All work and no play? The role of instrumental and affective factors in work and leisure journeys by different travel modes

Abstract

This paper examines the relative importance that people attach to various instrumental and affective journey attributes when travelling either for work or for a leisure day trip and presents how journeys by various travel modes score on these attributes. Although not a comparative paper, data are presented for two studies which used some identical measurements: one on commuter journeys and one on leisure journeys. The results show that for work journeys, respondents tend to attach more importance to instrumental aspects, and especially to convenience than to affective factors. For leisure journeys, however, respondents appear to attach almost equal importance to instrumental and affective aspects, particularly flexibility, convenience, relaxation, a sense of freedom and 'no stress'. Each study also examines (i) how regular users' evaluate their own mode and (ii) how car users perceive the performance of alternative modes compared to their importance ratings. This 'gap' analysis reveals on which modes and for which attributes the greatest deficiencies in performance lie. The data for both the work and leisure studies shows that for car users, alternative transport modes are inferior on the salient attributes such as convenience and flexibility even though car users rate modes such as walking and cycling as performing well, if not, better, on less important attributes such as the environment, health and even excitement. Nevertheless, for those who cycle and walk regularly, satisfaction with their own travel mode as measured by the gap between importance and performance on salient attributes is better than for those who mostly use the car. Conclusions are made as to how greater attention to affective factors may improve our understanding of mode choice. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

European mobility cultures: A survey-based cluster analysis across 28 European countries

“…price, speed, convenience) or related to symbolicaffective motives, such as status, autonomy or privacy (cf. Anable & Gatersleben, 2005;Steg, 2005). The latter were, however, not included in the survey.…”

“…It is thus recommended that future studies also include the frequency of use for different modes as well as the relevant motives and attitudes in relation to all transport modes. Here, affective and symbolic motives should be considered in addition to the included instrumental motives, as they have been shown to be relevant determinants of mode choice (e.g., Anable & Gatersleben, 2005;Hunecke et al, 2007;Steg, 2005) and are also a part of the predominant mobility culture.…”

Shifting towards environment-friendly modes: profiling travelers using Q-methodology

“…For journeys related to work/school activities, time importance is much higher, as non-discretionary trips have fewer adaptation alternatives than discretionary trips, and moreover, people tend to attach more importance to instrument aspects (especially convenience) for discretionary trips than for non-discretionary trips, where people attach almost equal importance to instrumental and affective aspects (particularly flexibility, relaxation, a sense of freedom and 'no stress'; Anable and Gatersleben 2005).…”

Neutralisation and Mental Accounting in Ethical Consumption: The Case of Sustainable Holidays

“…However, other studies have found out that German tourists show inconsistent behaviour, as "constraints concerning holiday travel are obviously less acceptable than constraints in everyday life" [6]. Convenience, flexibility, comfort, availability and time are overriding factors in the choice of travel mode [46], which are likely to be prioritised over sustainability characteristics. Given these complex findings and the apparent inconsistent ethical behaviour among German consumers, a deeper understanding of the decisional mechanisms among these types of consumers would contribute to the extant literature and also marketing practices.…”