征求市民对积极出行基础设施投资的优先考虑:最佳-最差规模实验的定性分析

IF 3.2 3区 工程技术 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Journal of Transport & Health Pub Date : 2024-03-25 DOI:10.1016/j.jth.2024.101795
Fahad Albahlal , Paul Haggar , Dimitris Potoglou
{"title":"征求市民对积极出行基础设施投资的优先考虑:最佳-最差规模实验的定性分析","authors":"Fahad Albahlal ,&nbsp;Paul Haggar ,&nbsp;Dimitris Potoglou","doi":"10.1016/j.jth.2024.101795","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The built environment plays an important role in individuals’ propensity to walk and cycle and local authorities increasingly invest financial resources towards its development. Organisations responsible for the built environment have developed auditing tools as guidelines to inspect routes and identify improvements to support active travel.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Using these auditing tools as a starting point, this study developed 21 walking and 25 cycling investment-relevant factors that were embedded into two choice-based survey instruments, respectively. The study used cognitive interview pre-testing to internally validate a preference-based elicitation approach known as Best-Worst Scaling (BWS), which aimed to capture pedestrian and cyclist preferences. We report findings from cognitive interviews (data analysed thematically) with 20 participants (10 pedestrians and 10 cyclists).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In both sets of interviews, four themes emerged regarding how the participants approached the BWS task and five themes related to the understanding of the factors. The BWS choice tasks required refinement regarding the ‘frame of reference’, ‘travel context’, the ‘decision-making strategy’, and the ‘concrete thinking’ (finding some factors easier to interpret). Additionally, issues with understanding the factors, the wording, ‘overlapping’, negatively phrased factors, and technical jargon all pointed towards the need to refine auditing tools if these were to be introduced in a preference elicitation context.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>This study helps to empirically uncover how citizens interpret infrastructure related aspects of walking and cycling by pointing to nuanced aspects that auditing tools may miss. The findings also helped develop an internally consistent preference elicitation survey-instrument that any local authority can implement to determine which walking and cycling infrastructure investments are a priority in their area.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47838,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Transport & Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140524000410/pdfft?md5=47e18c37cefd7cef9f475711371c6983&pid=1-s2.0-S2214140524000410-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Eliciting citizens’ priorities for active travel infrastructure investments: A qualitative analysis of best-worst scaling experiments\",\"authors\":\"Fahad Albahlal ,&nbsp;Paul Haggar ,&nbsp;Dimitris Potoglou\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jth.2024.101795\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The built environment plays an important role in individuals’ propensity to walk and cycle and local authorities increasingly invest financial resources towards its development. Organisations responsible for the built environment have developed auditing tools as guidelines to inspect routes and identify improvements to support active travel.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Using these auditing tools as a starting point, this study developed 21 walking and 25 cycling investment-relevant factors that were embedded into two choice-based survey instruments, respectively. The study used cognitive interview pre-testing to internally validate a preference-based elicitation approach known as Best-Worst Scaling (BWS), which aimed to capture pedestrian and cyclist preferences. We report findings from cognitive interviews (data analysed thematically) with 20 participants (10 pedestrians and 10 cyclists).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In both sets of interviews, four themes emerged regarding how the participants approached the BWS task and five themes related to the understanding of the factors. The BWS choice tasks required refinement regarding the ‘frame of reference’, ‘travel context’, the ‘decision-making strategy’, and the ‘concrete thinking’ (finding some factors easier to interpret). Additionally, issues with understanding the factors, the wording, ‘overlapping’, negatively phrased factors, and technical jargon all pointed towards the need to refine auditing tools if these were to be introduced in a preference elicitation context.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>This study helps to empirically uncover how citizens interpret infrastructure related aspects of walking and cycling by pointing to nuanced aspects that auditing tools may miss. The findings also helped develop an internally consistent preference elicitation survey-instrument that any local authority can implement to determine which walking and cycling infrastructure investments are a priority in their area.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47838,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Transport & Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140524000410/pdfft?md5=47e18c37cefd7cef9f475711371c6983&pid=1-s2.0-S2214140524000410-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Transport & Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140524000410\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Transport & Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140524000410","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言建筑环境对个人步行和骑自行车的倾向起着重要作用,地方政府也越来越多地投入财政资源来发展建筑环境。本研究以这些审核工具为起点,开发了 21 个步行和 25 个骑自行车的投资相关因素,并将其分别嵌入两个基于选择的调查工具中。本研究采用认知访谈预测法对基于偏好的诱导方法进行了内部验证,该方法被称为最佳-最差评分法(BWS),旨在捕捉行人和骑自行车者的偏好。我们报告了对 20 名参与者(10 名行人和 10 名骑车人)进行认知访谈(数据按主题进行分析)的结果。结果在两组访谈中,关于参与者如何完成最佳-最差尺度任务,出现了四个主题,关于对因素的理解,出现了五个主题。在 "参考框架"、"出行环境"、"决策策略 "和 "具体思考"(发现某些因素更容易解释)方面,BWS 选择任务需要改进。此外,对因素的理解、措辞、"重叠"、消极措辞的因素以及技术术语等问题都表明,如果要在偏好征询中引入审核工具,则需要对其进行完善。研究结果还有助于开发一种内部一致的偏好诱导调查工具,任何地方当局都可以采用这种工具来确定哪些步行和自行车基础设施投资是其所在地区的优先事项。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Eliciting citizens’ priorities for active travel infrastructure investments: A qualitative analysis of best-worst scaling experiments

Introduction

The built environment plays an important role in individuals’ propensity to walk and cycle and local authorities increasingly invest financial resources towards its development. Organisations responsible for the built environment have developed auditing tools as guidelines to inspect routes and identify improvements to support active travel.

Methods

Using these auditing tools as a starting point, this study developed 21 walking and 25 cycling investment-relevant factors that were embedded into two choice-based survey instruments, respectively. The study used cognitive interview pre-testing to internally validate a preference-based elicitation approach known as Best-Worst Scaling (BWS), which aimed to capture pedestrian and cyclist preferences. We report findings from cognitive interviews (data analysed thematically) with 20 participants (10 pedestrians and 10 cyclists).

Results

In both sets of interviews, four themes emerged regarding how the participants approached the BWS task and five themes related to the understanding of the factors. The BWS choice tasks required refinement regarding the ‘frame of reference’, ‘travel context’, the ‘decision-making strategy’, and the ‘concrete thinking’ (finding some factors easier to interpret). Additionally, issues with understanding the factors, the wording, ‘overlapping’, negatively phrased factors, and technical jargon all pointed towards the need to refine auditing tools if these were to be introduced in a preference elicitation context.

Conclusions

This study helps to empirically uncover how citizens interpret infrastructure related aspects of walking and cycling by pointing to nuanced aspects that auditing tools may miss. The findings also helped develop an internally consistent preference elicitation survey-instrument that any local authority can implement to determine which walking and cycling infrastructure investments are a priority in their area.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
196
审稿时长
69 days
期刊最新文献
Deciphering the character of public transport participation in subjective well-being: Evidence from Hangzhou, China Health in mobility planning: An assessment of how health is considered in Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans New challenges arise from consolidation of gender, health and transport research Incident reporting and data monitoring of sexual violence and harassment on public transport Differences between adolescents' and their parents' perceived benefits and barriers to actively commute to school: The PACO y PACA project
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1