Dependency of Commuting to Work on Automobile Transportation - Essay Example

Maryland Commuters’ Lived Experiences on Bicycle Commuting After Barriers Removed and Strategies Employed by Dawn Ray MCRP, Morgan University, 1991 BA, University of Maryland Baltimore County, 1989 Proposal Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Public Policy and Public Administration Walden University January 2015 Abstract Dependency of commuting to work on automobile transportation has negative results on social life. In this context, vehicular congestion, environmental pollutants, oil dependency, and physical inactivity are the most important ones. On the contrary, bicycle commuting has the most positive impact on addressing these social disorders. However, it is unpopular in the United States in general and Baltimore, Maryland in particular on different reasons including specific personal barriers to bicycling. In this context, there were applied several strategies to eliminate these barriers. Hence, the purpose of this case study is to explore the causes why these barriers and strategies to overcome them did not actually work. Therefore, the research problem is embedded in the conceptual framework of the factors and barriers that affect commuters from choosing the bicycle as an alternative mode of transport to commute to work. For this reason, the data is collected from 12 respondents through in-depth, semi-structured interviews. As a result, this research study contributes to positive social change by increasing the awareness of government leaders, city and regional planners, and the private sector on bicycling problem. In particular, they can recognize several effective strategies that will make bicycle commuting a preferred alternative mode of transportation to commute to work. Thus, the study brings to light the new policy that can be effective in combating the problem of vehicular congestion, environmental pollution, oil dependency, and sedentary lifestyle linked to obesity. Table of Contents List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………i Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study 5 Background 7 Statement of the Problem 12 Purpose of the Study 14 Nature of the Study 15 Research Questions……………………………………………………………………………15 Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………………………...17 Operational Definitions………………………………………………………………………..17 Assumptions……………………………………………………………………………………18 Delimitations and Scope……………………………………………………………………….19 Limitations……………………………………………………………………………………..19 Significance of the Study……………………………………………………………………….20 Summary………………………………………………………………………………………..21 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature……………………………………………………………23 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………...23 Literature Review Research Strategy…………………………………………………………26 Promote Bicycle Commuting through the Built Environment……………………………26 Promote Bicycle Commuting through Public Policy……………………………………..38 Promote Bicycle Commuting through Programs and Interventions……………………..44 Promote Bicycle Commuting through Public Participation…………………………….. 48 Promote Bicycle Commuting Culture……………………………………………………52 Literature Related to the Conceptual Framework…………………………………………… 56 Literature on Differing Methodologies……………………………………………………… 58 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………….. 60 Chapter 3: Research Method……………………………………………………………………62 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..62 Methodology………………………………………………………………………………….62 Restatement of the Problem………………………………………………………………….66 Research Questions…………………………………………………………………………..67 Rationale for Research Design……………………………………………………………….67 Instrumentation and Materials……………………………………………………………….71 Data Collection………………………………………………………………………………71 Participant Selection…………………………………………………………………………74 Role of the Researcher……………………………………………………………………….77 Credibility/Validity…………………………………………………………………………..77 Transferability……………………………………………………………………………......78 Dependability………………………………………………………………………………...79 Confirmability………………………………………………………………………………..79 Ethics………………………………………………………………………………………....80 Summary………………………………………………………...............................................81 References……………………………………………………………………………………84 Appendix A: Participation Invitation Flyer…………………………………………………109 Appendix B: Informed Consent Form……………………………………………………....110 Appendix C: Interview Questions……………………………………………………………111 List of Tables Table 1. Key Policies and Innovative Measures to Promote Safe Convenient Cycling………….34 Table 2. Key Lessons for Cycling Promotion for Successful Implementation of Cycling…….....36 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study Introduction Chen and Tang (2012) argued that automobile dependence is a global problem specifically affecting the lives of commuters living in big cities. In the United States, there is also a dependence on the repeated use of automobiles (Dulal, Brodnig, & Onoriose, 2011; Litman, 2009). In this context, Hamilton and Atkins (2008) argued that the number of automobiles joining the highways road construction has become incompatible; thus, the problem of vehicular congestion appears. Santos, Behrendt, Maconi, Shirvani, and Teytelboym (2010) wrote that the dependence on the automobile contributres negative consequences for society. In defence, Abrahamse, Steg, Gifford, and Vlek (2009) suggested that the automobile serves many purposes for travel; however, they agree that automobile is a contributing factor to vehicular congestion and environmental pollution. In addition, Kent (2013) suggested that automobile dependency is connected to the poor health issues. In considering the negative consequences of physical activity, Guell, Panter, Jones, and Ogilvie (2012) claimed that one primary directive of public health is to establish several preventive measures to ward off a number of chronic diseases such as obesity, coronary heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes. These authors also claimed that one of the opportunities to treat them is to promote physical activity. In other words, it is more healthy to be an active commuter in terms of biking and walking rather than driving to work (Guell et al., 2012). Correspondingly, Handy and Xing (2011) suggested that bicycle commuting is a significant element to win the battle with vehicular traffic congestion, low environmental air quality, and negative health benefits caused by the use of automobiles. Although bicycle commuting is pivotal in improving the previously mentioned societal challenges, it represents only a small percentage of commuting trips in the United States (Handy & Xing, 2011). Pucher, Buehler, and Seinen (2011) noticed that U.S. cities have instituted various strategies to compel commuters to use the bicycle as an alternative mode of transportation over the last decade. Specifically, there were implemented changes to the built environment, public policy, programs and interventions, and public participation in order to make bicycle commuting a part of the transportation culture (Gatersleben & Appleton, 2007; Flynn, Dana, Sears, & Aultman-Hall, 2012; Heinen, Maat, & Wee, 2011). However, the studies do not reflect the reasons why after the implementation of these strategies commuters are not utilizing this mode of transport. After all the data had been collected in the previous researches (including case study methodology), the number of individuals using their bicycles to go to work has not increased. Hence, there is a lack of evidence and documentation on researchers asking participants of their feelings, experiences, and challenges to why they do not use the bicycle to commute to work. Therefore, in a given case study there are identified the barriers of bicycle commuting and implemented specific strategies to address these barriers through the personal experience of respondents. In fact, bicycle commuting has already shown its effectiveness in addressing vehicular congestion, air pollution, oil dependency, and physical inactivity (Handy & Xing, 2011). In this context, best practice strategies implemented in cycling nations such as Denmark and the Netherlands provide compelling evidence that bicycle commuting had really become a preferred alternative mode of transportation (Carstensen & Ebert, 2012). However, in the United States with the same strategies implemented, bicycle remains an unpopular choice for daily commuting practices. So, the purpose of this research is to understand commuters’ lived experiences on why they do not commute by bicycle to work even after certain strategies have been implemented to reduce their personal barriers. This study could assist in expanding the knowledge of why the best practices have been unsuccessful in making bicycle commuting an overall preferred alternative mode of transportation among U.S. commuters. Background Grabow et al. (2012) asserted that the fossil fuel-based transportation system of the United States has an adverse effect on society because humans are subjected to air pollution, vehicular accidents, and experience a less physically active lifestyle. Due to the problems associated with automobile dependence, Yazid, Ismail, and Atiq (2011) claimed that the heavy use of automobiles had resulted in a substantial amount of energy being used. In fact, this reliance on fossil fuels created plenty of side effects such as smoke and noise pollution (Yazid, Ismail, and Atiq, 2011). Abrahamse et al. (2009) contended that by comparing the various modes of transport, the automobile rates number one in causing environmental pollution (p. 126). Also, these authors argued that emitting pollutants such as carbon dioxide cause global warming, acid rain, and a reduction in the ozone layer (Abrahamse et al., 2009). Moreover, several researches refer to the perspectives of bicycle commuting to work (Gatersleben & Appleton, 2007; Flynn et al., 2012; Heinen, Maat & Wee, 2011). In particular, Gatersleben and Appleton (2007) stated that the purpose of their study was to identify who were the cyclists, and why and how more individuals could be persuaded to cycle to work through a change theory. In addition, these authors examined the daily commute to work and discovered the thoughts of the commuters concerning the barriers to choosing this mode of transport (Gatersleben and Appleton, 2007). Consequently, it is relevant to state that there is a gap in literature on the perspectives of commuters in terms of bicycling barriers and the implementation of the strategies to turn cycling into the alternative mode of transport. Thus, there should be provided an understanding of the lived experiences, since the previous measures of gleaning of the barriers and implementing of certain bicycle commuting strategies had not made it possible for this type of transportation to become an alternative mode of commuting. Statement of the Problem Automobile dependence is a global problem that impinges on the lives of big cities inhabitants (Chen & Tang, 2012). Precisely, the United States faces the problem of automobile dependence (Dulal, Brodnig, & Onoriose, 2011). Abrahamse et al. (2009) posited that automobile dependence had resulted in various negative societal problems such as vehicular congestion and environmental pollution. Automobile dependence had also contributed to physical inactivity by transitioning society into a sedentary lifestyle (Guell et al., 2012). In addition, automobile dependence made us bounded to oil (Sovocool, 2009). Nevertheless, popularization of automobiles and its resulting negative consequences (specifically, vehicular congestion, environmental pollution, physical