Peak Car: Studying the Percep- Tions of Young Population in the Netherlands

Peak Car: Studying the perceptions of young population in The Netherlands

Manoviraj Singh Shergill

Peak Car: Studying the perceptions of young population in The Netherlands

Master of Science Thesis

For the degree of Master of Science in Complex Systems Engineering and Management at Delft University of Technology

Manoviraj Singh Shergill 5076625

To be defended in public on August 16th2021

Graduation Committee

Chairperson: Prof.dr. G.P. (Bert) van Wee , Transport and Logistics First Supervisor: Dr.ir. M. (Maarten) Kroesen , Transport and Logistics Second Supervisor: Dr.ir. C. (Els) van Daalen , Policy Analysis

Summary ix

Acknowledgements xiii

1 Introduction1 1.1 Peak Car...... 2 1.1.1 Peak Car in The Netherlands...... 2 1.1.2 Peak Car and the young population...... 2 1.2 Shared Mobility...... 3 1.3 Research gap - Peak Car...... 3 1.4 Problem statement and research objective...... 5 1.5 Research question...... 5 1.5.1 Sub-Research Questions...... 5 1.5.2 Connection with knowledge gap...... 6 1.6 Relevance of the research...... 6 1.7 Research approach and outline for the thesis...... 7

2 Review of literature on peak car and shared mobility 11 2.1 Methodology for the literature review...... 11 2.1.1 Literature Selection...... 11 2.1.2 Method...... 12 2.2 Core theories and concepts...... 14 2.2.1 Peak car...... 14 2.2.2 Shared mobility...... 23 2.3 Conclusion...... 25

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill ii Table of Contents

3 Method and data speciﬁcation’s for the Q methodology 27 3.1 Rationale for the method...... 27 3.2 Shortcomings...... 28 3.3 Steps to perform the Q method...... 29 3.3.1 Concourse...... 29 3.3.2 Q-statement selection...... 30 3.3.3 Participant selection...... 31 3.3.4 Sorting...... 34 3.3.5 Factor Analysis...... 35 3.4 Interview process in the Q method...... 37 3.4.1 How will it be conducted...... 38 3.4.2 Interview Questions...... 38 3.5 Q statements...... 39 3.5.1 Method...... 39 3.5.2 Statements based on categories...... 39

4 Analysis and results of the Q sorts 43 4.1 Correlation Matrix...... 43 4.2 Extraction of factors...... 44 4.3 Factor Rotation...... 45 4.4 Z scores...... 46 4.5 Missing statements...... 47 4.6 Interpretation...... 47 4.6.1 Perspective 1: Public transport is great but I also need a car..... 48 4.6.2 Perspective 2: Walking gives me the freedom I need...... 52 4.6.3 Perspective 3: My travel choices aﬀect the environment...... 55 4.6.4 Perspective 4: I don’t need a car to travel...... 58 4.6.5 Perspective 5: Cars are the best way for me to travel...... 61 4.7 Participant demographics per perspective...... 64 4.7.1 Perspective 1: Public transport is great but I also need a car..... 64 4.7.2 Perspective 2: Walking gives me the freedom I need...... 64 4.7.3 Perspective 3: My travel choices aﬀect the environment...... 65 4.7.4 Perspective 4: I don’t need a car to travel...... 65 4.7.5 Perspective 5: Cars are the best way for me to travel...... 65 4.8 Relationship between the perspectives and demographics of the participants. 66 4.9 Conclusion...... 66

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis Table of Contents iii

5 Conclusion and Discussion 69 5.1 Sub research questions...... 69 5.1.1 What is the peak car phenomenon and what are its determinants?.. 69 5.1.2 What are the perspectives of the young people, and what are the factors aﬀecting these perspectives?...... 70 5.1.3 What can we synthesize from the literature on peak car and perspectives obtained from the Q study?...... 71 5.2 Recommendations...... 72 5.2.1 Actors involved...... 72 5.2.2 Actor recommendations...... 73 5.3 Scientiﬁc Contribution...... 76 5.4 Limitations of the research...... 76 5.4.1 P Set...... 77 5.4.2 Q Set...... 77 5.4.3 Q Sort...... 78 5.4.4 Factor Analysis...... 78 5.4.5 Personal Bias...... 78 5.4.6 Static to dynamic, how can the results of the Q study be used?.... 79 5.5 Conclusion...... 80 5.6 Recommendation for future research...... 80

Bibliography 83

A List of Q statements 89

B Slides to explain the Q sorting 93

C Q sorting website 97

D Factor Rotation 109

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill iv Table of Contents

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis List of Figures

1-1 Research ﬂow diagram...... 9

2-1 Overview of the connected base papers...... 13 2-2 Simpliﬁed form of the three views [Goodwin, 2012]...... 15 2-3 Research themes based on literature review...... 17 2-4 Average annual OPEC crude oil price (www.statista.com)...... 18 2-5 Overview of shared mobility in The Netherlands [Jakob Arendsen et al., 2019] 24

3-1 Steps to perform the Q-method...... 29 3-2 Participant level of urbanisation...... 33 3-3 Participant level of education...... 33 3-4 Participant household car ownership...... 34 3-5 Participant shared mobility use...... 34 3-6 Grid for forced Q sorting...... 35

B-1 Introduction Slide 1...... 93 B-2 Introduction Slide 2...... 93 B-3 Introduction Slide 3...... 94 B-4 Introduction Slide 4...... 94 B-5 Introduction Slide 5...... 94 B-6 Introduction Slide 6...... 95 B-7 Introduction Slide 7...... 95 B-8 Introduction Slide 8...... 95

C-1 Web page for Q sort 1...... 97 C-2 Web page for Q sort 2...... 98 C-3 Web page for Q sort 3...... 99

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill vi List of Figures

C-4 Web page for Q sort 4...... 100 C-5 Web page for Q sort 5...... 101 C-6 Web page for Q sort 6...... 102 C-7 Web page for Q sort 7...... 103 C-8 Web page for Q sort 8...... 104 C-9 Web page for Q sort 9...... 105 C-10 Web page for Q sort 10...... 106 C-11 Web page for Q sort 11...... 107

D-1 Unrotated factor matrix...... 109 D-2 Factor loading table for 6 rotated factors...... 110 D-3 Factor loading table for 5 rotated factors...... 110

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis List of Tables

1-1 Connection with knowledge gap...... 6

2-1 Overview of the peak car research...... 22

3-1 Categorization of the diﬀerent viewpoints...... 31 3-2 List of statements - Q set (1)...... 40 3-3 List of statements - Q set (2)...... 41

4-1 Correlation Matrix...... 44 4-2 Factor Matrix...... 45 4-3 Rotated Factor Matrix...... 46 4-4 Z scores and corresponding ranks...... 47 4-5 Z scores for Perspective 1...... 51 4-6 Z scores for Perspective 2...... 54 4-7 Z scores for Perspective 3...... 57 4-8 Z scores for Perspective 4...... 60 4-9 Z scores for Perspective 5...... 63 4-10 Legend for perspective demographics...... 64 4-11 Demographics for perspective 1...... 64 4-12 Demographics for perspective 2...... 65 4-13 Demographics for perspective 3...... 65 4-14 Demographics for perspective 4...... 65 4-15 Demographics for perspective 5...... 66

5-1 Young people’s perspectives...... 70 5-2 Actor analysis...... 73

A-1 Q statements from concourse (1)...... 90

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill viii List of Tables

A-2 Q statements from concourse (2)...... 91 A-3 Q statements from concourse (3)...... 92

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis Summary

Over the past few decades, cars have become an integral part of how we travel. Up until the late 1900’s having more cars was seen as an indicator of progress and development. With rising concerns regarding population and climate change, this narrative has, however, changed. Researchers observed that car travel had reached a plateau in several countries after more than fifty years of continuous growth with the emergence of the new millennium. The scientific community coined the term "Peak Car" to define this phenomenon of a plateau and, in some cases, reduction of car usage. The peak car phenomenon is defined as the interruption in car usage, leading to a reduction in annual distance travelled by car. While car use has been reducing, there has been much research and development in ICT and other forms of technology. This has given rise to the emergence of shared mobility. Research has shown that shared mobility could replace conventional car and vehicle ownership by providing a more sustainable alternative. This has also pushed governments around the world to draft policies that facilitate the use of shared vehicles. This thesis studies the phenomenon of peak car with a geographical focus on The Netherlands and a specific emphasis on the younger population (18-30). The study aims to understand what the young people’s perspectives are regarding car ownership and shared mobility. Un- derstanding how the young population of today interacts with mobility will give us an idea regarding what effects the coming generations will have. This understanding will help make better decisions regarding policy and urban planning and will help decision-makers stay ahead of any incoming problem that the trends may reveal. To answer these questions, a combination of a literature review and the Q methodology is used. The literature review helped summarise the subject field and was the basis of the statements used as part of the Q methodology. The Q methodology is a method that helps understand highly complex concepts from the viewpoint of a group of participants. Since the concept of peak car is still new and not much research has been done on it, using the Q methodology helped give an exploratory approach while also pointing the research towards the inherent motivations and attitudes of the participants. The literature review on peak car revealed a profusion of reasons for what led to peak car. Researchers hypothesised that this ranged from an ageing population, ICT, introduction of new modes of mobility, urbanisation, sustainability and a change in attitude. This difference of opinion was seen regarding what caused peak car as well as what trends car use will follow. Will we see further growth in-car use, a plateau or a drop? All these different indicators

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill x Summary were considered, and Q statements were formed using the literature and interviews with the target group, i.e., the young dutch population. The participants were sampled from varying levels of urbanisation, education, car ownership and shared mobility usage to represent the population. The research found that ﬁve perspectives exist within the population. These perspectives are shown below:

Perspective Number Perspective Perspective 1 Public transport is great but I also need a car Perspective 2 Walking gives me the freedom I need Perspective 3 My travel choices aﬀect the environment Perspective 4 I don’t need a car to travel Perspective 5 Cars are the best way for me to travel

Based on these perspectives, it was seen that the young population was still very inclined towards car use. These results went against research claiming it was the younger population driving this change towards reduced car usage. The Q sorting revealed that it was the costs of buying and maintaining a car that demotivated the participants from owning one, and if given an option, a majority of the participants would prefer using a car. However, each of the perspectives had its view regarding car use. Perspective 1 had participants who believed in using public transportation and felt the need for a car in specific scenarios such as places where there is a lack of public transport connectivity and frequency. The participants of perspective 2 showed a positive attitude towards coupling walking and car ownership. For this perspective, the need for car ownership stemmed from the freedom that owning your vehicles gives you to meet your travel needs. Having safety and certainty in their travel mode was something that the participants treasured. Perspective 3 had participants that were very environmentally conscious. The participants were open to trying different modes of transportation but ultimately, what matters to them is the effect their travel choice has on the environment. Participants in this perspective also saw the positives of owning a car but communicated that although they try to use sustainable modes, it is still challenging to do so in some cases where the car meets all your needs. The participants of perspective 4 had contrary views to those of the other perspectives. The participants in this perspective showed a profound dislike towards cars and car use. The participants agreed that in some situations having a car might make sense; however, they did not change their stance on car ownership. Finally, perspective 5 consists of participants that are exceptionally pro car use. This perspective also had the maximum number of participants with 30% of the total participant pool. For the participants in this perspective, having a cheaper or faster alternative still does not beat the convenience of owning your vehicle. This study found that the cost of owning a car played the most influential role in the reduced car use that is being observed. This could have substantial implications on the environment, policy and infrastructure. Governments will need to work towards policies that foster the use of other alternative modes of transport. One such mode was found to be shared mobility. Studies have shown that a chunk of car owners would be willing to forgo their car ownership if there were proper availability of a shared option. Shared mobility companies can increase their network, shift to an all-electric fleet and accommodate one-way travel to increase participation further. During the study, it was seen that the participants that did use public transportation

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis xi extensively did so due to the subsidies provided by the Dutch government. Providing such incentives to use public transport and greener options or priority parking to shared car users, increasing public transportation connectivity, and creating awareness are some of the steps that municipalities and the government can take.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill xii Summary

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis Acknowledgements

This thesis document marks the end of my journey at the Delft University of Technology. The two years that I have spent here have been an enriching experience for me where I have learnt a lot and grown both personally and professionally. What follows now is a short and incomplete list of people to whom I owe my gratitude. First and foremost, I would like to thank all my committee members who have guided me throughout the process of my master thesis. Thank you to Professor Maarten for helping form my research topic and providing me with feedback throughout the research process. Having never researched at such a scale before, our weekly meeting was very helpful in keeping me on track even when I got overwhelmed with not knowing what kind of sub-research questions to formulate or finding the appropriate participants for my study. Thank you to Professor Bert and Professor Els for agreeing to be a part of my committee and for your feedback during the kick-off and mid-term phases of the project. Your insights regarding the research direction that the project was heading in and the kind of statements I needed to include in the Q study helped shape my thesis. Secondly, I would like to thank all the participants who took the time to share their knowledge, opinion and viewpoints. I know how hard it is to survey for 40 minutes, but your participation is greatly appreciated, and I couldn’t have done it without you. I also want to thank all of my Dutch friends since finding the "young dutch population" was a more challenging task than I had imagined, and I want to thank all of you for reaching out to your personal and professional networks to find a diverse set for my study. Finally, I would like to thank my family, partner and friends. Your unwavering support through my master’s journey has been immense and has helped me get through the most challenging times.

Delft, University of Technology Manoviraj Singh Shergill July 29, 2021

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill xiv Acknowledgements

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis Chapter 1

Introduction

Similar to other industrialized and developed countries, car use is dominant in The Nether- lands. The world witnessed a constant increase in car trips between 1995 and 2005 however researchers witnessed a stagnation of car use since 2005 in the OCED countries. Even with this trend of stagnation around the world, in 2016, in The Netherlands, nearly half the trips were taken by car (47%) [Olde Kalter et al., 2020]. In 2017 the car use in The Netherlands reached an all-time high of 147.6 billion kilometres that were travelled via car [Centraal Bu- reau voor de Statistiek, 2018]. This has in turn led to an increase in congestion by 20% over the past few years [ANWB, 2018]. Such high car use and congestion has led to considerable damage to the economy, environment and the health of the citizens. This large chunk of daily travel done by car comes as a surprise considering the Dutch culture of using bicycles coupled with the well-developed and connected public transportation network in the country with bicycle and public transport only making up 25% and 10% of commuting trips [Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2018]. Recent research has shown the role that shared mobility can play in helping tackle these problems that come up with car use. [Machado et al., 2018] in their study talk about how car sharing and other forms of shared mobility help in the reduction in the frequency of car use as well as reduced vehicle kilometres driven and car ownership. Over the past few years, the Dutch government has been investing heavily in the research of Mobility as a Service (MaaS) a type of on demand shared mobility service which promotes a shift from personally owned vehicles to treating the mobility provided as a service. The government together with seven regions (Amsterdam, Utrecht-Leidsche Rijn, Twente, Rotterdam-The Hague, Eindhoven, Groningen-Drenthe and Limburg) has launched pilot programs to make the ﬁrst step towards providing shared mobility service rather than ownership thus pushing towards the adoption of shared mobility [Mink, 2019]. This chapter will introduce the concepts of peak car and shared mobility followed by identifying the research gap in the domain of peak car to presenting a problem statements and research objective that this thesis will tackle before ﬁnally presenting the research question that will be answered at the end of this thesis.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 2 Introduction

1.1 Peak Car

In 2008 Puntes and Tomer studied the changing driving patters in the United States of America for the Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative Series wherein they analysed the vehicle mile travel trends in the United States of America. During this study, they first observed a decline in car usage or miles travelled by the citizens of the United States [Puentes and Tomer, 2008]. However, it was only in 2011 when Millard-Ball and Schipper coined the term peak car to explain the phenomenon wherein they observed a slowdown of car use since 2004 in eight industrialized western countries [Millard-Ball and Schipper, 2011]. Since then, peak car has gained much attention in the scientific community, with researchers studying its effects to determine the potential implications. There have been numerous ways in which the term peak car is defined; for the thesis, peak car is defined as follows.

The peak car phenomenon is deﬁned as the interruption in car usage growth in countries, leading to a reduced average annual distance travelled by car.

1.1.1 Peak Car in The Netherlands

There are also some signs of this phenomenon occurring in The Netherlands. A study in 2013 indicated a considerable growth in mobility between the 1980s and 1990s. This national average had not increased since 2005. This appeared to be especially true for car use that appeared to be levelling oﬀ [van der Waard et al., 2013]. Another study showed how there had been no signiﬁcant change in the car use of young adults, which has decreased drastically since 1995 [Goodwin, 2012]. This however goes against [Olde Kalter et al., 2020] and [Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2018] that showed that the car use reached an all time high in 2017. Since then the growth has not been so drastic which could mean that The Netherlands could be experiencing peak car now.

1.1.2 Peak Car and the young population

It has been observed that the population set consisting of the young adults was the one that showed the highest tendency to shift away from the usage of cars. [Dutzik et al., 2014] in their research highlight how among the population set in The United States of America, the younger population has experienced the greatest changes. They are driving less, using more public transportation, biking and walking more and looking for accommodation in cities. [Focas and Christidis, 2017] highlights how most analysts have shared results that conclude that the changing mobility patterns of the young population are a major contributor to the peak car phenomenon. Similar trends have been observed by numerous researchers [Garikapati et al., 2016], [Dutzik et al., 2014], [McDonald, 2015], [Wee, 2015], [Kuhnimhof et al., 2013], [Stapleton et al., 2017], [Le Vine et al., 2013]. This trend is especially prominent in The Netherlands where [van der Waard et al., 2013] show how the car mobility for the young adult population has decreased drastically since 1995. A signiﬁcant eﬀect due to greater urbanization and longer education periods. This is

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 1.2 Shared Mobility 3 a signiﬁcant contribution to the peak car phenomenon in the country [Focas and Christidis, 2017].

1.2 Shared Mobility

Sharing as a concept has been inherent to humans. However, it is the sharing of services, products, skills and personal goods that has slowly led to the development of the sharing economy whose popularity has only been growing since with platforms such as Airbnb and Uber [Machado et al., 2018]. In recent times, shared mobility especially has been gaining a lot of popularity to due to its cheaper costs and added convenience. Shared mobility is deﬁned as:

Shared mobility is a combination of innovative transportation strategies that empower travellers to gain temporary access to transportation modes based on their need without the ﬁxed costs associated with owning a vehicle.

Over the past few years, the concept of sharing and shared mobility have garnered heed due to sustainability objectives and the popularization of ICT technologies, which have made access to shared mobility easier [Jakob Arendsen et al., 2019]. The concept of shared mobility is more prominent in developed urban areas, where it can complement a good public transportation network to better facilitate last end to end connectivity [Mounce and Nelson, 2019]. Shared mobility includes a variety of different modalities and is not limited to car sharing. It includes bike-sharing, scooter sharing, ride-sharing and other on-demand ride services [Sha- heen et al., 2016]. The trend of the use of shared mobility presents a promising outlook for the future since academic literature has shown how it could help solve problems related to congestion, parking, sustainability and accessibility [Jakob Arendsen et al., 2019]. Shared mobility has seen a constant growth in the last decade and is expected to follow this trend in growth [Francks, 2016]. This is also true for the case of The Netherlands, where the fleet size of shared cars has grown by 25% in 2018 [Jakob Arendsen et al., 2019]. A similar trend has been observed in the amount of trips made by the NS’s OVfiets which reportedly increased its trips by 33% in 2017 as reported on their website. Research regarding shared mobility has shown a push away from car ownership. [Millard-Ball, 2005] in his research found how each shared vehicle replaces 14.9 privately owned vehicles in North America while also having a drastic effect on the Km’s driven. With the Dutch government investing heavily in shared mobility coupled with the entrance of new private players in the shared mobility space, this could possibly present and interesting relation with the peak car phenomenon, by leveraging the trends observed within The Netherlands.

1.3 Research gap - Peak Car

A majority of the studies related to the peak car are derived empirically using data sets as provided by transport organizations around the world. [Keyes and Crawford-Brown, 2018]

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 4 Introduction highlight how there has been a lack of a qualitative approach to explain further or substantiate the phenomenon of peak car. The studies presented on peak car focus on the "macro-level" or national and international level changes in travel behaviour considering whole population level national and international data, examining their trends and forming conclusions. However, this presents a gap in the research where studies have failed to address individuals’ "micro-level" concerns and understand what affects their travel behaviour. This was another drawback highlighted by [Keyes and Crawford-Brown, 2018] in their research, where they studied the changing influences on commuting mode choice in urban England under peak car. Nearly all the studies regarding peak car have recommended that researchers conduct further research into the people’s attitudes and motivations and especially the young people to understand what is driving this behaviour [Focas and Christidis, 2017]. Studying the attitude, behaviour and motivation at a micro-level will help give an understanding of the drivers of such a motivation within the population. There has been extensive research regarding the peak car phenomenon in academic literature. However, most of this is focused on the United Kingdom and the United States of America, with little such research done in The Netherlands. [van der Waard et al., 2013] in his study looks into the phenomenon in the context of The Netherlands, nonetheless to the best of the author’s knowledge, no such studies have been performed to understand the Dutch behaviour. As [Stokes, 2013] in his study hypothesized that the Netherlands inherent use of bicycles would affect the phenomenon, it makes it essential to study this behaviour further to see how the attitudes of the younger population have been affected with regard to the changes in the mobility sector. Several authors such as [van der Waard et al., 2013]. [Garikapati et al., 2016], [Le Vine et al., 2013] and [Focas and Christidis, 2017] to name a few highlight how the young population (18-30) are a major contributor to this trend of reduced car use showing a reduced level of car and licence ownership while also preferring to live in urban densely populated areas. Based on these unique traits observed among the younger population, it is important to understand the trends for transportation planning professionals to see how travel demand may evolve. Current academic literature focuses on the complete population size of countries and lacks a specific focus on the younger population. Since the trend was first observed, academic literature has provided various outlooks to what may have led to the peak car phenomenon. While some authors say that the increase in non-fuel costs such as insurance, parking, etc., play a significant role [Le Vine et al., 2013] others traditional indicators such as GDP and fuel prices are sufficient to explain the trends [Bastian et al., 2016]. This discourse regarding what has led to the peak car has created much uncertainty in the academic world. One such indicator that talks about what led to peak car is shared mobility. With governments investing in the shared mobility space, this presents as an interesting alternative to look at as a replacement for car use. However, no formal link has been made between the two. Understanding the relation is important since it can help make investment decisions for the government and private players. Finally, as [Keyes and Crawford-Brown, 2018] stated in his paper, "the peak car phenomenon is of great importance to the 21st-century transport studies, yet it remains relatively "poorly understood" this further highlights the gaps in the current academic literature about the lack of knowledge and understanding in this area.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 1.4 Problem statement and research objective 5

1.4 Problem statement and research objective

Based on section(1.3), we see that there is a limited understanding regarding the peak car phenomenon in the Netherlands and what has led to it with regards to the young population. This gap in the literature can be translated into the following problem statement.

How can we further study the peak car phenomenon and its determinants among the younger population in The Netherlands. What are the perspectives of the younger population when it comes to how they want to travel.

1.5 Research question

Based on the problem statement in section(1.4), the thesis’s research question is formulated as follows.

What are the young people’s perspective on the future of car ownership and shared mobility in The Netherlands?

The research question will shed light on the problem statement presented earlier by giving a holistic understanding of the various perspectives and how they will aﬀect future policy decisions. For the study, "young people" are deﬁned as the Dutch population between the ages of 18 and 30.

1.5.1 Sub-Research Questions

The purpose of the sub-research questions is to help narrow the research by splitting it into smaller questions that will act as a skeleton for the main research question. Answering these sub-research questions will lead to answering the main research question proposed in the thesis. The ﬁrst objective is to get a better understanding of the peak car phenomenon and the research that is done in the domain. This will be done by looking at current research and drawing parallels to determine the various indicators that have led to the peak car phenomenon. This gives rise to the ﬁrst sub-research question. 1. What is the peak car phenomenon, and what are its determinants?

The literature study and interviews will be used to develop the Q statements, after which a pool of participants will be prepared to perform a Q sort. The participants will be selected by the researcher, based on a set criteria. Using the participants sort, a factor analysis will be done, followed by post sorting interviews with the participants to understand their

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 6 Introduction motivation for selecting certain positions for particular statements which will help answer what the various perspectives are. This gives rise to the second sub-research question. 2. What are the perspectives of the young people, and what are the factors aﬀecting these perspectives?

Finally, the study will try and combine the learning’s of the literature review and the perspectives from the Q study. This gives rise to the ﬁnal sub-research question. 3. What can we synthesise from the literature on peak car and perspectives obtained from the Q study?

1.5.2 Connection with knowledge gap

Table(1-1) gives an overview of how each of the sub research questions will address the relevant knowledge gaps.

Table 1-1: Connection with knowledge gap Young people The Dutch context Micro level research Qualitative approach Reasons for peak car Attitudes and motivations What is the peak car phenomenon, and what are its determinants? X X What are the perspectives of the young people, and what are the X X X X X factors aﬀecting these perspectives? What can we synthesise from the literature on peak car and X X X X X perspectives obtained from the Q study?

1.6 Relevance of the research

The ambiguity behind what peak car is, where it is present, and its causes are primary reasons to justify why it is essential to study it. [Goodwin, 2012] in his study states that the uncertainty behind the phenomenon is by itself a policy implication. There are several additional reasons why it is essential to study the peak car phenomenon further. They can be summarized into the following themes.

1. Future Trends - Understanding how the young population of today interacts with mobility will give us an inclination of how the coming generations of young people will interact with various transport modes [Dutzik et al., 2014]. Additionally, understanding

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 1.7 Research approach and outline for the thesis 7

these trends will help with better traffic forecast models. These forecasts are important since they guide any further investment into future infrastructure projects, policies, etc. [Keyes and Crawford-Brown, 2018], [Bastian et al., 2016], [Dutzik et al., 2014], [Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy, 2011]. Investment in large scale infrastructure projects depends on the number of citizens that will use it to justify the cost [Goodwin, 2012]. It is therefore important to understand what the future trends are to make educated decisions. [Goodwin, 2012] also argues that it is important to understand this, since this can shift the focus to making current road travel conditions better for the population that does depend on a car for its commuting choices. 2. Policy Decisions - Due to the uncertainty of the trends in the current scenario, policymakers need to focus on more robust policies that can accommodate various trends [Goodwin, 2012]. However, knowing the accurate trends will lead to better and more appropriate policy decisions. [McDonald, 2015][Belgiawan et al., 2014] 3. Urban Planning - Town and Urban planners will need to become proficient in making cities walk-able, bike-able and with efficient public transportation to accommodate for the change in needs as depicted by the growing young population [Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy, 2011]. 4. Promote Sustainability - Understanding the reasons leading to reduced car usage can be a good indicator for governments and policymakers to promote sustainable modes of transport [Dutzik et al., 2014].

It is imperative to study the phenomenon and what leads to it for these reasons. [Keyes and Crawford-Brown, 2018] in the study of the peak car in urban England talks about how the peak car phenomenon “is of great importance in the 21st-century transport studies, yet it remains poorly understood".[Focas and Christidis, 2017] in their study state that there is an urgent need for further research especially understanding the attitudinal and motivations reasoning behind the observed changes in the travel behaviour for young adults. The results of this thesis will add value by giving an understanding of how the young people in The Netherlands view car ownership and shared mobility. This information can be utilized by the government and companies in the mobility sphere to formulate better policies and invest in infrastructure that the people need.

1.7 Research approach and outline for the thesis

The entirety of the research is divided into four phases, namely. • Phase 1 - Problem scoping and definition • Phase 2 - Desk research • Phase 3 - Analysis • Phase 4 - Conclusion The first part of the thesis included scoping and defining the problem. This was done during the research proposal phase, where an initial study was done to understand the research gap

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 8 Introduction and formulate a problem definition. This will be followed by the second phase, which is the desk research. In this phase literature regarding peak car and shared mobility will be studied qualitatively to understand what they are, what led to them and form a connection between the two. To conduct the qualitative research efficiently, Atlas.ti will be used to form links between different concepts before summarizing them in the form of a table. Atlas.ti is a software that is extensively used for qualitative research and the relevant terms can be coded to create a network of concepts after which a conclusion can be drawn. The next phase is the analysis, wherein the Q study will be performed. The Q method, which is a prominent method in psychology and sociology developed by [Stephenson, 1935], will be the base of this thesis. The methodology adopts a multiple participant format and is used to explore highly complex concepts from the view of a group of participants that are directly involved [Watts and Stenner, 2005]. For this, the first task is to collect statements to sort, also known as the Q set. This will be done by using academic articles, grey literature and interviews to collect the concourse relevant to the topic. After which, participants will be asked to perform the Q sort on a website developed by the author. Once the results have been collected, a factor analysis will be done. In the final phase, the results will be interpreted before drawing relevant conclusions and forming recommendations for the government and companies in the mobility sphere. Figure (1-1) gives an overview of the entire research flow. The remainder of the thesis is structured as follows. The first chapter has given us an overview of what the problem is and has set a premise with the main and sub research questions. Chapter two will go over the methodology for the literature review on the topic of peak car, shared mobility and how the two of them relate to one another. After which this, the third chapter goes over the main method that will be used for this study, the Q method and present the data required to use the Q method, which are, the Q statements. Chapter four will include the analysis process where a factor analysis is performed on the different Q sorts followed by the identification and description of the different perspectives and how the participants socio demographics and travel characteristics link to the perspectives. Chapter five will conclude all the results by answering the sub research questions and providing future recommendations to the relevant actors. Finally, the limitations of the research and future research recommendations will be presented.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 1.7 Research approach and outline for the thesis 9

Research Flow Diagram Input Output

Previous research, thesis Chapter 1: Introduction Objective, Relevance, Phase 1: Problem and scientific publications Knowledge gap, Research scoping and Outline definition

Chapter 2: Literature Review Phase 2: Desk research Research overview, Core theories and concepts

Scientific literature to Understanding of the core SQ 1: What is the peak car study the future trends in concepts. Answer to SQ1. mobility and the peak car phenomenon and what are phenomenon and shared its determinants? mobility. Method – Desk research. Tools – Atlas.ti

Chapter 3: Method and data specification for the Phase 3: Analysis Q study Define Q method, preparation of statements and participants

Identification of relevant Q Statement selection participants Research on peak car List of statements and and shared mobility participants to conduct Q Method – Interviews, analysis and results of the Literature study, data Q sorts. analysis and Q Literature Interviews methodology. review Data – Q sorting, Interview transcripts Tools – Excel, JavaScript, HTML Participant and statement scoping

Chapter 4: Analysis and results of the Q sort Defining the model and its assumptions, Performing analysis Participant sorts and Sorted results from interview transcripts participants, explanation Method –Q methodology, about the position of Discourse with interviews. Conduct Q analysis: statements on the Q sort participants Tools – KADE Sorting and formation of different perspectives

SQ 2: What are the perspectives of the young Interpretation of people and what are the results factor’s affecting these perspectives?

Phase 4: Results of the literature Chapter 5: Conclusion and Discussion Answers to the sub Conclusion review and the five Summarizing the answer to the sub research questions, limitation of the research questions and perspectives. research and recommendations for future research. recommendations.

SQ3: What can we synthesise from the literature on peak car and perspectives obtained from the Q study?

Recommendations to the government and companies in the shared mobility space

Figure 1-1: Research ﬂow diagram

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 10 Introduction

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis Chapter 2

Review of literature on peak car and shared mobility

2.1 Methodology for the literature review

Research needs to be informed by existing knowledge in a subject area. A literature review helps in doing so by summarising a subject ﬁeld that further helps in substantiating the research question [Rowley and Slack, 2004]. A literature review concludes a range of sources. This includes books, journal articles or web sources. For this thesis, a literature review will be conducted on the topics of peak car and shared mobility to understand the research that has been done in the area and draw appropriate conclusions. This literature review will also help answer the ﬁrst sub-research question, which is "What is the peak car phenomenon and what are its determinants?". Additionally, the literature review will also act as a basis for the required statements as part of the Q study. Since the literature review is also treated as the concourse on the topic of peak car, statements will be extracted from the literature obtained during this process. These statements will later be used for the sorting process. The sections following this talks about the methodology that is used to conduct the literature review.

2.1.1 Literature Selection

The ﬁrst part of doing a literature review is selecting the appropriate literature. The literature to be reviewed is in the form of research papers, articles, conference papers and thesis. To ﬁnd these, the following databases are utilised.

1. Science Direct

2. SCOPUS

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 12 Review of literature on peak car and shared mobility

3. Web of Science

4. Google Scholar

5. TU Delft education repository

The process of literature selection is divided into two parts for the two main topics under focus

1. Peak car

2. Shared mobility

The section below will talk about the literature selection method for the two parts.

Peak car

To conduct the search for relevant research the following keywords are used, peak car, peak car AND Europe, peak car AND The Netherlands, peak car AND young people, peak car AND travel behaviour and reduced car ownership. Upon an initial study, it is found that [Puentes and Tomer, 2008] and [Millard-Ball and Schipper, 2011] were the first studies to identify the phenomenon and coin the term peak car, respectively. Hence, these two papers are used as a base to find other relevant literature. This is done using https://www.connectedpapers.com/, which provides a graphical representation of the ‘connected’ papers Figure (2-1). This step is taken since the research regarding peak car is scarce, with most of the authors citing the original work and identification of peak car in their study. Using connected papers made it easier to find all the authors that had referenced the base paper. After this, other literature is found using the snowballing method, wherein one research article is used to find other relevant research articles.

Shared mobility

Finding literature for shared mobility was easier since much research has been done on the topic. The keywords used were shared mobility, shared mobility AND The Netherlands, shared mobility AND attitudes and shared mobility AND emergence. A majority of the literature on shared mobility had a focus on car sharing. However, speciﬁc attention is paid to include other forms of shared mobility under research consideration. The snowballing method was used to ﬁnd further relevant research depending on the particular study’s concept.

2.1.2 Method

Once all the relevant research is collected, the next step is to analyse the research. To conduct this qualitative analysis of the research, Atlas.ti is used. Atlas.ti is a qualitative tool used to analyse and visualise essential concepts from the text. It helps the researcher visualise the ideas that a study is putting across and helps link the various concepts.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 2.1 Methodology for the literature review 13

Figure 2-1: Overview of the connected base papers

For the literature study of peak car and shared mobility, relevant codes are created. Some examples of these codes are "Peak car - Reason", "Shared mobility Netherlands", "Peak car - Young population". Whenever a statement that would convey the idea of the code is found, it is coded for further analysis. These codes were made by the author for their understanding and to be able to link the ﬁndings from the papers more easily. Upon completing the literature overview, a network comprises all the relevant quotes for a particular code. These can be grouped or treated individually to elaborate on concepts and draw conclusions from them by forming links between the research performed by diﬀerent authors.

Using this process allowed forming links between diﬀerent concepts that will be highlighted in the next chapter.

