The objective versus the perceived environment: what matters for bicycling?
- 1.5k Downloads
This paper examines the relationship between the objectively measured and perceived built environment, and the relative strength of their association with bicycling behavior. By drawing on socio-cognitive theory, a conceptual model was proposed to explain the relationships between the objective environment, perceived environment, and bicycling behavior. Objective and perceived bike environments were measured using two latent constructs and structural equation modeling was employed to estimate the models based on data from three neighborhoods in Portland, Oregon. Results of this study showed that the perception of the environment had a direct and significant effect on bicycling behavior, while the direct effect of the objective environment on bicycling behavior became insignificant when controlling for perception. We therefore concluded that the objective environment may only indirectly affect bicycling behavior by influencing perceptions. An objectively good environment for bicycling was necessary but not sufficient for bicycling. Intervention programs to improve people’s perceptions of the environment may be necessary to reap the full potential of planning and design policies.
KeywordsBicycling Built environment Perception Cognitive theory
Funding for collecting the data used in this research came from the Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium (OTREC), a university transportation center funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the City of Portland.
- Bandura, A.: Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1986)Google Scholar
- Dill, J., Mohr, C. Long term evaluation of individualized marketing programs for travel demand management. (OTREC-RR-10-08). Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium (OTREC). http://otrec.us/project/160 (2010)
- Golledge, R.G., Stimson, R.J.: Spatial behavior: a geographic perspective. Guilford Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
- Handy S.L. Critical assessment of the literature on the relationships among transportation, land use, and physical activity. Transportation Research Board and the Institute of Medicine Committee on Physical Activity, Health, Transportation, and Land Use. Resource paper for TRB Special Report, 282 (2005)Google Scholar
- Kirtland, K.A., Porter, D.E., Addy, C.L., Neet, M.J., Williams, J.E., Sharpe, P.A., Neff, L.J., Kimsey Jr, C.D., Ainsworth, B.E.: Environmental measures of physical activity supports: perception versus reality. Am. J. Prev. Med. 24(4), 323–331 (2003). doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(03)00021-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kline, R.B.: Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
- Maruyama, G.: Basics of structural equation modeling. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1997)Google Scholar
- McCormack, G.R., Spence, J.C., Berry, T., Doyle-Baker, P.K.: Does perceived behavioral control mediate the association between perceptions of neighborhood walkability and moderate- and vigorous-intensity leisure-time physical activity? J. Phys. Act. Health 6(5), 657–666 (2009)Google Scholar
- Prins, R.G., Oenema, A., van der Horst, K., Brug, J.: Objective and perceived availability of physical activity opportunities: differences in associations with physical activity behavior among urban adolescents. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act 6, 70 (2009). doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-6-70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pucher, J., Buehler, R.: City Cycling. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar
- Sallis, J.F., Owen, N., Fisher, E.B.: Ecological models of health behavior. In: Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K., Lewis, F.M. (eds.) Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. Wiley, San Francisco (2002)Google Scholar
- Sherrington, C.S.: The integrative action of the nervous system. Yale University Press, New Haven (1961)Google Scholar
- Van Acker, V., Derudder, B., Witlox, F.: Why people use their cars while the built environment imposes cycling. J. Transp. Land Use 6(1), 53–62 (2013)Google Scholar