Z Kuşağının Sürdürülebilir Kentsel Ulaşım Algısının Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Z kuşağının sürdürülebilir ulaşım algısını ve bu algının ekonomik, toplumsal ve çevresel faktörlere göre nasıl şekillendiğini analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Kastamonu ili örnekleminde gerçekleştirilen çalışmada, Z kuşağının alternatif ulaşım araçları kullanım tercihleri ile sürdürülebilirlik boyutları arasındaki ilişki incelenmiştir. Katılımcıların sürdürülebilir ulaşım algısını anlamak için hazırlanan anket, sosyo-demografik değişkenleri içeren 7 soru ve ekonomik, toplumsal ve çevresel boyutlara odaklanan 30 likert tipi sorudan oluşmaktadır. Araştırma, Z kuşağının sürdürülebilir ulaşım algısının cinsiyet, eğitim durumu ve kullanım amacı gibi faktörlere göre farklılık gösterdiği varsayımına dayanmaktadır. Anket sonuçlarına göre, Z kuşağı katılımcılarının alternatif ulaşım araçlarını tercih etme kararlarının ekonomik, toplumsal ve çevresel faktörlerle önemli bir ilişki içinde olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Ayrıca, bireylerin sürdürülebilir ulaşım araçlarına yönelik farkındalık düzeyleri ve tercihlerini etkileyen çeşitli sosyo-demografik unsurlar tespit edilmiştir. Bu çalışma, Z kuşağının alternatif ulaşım araçlarını tercih etme eğilimlerinin sürdürülebilirlik ilkeleri ile uyumunu ortaya koyarak, kentsel hareketlilik politikalarına yönelik önemli katkılar sunmayı hedeflemektedir.

Keywords

• Kentsel Ulaşım
• Sürdürülebilirlik
• Z Kuşağı

The Evaluation of Generation Z's Perception of Sustainable Urban Transportation

Abstract

This study aims to analyze Generation Z's perception of sustainable transportation and how economic, social, and environmental factors shape this perception. Conducted in the Kastamonu province, the study examines the relationship between Generation Z's preferences for alternative transportation modes and the dimensions of sustainability. A survey was designed to understand participants' perceptions of sustainable transportation, consisting of 7 questions addressing socio-demographic variables and 30 Likert-type questions focusing on economic, social, and environmental dimensions. The research is based on the assumption that Generation Z's perception of sustainable transportation varies according to factors such as gender, educational background, and intended use. Survey results revealed a significant relationship between Generation Z's decisions to use alternative transportation modes and economic, social, and environmental factors. Additionally, various socio-demographic elements influencing participants' awareness and preferences for sustainable transportation modes were identified. This study highlights the alignment of Generation Z's preferences for alternative transportation modes with sustainability principles, providing valuable insights for urban mobility policies.

Keywords

• Urban Transportation
• Sustainability
• Generation Z

References

1. Aktepe, E. (2021). Yerel ekonomik kalkınma için yeni kentsel gündem. Enver Erdinç Dinçsoy (Ed.), Yerel Ekonomik Kalkınma ve Güncel Yaklaşımlar (1. Baskı). İçinde (s. 41-66). İstanbul: Efe Akademi Yayınevi.
2. Aktepe, E. (2023). The e-scooter as an alternative for sustainable urban transportation: the city of Austin (TX) as case study. TÜBİTAK 2219 Yurtdışı Doktora Sonrası Araştırma Burs Programı. Proje No: 1059B192201371.
3. Aktepe, E. (2024). “E-Scooter as a sustainable transportation alternative: A green solution for urban mobility?”, Yıldırım, K. E. & Gemici, E. (der.), Sustainable and Green Energy Policies içinde, New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc., 33-49.
4. Al-Thawadi, F. E., & Al-Ghamdi, S. G. (2019). Evaluation of sustainable urban mobility using comparative environmental life cycle assessment: A case study of Qatar. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 1, 100003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2019.100003
5. Brown, A., Klein, N. J., Thigpen, C., & Williams, N. (2020). Impeding access: The frequency and characteristics of improper scooter, bike, and car parking. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 100099.
6. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş., ve Demirel, F. (2010). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
7. Cao, Z., Zhang, X., Chua, K., Yu, H. & Zhao, J. (2021). E-scooter sharing to serve short-distance transit trips: A Singapore case. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract., 147, 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.03.004
8. Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2(3), 199-219.

9. Chang, A. Y., Miranda-Moreno, L., Clewlow, R., & Sun, L. (2019). Trend or fad? Deciphering the enablers of micromobility in the U.S. A Report of SAE International: Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
10. Chester, M. V., & Horvath, A. (2009). Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains. Environmental Research Letters, 4(2), 024008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024008
11. Chester, M. V., & Horvath, A. (2010). Life-cycle assessment of high-speed rail: The case of California. Environmental Research Letters, 5(1), 014003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/5/1/014003
12. Clewlow, Regina R. (2019). The micro-mobility revolution: the introduction and adoption of electric scooters in the United States. In Proceedings of the 98th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 13. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
13. Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Routledge: London, UK.
14. Dabija, D.-C., Bejan, B. M., & Dinu, V. (2019). How sustainability-oriented is Generation Z in retail? A literature review. Transformations in Business & Economics, 18(2), 140–155.
15. Dall Pizzol, H.; Ordovás de Almeida, S.; do Couto Soares, M. (2017). Collaborative consumption: A proposed scale for measuring the construct applied to a carsharing setting. Sustainability, (9), 703. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU9050703
16. Dibaj, S., Hosseinzadeh, A., Mladenović, M. N., & Kluger, R. (2021). Where Have Shared E-Scooters Taken Us So Far? A Review of Mobility Patterns, Usage Frequency, and Personas. Sustainability, 13(21), 11792. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111792
17. Eastman, J. K., & Liu, J. (2012). The impact of generational cohorts on status consumption: An exploratory look at generational cohort and demographics on status consumption. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(2), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761211206348
18. Eccarius, T.; Lu, C.-C. (2020). Adoption intentions for micro-mobility—Insights from electric scooter sharing in Taiwan. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ., 84, 102327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102327
19. Fearnley, N., Espen J. & Siri Hegna B. (2020). Patterns of e-scooter use in combination with public transport. Transport Findings. https://doi.org/10.32866/001c.13707
20. Ferrero, F.; Perboli, G.; Rosano, M.; Vesco, A. (2018). Car-sharing services: An annotated review. Sustain. Cities Soc. (37), 501–518.
21. Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for People. Island Press.
22. Gençer, E. (2020). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yaklaşımları çerçevesinde din eğitimi biliminde kullanılan yöntem ve teknikler. Kalemname, 5 (9), 182-219.
23. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. (19), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
24. Hamari, J.; Sjöklint, M.; Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. (67), 2047–2059. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23552
25. Hanusik, A. (2022). Information and usage asymmetry of shared mobility services among different generations. In Intelligent Solutions for Cities and Mobility of the Future; Sierpi ´nski, G., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland.
26. Hosseinzadeh, A., Algomaiah, M., Kluger, R., & Li, Z. (2020). E-scooters and Sustainability: Investigating the Relationship between the Density of E-Scooter Trips and Characteristics of Sustainable Urban Development. Sustainable Cities and Society. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102624
27. Ilavarasan, P.V.; Verma, R.K.; Kar, A.K. (2018). Urban transport in the sharing economy, Era; CIPPEC: Buenos Aires, Argentina, Volume 128.
28. Krejcie, R. & Morgan, D. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607- 610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
29. Laa, B., & Leth, U. (2020). Survey of E-scooter users in Vienna: Who they are and how they ride. Journal of Transport Geography, 89, 102874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102874
30. Litman, T. (2007). Well measured: Developing indicators for comprehensive and sustainable transport planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. http://www.vtpi.org/wellmeas.pdf
31. Litman, T. (2020). Evaluating public transportation health benefits. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
