Correlates of Commuter Cycling in Three Norwegian Counties
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sample
2.2. Being a Cyclist
2.3. Self-Reported Covariates
2.4. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Computed Covariates
2.5. Statistics
2.5.1. Cyclists vs. Non-Cyclists
2.5.2. Distance Cycled
3. Results
3.1. Being a Cyclist
3.2. Distance Cycled
4. Discussion
4.1. Strengths and Limitations
4.2. Interpretation
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Appendix A.1. Extended Methods
Appendix A.2. GIS
Appendix A.3. Route
Appendix A.4. Topography along Routes
Appendix A.5. Statistics
Appendix A.6. Distance Cycled
Characteristics | Bivariate | Multivariate | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sogn og Fjordane and Agder | Sogn og Fjordane and Agder n = 1196 | Sogn og Fjordane n = 441 | Agder n = 755 | |
All Seasons OR (95% CI) | All Seasons OR (95% CI) | All Seasons | All Seasons | |
OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |||
Age | 1.01 (1.00–1.02); 0.043 | 1.01 (0.99–1.02); 0.100 | 1.00 (0.98–1.03); 0.701 | 1.02 (1.00–1.03);0.054 |
>5 km vs. <5 km distance | 0.19 (0.15–0.25); <0.001 | 0.17 (0.13–0.23); <0.001 | 0.12 (0.07–0.19); <0.001 | 0.19 (0.13–0.28); <0.001 |
Gender (women vs. men) | 1.21 (0.95–1.53); 0.116 | 1.45 (1.09–1.92); 0.010 | 1.18 (0.72–1.95); 0.512 | 1.50 (0.06–2.13); 0.023 |
Income(0–399.999NOK) | Trend p = 0.082 | Trend p = 0.086 | Trend p = 0.279 | Trend p = 0.554 |
Income (4–799.999) | 1.32 (1.00–1.76); 0.054 | 1.09 (0.77–1.53); 0.632 | 1.05 (0.57–1.95); 0.875 | 1.13 (0.74–1.17); 0.574 |
Income (>800.000) | 0.91 (0.51–1.63); 0.743 | 0.54 (0.28–1.067); 0.077 | 0.46 (0.15–1.43); 0.178 | 0.76 (0.32–1.80); 0.527 |
Health poor vs. good | 1.95 (1.31–2.89); 0.001 | 1.92 (1.20–3.07); 0.007 | 2.75 (1.10–6.84); 0.030 | 1.59 (0.91–2.81); 0.107 |
Normal weight vs. Pre-obesity or Obesity class 1–3 | 0.69 (0.55–0.88); 0.002 | 0.71 (0.54–0.94); 0.017 | 0.78 (0.48–1.26); 0.313 | 0.66 (0.47–0.94); 0.021 |
E-bike | 4.01 (2.63–6.13); <0.001 | 5.99 (3.71–9.69); <0.001 | 0.96 (0.19–4.94); 0.957 | 6.39 (3.78–10.83); <0.001 |
Education< high school | Trend p = 0.003 | Trend p = 0.023 | Trend p = 0.362 | Trend p = 0.051 |
<4 years university | 1.20 (0.79–1.81); 0.395 | 1.33 (0.82–0.2.15); 0.246 | 0.99 (0.41–2.26); 0.978 | 1.46 (0.81–2.64); 0.21 |
≥4 year university | 1.71 (1.19–2.46); 0.004 | 1.75 (1.14–2.70); 0.011 | 1.42 (0.66–3.09); 0.370 | 1.89 (1.11–3.22); 0.019 |
Ethnicity | 1.63 (1.11–2.40); 0.012 | 1.69 (1.08–2.64); 0.021 | 2.05 (0.91–4.62); 0.084 | 1.46 (0.86–2.54); 0.160 |
Perceived Road safety | 1.13 (1.08–1.19); <0.001 | 1.05 (0.99–1.12); 0.081 | 1.00 (0.90–1.11); 0.986 | 1.06 (0.99–1.15); 0.098 |
Tobacco | 1.46 (0.36–5.84); 0.597 | 0.69 (0.12–4.02); 0.675 | 3.87 (0.12–124.79); 0.455 | 0.31 (0.03–3.02); 0.315 |
Activity class * | Trend p < 0.001 | Trend p = 0.002 | Trend p = 0.299 | Trend p = 0.005 |
Activity class 2 | 2.59 (1.54–4.36); <0.001 | 2.56 (1.42–4.60); 0.002 | 1.62 (0.64–4.11); 0.307 | 3.24 (1.48–7.11); 0.003 |
Activity class 3 | 3.01 (1.78–5.08); <0.001 | 2.90 (1.60–5.26); <0.001 | 2.01 (0.80–5.08); 0.139 | 3.24 (1.48–7.11); 0.003 |
Bivariate | Multivariate | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sogn og Fjordane and Agder | Sogn og Fjordane and Agder | Sogn og Fjordane | Agder | |
All Seasons OR (91% CI); p | All Seasons OR (91% CI); p | All Seasons OR (91% CI); p | All Seasons OR (91% CI); p | |
n | 1009 | 1009 | 410 | 599 |
500 m home buffer | ||||
Ratio shared-path/road buffer home | 3.62 (1.29–10.19); 0.015 | 1.79 (0.42–7.69); 0.435 | 1.23 (0.031–49.44); 0.911 | 1.37 (0.26–7.29); 0.714 |
Car junction home | 1.01 (1.00–1.01); <0.001 | 1.00 (0.99–1.01); 0.598 | 1.01 (0.99- 1.03); 0.380 | 1.01 (0.99–1.02); 0.377 |
Bike junction home | 1.00 (1.00–1.01); <0.001 | 1.00 (0.99–1.01); 0.869 | 0.99 (0.98–1.01); 0.243 | 1.00 (0.99–1.01); 0.829 |
Population density home | Trend p < 0.001 | Trend p = 0.058 | Trend p = 0.098 | Trend p = 0.138 |
0–199 | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
200–599 | 1.11 (0.80–1.54); 0.551 | 1.09 (0.77–1.55); 0.626 | 1.85 (0.87–3.94); 0.109 | 0.92 (0.60–1.41); 0.707 |
>600 | 1.81 (1.32–2.47); <0.001 | 1.49 (1.05–2.12); 0.026 | 2.31 (1.08–4.97); 0.031 | 1.46 (0.92–2.31); 0.109 |
Route | ||||
Ratio minutes home-work bike */car route | 0.55 (0.47–0.63): <0.001 | 0.72 (0.56–0.93); 0.013 | 0.76 (0.45–1.27); 0.298 | 0.79 (0.57–1.09); 0.155 |
Ratio meter bike/car route | 0.04 (0.01–0.18); <0.001 | 0.83 (0.15–4.65); 0.831 | 9.59 (0.70–132.09); 0.091 | 0.10 (0.01–1.30); 0.079 |
Percentiles of mean slope route | Trend p = 0.042 | Trend p = 0.020 | Trend p = 0.710 | Trend p = 0.090 |
0–25% | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
25–50% | 0.76 (0.53–1.10); 0.143 | 0.91 (0.60–1.36); 0.636 | 0.97 (0.56–1.69): 0.916 | 0.86 (0.45–1.65); 0.648 |
50–70% | 0.60 (0.41–0.86); 0.006 | 0.75 (0.49–1.13); 0.162 | 0.72 (0.35–1.47); 0.369 | 0.68 (0.38–1.22); 0.192 |
75–100% | 0.87 (0.61–1.24); 0.439 | 1.44 (0.91–2.28); 0.125 | 1.17 (0.43–3.18); 0.759 | 1.31 (0.68–2.52); 0.418 |
Percentiles for elevation t/r route | Trend p < 0.001 | Trend p = 0.001 | Trend p = 0.021 | Trend p = 0.024 |
0–25% | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
25–50% | 0.32 (0.22–0.46); <0.001 | 0.43 (0.28–0.67); <0.001 | 0.39 (0.18–0.83); 0.015 | 0.41 (0.22–0.74); 0.003 |
50–70% | 0.26 (0.18–0.37); <0.001 | 0.37 (0.21–0.64); <0.001 | 0.18 (0.06–0.56); 0.002 | 0.42 (0.20–0.86); 0.018 |
75–100% | 0.27 (0.19–0.39); <0.001 | 0.441 (0.23–0.84); 0.013 | 0.33 (0.12–0.95); 0.40 | 0.42 (0.16–1.12); 0.082 |
Sogn og Fjordane and Agder | Sogn og Fjordane | Agder | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
All Seasons | All Seasons | All Seasons | ||||
n | 307 | 102 | 205 | |||
β | p-Value | β | p-Value | β | p-Value | |
Survey | ||||||
Age | 0.039 | 0.454 | 0.014 | 0.888 | 0.058 | 0.331 |
Gender (women vs. man) | 0.109 | 0.035 | −0.099 | 0.322 | 0.182 | 0.003 |
Income (ascending) | −0.038 | 0.469 | −0.108 | 0.299 | 0.013 | 0.827 |
Health status (ascending) | 0.087 | 0.100 | 0.068 | 0.526 | −0.009 | 0.888 |
Normal weight vs. overweight/obesity | −0.054 | 0.312 | −0.016 | 0.874 | −0.89 | 0.149 |
E-bike (regular vs. e-bike) | 0.041 | 0.443 | −0.306 | 0.760 | −0.003 | 0.961 |
Years of education (ascending) | 0.014 | 0.794 | −0.040 | 0.706 | 0.003 | 0.968 |
Perceived road safety (ascending) | −0.220 | <0.001 | −0.288 | 0.006 | −0.169 | 0.005 |
Ethnicity (ethnic Norwegian vs. not ethnic Norwegian) | 0.017 | 0.744 | 0.052 | 0.615 | −0.051 | 0.392 |
PA level (ascending) | 0.046 | 0.388 | 0.144 | 0.167 | 0.043 | 0.487 |
GIS | ||||||
500 m home buffer | ||||||
Population density home | −0.025 | 0.637 | 0.088 | 0.385 | −0.024 | 0.686 |
Bike junction home | 0.063 | 0.700 | 0.290 | 0.497 | −0.522 | 0.012 |
Car junction home | −0.338 | 0.062 | −0.608 | 0.139 | 0.225 | 0.235 |
Ratio shared-path/road buffer home | 0.184 | 0.007 | 0.069 | 0.586 | 0.144 | 0.058 |
Route | ||||||
Ratio minutes home-work bike **/car route | 0.035 | 0.713 | 0.181 | 0.422 | −0.122 | 0.263 |
Ratio meter bike/car route | 0.071 | 0.272 | 0.023 | 0.845 | 0.109 | 0.155 |
Percentiles of mean slope route | 0.188 | 0.004 | −0.089 | 0.461 | 0.139 | 0.071 |
Percentiles for elevation t/r route | 0.232 | 0.013 | −0.071 | 0.741 | 0.437 | <0.001 |
References
- Sallis, J.F.; Cerin, E.; Conway, T.L.; Adams, M.A.; Frank, L.D.; Pratt, M.; Salvo, D.; Schipperijn, J.; Smith, G.; Cain, K.L.; et al. Physical activity in relation to urban environments in 14 cities worldwide: A cross-sectional study. Lancet 2016, 387, 2207–2217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, I.-M.; Shiroma, E.J.; Lobelo, F.; Puska, P.; Blair, S.N.; Katzmarzyk, P.T. Lancet Physical Activity Series Working Group Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: An analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet 2012, 380, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization (WHO). Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Ekelund, U.; Tarp, J.; Steene-Johannessen, J.; Hansen, B.H.; Jefferis, B.; Fagerland, M.W.; Whincup, P.; Diaz, K.M.; Hooker, S.P.; Chernofsky, A.; et al. Dose-response associations between accelerometry measured physical activity and sedentary time and all cause mortality: Systematic review and harmonised meta-analysis. BMJ 2019, 366, l4570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Andersen, L.B.; Schnohr, P.; Schroll, M.; Hein, H.O. All-cause mortality associated with physical activity during leisure time, work, sports, and cycling to work. Arch. Intern. Med. 2000, 160, 1621–1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasmussen, M.G.; Grøntved, A.; Blond, K.; Overvad, K.; Tjønneland, A.; Jensen, M.K.; Østergaard, L. Associations between Recreational and Commuter Cycling, Changes in Cycling, and Type 2 Diabetes Risk: A Cohort Study of Danish Men and Women. PLoS Med. 2016, 13, 1002076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grøntved, A.; Koivula, R.W.; Johansson, I.; Wennberg, P.; Østergaard, L.; Hallmans, G.; Renström, F.; Franks, P.W. Bicycling to Work and Primordial Prevention of Cardiovascular Risk: A Cohort Study Among Swedish Men and Women. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2016, 5, e004413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matthews, C.E.; Jurj, A.L.; Shu, X.O.; Li, H.L.; Yang, G.; Li, Q.; Gao, Y.T.; Zheng, W. Influence of exercise, walking, cycling, and overall nonexercise physical activity on mortality in Chinese women. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2007, 165, 1343–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuller, D.; Pabayo, R. The relationship between utilitarian walking, utilitarian cycling, and body mass index in a population based cohort study of adults: Comparing random intercepts and fixed effects models. Prev. Med. 2014, 69, 261–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordengen, S.; Andersen, L.B.; Solbraa, A.K.; Riiser, A. Cycling is associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular diseases and death: Part 1—Systematic review of cohort studies with meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2019, 53, 870–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nordengen, S.; Andersen, L.B.; Solbraa, A.K.; Riiser, A. Cycling and cardiovascular disease risk factors including body composition, blood lipids and cardiorespiratory fitness analysed as continuous variables: Part 2-systematic review with meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2019, 53, 879–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhu, J.; Fan, Y. Daily travel behavior and emotional well-being: Effects of trip mode, duration, purpose, and companionship. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 118, 360–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersen, L.; Riiser, A.; Rutter, H.; Goenka, S.; Nordengen, S.; Solbraa, A. Trends in cycling and cycle related injuries and a calculation of prevented morbidity and mortality. J. Transp. Health 2018, 9, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engbers, L.H.; Hendriksen, I.J. Characteristics of a population of commuter cyclists in the Netherlands: Perceived barriers and facilitators in the personal, social and physical environment. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2010, 7, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sahlqvist, S.L.; Heesch, K.C. Characteristics of utility cyclists in Queensland, Australia: An examination of the associations between individual, social, and environmental factors and utility cycling. J. Phys. Act. Health 2012, 9, 818–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cervero, R.; Denman, S.; Jin, Y. Network design, built and natural environments, and bicycle commuting: Evidence from British cities and towns. Transp. Policy 2018, 74, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heesch, K.C.; Giles-Corti, B.; Turrell, G. Cycling for transport and recreation: Associations with the socio-economic, natural and built environment. Health Place 2015, 36, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jahre, A.B.; Bere, E.; Nordengen, S.; Solbraa, A.; Andersen, L.B.; Riiser, A.; Bjørnarå, H.B. Public employees in South-Western Norway using an e-bike or a regular bike for commuting—A cross-sectional comparison on sociodemographic factors, commuting frequency and commuting distance. Prev. Med. Rep. 2019, 14, 100881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bere, E.; A Bjørkelund, L. Test-retest reliability of a new self reported comprehensive questionnaire measuring frequencies of different modes of adolescents commuting to school and their parents commuting to work-the ATN questionnaire. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2009, 6, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bopp, M.; Braun, J.; Gutzwiller, F.; Faeh, D. Health Risk or Resource? Gradual and Independent Association between Self-Rated Health and Mortality Persists Over 30 Years. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e30795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowling, A. Just one question: If one question works, why ask several? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2005, 59, 342–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saltin, B.; Grimby, G. Physiological analysis of middle-aged and old former athletes. Comparison with still active athletes of the same ages. Circulation 1968, 38, 1104–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lochen, M.L.; Rasmussen, K. The Tromso study: Physical fitness, self reported physical activity, and their relationship to other coronary risk factors. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 1992, 46, 103–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Geus, B.; Wuytens, N.; Deliens, T.; Keserü, I.; Macharis, C.; Meeusen, R. Psychosocial and environmental correlates of cycling for transportation in Brussels. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 123, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winters, M.; Friesen, M.C.; Koehoorn, M.; Teschke, K. Utilitarian bicycling: A multilevel analysis of climate and personal influences. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2007, 32, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barton, H.; Horswell, M.; Millar, P. Neighbourhood Accessibility and Active Travel. Plan. Pract. Res. 2012, 27, 177–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hjorthol, R.; Engebretsen, Ø.; Uteng, T.P. 2013/14 National Travel Survey—Key Results; Institute of Transport Economics: Oslo, Norway, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Celis-Morales, C.A.; Lyall, D.M.; Welsh, P.; Anderson, J.; Steell, L.; Guo, Y.; Maldonado, R.; Mackay, D.F.; Pell, J.P.; Sattar, N.; et al. Association between active commuting and incident cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality: Prospective cohort study. BMJ 2017, 357, j1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Goeverden, K.; Nielsen, T.S.; Harder, H.; van Nes, R. Interventions in Bicycle Infrastructure, Lessons from Dutch and Danish Cases. Transp. Res. Procedia 2015, 10, 403–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Espeland, M.; Amundsen, K.S. National Cycling Strategy 2014–2023. Base Document for National Transport Plan 2014–2023; Norwegian Public Roads Administration: Oslo, Norway, 2012.
- Winters, M.; Brauer, M.; Setton, E.M.; Teschke, K. Mapping bikeability: A spatial tool to support sustainable travel. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2013, 40, 865–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Characteristics | Sogn og Fjordane and Agder | County | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Cyclists | Total | Sogn og Fjordane | Agder | |
Total (% Cyclist) | Total (% Cyclist) | |||
n | 488 | 1196 | 441 (35%) | 755 (41%) |
Distance (n = 1196) | ||||
0.1–5.0 km | 301 | 467 | 183 (62%) | 284 (66%) |
5.0–145 km | 187 | 729 | 258 (16%) | 471 (31%) |
Age (median (min-max)) | 49 (19–70) | 49 (72–19) | 48 (23–72) a 49 (67–24) b | 49 (19–70) a 49 (19–70) b |
Gender (n) | ||||
men | 204 | 468 | 155 (38%) | 313 (46%) |
women | 284 | 728 | 286 (33%) | 442 (42%) |
Income (n) | ||||
0–399,999 NOK | 69 | 266 | 92 (30%) | 174 (40%) |
400,000–799,999 NOK | 371 | 868 | 321 (38%) | 547 (46%) |
800,000–19,999,999 NOK | 21 | 62 | 28 (25%) | 34 (41%) |
Self-reported health status * (n) | ||||
Poor | 38 | 138 | 44 (18%) | 94 (32%) |
Good | 450 | 1058 | 397 (37%) | 661 (46%) |
BMI (n) | ||||
Underweight or normal weight | 282 | 627 | 246 (40%) | 381 (48%) |
Pre-obesity or Obesity class 1–3 | 206 | 569 | 195 (29%) | 374 (40%) |
Tobacco (n) * | ||||
Non-tobacco | 484 | 1188 | 438 (35%) | 750 (44%) |
Any usage of snuff or tobacco | 4 | 8 | 3 (66%) | 5 (40%) |
Cycle type (n) | ||||
other | 408 | 1083 | 432 (39%) | 651 (39%) |
e-bike | 80 | 113 | 9 (33%) | 104 (74%) |
Ethnicity (n) | ||||
Self and parents born in Norway | 428 | 1080 | 401 (34%) | 679 (43%) |
Self or parents not born in Norway | 60 | 116 | 40 (48%) | 76 (54%) |
Education (n) | ||||
<high school | 50 | 157 | 50 (30%) | 107 (33%) |
University <4 years | 98 | 273 | 103 (29%) | 170 (40%) |
University ≥4 years | 340 | 766 | 288 (38%) | 478 (48%) |
Road safety (median (min-max)) | 8 (1–10) | 8 (1–10) | 7 (1–10) a 8 (1–10) b | 8 (1–10) a 8 (1–10) b |
PA level ** (n) | ||||
inactive | 20 | 95 | 40 (22%) | 55 (20%) |
Activity class 1 | 246 | 602 | 209 (33%) | 393 (45%) |
Activity class 2 or 3 | 222 | 499 | 192 (40%) | 307 (47%) |
Population density (n = 730) | ||||
1 | 94 | 230 | 55 (18%) | 175 (48%) |
2 | 96 | 241 | 86 (38%) | 155 (41%) |
3 | 129 | 259 | 143 (43%) | 116 (58%) |
Mean slope route n = 730 | ||||
<25% 0–3.8% | 83 | 170 | 94 (43%) | 76 (57%) |
25–50%, 3.8–5.6% | 71 | 187 | 119 (34%) | 68 (44%) |
50–75%, 5.6–14.0% | 68 | 179 | 49 (37%) | 130 (38%) |
>75%, >14.0% | 97 | 194 | 22 (27%) | 172 (53%) |
Sum elevation home-work-home n = 730 | ||||
<25%, 0–132.7 m | 119 | 172 | 69 (70%) | 103 (69%) |
25–50%, 132.7–555.9 m | 72 | 188 | 75 (29%) | 113 (44%) |
50–75%, 555.9–1509.6 m | 66 | 194 | 50 (16%) | 144 (40%) |
>75%, >1509.6 m | 62 | 176 | 90 (30%) | 86 (41%) |
Characteristics | Bivariate | Multivariate |
---|---|---|
All Seasons OR (95% CI) | All Seasons OR (95% CI) | |
Age | 1.01 (1.00–1.02); 0.043 | 1.01 (0.99–1.02); 0.100 |
>5 km vs. <5 km distance | 0.19 (0.15–0.25); <0.001 | 0.17 (0.13–0.23); <0.001 |
Gender (women vs. men) | 1.21 (0.95–1.53); 0.116 | 1.45 (1.09–1.92); 0.010 |
Income | Trend p = 0.082 | Trend p = 0.086 |
Income (0–399.999NOK) | Ref. | Ref. |
Income (4–799.999) | 1.32 (1.00–1.76); 0.054 | 1.09 (0.77–1.53); 0.632 |
Income (>800.000) | 0.91 (0.51–1.63); 0.743 | 0.54 (0.28–1.067); 0.077 |
SRH poor vs. good | 1.95 (1.31–2.89); 0.001 | 1.92 (1.20–3.07); 0.007 |
Normal weight vs. Pre-obesity or Obesity class 1–3 | 0.69 (0.55–0.88); 0.002 | 0.71 (0.54–0.94); 0.017 |
E-bike | 4.01 (2.63–6.13); <0.001 | 5.99 (3.71–9.69); <0.001 |
Education | Trend p = 0.003 | Trend p = 0.023 |
Education< high school | Ref. | Ref. |
<4 years university | 1.20 (0.79–1.81); 0.395 | 1.33 (0.82–0.2.15); 0.246 |
≥4 year university | 1.71 (1.19–2.46); 0.004 | 1.75 (1.14–2.70); 0.011 |
Ethnicity | 1.63 (1.11–2.40); 0.012 | 1.69 (1.08–2.64); 0.021 |
Perceived Road safety | 1.13 (1.08–1.19); <0.001 | 1.05 (0.99–1.12); 0.081 |
Tobacco | 1.46 (0.36–5.84); 0.597 | 0.69 (0.12–4.02); 0.675 |
Activity class * | Trend p < 0.001 | Trend p = 0.002 |
Activity class 1 | Ref. | Ref. |
Activity class 2 | 2.59 (1.54–4.36); <0.001 | 2.56 (1.42–4.60); 0.002 |
Activity class 3 | 3.01 (1.78–5.08); <0.001 | 2.90 (1.60–5.26); <0.001 |
Bivariate | Multivariate | |
---|---|---|
All Seasons OR (91% CI); p | All Seasons OR (91% CI); p | |
N | 1009 | 1009 |
500 m home buffer | ||
Ratio shared-path/road buffer home | 3.62 (1.29–10.19); 0.015 | 1.79 (0.42–7.69); 0.435 |
Car junction home | 1.01 (1.00–1.01); <0.001 | 1.00 (0.99–1.01); 0.598 |
Bike junction home | 1.00 (1.00–1.01); <0.001 | 1.00 (0.99–1.01); 0.869 |
Population density home | Trend p < 0.001 | Trend p = 0.058 |
Low (0–199 persons) | Ref. | Ref. |
Moderate (200–599 persons) | 1.11 (0.80–1.54); 0.551 | 1.09 (0.77–1.55); 0.626 |
High (<600 persons) | 1.81 (1.32–2.47); <0.001 | 1.49 (1.05–2.12); 0.026 |
Route | ||
Ratio minutes home-work bike */car route | 0.55 (0.47–0.63): <0.001 | 0.72 (0.56–0.93); 0.013 |
Ratio meter bike/car route | 0.04 (0.01–0.18); <0.001 | 0.83 (0.15–4.65); 0.831 |
Percentiles of mean slope route | Trend p = 0.042 | Trend p = 0.020 |
<25% 0–3.8% | Ref. | Ref. |
25–50%, 3.8–5.6% | 0.76 (0.53–1.10); 0.143 | 0.91 (0.60–1.36); 0.636 |
50–75%, 5.6–14.0% | 0.60 (0.41–0.86); 0.006 | 0.75 (0.49–1.13); 0.162 |
>75%, >14.0% | 0.87 (0.61–1.24); 0.439 | 1.44 (0.91–2.28); 0.125 |
Percentiles for elevation t/r route | Trend p < 0.001 | Trend p = 0.001 |
<25%, 0–132.7 m | Ref. | Ref. |
25–50%, 132.7–555.9 m | 0.32 (0.22–0.46); <0.001 | 0.43 (0.28–0.67); <0.001 |
50–75%, 555.9–1509.6 m | 0.26 (0.18–0.37); <0.001 | 0.37 (0.21–0.64); <0.001 |
>75%, >1509.6 m | 0.27 (0.19–0.39); <0.001 | 0.44 (0.23–0.84); 0.013 |
All Seasons | ||
---|---|---|
β | p-Value | |
Survey | ||
Age | 0.039 | 0.454 |
Gender (women vs. man) | 0.109 | 0.035 |
Income (ascending) | −0.038 | 0.469 |
SRH (poor vs. good) | 0.087 | 0.100 |
Normal weight vs. overweight/obesity | −0.054 | 0.312 |
E-bike (regular vs. e-bike) | 0.041 | 0.443 |
Years of education (ascending) | 0.014 | 0.794 |
Perceived road safety (ascending) | −0.220 | <0.001 |
Ethnicity (ethnic Norwegian vs. not ethnic Norwegian) | 0.017 | 0.744 |
PA level (ascending) | 0.046 | 0.388 |
GIS | ||
500 m home buffer | ||
Population density home | −0.025 | 0.637 |
Bike junction home | 0.063 | 0.700 |
Car junction home | −0.338 | 0.062 |
Ratio shared-path/road buffer home | 0.184 | 0.007 |
Route | ||
Ratio minutes home-work bike **/car route | 0.035 | 0.713 |
Ratio meter bike/car route | 0.071 | 0.272 |
Percentiles of mean slope route | 0.188 | 0.004 |
Percentiles for elevation t/r route | 0.232 | 0.013 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nordengen, S.; Ruther, D.C.; Riiser, A.; Andersen, L.B.; Solbraa, A. Correlates of Commuter Cycling in Three Norwegian Counties. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4372. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224372
Nordengen S, Ruther DC, Riiser A, Andersen LB, Solbraa A. Correlates of Commuter Cycling in Three Norwegian Counties. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(22):4372. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224372
Chicago/Turabian StyleNordengen, Solveig, Denise Christina Ruther, Amund Riiser, Lars Bo Andersen, and Ane Solbraa. 2019. "Correlates of Commuter Cycling in Three Norwegian Counties" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 22: 4372. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224372