The effectiveness of new urban trail infrastructure on physical activity and active transportation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of natural experiments

Table 2 Summary of studies examining effectiveness of urban trails on changes in active transportation

Study	Trail type	Method	Outcome	Int	Control	OR	95% CI
Aldred 2021 W1	MUP	Survey	Past week AT	770	962	1.03	0.99–1.07
Aldred 2021 W2	MUP	Survey	Past week AT	708	902	1.02	0.98–1.05
Aldred 2021 W3	MUP	Survey	Past week AT	668	830	1.01	0.98–1.05
Keall et al. 2015	MUP/PBL	Survey	Past week AT	490	202	1.37	1.08–1.73
Frank et al. 2021	MUP	Survey	Last 2 days cycling trips	239	285	3.52	1.54–8.03
Brown et al. 2016	“High-Comfort”	GPS/ Accelerometer	Active trips	NR	NR	UInt	UInt
Goodman et al. 2013	MUP/PBL	Census	Cycling to work	2.75 M	2.18 M	1.09	1.07–1.11
Patterson et al. 2023 (cycle)	PBL	Census	Cycle Commute	6,373	19,373	1.08	0.92–1.26*
Patterson et al. 2023 (walk)	PBL	Census	Walking Commute	6,373	19,374	1.18	1.06–1.32

MUP = multi use path; PBL = protected bicycle lane; NR = not reported; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence intervals
*=Gender stratified analyses yielded AOR = 1.56; 95% CI 1.16 to 2.10 for women and
AOR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.10 for men. Uint = odds ratios provided without confidence intervals and were uninterpretable relative to other studies reporting odds ratios for changes in rates of AT following urban trail implementation

ISSN: 1479-5868