Cyclists' Consideration of Energy Expenditure and Air Pollution in Route Planning

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