ABSTRACT
Background Riding a bike is beneficial for health, the environment and for reducing traffic congestion. Despite this, bike riding participation in the state of Victoria, Australia, is low. To inform planning and practice, there is a need to understand the proportion of the population (the ‘near-market’) that are interested in riding a bike, and how this varies across regions. The Geller typology classifies individuals into one of four groups, based on their confidence to ride a bike in various infrastructure types, and frequency of bike riding. The typology has been used at a city, state and country-wide scale, however not at a smaller spatial scale. We aimed to characterise and quantify the distribution of the Geller typology within Local Government Areas (LGAs) in the state of Victoria, Australia.
Methods An online survey was conducted in 37 LGAs in Victoria, including all LGAs in Greater Melbourne, and a selection of six key regional centres. Participants were recruited from an opt-in online research company panel with the objective of recruiting a representative sample of adults across each LGA. The Geller typology classified individuals as either: ‘Strong and Fearless, ‘Enthused and Confident’, ‘Interested but Concerned’, or ‘No Way No How’. ‘Interested but Concerned’ participants are those that would ride a bike if protected infrastructure were provided.
Results The survey was completed by 3999 individuals. Most participants owned a bike (58%), however only 20% rode at least once per week. The distribution of the Geller groups was: ‘Strong and Fearless’ (3%), ‘Enthused and Confident’ (3%), ‘Interested but Concerned’ (78%), and ‘No Way No How’ (16%). While variation in the distributions of the Geller groups was observed between LGAs within Greater Melbourne., the ‘Interested but Concerned’ group, reflecting people who are comfortable riding only in protected lanes or off-road paths, was high across all LGAs and all demographic sub-groups. Even though the frequency of riding a bike was lower in women, interest in riding a bike was high and comparable to men. Participants who resided in the outer urban fringe regions of Greater Melbourne had high interest, but low participation in bike riding.
Conclusions While there was variation in interest in bike riding across an entire metropolitan region and across population groups, interest was high across all areas and demographics. Our results show the potential for substantial increases in cycling participation, but only when high-quality cycling infrastructure is provided. Further research is required to understand the policy and practice barriers to equitable provision of protected infrastructure.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was funded by Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth). The first author, Lauren Pearson, receives a Research Training Program Stipend from the Australian Government as a part of her PhD. Ben Beck was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award Fellowship (DE180100825). Belinda Gabbe was supported by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT170100048).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee - Project ID: 25346
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
The preprint has been revised to show the edits of the peer-reviewed publication.
Data Availability
All data produced are available online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2021.101290
