OVERVIEW
In the Spring of 2021 we conducted a survey of bicycle friendly universities (BFUs) across the USA. Universities have the unique role of created an atmosphere to affect positive, health behavior – including active travel: or the act of walking and/or bicycling to and from work, school, or other frequent locations. The goal of this study was to understand to what capacity universities were promoting programs aimed towards underrepresented student and faculty populations (e.g., low-income, LGBTQ+, racial/ethnic minorities, women, youth).
Below you will find our PDF version of the summary of results, as well as the methodology and other main results. We hope that these results will help encourage and inspire universities to realize the need for equitable opportunities for bicycling. We are excited to continue our research on equitable opportunities in the bicycling advocacy world, and look forward to being a partner in writing the narrative on bicycle equity.
If you have any questions about this project or its data, please feel free to email Lucas D. Elliott MPH, a PAPH Doctoral student, at lde5065@psu.edu .
News releases about this study:
Link to Manuscript about survey results
Link to manuscript about interview results
Link to manuscript about coalition and university prioritization of equity
METHODS
Universities (n = 123) were invited to take an online survey via email, which asked questions based on university demographics, basic functioning of the university alternative transportation department, barriers/desired tools for reaching underrepresented populations, as well as asked participants to rank the coalition’s most important outcomes and priorities. 60 universities responded to the survey, and complete responses (n =51) were kept for analysis. Frequencies and descriptives described the data.
RESULTS
| Table 1. University and Community Demographics | |||
| n | % | ||
| University Demographics | |||
| University Type | |||
| National or Regional University | 42 | 85.7 | |
| Liberal Arts College | 4 | 8.2 | |
| Baccalaureate College | 1 | 2.0 | |
| Community college | 2 | 4.1 | |
| University Recognition | |||
| Historically Black | 0 | 0.0 | |
| Hispanic Serving | 8 | 15.7 | |
| Asian American and Pacifc Islander Serving | 2 | 3.9 | |
| Bike-Related University Demographics | |||
| BFU League Level | |||
| None | 1 | 2.0 | |
| Honorable Mention | 1 | 2.0 | |
| Bronze | 12 | 24.0 | |
| Silver | 17 | 34.0 | |
| Gold | 12 | 24.0 | |
| Platinum | 7 | 14.0 | |
| Bike Share Present on Campus | |||
| No bike share | 14 | 28.0 | |
| Yes – Exclusive to Univ. | 14 | 28.0 | |
| Yes – Part of community | 22 | 44.0 | |
| If yes to bike share, is it modified? | |||
| Yes, Modified | 6 | 16.7 | |
| No, Not modified | 25 | 69.4 | |
| Unsure | 5 | 13.9 | |
| Campus Bike Plan Present? | |||
| Yes | 26 | 52.0 | |
| No | 24 | 48.0 | |
| If yes to bike plan, which populations does it target? | |||
| General Pop | 23 | 88.5 | |
| Racial/Ethnic minor | 3 | 11.5 | |
| Women | 3 | 11.5 | |
| LGBTQ+ | 1 | 3.8 | |
| Disabled | 5 | 19.2 | |
| Low Income | 5 | 19.2 | |
| Community Demographics | |||
| Community BFC Recognition Level | |||
| None | 11 | 22.4 | |
| Honorable Mention | 0 | 0.0 | |
| Bronze | 12 | 24.5 | |
| Silver | 14 | 28.6 | |
| Gold | 7 | 14.3 | |
| Platinum | 5 | 10.2 | |
| Population of Surrounding Community | |||
| <100k | 17 | 35.4 | |
| 100k-200k | 7 | 14.6 | |
| 200k-300k | 7 | 14.6 | |
| 300k-400k | 3 | 6.3 | |
| 400k-500k | 3 | 6.3 | |
| 500k-600k | 3 | 6.3 | |
| 600k-700k | 2 | 4.2 | |
| 800k-900k | 1 | 2.1 | |
| 1mil+ | 5 | 10.4 | |
|
Table 2. Other Bicycling-related Campus Functioning/Programming |
|||
| n | % | ||
| Cycling Teams Representing Specific Populations | |||
| General Population | 40 | 80 | |
| Racial/Ethnic Minorities | 3 | 6 | |
| Women | 9 | 18 | |
| LGBTQ | 2 | 4 | |
| Disabled | 2 | 4 | |
| Low-Income | 2 | 4 | |
| Demographic AT Information Evaluated by University | |||
| Gender | 22 | 44 | |
| Race/ethnicity | 15 | 30 | |
| Sexual Orientation | 6 | 12 | |
| Age | 19 | 38 | |
| Income Level | 10 | 20 | |
| Ability Status | 14 | 28 | |
| Univ. Affiliation | 47 | 94 | |
| Social Media Used by Alternative Transportation/Bicycling Depart. | |||
| None | 10 | 19.6 | |
| 34 | 66.7 | ||
| 26 | 51.0 | ||
| 31 | 60.8 | ||
| TikTok | 2 | 3.9 | |
| YouTube | 2 | 3.9 | |
| Table 3. Percentage of Programs Implementing Strategies for Specific Student Populations | |||||||
| General Population | Racial/Ethnic Minorities | Women | LGBTQ+ | Low Income | Disabled | ||
| Popular National Bicycle Programs | |||||||
| Bike challenge | 51.0 | 2.0 | 3.9 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | |
| Bike to Campus Day/Week | 76.5 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 3.9 | |
| National Bike Month | 66.7 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 5.9 | 7.8 | 5.9 | |
| Open Streets | 27.5 | 5.9 | 2.0 | 3.9 | 2.0 | 2.0 | |
| Share the Road | 37.3 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | |
| Encouragement Programs | |||||||
| Frequent organized rides | 51.0 | 5.9 | 9.8 | 5.9 | 5.9 | 3.9 | |
| Campus bike tours | 43.1 | 5.9 | 5.9 | 3.9 | 7.8 | 5.9 | |
| Car-free days | 15.7 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 2.0 | |
| Mentoring Programs for new riders | 27.5 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 2.0 | 3.9 | 0.0 | |
| Incentive programs for cycling | 43.1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | |
| Educational Programs | |||||||
| Classroom Based Classes | 49.0 | 4.1 | 8.2 | 4.1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | |
| On-bike classes focused on skills | 46.9 | 4.1 | 8.2 | 4.1 | 2.0 | 4.1 | |
| Bicycle Maintenance classes | 75.5 | 8.2 | 16.3 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 4.1 | |
| Physical Education | 32.7 | 6.1 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 6.1 | 4.1 | |
| Required coursework | 18.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Table 4. Mean Ranking of University Bicycling Priorities, Outcomes, 5 Bike Friendly E’s, and Most Common Barriers and Desired tools for reaching underrepresented student populations | ||||
| Avg. Rank | M | SD | ||
| Priorities of Bicycle/Alternative Transportation Department | ||||
| Safety/Education | 1 | 1.89 | 1.1 | |
| Encouragement for biking | 2 | 2.21 | 1.2 | |
| Advocacy for Environment | 3 | 3.40 | 1.5 | |
| Serving as a voice for bikers in campus planning | 4 | 3.64 | 1.3 | |
| Addressing concerns for underserved populations | 5 | 4.83 | 1.3 | |
| Socially connecting bikers | 6 | 5.02 | 1.1 | |
| Important Outcomes of Bicycling | ||||
| Sustainability Issues (less pollution) | 1 | 2.12 | 1.3 | |
| Health Outcomes | 2 | 3.51 | 1.8 | |
| Decreased Traffic | 3 | 3.94 | 2.2 | |
| Addressing Parking Problems | 4 | 4.45 | 2.4 | |
| Economic Outcomes | 5 | 4.96 | 1.9 | |
| Social Outcomes | 6 | 5.29 | 1.6 | |
| Creating Equitable Opportunities for biking | 7 | 5.73 | 2.2 | |
| Biking for Biking sake | 8 | 6.00 | 2.1 | |
| 5 Bike Friendly E’s | ||||
| Encouragement | 1 | 2.25 | 1.2 | |
| Education | 2 | 2.29 | 1.1 | |
| Engineering | 3 | 2.73 | 1.6 | |
| Equity | 4 | 3.69 | 1.1 | |
| Evaluation | 5 | 4.04 | 1.0 | |
| Common Barriers to Targeting Underrepresented Students | ||||
| Lack of Financial Resources | 1 | 2.08 | 1.4 | |
| Lack of Personnel | 2 | 2.52 | 1.1 | |
| Lack of Interest on Campus | 3 | 3.76 | 1.6 | |
| Lack of Administrative Support | 4 | 4.12 | 1.5 | |
| Lack of Physical Infrastructure | 5 | 4.18 | 1.5 | |
| Unaware of appropriate strategies | 6 | 4.34 | 1.8 | |
| Desired Tools to Reaching Underrepresented Populations | ||||
| Partnerships w/ Other ON-Campus Organizations | 1 | 2.53 | 1.3 | |
| Incentives from outside organizations | 2 | 3.45 | 1.5 | |
| Availability of Grant Programs | 3 | 3.45 | 1.5 | |
| Training for Organization Members | 4 | 3.87 | 1.8 | |
| Partnerships w/ OFF-campus organizations | 5 | 4.00 | 1.5 | |
| Table 5: Percentage of University alternative transportation/bicycle departments who partner with specific on and off- campus organizations to promote bicycling in specific populations | |||||||
| General Population | Racial/ethnic minorities | Women | LGBTQ+ | Disabled | Low-income | ||
| On-Campus Organizations | |||||||
| Campus Recreation | 82% | 12% | 16% | 12% | 10% | 10% | |
| Transportation Services | 90% | 18% | 18% | 16% | 26% | 20% | |
| Campus Health Services/clinic | 48% | 6% | 6% | 6% | 12% | 8% | |
| Adademic Department | 58% | 4% | 6% | 6% | 6% | 4% | |
| Campus Planning | 92% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 24% | 14% | |
| Other on campus health related groups | 26% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 4% | 6% | |
| Other on campus biking related groups | 60% | 8% | 10% | 8% | 10% | 12% | |
| Greek Life Organizations | 14% | 2% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
| Student groups that serve a particular demographic | 36% | 14% | 12% | 14% | 14% | 14% | |
| Campus Religious Organizations | 10% | 2% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 2% | |
| Off-Campus Organizations | |||||||
| Local hospital/health care orgs | 26% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 4% | 2% | |
| Local parks and rec department | 42% | 2% | 6% | 2% | 6% | 2% | |
| Local public Health department | 20% | 4% | 2% | 2% | 4% | 4% | |
| Local Bicycle advocacy/outreach coalition | 80% | 14% | 16% | 12% | 10% | 14% | |
| League recognized BFBs | 42% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | |
| Other league recognized BFUs | 30% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
| Local Media (including Newspaper) | 26% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
| Transit Authority | 76% | 8% | 8% | 8% | 16% | 20% | |
