Exploring the effect of perceived safety in first/last mile mode choices

IF 3.5 2区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, CIVIL
Panagiotis G. Tzouras, Valentina Pastia, Ioannis Kaparias, Konstantinos Kepaptsoglou
{"title":"Exploring the effect of perceived safety in first/last mile mode choices","authors":"Panagiotis G. Tzouras, Valentina Pastia, Ioannis Kaparias, Konstantinos Kepaptsoglou","doi":"10.1007/s11116-024-10487-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Micro-mobility transport modes like e-bikes and e-scooters promise higher flexibility when covering the first/last mile trip from/to the public transport stop/station to the destination point and vice-versa. However, safety concerns about riding a micro vehicle in mixed traffic limit the flexibility of shared mobility modes and make conventional ones still more attractive, e.g., private car and walking. This study investigates the effect of perceived safety in first/last mile mode choice by conducting an image-based double stated preference experiment targeted at potential micro-mobility users and developing ordinal and mixed logistic regression models. The Value-of-Safety (VoS) is introduced. It refers to the additional distance a user is willing to exchange to avoid an unsafe path. Main findings show that shared space can be a middle-ground solution, as it reports lower heterogeneity among individuals in terms of safety perceptions. The intensive use of e-scooters in mixed-traffic decreases the perceived safety of pedestrians, while e-bikers are threatened by the existence of heavy motorized traffic. Low mean VoS is also reported for e-scooters, demonstrating the unwillingness of potential micro-mobility service users to either detour or use this micro vehicle. The mean VoS of the e-bike is estimated as almost equal to that of the private car. It could be, hence, concluded that perceived safety can systematically explain the unobserved disutility of e-bikes.</p>","PeriodicalId":49419,"journal":{"name":"Transportation","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-024-10487-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Micro-mobility transport modes like e-bikes and e-scooters promise higher flexibility when covering the first/last mile trip from/to the public transport stop/station to the destination point and vice-versa. However, safety concerns about riding a micro vehicle in mixed traffic limit the flexibility of shared mobility modes and make conventional ones still more attractive, e.g., private car and walking. This study investigates the effect of perceived safety in first/last mile mode choice by conducting an image-based double stated preference experiment targeted at potential micro-mobility users and developing ordinal and mixed logistic regression models. The Value-of-Safety (VoS) is introduced. It refers to the additional distance a user is willing to exchange to avoid an unsafe path. Main findings show that shared space can be a middle-ground solution, as it reports lower heterogeneity among individuals in terms of safety perceptions. The intensive use of e-scooters in mixed-traffic decreases the perceived safety of pedestrians, while e-bikers are threatened by the existence of heavy motorized traffic. Low mean VoS is also reported for e-scooters, demonstrating the unwillingness of potential micro-mobility service users to either detour or use this micro vehicle. The mean VoS of the e-bike is estimated as almost equal to that of the private car. It could be, hence, concluded that perceived safety can systematically explain the unobserved disutility of e-bikes.

Abstract Image

探索感知安全在首英里/最后一英里模式选择中的影响
电动自行车和电动滑板车等微型移动交通模式在覆盖从公共交通站点到目的地的第一/最后一英里行程时,具有更高的灵活性,反之亦然。然而,在混合交通中乘坐微型车的安全问题限制了共享交通方式的灵活性,使传统交通方式(如私家车和步行)更具吸引力。本研究针对潜在的微型交通用户开展了一项基于图像的双重陈述偏好实验,并建立了序数和混合逻辑回归模型,从而研究了感知安全在第一/最后一英里模式选择中的影响。引入了安全价值(VoS)。它指的是用户为避免不安全路径而愿意交换的额外距离。主要研究结果表明,共享空间可以作为一种中间解决方案,因为它可以降低个人在安全认知方面的异质性。在混合交通中密集使用电动滑板车会降低行人的安全感,而电动自行车使用者则会受到重型机动车交通的威胁。电动滑板车的平均VoS值也较低,这表明微型交通服务的潜在用户不愿意绕道或使用这种微型交通工具。据估计,电动自行车的平均 VoS 几乎与私家车相当。因此,可以得出结论认为,感知安全可以系统地解释电动自行车的非观察效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Transportation
Transportation 工程技术-工程:土木
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
4.70%
发文量
94
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: In our first issue, published in 1972, we explained that this Journal is intended to promote the free and vigorous exchange of ideas and experience among the worldwide community actively concerned with transportation policy, planning and practice. That continues to be our mission, with a clear focus on topics concerned with research and practice in transportation policy and planning, around the world. These four words, policy and planning, research and practice are our key words. While we have a particular focus on transportation policy analysis and travel behaviour in the context of ground transportation, we willingly consider all good quality papers that are highly relevant to transportation policy, planning and practice with a clear focus on innovation, on extending the international pool of knowledge and understanding. Our interest is not only with transportation policies - and systems and services – but also with their social, economic and environmental impacts, However, papers about the application of established procedures to, or the development of plans or policies for, specific locations are unlikely to prove acceptable unless they report experience which will be of real benefit those working elsewhere. Papers concerned with the engineering, safety and operational management of transportation systems are outside our scope.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信