Multitasking on the go: an observation study on the Brussels public transport

Tan Dat Ton
Nowadays, performing multitasking activities on the move has become more and more popular. Such propensity has increasingly attracted lots of attentions from scholars. In this streamline, the thesis is to explore how multitasking activities are performed in different modes of public transport (PT) in Brussels city, and whether they are affected by the demographics, distance and level of crowdedness factors. In addition, it looks into the way and how PT passengers interact with their information and communication technology (ICT) devices. Structured observation is used to conduct the survey of 1216 PT passengers (on bus, tram and metro) in May 2016. The result shows, on the one hand, that the length of the journey and demographics have significant impact on passengers’ decision to multitask. On the other hand, it proves that the frequency of using ICTs not only being influenced by demographics, but its relationship with the transport types is also moderated by crowdedness level. On top of that, a comparison with a previous study which adopted a different methodology but in the same context is conducted both to confirm the reliability and validity of this paper and to give an insight about Brussels public transport and its users’ multitasking tendency.

Multitasking on the go: an observation study on the Brussels public transport

1. Background and research questions

Previous researches consider the work commute as one of the least appreciated daily activities regarding emotional well-being and travel time spent is wasted. Yet, this assumption is challenged by recent researchers who believe travel time can also be positively productive, especially with the support of information and communications technologies (ICTs). Besides, Brussels has speedily placed a significant need on the public transport (PT) mobility. Such potential condition, together with the shortage of studies conducted with regard to in-vehicle time use in this region, attracts the author’s attention and encourages him to carry out this research.

The research is to answer these questions: (1) Is there any relationship between demographic, distance or crowdedness and PT passengers’ decision to multitask? If yes, to what extent do those factors influence the multitasking behaviors of PT users and how they experience those activities? (2) Which are the major multitasking activities? What are the popular ICT devices passengers carry along and how interactions take place in relation to those devices? (3) Is there a linkage between passengers’ behaviors and different modes of transport? (4) Will the findings help enhance transport experience by offering the transport operators chances to improve their utilities or policies?

2. Research Design

2.1. Technique

Structured observation is used and logistic regression is the main technique to analyze data. In addition, ordinary least squares (OLS) and moderation analysis are adopted in certain cases.

2.2. Observation design

Where to observe? Brussels Capital Region.

When to observe? May 3rd to May 8th 2016, from the late morning to late evening.

Who to observe and what to observe? All passengers, excluding children.

2.3. Population and sampling

In total, 1216 actual objects are observed.

Popuplation and sampling

3. Results, discussion and recommendations

3.1 Results and discussion

Four separate logistic regressions are run in correspondence to four most popular dependent multitasking variables: “doing nothing and/or gazing out of window”, “talking with other passengers”, “messaging” and “listening to music/radio”. In which, “talking with other passengers” is positively influenced by “travel in group”. Furthermore, the possibility that people travelling in group have conversation with others is higher than passengers who travel alone. Despite demographic factors do not have much impact on this activity, males less often talk to others than females.

Several variables have a significant impact on the passengers’ state of “doing nothing/gazing out of the window”. The more stops passengers travel, the more likely they would engage in activities other than just “doing nothing”. Age range also has some impacts; within the middle to old age group, the older the passengers are, the more likely they would involve in “doing nothing”.

The variables “number of stops”, “travel in group”, “age range” and “social group” impose a significant influence on “messaging”. In which, the longer the distance is, the higher probability that people will message. Moreover, people travel in group are less likely to message compared to whom travel alone. Finally, it can be statistically seen that women are more likely to message than men.

Another finding is that only “travel in group” and “age range” have an influential impact on “listening to music/radio”. In details, passengers do not often listen to music/radio when they travel in group. Also, it is clearly defined that the youngest group possesses the highest probability to listen to music/radio. Next to that, it is seen that males are more likely to enjoy this activity than females.

3.2 Other findings

Statistically, the demographic patterns significantly influence the frequency that the passengers interact with their ICT devices. Specifically, the passengers who are male, at the younger age range, belongs to the  social groups “working” or “studying” tend to use ICTs more frequently compared to those who are female, at the older age range and belongs to the social group “unidentified” respectively.

A cross tabulation between the frequency of using ICT devices and type of transport  reveals that passengers travelling by metro most often multitask continuously on ICTs than tram and bus. Following model 1 proposed by Hayes (2013), it is shown that the transport type influences the frequency of interacting with ICTs; yet the level of usage depends on the level of crowdedness on the transport vehicles.

