BEHAVIORS, ATTITUDES, MOTIVATION AND REASON FOR CYCLING IN SKOPJE, NORTH MACEDONIA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53582/qy8kjj21Keywords:
cycling, behaviors, attitudes, Skopje, North MacedoniaAbstract
Introduction: Cycling is an effective way to incorporate physical activity into daily life. Despite its potential to promote health and well-being, cycling in the Republic of North Macedonia, particularly in Skopje, remains insufficiently supported. The aim of this study was to investigate cycling behaviors, motivations, barriers, and route preferences among residents of Skopje, and to identify factors influencing cycling frequency and route choice.
Materials and methods: An online survey involving 1,169 participants who regularly cycled for different purposes was conducted using a 35-item Google Forms questionnaire. Data were analyzed using SPSS 16.0, and associations between nominal variables were evaluated using Chi-square tests (p < 0.05).
Results: Most participants (77.1%) cycled 4–7 times per week, primarily between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM, with peak activity during May and June. The mean cycling distance per trip was 8.9 km, while the mean commuting distance was 5.6 km. Recreation (76.1%) and commuting to work (70%) were the most common cycling purposes. Speed (79.3%) and perceived health benefits (78.9%) were the leading motivations, whereas adverse weather conditions (79.4%), insufficient cycling infrastructure (42.7%), and air pollution (36.3%) were the main barriers. Availability of dedicated bike lanes strongly influenced route choice (54%).
Conclusion: Cycling in Skopje is currently sustained primarily by an active and motivated subgroup of cyclists. Improving cycling infrastructure, environmental conditions, and institutional support may contribute to broader participation and support cycling as a more sustainable mode of urban transport.
References
1. Oja P, Titze S, Bauman A, De Geus B, Krenn P, Reger‐Nash B, et al. Health benefits of cycling: a systematic review. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2011; 21(4): 496-509. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01299.x.
2. Kelly P, Williamson C, Baker G, Davis A, Broadfield S, Coles A, et al. Beyond cycle lanes and large-scale infrastructure: a scoping review of initiatives that groups and organisations can implement to promote cycling for the Cycle Nation Project. BJSM 2020; 54(23): 1405-1415. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101447.
3. Götschi T, Garrard J, Giles-Corti B. Cycling as a part of daily life: a review of health perspectives. Transp Rev 2016; 36(1): 45-71. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2015.1057877.
4. Sersli S, Turrell G, Burton NW, Brown WJ, Heesch KC. Longitudinal associations between bicycling and having dependent children, in middle-aged men and women. Prev Med Rep 2021; 23: 101479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101479.
5. State Statistical Office of the Republic of North Macedonia. State Statistical Office of the Republic of North Macedonia [Internet]. Skopje: State Statistical Office; [cited 2025 Jul 14]. Available from: https://www.stat.gov.mk/
6. Gjorgjevski A. Cities as Places of Hope: Skopje [Internet]. Green European Foundation; 2020 [cited 2025 Jul 14]. Available from: https://gef.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/GEF_Oikos_Article_Skopje-2.pdf
7. Bukovetz J, Shuntova K, Kostova A, Kochubovski M, Spiroski I. Health and economic benefits of cycling and satisfaction with the cycling environment in Skopje. Arch Pub Health. 2025;17(2) doi: 10.3889/aph.2025.6547
8. State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) Queensland Cycling Strategy 2017–2027 (Re-released 2023), July 2023.
9. Whitehurst DG, DeVries DN, Fuller D, Winters M. An economic analysis of the health-related benefits associated with bicycle infrastructure investment in three Canadian cities. PLoS one 2021; 16(2): e0246419. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246419.
10. Janssen I, Campbell JE, Zahran S, Saunders TJ, Tomasone JR, Chaput JP. Timing of physical activity within the 24-hour day and its influence on health: a systematic review. HPCDP Journal 2022; 42(4): 129-138. doi: 10.24095/hpcdp.42.4.02.
11. Statista. Frequency of bicycle use in Nordic countries [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2025 Jul 14]. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1425238/nordics-frequency-of-bicycle-use-by-country/
12. Statista. Frequency of travel by bike in Germany [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2025 Jul 14]. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1367193/frequency-travel-by-bike-france/
13. Luger–Bazinger C, Hornung–Prähauser V. Innovation for sustainable cities: The effects of nudging and gamification methods on urban mobility and sustainability behaviour. GI_Forum 2021; 2: 251-258. doi:10.1553/giscience2021_02_s251.
14. Bukovetz J, Shuntova K, Kostova A, Ristovska G, Stevkovska D, Kochubovski M. The relationship between cyclist behavior, safety measures, and traffic accidents: cross-sectional study in Skopje. Arch Pub Health. 2025;17(2):18-35. doi: 10.3889/aph.2025.6548.
15. Malmgren AC, Christiansen H. The Danish National Travel Survey: Fast sheet about cycling in Denmark 2016-19.
16. Statistics Netherlands (CBS). Dutch National Travel Survey 2019 [Internet]. The Hague: Statistics Netherlands; [cited 2025 Jul 14].
17. Danish Road Directorate. Annual Report 2019. Copenhagen: Danish Road Directorate; 2019 [cited 2025 Jul 14].
18. Finnish Transport and Communications Agency (Traficom). Finnish National Travel Survey 2019 [Internet]. Helsinki: Traficom; 2020 Jun 11 [cited 2025 Jul 14]. Available from: https://stat.fi/til/smat/2019/smat_2019_2020-06-11_tie_001_en.html
19. Chlond B, Ecke L, Magdolen M, Vallée J, Vortisch P. German Mobility Panel (MOP) 2019/2020: Everyday Mobility and Driving Performance. Karlsruhe: Institute for Transport Studies, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology; 2020. Available from: https://mobilitaetspanel.ifv.kit.edu/english/downloads.
20. Federal Planning Bureau. Mobility Indicators Report 2020. Brussels: Federal Planning Bureau; 2020 [cited 2025 Jul 14].
21. Trafikanalys. Swedish National Travel Survey (RES) 2018–2019 [Internet]. Stockholm: Trafikanalys; [cited 2025 Jul 14]. Available from: https://www.trafa.se/en/transportmonster/travel-survey/
22. Logan G, Somers C, Baker G, Connell H, Gray S, Kelly P, et al. Benefits, risks, barriers, and facilitators to cycling: a narrative review. Front Sports Act Living 2023; 5: 1168357. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2023.1168357.
23. Yanatma S. Cycling in Europe: Which countries and cities are the most and least bicycle-friendly? [Internet]. Euronews; 2023 Sep 19 [cited 2025 Jul 14]. Available from:https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/09/19/cycling-in-europe-which-countries-and-cities-are-the-most-and-least-bicycle-friendly
24. Ek K, Wårell L, Andersson L. Motives for walking and cycling when commuting–differences in local contexts and attitudes. ETRR 2021; 13(1): 1-2.
25. Hudde A. Educational differences in cycling: Evidence from German cities. J Sociol 2022; 56(5): 909-929.
26. Statista. Average biking distance per person per day in the Netherlands from 2010 to 2018, by gender [Internet]. Statista; [cited 2025 Jul 14]. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/620169/average-biking-distance-per-person-per-day-in-the-netherlands-by-gender/()
27. Scheepers E, Wendel-Vos W, van Kempen E, Panis LI, Maas J, Stipdonk H, et al. Personal and environmental characteristics associated with choice of active transport modes versus car use for different trip purposes of trips up to 7.5 kilometers in The Netherlands. PloS one 2013; 8(9): e73105. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073105.
28. Goodman A, Aldred R. Inequalities in utility and leisure cycling in England, and variation by local cycling prevalence. Transp Res F Traffic Psychol Behav 2018; 56(1): 381-391. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2018.05.001.
29. Pearson L, Gabbe B, Reeder S, Beck B. Barriers and enablers of bike riding for transport and recreational purposes in Australia. JTH 2023; 28: 101538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2022.101538.
30. Swiers R, Pritchard C, Gee I. A cross sectional survey of attitudes, behaviours, barriers and motivators to cycling in University students. JTH 2017; 6: 379-385.
31. Andonova E, Higueras Garcia E, García González MC. Air Quality, Health and The City: The Case of Skopje. InInternational Urban Planning Research Seminar 2024; 15(15): . Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Grup de Recerca en Urbanisme.
32. Zhao P, Li S, Li P, Liu J, Long K. How does air pollution influence cycling behaviour? Evidence from Beijing. Transp Res DTransp Environ 2018; 63: 826-838. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2018.07.015.
33. Porter AK, Kontou E, McDonald NC, Evenson KR. Perceived barriers to commuter and exercise bicycling in US adults: The 2017 National Household Travel Survey. Journal of Transport & Health 2020; 16: 100820. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2020.100820.
34. von Stülpnagel R, Binnig N. How safe do you feel? A large-scale survey concerning the subjective safety associated with different kinds of cycling lanes. Accid Anal Prev 2022; 167: 106577. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2022.106577.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jansun Bukovetz, Kristina Shuntova, Aneta Kostova, Danica Stevkovska, Mihail Kochubovski, Igor Spiroski
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under CC BY 4.0 