inactivity, and oil dependency) are neglected by adopting bicycle commuting as an alternative mode of transport (Handy & Xing, 2011). Therefore, the research problem addressed in this study is concentrated on bicycle commuting effectiveness in reducing dependence on automobiles for work commutes (Buehler, 2012). Despite the fact that there exist numerous researches on this topic, these authors have not asked commuters to describe their lived experiences of commuting to work by using the bicycle; however, they have identified the barriers and have implemented the strategies (Gatersleben and Appleton, 2007). Conversely, there have been quantitative epidemiological research studies which entail the use of probability, statistics, and sound research methods. In particular, they have examined transportation behaviors, its causes, and how changes in travel behavior may result in adopting active transportation alternatives as a preferred mode of travel (Guell et al., 2012). Also, Guell et al. (2012) deviated from previous studies by investigating travel behavior in context of social theory. In fact, they asked commuters to describe their travel behavior experiences and explain how these experiences assisted them in choosing their daily commuting options (Guell et al., 2012). Even though bicycle commuting barriers have been identified and bicycle commuting strategies have been employed to reduce these barriers, there are no specific studies on asking people why bicycle is not a preferred mode of travel for them. In theory, previous studies in travel behaviors concentrated on choosing active commuting travel alternatives. In practice, there have been implemented several improvements in the built environment and careful design of bicycle commuting public policy to encourage commuters to utilize bicycle commuting (Daley and Rissel, 2011; Ginige, Amaratunga, and Haigh, 2010; Liang, 2011; Portney and Berry, 2010; Tennoy, 2010). Despite these efforts, bicycle commuting is not a preferred alternative mode of transport to get to the workplace. With the identification of barriers that prevent bicycle commuting and the strategies to reduce these barriers, commuters still do not prefer bicycling to work. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this proposed qualitative case study is to discover why bicycle is not a preferred alternative mode of transport among commuters traveling to work in Baltimore, Maryland. Though the removal of the barriers to commute by bicycle and the implementation of specific strategies addressing these barriers have been employed, still bicycle commuting is not a preferred alternative mode of transport. And so, there is conducted a qualitative case study of the lived experiences in order to determine why the bicycle strategies have not motivated commuters to cycle to get to work. Because of the strategies have been implemented to attract commuters to commute by bicycle, it is vital for policy makers to understand why their efforts have not enhanced bicycle commuting level. Hence, this study is warranted because it has been argued that bicycle commuting is beneficial for improving societal disorders such as vehicular congestion and environmental pollution (Handy & Xing, 2011). A case study research will determine naturally occurring themes and patterns. In fact, they discover why the bicycle commuting strategies have not resulted in the fact that daily commuters choose bicycle as an alternative mode of transportation in their journey to work. Case study research is defined by exploring a phenomena within its real life context when the perimeters between the phenomena and the contexts are clearly explained (Yin, 2002). In this case, to attain the paramount understanding of why commuters do not use the bicycle as an alternative mode of transportation to travel to work, there will be selected to further this study 12 Baltimore, Maryland residents who commute no more than 15 miles to work. The participants will be asked a series of open-ended, unstructured questions to guide discussion and encourage feedback on why commuters do not use the bicycle as an alternative mode of transportation to travel to work. In addition, there will be highlighted that many efforts have been made in removing barriers that inhibit bicycle commuting and implementing strategies to compel commuters to travel by bicycle. Nature of the Study I will use a qualitative research methodology case study design to understand the lived experiences of commuters and comprehend why bicycle commuting is not a preferred alternative mode of transport to get to work. By using case study research design, personal experiences of those who lived through this phenomena can reveal accessible data in terms of causes of low bicycle commuting preference. Data is collected through the use of in-depth semistructured face-to-face interviews. The semistructured interviews are conducted by recording descriptive and reflective notes and the semistructured interviews are audio-taped. NVivo10 qualitative research software is the main tool utilized for the analysis of the data. With consideration of a quantitative research paradigm to conduct this study, Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil (2002) suggested that a quantitative design would yield numerical measurements. The quantitative research design was deemed inappropriate for garnering the lived experiences of commuters’ choices in terms of modes of commuting transport to the workplace. Gioia, Corley, and Hamilton (2012) argued that questions or hypotheses in a quantitative research design would result in numerical statistically displayed data; however, this is not a purpose of this study. A qualitative research case study design has been chosen for this research in order to understand the phenomenon of bicycle commuting. Corbin and Strauss (2008) argued that qualitative research does not warrant the use of statistical data but rather data that describes human life, experiences, and human travel behaviors. The research design for this study is based on case study because it has the potential to provide insight in how something operating like bicycle commuting strategies does not seem to be successful (Stacks, 2005). So, this study warrants the researcher to understand the participants’ personal feelings, behaviors, and beliefs as a bicyclist in context of the whole American society which does not utilize bicycle for work by the majority of its commuters. Qualitative research is the suggested research methodology in order to gain a subjective perspective of an individual’s experience of the phenomenon in question (Omery, 1983). Given the fact that the data indicates on bicycle riders to constitute less than 1% of U.S. commuters, the focus for this study is to understand the lived experiences of commuters in Baltimore, Maryland and their choice of whether to commute by bicycle. The research design will include face-to-face interview of a focus group consisting of 12 participants. According to Babbie (2007), a focus group of 12 participants is a typical number for a qualitative study. Research Questions RQ1: What are the experiences of commuters who own a bike but are reluctant to use the bicycle to commute to work? RQ2: What are the experiences of participants with recently implemented bicycle commuting strategies? RQ3: If participants are aware of recently implemented bicycle commuting strategies, what impact have the strategies had on the decision to commute to work by bicycle? RQ4: Are participants familiar with the Bike Plan for Baltimore; if so, what is the role of the Bike Plan for its commuters in the decision to get to work by bicycle? RQ5: What would compel participants to bike to work? Conceptual Framework While employing physical dimensions and social division, or both initiatives to create a bicycling culture (including increasing of bicycling commuting), it is possible that whatever effort is decided to be employed, it may result in a creation of bicycle culture. For example, bicycling commuting occurs through a process of stages. In fact, changing of transportation culture by placing bicycle commuting as an alternative mode of transport may need to be conducted through the behavior change model formulated by Prochaska and DiClemente (Kristonis, 2004-2005). Likewise, this research study is significant because it seeks to change the behavior of commuters in their decision to use the bicycle to commute to work. In addition, bicycle commuting has been determined as effective in addressing the universal problem of automobile dependency and the negative issues that are associated with this problem. Kristonis (2004-2005) noted that originally, Prochaska and DiClemente’s change theory demonstrated how individuals utilized a stage procedure to change certain health behaviors. Throughout the years, this change model has expanded from being utilized in the health arena and to become reflected in other venues. In particular, the model has been defined as a more general process where individuals journey through several stages; and these stages make change to occur. Moreover, change theory contains in its inner structures such factors as precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance. For example, individuals do not always experience total deliverance from certain behaviors, and finally may relapse; because of this, the stage cycle is not linear, but cyclical. Therefore, the change theory is general enough to be applied in other issue areas whereby change is sought, such as in cycling research. Operational Definitions Active commuting: Bicycling or walking for commuting purposes (Rabl and Nazelle, 2012, p. 121). Automobile dependency: High levels of use, automobile-oriented land-use, and lack of travel alternatives (Litman and Burwell, 2006). Bicycle Commuting: Non-motorized transport using of a bicycle (Lovelace et al., 2011, p. 2075). Bicycle Infrastructure: Paths, lanes, trail or facilities for the use of bicycle commuting; can be separated or non-separated from vehicular traffic (Garrett-Peltier, 2011, p. 1). Bike Sharing: Use of bicycle and one form of public transportation where bicycle is the first and last mile of the commute trip (Lin et al., 2011, p. 1). Built Environment: Argued to be the most important connection to human life and includes the whole infrastructure necessary for human activity and services support (Ginige et al., 2010, p. 1). Commuting: An experience of individuals in organizing their daily lives; social practice that links the routines of individuals from home to the workplace, including leisure activities (Corvellec and O’Dell, 2012, p. 1). Cultural Predisposition: Cultural connection with specific phenomena (Gauchat, 2010, p. 751). Assumptions The participants in this research are residents of Baltimore, Maryland who are employed and commute no more than 15 miles to work. In addition, the participants own a bicycle and are aware of the purpose of this study. It is expected that responses of participants is sufficient to garner an understanding of why the bicycle commuting strategies have not reflected in commuters choosing a bicycle as an alternative mode of transportation. Moreover, the sample size should be adequate to acquire valid data and draw reliable conclusions. Finally, the participants are able to understand their behavior and respond honestly and accordingly to the interview questions regarding why bicycle commuting is not an alternative mode of transportation for them to travel to work. Thus, the data and results of this case study is based on lived experiences. Delimitations and Scope Delimitations are the tenets of study that set