For the literature review on peak car, a total of 32 papers were shortlisted, which can be found in ﬁgure (2-1). For shared mobility, a total of 12 papers were shortlisted, which are covered in this chapter. These papers were shortlisted based on their relevance to the research. An initial screening was done by going over the title and the abstract. If the paper was deemed as relevant another screening was done by reading the paper. Finally, the most relevant papers were included within the study.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 14 Review of literature on peak car and shared mobility

2.2 Core theories and concepts

This section will cover the core theories and concepts that are required to perform the analysis. The section has further been divided into two main concepts, which are peak car and shared mobility. The objective is to study the relevant literature for these topics to understand better what the trends are, what is causing them, and how all this can be translated in the case of The Netherlands.

2.2.1 Peak car

Since the introduction of the peak car concept by [Millard-Ball and Schipper, 2011] there has been much research done in academia regarding peak car. Initially substantiating its occur- rence using various databases to later deciphering what led to this phenomenon. This section will go over the academic literature on the phenomenon to get a more in-depth understanding of where the research is done, what the research says about the geographical focus of this thesis (The Netherlands) and the various indicators that have led to the phenomenon.

Geography of the studies

The literature regarding peak car is heavily focused on the developed world. This is logical considering it was the developed countries where the ﬁrst trends were observed, and it is easy to study these trends in developed countries as researchers can take advantage of the government’s surveys and data sets. A major chunk of this research focuses on two countries,

1. The United States of America

2. The United Kingdom

Other countries where the peak car phenomenon has been studied are Australia [Delbosc, 2017][Kenworthy, 2013], Germany [Sivak and Schoettle, 2012] and The Netherlands [van der Waard et al., 2013] to name a few. However, one thing that is concluded is that although geography, culture, and access to public transport policies play a role in studying the phenomenon, many of the trends found in one western country also hold to the others.

Trends in Peak Car

The concourse regarding peak car can be put into three schools of thought. It is important to understand these trends and views in literature as it will help develop an understanding of what could have led to this and its eﬀect in the future. This was summarised by [Goodwin, 2012] in his paper titled "Three views on Peak Car". The three views can be summarised as follows

1. Continued Growth - This has been the oﬃcial position of some governments and researchers around the world. Many believe that this stagnation is only a brief interruption in the continued growth of car usage.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 2.2 Core theories and concepts 15

Figure 2-2: Simpliﬁed form of the three views [Goodwin, 2012]

2. Plateau or saturation of car use - The advocates for this approach have been [Millard-Ball and Schipper, 2011] in the United States and [Metz, 2010] in the United Kingdom who have criticised the other schools of thoughts claiming that travel is now at a plateau. 3. Turning point for the decline - This view sees researchers say that car use has now peaked and will slowly decline being replaced by ICT, sustainable modes or other faster modes of travel.

Peak car and young people

Another prevalent point of discussion found in the literature regarding peak car is the young population and how they are the drivers of this shift. The prominence of this trend of reduced car use was observed by researchers initially by looking at licence and car ownership trends in several countries. There is also an observed correlation with younger people who prefer living in urbanised areas, which affects their preference for car use. In a study conducted by [Focas and Christidis, 2017], they studied the peak car situation in Europe; they state that the young adults displayed the most significant tendencies to shift away from car use. This also included a reduced number of new driving licences, which was especially true for one segment of the young population; the young men. [Stokes, 2013]’s study is used to further substantiate this observation before concluding that the young men in their 20s who prefer living in urban areas have a lower rate of driving licence possession, in turn, can be seen as decreasing importance for car use. Other authors who also notice similar trends of reduction in car usage among young people are [Kuhnimhof et al., 2013], [Garikapati et al., 2016], [Le Vine and Jones, 2012] and [Olde Kalter et al., 2020] who observed reduced driving for ages below 40. [Bastian et al., 2016] who explicitly state that a reduction in car use is only observed among young people and is levelled off by the older generation that still prefers using cars.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 16 Review of literature on peak car and shared mobility

Another interesting point of view explored in some of the studies is the role ICT has to play in reducing car use among young people. [Dutzik et al., 2014] bring out how well documented the pattern of reduced travel usage among the younger generation, attributed to them being "digital natives". [Wee, 2015] in his paper also hypothesis the role that ICT technology may play in this. This trend of reduction in travel among young people is not focused on a particular area, but rather in most developed countries. [Kuhnimhof et al., 2011] studied the travel trends of young German and British citizens, wherein they concluded that there had been signiﬁcant ﬁndings that the historical trend of increased motorisation and car use has come to an end for young Britons and Germans. [Klein and Smart, 2017] did a study regarding car ownership among millennial’s to show how Americans have been driving less, with pronounced changes observed among young millennial’s. This is also true in The Netherlands, where [van der Waard et al., 2013] demonstrates that car mobility for young adults has decreased astutely. [Oakil et al., 2016] also substantiates this by looking at the car ownership among young households in The Netherlands to conclude that there has indeed been a decline in car ownership, which can further reduce car usage. However, The Netherlands case is an interesting one since [Olde Kalter et al., 2020] while studying peoples attitudes towards car use, states that nowadays young people prefer to live in urban areas and enrolled in university for more extended periods. This, coupled with the well-connected public transport network, the bicycling culture of the country, and the governments’ initiatives of providing free transportation to the students in the form of student-OV could pose as possible reasons for this trend.

Peak car in The Netherlands

The literature regarding the peak car phenomenon in The Netherlands has been limited. The first study to highlight the peak car phenomenon was done by [van der Waard et al., 2013] where they studied the new mobility drivers in The Netherlands. In the study, they first study the various mobility trends and patterns based on data obtained from the KiM to confirm that there has been a stagnation in car travel while also highlighting that the young adults (18-30) have been a major contributor. After this, they present four possible causes for the levelling off in car mobility, namely

1. Saturation of direct inﬂuencing factors such as car ownership, driver’s licence and income

2. Changing mobility of young adults

3. Rise of the Internet society

4. Increased international mobility

[Focas and Christidis, 2017] in their study of peak car in Europe where they aggregate trends for several European countries and observe the car kilometres per annum per capita based on the Eurostat data set saw that; interestingly, out of the four groups (PIIGS, Western Peak, Western Stable, Eastern growth), not all showed stagnation or decrease in car usage. The accumulation of eastern countries consisting of countries like Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, etc.,

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 2.2 Core theories and concepts 17 showed a slow increase in Km’s travelled. The Netherlands, a part of the ‘Western Peak’ countries, shows a slow decline in car Km’s, further substantiating the presence of peak car in the country. Another interesting study by [Oakil et al., 2016] where they study the determinants of car ownership among young households in The Netherlands convey that there can be a plethora of reasons for lower car ownership, thus reduced car Km’s driven in The Netherlands due to the well-developed public transport network and bicycling being an integral part of the culture. Although the three studies do not explicitly agree on what caused peak car, they reaﬃrm that the Netherlands also experienced the peak car phenomenon.

What caused peak car?

The literature about what caused the peak car phenomenon can be broadly divided into three major categories, as shown in ﬁgure (2-3). These themes were made upon an investigation of 32 academic papers about the peak car phenomenon that provided insights into the reasons that led to peak car. This investigation was performed for the thesis to group the papers among common themes based on what the authors believed led to peak car.

Figure 2-3: Research themes based on literature review

Dividing the literature into these themes will help better understand what the current views regarding what led to peak car are. Each of these themes consists of several indicators that the authors have highlighted in their studies. It is important to understand what these indicators in literature are since they will help answer the ﬁrst research question and provide a skeleton for the Q statements. Figure (2-1) gives an overview of the papers that bring out the causes of peak car.

Economic and Monetary: This theme mainly focuses on the various costs, taxation’s and monetary policies that have been said to have led to peak car. The postulations that the authors had relating to this theme include the following:

1. Non-fuel car costs - Non-fuel car costs include the additional costs related to owning a car. This includes costs such as insurance, parking, maintenance and registration. In their study [Le Vine and Jones, 2012] and [Rohr and Fox, 2014] highlighted how an

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 18 Review of literature on peak car and shared mobility

increase in non-fuel related car costs could be playing a role in the slow decline of car usage.

2. GDP income level and taxation - A significant chunk of research proposes that economic factors such as GDP and a reduction average income level as seen over the decades can explain a large part of the reduction in car usage. [Bastian et al., 2016] in their studies where they focused on the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Australia, and Germany claim that GDP and fuel price are sufficient indicators to explain the observed trends. [Le Vine et al., 2013] shows the effect of taxation policies and especially the benefit-in- kind taxation policies in the United Kingdom that follow the trend of peak car, possibly being an indicator for the same in that region. [Prins, 2019] studies the peak car phenomenon in The United States where he compares two schools of thought regarding peak car, 1) change in travel patterns due to preferences and 2) economic factors. The study finds support for both views, but [Prins, 2019] states that the evidence related to the economic factors aligns more with the root cause of peak car. Other authors such as [Stapleton et al., 2017], [Brown, 2017] and [Klein and Smart, 2017] also state the influence of GDP and income level on the peak car phenomenon.

3. Fuel Costs - Since 1972, crude oil has been increasing exponentially till it peaked in 2012 (Figure (2-4)).[Peter Newman and Jeﬀ Kenworthy, 2011] in his study says that fuel prices play a signiﬁcant role in the peak car phenomenon while also highlighting how this may go against what traditional economists have claimed against this. Other authors who also stated the importance of fuel prices in reaching peak car are [Bastian and Börjesson, 2015], [Bastian et al., 2016] and [Stapleton et al., 2017]. There is some opposition to this line of thought with [Metz, 2010] stating that the economic downturn and rise in fuel prices occurs too late to explain this phenomenon.

Figure 2-4: Average annual OPEC crude oil price (www.statista.com)

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 2.2 Core theories and concepts 19

However, this brings out the question regarding the role electric cars will play based on this theory. The recent popularisation of electric cars that depend on electricity prices that have remained constant over the past few years may discredit the claim regarding the role fuel prices have in peak car.

Attitudes and preferences: With the increased acceptance of sustainability and sustainable travel modes, several studies use people’s attitudes, behaviour, and lifestyle choices to measure the change in travel behaviour [Prillwitz and Barr, 2011]. The following postulations are summarised into this theme, these include the diﬀerence in perspective that may come from age, lifestyle changes or a preference for other modes of transportation.

1. Change in Lifestyle - Research regarding peak car has generally followed two lines of reasoning. The first is the economic factors, and the second is the changing lifestyle [Klein and Smart, 2017]. This lifestyle change can be seen in education wherein people are studying for longer periods, starting families later on in their life and showing preference to sustainable options for travel. Some research has already been conducted on the role of attitudes and behaviour on travel; such factors, coupled with others discussed, present an interesting relation observed between peak car and change in lifestyle [Prillwitz and Barr, 2011]. 2. Young People - A common theme among researchers has been the influence of young people on the trend towards reduced car usage as discussed in section (2.2.1). It is the young peoples preference for cities [Garikapati et al., 2016], prolonged periods of education compared to previous generations, and their economic conditions [Klein and Smart, 2017] that play a role in these trends. 3. Ageing Population - Major cities in the developed world have observed a recent trend of an increased average age of the population. Older people tend to drive less, which in some way could explain the reduction of car usage in developed cities around the world [Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy, 2011]. A similar claim was also made by [Goodwin, 2012] who stated that with a growing older population in Great Britain, a trend could be observed of reduced Km’s driven. 4. Saturation of car travel - [Tanner, 1978] talks about how the travel demand theory suggests a saturation point for travel modes. This is also true for car travel and vehicle ownership. Several researchers have observed this trend where there is a saturation of both car and licence ownership such as [Delbosc, 2017], [Goodwin, 2012] and [Le Vine and Jones, 2012]. [Metz, 2010], and [Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy, 2011] also talk about a travel demand saturation that could explain these trends of reduced car use in developed countries.

Infrastructure, urbanisation and technology: Change in infrastructure, urbanisation and advancement of technology also has a prominent eﬀect on the way we travel. Researchers have hypothesised that changes in the way we live, shop or do business aﬀects our travel.

1. Shared mobility - There has been a recent increase in shared mobility usage worldwide. This refers to shared taxis, cars, bicycles or other modes of transportation wherein

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 20 Review of literature on peak car and shared mobility

the user does not need to bear the ﬁxed cost of ownership and certain additional costs such as insurance maintenance. This has slowly become popular with the rise of mam- moths such as Uber and Lyft. [Garikapati et al., 2016] talks about how compared to previous generations, millennial’s are more likely to prefer on-demand mobility services. Being born in a generation full of technology, a shift towards shared mobility can be seen as there are several alternatives to owning a vehicle.

2. ICT - Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) is a broad term that is applied to all communication technologies, which includes the internet, wireless communication, computers, social networking etc. [Wee, 2015] in his study hypothesised how the recent trend in reduction of car use could be a sign of a shift towards ICT-based alternatives. This is coupled with the growth of the internet society e-commerce and work from home culture [Goodwin and Van Dender, 2013][McDonald, 2015][Metz, 2013].

3. Urbanisation - Historically, researchers observed the flocking of the suburbs with people moving towards more scarcely populated areas outside cities. However, there has been a recent reversal of this trend with people moving into more urbanised and densely populated areas, thus reducing the need to travel [Headicar, 2013]. [Stokes, 2013] in his study where he used the Great Britain National Travel Survey data reports a shift in preference of residential locations towards more urban areas, which will play a significant role in shaping the future levels of car access and use. [Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy, 2011] talk about a "Reversal of Urban Sprawl" that is the turning back in cities to increase density as a contributor towards peak car especially in Australia, the USA, Canada and parts of Europe. Several researchers in urbanisation have been researching the concept of 15-minute cities that aim to have all the essential needs of the residents met within a 15-minute walk from their homes [Pozoukidou and Chatziyiannaki, 2021]. Implementation of such concepts in densely urbanised areas could lead to a further reduction in car use.

4. Congestion - Increased congestion on roads has also been highlighted as a reason for the reversal of trends, especially in urban areas [Stapleton et al., 2017]. Congestion in cities drastically increases travel times, and public transport, bicycles, or shared mobility present a better and faster alternative.

5. Alternative Modes - Recent developments of high-speed rail, electric busses and trams and other modes of public transportation that provide a cheaper and more sustainable mode of transport have also aﬀected how we travel. This trend has been documented by [Peter Newman and Jeﬀ Kenworthy, 2011] and [Goodwin, 2012] who talk about a modal shift that is encouraged by improvements in public transportation and infrastructure, thus promoting walking, cycling as well as public transportation.

Conclusion

The literature on the peak car phenomenon has a heavy focus on certain regions, mainly the United Kingdom and the United States. However, varied research in other countries has also shown that we are in fact heading towards peak car. This is true even for The

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 2.2 Core theories and concepts 21

Netherlands where [van der Waard et al., 2013] studies it in the geographical context of the country bringing out the observation of the effect that the younger population has on this phenomenon. What we do not know is what route this current trend will take in accordance of the three views as proposed by [Goodwin, 2012] is this a stagnation leading to the continued use of car as can be observed currently, or will this lead to a downturn where we will see the rising popularity of the other modes of transport. Another major debate regarding the peak car phenomenon was what led to it. Multiple studies were analysed and summarised in figure (2-1) to show how different the views regarding the cause are. This section has brought out key points from each one of these reasoning’s which will further help during the course of the study.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 22 Review of literature on peak car and shared mobility

Table 2-1: Overview of the peak car research Non-fuel costs Shared Mobility ICT Economic factors Fuel cost Urbanization Alternative modes Young people Ageing Population Saturation of car Congestion Lifestyle change [Puentes and Tomer, 2008] [Metz, 2010] [Peter Newman and Jeﬀ Kenworthy, 2011] [Millard-Ball and Schipper, 2011] [Le Vine and Jones, 2012] [Sivak and Schoettle, 2012] [Delbosc and Currie, 2013] [Kuhnimhof et al., 2013] [Headicar, 2013] [Le Vine et al., 2013] [Metz, 2013] [Stokes, 2013] [Goodwin and Van Dender, 2013] [van der Waard et al., 2013] [Rohr and Fox, 2014] [Dutzik et al., 2014] [Wee, 2015] [McDonald, 2015] [Bastian and Börjesson, 2015] [Garikapati et al., 2016] [Bastian et al., 2016] [Oakil et al., 2016] [Delbosc, 2017] [Klein and Smart, 2017] [Focas and Christidis, 2017] [Brown, 2017] [Stapleton et al., 2017] [Klein and Smart, 2017] [Doğan et al., 2018] [Prins, 2019] [Mounce and Nelson, 2019] [Wittwer et al., 2019]

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 2.2 Core theories and concepts 23

2.2.2 Shared mobility

There is an inherent comfort that private cars provide over other modes of transport. This comfort is in terms of flexibility, availability, and ease of access [Machado et al., 2018]. A private car user does not need to travel to the closest public transport via foot; pay for it and wait. Private cars allow the flexibility of door to door transportation at the user’s convenience. This gap of comfort, convenience and door to door connection with public transportation is where shared mobility comes into play, by providing short-term access to shared vehicles according to the users needs [Machado et al., 2018]. Shared mobility can help increase the catchment area of public transportation and encouraging the adoption of multi- modality [Shaheen et al., 2016]. [Mounce and Nelson, 2019] further substantiates this by bringing out the observation regarding the increased popularity of shared mobility in urban areas with developed public transportation networks compared to rural areas and areas with inefficient public transit. Shared mobility has seen a recent success due to its ability to provide customers with better or sufficient mobility at reduced costs [Shaheen et al., 2016]. Car sharing has completely changed the cost structure of driving by removing the fixed cost from the equation. This is however coupled with the ease of access that recent developments in ICT infrastructure have provided [Maas and Attard, 2020], [Machado et al., 2018], [Jakob Arendsen et al., 2019].

Shared mobility and young people

Shared mobility and young people have presented a positive correlation, with several studies showing how the younger generation is more likely to use shared mobility. [Hu and Creutzig, 2021] in their study show how young people in China are more likely to use shared mobility, thus further delaying the purchase of a personal car. Even in The Netherlands, [Zijlstra et al., 2020] conclude that the younger generation is more likely to adopt MaaS which is a multi- modal shared mobility service. Reasons for this early adoption by the younger generation vary from environmental awareness to being more technologically savvy and being willing to try newer things [Hu and Creutzig, 2021].

The Dutch situation

The first concept of shared mobility in The Netherlands emerged in 1965 in Amsterdam in the form of "White Bikes", a free bike scheme that the government had launched where citizens could use the public bikes free of charge [Ma et al., 2020]. However, this was short-lived since the program had to be stopped due to thefts and vandalism. Later in the 1970s, the government introduced the "White Car", a car-sharing project in Amsterdam [Nijland and van Meerkerk, 2017]. Even though the project failed in 1988, the Dutch government continued to promote car-sharing programs with the hope of reducing emissions and pollutants due to car use. Recently the country has seen another boost in the sharing culture with the popularisation of the OVfiets by the NS in addition to studies that have shown an increase in car sharing; [Nijland and van Meerkerk, 2017] who also showed a 30% reduction in car ownership among car sharers from 0.89 to 0.72 cars per household. These efforts in addition to the current investments being made into testing out the MaaS in The Netherlands make

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 24 Review of literature on peak car and shared mobility it an important topic to study in conjunction with peak car since people will still need to travel, it is only their mode choice that will change.

Figure 2-5: Overview of shared mobility in The Netherlands [Jakob Arendsen et al., 2019]

[Jakob Arendsen et al., 2019] presents a comprehensive overview of all the available shared mobility options within The Netherlands. These have been summarised in figure (2-5). While all the shared mobility modes are self explanatory, free floating services refer to vehicles that do not have a fixed station. These can be readily found on footpaths and parking lots for consumers to use.

Shared mobility and peak car

To the best of the author’s knowledge, there has been no formal relation made between the concept of peak car and shared mobility. However, by looking at the literature, it is observed that several of the trends that led to the peak car phenomenon are also contributing to the increased use of shared mobility. Additionally, [Goodwin, 2012], and [Garikapati et al., 2016] cite shared mobility as one of the reasons for the peak car phenomenon. Two of the most common trends between the peak car phenomenon and the popularity of shared mobility are reducing car ownership and vehicle kilometres travelled. The reduction in car ownership in The Netherlands, as observed by [Nijland and van Meerkerk, 2017] is not the only case exhibiting this trend. Similar trends can be seen in other countries as well. [Rydén and Emma, 2005] estimated that the car use in Brussels and Bremen had fallen by 28% and 45% respectively. [Drut, 2018] in a study concluded that in France, shared mobility has helped reduce traﬃc congestion drastically. [Martinez and Viegas, 2017] observed similar results in Portugal in their study. For the purpose of this study, shared mobility will be treated as a possible cause of peak car, as mentioned within the literature. Additionally, shared mobility can also be seen as a sustainable alternative to car use. Even though The Netherlands has a well-developed public transport network coupled with the culture of using bicycles, this still does not provide the convenience that owning a car can in terms of door to door connectivity, protection from the weather and on demand service. With investments being made into shared mobility

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 2.3 Conclusion 25 applications such as mobility as a Service (MaaS), the government of The Netherlands is also looking to explore shared mobility as a potential alternative to car use [Ministerie van infrastructuur en Mobility, 2017].

2.3 Conclusion

This chapter explained the procedure that was followed to conduct the literature review, subsequently the results of the review were shared. The literature review of the two concepts has given an overview of what peak car is, what led to it, and its impact in The Netherlands. Similarly, for shared mobility, what is shared mobility, what are the different types and how it relates to peak car has been studied. [Goodwin, 2012] summarised the different schools of thought that the trends in peak car could follow. These are mainly, a continued growth of car use wherein people believe that the current stagnation is only temporary, the saturation of car use wherein researchers believe that car use will continue to plateau and finally a decline in future car use. The literature regarding the peak car phenomenon in The Netherlands has been limited but the authors who performed studies to indicate that The Netherlands along with other OCED countries is experiencing a peak in car use. From the literature review it is seen that there is no definitive answer to the question of what led to peak car. Different authors have different schools of thoughts with respect to what led to peak car. While some authors focus on the economic characteristics such as GDP, income and taxation, other authors talk about a change in lifestyle and preferences. [Focas and Christidis, 2017] in his study talks about how it is a combination of several factors that have led to the peak car phenomenon. [Garceau et al., 2015] also bring out reasoning regarding the same, stating how the exact reason regarding what led to peak car is still unknown, but it contributes some or all of the factors that have led to this phenomenon. This thesis will also go with the hypothesis that it is a combination of several factors that have led to peak car and not one single factor. The insights gained from the literature review will be treated as a part of the concourse on peak car and used to obtain statements that will subsequently be used for the Q study. The statements or claims that the authors make will be paraphrased from the authors original wording to something that a wider audience can understand; however, all effort will be made to ensure that the new statements represent the same meaning as the original statements.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 26 Review of literature on peak car and shared mobility

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis Chapter 3

Method and data speciﬁcation’s for the Q methodology

The Q method is a method developed by William Stephenson, a British psychologist at the Oxford University in 1935 for the field of psychology [Stephenson, 1935]. His motivation for this was to obtain a way to study individuals beliefs and attitudes. It been applied in various fields of social sciences in an attempt to uncover patterns or perspectives that are inherent within people. The Q methodology usually adopts a multiple participant format, and is used to explore highly complex concepts from the point of view of a group of participants involved [Watts and Stenner, 2005][Rogers, 1995]. However, it must be kept in mind that the Q method is primarily an exploratory approach, and it is not suitable to affirm a hypothesis. But it does help bring uniformity to research questions that have many complex and potentially conflicting answers.

3.1 Rationale for the method

The concept of peak car is still new in the world of academia, with researchers still trying to understand what led to it. A lot of the research done points towards the inherent motivation or attitudes that people possess coupled with other external factors that may have led to a change in travel behaviour over time. These perspectives regarding travel preferences that the population possesses and have not developed or that have not been made explicit are easier to capture using the Q methodology. The method allows to systematically examine and capture the participants perspectives, which will help understand how diﬀerent people think about a topic or an issue [Watson and Floridi, 2018]. The method has the ability to leverage the discourse regrading the topic to see what the target audience’s perception is to give a more holistic understanding. The strengths of the Q methodology can be summarised as following:

1. Eﬀectively combines a qualitative and quantitative approach [Davis and Michelle, 2011].

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 28 Method and data speciﬁcation’s for the Q methodology

2. The Q method allows to explicitly uncover any similarities and diﬀerence in subjective opinions and viewpoints of individuals.

3. It presents a methodology that is exploratory in nature and substantiates its results with the factor analysis [Davis and Michelle, 2011].

4. It allows insight into the subjectivity of the target population in a holistic way when compared to traditional surveys while also providing better replicability and a more rigorous analytical framework as compared to purely qualitative methods.

Other methods such as using a Likert scale for factor analysis could also be an alternative, but these methods require a high number of participants, and it takes a long time to gather all these results. Additionally, the availability of perspectives allows decision makers to take targeted actions which would not be possible in a conventional "pros and cons" list. Due to the exploratory nature of this research as well as limited time, the Q methodology has been identiﬁed as the most suitable method.

3.2 Shortcomings

Although the Q-methodology is highly regarded for its ability to incorporate diverse viewpoints regarding any topic, the method has certain shortcomings:

1. All possible discourses may not have been identiﬁed due to the limited sample size [Reed et al., 2009].

2. The method relies on purposive sampling based on the assumption that there is a diﬀerent point of view and this is enough to include an individual in a study [Cuppen et al., 2010].

3. The Q methodology relies heavily on the cooperation and the honesty of the participants.

4.[Bashatah, 2016] in their study also brought out issues regarding the validity and reliability of the study.

To accommodate for these shortcomings the following steps will be taken

1. The literature is used as a base to identify the diﬀerent perspectives that may exist after which the author strategically samples participants that have these diﬀerent viewpoints.

2. Special care will be taken to ensure honesty from the participants. Since the Q sorting procedure is done online, the author will explain the process to the participants before letting them conduct the sorting. The post sort interviews will be conducted in the form of a written statement at the end of the study. In case any of the participants are willing to explain their sorting in more detail, the author will contact them for an additional explanation.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 3.3 Steps to perform the Q method 29

3.3 Steps to perform the Q method

The Q methodology is performed in six steps as shown in ﬁgure (3-1). Each of these steps are discussed in detail below.

Figure 3-1: Steps to perform the Q-method

3.3.1 Concourse

Concourse refers to the entire range of discussion and discourse regarding a particular issue that is under study. It is deﬁned by identifying the sources which contain ideas, opinions, knowledge or statements regarding the issue that is under study. These can be written or spoken. The concourse can be derived from a wide variety of resources such as scientiﬁc literature, interviews, newspapers, books, websites etc. For the purpose of this study the concourse is limited to:

1. Scientiﬁc articles

2. Interviews with young people

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 30 Method and data speciﬁcation’s for the Q methodology

3. Statements derived from the mobility panel

4. Magazine and newspaper articles

These diﬀerent sources are studied, statements portraying diﬀerent viewpoints regarding the topic are selected. Once selected, the statements need to be shortlisted, which will be done in the next step.

3.3.2 Q-statement selection

The result of the concourse is a number of statements that need to be narrowed down to form the Q set (Set of Q statements). Q statements are derived from a variety of sources and are a representation of the concourse on the topic [Cuppen et al., 2010]. These statements should ideally reflect the entire range of opinions and to ensure this strategic sampling is used sometimes [Cuppen et al., 2010]. This strategic sampling is done by dividing the concourse into different categories and potential Q statements are listed under these categories. These categories can be inspired from literature, or can be motivated using the available literature on the topic [Webler et al., 2009]. Once all the statements are allocated to the different categories, the Q set, which is the final set of Q statements, is selected in a manageable number by making sure it is representative of the concourse. Although the wording of the statements does not need to be the same, it is advised that the wording is as close as possible to capture the same meaning [Cuppen et al., 2010, Webler et al., 2009]. To select the relevant statements, the following steps are applied:

1. Step 1 - All the statements are identified and compiled on an Excel sheet. After which the identified statements are divided into five initial categories based on common themes that were observed in these statements that are relevant to the study based on the literature review. These themes are reasons that several authors provided that has led to peak car or may affect peak car. The themes are a further breakdown of those discussed in the previous chapter to lay special emphasis on certain indicators and have a holistic set of statements. The themes included:

(a) Car use and ownership (b) Public transport (c) Shared mobility (d) Urbanization (e) Attitude, perception and lifestyle

A total of 116 statements are identiﬁed in this step. These statements can be found in table (A-1), (A-2) and (A-3) in the appendix.

2. Step 2 - Once the statements are categorized, the language for some of the statements needed to be adapted for the Q sort. This is done to convert the sentences to a form that makes it easier for the participants to understand and relate to. In the second step

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 3.3 Steps to perform the Q method 31

the adapted statements are formed that could be directly used for the study. Special care is taken not to change the meaning of the sentence or the idea that it was trying to convey.

3. Step 3 - Once these categories and statements are obtained it is observed that within these categories of car use and ownership, public transport, shared mobility, etc there exist additional categories which would help narrow down the viewpoints present in the concourse. For this purpose they were further divided into sub categories. These sub- categories covered the discussion around that particular topic holistically. For example, if we consider car use and ownership; this was further divided into statements that expressed ideas of pro car use, statements that were against car use and alternative statements that spoke about technology in cars or attitudes pertaining to car use. Doing this will help make sure all the different opinions have an equal representation in the final Q set. Table (3-1) shows the different categories that are considered. This step helped in further narrowing down the various ideas in the concourse, which would further aid in statement selection. Table 3-1: Categorization of the different viewpoints

Category Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Car use Pro car use Con car use Car use alternative statements Public Transportation Pro public transportation Con public transportation - Shared Mobility Pro Shared mobility Con shared mobility Shared mobility alternative statements Urbanisation - - - Attitudes and perceptions - - -

4. Step 4 - Ideally, the number of statements should be more than the number of participants but not more than sixty [Cuppen et al., 2010] since this makes it difficult to conduct the study. For the study it was decided that the number of statements would be limited to 40 which is at the minimum threshold as defined by [Watts and Stenner, 2005]. Having more than 40 statements would lead to the study taking more time per participant. The final list of selected statements are presented in Tables (3-2) and (3-3).

3.3.3 Participant selection

Before talking about the process of participant selection, it is important to deﬁne the research target audience. The target audience for this research is "Young People" in The Netherlands. For the research, young people are deﬁned to be between the ages of 18 and 30. This target audience are required for two phases of the research

1. Acquisition of Q statements - Six participants of the target group are interviewed to obtain Q statements (This is done in addition to the statements obtained from the literature review). This is important since the study aims to understand the attitudes, perception, and behaviour of the target population. This way, their opinions can be incorporated into the study.

2. Perform Q study - The total pool of identiﬁed participants will then perform the Q sort followed by interviews to understand the motivation behind the positioning of certain statements during the sort.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 32 Method and data speciﬁcation’s for the Q methodology

In the Q method, the participants or the group of respondents is referred to as a P Sample. The Q methodology selects participants using purposive sampling since the P sample needs to comprise different ideas, preferences, opinions and attitudes [Cuppen et al., 2010]. The P sample is selected to portray the diversity of opinions across the population and not the distribution of these diverse opinions. In any research using Q methodology, the P sample is selected intentionally based on the researcher’s evaluation whether the participant will provide a diverse view or other interesting insights to the research. For this study, the participants are identified using the authors personal and professional network. The participants are identified based on the following criteria.

1. Level of Urbanization Several authors ([Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy, 2011, Headicar, 2013, Stokes, 2013, Bastian and Börjesson, 2015, Oakil et al., 2016, Stapleton et al., 2017]) have studied the effects that urbanization has on an individual’s mode choice showing how areas with low level of urbanization have shown an increase in car ownership. For this reason it is interesting to see how the level of urbanisation of a participant in the study affects their Q sort. An area with a population density greater than 2500 inhabitants per sq km is said to be urban and below as rural. 2. Level of Education The Dutch education system can broadly be divided into three paths which are MBO, HBO and WO. Each of these paths prepares individuals to different career paths. For example holding a university degree (WO) ensures higher paying often defined as "white collar" jobs to students when compared to those who studied MBO and HBO. This in turn affects an individuals socio-economic background and is therefore included as an indicator when selecting participants. 3. Car Ownership Car ownership is included as a criterion since it is a viable indicator to show a difference in travel behaviour amongst participants. Participants that already own a car are more likely to travel by car when compared to a participant that does not own a car. For this purpose, car ownership is included as a criterion for the study. 4. Shared mobility use Research has shown that shared mobility could be a potential substitute to car use and promotion of shared mobility could further guide us towards peak car [Goodwin and Van Dender, 2013, Garikapati et al., 2016]. Participants therefore are also sampled based on their shared mobility use. The set of participants will include both, people who have used and often use shared mobility to people who do not use it.

Selecting participants based on these criteria will help identify a holistic sample set for the purpose of the Q study. These criteria were picked as they have shown to affect a participants travel behaviour while also being mentioned in peak car literature. Additionally, it is easier to sample participants based on these categories rather than other indicators which are difficult to measure such as attitudes, lifestyle, etc. Using these criteria will help pick a more diverse sample set which could be a representation for the population. To identify the participants, the author first contacted people from their personal and professional network who they believed would represent these different criteria while having different

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 3.3 Steps to perform the Q method 33 viewpoints on travel behaviour. After this the snowballing method was used wherein each participant was asked to nominate someone based on the criteria coupled with identifying a potential participant who they believed would hold a diﬀerent viewpoint to theirs. This will help ensure that people with diﬀerent viewpoints are included.

Participant demographics

Based on the above criteria a total of 20 participants are selected. This section will present the distribution of the participants based on the various indicators. The purpose of this is to present an overview of the participants that took part in the study.

1. Level of Urbanisation

Figure 3-2: Participant level of urbanisation

2. Level of education

Figure 3-3: Participant level of education

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 34 Method and data speciﬁcation’s for the Q methodology

3. Household car ownership

Figure 3-4: Participant household car ownership

4. Shared mobility use

Figure 3-5: Participant shared mobility use

3.3.4 Sorting

Once the P sample (Participants) and the Q set (Q statements) are ready, the Q set is presented to the participants to ‘sort’. The Q sort is ideally performed in person but due to the COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions imposed an HTML version of the Q sorting process was developed by adapting the code provided by [Aproxima, 2015]. The website link (https://manoviraj608.github.io/qstudypeakcar/) was provided to the participants who could access it from their PC or mobile. Git Pages is used to host the website and all the data is then collected on Firebase console which is a Google backed cloud platform.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 3.3 Steps to perform the Q method 35

Once the sorting process has started, the participants are presented with several statements that the participants need to sort into three categories

1. Disagree

2. Neutral

3. Agree

After this, the participants then need to further place these cards into a response chart that has been designed in a normally distributed scheme. This choice of sorting is based on the individuals beliefs and understanding about the issue. The size of the grid depends on the number of statements that the Q study consists of. The larger the number of statements, the wider the range of available scores. A Q sample with 40-60 statements can have a range between -5 and +5 [Brown, 1982]. After completing the sorting of the statements on to the grid, the participants need to provide written motivation regarding statements that they strongly agreed or disagreed to. This will be in addition to the conversation that will follow the interview to ensure that the researcher can understand how the respondent interprets a particular statement and justiﬁes its position. The participants provide a motivation for the statements that have been sorted on the +5 and -5 spots.

