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
Back to article page

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

ISSN: 1479-5868

Contact us