IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i5p4547-d1087362.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Travel-Chain Complexity on Public Transport Travel Intention: A Mixed-Selection Model

Author

Listed:
  • Yuan Yuan

    (Key Laboratory of Integrated Transportation Big Data Application Technology in Transportation Industry, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China)

  • Chunfu Shao

    (Key Laboratory of Integrated Transportation Big Data Application Technology in Transportation Industry, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China)

  • Zhichao Cao

    (School of Transportation and Civil Engineering, Nantong University, Nantong 226000, China)

  • Chaoying Yin

    (Key Laboratory of Integrated Transportation Big Data Application Technology in Transportation Industry, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China
    College of Automobile and Traffic Engineering, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China)

Abstract

With urban expansion and traffic environment improvement, travel chains continue to grow, and the combination of travel purposes and modes becomes more complex. The promotion of mobility as a service (MaaS) has positive effects on facilitating the public transport traffic environment. However, public transport service optimization requires an accurate understanding of the travel environment, selection preferences, demand prediction, and systematic dispatch. Our study focused on the relationship between the trip-chain complexity environment and travel intention, combining the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) with travelers’ preferences to construct a bounded rationality theory. First, this study used K-means clustering to transform the characteristics of the travel trip chain into the complexity of the trip chain. Then, based on the partial least squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM) and the generalized ordered Logit model, a mixed-selection model was established. Finally, the travel intention of PLS-SEM was compared with the travel sharing rate of the generalized ordered Logit model to determine the trip-chain complexity effects for different public transport modes. The results showed that (1) the proposed model, which transformed travel-chain characteristics into travel-chain complexity using K-means clustering and adopted a bounded rationality perspective, had the best fit and was the most effective with comparison to the previous prediction approaches. (2) Compared with service quality, trip-chain complexity negatively affected the intention of using public transport in a wider range of indirect paths. Gender, vehicle ownership, and with children/without children had significant moderating effects on certain paths of the SEM. (3) The research results obtained by PLS-SEM indicated that when travelers were more willing to travel by subway, the subway travel sharing rate corresponding to the generalized ordered Logit model was only 21.25–43.49%. Similarly, the sharing rate of travel by bus was only 32–44% as travelers were more willing to travel by bus obtained from PLS-SEM. Therefore, it is necessary to combine the qualitative results of PLS-SEM with the quantitative results of generalized ordered Logit. Moreover, when service quality, preferences, and subjective norms were based on the mean value, with each increase in trip-chain complexity, the subway travel sharing rate was reduced by 3.89–8.30%, while the bus travel sharing rate was reduced by 4.63–6.03%.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuan Yuan & Chunfu Shao & Zhichao Cao & Chaoying Yin, 2023. "The Effect of Travel-Chain Complexity on Public Transport Travel Intention: A Mixed-Selection Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-29, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:5:p:4547-:d:1087362
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/5/4547/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/5/4547/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Md Hadiuzzaman & Nahid Parvez Farazi & Sanjana Hossain & Saurav Barua & Farzana Rahman, 2019. "Structural equation approach to investigate trip-chaining and mode choice relationships in the context of developing countries," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(4), pages 391-415, May.
    2. Cong Qi & Zhenjun Zhu & Xiucheng Guo & Ruiying Lu & Junlan Chen, 2020. "Examining Interrelationships between Tourist Travel Mode and Trip Chain Choices Using the Nested Logit Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-15, September.
    3. Eldeeb, Gamal & Mohamed, Moataz, 2020. "Quantifying preference heterogeneity in transit service desired quality using a latent class choice model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 119-133.
    4. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    5. Huang, Yuqiao & Gao, Linjie & Ni, Anning & Liu, Xiaoning, 2021. "Analysis of travel mode choice and trip chain pattern relationships based on multi-day GPS data: A case study in Shanghai, China," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    6. Lai, Wen-Tai & Chen, Ching-Fu, 2011. "Behavioral intentions of public transit passengers--The roles of service quality, perceived value, satisfaction and involvement," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 318-325, March.
    7. Huang, Arthur & Levinson, David, 2017. "A model of two-destination choice in trip chains with GPS data," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 51-62.
    8. Liao, Feixiong & Tian, Qiong & Arentze, Theo & Huang, Hai-Jun & Timmermans, Harry J.P., 2020. "Travel preferences of multimodal transport systems in emerging markets: The case of Beijing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 250-266.
    9. Kuo, Yong-Hong & Leung, Janny M.Y. & Yan, Yimo, 2023. "Public transport for smart cities: Recent innovations and future challenges," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(3), pages 1001-1026.
    10. Allen, Jaime & Muñoz, Juan Carlos & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2019. "Understanding public transport satisfaction: Using Maslow's hierarchy of (transit) needs," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 75-94.
    11. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    12. Hensher, David A., 2017. "Future bus transport contracts under a mobility as a service (MaaS) regime in the digital age: Are they likely to change?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 86-96.
    13. David Hensher & April Reyes, 2000. "Trip chaining as a barrier to the propensity to use public transport," Transportation, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 341-361, December.
    14. Xinshu Zhao & John G. Lynch & Qimei Chen, 2010. "Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(2), pages 197-206, August.
    15. Ye, Xin & Pendyala, Ram M. & Gottardi, Giovanni, 2007. "An exploration of the relationship between mode choice and complexity of trip chaining patterns," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 96-113, January.
    16. Richard Williams, 2006. "Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 6(1), pages 58-82, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nguyen-Phuoc, Duy Quy & Su, Diep Ngoc & Nguyen, Minh Hieu & Vo, Nguyen S. & Oviedo-Trespalacios, Oscar, 2022. "Factors influencing intention to use on-demand shared ride-hailing services in Vietnam: risk, cost or sustainability?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Jennifer Roberts & Gurleen Popli & Rosemary J. Harris, 2018. "Do environmental concerns affect commuting choices?: hybrid choice modelling with household survey data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 181(1), pages 299-320, January.
    3. De Vos, Jonas & Witlox, Frank, 2017. "Travel satisfaction revisited. On the pivotal role of travel satisfaction in conceptualising a travel behaviour process," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 364-373.
    4. Huang, Yuqiao & Gao, Linjie & Ni, Anning & Liu, Xiaoning, 2021. "Analysis of travel mode choice and trip chain pattern relationships based on multi-day GPS data: A case study in Shanghai, China," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    5. Chee, Pei Nen Esther & Susilo, Yusak O. & Wong, Yiik Diew, 2020. "Determinants of intention-to-use first-/last-mile automated bus service," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 350-375.
    6. Wang, Rui, 2015. "The stops made by commuters: evidence from the 2009 US National Household Travel Survey," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 109-118.
    7. Rafiq, Rezwana & McNally, Michael G., 2022. "A structural analysis of the work tour behavior of transit commuters," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 61-79.
    8. Zhang, Yiyuan & Luo, Xia & Qiu, Yuansen & Fu, Yuxue, 2022. "Understanding the generation mechanism of BEV drivers' charging demand: An exploration of the relationship between charging choice and complexity of trip chaining patterns," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 110-126.
    9. Nosheena Yasir & Nasir Mahmood & Hafiz Shakir Mehmood & Osama Rashid & An Liren, 2021. "The Integrated Role of Personal Values and Theory of Planned Behavior to Form a Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intention," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-21, August.
    10. Arne K. Albrecht & Gianfranco Walsh & Simon Brach & Dwayne D. Gremler & Erica Herpen, 2017. "The influence of service employees and other customers on customer unfriendliness: a social norms perspective," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 827-847, November.
    11. Hamid Mahmood Gelaidan & Abdullah Al-Swidi & Muhammad Haroon Hafeez, 2023. "Studying the Joint Effects of Perceived Service Quality, Perceived Benefits, and Environmental Concerns in Sustainable Travel Behavior: Extending the TPB," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-22, July.
    12. Qian, Lixian & Yin, Juelin & Huang, Youlin & Liang, Ya, 2023. "The role of values and ethics in influencing consumers’ intention to use autonomous vehicle hailing services," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    13. Zaitul Zaitul & Ilona Desi & Novianti Neva, 2022. "Village-Based Tourism Performance: Tourist Satisfaction and Revisit Intention," Polish Journal of Sport and Tourism, Sciendo, vol. 29(2), pages 36-43, June.
    14. Li, Zhibin & Wang, Wei & Yang, Chen & Jiang, Guojun, 2013. "Exploring the causal relationship between bicycle choice and trip chain pattern," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 170-177.
    15. Vytautas Dumbliauskas & Vytautas Grigonis, 2020. "An Empirical Activity Sequence Approach for Travel Behavior Analysis in Vilnius City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-22, January.
    16. Laura Helen Middermann, 2020. "Do Immigrant Entrepreneurs Have Natural Cognitive Advantages for International Entrepreneurial Activity?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-13, April.
    17. Maria Rodrigues & João F. Proença & Rita Macedo, 2023. "Determinants of the Purchase of Secondhand Products: An Approach by the Theory of Planned Behaviour," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-18, July.
    18. Tibert Verhagen & Daniel Bloemers, 2018. "Exploring the cognitive and affective bases of online purchase intentions: a hierarchical test across product types," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 537-561, September.
    19. Anca-Otilia Dodescu & Elena-Aurelia Botezat & Alexandru Constăngioară & Ioana-Crina Pop-Cohuţ, 2021. "A Partial Least-Square Mediation Analysis of the Contribution of Cross-Campus Entrepreneurship Education to Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-26, August.
    20. Ingvardson, Jesper Bláfoss & Nielsen, Otto Anker, 2019. "The relationship between norms, satisfaction and public transport use: A comparison across six European cities using structural equation modelling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 37-57.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:5:p:4547-:d:1087362. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.