Journal of Transport Geography 46 (2015) 99111

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Transport Geography

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo

Transport mode choice in South East Asia: Investigating the relationship

between transport users perception and travel behaviour in Johor Bahru,
Malaysia
Leanne Yong Le Loo a, Jonathan Corcoran a,, Derlie Mateo-Babiano a, Renee Zahnow b
a
b

School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia
School of Social Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 17 December 2013
Revised 5 June 2015
Accepted 5 June 2015
Available online 11 June 2015
Keywords:
Car use
Public transport use
Transport mode choice
Psychological motives
South East Asia

a b s t r a c t
The worldwide increase in private car dependency poses a set of signicant environmental, economic and
social sustainability challenges that continue to undermine the urban quality of life. Rapid motorisation,
particularly in South East Asia (SEA), has emerged as a global concern given the regions cumulative population, rate of industrialisation, and large-scale urbanisation. Thus, there is a compelling need to
enhance our understanding of the underlying dynamics of how people perceive and use transportation
such that transport planning is better placed to address the current, unsustainable travel patterns in
SEA. Despite this need, there has been relatively limited SEA-based research that has endeavoured to
examine travel perceptions and transport mode choice from a non-instrumental perspective. This
research redresses this decit by investigating the relationship between transport users perceptions
and travel behaviours within SEA, with a particular focus on psychosocial drivers of transport mode
choice interfaced with more traditional instrumental measures.
Spatially stratied survey data have been collected in a case study area, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, comprising users from different transport user groups. Employing regression modelling, drivers of individuals
travel behaviour are examined. Results highlight the merit in recognising the role of non-instrumental
motives alongside instrumental motives to explain transport mode choice. We conclude by highlighting
that transport mode choices are motivated by a range of locational, socio-demographic, psychological and
cultural determinants. The current research has contributed to a better understanding of transport mode
choice in Johor Bahru and provides a foundation for future SEA-based travel behaviour research. Studies
in this area can inform more sustainable travel behaviour in the SEA region.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The turn of the 21st century has seen a global transformation of
urban transport patterns. This worldwide transformation is most
prominently characterised by very high private car dependency
and its accompanying trafc congestion (Barter and Kenworthy,
2009). Within the notion of encouraging more sustainable travel
behaviour, the growing levels of private car dependency have
posed a set of signicant environmental, economic and social sustainability challenges, increasingly threatening the urban quality of
life (Grling and Steg, 2007; Townsend, 2003).
Car dependency has been most profound in the West, particularly
in the United States, Australia, and to a lesser extent in Europe
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yong.loo@uqconnect.edu.au (L.Y.L. Loo), jj.corcoran@uq.edu.au
(J. Corcoran), i.mateobabiano@uq.edu.au (D. Mateo-Babiano), r.zahnow@uq.edu.au
(R. Zahnow).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.06.011
0966-6923/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

(Townsend, 2003). Nonetheless, motorisation is also growing

rapidly in many Asian cities, most notable is the dramatic surge in
private motorcycle ownership (Barter, 1999). Although the rates of
growth are still relatively low compared to most Western cities,
the challenges posed by the increasing motorisation already require
prompt attention. This call becomes even more urgent when considering that the process and context of change in Asian cities is quite
distinct from the experience of highly industrialised, more
automobile-dependent Western cities (Morichi, 2005; Townsend,
2003). Much of the motorisation that is experienced in rapidly
developing South East Asia (SEA) is a result of policies that encourage automobile ownership and the internationalisation of the automobile industry (Marcotullio and Lee, 2003). Along with rapid
urbanisation, industrialisation, and economic growth (Barter and
Kenworthy, 2009; Beaverstock et al., 1999; Morikawa et al., 2003),
a lack of understanding by the public sector on the role played by
the informal transport sector in the overall transportation system

100

L.Y.L. Loo et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 46 (2015) 99111

further compounds these transport challenges (Dimitriou and

Gakenheimer, 2011; Cervero and Golub, 2007). A marked rise in
the ownership and use of cars (plus motorcycle) has persisted over
the last three decades across most SEA cities. This has undermined
the modal share of sustainable transport options including formal
and informal public transport, cycling and walking (Senbil et al.,
2007; Sperling and Claussen, 2004; Townsend, 2003).
Given the rate of urbanisation in Asia (the most rapidly urbanising region worldwide at 1.57 per annum) (United Nations, 2012)
and the large SEA population, more than half a billion people or
approximately 8.3% of global population (Jones, 2013), motorisation in these cities has caused global environmental concerns, particularly in regards to the depletion of non-renewable fossil fuel
resources and greenhouse gas emissions which threaten sustainability at a global scale (Townsend, 2003; Van and Fujii, 2011).
More recently, many SEA countries have begun to develop transport strategies with a focus on raising public awareness and acceptance of sustainable transport options (Pardo, 2006; Van and Fujii,
2011). To ensure the success of these strategies, developed to
address current, unsustainable patterns of travel in SEA, we must
enhance our understanding of the underlying dynamics of public
and private transport use (Soehodho et al., 2012; Van and Fujii,
2011). In particular, a detailed understanding of the differences
in users travel behaviours and possible explanations for these
differences is essential for accurate travel demand modelling and
forecasting, which in turn facilitate policy-making that best suits
the travel needs of different members within the society (Collins
and Chambers, 2005).
While a number of studies have examined travel demand and
behaviour, this scholarship is predominantly Western-based (e.g.,
Bergstad et al., 2011; Giuliano and Narayan, 2003; Lois and
Lpez-Sez, 2009; Steg, 2005). The majority of SEA-based research
has focussed on travel perception from a functional and instrumental perspective (e.g., Morikawa et al., 2003; Soehodho et al.,
2012; Sutomo et al., 2003). Due to differences in the degree of
development and the cultural diversity of Western and Eastern
regions, travel-related attitudes and behaviours are largely
non-generalisable (Townsend, 2003; Van and Fujii, 2011). In this
light, there is a need to specically study and understand the
context-specic motivations for travel behaviour that exist in

SEA cities in order to offer more informed insights for the policy
makers in these areas. This research addresses the relative decit
of SEA-based literature on travel perceptions from a noninstrumental perspective by investigating the relationship
between transport users perceptions and travel behaviours in
the SEA region with a focus on psychosocial drivers of transport
mode choice interfaced with more traditional instrumental measures. As such, this study signicantly contributes to scholarly literature by revealing new insights on the role of non-instrumental
variables to enhance our understanding on SEA-based travel behaviour. This information is critical to transport planning and policy
in Southeast Asia and beyond.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2
discusses the theoretical underpinning of the study; Section 3 outlines the methodological approach employed in this research;
Section 4 reports the results of the study while Section 5 discusses
the ndings and presents a set of recommendations for future
research directions, particularly for SEA-based studies.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Underpinning theories
Two underpinning theories, Ajzens Theory of Planned Behaviour
(TPB) (1991) and Dittmars Material Possession Theory (MPT)
(1992), are drawn on as relevant frameworks to systematically
explain the various dimensions of travel behaviour and transport
mode choice. Ajzens TPB asserts that peoples behavioural intent
depends on their attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. It further posits that various motivational drivers
inuence an individuals perception of a particular behaviour and
the intention to perform that behaviour. These motivational drivers
may include instrumental and social motives as conceptualised by
Dittmars MPT (1992). For this studys purpose, to be able to explain
individual mode choice, an individuals attitude or overall evaluation of a particular behaviour depends on expectancy beliefs about
the likelihood of specic behavioural consequences occurring and
the desirability of these consequences. The relationship between
these two theoretical perspectives, TPB and MPT, is visually presented in Fig. 1. Scholarly work on identifying the psychological

Fig. 1. Theoretical model of transport mode choice and travel behaviour representing Ajzens Theory of Planned Behaviour (1991) and Dittmars Material Possession Theory
(1992).

L.Y.L. Loo et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 46 (2015) 99111

functions of attitudes towards the car was undertaken earlier by

Ennis and Zanna (1993). MPT has also been adopted by Bergstad
et al. (2011), Lois and Lpez-Sez (2009), and Steg (2005) in distinguishing the psychological motives of car use, implying that car
use may have an instrumental function (i.e., the functional qualities
such as speed, safety, and convenience), a symbolic function (i.e., car
as a means to express identity and present social position), and an
affective function (i.e., emotional desires such as excitement of
speed and enjoyment of scenery). These functions inuence the individuals perceptions of a transport mode which in turn serve as the
motives for making transport choices, presenting a perspective of
behaviour at a psychological level. Some car use studies (e.g.,
Nilsson and Kller, 2000; Steg, 2005) have successfully distinguished the three categories of motives through empirical research.
Steg (2005), for instance, has found that affective and symbolic
motives are more inuential than instrumental motives on car use,
and emphasised the strong relation between symbolic and affective
motives. Nilsson and Kller (2000) and Sandqvist and Kristrm
(2001) have similarly highlighted that many people own and drive
cars more because they like to (affective motives), rather than
merely due to utilitarian needs (instrumental motives). On the other
hand, little is known about factors that affect the choice to use public
transportation (PT). While studies are yet to explore symbolicaffective motives for PT use, some earlier works allude to
non-instrumental functions of PT. For example, Jensen (1999) categorised PT users into: users of necessity, those who have no direct
access to a car (instrumental motive); users of convenience, those
who consider the comfort, availability and costs of using PT (instrumental motive), and users of heart, those who use PT because of their
regard for the natural environment (symbolic-affective motive). In
addition, Hine and Scott (2000) identied the opportunity to meet
people as a motivating factor for using PT. Similarly, Ettema et al.
(2012) considered communicating with other PT passengers to be
an important, affective motive for PT use. Redman et al. (2013), on
the other hand, examined factors that determined the choice to
use PT by car users, and found that the reasons cited by car users
for using PT were affective and contextual in nature.
It is important to highlight that the validity of applying
Dittmars MPT to explain psychological motives of transport use
has only been well established in the Western context, in particular, through European studies (see for example Bergstad et al.,
2011; Lois and Lpez-Sez, 2009; Steg, 2005). In contrast, there
have been limited Asian-based studies that have drawn specically
upon this theory. Exceptions are Van and Fujii (2011) and Van et al.
(2014) who examined psychological motives towards car and public transport use across six Asian countries (Japan, Thailand, China,
Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines). Findings from across the
six countries generally agreed with MPT, proposing transport
choice was driven by the three functions of material possession
(i.e., instrumental, symbolic and affective motives).
In this study, the three motives depicted by MPT are categorised
under psychological drivers of transport mode choice. Additionally,
past research has revealed that various spatial and sociocultural
drivers may cause individuals to make different travel decisions.
The debate amongst the past studies regarding the relative inuence of each driver is further discussed in the following section.

2.2. Drivers inuencing travel behaviour and transport mode choice

In addition to the psychological drivers proposed by MPT (i.e.,
the instrumental, symbolic, and affective motives), travel behaviour is also inuenced by: (1) locational determinants; (2)
socio-demographic characteristics; and (3) cultural attributes and
perceptions (see Fig. 1). Hunecke et al. (2007) previously examined
the importance of psychological drivers of transport choice relative

101

to infrastructural and socio-demographic variables as predictors of

behaviour.
2.2.1. Locational determinants
Locational determinants include land use patterns, existing
transportation system and accessibility to transport alternatives,
and have the potential to serve as both a barrier or facilitator to
a users motives in deciding to utilise a particular transport mode
(Dieleman et al., 2002; Giuliano and Narayan, 2003; van Wee
et al., 2002). However, existing scholarship is equivocal about the
actual effect of locational determinants on an individuals commuting behaviour. Here a number of studies found that locational
determinants affect the time, cost and convenience of different
transport modes. For example, dispersed settlement patterns
encourage car use, while car use tends to be less attractive in dense
areas due to trafc congestion and the difculty of nding parking
(e.g., Cervero, 2002; Giuliano and Narayan, 2003; van Wee et al.,
2002). Other studies incorporating additional data and measures
(e.g., Lleras et al., 2003; Simma and Axhausen, 2003) have highlighted that locational determinants account for less variability in
transport mode choice than socio-demographic characteristics.
2.2.2. Socio-demographic characteristics
The range of socio-demographic drivers is more diverse than
locational determinants of transport mode choice, with a number
of scholars citing age, gender, socioeconomic status or income level,
education level, household composition, and car ownership as playing a signicant role in inuencing travel behaviour (Lleras et al.,
2003; Morikawa et al., 2003; Soehodho et al., 2012; Timmermans
et al., 2003). In particular, age has been shown as an important correlate of transport choice. For example, the young and elderly have
been shown to be more likely to use public transport rather than
car-based travel. This is likely because individuals cannot legally
obtain a drivers licence until a specic age, while older individuals
may have limited ability to drive as a result of age-related vision loss
or weaker response reexes (e.g., Pucher and Renne, 2003). In
regards to income, individuals with high incomes have been shown
to have a higher tendency to drive than those with lower incomes,
even when both groups live in the same locations with similar access
to infrastructure. A possible explanation for this nding is that
having a high income enhances the ability for one to own and run
a car (Dargay and Hanly, 2007; Pucher and Renne, 2003). Car use also
tends to be higher amongst households with children, and higher
amongst men than women (Polk, 2004).
2.2.3. Cultural attributes
Culture has also been shown to inuence travel behaviour
patterns. An individuals cultural group may impact their transport
choices by inuencing their identity, and the values that drive their
attitudes and motivations to perform certain behaviours (Hofstede
and Hofstede, 2005; Reisinger, 2009). Beckmann (2001), in particular, has suggested a transport culture termed automobilisation,
as a cultural regime which liberates the users from spatiotemporal constraints and embeds car users in a structured
way-of-life highly attached to, and dependent on car use. As
argued by Jensen (1999) and Steg (2005), when people perceive
that car dependency is highly integrated into a particular society,
they may rationalise their car use by evaluating car use more positively. This perspective has conceptually delineated transport and
mobility motivation as a cultural act. Low and Gleeson (2001) have
also developed a theory of ecosocialisation, which demonstrates
cultural change towards pro-environmentalism and sustainability
and the rising acceptance of sustainable modes of transport within
society. In this sense, cultural norms may be strongly correlated
with Dittmars psychological dimension, as it affects how individuals perceive a certain action (which inuences their instrumental

102

L.Y.L. Loo et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 46 (2015) 99111

motives through perception), and how they interpret, understand,

and predict others behaviour (which is reected in the symbolic
motives through social pressure and beliefs) (Colin and George,
2005; Fujii and Grling, 2003; Lederach, 1995). There is a need
for this research to incorporate cultural drivers in interpreting
the various psychological inuences on transport mode choice to
examine how the cultural aspects embedded in social customs
have shaped human travel behaviour.
2.2.4. Attitudinal variables
Attitudinal factors are also critical determinants of travel behaviour. For example, comparative studies of six Asian country cities
undertaken by Van and Fujii (2011) and Van et al. (2014) found
that attitudinal variables had a signicant inuence on car
commuting, but only in three countries. While this relationship
was evident in Japan, China and Vietnam, it was not apparent in
Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines. These results suggest that
the city or country context may signicantly contribute towards
individual mobility decisions.
2.2.5. Summary
In summary, numerous studies have examined various factors
that potentially drive travel behaviour choices. To date, the majority
of this research has been based on Western case studies. In contrast,
existing SEA-based travel behaviour studies have largely focussed on
instrumental knowledge and given limited attention to symbolic
and affective values that may inuence travel behaviour (e.g.,
Morikawa et al., 2003; Soehodho et al., 2012; Sutomo et al., 2003).
The potential limitations in generalising travel-related attitudes
and behaviours across different socio-cultural settings between
the Western and SEA context underlie the value of the current
research.
3. Methodology
Utilising a survey research design, this research aims to investigate the relationship between transport users perceptions and travel behaviour within SEA, with a particular focus on psychosocial
drivers interfaced with more traditional instrumental measures.
Survey research was deemed as the most appropriate data collection
approach to elicit the perceptions of different transport users and
cohorts.
3.1. Case study Johor Bahru, Malaysia
Primary data were collected via a face-to-face questionnaire
survey in Johor Bahru, Malaysia. Johor Bahru, the capital city of
the state of Johor in southern tip of West Malaysia (Fig. 2), is the
second largest urban conurbation in Malaysia (second to Kuala
Lumpur, the Malaysian capital) covering 1064 square kilometres
and accommodating 1.33 million residents (Department of
Statistics Malaysia, 2011).
Johor Bahru, the case study location, presents a unique transport
case scenario, and was selected as the site for this research for two
primary reasons. First, Johor Bahru exemplies a relatively car
dependent city compared to its SEA counterparts1. This car dependency is most pronounced with a relatively high private car mode
share of 70%, compared with Singapores 33%, Jakartas 33%,
Bangkoks 50%, Manilas at 24%, Surabayas 42%, Chiang Mais 43%,
and Cebus 32% (Fig. 3) (Kaltheier, 2002; Leather, 2009; Rizzo and
Glasson, 2011b; Senbil et al., 2007; Tourabi, 2002). Second, because
1
Johor Bahru is classied as a secondary city of Malaysia. Therefore, the
comparison of car mode share is done with a number of SEA secondary cities such
as Surabaya (Indonesia), Chiang Mai (Thailand), and Cebu (Philippines), in addition to
other SEA capital cities such as Jakarta, Bangkok, and Manila.

