How Can Psychological Theory Help Cities Increase Walking and Bicycling?

Objective correlates and determinants of bicycle commuting propensity in an urban environment

“…Further, the fact that greenness of only the work/study address was significantly determining bicycle commuting propensity may reveal that other characteristics of the work/study location or profession type (such as industrial zoning, irregular work hours, carried equipment, physical labour, etcetera) associated with greenness may be the true determinants. Besides environmental determinants, we found age, education level, gender, nationality, vigorous exercise and commute distance to be important for consideration of demographics and their influence on attitudes and behavioural control (propensity to bicycle commute), in agreement with previous studies (Dill et al, 2014, Sener et al, 2009a, Akar and Clifton, 2009and Parkin et al, 2007. When stratifying the analysis by occupation status as a potential effect modifier in the association between determinants of interest and the behaviours, the result was that outcomes lost some significance within the student subsample.…”

“…Both objective and perceived measures of the built environment are likely to factor into the valuation of travel modes and resulting decisions about how to travel. While attitudes and perceptions of an individual are known to be important theoretical considerations for travel planning (Dill et al, 2014, Sener et al, 2009aand Sener et al, 2009b, a review on the determinants of bicycle commuting highlighted gaps in the literature and the need to gather more evidence on objective and built environmental determinants (Heinen et al, 2010). In this paper we address this call by focusing on an expanded set of built environment measures calculated in different contexts (around home, around work/study, and along the route).…”

Bikeway Networks: A Review of Effects on Cycling

“…However, a study in Bogota, Colombia found that stated levels of bicycling were not associated with bike-lane density of completeness; overall street density was important (Cervero et al, 2009). Other studies have also found significant positive associations between street connectivity and bicycling, regardless of bicycle-specific infrastructure (Beenackers et al, 2012;Dill, Mohr, et al, 2014;Dill & Voros, 2007).…”

“…Similarly, Cervero et al (2009) concluded that bike-lane kilometers per land area did not significantly influence utilitarian cycling among 830 adults in Bogota, Colombia. Two studies concluded that striped bike lanes helped offset negative aspects of adjacent high-volume and fast-moving car travel, but were insufficient to overcome other negative aspects of the built environment (Broach et al, 2012;Dill, Mohr, et al, 2014). One study identified cyclist safety concerns about turning car traffic crossing a buffered bike lane .…”

“…In fact, most revealed-and stated-preference studies agree that cyclists who ride on roadways prefer streets with fewer travel lanes, lower volumes of motorized traffic, slower speeds, and without car parking (Abraham, McMillan, Brownlee, & Hunt, 2002;Akar & Clifton, 2009;Caulfield, 2014;Chataway, Kaplan, Nielsen, & Prato, 2014;Dill, 2009;Dill, Mohr, & Ma, 2014;Dill & Voros, 2007;Heinen et al, 2010;Pucher & Buehler, 2008;Sener, Eluru, & Bhat, 2009a;Sener et al, 2009b;Winters, Davidson, Kao, & Teschke, 2011). For example, Broach et al (2012) found that for Bikeway Networks 3 non-commute trips, cyclists in Portland, Oregon would only use streets with over 20 000 vehicles per day if alternative on-road routes with less motorized traffic required detours that were twice as long as the high-traffic-volume route or included very steep hills.…”