It is also learnt that the people on trams and metros are most likely to have communication with others. Besides, they prefer engaging in eating or drinking to passengers on buses do. Interestingly, more bus users involved in messaging activities than metro and tram users. Regarding gender, women tend to have verbal face-to-face conversation more than men regardless of transport mode. This tendency might be explained by the natural difference of social psychology between the two genders.

A detailed comparison with a previous study in Brussels (Patriarche & Huynen, 2014) which adopts a different methodology, BELDAM (Belgium daily mobility) survey, but in the same context is conducted both to confirm the reliability and validity of this paper and to give an insight about Brussels public transport and its users’ multitasking tendency. Moreover, clashing points between the two researches raise a need for further studies of the same interest. A combination of both field work to observe the manifest behaviors and questionnaire could be a promising methodology for future researchers.

3.3 Recommendation

Demographic, distance and crowdedness should be paid sufficient attention as they turn out to significantly influence the propensity of performing certain multitask. Transport policy maker may refer to this research’s findings to implement better transport appraisal strategies to improve the infrastructure, services and clients’ satisfactions. ICT integration in vehicles can also enhance social participation of PT users and bring knowledge or educational training values to the society. Although this research presents the findings on the PT only, its conclusion is a good reference to travel agencies for how to improve their services, reinforce customers’ satisfaction and retention by tracking the historical database which gives demographic traits of targeted customers.

Bibliografie

Bibliography

Abrantes, P. A. L., & Wardman, M. R. (2011). Meta-analysis of UK values of travel time: An update. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(1), 1–17.

Activity Report. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.stib-mivb.be/irj/go/km/docs/resource/RA_2014/UK/index.htm

Anable, J., & Gatersleben, B. (2005). All work and no play? The role of instrumental and affective factors in work and leisure journeys by different travel modes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(2-3 SPEC. ISS.), 163–181.

Axhausen, K. W., & Gärling, T. (1992). Activity‐based approaches to travel analysis: conceptual frameworks, models, and research problems. Transport Reviews, 12(4), 323–341.

Bhat, C. R., & Koppelman, F. S. (1999). A retrospective and prospective survey of time-use research. Transportation, 26(2), 119–139. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005196331393

Bryman, A. (2015). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). Oxford university press.

Bull, M. (2000). Sounding out the city. Berg, Oxford. Retrieved from http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/20984

Circella, G., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Poff, L. K. (2012). A conceptual typology of multitasking behavior and polychronicity preferences. Electronic International Journal of Time Use Research, 9(1), 59–107.

Ettema, D., Alexander, B., & Hagen, M. Van. (2010). Spending time on the move : A comparison between travel modes. Transportation Research Board, (January).

Ettema, D., & Verschuren, L. (2010). Multi-tasking and the value of travel time savings, (2008), 19–25.

Handy, S., Weston, L., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2005). Driving by choice or necessity? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(2-3 SPEC. ISS.), 183–203.

Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford, 3–4.

Hess, S., Bierlaire, M., & Polak, J. W. (2005). Estimation of value of travel-time savings using mixed logit models. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(2-3 SPEC. ISS.), 221–236.

Holley, D., Jain, J., & Lyons, G. (2008). Understanding business travel time and its place in the working day. Time & Society, 17(1), 27–46. Retrieved from http://tas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/1/27

Ironmonger, D. (2003). There are only 24 Hours in a Day ! Solving the problematic of simultaneous time.

Jain, J., & Lyons, G. (2008). The gift of travel time. Journal of Transport Geography, 16(2), 81–89.

James, D., & Drakich, J. (1993). Understanding gender differences in amount of talk: A critical review of research. In Gender and Conversational Interaction (pp. 281–312).

Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. (2004). Toward National Well-Being Accounts. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 429–434.

Kaufman-Scarborough, C., & Lindquist, J. D. (1999). The polychronic attitude index: refinement and preliminary consumer marketplace behavior applications. In American Marketing Association. Conference Proceedings (p. Vol. 10, p. 151).

Kenyon, S., & Lyons, G. (2007). Introducing multitasking to the study of travel and ICT: Examining its extent and assessing its potential importance. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(2), 161–175.

Keseru, I., Bulckaen, J., Macharis, C., Minnen, J., Glorieux, I., & Pieter, T. (2015). Is travel time wasted ? Evidence from a time use survey in Flanders, Belgium, 16.

