ECF

Regular physical activity can help to increase public health by reducing the risk of many chronic diseases and their risk factors. Unfortunately, one third of the adult population (18 years and over) is insufficiently physically active and does not reach the global health guideline of 150 min/week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Cycling for transport could be an important contributor to integrate physical activity into adults’ daily lives. Nevertheless, cycling remains an under-used form of transport. There is a significant potential to increase cycling for transport in the European Union as 40% of all car trips are shorter than 2.5 kilometers and 50% are shorter than 5 kilometers. Therefore, interventions that encourage the incorporation of cycling for transport into the daily lives of adults are required.
It has already been confirmed by the literature that the physical environment is of importance to explain physical activity in adults between 18 and 65 years old, the target population of this thesis. Nonetheless, there are still a lot of inconsistencies regarding the association between the physical environment, especially the micro-environment, and cycling for transport. Micro-environmental factors are small-scaled physical environmental characteristics of a streetscape (such as evenness of the cycle path, speed limit, or vegetation), feasible to modify in existing neighborhoods and thus more practical to target for environmental interventions in comparison to macro-environmental factors (i.e. raw urban planning features, such as residential density or street connectivity). Therefore, the overall aim of this PhD thesis was to get a better insight in how the physical environment, especially the micro-environment, influences cycling for transport among the adult population, and to verify the interplay between socio-demographics, psychosocial and physical environmental factors to explain cycling for transport.
The results of this PhD-thesis indicate that the most important strategy to create supportive micro-environments and to stimulate cycling for transport is to improve the traffic safety for cyclists. This can be done by providing separated cycle paths (even if they are only marked with white lines on the road) or by reducing the authorized speed of the motorized traffic. The most preferred cycle path is a cycle path that is well separated from the motorized traffic of which a hedge as separation is preferred above a curb as separation, and a curb is preferred above a cycle path marked with white lines. Furthermore, policy makers must be informed that in high walkable neighborhoods (i.e. neighborhoods with a high street connectivity, mixed land use, and high residential density) which are positively related to cycling for transport, it is important to pay attention to overlooked environmental factors such as the exposure to air pollution or parked cars that form an obstacle on the road. The provision of separated cycle paths might help to deal with those environmental factors and consequently can ensure that neighborhoods become safer, healthier and more enjoyable to cycle for transport.
Furthermore, the interaction effects between macro- and micro-environmental factors, as well as the interactions between different micro-environmental factors were examined. Our experimental results suggested that micro-environmental changes have similar outcomes in different macro-environments and therefore gives a first indication about the generalizability of the adjustment of micro-environmental factors in different macro-environments. Since cycle path type was predominantly the most important micro-environmental factor, the relative importance of all other micro-environmental factors was calculated within each type of cycle path. Results indicate that in street settings where no cycle path was provided, micro-environmental factors associated to traffic-related safety (i.e. speed limit, traffic density) prevail. In contrast, when a more separated cycle path was provided, micro-environmental factors related to comfort (i.e. evenness of the cycle path) or aesthetics (i.e. vegetation, general upkeep) appeared to become more important.
Although our subgroup analysis revealed three subgroups of the middle-aged adult population with differences in environmental preferences towards cycling for transport, a good separated cycle path remains the most important environmental factor for all participants. Moreover, our cross-sectional results both for the perceived and the objective physical environment also found only a few significant moderating effects of socio-demographic factors. These results suggest that generic environmental interventions could benefit most population subgroups, even across urban regions in the five different investigated countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Hungary, France, and UK). Therefore, from our results we can carefully conclude that tailored environmental interventions may not be required in this research context since environmental adaptations (e.g. improving cycle path type) appear to have a favorable effect for the whole adult population.