
==== Front
Community Health Equity Res Policy
Community Health Equity Res Policy
spqch
QCH
Community Health Equity Research & Policy
2752-535X
2752-5368
SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA

37933178
10.1177_2752535X231211418
10.1177/2752535X231211418
00000
Applied Research
Success and Challenges of Community Bicycle Advocacy Organizations in Reaching Underserved Populations
Elliott Lucas D. 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5170-9410
Bopp Melissa 1
1 Department of Kinesiology, 8082 The Pennsylvania State University , University Park, PA, USA
Lucas D. Elliott, Department of Kinesiology, The Pennsylvania State University, 23C Recreation Hall, University Park, PA 16802, USA. Email: lde5065@psu.edu
7 11 2023
10 2024
45 1 311
© The Author(s) 2023
2023
SAGE Publications
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

Introduction

Bicycling, as forms of recreation and travel, offers many positive physical and mental health benefits, though there are still many disparities in bicycling rates among underserved populations in the United States. Community bicycling advocacy organizations/coalitions promote and advocate for increased bicycling; however, have been shown to have a lack of organizational capacity for equitable programming to diverse populations (racial/ethnic minorities, women, low-income, LGBTQ+ communities, youth). The purpose of this study was to understand the current practices for providing underserved populations bicycling programming among advocacy organizations and to find major barriers and helpful tools for equitable programming.

Methods

This was conducted in a volunteer sample of U.S. bicycle advocacy organizations. An interview (n = 23) assessed organizational function, successful programs, and barriers to reaching underserved populations.

Results

Several themes emerged from the interviews. Participants stated that the lack of organizational leadership and member diversity, along with a lack of trust with underserved communities, presented major barriers to providing equitable programming. Partnering with other community organizations that place an emphasis on serving diverse populations was noted to have potential for increasing successful programming by allocating resources and connections.

Conclusion

Although barriers exist for bicycle advocacy organizations when attempting to reach underserved and diverse populations, groups should focus on creating successful and diverse partnerships to increase the capacity for providing equitable programming.

community partnerships
bicycling
health equity
health promotion
underserved populations
public health
typesetterts10
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Active travel (AT), or the act of walking or bicycling for transportation purposes, is shown to produce positive health effects, including lowering the risks of cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes.1,2 AT has also shown to be an efficient way to achieve the recommended minutes of daily physical activity throughout the day.3–6 Additionally, increasing the rates of AT decreases overall car trips, leading to decreased car emissions, improved air quality and increased the health and wellness of communities. 7 Although the health and economic benefits of bicycling are widely recognized, disparities in specific underserved and diverse demographic populations are seen. 8

In the United States, there is a well-documented lack of resources and infrastructure to support bicycling in diverse and low-income communities which lowers the rates of bicycling for transportation amongst these populations,9–13 and creates an overall negative perception and atmosphere for bicycling. 14 Disparities in bicycling for AT and recreationally can also be seen in women, who participate in bicycling at a rate two times lower than their male counterparts. 12 This disparity can be attributed to many social and environmental factors that may decrease support for women bicycling, including concerns about safety, crime, caregiving demands or a lack of social support.15,16 Other disparities in bicycling rates for AT and recreational riding can be seen in youth, due to the need for increased resources to educate new riders how to, where to, and when to ride.17,18 Although there is limited research surrounding this population, LGBTQ+ communities may also participate at lower rates of AT due to environmental and social norms, including the narrative of bicycling being a white, binary-male-driven activity.19,20 Many transportation and recreational bicycling disparities exist amongst these underrepresented populations, but producing a supportive environment and community, along with a strong environmental infrastructure, may increase participation in bicycling across all of these populations.21–23 Complete streets policies 24 aimed at ‘everyone’, and Safe Routes To School programs 25 aimed at youth, are just a couple of examples of ways that cities and towns can prioritize increasing AT and recreational bicycling participation in their communities.

Programming, education, planning and evaluation has shown to play an impactful role in successful bicycle promotion and advocacy in many communities. 26 Organizations known as bicycle advocacy groups/organizations/coalitions (hereafter known as bicycle advocacy organizations) are typically the key stakeholder for promotion and advocacy to increase overall bicycling and safety in communities. Nationally, many of these organizations self-describe themselves as coalitions of community members, partners, organizations and other local stakeholders focused on bicycle advocacy, education and encouragement for their communities. These organizations are generally operated by a combination of staff and volunteers, are non-profit organizations, 27 and attempt to educate, encourage, advocate and inform the community and local government on ways to increase the safety, infrastructure, benefits, build effective partnerships and increase overall participation of bicycling in a community. 28 Community organizing frameworks place emphasis on increasing overall organizational capacity for effective execution of organizational goals, improving the ability to better address problems throughout the community and increasing social capital and community connections. 29

