BazEkon - The Main Library of the Cracow University of Economics

BazEkon home page

Main menu

Author
Fakhani Rahman (University of Gdańsk, Poland)
Title
Important Drivers Influencing the Transport Mode Choice for Leisure Activities - a Study From Warsaw and Berlin
Source
International Business and Global Economy, 2022, nr 41, s. 7-33, bibliogr. 58 poz.
Biznes Międzynarodowy w Gospodarce Globalnej
Issue title
The Selected Economic Issues of International Markets
Keyword
Czas wolny, Transport pasażerski, Komunikacja miejska, Rozwój zrównoważony transportu
Leisure time, Passenger transport, Municipal transport, Sustainable development of transport
Note
JEL Classification: R11
summ.
Country
Berlin, Warszawa
Berlin, Warsaw
Abstract
The goal for most urban areas within the European Union is the transition to sustainable mobility, achieving CO 2 neutrality by 2035, at least in the inner-city areas. The research field of transport be- haviour has already been investigated in literature from various perspectives. However, both in science and in practical implementation, there is a shortage of research in the area of transport mode choice for leisure activities, with a concentration on Poland and Germany. The aim of this article is to identify underlying behaviour attitudes, which impact the transport mode choice for leisure activities in Warsaw and Berlin, where mobility is becoming increasingly important along- side daily commuting. Besides a comprehensive literature and internet research, a survey was conducted to obtain new insights from the data analysis. The focus is on generations Z, Y and X and thus includes survey participants aged 18 to 56. Based on descriptive statistics, a bivariate pre- liminary analysis was executed to find out significant potential predictors. The final specified exploratory model comprises a binary logistic regression analysis to identify influencing factors for the transport mode choice for leisure time activities. The analysis shows that the core influenc- ing factors are the availability of a car, income, and satisfaction with access to public transport. Although future expectations suggest that alternative modes of transportation for recreation have to be improved, the car remains dominant because it represents a high degree of freedom and per- ceived comfort. Secondary data shows that congestion and burdens from air pollution are increas- ing and require a more holistic implementation of a sustainable mobility approach focusing on environmental factors and the quality of life of urban citizens. Based on data collection from a structured survey, new insights were gained on important drivers influencing the choice of transport for leisure activities with reference to the cities of Warsaw and Berlin. In addition, it pro- vides guidance and ideas of how the transport services could be improved and how to incentivise more sustainable mobility behaviour among urban citizens.(original abstract)
Full text
Show
Bibliography
Show
  1. Akinwande M.O., Dikko H.G., Samson A., 2015, Variance inflation factor: As a condition for the inclusion of suppressor variable(s) in regression analysis, Open Journal of Statistics, no. 7, doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2015.57075.
  2. Backhaus K., Erichson B., Plinke W., Weiber R., 2016, Multivariate Analysemethoden - Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung - Varianzanalyse, Springer Gabler, no. 14.
  3. Beatley T., 2006, Green urbanism in European cities [in:] The humane metropolis: People and nature in the 21st-century city, University of Massachusetts Press - Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge.
  4. Berg J., Ihlström J., 2019, The importance of public transport for mobility and everyday activities among rural residents, Social Sciences, no. 2, doi.org/10.3390/socsci8020058.
  5. Biernat E., Buchholtz S., Bartkiewicz P., 2018, Motivations and barriers to bicycle commuting: Lessons from Poland, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, no. 55, doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.03.024.
  6. Boddy C.R., 2016, Sample size for qualitative research, Qualitative Market Research, no. 4, doi.org/10.1108/QMR-06-2016-0053.
  7. Brazier Y., 2016, How sitting in traffic jams can harm your health, Medical News Today, medicalnewstoday.com/articles/312570 [access: 21.03.2023].
  8. Burgstaller S., Flowers D., Tamberrino D., Terry H.P., Yang Y., 2017, Rethinking mobility: The "pay as you go" car: Ride hailing just the start, The Goldman Sachs Groups Equity Re- search, slideshare.net/FabMob/rethinking-mobility-goldman-sachsmay20171 [access: 21.03.2023].
  9. Chen J., Li S., 2017, Mode choice model for public transport with categorized latent variables, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, doi.org/10.1155/2017/7861945.
  10. Cui B., Boisjoly G., Miranda-Moreno L., El-Geneidy A., 2020, Accessibility matters: Exploring the determinants of public transport mode share across income groups in Canadian cities, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, no. 80, doi.org/10.1016/ j.trd.2020.102276.
  11. Esztergár-Kiss D., Kerényi T., 2020, Creation of mobility packages based on the MaaS concept, Travel Behaviour and Society, no. 21, doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2019.05.007.
