Skip to main content

Table 3 Results on physical and social environmental, and individual factors associated with adolescents’ preferences and intention to cycle for transport

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

  Environmental preferences Associations with intention
Relative importances Part-worth utilities Wald test Chi2 OR (95% CI)
(%, 95% CI) (95% CI)   
Separation of cycle path 26.4 (25.7; 27.2)   54.0***  
 No cycle path   reference category   reference category
 Cycle path separated from traffic with lines, not separated from walking path (advisory cycle path)   4.9 (4.7; 5.0)   2.1 (1.4; 3.0)
 Cycle path separated from traffic with a curb, not separated from walking path   5.5 (5.4; 5.7)   3.4 (2.3; 4.9)
 Cycle path separated from traffic with a hedge, not separated from walking path   7.1 (7.0; 7.2)   3.0 (2.1; 4.3)
 Cycle path separated from traffic with a curb, separated from walking path by colour   6.2 (6.1; 6.3)   2.9 (2.0; 4.2)
 Cycle path separated from traffic with a hedge, Separated from walking path by colour   6.5 (6.3; 6.8)   3.1 (2.1; 4.5)
Cycling distance 14.9 (14.2; 15.5)   12.7*  
 15 min   reference category   reference category
 14 min   0.3 (0.1; 0.5)   0.8 (0.6; 1.1)
 13 min   1.3 (1.1; 1.4)   0.8 (0.6; 1.1)
 12 min   1.7 (1.6; 1.8)   1.1 (0.8; 1.5)
 11 min   2.3 (2.2; 2.4)   1.1 (0.8; 1.6)
 10 min   2.6 (2.4; 2.9)   1.3 (0.9; 1.8)
Co-participation in cycling 14.4 (13.5; 15.2)   24.9***  
 Alone   reference category   reference category
 With a friend   3.4 (3.2; 3.6)   1.7 (1.4; 2.0)
Evenness of cycle path 11.8 (11.4; 12.3)   68.8***  
 Very uneven   reference category   reference category
 Moderately uneven   1.1 (1.0, 1.2)   1.3 (1.0; 1.7)
 Even   3.1 (3.0; 3.3)   2.6 (2.1; 3.4)
Maintenance 11.0 (10.6, 11.4)   26.8***  
 Poor upkeep (much graffiti and litter)   reference category   reference category
 Moderate upkeep (a bit of graffiti and litter)   1.9 (1.8; 2.0)   1.3 (1.0; 1.6)
 Good upkeep (no graffiti or litter)   2.8 (2.6; 2.9)   1.9 (1.5; 2.4)
Traffic density 10.5 (10.1, 10.9)   15.1***  
 4 cars + truck   reference category   reference category
 3 cars   1.7 (1.6; 1.8)   1.2 (0.9; 1.5)
 1 car   2.6 (2.5; 2.7)   1.6 (1.3; 2.0)
Amount of vegetation 5.0 (4.9, 5.2)   1.0  
 No trees   reference category   reference category
 Two trees   0.5 (0.4; 0.5)   1.1 (0.9; 1.3)
 Four trees   0.4 (0.3; 0.5)   1.1 (0.9; 1.4)
Speed limit 3.5 (3.3, 3.6)   2.4  
 50 km/h   reference category   reference category
 30 km/h   0.6 (0.6; 0.7)   1.2 (1.0; 1.4)
Speed bump 2.6 (2.4, 2.7)   1.5  
 Absent   reference category   reference category
 Present   −0.1 (−0.1; 0.0)   0.9 (0.7; 1.1)
Gender    3.7t  
 Male     reference category
 Female     0.5 (0.3; 1.0)
SES parents    0.3  
 Lower SES     reference category
 Higher SES     1.2 (0.5; 2.8)
Age    2.8t 1.2 (1.0; 1.5)
Social modelling    17.7*** 2.7 (1.7; 4.3)
Social support    1.4 1.3 (0.9; 1.8)
Social norms    2.0 1.3 (0.9; 1.8)
Self-efficacy    21.3*** 1.9 (1.5; 2.6)
RLH 0.9    
Agreement model prediction – fixed task 1 (%)a 96.8    
Agreement model prediction – fixed task 2 (%)a 78.6    
  1. CI confidence interval, OR odds ratio, RLH Root LikeliHood
  2. ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; t p < 0.1
  3. aThis represents for how many participants the choice predicted by the model corresponds to the actual choice of the participants