Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison between intervention and comparison neighbourhoods of awareness of, use, intention to use a new bicycle path, weekly cycling frequency and neighbourhood factors at follow-up (n = 512)

From: Use of and short-term impacts of new cycling infrastructure in inner-Sydney, Australia: a quasi-experimental design

  Comparison Area n = 272 (%) Intervention Area n = 240 (%) Odds ratio Adjusted odds ratio (95 % CI)a P value
Bicycle path interaction at follow-up
 Awareness 18.8 60.0 6.49 5.99 (3.87–9.27) <0.001
 Use of bicycle path 7.0 23.8 4.15 3.58 (2.01–6.40) 0.001
 Intention to use
 (Very likely/likely) 15.8 35.8 2.97 2.77 (1.76–4.37) <0.001
Neighbourhood factors
 Compared with 12 months ago (agree/strongly agree):
 I feel more connected with my neighbours 40.2 37.6 0.88 1.09 (0.72–1.58) 0.612
 My neighbourhood is more pleasant 29.5 47.5 2.14 2.44 (1.63–3.66) <0.001
 There are more people walking in my local area 37.6 53.7 1.94 2.04 (1.37–3.03) <0.001
 There are more people cycling in my local area 58.7 74.8 2.04 2.48 (1.62–3.79) <0.001
 Agree/strongly agree that:
 It is easy to ride a bicycle around your local area 64.0 71.3 1.39 1.37 (0.90–2.08) 0.201
 There are bicycle facilities in my local area 74.6 85.4 2.12 2.08 (1.26–3.42) <0.001
Cycling frequency
 Bicycled in past week 23.2 25.8 1.16 1.07 (0.67–1.69) 0.767
  1. aAdjusts for age, sex, income and education
  2. Bold text highlights statistically signifcant associations
\