Lyons, G., Jain, J., & Holley, D. (2007). The use of travel time by rail passengers in Great Britain. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(1), 107–120.

Lyons, G., & Kenyon, S. (2004). Gathering empirical evidence on the impacts of ICTs : using ’ accessibility diaries ’ to investigate the changing nature of Internet use , personal travel and participation in activities. In Proceedings of the International Specialist Meeting on ICT, Everyday Life and Urban Change. Retrieved from eprints.uwe.ac.uk/9834/1/9834.pdf

Lyons, G., & Urry, J. (2005). Travel time use in the information age. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(2-3 SPEC. ISS.), 257–276.

Mackie, P. J., Wardman, M., Fowkes, A. S., Whelan, G., Nellthorp, J., & Bates, J. (2003). Values of travel time savings UK (No. 567). Retrieved from http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/2079

Mokhtarian, P. L., & Ory, D. T. (2005). When is getting there half the fun? Modeling the liking for travel. Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice, 39(2-3), 97–123. Retrieved from http://eprints.cdlib.org/uc/item/2nx4m4k6#page-2

Mokhtarian, P. L., Papon, F., Goulard, M., & Diana, M. (2014). What makes travel pleasant and/or tiring? An investigation based on the French National Travel Survey. Transportation, 42(6), 1103–1128. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9557-y

Mokhtarian, P. L., & Salomon, I. (2001). How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 35(8), 695–719.

Mokhtarian, P. L., Salomon, I., & Redmond, L. S. (2001). Understanding the demand for travel : It’s not purely “derived.” Innovation : The European Journal of Social Science, 14(August 2001), 355–380.

Ohmori, N., & Harata, N. (2008). How different are activities while commuting by train? A case in Tokyo. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 99(5), 547–561. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2008.00491.x/a…

Ono, N., Ohmori, N., Takami, K., & Harata, N. (n.d.). Comparative analysis of travel time use between Tokyo and Seoul.

Patriarche, G., Hubert, M., Montulet, B., & Berzin, M. (2008). Approaching mobile users. Connecting ICT uses with everyday mobility. In Second European Communication Conference (ECREA).

Patriarche, G., & Huynen, P. (2014). Gebruik van de verplaatsingstijd door de Brusselaars: Analyse van de mobiele activiteiten op de weg naar de werk- of schoollocatie. In Mobiliteit en logistiek in Brussel (pp. 83–114). VUBPRESS.

Perry, M., O’Hara, K., Sellen, A., Harper, R., & Brown, B. (2001). Dealing with mobility: understanding access anytime, anywhere. ACM Transaction on Computer-Human Interaction, 8(4), 323–347.

Russell, M. (2011). Watching passengers: Using structured observation methods on public transport (pp. 1–12). Retrieved from http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/16912/

Russell, M., Price, R., Signal, L., Stanley, J., Gerring, Z., & Cumming, J. (2011). What do passengers do during travel time? Structured observations on buses and trains. Journal of Public Transportation, 14(3), 123–146.

Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Appraisal (SACTRA). (1999). Transport and the Economy. Full Report. Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20050301192906/http:/dft.gov…

Stutzer, A., & Frey, B. S. (2008). Stress that doesn’t pay: The commuting paradox. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 110(2), 339–366.

Thomas, J. A. P. K. (2009). The social environment of public transport. Retrieved from http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/1095/thes…

Timmermans, H., & Van der Waerden, P. (2008). Synchronicity of activity engagement and travel in time and space: descriptors and correlates of field observations. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2054, 1–9.

Verschuren, L., & Ettema, D. (2007). The effect of multi-tasking on the value of travel time savings. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2010, 19–25.

Vilhelmson, B., Thulin, E., & Fahlén, D. (2011). ICTs and activities on the move? people’s use of time while traveling by public transportation. In Engineering Earth The Impacts of Megaengineering Projects (pp. 145–154). Springer Science+Business Media.

Wardman, M. (1998). The value of travel time: a review of British evidence. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 285–316.

Watts, L., & Urry, J. (2008). Moving methods, travelling times. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26(5), 860–874.

Yosritzal, Y. (2014). Psychological influence of positive utility of travel time to travel behaviour.

Zerubavel, E. (1985). Hidden rhythms: Schedules and calendars in social life. Univ of California Press.

Universiteit of Hogeschool
MSc in Management
Publicatiejaar
2016
Promotor(en)
Prof. Dr. Cathy Macharis
Kernwoorden
Share this on: