IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v179y2024ics0965856423003105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do women perceive pedestrian path attractiveness differently from men?

Author

Listed:
  • Mazzulla, Gabriella
  • Eboli, Laura
  • Forciniti, Carmen

Abstract

The objective of this work is investigating on differences in pedestrians’ perceptions in terms of gender. Specifically, we want to verify differences between male and female in perceiving aspects characterizing pedestrian paths and influencing their satisfaction, perceived service quality, and behavioural intentions. We propose a methodology based on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) approach. From the model calibration we derived different coefficients for male and female, representing the importance that each category of users gives to the various aspects characterizing the paths. Data were collected through a sample survey addressed to pedestrians walking on paths placed in an urban area of the southern Italy. We discovered interesting findings about gender differences. In general, females are more sensitive than males concerning many important aspects such as environmental aspects in terms of air pollution and noise, or personal security from robbery or theft, or presence of furnishing along the path and cleanliness of the environment. On the other hand, male consider more the continuity of pedestrian path and the condition of the walking surface, as well as the nuisance due to the vehicle flow. In terms of similarities in perceptions, male and female equally appreciated the comfort due to the presence of trees providing shade along the path. The findings from the model could be useful for planners, who should invest on those aspects considered as important by both the categories, but also on the aspects that determine an inequality between male and female. As an example, since women do not feel secure along those paths, planners could improve this aspect in such a way as to make paths attractive to both women and men, as well as the aspects considered more relevant for men, to incentivize pedestrian mobility.

