Effect of perception and attitudinal variables on mode choice behavior: A case study of Indian city, Agartala
Sarkar, Mallikarjuna, 2018, in Travel Behaviour and Society
doi:10.1016/j.tbs.2017.04.003
| Location |
Agartala, India |
| Population |
General |
| Sample size |
561 |
| Factor analysis type |
confirmatory factor analysis, nan rotation |
| Stepwise regression |
no |
| Removal of insignificant variables |
no |
| Reviewed by |
LCM |
Abstract
Attitudes and perceptions play a significant role in the individual's selection of a travel mode. In the developing cities of India, socioeconomic characteristics vary significantly among the trip makers and subsequently the perception towards various travel modes. In this study, variables such as the comfort and flexibility offered by different travel modes were used to estimate an Integrated Choice and Latent Variable (ICLV) model for understanding the effect of latent variables on mode choice behavior. With a model estimated using 561 work trip data collected from Agartala city, located in the North East part of India, we found that the comfort and flexibility influence the individual's choice of mode. The results obtained from the ICLV model support the hypothesis that the effect of attitude and perception is important in mode choice behavior and useful for transportation planners and policy makers. © 2017 Hong Kong Society for Transportation Studies
Factors
Models
| Dependent variable |
Mode choice |
| Model type |
Multinomial logit |
| Sample size |
561.0 |
| R2 |
nan |
| Adjusted R2 |
|
|
Pseudo R2
(nan)
|
nan |
| AIC |
nan |
| BIC |
nan |
| Log-likelihood at zero |
-679.526 |
| Log-likelihood at constants |
nan |
| Log-likelihood at convergence |
-315.526 |
| Bicycle |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| ASC |
-0.197
|
0.873 |
| Bicycle ownershp |
4.83
|
0.0 |
| Family size |
-0.567
|
0.006 |
| Time |
-0.066
|
0.001 |
| Bus |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| ASC |
-4.42
|
0.0 |
| Income |
0.166
|
0.088 |
| Car |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| ASC |
-0.616
|
0.697 |
| Bicycle ownership |
-1.7
|
0.077 |
| Family size |
-0.398
|
0.042 |
| Income |
0.588
|
0.0 |
| MTW Ownership |
-1.76
|
0.012 |
| Motorized three wheeler |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| ASC |
nan
|
nan |
| Motorized three wheeler, motorized two wheeler |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| Cost |
-0.128
|
0.0 |
| Time |
-0.025
|
0.086 |
| Motorized two wheeler |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| ASC |
-1.75
|
0.03 |
| License |
3.29
|
0.0 |
| MTH Ownership |
1.71
|
0.021 |
| Non-motorized transport |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| Area index*Income |
0.375
|
0.0 |
| Rickshaw |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| ASC |
-0.597
|
0.239 |
| Cost |
-0.04
|
0.031 |
| Walk |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| ASC |
-0.196
|
0.787 |
| Gender |
1.29
|
0.005 |
| Income |
-0.299
|
0.004 |
| Time |
-0.037
|
0.037 |
| Dependent variable |
Mode choice |
| Model type |
ICLV |
| Sample size |
561.0 |
| R2 |
nan |
| Adjusted R2 |
|
|
Pseudo R2
(nan)
|
nan |
| AIC |
nan |
| BIC |
nan |
| Log-likelihood at zero |
-37278.722 |
| Log-likelihood at constants |
nan |
| Log-likelihood at convergence |
-6309.949 |
| Latent variable: Car |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| LV Education |
0.26
|
0.0 |
| LV Age |
0.075
|
0.0 |
| LV Gender |
0.98
|
0.0 |
| Latent variable: Motorized three wheeler |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| LV Education |
0.228
|
0.0 |
| LV Age |
1.01
|
0.0 |
| LV Gender |
0.064
|
0.0 |
| Latent variable: Motorized two wheeler |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| LV Education |
0.291
|
0.0 |
| LV Age |
1.07
|
0.0 |
| LV Gender |
0.051
|
0.0 |
| Utility: Bicycle |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| ASC |
3.37
|
0.062 |
| Bicycle ownershp |
4.72
|
0.0 |
| Family size |
-0.591
|
0.006 |
| Time |
-0.073
|
0.001 |
| Utility: Bus |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| ASC |
-1.55
|
0.201 |
| Income |
0.212
|
0.034 |
| Utility: Car |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| ASC |
-6.03
|
0.174 |
| Bicycle ownership |
-3.2
|
0.028 |
| Family size |
-0.661
|
0.005 |
| MTW Ownership |
-2.04
|
0.028 |
| Car comfort |
1.82
|
0.004 |
| Utility: Motorized three wheeler |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| ASC |
nan
|
nan |
| Motorized three wheeler flexibility |
0.518
|
0.005 |
| Utility: Motorized three wheeler, motorized two wheeler |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| Cost |
-0.142
|
0.0 |
| Time |
-0.029
|
0.057 |
| Utility: Motorized two wheeler |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| ASC |
-5.76
|
0.084 |
| License |
3.04
|
0.0 |
| MTH Ownership |
1.93
|
0.021 |
| Motorized two wheeler flexibility |
1.05
|
0.019 |
| Utility: Non-motorized transport |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| Area index*Income |
0.389
|
0.0 |
| Utility: Rickshaw |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| ASC |
1.08
|
0.424 |
| Cost |
-0.04
|
0.039 |
| Education |
0.129
|
0.042 |
| Utility: Walk |
Variable |
Coefficient |
p-value |
| ASC |
2.63
|
0.046 |
| Gender |
1.5
|
0.002 |
| Income |
-0.232
|
0.032 |
| Time |
-0.034
|
0.048 |