What Makes People Change Their Preferences in Public Transportation – Opinions in Different User Groups

  • Martina ZiefleEmail author
  • Wiktoria Wilkowska
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 151)


Mobility is a critical requirement for cities, but broadly accepted mobility concepts are difficult to realize. Environmental hazards, high costs, complex planning processes, affordability, accessibility and safety are crucial factors. Also, the demographic change in line with increasing individual transportation needs and mobility profiles aggravate a sustainable and topical planning of urban mobility. As the understanding of human needs is vital for the acceptance of novel mobility concepts, we explored pro- and contra-using motives for public transportation as well as aspects of conditional acceptance. Using an empirical approach, 580 persons answered a questionnaire in this regard. The results allow insights into opinions of age and gender related mobility needs in the public transport sector.


Public transport Mobility pattern Acceptance Pro-using arguments Contra-using arguments User diversity 



This work was funded partly by the Excellence Initiative of the German State and Federal Government, partly by the German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (Project Mobility Broker, reference number 01ME12136).


  1. 1.
    Ziefle, M., Schneider, C., Vallee, D., Schnettler, A., Krempels K.-H., Jarke, M.: Urban Future outline (UFO). A roadmap on research for livable cities, ERCIM News (N. 98) (2014).
  2. 2.
    de Bruijn, G.J., Kremers, S.P., Singh, A., Van den Putte, B., Van Mechelen, W.: Adult active transportation: adding habit strength to the theory of planned behavior. Am. J. Prev. Med. 36(3), 189–194 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thøgersen, J., Møller, B.: Breaking car use habits: the effectiveness of a free one-month travelcard. Transportation 35(3), 329–345 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kunert, U.: Weekly mobility of life cycle groups. Transportation 21(3), 271–288 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ziefle, M., Beul-Leusmann, S., Kasugai, K., Schwalm, M.: Public perception and acceptance of electric vehicles: exploring users’ perceived benefits and drawbacks. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2014, Part III. LNCS, vol. 8519, pp. 628–639. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wilkowska, W., Farrokhikhiavi, R., Ziefle, M., Vallée, D.: Mobility requirements for the use of carpooling among different user groups. In: Ahram, T., et al. (eds.) 5th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, pp. 401–413 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Turcotte, M.: Profile of seniors’ transportation habits. Can. Soc. Trends 93, 1–16 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Matthies, E., Kuhn, S., Klöckner, C.A.: Travel mode choice of women. Result of Limitation, ecological norm, or weak habit? Environ. Behav. 34(2), 163–177 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ziefle, M., Himmel, S., Holzinger, A.: How usage context shapes evaluation and adoption in different technologies. In: Rebelo, F., Soares, F. (eds.) 2nd International Conference on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Healthcare 2012, Advances in Usability Evaluation Part II, CRC Press, pp. 2812–2821 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zaunbrecher, B., Ziefle, M.: Laypeople’s perspectives on electromobility. A focus group study. In: Giaffreda, R., Caganova, D., Li, Y., Riggio, R., Voisard, A. (eds.) IoT 2014, LNICST, vol. 151, pp. 144–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arning, K., Ziefle, M., Muehlhans, H.: Join the ride! user requirements and interface design guidelines for a commuter carpooling platform. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU/HCII 2013, Part III. LNCS, vol. 8014, pp. 10–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Himmel, S., Zaunbrecher, B.S., Wilkowska, W., Ziefle, M.: The youth of today designing the smart city of tomorrow. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) Human-Computer Interaction, Part III, HCII 2014. LNCS, vol. 8512, pp. 389–400. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction CenterRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations