An Empirical Analysis of Mode Choice Decision for Utilitarian and Hedonic Trips: Evidence from Iran

Abstract

A sizeable body of literature reveals a strong relationship between mode choice and health status. Therefore, society would benefit from travel if transportation and urban planners motivated more individuals to satisfy their desire for travel by active transportation rather than motorized transportation. Despite rich existing literature about the relations between the built environment and travel, we still need to address some research gaps in explaining travel mode choice. As a shortcoming, identifying and measuring the primary motivations for trips, and then incorporating such motivations into travel mode choice modelling, has received less attention in previous research. In this regard the current paper follows two main goals. It aims to differentiate between trips by determining the main utility of travelers and then analyzes the impact of the built environment measurements and subjective attributes on mode choice decision. Using data from a survey of 515 participants who reside in Isfahan, Iran, we conducted a series of binary logistic models to explore how the built environment influences mode choice decisions for different trips, controlling for socio-economics and subjective attributes. The results show that the number of hedonic trips were sizably more than utilitarian trips. It was found that travel mode choice for utilitarian and hedonic trips is influenced by travel habits and subjective attitudes, but the built environment also matters. Specifically, two built environment characteristics, including density and diversity, can substitute walking/cycling for driving for utilitarian trips. In addition, car use for hedonic trips is not influenced by built environment measurements. It seems that the utility and desire of hedonic driving depends on mode of travel. It is concluded that driving and walking/biking for hedonic and utilitarian trips are not single behaviors and differentiating between trips according to their main utility and considering both objective and subjective attributes helps urban and transportation planners prescribe appropriate spatial and nonspatial strategies to encourage walking/biking.

Towards Sustainable Attendee Transportation: Modeling the Psychological Determinants of Reduced Car Use to Special Events

“…Despite the significant empirical support for the Theory of Planned Behaviour, Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour, and Norm Activation Model in the prediction of transportation mode choice, these models have primarily been tested in the context of utilitarian trips (Hoffmann et al, 2017;Mirzaei & Mignot, 2021). Namely, utilitarian trips comprise of routine and need-based trips (i.e., commuting to work or school, running errands, or seeking medical care), while hedonic trips, in contrast, focus on engaging in leisure activities (i.e., tourism, events, or recreational activities) (Mirzaei & Mignot, 2021). A notable difference is that in utilitarian trips, travel is often viewed as a disutility or a means to an end; whereas travel for hedonic trips is often valued and viewed as part of the overall leisure experience (Mirzaei & Mignot, 2021).…”

“…Namely, utilitarian trips comprise of routine and need-based trips (i.e., commuting to work or school, running errands, or seeking medical care), while hedonic trips, in contrast, focus on engaging in leisure activities (i.e., tourism, events, or recreational activities) (Mirzaei & Mignot, 2021). A notable difference is that in utilitarian trips, travel is often viewed as a disutility or a means to an end; whereas travel for hedonic trips is often valued and viewed as part of the overall leisure experience (Mirzaei & Mignot, 2021). As a result, studies in utilitarian contexts often lack both sufficient application and generalizability to hedonic trips, such as the attendee travel to special events.…”

“…Although the psychological determinants of mode choice have been scarcely studied in the context of hedonic trips (Hoffmann et al, 2017;Mirzaei & Mignot, 2021), comparative studies have begun to identify significant differences in the psychological determinants of mode choice across trip types. For example, a study by Anable and Gatersleben (2005) compared the psychological determinants of mode choice for work and leisure trips.…”

“…While the study of travel mode choice has been cross-disciplinary, the psychological determinants of mode choice, as depicted in the Theory of Planned Behaviour, the Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour, and the Norm Activation Model, have been the most widely tested for their practical translation into "soft" intervention measures (Bamberg et al, 2011;Gardner & Abraham, 2008;Hoffmann et al, 2017;López & Wong, 2019;Möser & Bamberg, 2008). To date, however, few studies have comprehensively tested the leading psychological choice behaviour theories (Bamberg & Schmidt, 2003), specifically in the context of hedonic (leisure) trip types such as special events (Hoffmann et al, 2017;Mirzaei & Mignot, 2021). Thus, in recent years there have been several calls for research into the decision-making process surrounding sustainable attendee travel to special events (Chirieleison et al, 2020;Chirieleison & Scrucca, 2017;Collins & Potoglou, 2019;Robbins et al, 2007).…”

What motivates Sao Paulo citizens to use bicycles as a mode of transportation? A study in the light of the Goal-Framing Theory

“…In order to develop strategies that promote greater adherence to the use of bicycles for transportation in large cities, it is crucial to identify the antecedents and the consequences of this choice (Gerike et al, 2019;Handy et al, 2014). After all, since different factors determine the choice of the means of transportation in urban areas, specific policies must be designed to encourage the use of bicycles in each case and situation (Mirzaei & Mignot, 2021). An extensive exploratory study conducted in Switzerland found three main motivations behind the use of bicycles as a vehicle for commuting to work: the wellbeing (hedonic), independence (utilitarian) and civic engagement (social and ecological) of users.…”