Do Citizens Understand the Benefits of Transit-Oriented Development? Exploring and Modeling Community Perceptions of a Metro Line under Construction in Thessaloniki, Greece
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area and Methodology
- A convenience survey addressed to a total sample of 200 people was conducted, within the catchment areas of the two metro stations under construction, to collect data on the perceptions and views of the neighborhoods’ users regarding the local quality of life and expected TOD impacts. An effort was made to ensure the reliable representation in the sample of the two sexes and different age groups.
- The collection of data was followed by descriptive and inferential statistical analysis, to identify possible differences in the respondents’ answers between the two study areas regarding their perceptions about the spatial characteristics and problems of their neighborhoods, their satisfaction with public transport services, their expectations from the metro, and their assessment of the potential benefits of transit-oriented development. Depending on the nature of the variable being investigated for a possible dependence on the station location, the chi-squared test (for categorial variables) or Mann–Whitney U test (for ordinal variables) were applied. The null statistical hypothesis suggests that the perceptions of the respondents are independent of the station location. Consequently, a null hypothesis rejection indicated that people in the two study areas demonstrated different attitudes and opinions. The null hypothesis is rejected at the 1%, 5%, or 10% critical levels when the p-value of the statistical test applied is less than the significance level of a = 0.01 or a = 0.05, or a = 0.10, respectively.
- Ordinal logistics regression was finally applied to identify the significant factors that influenced citizens’ satisfaction with public transport service and the willingness to increase transit trip frequency in light of the new metro line.
2.2. Survey Design and Sample Characteristics
3. Results
3.1. Citizens’ Perceptions of the Spatial Characteristics of the Metro Areas
3.2. Citizens’ Perceptions concerning the Metro’s Expected Impacts
3.3. Modeling Citizens’ Satisfaction with and Willingness towards Public Transport
- θj are the odds and θj = prob(Y <= j)/[1 − prob(Y <= j)];
- Y is the ordinal dependent variable;
- j = 1 … k – 1, where k is the number of levels (scores) of the ordinal variable Y;
- n is the number of independent ordinal variables X.
- θ1= prob(score of 1)/prob(score greater than 1);
- θ2= prob(score of 1 or 2)/prob(score greater than 2);
- θ3= prob(score of 1, 2, or 3)/prob(score greater than 3);P(Y <= j) = θj/(1 − θj) = eαj − βX/(1 − eαj − βX)
3.3.1. Model 1: Transit Level of Satisfaction
3.3.2. Model 2: Willingness to Increase Transit Use
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cervero, R. Transit-oriented development and the urban fabric. In Sustainable Railway Futures: Issues and Challenges; Comtois, C., Loo, B.P.Y., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; pp. 75–93. [Google Scholar]
- Curtis, C.; Renne, J.; Bertolini, L. Transit Oriented Development: Making It Happen; Ashgate: Farnham, Surrey, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Papagiannakis, A.; Yiannakou, A.; Pateraki, D. The renaissance of tramway as a challenge for Transit Oriented Development: A pilot in the city of Thessaloniki. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Changing Cities III: Spatial, Design, Landscape & Socio-economic Dimensions, Syros, Greece, 26–30 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Papagiannakis, A.; Yiannakou, A.; Zachariadou, P. Imagining the future of my neighbourhood: Residents’ perceptions of sustainable mobility and regeneration around metro stations in the city of Thessaloniki. In Proceedings of the AESOP Annual Congress: Planning for transition, Venice, Italy, 9–13 July 2019; pp. 2811–2821. [Google Scholar]
- Calthrope, P. The Next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American Dream; Princeton Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Carlton, I. Histories of Transit-Oriented Development: Perspectives on the Development of the TOD Concept. UC Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development. 2009. Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7wm9t8r6 (accessed on 10 February 2022).
- Cervero, R.; Duncan, M. Benefits of proximity to rail on housing markets. J. Public Transp. 2002, 5, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- NASEM—National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, P.G.; Baldassare, M. The complexity of public attitudes toward compact development. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2010, 76, 219–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertolini, L.; Thomas, R. Policy transfer among planners in transit-oriented development. Town Plan. Rev. 2015, 86, 537–560. [Google Scholar]
- Innes, J.E.; Booher, D.E. Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Plan. Theory Pract. 2004, 5, 419–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noland, R.B.; Weiner, M.D.; DiPetrillo, S.; Kay, A.I. Attitudes towards transit-oriented development: Resident experiences and professional perspectives. J. Transp. Geogr. 2017, 60, 130–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandez Milan, B. How participatory planning processes for transit-oriented development contribute to social sustainability. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2016, 6, 520–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ewing, R.; Cervero, R. Travel and the Built Environment. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2010, 76, 265–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, B.B.; Werner, C.M. The residents’ benefits and concerns before and after a new rail stop: Do residents get what they expect? Environ. Behav. 2011, 43, 789–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.-H.; Nguyen, H.T.T.; Chou, C.-C.; Wang, J.-P.; Wang, T.-K. Transit-Oriented Development: Exploring Citizen Perceptions in a Booming City, Can Tho City, Vietnam. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birago, D.; Mensah, S.O.; Sharma, S. Level of service delivery of public transport and mode choice in Accra, Ghana. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2017, 46, 284–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dell’Olio, L.; Ibeas, A.; Cecin, P. The quality of service desired by public transport users. Transp. Policy 2011, 18, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyrinopoulos, Y.; Antoniou, C. Public transit user satisfaction: Variability and policy implications. Transp. Policy 2008, 15, 260–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, B.B.; Jensen, W.A.; Tharp, D. Residents’ expectations for new rail stops: Optimistic neighborhood perceptions relate to subsequent transit ridership. Transportation 2019, 46, 125–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dahlan, A.F.; Fraszczyk, A. Public Perceptions of a New MRT Service: A Pre-launch Study in Jakarta. Urban. Rail Transit. 2019, 5, 278–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Houston, D.; Zuñiga, M.E. Perceptions of neighborhood change in a Latinx transit corridor. J. Transp. Geogr. 2021, 94, 103097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noland, R.B.; Puniello, O.T.; DiPetrillo, S. The Impact of Transit-Oriented Development on Social Capital. Mineta National Transit Research Consortium. 2016. Available online: https://transweb.sjsu.edu/sites/default/files/1252-transit-oriented-development-impact-on-social-capital.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2022).
- Pongprasert, P.; Kubota, H. TOD residents’ attitudes toward walking to transit station: A case study of transit-oriented developments (TODs) in Bangkok, Thailand. J. Mod. Transp. 2019, 27, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Iseki, H.; Taylor, B.D. Style versus service? An analysis of user perceptions of transit stops and stations. J. Public Transp. 2010, 13, 23–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, Y.; Guthrie, A. Winners or Losers: Resident Perceptions of Transit-Induced Neighborhood Change. Transp. Res. Rec. 2012, 2276, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chapple, K.; Loukaitou-Sideris, A. Transit-Oriented Displacement or Community Dividends? Understanding the Effects of Smarter Growth on Communities; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- He, S.Y.; Tao, S.; Cheung, Y.H.Y.; Puczkowskyj, N.; Lin, Z. Transit-oriented development, perceived neighbourhood gentrification and sense of community: A case study of Hong Kong. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2021, 9, 555–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gatersleben, B.; Clark, C.; Reeve, A.; Uzzell, D. The impact of a new transport link on residential communities. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papagiannakis, A.; Vitopoulou, A.; Yiannakou, A. Transit-oriented development in the southern European city of thessaloniki introducing urban railway: Typology and implementation issues. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2021, 29, 117–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aifantopoulou, G.; Morfoulaki, M.; Kotoula, K.-M.; Chatziathanassiou, M.; Spandou, M.; Petrou, A.; Konstantinidou, N.-M. Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan of Thessaloniki Municipality. Hellenic Institute of Transport. 2019. Available online: https://www.svakthess.imet.gr/Portals/0/Deliverables/PARADOTEO_P5_SVAK_THESSALONIKI.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2022).
- Yiannakou, A. Metro and urban form in Thessaloniki: Characteristics, planning ideas for their interconnection and critical obstacles. Aeihoros 2013, 18, 116–143. [Google Scholar]
- Zachariadou, P. Urban Development and Placemaking on the Axis of Track-Based Transportation Systems: A Case Study of 25th Martiou and Kalamaria Metro Stations of Thessaloniki. Diploma Thesis, School of Spatial Planning and Development, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Chyung, S.Y.; Roberts, K.; Swanson, I.; Hankinson, A. Evidence-Based Survey Design: The Use of a Midpoint on the Likert Scale. Perform. Improv. 2017, 56, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Johns, R. One size doesn’t fit all: Selecting response scales for attitude items. J. Elect. Public Opin. Parties 2005, 15, 237–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hellenic Statistical Authority. Available online: https://www.statistics.gr/el/statistics/-/publication/STO12/- (accessed on 20 January 2022).
