Advertisement

Skateboarding for transportation: exploring the factors behind an unconventional mode choice among university skateboard commuters

Article

Abstract

Efforts to promote non-motorized, active transportation modes typically focus on walking and bicycling. However, other self-propelled devices such as skateboards, roller skates, and push scooters can and are being used as means of transportation. In California, users of these unconventional modes travel up to an estimated 48 million miles per year. Skateboarding in particular appears to be an increasingly popular niche travel mode in areas with good weather and younger age groups, including college students. Why do skateboarders choose to skateboard for travel rather than using more conventional modes? To investigate this question, we interviewed and surveyed skateboard commuters at the University of California, Davis, home to over 1000 skateboard commuters. It appears skateboard travelers are motivated by a feeling that skateboard travel is both fun and convenient. The importance of fun is not particularly surprising given the common association of skateboarding with recreation. However, the importance of convenience shows that skateboarders do not think they are sacrificing functionality for fun. In fact, skateboarders view skateboarding as uniquely practical, blending near bicycling speeds with pedestrian-like flexibility. This runs counter to some regulations that restrict skateboard travel based on a perception that skateboarding is an unnecessary nuisance. The results demonstrate the attractiveness of a travel mode that blend characteristics of walking and bicycling.

Keywords

Skateboarding Travel behavior Active transportation Non-motorized transportation 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest statement

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abou-Zeid, M., Ben-Akiva, M.: Satisfaction and travel choices. In: Garling, T., Ettema, D., Friman, M. (eds.) Handbook of Sustainable Travel, pp. 53–65. Springer, Berlin (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akar, G., Clifton, K.: Influence of individual perceptions and bicycle infrastructure on decision to bike. Transp. Res. Rec. (2009). doi: 10.3141/2140-18 Google Scholar
  3. Borden, I.: Skateboarding, space and the city: architecture and the body. Berg, Oxford (2001)Google Scholar
  4. Buehler, T., Handy, S.: Fifty years of bicycle policy in Davis CA. Transp. Res. Rec. (2004). doi: 10.3141/2074-07 Google Scholar
  5. Eriksson, L., Friman, M., Garling, T.: Perceived attributes of bus and car mediating satisfaction with the work commute. Transp. Res. A-Policy (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2012.10.028 Google Scholar
  6. Ettema, D., Garling, T., Olsson, L., Friman, M.: Out-of-home activities, daily travel, and subjective well-being. Transp. Res. A-Policy (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2010.07.005 Google Scholar
  7. Ewing, R., Cervero, R.: Travel and the built environment: a meta-analysis. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. (2010). doi: 10.1080/01944361003766766 Google Scholar
  8. Fang, K.: Skateboarding as a legal travel mode: review of regulations in California cities and college campuses. In: Proceedings of the 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington (2013)Google Scholar
  9. Fang, K.: Safety indicators for skateboarding on transportation facilities and as a mode of travel–a look at enigmatic injury, fatality, and incident data. In: Proceedings of the 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington (2015)Google Scholar
  10. Gatersleben, B., Appleton, K.: Contemplating cycling to work: attitudes and perceptions in different stages of change. Transp. Res. A-Policy (2007). doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2006.09.002 Google Scholar
  11. Gatersleben, B., Uzzell, D.: Affective appraisals of the daily commute: comparing perceptions of drivers, cyclists, walkers, and users of public transport. Environ. Behav. (2007). doi: 10.1177/0013916506294032 Google Scholar
  12. Handy, S., Boarnet, M., Ewing, R., Killingsworth, R.: How the built environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning. Am. J. Prev. Med. (2002). doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00475-0 Google Scholar
  13. Heinen, E., Maat, K., Van Wee, B.: The role of attitudes toward characteristics of bicycle commuting on the choice to cycle to work over various distances. Transp. Res. D-Transp. Environ. (2011). doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2010.08.010 Google Scholar
  14. Iacono, M., Krizek, K., El-Geneidy, A.: Measuring non-motorized accessibility: issues, alternatives, and execution. J. Transp. Geogr. (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.02.002 Google Scholar
  15. Knoblauch, R., Pietrucha, M., Nitzburg, M.: Field studies of pedestrian walking speed and start-up time. Transp. Res. Rec. (1996). doi: 10.3141/1538-04 Google Scholar
  16. Lee, A., Underwood, S., Handy, S.: Crashes and other safety-related incidents in the formation of attitudes toward bicycling. Transp. Res. Part F (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2014.11.001 Google Scholar
  17. Lovejoy, K., Handy, S.: Developments in bicycle equipment and its role in promoting cycling as a travel mode. In: Pucher, J., Buehler, R. (eds.) City Cycling, pp. 75–104. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar
  18. Mokhtarian, P., Papon, F., Goulard, M., Diana, M.: What makes travel pleasant and/or tiring? An investigation based on the French national travel survey. Transportation (2015). doi: 10.1007/s11116-014-9557-y Google Scholar
  19. Moudon, A., Lee, C., Cheadle, A., Collier, C., Johnson, D., Schmid, T., Weather, R.: Cycling and the built environment, a US perspective. Transp. Res. D-Trnsp. Environ. (2005). doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2005.04.001 Google Scholar
  20. Nemeth, J.: Conflict, exclusion, relocation: skateboarding and public space. J. Urban Des. (2006). doi: 10.1080/13574800600888343 Google Scholar
  21. O’Brien, C., Ramanathan, S., Gilbert, R., Orsini, A.: Youth and sustainable transportation: a review of literature. University of Winnipeg - Centre for Sustainable Transportation (2009)Google Scholar
  22. Ory, D., Mokhtarian, P.: When is getting there half the fun? Modeling the liking for travel. Transp. Res. A-Policy (2005). doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2004.09.006 Google Scholar
  23. Owens, P.: Recreation and restrictions: community skateboard parks in the United States. Urban Geogr. (2001). doi: 10.2747/0272-3638.22.8.782 Google Scholar
  24. Peattie, L.: Realistic planning and qualitative research. Habitat Int. (1983)Google Scholar
  25. Pucher, J., Buehler, R., Seinen, M.: Bicycling renaissance in North America? An update and re-appraisal of cycling trends and policies. Transp. Res. A-Policy (2011). doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2011.03.001 Google Scholar
  26. Rodier, C., Shaheen, C., Chung, S.: Unsafe at any speed?: what the literature says about low-speed modes. In: 82nd proceedings of the annual meeting of the transportation research board, Washington (2003)Google Scholar
  27. Schneider, R.: Theory of routing mode choice decisions: an operational framework to increase sustainable transportation. Transp. Policy (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.10.007 Google Scholar
  28. Seifert, T., Hedderson, C.: Intrinsic motivation and flow in skateboarding: an ethnographic study. J. Happiness Stud. (2010). doi: 10.1007/s10902-009-9140-y Google Scholar
  29. Shaheen, S., Rodier, C., Eaken, A.: Improving California’s bay area rapid transit district connectivity and access with Segway human transporter and other low-speed mobility devices. Transp. Res. Rec. (2005). doi: 10.3141/1927-22 Google Scholar
  30. Thigpen, C., Li, H., Handy, S., Harvey, J.: Modeling the impact of pavement roughness on bicycle ride quality. Transp. Res. Rec. (2015). doi: 10.3141/2520-09 Google Scholar
  31. Winters, M., Brauer, M., Setton, E., Teschke, K.: Built environment influences on healthy transportation choices: bicycling versus driving. J. Urban Health (2010). doi: 10.1007/s11524-010-9509-6 Google Scholar
  32. Wood, R., Bandura, A.: Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Acad. Manage. Rev. (1989). doi: 10.5465/AMR.1989.4279067 Google Scholar
  33. Woolley, H., Johns, R.: Skateboarding: the city as a playground. J. Urban Des. (2010). doi: 10.1080/13574800120057845 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations