Scoping review of public attitudes to government active travel interventions in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Low physical activity levels are a public health concern. Active travel is a potential strategy to increase routine walking, wheeling and cycling across populations. However, governments in the UK have not yet achieved their active travel targets and gaining public acceptance for interventions can be challenging. To inform future policymaking, this review aims to synthesise evidence on public attitudes to active travel interventions in the UK. DESIGN: A systematic scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Six sources (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and the Transport Research International Documentation) supplemented with a focused Google Scholar search. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed evidence in English from 1999 to 2025 using any methods to analyse public attitudes to active travel interventions in any part of the UK. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: After screening titles and abstracts, and then full-text review, we extracted data relevant to the research question. We produced descriptive statistics about the publications and narrative synthesis of public attitude themes, particularly how attitudes are formed and vary, and their role in policymaking. RESULTS: We included 26 publications after screening 13 778 records. Publications were mostly published after 2021 (n=14). Physical changes to street design were the most common intervention type (n=16). Populations of interest included residents, commuters, schoolchildren and others exposed to local interventions. There was little focus on rural areas and generally limited longer-term, sustained data collection. Results suggest active travel was positively viewed overall but intervention delivery was challenging. How the public perceives intervention effectiveness and fairness were important but perceptions varied by public beliefs, characteristics and travel habits. Several policymaking and practice challenges were identified, including the complexities of gauging public consensus about interventions, underlying public cynicism and a widespread desire among drivers to maintain driving habits. CONCLUSIONS: Active travel interventions can be difficult to plan and implement due to public attitudes. Public engagement is an important part of any active travel interventions. There was a lack of evidence identified about the specific, practical strategies that policymakers can use to address engagement challenges. Further research is required to explore these issues to help tackle low levels of physical activity through active travel. However, this review provides some insight for policymakers about key public attitude considerations at any stage of designing and delivering active travel interventions.