CARACTERÍSTICAS DEL SECTOR DE LA CONSTRUCCIÓN

Thus far, the focus has been on prominent individual behaviour theories, not

necessarily those applied in the transport domain. We now turn to the latter. Much of the research into travel mode choice and active transport uptake has looked at the effectiveness of specific interventions to change travel behaviour. This is usually done in a pragmatic manner and so has often not been based on behaviour theory

(Schwanen, et al., 2012).

The travel behaviour literature that has been grounded in theory is predominantly based on one of three main models, the Theory of Planned Behaviour, the Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour and the Norm-Activation Model (Schwanen, et al., 2012). Although, other models have also been used, including Stern’s Attitude-Behaviour- Context and Value-Belief-Norm models, the Motivation Opportunity Ability model and others, for example Stern (2000), Gatersleben and Appleton (2007), Schwanen, et al. (2012), Klöckner and Blöbaum (2010), Thøgersen (2009).

The importance of understanding behaviour theory when trying to change individuals’ travel choices is increasingly being recognised in both research and policy

development (Heinen, et al., 2010; Schwanen, et al., 2012), as “transport academics now agree that at least some level of behaviour change is unavoidable if carbon emissions from transport are to be reduced significantly” (Schwanen, et al., 2012, p. 522).

Research that has assessed the role of attitude (included in both the Theory of Planned Behaviour, the Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour and others) in the choice to cycle for transport has found it to be important. A study by Dill and Voros (2007) found that, for most people, attitudes towards car use are usually more positive than those towards cycling and that a positive attitude towards cycling increased the likelihood of

commuting by bicycle. Gatersleben and Appleton (2007) found that people considering cycling have a more positive attitude towards cycling than those who are not (56%: 34%). They also identified that the more favourably individuals evaluated the outcomes of cycling the more likely they are to cycle for transport. Evaluation of outcomes is identified as an antecedent to attitude in a number of the previously mentioned behaviour theories. In support of this, Stinson and Bhat (2004) found that a

negative evaluation of car use outcomes leads to an increased likelihood of cycling for transport.

Subjective, personal and social norms have also, mostly, been found to influence an individual’s behaviour when it comes to travel mode choice (Bamberg, et al., 2007). For example, Hunecke et al. (2001) identified that strong environmental beliefs correlate with increased public transport use. The authors suggest the same may be true for walking and cycling. de Bruijn et al. (2005) found that cyclists tend to perceive more positive social norms around cycling than non-cyclists. Similarly, de Geus (2008) found that cyclists perceive more social support for cycling than non-cyclists. Also, Dill and Voros (2007) found that individuals were more likely to cycle if their co-workers cycled. In contrast, early research by Bamberg and Schmidt on the Theory of Planned Behaviour found no link between social norms and transport behaviour (Bamberg & Schmidt, 1994; in Heinen, et al., 2010). Interestingly, recent theses undertaken in the Wellington Region by Lake (2010) and Morley (2011) both found evidence that social norms do not significantly affect pro-environmental behaviour. This is in line with the idea that social norms differ between social groups (Jackson, 2005; Ostrom, 2000). Contextual factors and the constraints these place on choices of action are clearly very important when considering what influences behaviour to travel car, bicycle or foot. As Schwanen et al. state “in many attitude theory-based empirical studies travel

behaviour is considered the outcome of both choice and constraints.” (Schwanen, et al., 2012, p. 523).

The perceptions of these barriers are also very important (Kingham, et al., 2011). Studies from Gatersleben and Appleton (2007) and de Geus (2008) have shown that individuals who do not commute by bicycle are likely to perceive more barriers to cycling than those who do. Accordingly, Bamberg and Schmidt (1994) found that cyclists perceive more possibilities for cycling than non-cyclists. According to Ajzen (1991), if the perception of these barriers matches the reality, then behavioural intention will lead to that behaviour.

Habits are increasingly being seen as highly important in explaining travel behaviour (Bamberg & Schmidt, 2003; de Bruijn & Gardner, 2011; Schwanen, et al., 2012; Verplanken, et al., 1997; Verplanken, et al., 2008). Everyday choices are not purely controlled, conscious processes, as set out in the Theory of Planed Behaviour and

similar attitude theories, but are heavily influenced by habits (Bamberg & Schmidt, 2003; Schwanen, et al., 2012).

A study by Bamberg and Schmidt (2003) found that people do not consider all factors when deciding on travel mode choice. In conducting this, they compared the Theory of Planned Behaviour, the Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour and the Norm-Activation Theory to find that the Theory of Planned Behaviour was the most easily applied model to explain travel mode choice, but was greatly improved by including ‘role beliefs’ (a part of social factors) and habits from the Theory of Interpersonal

Behaviour. This is in support of the findings of Ouelette and Wood (1998), where the frequency of past behaviour was identified as a measure of habit and its use

significantly improved the predictive power of attitudes and intention.

Other studies have also looked at the role of habit in travel behaviour. Verplanken et al. (1997; 2008) identified that being in the habit of using other forms of transport than cycling reduces the likelihood of cycling.

The practice of cycling for transport can also become a habitual behaviour. This was shown by the work of Stinson and Bhat (2004), where cycling to work over a long period of time was shown to lead to increased frequencies of trips by bicycle and therefore a stronger cycling habit. Also, cycling during free time was shown to be associated with a higher frequency of utilitarian bicycle trips. Similarly, Dill and Voros (2007) concluded that childhood cycling increases the likelihood of cycling as an adult. Research suggests that trying other modes can break travel habits. For example, Rose and Marfurt (2007) concluded that trying out the commute by bicycle is sometimes enough to break commuting habits and change mode choice. Bamberg, Ajzen et al. (2003) showed that providing free bus tickets encouraged people to change their usual mode of transport and thus weaken their mode choice habits. Similar research,

however, has found that this alone is not enough to break an engrained habit (de Witte, et al., 2006).

Having an intention to change one’s travel mode can be enough to break a habit (Bamberg, 2002), but only if that habit is weakly engrained in the first instance

(Darnton, et al., 2011; Gardner, 2009). However, interventions to change the costs and benefits associated with a habitual activity are more effective ways of breaking habits

(Fujii & Kitamura, 2003; Thøgersen, 2009). Furthermore, major changes in an individual’s life situation (such as moving house) increase this effectiveness (Verplanken, et al., 2008).