Table 2.

Comparison between intervention and comparison neighbourhoods of awareness of, use, intention to use a new bicycle path, weekly cycling frequency and neighbourhood factors at follow-up (n = 512)

	Comparison Area n = 272 (%)	Intervention Area n = 240 (%)	Odds ratio	Adjusted odds ratio (95 % CI)a	P value
Bicycle path interaction at follow-up
Awareness	18.8	60.0	6.49	5.99 (3.87–9.27)	<0.001
Use of bicycle path	7.0	23.8	4.15	3.58 (2.01–6.40)	0.001
Intention to use
(Very likely/likely)	15.8	35.8	2.97	2.77 (1.76–4.37)	<0.001
Neighbourhood factors
Compared with 12 months ago (agree/strongly agree):
I feel more connected with my neighbours	40.2	37.6	0.88	1.09 (0.72–1.58)	0.612
My neighbourhood is more pleasant	29.5	47.5	2.14	2.44 (1.63–3.66)	<0.001
There are more people walking in my local area	37.6	53.7	1.94	2.04 (1.37–3.03)	<0.001
There are more people cycling in my local area	58.7	74.8	2.04	2.48 (1.62–3.79)	<0.001
Agree/strongly agree that:
It is easy to ride a bicycle around your local area	64.0	71.3	1.39	1.37 (0.90–2.08)	0.201
There are bicycle facilities in my local area	74.6	85.4	2.12	2.08 (1.26–3.42)	<0.001
Cycling frequency
Bicycled in past week	23.2	25.8	1.16	1.07 (0.67–1.69)	0.767

^aAdjusts for age, sex, income and education

Bold text highlights statistically signifcant associations