Predictors of adopting cycling
| Demographic characteristics | Model 1 (n=645)† | Model 2 (n=641)‡ | Model 3 (n=641)§ |
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
| Gender | |||
| Female (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Male | 0.81 (0.56 to 1.16) | 0.73 (0.50 to 1.06) | 0.75 (0.51 to 1.11) |
| Age (years) | |||
| ≥50 (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 30–49 | 2.26 (1.32 to 3.87)** | 2.31 (1.33 to 4.00)** | 2.28 (1.30 to 4.00)** |
| <30 | 2.23 (1.18 to 4.21)* | 2.11 (1.10 to 4.07)* | 1.92 (0.99 to 3.74) |
| Education | |||
| University and above (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Junior college | 0.95 (0.57 to 1.59) | 0.91 (0.53 to 1.54) | 0.86 (0.50 to 1.48) |
| High school/technical secondary school | 1.31 (0.79 to 2.17) | 1.30 (0.77 to 2.18) | 1.26 (0.74 to 2.13) |
| Junior high school | 0.88 (0.45 to 1.72) | 0.83 (0.42 to 1.66) | 0.75 (0.38 to 1.52) |
| Marital status | |||
| Unmarried/divorced/widowed (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Married | 0.85 (0.53 to 1.37) | 0.85 (0.52 to 1.39) | 0.83 (0.50 to 1.37) |
| Personal monthly income (¥) | |||
| ≥10 000 (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 5000–9999 | 1.26 (0.70 to 2.27) | 1.25 (0.68 to 2.30) | 1.29 (0.70 to 2.41) |
| 2000–4999 | 1.45 (0.78 to 2.69) | 1.39 (0.74 to 2.64) | 1.43 (0.75 to 2.74) |
| <2000 | 0.94 (0.41 to 2.15) | 0.86 (0.37 to 2.02) | 1.01 (0.42 to 2.41) |
| Area | |||
| Within the inner ring (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Between the inner and middle ring | 0.52 (0.29 to 0.93)* | 0.45 (0.25 to 0.84)* | 0.44 (0.24 to 0.82)** |
| Between the middle and outer ring | 0.92 (0.56 to 1.51) | 0.78 (0.46 to 1.31) | 0.72 (0.43 to 1.23) |
| Beyond the outer ring | 0.69 (0.42 to 1.15) | 0.59 (0.33 to 1.05) | 0.56 (0.31 to 1.01) |
| Ownership of motor vehicle | |||
| No (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 1.37 (0.95 to 1.98) | 1.45 (0.99 to 2.12) | 1.53 (1.04 to 2.25)* |
| Ownership of bicycle | |||
| No (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 0.85 (0.54 to 1.33) | 0.84 (0.53 to 1.35) | 0.92 (0.57 to 1.48) |
| Distance from work/college/university | |||
| ≤1.5 km (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 1.5–5 km | 1.28 (0.73 to 2.24) | 1.27 (0.71 to 2.27) | 1.33 (0.73 to 2.39) |
| >5 km | 2.04 (1.07 to 3.90)* | 2.22 (1.13 to 4.33)* | 2.58 (1.30 to 5.12)** |
| Commuting time (one way) | |||
| ≤15 min (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 15–30 min | 0.96 (0.57 to 1.61) | 0.97 (0.57 to 1.65) | 0.93 (0.54 to 1.60) |
| >30 min | 0.84 (0.45 to 1.58) | 0.91 (0.48 to 1.73) | 0.83 (0.43 to 1.62) |
| Perceived bikeability | |||
| Presence of dedicated bicycle lane | 1.38 (1.12 to 1.68)** | 1.37 (1.12 to 1.68)** | |
| Access to a public transportation stop/station | 0.83 (0.68 to 1.01) | 0.82 (0.67 to 0.99)* | |
| Access to destinations | 0.85 (0.66 to 1.10) | 0.81 (0.63 to 1.06) | |
| Physical condition of bicycle lanes | 1.19 (0.89 to 1.59) | 1.15 (0.85 to 1.54) | |
| Maintenance of lanes | 0.81 (0.60 to 1.08) | 0.82 (0.61 to 1.11) | |
| Vegetation/shades along the bicycle lanes | 1.29 (0.97 to 1.71) | 1.23 (0.91 to 1.65) | |
| Traffic violation as a barrier | 1.01 (0.79 to 1.29) | 1.01 (0.79 to 1.29) | |
| Traffic volume as a barrier | 1.14 (0.87 to 1.49) | 1.18 (0.90 to 1.56) | |
| Motor bikes/electronic scooters as barriers | 0.99 (0.76 to 1.29) | 0.96 (0.74 to 1.26) | |
| Social norms | |||
| Riding dock-less shared bicycles perceived as fashionable | 1.46 (1.21 to 1.76)** | ||
| Riding dock-less shared bicycles represents low socioeconomic status | 0.91 (0.76 to 1.08) |
All analyses are restricted to those who did not report cycling as the main mode of transport at baseline.
*P<0.05, **P<0.01.
†Model 1 adjusted for demographic variables, including gender, age, education, marital status, personal monthly income, area, ownership of motor vehicle, ownership of bicycle, distance from work/college/university and commuting time (one way).
‡Model 2 adjusted for all variables in model 1+ perceived environmental variables, including presence of dedicated bicycle lane, access to a public transportation stop/station, physical condition of bicycle lanes, maintenance of lanes, vegetation/shades along the bicycle lanes, traffic violation as a barrier, traffic volume as a barrier and motor bikes/electronic scooters as barriers.
§Model 3 adjusted for all variables in model 2+ social norms variables.