The Relationship between the Evaluation of Public Transport Services and Travel-Based CO2 Emissions from Private Transport Modes in Regional and Metropolitan Areas in Japan
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Would an improved evaluation of the service contents of public transport boost its use and lead to a reduction in travel-based CO2 emissions from private transport modes in both regional and metropolitan areas?
- 2.
- Is there a direct relationship between the evaluation of the attributes of public transport services and travel-based CO2 emissions from private transport modes?
2. Literature Review
3. Overview of Case Study Areas and Survey
3.1. Case Study Areas
3.1.1. Regional Area: Okayama City
3.1.2. Metropolitan Area: Central Tokyo
3.2. Survey
4. Methods
4.1. Estimation Conditions for Travel-Based CO2 Emissions from Private Transport Modes and Samples Used
- Respondents are not included approximately in the top 10% of the average response time per question. For this study, the criterion for the average response time is more than 8 s.
- The addresses of respondents are in the case study area.
- The one-way travel distance of private transport modes per travel purpose is less than 100 km.
- The fuel mileage of “private car”, “car sharing”, or “others” (if the transport mode is a car) is between 4 km/L and 40 km/L, depending on whether the transport mode is a petrol, diesel, or hybrid (petrol/electric or diesel/electric) vehicle.
- The fuel mileage of “motorbike”, “scooter”, or “others” (if the transport mode is a two-wheeler) is between 4 km/L and 70 km/L, depending on whether the transport mode is a petrol, diesel, or hybrid (petrol/electric or diesel/electric) vehicle.
4.2. Estimation Method for Travel-Based CO2 Emissions from Private Transport Modes
- “about once a year” = “1 time a year”
- “about once in six months” = “2 times a year”
- “about once in two or three months” = “4 times a year”
- “about once a month” = “12 times a year”
- “about once in two weeks” = “24 times a year”
- “about once a week” = “48 times a year”
- “about two or three times a week” = “144 times a year”
- “almost every day” = “240 times a year”
4.3. Method for Analysing the Relationship between the Evaluation of Public Transport Services and Travel-Based CO2 Emissions from Private Transport Modes
5. Results
5.1. Descriptive Statistics of Travel-Based CO2 Emissions from Private Transport Modes and the Share of CO2 Emitter Groups and Private Car Ownership
5.2. Effects on the Overall Evaluation of Public Transport Services
5.3. Relationships: Overall Evaluation, Usage Frequency of Public Transport, and Travel-Based CO2 Emissions from Private Transport Modes
5.4. The Direct Relationship between the Evaluation of the ‘Hard’ and ‘Soft’ Attributes of Public Transport Services and Travel-Based CO2 Emissions from Private Transport Modes
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- UNFCCC. The Paris Agreement. 2018. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/parisagreement_publication.pdf (accessed on 15 August 2022).
- The Government of Japan. The Long-Term Strategy under the Paris Agreement. 2021. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Japan_LTS2021.pdf (accessed on 16 August 2022).
- National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan. The GHG Emissions Data of Japan (1990–2020). 2022. Available online: https://www.nies.go.jp/gio/en/archive/ghgdata/jqjm10000018e3wx-att/L5-7gas_2022_gioweb_ver1.1.xlsx (accessed on 16 August 2022).
- Shibukawa, T.; Yamashita, S.; Morimoto, A. A basic study on estimates of the traffic energy consumption by the mobile spatial dynamics. JSTE J. Traffic Eng. 2018, 4, A:302–A:309. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shatu, F.M.; Kamruzzaman, M.D. Investigating the link between transit oriented development and sustainable travel behavior in Brisbane: A case-control study. J. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 7, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, L.; Li, R.Y.M.; Taylor, M.A.P.; Scrafton, D. Residents’ choices and preferences regarding transit-oriented housing. Aust. Plan. 2021, 57, 85–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dempsey, N.; Brown, C.; Raman, S.; Porta, S.; Jenks, M.; Jones, C.; Bramley, G. Elements of Urban Form. In Dimensions of the Sustainable City; Future City, Jenks, M., Jones, C., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; Volume 2, pp. 21–51. ISBN 978-1-4020-8647-2. [Google Scholar]
- Newman, P.G.; Kenworthy, J.R. Cities and Automobile Dependence: An International Sourcebook; Gower Publishing: Brookfield, VT, USA, 1989; ISBN 0-566-07040-5. [Google Scholar]
- Taniguchi, M.; Murakawa, T.; Morita, T. Analysis on relationship between urban characters and car usage based on personal trip data. J. City Plan. Inst. Jpn. 1999, 34, 967–972. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kivimaa, P.; Rogge, K.S. Interplay of policy experimentation and institutional change in sustainability transitions: The case of mobility as a service in Finland. Res. Policy 2022, 51, 104412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reckien, D.; Ewald, M.; Edenhofer, O.; Liideke, M.K.B. What parameters influence the spatial variations in CO2 emissions from road traffic in Berlin? Implications for urban planning to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Urban Stud. 2007, 44, 339–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Hong, J.H.; Nasri, A.; Shen, Q. How built environment affects travel behavior: A comparative analysis of the connections between land use and vehicle miles traveled in US Cities. J. Transp. Land Use 2012, 5, 40–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, S.; Diao, M.; Feng, C.-C. Individual transport emissions and the built environment: A structural equation modelling approach. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2016, 92, 206–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Ma, J.; Chai, Y. Neighborhood-scale urban form, travel behavior, and CO2 emissions in Beijing: Implications for low-carbon urban planning. Urban Geogr. 2017, 38, 381–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, X.; Yang, W. Examining the effects of the built environment and residential self-selection on commuting trips and the related CO2 emissions: An empirical study in Guangzhou, China. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, 52, 480–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, J. Non-linear influences of the built environment on transportation emissions: Focusing on densities. J. Transp. Land Use 2017, 10, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makido, Y.; Dhakal, S.; Yamagata, Y. Relationship between urban form and CO2 emissions: Evidence from fifty Japanese cities. Urban Clim. 2012, 2, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kii, M. CO2 emissions estimation from passenger cars and factor decomposition: Case study for Tokyo Metropolitan Area and Kagawa Prefecture by 2050. J. Jpn. Soc. Energy Resour. 2019, 40, 93–100. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eboli, L.; Mazzulla, G. Relationships between rail passengers’ satisfaction and service quality: A framework for identifying key service factors. Public Transp. 2015, 7, 185–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, J.; Cao, X. Comparing importance-performance analysis and three-factor theory in assessing rider satisfaction with transit. J. Transp. Land Use 2017, 10, 837–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhen, F.; Cao, J.; Tang, J. Exploring correlates of passenger satisfaction and service improvement priorities of the Shanghai-Nanjing High Speed Rail. J. Transp. Land Use 2018, 11, 559–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Lierop, D.; Badami, M.G.; El-Geneidy, A.M. What influences satisfaction and loyalty in public transport? A review of the literature. Transp. Rev. 2018, 38, 52–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soza-Parra, J.; Raveau, S.; Muñoz, J.C.; Cats, O. The underlying effect of public transport reliability on users’ satisfaction. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 126, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lunke, E.B. Commuters’ satisfaction with public transport. J. Transp. Health 2020, 16, 100842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sukhov, A.; Lättman, K.; Olsson, L.E.; Friman, M.; Fujii, S. Assessing travel satisfaction in public transport: A configurational approach. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 93, 102732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mattson, J.; Brooks, J.; Godavarthy, R.; Quadrifoglio, L.; Jain, J.; Simek, C.; Sener, I. Transportation, community quality of life, and life satisfaction in metro and non-metro areas of the United States. Wellbeing Space Soc. 2021, 2, 100056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okayama City. 2020 Population Census Summary of Results (Definite Values). 2021. Available online: https://www.city.okayama.jp/shisei/cmsfiles/contents/0000029/29751/kokuseityousa.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2023). (In Japanese).
- Geospatial Information Authority of Japan. The Report of Statistical Reports on the Land Area by Prefectures and Municipalities in Japan in 2020. 2020. Available online: http://www.gsi.go.jp/KOKUJYOHO/MENCHO/backnumber/GSI-menseki20201001.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2023). (In Japanese).
- Okayama City. Okayama City Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. 2018. Available online: https://www.city.okayama.jp/shisei/cmsfiles/contents/0000006/6186/000349335.pdf (accessed on 18 August 2022). (In Japanese).
- Okayama City. Okayama City Community Public Transportation Network Plan Chapter 2. 2020. Available online: https://www.city.okayama.jp/shisei/cmsfiles/contents/0000006/6208/2.pdf (accessed on 4 April 2023). (In Japanese).
- Statistics of Tokyo. 2020 Population Census Results: Population Density per Municipality. 2022. Available online: https://www.toukei.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/kokutyo/2020/kt20ta0006.xls (accessed on 9 January 2023). (In Japanese).
- Tokyo Metropolitan Government. Basic Policies for Community Public Transportation in Tokyo. 2022. Available online: https://www.toshiseibi.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/bunyabetsu/kotsu_butsuryu/pdf/chiiki_koutsu_kihon_all.pdf?202205= (accessed on 20 April 2023). (In Japanese).
- Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of Urban Development. Aims for a World-Class User-Oriented Transportation System for Cities. 2015. Available online: https://www.toshiseibi.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/kiban/kotsu_seisaku/pdf/matome-honpen.pdf?1501 (accessed on 9 January 2023). (In Japanese).
- Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of Industrial and Labor Affairs. Tokyo Sightseeing Accessibility Guide 2022. 2022. Available online: https://www.gotokyo.org/book/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2204_tokyosightseeing_low_EN.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2023).
- Okada, M.; Ujihara, T.; Hori, H. Study of the conversion pattern of main transportation modes and the characteristics of continuing/stopping the use of public transport during the COVID-19 pandemic: For residents of Tokyo’s Wards and Okayama Prefecture. J. City Plan. Inst. Jpn. 2022, 57, 106–113. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. Mileage Data of Motor Vehicles (March 2022). 2022. Available online: https://www.mlit.go.jp/jidosha/jidosha_fr10_000051.html (accessed on 19 August 2022). (In Japanese).
- Toyota. Toyota Yaris Specification. 2022. Available online: https://toyota.jp/yaris/pdf/?type=spec (accessed on 19 August 2022). (In Japanese).
- Mercedes-Benz Japan. Mercedes-AMG G 63 Magno Hero Edition Brochure (10 August 2022). 2022. Available online: https://mercedes-benz.jp/catalog/g-class/ebook/G63_Magno_Hero_Edition/index.html (accessed on 19 August 2022). (In Japanese).
- Mercedes-Benz Japan. Mercedes-AMG G 63 Edition 55 Brochure (10 August 2022). 2022. Available online: https://mercedes-benz.jp/catalog/g-class/ebook/G63_Edition_55/index.html (accessed on 19 August 2022). (In Japanese).
- Honda. Motorbikes for Sale. Available online: https://www.honda.co.jp/motor-lineup/?from=motornavi_header (accessed on 19 August 2022). (In Japanese).
- Kawasaki Motors, Ltd. Motorbikes for Sale. Available online: https://www.kawasaki-motors.com/mc/lineup/ (accessed on 19 August 2022). (In Japanese).
- Suzuki. Motorbikes for Sale. Available online: https://www1.suzuki.co.jp/motor/lineup/ (accessed on 19 August 2022). (In Japanese).
- Yamaha Motor. Motorbikes for Sale. Available online: https://www.yamaha-motor.co.jp/mc/lineup/ (accessed on 19 August 2022). (In Japanese).
- Nishio, M. Analysis of Total Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emission; Japan Automobile Research Institute: Tsukuba, Japan, 2011. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
- Agency for Natural Resources and Energy. Standard Calorific Values and Carbon Emission Factors of Energy Sources. 2020. Available online: https://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/statistics/total_energy/xls/stte_039.xlsx (accessed on 19 August 2022). (In Japanese).
- Ministry of the Environment. Methods and Emission Factors in the Calculation, Reporting and Publishing of Greenhouse Gases. Available online: https://ghg-santeikohyo.env.go.jp/files/calc/itiran_2020_rev.pdf (accessed on 19 August 2022). (In Japanese).
- Gibbons, J.D.; Chakraborti, S. Nonparametric Statistical Inference: Revised and Expanded, 4th ed.; Taylor & Francis: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003; ISBN 978-0-203-91156-3. [Google Scholar]
- Neuhäuser, M.; Bretz, F. Nonparametric all-pairs multiple comparisons. Biom. J. 2001, 43, 571–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Best, H.; Wolf, C. (Eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Regression Analysis and Causal Inference, 1st ed.; SAGE Publications Ltd.: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2013; ISBN 978-1-4462-8814-6. [Google Scholar]
Target | Residents aged 20 and older in Okayama City and Central Tokyo |
Method | Online survey |
Company | Rakuten Insight, Inc. |
Period | 9 December 2021–13 December 2021 |
No. samples collected |
|
Items |
|
Age Group | Okayama City | Central Tokyo | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Male (n = 547) | Female (n = 595) | Total (n = 1142) | Male (n = 537) | Female (n = 545) | Total (n = 1082) | |
20s | 7.3% | 17.8% | 12.8% | 19.6% | 19.6% | 19.6% |
30s | 21.9% | 21.7% | 21.8% | 20.5% | 19.4% | 20.0% |
40s | 22.7% | 22.0% | 22.3% | 20.5% | 19.8% | 20.1% |
50s | 24.3% | 22.4% | 23.3% | 18.6% | 20.4% | 19.5% |
60s or older | 23.8% | 16.1% | 19.8% | 20.9% | 20.7% | 20.8% |
Variables | Details |
---|---|
Annual travel-based CO2 emissions from private transport modes [kg-CO2/(person∙year)] | Annual travel-based CO2 emissions from daily travel per respondents |
Evaluation of rail and bus services: ‘hard’ attributes |
|
Number of services | |
Location of rail stations/bus stops | |
Comfort of rail stations/bus stops | |
Ease of transfer | |
Comfort of trains/buses | |
Evaluation of rail and bus services: ‘soft’ attributes | |
Number of services | |
Ease of understanding information and guide of services | |
Ease of searching information and guide of services | |
Fares | |
Payment methods | |
Overall evaluation of rail and bus services | |
Usage frequency of rail and bus services |
|
Regional area (Okayama City) | Public Transport Services | Rail | Bus | ||||
Variables | Coeff. | SE | p Value | Coeff. | SE | p Value | |
Evaluation of public transport services: ‘hard’ attributes | |||||||
Number of services | 1.344 | 0.222 | 0.000 ** | 1.694 | 0.264 | 0.000 ** | |
Location of rail stations/bus stops | 1.109 | 0.231 | 0.000 ** | 0.708 | 0.207 | 0.001 ** | |
Comfort of rail stations/bus stops | 0.272 | 0.258 | 0.291 | 1.142 | 0.332 | 0.001 ** | |
Ease of transfer | 0.521 | 0.246 | 0.035 * | 0.660 | 0.292 | 0.024 * | |
Comfort of trains/buses | 0.586 | 0.235 | 0.013 * | 0.143 | 0.280 | 0.609 | |
Evaluation of public transport services: ‘soft’ attributes | |||||||
Ease of understanding information and guide of services | 0.508 | 0.296 | 0.086 | 0.148 | 0.339 | 0.662 | |
Ease of searching information and guide of services | 0.202 | 0.289 | 0.483 | 0.866 | 0.327 | 0.008 ** | |
Fares | 1.086 | 0.246 | 0.000 ** | 1.818 | 0.287 | 0.000 ** | |
Payment methods | 1.227 | 0.228 | 0.000 ** | 0.464 | 0.259 | 0.073 | |
Intercepts (Thresholds) | |||||||
Overall evaluation: Dissatisfied | −2.473 | 0.139 | 0.000 ** | −1.951 | 0.105 | 0.000 ** | |
Overall evaluation: Somewhat dissatisfied | −1.051 | 0.084 | 0.000 ** | −0.528 | 0.071 | 0.000 ** | |
Overall evaluation: Neutral | 3.330 | 0.160 | 0.000 ** | 3.631 | 0.175 | 0.000 ** | |
Overall evaluation: Somewhat satisfied | 6.541 | 0.307 | 0.000 ** | 7.323 | 0.407 | 0.000 ** | |
Model fit (p value) | 0.000 | 0.000 | |||||
McFadden R2 | 0.269 | 0.220 | |||||
Cox and Snell R2 | 0.463 | 0.413 | |||||
Nagelkerke R2 | 0.514 | 0.453 | |||||
% of correct classifications | 69.6% | 62.3% | |||||
Sample size | 1142 | 1142 | |||||
Metropolitan area (Central Tokyo) | Public Transport Services | Rail | Bus | ||||
Variables | Coeff. | SE | p Value | Coeff. | SE | p Value | |
Evaluation of public transport services: ‘hard’ attributes | |||||||
Number of services | 1.624 | 0.215 | 0.000 ** | 1.103 | 0.236 | 0.000 ** | |
Location of rail stations/bus stops | 0.363 | 0.211 | 0.085 | 0.788 | 0.240 | 0.001 ** | |
Comfort of rail stations/bus stops | 0.299 | 0.193 | 0.122 | 0.508 | 0.287 | 0.077 | |
Ease of transfer | 0.755 | 0.189 | 0.000 ** | 1.284 | 0.285 | 0.000 ** | |
Comfort of trains/buses | 1.230 | 0.197 | 0.000 ** | 0.935 | 0.265 | 0.000 ** | |
Evaluation of public transport services: ‘soft’ attributes | |||||||
Ease of understanding information and guide of services | 0.143 | 0.256 | 0.577 | 0.525 | 0.315 | 0.096 | |
Ease of searching information and guide of services | 0.472 | 0.254 | 0.064 | 0.302 | 0.322 | 0.348 | |
Fares | 0.975 | 0.189 | 0.000 ** | 0.734 | 0.244 | 0.003 ** | |
Payment methods | 1.751 | 0.195 | 0.000 ** | 0.765 | 0.225 | 0.001 ** | |
Intercepts (Thresholds) | |||||||
Overall evaluation: Dissatisfied | −3.253 | 0.318 | 0.000 ** | −3.024 | 0.186 | 0.000 ** | |
Overall evaluation: Somewhat dissatisfied | −1.347 | 0.147 | 0.000 ** | −1.201 | 0.092 | 0.000 ** | |
Overall evaluation: Neutral | 3.188 | 0.194 | 0.000 ** | 3.368 | 0.171 | 0.000 ** | |
Overall evaluation: Somewhat satisfied | 6.820 | 0.306 | 0.000 ** | 6.363 | 0.314 | 0.000 ** | |
Model fit (p value) | 0.000 | 0.000 | |||||
McFadden R2 | 0.398 | 0.319 | |||||
Cox and Snell R2 | 0.631 | 0.521 | |||||
Nagelkerke R2 | 0.687 | 0.578 | |||||
% of correct classifications | 71.9% | 73.8% | |||||
Sample size | 1082 | 1082 |
Regional area (Okayama City) | Overall Evaluation of Rail Service | Usage Frequency of Rail | Total | ||||
Never | About Once a Year–Once in Six Months | About Once in Two or Three Months–Once a Month | About Once in Two Weeks–Two or Three Times a Week | Almost Every Day | |||
Dissatisfied | 36 (64.3%) ++ | 8 (14.3%) ++ | 5 (8.9%) + | 4 (7.1%) | 3 (5.4%) | 56 | |
Somewhat dissatisfied | 51 (37.2%) | 50 (36.5%) | 19 (13.9%) | 9 (6.6%) | 8 (5.8%) | 137 | |
Neutral | 330 (46.7%) ++ | 202 (28.6%) | 118 (16.7%) + | 35 (5.0%) + | 21 (3.0%) + | 706 | |
Somewhat satisfied | 31 (17.6%) ++ | 57 (32.4%) | 62 (35.2%) ++ | 14 (8.0%) | 12 (6.8%) + | 176 | |
Satisfied | 16 (23.9%) ++ | 24 (35.8%) | 13 (19.4%) | 11 (16.4%) ++ | 3 (4.5%) | 67 | |
Chi-square test of independence: p = 0.000 ** | |||||||
Overall Evaluation of Bus Service | Usage Frequency of Bus | Total | |||||
Never | About Once a Year–Once in Six Months | About Once in Two or Three Months–Once a Month | About Once in Two Weeks–Two or Three Times a Week | Almost Every Day | |||
Dissatisfied | 68 (64.8%) ++ | 19 (18.1%) + | 9 (8.6%) + | 7 (6.7%) | 2 (1.9%) | 105 | |
Somewhat dissatisfied | 102 (47.0%) | 69 (31.8%) | 31 (14.3%) | 10 (4.6%) | 5 (2.3%) | 217 | |
Neutral | 357 (54.5%) ++ | 174 (26.6%) | 83 (12.7%) ++ | 29 (4.4%) | 12 (1.8%) | 655 | |
Somewhat satisfied | 24 (19.2%) ++ | 35 (28.0%) | 52 (41.6%) ++ | 11 (8.8%) | 3 (2.4%) | 125 | |
Satisfied | 12 (30.0%) + | 11 (27.5%) | 12 (30.0%) + | 4 (10.0%) | 1 (2.5%) | 40 | |
Chi-square test of independence: p = 0.000 ** | |||||||
Metropolitan area (Central Tokyo) | Overall Evaluation of Rail Service | Usage Frequency of Rail | Total | ||||
Never | About Once a Year–Once in Six Months | About Once in Two or Three Months–Once a Month | About Once in Two Weeks–Two or Three Times a Week | Almost Every Day | |||
Dissatisfied | 2 (20.0%) + | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (30.0%) | 3 (30.0%) | 2 (20.0%) | 10 | |
Somewhat dissatisfied | 4 (8.0%) | 3 (6.0%) | 8 (16.0%) | 19 (38.0%) | 16 (32.0%) | 50 | |
Neutral | 28 (6.6%) ++ | 29 (6.8%) | 87 (20.5%) | 148 (34.8%) + | 133 (31.3%) | 425 | |
Somewhat satisfied | 4 (1.1%) ++ | 22 (6.2%) | 67 (19.0%) | 145 (41.1%) | 115 (32.6%) | 353 | |
Satisfied | 6 (2.5%) | 14 (5.7%) | 38 (15.6%) | 103 (42.2%) | 83 (34.0%) | 244 | |
Chi-square test of independence: p = 0.011 * | |||||||
Overall Evaluation of Bus Service | Usage Frequency of Bus | Total | |||||
Never | About Once a Year–Once in Six Months | About Once in Two or Three Months–Once a Month | About Once in Two Weeks–Two or Three Times a Week | Almost Every Day | |||
Dissatisfied | 13 (43.3%) | 7 (23.3%) | 5 (16.7%) | 3 (10.0%) | 2 (6.7%) | 30 | |
Somewhat dissatisfied | 26 (20.5%) ++ | 31 (24.4%) | 39 (30.7%) | 22 (17.3%) | 9 (7.1%) + | 127 | |
Neutral | 259 (38.9%) ++ | 124 (18.6%) | 165 (24.8%) | 99 (14.9%) ++ | 18 (2.7%) + | 665 | |
Somewhat satisfied | 16 (10.3%) ++ | 36 (23.1%) | 44 (28.2%) | 54 (34.6%) ++ | 6 (3.8%) | 156 | |
Satisfied | 18 (17.3%) ++ | 13 (12.5%) | 35 (33.7%) | 31 (29.8%) ++ | 7 (6.7%) | 104 | |
Chi-square test of independence: p = 0.000 ** |
Regional area (Okayama City) | Usage Frequency of Rail (p = 0.000 **) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | ||
Never | 464 | 862 | 1026 | Never | About once in two or three months–once a month | p = 0.022 | |
About once a year–once in six months | 341 | 923 | 1025 | Never | About once in two weeks–two or three times a week | p = 0.001 | |
About once in two or three months–once a month | 217 | 715 | 954 | About once a year–once in six months | About once in two or three months–once a month | p = 0.001 | |
About once in two weeks–two or three times a week | 73 | 566 | 965 | About once a year–once in six months | About once in two weeks–two or three times a week | p = 0.000 | |
Almost every day | 47 | 657 | 1060 | About once a year–once in six months | Almost every day | p = 0.016 | |
Usage Frequency of Bus (p = 0.000 **) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | |||
Never | 563 | 899 | 1004 | Never | About once in two or three months–once a month | p = 0.001 | |
About once a year–once in six months | 308 | 824 | 953 | Never | About once in two weeks–two or three times a week | p = 0.001 | |
About once in two or three months–once a month | 187 | 734 | 1154 | About once a year–once in six months | About once in two or three months–once a month | p = 0.018 | |
About once in two weeks–two or three times a week | 61 | 547 | 963 | About once a year–once in six months | About once in two weeks–two or three times a week | p = 0.005 | |
Almost every day | 23 | 505 | 733 | ||||
Metropolitan area (Central Tokyo) | Usage Frequency of Rail (p = 0.662) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | ||
Never | 44 | 215 | 494 | ||||
About once a year–once in six months | 68 | 231 | 591 | ||||
About once in two or three months–once a month | 203 | 215 | 804 | ||||
About once in two weeks–two or three times a week | 418 | 157 | 502 | ||||
Almost every day | 349 | 192 | 651 | ||||
Usage Frequency of Bus (p = 0.341) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | |||
Never | 332 | 150 | 566 | ||||
About once a year–once in six months | 211 | 258 | 838 | ||||
About once in two or three months–once a month | 288 | 188 | 611 | ||||
About once in two weeks–two or three times a week | 209 | 180 | 500 | ||||
Almost every day | 42 | 124 | 276 |
Evaluation of rail service: ‘hard’ attributes | Number of Services (p = 0.001 **) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | ||
NE | 166 | 3.08 | 1.11 | NE | HE | p = 0.013 | |
LE | 428 | 3.06 | 0.99 | LE | HE | p = 0.001 | |
ME | 332 | 2.94 | 1.05 | ||||
HE | 216 | 2.72 | 1.08 | ||||
Location of Rail Stations (p = 0.041 *) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | |||
NE | 166 | 3.16 | 1.06 | NE | HE | p = 0.026 | |
LE | 428 | 3.04 | 0.99 | ||||
ME | 332 | 3.02 | 0.96 | ||||
HE | 216 | 2.88 | 1.05 | ||||
Comfort of Rail Stations (p = 0.000 **) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | |||
NE | 166 | 3.04 | 0.96 | NE | HE | p = 0.001 | |
LE | 428 | 2.93 | 0.83 | LE | HE | p = 0.001 | |
ME | 332 | 2.90 | 0.79 | ME | HE | p = 0.022 | |
HE | 216 | 2.69 | 0.86 | ||||
Ease of Transfer (p = 0.075) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | |||
NE | 166 | 3.00 | 1.02 | ||||
LE | 428 | 3.02 | 0.86 | ||||
ME | 332 | 3.02 | 0.89 | ||||
HE | 216 | 2.83 | 0.91 | ||||
Comfort of Trains (p = 0.008 **) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | |||
NE | 166 | 3.14 | 0.90 | LE | HE | p = 0.018 | |
LE | 428 | 3.10 | 0.74 | ||||
ME | 332 | 3.02 | 0.82 | ||||
HE | 216 | 2.90 | 0.86 | ||||
Evaluation of rail service: ‘soft’ attributes | Ease of Understanding Information and Guide of Services (p = 0.061) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | ||
NE | 166 | 3.23 | 0.96 | ||||
LE | 428 | 3.22 | 0.80 | ||||
ME | 332 | 3.14 | 0.91 | ||||
HE | 216 | 3.02 | 0.90 | ||||
Ease of Searching Information and Guide of Services (p = 0.231) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | |||
NE | 166 | 3.23 | 0.96 | ||||
LE | 428 | 3.22 | 0.84 | ||||
ME | 332 | 3.17 | 0.93 | ||||
HE | 216 | 3.07 | 0.86 | ||||
Fares (p = 0.141) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | |||
NE | 166 | 2.85 | 0.96 | ||||
LE | 428 | 3.01 | 0.75 | ||||
ME | 332 | 2.93 | 0.81 | ||||
HE | 216 | 2.97 | 0.87 | ||||
Payment Methods (p = 0.394) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | |||
NE | 166 | 3.20 | 0.92 | ||||
LE | 428 | 3.16 | 0.78 | ||||
ME | 332 | 3.10 | 0.77 | ||||
HE | 216 | 3.09 | 0.86 |
Evaluation of rail service: ‘hard’ attributes | Number of Services (p = 0.585) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. |
NE | 788 | 3.99 | 1.00 | |
LE | 198 | 4.06 | 0.90 | |
ME | 48 | 3.88 | 1.06 | |
HE | 48 | 4.17 | 0.83 | |
Location of Rail Stations (p = 0.717) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | |
NE | 788 | 3.79 | 1.01 | |
LE | 198 | 3.80 | 0.97 | |
ME | 48 | 3.75 | 0.86 | |
HE | 48 | 3.96 | 0.97 | |
Comfort of Rail Stations (p = 0.146) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | |
NE | 788 | 3.46 | 1.01 | |
LE | 198 | 3.58 | 0.96 | |
ME | 48 | 3.27 | 0.89 | |
HE | 48 | 3.56 | 1.11 | |
Ease of Transfer (p = 0.083) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | |
NE | 788 | 3.55 | 1.04 | |
LE | 198 | 3.73 | 0.92 | |
ME | 48 | 3.46 | 0.90 | |
HE | 48 | 3.71 | 1.13 | |
Comfort of Trains (p = 0.111) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | |
NE | 788 | 3.46 | 1.01 | |
LE | 198 | 3.62 | 0.97 | |
ME | 48 | 3.46 | 0.92 | |
HE | 48 | 3.69 | 1.13 | |
Evaluation of rail service: ‘soft’ attributes | Ease of Understanding Information and Guide of Services (p = 0.415) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. |
NE | 788 | 3.87 | 0.99 | |
LE | 198 | 3.98 | 0.92 | |
ME | 48 | 3.79 | 0.82 | |
HE | 48 | 3.96 | 0.99 | |
Ease of Searching Information and Guide of Services (p = 0.263) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | |
NE | 788 | 3.87 | 0.98 | |
LE | 198 | 3.97 | 0.93 | |
ME | 48 | 3.85 | 0.87 | |
HE | 48 | 4.10 | 0.97 | |
Fares (p = 0.592) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | |
NE | 788 | 3.29 | 1.01 | |
LE | 198 | 3.36 | 0.92 | |
ME | 48 | 3.21 | 0.90 | |
HE | 48 | 3.40 | 1.20 | |
Payment Methods (p = 0.126) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | |
NE | 788 | 3.71 | 0.97 | |
LE | 198 | 3.80 | 0.92 | |
ME | 48 | 3.60 | 0.89 | |
HE | 48 | 3.94 | 1.14 |
Evaluation of bus service: ‘hard’ attributes | Number of Services (p = 0.010 *) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | ||
NE | 166 | 2.73 | 1.03 | LE | HE | p = 0.010 | |
LE | 428 | 2.78 | 1.02 | ||||
ME | 332 | 2.64 | 1.00 | ||||
HE | 216 | 2.50 | 1.10 | ||||
Location of Bus Stops (p = 0.001 **) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | |||
NE | 166 | 2.96 | 0.97 | LE | HE | p = 0.001 | |
LE | 428 | 3.08 | 0.97 | ||||
ME | 332 | 2.93 | 0.90 | ||||
HE | 216 | 2.77 | 1.02 | ||||
Comfort of Bus Stops (p = 0.004 **) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | |||
NE | 166 | 2.73 | 0.92 | LE | HE | p = 0.003 | |
LE | 428 | 2.75 | 0.85 | ||||
ME | 332 | 2.66 | 0.79 | ||||
HE | 216 | 2.51 | 0.94 | ||||
Ease of Transfer (p = 0.028 *) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | |||
NE | 166 | 2.78 | 1.00 | LE | HE | p = 0.024 | |
LE | 428 | 2.79 | 0.86 | ||||
ME | 332 | 2.75 | 0.82 | ||||
HE | 216 | 2.57 | 0.97 | ||||
Comfort of Buses (p = 0.001 **) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | |||
NE | 166 | 2.99 | 0.87 | NE | HE | p = 0.011 | |
LE | 428 | 2.98 | 0.72 | LE | HE | p = 0.002 | |
ME | 332 | 2.87 | 0.78 | ||||
HE | 216 | 2.73 | 0.91 | ||||
Evaluation of bus service: ‘soft’ attributes | Ease of Understanding Information and Guide of Services (p = 0.203) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | ||
NE | 166 | 2.81 | 1.00 | ||||
LE | 428 | 2.82 | 0.87 | ||||
ME | 332 | 2.76 | 0.81 | ||||
HE | 216 | 2.65 | 0.98 | ||||
Ease of Searching Information and Guide of Services (p = 0.162) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | |||
NE | 166 | 2.81 | 1.00 | ||||
LE | 428 | 2.82 | 0.88 | ||||
ME | 332 | 2.73 | 0.84 | ||||
HE | 216 | 2.66 | 1.00 | ||||
Fares (p = 0.217) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | |||
NE | 166 | 2.86 | 0.97 | ||||
LE | 428 | 2.83 | 0.87 | ||||
ME | 332 | 2.78 | 0.84 | ||||
HE | 216 | 2.67 | 0.93 | ||||
Payment Methods (p = 0.043 *) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | p Value between Categories (<0.05) | |||
NE | 166 | 3.02 | 0.96 | ||||
LE | 428 | 3.02 | 0.80 | ||||
ME | 332 | 2.93 | 0.75 | ||||
HE | 216 | 2.82 | 0.93 |
Evaluation of bus service: ‘hard’ attributes | Number of Services (p = 0.293) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. |
NE | 788 | 3.07 | 0.98 | |
LE | 198 | 3.16 | 0.97 | |
ME | 48 | 3.21 | 0.80 | |
HE | 48 | 3.31 | 1.15 | |
Location of Bus Stops (p = 0.161) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | |
NE | 788 | 3.21 | 0.97 | |
LE | 198 | 3.33 | 0.96 | |
ME | 48 | 3.15 | 0.82 | |
HE | 48 | 3.48 | 1.17 | |
Comfort of Bus Stops (p = 0.367) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | |
NE | 788 | 2.99 | 0.96 | |
LE | 198 | 3.07 | 0.89 | |
ME | 48 | 2.90 | 0.88 | |
HE | 48 | 3.08 | 1.07 | |
Ease of Transfer (p = 0.257) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | |
NE | 788 | 2.97 | 0.92 | |
LE | 198 | 3.10 | 0.83 | |
ME | 48 | 3.08 | 0.82 | |
HE | 48 | 3.04 | 0.99 | |
Comfort of Buses (p = 0.303) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | |
NE | 788 | 3.10 | 0.90 | |
LE | 198 | 3.21 | 0.76 | |
ME | 48 | 3.08 | 0.77 | |
HE | 48 | 3.25 | 1.02 | |
Evaluation of bus service: ‘soft’ attributes | Ease of Understanding Information and Guide of Services (p = 0.427) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. |
NE | 788 | 3.05 | 0.99 | |
LE | 198 | 3.17 | 0.87 | |
ME | 48 | 2.98 | 0.81 | |
HE | 48 | 3.19 | 1.14 | |
Ease of Searching Information and Guide of Services (p = 0.474) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | |
NE | 788 | 3.03 | 0.99 | |
LE | 198 | 3.14 | 0.87 | |
ME | 48 | 3.00 | 0.90 | |
HE | 48 | 3.13 | 1.18 | |
Fares (p = 0.065) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | |
NE | 788 | 3.10 | 0.91 | |
LE | 198 | 3.20 | 0.82 | |
ME | 48 | 3.29 | 0.82 | |
HE | 48 | 3.31 | 1.11 | |
Payment Methods (p = 0.399) | n | Mean | Std. Dev. | |
NE | 788 | 3.34 | 0.91 | |
LE | 198 | 3.38 | 0.87 | |
ME | 48 | 3.46 | 0.82 | |
HE | 48 | 3.54 | 1.03 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 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
Pradhan, S.; Ujihara, T.; Hashimoto, S. The Relationship between the Evaluation of Public Transport Services and Travel-Based CO2 Emissions from Private Transport Modes in Regional and Metropolitan Areas in Japan. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13296. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813296
Pradhan S, Ujihara T, Hashimoto S. The Relationship between the Evaluation of Public Transport Services and Travel-Based CO2 Emissions from Private Transport Modes in Regional and Metropolitan Areas in Japan. Sustainability. 2023; 15(18):13296. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813296
Chicago/Turabian StylePradhan, Shreyas, Takehito Ujihara, and Seiji Hashimoto. 2023. "The Relationship between the Evaluation of Public Transport Services and Travel-Based CO2 Emissions from Private Transport Modes in Regional and Metropolitan Areas in Japan" Sustainability 15, no. 18: 13296. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813296