sustainability

Article
Spatial Multi-Criteria Analysis for Road Segment Cycling
Suitability Assessment
Bertha Santos 1,2,3, * , Sílvia Passos 1 , Jorge Gonçalves 1,3,4 and Isabel Matias 1,5

1 Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Beira Interior, 6200-358 Covilhã, Portugal
2 CERIS, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
3 GEOBIOTEC, Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Beira Interior,
6200-358 Covilhã, Portugal
4 CITTA, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal
5 Municipality of Covilhã, 6200-151 Covilhã, Portugal
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The shift to low-emission mobility, embedded in a growing need for sustainable devel-
opment, makes soft modes a highly promoted transport alternative in national and international
mobility policies. Soft mobility modes, especially cycling, is an alternative capable of reversing the
trend of private car use in urban areas, being one of the main strategies of Sustainable Urban Mobility
Plans (SUMP). Several factors can influence travel mode choice, between them, demographic, eco-
nomic, land use, travel distance and time, and climatic and physical factors are the most reported in
the literature. This study presents a framework of the main European cycling strategies and focuses
on the development of a methodological approach to assess the cycling suitability of existing road
networks. The approach is based on a spatial multi-criteria analysis that combines population density,
trip generation points service areas and road characteristics (hierarchy and slope). Consideration
of the topography was particularly relevant in the cycling suitability model definition. The model
Citation: Santos, B.; Passos, S.; was tested in the hillside city of Covilhã (Portugal) and compared with the recently planned and
Gonçalves, J.; Matias, I. Spatial implemented city cycling network. The main conclusions point to the adequacy, flexibility, and
Multi-Criteria Analysis for Road applicability of the proposed model by municipalities, contributing to a more sustainable urban
Segment Cycling Suitability environment and healthier communities. Results obtained in the Covilhã case study also denote the
Assessment. Sustainability 2022, 14, possibility of implementing cycling mobility in hillside cities, especially using e-bikes. For future
9928. https://doi.org/10.3390/
works, an expansion of the approach is proposed to include a detailed and sustained cycling network
su14169928
definition model and a process to assess cycling routes hierarchy/solutions.
Academic Editor: Anders
Wretstrand Keywords: sustainable urban mobility; soft mobility; cycling; cycling suitability maps; spatial
multi-criteria analysis
Received: 29 July 2022
Accepted: 9 August 2022
Published: 11 August 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral 1. Introduction

with regard to jurisdictional claims in
1.1. Framework
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
According to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, sustainable
mobility can be defined as the ability to meet society’s need to move freely, gain access,
communicate, trade, and establish relationships without sacrificing other essential human
or ecological values, today or in the future [1]. The pursuit of this vision can only be
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. achieved by protecting fundamental principles such as the natural environment; public
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. health and safety; the population’s travel needs; sustainable economy; social equity and
This article is an open access article overall well-being; ensuring energy efficiency and the long-term viability of transport
distributed under the terms and systems with minimum infrastructure, access, and mobility costs.
conditions of the Creative Commons For the European Union (EU) Council of Transport Ministers, the concept of sustainable
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// mobility must comprise the following principles [2,3]:
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Sustainability 2022, 14, 9928. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14169928 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 9928 2 of 20

• Respond to citizens’, companies’ and society’s basic needs of access and development
in a way that is safe and compatible with human health and environment preservation,
while promoting equity in each generation and between generations.
• Be achievable, operating equitably and effectively, offering different transport choices,
supporting a competitive economy and a balanced regional development.
• Limit emissions and waste to the planet’s absorption capacity level using renew-
able energy at its generation rate and non-renewable energy at its substitution rate,
minimizing the impact on land use and noise pollution.
As reported by the Transportation Association of Canada [4], a sustainable transporta-
tion system is a system that meets the access needs of present and future generations, uses
renewable (inexhaustible) energy resources, does not pollute air, land, or water beyond
the planet’s capacity, is technologically possible, is economically and financially afford-
able, allows a desired quality of life, and supports local, national, and global sustainable
development goals.
Presently, urban mobility is in debate when concerning sustainable city planning and
citizens’ quality of life. To be successful, it requires an overall view of the territory, namely
its characteristics and constraints. One central issue for a more sustainable development has
been the replacement of traditional motorized transport modes. To achieve more efficient
and less polluting mobility systems, in the last decade, cities have been implementing
policies supported by Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans [5], aiming to influence citizens’
modal choice, namely using active modes integrated with other transport modes.
A successful change in travel behaviors depends on the creation of suitable conditions
for this transition to occur, specifically in cities’ spatial organization and their infrastructures,
which should be suitable for active modes’ use. The planning and design of cycling
networks must meet the basic principles of continuity and coherence. They must also
ensure safety to encourage citizens to use them, that is, they must be adequate and suitable
for cycling travel [6].
This article aims to present an instrument to support the cycling suitability assessment
of existing road infrastructure, having as a case study the city of Covilhã (Portugal).
To frame the proposed methodology, the concept of sustainable mobility, the EU and
the Portuguese cycling strategy evolution, a review of the concept of bikeability and its
assessment and the principles involved in spatial multi-criteria analysis are presented. The
impact of slope in bikeability assessment and the role that e-bikes can play to overcome
steeper slopes are also addressed. Finally, the methodology proposed to evaluate road
segments cycling suitability using a spatial multi-criteria decision analysis is presented and
applied to a case study.

1.2. EU and Portuguese Cycling Vision

Several important European documents focused on urban mobility were developed
in the last two decades [7–10]. These strategic documents evolved from the discussion of
the best approaches to improve urban mobility, to the definition of guidelines for a less
polluting, smarter, safer, competitive, and resource-efficient transport system, resulting in a
vision for sustainable urban mobility across the EU [8,11,12]. Of the considered documents,
the first ones with a specific focus on promoting cycling culture in Europe appeared in
2017 [13,14].
Table 1 presents a summary of the main events concerning EU cycling policies.
The documents produced in the EU on urban mobility and cycling allowed the imple-
mentation of a significant number of national cycling strategies in European countries [22].
Following the European tendencies, in the first decade of the XXI century, Portuguese
legislation and strategies were developed defining priorities for sustainable urban devel-
opment and mobility policies implementation. These documents, which focused on less
polluting modes, constituted a reference for the application of European funds [23,24]. In
2015, the government committed to the promotion of national green growth where cycling
importance, as a particularly efficient urban mobility mode, was highlighted, aiming to
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9928 3 of 20

increase its share in urban trips and its articulation with public transport modes [25]. Rec-
ognizing cycling as a fundamental part of the mobility chain, in 2019, more documents
were published to promote cycling public policies [26,27].
Table 2 summarizes the main events concerning the Portuguese cycling scenario.

Table 1. European main events concerning cycling policies.

Year Event Brief Description

Defined a European agenda for urban mobility.
Green Paper—Towards a new culture of
2007 Priority challenges: cities and towns decongested; greener cities and towns; smarter,
urban mobility [7]
affordable, and safe urban transport.
Proposed 20 measures to encourage and help local, regional, and national authorities in
achieving their goals for sustainable urban mobility, including actions to promote cycling.
2009 Action Plan on Urban Mobility [15]
The European Commission (EC) presented for the first time a comprehensive support
package in the field of urban mobility.
Two explicit mentions to cycling in the 40 initiatives set out in the EU: efforts to deliver a
White Paper: Roadmap to a single
‘zero-vision’ for the number of road transport casualties, and the importance of promoting
European Transport Area—Towards a
2011 cycling as an alternative to car use.
competitive and resource-efficient
Acknowledges the importance of cycling in delivering clean and sustainable urban
transport system [8]
mobility and becoming an integral part of the urban transport system.
Sets out the concept of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMP) on urban logistics and
access regulations, deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) solutions in
Together towards competitive and
2013 urban areas, and urban road safety.
resource-efficient urban mobility [11]
Promotes the development of strategies that can stimulate a shift towards cleaner and
more sustainable transport modes, such as walking and cycling.
Paris Declaration—City in
Explicitly recognized the benefits of cycling in delivering sustainable economic
motion: People first [12]
development, reducing transport-related emissions, and promoting a more efficient
2014 From Amsterdam to Paris and Beyond:
transport system, whilst developing a Pan-European masterplan for the promotion
the transport, health and environment
of cycling.
Pan-European programme [16]
Called the Commission to act on: integrate cycling into multimodal transport policy,
including smart mobility, stressing the need to promote physical infrastructure and
Declaration on cycling as a climate
2015 behavioral change programs; develop an EU-level strategic document on cycling; and set
friendly transport mode [17]
up a European focal point for cycling to serve as a one-stop-shop for relevant questions
and facilitate exchange of best practices.
Urban agenda for the EU—Pact of Established and noted that cycling was one of the elements to be focused on while
Amsterdam [9] delivering sustainable and efficient urban mobility.
2016
A European strategy for low-emission The EU Commission refer to cycling in the section on action by cities, underlining the
mobility [10] importance of local action and SUMP in enabling and encouraging cycling.
Established a set of policy recommendations, such as the inclusion of an EU Roadmap for
Opinion of the European Committee of the
Cycling in the Commission’s Work Programme 2018 with actions to disseminate and raise
Regions—An EU roadmap for cycling
awareness of cycling benefits and to promote a culture of cycling.
[13]
Supported the development of a Pan-European Master Plan for cycling promotion.
2017
Designed to inspire the EC to develop its own European Cycling Strategy.
EU Cycling Strategy—Recommendations Defined four central objectives: cycling as an equal partner in the mobility system; a 50%
for achieving green growth and effective increase in EU bicycle use by 2030; a 50% decrease in EU killed and seriously injured
mobility in 2030 [14] cyclists by 2030; and increase the EU’s investment in bicycles to €3 billion in 2021–2027
period and €6 billion for 2028–2034.
Discussed pathways leading to clean mobility.
Graz Declaration—Starting a new era:
Acknowledged cycling as an equal mode of transport, developing a European strategic
2018 clean, safe and affordable mobility for
and supportive framework to promote and integrate active mobility in European funding
Europe [18]
and financing schemes.
Revised the Directive 2008/96/EC on Road Infrastructure Safety Management (RISM),
2019 Directive (EU) 2019/1936 [19] with dedicated guidance on road design quality requirements for “vulnerable” road users
(cyclists, pedestrians, and powered two-wheelers).
The strategy sets out a roadmap for European transport firmly on the track to sustainable
Sustainable and Smart Mobility and smart future mobility. It identifies 10 flagship areas with an action plan for future
2020 Strategy—putting European transport on years, supporting the 2030 climate target plan. It aims for a 90% reduction in the transport
track for the future [20] sector’s emissions by 2050, defining several initiatives to increase cycling mode share to
achieve zero emissions, zero road fatalities, and first/last mile healthy mobility solutions.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9928 4 of 20

Table 1. Cont.

Year Event Brief Description

The plan established several objectives to be implemented in the Pan-European
region by 2030:
- To significantly increase cycling in every country contributing to the overall target of
doubling cycling in the region.
- To extend and improve the infrastructure for cycling and walking in every country.
Pan-European Master Plan for cycling - To significantly increase cyclists’ safety in every country and to significantly reduce
2021
promotion [21] the number of fatalities and serious injuries in the region.
- To integrate cycling into health policies, including those tackling noncommunicable
diseases and obesity.
- To integrate cycling, including cycling infrastructure, into land use, urban, regional
and transport infrastructure planning

Table 2. Portuguese main events concerning cycling.

Year Event Brief Description

The program involved the identification of local sustainability indicators including
ECOXXI Sustainability education sustainable mobility—indicator 18. This indicator evaluated the incentive to soft/active
2005
program [28–30] modes measured by the description of the three main actions to encourage soft/active
modes implemented by a given municipality in the previous three years.
Framework of reference for other programs and territorial plans and a guiding instrument
for strategies with territorial impact. A set of priority measures were established including
Law no. 58/2007 National Program for
the development of sustainable urban transport plans that aimed to reinforce the use of
Spatial Planning Policy (PNPOT) [23]
public transport and non-motorized mobility and improve the air quality, particularly in
densely populated areas.
2007
Defined the strategic objectives, priorities, and the most relevant vectors for accessibility and
mobility. ENDS 2015 was the benchmark for the application to Community funds through
Portuguese Sustainable Development
the 2007–2013 period. It focused mainly on contributing to the reduction of air pollutants
Strategy (ENDS 2015) [24]
and noise, particularly in urban areas, and improving accessibility to citizens with
reduced mobility.
The resolution established 6 objectives to achieve:
Resolution no. (i) Percentage increase in cyclists in Portugal by 2012.
3/2009—Recommendations for the (ii) Education actions for the use of safe transport modes.
2009 National Plan for the promotion of (iii) Teaching traffic rules and safe use of bicycles and other soft mobility modes at schools.
bicycles and others soft (iv) Lobby to break down barriers to the use of soft mobility modes.
transport modes [31] (v) Support the integration of soft mobility modes in public transport systems.
(vi) Promotion of cycle touring.

ciclAndo—Plan for the promotion of Following the recommendations of resolution no. 3/2009, the plan defined 2 structuring
bicycles and other soft modes [32] strategic objectives framed in 5 areas of action with 17 operational goals.
Eleven guidelines for mobility were established constituting a set of instruments, plans and
programs called the “Mobility Package”. The package also contains a guide for accessibility,
2012 mobility, and transport in municipal spatial planning; a guide for preparing mobility and
Portuguese Guidelines for Mobility [33] transport plans; a collection of technical/thematic brochures to support the preparation of
mobility and transport plans, including a brochure on the principles for cycling networks
planning and design; a guide for the elaboration of trip generation points mobility plans; and
a guide on urban logistics.
This strategic document highlights the need to find alternatives to private car use and the
Resolution no. 28/2015—Green Growth
2015 importance of promoting the bicycle as a particularly efficient urban mobility mode,
Commitment [25]
increasing its share in urban trips and its articulation with public transport modes.
The program’s main objective was the identification of a set of favorable cycling scenarios in
2018 Bikeable Portugal 2030 [26]
mainland Portugal to be integrated into an inter-municipal connectivity plan.
ENMAC expects to reach 10,000 km of cycle paths by 2030, built through several investment
National Strategy for Cycling Active initiatives; a cycling modal share of 7.5% in national territory and 10% in cities; and the
Mobility 2020–2030 (ENMAC) [27] reduction in road accidents involving cyclists by 50%. ENMAC foresees the implementation
of 51 measures organized into 6 strategic dimensions.
2019
The government expects, by 2050, between 8% and 14% of short-distance mobility to be
Roadmap for Carbon Neutrality 2050
made using low-impact or active modes. This is considered one of the 5 main
(RNC2050) [34]
decarbonization drivers in the transport sector.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9928 5 of 20

Table 2. Cont.

Year Event Brief Description

Normative document for application to
The normative includes the cyclable road’s theme, covering typologies, design and
urban streets—Issue III—Geometric
2020 dimensioning, and measures to be applied in specific situations. The Normative can be
characteristics for non-motorized traffic
considered a support document for ENMAC implementation.
streets [35]
The incentive for the acquisition of low emission vehicles allocates financial support for
Regulation to support financially the individual persons and companies considering specific criteria.
acquisition of low emission vehicles [36] The financial support for the implementation of bike park systems aims to encourage the
and for the implementation of bike park acquisition and installation of equipment for parking bicycles in places served by cycle paths,
2021 systems [37] where “bicycle use” is notorious or in places where such use is intended to be stimulated,
such as transport interfaces, schools, health services and other public services.
National Climate Basic Law (Law The government assumes the compromise to promote cycling and pedestrian mobility
98/2021) [38] (article 50—Sustainable Mobility)

Comparing the existing European and Portuguese regulations, plans and strategies,
an increase was recorded in official cycling documents from 2015 onwards at the European
level and from 2018 in Portugal. These findings point to a consolidation of policies to
develop cycling as an urban mobility mode and to the existence of legislative conditions
and financial instruments for its effective implementation.

1.3. Bikeability
The implementation of an effective sustainable urban mobility plan cannot be dis-
sociated from soft mobility modes, and in particular from cycling. Municipalities have
legislation and financial instruments to promote these modes and the main question be-
came “how to encourage citizens to use this mode?”. To answer this question, the quality
of bicycle networks should be evaluated not based on one but on multiple factors, and
more comprehensive methodologies to assess urban bicycle networks are essential to the
operation and planning of modern city transportation [39].
In this context, the concept of bikeability can be defined as the extent to which the
actual and perceived environment is conducive and safe for cycling [40]. According to
Reggiani et al. [39], bikeability is the combination of objective and subjective factors and it
integrates concepts such as bicycle comfort, suitability, friendliness, and accessibility.
Several methods and variables have been used for determining bikeability indexes.
Among the most used methods, weighted regression, discrete choice, holistic approach
and multi-criteria analysis using the additive or weighted linear combination method, and
spatial analysis, can be highlighted [41–46].
A review of the literature identified the existence of cycling infrastructures and their
characteristics (such as the presence, type and width of cycle paths, the existence of bike
racks and routes sinuosity) [41,43,45–48]; land use [42,43,47,48]; population and behavioral
and social aspects [42,43,45]; safety [43–45] and slope [41,42,44,45,48] as the most used
variables. The variables that significantly influence the index values are, in most cases, the
existence of dedicated cycling infrastructure, the network characteristics and safety.
The bikeability index determination approach varies from country to country, being
related to the population’s perception of the components that influence its suitability for
bicycle use. For example, according to Arellana et al. [45], generalizing to developing
countries on the American continent, bicycle use is mainly related to income. Low incomes
push people to use bicycles, not by choice but because of the impossibility of resorting to
other mobility options. In countries with higher incomes, people are more likely to use
bikes due to health and environmental concerns.

1.4. Road Slope

Consideration of road slope in cycling systems modeling has not been consensual in
the past. Empirically, slope appears to play an important role but few studies accounted for
topography when estimating transportation mode choices [49–52]. The inclusion of slope
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9928 6 of 20

in transport studies has risen significantly in the last two decades and findings point to a
significant negative impact of slope on the attractiveness of non-motorized modes [50,51,53,54].
In fact, reports can be found on the positive impact of greater slopes, but these are generally
related to experienced cyclists who value fitness-oriented routes [50,54,55].
In general, the ideal slope for conventional bicycle use should be the lowest possible,
preferably less than 3% [56–59]. Conventional bicycles can be used in moderate slopes up
to 5% while slopes greater than 8% are generally avoided.
Table 3 presents slope criteria for cycling adopted in several international design
standards for conventional bicycles.

Table 3. Slope criteria for cycling (conventional bicycle).

Source Slope Description/Criteria for Cycling

0 to 2% No length limit
4% Up to 4 km
Government of Catalonia Ministry of
Town and Country Planning and 5% 2 km
Public Works—Manual for the design 6% 240 m
of cycle paths in Catalonia (2008) [60]
10% 30 m
25% 15 m
Level:
0 to 3%
Good for cycling
Portuguese Institute of Mobility and Gentle slope:
3 to 5%
Land Transport (IMTT)—Cyclable Suitable for cycling up to medium distances.
Network: Planning and design
Moderate slope:
principles (2011) [6] 5 to 8%
Inappropriate for long and medium distances.
Steep slope:
8 to 10%
Acceptable for very short distances.
Shared use path:
The maximum slope of a shared use path adjacent to a roadway should be 5%, but the
0 to 5%
slope should generally match the slope of the adjacent roadway.
American Association of State Slopes on paths in independent rights-of-way should also be limited to 5% maximum.
Highway and Transportation Officials
Shared use path:
(AASHTO)—Guide for the
Where a shared use path runs along a roadway with a slope that exceeds 5 percent, the
development of bicycle facilities >5%
side path slope may exceed 5 percent but must be less than or equal to the
(2012) [61]
roadway slope.
On-road facilities:
- If properly designed for motor vehicles, roadway design elements such as slope will
meet or exceed the minimum design standards applicable to bicycles.
0 to 3% For cycle tracks, a maximum slope of 3% is recommended.
3 to 5% 3% can rise to 5% over a distance of up to 100 m.
Where it is unavoidable, a slope of up to 7% over a distance of no more than 30 m
5 to 7%
is acceptable.
Transport for London—London
cycling design standards (2014) [58] In some circumstances, slopes steeper than 7% over short distances on a cycle route may
>7%
be preferable to failing to provide the route at all.
Comfort indicator: Uphill slope over 100 m
>5% Basic cycling level of service
3 to 5% Good cycling level of service
<3% Highest cycling level of service
Uphill:
0 to 3%
3% is the desirable maximum slope for use on cycling paths.
Austroads—Cycling aspects of
Uphill and downhill:
Austroads Guides (2017) [59]
Slope to a maximum of about 5% and providing short flatter sections (20 m long) at
Austroads—Guide to road design Part 3 to 5%
regular intervals to give cyclists travelling, both uphill and downhill, some relief from
6A: Paths for walking and cycling
the slope.
(2021) [57]
Downhill:
>5%
Slope steeper than 5% should not be provided unless it is unavoidable.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9928 7 of 20

Table 3. Cont.

Source Slope Description/Criteria for Cycling

Slope greater than 10% over 50 m with horizontal curves or a slope of 12% over 50 m on
Avoid
a straight path.
Depending on slope height and length (slope severity/difficulty).
Z = H2 /L
CROW Design manual for bicycle
2 to 10% Z = slope difficulty
traffic (2017) [62]
H = slope height difference (m)
L = slope length (m)
Low slopes:
<4%
Topography is not a limiting factor.

Böcker et al. (2020) [63] Moderate uphill slope:

4 to 8%
Topography does become a significant constraint.
>8% Cyclists generally avoid steep uphill and downhill slopes.
<5% Maximum desirable slope—up to 30 m.
Cycle Infrastructure Design (2020) [64]
8% Absolute maximum slope.
Highway Design Manual—Chapter <2% Sustained slope.
1000—Bicycle transportation design
(2020) [65] <5% Maximum recommended slope.
<3% Maximum desired slope.
Cycling Infrastructure—Auckland Undesirable because the ascents are difficult for many people to climb, and descents
<5%
Transport (2021) [66] cause excess of speed.
>5% Recommended only for short sections.
Cycling by Design—Transport Providing cycle links on steep gradients will not provide the highest level of service for
<3%
Scotland (2021) [67] all users, and alternative routes should be considered where practical.
<5% Considered acceptable.
Geoprocessing and slope analysis of “Warning points” for the implementation of infrastructure that helps cyclists in
>5%
the cycling network of Londrina/PR their travels.
(2021) [68]
International references considered gradient slope of up to 8% as acceptable depending
<8%
on the terrain and conditions offered to the cyclist.

These figures change when electric bicycles (e-bikes) are considered. The e-bikes are
easier to use even with restrictions on the driver’s physical condition, allowing to relativize
the problems associated with steep slopes and the loads to be carried and to increase the
area of influence of the daily trips to about 15 km [6,69]. Several authors refer that e-bikes
have an advantage over conventional bicycles, mainly due to effort reduction in uphill
routes [70], since speed, in general, does not differ more than 2 to 4 km/h when compared
to conventional bikes [69,71–73].
Studies on conventional and electric bikes speed point to speeds of 18–20 km/h for
0% slope, 10–12 km/h for 5% slope and 8–11 km/h for 7% slope for conventional bikes,
and 19 km/h for 0% slope, 16 km/h for 5% slope, 15 km/h for 7% slope and 13 km/h for
>9% slope for e-bikes [74,75]. As expected, these differences are more evident on stepper
uphill routes and almost zero in descent slopes. A study comparing bike and e-bike speeds
showed that an increase of 1% in the street slope lowers speed by 0.39% for conventional
bikes and by 0.29% for e-bikes, and that slopes above 6% decrease significantly downhill
speeds for both types [75].
Still, recent research about the speed-slope relationship between conventional and
electric bikes points out that the additional power from e-bikes is particularly helpful to
maintain or increase average speed when cycling uphill [73,75], allowing us to conclude
that the use of e-bikes can overcome the steeper slopes problem. Even when cyclists prefer
longer routes to avoid steeper slopes, e-bikes present advantages by allowing longer trips
in less time with the same effort [70,76].
By overcoming what is undoubtedly one of the greatest impediments to bicycle use in
hillside cities, steep slopes, e-bikes help to materialize the concept of sustainable mobility
in these areas [77,78].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9928 8 of 20

