Reading task 1

The following text is a press release which communicates academic research to a general audience. How does the author indicate where the information has come from?

Cities with physically active residents more productive as well as healthier

Research that examined more than 500 studies says walking and cycling projects return an average of £13 in economic benefit for every £1 invested. Cities in which residents are physically active have a big advantage over their more sedentary rivals, with better economic productivity, higher property values and improved school performance, as well as a healthier population. In an increasingly globalised, competitive and mobile world, cities have an economic imperative to promote walking, cycling and public transport, as well as increasing the amount of green space and curbing car use (Butler, 2015, p. 26). Butler examined more than 500 existing studies from 17 countries to seek an overall picture of the effect of increased physical activity on a city. It found in particular that schemes to promote walking and cycling had a massive impact, with one UK study finding local trade can be boosted by up to 40% in an area where more people walk. Overall, walking and cycling projects return an average of £13 ($20) in economic benefit for every £1 ($1.50) invested. The boost comes from a variety of means, including more trade for local shops, less traffic congestion and reduced pollution. More active employees take on average a week less off work a year, with huge, wider benefits for overall public health.

In a study on the health impact of sedentary living, Ekelund, 2015 estimates that almost 700,000 people could be dying a year in Europe owing to lack of exercise. In one paper, Gotschi (2014) estimated that investment in cycling schemes in the US city of Portland could save almost £8bn by 2040 in better public health. The 80-page paper aggregating the research, which also offers city leaders ideas on how to make their populations more active, is being released before a conference on the subject in Bristol. The English city has heavily promoted active travel in recent years, and is among nine places examined in the report as models for others.

Spoon (2015, p. 16) said the hope was the report would “open the eyes of government leaders to the many important benefits of designing cities to support active living”. He added: “A city’s ability to compete depends on an active population. The research is clear on this – it shows how an active city can be a low-cost, high-return investment.” The paper also lists a series of other benefits of a move to active living, for example research suggesting that streets not lined by parked cars have significantly less crime, that active students tend to perform better at school and that more physical activity boosts overall mental health and wellbeing. It suggests a series of ways city leaders can help in this process, with examples such as providing more parks and open spaces; providing bike lanes and public bike schemes; and helping ensure children live closer to their schools.

Healthy living in the city

Cities fit for people, rather than exhaust pipes; cities where residents are happier, have improved physical and mental wellbeing, sleep better, live longer. In our age of deficit fetishism, the success of a policy is judged by its economic returns, rather than whether it improves the lives of living, breathing human beings. But a new study suggests that cities that invest in encouraging their citizens to be physically active reap both financial and human rewards. For every pound cities across the world invest in walking and cycling projects, for example, the returns average £13; here in Britain, it could be as high as £19. Investing in green spaces and public transport clears both the air and the roads, and makes cities pleasant places to live.

Here’s a study that tells a story that has been badly told in the age of austerity. Apologists for balancing books by slicing through public expenditure had an easy story to tell, and they did it well: there is a gap between what we spend and what we earn, and that gap must be closed by reining in spending. The idea of investment – that spending money now will more than pay for itself in the longer run – has been done a disservice. But the University of California’s academics sum up the false economy: cutting back on making our cities decent, enjoyable places to live ends up costing us far more.

Take cycling. A confession: after taking it up five years ago, I became an insufferable cycling evangelist. London was a rabbit warren of underground stations when I first defected here from the north; cycling is the perfect way to acquaint yourself with where you live. Cycling claws back time to think and contemplate that the age of smartphones and social media stole away; it burns calories without stressing your joints, tackles stress levels and makes you fitter; and it means you are one less car on the road or one less passenger crammed against the window of a bus or a train. Back in March, Nick Clegg announced millions of pounds to support the cycle city ambition programme, to make cities more bike-friendly, rightly pointing out that the research shows it “could save billions of pounds otherwise spent on the NHS, reduce pollution and congestion, and create a happier and safer population”.

Alas, the investment is an early casualty of a Tory majority government, with George Osborne hacking away £23m. A short-term saving: but at what long-term cost? The same goes for our precious green spaces, where we can walk, jog and run in pleasant surroundings. Past investment paid off, but parks are not a statutory service that councils are obliged to protect, making them early casualties of cuts. Last year, 86% of parks departments said their budgets had been cut, with nearly a third experiencing drops of at least a fifth, and two suffering cutbacks of 50%. The Campaign for Rural England suggests that funding is “in crisis” and “discretionary spending” will drop by around 60% by the end of the decade. There will be no one employed to look after the parks, it fears.

Given that eight out of ten of Britons live in an urban area – more cramped together than in virtually any other European country – it is sheer vandalism to allow our parks to go to rot. It will mean a less happy and less healthy population – and again, that will end up hitting the nation in the pocket. We’re cutting back on sports and leisure budgets, too: £42m hacked away from council budgets in the past five years was rightly condemned for “storing up problems for the longer term” by the Sport and Recreation Alliance. As things stand, eight out of ten of us are failing to meet the government’s target of at least twelve sessions of “moderate exercise” over the course of a month. As facilities are cut back and green space deteriorates, that already poor record will surely only worsen. It means we end up spending money on preventable diseases and on mental distress.

It’s bad for the economy in other ways, too: as the Californian academics point out, those who regularly exercise are less likely to take time off work. As for our public transport: we have a dazzlingly inefficient, fragmented rail system that devours public subsidies and makes train travel in Britain among the most expensive in Europe. London benefits from twice as much spending per person on transport as the rest of the country, with unacceptably poor services elsewhere. Londoners have a regulated bus industry; elsewhere, buses are often infrequent, pushing people into their cars, with all the pollution and congestion that brings.

Yes, it costs money upfront to create cities with well-kept parks where we can walk with our families or jog with our friends; to support those dispensing with cars in favour of bikes; to encourage burning off calories in easy, fun, fulfilling ways. But it costs so much more in the long term – not just financially, but also in our mental and physical health. Prosperous nations have the wealth to invest in their cities, however much today’s politicians protest otherwise. If they fail to do so, our lives will be gloomier, our waists will expand, and our health budgets will take up the slack. A shame indeed.