Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Level of activity vs_ level of car utilisation_
| No utilisation of private car | Utilisation of private car – some destinations | Utilisation of private car – all destinations | In total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | |
| Low level of activity | 26 | 21.10% | 94 | 23.20% | 7 | 6.60% | 127 | 20.00% |
| Moderate level of activity | 77 | 62.60% | 238 | 58.60% | 73 | 68.90% | 388 | 61.10% |
| High level of activity | 20 | 16.30% | 74 | 18.20% | 26 | 24.50% | 120 | 18.90% |
| In total | 123 | 100.00% | 406 | 100.00% | 106 | 100.00% | 635 | 100.00% |
Ordinal regression coefficients for the level of respondents’ activity (Model I) and the level of car utilisation (Model II) (higher coefficient = higher level of activity or car utilisation)_
| Coefficients | ||
|---|---|---|
| Model I | Model II | |
| Gender = woman | 0.369* | –0.121 |
| Gender = man | ref. | ref. |
| Economic condition = bad | –1.052*** | –0.254 |
| Economic condition = moderate | 0.115 | –0.578* |
| Economic condition = good | ref. | ref. |
| HH location = more than 5 km from commune centre | –0.540** | 0.717** |
| HH location = up to 5 km from commune centre | 0.107 | 1.026*** |
| HH location = commune centre | ref. | ref. |
| County = other counties | –0.380 | –1.016 |
| County = Oleśnica | 0.233 | –0.98 |
| County = Milicz | 0.568 | –0.512 |
| County = Góra | ref. | ref. |
| Car utilisation = no | –0.775** | – |
| Car utilisation = some destinations | –0.784*** | – |
| Car utilisation = all destinations | ref. | – |
| Frequency of PT = bad assessment | – | 0.686** |
| Frequency of PT = moderate assessment | – | –0.114 |
| Frequency of PT = good assessment | – | ref. |
| Attitudes towards public transport = positive | – | –0.465* |
| Attitudes towards public transport = neutral | – | 0.149 |
| Attitudes towards public transport = negative | – | ref. |
| Model fitting (χ2) | 48.081*** | 80.697*** |
| Goodness of fit (Pearson χ2) | 232.438 | 421.882 |
| Goodness of fit (Deviance χ2) | 262.101 | 387.406 |
| Pseudo-R2 Nagelkerke | 0.09 | 0.16 |
| Test of parallel lines (χ2) | 16.116 | 17.436 |
Distribution of the basic variables_
| Variable | Category | Size | Share | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Woman | 349 | 55% | ||
| Man | 286 | 45% | |||
| Household location | Commune centre | 338 | 53% | ||
| Up to 5 km from commune centre | 117 | 18% | |||
| More than 5 km from commune centre | 180 | 23% | |||
| County | Góra | 52 | 8% | ||
| Oleśnica | 406 | 64% | |||
| Milicz | 135 | 21% | |||
| Other | 42 | 7% | |||
| Household economic condition | Bad | 45 | 7% | ||
| Moderate | 114 | 18% | |||
| Good | 476 | 75% | |||
| Level of car utilisation | No utilisation | 123 | 19% | ||
| Some destinations | 406 | 64% | |||
| All destinations | 106 | 17% | |||
Results of χ2 tests measuring differences in performance of particular activities by respondents from peripheral locations_
| Name of activity | χ2 | p-value |
|---|---|---|
| Purchases of clothes | 6.637 | p=.036 |
| Purchases of personal things | 3.105 | p=.212 |
| Cinema visits | 9.329 | p=.009 |
| Purchases of cosmetics | 6.218 | p=.045 |
| Purchases of books | 5.263 | p=.072 |
| Attending concerts | 12.740 | p=.002 |
| Purchases of technical equipments | 3.279 | p=.194 |
| Attending sport events | 9.219 | p=.010 |
| Tutoring/private lessons | 5.412 | p=.067 |
| Sport activities | 10.134 | p=.006 |
| Courses | 4.567 | p=.102 |
| Interest clubs | 5.207 | p=.074 |
| Remedial classes | 0.792 | p=.673 |
Expected improvements in public transport in the household location_
| Expected improvement | Level of activity | Level of car utilisation | In total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | Moderate | High | No utilisation | 1–2 destinations | All destinations | ||
| % in column* | |||||||
| Increased frequency of services | 47% | 56% | 59% | 63% | 56% | 51% | 54% |
| New public transport connections | 23% | 31% | 33% | 33% | 26% | 31% | 29% |
| Lower ticket prices | 34% | 28% | 26% | 30% | 28% | 30% | 29% |
| Improved punctuality | 15% | 18% | 13% | 27% | 19% | 12% | 16% |
| Increased comfort of journeys | 8% | 15% | 18% | 7% | 15% | 13% | 13% |
| Upgraded bus stop infrastructure | 5% | 7% | 5% | 13% | 5% | 5% | 6% |
| Increased feeling of security | 3% | 4% | 3% | 3% | 5% | 3% | 4% |
| Upgraded fleet | 3% | 2% | 0% | 3% | 1% | 3% | 2% |
| Other factors | 3% | 1% | 3% | 0% | 2% | 1% | 1% |
| Nothing | 23% | 13% | 13% | 3% | 14% | 20% | 16% |
Results of χ2 tests measuring differences in performance of particular activities by respondents with different levels of car use_
| Name of activity | χ2 | p-value |
|---|---|---|
| Purchases of clothes | 7.193 | p=.027 |
| Purchases of personal things | 5.171 | p=.075 |
| Cinema visits | 5.148 | p=.076 |
| Purchases of cosmetics | 1.263 | p=.532 |
| Purchases of books | 3.513 | p=.173 |
| Attending concerts | 8.479 | p=.014 |
| Purchases of technical equipments | 7.89 | p=.019 |
| Attending sport events | 10.997 | p=.004 |
| Tutoring/private lessons | 1.642 | p=.440 |
| Sport activities | 4.769 | p=.092 |
| Courses | 4.433 | p=.109 |
| Interest clubs | 12.105 | p=.002 |
| Remedial classes | 1.405 | p=.495 |