Cyclists’ Consideration of Energy Expenditure and Air Pollution in Route Planning: Planning and Policy Implications
Evan J. Hammer M.A. Planning Candidate, 2017 School of Community and Regional Planning, UBC Supervisor: Dr. Alex Bigazzi SCARP & Civil Engineering, UBC April 18, 2017
Overview Part I: Background Part II: Methods Part III: Results Part IV: Discussion Part V: Implications
Source: Paul Krueger
Cyclists' Consideration of Energy Expenditure and Air Pollution in Route Planning
Part I: BackGround Literature Review Research Question Hypotheses
Evan J. Hammer
Part I: Background
Literature Review Air Pollution Energy Expenditure Cyclist Typology Public Policy
Source: Paul Krueger
Part I: Background
Research Question Do cyclists consider energy expenditure and air pollution when selecting cycling routes, and which, if any, cyclist attributes are associated with those preferences?
Source: Paul Krueger
Part I: Background
Hypotheses Air Pollution: Education Levels Cyclist Typology
Energy Expenditure: Physical Activity Gender
Source: Paul Krueger
Cyclists' Consideration of Energy Expenditure and Air Pollution in Route Planning
Part II: Methods Survey Design Data Collection Typology Classification Model Estimation
Evan J. Hammer
Part II: Methods
Survey Design
Part II: Methods
Data Collection 16 Collection Days 648 Participants 602 After Data Cleaning
Source: Simone Tengattini
Part II: Methods
Typology Classification Classified using Dill & McNeil method
Source: Simone Tengattini
Part II: Methods
Model Estimation
Source: Simone Tengattini
Cyclists' Consideration of Energy Expenditure and Air Pollution in Route Planning
Part III: Results Descriptive Statistics Regional Comparison Typology Results Air Pollution Model Energy Expenditure Model
Evan J. Hammer
Part III: Results
Descriptive Statistics
Education Educational Achievement 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
36% 27% 19% 10% 4%
3%
Part III: Results
Descriptive Statistics
Vehicles Vehicles in Household 50%
47%
45% 40%
0
35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
1
25%
2
18%
3+ 7%
2%
Missing
Part III: Results
Descriptive Statistics
Fair-weather vs. Year-round Fairweather vs year-round cyclists 70%
66%
60% 50% 40% 30%
28%
20% 10%
6%
0% Fairweather
Neither
Year-round
Part III: Results
Descriptive Statistics
Commute Type by Frequency Commute type by Frequency 70. 0%
60. 0%
50. 0% Almost Never Monthly or Less
40. 0%
Several times a month Several times a week
30. 0%
Almost every day Missing
20. 0%
10. 0%
0. 0%
Private vehicle
Car share
Taxi/Ride share
Transit
Bike
Walk
Part III: Results
Descriptive Statistics
Consider Energy Expenditure Consideration of Energy Expenditure 40.0%
36.5%
37.0%
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0%
14.1%
15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%
5.0%
Strongly Disagree
7.3%
Somewhat Disagree
Neither
Part III: Results
Descriptive Statistics
Consider Air Pollution Consideration of Air Pollution 28.6%
30.0% 22.9%
25.0%
22.4%
20.0% 15.0%
14.8% 11.3%
10.0% 5.0% 0.0%
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neither
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Part III: Results
Regional Comparison
Age Representation by Age 60% 50% 40% BCDT Cyclist 30%
Trip Diary Cyclist Regional Average
20% 10% 0%
5-12
13-17
18-24
25-44
45-64
65-79
80 Plus
Missing
Part III: Results
Regional Comparison
Income Representation by Income 25%
20%
15%
BCDT Cyclist Trip Diary Cyclist
10%
Regional Average
5%
0%
< 25K
25 - 50K
50 - 75K
75 - 100K
100 - 150K
>150K
Missing
Part III: Results
Regional Comparison
Sex Representation by Sex 120% 100% 80%
2% 36%
29% 51%
60% 40% 20% 0%
Missing Female Male
62%
71%
49%
BCDT Cyclist
Trip Diary Cyclist
Regional Average
Part III: Results
Typology Results Respondents by Cyclist Type 50.0% 45.0%
45.5%
40.0% 35.0%
41.9%
No way, no how
30.0%
Interested but Concerned
25.0%
Confident & Enthused
20.0%
Strong & Fearless
15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%
1.5%
11.1%
Part III: Results
Typology Results
Comparison to Other Studies Comparison of Cyclist Type 70.0% 60.0% 60.0%
60.0% 50.0%
45.5%
40.0%
41.9% BCDT
33.3%
30.0%
Geller Estimate
25.0%
Dill & McNeil
20.0% 10.0% 0.0%
7.0%
9.0%
1.5% No way, no how
11.1% 0.5%
Interested but Concerned
Enthused & Confident
6.0%
Strong & Fearless
Part III: Results
Model Estimation Results
Air Pollution Model
Statistical Significance of Model Pseudo R2 Nagelkerke Cox & Snell
0.001 0.100 0.087
Part III: Results
Model Estimation Results
Air Pollution Model Variable
Responses
N
Marginal Percent
Air Pollution
Disagree
150
26.3%
(dependent variable)
Neutral
125
21.9%
Agree
295
51.8%
Neutral/Agree
499
87.5%
Disagree (Reference)
71
12.5%
Several times week or more
466
81.8%
Several times month or less (Reference)
104
18.2%
Agree
381
66.8%
Disagree/Neutral (Reference)
189
33.2%
Agree
540
94.7%
Disagree/Neutral (Reference)
30
5.3%
Valid
570
100.0%
Missing
32
Total
602
Energy Expenditure
Walking Frequency
Cycle year-round
Enjoy Physical Activity
Part III: Results
Model Estimation Results
Air Pollution Model Co-efficient
Odds Ratio
Standard Error
P-value
Energy Expenditure
0.785
2.190
0.250
0.002
Walking Frequency
0.511
1.660
0.207
0.014
Cycling year-round
0.389
1.475
0.173
0.024
Enjoy Physical Activity
1.361
3.900
0.389
0.001
Age (scale)
0.016
1.016
0.006
0.005
Part III: Results
Air Pollution Model
Energy Expenditure Pollution & Energy Expenditure Responses 60.0%
55.3%
52.7%
50.0%
44.7% 3 5.3 %
40.0%
32.4%
30.0% 20.0%
20.0%
22.8% 21.9%
14.9%
10.0% 0.0%
Disagree (energy) Disagree (pollution)
Neutral (energy) Neutral (pollution)
Agree (energy) Agree (pollution)
Part III: Results
Air Pollution Model
Walking Frequency Pollution & Walking Frequency Responses 60.0%
54.2%
50.0% 40.0% 30.0%
40.5% 33.3%
26.1%
24.2%
21.6%
20.0% 10.0% 0.0%
Several times/month or less Disagree (pollution)
Several times/week or more
Neutral (pollution)
Agree (pollution)
Part III: Results
Air Pollution Model
Cycle Year-Round Pollution & Year-round responses 60.0% 48.6%
50.0% 40.0% 30.0%
56.3%
39.2%
33.9% 26.9%
22.9%
28.6% 23.0% 20.7%
20.0% 10.0% 0.0%
Disagree (year-round) Disagree (pollution)
Neutral (year-round) Neutral (pollution)
Agree (year-round) Agree (pollution)
Part III: Results
Air Pollution Model
Enjoy Physical Activity 70.0%
Pollution & Enjoy Physical Activity 66.7%
61.5%
60.0%
52.9%
50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0%
16.7%
16.7%
23.1%
24.1%
23.0%
15.4%
10.0% 0.0%
Disagree (activity) Disagree (pollution)
Neutral (activity) Neutral (pollution)
Agree (activity) Agree (pollution)
Part III: Results
Air Pollution Model
Age Pollution & Age Responses 60.0%
56.3%
50.0%
31.3%
30.0% 20.0%
46 .6 %
43.3%
40.0%
35.0%
49.7%
31.0%
29.9%
21.7%
22.4%
18 - 34
35 - 6 4
20.5%
12.5%
10.0% 0.0%
5 - 17
Disagree (pollution)
Neutral (pollution)
Agree (pollution)
65+
Part III: Results
Model Estimation Results
