Do Health Benefits Outweigh the Costs of Mass Recreational Programs? An Economic Analysis of Four Ciclovía Programs

• Published in: Journal of urban health Vol. 89; no. 1; pp. 153 - 170
• Main Authors: Montes, Felipe, Sarmiento, Olga L., Zarama, Roberto, Pratt, Michael, Wang, Guijing, Jacoby, Enrique, Schmid, Thomas L., Ramos, Mauricio, Ruiz, Oscar, Vargas, Olga, Michel, Gabriel, Zieff, Susan G., Valdivia, Juan Alejandro, Cavill, Nick, Kahlmeier, Sonja
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Boston Springer US 01.02.2012; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Colombia; Cost-Benefit Analysis - methods; Costs; Data Collection; Economic analysis; Epidemiology; Exercise; Female; Health Informatics; Health promotion; Health Promotion - economics; Health Promotion - methods; Humans; Intervention; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Models, Statistical; Public Health; Recreation; Recreation - economics; San Francisco; Urban areas; Urban Population; San Francisco; Colombia; Urban organization; Dynamics of large cities; Physical activity; Ciclovía program; Complex system; Economic assessment; Nonmotorized transport; Human behavior; Cost–benefit ratio
• ISSN: 1099-3460; 1468-2869
• DOI: 10.1007/s11524-011-9628-8

One promising public health intervention for promoting physical activity is the Ciclovía program. The Ciclovía is a regular multisectorial community-based program in which streets are temporarily closed for motorized transport, allowing exclusive access to individuals for recreational activities and physical activity. The objective of this study was to conduct an analysis of the cost–benefit ratios of physical activity of the Ciclovía programs of Bogotá and Medellín in Colombia, Guadalajara in México, and San Francisco in the USA. The data of the four programs were obtained from program directors and local surveys. The annual cost per capita of the programs was: US $6.0 for Bogotá, US $23.4 for Medellín, US $6.5 for Guadalajara, and US $70.5 for San Francisco. The cost–benefit ratio for health benefit from physical activity was 3.23–4.26 for Bogotá, 1.83 for Medellín, 1.02–1.23 for Guadalajara, and 2.32 for San Francisco. For the program of Bogotá, the cost–benefit ratio was more sensitive to the prevalence of physically active bicyclists; for Guadalajara, the cost–benefit ratio was more sensitive to user costs; and for the programs of Medellín and San Francisco, the cost–benefit ratios were more sensitive to operational costs. From a public health perspective for promoting physical activity, these Ciclovía programs are cost beneficial.