of its unique geographical proximity and cross-border connection to

Singapore, a city/country well-known worldwide as an exemplar in
sustainable transportation, Johor Bahru is well-placed to follow
Singapores example of sustainable transport. However, high volumes
of trafc traverse the Johor BahruSingapore border. Each day approximately 30,00050,000 Malaysian commuters travel to work and
study in Singapore while about 30,00060,000 Singaporean individuals visit Johor Bahru for shopping and leisure (Barter, 2006; Rizzo and
Glasson, 2011a) (Fig. 4). This means that a substantial amount of trafc
volume is being accommodated between the two urban centres,
affecting the effectiveness of the overall transport systems between
the two cities. Using Johor Bahru as a case study allows this research
to examine how such cross-border dynamics affect many strata of
the local social geography and travel behaviour of commuters in
Johor Bahru. To date, few studies have examined such travel behaviour
patterns and drivers of such behaviours.
3.2. Survey sampling
The survey employed a stratied random sampling framework,
focussed only on commuter trips, i.e., trips from home to the workplace or home to place of study, amongst individuals living in Johor
Bahru and working or studying in Johor Bahru or Singapore. The
spatial stratication2 was employed across the 7 mukims3 in Johor
Bahru and based upon resident population distributions. A total of
488 completed questionnaires were collected4.
The sample was segmented into 3 cohorts based on the individuals reported transport mode use: Cohort A (users who use a car
regularly); Cohort B (users who use both car and public buses
along the same journey); and Cohort C (users who use public buses
regularly). Balanced responses were captured for the 3 user
cohorts: Cohort A with 192 (39.3%), Cohort B with 132 (27.0%),
and Cohort C with 164 responses (33.6%). The descriptive proles
of these three cohort groups are outlined in Tables 1 and 2.
3.3. Survey instrument development
The survey instrument consisted of four components. The questions comprising each component of the survey are described in
detail below:
(1) Demographic characteristics, wherein survey respondents
were asked about their gender, age, citizenship, employment, income, education level, marital status, presence of
dependent children within household, ethnic background
(representing cultural background), possession of a drivers
licence, access to car, and location of usual residence.
(2) Respondents commuting experience in Johor Bahru over the
previous 7-day period, including the time period that the
respondents typically took to commute by type of transport
modes, their preferred transport mode, and frequency of use
of car and public bus-based travel for commuting purposes.
(3) Cultural perception, wherein respondents were asked
whether they perceived Johor Bahru to be an automobilised
and ecosocialised city, and whether they felt that they were
pro-environmental.
2
Spatial stratication ensures that the sample are representative of the skewed
population distribution across Johor Bahrus 7 mukims and account for the diversity
of transport availability. Given the lack of an inner-city rail service, face-to-face
surveys are conducted at car parks and bus stops located at randomly selected
workplaces and educational institutions within each mukim.
3
A mukim is a Malay word which refers to a subdivision of a district. This is
approximately equivalent to a Micropolitan Statistical Area (lSA), Middle Layer Super
Output Area (MSOA), and Statistical Area 3 (SA3), in the United States, United
Kingdom, and Australian censuses respectively.
4
This sample size exceeds the target sample size of 385 (95% condence level).

103

L.Y.L. Loo et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 46 (2015) 99111

(left) Map of West

Malaysia and
location of Johor
Bahru (study area)
(below) Mukims in
Johor Bahru and
location of
Singapore

Fig. 2. Study area: West Malaysia and location of Johor Bahru.

L.Y.L. Loo et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 46 (2015) 99111

Car mode share (%)

104

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

SEA cies

step to ensure good multiple regression design. This is then followed by two sets of Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) multiple regression analyses with the purpose of better understanding the factors
explaining variations in psychological motives and transport mode
choice in relation to identied independent variables (i.e., the
locational, socio-demographic, personal, attitudinal, and cultural
variables). Both regression models have met all assumptions in
regards to the types of variables, independence of errors, linearity,
homoscedasticity, multicollinearity, outliers, and normality.
Similar methodologies were applied in transport mode choice
studies such as Bergstad et al. (2011), Lois and Lpez-Sez
(2009), and Steg (2005).

Fig. 3. Comparison of car mode shares between Johor Bahru and its SEA
counterparts.

4. Results
(4) Psychological perceptions of car and public transport use,
where 30 evaluative statements were organised into 3
category-types, namely instrumental, symbolic and affective
motives. The participants responded on a 5-point Likert
scale response format ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree. The statements for car use motives are
adapted from Bergstad et al. (2011) and Steg (2005) which
drew upon MPT.
The survey tool was designed in English, but was translated into
Chinese and Malay to account for the multilingual background of
Johor Bahru and to enhance quality of the data collected. Table 3
outlines each of the variables captured, along with their measures
and encoding.
3.4. Data analysis
In this study, survey data were rst analysed using Principal
Component Analysis (PCA). PCA is used to identify linear combinations of covariates which are uncorrelated with each other to avoid
multicollinearity while also ensure that the linear combinations
chosen have maximal variance. This is an important preparatory

4.1. Principal Components Analysis (PCA)

Two sets of PCA were conducted to reduce the high dimensionality of the data. To obtain uncorrelated independent variables,
PCA is conducted on the psychological motives of car and public
transport use that comprise 30 evaluation statements. These
motives are ordinal variables, which are coded on a 5-point
Likert scale, ranging from very negative to very positive. The rst
principal component (PCA 1) is performed on the 15 evaluation
statements associated with the instrumental, symbolic and affective motives of car use, while the second principal component
(PCA 2) draws on the 15 statements of public transport use. The
conditions for performing the PCA are met, in which the
Kaiser-Meyer Olkin (KMO) measures of sampling adequacy are
well above .8, and the Bartletts test of sphericity are statistically
signicant for both PCAs (p < .01) (Hair, 2006). Three components
are extracted in both PCAs that explain 61% of the variance in PCA
1 and 59% in PCA 2. All statements have correlations and communalities over .3 and primary loadings over .5, with one exception
(Driving is cheaper than other modes). This was eliminated from
the modelling exercise. The component loadings after direct oblimin rotation for both PCAs are shown in Tables 4 and 5. Labels

Fig. 4. Trafc congestion which occurs on a daily basis on the Johor BahruSingapore causeway.

105

L.Y.L. Loo et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 46 (2015) 99111

Table 1
Sample descriptive for each user cohort by age (percentage distribution) (n = 488).
Age
1824
2534
3544
4554
5564
65+
Total

Cohort A
60
71
32
14
12
3

Cohort B

31.2
37.0
16.7
7.3
6.2
1.6

192

83
28
9
9
3
0

Cohort C

62.9
21.2
6.8
6.8
2.3
0.0

132

88
48
18
0
10
0

Total

53.7
29.3
11.0
0.0
6.1
0.0

231
147
59
23
25
3

47.3
30.1
12.1
4.7
5.1
0.6

164

488

Table 2
Sample descriptive for each user cohort by gender (percentage distribution) (n = 488).
Gender

Cohort A

Cohort B

Cohort C

Total

Male
Female

65
127

33.9
66.1

24
108

18.2
81.8

52
112

31.7
68.3

141
347

28.9
71.1

Total

192

132

164

488

Table 3
Variables and their measures and coding.
Variables

Individual variables

Descriptions, measures and coding

Location variables

Location of residence

Classied based on the population density of the mukims

0 = Inner urban core, 1 = Outer urban core, 2 = Suburban
Estimated distance between home and the nearest bus stop, ranging from within
400 m to over 1000 m
0 = Unaware; 1 = Low/no accessibility; 2 = Moderate accessibility; 3 = High
accessibility
Estimated time taken to reach workplace or study centre by car and public buses
1 = <15 min, 2 = 1530 min, 3 = 3045 min, 4 = 4560 min, 5 = >1 h

Public transport accessibility

Car time
Bus time
Socio-demographic variables

Gender
Age
Citizenship
Employment
Income

Education
Marital status
Presence of dependent children within
household

0 = Male, 1 = Female
Reference category is 1824 years
0 = Malaysian 1 = Non-Malaysian
Reference category is student studying in Johor Bahru
Gross monthly income (in Malaysian Ringgit MYR)
0 = 0999; 1 = 10001999; 2 = 20002999; 3 = 30003999; 4 = 40004999;
5 = 5000+
Reference category is completed upper secondary school
Reference category is never married
Dependent children refer to children or young adults under the age of 18
0 = no children; 1 = children

Personal variables

Length of residing in Johor Bahru

Possession of drivers licence
Access to private car

0 = <2 years; 1 = 35 years; 2 = 510 years; 3 = >10 years

0 = no drivers licence; 1 = drivers licence
0 = Never/seldom have access to car; 1 = Sometimes have access to car; 2 = Always
have access to car

Attitudinal variable

Attitude towards car use

Coded from 1 to 5, ranging from very negative attitude to very positive attitude

Psychological variables of car use

Instrumental motives
Symbolic motives
Affective motives

Average rating from ve statements on a 5-point Likert scale

Ordinal 5-point Likert scale, ranging from very negative to very positive

Psychological variables of public

transport use

Instrumental motives
Symbolic motives
Affective motives

Average rating from ve statements on a 5-point Likert scale

Ordinal 5-point Likert scale, ranging from very negative to very positive

Cultural variables

Ethnicity
Automobilisation perception
Societal ecosocialisation perception
Personal ecosocialisation perception

Reference category is Malay

Average rating from three statements on a 5-point Likert scale
Ordinal 5-point Likert scale, ranging from very negative to very positive

for each of the components draw on those proposed by MPT as

used by Bergstad et al. (2011), Lois and Lpez-Sez (2009), and
Steg (2005). For PCA 1, conducted on motives for car use, the three
components load on the affective (34%), instrumental (17%) and
symbolic motives (10%). For PCA 2, concerned with motives for
public transport use, the three components similarly load on the
affective (38%), instrumental (12%) and symbolic motives (9%).
The Cronbachs alphas for each of the scales are well above .8, indicating that the scales have high levels of internal consistency.

PCA 1 is strongly correlated with all of the original variables

that comprise the three psychological motives of car use (see
Table 4). PCA 1 increases with increasing scores for affective,
instrumental and symbolic motives, suggesting that fourteen criteria vary together, with the exception of the variable Driving is
cheaper than other modes, which was eliminated from the
modelling exercise. Moreover, PCA 1 correlates most strongly with
the statement To me, driving a car is a great pleasure (0.92). This
is consistent with previous studies that found that car driving is a

106

L.Y.L. Loo et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 46 (2015) 99111

Table 4
Factor loadings and communalities of PCA 1 with direct oblimin rotation for 15 statements from the three psychological motives of car use (n = 488). Factor loadings above .5 are
highlighted in bold.
Evaluation statements

Component 1
Affective

Component 2
Instrumental

Component 3
Symbolic

Communality

Affective motives (Cronbachs a = .86)

To me, driving a car is a great pleasure
Driving is my hobby and passion
I feel free and independent when I drive
Driving makes me feel adventurous
I would say I drive more for fun rather than for its functions

.92
.80
.78
.74
.73

.03
.02
.19
.05
.19

.03
.01
.06
.10
.07

.81
.64
.61
.62
.62

Instrumental motives (Cronbachs a = .80)

Driving is more convenient and exible
Driving provides more personal security and privacy
Driving allows me to carry heavy baggage and purchase
Driving saves time
Driving is cheaper than other modes

.03
.09
.17
.14
.03

.84
.82
.80
.71
.07

.05
.09
.09
.01
.06

.72
.68
.65
.52
.01

.01

.07

.86

.74

.08
.08
.28
.35

.03
.01
.01
.07

.85
.82
.70
.51

.66
.61
.75
.54

Symbolic motives (Cronbachs a = .85)

Driving/owning a car gives me more prestige and status than someone who takes
public transport
I drive because most people including my friends and family drive
I feel that others might think less of me if I do not have a car or do not drive
Car is a part of my identity and a way to distinguish myself from others
I can express myself through driving

Table 5
Factor loadings and communalities of PCA 2 with direct oblimin rotation for 15 statements from the three psychological motives of public transport use (n = 488). Factor loadings
above .5 are highlighted in bold.
Evaluation statements

Component 1
Affective

Component 2
Instrumental

Component 3
Symbolic

Communality

Affective motives (Cronbachs a = .84)

I feel free and independent when I use public buses
I enjoy riding on public buses in Johor Bahru
Riding on public buses is comfortable
Using public buses is a great pleasure
Using public buses makes me feel adventurous

.89
.78
.75
.71
.53

.02
.18
.18
.04
.07

.05
.05
.07
.10
.18

.77
.70
.73
.59
.36

Instrumental motives (Cronbachs a = .75)

The public bus service in Johor Bahru is frequent
The public bus service in Johor Bahru is highly accessible
I feel safe when using public buses
Bus fares are cheap
Using public buses saves time

.05
.15
.10
.08
.17

.85
.81
.59
.55
.53

.03
.10
.19
.09
.39

.73
.71
.50
.31
.46

.20
.12
.19
.17
.31

.08
.17
.01
.21
.06

.78
.74
.74
.72
.50

.72
.58
.70
.56
.50

Symbolic motives (Cronbachs a = .82)

Using public buses gives me a better image as judged by others
I feel that others might think less of me if I do not use public buses
Using public buses is a way to distinguish myself from others
I use public buses because most of my friends and family use it frequently
I feel more sociable if I use public buses and it gives me more chance to interact
with people

pleasure in itself, a pleasure analogous with other ways of experiencing the road or listening to music (Mokhtarian, 2005), further
suggesting the relative importance of non-instrumental motives
for transport mode choice.
PCA 2 increases with all of the fteen original values that comprise the psychological motives of public transport use (see
Table 5). However, it is most strongly correlated with the statement
I feel free and independent when I use public buses (0.89) and The
public bus service in Johor Bahru is frequent (0.85). This clearly
echoes one of Jensens (1999) PT user typology, users of convenience
those who pay attention to comfort, availability and costs.
However, it is evident that both instrumental as well as
non-instrumental factors are important considerations in public
transportation use.
4.2. Psychological motives
Multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the
effects of various independent variables (i.e., locational,

socio-demographic, personal, attitudinal, and cultural) on psychological motives for transport behaviour. Tables 6 and 7 show the
regression models for the three motives for car and public transport use. All six regression models present statistically signicant
F-ratios indicating goodness of t for the data. The full model of
the independent variables has signicant effect on all psychological motives, accounting for 13.1%, 20.8%, and 38.9% of the variation
of the instrumental, symbolic, and affective motives of car use; and
28.7%, 23.9%, and 41.3% of the variation of the instrumental, symbolic, and affective motives of public transport use, respectively.
Table 6 shows a range of independent variables, which
signicantly inuence the psychological motives of car use. Only
two socio-demographic variables (Gender and Student studying
in Singapore) are signicant but negatively correlated on the
instrumental motives of car use, accounting for 13.1% of the variance. On the dependent variable symbolic motives of car use, nine
variables (Gender, Age 5564, Employed working in Johor Bahru,
Education Vocational/Technical, Education Trade and Technical
skills institutions, Education Tertiary, Attitude towards car use,

107

L.Y.L. Loo et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 46 (2015) 99111

Table 6
Regression model coefcients with the dependent variables instrumental motives, symbolic motives, and affective motives of car use.
Psychological variables (Dependent variables)
Instrumental motives (car)

Symbolic motives (car)

SEB

4.388**

.313

14.02

488

.127

.081

1.56

488
488
488

.002
.058
.021

.031
.030
.018

Intercept
Locational variables
Location of residence (Inner urban core 0; Outer urban core 1;
Suburban 2)
Public transport accessibility (03)
Car time (15)
Bus time (15)

SEB

2.424**

.408

5.94

SEB

1.378**

.369

488

.063

.106

0.59

0.05
1.94
1.19

488
488
488

.036
.039
.001

.040
.039
.024

t
3.73

488

.083

.096

0.87

0.90
0.99
0.03

488
488
488

.109**
.009
.002

.036
.035
.021

3.01
0.25
0.12

Socio-demographic variables
Gender (Male 0; Female 1)
Age (reference group 1824 years)
2534
3544
4554
5564
65+
Citizenship (Malaysian 0; Non-Malaysian 1)

488

.158*

.079

2.01

488

.229*

.103

2.23

488

.331**

.092

3.56

488
488
488
488
488
488

.097
.137
.007
.237
.487
.619

.081
.124
.190
.218
.443
.691

1.20
1.10
0.04
1.09
1.10
0.90

488
488
488
488
488
488

.084
.213
.074
.561**
.550
.071

.106
.162
.248
.284
.577
.900

0.79
1.31
0.30
1.97
0.95
0.08

488
488
488
488
488
488

.028
.137
.433
.681**
.221
1.143

.095
.147
.224
.257
.522
.814

0.29
0.93
1.93
2.65
.042
1.40

Employment (reference group Student studying in Johor Bahru)

Student studying in Singapore
Employed working in Johor Bahru
Employed working in Singapore
Self-employed
Unemployed
Retired

488
488
488
488
488
488

.926**
.182
.284
.308
.281
.416

.148
.137
.196
.290
.290
.309

6.25
1.33
1.45
1.06
0.97
1.35

488
488
488
488
488
488

.032
.551**
.305
.272
.557
.096

.193
.178
.255
.378
.377
.403

0.16
3.08
1.20
0.72
1.48
0.24

488
488
488
488
488
488

.432*
.291
.146
.686*
.236
.569

.175
.162
.231
.342
.342
.365

2.48
1.80
0.63
2.01
0.69
1.56

Education (reference group Upper Secondary School)

Lower secondary school or less
Vocational/Technical
Trade and Technical Skills Institution
Post-Secondary School
Tertiary
Income (05)

488
488
488
488
488
488

.023
.063
.169
.014
.048
.028

.115
.141
.139
.091
.095
.038

0.20
0.44
1.23
0.15
0.51
0.74

488
488
488
488
488
488

.146
.533**
.894**
.217
.296*
.050

.149
.183
.181
.118
.123
.050

0.98
2.90
4.95
1.84
2.40
1.01

488
488
488
488
488
488

.410**
.523**
.741**
.174
.155
.004

.135
.166
.163
.107
.112
.045

3.03
3.15
4.53
1.63
1.39
0.09

Marital Status (reference group Never Married)

Married
Divorced/permanently separated/widowed
Presence of dependent children within household (No 0; Yes 1)

488
488
488

.033
.097
.117

.102
.259
.072

0.32
0.37
1.64

488
488
488

.154
.583
.108

.133
.337
.093

1.16
1.73
1.16

488
488
488

.103
.442
.101

.120
.305
.084

0.86
1.45
1.20

Personal variables
Length of residing in Johor Bahru (03)
Possession of drivers licence (No 0; Yes 1)
Access to private car (02)
Attitude towards car use (15)

488
488
488
488

.007
.179
.053
.044

.035
.094
.049
.028

0.22
1.91
1.10
1.60

488
488
488
488

.015
.348**
.011
.077*

.046
.122
.063
.036

0.33
2.85
0.18
2.13

488
488
488
488

.008
.107
.034
.292**

.042
.111
.057
.032

0.18
0.97
0.59
8.95

Cultural variables
Ethnicity (reference group is Malay)
Chinese
Indian
Other minority
Automobilisation perception (15)
Societal ecosocialisation perception (15)
Personal ecosocialisation perception (15)

488
488
488
488
488
488

.034
.186
.394
.038
.065
.064

.075
.114
.629
.035
.036
.037

0.45
1.63
0.63
1.09
1.71
1.79

488
488
488
488
488
488

.103
.006
.141
.084
.118*
.070

.097
.149
.820
.046
.047
.049

1.06
0.04
0.17
1.83
2.50
1.43

488
488
488
488
488
488

.130
.543**
.422
.113**
.237**
.044

.088
.135
.742
.041
.043
.044

1.48
4.03
0.57
2.72
5.54
0.99

Model

**

Affective motives (car)

R2adj = .131, F(36, 451) = 3.05,

p < 0.01

R2adj = .208, F(36, 451) = 4.54,

p < 0.01

R2adj = .389, F(36, 451) = 9.6,

p < 0.01

p < 0.05.
p < 0.01.

Possession of drivers licence and Societal ecosocialisation perception) are signicantly correlated, accounting for 20.8% of the
variance. On the dependent measure affective motives of car use,
one locational variable (Public transport accessibility), seven
socio-demographic variables (Gender, Age 5564, Student studying in Singapore, Self-employed, Education Lower secondary
school or less, Education Vocational/Technical, Education
Trade and Technical Skills Institution), Attitude towards car use,
and three cultural variables (Ethnicity Indian, Automobilisation
perception, and Societal ecosocialisation perception) are signicant
accounting for 38.9% of the variance.

The results of the regression analysing the signicant explanatory variables that inuence the psychological motives of public
transport use are summarised in Table 7. The instrumental motivation of public transport use was positively linked to one locational
variable (Location of residence), three socio-demographic variables
(Student studying in Singapore, Education Trade and Technical
Skills Institution, and Education Post-Secondary School), and
two cultural variables (Societal ecosocialisation perception and
Personal ecosocialisation perception) while it was negatively correlated to four socio-demographic variables (Gender, Age 4554,
Employed working in Johor Bahru, Employed working in

108

L.Y.L. Loo et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 46 (2015) 99111

Table 7
Regression model coefcients with the dependent variables instrumental motives, symbolic motives, and affective motives of public transport use (PT).
Psychological variables (Dependent variables)
Instrumental motives (PT)

Symbolic motives (PT)

SEB

1.684**

.330

5.11

488

.280**

.085

3.28

488
488
488

.023
.007
.031

.032
.032
.019

Intercept
Locational variables
Location of residence (Inner urban core 0; Outer urban core 1;
Suburban 2)
Public transport accessibility (03)
Car time (15)
Bus time (15)

SEB

Affective motives (PT)

t

SEB

1.464**

.340

4.31

488

.079

.088

0.89

0.15
1.75
1.20

488
488
488

.003
.071*
.003

.033
.033
.020

0.10
2.19
0.15

1.609

.324

4.96

488

.126

.084

1.50

.072
.021
1.65

488
488
488

.004
.054
.022

.032
.031
.019

Socio-demographic variables
Gender (Male 0; Female 1)
Age (reference group 1824 years)
2534
3544
4554
5564
65+
Citizenship (Malaysian 0; Non-Malaysian 1)

