Analysis of Aspiration for Owning a Car Among Youths in a City of a Developing Country, India

Original Article


This paper attempts to investigate the aspiration for owning a car among young adults in Bangalore city in India. The data set used for the analysis is from a primary revealed preference survey of about 750 college students, who will be in workforce in near future. Apart from the usual set of personal and household socio-demographic information, the survey gathered the respondents’ perceptions of status, peer influence, car use, image of public modes, and miscellaneous attributes. The responses to these attitudinal questions are recorded on a five-point Likert-type scale. Through factor analysis, the responses are reduced to a number of factors that could reasonably explain the variability in the responses. Subsequently, a binary logit model is estimated for relating the attitudinal factors to car ownership decision in presence of several socio-demographic indicators. The main findings of the econometric analysis include, among others, the relatively higher propensity of the individuals who are qualified above bachelor’s degree to own a car; the direct association between participation in out-door sports and car ownership; and the positive influence of the factor relating the happiness derived from car use on car ownership, and that shows the rising aspiration for owning a car among youths.


Car ownership Factor analysis Binary logit Young adults 



The authors thank the management of academic institutes, M S Ramaiah Institute of Technology, M S Ramaiah Dental College, M S Ramaiah College of Arts, Science and Commerce, and MS Ramaiah College of Law, for allowing us to conduct survey at their institutes. The authors acknowledge the opportunity to present the research work that forms the basis of this article at the 3rd Conference of the Transportation Research Group of India held at Kolkata (India) from 17–20 December, 2015.


  1. 1.
    Bhat CR, Pulugurta V (1998) A comparison of two alternative behavioral choice mechanisms for household auto ownership decisions. Transpn Res.-B 32(1):61–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhat CR, Srinivasan S, Guo JY (2002) Activity-based travel-demand analysis for metropolitan areas in Texas: data sources, sample formation, and estimation results, Report No. 4080–3. Centre for Transportation Research. The University of Texas at Austin, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Census of India, Houses, Household Amenities, and Assets, (2011). Accessed 05 May 2015
  4. 4.
    Chen RB, Gehrke SR, Jang Y, Liu JH, Clifton KJ (2013) Exploring residential tenure and housing type decisions and household activity engagement. Transp Res Rec 2344:68–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Choo S, Mokhtarian PL (2004) What type of vehicle do people drive? The role of attitude and lifestyle in influencing vehicle type choice. Transp Res A 38:201–222.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Costello AB, Osborne JW (2009) Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pan-Pac Manag Rev 12(2):131–146Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cullinane S (2002) The relationship between car ownership and public transport provision: a case study of Hong Kong. Transp Policy 9(1):29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ewing R, Haliyur P, Page GW (1994) Getting around a traditional city, a suburban planned unit development, and everything in between. Transp Res Rec 1466:53–62Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Federal Highway Administration (2011) FHWA drivers’ license statistic. Accessed 25 Sept 2011
  10. 10.
    Federal Highway Administration (2012) NHTS publications. Accessed 13 Mar 2012
  11. 11.
    Frandberg L, Vilhelmson B (2011) More or less travel: personal mobility trends in the Swedish population focusing gender and cohort. J Transp Geogr 19(6):1235–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Handy SL, Smart (2005) Growth and the transportation-land use connection: what does the research tell us? Int Reg Sci Rev 28(2):146–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ipsita B, Walker JL, Deakin EA, Kanafani A (2010) New vehicle choice in india: household choice among motorized vehicle segments. In Proceedings of the 12th WCTR, July 11–15, 2010, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ipsita B (2011) Automobility in India: a study of car acquisition and ownership trends in the city of Surat. Ph.D. thesis, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kruse P (2009) Ein Kultobjekt wird abgewrackt. GDI Impuls Wissensmagazin fu¨r Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft, Handel 1:13–18Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuhnimhof TG et al (2012) Men shapes a downward trend in car use among young adults—evidence from six industrialized countries. Transp Rev 32(6):761–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuhnimhof TG, Bu¨hler R, Dargay J (2011) A new generation: travel trends among young Germans and Britons. Transp Res Rec 2230:58–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lucas K, Le Vine S (2009) The car in British society, Working Paper 2: Literature ReviewGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (2010) Survey shows significant shift in daily travel pattern. Accessed 14 Feb 2012
  20. 20.
    Nelson NM et al (2008) Active commuting to school: how far is too far? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 5(1):1MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ni MC (2008) Motorization, vehicle purchase and use behaviour in China: a Shanghai survey. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Noble B (2005). Why are some young people choosing not to drive? In: European Transport Conference, Strasbourg, FranceGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rajamani J, Bhat CR, Handy S, Knaap G, Song Y (2003) Assessing impact of urban form measures on non-work trip mode choice after controlling for demographic and level-of-service effects. Transp Res Rec 1831:158–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ruud A, Nordbakke S (2005) Decreasing driving license rates among young people—consequences for local public transport. In: European Transport Conference, Strasbourg, FranceGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Simons D et al (2013) Factors influencing mode of transport in older adolescents: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health 13(1):323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2001) Using multivariate statistics. Allyn and Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    UN-Habitat (2012) State of the Urban Youth, India. Accessed 05 May 2015
  28. 28.
    Van Acker V, Witlox F (2010) Car ownership as a mediating variable in car travel behaviour research using a structural equation modelling approach to identify its dual relationship. J Transp Geogr 18:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van Dyck D et al (2010) Criterion distances and correlates of active transportation to school in Belgian older adolescents. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 7(1):87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Verma M (2014) Growing car ownership and dependence in India and its policy implications. Case Stud Transp Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.cstp.2014.04.004 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MS Ramaiah Institute of ManagementBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyDelhiIndia
  3. 3.Indian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia
  4. 4.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations