A Curto1, A de Nazelle2, D Donaire-Gonzalez3, T Cole-Hunter1, J Garcia-Aymerich1, D Martínez1, E Anaya2, D Rodríguez4, M Jerrett5, M J Nieuwenhuijsen6. 1. 1 ISGlobal, Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL), Barcelona, Spain 2 Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain 3 CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain. 2. 4 Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, UK. 3. 1 ISGlobal, Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL), Barcelona, Spain 2 Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain 3 CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain 5 Physical Activity and Sports Sciences Department, Fundació Blanquerna, Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain. 4. 6 Department of City & Regional Planning and Institute for the Environment, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 5. 7 Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. 6. 1 ISGlobal, Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL), Barcelona, Spain 2 Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain 3 CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain mnieuwenhuijsen@creal.cat.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Public bicycle-sharing initiatives can act as health enhancement strategies among urban populations. The aim of the study was to determine which attitudes and perceptions of behavioural control toward cycling and a bicycle-sharing system distinguish commuters with a different adherence to bicycle commuting. METHODS: The recruitment process was conducted in 40 random points in Barcelona from 2011 to 2012. Subjects completed a telephone-based questionnaire including 27 attitude and perception statements. Based on their most common one-way commute trip and willingness to commute by bicycle, subjects were classified into Private Bicycle (PB), public bicycle or Bicing Bicycle (BB), Willing Non-bicycle (WN) and Non-willing Non-bicycle (NN) commuters. After reducing the survey statements through principal component analysis, a multinomial logistic regression model was obtained to evaluate associations between attitudinal and commuter sub-groups. RESULTS: We included 814 adults in the analysis [51.6% female, mean (SD): age 36.6 (10.3) years]. BB commuters were 2.0 times [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.1-3.7] less likely to perceive bicycle as a quick, flexible and enjoyable mode compared to PB. BB, WN and NN were 2.5 (95% CI = 1.46-4.24), 2.6 (95% CI = 1.53-4.41) and 2.3 times (95% CI = 1.30-4.10) more likely to perceive benefits of using public bicycles (bicycle maintenance and parking avoidance, low cost and no worries about theft and vandalism) than did PB. CONCLUSION: Willing non-bicycle and public-bicycle commuters had more favourable perception toward public-shared bicycles compared to private cyclists. Hence, public bicycles may be the impetus for those willing to start bicycle commuting, thereby increasing physical activity levels.
BACKGROUND: Public bicycle-sharing initiatives can act as health enhancement strategies among urban populations. The aim of the study was to determine which attitudes and perceptions of behavioural control toward cycling and a bicycle-sharing system distinguish commuters with a different adherence to bicycle commuting. METHODS: The recruitment process was conducted in 40 random points in Barcelona from 2011 to 2012. Subjects completed a telephone-based questionnaire including 27 attitude and perception statements. Based on their most common one-way commute trip and willingness to commute by bicycle, subjects were classified into Private Bicycle (PB), public bicycle or Bicing Bicycle (BB), Willing Non-bicycle (WN) and Non-willing Non-bicycle (NN) commuters. After reducing the survey statements through principal component analysis, a multinomial logistic regression model was obtained to evaluate associations between attitudinal and commuter sub-groups. RESULTS: We included 814 adults in the analysis [51.6% female, mean (SD): age 36.6 (10.3) years]. BB commuters were 2.0 times [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.1-3.7] less likely to perceive bicycle as a quick, flexible and enjoyable mode compared to PB. BB, WN and NN were 2.5 (95% CI = 1.46-4.24), 2.6 (95% CI = 1.53-4.41) and 2.3 times (95% CI = 1.30-4.10) more likely to perceive benefits of using public bicycles (bicycle maintenance and parking avoidance, low cost and no worries about theft and vandalism) than did PB. CONCLUSION: Willing non-bicycle and public-bicycle commuters had more favourable perception toward public-shared bicycles compared to private cyclists. Hence, public bicycles may be the impetus for those willing to start bicycle commuting, thereby increasing physical activity levels.
Authors: David Donaire-Gonzalez; Antònia Valentín; Audrey de Nazelle; Albert Ambros; Glòria Carrasco-Turigas; Edmund Seto; Michael Jerrett; Mark J Nieuwenhuijsen Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 4.773