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