| Literature DB >> 35098106 |
Niaz Mahmud Zafri1, Asif Khan1, Shaila Jamal2, Bhuiyan Monwar Alam3.
Abstract
COVID-19 pandemic has caused adverse impacts on different aspects of life around the globe, including travelers' mode choice behavior. To make their travel safe, transportation planners and policymakers need to understand people's perceptions of the risk of COVID-19 transmission in different travel modes. This study aimed to estimate mode-wise perceived risk of viral transmission and identify the factors that influenced the perceived risk in Bangladesh. The study used a five-point Likert scale to measure the perceived risk of COVID-19 transmission in each travel mode. Using ordinal logistic regression models, the study explored the factors that influenced the perceived risk of COVID-19 transmission in different travel modes. The study found that people perceived a very high risk of viral transmission in public transport (bus), moderate risk in shared modes (rickshaw, auto-rickshaw, ridesharing), and very low risk in private modes (private car, motorcycle/scooter, walking, cycling). Such high-risk perception of viral transmission in public transport and shared modes might lead to a modal shift to private modes, which would worsen urban transport problems and undermine sustainable transportation goals. The study also found that socio-economic factors (gender, age, income) significantly influenced perceived risks in all travel modes. Contrarily, psychological factors (worry, care, and trust) were significant only for public and shared modes, but not for private modes. Lastly, travel behavior-related factors influenced perceived risk in shared and private modes.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Modal shift; Psychology; Risk perception; Travel mode
Year: 2022 PMID: 35098106 PMCID: PMC8784394 DOI: 10.1016/j.trip.2022.100548
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transp Res Interdiscip Perspect ISSN: 2590-1982
Fig. 1Distribution of the collected sample across eight administrative divisions of Bangladesh.
Summary statistics of the independent variables.
| Variable | Note | % | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Dummy variable: 1 if the respondent is male; 0 otherwise | 67.0 | |
| Age group 1 | Dummy variable: 1 if the respondent is young (aged < 30 years); 0 otherwise | 83.6 | |
| Age group 2 | Dummy variable: 1 if the respondent is middle-aged (aged 30–60 years); 0 otherwise | 16.0 | |
| Age group 3 | Dummy variable: 1 if the respondent is old (aged greater than 60 years); 0 otherwise | 0.4 | |
| Income group 1 | Dummy variable: 1 if the respondent is from the low-income group (<20000 BDT); 0 otherwise | 19.7 | |
| Income group 2 | Dummy variable: 1 if the respondent is from the middle-income group (20000–60000 BDT); 0 otherwise | 55.8 | |
| Income group 3 | Dummy variable: 1 if the respondent is from the high-income group (>60000 BDT); 0 otherwise | 24.3 | |
| Household size | Number of people in the household | 4.55 | |
| Place of living | Dummy variable: 1 if the respondent is from a divisional district; 0 otherwise | 64.7 | |
| Confidence in one's immune system | Agreement with the statement (Five-point Likert scale: 1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree): “I feel that my immune system is very strong, and I am less likely to be affected by the COVID19.” | 2.35 | |
| Trust in preventive strategies | Agreement with the statement (Five-point Likert scale: 1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree): “The more we take precautions and follow the health guidelines, the less is the risk of being affected by the COVID-19.” | 4.13 | |
| Worry about the health impact | Agreement with the statement (Five-point Likert scale: 1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree): “I am worried about the health impacts of COVID-19 in Bangladesh.” | 4.04 | |
| Care about risk | Dummy variable: 1 if the respondent does not care; 0 otherwise | 14.8 | |
| Keeping updated about pandemic 1 | Dummy variable: 1 if the respondent keeps update regularly (at least once a day); 0 otherwise | 75.2 | |
| Keeping updated about pandemic 2 | Dummy variable: 1 if the respondent keeps update occasionally (at least once a week); 0 otherwise | 11.6 | |
| Keeping updated about pandemic 3 | Dummy variable: 1 if the respondent keeps update rarely; 0 otherwise | 13.2 | |
| Car ownership | Dummy variable: 1 if the respondent’s household owned any private car; 0 otherwise | 29.7 | |
| Motorcycle ownership | Dummy variable: 1 if the respondent’s household owned any motorcycle; 0 otherwise | 30.5 | |
| Bicycle ownership | Dummy variable: 1 if the respondent’s household owned any bicycle; 0 otherwise | 67.4 | |
| Regular use travel mode 1 | Dummy variable: 1 if public transport; 0 otherwise | 30.8 | |
| Regular use travel mode 2 | Dummy variable: 1 if walking; 0 otherwise | 19.5 | |
| Regular use travel mode 3 | Dummy variable: 1 if shared mode (e.g., CNG (auto-rickshaw), rickshaw, ridesharing); 0 otherwise | 26.9 | |
| Regular use travel mode 4 | Dummy variable: 1 if private mode (e.g., cycling, motorcycle, car); 0 otherwise | 22.8 | |
Fig. 2Mode-wise perceived risk of COVID-19 transmission (5-point Likert scale: 1 = extremely low, 5 = extremely high).
One-Way ANOVA test and Games-Howell (post-hoc) test results: Mean difference (p-value).
| Private car | Bus | Rickshaw | CNG | Walk | Motorcycle/scooter | Bicycle | Ridesharing | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | ||||||||
| 2.6 (0.00) | – | |||||||
| 1.5 (0.00) | 1.1 (0.00) | – | ||||||
| 1.7 (0.00) | 0.9 (0.00) | 0.2 (0.00) | – | |||||
| 0.2 (0.00) | 2.4 (0.00) | 1.2 (0.00) | 1.5 (0.00) | – | ||||
| 0.3 (0.00) | 2.3 (0.00) | 1.1 (0.00) | 1.4 (0.00) | 0.1 (0.36) | – | |||
| 0.2 (0.00) | 2.4 (0.00) | 1.2 (0.00) | 1.5 (0.00) | 0.0 (1.00) | 0.1 (0.40) | – | ||
| 1.9 (0.00) | 0.7 (0.00) | 0.4 (0.00) | 0.1 (0.06) | 1.7 (0.00) | 1.5 (0.00) | 1.7 (0.00) | – | |
Descriptive statistics of supplementary questions.
| Question | Strongly disagree (%) | Disagree (%) | Neither agree nor disagree (%) | Agree (%) | Strongly agree (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social/physical distancing is possible in public transport. | 37.7 | 35.6 | 10.4 | 12.1 | 4.2 |
| Social/physical distancing is possible in private modes. | 7.6 | 8.5 | 14.9 | 44.8 | 24.3 |
| The bus is a suitable mode for spreading infectious diseases like COVID-19. | 10.2 | 6.1 | 7.6 | 31.2 | 44.9 |
| Since multiple passengers use share modes, there will be less possibility of disinfecting them. | 8.5 | 12.3 | 13.1 | 43.5 | 22.6 |
| Maintaining hygiene in private modes is easier compared to public and shared modes of transportation. | 7.5 | 7.8 | 9 | 36.6 | 39.2 |
| Wearing a helmet in a motorcycle/scooter will provide additional protection from the spread of COVID-19. | 9.5 | 11.7 | 19 | 41.8 | 18 |
Results of ordinal logistic regression models.
| Variables | Public transport (bus) | Shared mode/ Para-transit | Private modes | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNG | Rickshaw | Ridesharing | Walking | Private car | Motorcycle | Cycling | ||||||||||
| OR | OR | OR | OR | OR | OR | OR | OR | |||||||||
| Perceived risk = 1 | −2.4* | 0.1 | −2.1* | 0.1 | −1.5* | 0.2 | −2.0* | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1.1 | 0.1 | 1.1 | −0.3* | 0.8 | −0.5* | 0.6 |
| Perceived risk = 2 | −0.7* | 0.5 | 0.1 | 1.1 | 0.5** | 1.7 | −0.1 | 0.9 | 1.5* | 4.3 | 2.0* | 7.3 | 1.2* | 3.5 | 1.0* | 2.7 |
| Perceived risk = 3 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 1.5* | 4.3 | 1.8* | 6.1 | 1.1* | 2.9 | 2.3* | 10.2 | 3.5* | 34.0 | 2.0* | 7.6 | 1.9* | 7.0 |
| Perceived risk = 4 | 0.7** | 2.0 | 2.7* | 15.5 | 3.1* | 21.6 | 2.2* | 8.9 | 3.0* | 19.8 | 4.3* | 72.7 | 2.9* | 18.7 | 2.7* | 15.0 |
| Gender: Male | −0.3*** | 0.7 | −0.5* | 0.6 | −0.3** | 0.7 | −0.3** | 0.7 | −0.5* | 0.6 | ||||||
| Age group 2: Middle-aged | 0.4** | 1.5 | 0.4** | 1.5 | 0.4** | 1.5 | 0.5* | 1.6 | ||||||||
| Income group 1: Low-income group | −0.5* | 0.6 | −0.5* | 0.6 | −0.5* | 0.6 | ||||||||||
| Income group 3: High-income group | 0.3** | 1.4 | ||||||||||||||
| Worry about the health impact | 0.2** | 1.2 | ||||||||||||||
| Trust in preventive strategies | 0.2* | 1.3 | 0.4* | 1.4 | 0.3* | 1.3 | 0.3* | 1.4 | ||||||||
| Care about risk: don’t care | −1.0* | 0.4 | −0.7* | 0.5 | −0.4* | 0.7 | −0.6* | 0.5 | ||||||||
| Car ownership | −0.6* | 0.6 | ||||||||||||||
| Regular use travel model 2: Walking | −0.5* | 0.6 | −0.3*** | 0.7 | −0.7* | 0.5 | ||||||||||
| Regular use travel mode 3: Shared mode | −0.3** | 0.7 | ||||||||||||||
| Regular use travel mode 4: Private mode | 0.5* | 1.7 | 0.7* | 2.0 | 0.4** | 1.4 | −0.4*** | 0.7 | ||||||||
| Model fit ( | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||||||||
| Nagelkerke R square (pseudo) | 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.60 | ||||||||
N.B.: *significant at a 99% confidence level; **significant at a 95% confidence level; ***significant at a 90% confidence level.