| Literature DB >> 29954055 |
Jing Li1, Kevin Lo2, Meng Guo3.
Abstract
Choices regarding mode of travel have an evident effect on environment pollutants and public health. This paper makes a significant contribution by examining the differences between low-carbon and non-low-carbon travel mode choices during shopping trips, and how socio-economic characteristics impact individual travel behavior based on data gathered from a questionnaire conducted in Shenyang, China. The study found that, firstly, low-carbon travel modes were more common than non-low-carbon travel modes for shopping, and the average travel distance by non-low-carbon modes was a little longer than that of low-carbon modes. Secondly, suburban and wholesale specialized commercial centers attracted more residents travelling longer distances by non-low carbon modes, especially private car, compared to regional commercial centers in inner city areas. Thirdly, strong relationships between car ownership, gender, monthly income, and travel mode choices were identified in a binary logistic regression model. This study thus highlights the importance of sustainable transportation policies to advocate low-carbon travel modes and reduce carbon emissions.Entities:
Keywords: China; influencing factors; shopping mobility; socio-economic characteristics; travel behavior
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29954055 PMCID: PMC6068570 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15071346
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Map of study area.
Socio-economic characteristics of respondents (%).
| Car Ownership | Gender | Age Group | Education | Occupation | Monthly Income |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes (36.2) | Male (37.4) | ≤18(1.97) | Below High school (26.16) | Public (15.34) | <2000 CNY (15.00) |
Travel behavior data for shoppers at eight commercial centers.
| Commercial Center | Low-Carbon Mode | Non-Low-Carbon Mode | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walking/Cycling | Electric Bike | Bus | Metro | Private Car | Taxi | |||||||
| Proportion (%) | Distance (km) | Proportion (%) | Distance (km) | Proportion (%) | Distance (km) | Proportion (%) | Distance (km) | Proportion (%) | Distance (km) | Proportion (%) | Distance (km) | |
| Wuai | 6.53 | 2.12 | 3.52 | 6.81 | 66.33 | 8.17 | 2.51 | 12.40 | 13.07 | 12.42 | 8.04 | 6.94 |
| Nanta | 17.35 | 2.35 | 1.53 | 5.43 | 62.76 | 8.29 | 1.02 | 8.25 | 12.76 | 11.24 | 4.59 | 6.78 |
| Hunnan | 11.76 | 2.65 | 0.49 | 6.30 | 30.88 | 9.43 | 29.41 | 13.98 | 20.10 | 8.27 | 7.35 | 6.79 |
| Middle Street | 15.38 | 2.08 | 0.45 | 5.60 | 45.25 | 8.54 | 19.91 | 11.20 | 15.38 | 8.52 | 3.62 | 6.64 |
| Taiyuan Street | 6.77 | 2.31 | 0.52 | 4.30 | 41.15 | 8.82 | 28.13 | 8.13 | 15.63 | 7.64 | 7.81 | 6.42 |
| Xita-Beishi | 38.68 | 1.35 | 2.83 | 3.83 | 32.08 | 7.11 | 0.94 | 4.50 | 22.64 | 5.86 | 2.83 | 4.70 |
| Beihang | 26.94 | 1.76 | 1.37 | 2.33 | 55.25 | 6.06 | 1.83 | 10.95 | 10.50 | 6.22 | 4.11 | 5.47 |
| Tiexi | 23.65 | 1.66 | 3.45 | 5.06 | 47.48 | 7.00 | 13.79 | 7.03 | 6.90 | 5.82 | 4.43 | 3.38 |
Logistic regression results of impacts on transport mode choice during shopping trips.
| Explanatory Factors | B | S.E. | Wals | Exp (B) | 95% C.I. for Exp (B) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||
| Car ownership (ref: no) | 1.728 *** | 0.158 | 119.745 | 5.629 | 4.131 | 7.671 |
| Gender (ref: female) | 0.657 *** | 0.145 | 20.488 | 1.928 | 1.451 | 2.563 |
| Monthly income(ref: >5000 CNY) | ||||||
| Monthly income (<2000) | −0.866 ** | 0.303 | 8.154 | 0.421 | 0.232 | 0.762 |
| Monthly income (2000–3000) | −0.650 ** | 0.207 | 9.872 | 0.522 | 0.348 | 0.783 |
| Monthly income (3000–5000)Age (ref: ≥51) | −0.530 ** | 0.170 | 9.777 | 0.588 | 0.422 | 0.820 |
| Age (≤18) | −0.312 | 0.536 | 0.340 | 0.732 | 0.256 | 2.093 |
| Age (19–25) | 0.003 | 0.280 | 0.000 | 1.003 | 0.579 | 1.737 |
| Age (26–35) | 0.375 | 0.267 | 1.979 | 1.455 | 0.863 | 2.455 |
| Age (36–50)Occupation (ref: retirement and unemployed) | 0.342 | 0.280 | 1.492 | 1.407 | 0.813 | 2.435 |
| Occupation (public) | 0.204 | 0.245 | 0.693 | 1.226 | 0.759 | 1.981 |
| Occupation (business) | 0.092 | 0.210 | 0.192 | 1.096 | 0.726 | 1.655 |
| Occupation (self-employed)Education (ref: above master) | 0.106 | 0.230 | 0.214 | 1.112 | 0.709 | 1.745 |
| Education (below high school) | 0.142 | 0.426 | 0.111 | 1.153 | 0.500 | 2.655 |
| Education (high school) | 0.629 | 0.382 | 2.707 | 1.876 | 0.887 | 3.970 |
| Education (undergraduate) | 0.359 | 0.351 | 1.050 | 1.432 | 0.720 | 2.848 |
| Constant | −2.815 *** | 0.455 | 38.227 | 0.060 | ||
| Pseudo R-Square (Nagelkerke) | 0.256 | |||||
| −2 Log Likelihood | 1251.411 | |||||
| Chi-Square | 270.220 | |||||
*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.