488

.165*

.083

1.99

488

.124

.082

1.52

488

.057

.085

0.67

488
488
488
488
488
488

.010
.014
.448*
.414
.446
.172

.085
.131
.200
.229
.466
.727

0.12
0.10
2.24
1.80
0.96
0.24

488
488
488
488
488
488

.098
.260*
.037
.219
.240
1.436*

.084
.129
.197
.226
.459
.716

1.17
2.01
0.19
0.97
0.52
2.01

488
488
488
488
488
488

.140
.203
.072
.142
.103
.708

.088
.135
.207
.237
.481
.750

1.60
1.51
0.35
0.60
0.22
0.94

Employment (reference group Student studying in Johor Bahru)

Student studying in Singapore
Employed working in Johor Bahru
Employed working in Singapore
Self-employed
Unemployed
Retired

488
488
488
488
488
488

.430**
.332*
.451*
.234
.255
.429

.156
.144
.206
.305
.305
.326

2.75
2.30
2.19
0.77
0.84
1.32

488
488
488
488
488
488

.839**
.116
.149
.413
.116
.352

.154
.142
.202
.300
.300
.320

5.46
0.82
0.74
1.38
0.30
1.10

488
488
488
488
488
488

.528**
.026
.009
.198
.312
.481

.161
.149
.212
.314
.314
.336

3.28
0.18
0.04
0.63
0.99
1.43

Education (reference group Upper Secondary School)

Lower secondary school or less
Vocational/Technical
Trade and Technical Skills Institution
Post-Secondary School
Tertiary
Income (05)

488
488
488
488
488
488

.053
.070
.646**
.204*
.005
.016

.121
.148
.146
.100
.100
.040

0.44
0.47
4.43
2.13
0.05
0.40

488
488
488
488
488
488

.095
.223
.007
.092
.042
.009

.119
.146
.143
.094
.098
.040

0.80
1.53
0.05
0.98
0.43
0.24

488
488
488
488
488
488

.191
.524**
.408**
.199*
.058
.129**

.124
.152
.150
.099
.103
.041

1.54
3.43
2.72
2.03
0.57
3.11

Marital Status (reference group Never Married)

Married
Divorced/permanently separated/widowed
Presence of dependent children within household (No 0; Yes 1)

488
488
488

.137
.495
.026

.107
.273
.075

1.28
1.81
0.35

488
488
488

.134
.511
.026

.106
.268
.074

1.27
1.90
0.35

488
488
488

.149
.581*
.035

.110
.281
.078

1.35
2.07
0.45

Personal variables
Length of residing in Johor Bahru (03)
Possession of drivers licence (No 0; Yes 1)
Access to private car (02)
Attitude towards car use (15)

488
488
488
488

.011
.108
.013
.046

.037
.098
.511
.029

0.29
1.10
0.26
1.58

488
488
488
488

.031
.339**
.044
.035

.036
.097
.050
.028

0.85
3.49
0.88
1.22

488
488
488
488

.009
.288**
.007
.036

.039
.102
.053
.030

0.23
2.83
0.14
1.20

Cultural variables
Ethnicity (reference group is Malay)
Chinese
Indian
Other minority
Automobilisation perception (15)
Societal ecosocialisation perception (15)
Personal ecosocialisation perception (15)

488
488
488
488
488
488

.101
.151
.632
.002
.119**
.189**

.078
.120
.663
.037
.038
.040

1.28
1.26
0.95
0.06
3.12
4.76

488
488
488
488
488
488

.098
.258*
.963
.013
.175**
.153**

.077
.118
.652
.036
.037
.039

1.26
2.18
1.48
0.34
4.66
3.90

488
488
488
488
488
488

.121
.336**
.355
.014
.133**
.311**

.081
.124
.683
.038
.039
.041

1.49
2.71
0.52
0.37
3.38
7.58

Model

**

R2adj = .287, F(36, 451) = 6.45,

p < 0.01

R2adj = .239, F(36, 451) = 5.25,

p < 0.01

R2adj = .413, F(36, 451) = 8.80,

p < 0.01

p < 0.05.
p < 0.01.

Singapore), accounting for 28.7% of the variance. Seven independent variables were signicantly related to symbolic motives of
public transport use, accounting for 23.9% of the variance: Age
3544; Citizenship, Student studying in Singapore, Possession of
drivers licence, Ethnicity Indian, Societal ecosocialisation perception and Personal ecosocialisation perception. Affective motivation
of public transport use was correlated with a number of variables:
positively with four demographic variables (Student studying in
Singapore, Education Trade and Technical skills institution,
Education Post-secondary school, and Divorced/permanently

separated/widowed) and three cultural variables (Ethnicity

Indian, Societal ecosocialisation perception and Personal ecosocialisation perception) while negatively correlated with Car time,
Education Vocational/Technical, Income and Possession of drivers licence, accounting for 41.3% of the variance.
5. Discussion and conclusions
Johor Bahru presents an important case study of an Asian citys
transportation system, its corresponding challenges and transport

L.Y.L. Loo et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 46 (2015) 99111

mode decisions. There are two potential developmental pathways

for Johor Bahru in relation to its transportation system: the path
towards an auto-centric Asian city (similar to the trafc saturated
Kuala Lumpur) or; the path to a more environmentally sustainable
society (as exemplied by its neighbouring Singapore) (Barter,
2004). A shift towards a more sustainable society requires a better
understanding of individual decision-making and the drivers that
inuence the choice of transportation mode, particularly the
motives behind the preference for the private car or public transport. This information is vital to inform planning and policy measures that would discourage car use, move people onto public
transport and also encourage sustainable travel behaviour.
This study and its theoretical precepts are underpinned by the
role that motivation plays in individual mobility decisions. Guided
by the need to examine the relationship between transport users
perceptions and travel behaviour within the context of SEA, with a
particular focus on psychological drivers of transport mode choice,
including instrumental, affective and symbolic factors, it placed
emphasis on determining the role of locational, demographic, personal and cultural variables in inuencing transport mode choice
in Johor Bahru. Results and their implications are discussed below.
When transportation is considered as a demand derived from
the need to access destinations, it is assumed that what motivates
people to travel is due to the instrumental nature of a particular
transport mode choice. The results of this present work show that
transport users consider not only a range of instrumental but also
non-instrumental functions when deciding to use a transport
mode. Thus, the results of this study reveal that our current understanding of factors motivating transport choices is incomplete. As
Steg (2005) suggests, people do not only drive their cars for utilitarian purposes but also because they enjoy driving. Concurring
with Steg (2005), results of this study demonstrated that symbolic
and affective values of a car served as signicant inuences to
mode choice decisions amongst Johor Bahrus residents. In particular, it was shown that affective motives to use a car correspond
positively to the perception of an autocentric society, or what
Beckmann (2001) coined as automobilisation. Automobilisation
describes a state where car users are embedded in a highly
car-dependent lifestyle, generally rationalising cars as an integral
part of everyday life and evaluating car use more positively. The
nding that car use was positively associated with perceptions of
automobilisation in Johor Bahru reinforces the importance of cultural variables in better understanding travel behaviour of Johor
Bahru survey participants.
In addition, positive attitudes towards car use were signicantly
associated with affective and symbolic motives but not on instrumental motives for car use. This research nding reveals that attitudes are positively associated with the emotional attachment
towards car use rather than instrumental functions of car use, suggesting that positive attitudes towards car use may not be purely
cognitive-based (Steg, 2005). The observed association between
attitudes and affective motives for car use did not form part of
the theoretical model established at the outset of this research
and was unexpected based on Ajzens Theory of Planned
Behaviour and Dittmars Material Possession Theory. As such, further research is required to verify this linkage. On the contrary, the
results suggest that attitudes are not signicantly associated with
psychological motives for public transport use. This nding resonates with those of an Asian-based study conducted by Van
et al. (2014) that revealed that in countries like China and
Vietnam behavioural intentions to use a car were more strongly
related to attitudes towards transport modes compared to intentions to use public transport.
Motivation for public transport can also be driven by its instrumental functions. Results show that an instrumental motive to use
public transport may be preferred by students studying in

109

Singapore and individuals with a trade and technical skills or

post-secondary school educational background. In addition, location of residence was a signicant correlate implying that proximity to public transport increases the instrumental motive to use
public transport, as consistent with the ndings from
Western-based studies (Cervero, 2002; Giuliano and Narayan,
2003). Public transport use, on the other hand, can be viewed as
much more than just a way to move around a city. Affective
motives for public transport use may be more important to individuals studying in Singapore and those who have a technical educational background. In addition, affective motives for public
transport use are inversely related with the possession of drivers
licence and income, implying that the affective motive to use public transport decreases as income increases or as one obtains a drivers licence. These results validate the fact that increasing income
results in a marked rise in car ownership and use, and therefore,
promotes car-dependent societies (Barter and Kenworthy, 2009;
Morikawa et al., 2003). However, this is a trend that is to be discouraged, particularly in Southeast Asia. SEA cities are currently
experiencing rising income levels as well as increasing car ownership. The challenge now is to identify approaches that can help
reduce the perceived psychological benets of the private car while
also increasing the instrumental and non-instrumental benets of
public transport. Doing so, may pave the way towards a more environmentally sustainable society.
Particular socio-demographic characteristics are also associated
with transport choice. Gender is found to have a statistically significant inuence on the instrumental, symbolic and affective motives
of car use, whereby men tend to evaluate all 3 psychological
motives of car use more positively than women. This is somewhat
similar to the Western ndings from Ellaway et al. (2003), Lois and
Lpez-Sez (2009), and Steg (2005), all of which have found that
men value the symbolic and affective aspects of car more strongly
than women. Particularly, Lois and Lpez-Sez (2009) and Steg
(2005) have explained this with the differences in the cultural values related to gender, and with the expressive and affective elements associated with cars and driving male drivers more
often see cars as important for their self-expression, and they tend
to nd driving less stressful than female drivers. There was no evidence that income had a relationship with aspects of car use. This
conicts with the ndings from Western-based studies conducted
by Bergstad et al. (2011) and Steg (2005) which revealed that lower
income groups from the Dutch and Danish populations valued
symbolic and affective aspects of car use more strongly than higher
income groups.
One of the most important contributions of this research is the
integration of cultural drivers with various psychological inuences to better understand transport mode choice. The results
show that perceptions of personal and societal ecosocialisation
were positively and signicantly related to the three psychological
motives of public transport use. This means that survey participants who perceived Johor Bahru as an ecosocialised society also
tended to perceive public transportation usage as a positive experience and reective of their own lifestyle, a lifestyle that appears
to have strong concerns for the environment. Higher perceptions of
ecosocialisation can potentially be indicative of a viable cultural
shift towards pro-environmentalism, sustainability and the rising
acceptability of sustainable modes of transport within society
(Jaskiewicz and Besta, 2014). Individuals scoring high on perceptions of ecosoclialisation characterise what Jensen (1999)
described as users of heart, referring to individuals who voluntarily
chose public transportation, did not own car and cared for the
environment. In the current study, these individuals also appeared
to have higher awareness about the positive aspects of public
transport (e.g., including the opportunity for socialisation). While
ecosocialisation is an important concept that can possibly help

110

L.Y.L. Loo et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 46 (2015) 99111

explain the three psychological motives of public transport use, it

is rather unclear to what extent instrumental and noninstrumental public transport travel motivations reinforce or
conict with each other.
The research ndings presented herein highlight the merit in
recognising the role of non-instrumental motives alongside instrumental motives to inform the design of transport planning and policy measures in Southeast Asian cities. This research addressed the
relative decit of SEA-based literature on travel perceptions from a
non-instrumental perspective. Results show the important role of
non-instrumental motivations for determining whether an individual chooses to use either the car or public transportation. However,
it is important to highlight possible limitations in this research.
According to Lois and Lpez-Sez (2009) and Steg (2005),
non-instrumental motives may play a more signicant role for
trips for leisure or social purposes which are likely to be less functional. The ndings of this research focussing only on commuting
trips may not necessarily be replicable to other types of trip purposes. Future SEA-based research can account for a more comprehensive range of travel behaviours in addition to commuting
purposes, to clarify the signicance of non-instrumental motives
on those trips.
There are at least three areas that could form the basis for
follow-up research, namely:
 How can we reduce the perceived psychological benets of the
private car while also increasing the instrumental and
non-instrumental benets of alternative transport?
 To what extent do instrumental and non-instrumental travel
motivations reinforce or conict each other?
 Public transport systems in many SEA cities are also characterised by various forms of informal transport including paratransits (e.g., Tuk-tuk in Thailand, Angkot in Indonesia,
Jeepney in the Philippines, and Xe Om in Vietnam) (Cervero
and Golub, 2007; Morikawa et al., 2003; Van and Fujii, 2011),
how then does the presence of paratransit inuence the instrumental and non-instrumental motives of travel behaviour in
SEA cities?
This research has addressed a gap in the SEA-based travel behaviour literature by incorporating a non-instrumental perspective to
the conventional instrumental measures to explore the relationship between transport users perceptions and transport mode
choice. This is an approach that has been relatively absent in existing SEA-based studies. As such this research offers a more holistic
understanding of the processes that determine travel behaviour as
well as the drivers of changes in travel choices. Moving forward, it
is hoped that through the research ndings and recommendations
presented in this paper, further SEA-based travel behaviour
research will be stimulated to better understand the role of
non-instrumental factors in determining travel mode selection.
References
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
50, 179211.
Barter, P., 1999. An International Comparative Perspective on Urban Transport and
Urban Form in Pacic Asia: The Challenge of Rapid Motorization in Dense Cities.
Murdoch University, Perth, Australia (unpublished dissertation).
Barter, P., 2004. Transport, urban structure and lock-in in the Kuala Lumpur
metropolitan area. Int. Dev. Plann. Rev. 26 (1), 124.
Barter, P., 2006. Multiple dimensions in negotiating the cross-border transport links
that connect and divide Singapore and Johor, Malaysia. Asia Pac. Viewpoint 47,
287.
Barter, P., Kenworthy, J.R., 2009. Urban Transport and Land Use Patterns-Challenges
& Opportunities of High Density Cities in East and Southeast Asia. Asia Research
Centre, Murdoch University, Western Australia.
Beaverstock, J.V., Smith, R.G., Taylor, P.J., 1999. A roster of world cities. Cities 16,
445458.

Beckmann, J., 2001. Automobilitya social problem and theoretical concept.

