4.5 Article

The decision to start commuting by bicycle in Bogota, Colombia: Motivations and influences

期刊

TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR AND SOCIETY
卷 24, 期 -, 页码 57-67

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.tbs.2021.02.003

关键词

Bicycling; Transportation mode; Congestion; Mode choice; Behavioral change; Bogota

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that bicycle commuting in Bogota has nearly doubled in recent years, with recent cyclists being more motivated by rational reasons such as cost savings and improved quality of transportation, while experienced cyclists are more driven by a passion for bicycling.
Bogota has recently seen an increase in bicycle commuting with this means of transport being currently used for around 880,000 daily trips, in contrast to 475,000 in 2011. What has led bicycle ridership to nearly double in nine years and what are the factors influencing a growing number of residents to switch to bicycle commuting? Using data from an intercept survey, we analyze the personal attitudes, commuting preferences, and mode change motivations of utilitarian bicyclists (people bicycling for work, study, shopping, errands, or health). We conducted an ordered probit model and statistical tests of differences in means between four statistically different quartiles based on the time period for which they have been bicycling. Quartiles of cyclists were further divided based on socioeconomic and attitudinal characteristics into two groups: those who have recently taken up bicycle commuting (people who started bicycling 3 years ago or less) and those experienced utilitarian cyclists who adopted this mode much earlier (people who started bicycling 4 years ago or more). Results show that recent and experienced cyclists differ in how they view the bicycle as a transport vehicle: recent cyclists were more motivated to switch to bicycling for rational reasons such as saving money and shifting from a poor-quality transit system while the longer-term cyclists were more motivated by a passion for bicycling.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据