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