Figure 3-6: Grid for forced Q sorting

3.3.5 Factor Analysis

Factor analysis is a method used typically to classify variables in the R method (surveys and questionnaires), where the variables are tests or traits. However, in the case of the Q methodology, the variables are the Q sorts and the factors thus formed are the shared perspectives or viewpoints between the participants. If two individuals have a similar mindset, they will have similar sorts and thus end up under the same factor. The final goal of factor analysis is to find similarities between participants thorough their Q sorts and obtain a cluster of similar perspectives. The factor analysis is performed on the KADE software developed by Shawn Banasick [Ba- nasick, 2019]. The Q sorts in the form of a JSON file and the Q statements are put in as inputs within the program. The various steps involved within the factor analysis are

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 36 Method and data speciﬁcation’s for the Q methodology

1. Correlation The ﬁrst step is to calculate the correlation, for this the Pearson correlation coeﬃcient of all the Q-sort pairs is calculated. It gives a value between 1 and -1 indicating either a positive or negative linear relationship between two Q sorts. It is calculated using the following formulae:

P d2 r = 1 − (3-1) ab 2Ns2

• rab: Pearson’s correlation coeﬃcient for Q-sorts a and b • d: Diﬀerence in scores for the statements between two sorts. • N: Total number of Q-sorts. • s: Variance of the forced distribution.

2. Factor extraction Deciding the number of factors is an iterative process. As a rule of thumb, seven factors are the "magical number" to begin with [Brown, 1982]. The factor analysis can be performed using two major methods, which are centroid factors and principal component analysis (PCA). The centroid method is popular when the researchers would like to use hand rotation (Also known as judgemental rotation which is performed by the researcher manually). Additionally, the centroid method focuses only on what is common between the sorts and ignores any speciﬁcity that may come with an individual sort. On the other hand, PCA considers both, the commonality and the speciﬁcity between sorts. [Webler et al., 2009] talked about how using either of the methods give similar results. For this study, the PCA method is used.

3. Factor rotation After extracting the factors, an unrotated factor matrix is obtained. This matrix shows how the various Q sorts load on the extracted factors. Factor rotation is used to rotate these factors so that they become more interpretable. Two of the most commonly used rotation methods are judgemental factor rotation and varimax factor rotation. Judgemental factor rotation is performed by hand on a two-dimensional plot. Usually an orthogonal rotation, maintaining a 90-degree angle between any two factors, is followed to ensure that the factors are statistically independent [Akhtar-Danesh, 2017]. The beneﬁts of judgmental rotation are in its ability to test a hypothesis regarding important factors. However, it does cost a lot more time when there are a lot of Q sorts and this method is heavily subjective [Akhtar-Danesh, 2017]. Varimax factor rotation on the other hand is a statistical orthogonal rotation technique which distributes the variance across the factors such that each Q sort has the highest degree of association with only one factor [Brown, 1982]. One drawback of using this method is that if there is a predominant factor that exists, it is eliminated and not visible for the further calculations and interpretations [Brown, 1982]. For this study the varimax method will be used owning to its exploratory and more holistic nature of factor rotation.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 3.4 Interview process in the Q method 37

4. Evaluation criteria Once the factors are rotated, it is important to decide how many factors to consider after the rotation. For this purpose, the following criteria are used.

• Humprey’s rule: Factors that have two or more significant loading’s after extraction proceed to the factor rotation process [Brown, 1982]. The significance can be chosen but is set to p < 0.05. The following formulae is used to calculate a significant factor loading:

1 fsig = 1.96 ∗ √ (3-2) N

fsig: Loading factor of each Q-sort on the factor. N: Total number of Q sorts. • Eigenvalue (EV): A factor that has an EV > 1 is said to be a signiﬁcant factor. The EV is calculated using the following formulae:

X EV = fi (3-3)

Here fi represents the loading factor of each Q sort.

5. Factor interpretation The ﬁnal step is the interpretation of the factors. This provides a narrative to each of the perspectives based on a particular participants sort combined with their sort relative to the other factors. The factor interpretation helps create a story line using the various outputs such as the Z-scores, agreement/disagreement statements and consensus statements by combining it with the post sort interviews of the participants.

3.4 Interview process in the Q method

The ﬁrst form of data collection is thorough interviews. Interviews for the study are conducted on two occasions.

1. Collection of Q statements - In order to have a holistic understanding of the viewpoints regarding peak car, car use and shared mobility in the society a set of interviews is conducted with the target audience. These interviews are in the form of a conversation where the researcher asks the participants about their habits and opinions on the various topics. The answers by the interview participants are recorded and further used as statements for the Q study in addition to those obtained from academic and grey literature.

2. After the Q sort has been performed - The post Q sort interviews are conducted to understand the positioning of certain statements that the participant may strongly agree or disagree with. This will help in further interpretation of the results once the factor analysis is performed.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 38 Method and data speciﬁcation’s for the Q methodology

3.4.1 How will it be conducted

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic during the thesis, all the interviews are conducted online. For the interviews, ﬁrst the participants are asked to sign a consent form via email which will conﬁrm their willingness to participate in this study and use the information they provide for further analysis. After this an appropriate time is set for a phone call or a video call wherein the author asks the participants questions about their views and opinions. The post sort interviews are done in a written form, wherein the participants are expected to provide information to certain questions as well as motivation to the arrangement of certain statements.

3.4.2 Interview Questions

This section will highlight the interview process and the various questions that the participants are expected to answer. Like the interviews, this is also divided into two parts.

1. Collection of Q statements - The process is conducted in three phases:

Phase 1 - Basic information about the participant is collected. This includes the following questions

(a) What year were you born in? (b) What is the highest level of education that you have obtained? (c) What is your most common mode of transport? (d) Do you own a car? (e) Do you have a licence? (f) Have you used shared mobility?

These questions will help give an understanding of the participant before more speciﬁc questions related to travel behaviour can be asked.

Phase 2 - In the next part, a conversation is initiated with the participant regarding their travel behaviour. This part has no agenda, but the author tries to note down diﬀerent perspectives that the interviewee may have and can potentially be used as statements. The conversation is directed towards the following topics:

(a) Current modes of travel and reasoning behind it (b) Thoughts about shared mobility services (c) Car use and future plans with respect to car use (d) Public transport (e) The role that the environment plays in mode choice selection (f) The role of urbanization in the interviewee’s mode choice (g) Electric cars and how they may aﬀect mode choice

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 3.5 Q statements 39

Phase 3 - In the ﬁnal phase the participants are informed about the study the author is conducting regarding peak car and more details are given regarding the same. After this the participants are asked about their views on the research topic. Finally, the participants are asked if they would be willing to participate in the Q sorting and if they had suggestions for someone who they think has a diﬀerent view than them on the research topic.

2. Q sort process - The platform for the Q sort is straightforward and has all the instructions present on the screen. Before the participants conduct the Q sort the author will have a call wherein they explain the process and how much time it will take. Once the sorting is complete the author will contact the participants regarding their experience and ask for questions regarding some of the choices that the participants may have made. This justiﬁcation will help to analyse the sorts after the factor analysis.

3.5 Q statements

3.5.1 Method

The selection of the Q statements is based on the concourse regarding the topic of peak car that is available. This will be done in the following manner:

1. Literature review - Based on the literature review conducted in section (2.2.1) statements are gathered from research papers. These statements are related to peak car and what led to it.

2. Interview - Interviews are conducted with the target audience where their perception regarding car ownership, car use, shared mobility and other determinants of peak car are recorded. Five participants are included in this round of the interviews.

3. Grey literature - This includes articles, reports or any other form of concourse that has mentioned peak car or the stagnation/reduction of car use. This will help get a better understanding of what the wider public’s understanding of the phenomenon is.

The list of statements obtained from the three sources represent the total concourse on the particular topic.

3.5.2 Statements based on categories

The statements were selected based on the process explained in section (3.3.2). Initially the Q statements are extracted from the relevant concourse, in this case it includes the literature review and the interviews with the participants. These statements are then put in diﬀerent themes or categories based on a commonality that is found among the statements before formatting the language of the statements to make it easier for the participants to understand. Finally, a total of 40 statements are selected that represent the concourse on the topic. The following tables present all the ﬁnal statements for the Q sorts divided into their respective categories.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 40 Method and data speciﬁcation’s for the Q methodology

Table 3-2: List of statements - Q set (1)

Statements Category Having a car can give an individual a sense of freedom. Using a car is more comfortable than other modes of transport since you can stop anywhere you like and go in your own time. I like the privacy a car gives when travelling I like travelling by car since it gives a sense of safety It is difficult to get groceries on a bike or walking, so I would prefer a car. Public transport is expensive. It would be cheaper for me per ride if I had a car. Pro - Car use Owning a car can make/makes it easier to travel Owning a car is nice since you wouldn’t have to worry about getting a seat The weather is so unpredictable, it’s easier to travel if I own a car. Owning a car means considering costs like maintenance, insurance, parking and repair which become too much I don’t want to use a car/ try to use the car less due to environmental reasons. Currently, it is difficult for me to own a car/ regularly use a car since I cannot afford it. Owning a car is too much of a hassle, especially if I’m Con - Car use living in a city. I rather spend that money elsewhere using public transport is nice because you know exactly how much you will spend per ride. That is more difficult if you have a car. I don’t think we need a car any more but my parents and/or other older members of my family still think its needed. I don’t want to use a car, but I wouldn’t mind using Car use alt one if it was electric. The public transportation is so efficient that I do not feel the need to use a car It’s easy to use public transport since I can find all the timings, Pro - Public Transport the fastest and best possible route on my phone. Public transportation takes too long, and I need to make multiple changes. So I would prefer using a car. Sometimes public transportation is unreliable because either the road is closed or there is some work in progress on a railway line When I need to travel using public transport I have to plan a lot. I do not like doing that planning. Con - Public Transport Even though the public transportation in the Netherlands is good. I think you still need a car sometimes

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 3.5 Q statements 41

Table 3-3: List of statements - Q set (2)

Statements Category There are so many sharing car, bike and scooter options that I do not feel like I will need to own any vehicle. I like using shared bikes and scooters. They’re fast, cheap and I don’t worry about parking It is easy for me to use shared mobility. I can access it with my phone at any time and don’t need to worry about anything It is so diﬃcult ﬁnding parking in cities which is why Shared mobility pro I would prefer using a taxi when I need a car. I think its better using shared mobility than owning a vehicle as it is better for the environment I don’t like using shared cars since you have to travel with someone you do not know. I only use a taxi when I can share the costs with someone. Shared mobility con Shared mobility is expensive so I prefer using public transport or just walking/biking. If there were more shared mobility options easily available Shared mobility alt I do not think I would need a car. If I were living away from a city I would prefer having a car for my commute The infrastructure to walk/bike/use public transport is so good. I don’t think you ever need to use a car. Urbanisation I think It’s nice to live somewhere where all my needs are met at a walk-able distance. This removes the need of having a car. If I had more money I would travel more. Now I try to travel less because it’s expensive to travel. In the future I will buy/continue using my car. The environmental impact of a mode does matter, but I prefer my comfort. My need to travel has reduced in recent times since I can do everything online I feel guilty taking a mode of transport that is not environmentally Attitudes and perceptions friendly, but my time/ money are more important. I like travelling by bike because cheaper and/or gives a good start to the day.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 42 Method and data speciﬁcation’s for the Q methodology

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis Chapter 4

Analysis and results of the Q sorts

This chapter will discuss the Q sorting process followed by the factor analysis and the interpretation of the results before ﬁnally presenting the diﬀerent perspectives and how they relate to the demographics in the sample. To conduct the Q sorts, each of the participants is contacted individually. The participants are asked if they would like to take part in the study, if their response is positive they are sent the following documents:

1. Link to the Q sorting website 2. Presentation explaining the Q sorting procedure (Appendix (B)) 3. List of statements in the Q study (English) 4. List of statements in the Q study (Dutch)

After this, the participants are informed that the entire Q sorting procedure would take 45 minutes. Once the participants complete the Q sort, a post sort interview is conducted, this is in addition to the written motivation that the participants provided during the Q sort process. The post sort interview is only conducted for participants that were willing to talk about the sort that they had conducted. Once all the sorts are obtained from the participants, they are downloaded in a JSON format, which stands for JavaScript Object Notation. It allows us to store data obtained from the web in a form that is readable. This ﬁle is then uploaded to the KADE software along with a list of statements. Once the data is uploaded, a ﬁnal check is completed to check if all the data matches that obtained from the website. After this the analysis is conducted on the software.

4.1 Correlation Matrix

Table (4-1) represents the correlation matrix. The correlation matrix represents how one participant’s sort correlates to other participants sorts. In other words, it shows the relationship

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 44 Analysis and results of the Q sorts

Table 4-1: Correlation Matrix

Participant P 1 P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 6 P 7 P 8 P 9 P 10 P 11 P 12 P 13 P 14 P 15 P 16 P 17 P 18 P 19 P 20 P 1 100 P 2 27 100 P 3 46 36 100 P 4 20 18 31 100 P 5 23 45 18 28 100 P 6 64 39 49 10 32 100 P 7 23 52 30 50 61 23 100 P 8 33 47 48 22 24 31 35 100 P 9 24 26 31 -4 12 43 9 3 100 P 10 39 21 23 23 -1 25 2 11 -3 100 P 11 24 36 44 1 38 49 31 19 41 -2 100 P 12 25 43 20 -5 29 40 35 28 38 -3 29 100 Participant P 13 37 53 35 34 38 37 34 25 10 32 55 20 100 P 14 -15 4 1 -35 17 -3 17 -17 18 -27 27 22 -28 100 P 15 54 46 34 32 24 66 20 11 28 42 26 29 42 -24 100 P 16 44 61 30 17 14 45 29 28 18 44 15 35 51 -37 62 100 P 17 42 47 32 60 29 42 50 32 12 51 17 23 43 -28 54 58 100 P 18 62 41 43 48 21 51 33 41 11 32 18 14 37 -24 61 50 53 100 P 19 7 37 34 45 2 29 16 31 15 29 8 0 37 -45 53 49 51 52 100 P 20 47 41 28 -8 44 54 35 30 27 18 36 48 39 9 43 48 28 27 11 100 between two sorts and not of the two items or how similar they are [Watts and Stenner, 2005]. A value of 100 represents perfect correlation, whereas participants that have the same magnitude, but opposite signs represent a mirror like sort between them. From table (4-1) we can observe that apart from a few outliers (participants whose correlation is a negative value) there is a consensus in the participants taking part in the Q sort (Since there are very few cases of extreme values in the correlation table, the general range is comparable). This can already give us an inclination towards the interpretation of the results. Since a majority of the participants are in consensus, similar views can be expected. The highest correlation between two respondents is (66/100 = 0.66) and the lowest correlation is (-45/100 = -0.45).

4.2 Extraction of factors

The next step is to extract the factors, for this the Principal Component method is used. The factor analysis generated 8 factors. Each of these factors correlation with the individual respondent are also denoted in Table (4-2).

