Age-Friendly Cycling Infrastructure—Differences and Preferences among 50+ Cyclists
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- How do older cyclists from three different countries perceive their level of cycling confidence?
- Are there any differences in the perceived level of safety and comfort of older cyclists for different types of cycling infrastructure?
- What are the preferences of older cyclists towards cycling infrastructure?
2. Research Methodology
2.1. Data Collection
2.2. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Sample Characteristics
3.2. General Cycling Characteristics
3.3. Perception of Self-Confidence
3.4. Safety and Comfort
3.5. Preferred User Paths
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Tyndall, J. Cycling mode choice amongst US commuters: The role of climate and topography. Urban Stud. J. 2020, 1, 97–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacEacheron, C.; Hosford, K.; Manaugh, K.; Smith-Lea, N.; Farber, S.; Winters, M. Is Canada’s Commuter Bicycling Population Becoming More Representative of the General Population Over Time? A National Portrait of Bicycle Commute Mode Share 1996–2016. Act. Travel Stud. 2023, 3, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- City Administration of the City of Belgrade—Secretariat for Transport. Belgrade Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan; City Administration of the City of Belgrade—Secretariat for Transport: Belgrade, Serbia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- The League of American Bicyclists, Benchmarking Insights on Older Adults, 2021. Available online: https://data.bikeleague.org/benchmarking-insights-on-older-adults/ (accessed on 15 March 2024).
- Sennechael, J. L’état du vélo au Québec. Vélo Mag. 2021. Available online: https://www.velomag.com/actualites/letat-du-velo-au-quebec-quand-les-chiffres-parlent/ (accessed on 27 March 2024).
- Kerr, R.; Blais, C.; Toward, J.I. Age-Related Changes in Psychomotor Performance. Hum. Perform. 1996, 9, 349–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pucher, J.; Buehler, R. City Cycling; The MIT Press: London, UK, 2012; ISBN 978-0-262-51781-2. [Google Scholar]
- Wachtel, A.; Lewiston, D. Risk factors for bicycle-motor vehicle collisions at intersections. ITE J. 1994, 64, 30–35, ISSN: 0162-8178. [Google Scholar]
- Murman, D.L. The Impact of Age on Cognition. Semin. Hear. 2015, 36, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matsumoto, S.; Ueda, M.; Sakurai, J.; Onda, T.; Kawai, Y.; Yamanaka, H. An Analysis of Overtaking Maneuvers by Motor Vehicles and Cyclists’ Risk Perceptions for Elderly Cyclists. Trans. Hum. Interface Soc. 2023, 25, 159–166, ISSN: 1344-7262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Stülpnagel, R.; Petinaud, C.; Lißner, S. Crash risk and subjective risk perception during urban cycling: Accounting for cycling volume. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2022, 164, 106470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Stülpnagel, R.; Rintelen, H. A matter of space and perspective—Cyclists’, car drivers’, and pedestrians’ assumptions about subjective safety in shared traffic situations. Transp. Res. Part A 2024, 179, 103941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Useche, S.A.; Alonso, F.; Boyko, A.; Buyvol, P.; Castañeda, I.; Cendales, B.; Cervantes, A.; Echiburu, T.; Faus, M.; Feitosa, Z.; et al. Cross-culturally approaching the cycling behaviour questionnaire (CBQ): Evidence from 19 countries. Transp. Res. Part F Psychol. Behav. 2022, 91, 386–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Useche, S.A.; Alonso, F.; Boyko, A.; Buyvol, P.; Castañeda, I.; Cendales, B.; Cervantes, A.; Echiburu, T.; Faus, M.; Gene-Morales, J.; et al. Yes, size does matter (for cycling safety)! Comparing behavioral and safety outcomes in S, M, L, and XL cities from 18 countries. J. Transp. Geogr. 2024, 114, 58–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goel, R.; Goodman, A.; Aldred, R.; Nakamura, R.; Tatah, L.; Martin Totaro Garcia, L.; Zapata-Diomedi, B.; de Sa, T.H.; Tiwari, G.; de Nazelle, A.; et al. Cycling behaviour in 17 countries across 6 continents: Levels of cycling, who cycles, for what purpose, and how far? Transp. Rev. 2021, 42, 58–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cordovil, R.; Mercê, C.; Branco, M.; Lopes, F.; Catela, D.; Hasanen, E.; Laukkanen, A.; Tortella, P.; Fumagalli, G.; Sá, C. Learning to Cycle: A Cross-Cultural and Cross-Generational Comparison. Front. Public Heal. 2022, 10, 861390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Spotswood, F.; Chatterton, T.; Tapp, A.; Williams, D. Analysing cycling as a social practice: An empirical grounding for behaviour change. Transp. Res. Part F Psychol. Behav. 2015, 29, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hardinghaus, M.; Weschke, J. Attractive infrastructure for everyone? Different preferences for route characteristics among cyclists. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2022, 111, 103465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winters, M.; Beairsto, J.; Mitra, R.; Zanotto, M.; Walker, K.; Laberee, K.; Soucy, A.; Swanson, A.; Mahmoud, H.; Pincott, B.; et al. Pedal Poll/Sondo Vélo 2021: A Community Science Project on Who Cycles in Canada. SSRN Electron. J. 2022, 30, 101606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hardinghaus, M.; Nieland, S.; Lehne, M.; Weschke, J. More than Bike Lanes—A Multifactorial Index of Urban Bikeability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alonso, F.; Faus, M.; Cendales, B.; Useche, S.A. Citizens’ Perceptions in Relation to Transport Systems and Infrastructures: A Nationwide Study in the Dominican Republic. Infrastructures 2021, 6, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Facts and Figures Cyclists; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Useche, S.A.; Alonso, F.; Sanmartin, J.; Montoro, L.V.; Cendales, B. Well-being, behavioral patterns and cycling crashes of different age groups in Latin America: Are aging adults the safest cyclists? PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0221864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Road Traffic Safety Agency. Road Safety of 65+ Cyclists; Road Traffic Safety Agency: Belgrade, Serbia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Road Traffic Safety Agency. Statistical Report on the State of Traffic Safety in the Republic of Serbia for the 2022; Road Traffic Safety Agency: Belgrade, Serbia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Aldred, R.; Elliott, B.; Woodcock, J.; Goodman, A. Cycling provision separated from motor traffic: A systematic review exploring whether stated preferences vary by gender and age. Transp. Rev. 2017, 37, 29–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noland, R.; Luz Laham, M.; Wang, S. Understanding preferences for bicycling and bicycle infrastructure. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2022, 17, 1020–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grant, T.L.; Edwards, N.; Sveistrup, H.; Andrew, C.; Egan, M. Neighborhood walkability: Older people’s perspectives from four neighborhoods in Ottawa, Canada. J. Aging Phys. Act. 2010, 18, 293–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Cauwenberg, J.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Clarys, P.; Nasar, J.; Salmon, J.; Goubert, L.; Deforche, B. Street characteristics preferred for transportation walking among older adults: A choice-based conjoint analysis with manipulated photographs. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2016, 13, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Cauwenberg, J.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Clarys, P.; De Geus, B.; Deforche, B. Older adults’ environmental preferences for transportation cycling. J. Transp. Heal. 2019, 13, 185–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Cauwenberg, J.; Clarys, P.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Ghekiere, A.; de Geus, B.; Owen, N.; Deforche, B. Environmental influences on older adults’ transportation cycling experiences: A study using bike-along interviews. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 169, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Cauwenberg, J.; Clarys, P.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Van Holle, V.; Verté, D.; De Witte, N.; De Donder, L.; Buffel, T.; Dury, S.; Deforche, B. Physical environmental factors related to walking and cycling in older adults: The Belgian aging studies. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mertens, L.; Van Cauwenberg, J.; Ghekiere, A.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Deforche, B.; Van de Weghe, N.; Van Dyck, D. Differences in environmental preferences towards cycling for transport among adults: A latent class analysis. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leger, S.J.; Dean, J.L.; Edge, S.; Casello, J.M. “If I had a regular bicycle, I wouldn’t be out riding anymore”: Perspectives on the potential of e-bikes to support active living and independent mobility among older adults in Waterloo, Canada. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 123, 240–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanders, R.L. Examining the Cycle: How Perceived and Actual Bicycling Risk Influence Cycling Frequency, Roadway Design Preferences, and Support for Cycling Among Bay Area Residents. University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Monsere, C.; McNeil, N.; Dill, J. Multiuser perspectives on separated, on-street bicycle infrastructure. Transp. Res. Rec. 2012, 2314, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrard, J.; Rose, G.; Lo, S.K. Promoting transportation cycling for women: The role of bicycle infrastructure. Prev. Med. 2008, 46, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krizek, K.J.; Roland, R.W. What is at the end of the road? Understanding discontinuities of on-street bicycle lanes in urban settings. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2005, 10, 55–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sl. Glasnik RS. Road Traffic Safety Act; Sl. Glasnik RS: Belgrade, Serbia, 2023; p. 332. [Google Scholar]
- Orsini, F.; Batista, M.; Friedrich, B.; Gastaldi, M.; Rossi, R. Before-after safety analysis of a shared space implementation. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2023, 13, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beitel, D.; Stipancic, J.; Manaugh, K.; Miranda-Moreno, L. Assessing safety of shared space using cyclist-pedestrian interactions and automated video conflict analysis. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 65, 710–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Portegijs, E.; Lee, C.; Zhu, X. Activity-friendly environments for active aging: The physical, social, and technology environments. Front Public Heal. 2023, 10, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campisi, T.; Moslem, S.; Ahmad Al-Rashid, M.; Tesoriere, G. Optimal urban planning through the best–worst method: Bicycle lanes in Palermo, Sicily. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers—Transport; ICE Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Josengler de Siqueira, A.; Maragno do Almo, P.; Ennes Cicerelli, R.; Francy Costa Machado, R.; de Almeida, T. Mapping the usability and quality of bicycle paths using a terrain-inclination-based classification, study case: Darcy Ribeiro campus, University of Brasília, Brazil. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2020, XLII, 87–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, J.; Qian, Y.; Yin, F.; Zhu, L.; Xu, D. A multi-value cellular automata model for multi-lane traffic flow under lagrange coordinate. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 2022, 28, 178–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Section 1: User’s socio-demographic characteristics |
Age |
(a) 50–59, (b) 60–69, (c) more than 70 years |
Section 2: General characteristics of cycling |
What type of cycling do you do? |
(a) Road, trail (b) Touring, (c) Mountain, (d) Around town, urban, (e) Racing |
For what purposes do you use the bicycle? |
(a) Work, (b) Shopping, (c) Companionship, (d) Recreation (exercise), (e) Competitive cyclist |
What type of cyclist are you? |
(a) Interested but concerned, (b) Relaxed and somewhat confident, (c) Experienced and confident, (d) Combination of the above |
Section 3: User preferences regarding infrastructure |
How would you use the displayed infrastructure? |
(a) Neighborhood street, (b) Edge lane road, (c) Major urban collector, (d) Rural road, (e) Single lane roundabout, (f) Shared space, (g) Two-way multiuse trail, (h) Suburban collector road, (i) Residential neighborhood street, (j) Separate two-way bicycle facility, (k) Two-lane neighborhood commercial street |
What is your level of comfort and safety when using the displayed infrastructure? |
(a) Very uncomfortable and unsafe, (b) Somewhat uncomfortable and unsafe, (c) Neutral, (d) Somewhat comfortable and safe, (e) Very comfortable and safe |
Respondents’ Characteristics | Canada | Serbia | United States | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
Age | ||||||||
50–59 years | 51 | 37.5 | 41 | 39.0 | 44 | 35.1 | 136 | 35.0 |
60–69 years | 54 | 39.7 | 34 | 32.4 | 63 | 38.9 | 151 | 38.8 |
More than 70 years | 31 | 22.8 | 30 | 28.6 | 40 | 26.0 | 101 | 26.2 |
Total | 136 | 100 | 105 | 100 | 147 | 100 | 388 | 100 |
What Type of Cycling Do You Do? | Canada | Serbia | United States | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
Road, trail | 127 | 35.1 | 101 | 28.0 | 133 | 36.8 | 361 | 100 |
Touring | 63 | 47.3 | 33 | 24.8 | 37 | 27.8 | 133 | 100 |
Mountain | 25 | 49.1 | 7 | 13.7 | 19 | 37.2 | 51 | 100 |
Around town, urban | 123 | 40.2 | 93 | 30.4 | 90 | 29.4 | 306 | 100 |
Racing | 9 | 60.0 | 1 | 6.7 | 5 | 33.3 | 15 | 100 |
For what purposes do you use the bicycle? | Canada | Serbia | United States | Total | ||||
n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
Work | 51 | 38.1 | 24 | 17.9 | 59 | 44.0 | 134 | 100 |
Shopping | 89 | 39.9 | 47 | 21.1 | 87 | 39.0 | 223 | 100 |
Companionship | 106 | 33.4 | 94 | 29.6 | 117 | 37.0 | 317 | 100 |
Recreation (exercise) | 124 | 35.1 | 90 | 25.5 | 139 | 39.4 | 353 | 100 |
Competitive cyclist | 17 | 32.7 | 10 | 19.2 | 25 | 48.1 | 52 | 100 |
Infrastructure Characteristics | Traffic Safety and Comfort Score | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Streets and Roads | Appearance | Canada | Serbia | United States | |||
Neighborhood street with sidewalks and one-way parking | 4.2 | 3.5 | 4.3 | ||||
Edge lane road with bicycle priority | 3.8 | 3.0 | 4.0 | ||||
Major urban collector with no designated bike facility | 2.2 | 2.5 | 2.1 | ||||
Rural road with no shoulder, low traffic volumes, and widely spaced out housing and other development | 3.8 | 3.2 | 3.9 | ||||
Single-lane roundabout with crosswalks and sidewalks for cyclists and pedestrians | 3.2 | 3.0 | 3.4 | ||||
Shared space where people walking, cycling, scootering, driving, etc., can travel freely without designated pathways | 3.5 | 3.3 | 3.6 | ||||
Two-way multi-use trail in parkland and a forested area | 4.7 | 4.2 | 4.7 | ||||
Suburban collector road with a bike lane without a buffer and a sidewalk | 3.9 | 3.2 | 3.9 | ||||
Residential neighborhood street with parking and shared bicycle lane | 3.7 | 3.1 | 3.9 | ||||
Separated two-way bicycling facility along a one-way neighborhood collector street in an urban mixed-use area | 4.6 | 4.4 | 4.6 | ||||
Two-lane neighborhood commercial street with shared lane marking | 3.6 | 2.9 | 3.7 | ||||
Average score | 3.7 | 3.3 | 3.8 | ||||
Worst score (grade 1) | Average score (grade 3) | Best score (grade 5) |
Infrastructure Characteristics | One-Way ANOVA, Kruskal–Wallis | Post Hoc Analysis | Difference Effect | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Streets and Roads | Appearance | |||
Neighborhood street | FANOVA = 86.901 p = 0.000 | Serbia-Canada Serbia-United States | η2 = 0.31 High effect | |
Edge lane road | FANOVA = 31.829 p = 0.000 | Serbia-Canada Serbia-United States | η2 = 0.14 High effect | |
Major urban collector | Chi2K-W = 15.221 * p = 0.000 | Serbia-Canada Serbia-United States | η2 = 0.17 High effect | |
Rural road | FANOVA = 127.521 p = 0.000 | Serbia-Canada Serbia-United States | η2 = 0.40 High effect | |
Single lane roundabout | FANOVA = 31.196 p = 0.000 | Serbia-Canada Serbia-United States | η2 = 0.14 High effect | |
Shared space | FANOVA = 3.479 p = 0.032 | Serbia-United States | η2 = 0.18 High effect | |
Two-way multiuse trail | Chi2K-W = 26.575 * p = 0.000 | Serbia-Canada Serbia-United States | η2 = 0.09 Medium effect | |
Suburban collector road | FANOVA = 25.434 p = 0.000 | Serbia-Canada Serbia-United States | η2 = 0.12 High effect | |
Residential neighborhood street | FANOVA = 69.505 p = 0.000 | Serbia-Canada Serbia-United States | η2 = 0.26 High effect | |
Separated two-way bicycling facility | FANOVA = 1.531 p = 0.218 | – | – | |
Two-lane neighborhood commercial street | FANOVA = 24.935 p = 0.000 | Serbia-Canada Serbia-United States | η2 = 0.12 High effect |
Canada | Serbia | United States | |
---|---|---|---|
Neighborhood street | |||
50–59 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 4.3 |
60–69 | 4.2 | 2.8 | 4.2 |
more than 70 | 4.1 | 2.8 | 4.3 |
Major urban collector | |||
50–59 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.7 |
60–69 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.4 |
more than 70 | 1.5 | 2.3 | 1.3 |
Single lane roundabout | |||
50–59 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.4 |
60–69 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.4 |
more than 70 | 3.1 | 2.7 | 3.4 |
Shared space | |||
50–59 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.6 |
60–69 | 3.7 | 3.2 | 3.7 |
more than 70 | 3.2 | 3.0 | 3.4 |
Infrastructure | Preferred Travel/Movement Path | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Streets and Roads | Appearance | Canada | Serbia | United States | |||
Neighborhood street | Street, Street far from parked cars | Street, Street far from parked cars, Sidewalk | Street, Street far from parked cars | ||||
Edge lane road | Bicycle lane | Bicycle lane | Bicycle lane | ||||
Major urban collector | Street | Street, Sidewalk | Street | ||||
Rural road | Road solo, Road with others | Road solo, Road with others | Road solo, Road with others | ||||
Single lane roundabout | Street, Crosswalk, Sidewalk | Crosswalk, Sidewalk | Street, Crosswalk, Sidewalk | ||||
Shared space | Street far from the edge lane, Street close to the edge lane | Street close to the edge lane | Street far from the edge lane, Street close to the edge lane | ||||
Two-way multiuse trail | Multi-use trail | Multi-use trail | Multi-use trail | ||||
Suburban collector road | Bicycle lane | Bicycle lane | Bicycle lane | ||||
Residential neighborhood street | Shared bicycle lane | Shared bicycle lane | Shared bicycle lane | ||||
