What do employees think will motivate to bike to work?

What do employees think will motivate to bike to work? This article is a based on an earlier translated version of the article Hva tror de ansatte skal til for å motivere til å sykle til og fra jobb. For reference to the article, use Ditlev-Simonsen, Caroline and Wenstøp, Fred, Hva tror de ansatte skal til for å motivere til å sykle til og fra jobb, MAGMA, 3/2014, pp. 70-85. Original article: https://www.magma.no/hva-tror-de-ansatte-skal-til-for-motivere-til-a-sykletil-og-fra-jobb Authors •

Caroline D Ditlev-Simonsen, Associate Professor, BI Norwegian Business School https://www.bi.no/om-bi/ansatte/institutt-for-rettsvitenskap/ditlev-simonsencaroline-dale/

•

Fred Wenstøp, Professor Emeritus, BI Norwegian Business School, https://www.bi.no/om-bi/ansatte/institutt-for-strategi/wenstop-fred-erling/

What do employees think will motivate to bike to work?

Abstract

Emissions from transportation in urban areas are one of the great challenges of our times since it produces greenhouse gases as well as local pollution. A number of studies and articles have documented the dangers of such emissions. Considerably fewer, though, have looked at what is needed, in practice, to change individuals' behavior to become more environmentally friendly. The present study aims to address this gap by exploring what employees think employers can do as a social responsibility initiative (CSR) to motivate cycling to and from work. Cycling would help to reduce CO2 emissions while also improving employees’ health. We examine employees’ perception of the effects of the following initiatives: active internal promotion of cycling, improved bicycle facilities at work, free bicycle service at work, management cycling to work to provide a good example, cycling is counted as working hours, access to borrow-a-bike through work, and mileage compensation for cycling. The results show that employees generally have little faith in such initiatives. They feel that employers can do relatively little to encourage them to cycle to work. Not everyone is the same, though, and when we examine the effects of background variables on people's attitudes, we find correlations that might be of interest to companies, which could consider initiatives aimed at different groups.

Key words: urban transportation, pollution, bike, cycling, employees, initiatives, work

Introduction and background Emissions from transportation in urban areas are one of the great challenges of our times since it produces greenhouse gases as well as local pollution. A number of studies and articles have documented the dangers of the increasing emissions of greenhouse gases while pundits and politicians travel the world warning against the negative effects of temperature change. Considerably fewer studies, though, have looked at what can be done in practice to change individuals’ behavior to become more environmentally friendly - which is, of course, a prerequisite for sustainable development. More specifically, more knowledge is needed to understand and determine individuals travel behavior (Dieleman, Dijst, & Burghouwt, 2002). To this end, the present study explores what employees think employers can do to encourage cycling. In addition to being environmentally friendly, cycling offers a healthy way to get to and from work. Notable among previous studies is a meta-survey of 22 studies of ways to change behavior towards walking and cycling, which concluded that targeted behavior change programs can alter the behavior of motivated subgroups (Ogilvie, Egan, Hamilton, & Petticrew, 2004). Further, Crawford, Mutrie, and Hanlon (2001) have focused on the attitudes of employees in Glasgow to active commuting such as walking and cycling, and recommended dedicated pedestrian/cycle routes as well as workplace initiatives to promote active commuting. Schwanen, Dijst, and Dieleman (2004) have conducted a study in the Netherlands and suggested that national spatial planning has been most effective in retaining high shares of cycling and walking in the large and medium-sized cities. Goetzke and Rave (2011) have compared the use of bicycles for shopping and recreation in different German cities, and concluded that social networks are the strongest factor to influence cycling behavior. Nowhere is the decline in cycling more visible than in China, and Feng, Dijst, Prillwitz, and Wissink (2013) recommend that the configurations of current land use in Nanjing, which support walking and cycling should be preserved as much as possible. Finally, Zhao (2014) has studied the demise of cycling in Beijing and concluded that the drastic changes in the built environment is the main culprit. Our study is based on a 2013 survey of means of transport to work among employees of four different companies in the Oslo area. Oslo is the capital of Norway and the greater Oslo region has population is about 1.5 million people. We register how far from the workplace they live and how they get to work during the summer months. We then investigate arguments for and against cycling and beliefs about the effects of possible initiatives by the employer to

