Cycling provision separated from motor traffic: a systematic review exploring whether stated preferences vary by gender and age

Abstract

In this paper, we represent a systematic review of stated preference studies examining the extent to which cycle infrastructure preferences vary by gender and by age. A search of online, English-language academic and policy literature was followed by a three-stage screening process to identify relevant studies. We found 54 studies that investigated whether preferences for cycle infrastructure varied by gender and/or by age. Forty-four of these studies considered the extent of separation from motor traffic. The remainder of the studies covered diverse topics, including preferred winter maintenance methods and attitudes to cycle track lighting. We found that women reported stronger preferences than men for greater separation from motor traffic. There was weaker evidence of stronger preferences among older people. Differences in preferences were quantitative rather than qualitative; that is, preferences for separated infrastructure were stronger in some groups than in others, but no group preferred integration with motor traffic. Thus, in low-cycling countries seeking to increase cycling, this evidence suggests focusing on the stronger preferences of under-represented groups as a necessary element of universal design for cycling.

Proximity to four bikeway types and neighbourhood-level cycling mode share of male and female commuters

“…Survey data indicate preferences for certain bikeway types (off-street bike paths, cycle tracks, residential street bikeways), especially among those who are most concerned about safety: women and people with children (Aldred et al, 2016;Buehler & Dill, 2016;Dill & Gliebe, 2008). These stated preferences are supported by studies that show people are willing to increase travel time and distance to use preferred route types (Larsen & El-Geneidy, 2011;Broach, Dill, & Gliebe, 2012;Wardman, Tight, & Page, 2007).…”

“…This dramatic difference in the proportions of women cycling underscores how important it is to appeal to women to achieve high cycling mode shares. There is consistent evidence that routes without bike-specific infrastructure and without separation from motor vehicle traffic are more likely to deter women than men (Aldred et al, 2016;Garrard, Rose, & Lo, 2008). In the separate models for male and female commuters, we observed stronger associations for any bikeway and each bikeway type among women, though confidence limits around the coefficients always overlapped.…”

“…Country-wide data indicate that the proportion of commute trips by bicycle (commute mode share) is about 1% in Canada and the United States (Buehler & Pucher, 2012a). In countries with little cycling, surveys indicate that route safety concerns are the major deterrent and that designated infrastructure for cycling is the major motivator (Aldred, Elliott, Woodcock, & Goodman, 2016;Buehler & Dill, 2016;. Opinion research is supported by evidence of differences between cities in North America: in those with more bike infrastructure, commute mode shares are considerably higher (Winters, Teschke, Brauer, & Fuller, 2016;Schoner & Levinson, 2014;Buehler & Pucher, 2012b;Dill & Carr, 2003).…”

“…We examined associations with cycling mode share for different types of bikeway, and whether associations were affected by neighborhood commute duration or slope on the routes to bikeways. Because cycling is much more common among men than women in low cycling countries (Buehler & Pucher, 2012a) and because women express a stronger hierarchy of route preference (Aldred et al, 2016;, we also examined whether associations differed for male and female commuters.…”

Research Progress on Complexity of Public Bicycle Trip Behavior

“…Because women have a high degree of aversion to risk [7], there are some deficiencies in bicycle infrastructure and poor road conditions that can reduce the comfort of use. During the use of bicycle [8], women showed stronger route preference [9] [10].…”