Do I walk or ride the rickshaw? Examining the factors affecting first- and last-mile trip options in the historic district of Manila (Philippines)
Keywords:Mode choice, Active travel, Informal transport, Walking, Rickshaw, Pedicab
AbstractHistoric urban centers (HUCs) such as the Ermita District in Manila display a compact, mixed, and human-scale urban form. Because of these features, people in these areas still depend on either walking or riding a pedicab (also known as cycle rickshaws) to reach their destinations. The latter mode, considered an informal non-motorized transport (NMT), is widely preferred by commuters as their first- and last-mile trip option to navigate the narrow street network of these historic districts. However, it is unclear what factors affect an individual’s first- and last-mile choices. Through a face-to-face intercept survey, respondents were asked about their relative preference between the two mode choices to capture the factors that influenced their decision to walk or to ride the pedicab within Ermita. By utilizing logit choice analysis, the study identified statistically significant mode-specific, as well as qualitative, variables that influenced individual decisions. The probability outcome showed that the most significant factors were access and/or egress time, cost over travel time, safety, and accessibility of the walking environment. It is also important to note that pedicab users had a longer average trip distance (about a kilometer) than walkers, and women, including those who were accompanied by children, preferred to use pedicabs. Results from this study can help district-level planning and policymaking in three ways: (1) by improving the physical environment through encouraging the use of NMT such as walking and pedicab riding as crucial first- and/or last-mile options for individuals in HUCs; (2) by aligning routes and regulations for pedicab services to be part of an overall transport service provision, and (3) by undertaking infrastructure improvements for safer walkway environments for pedestrians, considering the implications of walking and pedicab riding to individual, population-level health outcomes and overall quality of life.
Adeel, M., Yeh, A. G., & Zhang, F. (2017). Gender inequality in mobility and mode choice in Pakistan. Transportation, 44(6),1519–1534. doi.org/10.1007/s11116-016-9712-8
Ben-Akiva, M. E., & Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete choice analysis: Theory and application to travel demand (Vol. 9). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Handy, S. L. (2009). Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: A focus on empirical findings. Transport Reviews, 29, 359–395.
Cervero, R. B. (2013). Linking urban transport and land use in developing countries. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 6(1), 7–24.
Cervero, R. (1996). Mixed land-uses and commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 30(5), 361–377.
Cervero, R. (2000). Informal transport in the developing world. New York: UN-HABITAT.
Cervero, R., & Murakami, J. (2008). Rail + property development: A model of sustainable transit finance and urbanism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies.
Cervero, R., & Radisch, C. (1996). Travel choices in pedestrian versus automobile oriented neighborhoods. Transport Policy, 3(3), 127–141.
Clancey, G., Fisher, D., & Lee, M. (2012). Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) and the New South Wales crime risk assessment guidelines: A critical review. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal, 14(1), 1–15.
Daniels, R., & Mulley, C. (2013). Explaining walking distance to public transport: The dominance of public transport supply. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 6(2), 5–20.
Delmelle, E. M., & Delmelle, E. C. (2012). Exploring spatio-temporal commuting patterns in a university environment. Transport Policy, 21, 1–9. doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.12.007
Dimitriou, H. T. (2013). Transport planning for third world cities. Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge.
Dimitriou, H. T., & Gakenheimer, R. (Eds.). (2011). Urban transport in the developing world: A handbook of policy and practice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Doescher, M. P., Lee, C., Berke, E. M., Adachi-Mejia, A. M., Lee, C. K., Stewart, O., Patterson, D. G., Hurvitz, P. M., Carlos, H. A., Duncan, G. E., & Moudon, A. V. (2014). The built environment and utilitarian walking in small US towns, Preventive Medicine, 69, 80–86.
Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association. 76(3), 265–294.
Frank, L. D., Sallis, J. F., Conway, T. L., Chapman, J. E., Saelens, B. E., & Bachman, W. (2006). Many pathways from land use to health: Associations between neighborhood walkability and active transportation, body mass index, and air quality. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1), 75–87.
Friedmann, J. (2010). Place and place-making in cities: A global perspective. Planning Theory and Practice, 11(2), 149–165.
Gatersleben, B., & Appleton, K. M. (2007). Contemplating cycling to work: Attitudes and perceptions in different stages of change. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(4), 302–312.
Gatersleben, B., & Haddad, H. (2010). Who is the typical bicyclist? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 13(1), 41–48.
Ghani, F., Rachele, J. N., Washington, S., & Turrell, G. (2016). Gender and age differences in walking for transport and recreation: Are the relationships the same in all neighborhoods? Preventive Medicine Reports, 4, 75–80. doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.05.001
Hensher, D., Rose, J., & Greene W. (2005). Applied choice analysis a primer (pp. 184–185). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Humpel, N., Owen, N., & Leslie, E. (2002). Environmental factors associated with adults’ participation in physical activity: A review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22(3), 188–199.
Jayme, J. L. L., & Sia, P. A. C. (2011). Effects of pedicabs and kuligligs on the capacity of roads in the vicinity of De La Salle University, Manila. Undergraduate thesis, Civil Engineering Department, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines.
Kamargianni, M., & Polydoropoulou, A. (2013). Hybrid choice model to investigate effects of teenagers’ attitudes toward walking and cycling on mode choice behavior. Transportation Research Record, 2382(1),151–161.
Litman, T. (2010). Evaluating transportation economic development impacts. Victoria, BC: Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Manski, C. F., & McFadden, D. (Eds.). (1981). Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications (pp. 2¬–50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mateo-Babiano, I., Susilo, Y. O., Joewono, T. B., Vu, A. T., & Guillen, M. D. (2013). Perception to climate change and indigenous transport in developing Asia: A transport users’ perspectives. In WCTR 2013: 13th World Conference on Transportation Research. Leeds, England: World Conference on Transportation Research Society.
Mateo-Babiano, I. (2016a). Indigeneity of transport in developing cities. International Planning Studies, 21(2), 132–147.
Mateo-Babiano, I. (2016b). Pedestrian’s needs matters: Examining Manila’s walking environment. Transport Policy, 45, 107–115.
McFadden, D. (2001). Economic choices. The American Economic Review, 91(3), 351–378.
McLeroy, K. R., Steckler, A., & Bibeau, D. (Eds.) (1988). The social ecology of health promotion interventions. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 351–377. Retrieved from http://tamhsc.academia.edu/KennethMcLeroy/Papers/81901/An_Ecological_Perspective_on_Health_Promotion_Programs
Mohit, B., Rosen, Z., & Muennig, P. A. (2017). The impact of urban speed reduction programs on health system cost and utilities. Injury Prevention. doi.10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042340
Munshi, T. (2016). Built environment and mode choice relationship for commute travel in the city of Rajkot, India. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 44, 239–253. doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.12.005
National Statistics Office (NSO) of the Philippines. (2015). Quezon City, Philippines.
Olawole, M. O., & Aloba, O. (2014). Mobility characteristics of the elderly and their associated level of satisfaction with transport services in Osogbo, Southwestern Nigeria. Transport Policy, 35, 105–116. doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.05.018
Panter, J. R., & Jones, A. (2010). Attitudes and the environment as determinants of active travel in adults: What do and don’t we know? Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 7(4), 551–561.
Pont, K., Ziviani, J., Wadley, D., Bennett, S., & Abbott, R. (2009). Environmental correlates of children’s active transportation: A systematic literature review. Health and Place, 15(3), 849–862.
Saelens, B. E., & Handy, S. L. (2008). Built environment correlates of walking: A review. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40(7), S550.
Satariano, W. A., Guralnik, J. M., Jackson, R. J., Marottoli, R. A., Phelan, E. A., & Prohaska, T. R. (2012). Mobility and aging: New directions for public health action. American Journal of Public Health, 102(8), 1508–1515.
Schneider, R. J. (2013). Measuring transportation at a human scale: An intercept survey approach to capture pedestrian activity. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 6(3), 43–59.
Sundquist, K., Eriksson, U., Kawakami, N., Skog, L., Ohlsson, H., & Arvidsson, D. (2011). Neighborhood walkability, physical activity, and walking behavior: The Swedish neighborhood and physical activity (SNAP) study. Social Science and Medicine, 72(8), 1266–1273.
Tamanna, M., & Hasan, M. K. (2015). Life in a megacity: Livelihood strategies and survival mechanisms of rickshaw pullers in Dhaka City. Millennial Asia, 6(1), 44–60.
Talen, E. (2015). Do-it-yourself urbanism: A history. Journal of Planning History, 14(2), 135–148.
Tetali, S., Edwards, P., & Roberts, G. M. I. (2016). How do children travel to school in urban India? A cross-sectional study of 5,842 children in Hyderabad. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 1099.
Tiwari, G. (2015). Role of non-motorized transport and sustainable transport in Indian cities. In Cities and Sustainability (pp. 133–150). New Delhi: Springer India.
Tiwari, G., Jain, D., & Rao, K. R. (2016). Impact of public transport and non-motorized transport infrastructure on travel mode shares, energy, emissions and safety: Case of Indian cities. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 44, 277–291. doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.11.004
Touvier, M., Bertrais, S., Charreire, H., Vergnaud, A. C., Hercberg, S., & Oppert, J. M. (2010). Changes in leisure-time physical activity and sedentary behavior at retirement: A prospective study in middle-aged French subjects. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 7(1), 14. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-7-14
Turrell, G., Hewitt, B., Haynes, M., Nathan, A., & Giles-Corti, B. (2014). Change in walking for transport: A longitudinal study of the influence of neighborhood disadvantage and individual-level socioeconomic position in mid-aged adults. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 11(151), 0151–0157. doi.org/10.1186/s12966-014-0151-7
Van Acker, V., Mokhtarian, P., & Witlox, F. (2011). Going soft: On how subjective variables explain modal choices for leisure travel. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 11(2), 115–146.
Van Dyck, D., Cerin, E., Conway, T. L., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Owen, N., Kerr, J., Cardon, G., Frank, L. D., Saelens, B. E., & Sallis, J. F. (2013). Perceived neighborhood environmental attributes associated with adults’ leisure-time physical activity: Findings from Belgium, Australia and the USA. Health and Place, 19, 59–68.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2015). Global status report on road safety 2015. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Zhou, J. (2012). Sustainable commute in a car-dominant city: Factors affecting alternative mode choices among university students. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(7), 1013–1029. doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.04.001
How to Cite
Authors who publish with JTLU agree to the following terms: 1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. 3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.