS (Detour)	OD pair conn.	Point	Point			RCL	Metric	Survey	Canada
Cabral et al. (2019)	LTS	CO accessibility; OD pair conn.	Point + Area	Area	●		RCL	Metric	12 km	Canada	(●)
Cabral and Kim (2022)	LTS	CO accessibility; OD pair conn.	Point + Area	Area	●		RCL	Metric	12 km	Canada
Cervero et al. (2019)	LTS + Circuity	OD pair conn.	Area	Area	●		OSM	Metric	Survey	England, Wales	●
Chan and Cooper (2019)	Betw. + Reach	DDM	Link + Area	Link	●		OSM	Hybrid^1	Decay	Wales	●
Chou et al. (2023)	Circuity	Directness	Point	Point	●		OSM	n.a.	GPS tracks	Denmark	(●)
Cooper (2017)	Betw. + Reach	DDM	Link + Area	Link	●		OSM	Hybrid^1	3.0, 4.5 km	Wales	●
Cooper (2018)	Betw. + Reach	DDM	Link + Area	Link	●	●	OSM	Hybrid^1	Decay	Wales	●
Costa et al. (2021)	Circuity	Directness	Area	Area			OSM	Metric	1.0–8.0 km	Portugal
Cunha and Silva (2023)	Reach	CO accessibility	Area	Point	●		RCL	Metric	5, 15 min.	Portugal
Furth et al. (2016)	LTS	OD pair conn.	Area	Area	●	●	RCL	Metric	6.4–13 km	USA
Furth et al. (2018)	LTS	CO accessibility	Area	Area	●	●	RCL	Metric	Decay	USA
Gehrke et al. (2020)	LTS	CO accessibility	Area	Area	●	●	OSM	Metric	15, 30 min.	USA
Gholamialam and Matisziw (2019)	MOO (incl. LTS)	OD pair connectivity	Area	Area	●		RCL	Metric	3.2 km; n	USA
Hochmair et al. (2019)	Betweenness	DDM; Link importance	Area	Area			RCL	Metric	n	USA	●
Imani et al. (2019)	LTS	CO accessibility	Area	Point	●	●	RCL	Metric	30 min.	Canada	●
Kent and Karner (2019)	LTS	CO accessibility	Area	Area	●	●	RCL	Metric	3.2 km	USA
Law et al. (2014)	ASA	DDM	Link	Link			Segment	Angular	1.2–3.0 km; n	England	●
Lowry et al. (2012)	BLOS	CO accessibility	Area	Area	●		RCL	Metric	Decay	USA
Lowry et al. (2016)	Betw. + LTS	CO accessibility; Link importance	Area	Point	●	●	RCL	Metric	3.2 km	USA
Lowry and Loh (2017)	LTS	OD pair conn.	Area	Point	●	●	RCL	Metric	3.2 km	USA	●
Manum and Nordstrom (2013)	ASA	Directness	Segment	Segment		●	Segment	Angular	5.0 km	Norway
Manum et al. (2017)	ASA + Reach	CO accessibility; Directness	Segment + Area	Segment			Segment	Angular	3.0 km	Norway	●
Martinez et al. (2024)	LTS	CO accessibility	Area	Area	●	●	OSM	Metric	30 min.	USA
McCahill and Garrick (2008)	ASA	Directness	Segment	Segment			RCL	Angular	n	USA	●
McDaniel et al. (2014)	Betweenness	DDM	Link	Link			RCL	Metric	8.0 km	USA	●
Moran et al. (2018)	LTS + Betw	Link importance	Area	Area	●	●	RCL	Metric	n.a.	USA
Murphy and Owen (2019)	LTS	CO accessibility	Area	Area	●		OSM	Metric	20 min.	USA
Nordström and Manum (2015)	ASA	Directness	Segment	Segment		●	Segment	Angular	5.0 km	Norway
Orellana and Guerrero (2019a)	ASA	Directness	Segment	Segment			OSM	Angular	4.5 km	Ecuador	●
Orellana and Guerrero (2019b)	ASA	Directness	Segment	Segment			OSM	Angular	n	Ecuador	●
Orozco et al. (2020)	NGA + Circuity	Gap closure; Directness	Node	Node		●	OSM	Metric	n.a.	Several	●
Ospina et al. (2022a)	Reach + Circuity	CO accessibility; OD pair conn.	Area	Area	●	●	OSM	Metric	Decay	Columbia	●
Ospina et al. (2022b)	NDP	OD pair connectivity	Node	Node		●	OSM	Metric	n.a.	Columbia	(●)
Perez et al. (2017)	LTS	Network accessibility	Area	Area	●		RCL	Metric	n.a.	USA	●
Putta and Furth (2019)	LTS	Gap detection	n.a.	n.a.	●		RCL	Metric	n.a.	USA
Putta and Furth (2021)	LOS + Betw.	CO accessibility; Link importance	Area	Area	●	●	RCL	Metric	n.a.	USA
Reggiani et al. (2022)	MOO (incl. BLOS)	OD pair connectivity	Node	Node	●		OSM	Metric	10 km	NL; AUS
Rupi et al. (2019)	Circuity	Directness	Link	Link			OSM	Metric	n.a.	Italy	(●)
Ryu et al. (2018)	MOO (incl. BLOS)	OD pair conn.	Area	Area	●	●	RCL	Metric	Decay	Canada
Ryu et al. (2021a)	MOO (incl. BLOS)	OD pair conn.	Area	Area	●	●	RCL	Metric	Decay, 10 km	Canada
Ryu et al. (2021b)	MOO (incl. BLOS + ASA)	OD pair conn.	Area	Area	●	●	RCL	Metric	Decay, 10 km	Canada
Semler et al. (2018)	LTS	CO accessibility	Area	Area	●	●	RCL	Metric	5.3 km	USA
Soltani et al. (2022)	ASA	Directness	Segment	Segment			Segment	Angular	3, 5, 7 steps^2	Australia	●
Vybornova et al. (2022)	Betweenness	Gap detection	Link	Link			OSM	Metric	2.5 km	Denmark
Wang et al. (2020)	LTS	Network accessibility	Area	Area	●		RCL	Metric	n.a.	USA	●
Wasserman et al. (2019)	LTS	CO accessibility	Area	Area	●		OSM	Metric	20 min.	USA
Wysling and Purves (2022)	LOS	CO accessibility	Area	Area	●		OSM + RCL	Metric	4.0 km	France
Zuo and Wei (2019)	MOO (incl. LTS)	CO accessibility; OD pair conn.	Point + Area	Area	●	●	RCL	Metric	2.6, 3.8 km	USA
Zuo et al. (2020)	LTS	CO accessibility	Point	Area	●		RCL	Metric	4.4 km	USA
Zuo et al. (2021)	LTS	CO accessibility	Point	Area	●		RCL	Metric	Decay, 2.6 km	USA

The spatial units of origins and destinations are shown, and whether other factors (such as traffic amount, traffic separation or slope) were considered. Scenario = application in an infrastructure improvement scenario. SP Metric = shortest path metric. In addition, the maximum cycling distance and study location are shown.

¹ hybrid metric-angular metrics; ²space syntax axial steps; (●) Empirical method development with outcomes other than cycling levels. Abbreviations: ASA = Angular segment analysis; AUS = Australia: Betw. = Betweenness; BLOS = Bicycle level of service; CO = cumulative opportunities; conn. = connectivity; DDM = direct demand model; LTS = Level of traffic stress; LOS = infrastructure quality/quantity indicators other than LTS or BLOS; MOO = multi-objective optimisation; NGA = network growth algorithm; NL = Netherlands; OD = origin-destination; OSM = OpenStreetMap; RCL = road centreline map; n = whole network radius; n.a. = not applicable; n.p. = not provided.

Table 2. Articles investigating associations between network connectivity/accessibility and cycling levels.

Author (Year)	Method/Measure/Model	Trip Purpose	Model	Direction	Association Measure	Magnitude	Cross Validation	Contr. Variables	Transfor-mation	Sample Size	Location
Mode Choice
Imani et al. (2019)	LTS	General	Binary logit	+	Odd ratios	1.05–1.41 for +100 jobs reached		●		83,937 trips	Toronto, Canada
Modal Shares
Cervero et al. (2019)	LTS	Commuting	ZOIB	+	Marginal Effects	0.73% for 10% increase of LTS 2 links along corridor		●		22,000 OD pairs	36 English and Welsh cities
Chan and Cooper (2019)	DDM + Reach	Commuting	Ridge regr.	+	R^2	0.45	●		GEH	1077 census a.	Cardiff, Wales
Cooper (2017)	DDM + Reach	Commuting	SLR	+	R^2	0.63			Box-Cox	1076 census a.	Cardiff, Wales
Cooper (2018)	DDM + Reach	Commuting	Ridge regr.	+	R^2	0.45	●		GEH	1077 census a.	Cardiff, Wales
Perez et al. (2017)	LTS + Reach	General	MLR	+	R^2	0.65		●	Box-Cox	179 census a.	Washington DC, USA
Soltani et al. (2022)	ASA	Commuting	MLR			ASA not included in final model		●		n.p.	Adelaide, Australia
Wang et al. (2020)	LTS + Reach	Commuting	Fract. MLR	+	Elasticity effects	0.11% for 1% increase in proportion of LTS 2 links		●		n.p.	Franklin County, USA
Trip Frequencies
Beecham et al. (2023)	LOS	Commuting		+	R^2	0.78–0.85 for a composite measure		●	z-score	671,576 OD pairs	London, England
Lowry and Loh (2017)	LOS	General	SLR	+	R^2	0.72 for a composite measure				6,000 households	Seattle, USA
Flows/Volumes
Chan and Cooper (2019)	Betw. + DDM	General	Ridge regr.	+	R^2	0.85	●		GEH	121 locations	Cardiff, Wales
Cooper (2017)	Betw. + DDM	General	SLR	+	R^2	0.70	●		Box-Cox	121 locations	Cardiff, Wales
Cooper (2018)	Betw. + DDM	General	Ridge regr.	+	R^2	0.78	●		GEH	121 locations	Cardiff, Wales
Law et al. (2014)	ASA	General	MLR	+	R^2	0.40 (ASA) 0.66 (ASA + Cycle Superhighway)		●	Log	“over 50”	London, England
McCahill and Garrick (2008)	ASA	General	SLR	+	R^2	0.16 (0.60–0.76 incl. density)			Log	16 locations	Cambridge, England
McDaniel et al. (2014)	Betw. + DDM	General	MLR	+	R^2	0.45–0.61	●			14 locations	Moscow, USA,
Manum et al. (2017)	ASA + Reach	General	MLR	+	R^2	0.45 (multivariable model)		●		174 locations	Gothenburg, Sweden
Orellana and Guerrero (2019a)	ASA	General	MLR	+	IRR	1.60 (weekdays) 1.70 (commuting)		●	z-score	1-yr Strava Metro roll-up	Cuenca, Ecuador
Orellana and Guerrero (2019b)	ASA	Gen. + Comm.	MLR	+	IRR	2.75 (weekdays) 2.78 (weekends)		●	z-score	1-yr Strava Metro roll-up	Manta, Ecuador
Bike Km Travelled
Hochmair et al. (2019)	Betw. + DDM	Gen. + Comm.	SLR		R^2	0.46 to 0.50 (DDM)		●	z-score	1-yr Strava Metro roll-up	Miami-Dade County, USA

Abbreviations: Betw. = betweenness; Comm. = commuting; Gen. = general; IRR = incidence rate ratios; regr. = regression; MLR = multivariable linear regression; SLR = simple linear regression; Fract. = fractional; ZOIB = zero-inflated beta regression; GEH = Geoffrey E. Havers statistic; n.p. = not provided.

Abad, L., & van der Meer, L. (2018). Quantifying bicycle network connectivity in Lisbon using open data. Information (Switzerland), 9(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/info9110287

 Google Scholar

Bearn, C., Mingus, C., & Watkins, K. (2018). An adaption of the level of traffic stress based on evidence from the literature and widely available data. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 29, 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2018.12.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Beecham, R., Yang, Y., Tait, C., & Lovelace, R. (2023). Connected bikeability in London: Which localities are better connected by bike and does this matter? Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 50(8), 2103–2117. https://doi.org/10.1177/23998083231165122

 Google Scholar

Boisjoly, G., Lachapelle, U., & El-Geneidy, A. (2020). Bicycle network performance: Assessing the directness of bicycle facilities through connectivity measures, a Montreal, Canada case study. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 14(8), 620–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2019.1595791

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cabral, L., Kim, A. M., & Shirgaokar, M. (2019). Low-stress bicycling connectivity: Assessment of the network build-out in Edmonton, Canada. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 7(2), 230–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2019.04.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cabral, L., & Kim, A. M. (2022). An empirical reappraisal of the level of traffic stress framework for segments. Travel Behaviour and Society, 26, 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2021.09.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cervero, R., Denman, S., & Jin, Y. (2019). Network design, built and natural environments, and bicycle commuting: Evidence from British cities and towns. Transport Policy, 74, 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.09.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chan, E. Y. C., & Cooper, C. H. V. (2019). Using road class as a replacement for predicted motorized traffic flow in spatial network models of cycling. Scientific Reports, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55669-8

