4.7 Article

COVID-19 influence on commuters' attitude towards riding public buses for essential trips

期刊

CITIES
卷 131, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2022.103890

关键词

COVID-19 lockdown; Travel behaviour; Key workers; Essential trips; Bayesian model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study applies Bayesian regression analysis to examine the factors influencing the decision of key workers and other commuters in Abuja and Lagos cities, Nigeria, to ride public buses for essential trips during the COVID-19 restrictions. The psychological, policy, and operational effects of COVID-19 emerge as the major determinants of this decision. Key workers avoid busy bus routes to prevent the transmission of COVID-19, while others are unable to do so due to limited access to essential goods and services. The COVID-19 pandemic not only alters travel behavior but also exacerbates existing transportation problems in Lagos and Abuja.
The key workers, required to continue to travel for essential works during the COVID-19 pandemic, are subjected to extreme health and psychological implications along with prevailing financial hardship. This paper applies the Bayesian regression analysis to determine the factors affecting the decision of key workers and other commuters on riding public buses for essential trips during the COVID-19 restrictions on movement at Abuja and Lagos cities in Nigeria. The psychological, policy and operational effects of COVID-19 are the major factors of riding public buses for essential trips during the COVID-19 restrictions on movement. The key workers are staying out the bus routes with higher frequency of passenger boarding to avoid the COVID-19 transmission but other people were unable to avoid these busy routes because of poor accessibility to essential goods and services. The COVID-19 pandemic not only changes the travel behaviour of daily commuters and key workers but also aggravates the existing transportation problems at Lagos and Abuja cities in Nigeria.

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

4.7
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