A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE FOR PROMOTING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: A SAMPLE FROM İZMİR

Öz

Increased use of private car with urbanization leads to traffic problems and this raises the importance of sustainable economic, social and environmental solutions in Turkey as in world. The present research aims to investigate the use of private car and public transportation within different dimensions and to examine the possible ways to promote public transportation. The sample of the study consisted of 571 participants living in İzmir and the study was conducted through online surveys. Participants filled out a survey including socio-demographic questions, Public Transportation Satisfaction Form, Ease-of-Use in Public Transportation Scale, Functions of Car Use Scale and open-ended questions about promoting use of public transportation. Results indicated that ease-of-use in public transportation is positively correlated with public transportation satisfaction. In addition, the instrumental function of car use was negatively correlated with the affective and symbolic functions. The affective function was the only predictor of private car use. These results are discussed within the scope of social psychology and transportation research.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Public Transportation
• Private Car Use
• Public Transportation Satisfaction
• Functions of Car Use
• Ease-of-Us

SOSYAL PSİKOLOJİK YAKLAŞIMLA ÖZEL ARAÇTAN TOPLU ULAŞIMA: İZMİR ÖRNEKLEMİ

Öz

Kentleşmeyle birlikte özellikle büyük şehirlerde artan özel araç kullanımının meydana getirdiği yoğun trafik ve çok yönlü sorunlara sosyal, ekonomik ve çevresel olarak sürdürülebilir çözümler geliştirmek, dünyada ve ülkemizde giderek önem kazanmaktadır. Bu araştırma özel araç kullanımı ve toplu ulaşım tercihlerini farklı boyutlarıyla incelemenin yanı sıra toplu ulaşım seçeneklerinin nasıl daha cazip kılınabileceği sorusuna yanıt aramak üzere gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu amaçla, İzmir’de yaşayan 571 kişilik bir örneklem grubuna internet aracılığıyla ulaşılmış; katılımcılara sosyo-demografik bilgi formu, toplu ulaşım sistemine dair memnuniyet formu, Kullanım Kolaylığı Ölçeği, Araba Kullanımının İşlevleri Ölçeği ve toplu ulaşımın teşvikine ilişkin açık uçlu soru formu uygulanmıştır. Sonuçlara göre, toplu ulaşımda kullanım kolaylığı arttıkça, toplu ulaşımdan memnuniyet düzeyi artmaktadır. Ayrıca araba kullanımının araçsal işlevinin, duygusal ve sembolik işlevleriyle olumsuz yönde ilişkili olduğu görülmüştür. Özel araç kullanımı davranışını açıklamak için ise yalnızca duygusal işlevin yordayıcı rolü olduğu görülmüştür. Araştırmanın sonuçları sosyal psikoloji ve ulaşım araştırmaları literatürleri çerçevesinde tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Toplu Ulaşım
• Özel Araç Kullanımı
• Toplu Ulaşımdan Memnuniyet
• Araba Kullanımının İşlevleri
• Kullanım Kolaylığı

Kaynakça

1. Acar, İ. H. (2013). Kentlerimiz için “metrobüs” çözümleri. 6. Ulaştırma Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı içinde (ss. 89-98). İstanbul: TMMOB İnşaat Mühendisleri Odası.
2. Atkinson, R. W., Kang, S., Anderson, H. R., Mills, I. C. ve Walton, H. A. (2014). Epidemiological time series studies of PM2.5 and daily mortality and hospital admissions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax, 69, 660-665.
3. Becker, G. S. (1965). A theory of the allocation of time. The Economic Journal, 75(299), 493-517.
4. Beirao, G. ve Cabral, J. S. (2007). Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study. Transport Policy, 14(6), 478-489.
5. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139-168.
6. Bilgin, N. (1999). İçerik analizi. Sosyal psikolojide yöntem ve pratik çalışmalar. İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları.
7. Cengiz, T. ve Kahvecioğlu, C. (2016). Sürdürülebilir kent ulaşımında bisiklet kullanımının Çanakkale kent merkezi örneğinde incelenmesi. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(2), 55-66.
8. Cirit, F. (2014). Sürdürülebilir kentiçi ulaşım politikaları ve toplu taşıma sistemlerinin karşılaştırılması. (Yayımlanmamış uzmanlık tezi). T.C. Kalkınma Bakanlığı, Ankara.

9. Colvile, R. N., Hutchinson, E. J., Mindell, J. S. ve Warren, R. F. (2001). The transport sector as a source of air pollution. Atmospheric Environment, 35(9), 1537-1565.
10. Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. New York, UK: Havester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, St. Martin s Press.
11. Dziekan, K. (2008). Ease-of-use in public transportation–A user perspective on information and orientation aspects. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology.
12. Ferraro, R., Escalas, J. E. ve Bettman, J. R. (2011). Our possessions, our selves: Domains of self‐worth and the possession–self link. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(2), 169-177.
13. Frye, A. (2006). Keynote Address. Research on Women's Issues in Transportation, Report of a Conference içinde (ss. 5-6). Washington DC, United States: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
14. Gärling, T. ve Schuitema, G. (2007). Travel demand management targeting reduced private car use: effectiveness, public acceptability and political feasibility. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 139-153.
15. Glaeser, E. L., Kahn, M. E. ve Rappaport, J. (2008). Why do the poor live in cities? The role of public transportation. Journal of Urban Economics, 63(1), 1-24.
16. Göregenli, M. (1997). Individualist-collectivist tendencies in a Turkish sample. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(6), 787-794.
17. Graham-Rowe, E., Skippon, S., Gardner, B. ve Abraham, C. (2011). Can we reduce car use and, if so, how? A review of available evidence. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(5), 401-418.
18. Gu, D., Huang, N., Zhang, M. ve Wang, F. (2015). Under the dome: Air pollution, wellbeing, and pro-environmental behaviour among Beijing residents. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 9(2), 65-77.
19. Gupta, T. (2014). Ease of use in public transportation (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra.
20. Hagman, O. (2003). Mobilizing meanings of mobility: car users’ constructions of the goods and bads of car use. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 8(1), 1-9.
21. Jensen, M. (1999). Passion and heart in transport–A sociological analysis on transport behaviour. Transport Policy, 6(1), 19-33.
22. Macintyre, S., Ellaway, A., Der, G., Ford, G. ve Hunt, K. (1998). Do housing tenure and car access predict health because they are simply markers of income or self-esteem? A Scottish study. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 52(10), 657-664.
23. Mesquita, B. (2001). Emotions in collectivist and individualist contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 68-74.
24. Nilsson, M. ve Küller, R. (2000). Travel behaviour and environmental concern. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 5(3), 211-234.
25. Prioni, P. ve Hensher, D. A. (2000). Measuring service quality in scheduled bus services. Journal of Public Transportation, 3(2), 51-74.
26. Raphael, S. ve Rice, L. (2002). Car ownership, employment, and earnings. Journal of Urban Economics, 52(1), 109-130.
27. Redman, L., Friman, M., Gärling, T. ve Hartig, T. (2013). Quality attributes of public transport that attract car users: A research review. Transport Policy, 25, 119-127.
28. Rosenbloom, S. (2006). Understanding women’s and men’s travel patterns. Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation: Report of a Conference içinde (ss. 7-28).
29. Washington DC, United States: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
30. Sandqvist, K. ve Kriström, S. (2001). Getting along without a family car. The role of automobile in adolescents’ experience and attitudes. Part I. Inner city Stockholm. Stockholm, Sweden: Institutionen för Individ, Omvärld och Lärande.
31. Schulz, D., ve Gilbert, S. (1996). Women and transit security: A new look at an old issue. Women and Transit Security. Women’s Travel Issues. Second National Conference içinde (ss. 551-562). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
32. Smith, M. J. (2008). Addressing the security needs of women passengers on public transport. Security Journal, 21(1-2), 117-133.
33. Soper, D.S. (2018). Significance of the difference between two correlations calculator [Software]. http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc, (10.01.2019).
34. Steg, L. (2005). Car use: Lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(2-3), 147-162.
35. Stradling, S. G., Meadows, M. L. ve Beatty, S. (1999). Factors affecting car use choices. Edinburgh, UK: Transport Research Institute, Napier University.
36. Tacoli, C. (2012). Urbanization, gender and urban poverty: paid work and unpaid carework in the city. London, UK: Human Settlements Group, International Institute for Environment and Development.
37. TÜİK (2018). Motorlu kara taşıtları istatistikleri. (Yayın no. 27661). Ankara. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=27661, (17.02.2019)
38. White, P. (2002). Public transport: Its planning, management and operation (4. baskı). London ve New York: SPON Press.
39. Zeidner, M. ve Shechter, M. (1988). Psychological responses to air pollution: Some personality and demographic correlates. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8(3), 191-208.
40. Zuurbier, M., Hoek, G., Oldenwening, M., Lenters, V., Meliefste, K., van den Hazel, P. ve Brunekreef, B. (2010). Commuters’ exposure to particulate matter air pollution is affected by mode of transport, fuel type, and route. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(6), 783-789.