Understanding Acceptability towards Sustainable Transportation Behavior: A Case Study of China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Theoretical Framework
2.1.1. Predictors of Acceptability to Sustainable Transportation
2.1.2. Environmental Concern and Acceptability to Sustainable Transportation
2.1.3. Mediating Role of Environmental Concern
2.1.4. Moderating Role of Self-Transcendence
2.1.5. Moderating Effect of Self-Enhancement
3. Methodology
percentage response rate expected)]
4. Analysis
Results of Hypothesis
5. Discussion
6. Practical Implications
7. Concluding Remarks
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Beirão, G.; Cabral, J.S. Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study. Transp. Policy 2007, 14, 478–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, L.; Lau, W.; Zou, S.; Cao, Z.; Lai, S. Exposure level of carbon monoxide and respirable suspended particulate in public transportation modes while commuting in urban area of Guangzhou, China. Atmos. Environ. 2002, 36, 5831–5840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, L.D.; Sallis, J.F.; Conway, T.L.; Chapman, J.E.; Saelens, B.E.; Bachman, W. Many pathways from land use to health: Associations between neighborhood walkability and active transportation, body mass index, and air quality. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2006, 72, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ülengin, F.; Kabak, Ö.; Önsel, Ş.; Ülengin, B.; Aktaş, E. A problem-structuring model for analyzing transportation–environment relationships. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 200, 844–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ma, L.; Dill, J. Associations between the objective and perceived built environment and bicycling for transportation. J. Transp. Health 2015, 2, 248–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gardner, B.; Abraham, C. What drives car use? A grounded theory analysis of commuters’ reasons for driving. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2007, 10, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Townsend, C. In Whose Interest?: A Critical Approach to Southeast Asia’s Urban Transport Dynamics. Ph.D. Thesis, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Australia, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Li, P.; Zhao, P.; Brand, C. Future energy use and CO2 emissions of urban passenger transport in China: A travel behavior and urban form based approach. Appl. Energy 2018, 211, 820–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- XinhuaNews China Car Ownweship Ratio. Available online: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-01/25/c_135043964.htm (accessed on 23 March 2018).
- Shaohui, T. China’s Car Ownership. Xinhua, 25 January 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Yue, Y. Xi’an Motor Vehicle Ownership of 215 Million. Xi’an Evening News, 28 August 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Litman, T. Developing indicators for comprehensive and sustainable transport planning. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2007, 2017, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwok, R.C.; Yeh, A.G. The use of modal accessibility gap as an indicator for sustainable transport development. Environ. Plan. A 2004, 36, 921–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castillo, H.; Pitfield, D.E. ELASTIC–A methodological framework for identifying and selecting sustainable transport indicators. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2010, 15, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Portney, K.E. Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously: Economic Development, the Environment, and Quality of Life in American Cities; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Enoch, M. Sustainable Transport, Mobility Management and Travel Plans; Routledge: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Lucas, K. Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transp. Policy 2012, 20, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xenias, D.; Whitmarsh, L. Dimensions and determinants of expert and public attitudes to sustainable transport policies and technologies. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2013, 48, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Egbue, O.; Long, S. Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: An analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions. Energy Policy 2012, 48, 717–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, S.H. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J. Soc. Issues 1994, 50, 19–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, H. The norm activation model and theory-broadening: Individuals’ decision-making on environmentally-responsible convention attendance. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 40, 462–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozaki, R.; Sevastyanova, K. Going hybrid: An analysis of consumer purchase motivations. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 2217–2227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Black, J.S.; Stern, P.C.; Elworth, J.T. Personal and contextual influences on househould energy adaptations. J. Appl. Psychol. 1985, 70, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T. The value basis of environmental concern. J. Soc. Issues 1994, 50, 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steg, L. Car use: Lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2005, 39, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schultz, P.W.; Zelezny, L.C. Values and proenvironmental behavior: A five-country survey. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 1998, 29, 540–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; Schmöcker, J.-D.; Bergstad, C.J.; Fujii, S.; Gärling, T. The influence of personality on acceptability of sustainable transport policies. Transportation 2014, 41, 855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- STATISTA. Automobile Manufacturing Industry in China. Available online: https://www.statista.com/study/11736/automobile-manufacturing-industry-in-china-statista-dossier/ (accessed on 15 March 2018).
- Zhao, Q.; Chen, M. A comparison of ELV recycling system in China and Japan and China’s strategies. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 57, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eriksson, L.; Garvill, J.; Nordlund, A.M. Acceptability of single and combined transport policy measures: The importance of environmental and policy specific beliefs. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2008, 42, 1117–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Offer, G.; Howey, D.; Contestabile, M.; Clague, R.; Brandon, N. Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Morton, C.; Schuitema, G.; Anable, J. Electric vehicles: Will consumers get charged up. In Proceedings of the Universities Transport Study Group 43rd Annual Conference, Milton Keynes, UK, 5–7 January 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Steg, L.; Tertoolen, G. Sustainable transport policy: The contribution from behavioural scientists. Public Money Manag. 1999, 19, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dill, J.; Voros, K. Factors affecting bicycling demand: Initial survey findings from the Portland, Oregon, region. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2007, 2031, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chatterton, T.; Coulter, A.; Musselwhite, C.; Lyons, G.; Clegg, S. Understanding how transport choices are affected by the environment and health: Views expressed in a study on the use of carbon calculators. Public Health 2009, 123, e45–e49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Fishman, E.; Washington, S.; Haworth, N. Understanding the fear of bicycle riding in Australia. J. Australas. Coll. Road Saf. 2012, 23, 19. [Google Scholar]
- Jakovcevic, A.; Steg, L. Sustainable transportation in Argentina: Values, beliefs, norms and car use reduction. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2013, 20, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Acker, V.; Goodwin, P.; Witlox, F. Key research themes on travel behavior, lifestyle, and sustainable urban mobility. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2016, 10, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xia, T.; Zhang, Y.; Braunack-Mayer, A.; Crabb, S. Public attitudes toward encouraging sustainable transportation: An Australian case study. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2017, 11, 593–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khoo, H.L.; Ong, G.P. Understanding sustainable transport acceptance behavior: A case study of Klang valley, Malaysia. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2015, 9, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steg, L.; Gifford, R. Sustainable transport and quality of life. In Building Blocks for Sustainable Transport: Obstacles, Trends, Solutions; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bradford, UK, 2007; pp. 183–202. [Google Scholar]
- Gärling, T.; Schuitema, G. Travel demand management targeting reduced private car use: Effectiveness, public acceptability and political feasibility. J. Soc. Issues 2007, 63, 139–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nobis, C. Carsharing as key contribution to multimodal and sustainable mobility behavior: Carsharing in Germany. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2006, 1986, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albert, G.; Toledo, T.; Ben-Zion, U. The role of personality factors in repeated route choice behavior: Behavioral economics perspective. Eur. Transp. 2011, 48, 47–59. [Google Scholar]
- Fujii, S. Can state regulation of car use activate a moral obligation to use sustainable modes of transport? Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2010, 4, 313–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johansson, M.V.; Heldt, T.; Johansson, P. The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2006, 40, 507–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bamberg, S.; Schmidt, P. Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting students’ car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environ. Behav. 2003, 35, 264–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stradling, S.G.; Meadows, M.; Beatty, S. Helping drivers out of their cars Integrating transport policy and social psychology for sustainable change. Transp. Policy 2000, 7, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, S.S. Managing motorization in sustainable transport planning: The Singapore experience. J. Transp. Geogr. 2010, 18, 314–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anable, J. ‘Complacent car addicts’ or ‘aspiring environmentalists’? Identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory. Transp. Policy 2005, 12, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Domarchi, C.; Tudela, A.; González, A. Effect of attitudes, habit and affective appraisal on mode choice: An application to university workers. Transportation 2008, 35, 585–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gössling, S. ICT and transport behavior: A conceptual review. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2018, 12, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joireman, J.A.; Van Lange, P.A.; Van Vugt, M. Who cares about the environmental impact of cars? Those with an eye toward the future. Environ. Behav. 2004, 36, 187–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fulton, E.A.; Boschetti, F.; Sporcic, M.; Jones, T.; Little, L.R.; Dambacher, J.M.; Gray, R.; Scott, R.; Gorton, R. A multi-model approach to engaging stakeholder and modellers in complex environmental problems. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 48, 44–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gardner, B.; Abraham, C. Psychological correlates of car use: A meta-analysis. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2008, 11, 300–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaske, J.J.; Jacobs, M.H.; Espinosa, T.K. Carbon footprint mitigation on vacation: A norm activation model. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2015, 11, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffiths, G.; Chambers, L.; Haylock, M.; Manton, M.; Nicholls, N.; Baek, H.J.; Choi, Y.; Della-Marta, P.; Gosai, A.; Iga, N. Change in mean temperature as a predictor of extreme temperature change in the Asia–Pacific region. Int. J. Climatol. 2005, 25, 1301–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanner, C. Constraints on environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 145–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katz-Gerro, T.; Greenspan, I.; Handy, F.; Lee, H.-Y. The Relationship between Value Types and Environmental Behaviour in Four Countries: Universalism, Benevolence, Conformity and Biospheric Values Revisited. Environ. Values 2017, 26, 223–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steg, L.; Sievers, I. Cultural theory and individual perceptions of environmental risks. Environ. Behav. 2000, 32, 250–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, F.; Deng, Z.; Petrick, J.F. Exploring the formation mechanisms of urban residents’ travel behaviour in China: Perceptions of travel benefits and travel constraints. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2018, 35, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlegelmilch, B.B.; Bohlen, G.M.; Diamantopoulos, A. The link between green purchasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousness. Eur. J. Mark. 1996, 30, 35–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minton, A.P.; Rose, R.L. The effects of environmental concern on environmentally friendly consumer behavior: An exploratory study. J. Bus. Res. 1997, 40, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, J.A.; Bacon, D.R. Exploring the subtle relationships between environmental concern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior. J. Bus. Res. 1997, 40, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bamberg, S. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, T.K.-Y.; Wan, P.-S. Perceptions and determinants of environmental concern: The case of Hong Kong and its implications for sustainable development. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 19, 235–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 64, 542–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belgiawan, P.F.; Schmöcker, J.-D.; Abou-Zeid, M.; Walker, J.; Lee, T.-C.; Ettema, D.F.; Fujii, S. Car ownership motivations among undergraduate students in China, Indonesia, Japan, Lebanon, Netherlands, Taiwan, and USA. Transportation 2014, 41, 1227–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saunders, M.L.; Lewis, P.; Thornhill, A. Research Methods for Business Students; Pearson: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Weston, R.; Gore, P.A., Jr. A brief guide to structural equation modeling. Couns. Psychol. 2006, 34, 719–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boomsma, A. The robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor analysis models. In Systems Under Indirect Observation: Causality, Structure, Prediction; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1982; pp. 149–173. [Google Scholar]
- Wolf, E.J.; Harrington, K.M.; Clark, S.L.; Miller, M.W. Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models: An Evaluation of Power, Bias, and Solution Propriety. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2013, 76, 913–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Weir, J.P. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2005, 19, 231. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Westland, J.C. Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2010, 9, 476–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krejcie, R.V.; Morgan, D.W. Determining sample size for research activities. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1970, 30, 607–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chinese Social Media Statistics and Trends Infographic. Available online: http://socialmediatoday.com/richard-simcott/2213841/social-media-fast-facts-china (accessed on 20 September 2017).
- Nilsson, M.; Küller, R. Travel behaviour and environmental concern. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2000, 5, 211–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schwartz, S.H.; Melech, G.; Lehmann, A.; Burgess, S.; Harris, M.; Owens, V. Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2001, 32, 519–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, S.H. An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 2012, 2, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, J.; Huizhong, Y. The English proficiency of college and university students in China: As reflected in the CET. Lang. Cult. Curric. 2006, 19, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jolliffe, I.T. Principal Component Analysis and Factor Analysis. In Principal Component Analysis; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1986; pp. 115–128. [Google Scholar]
- Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S.; Osterlind, S.J. Using Multivariate Statistics; Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Dabholkar, P.A.; Thorpe, D.I.; Rentz, J.O. A measure of service quality for retail stores: Scale development and validation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1996, 24, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1998; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
- Kaiser, H.F. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1960, 20, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentler, P.M.; Weeks, D.G. Linear structural equations with latent variables. Psychometrika 1980, 45, 289–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagozzi, R.P. Causal Models in Marketing; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Mak, B.L.; Sockel, H. A confirmatory factor analysis of IS employee motivation and retention. Inf. Manag. 2001, 38, 265–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, Y.M. Validation of psychometric research instruments: The case of information science. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2009, 60, 1178–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Muller, D.; Judd, C.M.; Yzerbyt, V.Y. When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 89, 852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 2004, 36, 717–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hayes, A.F.; Matthes, J. Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behav. Res. Methods 2009, 41, 924–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zhao, X.; Lynch, J.G., Jr.; Chen, Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. J. Consumer Res. 2010, 37, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, P.; West, S.G.; Aiken, L.S. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Psychology Press: Hove, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Dawson, J.F. Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. J. Bus. Psychol. 2014, 29, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawson, J.F. Interpreting Interaction Effects. Available online: http://www.jeremydawson.co.uk/slopes.htm (accessed on 23 March 2018).
- Banister, D.; Button, K. Transport, the Environment and Sustainable Development; Routledge: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Franzen, A. Environmental Awareness and Traffic Behaviour. Empirical Analyses on the Choice of Means of Transport and the Acceptance of Environment-Policy Measures; Verlag Ruegger: Zuerich, Switzerland, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Bergstad, C.J.; Gamble, A.; Hagman, O.; Polk, M.; Gärling, T.; Olsson, L.E. Affective–symbolic and instrumental–independence psychological motives mediating effects of socio-demographic variables on daily car use. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19, 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C. New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, S.H. Normative influences on altruism1. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1977; Volume 10, pp. 221–279. [Google Scholar]
- Hoogma, R.; Kemp, R.; Schot, J.; Truffer, B. Experimenting for Sustainable Transport: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management; Routledge: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Aronson, E.; Stern, P.C. Energy Use: The Human Dimension; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Lindenberg, S.; Steg, L. Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2007, 63, 117–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corral-Verdugo, V.; Mireles-Acosta, J.F.; Tapia-Fonllem, C.; Fraijo-Sing, B. Happiness as correlate of sustainable behavior: A study of pro-ecological, frugal, equitable and altruistic actions that promote subjective wellbeing. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2011, 18, 95–104. [Google Scholar]
Authors (Years) | Empirical Study | Backgrounds of Acceptability to Sustainable Transportation |
---|---|---|
Xia, Zhang, Braunack-Mayer and Crabb [39] | n = 381, respondents lived in Adelaide were interviewed by computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) | Traffic problem awareness and benefits of sustainable transportation awareness are strongly associated with acceptability to sustainable transportation. |
Kim, Schmöcker, Bergstad, Fujii and Gärling [27] | n = 640, post-graduates and under-graduate of Kyoto university were taken as respondents | Trust on government, environmental problem awareness and personality traits are positively correlated with acceptability to sustainable transportation. |
Khoo and Ong [40] | n = 925, respondents were students holding with a bachelor’s degree | Environmental Awareness and service availability are positively correlated with acceptability to sustainable transportation. |
Steg and Gifford [41] | n = 455, from Dutch respondents | Individual’s short-term interest and quality of life have a strong positive effect on acceptability to sustainable transportation. |
Gärling and Schuitema [42] | n = 325, respondents were randomly selected from Netherland | The attractiveness of car use, costs attached in car reduction goals and uncertainty are negatively correlated with acceptability to sustainable transportation. |
Nobis [43] | n = 1000, respondents were the German car share firm | Lack of car sharing is positively correlated with acceptability to sustainable transport. |
Steg [25] | n = 185 possessed license respondents /113 regularly commuters | Car usage acts as a mediator between attitude and symbolic and affective motives in young males. |
Xenias and Whitmarsh [18] | n = 93, respondents were transport related experts and local citizens of UK | Improvement of cycling facilitates R & D in low emission vehicles and improved legislation are positively correlated with acceptability towards sustainable transportation. |
Steg and Tertoolen [33] | n = 63, review of studies | The habit of car usage has a negative effect towards acceptability to sustainable transportation. |
Van Acker, Goodwin and Witlox [38] | n = 611, respondents were car user | Lifestyle, status, speed, price, comfort, and attitude are negatively associated with acceptability towards sustainable transportation. |
Albert et al. [44] | laboratory-based experiment | Personality factors have a strong positive effect on choices of route, trip and travel time. |
Fujii [45] | n = 1200, respondents were car commuters | Car use habit is negatively associated with acceptability towards sustainable transportation. Environmental degradation and air pollution have a positive effect towards acceptability to sustainable transportation. |
Jakovcevic and Steg [37] | n = 160, respondents from Argentina | Reduction in car usage acts as a mediator between individual’s norms and acceptability to sustainable transportation. |
Johansson et al. [46] | n = 1900, commuters | Travel comfort, time-saving, and personality traits have a positive effect on acceptability to sustainable transportation. |
Bamberg and Schmidt [47] | n = 254, respondents were university students | Intention and habit of car use have a negative effect on acceptability to sustainable transportation. |
Stradling et al. [48] | n =791, respondents were car drivers | Increased car usage has a positive effect on road casualties, pollution, noise, congestion, damage to wildlife and depletion of resources. |
Han [49] | n = 325, respondents were commuters | Car ownership is negatively correlated with acceptability to sustainable transportation in Singapore. |
Chatterton, Coulter, Musselwhite, Lyons and Clegg [35] | n = 178, three stages of research with a distinct group of respondents | Personal carbon emission and considerable climate change have positive effects on personal transport choice. |
Dill and Voros [34] | n = 566, respondents were adult, ages 18 or over | Too much traffic, bike lanes, and trails have positive correlation acceptability to sustainable transportation. |
Anable [50] | n = 666, respondents were the visitors to national trust property the UK | Personality traits such as need of safety, comfort, convenience and flexibility are positively correlated with the acceptability of sustainable transportation. |
Domarchi et al. [51] | n = 523, respondents were the staff of the university | Attitude towards cars act as a mediator between the habit of car use and acceptability to sustainable transportation. |
Fishman, Washington and Haworth [36] | n = 24,858, respondents were Australian citizens | Fear and risk of accident with motorized vehicles are positively correlated with acceptability to sustainable transportation such as bicycle riding in Australia. |
Demographics | Count | Percent (%) | Transport Usage | Count | Percent (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Car use frequency | ||||
Male | 243 | 52.71 | Never | 5 | 1.08 |
Female | 218 | 47.29 | Occasionally, e.g., 1 to 3 times per month | 75 | 16.27 |
Age group | 1 to 2 times per week | 87 | 18.87 | ||
18–34 years | 139 | 30.15 | 3 to 4 times per week | 56 | 12.15 |
35–64 years | 196 | 42.52 | 5 or more times in week | 238 | 52.63 |
>65 years | 126 | 27.33 | Mode of transportation (daily basis) | ||
Education | Car (driver/passenger) | 143 | 21.02 | ||
No schooling beyond secondary school level | 154 | 33.41 | Public transport (bus/train/tram) | 191 | 41.43 |
Trade, certificate, diploma | 136 | 29.50 | Bicycle | 97 | 21.04 |
Bachelor’s degree or higher | 171 | 37.09 | Walk | 7 | 1.52 |
Work status | Combined, e.g., car first then public transport | 23 | 4.99 | ||
Unemployed | 29 | 6.29 | Other | 0 | 0 |
Employed | 432 | 93.71 | Bicycle user | ||
No | 252 | 54.66 | |||
Yes | 209 | 45.33 |
Variables Name | Items | FL a | SMC b | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sustainable transport benefits awareness (STBA) α = 0.78 | STBA1 | From an environmental point of view, it is important we reduce car use. | 0.85 | 0.54 |
STBA2 | Public transport is a more environmentally friendly option than driving a car. | 0.65 | 0.71 | |
STBA3 | Cycling and walking are more environmentally friendly options than driving a car. | 0.63 | 0.65 | |
STBA4 | Walking and cycling can help me to keep fit and healthy. | 0.56 | 0.50 | |
STBA5 | If more people walked and cycled, this would have a positive effect on our environment. | 0.77 | 0.59 | |
STBA6 | Being environmentally responsible is important to me. | 0.52 | 0.53 | |
Traffic problems awareness (TPA) α = 0.82 | TPA1 | Traffic-related air pollution is dangerous to our health. | 0.58 | 0.61 |
TPA2 | Traffic can cause noise pollution. | 0.83 | 0.56 | |
TPA3 | Traffic emissions are a threat to the environment. | 0.77 | 0.65 | |
TPA4 | The more cars on the road, the more traffic injuries. | 0.54 | 0.70 | |
Government Policies (GP) α = 0.80 | GP1 | The government policy of reducing car users is attracting me. | 0.64 | 0.89 |
GP2 | I will use public transportation if the government provides incentives to users. | 0.63 | 0.55 | |
GP3 | I appreciate the government initiative to introduce green public buses. | 0.59 | 0.67 | |
Symbolic Motives of Car (SMC) α = 0.87 | SMC1 | A car provides status and prestige. | 0.49 | 0.92 |
SMC2 | My car shows who and what I am. | 0.53 | 0.64 | |
SMC3 | I may be jealous of someone with a nice car. | 0.59 | 0.76 | |
SMC4 | You can know a person by looking at his or her car. | 0.76 | 0.51 | |
SMC5 | The brand of a car is more important to me than its functional qualities. | 0.53 | 0.56 | |
Environmental Concern (EC) α = 0.93 | EC1 | I feel a moral obligation to protect the environment. | 0.67 | 0.67 |
EC2 | I feel that I should protect the environment. | 0.60 | 0.58 | |
EC3 | I feel it is important that people, in general, protect the environment. | 0.55 | 0.54 | |
EC4 | Our environmental problems cannot be ignored. | 0.73 | 0.73 | |
Acceptability to sustainable transportation (AST) α = 0.79 | AST1 | Sourcing and form of funding. | 0.65 | 0.53 |
AST2 | Cycling is a safe transport option for me. | 0.73 | 0.57 | |
AST3 | I often use public cycling (OFO & MOBIKE) | 0.75 | 0.60 | |
AST4 | I prefer public transport as a commuter. | 0.52 | 0.85 | |
AST5 | Public green transport services are reliable for me. | 0.65 | 0.73 |
Variables | Composite Reliability 1 | Average Variance Extracted 2 | Fit Indices 3,4,5 | Statistics | Recommended Criteria |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sustainable transport benefits awareness | 0.83 | 0.672 | NFI | 0.92 | >0.90 |
Traffic problems awareness | 0.81 | 0.619 | NNFI | 0.95 | >0.90 |
Government policies | 0.85 | 0.592 | CFI | 0.91 | >0.90 |
Symbolic motives of car use | 0.76 | 0.634 | GFI | 0.96 | >0.90 |
Environmental concern | 0.88 | 0.643 | AGFI | 0.97 | >0.80 |
Acceptability to sustainable transportation | 0.80 | 0.602 | RMSEA | 0.053 | >0.08 |
Self-transcendence | 0.78 | 0.642 | - | - | - |
Self-enhancement | 0.84 | 0.598 | - | - | - |
Variables | STBA | TPA | GP | SMC | EC | AST | SE | ST |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
STBA | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
TPA | 0.17 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
GP | 0.24 | 0.17 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
SMC | 0.41 | .037 | 0.43 | - | - | - | - | - |
EC | 0.563 *** | 0.192 ** | 0.138 * | −0.211 | - | - | - | - |
AST | 0.413 *** | 0.554 *** | 0.339 *** | −0.130 *** | 0.576 | - | - | - |
SE | −0.754 | 0.209 | −0.235 | 0.009 | −0.009 | −0.018 | - | - |
ST | 0.0017 | 0.248 | 0.295 | 0.064 | 0.021 | 0.016 | 0.029 | - |
Variables | Environmental Concern | Acceptability to Sustainable Transportation | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | |
Sustainable transport benefits awareness | - | 0.563 *** (0.137) | - | 0.413 *** (0.149) | 0.271 ** (0.089) |
Traffic problems awareness | - | 0.192 ** (0.138) | - | 0.554 *** (0.126) | 0.153 * 0.077) |
Government policies | - | 0.138 * (0.087) | - | 0.339 *** (0.098) | 0.137 (0.015) |
Symbolic motives of car use | - | −0.211 (0.073) | - | −0.130 (0.048) | 0.067 (0.019) |
Self-Enhancement | - | −0.009 (0.009 | - | −0.018 (0.006) | −0.008 (0.007) |
Self-Transcendence | - | 0.021 (0.086) | - | 0.005 (0.11) | 0.016 (0.070) |
Environmental concern | - | - | - | - | 0.576 (0.054) |
Gender | 0.025 (0.076) | 0.058 (0.068) | 0.024 (0.068) | 0.057 (0.070) | 0.077 (0.025) |
Age | 0.038 (0.025) | 0.023 (0.022) | 0.047 (0.017) | 0.068 (0.021) | 0.087 (0.034) |
Education | 0.043 (0.029) | 0.037 (0.026) | 0.029 (0.087) | 0.086 (0.034) | 0.036 (0.020) |
Work status | 0.043 (0.021) | 0.029 (0.012) | 0.018 (0.013) | 0.053 (0.019) | 0.056 (0.070) |
Car use frequency | 0.047 (0.029) | 0.043 (0.018) | 0.086 (0.024) | 0.068 (0.025) | 0.056 (0.018) |
Bicycle user | O.026 (0.012) | 0.031 (0.022) | 0.034 (0.020) | 0.043 (0.012) | 0.023 (0.043) |
Constant | 2.14 ** (0.338) | 4.32 *** (0.452) | 3.87 *** (0.378) | 2.87 *** (0.332) | 1.45 ** (0.532) |
R2 | 0.014 | 0.243 | 0.0231 | 0.0332 | 0.0278 |
∆R2 | - | 0.0282 | - | 0.265 | 0.0321 |
F-value | 1.34 | 9.83 *** | 3.57 *** | 10.87 *** | 25.90 *** |
(AIC) | (576) | (543) | (587) | (544) | (398) |
Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sustainable transport benefits awareness | - | 0.563 *** (0.137) | 0.366 (0.131) | 0.299 ** (0.027) | 0.0374 *** (0.010) |
Traffic problems awareness | - | 0.192 ** (0.138) | 0.052 (0.098) | 0.027 ** (0.198) | 0.106 ** (0.083) |
Government policies | - | 0.138 * (0.087) | 0.469 (0.128) | 0.347 * (0.074) | 0.355 (0.109) |
Symbolic motives of car use | - | −0.211 (0.073) | 0.016 (0.073) | 0.018 (0.027) | 0.036 (0.075) |
Self-Enhancement | - | −0.021 (0.086) | 0.004 (0.018) | 0.075 (0.017) | 0.018 (0.010) |
Self-Transcendence | - | 0.293 (0.137) | 0.05 (0.013) | 0.183 (0.009) | 0.029 (0.076) |
SBTA*SE | - | - | −0.754 ** (0.015) | - | −0.005 ** (0.015) |
TPA*SE | - | - | 0.209 (0.017) | - | 0.009 (0.017) |
GP*SE | - | - | −0.235 *** (0.022) | - | −0.036 *** (0.022) |
SMC*SE | - | - | 0.009 (0.017) | - | 0.009 (0.017) |
SBTA*ST | - | - | - | 0.017 * (0.013) | 0.0019 * (0.015) |
TPA*ST | - | - | - | 0.248 (0.152) | 0.249 (0.152) |
GP*ST | - | - | - | 0.295 ** (0.111) | 0.301 *** (0.112) |
SMC*ST | - | - | - | 0.064 (0.053) | 0.069 (0.051) |
Gender | 0.023 (0.067) | 0.046 (0.054) | 0.019 (0.051) | 0.057 (0.056) | 0.023 (0.042) |
Age | 0.027 (0.018) | 0.025 (0.024) | 0.038 (0.017) | 0.048 (0.021) | 0.072 (0.026) |
Education | 0.034 (0.026) | 0.048 (0.032) | 0.056 (0.097) | 0.075 (0.026) | 0.041 (0.056) |
Work status | 0.023 (0.016) | 0.036 (0.022) | 0.020 (0.053) | 0.067 (0.027) | 0.021 (0.083) |
Car use frequency | 0.042 (0.026) | 0.025 (0.013) | 0.069 (0.044) | 0.051 (0.018) | 0.0421 (0.017) |
Bicycle user | O.034 (0.019) | 0.048 (0.032) | 0.043 (0.035) | 0.067 (0.042) | 0.043 (0.012) |
Constant | 3.07 ** (0.238) | 2.10 *** (0.332) | 3.87 *** (0.273) | 5.78 *** (0.225) | 5.92 ** (0.512) |
R2 | 0.014 | 0.243 | 0.342 | 0.0332 | 0.0278 |
∆R2 | - | 0.028 | 0.0208 c | 0.0432 c | 0.0312 c |
F-value | 1.50 | 9.67 *** | 8.48 *** | 8.29 *** | 6.21 *** |
(AIC) | (576) | (542) | - | (518) | (533) |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Waqas, M.; Dong, Q.-l.; Ahmad, N.; Zhu, Y.; Nadeem, M. Understanding Acceptability towards Sustainable Transportation Behavior: A Case Study of China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3686. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103686
Waqas M, Dong Q-l, Ahmad N, Zhu Y, Nadeem M. Understanding Acceptability towards Sustainable Transportation Behavior: A Case Study of China. Sustainability. 2018; 10(10):3686. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103686
Chicago/Turabian StyleWaqas, Muhammad, Qian-li Dong, Naveed Ahmad, Yuming Zhu, and Muhammad Nadeem. 2018. "Understanding Acceptability towards Sustainable Transportation Behavior: A Case Study of China" Sustainability 10, no. 10: 3686. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103686