The influence of attitudes on university bicycle commuting: Considering bicycling experience levels

Namgung, Mi and Hee-Jung Jun, 2019, in International Journal of Sustainable Transportation

doi:10.1080/15568318.2018.1471557

Location	Ohio State University
Population	Other (specify)
Sample size	1189
Factor analysis type	principal components, varimax rotation
Stepwise regression	no
Removal of insignificant variables	no
Reviewed by	AR

Abstract

This study examined attitudes towards bicycling among bicycle users with different experience levels and how these attitudes influence the bicycle use. The study area is The Ohio State University’s main campus and we used the 2015 Campus Transportation Survey that asked questions about different commuting modes to the campus, bicycling experience levels, attitudes toward bicycle use, and demographic characteristics. For the empirical analysis, we grouped 20 attitudinal statements on bicycling into eight factors by using principal component analysis: perception of living in a bicycle-friendly community; perception of bicycling barriers; bicycling willingness upon facility availability; awareness of bicycling benefits; familiarity with local bicycling information; preference for bicycling; sensitivity to bicycle security; and perception of the availability of campus bicycle facilities. We ran t-test analyses to examine whether the attitudes toward bicycling vary by bicycling experience levels. Then, we employed binary logit analyses to estimate the effects of the attitudes differentiated by bicycling experience levels on being a bicyclist. The empirical analyses show that experienced bicycle users have more positive and favorable attitudes toward bicycling while less experienced bicycle users perceive greater bicycling barriers. We also found that the availability of bicycle facilities has a greater importance for less experienced bicycle users than for experienced bicycle users. © 2018, © 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Factors

Variable	Pattern loading
There are bike lanes in my neighborhood that are easy to access (Res preference/perception)	0.579
Where I currently live is a good neighborhood for riding a bicycle (Res preference/perception)	0.567
There are off-street bicycle trails or paved paths in or near my neighborhood that are easy to access (Res preference/perception)	0.567

Variable	Pattern loading
There are no bicycle lanes or routes near enough for me to ride (Res preference/perception)	0.506
I would have to take detours from the most direct route in order to use bike paths, bike lanes or streets more suited for bicycles (Convenience)	0.595
The roadway conditions(markings, signals, width, and lighting) on some streets make the route unsafe for bicyclists on my commute route (Safety)	0.604

Variable	Pattern loading
I would choose to ride a bike if there were more bike routes to and from campus (Safety)	0.522
I would choose to ride a bike if there were options for renting or borrowing bicycles (Convenience)	0.608
I would choose to ride a bike if there were more indoor or covered places to store bikes on campus (Convenience)	0.584

Variable	Pattern loading
Bicycling benefits health and fitness (Lifestyle)	0.693
Bicycling reduces environmental impacts (Environmentalism)	0.693

Variable	Pattern loading
I know where to get information about bicycle routes (Convenience)	0.694
I know the name of at least one bicycle organization in Columbus (Other)	0.7

Variable	Pattern loading
I prefer bicycling over taking transit (Mode-liking)	0.698
I prefer bicycling over walking (Mode-liking)	0.677

Variable	Pattern loading
I would not leave my bicycle outside my residence because it might be stolen (Safety)	0.715
My bicycle might be stolen even if properly secured on campus (Safety)	0.598

Variable	Pattern loading
There are enough parking racks for bicycles on campus (convenience)	0.453
I can find a place to help repair my bicycle if needed on campus (Convenience)	0.66
When needed, I can find a convenient place to shower and change clothing after bicycling on campus (Convenience)	0.574

Models

Dependent variable	Commute by bicycle at least once a week
Model type	binary logit
Sample size	574.0
R²	nan
Adjusted R²
Pseudo R² (nan)	0.4644
AIC	nan
BIC	nan
Log-likelihood at zero	nan
Log-likelihood at constants	-255.92223
Log-likelihood at convergence	-137.07873

Variable	Coefficient	p-value
Constant	-1.148	0.298
Attitudes toward bicycling	nan	nan
PC1: Perception of living in a bicycle-friendly community	0.084	0.522
PC2: Perception of bicycling barriers	-0.196	0.119
PC3: Bicycling willingness upon facility availability	0.216	0.097
PC4: Awareness of bicycling benefits	0.44	0.006
PC5: Familiarity with local bicycling information	0.358	0.019
PC6: Preference for bicycling	0.916	0.0
PC7: Sensitivity to bicycle security	-0.446	0.002
PC8: Perception of the availability of campus bicycle facilities	-0.027	0.841
Commuting distance( the base case: less than 1 mile)	nan	nan
1-5 miles	-1.352	0.013
6-10 miles	-3.567	0.0
More than 10 miles	-3.583	0.0
Availability of bike lane or path(within 0.5 mile)	0.603	0.337
Female	-0.822	0.014
Age( the base case: under 30)	nan	nan
31-40	-1.085	0.016
41-50	-1.167	0.012
Over 50	-1.438	0.001
Social Environment	nan	nan
My friends ride bicycles	-0.093	0.624
My family rides bicycles	-0.065	0.674
Self-selection	0.616	0.0

Dependent variable	Commute by bicycle at least once a week
Model type	binary logit
Sample size	142.0
R²	nan
Adjusted R²
Pseudo R² (nan)	0.3969
AIC	nan
BIC	nan
Log-likelihood at zero	nan
Log-likelihood at constants	-95.64816
Log-likelihood at convergence	-57.682288

Variable	Coefficient	p-value
Constant	0.164	0.936
Attitudes toward bicycling	nan	nan
PC1: Perception of living in a bicycle-friendly community	0.09	0.653
PC2: Perception of bicycling barriers	-0.075	0.726
PC3: Bicycling willingness upon facility availability	0.104	0.582
PC4: Awareness of bicycling benefits	0.483	0.097
PC5: Familiarity with local bicycling information	0.676	0.025
PC6: Preference for bicycling	0.639	0.018
PC7: Sensitivity to bicycle security	-0.544	0.023
PC8: Perception of the availability of campus bicycle facilities	-0.011	0.96
Commuting distance( the base case: less than 1 mile)	nan	nan
1-5 miles	-0.579	0.582
6-10 miles	-3.299	0.011
More than 10 miles	-3.982	0.01
Availability of bike lane or path(within 0.5 mile)	0.315	0.749
Female	-0.993	0.101
Age( the base case: under 30)	nan	nan
31-40	-0.966	0.19
41-50	-1.7	0.177
Over 50	-1.8	0.016
Social Environment	nan	nan
My friends ride bicycles	-0.21	0.522
My family rides bicycles	0.034	0.897
Self-selection	0.413	0.057

Dependent variable	Commute by bicycle at least once a week
Model type	binary logit
Sample size	181.0
R²	nan
Adjusted R²
Pseudo R² (nan)	0.49
AIC	nan
BIC	nan
Log-likelihood at zero	nan
Log-likelihood at constants	-81.282786
Log-likelihood at convergence	-41.455807

Variable	Coefficient	p-value
Constant	-1.256	0.516
Attitudes toward bicycling	nan	nan
PC1: Perception of living in a bicycle-friendly community	0.027	0.928
PC2: Perception of bicycling barriers	-0.536	0.034
PC3: Bicycling willingness upon facility availability	0.467	0.085
PC4: Awareness of bicycling benefits	0.252	0.0
PC5: Familiarity with local bicycling information	-0.215	0.424
PC6: Preference for bicycling	1.479	0.001
PC7: Sensitivity to bicycle security	-0.794	0.036
PC8: Perception of the availability of campus bicycle facilities	-0.246	0.418
Commuting distance( the base case: less than 1 mile)	nan	nan
1-5 miles	-2.242	0.015
6-10 miles	-5.097	0.004
More than 10 miles	-3.784	0.012
Availability of bike lane or path(within 0.5 mile)	0.154	0.897
Female	-0.376	0.575
Age( the base case: under 30)	nan	nan
31-40	-1.811	0.036
41-50	-2.284	0.04
Over 50	-0.798	0.418
Social Environment	nan	nan
My friends ride bicycles	0.2	0.575
My family rides bicycles	-0.475	0.147
Self-selection	0.924	0.001