Seminar: Sustainable Mobility

1. Commuters
and
sustainable
mobility:
a
research
project
on
the
determinants
of
travel
mode
choice
in
urban
setting
Florian
March
14th
2016
Prof.
Pietro
Lanzini,
PhD

3. Prof.
Pietro
Lanzini,
PhD
Department
of
Management,
Cà
Foscari
University
(Venice)
Faculty
member
(CompeCCve
Analysis;
Principles
of
Business
AdministraCon;
Theories
and
Techniques
in
Management)
Previous
work
experiences:
Bocconi
University
(Milan,
Italy)
United
NaCons
Headquarters
(New
York
City,
USA)
Aarhus
University
(Aarhus,
Denmark)
Fields
of
research:
Sustainability;
Consumer
Behavior;
Mobility;
Pro-­‐environmental
Spillover

5. h1p://virgo.unive.it/cami/
To
download
a
free
copy
of
the
book,
please
visit
the
CAMI
website
at:

6. Sustainable
mobility:
does
it
ma1er?

7. Global
GHG
emissions
by
sector,
2014
Source:
IPCC

8. Within
the
transport
sector,
private
mobility
(that
is,
each
and
every
one
of
us)
is
the
main
responsible,
contribuKng
to
more
than
50%
of
all
transport-­‐related
emissions

10. …
sAll
on
the
increase,
from
the
1990s…
Source:
Eurostat

13. Indeed:
+130%

14. Many
actors
are
involved
in
the
shiQ
to
a
new,
environment-­‐
friendly
paradigm:
-­‐ InternaConal
bodies
(legislaKon,
standards,
etc.)
-­‐ Local
PAs
(SUMPS,
etc.)
-­‐ Industry
(innovaKon,
R&D,
etc.)
-­‐ NGOs,
media
(awareness
campaigns,
etc.)
-­‐ CiCzens
(the
main
actor:
no
public
policy
or
measure
can
be
successful
without
the
acCve
involvment
of
ciCzens)
Current
mobility
trends
are
clearly
un-­‐sustainable

15. InvesCgaCng
the
determinants
of
travel
mode
choice
in
urban
seVngs:
an
extension
of
the
TPB
model
-­‐ Income,
prices
and
economic
consideraKons
-­‐ Infrastructures
and
convenience
of
different
transport
systems
-­‐ Psychological
correlates
of
car/alternaKve
modes
use

16. RQ
1-­‐
What
are
the
drivers
spurring
travel
mode
choices
and
the
adop4on
of
mobility
alterna4ves,
when
available?
RQ
2-­‐
What
are
the
mutual
influences
with
other
behavioural
domains?
RQ
3-­‐What
is
the
role
played
by
past
behavioural
pa<erns
in
terms
of
habits
strength?
RQ
4-­‐
What
type
of
rewards
would
be
more
efficient
in
modifying
long-­‐established
behavioural
pa<erns
coherent
with
mobility
policies
goals?

17. -­‐ Extensive
literature
review
on
the
theoreKcal
and
empirical
evidence
on
the
determinants
of
travel
mode
choice
(150
contribuKons)
-­‐ Meta-­‐analysis
for
a
quanKtaKve
systemaKzaKon
of
the
evidence
(61
papers)
-­‐ Empirical
invesCgaCon
with
primary
data
(Italian
sample=
250
grad
students)
-­‐ Proposal
of
a
new
theoreCcal
framework
(habits,
spillover)
-­‐ TesCng
in
Italy
and
Brazil
with
SEM
technique

18. Dependent
variables:
travel
mode
in
terms
of
both
actual
behaviors
and
intenKons
(gap)
i)
car
(b)
ii)
non-­‐car
(b)
iii)
car
(i)
iv)
non-­‐car
(i)
Predictors:
SubjecKve
norms;
descripKve
norms;
injuncKve
norms
A_tudes
Perceived
behavioral
control
Personal/moral
norms
Environmental
values
Habits
Awareness
of
consequences
AscripKon
of
responsibility
…

20. Database:
the
structure

21. -­‐
Only
papers
with
empirical
invesKgaKons
and
available
correlaKon
matrixes
are
considered
(61/150)
-­‐ The
effect
size
is
based
on
Person’s
R
coefficient
of
correlaKon
of
different
studies
-­‐ Fischer
Z
transformaKon
to
weight
the
sample
size
-­‐ Χ2
and
I2
tests
of
homogeneity
Meta-­‐analysis
It
is
a
secondary
staKsKcal
research
tool,
that
synthesizes
evidence
coming
from
a
number
of
primary
studies.
We
have
many
empirical
studies
on
travel
mode
choice.
For
instance,
some
say
that
environmental
values
are
very
important,
some
say
they
have
liPle
impact,
some
say
they
are
irrelevant.
How
can
we
synthesize
this
informaAon?

