Kristiann C Heesch1, Billie Giles-Corti2, Gavin Turrell3. 1. School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Herston Road, Brisbane, Queensland 4049, Australia; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Herston Road, Brisbane, Queensland 4049, Australia. Electronic address: k.heesch@qut.edu.au. 2. McCaughey VicHealth Centre for Community Wellbeing, University of Melbourne, Level 5, 207 Bouverie Street, Carlton, Victoria 3010, Australia. Electronic address: b.giles-corti@unimelb.edu.au. 3. School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Herston Road, Brisbane, Queensland 4049, Australia; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Herston Road, Brisbane, Queensland 4049, Australia. Electronic address: g.turrell@qut.edu.au.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Interest is growing in promoting utility cycling (i.e., for transport) as a means of incorporating daily physical activity (PA) into people's lives, but little is known about correlates of utility cycling. Our primary aim was to examine cross-sectional relationships between socio-economic characteristics, neighborhood environment perceptions and psychological disposition with utility cycling (with or without additional recreational cycling). A secondary aim was to compare these relationships with those for recreation-only cycling. METHOD: Baseline survey data (2007) from 10,233 participants in HABITAT, a multilevel longitudinal study of PA, sedentary behavior, and health in Brisbane adults aged 40-65years, were analyzed using multinomial regression modeling. RESULTS: Greater income, habitual PA, and positive beliefs about PA were associated with utility and recreation-only cycling (p<0.05). Always having vehicle access and not in the labor force were associated with recreation-only cycling (p<0.05). Some or no vehicle access, part-time employment, and perceived environmental factors (little crime, few cul-de-sacs, nearby transport and recreational destinations) were associated with utility cycling (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest differences in associations between socio-economic, neighborhood perceptions and psychological factors and utility and recreation-only cycling in Brisbane residents aged 40-65years. Tailored approaches appear to be required to promote utility and recreational cycling.
OBJECTIVE: Interest is growing in promoting utility cycling (i.e., for transport) as a means of incorporating daily physical activity (PA) into people's lives, but little is known about correlates of utility cycling. Our primary aim was to examine cross-sectional relationships between socio-economic characteristics, neighborhood environment perceptions and psychological disposition with utility cycling (with or without additional recreational cycling). A secondary aim was to compare these relationships with those for recreation-only cycling. METHOD: Baseline survey data (2007) from 10,233 participants in HABITAT, a multilevel longitudinal study of PA, sedentary behavior, and health in Brisbane adults aged 40-65years, were analyzed using multinomial regression modeling. RESULTS: Greater income, habitual PA, and positive beliefs about PA were associated with utility and recreation-only cycling (p<0.05). Always having vehicle access and not in the labor force were associated with recreation-only cycling (p<0.05). Some or no vehicle access, part-time employment, and perceived environmental factors (little crime, few cul-de-sacs, nearby transport and recreational destinations) were associated with utility cycling (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest differences in associations between socio-economic, neighborhood perceptions and psychological factors and utility and recreation-only cycling in Brisbane residents aged 40-65years. Tailored approaches appear to be required to promote utility and recreational cycling.
Authors: Alex Antonio Florindo; Ligia Vizeu Barrozo; Gavin Turrell; João Paulo Dos Anjos Souza Barbosa; William Cabral-Miranda; Chester Luiz Galvão Cesar; Moisés Goldbaum Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 3.390