A tale of two cities

Influences on adolescents’ cycling to school in Christchurch and Dunedin

Jillian FraterSandra MandicJohn Williams

Slide 2

Overview

● Research question: what influences cycling to school (C2S)?● Premise: the physical world influences human decisions through

perceptions, so measure beliefs and attitudes

– e.g. hilly terrain might be a barrier for you but a useful challenge for me

● Hence, we employed the most widely-used model of decision making: the

Reasoned Action Approach (RAA), latest version of the Theory of

Planned Behaviour, and a refinement of that for risky behaviours, the

Prototype Willingness Model.

Slide 3

Reasoned Action Approach: overview

● Premise: our behaviours are based on the strength of our (salient) beliefs, and our evaluations (good/bad, desirable/undesirable, ...)– e.g. you and I both believe that Dunedin is hilly, but I evaluate that fact as a good thing, whereas

you may not

● That’s the “reasoned” bit: our actions are based on our beliefs. But the theory does not assume that our beliefs, or their evaluations, are “reasonable”, “rational” or even true!

● In predicting behaviours, most useful to examine beliefs about the (respondent enacting the) behaviour, not the target of the behaviour– e.g. ask people about their beliefs regarding themselves cycling, not about cycling in general, or

other people cycling

Slide 4

Reasoned Action Approach: details

● Behaviour (B) depends on Intention (BI), and Intention depends on:● Attitudes (A)

– Instrumental beliefs: what will be the outcomes of the behaviour?

– Experiential beliefs: what will enacting the behaviour feel like?

● Subjective norm (SN)– Injunctive beliefs: what do referent others say I should do?

– Descriptive beliefs: what do referent others do themselves?

● Perceived behavioural control (PBC)– Agency beliefs: am I able to do this?

– Autonomy beliefs: is it solely my own decision?

Slide 5

Prototype Willingness Model

● Augmentation of the RAA/TPB● Considers BI in a more granular fashion:

– Distinguishes between being willing to perform a behaviour, and intending to (usually applied to “risky” behaviours, e.g. recreational drug use, pre-marital sex, …)

● Considers SN in greater detail– Assesses images of a prototype, i.e. an image of a “typical” person

who does (or does not) enact the behaviour in question

Slide 6

Methods

● Recruited in schools, students filled out self-completion questionnaire

– Dunedin: online in class; Christchurch: mostly on paper outside class, some online

● Obtained 803 responses: 373 in Christchurch, 430 in Dunedin

● Analysis restricted to students living < 4km from school

● Prevalence of C2S: 2% in Dunedin, 18% in Christchurch

– Probably attributable to terrain and weather, but what else might be influential?

● Compared beliefs about cycling between the two cities

Slide 7

Instrument (1)

● Behavioural Intention– I want to regularly cycle to school

– I intend to cycle to school frequently

● Perceived Behavioural Control– Capability

● I see myself as being capable of riding a bicycle to school● I am confident I could cycle to school● I believe that I have the ability to ride a cycle to school

– Autonomy● I have complete control over whether or not I cycle to school

Slide 8

Instrument (2)

● Subjective Norm– My friends think I should cycle to school

– Out of your five friends, how many always or sometimes cycle to school

– One or both of my parents or guardians cycle frequently

– My parents or guardians think I should cycle to school

● Attitude– For me, regularly cycling to school would be interesting

– For me, regularly cycling to school would be pleasant

– For me, regularly cycling to school would be stimulating

– For me, regularly cycling to school would be good

– For me, regularly cycling to school would be healthy

– For me, regularly cycling to school would be useful

Slide 9

Sample profile

Dunedin Christchurch

Age 15 ± 1.6 14 ± 1.6

Sex (males) 45 63

Driven 38 17

Drive 5 5

Walk 47 51

Bus 4 5

Cycle 2 18

Slide 10

RAA comparisonProportion of agreement on a 7-point Likert scaleDunedin Christchurch

Attitude Instrumental 35 31 Experiential 59 62Subjective Norm Descriptive Parents 10 18 Friends 2 29 Injunctive Parents 24 41 Friends 21 32Perceived behavioural control Capability 57 76 Autonomy 68 79Intention 4 24

Slide 11

Results

● Dunedin students scored lower on:– All injunctive and descriptive norm items (SN)– All autonomy and capability items (PBC)– Intention

● But no difference on attitudes!● Suggests that an information-deficit approach to promoting CTS on

instrumental grounds (e.g. health outcomes) would not be effective, rather a social norm and capability based approach is needed

Slide 12

Limitations

● All the usual limitations of self-reports, 5-point rating scales, etc.● Possible alternative explanation of results: descriptive and injunctive

norms, and PBC are the result of prevalence (not the cause), and prevalence is the result of terrain and weather– Can not be addressed by cross-sectional, non-experimental research design

– But where is the harm in trying a social/capability approach? Existing information-deficit approaches have not worked (and very often do not work in many public health contexts), so why not try something else?

● Other possible causes, e.g. school zoning and cycling policies, have not been investigated yet

Slide 13

Acknowledgements

The BEATS study is a collaboration between the Dunedin Secondary Schools’ Partnership, Dunedin City Council and University of Otago.

The authors would also like to acknowledge the members of the BEATS Advisory Board and research personnel. We also appreciate the contributions of the school boards, teachers, school principals, and students who assisted with this research in both cities.

Slide 14

Questions, comments, provocations?

● Research design and data collection in Christchurch was part of Jillian Frater’s PhD thesis

● Research design and data collection in Dunedin was part of the BEATS project (Built Environment and Active Transport to School), led by Sandra Mandic

● Analysis presented here done by Sandra Mandic, partly advised by me