encourage cycling. Active internal promotion of cycling, improved bicycle facilities at work, free bicycle service at work, and management cycling to work to provide a good example are examples of such initiatives. We also try to identify personal attributes that may be decisive in people's attitudes about cycling. The findings can be useful for businesses that want to encourage employees to cycle, and for authorities considering initiatives to encourage people to cycle more. Transport accounts for 32% of greenhouse gas emissions in Norway (Miljøstatus Norge, 2013). Driving is the most common means of getting to work in Norway today. According to Ministry of Climate and Environment, sixty-five percent of all work trips are made by car and this type of travel accounts for a large portion of national CO2 emissions (Miljøverndepartementet, 2007). In spite of the considerable climate-related problems we face, we increasingly rely on our cars, the Cyclist National Association claims that the use of car has increased by 40% since 1992 (Syklistenes landsforening, 2012). According to the European Cyclist’ Federation (EFC) Norway is among the six best countries to bike in. Denmark is the best biking country and the Netherlands is on a second place followed by Sweden. Norway is one of the countries with most bikes per person, but Norwegians does not use these bikes that much. People form the Netherlands bike for example six times as much as Norwegians, and Swedes three times as much as Norwegians (Vestreng, 2013).This relatively low interest in biking among Norwegians is an additional reason for focusing on attitudes and other determinants for travel behavior in Norway.

According to the Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA), the transport distribution in Norway in 2005 was as follows: 20% of the transport was attributed to walking, 8% to public transit, 66% to driving by car, 5% to cycling, and 1% to driving MC or other (Statens vegvesen, 2007). Given that Norway’s neighboring countries have much higher biking rates, there is room for increasing the Norwegian biking rate as well. On this background, the Norwegian government has included a cycling strategy in its National Transport Plan 2010-2019. The goal is to increase the proportion of bicycle traffic from 5% to 8% of all traffic (Statens vegvesen, 2007). To aid in this effort, the present study seeks to determine how we can achieve this goal in practice, based on what businesses can do to promote cycling among employees.

For the employer, there are several reasons to motivate employees to cycle to work: not least, improved health and reduced costs for parking. Motivating employees to cycle to work

is thus of interest to the company as well as to society. Initiatives encouraging employees to do so can be seen as a corporate social responsibility activity.

Norwegians are too sedentary. According to the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, only one in five adults (20-85 years) meets the recommendation of a minimum of 30 minutes of moderate activity per day (Folkehelseinstituttet, 2013). Poor physical activity is related to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, weight management issues and obesity. According to the study “Health effects of cycling to and from work,” there is a lower risk of early death among those who bike to work. The study concluded that "bicycling to and from work can affect physiological variables that provide health benefit" (Tjelta, Kvåle, & Dyrstad, 2010, p. 1246). Even when taking into account that bicyclists are more vulnerable to accidents than those cars, cycling is still healthier than driving, because the estimated health benefits of cycling are on average significantly greater than the risk of negative consequences of injury (World Health Organization, 2011). Also, insufficient physical activity is associated with sick leave, which is expensive for businesses. Companies can therefore reduce costs by encouraging more employees to cycle to work. For this reason, initiatives such as the “Enterprise sport Cycle to Work” campaign seek to convince employees to shift to cycling. 1

It’s not only the employer that benefits from a staff that keeps in shape. Employees appreciate this as well. The fact that the company encourages employees to be more physically active while also taking environmental concerns into consideration can be viewed as a social responsibility initiatives from the company side. This is important. In a UK study, nine out of ten employees said that employers’ social and environmental responsibility is important to them (Dawkins, 2004). Furthermore, research shows that employees’ perception of CSR is related to their sense of belonging to the company (C. Ditlev-Simonsen, 2012).

So employers’ initiatives involving physical activity and the environment are positive for both the company and the employees. Nevertheless, such initiatives are based primarily on marketing and solicitation; there are few practical-oriented solutions and incentives. To address this shortage, in this study we investigate several practical initiatives to motivate employees to cycle to work.

1

http://www.bedriftsidretten.no

In the next section we will look at initiatives that have been recommended in various contexts. We will then present our data and survey results before providing a discussion and conclusions with respect to employers’ potential role in encouraging cycling to work.

Possible initiatives to encourage employees to cycle to and from work Many initiatives have been proposed to motivate employees to travel to work in a more environmentally friendly way. The municipal parking regulations for Oslo, for example, require bicycle parking lots for commercial buildings that will "make fewer people choose the car to the workplace, especially in central areas" (Lingjærde, 2010, p. 7). In the Netherlands, an employer may provide financial support to employees who bike to work for bike repair without tax consequences, unlike in Norway, where similar reimbursements do have tax consequences. Gothenburg has started a borrow-a-bike pool organized by the municipality and approximately 30 companies, and in Aarhus employees are offered bikes for free (Hansen, 2005). The report “Greener work journey” proposes other initiatives, though these are not tried in practice (Hansen, 2005).

Based on the available information, we prepared a list of seven relevant initiatives and asked our respondents to tell us whether the initiatives would motivate them to bicycle to work. We will present the seven proposed initiatives.

Initiative 1: Active internal promotion of cycling Information, encouragement and promotion by an employer can motivate changes in behavior. Encouraging employees to cycle to work through internal programs may therefore be an important step in motivating more cycling. A standard program used by many companies is called “Cycle to the job.” The “Cycle to the job” website describes the program as “(...) Company sport competition without spandex and blood taste! Here you can register physical activity” (Sykletiljobben, 2013).

“Cycle to the job” is the greatest national effort in Norway seeking to motivate people to cycle to work. More than 6,000 people participate in the campaign every year. The program consists of both internal and external marketing and solicitation; many companies also

organize competitions internally. However, participants in the campaign are mainly those who are already active cyclists; 67% of them usually cycle to work, compared to the national average of 5%. This reflects one of the greatest challenges for the employer: making new people convert to cycling, not just convincing those who are already physically active to be even more active. Those who are most in need of more training are those who do not participate. When one takes into account the fact that "[ten] percent of employees account for over 80% of sick leave" (DN, 2013), this corporate training initiative, which looks promising on the surface, may have limited impact where it is most desirable.

Initiative 2: improved bicycle facilities at work (wardrobe, shower and bicycle) The Norwegian Government recognizes that choosing the bicycle as means of getting to work can cause difficulties. Bikes are popular target of theft, for example, so lack of safe storage can be seen as an obstacle. For this reason, simple and secure parking for bicycles may be an important element in encouraging employees to cycle to work. For those who perspire while biking, access to showers and areas in which to change their clothes may also be important (Regjeringen, 2011).

Initiative 3: Free bicycle service at work Another factor that may prevent people from cycling is the necessity of bike maintenance. Bicycles break down easily, whether it be punctures or difficulty with gears, brakes and lubrication. Offering free repair or service might therefore be a good idea for employers. The Department of Climate and Pollution, for example, offers employees free bicycle service once every year and KLIF coverage of expenses for basic service and replacement of normal wear parts (Kvarta, 2013).

Initiative 4: the management cycles to work as a good example Leadership providing a role model is a recognized tool for businesses. Role models are individuals whose actions, personal style and character are mimicked by others who want to identify with them (Jacobsen, 2004). Studies also show that it “requires something extra of a manager to be perceived as socially responsible”(Caroline D Ditlev-Simonsen, 2009). Cycling to work is a good example of healthy and environmentally friendly behavior and may motivate employees to do the same.

Initiative 5: Cycling is counted as working hours Time is a limited resource and a frequently used excuse for not exercising. Several companies have taken this into consideration and provided an opportunity for staff to exercise as part of their working hours. Training during working hours is comparable to benefits such as a company cabin, parking and a supporting nursery (Sørheim, 2011). In practice, cycling employees would be credited with a certain number of hours - just as they would be credited with a certain number of hours for training.

Initiative 6: Access to borrow-a-bike through work Not all employees own bikes. In several of the largest Norwegian cities, rental city bikes have become popular. In Norway, Oslo has the most city bikes. These are administered by Clear Channel Norway, which has over 49,000 registered users and more than a million loans per season (Tronstad, 2012). This requires a private initiative, however. As an alternative, the employer could acquire bikes that employees could borrow for extended periods. Some real estate companies have already begun to do this, for example.

Initiative 7: Mileage compensation for cycling According to Langeland (1999), financial compensation is one of the most common and most effective initiatives to motivate employees to behave in a desired manner. Very few studies have been conducted, though, to examine the extent to which financial compensation could contribute to changing transport patterns to and from the workplace. An exception is the Transport Economics Institute's survey of the “I go green” campaign, where residents of Tromsø were offered free season tickets or vouchers for bicycle equipment with a value of NOK 1,000 (€ 122) in exchange for not using their cars. As a result of this initiative, 94 people who agreed to leave their cars behind (TØI, 2011). In our survey we have, in addition to the general question of how motivating mileage compensation might be, questions about different rates. Standard mileage compensation for public employees for the use of bike at work is NOK 1.75 (€ 0,21)per kilometer; some companies pay employees as much as NOK 12.50 (€1,52) per kilometer for cycling to work. We examine whether these offers are too small and whether it would help to offer more.

Data and Method Data and sample The present study is based on data from a survey conducted in the spring of 2013 in four major firms in the Oslo area, in the energy industry, automotive industry and consultancy. The questionnaire is available from the authors. 2 In two companies 250 employees were selected at random. In one company all of the employees at two branch offices were surveyed. In the fourth company a link to an Internet-based survey form was provide for all to access. (the proportion of the respondents is representative of the enterprise in terms of age and gender). The response rates varied between 50% and 76%. The survey was primarily conducted electronically (and by paper for those who did not have access to a computer at the workplace). The companies had different geographical locations. Some had a public transport system nearby while others did not; someone had free parking while others did not; etc. This study does not aim to compare companies but to survey attitudes generally regarding the use of bicycling. In total, we received 752 complete responses as a representative sample of over 18,000 employees.

Procedure and method The collected data consists of three parts: demographic data, reasons for cycling / not cycling, and evaluation of the seven proposed initiatives to encourage cycling. The demographic data are gender and age, distance to the job and information about how they currently travel to work. We asked those who cycle why they do so, and those who do not why they do not. Finally, we asked the extent to which each of the seven initiatives described above would encourage people to cycle to work. In the next two sections, we first present the data and then provide data analysis. In the data analysis section, we seek to explain how people evaluate each of the seven initiatives using the demographic variables. We have done this by building regression models where we start with all the demographic variables and reduce the model until we are left with a handful of significant variables (Backward regression).

2

One of the firms was moving to a new location in a couple of months. In this case the questions concerned how the employees planned to get to work in the new location.

We have also conducted an exploratory factor analysis to determine whether it is possible to identify unobserved underlying variables that provide a better understanding of how the initiatives for cycling to work are evaluated.

Presentation of data Distance to workplace 75.3% of the respondents lived less than 30 km from their job, mainly in the Oslo urban and suburban area. 31.4% of these traveled between 1 and 10 km to work. Cycling is considered “realistic” when the distance to work is not more than 10 kilometers (Christiansen, 2011), although 5% of respondents who cycled to work lived more than 30 km away.

How do employees get to the job? To register the means of getting to work, the respondents were asked to state the percentage distribution of transport modes in the summer. The respondents stated a percentage for each mode with the sum equaling 100%. The extent of public transportation, the most common mode of travel, was 41.2%. In second place came driving a car alone

% - per cent

(36.2%). Cycling accounted for 12.3% of the total (see Fig. 1).

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

41

36

4

12

2

4

Average composition of transport

Fig. 1: Distribution of the extent of use of different modes of transport in traveling to work

Why do employees cycle to work Those who indicated that they cycled to work at least some of the time were asked to rate four reasons for doing so on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 was “not important reason” and 5 was “very important reason.” According to their responses, the most important reason was to get more physical activity (average 4.4) followed by the environment (2.9), the fact that it is faster (2.8), and finally the fact that it is less expensive (2.6). These responses are very much in line with findings from South Carolina, USA, where exercise was given as the main reason for utilitarian cycling, doing something good for society or nature came second, and saving expenses for gas and car maintenance in the forth place 3(McCarthy, 2011).

Why do employees not cycle to work? The 70.7% of respondents who had never cycled to work could check several of seven reasons for not doing so. Figure 2 shows how many times each of the options was selected. The main reason for not cycling was that it was too far. In second place was that it was too dangerous, and in third place that it was too inconvenient. These findings are in line with studies in other countries, which pinpoint the challenge from risky motorist behavior as a part of an anti-bicycle culture (McCarthy, 2011).

3

In the South Carolina study the reason “enjoyment”, which was not included in our survey, came in third place. In our study “it is faster” came in third place and was not included in the South Carolina survey.

400

344

Count

350 300 250 200 150 100

50

159

81

156

109 25

0

49

92

Reasons why I don't bicycle to work

Fig. 2: The reasons stated for not cycling

Gender and age distribution The gender distribution among the respondents is 70% male, 30% female. This is slightly different from the general distribution of employees in Norway which according to Statistics Norway consists of 53% men and 47% women (SSB, 2013). The average age was 44.2 years with a standard deviation of 11.

Evaluation of possible initiatives by the employer to encourage cycling Respondents were asked to rate the seven possible initiatives on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was “not important” and 5 was “very important.” The short descriptions of the initiatives were: active promotion, better facilities, free bike service, management bikes, biking as working hours, borrow-a-bike, and mileage compensation. The results are presented in Fig. 3.

5,0 4,0 3,0 2,0 1,0

Fig. 3: Employees’ assessment of various initiatives by the employer (1 = not important, 5 = very important)

Of the seven initiatives “better facilities” (wardrobe, shower, and bicycle) was rated as the most important (2.9), with “biking as working hours” coming in second (2.8). In third place was “mileage compensation” (2.7), and in fourth, “free bike service” (2.5). Sharing fifth place were “active promotion” and “management bikes” (1.9), and finally there was “borrow-abike” (1.8). The mean score for all of the initiatives is significantly 4 lower than 3.0 on a scale of 1 (not important) to 5 (very important). Since 3.0 is the midpoint on the scale, the respondents appear, on average, to have little confidence that initiatives by the employer will actually lead to more cycling.

The respondents were also asked to evaluate the possibility of different mileage compensation rates, including no compensation. The most frequent response (30%) was “no mileage compensation.” Next came NOK 7.00 (€ 0,85) per km. See Fig. 4.

4

The p-value was below 0.001 for all initiatives except “better facilities” where it was 0.066.

200

180 160 140

181 137

120 100

80

84

60 40 20

0

97

43 Should not get paid to cycle

Kr 1,50 pr km

kr 7,00 pr km

Kr 12,50 pr km

More than kr 12,50 pr km

Fig. 4: Frequency of responses for different mileage compensations for cycling (€1=8,2 NOK, 1NOK= €0,21)

Data Analysis: Who believes what? Although the respondents, on average, had little confidence in the proposed initiatives, it is conceivable that different groups have different views that may render some initiatives more promising. We explored this possibility with regression analysis.

Regression We first used backward regression analysis. This method successively eliminates the variables that do not have significant relationship with the confidence in the initiatives. We have created a separate linear regression model for each of the seven initiatives, each time starting with 16 possible explanatory variables and ending up with a handful of significant variables that can either have a negative or positive relationship with the level of confidence in the initiative. The 16 variables are gender, age, distance to work, five different transport methods (percentages), and eight possible reasons for not cycling to work. In addition, we used blind variables for the workplaces, thus controlling for systematic differences between firms. The results are shown in Table 1.

First, we ran the analysis for all respondents, regardless of how far they lived from work, then only for those who lived 10 km or less from work, since cycling is most realistic for this group. The attitudes between the two groups were largely congruent, but we found fewer significant correlations for the short distance group as it contains only a third of all respondents. In Table 1, the figures for those with a short distance are in parentheses.

Table 1 - The results of seven independent linear regressions with the seven initiatives as Regression coefficients

Active promotion

Better facilities

Walks (%)

0,009* (0,011*)

0,011* (0,015**)

Too far to bike

-0,303**

-0,565***

-0,633***

No shower at work, etc.

0,728***

1,588*** (1,692*)

0,683*

Free parking at work

0,379*

Impractical to bike

-0,270*

N = 752 (236)

Free bike service

Management bikes

Biking as working hours

-0,512**

Age

-0,019**

-0,294*

-0,493***

(0,013**) -,328 **

-0,294* 0,526*** (0,627*)

-0,014**

-0,014**

-0,03*** (-0,034**)

Drives car alone

(-0,008**) 0,002*

-0,04*

Must pick up on the way

(0,845*)

0,392*

Drives car with others Uses public transportation Has good public transportation

Mileage compensation

0,012**

-0,258*

Do not have a bike

Borrow-abike

-0,02***

-0,037*** (-0,026**) (-0,48***)

(0,019*) (0,013***) (-0,923*)

dependent variables (backward regression). The table shows the b-values. The numbers in parentheses refer to those who live 10 km or less from work. (* p