The Cycling Gender Gap: What Can We Learn From Girls?

Similar documents
Rerouting Mode Choice Models: How Including Realistic Route Options Can Help Us Understand Decisions to Walk or Bike

Where do People Bicycle? The Role of Infrastructure in Determining Bicycle Behavior

Webinar: Breaking Barriers to Bike Share: Insights on Equity

Evaluation of Bike Boxes at Signalized Intersections [Presentation]

Categorizing Cyclists: What Do We Know? Insights from Portland, OR

Community & Transportation Preferences Survey

Health, Transportation and Bicycling: Connecting the Dotted Lines

Cyclist Compliance at Signalized Intersections

Automobile Alternatives. S. Handy TTP282 Transportation Orientation Seminar 10/28/11

Community & Transportation Preferences Survey U.S. Metro Areas, 2015 July 23, 2015

Impact of Bike Facilities on Residential Property Prices

Webinar: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Protected Cycling Facilities: Lessons from Five Cities

Active and Green: Healthy Communities Are Sustainable Communities

Infrastructure and Programs. What does the data say? Advancing Non-motorized Transportation in Vermont 11/15/09

SUSTAINABILITY, TRANSPORT, & HEALTH. Ralph Buehler, Virginia Tech

2017 North Texas Regional Bicycle Opinion Survey

Annual Metro Regional Trail Count and Why Local Extrapolation Factors Matter

Breaking Barriers to Bike Share: Lessons on Bike Share Equity

Traffic Safety Barriers to Walking and Bicycling Analysis of CA Add-On Responses to the 2009 NHTS

Webinar: Exploring Pedestrian Responsive Traffic Signal Timing Strategies in Urban Areas

Facility preferences & safety

Lessons from Copenhagen. John L Bowman 2013

News Release. Millennials Favor Walkable Communities, Says New NAR Poll MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS

DKS & WASHINGTON COUNTY Washington County Transportation Survey

Policy Context & Network Planning Principles UBC Bike Design Course, Vancouver Dale Bracewell, Manager, Active Transportation

Measuring and growing active modes of transport in Auckland

Canada. UK France. Walk, Bike, Transit Share of Trips

Questions to ask before you research natural experiments in transit & physical activity

FOUR TYPES OF CYLISTS? EXAMINING A TYPOLOGY TO BETTER UNDERSTAND BICYCLING BEHAVIOR AND POTENTIAL

Towards Effective Design Treatment for Right Turns at Intersections with Bicycle Traffic

Kings County Regional Walk and Bike Plan

Investment in Active Transport Survey

FLETCHER AVENUE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST BEHAVIOR CHANGE FORMATIVE RESEARCH PROJECT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION

Parent Survey Report: One School in One Data Collection Period

Delta Planning Workshop Team

Attitude towards Walk/Bike Environments and its Influence on Students Travel Behavior: Evidence from NHTS, 2009

Gender Differences in Youth Bicycling:

Webinar: Racial Bias in Driver Yielding Behavior at Crosswalks

Do People s Perceptions of Neighborhood Bikeability Match Reality?

Can Protected Bike Lanes Help Close the Gender Gap in Cycling? Lessons from Five Cities

Webinar: Impacts of Roadway and Traffic Characteristics on Air Pollution Risks for Bicyclists

Driverless Vehicles Potential Influence on Bicyclist Facility Preferences

IMPACT OF BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS IN NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA. Kathryn M. Parker MPH, Janet Rice PhD, Jeanette Gustat PhD

A vision of future transport: creating places for people. Miles Tight

Hide/Show Print Tools

Baseline Survey of New Zealanders' Attitudes and Behaviours towards Cycling in Urban Settings

Rail Station Fact Sheet CentrePort/DFW Airport Station

Route User Intercept Survey Report

The Influence of Bike Lane Buffer Types on Perceived Comfort and Safety of Bicyclists and Potential Bicyclists

2014 Transit Oriented Developments Survey

APPENDIX D. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN AWARENESS SURVEY (Completed by Zogby International)

VGI for mapping change in bike ridership

How to Increase Cycling for Daily Travel: Lessons from Cities across the Globe

2018 AASHTO BIKE GUIDE

Transportation Curriculum. Survey Report

When composing the study, our primary source for content analysis was a study

El Paso County 2040 Major Transportation Corridors Plan

Safety in numbers What comes first safety or numbers? Jan Garrard School of Health and Social Development Deakin University

Factors influencing choice of commuting mode

What route types best motivate cycling? Evidence about route preferences & safety

IBPI: Bicycle and Pedestrian Education Program

Target population involvement in urban ciclovias: a preliminary evaluation of St. Louis Open Streets

Complete Streets 101: The Basics

The Impact of Policy and Environmental Outcomes on Youth Physical Activity

From Protected Bike Lanes to Robust Bikeway Networks

U.S. Bicycling Participation Study

City of Charlottesville Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update

Safety Effectiveness of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments

A Holistic Approach to Community Connectivity. 50 th International Making Cities Livable Conference Portland, OR June 2013

Bicycling Among Black and Latino Women. Focus Group Summary Report

A Summary of Recent Evaluations of Cycling Facilities in Portland, OR

Understanding barriers to participation across gender, age & disability

National Association of REALTORS National Smart Growth Frequencies

Infrastructure Elements of a Viable Cycling Network in the United States

Toronto Complete Streets Guidelines

PlaySafe and Live Well!

Transport Planning in Delft, Netherlands

A Matter of Fairness: ROCOG s Environmental Justice Protocol. What is Mobility Limitation?

Clouds, Crowds, and Traffic: What 10 Emerging Megatrends Mean for the Future of Transportation

TRENDS IN TENNIS PLAYING UKTIA - TENNIS SUMMIT THE QUEEN S CLUB - APRIL 2015

Identifying and Prioritizing Biking and Walking Needs

Streets for Everyone: Lessons from Cities across the Globe

2018 AASHTO BIKE GUIDE

PEOPLE ARE PEDESTRIANS BY DESIGN JOIN THE MOVEMENT AT

TYPES OF CYCLING. Figure 1: Types of Cycling by Gender (Actual) Figure 2: Types of Cycling by Gender (%) 65% Chi-squared significance test results 65%

Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes

SAN FRANCISCO WOMEN AND BIKING A CASE STUDY ON THE USE OF SAN FRANCISCO BIKE LANES SYNTHESIS

Paper submitted to the Scottish Transport Studies Group (STSG) April 2004

Willingness to Pay for Bike Detection Safety Systems: a European study

Strategies for Increasing SRTS and Bicycling in Low Income Communities

Bicycle Helmet Use Among Winnipeg Cyclists 2010

Webinar: Development of a Pedestrian Demand Estimation Tool

Safety and Active Transport. Dr. Maureen Carew, Medical Officer of Health Renfrew County and District Health Unit May 30, 2014

Travel Behavior, Transport Policy, and Sustainable Transport in Germany and the USA

Rail Station Fact Sheet UNT Dallas Station

Rail Station Fact Sheet Downtown Carrollton Station

Our vision for Chicago s bike network focuses on three types of routes:

EAST VILLAGE SHOPPERS STUDY A SNAPSHOT OF TRAVEL AND SPENDING PATTERNS OF RESIDENTS AND VISITORS IN THE EAST VILLAGE

Roadway Bicycle Compatibility, Livability, and Environmental Justice Performance Measures

Transcription:

Portland State University PDXScholar TREC Friday Seminar Series Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) 6-5-2016 The Cycling Gender Gap: What Can We Learn From Girls? Jennifer Dill Portland State University, jdill@pdx.edu Let us know how access to this document benefits you. Follow this and additional works at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/trec_seminar Part of the Transportation Commons, Urban Studies Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Recommended Citation Dill, Jennifer, "The Cycling Gender Gap: What Can We Learn From Girls?" (2016). TREC Friday Seminar Series. 25. http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/trec_seminar/25 This Book is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in TREC Friday Seminar Series by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact pdxscholar@pdx.edu.

The Cycling Gender Gap: What can we learn from girls? Jennifer Dill, Ph.D. Professor, Urban Studies & Planning Director, TREC Portland State University

The biking gender gap Females Males 66% 67% 31% 40% 5% 10% 15% 15% Made a bike trip in the past week Made a walk trip in the past week Children Adults Children Adults Source: 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS)

That s not the case everywhere 55% 56% Percent of bike trips by women 25% 27% 30% 49% USA UK Canada Germany Denmark Netherlands Source: Pucher and Buehler (eds.) City Cycling. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012

FAS Team: Nathan McNeil Joe Broach

Data collection Surveys GPS (GlobalSat DG-100) and accelerometer (Actigraph GT3X) for 5 days

Timeline Pre data collection (GPS+AM+surveys) Interim data collection (surveys only) Post data collection (GPS+AM+surveys) 2 years 1. July-October 2010 2. April-August 2011 1. August-Oct. 2012 2. April-August 2013

Sample size by phase 328 households 253 households 262 households 1000 175 800 600 400 322 114 134 224 260 71 186 99 215 Kids 11-17 Kids 5-10 Adults 200 491 363 354 294 329 0 Pre Interim Post AM: 3 days Pre & Post GPS: 3 days Pre & Post

35 30 Age of kid participants 25 20 Boys Girls Notes: 15 4-year olds only included with older siblings, at request of parents 10 5 17-year old dropped out 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age at start of study

Findings Today s findings are new, and just the beginning of the analysis. I welcome your ideas for further analysis. Keep in mind that these are kids living in the city of Portland. Need to be careful about applying findings to other cities.

Behavior

2.5 Boys Girls Bikes trips by gender Based on GPS data over 5 days Gender differences are not statistically significant 5-10 year olds: 123 boys, 119 girls 11-16 year olds: 65 boys, 57 girls Mean # bike trips 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 5-10, pre 5-10, post 11-16, pre 11-16, post

Number of bike trips, by gender 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% Boys 60% 50% Girls 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+ # of bike trips 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+ # of bike trips 5-10 year olds 11-16 year olds

Differences between corridors Boys Girls Control Treatment Control Treatment 5-10 year olds Minutes biking No change No change No change Bike trips No change No change No change No change 11-16 year olds Minutes biking No change No change No change Bike trips No change No change No change Paired sample t-tests, p<0.10

Kids attitudes

Attitudes about walking vs. biking girls vs. boys, pre 5-10 year olds 11-16 year olds girls vs. boys, post same kids, 2 years later girls vs. boys, pre girls vs. boys, post same kids, 2 years later I like walking = = = = = = I like biking = = = = girls < boys girls I like riding my bike to school I like riding my bike to other places = = girls & boys = = girls

Attitudes about walking vs. biking girls vs. boys, pre 5-10 year olds 11-16 year olds girls vs. boys, post same kids, 2 years later girls vs. boys, pre girls vs. boys, post same kids, 2 years later I like walking = = = = = = I like biking = = = = girls < boys girls I like riding my bike to school I like riding my bike to other places = = girls & boys = = girls

Gender differences in attitudes about biking 100 % Agreeing that they Like Biking 80 60 40 20 2 years later 2 years later 0 5-10, Pre 5-10, Post 11-16, Pre 11-16, Post Boys Girls

Barriers to biking, by gender (11-16 years, pre) Very much a barrier to biking 5.0 4.0 Boys Girls 3.0 2.0 Not at all a barrier to biking 1.0 Rain Cold weather No one to My parents bike with don t want me to bike It takes too long Not fun, don t feel like it I don t like wearing my helmet I am afraid of getting hurt My bike does not fit me well I don t want to get sweaty p=0.02 p<0.01 p<0.01 p=0.02 p=0.02 I can t ride my bike well My friends don t want me to bike I don t want other kids to see me biking

Change among girls, barriers to biking Very much a barrier to biking 5.0 4.0 Pre Post 3.0 2.0 Not at all a barrier to biking 1.0 Rain Cold weather No one to bike with Parents don't want me to bike Takes too long Not fun, don't feel like it Afraid of getting hurt I don't like wearing my helmet My bike does not fit me well I don't want to get sweaty Friends don't want me to bike Don't want other kids to see me biking I can't ride my bike well p=0.03 p=0.07 p=0.02 p=0.06

Barriers to biking, by gender (11-16 years, post) Very much a barrier to biking 5.0 4.0 Boys Girls 3.0 2.0 Not at all a barrier to biking 1.0 Rain Cold weather No one to bike with Not fun, don t feel like it It takes too long I don t I don t like want to wearing get sweaty my helmet My bike does not fit me well I can t ride my bike well My friends don t want me to bike p<0.01 p<0.01 p=0.03 p=0.02 My parents I am afraid don t of getting want me hurt to bike I don t want other kids to see me biking

Parents attitudes

Parents comfort with kids biking & walking strongly agree 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 Boys, 5-10 Girls, 5-10 Boys, 11-16 Girls, 11-16 I/We do not feel comfortable allowing this child to walk/bike alone to places in the neighborhood because of. Very few significant gender differences: 5-10, walk alone due to stranger danged p<0.05 5-10, bike alone due to stranger danged p<0.10 strongly disagree 2.0 1.5 1.0 bike alone bike with their because of friends because stranger danger of tranger danger bike alone because of traffic bike with their friends because of traffic walk alone because of stranger danger walk with their friends because of tranger danger walk alone because of traffic Stranger Danger Traffic Stranger Danger Traffic walk with their friends because of traffic Biking Walking

Infrastructure

Comfort on facilities: 11-16 year olds 4.0 Mean Comfort Level, 1=Very uncomfortable, 4=Very comfortable 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 with heavy traffic and no bike lane* Boys Girls with heavy traffic with a bike lane* with little traffic and no bike lane* with little traffic with a bike lane* On a path or trail separate from the street with heavy traffic and no bike lane with heavy traffic with a bike lane with little traffic and no bike lane with little traffic with a bike lane On a path or trail separate from the street * sig. difference p<0.05 Alone With Parents

Comfort on facilities: 11-16 year olds 4.0 Mean Comfort Level, 1=Very uncomfortable, 4=Very comfortable 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 with heavy traffic and no bike lane* Boys Girls with heavy traffic with a bike lane* with little traffic and no bike lane* with little traffic with a bike lane* On a path or trail separate from the street with heavy traffic and no bike lane with heavy traffic with a bike lane with little traffic and no bike lane with little traffic with a bike lane On a path or trail separate from the street * sig. difference p<0.05 Alone With Parents

Questions? Today s findings are new, and just the beginning of the analysis. I welcome your ideas for further analysis. Keep in mind that these are kids living in the city of Portland. Need to be careful about applying findings to other cities.