گفتمان طراحی شهری
فصلنامه علمی (ISC)

تبیین راهبردهای تقویت زیرساخت‌های انسانی دوچرخه‌سواری شهری در تهران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

محمد نظرپور 1، 2
محمد جواد بختیاری 3

1 پژوهشگر دکتری شهرسازی، گروه شهرسازی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران

2 فلوشیپ دکتری، موسسه دوچرخه‌سواری شهری، دانشگاه آمستردام،

3 گروه طراحی شهری، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.

10.48311/udd.2026.117998.82814
چکیده
اهداف: این پژوهش با تمرکز بر شهر تهران به‌دنبال تبیین راهبردهایی است که می‌تواند «زیرساخت انسانی توسعه دوچرخه‌سواری شهری» را تقویت کند. مفهومی نوظهور در ادبیات جهانی جابه‌جایی شهری که تمرکز آن بر ضرورت توجه و تقویت ابعاد و ظرفیت‌های اجتماعی و فرهنگی، به‌عنوان مکملی برای زیرساخت‌های کالبدی و سخت است.

روش‌ها: این مطالعه با رویکرد کیفی و از طریق مصاحبه‌های نیمه‌ساختاریافته با ۱۷ نفر از مدیران و مسئولان اصلی در پروژه توسعه دوچرخه‌سواری شهر تهران، کنشگران فعال که مستقیما در این پروژه ها مشارکت داشتند، مربیان آموزش دوچرخه‌سواری شهری و برخی از سرگروه‌ها و اعضای گروه‌های دوچرخه‌سواری شهری در تهران انجام شده است. داده‌ها پس از پیاده‌سازی و بازخوانی مستمر در راستای تولید مضامین محوری سامان‌دهی شدند تا ابعاد مختلف این زیرساخت و پتانسیل‌ها و چالش‌های هر بخش نمایان شوند.

یافته‌ها: مضامین راهبردی به دست آمده نشان می‎دهد که زیرساخت انسانی دوچرخه‌سواری شهری در تهران در چهار محور به‌هم‌پیوسته قابل صورت‌بندی است: آموزش (مهارتی و شهری؛ تفاوت‌های جنسیتی و سنی؛ و توجه به هنجارهای اجتماعی)، مشارکت (مشارکت بالا به پایین و پایین به بالا؛ مشارکت واقعی از تصمیم‌سازی تا اجرا و ارزیابی)، توانمندسازی (گروه هدف شهروندان، مربیان و کنشگران؛ آموزش تخصصی، حقوق و قوانین‌) و آگاهی‌بخشی (رسانه و تولید محتوا، رویدادها و مطالبات گروهی، تحقیق و پژوهش‌های کابردی و کمپین‌سازی).

نتایج: برآیند یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد سیاست‌گذاری‌ها، برنامه‌ها و اقدامات آتی، در صورت تمرکز بر تقویت این چهار محور در کنار توسعه همزمان زیرساخت‌های سخت، می‌تواند به توسعه دوچرخه‌سواری شهری به‌عنوان شیوه‌ای پایدار و انسان‌محور برای جابه‌جایی شهری منجر شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

زیرساخت‌ انسانی
توسعه دوچرخه‌سواری شهری
ابعاد اجتماعی و فرهنگی
تهران

عنوان مقاله English

Explaining Strategies to Strengthen the Human Infrastructure of Urban Cycling in Tehran

نویسندگان English

Mohammad Nazarpoor 1 2
Mohammad Javad Bakhtiari 3
1 PhD Researcher, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. PhD Fellow at Urban Cycling Institute, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
3 Department of Urban Design, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده English

Objectives: Focusing on the city of Tehran, this study aims to explain strategies that can strengthen the human infrastructure for urban cycling, an emerging concept in global urban mobility literature that emphasizes the necessity of enhancing social and cultural capacities as a complement to physical and hard infrastructures.

Methods: This qualitative study was conducted through semi-structured interviews with 17 key stakeholders, including senior managers and officials involved in urban cycling development projects in Tehran, active practitioners directly engaged in these initiatives, urban cycling instructors, and leaders and members of urban cycling groups. After transcription and iterative review, the data were organized into core themes to reveal the dimensions, potential, and challenges associated with this infrastructure.

Findings: The strategic themes indicate that the human infrastructure of urban cycling in Tehran can be conceptualized across four interconnected dimensions: education (skills and urban cycling training; gender and age differences; and attention to social norms), participation (top-down and bottom-up participation; meaningful involvement from decision-making to implementation and evaluation), empowerment (target groups including citizens, instructors, and activists; specialized training; rights and regulations), and awareness-raising (media and content production, events and collective demands, applied research, and campaign development).

Results: Overall, the findings suggest that future policies, programs, and interventions, if directed toward strengthening these four dimensions alongside the simultaneous development of hard infrastructures, can more effectively promote urban cycling as a sustainable and human-centered mode of mobility in Tehran.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Human infrastructure
Urban cycling development
Social and cultural dimensions
Tehran
Buehler R, Pucher J. (2021). COVID-19 impacts on cycling, 2019–2020. Transport Reviews. 41(4):393-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2021.1914900
2.    Goel R, Goodman A, Aldred R, Nakamura R, Tatah L, Garcia LMT, et al. (2022). Cycling behaviour in 17 countries across 6 continents: levels of cycling, who cycles, for what purpose, and how far? Transport Reviews. 42(1):58-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2021.1915898
3.    Cox P. (2019). Cycling: A sociology of vélomobility. London: Routledge.
4.    Piatkowski D, Bopp M. (2021). Increasing bicycling for transportation: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Urban Planning and Development. 147(2):04021019. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000693
5.    Aldred R. (2014). Promoting walking and cycling: new perspectives on sustainable travel. Transport Reviews. 34(2):266-267. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2014.887596
6.    Kelly P, Williamson C, Niven AG, Hunter R, Mutrie N, Richards J, et al. (2020). Beyond cycle lanes and large-scale infrastructure: a scoping review of initiatives that support more people to cycle. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 54(24):1443-1455.
7.    Aldred R, Jungnickel K. (2014). Why culture matters for transport policy: the case of cycling in the UK. Journal of Transport Geography. 34:78-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.11.004
8.    Lugo AE. (2013). CicLAvia and human infrastructure in Los Angeles: ethnographic experiments in equitable bike planning. Journal of Transport Geography. 30:202-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.04.010
9.    Lugo AE. (2015). Can human infrastructure combat green gentrification? Ethnographic research on bicycling in Los Angeles and Seattle. In: Isenhour C, McDonogh G, Checker M, editors. Sustainability in the Global City: Myth and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 306-328.
10.    Lugo AE. (2017). Bicycle anthropology of Los Angeles. In: Anthropology of Los Angeles: Place and Agency in an Urban Setting. p. 21-43. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781666984927.ch-002
11.    Nello-Deakin S, Nikolaeva A. (2021). The human infrastructure of a cycling city: Amsterdam through the eyes of international newcomers. Urban Geography. 42(3):289-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2019.1709757
12.    Snaije L, Nosowicz M. (2022). Strengthening the human infrastructure of cycling: soft strategies for inclusive uptake. Gelderland: BYCS.
13.    Jahanshahi D, Costello SB, Dirks KN, van Wee B. (2025). Biking and belonging: understanding the role of socio-cultural influences on cycling in Auckland. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 199:104599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2025.104599
14.    Zorrilla MC, Hodgson F, Jopson A. (2019). Exploring the influence of attitudes, social comparison and image and prestige among non-cyclists to predict intention to cycle in Mexico City. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 60:327-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.10.009
15.    Oliveira Soares B, Glaser M. (2025). Beyond infrastructure: unpacking the complexity of exclusion and implications for just mobility transitions. Journal of Transport Geography. 126:104202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2025.104202
16.    Bird EL, Baker G, Mutrie N, Ogilvie D, Sahlqvist S. (2013). Behaviour change techniques used to promote walking and cycling: a systematic review. Health Psychology Review. 7(1):172-196.
17.    Enderle S. (2025). Pedaling paths over time: exploring cycling adaptation among forced migrant women in Germany. Journal of Transport Geography. 127:104265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2025.104265
18.    Pearson L, Gabbe B, Reeder S, Beck B. (2023). Barriers and enablers of bike riding for transport and recreational purposes in Australia. Journal of Transport & Health. 28:101538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2022.101538
19.    McQueen M, Abou-Zeid G, MacArthur J, Clifton K. (2021). Transportation transformation: is micromobility making a macro impact on sustainability? Journal of Planning Literature. 36(1):46-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412220972696
20.    Doğru OC, Webb TL, Norman P. (2021). What is the best way to promote cycling? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 81:144-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.06.002
21.    Sersli S, Scott N, Winters M. (2019). Effectiveness of a bicycle skills training intervention on increasing bicycling and confidence: a longitudinal quasi-experimental study. Journal of Transport & Health. 14:100577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2019.100577
22.    Rau H, Manton R. (2016). Life events and mobility milestones: advances in mobility biography theory and research. Journal of Transport Geography. 52:51-60.
23.    Aranda-Balboa MJ, Huertas-Delgado FJ, Gálvez-Fernández P, Saucedo-Araujo R, Molina-Soberanes D, Campos-Garzón P, et al. (2022). The effect of a school-based intervention on children’s cycling knowledge, mode of commuting and perceived barriers: a randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 19(15):9626. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159626
24.    Janke J, Thigpen CG, Handy S. (2021). Examining the effect of life course events on modality type and the moderating influence of life stage. Transportation. 48:1089-1124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-10077-9
25.    Viry G. (2020). Life course and mobility. In: Handbook of Urban Mobilities. London: Routledge.
