Bicycle Rack Initiative: Results
DESCRIPTION OF THE SCHOOLS
Table 2 presents the characteristics of the intervention schools and the control schools.
|
Schools |
Student enrolment |
No. of staff |
Proportion of students bussed |
Bicycle racks present at study start |
Old bicycle racks present at study completion |
No. of promotional activities |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
KCVI spring (intervention schools) |
960 |
100 |
60.0% |
yes |
yes |
2 |
|
KCVI fall (intervention schools) |
1000 |
90 |
na* |
|
|
2 |
|
LCVI spring (intervention schools) |
650 |
100 |
33.8% |
yes |
yes |
2 |
|
LCVI fall (intervention schools) |
750 |
75 |
42.7% |
|
|
2 |
|
NDSS spring (intervention schools) |
1230 |
121 |
83.4% |
no |
-- |
2 |
|
NDSS fall (intervention schools) |
1353 |
127 |
76.3% |
|
|
1 |
|
BSS spring (intervention schools) |
722 |
42 |
na |
yes |
yes |
2 |
|
BSS fall (intervention schools) |
729 |
75 |
20.6% |
|
|
2 |
|
La Salle spring (Control schools) |
746 |
42 |
na |
yes |
-- |
-- |
|
La Salle fall (Control schools) |
771 |
70 |
74.6% |
|
|
-- |
|
QECVI spring (Control schools) |
828 |
50 |
na |
yes |
-- |
-- |
|
QECVI fall (Control schools) |
873 |
80 |
17.2% |
|
|
-- |
|
ESS spring (Control schools) |
639 |
37 |
na |
yes |
-- |
-- |
|
ESS fall (Control schools) |
575 |
40 |
70.0% |
|
|
-- |
|
FSS spring (Control schools) |
1106 |
60 |
na |
yes |
-- |
-- |
|
FSS fall (Control schools) |
1100 |
90 |
60% |
|
|
-- |
*na = not available
THE IMPACT OF BICYCLE RACK INSTALLATION ON CYCLING TO SCHOOL
Figure 2 shows the mean weighted proportion of the number of students who cycled to school during the pre- and post intervention data collection periods for each intervention and control school. In three of the intervention schools there was an increase in the proportion of students riding bicycles to school from the baseline to the post-intervention data collection period in the spring (Table 3). Data were not collected from BSS during the spring post intervention period because the bicycle racks were not installed in time. The control group showed a similar trend in 3 schools with an increase in the proportion of students riding bicycles to school. There was a decrease in the proportion of students cycling to school at QECVI during this time period. The results of the Mann-Whitney U test revealed that the observed change in the proportion of students cycling to school in the intervention schools was not significantly different from the change observed in the control group schools (z=-.707, one tailed p=.314).
Figure 2: Mean weighted percent of students riding bicycles to school pre- and post-intervention
Note: Bicycle racks were installed at BSS after teh srping post intervention data collection period.
There was an increase in the proportion of students cycling to school from pre-intervention to the fall post-intervention data collection period for all schools (Table 3). Again, intervention and control schools did not differ significantly with to respect a change in cycling to school (z=-1.597, p=.057).
|
Schools |
Change from pre- to post- intervention (spring) |
Change from pre- to post- intervention (fall) |
|
KCVI - Intervention school |
0.733 |
0.756 |
|
LCVI - Intervention school |
0.565 |
0.072 |
|
NDSS - Intervention school |
0.009 |
0.069 |
|
BSS - Intervention school |
na* |
0.333 |
|
Control Schools |
|
0.087 |
|
La Salle - Control school |
-0.046 |
0.052 |
|
QECVI - Control school |
0.027 |
0.033 |
|
ESS - Control school |
0.089 |
0.297 |
|
FSS - Control school |
0.733 |
0.756 |
*BSS did not have bike racks installed at the spring post intervention.