Bicycling Choice and Gender Case Study: The Ohio State University

International Journal of Sustainable Transportation

Volumn 7, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 347-365

  Akar, Gulsah ^a   Fischer, Nicholas ^b   Namgung, Mi ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Urban Transportation Associates   (United States)

Author keywords

bicycling; campus transportation; gender differences; mode choice

Indexed keywords

BICYCLING; CHOICE MODEL; COLLEGE CAMPUS; GENDER DIFFERENCES; MODE CHOICE; OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY; TRANSPORTATION MODE; TRAVEL BEHAVIORS; TRAVEL PATTERNS;

BICYCLES;

TRANSPORTATION;

CYCLE TRANSPORT; DECISION MAKING; GENDER DISPARITY; NUMERICAL MODEL; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE; TRANSPORTATION POLICY; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR;

OHIO; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84873889053     PISSN: 15568318     EISSN: 15568334     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2012.673694     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Akar G, Clifton KJ. 2009. The influence of individual perceptions and bicycle infrastructure on the decision to bike. Transportation Research Record 2140: 165-172.
2. Anderson J. 2008. Where are the women?. More specifically, where are the women cyclists?. Bicycling Life: A Website for Everyday Bicyclists. http://www.bicyclinglife.com/NewsAndViews/Gender.htm.
3. Baker L. 2009. How to get more bicyclists on the road: To boost urban cycling, figure out what women want. Scientific American October.
4. Balsas CJL. 2003. Sustainable transportation planning on college campuses. Transport Policy 10: 35-49.
5. Ben Akiva M, Lerman ST. 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Applications to Travel Demand. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
6. Blais AR, Weber EU. 2001. Domain-specificity and gender differences in decision making. Risk Decision and Policy 6: 47-69.
7. Bonham J, Wilson A. 2012. Bicycling and the life course: The start-stop-start experiences of women cycling. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 6 (4): 195-213.
8. Brown M. 2004. Why aren't women on wheels?. San Francisco Bicycle Coalition.www.sfbike.org/?.women_mb
9. Dill J, Carr T. 2003. Bicycle commuting and facilities in major U.S. cities: If you build them, commuters will use them: Another look. Transportation Research Record 1828: 116-123.
10. Emond CR, Tang W, Handy SL. 2009. Explaining gender differences in bicycling behavior. Transportation Research Record 2125: 16-25.
11. Garrard J, Rose G, Lo SK. 2009. Promoting transportation cycling for women: The role of bicycle infrastructure. Preventive Medicine 46: 55-59.
12. Gordon P, Kumar A, Richardson HW. 1989. Gender differences in metropolitan travel behavior. Regional Studies 23: 499-510.
13. Gossen R, Purvis CL. Activities, time, and travel: Changes in women's travel time expenditures, 1990-2000. 2004. Conference Proceedings 35, Research on Women's Issues in Transportation-Volume 2: Technical Papers, November 18-20, Chicago, IL, pp. 21-29.
14. Heinen E, Handy S. 2012. Similarities in attitudes and norms and the effect on bicycle commuting: Evidence from the bicycle cities Davis and Delft. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 6 (5): 257-281.
15. Krizek KJ, Johnson PJ, Tilahun N. 2004. Gender differences in bicycling behavior and facility preferences. Conference Proceedings 35, Research on Women's Issues in Transportation-Volume 2: Technical Papers, November 18-20, Chicago, IL, pp. 31-40.
16. Mauch M, Taylor BD. 1997. Gender, race, and travel behavior: Analysis of household-serving travel and commuting in San Francisco Bay area. Transportation Research Record 1607: 147-153.
17. McGuckin N, Murakami E. 1999. Examining trip-chaining behavior: Comparison of travel by men and women. Transportation Research Record 1693: 79-85.
18. Moudon AV, Lee C, Cheadle AD, Collier CW, Johnson D, Schmid TL, Weather RD. 2005. Cycling and the built environment, a U.S. perspective. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 10 (3): 245-261.
19. Nelson AC, Allen D. 1997. If you build them, commuters will use them: Association between bicycle facilities and bicycle commuting. Transportation Research Record 1578: 79-83.
20. Noland RB. 1995. Perceived risk and modal choice: Risk compensation in transportation systems. Accident Analysis and Prevention 27 (4): 503-521.
21. OSU. 2010. The Ohio State University, statistical summary. www.osu.edu/osutoday/stuinfo.php. Accessed on June 20, 2010.
22. Pucher J, Buehler R. 2008a. Cycling for everyone: Lessons from Europe. Transportation Research Record 2074: 58-65.
23. Pucher J, Buehler R. 2008b. Making cycling irresistable: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transport Reviews 28 (4): 495-528.
24. Pucher J, Garrard J, Greaves S. 2011. Cycling down under: A comparative analysis of bicycling trends and policies in Sydney and Melbourne. Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2): 332-345.
25. Pucher J, Komanoff C, Schimek P. 1999. Bicycling renaissance in North America?. Recent trends and alternative policies to promote bicycling. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 33 (7-8): 625-654.
26. Sener IN, Eluru N, Bhat CR. 2009. Who are bicyclists?. Why and how much are they bicycling?. Transportation Research Record 2134: 63-72.
27. Stinson MA, Bhat CR. 2004. Frequency of bicycle commuting: Internet-based survey analysis. Transportation Research Record1878:122-130.
28. Tilahun N, Levinson DM, Krizek K. 2007. Trails, lanes, or traffic: Value of different bicycle facilities using adaptive stated-preference survey. Transportation Research: A Policy and Practice 41 (4): 287-301.
29. Vanderbilt T. 2008. Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do: And What it Says About Us. New York: Knopf.
30. Weber EU, Milliman R. 1997. Perceived risk attitudes: Relating risk perception to risky choice. Management Science 43: 122-143.
31. Winters M, Friesen MC, Koehoorn M, Teschke K. 2007. Utilitarian bicycling: A multilevel analysis of climate and personal influences. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 32 (1): 52-58.