22. An
example
of
meta
analysis:

25. We
want
to
collect
and
analyze
also
primary
data
Center
for
Research
in
Social
InnovaAon
in
the
Public
Sphere
Online
survey
(Italy
and
Brazil)
We
consider
all
the
main
predictors
of
travel-­‐mode
choice
(TPB,
values,
habits,
VBN,
etc.)
Goal:
600
respondents
from
the
two
Countries

26. -­‐ Need
for
a
holisKc
approach
-­‐ Habits
(in
the
survey)
-­‐ Spillover
(future
steps)
-­‐ IncenKves
(future
steps)
Refinements
and
extensions
of
previous
methodological
frameworks
A
step
forward
in
research:

27. Habits:
learned
sequences
of
acts
that
have
become
automaKc
responses
to
specific
cues,
and
are
funcKonal
in
obtaining
certain
goals
or
end-­‐states’

28. Carrying
out
the
XYZ
acCvity
is
something:
(1=totally
disagree;
5=
enArely
agree)
I
do
frequently.
I
do
automaKcally.
I
do
without
having
to
consciously
remember.
That
makes
me
feel
weird
if
I
do
not
do
it.
I
do
without
thinking.
Would
require
effort
not
to
do
it.
That
belongs
to
my
(daily,
weekly,
monthly)
rouKne.
I
start
doing
before
I
realize
I’m
doing
it.
I
would
find
hard
not
to
do.
I
have
no
need
to
think
about
doing.
That’s
typically
‘me’.
I
have
been
doing
for
a
long
Kme.

29. I
refer
to
spillover
as
to
the
phenomenon
(and
related
mechanisms)
for
which
adopKng
an
environmentally
sound
behavior
in
one
domain
spills
over
in
different
environmental
domains
Are
sustainable
behaviors
correlated
with
eachother?

30. • self-­‐perception
theory
(Bem,
1972)
• cognitive
dissonance
theory
(Festinger,
1957)
• learning
theories
(Nigg
et
al.,
1999)
Theories
suggesCng
a
posiCve
spillover
…
or
a
negaCve
one
• Moral
licensing
(Khan
&
Dhar,
2006)
• Contribution
ethics
(Guagnano,
Dietz,
&
Stern,
1994)
• Self-­‐serving
bias

31. How
to
study
spillover
effects?
i) IntervenKon
study
(survey
at
Kme
0,
then
you
implement
an
experimental
intervenKon,
then
second
round
of
survey
on
the
same
sample)
ii) Real-­‐world
intervenKons

32. IncenCves
Monetary
inducements
vs
praise
rewards
How
to
get
ciAzens
“on
the
hook”

35. The
final
step
is
the
proposal
of
a
new
theoreCcal
framework,
and
the
tesCng
of
its
predicCve
capability
We
depart
from
Theory
of
Planned
Behavior,
and
add
correlates
of
travel
mode
that
according
to
i)
the
metanalysis
and
ii)
our
empirical
invesKgaKon
seem
to
be
good
candidates
for
inclusion
WHY?
-­‐ Need
to
have
a
holisKc
approach,
and
focus
on
determinants
envisaged
by
different
theoreKcal
frameworks
-­‐ Need
to
consider
the
specificiKes
of
the
behavioral
domain
(e.g.
commuKng
is
oQen
carried
out
repeKKvely,
in
a
stable
context,
so
that
habits
might
play
a
bigger
role
than
in
other
domains)
-­‐ Social
pressure
is
not
as
high
as
in
other
domains
(e.g.
recycling)

36. A_tudes
(YES)
SubjecKve
norms
(NO)
Behavioral
control
(YES)
+
Habit
strength
Proneness
to
spillover
…
For
example,
I
might
speculate
that
the
new
theoreKcal
framework
might
be
based
on
the
following
predictors
of
travel
mode:

37. -­‐ Build
up
of
new
theory
-­‐ Second
survey
circulated,
focusing
on
those
elements
that
are
hypothesized
to
be
relevant
-­‐ StaKsKcal
tesKng
of
the
predicKve
capability
of
the
new
model
(we
want
it
to
be
able
to
predict
travel
mode
choice
be1er
than
tradiKonal
TPB)
-­‐ SEM
technique
(causal
modeling,
or
path
analysis,
which
hypothesizes
causal
relaKonships
among
variables
and
tests
the
causal
models
with
a
linear
equaKon
system)

38. The
project
in
a
nutshell:
-­‐ The
determinants
of
travel
choices:
state
of
the
art,
and
synthesis
of
exisKng
evidence
(meta
analysis)
-­‐ Preliminary
survey
in
Italy
and
Brazil
on
the
determinants
of
travel
mode
-­‐ Theory
building:
based
on
this
informaKon,
we
propose
a
new,
more
sophisKcated
model
-­‐ We
test
it
adopKng
the
SEM
staKsKcal
technique

39. -­‐ CiKzens
are
the
key
actor
for
any
policy
aimed
at
shiQing
to
more
sustainable
mobility
pa1erns
-­‐ Since
“we
cannot
manage
what
we
do
not
know”,
it
is
crucial
to
understand
individual
choices
-­‐ The
results
of
the
project
can
provide
the
informaKve
background
for
policy
makers
and
public
authoriKes
to
organize
sound
policy
measures,
communicaKng
effecKvely
with
ciKzens
(e.g.
incenKves,
habit
disrupKon,
etc.)

40. Thank
you
very
much…
obrigado
lanzini@unive.it