Transportation

, Volume 43, Issue 5, pp 771–796 | Cite as

Travel mode choice and travel satisfaction: bridging the gap between decision utility and experienced utility

  • Jonas De Vos
  • Patricia L. Mokhtarian
  • Tim Schwanen
  • Veronique Van Acker
  • Frank Witlox
Article

Abstract

Over the past decades research on travel mode choice has evolved from work that is informed by utility theory, examining the effects of objective determinants, to studies incorporating more subjective variables such as habits and attitudes. Recently, the way people perceive their travel has been analyzed with transportation-oriented scales of subjective well-being, and particularly the satisfaction with travel scale. However, studies analyzing the link between travel mode choice (i.e., decision utility) and travel satisfaction (i.e., experienced utility) are limited. In this paper we will focus on the relation between mode choice and travel satisfaction for leisure trips (with travel-related attitudes and the built environment as explanatory variables) of study participants in urban and suburban neighborhoods in the city of Ghent, Belgium. It is shown that the built environment and travel-related attitudes—both important explanatory variables of travel mode choice—and mode choice itself affect travel satisfaction. Public transit users perceive their travel most negatively, while active travel results in the highest levels of travel satisfaction. Surprisingly, suburban dwellers perceive their travel more positively than urban dwellers, for all travel modes.

Keywords

Residential location Travel behavior Travel mode choice Travel satisfaction Travel-related attitudes 

References

  1. Abou-Zeid, M.: Measuring and modeling activities and travel well-being. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2009)Google Scholar
  2. Abou-Zeid, M., Witter, R., Bierlaire, M., Kaufmann, V., Ben-Akiva, M.: Happiness and travel mode switching: findings from a Swiss public transportation experiment. Transp. Policy 19(1), 93–104 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagley, M.N., Mokhtarian, P.L.: The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: a structural equations modeling approach. Ann. Reg. Sci. 36(2), 279–297 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Elia, E., Alexander, B., Hubers, C., Ettema, D.: Activity fragmentation, ICT and travel: an exploratory path analysis of spatiotemporal interrelationships. Transp. Res. Part A 68, 56–74 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. Bentham, J.: An Introduction to The Principles of Morals and Legislations. Blackwell, Oxford (1789/1948)Google Scholar
  6. Bergstad, C.J., Gamble, A., Gärling, T., Hagman, O., Polk, M., Ettema, D., Friman, M., Olsson, L.E.: Subjective well-being related to satisfaction with daily travel. Transportation 38(1), 1–15 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cao, J.: The relationships between e-shopping and store shopping in the shopping process of search goods. Transp. Res. Part A 46(7), 993–1002 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. Cao, J.: The association between light rail transit and satisfactions with travel and life: evidence from Twin Cities. Transportation 40(5), 921–933 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., Handy, S.L.: Do changes in neighborhood characteristics lead to changes in travel behavior? A structural equations modeling approach. Transportation 34(5), 535–556 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., Handy, S.L.: Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behaviour: a focus on empirical findings. Transp. Rev. 29(3), 359–395 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cervero, R.: Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework. Transp. Res. Part D 7(4), 265–284 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cervero, R.: Traditional neighborhoods and commuting in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation 23(4), 373–394 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cervero, R., Kockelman, K.: Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity and design. Transp. Res. Part D 2(3), 199–219 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen, C., Gong, H., Paaswell, R.: Role of the built environment on mode choice decisions: additional evidence on the impact of density. Transportation 35(3), 285–299 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Larson, R.: Validity and reliability of the experience sampling method. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 175(9), 526–537 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Vos, J., Derudder, B., Van Acker, V., Witlox, F.: Reducing car use: changing attitudes or relocating? The influence of residential dissonance on travel behavior. J. Transp. Geogr. 22, 1–9 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Vos, J., Schwanen, T., Van Acker, V., Witlox, F.: Travel and subjective wellbeing: a focus on findings, methods and future research needs. Transp. Rev. 33(4), 421–442 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Vos, J., Schwanen, T., Van Acker, V., Witlox, F.: Searching for a satisfying scale for travel satisfaction. Transp. Res. Part F 33(4), 421–442 (2014)Google Scholar
  19. Diener, E.: The Science of Well-Being: The Collected Works of Diener, 1st edn. Springer, Dordrecht (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., Griffen, S.: The satisfaction with life scale. J. Personal. Assess. 49(1), 71–75 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D.-W., Oishi, S., Diener-Biswar, R.: New well-being measures: short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Soc. Indic. Res. 97(2), 143–156 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Domencich, T.A., McFadden, D.: Urban Travel Demand: A behavioral Analysis. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1975)Google Scholar
  23. Duarte, A., Garcia, C., Giannarakis, G., Limão, S., Polydoropoulou, A., Litinas, N.: New approaches in transportation planning: happiness and transport economics. Netnomics 11(1), 5–32 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ettema, D., Friman, M., Gärling, T., Olsson, L.E., Fujii, S.: How in-vehicle activities affect work commuters’ satisfaction with public transport. J. Transp. Geogr. 24, 215–222 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ettema, D., Gärling, T., Eriksson, L., Friman, M., Olsson, L.E., Fujii, S.: Satisfaction with travel and subjective well-being: development and test of a measurement tool. Transp. Res. Part F 14(3), 167–175 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ettema, D., Gärling, T., Olsson, L.E., Friman, M.: Out-of-home activities, daily travel, and subjective well-being. Transp. Res. Part A 44(9), 723–732 (2010)Google Scholar
  27. Ettema, D., Smajic, I.: Walking, places and wellbeing. Geogr. J. (2014). doi:10.1111/geoj.12065 Google Scholar
  28. Ewing, R., Cervero, R.: Travel and the built environment. A meta-analysis. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 76(3), 265–294 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Friman, M., Fujii, S., Ettema, D., Gärling, T., Olsson, L.E.: Psychometric analysis of the satisfaction with travel scale. Transp. Res. Part A 48, 132–145 (2013)Google Scholar
  30. Groves, R.M.: Survey Errors and Survey Costs. John Wiley and Sons, New York (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Handy, S.L., Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L.: Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transp. Res. D 10(6), 427–444 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kahneman, D., Krueger, A.B.: Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. J. Econ. Perspect. 20(1), 3–24 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kahneman, D., Wakker, P.P., Sarin, R.: Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. Quart. J. Econ. 112(2), 375–405 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kamruzzaman, M., Baker, D., Washington, S., Turrell, G.: Residential dissonance and mode choice. J. Transp. Geogr. 33, 12–28 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Karsten, L.: Family gentrifiers: challenging the city as a place simultaneously to build a career and to raise children. Urban Stud 40(12), 2573–2584 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kwan, M.-P.: Gender and individual access to opportunities: a study of space-time measures. Prof. Geogr. 51(2), 210–227 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lenntorp, B.: Paths in space-time environment: a time-geographic study of movement possibilities of individuals. Environ. Plan. A 9(8), 961–972 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McFadden, D.: The choice theory approach to market research. Mark. Sci. 5(4), 275–297 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McFadden, D.: Economic choices. Am. Econ. Rev. 91(3), 351–378 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mokhtarian, P.L., Ory, D.T., Cao, X.: Shopping-related attitudes: a factor and cluster analysis of Northern California shoppers. Environ. Plan. B 36, 204–228 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mokhtarian, P.L., Salomon, I.: How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations. Transp. Res. Part A 35(8), 695–719 (2001)Google Scholar
  42. Olsson, L.E., Gärling, T., Ettema, D., Friman, M., Fujii, S.: Happiness and satisfaction with work commute. Soc. Indic. Res. 111(1), 255–263 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ory, D.T., Mokhtarian, P.L.: When is getting there half the fun? Modeling the liking for travel. Transp. Res. Part A 39(2–3), 97–123 (2005)Google Scholar
  44. Pirie, G.H.: Measuring accessibility: a review and proposal. Environ. Plan. A 11(3), 299–312 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ritsema van Eck, J., Burghouwt, G., Dijst, M.: Lifestyles, spatial configurations and quality of life in daily travel: an explorative simulation study. J. Transp. Geogr. 13(2), 123–134 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Russell, J.A.: A circumplex model of affect. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 39, 1161–1178 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Russell, J.A.: Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychol. Rev. 110, 145–172 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schwanen, T., Lucas, K.: Understanding auto motives. In: Lucas, K., Blumenberg, E., Weinberger, R. (eds.) Auto Motives: Understanding Car Use Behaviours, pp. 3–38. Emerald Publishing Ltd, Bradford (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schwanen, T., Mokhtarian, P.L.: The extent and determinants of dissonance between actual and preferred residential neighborhood type. Environ. Plan. B 31(5), 759–784 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schwanen, T., Mokhtarian, P.L.: What affects commute mode choice, neighbourhood physical structure or preferences toward neighborhoods? J. Transp. Geogr. 13(1), 83–99 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scollon, C.N., Kim-Prieto, C., Diener, E.: Experience sampling: promises and pitfalls, strengths and weaknesses. J. Happiness Stud. 4(1), 5–34 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stone, A.A., Shiffman, S.S., Devries, M.W.: Ecological momentary assessment. In: Kahneman, D., Diener, E., Schwarz, N. (eds.) Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, pp. 26–39. Russel Sage Foundation, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  53. Stutzer, A., Frey, B.S.: Stress that doesn’t pay: the commuting paradox. Scand. J. Econ. 110(2), 339–366 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Acker, V., van Wee, B., Witlox, F.: When transport geography meets social psychology: toward a conceptual model of travel behaviour. Transp. Rev. 30(2), 219–240 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Wee, B.: Self-selection: a key to a better understanding of location choices, travel behaviour and transport externalities? Transport Reviews 29(3), 279–292 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Västfjäll, D., Friman, M., Gärling, T., Kleiner, M.: The measurement of core affect: a Swedish self-report measure. Scand. J. Psychol. 43(1), 19–31 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Västfjäll, D., Gärling, T.: Validation of a Swedish short self-report measure. Scand. J. Psychol. 48(3), 233–238 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Watson, D., Clark, L.A., Tellegen, A.: Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 54(6), 1063–1070 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonas De Vos
    • 1
  • Patricia L. Mokhtarian
    • 2
  • Tim Schwanen
    • 3
  • Veronique Van Acker
    • 1
    • 4
  • Frank Witlox
    • 1
  1. 1.Geography DepartmentGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Civil and Environmental EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.School of Geography and the EnvironmentUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  4. 4.Department of Urban StudiesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations