The impact of employer attitude to green commuting plans on reducing car driving: A mixed method analysis

Promet - Traffic and Transportation

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 109-119

  Ding, Chuan ^a   Liu, Chao ^b   Lin, Yaoyu ^a   Wang, Yaowu ^a  

^a HARBIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Car ownership; Discrete choice model; Green commuting; Latent variable; Mediating variable; Structural equation model; Travel mode choice

Indexed keywords

AUTOMOBILE; CAR OWNERSHIP; CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON EMISSION; COMMUTING; TRANSPORTATION; WORKPLACE;

EID: 84940299754     PISSN: 03535320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7307/ptt.v26i2.1332     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Horner MW. Spatial dimensions of urban commuting: a review of major issues and their implications for future geographic research. The Professional Geographer. 2004;56(2):160-173.
2. Rye T. Employer attitudes to employer transport plans: a comparison of UK and Dutch experience. Transport Policy. 1999;6(3):183-196.
3. Coleman C. Green commuter plans and the small employer: an investigation into the attitudes and policy of the small employer towards staff travel and green commuter plans. Transport Policy. 2000;7(2):139-148.
4. Bolduc D, Boucher N, Daziano RA. Hybrid choice modeling of new technologies for car choice in Canada. Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2008;(2082):63-71.
5. Johansson MV, Heldt T, Johansson P. The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice. Transportation Research Part A. 2006;40(6):507-525.
6. Kim JH, Bae YK, Chung JH. Effects of personal proenvironmental attitudes on mode choice behavior: new ecofriendly water transit system in Seoul, South Korea. Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2012;(2274):175-183.
7. Ben-Akiva M, McFadden D, Garling T, Gopinath D, Walker J, Bolduc D, et al. Extended framework for modeling choice behavior. Marketing Letters. 1999;10(3):187-203.
8. Walker J, Ben-Akiva M. Generalized random utility model. Mathematical Social Sciences. 2002;43(3):303-343.
9. Choo S, Mokhtarian PL. What type of vehicle do people drive? The role of attitude and lifestyle in influencing vehicle type choice. Transportation Research Part A. 2004;38(3):201-222.
10. Sohn K, Yun J. Separation of car-dependent commuters from normal-choice riders in mode-choice analysis. Transportation. 2009;36(4):423-436.
11. Walker JL, Li J. Latent lifestyle preferences and household location decisions. Journal of Geographical Systems. 2007;9(1):77-101.
12. Schwanen T, Mokhtarian PL. What affects commute mode choice: neighborhood physical structure or preferences towards neighborhoods?. Journal of Transport Geography. 2005;13(1):83-99.
13. Gardner B, Abraham C. Going green? Modeling the impact of environmental concerns and perceptions of transportation alternatives on decisions to drive. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2010;40(4):831-849.
14. Cao X, Mokhtarian PL, Handy SL. Cross-sectional and quasi-panel explorations of the connection between the built environment and auto ownership. Environment and Planning. 2007;39(4):830-847.
15. Ben-Akiva M, Atherton TJ. Methodology for short-range travel demand predictions: analysis of carpooling incentives. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. 1997;11(3):224-261.
16. Van Acker V., Witlox F. Car ownership as a mediating variable in car travel behavior research using a structure equation modelling approach to identify its dual relationship. Journal of Transport Geography. 2010;18(1):65-74.
17. Cao X, Mokhtarian PL, Handy SL. Do changes in neighborhood characteristics lead to changes in travel behavior? A structural equations modeling approach. Transportation. 2007;34(5):535-556.
18. Scheiner J, Holz-Rau C. Travel mode choice: affected by objective or subjective determinants?. Transportation. 2007;34(4):487-511.
19. Yanez MF, Raveau S, Ortuzar JD. Inclusion of latent variables in Mixed Logit model: modelling and forecasting, Transportation Research Part A. 2010;44(9):744-753.
20. Raveau S, Alvarez-Daziane R, Yanez MF, Bolduc D, Ortuzar JD. Sequential and simultaneous estimation of hybrid discrete choice models: some new findings. Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2010;(2156):131-139.
21. Ben-Akiva M, Walker J, Bernardino AT, Gopinath DA, Morikawa T, Polydoropoulou A. Integration of choice and latent variable models, in (H. Mashmassani Ed.) In Perpetual Motion: Travel behavior research opportunities and application challenges. Elsevier Science; 2002. p. 431-470.
22. Sherman R. Subsidies to relieve urban traffic congestion. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. 1972;6(1):22-31.
23. Cullinane S. The relationship between car ownership and public transport provision: a case study of Hong Kong. Transport Policy. 2002;9(1): 29-39.
24. Paulley N, Balcombe R, Mackett R, Titheridge H, Preston J, Wardman M, et al. The demand for public transport: the effect of fares, quality of service, income and car ownership. Transport Policy. 2006;13(4):295-306.
25. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2005. p. 112.
26. Gao S, Mokhtarian PL, Johnston RA. Exploring the connections among job accessibility, employment, income, and auto ownership using structural equation modeling. Annals of Regional Science. 2008;42(2):341-356.
27. Aditjandra PT, Cao X, Mulley C. Understanding neighbourhood design impact on travel behaviour: an application of structural equations model to a British metropolitan data. Transportation Research Part A. 2012;46(1):22-32.
28. Boarnet MG. A broader context for land use and travel behavior, and a research agenda. Journal of the American Planning Association. 2011;77(3):197-213.
29. Gim THT. The relationships between land use measures and travel behavior: a meta-analytic approach. Transportation Planning and Technology. 2013;36(5):413-434.