Initial research has been conducted to understand bicycle advocacy organizations’ capacity for providing programming to underserved populations (low-income, racial/ethnic minorities, women, youth, and the LGBTQ+ community). 27 Results from this study suggested that there is a lack of programming towards underserved populations, compared to the general population and equity related issues were not considered to be the most important priority to these organizations. 30 Although initial studies have suggested that equitable programming capacity was low, there is deficit in the literature understanding why barriers are seen in different populations and how best practices can be used to increase capacity for equitable programming. This study aimed to quantitatively understand current bicycle advocacy organizations strategies for reaching specific population groups with programming and advocacy efforts and qualitatively understand the organization’s perceived deeper barriers, helpful tools to reach underserved populations, and programs that have to be successful/unsuccessful in these organizations by interviewing organizational leadership members across the United States.

Methods

Participants and Recruitment

In September- December 2021 bicycle advocacy group representatives were recruited from a volunteer sample of participants of a web-based survey (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) of bicycle advocacy organization leadership described elsewhere. 31 Advocacy organization participants were identified through the League of American Bicyclist’s (LAB.) website, a national bicycle advocacy organization. Leadership representatives from these organizations were invited to participate and respond on behalf of their group if they had a working knowledge of their organization’s activities and approaches to advocating for bicycling in their community. Participants who were interviewed had titles of, but not limited to, Executive Director, President, Board Chair and Founder. The survey response rate was 33.1% (n = 95). After incomplete survey data was discarded, the final sample results in n = 71, with a completion rate of 74.7%. A question at the end of the survey asked participants to provide their contact information if they were interested in participating in an interview in the future. Among the 43 organizations who expressed interest and were contacted to participate in the interview, 23 (53.5%) agreed to be a part of our study. Saturation was achieved through these interviews, with the same themes repeatedly being identified by participants, with a geographically dispersed set of participants as well as a diverse population where the organizations served. There were no incentives provided for this study. The Pennsylvania State University Institutional review board approved this study.

Procedures

A trained interviewer conducted the interviews via Zoom (San Jose, CA, USA). Audio recordings of the interviews were taken after a verbal informed consent was granted from the participant. The interviewer followed a script of questions regarding the organization’s functioning, the needs of the community, organizational leadership diversity, barriers/helpful tools to reaching underserved populations, partnerships with other organizations, as well as previous successful programming focused on underserved populations. The interview guide was developed from previous study results,27,31 consultation from an experienced community bicycling practitioner, and existing literature in best practices of bicycling promotion.8,26 Questions (including prompts) from the interviews can be found in Table 1.Table 1. Interviewer Questions (Prompts italicized).

Does your organization have a mission statement or something that you specifically strive for promoting in your community?	
What is your coalition's culture like?	
 How would you describe it to prospective members?	
How many people serve on your coalition's leadership?	
 How many are paid?	
Thinking about diversity by gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, income level and ability level. What types of diversity is seen throughout your leadership roles?	
 Have there been specific efforts to diversify your leadership team?	
  Please describe how you have approached this.	
  OR, if not, are there plans to do so?	
What types of events/programs does your organization mostly promote or have to educate or encourage bicycling in your community?	
Are any of these specifically focused on any underserved populations (racial/ethnic minorities, low-income, LGTBQ+, women, youth)?	
 What practices does your organization employ in order to make that the most successful?	
 How successful are these programs?	
 How does your coalition define success?	
What programs have shown to be unsuccessful?	
 What would you do differently?	
Do you have any advice to other coalitions on how to make these programs more successful and accessible to these populations?	
 Would you be interested in partnering with an aspiring coalition in regard to questions about these topics?	
Were there any barriers to getting some of these underserved populations to participate in the programs and activities your coalition delivers?	
 What were they?	
 How did you overcome them? Or how do you plan on overcoming them?	
 What do you wish you knew before you started to deliver these types of programs?	
Would leadership/member training on how to reach diverse populations be appealing to your coalition?	
 If so, how would you like it delivered? Pamphlet, webinar, Zoom meeting, in-person?	

Measures

Participants were asked to describe the area that their organization serves (city/town, entire county, region with several cities, entire state), the approximate population served, and their community’s League of American Bicyclists (LAB.) Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC) recognition (none/honorable mention/bronze/silver/gold/platinum). BFC recognition is awarded to U.S. communities by the LAB. based on many bicycle friendly characteristics. 32

Data Analysis

Basic frequencies and descriptives were used to describe the sample. Using standard grounded theory qualitative methods, 33 the interview transcripts were initially reviewed by the first author to identify major themes as they emerged and a coding guide was created to group these themes. The guide included the main themes that were present in the data that were informed by the previous literature (barriers/challenges, organizational issues, successful approaches) and was refined as the coding progressed, adapting to be more specific and expanding or refining definitions of codes after discussion among the coders. Three independent coders analyzed the transcripts, coded the interviews individually, met to triangulate responses, and came to a final consensus on the themes that were represented in the data. Qualitative coding and thematic analysis were completed using Atlas.ti Version 8.4.5 (Berlin, Germany).

Results

After the thematic analysis was complete, five major themes were identified that were commonly noted by participants. These themes are outlined below, considering their level of bicycle friendliness (BFC) as well as provide a short description of the LAB. BFC recognition level (None, Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum, or State-serving [Note: state-serving coalitions/organizations do not receive BFC recognition]), as well as the type of population it serves (city/town, county, region, or state) for each organization’s representative.

Demographics

Of the 23 organizations that took part in the interview, the majority served cities/towns or entire counties and serving populations greater than 750,000 individuals. The communities that these organizations served were most commonly recognized as Bronze-Level Bicycle Friendly Community. 32 Overall, 19 various states geographically dispersed throughout the U.S. were part of the sample. Full frequencies of organization and community demographics can be found in Table 2.Table 2. Bicycle Advocacy Organization community Demographics for Survey Responses.

	n	%	
Description of area that the organization serves	
 City/town	8	34.8	
 Entire county	8	34.8	
 Region with several cities/towns	3	13.0	
 An entire state	4	17.4	
Populations of areas served	
 0-50,000	4	17.4	
 50,000-250,000	7	30.4	
 250,000-750,000	4	17.4	
 750,000+	8	34.8	
LAB BFC recognition level	
 None	1	5.6	
 Honorable mention	0	0.0	
 Bronze	10	55.6	
 Silver	6	33.3	
 Gold	0	0.0	
 Platinum	1	5.6	
U.S. States represented (out of 50)	
 Number of different states	19	38.0	

Theme 1: Barrier to Reaching Underserved Populations is a Lack of Trust Between Community and Organization

There were many organizations (n = 7) that stated a lack of trust between the organization and community populations was a barrier to programming capacity. One participant spoke about personal interactions saying that “I’ve spoken with [Outside Community Organizations] who rightfully so are skeptical. They’re like ‘Who is this organization? Why do they want to talk to us now?’, but I think proving that there’s genuine interest there and that we really want it to be a relationship that evolves. You know, be skeptical, absolutely should be, until the organization has proven to them that we’re kind of in it for the long haul” (OR#10, State-serving).

Some participants stated they have not even thought about the issues surrounding the lack of programming in underserved populations in their community. They stated that “Either we have a hard time connecting with people in that community [African American or Black] or maybe they don’t have the time or interest in helping out. I’m not sure exactly, we haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about it” (OR#16, Silver, City). Representatives suggested that there was a strong disconnect with their respective underserved communities, which potentially results in lower capacity for programming. One advocacy group representative stated: “There probably were some trust issues about the parts of other organizations, looking at [Name of Their Organization], because [Name of Same Organization] was a predominately white organization” (OR#2, Bronze, County). Additional illustrative quotes surrounding this theme are in Table 3.Table 3. Illustrative Quotes for Themes 1-5 for Interviews.

Illustrative quote	
Theme 1: Barrier to reaching underserved populations is a lack of trust between community and organizations (n = 7)	
 “So many of the bike organizations, you know I'll use the term ‘white lens'. The gentleman from [Name of Other Community Organization] is like ‘Yeah you're a white guy you don't necessarily understand what our community needs', and that's where I would say ‘Alright, you know, teach me. I'm willing to learn.'” (OR#10, state-serving)	
 “There's always people who are hesitant to get on a bicycle and oftentimes those folks are from marginalized communities. I was just talking about this today … with some black and Latino friends, is that because [Name of City] is a significantly white community, people (marginalized) are looking for other spaces that they feel safe and welcomed to.” (OR#11, platinum, city)	
	
Theme 2: Lack of organizational leadership and membership diversity is a barrier to reaching underserved populations (n = 21)	
 “We don't have a lot of diversity in our leadership, board, or volunteers. So right now, it's [The Board] pretty white, we do have a lot of females, but I think most of us are white and so we don't have a whole lot of representation of the community's that we serve.” (OR#13, silver, county)	
 “Sometimes it's just more difficult to get things done because we're really failing in equity and diversity.” (OR#18, bronze, region)	
 “We're not as diverse as I wish we were.” (OR#3, bronze, county)	
 “For the most part it [Organization] is female and white, which is typical of most nonprofits.” (OR#7, state-serving)	
 “I think our board is overwhelmingly white, so we need to change that because we're serving in our programs a lot of minority communities and environmental justice communities.” (OR#7, state-serving)	
 “The bike community overall is overwhelmingly white. Also, there is a lot of homogeneity of socioeconomic status too, among people who are really active and visible in the bicycling community.” (OR#12, silver, city)	
 “What I've learned … is we weren't doing much of anything when it came to appealing to anyone other than middle-aged retired white guys.” (OR#10, state-serving)“	
	
Theme 3: Partnerships with other community organizations help Reach underserved populations (n = 18)	
 “We're partnering with more local non-profits serving historically excluded communities. [Such as], formerly incarcerated people, recent immigrants and refugees.” (OR#12, silver, city)	
 “We’ve been really deliberate about reaching out to … organizations who work with communities to serve other purposes. I think that's actually really important [so] it's not just a bunch of bike organizations descending on a marginalized community and being like ‘we're here to help you ride bikes'.” (OR#12, silver, city)	
 “Our partners at the [Name of Partner Organization] totally step in and help out with our translation… Just having the materials pushed out through people that work at partner organizations that are bilingual and constantly engaging with Spanish speaking people we want to approach. [And also] having all of our written materials [translated] on social media.” (OR#17, silver, county)	
 “We have a great relationship with our county public health agencies, and they have health educators within those agencies who are working for a program in the [Name of State] Department of Health … They provide money to public health agencies to work with community work sites and schools to reduce obesity and tobacco use. They are a great connector to leaders in the community that they are working with for these issues. The either put us in contact with their school leaders, community leaders, or they tell those leaders about us. [We then] work through how our different programs may be able to collaborate and meet their needs.” (OR#21, state-serving)	
 “We're helping target those low-income schools and there's significantly more diversity there. I also contact principals of schools that have a high percentage of subsidized lunches at the beginning of every school year and remind them ‘Hey. We're here. We'll come out to your school for free and provide the service to you, just let us know when and where.’ We've had a few schools respond which has been good because we're able to get in there and do some [Bike] safety education.” (OR#22, bronze, city)	
 “We do have a really great partnership with the [University]'s international student's division. We typically, once a quarter, offer an in-person class as well as a bike ride to international students who are interested in learning more. [We also] table at all of their events so we can provide them [with] things like bike maps, free [bike] lights, helmet fittings, different education components.” (OR#5, bronze, county)	
	
Theme 4: Important to listen, rather than force ideals (n = 12)	
 “You know, as far as neighborhood associations go in that partnership, we really prefer to listen to neighborhood associations and have them tell us what they need, rather than trying to force an ideal onto them.” (OR#5, bronze, county)	
 “We can come in and help do the education and maybe provide some funding and bicycles, but they really put on those events and we kind of like to just take the backseat.” (OR#6, bronze, county)	
 “Make the call. I've done so many cold calls like ‘This is [Participant's name with Bicycle Advocacy Group] and you don't know me. I don’t know you. I want to have a conversation.’ Then, really, it's a lot about listening and learning. Very little talking.” (OR#10, state-serving)	
	
Theme 5: Having shared values are an important factor for successful partnerships (n = 8)	
 “So, before you go out partnering, we would really think ‘Okay, this is nice to know. What this group is asking, is it really relevant?’ We would talk amongst ourselves as a board… Sometimes I was just promoting an event. Sometimes it was putting a link on our websites. Other times it was our group having a voice at the event and showing up.” (OR#1, silver, city)	
 “Attending a lot of public meetings and finding and finding a lot of overlap with bicycling and [other] places may not have otherwise started [our] thinking. [For example], healthy aging.” (OR#7, state-serving)	
 “When we show up at meetings … we certainly have a lot more people in there with us that are advocating and marching in the same direction. Like-minded.” (OR#15, bronze, region)	
Note: OR = Organizational Representative identification.

Theme 2: Lack of Organizational Leadership and Membership Diversity is a Barrier to Reaching Underserved Populations

This barrier was seen in the majority of groups (n = 21) that were interviewed. Lack of leadership and membership diversity can be seen in a variety of ways, from gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, education, etc. One representative stated: “It [The Organization’s Board] leans very heavily male, there’s only myself currently active on the board that’s female. There is LGBTQ diversity. We don’t have any current board members that are black. Which, I don’t know how you go about like, specifically recruiting a black person without sounding like you’re crazy or racist” (OR#22, Bronze, City). When organizational leadership is struggling to have diversity on their board, it may be more difficult to connect to similar underserved populations of the community. .

Recreational bicycling has become a heavily upper class, white male activity to participate in, with a participant stating that “There are a lot of white upper-middle class, middle-aged or even beyond middle-aged bike club members, who have a certain outlook on biking” (OR#9, Silver, City), and another expressing “That it [bicycling] tends to be the cycling enthusiasts who get involved. And so, our demographics tend to be a little older, more affluent, more white. I’ll make myself the example, I’m retired and I’ve thrown most of my retirement into this” (OR#3, Bronze, County). Additional illustrative quotes surrounding this theme are in Table 3.

Theme 3: Partnerships with Other Community Organizations

There were a number of advocacy groups (n = 18) that stated that one of the reasons they were successful in creating programming to underserved populations was due to their partnerships with other community organizations. “It’s about, for us, making sure that we’re working with organizations that are embedded in the communities of people that we want to serve, and making sure we’re working with organizations that have developed trust with those communities so that we’re not just coming in and telling them how to ride bikes, but making sure that we’re working in collaboration with them to have their bicycling needs met” (OR#12, Silver BFC, City). Another organization’s representative gave advice to other organizations stating that “I would say that community organizations are a good place to start. And they may not be focused on cycling, a lot of underprivileged communities have bigger concerns, right? But it is something that is a consideration because maybe they have part of their population who have to get around by bike… So, I think finding those kind of community leaders, the people who really know what’s going on in the neighborhood and are just overall connected” (OR#10, State-serving).

Another positive association noted by participant’s partnerships with outside community organizations is the allocation of resources. For example, one organization currently implements a referral program for those who really need bikes stating that “Our referral program, or referral procedure, is a really big factor into our success of being able to create partnerships with the community… and having them make that connection with the kids and families that are in need, I think that’s a huge help. And not only does it save us a lot of time, but we just were not able to be out there in the way that they are, and so really utilizing their knowledge and their relationships to reach those families is a huge success for us” (OR#13, Silver, County). Additional illustrative quotes surrounding this theme can be found in Table 3.

Theme 4: Important to Listen, Rather than Force Ideals

Many advocacy groups (n = 12) that have partnered with organizations in the community which promote programs towards underserved populations stated that one of the most important things for a successful, long-term partnership, is the ability to listen, rather than forcing bicycling ideals. One representative stating that “I think it’s really just boiled down to having a good relationship with folks. I think my strongest partnerships have been born out of times where I’ve taken the time to really listen and hear what they’re doing and being completely honest about whether I see room for collaboration or an overlap” (OR#17, Silver, City).

Many organizations may have the resources for supporting bicycling, but often do not have the capacity to change all the issues that may be present in an underserved community. Understanding that underserved communities may have larger problems aside from bicycling is an important strategy when partnering. One representative said that “The approach that we’ve taken is kind of the you know, the listen approach. Like, first listen. Don’t come in there and be like ‘Hey, we’re going to save the day type thing’” (OR#10, State-serving). Additional illustrative quotes surrounding this theme are in Table 3.

Theme 5: Having Shared Values are an Important Factor for Successful Partnerships

Some advocacy organizations (n = 8) stated that it was important to have partners that shared similar values, whether it be from a non-profit standpoint or even just the individuals leading the organization. Partnerships with other community organizations could include other non-profits as well. One representative stating that “I think the reason that the partnership with [Name of Community Organization] has been so successful is they are also a non-profit, and so they’re coming at the program with a similar lens to us” (OR#8, State-serving). Success of the overall organization may be due to the members values as well, stating that “Most people joining are contributing because they believe in the mission, and they want to see change, see our advocacy work succeed” (OR#2, Bronze, County). Additional quotes for this theme are noted in Table 3.

Discussion

Community organizations and coalitions are important tools for advocating and promoting healthy behaviors, including physical activity and bicycling, through community wide educational campaigns, 34 interventions with behavioral/social support, 35 as well as increasing accessibility to places that may promote physically active behaviors. 36 Bicycle coalitions or advocacy groups, typically run by volunteers and funded by non-profit monies (e.g., 501(c) (3) funds), may also have this potential to significantly increase participation in bicycling for all members of their communities. Previous results suggested that there is a lack of organizational capacity for providing equitable bicycling programming and advocacy. 31 Capacity incorporates various characteristics, but most importantly stresses the ability to provide skills, resources, and leadership to overcome problems. 29 Without this, community organizations, advocacy groups and coalitions may struggle to reflect the changing needs and demographics of the communities, especially in diverse and underserved populations.

The current study suggests and adds to the literature by discussing the best practices that bicycle advocacy groups are taking to incorporate equitable opportunities into their bicycle programming. Comparable to research on physical activity coalitions, 37 the emphasis on strong organizational partnerships was a strong and consistent theme across both survey and interview results. A review of these multi-sectorial connections 38 has noted the importance of having diverse partners onboard to reach underserved population groups within the community, which is consistent with our findings. Other reviews 39 have noted the importance of having diversity of leadership for community coalitions or organizations to operate effectively, which is line with our major themes.

A major barrier to reaching underserved populations that was seen throughout the interview process was the perceived lack of trust between the underserved community populations and the organizations/advocacy groups. This lack of trust can make programming very difficult, if not impossible. This concern and problem may stem from the other major barrier commonly portrayed by representatives: having a lack of leadership and membership diversity. It is important to note the many social norms surrounding bicyclists that present challenges for reaching the entire community. Recreational bicycling is commonly portrayed as a middle to upper class, white, male-driven sport. These individuals may even be considered ‘spandex people’ or MAMIL’s (Middle Aged Men In Lycra), 40 or commonly seen individuals who wear race-level clothing to eliminate wind resistance when cycling.41–43 This generalization of bicycling has the potential to suppress underserved population participation by increasing the social and environmental norms of bicycling. Understanding that bicycling, in any shape or form (i.e., recreational or travel), can contribute health benefits to individuals who do participate should be important to community and public health leaders.29,44 Engaging with the community at a personal level in order to build trust is a potential successful initial strategy that will help create a more inclusive organization to serve a larger, diverse population. 45

One way that bicycle advocacy groups have shown to alleviate the barrier of trust and leadership diversity is through partnerships with other community organizations, especially ones who have an emphasis on serving diverse populations. Previous literature has also suggested this narrative, stating that partnerships with other community organizations (e.g. non-profit, government) has the potential to increase the reach, support, resources, and connections of the community. 46 These partners are more likely to have understanding of the specific influences on bicycling for a particular population, social and cultural norms or other relevant insights needed to develop culturally tailored programs and outreach strategies. Many representatives that stated their organization was doing this well and emphasized the need for partnering with organizations that already have ‘their foot in’ with specific diverse populations. A key example of this type of partnership comes from an organization who was part of a referral program. This bicycle advocacy organization partnered with another organization who works closely with refugee and low-income populations in their community. The refugee organization becomes close with these families to identify their needs. After understanding that a family is in need of a bicycle, they are then referred to this community bicycle advocacy organization, where then, they can use their personal resources to provide these families with the bicycles, educational materials, and other resources that they might need to support a ‘bicycle-friendly lifestyle’.

Partnerships are only as successful as the meaning behind them, which speaks specifically to the strength, depth and reciprocity of the relationship. Many underserved communities have other priorities relative to transportation equity (e.g., public transportation access, inequitable enforcement of transportation-related laws), however delivering bicycle programming may also consequently help alleviate these concerns (e.g., no access to car, improved health). For example in Los Angeles, the local bicycle coalition and other community organizations have been advocating against the unfair targeting of cyclists of color by local police organizations. 47 Bicycle advocacy groups should work towards being culturally sensitive of these concerns, while also understanding the true needs of the community through listening sessions, data and information gathering, or stakeholder interviews. It may be important to create a needs assessment to accurately understand what is truly going on with bicycling behavior and influences. Forcing bicycling ideals on community organizations and populations may have a negative response. Another commonly portrayed theme from organizations was the notion that having shared values with these partners is important, consistent with interorganizational relations theory (IOR). 48 These values and coordinated approach to solving a solution may be important to create successful, and effective programs that serve the needs of both organizations.

Although these themes and considerations for partnerships are insightful, there are a number of limitations that were seen in this study. One limitation is the survey, along with the interest to participate in our interview was voluntary, which could be subject to biases. As the participants were singular members of the organization, their views may be subject to opinion and may not accurately represent the organization/group as a whole. Future research in equitable bicycle programming should attempt to use a number of mixed methods analyses to understand the differences in capacity issues and the characteristics of the organization. Additional research should also attempt to answer other questions regarding specific programs, partnerships, and policies advocated for that have shown success in underserved and diverse populations. We did not assess the demographics of the survey or interview participants so we are unable to determine the gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation or ability level of the participants, and consequently the perspectives that were represented in the responses on behalf of the organization. Lastly, all of the information gathered is only from the perspective of the organization, not from the community they serve. Future studies should recognize the importance of learning from multiple perspectives and work to incorporate community perspectives to compliment organizational self-reports.

Bicycle coalitions and advocacy organizations have the potential to create a healthier and more bicycle friendly communities throughout the United States. Although there are organizations that have resources to promote bicycling, disparities among diverse and underserved populations continue to exist. Previous literature suggests that the organizational capacity, or ability to address problems, for equitable programming may be lacking. This study outlined themes that suggest that major barriers in programming to underserved populations are having a lack of trust between community populations and bicycle advocacy organizations, as well as a lack of diversity of organizational leadership and membership. The results also suggest that creating partnerships with other community organizations that have connections with underserved populations has the potential to increase the capacity for equitable programming. Moreover, listening to community partners, and having similar ideals may also have the potential to create more successful partnerships. By understanding the importance of these community partnerships, we hope that bicycle advocacy groups may begin or continue to nurture and create successful and useful partnerships to increase equitable programming in bicycling.