Energy Expenditure Model
Statistical Significance of Model Pseudo R2 Nagelkerke Cox & Snell
0.001 0.069 0.062
Part III: Results
Model Estimation Results
Energy Expenditure Model Co-efficient
Odds Ratio
Standard Error
P-value
Bicycling as Exercise
0.887
2.427
0.297
0.003
Comfort Level on Major Streets
0.497
1.640
0.170
0.004
Enjoy Physical Activity
0.949
2.580
0.414
0.022
Income (scale)
-0.116
0.089
0.049
0.018
Part III: Results
Energy Expenditure Model
Bicycling as Exercise Variable Energy & Bicycling as Exercise Responses 90.0%
76.3%
80.0% 70.0%
57.1%
60.0% 50.0%
43 .3 %
43 .3 %
40.0% 30.0% 20.0%
13 .3 %
21.4% 21.4% 10.2%
10.0% 0.0%
Disagree (exercise) Disagree (energy)
Neutral (exercise) Neutral (energy)
13.5%
Agree (exercise) Agree (energy)
Part III: Results
Energy Expenditure Model
ComFort Level Energy & Comfort Responses 90 .0 % 80 .0 %
77.8%
71.1%
70 .0 % 60 .0 % 50 .0 % 40 .0 % 30 .0 % 20 .0 %
14.8%
14.1%
7.5%
10 .0 % 0 .0 %
Uncomfortable Disagree (energy)
14.6%
Comfortable Neutral (energy)
Agree (energy)
Part III: Results
Energy Expenditure Model
Enjoy Physical Activity Energy & Enjoy Physical Activity Responses 84.6%
90.0% 80.0%
75.4%
72.2%
70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0%
16.7%
1 1 .1 %
10.0% 0.0%
Disagree (activity) Disagree (energy)
7.7% 7.7% Neutral (activity) Neutral (energy)
10.5%
1 4.1 %
Agree (activity) Agree (energy)
Part III: Results
Energy Expenditure Model
Income Energy & Income Responses 90 .0 %
80.7%
80 .0 %
74.5%
73.8%
74.0%
71.4%
68.9%
70 .0 % 60 .0 % 50 .0 % 40 .0 % 30 .0 % 20 .0 % 10 .0 % 0 .0 %
18.5% 7.7%
Under 25
9.1%
10.2%
25 - 50
14.5% 10.9%
10.4%
50 - 75 Disagree (energy)
16.0% 6.0 %
75 - 100
Neutral (energy)
15.1%
20 .0 %
18.2%
Agree (energy)
100 - 150
150 +
Cyclists' Consideration of Energy Expenditure and Air Pollution in Route Planning
Part IV: Discussion Air Pollution Model Energy Expenditure Model Both Models
Evan J. Hammer
Part IV: Discussion
Air Pollution Model Fails to support any hypothesized variables
Source: Paul Krueger
Part IV: Discussion
Energy Expenditure Model Two Variables Support Hypotheses
Source: Paul Krueger
Part IV: Discussion
Both Models Committed Cyclists Health Conscious Cyclists
Source: Paul Krueger
Cyclists' Consideration of Energy Expenditure and Air Pollution in Route Planning
Part V: Implications
Evan J. Hammer
Part V: Implications
Implications Route Choice Public Education Planning and Policies
Source: Paul Krueger
Source: Simone Tengattini
Part III: Results
Model Estimation Results
Energy Expenditure Model Variable
Responses
N
Marginal Percent
Energy Expenditure
Disagree/Neutral
142
26.3%
Somewhat Agree
193
35.7%
Strongly Agree
205
38.0%
Agree
487
90.2%
Disagree/Neutral (Reference)
53
9.8%
Comfortable
188
34.8%
Uncomfortable (Reference)
352
65.2%
Agree
513
95.0%
Disagree/Neutral (Reference)
27
5.0%
Valid
540
100.0%
Missing
62
(dependent variable)
Bicycling as exercise
Comfort Level on Major Streets
Enjoy Physical Activity
Part III: Results
Model Estimation Results
Energy Expenditure Model Variable
Responses
N
Marginal Percent
Energy Expenditure
Disagree/Neutral
142
26.3%
Somewhat Agree
193
35.7%
Strongly Agree
205
38.0%
Agree
487
90.2%
Disagree/Neutral (Reference)
53
9.8%
Comfortable
188
34.8%
Uncomfortable (Reference)
352
65.2%
Agree
513
95.0%
Disagree/Neutral (Reference)
27
5.0%
540
100.0%
(dependent variable)
Bicycling as exercise
Comfort Level on Major Streets
Enjoy Physical Activity
Valid