Environ. Plann. D: Soc. Space 19, 593607.
Bergstad, C.J., Gamble, A., Hagman, O., Polk, M., Grling, T., Olsson, L.E., 2011.
Affectivesymbolic and instrumentalindependence psychological motives
mediating effects of socio-demographic variables on daily car use. J. Transp.
Geogr. 19, 3338.
Cervero, R., 2002. Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative
framework. Transport. Res. D 7, 265284.
Cervero, R., Golub, A., 2007. Informal transport: a global perspective. Transp. Policy
14 (6), 445457.
Colin, D., George, R., 2005. Cultures of transport: representation, practice and
technology. J. Transp. Hist. 26 (1), 99111.
Collins, C.M., Chambers, S.M., 2005. Psychological and situational inuences on
commuter-transport-mode choice. Environ. Behav. 37, 640661.
Dargay, J., Hanly, M., 2007. Volatility of car ownership, commuting mode and time
in the UK. Transport. Res. A 41, 934948.
Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2011. 2010 Population and Housing Census of
Malaysia: Population Distribution by Local Authority Areas and Mukims.
Department of Statistics Malaysia, Putrajaya.
Dieleman, F.M., Dijst, M., Burghouwt, G., 2002. Urban form and travel behaviour: microlevel household attributes and residential context. Urban Stud. 39, 507527.
Dimitriou, H.T., Gakenheimer, R. (Eds.), 2011. Urban Transport in the Developing
World: A Handbook of Policy and Practice. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Dittmar, H., 1992. The Social Psychology of Material Possessions: To have is to be.
Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead.
Ellaway, A., Macintyre, S., Hiscock, R., Kearns, A., 2003. In the driving seat:
psychosocial benets from private motor vehicle transport compared to public
transport. Transport. Res. F: Psychol. Behav. 6 (3), 217231.
Ennis, R., Zanna, M.P., 1993. Attitudes, advertising, and automobiles: a functional
approach. In: McAliste, L.r., Rothschild, M.L. (Eds.), NA Advances in Consumer
Research, vol. 20. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 662666.
Ettema, D., Friman, M., Grling, T., Olsson, L.E., Fujii, S., 2012. How in-vehicle
activities affect work commuters satisfaction with public transport. J. Transp.
Geogr. 24, 215222.
Fujii, S., Grling, T., 2003. Application of attitude theory for improved predictive
accuracy of stated preference methods in travel demand analysis. Transport.
Res. A 37 (4), 389402.
Grling, T., Steg, L., 2007. Threats from Car Trafc to the Quality of Urban Life:
Problems, Causes, and Solutions. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Giuliano, G., Narayan, D., 2003. Another look at travel patterns and urban form: the
US and Great Britain. Urban Stud. 40, 22952312.
Hair, J.F., 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey.
Hine, J., Scott, J., 2000. Seamless, accessible travel: users views of the public
transport journey and interchange. Transp. Policy 7 (3), 217226.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., 2005. Cultures and Organizations Software of the Mind.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hunecke, M., Haustein, S., Grischkat, S., Bohler, S., 2007. Psychological,
sociodemographic, and infrastructural factors as determinants of ecological
impact caused by mobility behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 27 (4), 277292.
Jaskiewicz, M., Besta, T., 2014. Heart and mind in public transport: analysis of
motives, satisfaction and psychological correlates of public transportation
usage in the GdanskSopotGdynia Tricity Agglomeration in Poland. Transport.
Res. F: Trafc Psychol. Behav. 26 (Part A), 92101.
Jensen, M., 1999. Passion and heart in transporta sociological analysis on
transport behaviour. Transp. Policy 6, 1933.
Jones, G.W., 2013. The Population of Southeast Asia, Asia Research Institute
Working Paper Series No. 196. Asia Research Institute of the National University
of Singapore, Singapore.
Kaltheier, R.M., 2002. Urban Transport and Poverty in Developing Countries:
Analysis and Options for Transport Policy and Planning. GmbH, D.G.f.T.Z.G,
Eschborn, Germany.
Leather, J., 2009. Urban Transport in Asia: Towards Climate Change Mitigation.
Asian Development Bank.
Lederach, J.P., 1995. Preparing for Peace: Conict Transformation across Cultures.
Syracuse University Press, New York.
Lleras, G.C., Simma, A., Ben-Akiva, M., Schafer, A., Axhausen, K.W., Furutani, T., 2003.
Fundamental relationships specifying travel behavior an international travel
survey comparison. In: 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, Washington DC.
Lois, D., Lpez-Sez, M., 2009. The relationship between instrumental, symbolic and
affective factors as predictors of car use: a structural equation modeling
approach. Transport. Res. A: Policy Pract. 43, 790799.
Low, N., Gleeson, B., 2001. Ecosocialization or countermodernization? Reviewing
the shifting Storylines of transport planning. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 25, 784
803.
Marcotullio, P.J., Lee, Y.F., 2003. Urban environmental transitions and urban
transportation systems: a comparison of the North American and Asian
experiences. Int. Dev. Plann. Rev. 25 (4), 325354.
Mokhtarian, P.L., 2005. Travel as a desired end, not just a means. Transport. Res. A
39, 9396.
Morichi, S., 2005. Long-term strategy for transport system in Asian megacities. J.
East. Asia Soc. Transport. Stud. 6, 122.
Morikawa, T., Yamamoto, T., Dissanayake, D., Sanko, N., Kurauchi, S., Maesoba, H.,
Ohashi, S., Tiglao, N., Rubite, C., Rivera, M., 2003. Travel Behavior Analysis and
its Implication to Urban Transport Planning for Asian Cities: Case Studies of

L.Y.L. Loo et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 46 (2015) 99111

Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, and Nagoya, ICRA Project Report. Nagoya
University, Nagoya, Japan.
Nilsson, M., Kller, R., 2000. Travel behaviour and environmental concern.
Transport. Res. D: Transp. Environ. 5, 211234.
Pardo, C., 2006. Raising Public Awareness about Sustainable Urban Transport.
Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for Policy-makers in Developing Cities
(Module 1e). Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ),
Eschborn, Germany.
Polk, M., 2004. The inuence of gender on daily car use and on willingness to reduce
car use in Sweden. J. Transp. Geogr. 12, 185195.
Pucher, J., Renne, J.L., 2003. Socioeconomics of urban travel: evidence from the 2001
NHTS. Transport. Quart. 57, 4977.
Redman, L., Friman, M., Grling, T., Hartig, T., 2013. Quality attributes of public
transport that attract car users: a research review. Transp. Policy 25, 119127.
Reisinger, Y., 2009. International Tourism: Culture and Behavior, rst ed. Elsevier
Ltd., Burlington.
Rizzo, A., Glasson, J., 2011a. Conceiving transit space in Singapore/Johor: a research
agenda for the Strait Transnational Urban Region (STUR). Int. J. Urban Sustain.
Dev. 3, 156167.
Rizzo, A., Glasson, J., 2011b. Iskandar Malaysia. Cities 29, 417.
Sandqvist, K., Kristrm, S., 2001. Getting along without a Family Car: The Role of
Automobile in Adolescents Experience and Attitudes. Part I. Inner city
Stockholm. Institutionen fr Individ, Omvrld och Lrande, Stockholm, Sweden.
Senbil, M., Zhang, J., Fujiwara, A., 2007. Motorization in Asia. IATSS Res. 31, 46.
Simma, A., Axhausen, K., 2003. Commitments and modal usage: analysis of German
and Dutch panels. Transport. Res. Rec. 1854, 2231.
Soehodho, S., Rahadiani, F., Komarudin, 2012. Transport mode choice by land
transport users in Jabodetabek (Jakarta-Bogor-Depok-Tangerang-Bekasi): an

111

urban ecology analysis. In: 2nd International Conference on Electrical,

Electronics and Civil Engineering (ICEECE2012), Singapore.
Sperling, D., Claussen, E., 2004. Motorizing the developing world. Access 24, 1015.
Steg, L., 2005. Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives
for car use. Transport. Res. A: Policy Pract. 39, 147162.
Sutomo, H., Istiyanto, B., Matsumoto, S., 2003. Psychological factors affecting travel
mode choice (case: bus-lane plan for Yogyakarta, Indonesia). J. East. Asia Soc.
Transport. Stud. 5.
Timmermans, H., van der Waerden, P., Alves, M., Polak, J., Ellis, S., Harvey, A.S.,
Kurose, S., Zandee, R., 2003. Spatial context and the complexity of daily travel
patterns: an international comparison. J. Transp. Geogr. 11, 3746.
Tourabi, K., 2002. Transportation Study Metropolitan Cebu: A Case Study. Faculty of
Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Technical University of Delft, Delft, The
Netherlands.
Townsend, C., 2003. In whose Interest?: A Critical Approach to Southeast Asias
Urban Transport Dynamics. Murdoch University, Western Australia.
United Nations, 2012. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision. United
Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Population Division, New
York.
Van, H.T., Fujii, S., 2011. A cross Asian country analysis in attitudes toward car and
public transport. J. East. Asia Soc. Transport. Stud. 9, 411421.
Van, H.T., Choocharukul, K., Fujii, S., 2014. The effect of attitudes toward cars and
public transportation on behavioral intention in commuting mode choice a
comparison across six Asian countries. Transport. Res. A 69, 3644.
van Wee, B., Holwerda, H., van Baren, R., 2002. Preferences for modes, residential
location and travel behaviour: the relevance for land-use impacts on mobility.
EJTIR 2, 305316.