Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 405

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Can air pollution negate the health benefits of cycling and walking?

Open access
Tainio, Marko, de Nazelle, Audrey J., Götschi, Thomas, Kahlmeier, Sonja, Rojas-Rueda, David, Nieuwenhuijsen, Mark J., de Sá, Thiago Hérick, Kelly, Paul, Woodcock, James·2016·Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Active travel (cycling, walking) is beneficial for the health due to increased physical activity (PA). However, active travel may increase the intake of air pollution, leading to negative health consequences. We examined the risk-benefit balance between active travel related PA and exposure to air pollution across a range of air pollution and PA scenarios. The health effects of active travel and air pollution were estimated through changes in all-cause mortality for different levels of active travel and air pollution. Air pollution exposure was estimated through changes in background concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), ranging from 5 to 200μg/m3. For active travel exposure, we estimated cycling and walking from 0 up to 16h per day, respectively. These refer to long-term average levels of active travel and PM2.5 exposure. For the global average urban background PM2.5 concentration (22μg/m3) benefits of PA by far outweigh risks from air pollution even under the most extreme levels of active travel. In areas with PM2.5 concentrations of 100μg/m3, harms would exceed benefits after 1h 30min of cycling per day or more than 10h of walking per day. If the counterfactual was driving, rather than staying at home, the benefits of PA would exceed harms from air pollution up to 3h 30min of cycling per day. The results were sensitive to dose-response function (DRF) assumptions for PM2.5 and PA. PA benefits of active travel outweighed the harm caused by air pollution in all but the most extreme air pollution concentrations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.02.002

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 405

Metadata

Authors
Tainio, M., de Nazelle, A. J., Götschi, T., Kahlmeier, S., Rojas-Rueda, D., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., de Sá, T. H., Kelly, P., & Woodcock, J.
Venue
Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-06
Volume
87
Pages
233-236
ISSN
0091-7435 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2268639498
Cited by
405
References
2
FWCI
24.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Can air pollution negate the health benefits of cycling and walking? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.02.002
The paper
Tainio, M., de Nazelle, A. J., Götschi, T., Kahlmeier, S., Rojas-Rueda, D., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., de Sá, T. H., Kelly, P., & Woodcock, J. (2016). Can air pollution negate the health benefits of cycling and walking? Preventive Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.02.002

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.