Suggested Citation

  • Mazzulla, Gabriella & Eboli, Laura & Forciniti, Carmen, 2024. "Do women perceive pedestrian path attractiveness differently from men?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:179:y:2024:i:c:s0965856423003105
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2023.103890
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856423003105
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103890?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jaime Allen & Laura Eboli & Gabriella Mazzulla & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2020. "Effect of critical incidents on public transport satisfaction and loyalty: an Ordinal Probit SEM-MIMIC approach," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 827-863, April.
    2. Soongbong Lee & Myungjoo Han & Kyoungah Rhee & Bumjoon Bae, 2021. "Identification of Factors Affecting Pedestrian Satisfaction toward Land Use and Street Type," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-14, September.
    3. Mandhani, Jyoti & Nayak, Jogendra Kumar & Parida, Manoranjan, 2020. "Interrelationships among service quality factors of Metro Rail Transit System: An integrated Bayesian networks and PLS-SEM approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 320-336.
    4. Henry Kaiser, 1970. "A second generation little jiffy," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 35(4), pages 401-415, December.
    5. Wei-Shiuen Ng & Ashley Acker, 2018. "Understanding Urban Travel Behaviour by Gender for Efficient and Equitable Transport Policies," International Transport Forum Discussion Papers 2018/01, OECD Publishing.
    6. Demetrio Carmine Festa & Carmen Forciniti, 2019. "Attitude towards Bike Use in Rende, a Small Town in South Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, May.
    7. de Oña, Juan & de Oña, Rocío & Eboli, Laura & Mazzulla, Gabriella, 2013. "Perceived service quality in bus transit service: A structural equation approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 219-226.
    8. Kang, Lei & Fricker, Jon D., 2016. "Sharing urban sidewalks with bicyclists? An exploratory analysis of pedestrian perceptions and attitudes," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 216-225.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chauhan, Vivek & Gupta, Akshay & Parida, Manoranjan, 2021. "Demystifying service quality of Multimodal Transportation Hub (MMTH) through measuring users’ satisfaction of public transport," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 47-60.
    2. Ahmad Nazrul Hakimi Ibrahim & Muhamad Nazri Borhan & Nur Izzi Md. Yusoff & Amiruddin Ismail & Muhamad Razuhanafi Mat Yazid & Nor Aznirahani Mhd Yunin & Sotaro Yukawa, 2021. "Gender and Age Do Matter: Exploring the Effect of Passengers’ Gender and Age on the Perception of Light Rail Transit Service Quality in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, January.
    3. Tiglao, Noriel Christopher C. & De Veyra, Janna M. & Tolentino, Niki Jon Y. & Tacderas, Mark Angelo Y., 2020. "The perception of service quality among paratransit users in Metro Manila using structural equations modelling (SEM) approach," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    4. Singh, Harpreet & Kathuria, Ankit, 2023. "Heterogeneity in passenger satisfaction of bus rapid transit system among age and gender groups: A PLS-SEM Multi-group analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 27-41.
    5. Ahmad Nazrul Hakimi Ibrahim & Muhamad Nazri Borhan & Mohd Haniff Osman & Faridah Hanim Khairuddin & Nur Mustakiza Zakaria, 2022. "An Empirical Study of Passengers’ Perceived Satisfaction with Monorail Service Quality: Case of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-17, May.
    6. Mandhani, Jyoti & Nayak, Jogendra Kumar & Parida, Manoranjan, 2020. "Interrelationships among service quality factors of Metro Rail Transit System: An integrated Bayesian networks and PLS-SEM approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 320-336.
    7. Tahlyan, Divyakant & Said, Maher & Mahmassani, Hani & Stathopoulos, Amanda & Walker, Joan & Shaheen, Susan, 2022. "For whom did telework not work during the Pandemic? understanding the factors impacting telework satisfaction in the US using a multiple indicator multiple cause (MIMIC) model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 387-402.
    8. Rong, Rui & Liu, Lishan & Jia, Ning & Ma, Shoufeng, 2022. "Impact analysis of actual traveling performance on bus passenger’s perception and satisfaction," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 80-100.
    9. Sun, Fan & Jin, Minjie & Zhang, Tao & Huang, Wencheng, 2022. "Satisfaction differences in bus traveling among low-income individuals before and after COVID-19," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 311-332.
    10. Park, Keunhyun & Farb, Anna & Chen, Shuolei, 2021. "First-/last-mile experience matters: The influence of the built environment on satisfaction and loyalty among public transit riders," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 32-42.
    11. Sun, Shichao & Xu, Lingyu & Yao, Yukun & Duan, Zhengyu, 2021. "Investigating the determinants to retain spurious-loyalty passengers: A data-fusion based approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 70-83.
    12. Cheranchery, Munavar Fairooz & Krishnan, Meenu G & A A, Alfiya & Nanda V S, Parvathy & Krishna A, Akhila & Samuel, Albin, 2024. "A user perception based approach to derive policy intervention areas for enhancing walkability of cities: Experience in Kerala, India," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 70-80.
    13. Karzan Ismael & Szabolcs Duleba, 2021. "Investigation of the Relationship between the Perceived Public Transport Service Quality and Satisfaction: A PLS-SEM Technique," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-20, November.
    14. Yanqun Yang & Linwei Wang & Said M. Easa & Xinyi Zheng, 2022. "Analysis of Electric Bicycle Riders’ Use of Mobile Phones While Riding on Campus," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-15, May.
    15. Qihao Liu & Yuzheng Liu & Chia-Lin Chen & Enrica Papa & Yantao Ling & Mengqiu Cao, 2023. "Is It Possible to Compete With Car Use? How Buses Can Facilitate Sustainable Transport," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(3), pages 69-83.
    16. Andrea C Vial & Janine Bosak & Patrick C Flood & John F Dovidio, 2021. "Individual variation in role construal predicts responses to third-party biases in hiring contexts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-28, February.
    17. Siwarit Pongsakornrungsilp & Pimlapas Pongsakornrungsilp & Theeranuch Pusaksrikit & Pimmada Wichasin & Vikas Kumar, 2021. "Co-Creating a Sustainable Regional Brand from Multiple Sub-Brands: The Andaman Tourism Cluster of Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-23, August.
    18. Sarker, Rumana Islam & Kaplan, Sigal & Mailer, Markus & Timmermans, Harry J.P., 2019. "Applying affective event theory to explain transit users’ reactions to service disruptions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 593-605.
    19. Bangyi Yan & Shiguang Ni & Xi Wang & Jin Liu & Qianjing Zhang & Kaiping Peng, 2020. "Using Virtual Reality to Validate the Chinese Version of the Independent Television Commission-Sense of Presence Inventory," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, May.
    20. Christoph, Inken B. & Roosen, Jutta & Bruhn, Maike, 2006. "Willingness to pay for genetically modified food and non-food products," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21303, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:179:y:2024:i:c:s0965856423003105. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.