To analyze the psychological impacts of the introduction of new portable electric transportation modes, we implemented an experiment using a personal mobile vehicle (PMV). We investigated its effects on 2 types of the subjective quality of mobility (SQM):
In the recent years, various personal mobility devices (PMDs) such as powered wheel chairs, scooters, and Segways have been developed with needs for high personal mobility in the aged society and for mitigating the environmental problem and so forth, since PMDs might be alternative travel modes to automobile in a short-trip travel. in Japan, especially the Segway has been sold for companies since 2006; “i-real” and “PIXY,” which are new PMDs on a conceptual phase, were exhibited at the Tokyo Motor Show 2007. These situations imply that new PMDs might be introduced into our society in the near future.
PMDs might contribute to the improvement of personal mobility, but they could also cause some negative problems such as accidental risk, vehicles’ congestion, and health depression. To cope with these problems, Rodier et al. [
Travel is not only a derived demand for the activities but also an activity for the travel itself. That means travel is not always regarded as a “cost” to be minimized, but travel has also positive aspects of travel itself like strolling or driving pleasure. Previous studies showed an importance to distinguish between travel for its own sake and travel for utilitarian purposes and to the possibility that the factors which influence these two categories of travel may differ significantly [
From these implications, if PMDs will be introduced and people will come to use it instead of the other modes including walking, both two aspects of travel would be changed. In other words, PMDs could change not only the travel for utilitarian purposes (e.g., improvement of speed), but also travel for its own sake (e.g., driving/walking pleasure). Therefore, it would be important to investigate the psychological impact of PMDs on users for the assessment of introduction of PMDs into an urban transportation system.
In this study, to analyze the psychological impacts of PMDs, we implemented an experiment using “a personal mobile vehicle” (PMV). “PMV” is a new portable electric transportation mode, which is a kind of PMDs, in a development stage with the following: 3 characteristics; (1) it can offer comfortable and short travel with low electric power which is environmental friendly; (2) it can be used safely in the pedestrian area; (3) people can take it along easily in different transportation modes such as bus, train, and car [
Specification of PMV (in a development phase).
Weight | 17 kg |
Maximum speed | 6 km/h |
Diameter of tire | 15 cmm |
Virtual image of PMV.
In this study, we investigated 2 types of subjective quality of mobility (SQM):
We implemented an experiment at Tokyo University in late February 2007. 30 students (15 males and 15 females) and 32 workers (15 males and 17 females) were gathered from Tokyo Institute of Technology and Tokyo University. At first participants tried to drive PMV with an instruction by a trainer in 5 minutes, and then, they drove it freely in 10 minutes. After that, they moved to another room, and then, answered a questionnaire about the quality of mobility. Note that all participants had never experienced PMV.
In the questionnaire, 4 types of different situations were described and questions regarding SQM in the situations were asked, respectively. The 4 types of different situations were as follows (1) access to the nearest restaurant from home, (2) stroll in the shopping area, (3) stroll in the city park, and (4) move in the airport.
As to “access to the nearest restaurant from home,” we defined the nearest distance as from 500 m to 1 km and then asked about the participants, frequency to the nearest restaurant that they actually use. If they do not use any restaurant near their home, they were asked not to answer the questions regarding this situation. Note that the restaurant does not include “fast food shop” and “pub.” As to “stroll in the shopping area” and “stroll in the city park,” we provided sample pictures and then asked the participants to image similar place before questions. As to “move in the airport,” we asked the frequency in use of most commonly used airport, and if someone never used an airport, we asked them not to answer the question about “move in the airport.”
In the questionnaire participants were asked 3 questions regarding SQM, (1) the importance of different types of SQM in the situation, (2) different types of SQM for different modes in the situation, and (3) attitudes toward travel in the situations by different modes. In this study, walking and PMV were selected as competitive transportation modes because the fundamental concept of PMV is that it would be primarily used in the pedestrian area. Only in case of the analysis about the access to the nearest restaurant, we added an automobile for a transportation mode because people can use it only in this case and access to a destination faster than any other private vehicles such as a bicycle and a motorcycle.
We measured the importance of different types of SQM by using 5 evaluation criteria (
Evaluation criteria of SQM.
Importance of SQM | SQM for each transportation mode | |
---|---|---|
Easiness | How easy you can travel | I can travel easy |
Speed | How fast you can travel | I can travel fast |
Enjoyment | How you can enjoy when traveling | I can enjoy when traveling |
Scenery | How you can see various sceneries when traveling | I can see various sceneries when traveling |
Atmosphere | How you can enjoy the atmosphere when traveling | I can enjoy the atmosphere when traveling |
After asking the importance of SQM, we asked 5 types of SQM (
We then measured two kinds of attitudes toward travel for each transportation mode in the situation. In case of “move in the airport” and “access to the nearest restaurant,” we measured “negative attitude toward travel” by asking the participants to make ratings on a numerical 5-point scale with verbal endpoints (1 = do not agree at all, 3 = neutral, 5 = strongly agree), as follows. “If possible, I do not want to make this travel.” On the other hand, in case of “stroll in the city park” and “stroll in the shopping area,” these travels might be regarded as enjoyable travels for their own sake. Therefore, we used different measures for these situations, that is, for “intention to continue travel” by asking the participants to make ratings on a numerical 5-point scale with verbal endpoints (1 = do not agree at all, 3 = neutral, 5 = strongly agree), as follows. “I want to continue this trip”. Note that both types of attitudes toward travel were measured for “move in the airport” because this travel might be regarded as an enjoyable one as well as a derived demand to reach the destination.