- Norušis, M.J. IBM SPSS Statistics 19 Advanced Statistical Procedures Companion, 1st ed.; Addison Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Ramos, S.; Vicente, P.; Passos, A.M.; Costa, P.; Reis, E. Perceptions of the Public Transport Service as a Barrier to the Adoption of Public Transport: A Qualitative Study. Soc. Sci. 2019, 8, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xiaowei, L.; Jingkun, F.; Yao, W.; Jun, C.; Xuefeng, D. Exploring Influencing Factors of Passenger Satisfaction toward Bus Transit in Small-Medium City in China. Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2020, 2020, 8872115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibrahim, A.N.H.; Borhan, M.N.; Yusoff, N.I.; Ismail, A.; Mat Yazid, M.R.; Mhd Yunin, N.A.; Yukawa, S. Gender and Age Do Matter: Exploring the Effect of Passengers’ Gender and Age on the Perception of Light Rail Transit Service Quality in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stradling, S.; Carreno, M.; Rye, T.; Noble, A. Passenger perceptions and the ideal urban bus journey experience. Transp. Policy 2007, 14, 283–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morton, C.; Caulfield, B.; Anable, J. Customer perceptions of quality of service in public transport: Evidence for bus transit in Scotland. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2016, 4, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woldeamanuel, M.; Cyganski, R. Factors affecting travellers’ satisfaction with accessibility to public transportation. In Proceedings of the European Transport Conference (ETC), Glasgow, Scotland, 10–12 October 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Civitas WIKI Team. Smart Choices for Cities. Gender Equality and Mobility: Mind the Gap! European Commission. 2014. Available online: https://civitas.eu/sites/default/files/civ_pol-an2_m_web.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2022).
- Clark, H.M. Who Rides Public Transportation; The American Public Transportation Association (APTA): Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Colley, M.; Buliung, R.N. Gender Differences in School and Work Commuting Mode Through the Life Cycle. Transp. Res. Rec. 2016, 2598, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaafar Sidek, M.F.; Bakri, F.A.; Kadar Hamsa, A.A.; Nik Othman, N.N.A.; Mohd Noor, N.; Mansor, I. Socio-economic and travel characteristics of transit users at transit-oriented development (TOD) stations. Transp. Res. Procedia 2020, 48, 1931–1955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saw, Y.Q.; Dissanayake, D.; Ali, F.; Bentotage, T. Passenger satisfaction towards metro infrastructures, facilities and services. Transp. Res. Procedia 2020, 48, 3980–3995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boarnet, M.G.; Hsu, H.P. The gender gap in non-work travel: The relative roles of income earning potential and land use. J. Urban. Econ. 2015, 86, 111–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheiner, J.; Holz-Rau, C. Gendered travel mode choice: A focus on car deficient households. J. Transp. Geogr. 2012, 24, 250–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pucher, J.; Renne, J.L. Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the 2001 NHTS. Transp. Q. 2003, 57, 49–77. [Google Scholar]
- Yiannakou, A. Urban regeneration as a perpetual planning process: Understanding the role of stakeholders in property-led regeneration projects in Greek cities. Local Econ. 2020, 35, 83–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable Name | Variable Description | Variable Values |
---|---|---|
Metro station | Metro station area | 1: 25th Martiou, 2: Kalamaria |
Respondent’s socioeconomic characteristics | ||
Sex | Sex of respondent | 1: woman, 2: man |
Age | Age of respondent | 1: 16–24, 2: 25–34, 3: 35–49, 4: 50–64, 5: >64 |
Job occupation | Job occupation of respondent | 1: unemployed, 2: retired, 3: housekeeping, 4: student, 5: civil servant, 6: freelancer,7: private employee |
Income | Annual income in euros | 1: 0–5000, 2: 5000–10,000, 3: 10,000–20,000, 4: 20,000–40,000, 5: 40,000+ |
Mobility behavior | ||
Transit frequency | Transit frequency use | 1: never, 2: rarely, 3: sometimes, 4: often, 5: very often |
Transport mode | Transport mode for commuting | 1: car, 2: motorcycle, 3: bus, 4: bicycle; 5: walking |
Transit trip purpose | Trip purpose with transit | 1: work, 2: education, 3: shopping, 4: leisure, 5: personal raison, 6: health visit, 7: other |
Bicycle frequency | Bicycle frequency use | 1: never, 2: rarely, 3: sometimes, 4: often, 5: very often |
Neighborhood spatial characteristics evaluation | ||
Parking space | Parking space offer | 0: lack, 1: sufficiency |
Public space | Public space offer | 0: lack, 1: sufficiency |
Green space | Green space offer | 0: lack, 1: sufficiency |
House rent | Housing rent prices | 0: low, 1: high |
Center distance | City center distance | 0: low, 1: high |
Sidewalk bollards | Lack of sidewalk protection by bollards | 8-point Likert scale 1: less important 8: more important |
Traffic noise | Traffic noise level | 8-point Likert scale |
Sidewalk obstacles | Sidewalks interrupted by obstacles | 8-point Likert scale |
Sidewalk width | Lack of sidewalk width for comfortable walking | 8-point Likert scale |
Sidewalk surface | Insufficient sidewalk maintenance and repair | 8-point Likert scale |
Disabled people | Poor sidewalk quality for disabled people | 8-point Likert scale |
Urban equipment | Lack of appropriate urban equipment on the sidewalks | 8-point Likert scale |
Illegal parking | Illegal car parking on the sidewalks | 8-point Likert scale |
Public transport satisfaction and metro future expectations | ||
Transit quality evaluation | Transit quality level of satisfaction in current situation | 1: not at all, 2: slightly, 3: enough, 4: very satisfied |
Metro transit use | Metro could increase Transit-use frequency | 1: not at all, 2: slightly, 3: enough, 4: very much |
Metro attractiveness | Metro could increase neighborhood attractiveness | 4-point Likert scale |
Metro urban upgrading | Metro could contribute to neighborhood upgrading | 4-point Likert scale |
Evaluation of the importance of TOD potential benefits | ||
Metro accessibility | TOD could enhance public transport quality and accessibility | 5-point Likert scale 1: not important, 2: slightly, 3: moderately 4: important, 5: very important |
Metro travel time | TOD could reduce daily travel time | 5-point Likert scale |
Metro multimodal | TOD could increase urban transport choices | 5-point Likert scale |
Metro infrastructure | TOD could improve road and pedestrian infrastructure | 5-point Likert scale |
Metro city center | TOD could provide easier access to the city center | 5-point Likert scale |
Metro disabled people | TOD could facilitate mobility for disabled people | 5-point Likert scale |
Metro traffic congestion | TOD could decrease traffic congestion during peak hours | 5-point Likert scale |
Metro land-use mix | TOD could attract more leisure and retail businesses | 5-point Likert scale |
Metro real estate | TOD could increase real-estate prices | 5-point Likert scale |
Metro local economy | TOD could increase financial profit of small- and medium-sized enterprises | 5-point Likert scale |
Metro public space | TOD could enhance public space within the station catchment area | 5-point Likert scale |
Metro green space | TOD could increase green spaces within the station catchment area | 5-point Likert scale |
Spatial Characteristic | Citizens’ Evaluations | 25th Martiou Station | Kalamaria Station | Total Sample | Chi-2 Test |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Public space | Lack | 64.2% | 35.8% | 49.7% | p = 0.00 1 |
Sufficiency | 34.8% | 65.2% | 50.3% | ||
Green space | Lack | 85.3% | 69.6% | 77.5% | p = 0.01 2 |
Sufficiency | 14.7% | 30.4% | 22.5% | ||
Parking space | Lack | 73.7% | 80.4% | 77.0% | p = 0.27 |
Sufficiency | 26.3% | 16.9% | 23.0% | ||
Housing rent | Low | 22.1% | 9.8% | 16.0% | p = 0.02 2 |
High | 77.9% | 90.2% | 84.0% | ||
City center distance | Short | 80.0% | 52.2% | 66.3% | p = 0.00 1 |
Long | 20.0% | 47.8% | 33.7% |
Sidewalk Evaluation Criteria | Total Sample Median | Mean Rank | Independent Samples Mann–Whitney U Test | |
---|---|---|---|---|
25th Martiou Station | Kalamaria Station | |||
Poor sidewalk quality for disabled people | 8 | 90.29 | 97.83 | p = 0.30 |
Sidewalks interrupted by obstacles | 7 | 97.04 | 90.86 | p = 0.41 |
Insufficient sidewalk maintenance and repair | 7 | 91.39 | 96.69 | p = 0.49 |
Lack of sidewalk width for comfortable walking | 7 | 91.26 | 96.83 | p = 0.47 |
Illegal car parking on the sidewalks | 7 | 88.09 | 100.10 | p = 0.12 |
Lack of appropriate urban equipment on the sidewalks | 6 | 96.35 | 90.53 | p = 0.45 |
Lack of sidewalk protection by bollards | 6 | 107.51 | 80.05 | p = 0.00 1 |
Traffic noise level | 5 | 105.17 | 82.46 | p = 0.00 1 |
Evaluation Criterion | Total Sample Median | Mean Rank | Independent Samples Mann–Whitney U Test | |
---|---|---|---|---|
25th Martiou Station | Kalamaria Station | |||
Transit quality level of satisfaction | 2 | 102.55 | 85.17 | 0.02 1 |
Increase transit use | 3 | 89.74 | 98.40 | 0.24 |
Increase neighborhood attractivity | 3 | 94.54 | 93.45 | 0.88 |
Neighborhood upgrade | 3 | 99.76 | 88.05 | 0.12 |
Metro Expected Impacts | Total Sample Median Importance | Mean Rank | Independent Samples Mann–Whitney U Test | |
---|---|---|---|---|
25th Martiou Station | Kalamaria Station | |||
Enhance public transport quality and accessibility | 4 | 88.65 | 99.52 | 0.14 |
Reduction in the daily travel time | 4 | 82.06 | 106.33 | 0.00 1 |
Increase in urban transport mode choices | 4 | 89.26 | 98.90 | 0.20 |
Improve road and pedestrian infrastructures | 4 | 98.03 | 89.84 | 0.29 |
Easier access to the city center | 4 | 87.67 | 100.54 | 0.07 3 |
Facilitate mobility for disabled people | 4 | 93.09 | 94.93 | 0.81 |
Decrease traffic congestion during peak hours | 4 | 95.77 | 92.17 | 0.62 |
Attract more leisure and retail businesses | 4 | 100.37 | 87.42 | 0.09 3 |
Rise of real-estate prices | 4 | 101.99 | 85.74 | 0.03 2 |
Increase financial profit of small- and medium-sized enterprises | 4 | 100.19 | 87.61 | 0.10 3 |
Enhance the public space within the station catchment area | 3 | 97.67 | 90.21 | 0.32 |
Increase in green spaces | 3 | 96.56 | 91.35 | 0.50 |
Model Fitting Information | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model | −2 Log likelihood | Chi-square | df | Sig. |
Intercept only | 249.270 | |||
Final | 217.604 | 31.666 | 9 | 0.000 |
Goodness-of-Fit | ||||
Chi-square | df | Sig. | ||
Pearson | 163.980 | 144 | 0.122 | |
Deviance | 137.072 | 144 | 0.646 | |
Pseudo R-Square | ||||
Cox and Snell | 0.157 | |||
Nagelkerke | 0.176 | |||
McFadden | 0.077 | |||
Test of Parallel Lines | ||||
Model | −2 Log likelihood | Chi-square | df | Sig. |
Null hypothesis | 217.604 | |||
General | 195.318 | 22.286 | 18 | 0.220 |
Model 1 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate b | Std. Error | Wald | df | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | ||||
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | Odd RatioEXP(-b) | |||||||
Threshold | Transit level of satisfaction = 1 | −4.900 | 1.104 | 19.702 | 1 | 0.000 | −7.064 | −2.737 | |
Transit level of satisfaction = 2 | −2.771 | 1.068 | 6.728 | 1 | 0.009 | −4.864 | −0.677 | ||
Transit level of satisfaction = 3 | 1.025 | 1.081 | .898 | 1 | 0.343 | −1.095 | 3.144 | ||
Location | Sex = 1 (woman) | −0.360 | 0.293 | 1.506 | 1 | 0.220 | −0.934 | 0.215 | 1.43 |
Sex = 2 (men) | 0 1 | 0 | |||||||
Age = 1 (16–24) | −1.545 | 0.745 | 4.304 | 1 | 0.038 | −3.004 | −0.085 | 4.69 | |
Age = 2 (25–34) | −0.802 | 0.729 | 1.210 | 1 | 0.271 | −2.231 | 0.627 | 2.23 | |
Age = 3 (35–49) | −1.017 | 0.706 | 2.074 | 1 | 0.150 | −2.401 | 0.367 | 2.76 | |
Age = 4 (50–64) | −1.199 | 0.711 | 2.845 | 1 | 0.092 | −2.593 | 0.194 | 3.32 | |
Age = 5 (65+) | 0 1 | 0 | |||||||
Income = 1 (0–5000) | −1.671 | 0.832 | 4.038 | 1 | 0.044 | −3.302 | −0.041 | 5.32 | |
Income = 2 (5000–10,000) | −0.596 | 0.829 | 0.516 | 1 | 0.472 | −2.221 | 1.030 | 1.81 | |
Income = 3 (10,000–20,000) | −1.501 | 0.907 | 2.737 | 1 | 0.098 | −3.279 | 0.277 | 4.49 | |
Income = 4 (20,000+) | 0 1 | 0 | |||||||
Travel behavior = 1 (sustainable) | −0.837 | 0.295 | 8.033 | 1 | 0.005 | −1.416 | −0.258 | 2.31 | |
Travel behavior = 2 (non sustainable) | 0 1 | 0 | |||||||
Link function: Logit. |
Model Fitting Information | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model | −2 Log likelihood | Chi-square | df | Sig. |
Intercept only | 263.328 | |||
Final | 246.341 | 16.988 | 8 | 0.030 |
Goodness-of-Fit | ||||
Chi-square | df | Sig. | ||
Pearson | 135.398 | 124 | 0.228 | |
Deviance | 145.049 | 124 | 0.095 | |
Pseudo R-Square | ||||
Cox and Snell | 0.087 | |||
Nagelkerke | 0.095 | |||
McFadden | 0.037 | |||
Test of Parallel Lines | ||||
Model | −2 Log likelihood | Chi-square | df | Sig. |
Null hypothesis | 246.341 | |||
General | 224.780 | 21.560 | 16 | 0.158 |
Model 2 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate b | Std. Error | Wald | df | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | ||||
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | Odd RatioEXP(b) | |||||||
Threshold | Increase in transit-use frequency = 1 | −3.801 | 0.837 | 20.620 | 1 | 0.000 | −5.441 | −2.160 | |
Increase in transit-use frequency = 2 | −2.640 | .819 | 10.383 | 1 | 0.001 | −4.246 | −1.034 | ||
Increase in transit-use frequency = 3 | −0.322 | 0.801 | 0.162 | 1 | 0.688 | −1.891 | 1.247 | ||
Location | Sex = 1 (woman) | 0.253 | 0.284 | 0.798 | 1 | 0.372 | −0.303 | 0.809 | 1.29 |
Sex = 2 (men) | 0 1 | 0 | |||||||
Age = 1 (16–24) | 0.183 | 0.440 | 0.173 | 1 | 0.677 | −0.679 | 1.045 | 1.20 | |
Age = 2 (25–34) | 0.774 | 0.432 | 3.207 | 1 | 0.073 | −0.073 | 1.622 | 2.17 | |
Age = 3 (35–49) | 0.121 | 0.393 | 0.095 | 1 | 0.758 | −0.649 | 0.891 | 1.13 | |
Age = 4 (50+) | 0 1 | 0 | |||||||
Income = 1 (0–5000) | −2.562 | 0.806 | 10.111 | 1 | 0.001 | −4.141 | −0.983 | 0.08 | |
Income = 2 (5000–10,000) | −2.010 | 0.799 | 6.335 | 1 | 0.012 | −3.575 | −0.445 | 0.13 | |
Income = 3 (10,000–20,000) | −2.023 | 0.868 | 5.434 | 1 | 0.020 | −3.723 | −0.322 | 0.13 | |
Income = 4 (20,000+) | 0 1 | 0 | |||||||
Travel behavior = 1 (sustainable) | 0.286 | 0.281 | 1.038 | 1 | 0.308 | −0.264 | 0.836 | 1.33 | |
Travel behavior = 2 (non sustainable) | 0 1 | 0 | |||||||
Link function: Logit. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Papagiannakis, A.; Yiannakou, A. Do Citizens Understand the Benefits of Transit-Oriented Development? Exploring and Modeling Community Perceptions of a Metro Line under Construction in Thessaloniki, Greece. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7043. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127043
Papagiannakis A, Yiannakou A. Do Citizens Understand the Benefits of Transit-Oriented Development? Exploring and Modeling Community Perceptions of a Metro Line under Construction in Thessaloniki, Greece. Sustainability. 2022; 14(12):7043. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127043
Chicago/Turabian StylePapagiannakis, Apostolos, and Athena Yiannakou. 2022. "Do Citizens Understand the Benefits of Transit-Oriented Development? Exploring and Modeling Community Perceptions of a Metro Line under Construction in Thessaloniki, Greece" Sustainability 14, no. 12: 7043. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127043