Analysis of Socio-spatial Differentiation in Transport Mode Choice Preferences
Starting from the fact that the transport mode choice is one of those aspects of travel behaviour that, to a great extent, affects the efficiency of the transport system, this paper analyses the factors that contribute to the use of public and car transport. The goals of the analysis were to obtain insight into the preferences for using these two modes of transport in Croatia and find out to which extent the basic demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents affect the usage of car and public transport and the possibility of taking trips by these transport modes. The paper analyses the data collected by surveys on a representative national sample. The results show that in Croatia, the number of people who frequently use public transport is far fewer than the number of frequent users of passenger car transport. However, the comparison has found that the number of frequent public transport users varies significantly among certain categories of respondents. Using binary logistic regression analysis has determined that the preferences towards the frequent use of car or public transport are significantly influenced by the age of the respondents, size of the settlement, accessibility of the destinations by public transport, the number of vehicles in the household and whether the respondent is the main car user in the household.
Beirao G, Cabral J. Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study. Transport Policy. 2007 Nov;14(6):478-489.
Soltanzadeh H, Masoumi H. The Determinants of Transportation Mode Choice in the Middle Eastern Cities: the Kerman Case, Iran. Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment. 2014 Aug;7(2):199-222.
Lukić A, Prelogović V, Rihtar S. Planning a more humane city: Student expectations concerning bicycle use and transportation in Zagreb. Hrvatski geografski glasnik. 2011 Aug;73(1):111-132.
Milković M, Štambuk M. To Bike or not to Bike? Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior in Predicting Bicycle Commuting Among Students in Zagreb. Psihologijske teme. 2015 Jul;24(2):187-205.
Janssen L. Die Zukunft der Stadtmitte? City-Konzept Blaue Zone München. Internationale Verkehrswesen Hamburg. 2004 Apr;45(4):196-203.
Litman T. Evaluating Accessibility for Transportation Planning: Measuring People’s Ability To Reach Desired Goods and Activities [Internet]. Melbourne: Victoria Transport Policy Institute; 2007 [cited 2016 Feb 16]. Available from Netlibrary: http://www.vtpi.org/access.pdf.
Halden D. The Use and Abuse of Accessibility Measures in UK Passenger Transport Planning. Research in Transportation Business & Management. 2011 Nov;2(1):12-19.
Hurni A. Transport and Social Disadvantage in Western Sydney: A Partnership Research Project. Sydney: University of Western Sydney; 2006.
Adetunji MA. Gender Travel Behaviour and Women Mobility Constraints in Ilesa, Nigeria. International Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering. 2013 Jun;3(2):220-229.
Buehler R. Determinants of transport mode choice: a comparison of Germany and the USA. Journal of Transport Geography. 2011 Jul;19(4):644–657.
Tyrinopoulos Y, Antoniou C. Factors affecting modal choice in urban mobility. European Transport Research Review. 2013 Mar;5(1):27-39.
Loo LYL, Corcoran J, Mateo-Babiano D, Zahnow R. Transport mode choice in South East Asia: Investigating the relationship between transport users’ perception and travel behaviour in Johor Bahru, Malaysia. Journal of Transport Geography. 2015 Jun;46(1):99-111.
Dargay J, Gately D. Income’s effect on vehicle ownership, worldwide: 1960–2015. Transportation and Research Part A. 1999 Feb;33(2):101-138.
Timmermanns H, van der Waerden P, Alves M, Polak J, Ellis S, Harvey AS, et al. Spatial context and the complexity of daily travel patterns: an international comparison. Journal of Transport Geography. 2003 Mar;11(1):37-46.
Currie G. Young Australians: No Way to Go. In: Currie G, Stanley J, Stanley J, editors. No Way To Go-Transport and Social Disadvantage in Australian Communities. Clayton: Monash University ePress, 2007; p. 08.1-
Holz-Rau C, Scheiner J. Travel mode choice: affected by objective or subjective determinants?. Transportation. 2007 Jul;34(4):487-511.
Cervero R, Radisch, C. Travel choices in pedestrian versus automobile-oriented neighborhoods. Transport Policy. 1995 Jul;3(3):127-141.
Plaut P, Boarnet M. New Urbanism and the Value of Neighbourhood Design. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 2003 Sep;20(3):254-265.
Cervero R. Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2002 Jun;7(4):265-284.
Hine J, Mitchell F. Transport Disadvantage and Social Exclusion: Exclusionary Mechanisms in Transport in Urban Scotland. Surrey: Ashgate; 2003.
Banister D. Unsustainable Transportation. New York: Routledge; 2005.
Davidov E. Explaining Habits in a New Context the Case of Travel-Mode Choice. Rationality and Society. 2007 Aug;19(3):315-334.
Rosenbloom S. Mobility of the Elderly: Good News and Bad News. In: Townes MS, editor. Transportation in an Aging Society: A Decade of Experience. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board; 2004. p. 3-21.
Popuri Y, Proussaloglou K, Ayvalik C, Koppelman F, Lee A. Importance of traveler attitudes in the choice of public transportation to work: findings from the Regional Transportation Authority Attitudinal Survey. Transportation. 2011 Jul;38(4):643-661.
Şimşekoğlu Ö, Nordfjærn T, Rundmo T. The role of attitudes, transport priorities, and car use habit for travel mode use and intentions to use public transportation in an urban Norwegian public. Transport Policy. 2015 Aug;42:113-120.
Johansson MV, Heldt T, Johansson P. The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice. Transportation Research Part A. 2006 Jul;40(6):507-525.
Shirmohammadli A, Louen C, Valée D. Exploring mobility equity in a society undergoing changes in travel behaviour: A case study of Aachen, Germany. Transport policy. 2016 Feb;46:32-39.
Bigazzi AY, Broach J, Dill J. Bicycle route preference and pollution inhalation dose: Comparing exposure and distance trade-offs. Journal of Transport & Health. 2016 Mar;3(1):107-113.
Chow ASY. Spatial-modal scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions from commuting in Hong Kong. Journal of Transport Geography. 2016 Jun;54:205-213.
Nocera S, Cavallaro F. Economic valuation of Well-To-Wheel CO2 emissions from freight transport along the main transalpine corridors. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2016 Aug;47:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).