Author Biographies

Dr. Lucas Elliott was a graduate research assistant in the Department of Kinesiology at Pennsylvania State University. His research is focused on health inequities in public health settings.

Dr. Melissa Bopp is a professor in the department of Kinesiology at Pennsylvania State University. Her research is focused on how community, environment and policy influence physical activity participation in different settings and populations.

ORCID iD

Melissa Bopp https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5170-9410

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
==== Refs
References

1 Hamer M Chida Y . Active commuting and cardiovascular risk: a meta-analytic review. Prev Med 2008; 46 (1 ): 9–13.17475317
2 Saunders LE Green JM Petticrew MP , et al. What are the health benefits of active travel? A systematic review of trials and cohort studies. PLoS One 2013; 8 (8 ): e69912.23967064
3 Wilson OWA Elliott LD Duffey M , et al. The contribution of active travel to meeting physical activity recommendations among college students. J Transport Health 2020; 18 : 100890.
4 Sahlqvist S Song Y Ogilvie D . Is active travel associated with greater physical activity? The contribution of commuting and non-commuting active travel to total physical activity in adults. Prev Med 2012; 55 (3 ): 206–211.22796629
5 Foley L Panter J Heinen E , et al. Changes in active commuting and changes in physical activity in adults: a cohort study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2015; 12 : 161.26682539
6 Fishman E Böcker L Helbich M . Adult active transport in the Netherlands: an analysis of its contribution to physical activity requirements. PLoS One 2015; 10 (4 ): e0121871.25849902
7 Chapman R Keall M Howden-Chapman P , et al. A cost benefit analysis of an active travel intervention with health and carbon emission reduction benefits. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15 (5 ): 962.29751618
8 Bopp M Sims D Piatkowski D . Bicycling for transportation: an evidence-base for communities. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Inc., 2018.
9 Taylor WC Sallis JF Lees E , et al. Changing social and built environments to promote physical activity: recommendations from low income, urban women. J Phys Act Health 2007; 4 (1 ): 54–65.17489007
10 Sims D Bopp M . An examination of active commuting by race/ethnicity, income and location. Journal of Health Disparities Research and Practice 2018; 11 (3 ): 99–114.
11 Lovasi GS Hutson MA Guerra M , et al. Built environments and obesity in disadvantaged populations. Epidemiol Rev 2009; 31 : 7–20.19589839
12 League of American Bicyclists . Bicycling and walking in the United States: 2018 Benchmarking report. Washington DC: League of American Bicyclists, 2018.
13 League of American Bicyclists . Bicycling and walking in the United States. Washington DC: Benchmarking Progress, 2023, https://data.bikeleague.org/#:∼:text=AbouttheBenchmarkingProject,sixeditionsofphysicalreports (Accessed 14 July 2023).
14 Heesch KC Giles-Corti B Turrell G . Cycling for transport and recreation: associations with socio-economic position, environmental perceptions, and psychological disposition. Prev Med 2014; 63 : 29–35.24625925
15 Emond CR Tang W Handy SL . Explaining gender difference in bicycling behavior. Transport Res Rec 2009; 2125 (1 ): 16–25.
16 Heesch KC Sahlqvist S Garrard J . Gender differences in recreational and transport cycling: a cross-sectional mixed-methods comparison of cycling patterns, motivators, and constraints. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012; 9 (1 ): 106.22958280
17 Richmond SA Zhang YJ Stover A , et al. Prevention of bicycle-related injuries in children and youth: a systematic review of bicycle skills training interventions. Inj Prev 2014; 20 (3 ): 191–195.24263707
18 Pate RR Davis MG Robinson TN , et al. Promoting physical activity in children and youth: a leadership role for schools: a scientific statement from the American heart association council on nutrition, physical activity, and metabolism (physical activity committee) in collaboration with the councils on cardiovascular disease in the young and cardiovascular nursing. Circulation 2006; 114 (11 ): 1214–1224.16908770
19 McCullough SR Lugo A Stokkum RV . Making bicycling equitable: Lessons from sociocultural research, 2019.
20 Elliott LD Peterson KT Dzieniszewski E , et al. The intersection of gender identity, sexual orientation, and active transportation behavior: an exploratory study. J Transport Health 2022; 26 : 101477.
21 Dill J . Bicycling for transportation and health: the role of infrastructure. J Public Health Policy 2009; 30 (1 ): S95–S110.19190585
22 Smith M Hosking J Woodward A , et al. Systematic literature review of built environment effects on physical activity and active transport - an update and new findings on health equity. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2017; 14 (1 ): 158.29145884
23 Piatkowski D Bopp M . Increasing bicycling for transportation: a systematic review of the literature. J Urban Plan Dev 2021; 147 (2 ): 04021019.
24 Smart Growth America . What are Complete Streets? 2021. https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-complete-streets-coalition/publications/what-are-complete-streets/ (Accessed 17 June 2021).
25 National Center for Safe . Routes to School. Safe Routes to School. 2021, http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/ (Accessed 17 June 2021).
26 Pucher J Buehler R . City cycling. Cambridge, MA: MIT press, 2012.
27 Bopp M Sims D Vairo N , et al. Examining capacity and functioning of bicycle coalitions: a descriptive study. Front Public Health 2017; 5 : 296.29167788
28 League of American Bicyclists . Building A bicycle friendly America. Washington DC: League of American Bicyclists, 2013.
29 Minkler M Wallerstien NB . Improving health through community organization and community building. In: Glanz K Rimer BK Lewis FM (eds) Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002, p. 288.
30 Dzieniszewski E Elliott LD Bopp M . Bicycle coalitions and universities prioritization of equity: why and why not? A shift towards more equitable opportunities. Jkinwellness 2022; 11 : 15–24.
31 Elliott LD Bopp M . Bicycle advocacy organizations and coalitions’ capacity for equitable programming: findings from a national survey. J Transport Health 2022; 25 : 101367.
32 League of American Bicyclists . Becoming a bicycle friendly community, 2021. https://www.bikeleague.org/community.
33 Creswell JW . Qualitative Inquiry and research Design. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007.
34 Campaigns and informational approaches to increase physical activity: community-wide campaigns. 2001. https://www.thecommunityguide.org/sites/default/files/assets/PA-Campaigns-Communitywide.pdf (Accessed March 11, 2021).
35 Environmental and policy approaches to increase physical activity: Creation of or Enhanced access to places for physical activity combined with informational outreach activities. 2001. https://www.thecommunityguide.org/sites/default/files/assets/PA-Environmental-Enhanced-Access.pdf (Accessed March 11, 2021).
36 Behavioral and social approaches to increase physical activity: social support interventions in community Settings. 2001. https://www.thecommunityguide.org/sites/default/files/assets/PA-Behavioral-Community-Support.pdf (Accessed March 11, 2021).
37 Bornstein DB Pate RR Beets MW , et al. New perspective on factors related to coalition success: novel findings from an investigation of physical activity coalitions across the United States. J Public Health Manag Pract 2015; 21 (6 ): E23–30.25679772
38 Anderson LM Adeney KL Shinn C , et al. Community coalition-driven interventions to reduce health disparities among racial and ethnic minority populations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 6 : Cd009905.
39 Zakocs RC Edwards EM . What explains community coalition effectiveness? A review of the literature. Am J Prev Med 2006; 30 (4 ): 351–361.16530624
40 Ferrero-Regis T . Twenty-first century dandyism: fancy Lycra® on two wheels. Annals of Leisure Research 2018; 21 (1 ): 95–112.
41 Bopp M Mama SK Wilson OWA , et al. Breaking down race-related barriers to recreational cycling: Experiences from diverse cycling groups. World Leisure Journal 2022; 64 : 166–179. In Press.
42 Aldred R . Incompetent or too competent? negotiating everyday cycling identities in a motor dominated society. Mobilities 2013; 8 (2 ): 252–271.
43 Osborne N Grant-Smith D . Constructing the cycling citizen: a critical analysis of policy imagery in Brisbane, Australia. J Transport Geogr 2017; 64 : 44–53.
44 Dankwa-Mullan I Pérez-Stable EJ Gardner KL , et al . The Science of health disparities research. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Online Library, 2021.
45 Orfield M . Building regional coalitions between cities and suburbs. In: Bullard RD (ed) Growing Smarter: Acheiving Livable Communities, Environmental Justice, and Regional Equity. Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press, 2007, p. 323.
46 Brinkerhoff JM . Government–nonprofit partnership: a defining framework. Public Adm Dev 2002; 22 (1 ): 19–30.
47 Tchekmedyian A Poston B Barajas JLA . Sheriff’s deputies use minor stops to search bicyclists, with Latinos hit hardest. Los Angeles Times 2021; 4 : 2021.
48 Butterfos FD Kegler MC Francisco VT . Mobilizing organizations for health promotion. In: Glanz K Rimer BK Vishwanath K (eds) Health Behavior and Health Education. 4th ed. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008, pp. 335–361.