1.5. Spatial Multi-Criteria Analysis

The definition of a cycling suitability index needs to include and quantify the influence
of several factors to integrate the different dimensions that can affect the cycling mode
choice. This integration can be achieved through Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA), defined
as a decision support technique that allows the comparison of different scenarios with
multiple criteria, being in general the basis of most decision support systems [79]. The
objective of this technique is to analyze the possibilities given a set of multiple criteria and
objectives to be considered, which may be conflicting. The result is a ranking of alternatives
according to their suitability for solving a specific problem.
Since the 1980s, MCA has been combined with GIS to optimize the decision-making
process. When applied to alternatives and criteria that present spatial dimensions, MCA
takes the name of spatial multi-criteria analysis [80,81]. The combination of the geographic
database with the logical and mathematical relationships existing in map layers that enables
the creation of new maps with new information results in decision support systems that
allow making choices according to the produced analyses based on different situations,
locations, and elements [82,83].
Among the different types of MCA, the Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)
stands out for its use in problems with a spatial component, which allows combining geo-
graphic criteria and decision makers’ preferences according to specified rules for sustained
decision making [84,85]. The analysis seeks to support or assist in decision-making and not
determine the solution to be taken [86,87].
The methods to adopt for criteria weights definition and combination are one of the
main challenges in applying the MCA. According to Voogh [88], the priorities assigned to
the various criteria can be translated quantitatively (weights) or through ordinal expres-
sions (ordering) and can be performed through a preference analysis (questionnaires), a
behavioral analysis or a hypothetical classification. Among the most used MCDA methods
to assign a score to each criterion (weights) according to their relevance, those based on
the ordering of criteria, scale of points and hierarchical analysis process (AHP) can be
highlighted [81,89].
Regarding the most used methods to perform criteria combination and considering
the context of GIS use, the weighted linear combination method and the ordered weighted
average method are the most used. Of these, linear combination (additive models) is
considered the basis of the MCDA, being the simplest, the most easily understood by
decision-makers from different backgrounds and the most widely used form of value
function method [86,87,90].
The MCDA based on linear additive models can be adopted to combine quantitative
and Boolean criteria representing different degrees of adequacy of the considered factors
(criteria). Each factor is multiplied by a weight, and the results are added together to obtain
a multi-criteria solution that allows the ordering of options, from the most preferred to the
least preferred option, serving as an aid for decision-makers [86,87].

2. Method
Since 2017, the Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture of the University of
Beira Interior has developed, under the Master and Doctorate Programs in Civil Engineer-
ing and Master Program in Geographic Information Systems, several studies aiming at the
definition of an evaluation process to assess the cycling and pedestrian suitability of urban
road networks [91–95].
Regarding the use of bicycles, a methodological research approach was developed involving:
(1) A spatial multi-criteria cycling suitability model based on demographic data, trip gen-
eration points’ location, type of bicycle (conventional and electric) and road network
characteristics (slope, street hierarchy class and cross-section geometry).
(2) A cycling network definition model based on connectivity, network intersections,
integration with other transport modes, parking, and safety.
(3) And a procedure for assessing cycling routes hierarchy/solutions.
 involving:
(1) A spatial multi-criteria cycling suitability model based on demographic data, trip
generation points’ location, type of bicycle (conventional and electric) and road net-
work characteristics (slope, street hierarchy class and cross-section geometry).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9928 (2) A cycling network definition model based on connectivity, network intersections, in-
9 of 20
tegration with other transport modes, parking, and safety.
(3) And a procedure for assessing cycling routes hierarchy/solutions.
Figure11presents
Figure presentsthe
themain
mainsteps
stepsinvolved
involvedininthe
theresearch.
research.

Figure1.1.Methodological
Figure Methodologicalapproach
approachtotoplan
plancycling
cyclingnetworks.
networks.

This
Thisarticle
articlefocuses
focuseson onthe
thefirst
firstcomponent
componentofofthe theproposed
proposedmethodology,
methodology,the thecycling
cycling
suitability model, which has been tested on the road network of the hillside
suitability model, which has been tested on the road network of the hillside city city of Covilhã,
of Co-
Portugal [91]. [91].
vilhã, Portugal
The
Thecriteria
criteria considered
considered in in the
thesuitability
suitabilityassessment
assessment ofof
thethe network
network segments
segments for
for con-
conventional
ventional and and electric
electric bicycleuse
bicycle useare
arepopulation
populationdensity,
density, proximity
proximity to to the
themain
mainpublic
public
facilities
facilities (trip generation points) and streets slope, hierarchy, and geometry (indirectlyby
(trip generation points) and streets slope, hierarchy, and geometry (indirectly by
hierarchy).
hierarchy).For Forconventional
conventionalandandelectric
electricbicycle
bicycleanalysis,
analysis,maximum
maximumslopesslopesofof5% 5%and
and10%
10%
were considered, respectively.
were considered, respectively.
The three criteria are combined based on a weighted linear method within a MCDA
The three criteria are combined based on a weighted linear method within a MCDA
approach (see expression (1)) and the weights adopted are defined based on the opinion
approach (see expression (1)) and the weights adopted are defined based on the opinion
of a panel of urban mobility experts and local authorities. The trip generation points and
of a panel of urban mobility experts and local authorities. The trip generation points and
population density criteria are calculated by pixel of the study area using expressions
population density criteria are calculated by pixel of the study area using expressions (2)
(2) and (3). Expression (2) allows to obtain the aggregate influence of the set of facilities
and (3). Expression (2) allows to obtain the aggregate influence of the set of facilities con-
considered in the generation of bicycle trips, weighted by the residents’ stated preferences
sidered in the generation of bicycle trips, weighted by the residents’ stated preferences
(workers). Population density is determined using expression (3). The values obtained
(workers). Population density is determined using expression (3). The values obtained in
in (2) and (3) are normalized using expression (4) and used in expression (1) to obtain a
(2) and (3) are normalized using expression (4) and used in expression (1) to obtain a cy-
cycling suitability measure.
cling suitability measure.
First, to feed the model, the collection and processing of spatial and alphanumeric
First, toisfeed
information the model,
performed. Thisthe collection and
information processing
includes the roadof network,
spatial and alphanumeric
urban adminis-
information
trative boundariesis performed. This information
and trip generation includes
points’ location vectorthe road
data, rasternetwork, urban
digital terrain
model (≤5 m cell) and alphanumeric population data. Then, 3 types of data analysis can
be performed using a set of tools available in GIS software. The analyses comprise an
initial spatial analysis using geoprocessing tools (vector format), network analysis to define
service areas based on time or distance (vector format) and spatial multi-criteria analysis
(raster format). Finally, the calibration and evaluation of results are performed by a panel
of urban mobility experts (academics and municipal representatives) and the results are
transformed into vector format resulting in cycling suitability maps.
Expressions 1 to 4 present the model formulation.

CSi_b = ( p TGP × TGPnor + p PD × PDnor ) × NSi (1)

where:
CSi_b is the network cycling suitability, per pixel i on a 0–100 scale (very high
80 < CSi_b ≤ 100, high 60 < CSi_b ≤ 80, medium 40 < CSi_b ≤ 60, low 20 < CSi_b ≤ 40
and very low 0 < CSi_b ≤ 20 suitability), by bicycle type b (conventional bicycle or e-bike).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9928 10 of 20

pTGP and pPD are the weights to be assigned to the trip generation points and popula-
tion density criterion (defined by the panel of transportation experts and local authorities).
TGPnor is the trip generation points criterion value (pixel, normalized).
PDnor is the population density criterion value (pixel, normalized).
NSi is the network value for segment i (0 for segments not adequate for cycling and 1
for segments adequate for cycling).

n wn × jn
TGP = ∑j n
(2)

where:
TGP is the trip generation points criteria value (pixel, not normalized).
n is the number of sub-criteria (number of facility categories, such as health, educa-
tional, services, etc.).
j is the score assigned to the service areas representing the level of future cycling
demand (defined as a function of travel time—scale of points).
wn is the n sub-criterion’s weight (defined from the inhabitants’ stated preferences survey).

RP
PD = (3)
A
where:
PD is the population density criteria value in inhabitants/ha or inhabitants/km2
(pixel, not normalized).
RP is the resident population of a considered urban area (pixel, inhabitants).
A is the urban area under study in ha or km2 . The A unit should be chosen according
to the administrative territory division dimension considered (For example, neighborhoods
(ha) or parishes (km2 )).
( Pi − Pmin )
Pnor_i = × 100 (4)
( Pmax − Pmin )
where:
Pnor_i is the normalized pixel value for TGPnor or PDnor .
Pi is the not normalized pixel value for TGP or PD.
Pmin and Pmax are the criterion minimum and maximum values (not normalized).
The presented methodology’s feasibility and operationalization were tested in a real
case study.

3. Case Study
3.1. Study Area and Framework of Municipal Policies and Strategies
The city of Covilhã is located in Portugal’s central region, on the southeast slope of
Serra da Estrela Mountain, where the highest altitudes of mainland Portugal are found. The
urban area has 36,500 inhabitants and presents altitudes ranging between 450 and 800 m. It
is the seat of a municipality with a territory of 555 km2 and around 52,000 inhabitants.
The city is characterized by two distinct occupations: the medieval village where the
castle walls of Covilhã are located, deeply marked by the deployment slope and a narrow
and irregular road structure, which has not suffered significant processes of urban fabric
reorganization; and the most recent expansion area, whose development is conditioned by
Cova da Beira Valley and Zêzere River.
The existence of two deep valleys, where streams Ribeira da Carpinteira and Ribeira da
Goldra are located, and the rugged relief of the region, have contributed to the development
of new urban areas away from the city center, resulting, in recent years, in a sprawl of the
urban perimeter. This change caused a geographic dispersion of functions and facilities
over 3 different altitude zones [96,97], raising problems with citizens’ accessibility and
contributing to the increase in private car use. According to data from the 2011 census,
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9928 11 of 20

the municipality presents a high use of private transport for commuting (67.5%) when
compared with the Portuguese national average (63.3%) [98].
Bearing in mind this scenario, a municipal goal of creating conditions for soft mobility
was established by the local authorities in 2015. Within the scope of the financing framework
established in the Partnership Agreement “Portugal 2020” between Portugal and the EC,
the financing of operations related to urban mobility, in particular soft mobility, depended
on the existence of a Sustainable Urban Mobility Action Plan (PAMUS). To achieve this
goal, the municipality promoted the development of the Covilhã PAMUS, later integrated
into the application for the city’s Strategic Urban Development Plan (Covilhã PEDU) and
the Beiras and Serra da Estrela PAMUS (PAMUS-BSE) [99]. PAMUS-BSE was developed for
the Inter-municipal Community of Beiras and Serra da Estrela (CIM-BSE) territory, which
comprises 15 municipalities, including Covilhã.
For the set of CIM-BSE municipalities, the 2001–2011 diagnosis within the scope of
PAMUS-BSE revealed a decrease in the soft modes’ share for commuting trips. It also
showed a loss of 47% in pedestrian commuters and a bicycle share of only 0.6% [99]. The
PAMUS-BSE considered that reversing this trend would primarily involve the improvement
and expansion of the main pedestrian and cycling network in urban areas, not only to
improve safety and comfort conditions, but also the attractiveness of the main connections
between the trip generation points.

3.2. Analysis
To achieve the municipal soft mobility goal, since mid-2019 the city council of Covilhã
has been undertaking the construction of the city’s cycling network, complying with the
PAMUS-BSE objective of creating a bicycle network combined with an e-bike sharing system
in articulation with the city’s public transport network. This system aims to promote the
use of bicycles on commuting trips and the reduction in greenhouse gas (CO2 ) emissions.
When completed, the planned city’s cycling network will interconnect the main trip
generation points in the urban area, covering a total extension of 17.59 km (Figure 2) consid-
ering street integration solutions based on street/road hierarchy and traffic flows. A special
focus is placed on the connection between educational, residential, and commercial areas.
Four types of bike lanes are considered: bicycle lane in a unidirectional corridor with
on-street parking, shared Bus-Bike lane in a unidirectional corridor, shared lane with traffic
and pedestrians, and shared lane with traffic (streets with shared-lane marking placed in
the travel lane to indicate where people should preferably cycle—pavement painting).
At the same time, the local academic community undertook several studies on the fea-
sibility and implementation conditions to promote soft mobility in general, with particular
emphasis on hillside cities. The criteria and suitability maps for Covilhã’s urban perimeter
obtained with the spatial multi-criteria cycling suitability analysis for conventional and
electric bikes, according to the method described in Section 2, are presented in Figures 3–5.
The study covered the entire road network of the urban perimeter parishes (430 km) and
not just the urban center of Covilhã (intervention area considered by the City Council).
Facilities service areas were obtained through a network analysis performed with the
ArcGIS® Network Analyst tool for network travel distances of 1000, 2500, 5000, 10,000 and
>10,000 m. This analysis can also be performed as a function of travel time (see Table 4). The
scores assigned to TGP service areas and weights allocated to each facility category, defined
according to the performed survey’s results, are shown in Table 4. Expression (2) was used
to combine the service areas’ scores with the facility category weights. Results obtained
for population density and trip generation points criteria were normalized through a
reclassification of values on a scale from 0 to 100 using expression (4). Regarding the road
hierarchy and slope, considered as a constraint (binary variable), it must satisfy the logical
condition: roads’ hierarchical class = NOT arterial AND slope ≤ 5% for conventional bike
analysis and roads’ hierarchical class = NOT arterial AND slope ≤ 10% for e-bike analysis.
Based on the findings of Flügel et al. [75] and Woodcock et al. [74], the average cycling
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9928 12 of 20

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21

speed considered for conventional (slope ≤ 5%) and electric (slope ≤ 10%) bicycle were, in
both cases, 15 km/h.

Figure 2. Covilhã’s
Figure 2. Covilhã’s cycling
cycling network (adapted from
network (adapted from [56]).
[56]).

At the same time, the local academic community undertook several studies on the
feasibility and implementation conditions to promote soft mobility in general, with par-
ticular emphasis on hillside cities. The criteria and suitability maps for Covilhã’s urban
perimeter obtained with the spatial multi-criteria cycling suitability analysis for
 conventional and electric bikes, according to the method described in Section 2, are pre-
sented in Figures 3–5. The study covered the entire road network of the urban perimeter
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9928 parishes (430 km) and not just the urban center of Covilhã (intervention area considered
13 of 20
by the City Council).

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Covilhã’s
Covilhã’surban
urbanperimeter
perimeterroad
roadhierarchy
hierarchyand
andslope,
slope,population
populationdensity
density(not
(notnormalized)
normalized)
and
and trip
trip generating
generating poles
poles analysis
analysis (normalized).
(normalized).
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9928 14 of 20

Figure
Figure4.4.Covilhã’s
Covilhã’surban
urbancenter:
center:conventional
conventionalcycling
cyclingsuitability
suitabilitymap.
map.
Figure 4. Covilhã’s urban center: conventional cycling suitability map.

Figure 5. Covilhã’s urban center: e-bike suitability map.

Figure 5. Covilhã’s urban center: e-bike suitability map.
Figure 5. Covilhã’s urban center: e-bike suitability map.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9928 15 of 20

Table 4. Service areas scores and sub-criteria weights (facility category).

Service Areas
Score Facility
Travel Distance Travel Time Weight
(0–100) Category
(m) (min)
1000 0–4 90 Transportation 0.69
2500 4–10 75 Health 0.70
5000 10–20 50 Educational 0.79
10,000 20–40 1 Services 0.68
>10,000 >40 0 Commercial 0.71
Tourism 0.80
Culture 0.73
Recreation 0.82
Sport 0.78

The most appropriate combination of weights to be considered in expression (1) must

be validated by transport and mobility specialists and municipal representatives. For
the case study, the surveys carried out among Portuguese transport and mobility experts
and Covilhã’s municipal representatives pointed to weights of 70% and 30% for the trip
generation points and population density criteria, respectively. The results of the proposed
methodology application and weights are presented in Figure 4 for conventional bikes and
in Figure 5 for e-bikes.

4. Results and Discussion

Suitability maps presented in Figures 4 and 5 show the set of street segments suitable
for cycling without considering the network connectivity analysis. A total of 23% of
Covilhã’s urban perimeter road network is suitable for the use of the conventional bicycle
(classification from very high to very low suitability), while for electric bicycle use, more
suited to the city’s topography, it is 34%.
Considering the road network segments with very high, high, and medium suitability
scores, the overlap of the conventional and electric bikes’ suitability networks with the
planned Covilhã’s cycling network is approximately 29% and 52%, respectively (Figure 6).
A preliminary analysis of the results to consider network connectivity revealed an
increase in the e-bike network overlapping of 66% (Figure 6). The preliminary connectivity
analysis only focused on the suitability results obtained for the use of e-bikes, since it is a
more adequate solution for the city. Connectivity was evaluated to guarantee continuous
and direct connections between trip generation points, access to transport facilities and low,
very low or not suitable connecting road segments up to 150 m long.
Spatial location analysis of the planned and suitable segments confirms that both
solutions point to the location of cycling routes in areas with high population density
and trip generation points concentration, thus confirming the appropriateness of the
proposed model.
For not suitable or low/very low suitability road segments longer than 150 m, but that
guarantee connectivity needs, a more in-depth assessment is suggested. Since they are not
suitable for e-bike use according to the criteria adopted, these road segments may need a
deeper intervention to consider their inclusion in the cycling network.
Regarding the planned shared lanes with traffic and pedestrian (see Figure 2), which
represents about 10% of the city’s planned cycling network, the analysis revealed that it is
not suitable for cycling circulation. It should be noted that the road segments in question
are in the oldest part of the city center, where the roads are narrow, steep, and coated with
natural stone (granite cubes). As this is a relatively small area near the town hall square
with tourist interest, it is suggested to place bicycle racks and e-bike charging points in the
square and interventions more oriented to improve the pedestrian infrastructure.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9928 16 of 20

OverlappingofofCovilhã’s
Figure6.6.Overlapping
Figure Covilhã’splanned
plannedcycle
cyclenetwork
networkand
ande-bike
e-bikesuitability
suitabilitynetwork
network(including
(including
a preliminary connectivity analysis).
a preliminary connectivity analysis).
5. Conclusions
A preliminary analysis of the results to consider network connectivity revealed an
increase Currently, the use
in the e-bike of bicycles
network in daily of
overlapping trips
66%is(Figure
increasingly
6). Thea preliminary
reality, not only for eco-
connectiv-
nomic and environmental reasons, but also because it is considered a faster
ity analysis only focused on the suitability results obtained for the use of e-bikes, since it alternative
istoa private cars on short-distance
more adequate solution for theurban journeys (upwas
city. Connectivity to 8evaluated
km). However, to be safe
to guarantee and
contin-
attractive, it is necessary to raise awareness among the population and to adopt governmen-
uous and direct connections between trip generation points, access to transport facilities
tal and planning measures that guarantee comfort and safety conditions and an effective
and low, very low or not suitable connecting road segments up to 150 m long.
concern with cyclists’ needs. These conditions must be considered when planning new
Spatial location analysis of the planned and suitable segments confirms that both so-
cycling networks or adapting the existing road network to include cycling mobility.
lutions point to the location of cycling routes in areas with high population density and
Sustainable mobility has been a priority on the EU agenda since 2007. The definition of
trip generation points concentration, thus confirming the appropriateness of the proposed
various policies and strategies, as well as the emergence of air quality legislation establish-
model.
ing greenhouse gas emission limits, provided the member states, including Portugal, with
For not suitable or low/very low suitability road segments longer than 150 m, but
guidelines for the practice of a better urban mobility [100]. However, although soft modes
that guarantee connectivity needs, a more in-depth assessment is suggested. Since they
are beginning to gain expression in Portuguese and other European cities, the private car
are not suitable for e-bike use according to the criteria adopted, these road segments may
continues to be the most used transport mode.
need a deeper intervention to consider their inclusion in the cycling network.
Decision support tools to assist urban space managers in cycling network planning are
Regarding
essential the planned
to promote shared lanes
more sustainable with traffic
mobility and pedestrian
behaviors and increase(seethe
Figure 2),bicycles
use of which
represents about 10% of the city’s planned cycling network, the analysis
on daily trips. The present study pretends to contribute to this goal through the creation revealed that it
isofnot suitable for cycling circulation. It should be noted that the road segments
an instrument to evaluate the cycling suitability of road segments based on variables in question
are in the oldest
identified part of in
as relevant thethe
cityliterature:
center, where the roads
population are narrow,
density, steep,
proximity toand
the coated with
main public
natural stone
facilities (trip(granite cubes).
generation As this
points) and is a relatively
streets small areaand
slope, hierarchy, near the townThe
geometry. hallselection
square
with tourist interest, it is suggested to place bicycle racks and e-bike charging
of variables also considered the availability of official and public data for an effective tool points in
the square and interventions
application by the municipalities. more oriented to improve the pedestrian infrastructure.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9928 17 of 20

Choosing a spatial multi-criteria approach allowed to combine the selected variables,

keep the approach flexible to incorporate the most appropriate criteria weights (which
represent specific characteristics of each scenario under analysis), and include spatial
relations using GIS.
The proposed methodology was validated by a case study in the urban road network
of Covilhã city, Portugal. Since the urban perimeter is located on a hillside, the use of
conventional and electric bicycles was analyzed.
The results obtained allow to conclude that 23% of the network extension is suitable
for the use of conventional bicycles and 34% for the use of e-bikes. Of the five classes
adopted to categorize road segments concerning cycling suitability level, only three were
considered comfortable for urban commuting trips: very high, high, and medium suitability.
Under this assumption, within the existing urban perimeter road network, 12.9% present
comfortable conditions for the use of conventional bicycles and 19.1% for e-bikes.
The approach has also allowed an overlapping of the solution obtained in the case
study with the cities’ planned and implemented cycling network, validating the main routes
suitable for cycling, and identifying road segments whose inclusion should be reassessed.
In future developments, the authors suggest the incorporation of models for cycling
speed calculation (conventional and electric) as a function of road slope and the explicit
inclusion of road cross-section geometric characteristics in the cycling suitability model.
A more detailed and sustained development of the cycling network definition model and
procedures is also proposed to assess cycling routes’ hierarchy/solutions components.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.S. and J.G.; methodology, B.S. and S.P.; validation, B.S.,
J.G., S.P. and I.M.; formal analysis, B.S. and S.P.; investigation, S.P., I.M., B.S. and J.G.; writing—original
draft preparation, B.S. and J.G.; writing—review and editing, S.P., I.M., B.S. and J.G.; supervision, B.S.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: To carry out this study, public data obtained online from official entities
and entities that provide spatial data were used.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge University of Beira Interior, Covilhã City Hall, CERIS—
Civil Engineering Research and Innovation for Sustainability (ECI/04625), CITTA—Research Cen-
tre for Territory, Transports and Environment (Multi/04427) and GEOBIOTEC—GeoBioSciences,
GeoTechnologies and GeoEngineering (GEO/04035) for supporting the performed study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). The Sustainable Mobility Project; Progress Report; WBCSD:
Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.
2. Motta, R.; Silva, P.; Brasil, A. Desafios da mobilidade sustentável no Brasil. Rev. Dos Transp. Públicos ANTP 2012, 34, 25–48.
3. Vilão, R.; Venâncio, C.; da Silva, F.; Lajas, R.; Martins, R. Projecto Mobilidade Sustentável. Vol. II—Manual de Boas Práticas para a
Mobilidade Sustentável; Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente: Amadora, Portugal, 2010.
4. Wadhwa, L. Sustainable transportation: The key to sustainable cities. Sustain. City 2000, 39, 281–289. [CrossRef]
5. Rupprecht Consult, Guidelines for Developing and Implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan, 2nd ed.; Rupprecht Consult: Koln,
Germany, 2019.
6. Instituto da Mobilidade e dos Transportes Terrestre (IMTT). Rede Ciclável Princípios de Planeamento e Desenho; IMTT: Lisbon,
Portugal, 2011.
7. Commission of the European Communities. COM (2007) 551 Final: Green Paper—Towards a New Culture for Urban Mobility;
Commission of the European Communities: Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
8. European Commission. White Paper—Roadmap to a Single European Transport Are—Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient
Transport System; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
9. European Commission. Urban Agenda for the EU—Pact of Amsterdam; European Commission: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016.
10. European Commission. A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
11. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parlament, the Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Together Towards Competitive and Resource-Efficient Urban Mobility; European
Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2013.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9928 18 of 20

12. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Paris Declaration: City in Motion, People First; United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
13. European Committee of the Regions. Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions—An EU Roadmap for Cycling. Off. J.
Eur. Union 2017, C88, 49–53.
14. European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) and EUROCITIES. EU Cycling Strategy; European Cyclists’ Federation (ECF): Brussels,
Belgium, 2017; Volume 22. [CrossRef]
15. European Commission. Action Plan on Urban Mobility; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2009.
16. UNICEF-ONU-UNESCO. From Amsterdam to Paris and beyond: The Transport, Health and Environment Pan-European Programme
(THE PEP) 2009–2020; UNICEF: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
17. Le Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, Ministere du Développement Durable et des Infrastructures. Informal
Meeting of EU Ministers for Transport; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2015.
18. Federal Ministry Republic of Austria. Graz Declaration; Federal Ministry Republic of Austria: Graz, Austria, 2018.
19. Official Journal of the European Union. Directive (EU) 2019/1936 of the European Parliament and of the Council; European Union:
Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
20. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy—Putting European Transport on Track for the
Future; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
21. Federal Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology of the Republic of Austria.
Pan-European Master Plan for Cycling Promotion. Transport, Health and Environment Pan-European Programme (THE PEP). In
Proceedings of the 5th High-level Meeting on Transport, Health and Environment, Vienna, Austria, 2 March 2021.
22. Colli, E.; Küster, F.; Žganec, M. The State of National Cycling Strategies in Europe (2021); European Cyclists’ Federation (ECF):
Brussels, Belgium, 2022.
23. Assembleia da República. Lei n.o 58/2007 de 4 de Setembro; Assembleia da República: Lisbon, Portugal, 2007.
24. Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.o 109/2007. Estratégia Nacional de Desenvolvimento Sustentável (ENDS); Conselho de
Ministros: Lisbon, Portugal, 2007.
25. Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.o 28/2015. Compromisso para o Crescimento Verde; Conselho de Ministros: Lisbon, Portugal, 2015.
26. Ministério do Ambiente. Portugal Ciclável 2030 (PC2030); Ministério do Ambiente: Lisbon, Portugal, 2018.
27. Diário da República. Estratégia Nacional para a Mobilidade Ativa Ciclável 2020–2030; Resolução do Conselho de Ministros 131/2019;
Diário da República: Lisbon, Portugal, 2019.
28. Marín, G.; Sarría, A.; Serrato, B.; Muñoz, M. (Eds.) Instrumentos de sensibilização dos municípios para uma mobilidade
sustentável: O caso do Programa ECOXXI. In Proceedings of the XV Coloquio Ibérico de Geografía, Murcia, Spain, 7–9 November
2016; pp. 579–588.
29. ECOXXI Program. Available online: https://ecoxxi.abae.pt/ (accessed on 21 November 2020).
30. Gomes, M. ECOXXI 2018; Associação Bandeira Azul da Europa: Lisbon, Portugal, 2018.
31. Diário da República. 1.a Série. Plano Nacional de Promoção da Bicicleta e Outros Modos de Transporte Suaves; Diário da República:
Lisbon, Portugal, 2009.
32. Instituto das Mobilidades e dos Transportes (IMT). CiclAndo—Plano de Promoção da Bicicleta e Outros Modos Suaves 2013–2020;
Instituto das Mobilidades e dos Transportes (IMT): Lisbon, Portugal, 2012.
33. Instituto da Mobilidade e dos Transportes Terrestres (IMTT). Diretrizes Nacionais para a Mobilidade; Instituto das Mobilidades e dos
Transportes (IMT): Lisbon, Portugal, 2012.
34. Diário da República. 1.a Série. Roteiro para a Neutralidade Carbónica 2050 (RNC2050); Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.o
107/2019; Diário da República: Lisbon, Portugal, 2019.
35. Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil (LNEC)—Departamento de Transportes. Documento Normativo para Aplicação A
Arruamentos Urbanos—Fascículo III—Características Geométricas para vias de Tráfego Não Motorizado; Laboratório Nacional de
Engenharia Civil (LNEC)—Departamento de Transportes: Lisbon, Portugal, 2020.
36. Diário da República. 2.a Série. Regulamento de Atribuição do Incentivo Pela Introdução no Consumo de Veículos de Baixas Emissões;
Despacho 2535/2021; Diário da República: Lisbon, Portugal, 2021.
37. Fundo para o Serviço Público de Transportes. Apoio à Aquisição e Instalação de Equipamentos Destinados ao Estacionamento de
Bicicletas; Aviso de abertura de candidature n.o 3/2021; Fundo para o Serviço Público de Transportes: Lisbon, Portugal, 2021.
38. Diário da República. 1a Série Lei de Bases do Clima; Lei 98/2021; Diário da República: Lisbon, Portugal, 2021.
39. Reggiani, G.; van Oijen, T.; Hamedmoghadam, H.; Daamen, W.; Vu, H.; Hoogendoorn, S. Understanding bikeability: A methodol-
ogy to assess urban networks. Transportation 2022, 49, 897–925. [CrossRef]
40. Kellstedt, D.; Spengler, J.; Foster, M.; Lee, C.; Maddock, J. A Scoping Review of Bikeability Assessment Methods. J. Community
Health 2021, 46, 211–224. [CrossRef]
41. Krenn, P.; Oja, P.; Titze, S. Development of a Bikeability Index to Assess the Bicycle-Friendliness of Urban Environments. Open J.
Civ. Eng. 2015, 5, 451–459. [CrossRef]
42. Motta, B. A Bikeability Index for Curitiba (Brazil). Master’s Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 2017.
43. Chevalier, A.; Xu, L. On the applicability of a western bikeability index in the Chinese context. Int. Rev. Spat. Plan. Sustain. Dev.
2020, 8, 59–93. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9928 19 of 20

44. Urrego, N.; Páez, D.; Guzmán, V. Cali Bikeability Index Map—A Tool for Evaluating Public Investment and Future Needs; Universidad
de los Andes: Bogota, Colombia, 2014.
45. Arellana, J.; Saltarín, M.; Larrañaga, A.; González, V.; Henao, C. Developing an urban bikeability index for different types of
cyclists as a tool to prioritise bicycle infrastructure investments. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 139, 310–334. [CrossRef]
46. Schmid-Querg, J.; Keler, A.; Grigoropoulos, G. The Munich bikeability index: A practical approach for measuring urban bikeability.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 428. [CrossRef]
47. Ostensen, A. The Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept, Implementation Manual; FHWA-RD-98-095; Federal Highway
Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 1998.
48. Tran, P.; Zhao, M.; Yamamoto, K.; Minet, L.; Nguyen, T.; Balasubramanian, R. Cyclists’ personal exposure to traffic-related air
pollution and its influence on bikeability. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 88, 102563. [CrossRef]
49. Müller, S.; Mejia-Dorantes, L.; Kersten, E. Analysis of active school transportation in hilly urban environments: A case study of
Dresden. J. Transp. Geogr. 2020, 88, 102872. [CrossRef]
50. Heinen, E.; van Wee, B.; Maat, K. Commuting by bicycle: An overview of the literature. Transp. Rev. 2010, 30, 59–96. [CrossRef]
51. Broach, J.; Dill, J.; Gliebe, J. Where do cyclists ride? A route choice model developed with revealed preference GPS data. Transp.
Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2012, 46, 1730–1740. [CrossRef]
52. Mateo-Babiano, I.; Bean, R.; Corcoran, J.; Pojani, D. How does our natural and built environment affect the use of bicycle sharing?
Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2016, 94, 295–307. [CrossRef]
53. Li, Z.; Wang, W.; Liu, P.; Ragland, D. Physical environments influencing bicyclists’ perception of comfort on separated and
on-street bicycle facilities. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2012, 17, 256–261. [CrossRef]
54. Tscharaktschiew, S.; Müller, S. Ride to the hills, ride to your school: Physical effort and mode choice. Transp. Res. Part D Transp.
Environ. 2021, 98, 1–18. [CrossRef]
55. Paige Willis, D.; Manaugh, K.; El-Geneidy, A. Uniquely satisfied: Exploring cyclist satisfaction. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol.
Behav. 2013, 18, 136–147. [CrossRef]
56. Câmara Municipal da Covilhã. Projeto de Execução da Rede Ciclável da Cidade da Covilhã; Câmara Municipal da Covilhã: Covilhã,
Portugal, 2017.
57. Aumann, P.; Arnold, T. Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling. In Guide to Road Design; Austroads: Sydney, Austrialia, 2021.
58. Transport for London. London Cycling Design Standards; Transport for London: London, UK, 2014.
59. Taylor, S.; Giang, C.; Chau, P.; Aumann, P. Cycling Aspects of Austroads Guides, 3rd ed.; Austroads: Sydney, Australia, 2017.
60. Bedoya i Echave, A. Manual Para el Diseño de Vías Ciclistas de Cataluña; Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament de Política
Territorial i Obras Públicas: Barcelona, Spain, 2007.
61. AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th ed.; AASHTO: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
62. CROW. Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic; CROW: Ede, The Netherlands, 2017.
63. Böcker, L.; Anderson, E.; Uteng, T.; Throndsen, T. Bike sharing use in conjunction to public transport: Exploring spatiotemporal,
age and gender dimensions in Oslo, Norway. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 138, 389–401. [CrossRef]
64. Department for Transport. Cycle Infrastructure Design—Local Transport Note 1/20; Department for Transport: London, UK, 2020.
65. California Department of Transportation. Chapter 1000: Bicycle Transportation. In Highway Design Manual; California Department
of Transportation: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2020.
66. Auckland Transport. Cycling Infrastructure; Auckland Transport: Auckland, New Zealand, 2021.
67. Transport Scotland. Cycling by Design; Transport Scotland: Glasgow, UK, 2021.
68. da Silva, M.; Martinez, V.; Lohmann, M. Geoprocessing and slope analysis of the cycling network of Londrina/PR. Geopauta 2021,
5, 116–127. [CrossRef]
69. Fyhri, A.; Heinen, E.; Fearnley, N.; Sundfør, H. A push to cycling—Exploring the e-bike’s role in overcoming barriers to bicycle
use with a survey and an intervention study. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2017, 11, 681–695. [CrossRef]
70. Liu, L.; Suzuki, T. Quantifying e-bike applicability by comparing travel time and physical energy expenditure: A case study of
Japanese cities. J. Transp. Health 2019, 13, 150–163. [CrossRef]
71. Gitelman, V.; Korchatov, A.; Carmel, R. Safety-related behaviours of e-cyclists on urban streets: An observational study in Israel.
Transp. Res. Procedia 60 2022, 60, 609–616. [CrossRef]
72. Julio, R.; Monzon, A. Long term assessment of a successful e-bike-sharing system. Key drivers and impact on travel behaviour.
Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2022, 10, 1299–1313. [CrossRef]
73. Mohamed, A.; Bigazzi, A. Speed and road grade dynamics of urban trips on electric and conventional bicycles. Transp. B 2019,
7, 1467–1480. [CrossRef]
74. Woodcock, J.; Aldred, R.; Lovelace, R.; Strain, T.; Goodman, A. Health, environmental and distributional impacts of cycling
uptake: The model underlying the Propensity to Cycle tool for England and Wales. J. Transp. Health 2021, 22, 101066. [CrossRef]
75. Flügel, S.; Hulleberg, N.; Fyhri, A.; Weber, C.; Ævarsson, G. Empirical speed models for cycling in the Oslo road network.
Transportation 2019, 46, 1395–1419. [CrossRef]
76. Wysling, L.; Purves, R. Where to improve cycling infrastructure? Assessing bicycle suitability and bikeability with open data in
the city of Paris. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2022, 15, 100648. [CrossRef]
77. Matias, I.; Santos, B.; Virtudes, A. Making Cycling Spaces in Hilly Cities. KnE Eng. 2020, 152–165. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9928 20 of 20

78. Langford, B.; Cherry, C.; Bassett, D.; Fitzhugh, E.; Dhakal, N. Comparing physical activity of pedal-assist electric bikes with
walking and conventional bicycles. J. Transp. Health 2017, 6, 463–473. [CrossRef]
79. Carver, S. Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 1991, 5, 321–339.
[CrossRef]
80. Chakhar, S.; Mousseau, V. Multicriteria Spatial Decision Support Systems. In Encyclopedia of GIS; Shekhar, S., Xiong, H., Eds.;
Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008; Volume 20.
81. Chakhar, S.; Mousseau, V. GIS-based multicriteria spatial modelling generic framework. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2008, 22, 1159–1196.
[CrossRef]
82. Eastman, J. Multi-criteria evaluation and GIS. In Geographical Information Systems; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
83. Eastman, J.; Jin, W.; Kyem, P.; Toledano, J. Raster procedures for multi-criteria/multi-objective decisions. Photogramm. Eng.
Remote Sens. 1995, 61, 539–547.
84. Belton, V.; Stewart, T. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [CrossRef]
85. Afshari, A.; Yusuff, R. A review of Spatial Multi Criteria Decision Making. In Proceedings of the 6th SASTech, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 4–25 March 2012.
86. Barfod, M.; Leleur, S. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Use in Transport Decision Making; DTU Transport: Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 2014; 75p.
87. Department for Communities and Local Government. Multi-Criteria Analysis: A Manual; Department for Communities and Local
Government: London, UK, 2009.
88. Voogd, J. Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning. In Delftsche Uitgevers Maatschappij; Delft Academic Press:
Delft, The Netherlands, 1982.
89. Dean, M. Chapter 6—Multi-criteria analysis. In Advances in Transport Policy and Planning; Mouter, N., Ed.; Academic Press:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; Volume 6, pp. 165–224. [CrossRef]
90. Yannis, G.; Kopsacheili, A.; Dragomanovits, A.; Petraki, V. State-of-the-art review on multi-criteria decision-making in the
transport sector. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 2020, 7, 413–431. [CrossRef]
91. Passos, S. Instrument for Bicycle Suitability Maps Creation Using GIS. Master’ Thesis, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã,
Portugal, 2018.
92. Ferreira, S. Automatização de um Modelo de Análise Espacial em SIG para a Avaliação do Potencial de Mobilidade Suave.
Master’ Thesis, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal, 2021.
93. Lucena, P. Análise Multicritério Espacial Aplicada à Avaliação do Potencial de Mobilidade Suave. O Caso das Cidades de Encosta.
Master’s Thesis, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal, 2021.
94. Nogueira, A.; Santos, B.; Gonçalves, J.; Kempa, J.; Chmielewski, J. Transportation Network Spatial Analysis to Measure Pedestrian
Suitability. The Case of Hilly Cities. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 1203, 022107. [CrossRef]
95. Sousa, A.; Santos, B.; Goncalves, J. Pedestrian Environment Quality Assessment in Portuguese Medium-Sized Cities. IOP Conf.
Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 471, 062033. [CrossRef]
96. Caires, D. REOT Covilhã-2019 Relatório do Estado do Ordenamento do Território: Avaliação da Dinâmica e Evolução Urbanística do
Concelho da Covilhã; Câmara Municipal de Valença: Covilhã, Portugal, 2019.
97. Tomé, A.; Santos, B.; Carvalheira, C. GIS-Based Transport Accessibility Analysis to Community Facilities in Mid-Sized Cities. IOP
Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 471, 062034. [CrossRef]
98. Portal do INE, Statistics Portugal. Available online: https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpgid=ine_main&xpid=INE&xlang=pt
(accessed on 24 January 2021).
99. TIS—Consultores em Transportes Inovação e Sistemas; Universidade da Beira Interior. PAMUS das Beiras e Serra da Estrela Fase 3:
Proposta do PAMUS-BSE; TIS—Consultores em Transportes Inovação e Sistemas: Covilhã, Portugal, 2016.
100. Matias, I.; Santos, B.; Gonçalves, J.; Kempa, J.; Chmielewski, J. EU and Portuguese Cycling Strategy for Sustainable Urban Mobility.
In Proceedings of the 7th World Multidisciplinary Civil Engineering-Architecture-Urban Planning Symposium—WMCAUS,
Prague, Czech Republic, 5–9 September 2022. accepted.
Copyright of Sustainability (2071-1050) is the property of MDPI and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.