32. Mead, L. (2021). The road to sustainable transport. The international institute for sustainable development. Retrieved from https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2021-05/still-one-earth-sustainable-transport.pdf
33. Moreno, C. (2024). The 15-minute city a solution to saving our time and our planet, Wiley publishing.
34. Nickkar, A., Banerjee, S., Chavis, C., Bhuyan, I. A., & Barnes, P. (2019). A spatial-temporal gender and land use analysis of bikeshare ridership: The case study of Baltimore City. City, Culture and Society, 18, 100291.
35. Pagano M, Gauvreau K. (1993). Sampling Theory. Duxbury Press, 1993, 469- 72.
36. Palanichamy, S., Mohanty, P. and Kennell, J. (2024.). Shared mobility and India’s generation Z: Environmental consciousness, risks, and attitudes. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5258. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125258
37. Piatkowski, D., & Bopp, M. (2021). Increasing bicycling for transportation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 147(2), Article 04021019. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.000069
38. Population Reference Bureau (PRB) (2021). PRB's 2021 World population data sheet. https://interactives.prb.org/2021-wpds/
39. Pucher, J. and Buehler, R. (2008). Making cycling irresistible: lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, Transport Reviews, 28:4, 495 -528. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640701806612
40. Rojas-Rueda, D., de Nazelle, A., Tainio, M., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2011). Bike sharing system (Bicing) in Barcelona, Spain: A description and health impacts assessment. British Medical Journal, 343, d4521. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4521
41. Schiller, L. P., Bruun, E. & Kenworthy R. J. (2010). An introduction to sustainable transportation policy, Planning and Implementation, Londra.
42. Shaheen, S., & Cohen, A. (2020). Innovative mobility carsharing outlook: Carsharing market overview, analysis, and trends. Transportation Sustainability Research Center, UC Berkeley.
43. Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., Chan, N., & Bansal, A. (2020). Sharing strategies: carsharing, shared micromobility (bikesharing and scooter sharing), transportation network companies, microtransit, and other innovative mobility modes. Transportation, Land Use, and Environmental Planning, pp. 237-262.
44. Shaheen, S., Corwin B., Adam C., & Balaji Y. (2017). Travel behavior: shared mobility and transportation equity. Publication PL-18-007. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.
45. Smith, C. S. & Schwieterman, J. P. (2018). E-scooter scenarios: evaluating the potential mobility benefits of shared dockless scooters in Chicago. Chaddick Institute Policy Series (Chicago, IL: DePaul University)
46. Stodolsky, F., Gaines, L., Cuenca, R., & Eberhardt, J. J. (1998). Lifecycle analysis for freight transport. SAE Technical Paper. https://doi.org/10.4271/982206
47. Şahin, Ş. ve Aktepe, E. (2021). Yerel yönetimlerde karar alma süreci: Adana kentsel otobüs ulaşım hizmetleri üzerine bir inceleme, lnternational Journal of Geography and Geography Education, (44), 296-319. https://doi.org/10.32003/igge.891278
48. UNFPA, (2020). Dünya nüfus raporu 2020. 14 Ekim 2024 tarihinde https://turkey.unfpa.org/tr/publications/unfpa-d%C3%BCnya-n%C3%BCfus-raporu-2020-%C3%B6zeti, adresinden edinilmiştir.
49. Valentine, D. B., & Powers, T. L. (2013). Generation Y values and lifestyle segments. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(7), 597–606. www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm
50. Von Rozycki, C., Koeser, H., & Schwarz, H. (2003). Ecology profile of the German high-speed rail passenger transport system, ICE. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 8(2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978443
51. Yanatma, S. (2023, September 19). Cycling in Europe: Which countries and cities are the most and least bicycle-friendly? Euronews. https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/09/19/cycling-in-europe-which-countries-and-cities-are-the-most-and-least-bicycle-friendly.
52. Yang, H., Huo, J., Bao, Y., Li, X., Yang, L., & Cherry, C. R. (2021). Impact of e-scooter sharing on bike sharing in Chicago. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 154, 23-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.09.012