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 4.3 Factor Rotation 45

Table 4-2: Factor Matrix

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7 Factor 8 P 1 0.6687 0.0062 -0.3262 0.1458 -0.5367 -0.0366 0.0577 -0.092 P 2 0.7166 0.182 0.1927 -0.2548 0.2514 0.1955 0.0159 0.1686 P 3 0.6155 0.0869 -0.0292 0.5578 -0.0137 0.1848 0.125 0.2528 P 4 0.4615 -0.4567 0.5365 0.2625 -0.0481 -0.2297 -0.2084 -0.0543 P 5 0.4828 0.3993 0.4809 -0.1502 -0.1498 -0.2466 0.0659 -0.2221 P 6 0.7361 0.214 -0.3729 0.1691 -0.1073 -0.0673 -0.0505 -0.1673 P 7 0.5648 0.2412 0.6469 -0.0837 -0.1141 -0.0532 -0.1759 0.0612 P 8 0.5221 0.0187 0.2357 0.1668 -0.1264 0.7063 0.1748 0.0081 P 9 0.3506 0.4262 -0.3477 0.2634 0.3655 -0.0911 -0.3585 0.0351 P 10 0.441 -0.4411 -0.2498 -0.1788 -0.222 -0.1904 0.1293 0.5589 P 11 0.4846 0.5314 -0.0058 0.2906 0.2689 -0.2502 0.3727 0.0354 P 12 0.4549 0.5158 -0.0782 -0.2909 0.0444 0.2466 -0.2998 0.0017 P 13 0.6779 -0.0401 0.1092 -0.1066 0.2467 -0.2219 0.5345 -0.0536 P 14 -0.1996 0.7588 0.0948 0.0974 -0.1122 -0.1301 -0.1921 0.3542 P 15 0.753 -0.167 -0.3222 -0.0727 0.0413 -0.2397 -0.1944 -0.1502 P 16 0.7342 -0.2056 -0.2112 -0.4018 0.1491 0.1291 0.0016 0.0511 P 17 0.7399 -0.3125 0.1774 -0.1082 -0.0461 -0.1406 -0.2114 0.2014 P 18 0.7233 -0.2784 -0.0167 0.2246 -0.2021 0.0611 -0.1317 -0.1681 P 19 0.5553 -0.4938 0.0276 0.1088 0.4813 0.1172 -0.129 -0.0629 P 20 0.6053 0.3989 -0.1935 -0.3213 -0.1766 0.0603 0.124 -0.1399

Eigen values 7.02891402 2.66340209 1.70528888 1.18744627 1.07710199 1.04264417 0.95943906 0.74563699

4.3 Factor Rotation

Once the factor analysis is completed, factor rotation is performed using varimax rotation. The rotation is performed in several runs. In the first run, all 8 of the factors are rotated, and the results are observed to see if they are sufficient. This is done till an ideal number of factors is found (refer Appendix (D) for more information). The ideal solution was found for 5 factors, this was since each factor was loaded heavily by at least two participants. A heavy or significant load is said to occur for values (>.50) similar to the one used in R factor analysis. Table (4-3) presents the rotated factor matrix. The cells marked in red indicate a heavy or significant loading on a particular factor. This means that the participants in that particular group have a shared view or perspective. Participant 4 is said to be a bipolar factor since it does not load heavily on any one factor, since it’s loading on factor 1 and factor 5 are very similar. Therefore, it has been left out of further numerical calculations since it has a possibility of inducing a bias [Watts and Stenner, 2005]. Participant 11 has a factor loading of 0.4884 on factor 11 which is below the threshold of 0.5, however, it has still been included since its loading of 0.4844 on factor 3 is significantly higher than its loading on any of the other factors. Participant 16 is a part of factor 5 but has a negative sign. This is since participant 16’s sort was a close to mirror image of the other participants sorts within the factor. Table (4-3) has provided five varying factors. These factors can also be viewed as different perspectives that are present within the population.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 46 Analysis and results of the Q sorts

Table 4-3: Rotated Factor Matrix

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 P 1 0.8836 0.2113 0.1369 0.1128 0.0775 P 2 0.6165 0.347 0.0879 0.4785 0.1721 P 3 0.609 -0.0282 0.3434 0.1454 0.426 P 4 0.4917 0.1255 -0.0404 -0.2245 0.4725 P 5 0.3679 0.7121 0.1722 0.1582 0.0174 P 6 0.0829 0.672 0.1813 0.2685 -0.0481 P 7 0.0124 0.5244 0.4634 0.2659 0.389 P 8 0.0392 0.264 0.8603 0.0563 0.0345 P 9 0.0527 0.3962 0.7001 0.0828 -0.1102 P 10 0.1742 -0.3624 0.6479 -0.0489 0.4438 P 11 0.2945 0.0362 0.4844 0.1678 0.1464 P 12 0.08 0.2425 -0.1139 0.7409 0.0365 P 13 0.0654 0.2531 0.2723 0.7277 -0.0433 P 14 0.4691 -0.1217 0.3261 0.5784 0.1511 P 15 0.0286 -0.1103 0.1547 0.2577 0.8326 P 16 -0.1379 0.215 0.1091 0.2727 -0.7037 P 17 0.2733 0.5249 0.082 0.0372 0.6717 P 18 0.3434 0.1689 0.4592 -0.0242 0.5767 P 19 0.487 0.3303 0.0464 0.2253 0.5537 P 20 0.1006 0.3044 0.3591 0.2504 0.5009

4.4 Z scores

The objective of the Z scores is to give a better understanding of the overall rank of a statement across all the perspectives by giving us an idea of how far away a data point is from the mean. This will help us understand the overall sentiment of the population towards the statements for each of the individual perspectives. To understand the reasoning of these rankings the post sort interview comments along with the results of the literature review are leveraged to form diﬀerent perspectives based on the diﬀerent factor’s and corresponding Z scores.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 4.5 Missing statements 47

Table 4-4: Z scores and corresponding ranks

Serial Statement Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Number Z-score Rank Z-score Rank Z-score Rank Z-score Rank Z-score Rank 1 Owning a car means considering costs like maintenance, insurance, parking and repair which become too much. 0.62 12 0.69 11 -0.79 32 2.07 1 -0.64 28 2 There are so many sharing car, bike and scooter options that I do not feel like I will need to own any vehicle. -1.08 33 -1.08 35 -1.14 35 -0.49 27 -1.82 39 3 It is difficult to get groceries on a bike or walking so I would prefer a car. -1.02 32 -1.99 40 -1.48 37 -1.84 40 0.06 21 4 I feel guilty taking a mode of transport that is not environmentally friendly, but my time/money are more important. -1.28 35 -0.88 31 1.49 3 -1.02 35 -0.76 31 5 Its easy to use public transport since I can find all the timings, the fastest and best possible route on my phone. 1.7 2 0.47 16 0.84 10 0.56 13 -0.2 23 6 I like travelling by bike because cheaper and/or gives a good start to the day. 0.33 15 0.82 10 1.46 5 1.66 2 -0.72 30 7 If I had more money I would travel more. Now I try to travel less because it’s expensive to travel. -0.47 27 -0.23 22 0.29 16 -0.2 21 0.38 15 8 In the future I will buy/continue using my car. 1.14 8 0.39 18 0.71 11 -0.76 31 1.45 3 9 The infrastructure to walk/bike/use public transport is so good. I don’t think you ever need to use a car. -1.29 36 -0.65 29 -1.51 38 -1.41 37 -1.84 40 10 Public transport is expensive. It would be cheaper for me per ride if I had a car. -1.5 38 -0.28 25 -0.23 22 -0.56 28 1.58 2 11 I think it’s better using shared mobility than owning a vehicle as it is better for the environment. -0.27 24 -0.19 21 0.09 18 -0.28 23 -1.45 37 12 I only use a taxi when I can share the costs with someone. -0.68 29 1.01 8 0.37 15 -0.11 20 0.11 18 13 Owning a car is nice since you wouldn’t have to worry about getting a seat. -0.01 20 -0.23 23 -0.92 33 0.93 8 0.69 11 14 Owning a car can make/makes it easier to travel. 1.22 7 0.94 9 1.72 1 0.54 14 1.21 7 15 I like the privacy a car gives when travelling. 0.27 16 0.49 15 -0.39 25 -0.47 25 1.2 8 16 It is so difficult finding parking in cities which is why I would prefer using a taxi when I need a car. -0.14 22 -1.01 33 -0.32 24 -1.59 38 -1.63 38 17 I don’t think we need a car anymore but my parents and/or other older members of my family still think its needed. -1.69 40 -0.26 24 -0.78 31 -0.94 34 -0.6 27 18 The environmental impact of a mode does matter, but I prefer my comfort. 0.21 18 0.55 14 -0.55 28 0.45 15 1.23 6 19 I like using shared bikes and scooters. They’re fast, cheap and I don’t worry about parking. 0.2 19 -1.5 37 -0.15 21 1.34 5 -0.18 22 20 The weather is so unpredictable, its easier to travel if I own a car. -0.34 25 -1.05 34 -0.52 27 -0.39 24 0.84 10 21 Having a car can give an individual a sense of freedom. -0.35 26 1.04 7 0.59 13 0.86 10 1.04 9 22 It is easy for me to use shared mobility. I can access it with my phone at any time and don’t need to worry about anything. -1.29 37 -0.94 32 -0.44 26 0.37 16 -0.21 24 23 Currently it is difficult for me to own a car/ regularly use a car since I cannot afford it. 1.43 3 1.69 2 1.48 4 1.28 6 0.47 13 24 Even though the public transportation in the Netherlands is good. I think you still need a car sometimes. 1.35 5 1.2 5 1.52 2 1.22 7 1.43 4 25 Shared mobility is expensive so I prefer using public transport or just walking/biking. 0.81 11 0.68 12 0.07 19 0.73 12 0.09 19 26 I like travelling by car since it gives a sense of safety. 0.27 17 -1.53 38 -1.14 34 -0.84 32 0.34 16 27 Using public transport is nice because you know exactly how much you will spend per ride. That is more difficult if you have a car. -0.67 28 0.37 19 -1.34 36 -0.73 30 -0.68 29 28 Sometimes public transportation is unreliable because either the road is closed or there is some work in progress on a railway line. 1.36 4 0.62 13 0.68 12 -0.02 18 0.39 14 29 Owning a car is too much of a hassle, especially if I’m living in a city. I rather spend that money elsewhere. 0.34 14 0.46 17 -0.65 30 1.48 3 -0.9 33 30 I don’t want to use a car/ try to use the car less due to environmental reasons. -0.82 30 -0.84 30 1.21 7 -0.85 33 -1.13 35 31 Using a car is more comfortable than other modes of transport since you can stop anywhere you like and go in your own time. 1.01 10 1.46 3 0.96 9 1.35 4 1.82 1 32 I don’t like using shared cars since you have to travel with someone you do not know. 0.4 13 1.11 6 -0.59 29 -1.7 39 -0.32 25 33 My need to travel has reduced in recent times since I can do everything online. 1.23 6 -0.49 27 -1.88 40 0.85 11 -0.82 32 34 If I were living away from a city I would prefer having a car for my commute. 1.83 1 1.29 4 1.21 8 -0.64 29 0.66 12 35 When I need to travel using public transport I have to plan a lot. I do not like doing that planning. -0.14 23 -1.63 39 -1.58 39 -1.22 36 0.06 20 36 If there were more shared mobility options easily available I do not think I would need a car. -1.22 34 -0.42 26 1.32 6 -0.2 22 -0.36 26 37 The public transportation is so efficient that I do not feel the need to use a car. -1.56 39 0 20 -0.13 20 0.24 17 -1.16 36 38 Public transportation takes too long and I need to make multiple changes. So I would prefer using a car. 1.02 9 -1.37 36 0.59 14 -0.07 19 1.33 5 39 I don’t want to use a car but I wouldn’t mind using one if it was electric. -0.87 31 -0.52 28 -0.28 23 -0.48 26 -1.11 34 40 I think its nice to live somewhere where all my needs are met at a walkable distance. This removes the need of having a car. -0.07 21 1.82 1 0.22 17 0.88 9 0.13 17

4.5 Missing statements

While conducting the Q sort, the participants were asked if there were any statements that they thought were missing from the study. These were statements that they thought were important with respect to peak car. Out of the 20 participants 3 of them suggested missing statements. These statements have been summarized below:

1. Safety concerns regarding car use are missing - The participant felt that statements regarding the safety aspect of various transport modes were missing. Especially the safety that comes with car use. 2. The post sort survey did not include a reasoning to ask people why they use a car - For the purpose of the study this information was irrelevant which is why it was not included in the post sort survey. 3. There are a disproportionate number of statements for other modes and more statements should be included that talk about car use - In this case the participant felt that the number of statements that talked about the other modes of transport eclipsed the statements that were presented and talked about car use. While picking the statements, the aim was to include all the diverse views that were present in the concourse. Addi- tional statements for car use were not included since that would make the statements repetitive.

4.6 Interpretation

The ﬁve factor solution is then taken to the interpretation stage. Here, the quantitative result of the factor analysis are combined with the qualitative interview data to describe the ﬁve

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 48 Analysis and results of the Q sorts factors or five different perspectives. Each of the perspectives have characterizing statements, that is, the statements that were placed at either ends of the grid during the Q sort. These statements hold a lot of value as they are the defining statements of a perspective. Below the five different perspectives will be presented and discussed.

4.6.1 Perspective 1: Public transport is great but I also need a car

The first perspective has three participants and explains 14% of the variance. The participants of this perspective are people who have a high preference towards public transportation, especially due to its ease of use, the lower costs and the convenience that it provides. However, they also understand the shortcomings that come with it. They know that even in a developed country with one of the best public transportation networks, the connectivity is still a major hindrance. The participants of this perspective acknowledge that there are some reliability issues and although public transport meets a major chunk of their travel needs there is still a gap that needs to be filled for which they prefer using a car since it is easier to travel via car in certain situations, and it gives them a sense of safety. In general, the perspective is more positive towards statements that are pro-car use as compared to the statements relating to the other modes of transportation. The main motivation for preferring cars to other modes is due to the connectivity that it provides along with the additional options that you get when you are travelling such as the ability to stop anywhere and leave at a convenient time without a lot of planning. The participants of this perspective are not very enthusiastic about shared mobility, where all statements related to shared mobility are sorted at 0 or below on the Q sort grid. There is a higher preference for public transport than shared mobility, and this perspective really believes in ownership of their mode of transportation. The peculiarity of this perspective comes when you look at the distinguishing statements. This perspective disagrees with statement 21 which states that “Having a car can give an individual a sense of freedom” while all the statements in the perspective align towards pro car use. The participants in this perspective do not believe that it gives you a sense of freedom, taking the average sort of the statement to -1. But if you drill through the individual sorts, only one respondent loaded a heavily negative score on this sort, which led to it having a lower average. That respondent in general has shown an affinity towards coupling car use with public transport. Another distinguishing statement is statements 10 “Public transport is expensive. It would be cheaper for me per ride if I had a car” to which the participants highly disagree. This is atypical to the general affinity towards car that is observed within this perspective. However, if you look at the demographics of the respondents within this perspective. It includes the youngest participants by age of the entire Q study. These participants are still using the student OV provided by the Dutch government extensively, which makes travelling via public transport free. Whereas they do have to incur certain costs to travel using the vehicle that they may have at home. An additional distinguishing factor is statement 36 "If there were more shared mobility options easily available I do not think I would need a car." In general, the respondents in this perspective have a very low participation in shared mobility usage. This can also be seen

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 4.6 Interpretation 49 from the sorting of the statements. There is a consensus that shared mobility to some extent may take over from private ownership. This perspective has disagreed with this statement, thus sorting it negatively. The participants in this perspective believe that even if the infrastructure is eﬀective and new innovations such as shared mobility and walk-able communities are introduced, it can still not replace traditional car use. The reliability that comes with owning your mode of transport. After analysing the complete sorting and going over the participant’s explanation, it can be seen that the participants in this perspective believe in car use in conjunction with the use of public transport. They do understand the positive impacts that public transport can have, but still believe that it is not as eﬃcient as it should be to completely stop using a car. Additionally, the participants of this perspective do not believe in the usage of shared mobility. Although they have used it in the past, they believe in owning the vehicle that they use to travel. Statements (34), (28), (14), (8), (38), (31) and (17) show their inclination towards a heavy car use lifestyle while statements (5), (28), (24) and (10) show us how they understand that public transport has its pitfalls but is still an important part of the transport landscape.

Most agreed statements

The most agreed statements for this perspective are If I were living away from a city I would prefer having a car for my commute (34), and It’s easy to use public transport since I can ﬁnd all the timings, the fastest and best possible route on my phone(5) each with a Z score of 1.828 and 1.699 respectively. For statement 34 one of the participants said it was very important for them to have a car since

My parents live in a small town in Groningen. I currently live in Zwolle. This would be an hour ride with a car, but with public transport it takes two hours to get from my house in Zwolle to my parents house. I wouldn’t want to do that every day for my job. The public transportation in the north of our country isn’t as good as it is in the Randstad, so I would absolutely prefer having a car for my commute.

I just really like that you are free and can go where ever you want to go, you can use it on holiday or for groceries etc. its very practical

The participant in this case understood the additional beneﬁt of public transport, however still believed that a car is necessary as sometimes public transport is just not eﬃcient enough. This thought was also shared by the other participants in the perspective, who understood how public transport could be complementary to car use. When talking about the sort for statement 5 one of the participants said that:

While public transport can take a lot longer than it needs to, it absolutely is easy to use. I’m not great at navigating, so the fact that my phone can tell me which trains taking is a big plus.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 50 Analysis and results of the Q sorts

Most disagreed statements

The most disagreed statements for this perspective were I don’t think we need a car any more, but my parents and/or other older members of my family still think its needed (17). and The public transportation is so eﬃcient that I do not feel the need to use a car (37).The two statements have a Z score of -1.69 and -1.559. The participants of this perspective do not completely disregard the advantages that using public transport brings. The explanation that the participants presented for statement 17 was

I think as a family we really need a car, its really useful and I don’t think we could live without at this point.

