Bicycles and micromobility for disaster response and recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bicycles and other forms of micromobility have been anecdotally used in past disasters to help save lives and improve community recovery. However, research and practice are scarce on this resilient transportation strategy, which limits its usefulness and possible benefits. To fill this gap, our paper investigates the potential role bicycles and micromobility in facilitating (or limiting) disaster response and recovery. Given the lack of exploration on the topic, we convened an online workshop where we conducted brainstorming and focus group discussions with disaster experts from various government agencies, not-for-profit organizations, academia, and policy groups. We present a synthesis of that discussion, along with a review of the existing literature. We conclude there is strong potential for bicycles and micromobility for different disaster phases, hazard types, and groups of people. However, multiple barriers exist related to implementation and safety, suggesting a need for future research and policy in the transportation and emergency management fields and practices. • Feasibility of micromobility to aid evacuation is determined by disaster type, disaster phase, vehicle type, and geography. • Micromobility has the potential to aid both the short-term response and longer-term recovery from natural disasters. • Micromobility is flexible and cheap for resource movement and can navigate roads that are impassable for cars and trucks. • Availability of bikes and micro-modes is both a barrier and a facilitator for use during disaster response. • Many political and coordination barriers remain to make micromobility a part of disaster planning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".