The limits of 'evidence' on planning policy: A case study of urban cycling infrastructure investment.

The role of 'evidence' in influencing planning policy in a post-truth society is supposedly limited, exposing 'power' and 'narrative' as explanations of public decision-making regardless of the facts to support them (Smith, 2017). Yet, research can have an impact upon public policy. This PhD explores whether and how evidence influences local authority planning policy narratives and decisions using urban cycling infrastructure investment as a case study.
Urban cycling has been long-regarded as a hallmark of successful cities. As well as clear contributions to air quality agendas, daily physical activity such as cycling to work is shown to have a profound effect on individual health and wellbeing (Rojas-Rueda et al., 2011). In urban development terms, cycling rates also feature prominently in global rankings (e.g. liveability), which go on to inform investment, job creation and growth. Moreover, recent UK-focused research suggests that cycling enjoys broad public support, with 78% of people indicating they would welcome an increase in cycling infrastructure provision - even if that meant reductions in road space (Sustrans, 2017). Combined, therefore, there is a compelling socio-economic case for maximising the opportunities for those seeking to travel by bicycle in their daily lives.