Going soft: On how subjective variables explain modal choices for leisure travel

van Acker, Mokhtarian, Witlox, 2011, in European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research

doi:10.18757/ejtir.2011.11.2.2919
Location Antwerp, Belgium and Ghent, Belgium
Population General
Sample size 1878
Factor analysis type exploratory factor analysis, promax rotation
Stepwise regression no
Removal of insignificant variables yes
Reviewed by LCM

Factors

Variable Pattern loading
Comfortable (Comfort) 0.781
Relaxing (Comfort) 0.471
Safe (Safety) 0.296

Models

Source variable Target variable Effect p-value Effect type
Culture lover AL car use -0.142 <0.01 direct_effect
Home-oriented traditional family AL car use 0.207 <0.01 direct_effect
Location relative to local centre AL car use 0.276 <0.01 direct_effect
Location relative to regional centre AL car use 0.376 <0.01 direct_effect
Local accessibility AL car use -0.257 <0.01 direct_effect
Regional accessibility AL car use -0.192 <0.01 direct_effect
Density AL car use -0.289 <0.01 direct_effect
Bike/on foot=positive effects AL car use -0.137 <0.01 direct_effect
Car availability AL car use 0.606 <0.01 direct_effect
Source variable Target variable Effect p-value Effect type
Low-budget and active-creative FV car use -0.15 <0.01 direct_effect
Home-oriented traditional family FV car use 0.139 <0.01 direct_effect
Location relative to local center FV car use 0.129 <0.01 direct_effect
Location relative to regional center FV car use 0.228 <0.01 direct_effect
Local accessibility FV car use -0.177 <0.01 direct_effect
Regional accessibility FV car use -0.138 <0.01 direct_effect
Density FV car use -0.313 <0.01 direct_effect
Car availability FV car use 0.253 <0.01 direct_effect
Source variable Target variable Effect p-value Effect type
Location relative to local center FS car use 0.523 <0.01 direct_effect
Location relative to regional center FS car use 0.488 <0.01 direct_effect
Local accessibility FS car use -0.41 <0.01 direct_effect
Regional accessibility FS car use -0.37 <0.01 direct_effect
Density FS car use -0.635 <0.01 direct_effect
Car availability FS car use 0.567 <0.01 direct_effect
Source variable Target variable Effect p-value Effect type
Car availability AL PT use -0.488 <0.01 direct_effect
Source variable Target variable Effect p-value Effect type
Location relative to local center FV PT use -0.33 <0.01 direct_effect
Location relative to regional center FV PT use -0.526 <0.01 direct_effect
Local accessibility FV PT use 0.436 <0.01 direct_effect
Regional accessibility FV PT use 0.292 <0.01 direct_effect
Density FV PT use 0.656 <0.01 direct_effect
Car availability FV PT use -0.499 <0.01 direct_effect
Source variable Target variable Effect p-value Effect type
Student living at home FS PT use 0.242 <0.01 direct_effect
Gender (female) FS PT use 0.274 <0.01 direct_effect
Local accessibility FS PT use 0.192 <0.01 direct_effect
Regional accessibility FS PT use 0.197 <0.01 direct_effect
Car availability FS PT use -0.555 <0.01 direct_effect
Source variable Target variable Effect p-value Effect type
Low-budget and active-creative AL cycling/walking use 0.131 <0.01 direct_effect
Location relative to local center AL cycling/walking use -0.168 <0.01 direct_effect
Location relative to regional center AL cycling/walking use -0.218 <0.01 direct_effect
Density AL cycling/walking use 0.155 <0.01 direct_effect
Car=comfortable AL cycling/walking use -0.209 <0.01 direct_effect
Car availability AL cycling/walking use -0.295 <0.01 direct_effect
Source variable Target variable Effect p-value Effect type
Student living at home FV cycling/walking use 0.189 <0.01 direct_effect
Friends and trends FV cycling/walking use -0.153 <0.01 direct_effect
Low-budget and active-creative FV cycling/walking use 0.166 <0.01 direct_effect
Car=comfortable FV cycling/walking use -0.116 <0.01 direct_effect
Car availability FV cycling/walking use -0.264 <0.01 direct_effect
Source variable Target variable Effect p-value Effect type
Friends and trends FS cycling/walking use -0.137 <0.01 direct_effect
Low-budget and active-creative FS cycling/walking use 0.124 <0.01 direct_effect
Location relative to local center FS cycling/walking use -0.494 <0.01 direct_effect
Location relative to regional center FS cycling/walking use -0.573 <0.01 direct_effect
Local accessibility FS cycling/walking use 0.255 <0.01 direct_effect
Density FS cycling/walking use 0.605 <0.01 direct_effect
Car availability FS cycling/walking use -0.16 <0.01 direct_effect
Source variable Target variable Effect p-value Effect type
Location relative to local center AL car use 0.218 <0.01 direct_effect
Location relative to regional center AL car use 0.361 <0.01 direct_effect
Local accessibility AL car use -0.28 <0.01 direct_effect
Regional accessibility AL car use -0.206 <0.01 direct_effect
Density AL car use -0.293 <0.01 direct_effect
Car availability AL car use 0.471 <0.01 direct_effect
Source variable Target variable Effect p-value Effect type
Young family FV car use 0.156 <0.01 direct_effect
Density FV car use -0.132 <0.01 direct_effect
Car availability FV car use 0.431 <0.01 direct_effect
Source variable Target variable Effect p-value Effect type
Gender (female) FS car use -0.176 <0.01 direct_effect
Location relative to local center FS car use 0.322 <0.01 direct_effect
Location relative to regional center FS car use 0.334 <0.01 direct_effect
Local accessibility FS car use -0.2 <0.01 direct_effect
Regional accessibility FS car use -0.25 <0.01 direct_effect
Density FS car use -0.389 <0.01 direct_effect
Car availability FS car use 0.506 <0.01 direct_effect
Source variable Target variable Effect p-value Effect type
Car availability AL PT use -0.401 <0.01 direct_effect
Source variable Target variable Effect p-value Effect type
Student living at home FV PT use -0.257 <0.01 direct_effect
Young family FV PT use -0.137 <0.01 direct_effect
Density FV PT use 0.242 <0.01 direct_effect
Car availability FV PT use -0.538 <0.01 direct_effect
Source variable Target variable Effect p-value Effect type
Student living at home FS PT use 0.306 <0.01 direct_effect
Older family, working FS PT use -0.229 <0.01 direct_effect
Young family FS PT use -0.13 <0.01 direct_effect
Gender (female) FS PT use 0.229 <0.01 direct_effect
Local accessibility FS PT use 0.195 <0.01 direct_effect
Regional accessibility FS PT use 0.148 <0.01 direct_effect
Car availability FS PT use -0.293 <0.01 direct_effect
Source variable Target variable Effect p-value Effect type
Older family, working AL cycling/walking use -0.124 <0.01 direct_effect
Density AL cycling/walking use 0.106 <0.01 direct_effect
Car availability AL cycling/walking use -0.244 <0.01 direct_effect
Source variable Target variable Effect p-value Effect type
Student living at home FV cycling/walking use 0.193 <0.01 direct_effect
Car availability FV cycling/walking use -0.233 <0.01 direct_effect
Source variable Target variable Effect p-value Effect type
Location relative to local center FS cycling/walking use -0.388 <0.01 direct_effect
Location relative to regional center FS cycling/walking use -0.519 <0.01 direct_effect
Local accessibility FS cycling/walking use 0.202 <0.01 direct_effect
Density FS cycling/walking use 0.477 <0.01 direct_effect
Car availability FS cycling/walking use -0.111 <0.01 direct_effect

The Attitudes and Travel Database is produced with support from the Center for Teaching Old Models New Tricks at Arizona State University, a University Transportation Center sponsored by the US Department of Transportation through Grant No. 69A3551747116.

sha256:a08d9e369743bf7e6d1c40d27347318209b40a7fb1543813fdcf31b898918815