## 2 Methodology (Research Area and Data Collection)
### Plan of Analysis
#### 2.2.2 Independent Variables  
_Physical factors_ were measured with a question, \"To what extent do you agree that following factors present an obstacle for your cycling?\", and two items: \"Living too far from the point I am off to\" (1 = completely disagree; 5 = completely agree) and \"Cycling takes too much time\" (1 = completely disagree; 5 = completely agree). We created a summation variable of physical factors (rho = 0.52).  
_Convenience_ was measured with three items on a five-point scale (1 = not encouraging at all; 5 = very encouraging) with a question, \"How encouraging are these factors in your decision to cycle?\" The items were \"Cycling allows me to save money\", \"Cycling is the fastest way to come from point A to point B\", and \"Flexibility of the departure time\". Furthermore, we created a summation variable (Cronbach's \(\alpha\) = 0.76).  
_Ecological orientation_ was measured with two items: \"When I am cycling, I contribute to climate-change reduction\" (1 = completely disagree; 5 = completely agree), and \"When I am cycling, I contribute to local air pollution reduction\" (1 = completely disagree; 5 = completely agree). Additionally, we created a summation variable-ecological orientation (rho = 0.67).  
_Perceived safe infrastructure for cycling_ included seven examined perceived factors that contribute to safe cycling infrastructure in Maribor. The indicators were \"Properly maintained and safe cycling crossings infrastructure\", \"Physically divided cycling infrastructure/path from the motor traffic\", \"Low traffic volume of motor traffic on the roadway and low speed of motor traffic\", \"Offset of the cycling infrastructure from the obstacles\", \"Cycling surface on the carriageway (e.g., cycling lane)\", \"Cycling surface on a sidewalk (e.g., cycling path)\", and \"Appropriate stand or parking lot for bicycle\" (1 = not important at all; 2 = not important; 3 = neither important or unimportant; 4 = important; 5 = very important). We created a summation variable--perceived safe infrastructure for cycling ([PERSON]'s \(\alpha\) = 0.80).  
Additionally, we included items measuring _complementarity and conformity to a social norm_, as suggested by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2008). The first item, measuring complementarity, was \"I have friends who recreationally cycle with me\" (1 = not encouraging at all; 5 = very encouraging), the second item, measuring conformity was \"Biking is cool\" (1 = completely disagree; 5 = completely disagree). Because fear of bicycle theft has been previously proven to be an important determinant for frequency of cycling ([PERSON], 2008), we included the following item, \"I fear that someone will steal my bike\" (1 = completely disagree; 5 = completely agree). Furthermore, we included an item measuring a lack of car ownership as a potential motive for cycling, \"I do not have a car\" (1 = not encouraging at all; 5 = very encouraging), and taking care of health as a motive, \"Cycling helps me to take care for health\" (1 = not encouraging at all; 5 = very encouraging). Inconvenient weather conditions were also included as an obstacle for cycling. The question was \"To what extent do you agree that the following factors present an obstacle for your cycling? Inconvinient weather circumstances, such as rain, snow, heat, cold\" (1 = not agree at all, 5 = fully agree). Finally, we analyzed the respondent's lack of desire/motivation for cycling. The item was \"I do not feel like cycling\", measured on a five-point Likert scale.  
Lastly, we included _ sociodemographic variables_: age, gender (0 = male; 1 = female), and socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic status (SES) was measured with parental education. The question was \"What is the highest formal education of one of your parents (choose a parent with higher education)\" (1 = elementary/primary school; 2 = vocational school; 3 = grammar school; 4 = bachelor's degree; 5 = master's degree; 6 = doctorate).