Separated two-way bicycling facility | Bicycle facility | Bicycle facility | Bicycle facility | ||||
Two-lane neighborhood commercial street | Shared bicycle lane, Between the outside white lane and the curb | Shared bicycle lane, Between the outside white lane and the curb | Shared bicycle lane, Between the outside white lane and the curb | ||||
completely different answer | partially different answer | completely the same answer |
Neighborhood Street | Canada | Serbia | United States |
---|---|---|---|
Interested but concerned | I would cycle anywhere in the street | I would cycle on the sidewalk | I would cycle anywhere in the street |
Relaxed and somewhat confident | I would cycle in the street, far away from the parked cars | I would cycle in the street, far away from the parked cars | I would cycle in the street, far away from the parked cars |
Experienced and confident | I would cycle in the street, far away from the parked cars | I would cycle in the street, far away from the parked cars | I would cycle in the street, far away from the parked cars |
Major urban collector | Canada | Serbia | United States |
Interested but concerned | I would cycle in the street | I would cycle on the sidewalk | I would cycle in the street |
Relaxed and somewhat confident | I would cycle in the street | I would cycle on the sidewalk | I would cycle in the street |
Experienced and confident | I would cycle in the street | I would cycle in the street | I would cycle in the street |
Single lane roundabout | Canada | Serbia | United States |
Interested but concerned | I would use the vehicle travel lane | I would use the crosswalks and sidewalks | I would use the crosswalks and sidewalks |
Relaxed and somewhat confident | I would use the crosswalks and sidewalks | I would use the crosswalks and sidewalks | I would use the vehicle travel lane |
Experienced and confident | I would use the vehicle travel lane | I would use the crosswalks and sidewalks | I would use the vehicle travel lane |
Shared space | Canada | Serbia | United States |
Interested but concerned | Street close to the edge lane | Street close to the edge lane | Street far from the edge lane |
Relaxed and somewhat confident | Street close to the edge lane | Street close to the edge lane | Street close to the edge lane |
Experienced and confident | Street far from the edge lane | Street close to the edge lane | Street far from the edge lane |
Neighborhood Street | Edge Lane Road | Urban Collector | Rural Road | Roundabout | Shared Space | Multiuse Trail | Suburban Collector | Residential Street | Bicycling Facility | Commercial Street | |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
US | C | S | US | C | S | US | C | S | US | C | S | US | C | S | US | C | S | US | C | S | US | C | S | US | C | S | US | C | S | US | C | S | |
Neighbor-hood street | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Edge lane road | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Urban collector | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rural road | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Roundabout | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shared space | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Multiuse trail | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Suburban collector | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Residential street | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bicycling facility | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Commercial street | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Strong | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Moderate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Weak | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Very weak |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jevremović, S.; Trpković, A.; Čičević, S.; Čubranić Dobrodolac, M.; Kachadoorian, C. Age-Friendly Cycling Infrastructure—Differences and Preferences among 50+ Cyclists. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7280. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177280
Jevremović S, Trpković A, Čičević S, Čubranić Dobrodolac M, Kachadoorian C. Age-Friendly Cycling Infrastructure—Differences and Preferences among 50+ Cyclists. Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7280. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177280
Chicago/Turabian StyleJevremović, Sreten, Ana Trpković, Svetlana Čičević, Marjana Čubranić Dobrodolac, and Carol Kachadoorian. 2024. "Age-Friendly Cycling Infrastructure—Differences and Preferences among 50+ Cyclists" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7280. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177280