Which physical and social environmental factors are most important for adolescents’ cycling for transport? An experimental study using manipulated photographs

Abstract

BackgroundEcological models emphasize that cycling for transport is determined by an interplay between individual, physical and social environmental factors. The current study investigated (a) which physical and social environmental factors determine adolescents’ preferences towards cycling for transport and (b) which individual, physical and social environmental factors are associated with their intention to actually cycle for transport.MethodsAn online questionnaire consisting of questions on individual and social environmental variables, and 15 choice-based conjoint tasks with manipulated photographs was completed by 882 adolescents (55.3% male; 13.9 ± 1.6 years). Within the choice tasks, participants were asked to indicate which of two situations they would prefer to cycle to a friend’s house. The manipulated photographs were all modified versions of one semi-urban street which differed in the following physical micro-environmental attributes (separation of cycle path, evenness of cycle path, speed limit, speed bump, traffic density, amount of vegetation and maintenance). In addition, each photograph was accompanied by two sentences which described varying cycling distances and co-participation in cycling (i.e. cycling alone or with a friend). After each choice task participants were also asked if they would actually cycle in that situation in real life (i.e. intention). Hierarchical Bayes analyses were performed to calculate relative importances and part-worth utilities of environmental attributes. Logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate which individual, physical and social environmental factors were associated with adolescents’ intention to actually cycle for transport.ResultsAdolescents’ preference to cycle for transport was predominantly determined by separation of cycle path, followed by shorter cycling distance and co-participation in cycling. Higher preferences were observed for a separation between the cycle path and motorized traffic by means of a hedge versus a curb, versus a marked line. Similar findings were observed for intention to cycle. Furthermore, evenness of the cycle path and general maintenance of the street were also of considerable importance among adolescents, but to a lesser extent.ConclusionsResults of this experimental study justify investment by local governments in well-separated cycling infrastructure, which seemed to be more important than cycling distance and the social environment.

Differences in physical environmental characteristics between adolescents’ actual and shortest cycling routes: a study using a Google Street View-based audit

“…In line with previous studies [ 12 – 14 ], the present study showed that a short cycling distance is one of the most important factors determining the route choice of adolescent cyclists, as for 73.1% of the cycling trips participants took the shortest possible route. In addition, for 35.1% of the cycling trips which were not the shortest possible, adolescents still indicated that they chose that route because they perceived it as the shortest/fastest route.…”

“…Nevertheless, the evaluation of physical environmental characteristics along adolescents’ actual cycling routes remains understudied, although it is important to find out why individuals chose a specific cycling route. In addition, although previous studies emphasized the importance of distance for adolescents’ cycling for transport [ 12 – 14 ], it is likely that adolescents do not always take the shortest cycling route. By comparing adolescents’ actual cycling routes with the shortest possible cycling routes, important information regarding which physical environmental characteristics determine the route choice of adolescent cyclists may be obtained.…”

Active Travel of Czech and Polish Adolescents in Relation to Their Well-Being: Support for Physical Activity and Health

“…The effects of interventions to increase active school transport vary and the quality of evidence remains low [59]. Well-separated and safe cycling infrastructure seems to be more important to adolescents than distance and the social environment [60]. We can also expect more health benefits in adolescents who cycle than in non-cyclists [9].…”

The Malaysian Cycling-Friendly Neighbourhood: A Signal For The Enhancement Of The Convenience Infrastructure.

“…The cyclist preferred to do cycling is based on their high preferences about the overall environment that suit their specification needed. To measure the environmental preferences is categorised into four attributes, for instance, speed, space, security and distance that influence the cycling participation [32], [33]- [35].…”

“…Besides, coherence, directness, attractiveness, traffic safety, comfort, and spatial integration are the proper design for cycle-network [37]. Repercussions, four aspects of bikeway design factors will be measured in the study such as safety/security (SSF) [33], [38]- [40], accessibility/connectivity (ACF) [38], [41], [42], attractiveness/aesthetic (AAF)…”