26.    DeWeese RS, Acciai F, Tulloch D, Lloyd K, Yedidia MJ, Ohri-Vachaspati P. (2022). Active commuting to school: a longitudinal analysis examining persistence of behavior over time in four New Jersey cities. Preventive Medicine Reports. 26:101718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101718
27.    Steinbach R, Green J, Datta J, Edwards P. (2011). Cycling and the city: a case study of how gendered, ethnic and class identities can shape healthy transport choices. Social Science & Medicine. 72(7):1123-1130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.01.033
28.    Aldred R. (2013). Incompetent or too competent? Negotiating everyday cycling identities in a motor dominated society. Mobilities. 8(2):252-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2012.696342
29.    van der Kloof A, Bastiaanssen J, Martens K. (2014). Bicycle lessons, activity participation and empowerment. Case Studies on Transport Policy. 2(2):89-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2014.06.006
30.    Ravensbergen L, Buliung R, Sersli S. (2020). Vélomobilities of care in a low-cycling city. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 134:336-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.02.014
31.    Hoor M. (2020). The bicycle as a symbol of lifestyle, status and distinction: a cultural studies analysis of urban cycling subcultures in Berlin. Applied Mobilities. 7(3):249-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/23800127.2020.1847396
32.    Oosterhuis H. (2016). Cycling, modernity and national culture. Social History. 41(3):233-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071022.2016.1180897
33.    Featherstone M. (2004). Automobilities: an introduction. Theory, Culture & Society. 21(4-5):1-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276404046058
34.    Hannam K, Sheller M, Urry J. (2006). Editorial: mobilities, immobilities and moorings. Mobilities. 1(1):1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450100500489189
35.    Jensen OB. (2013). Staging Mobilities. London: Routledge.
36.    Jordi-Sánchez M, Hernández-Ramírez M, Cabillas M, Pérez-Flores AM, Muñoz-Sánchez VM. (2022). Deconstructing the categories of urban cycling: beyond transport, leisure and sport. Mobilities. 17(6):795-813. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2022.2057811
37.    Ravensbergen L, Buliung R, Laliberté N. (2019). Toward feminist geographies of cycling. Geography Compass. 13(9):e12461. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12461
38.    Giles-Corti B, Vernez-Moudon A, Reis R, Turrell G, Dannenberg AL, Badland H, et al. (2016). City planning and population health: a global challenge. Lancet. 388(10062):2912-2947.
39.    Panter J, Heinen E, Mackett R, Ogilvie D. (2019). Can changing the physical environment promote walking and cycling? A systematic review of what works and how. Health & Place. 58:102161.
40.    Fell D, Kivinen E. (2016). Investing in cycling and walking: rapid evidence assessment. London: Department for Transport.
41.    Scheepers CE, Wendel-Vos GCW, den Broeder JM, van Kempen EEMM, van Wesemael PJV, Schuit AJ. (2014). Shifting from car to active transport: a systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 70:264-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.10.015
42.    Hunter RF, Christian H, Veitch J, Astell-Burt T, Hipp JA, Schipperijn J. (2015). The impact of interventions to promote physical activity in urban green space: a systematic review and recommendations for future research. Social Science & Medicine. 124:246-256.
43.    Pearson L, Page MJ, Gerhard R, Clarke N, Winters M, Bauman A, et al. (2025). Effectiveness of interventions for modal shift to walking and bike riding: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Transport Reviews. 45(4):482-513. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2025.2480292
44.    Stewart G, Anokye NK, Pokhrel S. (2015). What interventions increase commuter cycling? A systematic review. BMJ Open. 5(8):e007945. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007945
45.    Elliott LD, Bopp M. (2024). Success and challenges of community bicycle advocacy organizations in reaching underserved populations. Community Health Equity Research & Policy. 45(1):3-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2752535X231211418
46.    Savan B, Cohlmeyer E, Ledsham T. (2017). Integrated strategies to accelerate the adoption of cycling for transportation. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 46:236-249.
47.    Nawaz S, Ali Y. (2020). Analyzing the influence of social, cultural, behavioral traits on cycling and walking in Pakistan. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives. 7:100182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100182
48.    Heinen E, Handy S. (2012). Similarities in attitudes and norms and the effect on bicycle commuting: evidence from the bicycle cities Davis and Delft. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation. 6(5):257-281.
49.    Piatkowski D, Marshall W. (2020). More than just the helmet: the relationship between bicycle helmet use and non-bicycling risk-taking behaviors among American adolescents. Travel Behaviour and Society. 20:313-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.04.009
50.    Lanzendorf M, Busch-Geertsema A. (2014). The cycling boom in large German cities: empirical evidence for successful cycling campaigns. Transport Policy. 36:26-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.07.003
51.    Ferenchak NN, Marshall WE. (2025). The link between low-stress bicycle facilities and bicycle commuting. Nature Cities. 2:555-559. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-025-00255-5
52.    Kraus S, Koch N. (2021). Provisional COVID-19 infrastructure induces large, rapid increases in cycling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 118(15):e2024399118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2024399118

  • تاریخ دریافت 07 آذر 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش 17 دی 1404
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار 17 دی 1404
  • تاریخ انتشار 01 تیر 1405

صفحه اصلی

راهنمای نویسندگان

ارسال مقاله

داوران

تماس با ما