Smartphone App Usage Patterns for Trip Planning Purposes and Stated Impacts in the City of Bhopal, India
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Area
3.2. Data Collection
3.3. Data Analysis Method
4. Results
4.1. Smartphone App Usage Pattern
4.2. Impact Assessment
- Gender: The majority of respondent reported no decrease in VKT for work/education. A larger proportion of female (76%) respondents stated that their commute to work/education was not impacted by smartphone app usage, as compared to male respondents (69%) and thus, a larger proportion of male respondents (31%) reported a slight to a significant increase in VKT for work/education, as compared to females (24%). For the other outcomes, the results are similar for both male and female respondents. Most respondents across genders reported a slight to significant decrease in VKT for shopping and a slightly larger proportion reported a slight to significant increase in VKT for recreational trips. As for other travel outcomes, a slightly larger proportion reported a slight to significant decrease in the number of social gatherings, number of new places visited, and number of group trips planned.
- Age: All respondents over 55 years of age, most users between ages 35–54 years (80–86%), and a significantly large number of users between ages 18–34 years (48–63%) stated no impact on VKT for work/education due to smartphone app usage. None of the respondents stated a decrease in VKT for the same. However, 52% and 37% of respondents from 18–24 years and 25–34 years, respectively, stated a slight to a significant increase in VKT for work/education. Respondents belonging to middle age groups of 35–44 years and 44–55 years stated a slight increase in VKT for the same. In the case of VKT for shopping trips, the responses are different. Although still very significant, a comparatively lower number of respondents reported no impact on VKT for shopping trips, and it was observed that as age increased, respondents reported less dependence on smartphone apps for shopping. It is also evident from the observation that most respondents from younger (18–34 years) to early middle (35–44 years) age groups stated a slight to significant decrease in VKT for shopping trips because of app usage. None of these users reported an increase in VKT for shopping trips. It is interesting to note that while most users from middle age groups (35 to 54 years) reported no impact, some reported a slight decrease in the number of group trips planned, the number of social gatherings attended, and the number of new places visited as a result of using smartphone apps. A very few reported a slight increase. In comparison, younger and older age groups reported slight to significant changes. Most respondents from younger age groups (18–34 years) reported a slight to a significant increase, and most from older age groups (more than 55 years) reported a slight to a significant decrease in the mentioned travel outcomes.
- Years of smartphone use: It was observed that the respondents who are more experienced with using smartphones showed more changes in travel outcomes due to smartphone app usage. All respondents with less than one year of experience showed no impact on VKT for work/education. Even with one to three years of experience, only 2% of respondents stated a slight increase, and with three to five years of experience, only 8% stated a slight increase, and 1% stated a significant increase in VKT. With more than five years of experience with smartphone usage, 25% stated a slight increase, and 13% stated a significant increase in VKT for work/education trips. Nobody stated a decrease in VKT for the same with a gain of smartphone usage experience. In the case of VKT for shopping trips, all respondents with less than one year of experience stated no impact. However, unlike VKT for work/education trips, just with one to three years of experience, 20% of respondents stated a slight decrease, and with three to five years of experience, 34% of respondents stated a slight to significant decrease in VKT due to app usage. About 75% of respondents stated a slight to significant decrease in VKT with more than five years of experience with smartphone use. No increase was stated for this outcome. Another observation was that smartphone app users with less experience reported significant changes in VKT for recreation trips and other recreation-based outcomes. Forty percent of respondents with less than one year of experience reported a slight decrease in VKT for recreational trips. Although most respondents indicated no impact, 30%, 40%, and 30% of respondents with less usage experience reported a significant decline in the number of social gatherings attended, new places visited, and group trips planned, respectively, because of smartphone app usage. However, more experienced users for these purposes reported both rises and declines, with the decrease slightly greater than the increase in VKT for recreation, social gatherings attended, new places visited, and group trips planned.
- Household Composition: A large proportion of respondents from both types of households stated no impact on travel outcomes. For stated changes in VKT (for work/education trips, shopping trips & recreational trips) higher proportion of respondents from households without children have stated no impact as compared to the ones with children. For the remaining outcomes, higher proportion of respondents from households with children have stated no impact. For stated changes in VKT for work/education, nobody stated any decrease and for the same outcome, 31% from households with children stated slight to significant increase while only 23% from households without children stated the same. For stated changes in VKT for shopping, nobody stated any increase and for the same outcome, 62% from households with children stated slight to significant increase while 57% from households without children stated the same. For stated changes in VKT for recreational trips, 26% from households with children and 27% from households without children stated slight to significant decrease while 34% from households with children and 29% from households without children stated slight to significant increase. For stated change in number of social gatherings attended, 28% from households with children and 33% from households without children stated slight to significant decrease while 22% from households with children and 20% from households without children stated slight to significant increase. For stated change in Number of New Places Visited, 25% from households with children and 36% from households without children stated slight to significant decrease while 26% from households with children and 18% from households without children stated slight to significant increase. For stated change in Number of Group Trips Planned, 24% from households with children and 35% from households without children stated slight to significant decrease while 21% from households with children and 19% from households without children stated slight to significant increase.
- Monthly Household Income: None of the respondents with a household income of less than INR 5000 stated any change in VKT for work/education, but with the increase in income levels, respondents stated a slight to significant increase in VKT for the same. No respondent stated any decrease in VKT for work/education because of smartphone app usage. For VKT for shopping trips, the number of respondents stating no impact became smaller with an increase in income, and respondents reported a slight to significant decrease in VKT for the same outcome. An exception is a group with an income of more than INR 100,000 where respondents stated no change (22%), although still very low, it was higher than the relatively low-income group (INR 50,000 to 100,000) and thus, the proportion of respondents stating change was also comparatively lower. No respondent stated an increase in VKT for shopping trips because of smartphone app usage. In the case of VKT for recreational trips, it was observed that unlike VKT for the other two outcomes, here, even the lowest income group stated a slight decrease (21%). As the income increased, the proportion of respondents stating a decrease in VKT and those reporting an increase in VKT increased, so much so that in the highest income category, most respondents (62%) stated an increase in VKT because of app usage. A similar trend was observed for other outcomes, such as the number of social gatherings attended, new places visited, and group trips planned, with an even more significant proportion of respondents from the lower income categories who stated a slight to significant decrease and a little lower proportion of respondents from the higher income categories who stated a slight to significant increase in travel outcomes.
- Vehicle Ownership: It was observed that most users with no household vehicles (either four-wheeler or two-wheeler) stated no impact on all travel outcomes, especially VKT for work/education (95%), and as the number of vehicles increased, the users reported changes in travel outcomes. No decrease in VKT for work/education was stated, but with the increase in the number of vehicles owned, a slight to significant increase was stated in most households with exactly two four-wheelers (56%) and households with more than two two-wheelers (68%). In the case of VKT for shopping trips, no increase was stated, and respondents from households with fewer vehicles (one to two four-wheelers or two-wheelers) stated a slight to a significant decrease in shopping trips, especially if the household had two four-wheelers (84%) or if they had two or more two-wheelers (86%). In the case of VKT for recreational trips, as the number of vehicles owned increased, changes were stated, and the proportions of respondents who stated a slight to significant increase in VKT in each income category were much larger than those who stated a decrease in VKT. For outcomes, such as the number of social gatherings, new places visited, and group trips planned, most users from households with a greater number of vehicles owned reported a slight to significant increase in travel and vice-versa.
5. Discussion of Results
5.1. App Usage for Trip Planning Purposes
5.2. Stated Changes in Travel Outcomes
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mokhtarian, P.L.; Tal, G. Impacts of ICT on Travel Behaviour: A Tapestry of Relationships. In The SAGE Handbook of Transport Studies; Rodrigue, J., Notteboom, T., Shaw, J., Eds.; SAGE Publications Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 241–260. [Google Scholar]
- Couclelis, H. Housing and the New Geography of Accessibility in the Information Age. Open House Int. 2003, 28, 7–13. [Google Scholar]
- Lyons, G. Transport’s digital age transition. J. Transp. Use 2015, 8, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Windmiller, S.; Hennessy, T.; Watkins, K.E. Accessibility of Communication Technology and the Rider Experience: Case Study of Saint Louis, Missouri, Metro. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2014, 2415, 118–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Line, T.; Jain, J.; Lyons, G. The role of ICTs in everyday mobile lives. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19, 1490–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Graaff, T.; Rietveld, P. Substitution between working at home and out-of-home: The role of ICT and commuting costs. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2007, 41, 142–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farag, S.; Schwanen, T.; Dijst, M.; Faber, J. Shopping online and/or in-store? A structural equation model of the relationships between e-shopping and in-store shopping. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2007, 41, 125–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ferrell, C.E. Home-Based Teleshoppers and Shopping Travel: Do Teleshoppers Travel Less? Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2004, 1894, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, F.; Clifton, K.J.; Shen, Q. Reexamining ICT impact on travel using the 2001 NHTS data for baltimore metropolitan area. GeoJournal Libr. 2007, 88, 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lila, P.; Anjaneyulu, M. Modeling the Choice of Tele-work and its Effects on Travel Behaviour in Indian context. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 104, 553–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bhat, C.R.; Sivakumar, A.; Axhausen, K.W. An analysis of the impact of information and communication technologies on non-maintenance shopping activities. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2003, 37, 857–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Wee, B.; Geurs, K.; Chorus, C. Information, communication, travel behaviour and accessibility. J. Transp. Land Use 2013, 6, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Jamal, S.; Habib, M.A. Investigation of the use of smartphone applications for trip planning and travel outcomes. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2019, 42, 227–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- TRAI. Press Release No. 12/2022—Highlights of Telecom Subscription Data; Telecom Regulatory Authority of India: New Delhi, India, 2022.
- Taylor, K.; Silver, L. Smartphone Ownership Is Growing Rapidly Around the World, but Not Always Equally; Pew Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Mukhopadhyay, D.; Mandal, A.K. Internet and Digitalization in India: An Exploratory Analysis. PRAGATI J. Indian Econ. 2019, 6, 22–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Government of India. Universal Access to Mobile Connectivity. 1 July 2015. Available online: https://digitalindia.gov.in/content/universal-access-mobile-connectivity (accessed on 29 August 2022).
- Singh, J.B.; Vimalkumar, M. From Mobile Access to Use—Evidence of Feature-level Digital Divides in India. Econ. Political Wkly. 2019, 54, 60–67. [Google Scholar]
- Deokar, R. Smart Transportation: Bringing Smart Cities into Reality. 17 March 2020. Available online: http://bwsmartcities.businessworld.in/article/Smart-Transportation-Bringing-smart-cities-into-reality/17-03-2020-186418/ (accessed on 31 August 2022).
- Cities Forum, MaaS India. 2021. Available online: https://www.citiesforum.org/maas-india/ (accessed on 29 August 2022).
- Mokhtarian, P.L.; Salomon, I. Modeling the desire to telecommute: The importance of attitudinal factors in behavioral models. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pr. 1997, 31, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mokhtarian, P.L.; Meenakshisundaram, R. Beyond tele-substitution: Disaggregate longitudinal structural equations modeling of communication impacts. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 1999, 7, 33–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cao, X.; Mokhtarian, P.L. The Intended and Actual Adoption of Online Purchasing: A Brief Review of Recent Literature; Research Report: UCD-ITS-RR-05-07; Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California: Davis, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Choo, S.; Mokhtarian, P.L. Do Telecommunications Affect Passenger Travel or Vice Versa?: Structural Equation Models of Aggregate U.S. Time Series Data Using Composite Indexes. Transp. Res. Rec. 2005, 1926, 224–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mokhtarian, P.L. If Telecommunication is Such a Good Substitute for Travel, Why Does Congestion Continue to Get Worse? Transp. Lett. 2009, 1, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Circella, G.; Giovanni, P.L. Complementarity or Substitution of Online and In-Store Shopping: An Empirical Analysis from Northern California. In Proceedings of the 89th Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA, 10–14 January 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Senbil, M.; Kitamura, R. The use of telecommunications devices and individual activities relationships. In Proceedings of the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA, 12–16 January 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Srinivasan, K.K.; Athuru, S.R. Modeling Interaction Between Internet Communication and Travel Activities: Evidence from Bay Area, California, Travel Survey 2000. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2004, 1894, 230–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mondschein, A. Passeggiata Nuova: Social Travel in the Era of the Smartphone; Working Paper; Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Xiang, Z.; Wang, D.; O’Leary, J.T.; Fesenmaier, D.R. Adapting to the Internet: Trends in Travelers’ Use of the Web for Trip Planning. J. Travel Res. 2014, 54, 511–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corpuz, G.; Peachman, J. Measuring the Impacts of Internet Usage on Travel Behaviour in the Sydney Household Travel Survey. 2003. Available online: https://australasiantransportresearchforum.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2003_Corpuz_Peachman.pdf (accessed on 31 August 2022).
- Casas, J.; Zmund, J.; Bricka, S. Impact of shopping via Internet on Travel for Shopping Purposes. In Proceedings of the 80th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA, 7–11 January 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, D.; Law, F.Y.T. Impacts of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) on time use and travel behavior: A structural equations analysis. Transportation 2007, 34, 513–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viswanathan, K.; Goulias, K.G. Travel Behavior Implications of Information and Communications Technology in Puget Sound Region. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2001, 1752, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hjorthol, R.J. The relation between daily travel and use of the home computer. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2002, 36, 437–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van den Berg, P.; Arentze, T.; Timmermans, H. A path analysis of social networks, telecommunication, and social activity–travel patterns. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2013, 26, 256–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrasco, J.-A. Personal Network Maintenance, Face-to-Face Interaction, and Distance: Role of Availability and Use of Information and Communication Technologies. Transp. Res. Rec. 2011, 2231, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.; Fesenmaier, D.R. Transforming the Travel Experience: The Use of Smartphones for Travel. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2013; Cantoni, L., Xiang, Z., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 58–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Census of India, Bhopal City Population 2011–2022, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. 2011. Available online: https://www.census2011.co.in/census/city/302-bhopal.html#:~:text=As%20per%20provisional%20reports%20of,males%20and%20904%2C240%20are%20females (accessed on 31 August 2022).
- Dhapani, V.S.; Toppo, A.; Nagle, S.; Agrawal, A.A.; Kadbe, R.; Nema, A. Interstate Socio—Economic Indicators (2019–20); Directorate of Economics & Statistics: Bhopal, India, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Knoema, Bhopal—Per Capita Income at Current Price. 12 June 2020. Available online: https://knoema.com/PCII2017/india-per-capita-income-of-madhya-pradesh?tsId=1000100#:~:text=Between%202007%20and%202013%2C%20per,decreased%20to%2013.95%25%20in%202013 (accessed on 31 August 2022).
Trip Planning Purposes→ | Deciding Departure Time | Deciding Destination | Mode Choice | Route Selection | Communication and Coordination | Online Tasks |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Smartphone Apps Available in Bhopal | ||||||
Map and Navigation Services (e.g., Google Maps and Apple Maps) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
Public Transport Apps (e.g., Chalo App) | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
Shared Mobility Apps (e.g., Uber, Ola, InDriver, Rapido, Chartered Bikes, etc.) | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
Information Apps for Recreational Activities (e.g., BookMyShow, Zomato, etc.) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
Ticketing and Payment Apps (e.g., PayTM, PhonePay, Bharat Pay, GPay, etc.) | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
Social Network Apps (e.g., Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, etc.) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Socio-Demographic Variables | Percentage | |
---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 52% |
Female | 48% | |
Age Group (in Years) | 18–24 | 23% |
25–34 | 25% | |
35–44 | 21% | |
45–54 | 14% | |
55–64 | 8% | |
65 Years and above | 8% | |
Education Level | High | 36% |
Medium | 23% | |
Low | 41% | |
Years of Smartphone Use | Less than 1 | 2% |
1–3 | 12% | |
3–5 | 18% | |
More than 5 | 68% | |
Household Composition | With children under 18 Years | 54% |
Without children under 18 Years | 46% | |
Monthly Household Income (in INR) | Less than 5000 | 20% |
5000–20,000 | 20% | |
20,000–50,000 | 20% | |
50,000–100,000 | 20% | |
More than 100,000 | 20% | |
Four-wheeler Ownership | None | 42% |
One | 34% | |
Two | 17% | |
Three or More | 7% | |
Two-wheeler Ownership | None | 27% |
One | 41% | |
Two | 27% | |
Three or More | 6% |
Purpose of App Use | Personal Level | Household Level | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Age Group | Smartphone Use (Years) | Household Composition | Household Income | Vehicle Ownership | ||
Four-Wheeler | Two-Wheeler | ||||||
1. Deciding when to Depart | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.049 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
2. Deciding Trip Destination | 0.369 * | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.070 * | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
3. Choosing Mode of Transport | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.504 * | 0.000 | 0.015 | 0.023 |
4. Route Selection | 0.556 * | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.396 * | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
5. Communication and Coordination | 0.844 * | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.966 * | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
6. Performing Tasks Online | 0.153 * | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.300 * | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Travel Outcome | Stated Impacts | Gender | Age (in Years) | Years of Smartphone Use | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Male | Female | 18–24 | 25–34 | 35–44 | 45–54 | 55–64 | 65 + | <1 | 1 to 3 | 3 to 5 | >5 | ||
VKT for Work/Education | Significant Decrease | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
Slight Decrease | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
No Impact | 69% | 76% | 48% | 63% | 80% | 86% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 91% | 63% | |
Slight Increase | 19% | 18% | 27% | 24% | 20% | 14% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 8% | 25% | |
Significant Increase | 12% | 6% | 25% | 13% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 13% | |
p-value = 0.053 | p-value = 0.000 | p-value = 0.000 | |||||||||||
VKT for Shopping Trips | Significant Decrease | 38% | 34% | 61% | 53% | 24% | 22% | 5% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 15% | 49% |
Slight Decrease | 21% | 26% | 19% | 18% | 37% | 20% | 30% | 15% | 0% | 20% | 19% | 26% | |
No Impact | 41% | 40% | 20% | 28% | 39% | 58% | 65% | 85% | 100% | 80% | 66% | 26% | |
Slight Increase | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
Significant Increase | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
p-value = 0.369 * | p-value = 0.000 | p-value = 0.000 | |||||||||||
VKT for Recreational Trips | Significant Decrease | 4% | 6% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 25% | 30% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 6% |
Slight Decrease | 22% | 22% | 15% | 16% | 25% | 29% | 35% | 25% | 40% | 15% | 24% | 22% | |
No Impact | 41% | 42% | 25% | 24% | 67% | 63% | 40% | 45% | 60% | 85% | 64% | 28% | |
Slight Increase | 24% | 21% | 48% | 35% | 8% | 8% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 12% | 30% | |
Significant Increase | 9% | 9% | 12% | 25% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 13% | |
p-value = 0.837 * | p-value = 0.000 | p-value = 0.000 | |||||||||||
Number of Social Gatherings | Significant Decrease | 10% | 5% | 15% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 25% | 28% | 30% | 13% | 8% | 6% |
Slight Decrease | 22% | 25% | 14% | 23% | 23% | 31% | 28% | 33% | 10% | 15% | 29% | 23% | |
No Impact | 47% | 49% | 35% | 41% | 59% | 69% | 48% | 40% | 60% | 73% | 58% | 41% | |
Slight Increase | 16% | 16% | 29% | 22% | 18% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 5% | 22% | |
Significant Increase | 5% | 6% | 7% | 14% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 8% | |
p-value = 0.339 * | p-value = 0.000 | p-value = 0.000 | |||||||||||
Number of New Places Visited | Significant Decrease | 11% | 8% | 20% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 23% | 35% | 40% | 16% | 8% | 8% |
Slight Decrease | 20% | 21% | 10% | 25% | 23% | 22% | 23% | 25% | 10% | 16% | 29% | 19% | |
No Impact | 47% | 49% | 35% | 38% | 54% | 78% | 55% | 40% | 50% | 67% | 58% | 42% | |
Slight Increase | 17% | 18% | 28% | 24% | 23% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 5% | 24% | |
Significant Increase | 6% | 3% | 6% | 13% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 7% | |
p-value = 0.596 * | p-value = 0.000 | p-value = 0.000 | |||||||||||
Number of Group Trips Planned | Significant Decrease | 9% | 9% | 15% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 30% | 38% | 30% | 11% | 7% | 9% |
Slight Decrease | 20% | 20% | 15% | 18% | 24% | 29% | 18% | 23% | 10% | 15% | 22% | 21% | |
No Impact | 48% | 53% | 40% | 46% | 57% | 71% | 53% | 40% | 60% | 75% | 66% | 42% | |
Slight Increase | 17% | 13% | 23% | 22% | 19% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 5% | 20% | |
Significant Increase | 6% | 5% | 7% | 15% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 8% | |
p-value = 0.709 * | p-value = 0.000 | p-value = 0.000 |
Travel Outcome | Stated Impacts | HH Composition | Monthly HH Income | Vehicle Ownership | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Four-Wheeler | Two-Wheeler | |||||||||||||||
With Children | No Children | <₹ 5 k | ₹ 5 k–20 k | ₹ 20 k–50 k | ₹ 50 k–100 k | >₹ 100 k | None | One | Two | >2 | None | One | Two | >2 | ||
VKT for Work/Education | Significant Decrease | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
Slight Decrease | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
No Impact | 69% | 77% | 100% | 96% | 68% | 56% | 43% | 95% | 64% | 44% | 48% | 94% | 72% | 61% | 31% | |
Slight Increase | 22% | 15% | 0% | 4% | 27% | 24% | 37% | 5% | 27% | 31% | 33% | 5% | 21% | 25% | 34% | |
Significant Increase | 9% | 8% | 0% | 0% | 4% | 20% | 20% | 1% | 9% | 25% | 18% | 1% | 7% | 13% | 34% | |
p-value = 0.139 * | p-value = 0.000 | p-value = 0.000 | p-value = 0.000 | |||||||||||||
VKT for Shopping Trips | Significant Decrease | 40% | 32% | 0% | 5% | 55% | 64% | 56% | 8% | 53% | 62% | 61% | 10% | 33% | 61% | 62% |
Slight Decrease | 22% | 25% | 0% | 38% | 32% | 25% | 22% | 18% | 32% | 22% | 15% | 11% | 31% | 24% | 24% | |
No Impact | 38% | 43% | 100% | 57% | 14% | 11% | 22% | 75% | 14% | 16% | 24% | 79% | 36% | 15% | 14% | |
Slight Increase | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
Significant Increase | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
p-value = 0.211 * | p-value = 0.000 | p-value = 0.000 | p-value = 0.000 | |||||||||||||
VKT for Recreational Trips | Significant Decrease | 5% | 5% | 0% | 0% | 8% | 4% | 11% | 0% | 7% | 7% | 12% | 0% | 5% | 10% | 3% |
Slight Decrease | 21% | 23% | 21% | 25% | 24% | 28% | 11% | 22% | 25% | 20% | 12% | 20% | 27% | 19% | 10% | |
No Impact | 40% | 44% | 79% | 75% | 19% | 19% | 17% | 73% | 20% | 20% | 12% | 72% | 39% | 21% | 17% | |
Slight Increase | 25% | 20% | 0% | 0% | 48% | 32% | 34% | 5% | 38% | 28% | 42% | 8% | 22% | 37% | 31% | |
Significant Increase | 9% | 9% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 17% | 28% | 0% | 10% | 25% | 21% | 0% | 8% | 13% | 38% | |
p-value = 0.592 * | p-value = 0.000 | p-value = 0.000 | p-value = 0.000 | |||||||||||||
Number of Social Gatherings | Significant Decrease | 3% | 13% | 11% | 6% | 8% | 8% | 5% | 8% | 8% | 7% | 6% | 10% | 7% | 9% | 0% |
Slight Decrease | 25% | 20% | 22% | 29% | 22% | 24% | 18% | 25% | 22% | 25% | 15% | 27% | 21% | 25% | 17% | |
No Impact | 49% | 46% | 67% | 64% | 39% | 35% | 34% | 64% | 37% | 31% | 42% | 57% | 52% | 35% | 34% | |
Slight Increase | 16% | 15% | 0% | 0% | 31% | 24% | 25% | 4% | 27% | 22% | 21% | 6% | 16% | 25% | 24% | |
Significant Increase | 6% | 5% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 8% | 18% | 0% | 5% | 15% | 15% | 0% | 5% | 7% | 24% | |
p-value = 0.002 | p-value = 0.000 | p-value = 0.000 | p-value = 0.000 | |||||||||||||
Number of New Places Visited | Significant Decrease | 6% | 14% | 13% | 11% | 11% | 8% | 5% | 11% | 10% | 6% | 6% | 12% | 8% | 10% | 7% |
Slight Decrease | 19% | 22% | 21% | 36% | 13% | 19% | 14% | 27% | 15% | 16% | 18% | 25% | 23% | 15% | 10% | |
No Impact | 49% | 47% | 66% | 54% | 38% | 41% | 40% | 60% | 39% | 42% | 36% | 60% | 45% | 41% | 45% | |
Slight Increase | 20% | 14% | 0% | 0% | 39% | 22% | 26% | 3% | 32% | 22% | 27% | 4% | 19% | 26% | 28% | |
Significant Increase | 6% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 9% | 15% | 0% | 5% | 14% | 12% | 0% | 5% | 8% | 10% | |
p-value = 0.018 | p-value = 0.000 | p-value = 0.000 | p-value = 0.000 | |||||||||||||
Number of Group Trips Planned | Significant Decrease | 5% | 13% | 9% | 7% | 11% | 11% | 7% | 8% | 10% | 10% | 9% | 10% | 7% | 14% | 0% |
Slight Decrease | 19% | 22% | 17% | 32% | 19% | 21% | 14% | 23% | 21% | 16% | 12% | 23% | 23% | 13% | 21% | |
No Impact | 54% | 46% | 74% | 61% | 40% | 44% | 33% | 66% | 39% | 47% | 21% | 63% | 52% | 40% | 28% | |
Slight Increase | 16% | 14% | 0% | 0% | 31% | 15% | 28% | 3% | 24% | 15% | 39% | 5% | 14% | 21% | 34% | |
Significant Increase | 5% | 5% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 9% | 18% | 0% | 6% | 12% | 18% | 0% | 4% | 10% | 17% | |
p-value = 0.040 | p-value = 0.000 | p-value = 0.000 | p-value = 0.000 |
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
Sinha, K.; Gupta, S. Smartphone App Usage Patterns for Trip Planning Purposes and Stated Impacts in the City of Bhopal, India. Urban Sci. 2023, 7, 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci7010025
Sinha K, Gupta S. Smartphone App Usage Patterns for Trip Planning Purposes and Stated Impacts in the City of Bhopal, India. Urban Science. 2023; 7(1):25. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci7010025
Chicago/Turabian StyleSinha, Kushagra, and Sanjay Gupta. 2023. "Smartphone App Usage Patterns for Trip Planning Purposes and Stated Impacts in the City of Bhopal, India" Urban Science 7, no. 1: 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci7010025