How Eudaimonic Aspect of Subjective Well-Being Affect Transport Mode Choice? The Case of Thessaloniki, Greece
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
- Destination activities;
- Travel activities;
- Travel experience (Mokhtarian and Salomon 2001; Singleton 2017).
3. Materials and Methods
4. Descriptive Statistics
5. Development of the Ordinal Regression Models
5.1. Model 1: Private Car Usage Frequency
5.2. Model 2: Bicycle Usage Frequency
5.3. Model 3: Public Transport Usage Frequency
5.4. Model 4: Walking Frequency
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgements
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Code | Explanation | Values | Frequency (%) |
---|---|---|---|
gender | Gender | 0: male, 1: female | 0: 57.3, 1: 42.7 |
age | Age | 0: 18–24, 1: 25–39, 2: 40–54, 3: 55–64, 4: ≥65 | 0: 19.66, 1: 47.66 2: 21.66, 3: 7, 4: 4 |
income | Monthly household income | 0: 0–400, 1: 401–800, 2: 801–1200, 3: 1201–1600, 4: 1601–2000, 5: >2000 | 0: 13.66, 1: 15.66, 2: 29.33, 3: 16, 4: 10.66, 5: 14.66 |
education | Level of education | 0: Primary school, 1: secondary school, 2: high school,3: undergraduate student, 4: bachelor, 5: master/PhD | 0: 1.33, 1: 3.33, 2: 23.66, 3: 12.33, 4: 38, 5: 21.33 |
carhold | Car ownership | 0: yes, 1: no | 0: 76, 1: 24 |
bikehold | Bicycle ownership | 0: yes, 1: no | 0: 40.3, 1: 59.7 |
cardriver | Private car usage frequency (as a driver) | 0: more than 1 a day, 1: 1 a day, 2: 2–3 times in week, 3: 1 in week, 4: rarely, 5: not at all | 0: 28, 1: 11.67, 2: 16.33, 3: 6, 4: 7.33, 5: 30.67 |
bikeuse | Bicycle usage frequency | 0: more than 1 a day, 1: 1 a day, 2: 2–3 times in week, 3: 1 in week, 4: rarely, 5: not at all | 0: 2.67, 1: 0.67, 2: 5.67, 3: 4.33, 4: 15.67, 5: 71 |
ptranspuse | Public transport usage frequency | 0: more than 1 a day, 1: 1 a day, 2: 2–3 times in week, 3: 1 in week, 4: rarely, 5: not at all | 0: 22, 1: 9.33, 2: 12, 3: 8.67, 4: 17, 5: 31 |
walkuse | Frequency of making trips on foot | 0: more than 1 a day, 1: 1 a day, 2: 2–3 times in week, 3: 1 in week, 4: rarely, 5: not at all | 0: 52, 1: 19, 2: 16.33, 3: 6.33, 4: 3.67, 5: 2.67 |
othermode | Mode of transport that respondents want to use more frequently | 0: car, 1: bicycle, 2: walking, 3: public transit, 4: else | 0: 27, 1: 29.67, 2: 14, 3: 9.33, 4: 20 |
cardrcomfort | Comfort assessment as a car driver | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 6.38, 1: 15.77, 2: 34.23, 3: 23.15, 4: 20.47 |
cardrsafe | Safety assessment as a car driver | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 9.4, 1: 22.82, 2: 34.56, 3: 20.47, 4: 12.75 |
cardrautonomy | Autonomy assessment as a car driver | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 10.07, 1: 13.09, 2: 20.47, 3: 22.82, 4: 33.56 |
cardrconfidence | Self-confidence assessment as a car driver | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 2.35, 1: 5.7, 2: 23.83, 3: 31.54, 4: 36.58 |
cardrhealth | Physical health assessment as a car driver | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 5.03, 1: 10.4, 2: 18.12, 3: 24.83, 4: 41.61 |
cardrmental | Mental health assessment as a car driver. | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 8.05, 1: 13.09, 2: 23.49, 3: 21.48, 4: 33.89 |
bikecomfort | Comfort assessment as a cyclist | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 19.59, 1: 26.01, 2: 26.01, 3: 19.89, 4: 11.49 |
bikesafe | Safety assessment as a cyclist | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 41.55, 1: 35.47, 2: 12.5, 3: 5.41, 4: 5.07 |
bikeautonomy | Autonomy assessment as a cyclist | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 10.14, 1: 13.51, 2: 23.65, 3: 29.39, 4: 23.31 |
bikeconfidence | Self-confidence assessment as a cyclist | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 8.45, 1: 8.11, 2: 25.68, 3: 38.85, 4: 18.92 |
bikehealth | Physical health assessment as a cyclist | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 12.16, 1: 9.12, 2: 15.2, 3: 25, 4: 38.51 |
bikemental | Mental health assessment as a cyclist | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 9.46, 1: 8.45, 2: 15.54, 3: 27.03, 4: 39.53 |
ptranscomfort | Comfort assessment as a public transit user | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 43.33, 1: 33.33, 2: 18, 3: 3.67, 4: 1.67 |
ptranssafe | Safety assessment as a public transit user | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 16, 1: 17.67, 2: 31, 3: 25, 4: 10.33 |
ptransautonomy | Autonomy assessment as a public transit user | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 27.33, 1: 28, 2: 29.67, 3: 11.67, 4: 3.33 |
ptransconfidence | Self-confidence assessment as a public transit user | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 23, 1: 22.67, 2: 29.33, 3: 17.33, 4: 7.67 |
ptranshealth | Physical health assessment as a public transit user | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 22.33, 1: 18, 2: 30.33, 3: 20, 4: 9.33 |
ptransmental | Mental health assessment as a public transit user | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 31, 1: 24.33, 2: 23.33, 3: 15, 4: 6.33 |
walkcomfort | Comfort assessment as a pedestrian | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 1.33, 1: 3, 2: 20.33, 3: 30.67, 4: 44.67 |
walksafe | Safety assessment as a pedestrian | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 1, 1: 7, 2: 20.33, 3: 36.33, 4: 35.33 |
walkautonomy | Autonomy assessment as a pedestrian | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 0.33, 1: 4.67, 2: 12.67, 3: 26, 4: 56.33 |
walkconfidence | Self-confidence assessment as a pedestrian | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 0.33, 1: 2.67, 2: 7, 3: 32.33, 4: 57.67 |
walkhealth | Physical health assessment as a pedestrian | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 1, 1: 2, 2: 8.67, 3: 28.33, 4: 60 |
walkmental | Mental health assessment as a pedestrian. | 0: Not at all satisfied, 1: Somewhat satisfied, 2: Neutral, 3: Pretty satisfied, 4: Absolutely satisfied | 0: 0.67, 1: 2, 2: 6.33, 3: 29.67, 4: 61.33 |
Appendix B
Estimation | Std. Error | Wald | df | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||||
Threshold | [cardriver = 0] | −1.995 | 0.522 | 14.588 | 1 | 0.000 | −3.019 | −0.971 |
[cardriver = 1] | −1.261 | 0.515 | 5.987 | 1 | 0.014 | −2.271 | −0.251 | |
[cardriver = 2] | −0.163 | 0.508 | 0.103 | 1 | 0.748 | −1.158 | 0.832 | |
[cardriver = 3] | 0.371 | 0.507 | 0.534 | 1 | 0.465 | −0.623 | 1.365 | |
[cardriver = 4] | 1.046 | 0.514 | 4.138 | 1 | 0.042 | 0.038 | 2.054 | |
Location | [cardrsafe = 0] | 0.686 | 0.541 | 1.610 | 1 | 0.204 | −0.374 | 1.746 |
[cardrsafe = 1] | 0.980 | 0.434 | 5.106 | 1 | 0.024 | 0.130 | 1.829 | |
[cardrsafe = 2] | 0.499 | 0.405 | 1.521 | 1 | 0.217 | −0.294 | 1.293 | |
[cardrsafe = 3] | 0.290 | 0.436 | 0.443 | 1 | 0.506 | −0.565 | 1.145 | |
[cardrsafe = 4] | 0 | . | . | 0 | . | . | . | |
[gender = 0] | −1.158 | 0.269 | 18.567 | 1 | 0.000 | −1.685 | −0.631 | |
[gender = 1] | 0 | . | . | 0 | . | . | . | |
[age = 0] | −0.637 | 0.681 | 0.876 | 1 | 0.349 | −1.971 | 0.697 | |
[age = 1] | −0.362 | 0.581 | 0.389 | 1 | 0.533 | −1.500 | 0.776 | |
[age = 2] | −1.835 | 0.431 | 18.131 | 1 | 0.000 | −2.680 | −0.991 | |
[age = 3] | −1.188 | 0.402 | 8.735 | 1 | 0.003 | −1.976 | −0.400 | |
[age = 4] | 0 | . | . | 0 | . | . | . |
Estimation | Std. Error | Wald | df | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||||
Threshold | [bikeuse = 0] | −2.266 | 0.527 | 18.456 | 1 | 0.000 | −3.300 | −1.232 |
[bikeuse = 1] | −2.036 | 0.504 | 16.329 | 1 | 0.000 | −3.023 | −1.048 | |
[bikeuse = 2] | −0.955 | 0.441 | 4.693 | 1 | 0.030 | −1.819 | −0.091 | |
[bikeuse = 3] | −0.490 | 0.430 | 1.299 | 1 | 0.254 | −1.334 | 0.353 | |
[bikeuse = 4] | 0.545 | 0.427 | 1.630 | 1 | 0.202 | −0.292 | 1.382 | |
Location | [income = 0] | 1.179 | 0.504 | 5.475 | 1 | 0.019 | 0.191 | 2.166 |
[income = 1] | 0.927 | 0.467 | 3.945 | 1 | 0.047 | 0.012 | 1.842 | |
[income = 2] | 0.911 | 0.400 | 5.194 | 1 | 0.023 | 0.127 | 1.694 | |
[income = 3] | 0.545 | 0.437 | 1.550 | 1 | 0.213 | −0.313 | 1.402 | |
[income = 4] | 0.621 | 0.499 | 1.548 | 1 | 0.213 | −0.357 | 1.599 | |
[income = 5] | 0 | . | . | 0 | . | . | . | |
[bikeconfidence = 0] | 1.956 | 0.690 | 8.037 | 1 | 0.005 | 0.604 | 3.309 | |
[bikeconfidence = 1] | 0.991 | 0.551 | 3.239 | 1 | 0.072 | −0.088 | 2.070 | |
[bikeconfidence = 2] | 1.125 | 0.389 | 8.368 | 1 | 0.004 | 0.363 | 1.887 | |
[bikeconfidence = 3] | 0.586 | 0.333 | 3.084 | 1 | 0.079 | −0.068 | 1.239 | |
[bikeconfidence = 4] | 0 | . | . | 0 | . | . | . |
Estimation | Std. Error | Wald | df | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||||
Threshold | [ptranspuse = 0] | 0.384 | 0.287 | 1.796 | 1 | 0.180 | −0.178 | 0.947 |
[ptranspuse = 1] | 0.988 | 0.293 | 11.408 | 1 | 0.001 | 0.415 | 1.562 | |
[ptranspuse = 2] | 1.661 | 0.304 | 29.858 | 1 | 0.000 | 1.065 | 2.256 | |
[ptranspuse = 3] | 2.118 | 0.312 | 45.967 | 1 | 0.000 | 1.506 | 2.731 | |
[ptranspuse = 4] | 3.023 | 0.330 | 83.729 | 1 | 0.000 | 2.375 | 3.670 | |
Location | [gender = 0] | 0.991 | 0.224 | 19.543 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.552 | 1.430 |
[gender = 1] | 0 | . | . | 0 | . | . | . | |
[age = 0] | 1.926 | 0.601 | 10.267 | 1 | 0.001 | 0.748 | 3.103 | |
[age = 1] | 1.718 | 0.490 | 12.304 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.758 | 2.678 | |
[age = 2] | 2.766 | 0.371 | 55.659 | 1 | 0.000 | 2.039 | 3.492 | |
[age = 3] | 1.691 | 0.307 | 30.414 | 1 | 0.000 | 1.090 | 2.293 | |
[age = 4] | 0 | . | . | 0 | . | . | . | |
[ptranscomfort = 0] | −0.157 | 0.841 | 0.035 | 1 | 0.852 | −1.805 | 1.492 | |
[ptranscomfort = 1] | −1.839 | 0.609 | 9.103 | 1 | 0.003 | −3.033 | −0.644 | |
[ptranscomfort = 2] | −0.747 | 0.302 | 6.137 | 1 | 0.013 | −1.339 | −0.156 | |
[ptranscomfort = 3] | 0.026 | 0.247 | 0.011 | 1 | 0.917 | −0.459 | .510 | |
[ptranscomfort = 4] | 0 | . | . | 0 | . | . | . |
Estimation | Std. Error | Wald | df | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||||
Threshold | [walkuse = 0] | 0.997 | 0.460 | 4.706 | 1 | 0.030 | 0.096 | 1.898 |
[walkuse = 1] | 1.937 | 0.469 | 17.052 | 1 | 0.000 | 1.018 | 2.856 | |
[walkuse = 2] | 3.094 | 0.491 | 39.771 | 1 | 0.000 | 2.133 | 4.056 | |
[walkuse = 3] | 3.927 | 0.522 | 56.683 | 1 | 0.000 | 2.905 | 4.949 | |
[walkuse = 4] | 4.895 | 0.594 | 67.894 | 1 | 0.000 | 3.731 | 6.060 | |
Location | [age = 0] | 0.816 | 0.654 | 1.559 | 1 | 0.212 | −0.465 | 2.098 |
[age = 1] | 1.074 | 0.536 | 4.016 | 1 | 0.045 | 0.024 | 2.124 | |
[age = 2] | 1.353 | 0.417 | 10.529 | 1 | 0.001 | 0.536 | 2.170 | |
[age = 3] | 1.053 | 0.372 | 8.027 | 1 | 0.005 | 0.325 | 1.782 | |
[age = 4] | 0 | . | . | 0 | . | . | . | |
[income = 0] | −1.664 | 0.538 | 9.576 | 1 | 0.002 | −2.718 | −.610 | |
[income = 1] | −0.577 | 0.412 | 1.959 | 1 | 0.162 | −1.384 | 0.231 | |
[income = 2] | −0.297 | 0.351 | 0.716 | 1 | 0.397 | −0.984 | 0.391 | |
[income = 3] | 0.111 | 0.394 | 0.079 | 1 | 0.778 | −0.661 | 0.883 | |
[income = 4] | −0.050 | 0.444 | 0.012 | 1 | 0.911 | −0.919 | 0.820 | |
[income = 5] | 0 | . | . | 0 | . | . | . | |
[walkconfidence = 0] | 5.447 | 1.899 | 8.226 | 1 | 0.004 | 1.725 | 9.170 | |
[walkconfidence = 1] | 0.482 | 0.732 | 0.433 | 1 | 0.511 | −0.953 | 1.917 | |
[walkconfidence = 2] | 0.609 | 0.475 | 1.644 | 1 | 0.200 | −0.322 | 1.541 | |
[walkconfidence = 3] | −.162 | 0.288 | 0.316 | 1 | 0.574 | −0.726 | 0.402 | |
[walkconfidence = 4] | 0 | . | . | 0 | . | . | . | |
[walksafe = 0] | 2.803 | 1.101 | 6.477 | 1 | 0.011 | 0.644 | 4.962 | |
[walksafe = 1] | 0.412 | 0.504 | 0.669 | 1 | 0.413 | −0.575 | 1.399 | |
[walksafe = 2] | 0.359 | 0.375 | 0.916 | 1 | 0.338 | −0.376 | 1.095 | |
[walksafe = 3] | 0.627 | 0.298 | 4.430 | 1 | 0.035 | 0.043 | 1.212 | |
[walksafe = 4] | 0 | . | . | 0 | . | . | . |
References
- Abou-Zeid, Maya, and Moshe Ben-Akiva. 2012. Well-Being and Activity-Based Models. Transportation 39: 1189–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abou-Zeid, Maya, and Moshe Ben-Akiva. 2014. Satisfaction and travel choices. In Handbook of Sustainable Travel. Edited by Tommy Gärling, Margareta Friman and Dick Ettema. New York: Springer, pp. 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basbas, Socrates, Kostas Nikolaou, and Giannis Toskas. 2001. Environmental impacts of bus traffic in the Thessaloniki Metropolitan Area. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 2: 567–74. [Google Scholar]
- Basbas, Socrates, Kostas Nikolaou, and Giannis Toskas. 2004. Relative contribution of various diesel vehicle classes to the urban air pollution. Water, Air & Soil Pollution (WAFO) 4: 55–63. [Google Scholar]
- Ben-Akiva, Moshe, and Steven R. Lerman. 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
- de Dios Ortúzar, Juan, and Luis G. Willumsen. 2011. Modelling Transport, 4th ed. Chichester: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
- De Vos, Jonas, Tim Schwanen, Veronique Van Acker, and Frank Witlox. 2013. Travel and Subjective Well-Being: A Focus on Findings, Methods and Future Research Needs. Transport Reviews 33: 421–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Vos, Jonas, Tim Schwanen, Veronique Van Acker, and Frank Witlox. 2015. How Satisfying Is the Scale for Travel Satisfaction? Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 29: 121–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delbosc, Alexa. 2012. The Role of Well-Being in Transport Policy. Transport Policy 23: 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diener, Ed, Eunkook M. Suh, Richard E. Lucas, and Heidi L. Smith. 1999. Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological. Bulletin 125: 276–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duarte, André, Camila Garcia, Grigoris Giannarakis, Susana Limão, Amalia Polydoropoulou, and Nikolaos Litinas. 2010. New Approaches in Transportation Planning: Happiness and Transport Economics. NETNOMICS: Economic Research and Electronic Networking 11: 5–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ELSTAT (Hellenic Statistical Authority). 2011. Population & Building Census. Athens: ELSTAT. [Google Scholar]
- Ettema, Dick, Tommy Gärling, Lars E. Olsson, and Margareta Friman. 2010. Out-of-Home Activities, Daily Travel, and Subjective Well-Being. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 44: 723–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ettema, Dick, Tommy Gärling, Lars Eriksson, Margareta Friman, Lars E. Olsson, and Satoshi Fujii. 2011. Satisfaction with Travel and Subjective Well-Being: Development and Test of a Measurement Tool. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 14: 167–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ettema, Dick, Margareta Friman, Tommy Gärling, Lars E. Olsson, and Satoshi Fujii. 2012. How In-Vehicle Activities Affect Work Commuters’ Satisfaction with Public Transport. Journal of Transport Geography 24: 215–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Francois, Sprumont, Paola Astegiano, and Francesco Viti. 2017. Analyzing the Correlation between Commuting Satisfaction and Travelling Utility. Transportation Research Procedia 25: 2639–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gardner, Benjamin, and Charles Abraham. 2007. What Drives Car Use? A Grounded Theory Analysis of Commuters’ Reasons for Driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 10: 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giannopoulos, George. 2005. Transport Planning, 3rd ed. Thessaloniki: Epikentro. [Google Scholar]
- Gutiérrez, Pedro Antonio, María Pérez-Ortiz, Javier Sánchez-Monedero, Francisco Fernández-Navarro, and César Hervás-Martínez. 2016. Ordinal Regression Methods: Survey and Experimental Study. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 28: 127–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kenyon, Susan. 2010. “What Do We Mean by Multitasking?—Exploring the Need for Methodological Clarification in Time Use Research. International Journal of Time Use Research 7: 42–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, Omer Ahm. 2007. Modelling Passenger Mode Choice Behaviour Using Computer Aided Stated Preference Data. Ph.D. thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane City, Australia; pp. 1–324. Available online: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/16500/1/Omer_Khan_Thesis.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2018).
- Knobloch, Uli, Kirsten Robertson, and Rob Aitken. 2017. Experience, Emotion, and Eudaimonia: A Consideration of Tourist Experiences and Well-being. Journal of Travel Research 56: 651–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koppelman, Frank S., and Chandra R. Bhat. 2006. A Self Instructing Course in Mode Choice Modeling: Multinomial and Nested Logit Models by with Technical Support from Table of Contents. Elements 28: 501–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koppelman, Frank S., and Chieh Hua Wen. 2000. The Paired Combinatorial Logit Model: Properties, Estimation and Application. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 34: 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Wan, Bindong Sun, Chun Yin, Tinglin Zhang, and Qianqian Liu. 2018. Does Metro Proximity Promote Happiness? Evidence from Shanghai. Journal of Transport and Land Use 11: 1271–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Likert, Rensis. 1932. A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology 140: 1–55. [Google Scholar]
- Mcfadden, Daniel. 1980. Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice Among Products. The Journal of Business 53: 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFadden, Daniel. 2001. Economic Choices. American Economic Review 91: 351–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minal, and Ravi Ch. Sekhar. 2014. Mode Choice Analysis: The Data, the Models and Future Ahead. International Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering 4: 269–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitsakis, Evangelos, Iraklis Stamos, Josep Maria Salanova Grau, Evangelia Chrysochoou, Panagiotis Iordanopoulos, and Georgia Aifadopoulou. 2013. Urban Mobility Indicators for Thessaloniki. Journal of Traffic and Logistics Engineering 1: 148–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mokhtarian, Patricia L., and Ilan Salomon. 2001. How Derived Is the Demand for Travel? Some Conceptual and Measurement Considerations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 35: 695–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mokhtarian, Patricia L, Francis Papon, Matthieu Goulard, and Diana Marco. 2015. An Investigation Based on the French National Travel. SurveyTransportation 42: 1103–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mokhtarian, Patricia L, Ilan Salomon, and Matan E. Singer. 2015. What Moves Us? An Interdisciplinary Exploration of Reasons for Traveling What Moves Us? An Interdisciplinary Exploration of Reasons for Traveling. Transport Reviews 35: 250–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikolaou, Kostas, Socrates Basbas, and Giannis Toskas. 2002. Air pollutant emissions and concentrations based on urban traffic modelling. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 11: 494–98. [Google Scholar]
- Nikolaou, Kostas, Socrates Basbas, and Christos Taxiltaris. 2004. Assessment of air pollution indicators in an urban area using the DPSIR model. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 13: 820–30. [Google Scholar]
- Nordbakke, Susanne, and Tim Schwanen. 2014. Well-Being and Mobility: A Theoretical Framework and Literature Review Focusing on Older People. Mobilities 9: 104–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Connell, Ann A. 2006. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences: Logistic Regression Models for Ordinal Response Variables. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd. [Google Scholar]
- Olsson, Lars E., Tommy Gärling, Dick Ettema, Margareta Friman, and Satoshi Fujii. 2013. Happiness and Satisfaction with Work Commute. Social Indicators Research 111: 255–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ory, David T., and Patricia L. Mokhtarian. 2005. When Is Getting There Half the Fun? Modeling the Liking for Travel. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 39: 97–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palos-Sanchez, Pedro, Jose Ramon Saura, Ana Reyes-Menendez, and Ivonne Vasquez Esquivel. 2018. Users acceptance of location-based marketing apps in tourism sector: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics 6: 258–70. [Google Scholar]
- Racca, David P., and Edward C. Ratledge. 2004. Project Report for “Factors That Affect and/or Can Alter Mode Choice” Prepared for Delaware Transportation Institute and The State of Delaware Department of Transportation by College of Human Services, Education, and Public Policy University of Dela. Dover: Delaware Transportation Institute & The State of Delaware Department of Transportation. [Google Scholar]
- Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25: 54–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Singleton, Patrick Allen. 2017. Exploring the Positive Utility of Travel and Mode Choice. Ph.D. thesis, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Singleton, Patrick A. 2018. Walking (and Cycling) to Well-Being: Modal and Other Determinants of Subjective Well-Being during the Commute. Travel Behaviour and Society. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thessaloniki Hotels Association (THA). Available online: www.tha.gr/default.aspx?lang=en-GB&page=1%E8%BF%99%E6%98%AF%E6%88%91%E6%9F%A5%E5%88%B0%E7%9A%84%E7%BD%91%E5%9D%802017 (accessed on 20 November 2018).
Model Fitting Information | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model | −2 Log Likelihood | Chi-Square | df | Sig. |
Intercept Only | 366,145 | |||
Final | 314,395 | 51,750 | 9 | 0.000 |
Goodness-of-Fit | ||||
Chi-Square | df | Sig. | ||
Pearson | 176,393 | 181 | 0.583 | |
Deviance | 169,831 | 181 | 0.714 | |
Pseudo R-Square | ||||
Cox and Snell | 0.203 | |||
Nagelkerke | 0.211 | |||
McFadden | 0.070 | |||
Test of Parallel Lines | ||||
Model | −2 Log Likelihood | Chi-Square | df | Sig. |
Null Hypothesis | 314,395 | |||
General | 273,659 | 40,736 | 36 | 0.270 |
Variable | Intervals | Odds Ratios |
---|---|---|
Gender | Male | |
Female (reference category) | 3184 | |
Age | 40–54 | |
18–24 (reference category) | 6250 | |
25–39 | ||
18–24 (reference category) | 3278 | |
Cardrsafe | Somewhat satisfied | 2663 |
Absolutely satisfied (reference category) |
Model Fitting Information | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model | −2 Log Likelihood | Chi-Square | df | Sig. |
Intercept Only | 228,824 | |||
Final | 207,604 | 21,220 | 9 | 0.012 |
Goodness-of-Fit | ||||
Chi-Square | df | Sig. | ||
Pearson | 128,558 | 136 | 0.662 | |
Deviance | 106,840 | 136 | 0.969 | |
Pseudo R-Square | ||||
Cox and Snell | 0.069 | |||
Nagelkerke | 0.081 | |||
McFadden | 0.037 | |||
Test of Parallel Lines | ||||
Model | −2 Log Likelihood | Chi-Square | df | Sig. |
Null Hypothesis | 207,604 | |||
General | 144,600 | 63,004 | 36 | 0.004 |
Variable | Intervals | Odds Ratios |
---|---|---|
bikeconfidence | Not at all satisfied | 7073 |
Absolutely satisfied (reference category) | ||
Neutral | 3081 | |
Absolutely satisfied (reference category) | ||
income | 0–400 | 3250 |
>2000 (reference category) | ||
401–800 | 2528 | |
>2000 (reference category) | ||
801–1200 | 2486 | |
>2000 (reference category) |
Model Fitting Information | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model | −2 Log Likelihood | Chi-Square | df | Sig. |
Intercept Only | 441,022 | |||
Final | 340,219 | 100,803 | 9 | 0.000 |
Goodness-of-Fit | ||||
Chi-Square | df | Sig. | ||
Pearson | 198,932 | 176 | 0.114 | |
Deviance | 179,980 | 176 | 0.403 | |
Pseudo R-Square | ||||
Cox and Snell | 0.285 | |||
Nagelkerke | 0.296 | |||
McFadden | 0.100 | |||
Test of Parallel Lines | ||||
Model | −2 Log Likelihood | Chi-Square | df | Sig. |
Null Hypothesis | 340,219 | |||
General | 297,521 | 42,699 | 36 | 0.205 |
Variable | Intervals | Odds Ratios |
---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 1430 |
Female (reference category) | ||
Age | ≥ 65 | 6859 |
18–24 (reference category) | ||
55–65 | 5574 | |
18–24 (reference category) | ||
40–54 | 15,887 | |
18–24 (reference category) | ||
25–39 | 5428 | |
18–24 (reference category) | ||
Ptranscomfort | Pretty satisfied | |
Not at all satisfied (reference category) | 6289 | |
Neutral | ||
Not at all satisfied (reference category) | 2109 |
Model Fitting Information | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model | −2 Log Likelihood | Chi-Square | df | Sig. |
Intercept Only | 585,820 | |||
Final | 529,616 | 56,204 | 17 | 0.000 |
Goodness-of-Fit | ||||
Chi-Square | df | Sig. | ||
Pearson | 649,642 | 633 | 0.315 | |
Deviance | 413,090 | 633 | 1000 | |
Pseudo R-Square | ||||
Cox and Snell | 0.171 | |||
Nagelkerke | 0.183 | |||
McFadden | 0.070 | |||
Test of Parallel Lines | ||||
Model | −2 Log Likelihood | Chi-Square | df | Sig. |
Null Hypothesis | 529,616 | |||
General | 460,599 | 69,016 | 68 | 0.443 |
Variable | Intervals | Odds Ratios |
---|---|---|
walksafe | Not at all satisfied | 16,496 |
Absolutely satisfied (reference category) | ||
Pretty satisfied | 1873 | |
Absolutely satisfied (reference category) | ||
walkconfidence | Not at all satisfied | 232,175 |
Absolutely satisfied (reference category) | ||
age | 55–64 | 1024 |
18–24 (reference category) | ||
40–54 | 1709 | |
18–24 (reference category) | ||
25–39 | 1383 | |
18–24 (reference category) | ||
income | 0–400 | |
>2000 (reference category) | 5291 |
© 2019 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
Vaitsis, P.; Basbas, S.; Nikiforiadis, A. How Eudaimonic Aspect of Subjective Well-Being Affect Transport Mode Choice? The Case of Thessaloniki, Greece. Soc. Sci. 2019, 8, 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8010009
Vaitsis P, Basbas S, Nikiforiadis A. How Eudaimonic Aspect of Subjective Well-Being Affect Transport Mode Choice? The Case of Thessaloniki, Greece. Social Sciences. 2019; 8(1):9. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8010009
Chicago/Turabian StyleVaitsis, Panagiotis, Socrates Basbas, and Andreas Nikiforiadis. 2019. "How Eudaimonic Aspect of Subjective Well-Being Affect Transport Mode Choice? The Case of Thessaloniki, Greece" Social Sciences 8, no. 1: 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8010009
APA StyleVaitsis, P., Basbas, S., & Nikiforiadis, A. (2019). How Eudaimonic Aspect of Subjective Well-Being Affect Transport Mode Choice? The Case of Thessaloniki, Greece. Social Sciences, 8(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8010009