IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v11y2021i2p21582440211018685.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Perceived and Objective Measures of Bikeability on a University Campus: A Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Debra K. Kellstedt
  • John O. Spengler
  • Jay E. Maddock

Abstract

Using a participatory approach, this multi-method case study compared bicyclists’ perceptions and physical indicators of bikeability on a college campus. Student focus groups discussed campus bikeability and mapped and graded common bicycle routes. Trained students conducted environmental audits with bicycle counts. In discussions, students expressed concerns about safe bicycle riding on campus, especially during peak times. Congestion with pedestrians, other bicyclists, and skateboarders created the potential for crashes. Five major routes were identified with map scores ranging from 21.4% to 70%. Audit scores ranged from 82.5% to 86.7%. Bicycle counts varied by time of day and ranged from 11 to 91 bicycles. Student perceptions of bikeability were poorer than objective assessments of routes. The audit tool did not differentiate enough between routes and did not capture conflict potential accurately. Specification is needed on audit tools to capture the potential for conflict between bicycling and other forms of active transport—especially in unique settings like college campuses. Campuses that have well-marked paths for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles and that communicate the importance and ease of bicycling may see the most overall success when promoting active transport options.

Suggested Citation

  • Debra K. Kellstedt & John O. Spengler & Jay E. Maddock, 2021. "Comparing Perceived and Objective Measures of Bikeability on a University Campus: A Case Study," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:11:y:2021:i:2:p:21582440211018685
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440211018685
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440211018685
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440211018685?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elliot Fishman, 2016. "Bikeshare: A Review of Recent Literature," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 92-113, January.
    2. Balsas, Carlos J. L., 2003. "Sustainable transportation planning on college campuses," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 35-49, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhehao Zhang & Thomas Fisher & Haiming Wang, 2023. "Walk Score, Environmental Quality and Walking in a Campus Setting," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-19, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mehzabin Tuli, Farzana & Mitra, Suman & Crews, Mariah B., 2021. "Factors influencing the usage of shared E-scooters in Chicago," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 164-185.
    2. Ahmed Kheiri & Alina G. Dragomir & David Mueller & Joaquim Gromicho & Caroline Jagtenberg & Jelke J. Hoorn, 2019. "Tackling a VRP challenge to redistribute scarce equipment within time windows using metaheuristic algorithms," EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 8(5), pages 561-595, December.
    3. Gu, Tianqi & Kim, Inhi & Currie, Graham, 2019. "To be or not to be dockless: Empirical analysis of dockless bikeshare development in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 122-147.
    4. Radzimski, Adam & Dzięcielski, Michał, 2021. "Exploring the relationship between bike-sharing and public transport in Poznań, Poland," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 189-202.
    5. Joohyun Lee & Mardelle McCuskey Shepley, 2020. "College Campuses and Student Walkability: Assessing the Impact of Smartphone Use on Student Perception and Evaluation of Urban Campus Routes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-18, November.
    6. Alexandros Nikitas, 2019. "How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, June.
    7. Lu Cheng & Zhifu Mi & D’Maris Coffman & Jing Meng & Dining Liu & Dongfeng Chang, 2022. "The Role of Bike Sharing in Promoting Transport Resilience," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 567-585, September.
    8. Nikolaos-Fivos Galatoulas & Konstantinos N. Genikomsakis & Christos S. Ioakimidis, 2020. "Spatio-Temporal Trends of E-Bike Sharing System Deployment: A Review in Europe, North America and Asia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-17, June.
    9. Rotaris, Lucia & Danielis, Romeo, 2014. "The impact of transportation demand management policies on commuting to college facilities: A case study at the University of Trieste, Italy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 127-140.
    10. An, Ran & Zahnow, Renee & Pojani, Dorina & Corcoran, Jonathan, 2019. "Weather and cycling in New York: The case of Citibike," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 97-112.
    11. Selima Sultana & Hyojin Kim & Nastaran Pourebrahim & Firoozeh Karimi, 2018. "Geographical Assessment of Low-Carbon Transportation Modes: A Case Study from a Commuter University," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-23, August.
    12. Rybarczyk, Greg & Gallagher, Laura, 2014. "Measuring the potential for bicycling and walking at a metropolitan commuter university," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-10.
    13. Jorge Ubirajara Pedreira Junior & Antônio Nélson Rodrigues da Silva & Cira Souza Pitombo, 2022. "Car-Free Day on a University Campus: Determinants of Participation and Potential Impacts on Sustainable Travel Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-20, March.
    14. Jiang, Zhoutong & Lei, Chao & Ouyang, Yanfeng, 2020. "Optimal investment and management of shared bikes in a competitive market," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 143-155.
    15. Zamparini, L. & Domènech, A. & Miravet, D. & Gutiérrez, A., 2022. "Green mobility at home, green mobility at tourism destinations: A cross-country study of transport modal choices of educated young adults," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    16. Zhang, Ziru & Krishnakumari, Panchamy & Schulte, Frederik & van Oort, Niels, 2023. "Improving the service of E-bike sharing by demand pattern analysis: A data-driven approach," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    17. Zhou, Jiangping, 2012. "Sustainable commute in a car-dominant city: Factors affecting alternative mode choices among university students," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1013-1029.
    18. Ding, Hongliang & Lu, Yuhuan & Sze, N.N. & Li, Haojie, 2022. "Effect of dockless bike-sharing scheme on the demand for London Cycle Hire at the disaggregate level using a deep learning approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 150-163.
    19. Nessa Winston, 2021. "Sustainable community development: Integrating social and environmental sustainability for sustainable housing and communities," Working Papers 202106, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    20. Álvaro Aguilera-García & Juan Gomez & Natalia Sobrino & Juan José Vinagre Díaz, 2021. "Moped Scooter Sharing: Citizens’ Perceptions, Users’ Behavior, and Implications for Urban Mobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:11:y:2021:i:2:p:21582440211018685. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.