 Google Scholar

Chou, K.-Y., Paulsen, M., Nielsen, O. A., & Jensen, A. F. (2023). Analysis of cycling accessibility using detour ratios – A large-scale study based on crowdsourced GPS data. Sustainable Cities and Society, 93, 104500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104500

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cooper, C. H. V. (2017). Using spatial network analysis to model pedal cycle flows, risk and mode choice. Journal of Transport Geography, 58, 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.12.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cooper, C. H. V. (2018). Predictive spatial network analysis for high-resolution transport modeling, applied to cyclist flows, mode choice, and targeting investment. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 12(10), 714–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2018.1432730

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Costa, M., Marques, M., & Moura, F. (2021). A circuity temporal analysis of urban street networks using open data: A Lisbon case study. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(7), 453. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10070453

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cunha, I., & Silva, C. (2023). Assessing the equity impact of cycling infrastructure allocation: Implications for planning practice. Transport Policy, 133, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.12.021

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Furth, P. G., Mekuria, M. C., & Nixon, H. (2016). Network connectivity for low-stress bicycling. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2587(1), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.3141/2587-06

 Google Scholar

Furth, P. G., Putta, T. V. V. K., & Moser, P. (2018). Measuring low-stress connectivity in terms of bike-accessible jobs and potential bike-to-work trips: A case study evaluating alternative bike route alignments in Northern Delaware. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 11(1), 815–831. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2018.1159

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gehrke, S. R., Akhavan, A., Furth, P. G., Wang, Q., & Reardon, T. G. (2020). A cycling-focused accessibility tool to support regional bike network connectivity. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 85, 102388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102388

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gholamialam, A., & Matisziw, T. C. (2019). Modeling bikeability of urban systems. Geographical Analysis, 51(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/gean.12159

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hochmair, H. H., Bardin, E., & Ahmouda, A. (2019). Estimating bicycle trip volume for Miami-Dade County from Strava tracking data. Journal of Transport Geography, 75, 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.01.013

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Imani, A. F., Miller, E. J., & Saxe, S. (2019). Cycle accessibility and level of traffic stress: A case study of Toronto. Journal of Transport Geography, 80, 102496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102496

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kent, M., & Karner, A. (2019). Prioritizing low-stress and equitable bicycle networks using neighborhood-based accessibility measures. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 13(2), 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2018.1443177

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Law, S., Sakr, F. L., & Martinez, M. (2014). Measuring the changes in aggregate cycling patterns between 2003 and 2012 from a space syntax perspective. Behavioral Sciences, 4(3), 278–300. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs4030278

 Google Scholar

Lowry, M., Callister, D., Gresham, M., & Moore, B. (2012). Assessment of communitywide bikeability with bicycle level of service. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2314(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.3141/2314-06

 Google Scholar

Lowry, M. B., Furth, P., & Hadden-Loh, T. (2016). Prioritizing new bicycle facilities to improve low-stress network connectivity. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 86, 124–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.02.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lowry, M., & Loh, T. H. (2017). Quantifying bicycle network connectivity. Preventive Medicine, 95, S134–S140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.12.007

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Manum, B., & Nordstrom, T. (2013). Integrating bicycle network analysis in urban design: Improving bikeability in Trondheim by combining space syntax and GIS-methods using the place syntax tool. 9th International Space Syntax Symposium, 28, Seoul, Korea, 1–14.

 Google Scholar

Manum, B., Nordström, T., Gil, J., Nilsson, L., & Marcus, L. (2017). Modelling bikeability: Space syntax based measures applied in examining speeds and flows of bicycling in Gothenburg. 11th international space syntax symposium, Lisbon, Portugal, 89.1–89.16.

 Google Scholar

Martinez, A., Phair, C., Russo, B., & Gehrke, S. (2024). Exploring neighborhood differences in bicycling accessibility to physical and virtual workplaces. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2678(3), 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981231178811

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McCahill, C., & Garrick, N. (2008). The applicability of space syntax to bicycle facility planning. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2074(1), 46–51. https://doi.org/10.3141/2074-06

 Google Scholar

McDaniel, S., Lowry, M. B., & Dixon, M. (2014). Using origin-destination centrality to estimate directional bicycle volumes. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2430(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.3141/2430-02

 Google Scholar

Moran, S. K., Tsay, W., Lawrence, S., & Krykewycz, G. R. (2018). Lowering bicycle stress one link at a time: Where should we invest in infrastructure? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2672(36), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118783109

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Murphy, B., & Owen, A. (2019). Implementing low-stress bicycle routing in national accessibility evaluation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2673(5), 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119837179

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nordström, T., & Manum, B. (2015). Measuring bikeability: Space syntax based methods applied in planning for improved conditions for bicycling in Oslo. 10th international space syntax symposium. London, UK, 13–17.

 Google Scholar

Orellana, D., & Guerrero, M. L. (2019a). Exploring the influence of road network structure on the spatial behaviour of cyclists using crowdsourced data. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(7), 1314–1330. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808319863810

 Google Scholar

Orellana, D., & Guerrero, M. L. (2019b). The influence of space syntax on cycling movement in Manta, Ecuador. 12th international space syntax symposium, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, 227.

 Google Scholar

Orozco, L. G. N., Battiston, F., Iniguez, G., & Szell, M. (2020). Data-driven strategies for optimal bicycle network growth. Royal Society Open Science, 7(12), 201130. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201130

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ospina, J. P., Duque, J. C., Botero-Fernández, V., & Brussel, M. (2022a). Understanding the effect of sociodemographic, natural and built environment factors on cycling accessibility. Journal of Transport Geography, 102, 103386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103386

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ospina, J. P., Duque, J. C., Botero-Fernández, V., & Montoya, A. (2022b). The maximal covering bicycle network design problem. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 159, 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.02.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Perez, B. O., Buck, D., Ma, Y. W., Robey, T., & Lucas, K. (2017). Mind the gap: Assessing the impacts of bicycle accessibility and mobility on mode share in Washington, D.C. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2662(1), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.3141/2662-10

 Google Scholar

Putta, T., & Furth, P. G. (2019). Method to identify and visualize barriers in a low-stress bike network. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2673(9), 452–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119847617

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Putta, T., & Furth, P. G. (2021). Impact of one-way streets and contraflow on low-stress bicycle network connectivity. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2675(10), 1174–1183. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211014893

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reggiani, G., van Oijen, T., Hamedmoghadam, H., Daamen, W., Vu, H. L., & Hoogendoorn, S. (2022). Understanding bikeability: A methodology to assess urban networks. Transportation, 49(3), 897–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-021-10198-0

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rupi, F., Poliziani, C., & Schweizer, J. (2019). Data-driven bicycle network analysis based on traditional counting methods and GPS traces from smartphone. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 8(8), 322. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8080322

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ryu, S., Chen, A., Su, J., & Choi, K. (2018). Two-stage bicycle traffic assignment model. Journal of Transportation Engineering Part A: Systems, 144(2).

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ryu, S., Chen, A., Su, J., & Choi, K. (2021a). A multi-class, multi-criteria bicycle traffic assignment model. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 15(7), 524–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2020.1770906

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ryu, S., Chen, A., Su, J., Liu, X., & Yu, J. (2021b). Considering space syntax in bicycle traffic assignment with one or more user classes. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(19). https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911078

 Google Scholar

Semler, C., Sanders, M., Buck, D., Dock, S., Cesme, B., & Wang, S. (2018). The keys to connectivity: The district of Columbia’s innovative approach to unlocking low-stress bicycle networks. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2672(36), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118798445

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Soltani, A., Allan, A., Javadpoor, M., & Lella, J. (2022). Space syntax in analysing bicycle commuting routes in inner metropolitan Adelaide. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063485

 Google Scholar

Vybornova, A., Cunha, T., Guhnemann, A., & Szell, M. (2022). Automated detection of missing links in bicycle networks. Geographical Analysis, 55(2), 239–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/gean.12324

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wang, K. L., Akar, G., Lee, K., & Sanders, M. (2020). Commuting patterns and bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS): Insights from spatially aggregated data in Franklin County, Ohio. Journal of Transport Geography, 86, 102751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102751

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wasserman, D., Rixey, A., Zhou, X. Y., Levitt, D., & Benjamin, M. (2019). Evaluating OpenStreetMap’s performance potential for level of traffic stress analysis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2673(4), 284–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119836772

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wysling, L., & Purves, R. S. (2022). Where to improve cycling infrastructure? Assessing bicycle suitability and bikeability with open data in the city of Paris. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 15, 100648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2022.100648

 Google Scholar

Zuo, T., & Wei, H. (2019). Bikeway prioritization to increase bicycle network connectivity and bicycle-transit connection: A multi-criteria decision analysis approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 129, 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.08.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zuo, T., Wei, H., Chen, N., & Zhang, C. (2020). First-and-last mile solution via bicycling to improving transit accessibility and advancing transportation equity. Cities, 99, 102614. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2020.102614

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zuo, T., Wei, H., & Chen, N. (2021). Incorporating low-stress bicycling connectivity into expanded transit service coverage. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2675(4), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198121998956

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar