↓ Skip to main content

Differences in environmental preferences towards cycling for transport among adults: a latent class analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
97 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Differences in environmental preferences towards cycling for transport among adults: a latent class analysis
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3471-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lieze Mertens, Jelle Van Cauwenberg, Ariane Ghekiere, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Benedicte Deforche, Nico Van de Weghe, Delfien Van Dyck

Abstract

Increasing cycling for transport can contribute to improve public health among adults. Micro-environmental factors (i.e. small-scaled street-setting features) may play an important role in affecting the street's appeal to cycle for transport. Understanding about the interplay between individuals and their physical environment is important to establish tailored environmental interventions. Therefore, the current study aimed to examine whether specific subgroups exist based on similarities in micro-environmental preferences to cycle for transport. Responses of 1950 middle-aged adults (45-65 years) on a series of choice tasks depicting potential cycling routes with manipulated photographs yielded three subgroups with different micro-environmental preferences using latent class analysis. Although latent class analysis revealed three different subgroups in the middle-aged adult population based on their environmental preferences, results indicated that cycle path type (i.e. a good separated cycle path) is the most important environmental factor for all participants and certainly for individuals who did not cycle for transport. Furthermore, only negligible differences were found between the importances of the other micro-environmental factors (i.e. traffic density, evenness of the cycle path, maintenance, vegetation and speed limits) regarding the two at risk subgroups and that providing a speed bump obviously has the least impact on the street's appeal to cycle for transport. Results from the current study indicate that only negligible differences were found between the three subgroups. Therefore, it might be suggested that tailored environmental interventions are not required in this research context.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 97 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 101 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 19%
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Master 15 15%
Unspecified 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 16 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 15 15%
Engineering 11 11%
Unspecified 9 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Environmental Science 8 8%
Other 26 25%
Unknown 25 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 70. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 October 2016.
All research outputs
#620,921
of 25,630,321 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#603
of 17,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,228
of 370,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#19
of 400 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,630,321 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,730 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 370,017 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 400 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.