La vivienda: una red impugnada por nuevos actores y transformada por

As described in the literature review chapter (section 2) there are many different ways in which cycling frequency is measured. The requirements for the measure used in this thesis are summarised below:

• Focus on utility journeys rather than leisure cycling.

• Applicable to, and understandable, by both cyclists and non-cyclists.

• Distinguish between non-cyclists who would consider cycling from and those that would not.

• Reflect travel behaviour. • Based on an accepted scale.

Distance or Frequency:The requirements of this study mean that a scale based

purely on frequency, distance or time spent cycling would not be suitable. Distance or time spent cycling would differentiate people based on the amount of cycling they did, but would risk over representing those that made long cycling journeys over people that made short but regular cycling journeys. Frequency would better

represent this, but would not differentiate between those who made lots of journeys, only some of which were by bike, and those that made fewer journeys, but used a bike for most of them. Trip rates vary by age and gender and so, given the variation in cycling levels across age and gender, and the focus on replacing ‘regular journeys’ by car with other active travel within policy, it was decided that a measure which

reflected the proportion of journeys made by bike would be most appropriate.

Stages of Change:A better reflection of proportion of journeys might be achieved through the use of the stages of change scale (Section 2.7.2) alongside the

incorporation of levels which differentiated between non-cyclists that had not considered cycling on one hand and those that either had considered it or were making plans to make more journeys by bike on the other. The stages of change model is a way of monitoring progress in adapting and maintaining new behaviours and is used widely in healthcare to monitor people’s progress on programmes such as addiction management. It is reviewed in some detail in Chapter 2. It may be a

particularly useful framework for this thesis when considered in the light of research that has compared cyclists at different stages of change suggests that the reasons for choosing to cycle to work are not the same as the reasons for increasing the frequency of cycling to work (Prins et al., 2016).

As the chosen model is based around the Theory of Planned Behaviour it was also decided the Stages of Change model would be used to structure the target variable when measuring cycling participation. Across the stages of change process there are four main ‘sub-populations’ within the overall population that are of interest within this analysis:

1. Those that do not cycle and are not considering it (Precontemplation)

2. Those that do not cycle and are considering it (Contemplation/Determination) 3. Those that already cycle occasionally/have recently started

(Determination/Action)

4. Those that already cycle regularly (Maintenance)

Two Levels of Cycling (Upper and Lower Band):To study these potential subgroups it is necessary to define a cut-off point based on the frequency of current cycling above which respondents may be classified as ‘Upper Band Cyclists’. Within the literature there are various definitions used to classify cyclists, and regular (or frequent) cyclists. When defining ‘cyclists’ a commonly used definition is those that have cycled within the past year (Heinen, 2011) though some researchers and

institutions classify those that have ever cycled as cyclists. In defining regular cycling there is also some disagreement in the literature. Several researchers classify those that have cycled in the past week as regular cyclists. On the other hand, others define regular cycling as those that have cycled in the past month. This definition fits

alongside the nationally available data on cycling from the Active People Survey. Due to the relatively low level of cycling in the UK and the availability of the Active People Survey data as a comparison it was decided that once a month would be the most appropriate top level splitting point with the cohort for data collection. This cut off point is used to structure the analysis into a dataset for Upper Band Cyclists (once per month or more) and one for Lower Band Cyclists (less than once per month). These two datasets analysed separately within the path modelling analysis (See Chapter 6).

Three Levels of Cycling (Frequent Cyclists, Occasional Cyclists and Non-cyclist):

Analysis of those that currently cycle less than once a month examines which constructs are linked with contemplating making journeys, or actually making occasional trips by bicycle. If differences are found between these groups, further information can be gained through comparisons with those that do not cycle at all

3.3. Pilot Survey

and those that cycle at least once a week at either end of the scale. Within the attitudinal analysis the data is divided into three levels. There are:

1. Frequent cyclists (F) who reported cycling at least once a week 2. Occasional cyclists (O) who reported having cycled in the past year 3. Non-cyclists (N) who did not report cycling

These definitions were chosen for the analysis in Chapter 4 and 5 to help draw out the differences between these groups.

As the measure of cycling frequency included both leisure and utility cycling while the measure of the intention to cycle focusses only on utility cycling analysis of those that cycle at least once a month examined which constructs appear to influence an increase in frequency, from cycling ‘occasionally for any purpose’ to cycling ‘regularly for utility purposes’.