Citation information:
Hebel, K., Wolek, M. Perception of modes of
public transport compared to travel behaviour of urban inhabitants in light of
market research. Scientific Journal of
Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport. 2016, 92, 65-75. ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: 10.20858/sjsutst.2016.92.7.
Katarzyna HEBEL[1], Marcin
WOLEK[2]
PERCEPTION OF MODES
OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT COMPARED TO TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR OF URBAN INHABITANTS IN LIGHT
OF MARKETING RESEARCH
Summary. The
study introduces the notion of “travel behaviour” among urban inhabitants, as
well as highlighting its most common determinants, one of which is the
perception of public transport. The study includes a comparative analysis of
the link between passenger perceptions of the main modes of public transport in
relation to the actual mode of transport chosen to complete a certain journey, based
on market research results collected within a given city.
Keywords:
urban transport; marketing research; perception; modes of public transport;
travel behaviour.
1.
INTRODUCTION
Traffic congestion, as well as the
social and environmental problems with which it is often associated, forms part
of the daily reality of all urban areas in Poland. This phenomenon is the result
of an increasingly motorized society, in which an almost continual access to
privately owned cars coincides with the increasingly infrequent use of public
transportation, as well as its unfavourable
perception. This trend is reinforced by the tendency towards an uncontrolled,
chaotic urban sprawl resulting from the dispersion of legal power in spatial
planning.
The aim of the study is to
investigate the link between the travel behaviour of urban inhabitants and
their perceptions of the various modes of public transport.
2. TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR OF URBAN
INHABITANTS
Consumer behaviour is the science of
an individual’s decisions and the processes involved in acquiring goods and
services, new experiences or ideas, as well as the way in which they are
consumed or utilized [Mowen and Minor 2001, pp. 3-5]. Antonides and van Raaij also underline the importance of psychological and
physical factors, including the motivations and reasons behind them, in a
consumer’s decision-making process [2003, p. 24]. Światowy points to the fact that reactions to stimuli (in
this case, instincts and emotions), which call for one’s perceptual needs to be
satisfied, are both structured and constant in character [2006, p. 12].
Considering the above-mentioned
concepts, travel behaviour may be defined as a combination of actions and
agents, the aim of which is to satisfy a person’s transport requirements by
relocating them from one location to the next, in accordance with their own
perceptual system of preferences. Due to its role in both proceeding and
determining the process associated with travel behaviour, the
decision-making process should also be recognized as one of its integral parts
[Hebel 2013, p. 32].
Travel behaviour constitutes the
undertaking of a journey or a decision leading to its abandonment. The way in
which a given journey is carried out is connected with the decision to make use
of a particular mode of transport, such as a train, plane, ferry, bus or car
[Hebel 2013, p. 33], the length of the
journey and its frequency [Banister 2005, p. 126]. Economic factors (e.g., personal income and fare prices),
social factors (e.g., social status, such as employed, unemployed, student or
retired) and psychological factors (e.g., motivations, perceptions, attitudes,
personality, education and perceived risk) are all recognized as determinants
of travel behaviour.
According
to Goodwin, the most important factors determining travel behaviour are the following
[2008, p. 2]:
·
the number of passengers;
·
destination
·
the number of cars within a household
·
lifestyle (including free time, frequency and scale
of grocery shopping)
·
place of residence
·
cost of public transport
·
privately owned car maintenance costs
·
local transport infrastructure
·
personal reasons (e.g., change of workplace or place
of residence, access to schools)
An analysis
of the determinants of travel behaviour of urban inhabitants should, therefore,
take into consideration all possible factors (economic, spatial, social and
psychological). Such an analysis may be carried out on different scales
(global, national, regional or local). As per its requirements, the analysis
pertaining to this study has been carried out on a local scale and focuses on
the mode of transport chosen by urban inhabitants, as well as the way in which
they perceive individual modes of public transport. In doing so, this analysis
puts forward the thesis that the way in which public transport is
perceived is an essential determinant of the public travel behaviour of
urban inhabitants.
3. PERCEPTION OF MODES OF URBAN
TRANSPORT
A city’s image plays a central part
in its rivalry with other cities. It represents “a simplification of the
larger number of associations and pieces of information connected with the
place” [Kotler, Asplund, Rein and Haider
1999, p. 141). The “city’s mega-product”, which represents the sum of all
potential benefits offered to a particular consumer, as a result of the
exchange process, constitutes the starting point for the creation of a city’s
image. On a more general level, it translates to “the benefits of an
agglomeration which is the balance of positive and negative external effects” [Markowski 1999, p. 342]. Partial products, which on the one
hand constitute the elements of the mega-product, and are independent subjects
of exchange on the other, are more familiar within the everyday life of the
“users” of urban space. They are the subjects of exchange in partial markets
within a city, such as real estate, the service market (inclusive of transport
services) or the job market. The perception of each of the partial products is
subjective and depends on many factors, such as the type of buyer (inhabitant,
tourist or visitor), their preferences and behaviour, the level of recognition
of their needs and
their purchasing power. The perception of a city, therefore, is
created from the angle of one or more partial products, which possess a
unique selling proposition. The dysfunction of one of them, even though
the others may maintain a high level, could result in a decrease in the overall
satisfaction of the consumer. An ineffective transportation system that poses
difficulties in being able to reach various partial products dispersed around
the entire city, which in turn increases their purchase cost through the
external costs of traffic congestion, may serve as a good example.
Public transportation is a vital
partial product within a city, as it determines the accessibility to other
partial products. It plays an important role in developing and maintaining a
city’s positive image. Its main features are its rolling stock, the density of
the network (spatial and temporal availability), the ticketing system, the
physical design of the stations and the linear infrastructure, its spatial
inclusion within the urban structure and the history of its development. The
“rail factor” constitutes a highly unique factor when creating the image of
public transportation within a city. It results from the conviction of
inhabitants that rail transportation is superior to that of buses and
trolleybuses, mainly due to its superior level of comfort and shorter duration
of travel [Axhausen, Haupt,
Fell and Heidl 2001, p. 367; Scherer 2011, p. 21;
Scherer and Dziekan 2012, p. 90; Wolek
2013, p. 9].
4. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ANALYSIS
METHOD
Primary market research into
transport behaviour was conducted in Gdynia during 2015 by the Chair of
Transportation Market at the University of Gdansk, along with Gdynia’s Board of
Urban Transportation (ZKM Gdynia) with the
participation of the authors of this article. The research sample consisted of
1% of the inhabitants of Gdynia aged between 16 and 75 years, with the data
collected using one-to-one interviews, which were carried out in households
using a specially formulated questionnaire.
5. TRANSPORT BEHAVIOUR OF THE INHABITANTS OF
GDYNIA IN LIGHT OF RESEARCH
5.1. Chosen means of travel
The following pie chart (Fig. 1),
created on the basis of the research findings, represents the chosen means of
travel as declared by the inhabitants of the city of Gdynia.
Fig. 1. Chosen modes of travel as
declared by the inhabitants of Gdynia in 2015
Source: self-study based on
marketing research results described in Chapter 4
Less than half of inhabitants
declared that they always or mostly travel by public transportation. From the
point of view of sustainable development, it is crucial that journeys carried
out by public transport account for at least 50% of the total number of trips.
In the case of Gdynia, however, this threshold is reached only when
those who travel equally by public transport and by car are included as part of
this figure. This indicates the need for certain measures to be taken in order
to increase the share of public transport within these journeys, so as to
minimize the environmental and social impacts caused by increasing volumes of
traffic.
The analysis of data presented in
Figure 1 leads to the conclusion that the percentage of those inhabitants who
always travel by car and the percentage of those who mostly travel by car are
comparable (a difference of 4.35%); together, they constitute over 40% of all
journeys. There are very few inhabitants who travel by bicycle or on foot (0.7%
and 0.45%, respectively).
5.2. Modal split
Each respondent was asked to declare
their chosen means of travel by answering a question about the way in which
they travelled on the day prior to the survey. Using the “day in a photograph”
method, the analysis took into consideration all methods in which the respondent
travelled, the duration of each journey and the mode of transportation used. Pedestrian
journeys were also included, provided that they exceeded 500 m. The findings
are represented in Figure 2.
Fig. 2. Modal split on the basis of
journeys carried out by the inhabitants of Gdynia on the day prior to research
in 2015
Source: self-study based on
marketing research results described in Chapter 4
The majority of journeys, some
45.5%, made by respondents were carried out by car, of which they themselves
were the drivers. The bus proved to be the mode of public transportation chosen
most often (in one in five cases). The share of trolleybus journeys amounted to
one in 10 of all journeys, similar to that for pedestrian journeys. The share
of travel by bicycle amounted to only 1.6% of all journeys, although it is steadily
increasing. It should also be pointed out that trolleybus services operate
mostly within the city centre on the two main transport corridors of the city.
The range of operations is also similarly restricted in the case of urban rail
(its destinations being Gdansk and Wejherowo), whilst
the bus network is much more developed.
6. PERCEPTION OF THE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION IN
LIGHT OF RESEARCH
Seven features of public transportation were
analysed, namely:
- fare price
- duration of travel
- comfort
- cleanliness
- punctuality
- modernity
- safety
The respondents were asked to
evaluate each of the above features for each mode of transportation (bus,
trolleybus and urban rail). Each of them was evaluated using the Likert scale
(1-5). Another possible response was, “I do not have an opinion”.
A comparison of the answers given
for each mode of transportation (bus, trolleybus, urban rail) is presented in
Figure 3.
Fig. 3. Perception of the modes of
public transportation among the inhabitants of Gdynia in 2015
Source: self-study based on
marketing research results described in Chapter 4
The opinions held by the inhabitants
of Gdynia on the features of buses, when compared with trolleybuses, proved to
be very similar. This means that the perception of buses and trolleybuses among
all of the city’s inhabitants is almost uniform. Most of the evaluated features
were given a rating of 4 or above. Differences can be noticed in the evaluation
of the duration of travel, resulting from the fact that trolleybuses
operate mostly in the city centre and are, therefore, more prone to congestion
[Wolek 2014, p. 23]. Fare price was evaluated
significantly lower (by a rating of 1) than for urban rail, which proved to be
the most diverse in this respect. Most positively evaluated were duration of
travel and punctuality, the former receiving the best results amongst all mode
of transportation. Fare price was, however, most negatively evaluated in terms
of all other modes of transportation, alongside cleanliness and modernity.
7. DETERMINANTS OF THE PERCEPTION OF MODES OF
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
7.1. Transport behaviour as a
determinant of the perception of urban bus transportation
In order to determine the influence
of actual transport behaviour on the perception of bus transportation, a
comparative analysis of the evaluation results, which relate to those who
travel by bus, trolleybus or urban rail, as well as by car, has been carried
out. Figure 4 presents the result of this analysis.
Fig. 4. Perception of buses among
inhabitants of Gdynia in 2015
Source: self-study based on
marketing research results described in Chapter 4
The graph shows that the means by
which a respondent travels has minimal bearing on their perception of urban bus
transportation. Safety, cleanliness and comfort were evaluated slightly more
positively by those travelling by trolleybuses. It is interesting that those
who travel by car perceive buses in the same way as those respondents who
choose to travel by public transport. This shows that the image of urban
transportation is deeply embedded in the consciousness of inhabitants,
while travelling by such means does not greatly influence their perception.
7.2. Transport behaviour as a
determinant of the perception of trolleybus transportation
A separate analysis was carried out
on the influence of transport behaviour on the perception of trolleybuses.
Figure 5 presents the results.
Fig. 5. Perception of trolleybuses
among inhabitants of Gdynia in 2015
Source: self-study based on
marketing research results described in Chapter 4
Similar to the perception of bus
transportation among the inhabitants of Gdynia, the way in which the
respondents choose to travel has a minimal bearing on their perception of
trolleybuses. However, in this case, respondents who choose to travel by
trolleybus evaluated this mode of transport slightly more positively in terms
of safety, cleanliness, comfort, the duration of travel and fare price.
7.3. Transport behaviour as a
determinant of the perception of urban rail
Despite the fact that the share of
urban rail in the total amount of journeys in Gdynia amounts to less than 10%
(the duration of travel by urban rail being normally longer, as this kind of
journey is usually carried out between the cities of the metropolitan area), an evaluation
of respondents’ chosen mode of travel, compared to their perception of this
mode of transport, was nevertheless carried out. Figure 6 presents the
findings.
Fig. 6. Perception of urban rail
among inhabitants of Gdynia in 2015
Source: self-study based on
marketing research results described in Chapter 4
Unlike buses and trolleybuses, the
perception of urban rail proved to be more diverse depending on respondents’
chosen means of travel. The evaluations of those respondents who normally travel
by trolleybus proved to be more diverse still. Such respondents evaluated
safety, modernity, punctuality, cleanliness and comfort of travel more
positively than respondents who travel by bus, urban rail and car. Only in
relation to the duration of travel and fare price are the evaluations of all
groups of passengers found to be equal, which interestingly provides a strong
hint as to the direction that further promotional efforts regarding this mode
of transportation should take.
8. CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis carried out in
this study regarding the link between actual travel behaviour of the
inhabitants of the city of Gdynia and passenger perceptions of the main means
of public transport (bus, trolleybus, urban rail), it can be concluded that the
thesis concerning the importance of perceptions of public transport as one of
the essential determinants of the travel behaviour of urban inhabitants can
only be maintained in the case of passengers travelling by trolleybus. Only the
evaluation of these respondents was significantly different than that of the
respondents who choose to travel by other modes of public transport or by car. This means that the image held regarding the
main modes of public transport within a city is deeply embedded within the collective
consciousness of its inhabitants, who, despite highly positive evaluations of
urban transport, increasingly choose to undertake urban journeys by car
(currently, half of all inhabitants). As a result, there is evidently a
challenge to be faced in terms of the comprehensive promotion of public
transport, which is based, as it should be, on differentiating criteria other
than the frequency of usage of privately owned cars.
Of all the features of the means of
public transport that underwent evaluation, modernity received the most
positive feedback. Safety, punctuality, cleanliness and comfort were viewed
almost equally positively. The cost of transport was, in connection with all
modes of transport, viewed most negatively. In the case of urban rail, it was
the duration of travel that was most positively evaluated. Given the current
expansion of the metropolitan area and increasingly lengthier, yet necessary,
daily commutes, this represents a viable focal point for coordinated
promotional efforts based on such a quality.
Those passengers who travel by
trolleybus rate public transport most highly.
The evaluations of those who choose
to travel by car coincide with those passengers who travel by bus or urban
rail.
References
1.
Antonides
Gerrit, W. Fred van Raaij. 2003. Zachowanie
konsumenta. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. ISBN: 83-01-13960-9.
[In Polish: Antonides Gerrit,
W. Fred van Raaij. 2003. Consumer Behaviour. Warsaw: PWN].
2.
Axhausen Kay W., Thomas Haupt, Bernhard Fell, Udo Heidl.
2001. “Searching for the rail
bonus: results from a panel SP/RP study”. European Journal of Transport and
Infrastructure Research 4: 353-369. ISSN: 1567-7141. DOI:10.3929/ethz-a-004348224.
3.
Banister
David. 2005. Unsustainable Transport:
City Transport in the New Century. Transport, Development and Sustainability
Series. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. ISBN:
1134325118. ISBN: 9781134325115.
4.
Goodwin Peter. 2008. “Policy incentives to change behaviour in
passenger transport”. In OECD/International Transport Forum on Transport
and Energy: The Challenge of Climate Change. Leipzig, Germany, 28-30 May
2008. Available at: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/9942.
5.
Hebel Katarzyna. 2013. Zachowania transportowe mieszkańców w kształtowaniu transportu
miejskiego. Gdańsk: Fundacja Rozwoju Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.
ISBN: 978-83-7531-226-3. [In Polish: Transport
Behaviour of Inhabitants in the Development of Urban Transport.
Gdansk: Foundation for the Development of the University of Gdansk].
6.
Kotler
Philip, Christer Asplund, Irving Rein, Donald Haider. 1999. Marketing
Places Europe: How to Attract Investments, Industries, Residents and Visitors
to Cities, Communities, Regions and Nations in Europe. Financial Times
Prentice Hall.
ISBN-10: 0273644424. ISBN-13: 978-0273644422.
7.
Markowski Tadeusz. 1999. Zarządzanie rozwojem miast. Warsaw:
Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. ISBN: 8301129719, ISBN: 9788301129712. [In Polish: Markowski
Tadeusz.1999. Management
of Urban Development. Warsaw: PWN].
8.
Mowen John C., Michael S. Minor. 2001. Consumer Behavior:
A Framework. Prentice Hall, Cornell University. ISBN: 0130169722. ISBN:
9780130169723.
9.
Scherer Milena, Katrin Dziekan. 2012. “Bus or rail: an approach to explain the psychological
rail factor”. Journal of Public Transportation 15 (1): 75-93.
ISSN: 1077-291X.
10.
Scherer Milena. 2011. “The image of bus and tram:
first results”. In 11th Swiss Transport Research Conference:
1-26. Institute for Transport Planning and Systems, Zurich, Switzerland, 11-13
May, Monte Verita, Ascona,
Switzerland.
11.
Światowy Grażyna. 2006. Zachowania konsumentów. Determinanty oraz metody poznania i
kształtowania. Warsaw: PWE. ISBN: 83-208-1640-8. [In Polish: Światowy
Grazyna. 2006. Consumer
Behaviour: Determinants and Methods of Knowledge and Shaping. Warsaw: PWE].
12.
Wolek Marcin. 2013. “5.1.1. Review of existing
promotion initiatives report prepared within TROLLEY project”. Technical
Report (1-43) May. Gdynia: Department of Transportation Market, University
of Gdansk. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2239.8887.
13.
Wołek Marcin. 2014. “Stan obecny i perspektywy rozwoju transportu trolejbusowego w Gdyni”.
Transport Miejski i Regionalny 4: 20-25.
ISSN: 1732-5153.
[In Polish: Wolek Marcin. 2014. “Current status and
prospects of development of transport trolleybus in Gdynia”. Urban and Regional Transport 4: 20-25].
Received 11.01.2016;
accepted in revised form 29.05.2016
Scientific Journal of Silesian University of
Technology. Series Transport is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License