Several studies have examined the topic women and bicycling with the goal of reducing the gender gap. Results from the 2010 APBP Women Bicycling Survey were explored by The School of Public Health at UNC-Greensboro in 2011. Findings from their investigation of the 2010 survey responses showed that safety and infrastructure were the central concerns of women who bicycle, and that community size played a role in the bicyclists’ behavior patterns (Sibley 2010).
Studies comparing male and female riders suggest that women and men face similar barriers to cycling. Australian researchers found that men and women both prefer designated bike lanes or off road paths when given the option (Heesch, Sahlqvist, and Garrard 2012). A study looking at university commuter cyclists found that, in general, stated barriers to cycling were very similar amongst women and men (Akar, Fischer, and Namgung 2013).
Trip complexity was found to be a barrier in women’s cycling. Heesch et al reported different trip choices made by women who ride for transportation than men; women tended to trip-chain more often, and had more complex travel patterns (Heesch, Sahlqvist, and Garrard 2012). Bonham came to a similar conclusion, stating that women’s complex trip patterns are a ‘significant barrier’ to choosing to ride a bicycle (Bonham and Wilson 2012).
Within the body of research, a common conclusion is that to increase the number of women who bike, we must target different groups of women who have varying comfort levels and needs. Susan Handy emphasizes the need for gender sensitivity in planning, and suggests targeting ‘experienced’ and ‘less-experienced’ cyclists separately (Emond, Tang, and Handy 2009).
Several studies have explored methods of classifying cyclists. Damant-Sirois surveyed cyclists in Montreal, and divided the respondents up into four ‘determinant’ categories based on a combination of individual characteristics and attitudes, local cultural norms and the built environment (Damant-Sirois and El-Geneidy 2015). Jennifer Dill worked with Oregon travel survey data to ‘revisit’ the ‘Four Types of Cyclists’ as posited by Roger Geller. The study found that despite the limitations, the classification was a reasonable, very broad method of dividing cyclists into groups (Dill and McNeil 2016).
The body of literature suggests that increasing safety and connectivity in cycling networks will aid in getting more women to bicycle. Dill tracked 160 cyclists around Portland and studied revealed route preferences based on their travel patterns. Among other things, the study showed a need for improving connections in cycling infrastructure (Dill 2009). Moudon et al found that infrastructure connecting bicyclists to transit positively affected a person’s likelihood to choose to cycle (Moudon et al. 2005). Teschke’s study on cyclists in Canada areas showed that bicycling mode share increased greatly where bicycle infrastructure was best, and the gender gap in those locations was largely reduced (Teschke, Chinn, and Brauer 2017).
Research also shows that culture and encouragement is a powerful tool in the work to increase cycling for women. Singleton and Goddard analyzed the bicycling gender gap in Oregon travel survey data from a socioeconomic perspective and posited that women’s ride groups such as ‘We Bike New York’ could help encourage more women to bike (Singleton and Goddard 2016). Another study found that where bicycling is perceived as normal within the community, more people tend to cycle (Xing, Handy, and Mokhtarian 2010). Perception of safety, which influences whether people bike, can be improved through programming such as Open Streets and with Wayfinding. Giving new riders a chance to feel more comfortable on the streets may contribute to more women riding (Ma, Dill, and Mohr 2014).