Table
Means and standard deviations (SD) of the importance of SQMs in each situation.
Easiness | Speed | Enjoyment | Scenery | Atmosphere | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | (SD) | Mean | (SD) | Mean | (SD) | Mean | (SD) | Mean | (SD) | |
Access to the restaurant ( |
5.81 | (2.19) | 4.36 | (2.32) | 2.60 | (2.09) | 2.16 | (2.27) | 1.88 | (1.97) |
Move in the airport ( |
6.38 | (0.85) | 6.10 | (1.36) | 1.60 | (1.70) | 1.52 | (1.81) | 1.71 | (1.67) |
Stroll in the shopping area ( |
4.07 | (2.50) | 0.89 | (1.53) | 4.83 | (2.07) | 5.07 | (1.80) | 5.20 | (1.89) |
Stroll in the city park ( |
2.52 | (2.36) | 0.39 | (0.95) | 5.54 | (1.44) | 6.23 | (1.01) | 5.97 | (1.14) |
Table
ANOVA results for SQMs among the transportation modes.
Easiness | Speed | Enjoyment | Scenery | Atmosphere | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Access to the restaurant |
|
|
|
|
|
Move in the airport |
|
|
|
|
|
Stroll in the shopping area |
|
|
|
|
|
Stroll in the city park |
|
|
|
|
|
Means and standard deviations (SDs) of SQMs for each transportation mode.
Easiness | Speed | Enjoyment | Scenery | Atmosphere | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | (SD) | Mean | (SD) | Mean | (SD) | Mean | (SD) | Mean | (SD) | |
Access to the restaurant ( |
||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Walking | 3.41 | (1.35) | 2.55 | (1.27) | 3.40 | (1.11) | 3.95 | (1.13) | 3.26 | (1.28) |
PMV | 4.02 | (1.08) | 3.84 | (1.11) | 4.17 | (0.96) | 2.72 | (1.07) | 3.07 | (1.11) |
Automobile | 4.02 | (1.29) | 4.36 | (1.05) | 2.98 | (1.03) | 2.64 | (1.10) | 2.81 | (1.07) |
| ||||||||||
Move in the airport ( |
||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Walking | 2.45 | (1.43) | 2.25 | (1.35) | 2.81 | (1.11) | 3.22 | (1.31) | 3.24 | (1.16) |
PMV | 4.29 | (1.14) | 4.21 | (1.16) | 3.47 | (1.02) | 2.59 | (1.04) | 2.59 | (1.03) |
| ||||||||||
Stroll in the shopping area ( |
||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Walking | 3.48 | (1.16) | 2.33 | (0.98) | 4.21 | (0.88) | 4.51 | (0.67) | 4.33 | (0.65) |
PMV | 4.15 | (1.03) | 3.69 | (1.19) | 3.79 | (1.03) | 2.77 | (1.06) | 2.95 | (1.01) |
| ||||||||||
Stroll in the city park ( |
||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Walking | 3.18 | (1.10) | 2.03 | (0.86) | 4.33 | (0.63) | 4.80 | (0.40) | 4.66 | (0.57) |
PMV | 4.21 | (0.91) | 3.98 | (1.13) | 4.00 | (1.00) | 3.23 | (1.17) | 3.28 | (1.28) |
As to “
Table
Means and standard deviations (SDs) of the negative attitude toward travel.
Mean | (SD) | |
---|---|---|
Access to the restaurant ( |
||
| ||
Walking | 2.33 | 1.22 |
PMV | 1.93 | 1.11 |
Automobile | 2.64 | 1.22 |
| ||
Move in the airport ( |
||
| ||
Walking | 3.59 | 1.24 |
PMV | 2.33 | 1.25 |
Means and standard deviations (SDs) of the intention to continue the travel.
Mean | (SD) | |
---|---|---|
Stroll in the shopping area ( |
||
| ||
Walking | 3.80 | 0.98 |
PMV | 3.44 | 1.07 |
| ||
Stroll in the city park ( |
||
| ||
Walking | 4.23 | 0.74 |
PMV | 3.54 | 1.21 |
| ||
Move in the airport ( |
||
| ||
Walking | 2.29 | 1.03 |
PMV | 3.19 | 1.21 |
In this study we investigated 2 types of SQM through the experiment using PMV. The data showed that participants thought the
As to SQM for each transportation mode, PMV could gain the advantage in the
These results imply that the shift from walking to PMV might lead to improvement of the