Public attitudes toward encouraging sustainable transportation: An Australian case study

Xia, Zhang, Braunack-Mayer, Crabb, 2017, in International Journal of Sustainable Transportation

doi:10.1080/15568318.2017.1287316
Location Adelaide, Australia
Population General
Sample size 381
Factor analysis type principal components, varimax rotation
Stepwise regression no
Removal of insignificant variables no
Reviewed by LCM

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between road users' attitudes and their travel behaviors, to explore the acceptability of traffic measures for sustainable transport promotion, and to investigate predictors of intention to reduce car use. Method: Using a cross-sectional survey, 381 residents in Adelaide were interviewed via a computer-assisted telephone interviewing system. Descriptive analysis was used to describe demographic, travel behavior, and effectiveness of potential traffic measures. Attitude statements relating to transport use were factor-analyzed into four factors: “sustainable transport benefits awareness,” “traffic problems awareness,” “cycling safety concerns and car use comfort” and “public transport negative emotion.” Scores on these factors were analyzed with Spearman's correlation and logistic regression. Results: In general, “push” measures (e.g. more expensive petrol) were considered less effective than “pull” measures (e.g. cheaper public transport). “Cycling safety concerns and car use comfort” and “public transport negative emotion” factors were positively related to the annual driving distance of the participants. Both “sustainable transport benefits awareness” and “traffic problems awareness factors” were positively associated with the acceptance of measures for sustainable transport promotion. Furthermore, participants who used cars more frequently, had high sores on “cycling safety concerns and car use comfort,” and had a bachelor degree or higher would be less likely to reduce car use. Conclusion: These findings indicate the importance of increasing public awareness of traffic problems and perceived benefits of sustainable transport as a potential strategy to reduce car use. © 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Factors

Variable Loading
From an environmental point of view, it is important we reduce car use (Environmentalism) 0.71
Public transport is a more environmentally friendly option than driving a car (Environmentalism) 0.57
Cycling and walking are more environmentally friendly options than driving a car (Environmentalism) 0.77
Walking and cycling can help to keep me fit and healthy (Convenience) 0.59
If more people walked and cycled, this would have a positive effect on our environment (Environmentalism) 0.72
Being environmentally responsible is important to me (Environmentalism) 0.63
Variable Loading
Traffic related air pollution is dangerous to our health (Environmentalism) 0.8
Traffic can cause noise pollution (Environmentalism) 0.71
Traffic emissions are a threat to the environment (Environmentalism) 0.54
The more cars on the road, the more traffic injuries (Safety) 0.43
Variable Loading
Cycling is a safe transport option for me (Safety) -0.68
I feel more comfortable in private cars than other travel modes (Comfort) 0.63
A car is essential to my needs (Convenience) 0.7
Variable Loading
Public transport services are reliable for me (Convenience) -0.75
Public transport is expensive to us (Cost) 0.6

Models

Dependent variable Intention to reduce car use
Model type Multivariate logistic regresison
Sample size 381.0
R2 nan
Adjusted R2
Pseudo R2 (nan) nan
AIC nan
BIC nan
Log-likelihood at zero nan
Log-likelihood at constants nan
Log-likelihood at convergence nan
Variable Odds_ratio p-value
I: Sustainable transport benefits awareness 2.3 0.016
II: Traffic problems awareness 1.89 0.039
III: Cycling safety concerns and car use comfort 0.4 0.042
IV: Public transport negative emotion 1.39 0.205
Gender: male 1.0 nan
Gender: female 0.48 0.218
Age 0.98 0.187
Income: ≤ $40,000 1.0 nan
Income: $40,001 - $80,000 1.22 0.806
Income: ≥ $80,001 0.82 0.814
Income: not stated/don’t know 0.39 0.227
Education: No schooling to secondary 1.0 nan
Education: Trade, certificate, diploma 0.19 0.01
Education: Bachelor degree or higher 0.2 0.022
Employment status: Not employed 1.0 nan
Employment status: Employed 1.53 0.47
Bicycle user: No 1.0 nan
Bicycle user: Yes 6.44 0.007
Drive distance: Less than 10,000 km 1.0 nan
Drive distance: 10,000-20,000 km 0.2 0.013
Drive distance: > 20,000 km 0.04 0.001
Car ownership CTRL nan

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