  12. European Court of Auditors, 2020, Sustainable urban mobility in the EU: No substantial im- provement is possible without Member States' commitment, eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECA- Documents/SR20_06/SR_Sustainable_Urban_Mobility_EN.pdf [access: 21.03.2023].
  13. Fan A., Chen X., 2020, Exploring the relationship between transport interventions, mode choice, and travel perception: An empirical study in Beijing, China, International Journal of Envi- ronmental Research and Public Health, no. 12, doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124258.
  14. Federal Statistical Office, n.d., genesis.destatis.de/genesis//online?operation=table&code= 12111-0104&bypass=true&levelindex=1&levelid=1634580217163#abreadcrumb [7.10.2021].
  15. Gardner B., Abraham C., 2007, What drives car use? A grounded theory analysis of commuters' reasons for driving, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, no. 3, doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2006.09.004.
  16. Gartman D., 2004, Three ages of the automobile: The cultural logics of the car, Theory, Culture & Society, no. 5, doi.org/10.1177/0263276404046066.
  17. Goletz M., Haustein S., Wolking C., L'Hostis A., 2020, Intermodality in European metropolises: The current state of the art, and the results of an expert survey covering Berlin, Copenhagen, Hamburg and Paris, Transport Policy, no. 94, doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.04.011.
  18. Grochowski M., 2015, Urban policy and the evolution of functional and spatial structure of the city: The case of Warsaw, Prace i Studia Geograficzne, no. 60.
  19. Hamidi Z., Zhao C., 2020, Shaping sustainable travel behaviour: Attitude, skills, and access all matter, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, no. 88, doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102566.
  20. Hensher D.A., 2000, Urban public transport challenges, The Drawing Board: An Australian Re- view of Public Affairs, no. 2.
  21. Ingvardson J.B., Nielsen O.A., 2021, The influence of vicinity to stations, station characteristics and perceived safety on public transport mode choice: A case study from Copenhagen, Public Transport, no. 14, doi.org/10.1007/s12469-021-00285-x.
  22. Iwiñska K., Blicharska M., Pierotti L., Tainio M., Nazelle A. de, 2018, Cycling in Warsaw, Po- land: Perceived enablers and barriers according to cyclists and non-cyclists, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, no. 113, doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.04.014.
  23. Jakubiak-Lasocka J., Lasocki J., Siekmeier R., Ch³opek Z., 2014, Impact of traffic-related air pol- lution on health, Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, no. 834, doi.org/ 10.1007/5584_2014_14.
  24. Kaleniuk M., Furman O., Postransk T., 2021, Influence of traffic flow intensity on environmental noise pollution, Transport Technologies, no. 1.
  25. Kiba-Janiak M., Witkowski J., 2019, Sustainable urban mobility plans: How do they work?, Sus- tainability (Switzerland), no. 17, doi.org/10.3390/su11174605.
  26. Krajnik L.P., Krianiæ V., Krajnik D., 2019, Importance of green spaces in planning sustainable ur- ban areas, Sustainable Mediterranean Construction, no. 10.
  27. Magdolen M., Behren S. von, Burger L., Chlond B., 2021, Mobility styles and car ownership: Po- tentials for a sustainable urban transport, Sustainability (Switzerland), no. 5, doi.org/ 10.3390/su13052968.
  28. Maia A.G., Carvalho C.S. de, Venancio L.C., Dini E.D., 2020, The motives behind transport mode choice: A study with university students in Brazil, Ambiente e Sociedade, no. 23, doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc20170188r4vu2020L5AO.
  29. Maier E., 2012, Encouraging sustainable mobility behaviour by designing and implementing poli- cies with citizen involvement, eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, no. 1, doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v4i1.110.
  30. Malterud K., Siersma V.D., Guassora A.D., 2016, Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power, Qualitative Health Research, no. 13, doi.org/10.1177/ 1049732315617444.
  31. Matz C.J., Egyed M., Hocking R., Seenundun S., Charman N., Edmonds N., 2019, Human health effects of traffic-related air pollution (TRAP): A scoping review protocol, Systematic Reviews, no. 1, doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1106-5.
  32. Memon M.A., Ting H., Cheah J.-H., Thurasamy R., Chuah F., Cham T.H., 2020, Sample size for survey research: Review and recommendations, Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, no. 2, doi.org/10.47263/jasem.4(2)01.
  33. Mouratidis K., 2019, Built environment and leisure satisfaction: The role of commute time, social in- teraction, and active travel, Journal of Transport Geography, no. 80, doi.org/10.1016/ j.jtrangeo.2019.102491.
  34. Mouratidis K., Ettema D., NFss P., 2019, Urban form, travel behavior, and travel satisfaction, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, no. 129, doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.002.
  35. Nieuwenhuijsen M.J., Khreis H., Triguero-Mas M., Gascon M., Dadvand P., 2017, Fifty shades of green, Epidemiology, no. 1, doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000000549.
  36. Nuyttens N., 2020, European Road Safety Observatory, road-safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/ system/files/2021-07/facts_figures_cyclists_final_20210323.pdf [access: 21.03.2023].
  37. Pisoni E., Christidis P., Thunis P., Trombetti M., 2019, Evaluating the impact of "sustainable urban mobility plans" on urban background air quality, Journal of Environmental Management, no. 231, doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.10.039.
  38. Pojani E., Acker V. van, Pojani D., 2018, Cars as a status symbol: Youth attitudes toward sustainable transport in a post-socialist city, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, no. 58, doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.06.003.
  39. Pucher J., 1998, Urban transport in Germany: Providing feasible alternatives to the car, Transport Reviews, no. 4, doi.org/10.1080/01441649808717020.
  40. Ramos É.M.S., Bergstad C.J., Nässén J., 2020, Understanding daily car use: Driving habits, motives, attitudes, and norms across trip purposes, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, no. 68, doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.11.013.
  41. Redman L., Friman M., Gärling T., Hartig T., 2013, Quality attributes of public transport that attract car users: A research review, Transport Policy, no. 25, doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol. 2012.11.005.
  42. Reichenbach M, 2019, The multimodal transport user: A challenge for public transport?, Trans- portation Research Procedia, no. 41, doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2019.09.059.
  43. Rode P., Hoffmann C., Kandt J., Smith D., Graff A., 2015, Towards new urban mobility: The case of London and Berlin, LSE Cities, no. 49.
  44. Saigal T., Vaish A.K., Rao N.V.M., 2021a, Gender differences in influence of socio-demographic characteristics on mode choice in India, Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Busi- ness, no. 1, doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no1.531.
  45. Saigal T., Vaish A.K., Rao N.V.M., 2021b, Is the choice of less-polluting modes of transport for non-work purposes affected by socio-demographic factors? Evidence from India, Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, no. 3, doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-09- 2020-0212.
  46. Salvi A., Salim S., 2019, Neurobehavioral consequences of traffic-related air pollution, Frontiers in Neuroscience, no. 13, doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01232.
  47. Scheiner J., 2010, Social inequalities in travel behaviour: Trip distances in the context of residential self-selection and lifestyles, Journal of Transport Geography, no. 6, doi.org/10.1016/ j.jtrangeo.2009.09.002.
  48. Schimek P., 2017, Bicycle facilities adjacent to on-street parking: A review of crash data, design guidelines, and bicyclist positioning, https://trid.trb.org/view/1438800 [access: 21.03.2023].
  49. Senate Department for Environment, 2021, Mobilitätswende, berlin.de/mobilitaetswende [access: 21.03.2023].
  50. Sheldrick A., Evans J., Schliwa G., 2017, Policy learning and sustainable urban transitions: Mobilising Berlin's cycling renaissance, Urban Studies, no. 12, doi.org/10.1177/0042098016653889.
  51. Spadaro I., Pirlone F., 2021, Sustainable urban mobility plan and health security, Sustainability (Switzerland), no. 8, doi.org/10.3390/su13084403.
  52. Statistical Information Centre, n.d., stat.gov.pl/en/topics/population/population/structure- of-the-population-by-2016,7,1.html [access: 7.10.2021].
  53. Steg L., 2005, Car use: Lust and must: Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, no. 2/3, doi.org/10.1016/j.tra. 2004.07.001.
  54. Suder E., Pfaffenbach C., 2021, Everyday mobility in municipalities between the Lower Rhine and Ruhr areas: Why is public transport not used more frequently?, Standort, no. 1, doi.org/10.1007/ s00548-020-00680-9.
  55. Verhoeven M., Arentze T., Timmermans H., Waerden P. van der, 2007, Examining temporal effects of lifecycle events on transport mode choice decisions, International Journal of Urban Sciences, no. 1, doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2007.9693603.
  56. World Bank, 2018, Urban population, data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN. ZS?end=2018&locations=OE&start=1960 [access: 21.03.2023].
  57. Xi H., Liu W., Rey D., Waller S.T., Kilby P., 2020, Incentive-compatible mechanisms for continu- ous resource allocation in mobility-as-a-service: Pay-as-you-go and pay-as-a-package, ArXiv: 2009.06806 [access: 21.03.2023].
  58. Zalakeviciute R., Buenano A., Sannino D., Rybarczyk Y., 2019, Urban air pollution mapping and traffic intensity: Active transport application, Air Pollution: Monitoring, Quantification and Removal of Gases and Particles, doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.79570.
Cited by
Show
ISSN
2300-6102
Language
pol
URI / DOI
https://doi.org/10.26881/ibage.2022.41.01
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu