Abstract

BackgroundGender differences in cycling are well-documented. However, most analyses of gender differences make broad comparisons, with few studies modeling male and female cycling patterns separately for recreational and transport cycling. This modeling is important, in order to improve our efforts to promote cycling to women and men in countries like Australia with low rates of transport cycling. The main aim of this study was to examine gender differences in cycling patterns and in motivators and constraints to cycling, separately for recreational and transport cycling.MethodsAdult members of a Queensland, Australia, community bicycling organization completed an online survey about their cycling patterns; cycling purposes; and personal, social and perceived environmental motivators and constraints (47% response rate). Closed and open-end questions were completed. Using the quantitative data, multivariable linear, logistic and ordinal regression models were used to examine associations between gender and cycling patterns, motivators and constraints. The qualitative data were thematically analyzed to expand upon the quantitative findings.ResultsIn this sample of 1862 bicyclists, men were more likely than women to cycle for recreation and for transport, and they cycled for longer. Most transport cycling was for commuting, with men more likely than women to commute by bicycle. Men were more likely to cycle on-road, and women off-road. However, most men and women did not prefer to cycle on-road without designed bicycle lanes, and qualitative data indicated a strong preference by men and women for bicycle-only off-road paths. Both genders reported personal factors (health and enjoyment related) as motivators for cycling, although women were more likely to agree that other personal, social and environmental factors were also motivating. The main constraints for both genders and both cycling purposes were perceived environmental factors related to traffic conditions, motorist aggression and safety. Women, however, reported more constraints, and were more likely to report as constraints other environmental factors and personal factors.ConclusionDifferences found in men’s and women’s cycling patterns, motivators and constraints should be considered in efforts to promote cycling, particularly in efforts to increase cycling for transport.

Highlights

  • There was no gender difference in the number of transport cycling trips taken in the previous week among these cyclists (b = -0.24; 95% CI = -0.53, 0.05; p = 0.10): after adjusting for demographic and cycling pattern variables, the mean number of cycling trips for men was 3.55 trips and for women, 3.03 trips

  • There were no gender differences in metabolic equivalent value (MET) minutes of total physical activity (PA) for the previous week, with median MET minutes for men of 2460 (IQR 1320, 3960) and for women, 2085 (IQR 1215, 3510)

  • Almost all transport-only cyclists, both male and female, reported that fitness improvement or maintenance was their main motivation for transport cycling; these cyclists were primarily cycling only to a destination far enough away from home to allow for fitness training; and both transport and recreational cyclists were highly physically active, with participation in either type of cycling making a substantial contribution to physical activity levels

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Most analyses of gender differences make broad comparisons, with few studies modeling male and female cycling patterns separately for recreational and transport cycling. This modeling is important, in order to improve our efforts to promote cycling to women and men in countries like Australia with low rates of transport cycling. Cycling for recreation is the fourth most commonly-reported physical activity among Australian adults [6]. Given that recreational cyclists already possess the motivation, equipment and skill, it has been argued, that in countries like Australia with low rates of transport cycling, recreational cyclists might comprise a useful target group for promoting cycling for transport [8]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.