the boundaries of inquiry (Rudestam & Newton, 2007; Creswell, 2009). The scope of this study includes 12 residents from the Baltimore, Maryland who own a bicycle and commute no more than 15 miles to work. Because the scope of the study is limited, it is hoped that the researcher can provide insights that are relevant to the general populace. Moreover, five additional participants are selected from this community and serve as alternates in the departure of any of the original participants. In general, this study includes both male and female adults at least 18 years of age who commute no more than 15 miles to work. Therefore, there is a qualitative case study which will include face-to face interviews. Limitations Limitations are the constraints embedded into the nature of current study. Specifically, the personality of the researcher while being for the most part the only research instrument cannot be controlled in a qualitative study in its subjectiveness (Rudestam and Newton, 2007). Further, limitations in this case study research are often arduous to avoid (Rudestam and Newton, 2007). The study is limited to the residents living in Baltimore, Maryland who own a bicycle and commute 15 miles or less to work. The study is limited to targeting commuters on short travel distances rather than long ones so as to refrain from presenting a barrier to considering the bicycle as an alternative mode of transportation. Nevertheless, on the one hand, participants can be influenced by the interviewer as he is an avid commuter bicyclist. On another hand, acknowledgement of the predispositions in favor to bicycle as an alternative mode of transportation will allow the filtering of preconceived ideas or biases within the study. Significance of the Study As more cars join the highway, vehicular congestion increases, and there is a poor level of environmental air quality and a high level of obesity, the argument that bicycle commuting is an effective measure to address these challenges continues its existence (Handy and Ying, 2011). In this context, the U.S. cities tend to promote bicycle commuting as an alternative mode of transportation. However, with the identification of barriers that hinder commuters from traveling by bicycle and the strategies that have been employed to attract commuters to this mode of transport, bicycle commuting is less than 1 percent of the daily commuting trips (Pucher, Buehler, and Seinen, 2011). After a careful review of the major strategies employed in the U.S. and the way the several realized strategies have not yielded a significant change in commuters choosing this mode of transport, the study is warranted. A careful examination of why bicycle commuting is not an alternative mode of transportation to travel to work may provide valuable information to government leaders, policy makers, and planners. Precisely, it can provide an answer to the question why the strategies to promote bicycle commuting are unsuccessful in the circumstances when automobile dependency has facilitated a number of societal ills such as vehicular congestion, environmental pollution, oil dependency, and the lack of physical activity. Thus, bicycle commuting has been argued to be a strategy to improve all these challenges. Therefore, the study is expected to contribute to positive social change by calling attention to additional effective strategies that make bicycle commuting a really alternative mode of transportation to travel to work. In particular, the popularity of bicycle commuting can result in addressing vehicular congestion, oil dependency, environmental pollution, and the lack of physical activity. Summary Chapter 1 is an introductory chapter analyzing negative consequences of automobile dependency (Litman and Burwell, 2006). Namely, vehicular congestion, oil dependency, environmental pollution, and lack of physical activity are negative consequences resulting from automobile dependency. Pucher, Buehler, and Seinen (2011) argued that bicycle commuting is an essential mechanism to address these societal problems. Correspondingly, the U.S. has implemented major strategies to promote bicycle commuting as an alternative mode of transportation; but bicycle commuting remains unpopular in a daily life. Chapter 1 includes an in-depth analysis on how bicycle commuting is essential in addressing certain societal ills. Also, this chapter presents a discussion on how strategies to combat bicycle commuting barriers did not success as bicycle remains an unpopular mode of travel for commuting to work. Thus, this chapter includes the purpose of the study, problem statement, research questions, conceptual framework, operational definitions, assumptions, scope and delimitations, limitations, significance, and implications for social change. Chapter 2 is an examination of current literature regarding the major strategies employed in transformation of bicycle commuting into an alternative mode of transportation. The chapter includes a review of previous researchers who identified the conceptual guide for their studies by investigating commuters thoughts on the barriers that prevent them to use bicycle for traveling to work. In addition, Chapter 2 is a description of the recommendations that have been offered from researchers regarding bicycle commuting strategies. In fact, they result from the commuters suggestions on the bicycle commuting barriers. Also, this chapter concludes with the dilemma or void in the literature where bicyclists have not been asked to describe their lived experiences on why they do not bicycle commute to work. In this context, the discovery is evident in terms of the barriers to bicycle commuting and the implementation of bicycle commuting strategies to combat these barriers. Chapter 3 is an overview of the methodology used in this research study. Read More