Are you an ambitious cyclist? Results of the cyclist profile questionnaire in Germany

Abstract

Objective: A number of studies have already grouped cyclists according to different aspects of their mobility behavior. This could be used e.g., to improve the bicycle infrastructure planning, to detect critical spots and, to reduce obstacles for cycling. This wide, preexisting, range of cyclist typologies usually concentrates on one or two influence factors and differs, content-wise, in both factors used, as well as, methodically. Based on existing cyclist typologies we extracted all possible influence factors to integrate them in one single questionnaire. The objective of this study, using an empirical, based approach, is to compare this typology of cyclists with existing ones, integrating all known influence factors of recent studies.

Methods: To address these issues, we conducted a Germany-wide online survey on cycling behavior, covering all relevant aspects we derived from both literature and especially, former cyclist typology studies including: social factors; the impact of environmental, individual; and route factors; as well as motives. The main goal was to identify distinct types of cyclists, and describe them as detailed as possible. The heterogeneous sample included a total of 10,294 responses.

Results: Using factor and cluster analyses, a multidimensional typology with four groups of cyclists was derived which were interpreted as: ambitious, functional, pragmatic, and passionate cyclists. In addition, socio-economic factors, cyclist’s motivation, and crash history were analyzed.

Conclusion: The results produced by grouping different characteristics of cyclists can lead to policy recommendations or communal bicycle traffic planning. Policy planners can estimate reactions of the different types on interventions and adjust their decisions which can serve to support already passionate cyclists or, encourage normally under-represented infrequent cyclists to cycle more. The extent of perceived safety plays here an important role in the classification, e.g., the handling of high-risk areas for crashes.     

Nutrient and sediment removal by a restored wetland receiving agricultural runoff

Few studies have measured removal of pollutants by restored wetlands that receive highly variable inflows. We used automated flow-proportional sampling to monitor the removal of nutrients and suspended solids by a 1.3-ha restored wetland receiving unregulated inflows from a 14-ha agricultural watershed in Maryland, USA. Water entered the wetland mainly in brief pulses of runoff, which sometimes exceeded the 2500-m3 water holding capacity of the wetland. Half of the total water inflow occurred in only 24 days scattered throughout the two-year study. Measured annual water gains were within 5% of balancing water losses. Annual removal of nutrients differed greatly between the two years of the study. The most removal occurred in the first year, which included a three-month period of decreasing water level in the wetland. In that year, the wetland removed 59% of the total P, 38% of the total N, and 41% of the total organic C it received. However, in the second year, which lacked a drying period, there was no significant (p > 0.05) net removal of total N or P, although 30% of the total organic C input was removed. For the entire two-year period, the wetland removed 25% of the ammonium, 52% of the nitrate, and 34% of the organic C it received, but there was no significant net removal of total suspended solids (TSS) or other forms of N and P. Although the variability of inflow may have decreased the capacity of the wetland to remove materials, the wetland still reduced nonpoint-source pollution.