While the participants in the perspective believed that the car is important, they also justiﬁed the sort for statements 37 by saying that

Public transportation is very eﬃcient in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Den Haag and other big cities, but once you’re in a smaller town it could take a lot more time to get around than necessary. It really depends on where you live. I don’t think I would even want to own a car if I lived in Amsterdam, but to get to a point where cars are just not necessary any more, the public transportation needs to get a lot more eﬃcient in smaller towns.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 4.6 Interpretation 51

Table 4-5: Z scores for Perspective 1

Serial Statement Z-score Number 34 If I were living away from a city I would prefer having a car for my commute. 1.828 Its easy to use public transport since I can find all the timings, the fastest and best possible route on 5 1.699 my phone. 23 Currently, it is difficult for me to own a car/ regularly use a car since I cannot afford it. 1.428 Sometimes public transportation is unreliable because either the road is closed or there is some work 28 1.355 in progress on a railway line. Even though the public transportation in the Netherlands is good. I think you still need a car 24 1.348 sometimes. 33 My need to travel has reduced in recent times since I can do everything online. 1.23 14 Owning a car can make/makes it easier to travel. 1.215 8 In the future I will buy/continue using my car. 1.143 Public transportation takes too long, and I need to make multiple changes. 38 1.017 So I would prefer using a car. Using a car is more comfortable than other modes of transport since you can stop anywhere you like 31 1.013 and go in your own time. 25 Shared mobility is expensive so I prefer using public transport or just walking/biking. 0.811 Owning a car means considering costs like maintenance, insurance, parking and repair which 1 0.615 become too much. 32 I don’t like using shared cars since you have to travel with someone you do not know. 0.402 Owning a car is too much of a hassle, especially if I’m living in a city. I rather spend that money 29 0.34 elsewhere. 6 I like travelling by bike because cheaper and/or gives a good start to the day. 0.333 15 I like the privacy a car gives when travelling. 0.272 26 I like travelling by car since it gives a sense of safety. 0.271 18 The environmental impact of a mode does matter, but I prefer my comfort. 0.205 19 I like using shared bikes and scooters. They’re fast, cheap and I don’t worry about parking. 0.197 13 Owning a car is nice since you wouldn’t have to worry about getting a seat. -0.01 I think its nice to live somewhere where all my needs are met at a walkable distance. This removes the 40 -0.065 need of having a car. 16 It is so difficult finding parking in cities which is why I would prefer using a taxi when I need a car. -0.135 35 When I need to travel using public transport I have to plan a lot. I do not like doing that planning. -0.135 11 I think it’s better using shared mobility than owning a vehicle as it is better for the environment. -0.267 20 The weather is so unpredictable, its easier to travel if I own a car. -0.342 21 Having a car can give an individual a sense of freedom. -0.346 7 If I had more money I would travel more. Now I try to travel less because it’s expensive to travel. -0.469 Using public transport is nice because you know exactly how much you will spend per ride. That is more 27 -0.671 difficult if you have a car. 12 I only use a taxi when I can share the costs with someone. -0.677 30 I don’t want to use a car/ try to use the car less due to environmental reasons. -0.817 39 I don’t want to use a car, but I wouldn’t mind using one if it was electric. -0.869 3 It is difficult to get groceries on a bike or walking, so I would prefer a car. -1.018 2 There are so many sharing car, bike and scooter options that I do not feel like I will need to own any vehicle. -1.075 36 If there were more shared mobility options easily available I do not think I would need a car. -1.219 I feel guilty taking a mode of transport that is not environmentally friendly, but my time/money are more 4 -1.284 important. 9 The infrastructure to walk/bike/use public transport is so good. I don’t think you ever need to use a car. -1.286 It is easy for me to use shared mobility. I can access it with my phone at any time and don’t need to worry 22 -1.29 about anything. 10 Public transport is expensive. It would be cheaper for me per ride if I had a car. -1.497 37 The public transportation is so efficient that I do not feel the need to use a car. -1.559 I don’t think we need a car any more but my parents and/or other older members of my family still think 17 -1.69 its needed.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 52 Analysis and results of the Q sorts

4.6.2 Perspective 2: Walking gives me the freedom I need

The second perspective has three participants and explains 12% of the variance. The participants within this perspective believe that walking/biking is the solution for any short distance travel, whereas they still depend on their car for any sort of long distance travel. They like the idea of a walkable community wherein everything they need is just a short walk away. Safety and certainty are very important to them and plays a role when picking a mode to travel. They believe having a car gives them a sense of freedom to travel as they please. This perspective is also pro car use, placing more emphasis on the freedom, independence and the ability of getting rid of the uncertainty that comes with not having your own mode of transportation. The sort of statements (19) I like using shared bikes and scooters. They’re fast, cheap, and I don’t worry about parking. The participants of the perspective disagree with the ease of use that comes with shared mobility. Upon analysing the post sort interviews, it is seen that the aspect of shared mobility that the participants are against is the uncertainty. This uncertainty relates to the ability of ﬁnding the mode of transportation. For instance, one of the participants says

I don’t like shared scooters. In my eyes, they mainly are a replacement for bicycles and walking. Further they are parked in random places, the same applies for shared bicycles that are not place-bound. I like the OV-bike, as it is easy to egress traﬃc and does not ’pollute’ the environment by being parked at random places.

Once again, like the previous perspective, cost is a major hindrance to car ownership for the participants of this perspective. The participants of this perspective believe in car use and car ownership, with the only hindrance being the monetary aspect of maintenance and procurement of a car. The negative environmental aspects of car use do not resonate with this perspective since statements (4), (30) and (39) all related to judging how the environment played a role in the travel choice have been placed in disagreement. Thus indicating that the environment does not play a huge role for this perspective when making any sort of decisions related to travel mode choice. The price, comfort and ease of travel come ﬁrst.

Most agreed statements

For this perspective, the most agreed statements were I think It’s nice to live somewhere where all my needs are met at a walkable distance. This removes the need of having a car (40). and Currently it is difficult for me to own a car/ regularly use a car since I cannot afford it (23). Each of these has a Z score of 1.823 and 1.6288 respectively. For statement (23) one of the participants justified it by saying that

I don’t have the money for a car and public transport is free for me as a student.

This participant also expressed interest of owning a car in the future and talked about how the monetary aspect of owning a car was the only reason why they did not currently own a car.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 4.6 Interpretation 53

Most disagreed statements

The most disagreed upon statements were It is diﬃcult to get groceries on a bike or walking, so I would prefer a car (3) and When I need to travel using public transport I have to plan a lot. I do not like doing that planning (35). Each of which had a Z score of -1.987 and -1.629. In general there is a disagreement with regard to statements that promote shared mobility use.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 54 Analysis and results of the Q sorts

Table 4-6: Z scores for Perspective 2

Statement Statement Z-score Number I think its nice to live somewhere where all my needs are met at a walkable distance. This removes the need 40 1.823 of having a car. 23 Currently it is difficult for me to own a car/ regularly use a car since I cannot afford it. 1.688 Using a car is more comfortable than other modes of transport since you can stop anywhere you like and go 31 1.464 in your own time. 34 If I were living away from a city I would prefer having a car for my commute. 1.291 24 Even though the public transportation in the Netherlands is good. I think you still need a car sometimes. 1.202 32 I don’t like using shared cars since you have to travel with someone you do not know. 1.113 21 Having a car can give an individual a sense of freedom. 1.038 12 I only use a taxi when I can share the costs with someone. 1.008 14 Owning a car can make/makes it easier to travel. 0.941 6 I like travelling by bike because cheaper and/or gives a good start to the day. 0.823 Owning a car means considering costs like maintenance, insurance, parking and repair which become too 1 0.687 much. 25 Shared mobility is expensive so I prefer using public transport or just walking/biking. 0.679 Sometimes public transportation is unreliable because either the road is closed or there is some work in 28 0.62 progress on a railway line. 18 The environmental impact of a mode does matter, but I prefer my comfort. 0.552 15 I like the privacy a car gives when travelling. 0.485 5 Its easy to use public transport since I can find all the timings, the fastest and best possible route on my phone. 0.465 29 Owning a car is too much of a hassle, especially if I’m living in a city. I rather spend that money elsewhere. 0.456 8 In the future I will buy/continue using my car. 0.388 Using public transport is nice because you know exactly how much you will spend per ride. That is more 27 0.367 difficult if you have a car. 37 The public transportation is so efficient that I do not feel the need to use a car. -0.001 11 I think it’s better using shared mobility than owning a vehicle as it is better for the environment. -0.194 7 If I had more money I would travel more. Now I try to travel less because it’s expensive to travel. -0.232 13 Owning a car is nice since you wouldn’t have to worry about getting a seat. -0.232 I don’t think we need a car any more but my parents and/or other older members of my family 17 -0.261 still think its needed. 10 Public transport is expensive. It would be cheaper for me per ride if I had a car. -0.282 36 If there were more shared mobility options easily available I do not think I would need a car. -0.417 33 My need to travel has reduced in recent times since I can do everything online. -0.485 39 I don’t want to use a car but I wouldn’t mind using one if it was electric. -0.523 9 The infrastructure to walk/bike/use public transport is so good. I don’t think you ever need to use a car. -0.65 30 I don’t want to use a car/ try to use the car less due to environmental reasons. -0.844 I feel guilty taking a mode of transport that is not environmentally friendly, but my time/money are 4 -0.882 more important. It is easy for me to use shared mobility. I can access it with my phone at any time and don’t need to 22 -0.941 worry about anything. 16 It is so difficult finding parking in cities which is why I would prefer using a taxi when I need a car. -1.008 20 The weather is so unpredictable, its easier to travel if I own a car. -1.046 2 There are so many sharing car, bike and scooter options that I do not feel like I will need to own any vehicle. -1.076 38 Public transportation takes too long and I need to make multiple changes. So I would prefer using a car. -1.367 19 I like using shared bikes and scooters. They’re fast, cheap and I don’t worry about parking. -1.502 26 I like travelling by car since it gives a sense of safety. -1.532 35 When I need to travel using public transport I have to plan a lot. I do not like doing that planning. -1.629 3 It is difficult to get groceries on a bike or walking so I would prefer a car. -1.987

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 4.6 Interpretation 55

4.6.3 Perspective 3: My travel choices aﬀect the environment

The third perspective has four participants with an explained variance of 14%. The perspective hosts the most environmentally aware and conscious participants. They are aware of the repercussions of their choices and try to make a conscious effort to mitigate these. The participants in this perspective are open to different modes of transport, but what matters to them is the effect that their choice has on the environment. They also see the positives in using a car due to the convenience, but do not think it is a huge hassle to have one. The participant’s within this perspective are aware of the harmful effects of the travel mode choice and try to make active decisions to minimize this effect. The sorts for statements (4), (11), (18) and (30) are all leaning towards the participants understanding of the impact of their mode choice on the environment. One of the participants explained their overall sorting procedure, stating that

The emissions of cars are a big deal and become an even more big deal I’d say. Thus trying to not use it or at least less is good for the environment.

Another participant when speaking about the choice of sustainable transport modes said that

There needs to be a ‘green’ alternative, which is equally attractive based on time/money. I do not feel that is the responsibility of the consumer, but by governments and businesses.

There is also a good understanding of shared mobility it’s usage and the advantage that it can present in this perspective. One of the participants mentioned how their adoption of shared mobility would be greater if they had an option to use a shared car to travel from one city to another

In the last few years there has been a huge growth in scooter, bike and car sharing options. This makes the need for a car within a city in Holland redundant almost. However, there is still no service such as car2go that allows you to travel in between cities, which is the main reason people use cars for in Holland in my opinion or at least the main advantage of a car is to travel in between cities in Holland.

Another point to observe is for statement (33) where the opinions of this perspective vary drastically from the other perspectives. Participants believe that their travel needs have not reduced over the years. This relates to the hypothesis presented in the literature review that talks about the reduction in travel needs due to the adoption of ICT technologies. This does not present a conclusion; however, it is interesting to see the views that the participants of this perspective have when relating to their travel.

Most agreed statements

The most agreed upon statements were Owning a car can make/makes it easier to travel (14) and Even though the public transportation in the Netherlands is good. I think you still need a car sometimes (24). The two statements have a Z score of 1.722 and 1.521 respectively.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 56 Analysis and results of the Q sorts

The connectivity of the public transport network comes up as a problem for the participants of this perspective as well. One of the participants expressed the following views regarding statement (24)

We are blessed with how well the public transport works in Holland, however if you need to travel in between places not close to a train station it becomes very time-consuming. I mostly bought a car as travelling to sport games on weekends becomes to time-consuming if using public transport as most sport clubs are in remote location. So it is not an absolute necessity but considering that people are often time limited it becomes a need as to be able to do certain things without spending half your day travelling.

Most disagreed statements

For this perspective the most disagreed on statements are My need to travel has reduced in recent times since I can do everything online (33) and When I need to travel using public transport I have to plan a lot. I do not like doing that planning (35) The participants of this perspective do not have a problem with the planning part of the travel using public transport, rather than the lack of proper connectivity and time taken to travel with public transport. This has built their preference towards car use. One of the participants also said that

The car is not only faster, but it leaves and arrives as you wish and can make any extra stop without problem. If there is decreased service due to maintenance on the trains, the car still goes. No matter the hour of the night, it still takes the same time to go with a car etc. Public transportation has limitations, which a car does not.

Talking about statement (33) the participants that are included in this perspective believed that their need to travel has not really reduced over the years. Although they do admit some of the activities that they did in person such as shopping have shifted online, one of the participants said that

If I can do more things online I now spend that time to travel and go meet friends. I still travel now, but just doing other things.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 4.6 Interpretation 57

Table 4-7: Z scores for Perspective 3

Statement Number Statement Z-score 14 Owning a car can make/makes it easier to travel. 1.722 Even though the public transportation in the Netherlands is good. I think you still need a car 24 1.521 sometimes. I feel guilty taking a mode of transport that is not environmentally friendly, but my time/money 4 1.49 are more important. 23 Currently, it is difficult for me to own a car/ regularly use a car since I cannot afford it. 1.479 6 I like travelling by bike because cheaper and/or gives a good start to the day. 1.458 36 If there were more shared mobility options easily available I do not think I would need a car. 1.316 30 I don’t want to use a car/ try to use the car less due to environmental reasons. 1.212 34 If I were living away from a city I would prefer having a car for my commute. 1.206 Using a car is more comfortable than other modes of transport since you can stop anywhere you 31 0.96 like and go in your own time. Its easy to use public transport since I can find all the timings, the fastest and best possible route 5 0.842 on my phone. 8 In the future I will buy/continue using my car. 0.709 Sometimes public transportation is unreliable because either the road is closed or there is some work 28 0.676 in progress on a railway line. 21 Having a car can give an individual a sense of freedom. 0.594 38 Public transportation takes too long and I need to make multiple changes. So I would prefer using a car. 0.593 12 I only use a taxi when I can share the costs with someone. 0.373 7 If I had more money I would travel more. Now I try to travel less because it’s expensive to travel. 0.294 I think its nice to live somewhere where all my needs are met at a walkable distance. This removes the 40 0.221 need of having a car. 11 I think it’s better using shared mobility than owning a vehicle as it is better for the environment. 0.086 25 Shared mobility is expensive so I prefer using public transport or just walking/biking. 0.066 37 The public transportation is so efficient that I do not feel the need to use a car. -0.131 19 I like using shared bikes and scooters. They’re fast, cheap and I don’t worry about parking. -0.147 10 Public transport is expensive. It would be cheaper for me per ride if I had a car. -0.23 39 I don’t want to use a car but I wouldn’t mind using one if it was electric. -0.276 16 It is so difficult finding parking in cities which is why I would prefer using a taxi when I need a car. -0.318 15 I like the privacy a car gives when travelling. -0.392 It is easy for me to use shared mobility. I can access it with my phone at any time and don’t need to 22 -0.444 worry about anything. 20 The weather is so unpredictable, its easier to travel if I own a car. -0.522 18 The environmental impact of a mode does matter, but I prefer my comfort. -0.552 32 I don’t like using shared cars since you have to travel with someone you do not know. -0.594 Owning a car is too much of a hassle, especially if I’m living in a city. I rather spend that money 29 -0.654 elsewhere. I don’t think we need a car anymore but my parents and/or other older members of my family 17 -0.778 still think its needed. Owning a car means considering costs like maintenance, insurance, parking and repair which become 1 -0.791 too much. 13 Owning a car is nice since you wouldn’t have to worry about getting a seat. -0.92 26 I like travelling by car since it gives a sense of safety. -1.138 There are so many sharing car, bike and scooter options that I do not feel like I will need to own 2 -1.141 any vehicle. Using public transport is nice because you know exactly how much you will spend per ride. 27 -1.335 That is more difficult if you have a car. 3 It is difficult to get groceries on a bike or walking so I would prefer a car. -1.479 9 The infrastructure to walk/bike/use public transport is so good. I don’t think you ever need to use a car. -1.51 35 When I need to travel using public transport I have to plan a lot. I do not like doing that planning. -1.584 33 My need to travel has reduced in recent times since I can do everything online. -1.882

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 58 Analysis and results of the Q sorts

4.6.4 Perspective 4: I don’t need a car to travel

The fourth perspective has three participants with an explained variance of 11%. All the participants within this sort present very strong views when it comes to car use. Although, they agree that in certain situation’s car ownership does make sense, this however does not change their personal stance on not owning a car now or in the future. They are accepting towards shared mobility and are pro bike usage but maintain their stance on car ownership as it is too much of a hassle to own a car. The participants within this perspective present an open mind towards the idea of shared mobility. This is substantiated by looking at the sorts for statements (32) and (19), which show how the participants and pro towards shared mobility use and do not mind the inconvenience that may come with shared mobility usage. Additionally, this perspective varies strongly from the other perspective in terms of car use. The participants within this perspective do not believe that owning a car is essential. Although they understand the convenience that comes with owning a car as can be seen from the sorts of statements (29), (34) and (8). On one hand all the other perspectives have shown a preference for car use, either now or in the future, the participants of this perspective believe they do not need one and will not need one in the future. One of the participants also claimed that

I don’t own a car, but if I need one, I will borrow one from friends.

Overall, the participants within this perspective do not show a very high preference towards car use. Although they do understand that using a car comes with its advantages, as can be seen from the sorts of statements (13), (31), (21) and (40) where they understand the additional convenience and comfort that comes with car ownership but claim that they still do not see an urgent need of owning a car now or in the future as there are plenty of alternatives present by showing a high preference towards other modes of travel such as shared mobility and public transport. This preference towards the other modes of transport stems mainly from the additional costs associated with car use as can be seen from the sorts of statements (1), (6), (29) and (23). The environmental aspect of picking a mode to travel does also play a role within this perspective, however the cost, time and convenience trump it within this perspective with the latter being signiﬁcantly more important to the participants. Perspective 3 and perspective 4 both have a lower car usage compared to other perspectives, however their reasoning for the same is diﬀerent. For the participants of perspective 3, their travel choices are dictated by the environment to a large extent, but they also acknowledge the positive applications of car use. However, for perspective 4 there is an inherent dislike towards car use.

Most agreed statements

For this perspective the most agreed upon statements are Owning a car means considering costs like maintenance, insurance, parking and repair which become too much (1). and I like travelling by bike because cheaper and/or gives a good start to the day (6). Each with a Z score of 2.066 and 1.644. The participants of this perspective believed that owning a car was not worth the added costs that came with it. One of the participants said that

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 4.6 Interpretation 59

This is completely right, as owning a car has too many expenses one has to pay. Personally, I would not prefer paying those amounts to own a car.

With respect to statement (6) the participants expressed how a bike makes it much easier to travel taking away the hassle of a car parking and maintenance. One of the participants said that

It is nice to be outside, it is very cheap. Only sometimes when it is raining, I will take public transport.

The participants of this perspective are avid bike users and would prefer using a bike, public transport or shared mobility over car use.

Most disagreed statements

The most disagreed statements for this perspective are I don’t like using shared cars since you have to travel with someone you do not know (32) and It is diﬃcult to get groceries on a bike or walking, so I would prefer a car (3) each of them with a Z score of -1.697 and -1.843. In general, there is a disagreement towards statements that are pro car use.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 60 Analysis and results of the Q sorts

Table 4-8: Z scores for Perspective 4

Statement Statement Z-score Number Owning a car means considering costs like maintenance, insurance, parking and repair which become too 1 2.066 much. 6 I like travelling by bike because cheaper and/or gives a good start to the day. 1.664 29 Owning a car is too much of a hassle, especially if I’m living in a city. I rather spend that money elsewhere. 1.475 Using a car is more comfortable than other modes of transport since you can stop anywhere you like and 31 1.351 go in your own time. 19 I like using shared bikes and scooters. They’re fast, cheap and I don’t worry about parking. 1.34 23 Currently it is difficult for me to own a car/ regularly use a car since I cannot afford it. 1.284 24 Even though the public transportation in the Netherlands is good. I think you still need a car sometimes. 1.217 13 Owning a car is nice since you wouldn’t have to worry about getting a seat. 0.927 I think its nice to live somewhere where all my needs are met at a walkable distance. This removes the 40 0.882 need of having a car. 21 Having a car can give an individual a sense of freedom. 0.859 33 My need to travel has reduced in recent times since I can do everything online. 0.848 25 Shared mobility is expensive so I prefer using public transport or just walking/biking. 0.726 Its easy to use public transport since I can find all the timings, the fastest and best possible route on 5 0.558 my phone. 14 Owning a car can make/makes it easier to travel. 0.536 18 The environmental impact of a mode does matter, but I prefer my comfort. 0.447 It is easy for me to use shared mobility. I can access it with my phone at any time and don’t need to 22 0.369 worry about anything. 37 The public transportation is so efficient that I do not feel the need to use a car. 0.235 Sometimes public transportation is unreliable because either the road is closed or there is some work 28 -0.023 in progress on a railway line. Public transportation takes too long and I need to make multiple changes. So I would prefer 38 -0.067 using a car. 12 I only use a taxi when I can share the costs with someone. -0.111 7 If I had more money I would travel more. Now I try to travel less because it’s expensive to travel. -0.201 36 If there were more shared mobility options easily available I do not think I would need a car. -0.201 11 I think it’s better using shared mobility than owning a vehicle as it is better for the environment. -0.279 20 The weather is so unpredictable, its easier to travel if I own a car. -0.391 15 I like the privacy a car gives when travelling. -0.468 39 I don’t want to use a car but I wouldn’t mind using one if it was electric. -0.48 There are so many sharing car, bike and scooter options that I do not feel like I will need to own any 2 -0.491 vehicle. 10 Public transport is expensive. It would be cheaper for me per ride if I had a car. -0.558 34 If I were living away from a city I would prefer having a car for my commute. -0.637 Using public transport is nice because you know exactly how much you will spend per ride. That 27 -0.726 is more difficult if you have a car. 8 In the future I will buy/continue using my car. -0.759 26 I like travelling by car since it gives a sense of safety. -0.837 30 I don’t want to use a car/ try to use the car less due to environmental reasons. -0.849 I don’t think we need a car anymore but my parents and/or other older members of my family 17 -0.938 still think its needed. I feel guilty taking a mode of transport that is not environmentally friendly, but my time/money 4 -1.016 are more important. 35 When I need to travel using public transport I have to plan a lot. I do not like doing that planning. -1.217 The infrastructure to walk/bike/use public transport is so good. I don’t think you ever need to 9 -1.407 use a car. 16 It is so difficult finding parking in cities which is why I would prefer using a taxi when I need a car. -1.585 32 I don’t like using shared cars since you have to travel with someone you do not know. -1.697 3 It is difficult to get groceries on a bike or walking, so I would prefer a car. -1.843

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 4.6 Interpretation 61

4.6.5 Perspective 5: Cars are the best way for me to travel

The fifth perspective has six participants, which is the maximum number among all the perspective. It has an explained variance of 17%. This perspective includes participants that are very enthusiastic about car use. Even though there may be other modes of transport present on a particular route that might be cheaper or easier to use, these participants will still prefer having their own vehicle to travel. They did not show signs of using bikes, shared mobility or public transport. The additional premium that comes with car ownership is also something that they are in terms with for the added benefits that owning a car gets. Out of all the perspectives, this perspective is the one that loads the heaviest on car use. While the other perspectives have participants that brought out the advantage of combining different modes of transport with car use, the participants within this perspective are extremely pro car use. This perspective is also not very enthusiastic about the use of shared mobility. Two of the participants said that

I have ever only used car sharing, and I found this to be extremely expensive (greenwheels) and not very handy, since you have to put it in a designated parking spot. Also, you are dependent on availability, making last minute plans more diﬃcult. Bike and scooter sharing I have never participated.

The main problem with sharable stuﬀ is that when you use it for purposes for which public transport is not an option (transport stuﬀ, go on vacation, avoid unnecessary delay), it’s always worse compared to owning your own car (i.e. sharable compete with public transport, not with owning a car)

Additionally, the environmental aspect of travel choice does not play a huge role when the participants are making decisions. When asked if a participant would prefer an electric car over a gasoline car since it is more environmentally friendly, the participant said,

I want to own a car anyway, it being electric does not really matter to me.

Most agreed statements

The most agreed upon statements for this perspective are using a car is more comfortable than other modes of transport since you can stop anywhere you like and go in your own time (31) and Public transport is expensive. It would be cheaper for me per ride if I had a car (10) each with a Z score of 1.819 and 1.58. The participants like the added comfort and convenience that comes with car ownership. With respect to statement (31) the participants said that

I value my time: cars take me to the door I need to get too, trains do not. Additionally, train costs are insanely high (even with discount). Lastly, cars oﬀer more fun, freedom, ﬂexibility, etc.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 62 Analysis and results of the Q sorts and

I like going on having adventures, drive for hours, go on holiday. Public transport doesn’t allow me to take all the stuﬀ I want to take. But a car does.

Another concern for the participants was privacy,

Privacy is for me often the largest diﬀerence between car and public transport. For most other diﬀerences (costs, duration, etc.) between the two there are solutions available, but not for privacy.

When asked about their motivation for the sorting of the statements that contained the use of public transport, one of the participants said that,

Even though public transport in The Netherlands is good (compared to other countries even excellent I’d say), going by car is usually faster than taking public transport, you can take more stuﬀ with you, and you are completely mobile. It also takes the unpredictability away from getting stuck on a train station due to broken trains or something. In short, the car usually saves time (especially when going to more rural areas), is more reliable, and comfortable.

Most disagreed statements

For this perspective, the most disagreed upon statements are The infrastructure to walk/bike/use public transport is so good. I don’t think you ever need to use a car (9) and There are so many sharing car, bike and scooter options that I do not feel like I will need to own any vehicle (2) each with a Z score of -1.838 and -1.818. The participants were not very enthusiastic about the use of public transport, while also talking about how it was not eﬃcient for their travel needs.

Public transport is really not that eﬃcient - especially if you’re needing to go anywhere which isn’t within a major city/town.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 4.6 Interpretation 63

Table 4-9: Z scores for Perspective 5

Statement Statement Z-score Number Using a car is more comfortable than other modes of transport since you can stop anywhere you like 31 1.819 and go in your own time. 10 Public transport is expensive. It would be cheaper for me per ride if I had a car. 1.58 8 In the future I will buy/continue using my car. 1.452 24 Even though the public transportation in the Netherlands is good. I think you still need a car sometimes. 1.426 38 Public transportation takes too long and I need to make multiple changes. So I would prefer using a car. 1.332 18 The environmental impact of a mode does matter, but I prefer my comfort. 1.233 14 Owning a car can make/makes it easier to travel. 1.208 15 I like the privacy a car gives when travelling. 1.2 21 Having a car can give an individual a sense of freedom. 1.044 20 The weather is so unpredictable, its easier to travel if I own a car. 0.842 13 Owning a car is nice since you wouldn’t have to worry about getting a seat. 0.694 34 If I were living away from a city I would prefer having a car for my commute. 0.664 23 Currently it is difficult for me to own a car/ regularly use a car since I cannot afford it. 0.47 Sometimes public transportation is unreliable because either the road is closed or there is some work 28 0.39 in progress on a railway line. 7 If I had more money I would travel more. Now I try to travel less because it’s expensive to travel. 0.381 26 I like travelling by car since it gives a sense of safety. 0.341 I think its nice to live somewhere where all my needs are met at a walkable distance. This removes 40 0.125 the need of having a car. 12 I only use a taxi when I can share the costs with someone. 0.108 25 Shared mobility is expensive so I prefer using public transport or just walking/biking. 0.091 35 When I need to travel using public transport I have to plan a lot. I do not like doing that planning. 0.064 3 It is difficult to get groceries on a bike or walking so I would prefer a car. 0.06 19 I like using shared bikes and scooters. They’re fast, cheap and I don’t worry about parking. -0.18 Its easy to use public transport since I can find all the timings, the fastest and best possible 5 -0.196 route on my phone. It is easy for me to use shared mobility. I can access it with my phone at any time and don’t need to 22 -0.207 worry about anything. 32 I don’t like using shared cars since you have to travel with someone you do not know. -0.324 36 If there were more shared mobility options easily available I do not think I would need a car. -0.362 I don’t think we need a car anymore but my parents and/or other older members of my family 17 -0.597 still think its needed. Owning a car means considering costs like maintenance, insurance, parking and repair which 1 -0.64 become too much. Using public transport is nice because you know exactly how much you will spend per ride. That 27 -0.682 is more difficult if you have a car. 6 I like travelling by bike because cheaper and/or gives a good start to the day. -0.717 I feel guilty taking a mode of transport that is not environmentally friendly, but my time/money 4 -0.756 are more important. 33 My need to travel has reduced in recent times since I can do everything online. -0.817 Owning a car is too much of a hassle, especially if I’m living in a city. I rather spend that 29 -0.899 money elsewhere. 39 I don’t want to use a car but I wouldn’t mind using one if it was electric. -1.111 30 I don’t want to use a car/ try to use the car less due to environmental reasons. -1.134 37 The public transportation is so efficient that I do not feel the need to use a car. -1.163 I think it’s better using shared mobility than owning a vehicle as it is better for the 11 -1.454 environment. It is so difficult finding parking in cities which is why I would prefer using a taxi 16 -1.628 when I need a car. There are so many sharing car, bike and scooter options that I do not feel like I will 2 -1.818 need to own any vehicle. The infrastructure to walk/bike/use public transport is so good. I don’t think you ever 9 -1.838 need to use a car.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 64 Analysis and results of the Q sorts

4.7 Participant demographics per perspective

This section will present the demographics of the various participants for each perspective. This data was obtained from the participants in a post Q sort survey which can be found in ﬁgure (C-11). During the survey, the participants were asked how often they use a particular mode of transport. This was to get insight into their travel behaviour which would in turn help understand the perspectives. The scale was based on the one used in the Dutch mobility panel survey. The legend of the table is below:

Table 4-10: Legend for perspective demographics

Label Number 4 or more days a week 0 1 to 3 days a week 1 1 to 3 days a month 2 6 to 11 days a year 3 Less than 1 day per year 4 Never 5

4.7.1 Perspective 1: Public transport is great but I also need a car

The results of the Q sort showed a high preference for public transportation for the participants of this perspective. Apart from regular bike use, which is synonymous with The Netherlands, the participants are also avid public transport users. This perspective has the most diverse set of participants in terms of level of education, with participants from all the diﬀerent educational level backgrounds.

Table 4-11: Demographics for perspective 1

How often do you use the following modes to travel Level of Household car Public Shared mobility Education Car Bike Scooter Motorcycle Taxi Urbanization ownership Transport (bike, scooter, car) P 1 HBO Rural No 2 1 0 5 5 4 5 P 6 MBO Rural Yes 2 2 0 5 5 5 5 P 18 WO Urban Yes 2 1 0 4 2 2 3

4.7.2 Perspective 2: Walking gives me the freedom I need

The second perspective has participants that regularly use public transportation and a car to satisfy their travel needs. During the sorting the participants did not rank statements attributed to high public transport use on the two ends of the spectrum, however, their answer to the post sort survey shows a heavy public transportation use.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 4.7 Participant demographics per perspective 65

Table 4-12: Demographics for perspective 2

How often do you use the following modes to travel Level of Household car Public Shared mobility Education Car Bike Scooter Motorcycle Taxi Urbanization ownership Transport (bike, scooter, car) P 20 WO Urban No 2 1 0 5 5 5 5 P 12 WO Urban Yes 2 1 0 5 5 3 5 P 2 WO Rural Yes 1 0 0 5 5 3 4

4.7.3 Perspective 3: My travel choices aﬀect the environment

This perspective has a low car ownership and the most used modes of transportation are public transport and bike, which are synonymous with their behaviour of making travel choices based on the environmental impact. The participants of this perspective have a predominantly rural background.

Table 4-13: Demographics for perspective 3

How often do you use the following modes to travel Level of Household car Public Shared mobility Education Car Bike Scooter Motorcycle Taxi Urbanization ownership Transport (bike, scooter, car) P 7 WO Rural No 2 1 0 5 5 3 4 P 5 WO Urban No 1 0 0 4 5 4 2 P 4 WO Rural Yes 1 2 1 5 5 3 4 P 8 MBO Rural No 2 1 0 5 5 5 3

4.7.4 Perspective 4: I don’t need a car to travel

Within this perspective, none of the participants own a car. Additionally, the car use in this perspective is the lowest amongst all the perspectives. This is in line with the results found within the Q sort where the participants expressed a dislike towards Cars and car use. An interesting observation within this perspective is that all the participants belong to an Urban area.

Table 4-14: Demographics for perspective 4

How often do you use the following modes to travel Level of Household car Public Shared mobility Education Car Bike Scooter Motorcycle Taxi Urbanization ownership Transport (bike, scooter, car) P 9 WO Urban No 4 2 0 5 5 3 4 P 11 WO Urban No 3 1 0 5 5 2 4 P 13 WO Urban No 5 1 0 5 5 3 4

4.7.5 Perspective 5: Cars are the best way for me to travel

This perspective has the largest number of participants, with all of them showing a very high preference for car use. This perspective also has the largest number of car owners.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 66 Analysis and results of the Q sorts

Table 4-15: Demographics for perspective 5

How often do you use the following modes to travel Level of Household car Public Shared mobility Education Car Bike Scooter Motorcycle Taxi Urbanization ownership Transport (bike, scooter, car) P 19 WO Urban Yes 1 1 1 4 2 2 3 P 14 WO Urban Yes 3 1 0 5 5 3 4 P 16 HBO Rural Yes 2 2 1 5 5 2 4 P 17 WO Rural No 3 1 0 5 5 4 4 P 15 WO Urban Yes 2 1 0 3 5 3 3 P 13 WO Urban No 2 1 1 4 5 4 4

4.8 Relationship between the perspectives and demographics of the participants

The first perspective consisted of participants that showed a preference towards public transportation during the Q sorting process. However, by looking at their public transport usage characteristics from the post sort survey, it can be seen that their usage is in line with the average of all the participants within the Q study. This does not support their claim of high public transport usage that was seen during the sorting process. Additionally, the participants have a moderate usage of shared mobility and car. The second perspective, on the other hand, has participants that use public transportation more often. This is surprising since, during the sorting process, they did not rank statements attributed to the positive use of public transportation highly. The participants showed a preference towards modes where they had the freedom to travel whenever and however they wanted. The peculiarity of perspective three comes from looking at the travel frequency of car use. Although the participant’s sorts showed that they considered the environmental impact of a mode of transport before selecting it, the car usage in this perspective is very high. The participants of this perspective showed that they understood the added functionality and comfort of car use in the sorting process, but they still talked about making a conscious choice of avoiding modes of travel that pollute, which goes against this trend of heavy car use. However, this could easily be justified by using an electric car which is perceived to be better for the environment. The participants of perspective four had identical results for the sorting as well as the post sort survey. Their sorts showed an aversion to car use which can also be seen in their travel choices, wherein the group of participants in this perspective has the least car use among all the participants. Additionally, all the participants of this perspective also belonged to an urban area which is interesting because several studies indicated the role that level of urbanisation plays in mode choice. Finally, the participants of perspective five showed a strong preference for car use. This is also seen in their household car ownership and car use which is the highest amongst all the perspectives.

4.9 Conclusion

This chapter has given us an overview of the diﬀerent perspectives within the population and their views on travel, peak car, and shared mobility. However, one point that needs to be considered is that the number of participants involved in a Q study is too few to make a general claim regarding peak car in The Netherlands. However, the results still give us an idea of the participant’s sentiment towards mobility, which can help conduct future studies.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 4.9 Conclusion 67

Perspective 1 consists of participants that show a preference towards the use of public transportation while also talking about the importance of car use. The participants of perspective 2 find walking in addition to the usage of car important for how they travel. Perspective 3 consists of participants that are environmentally conscious and consider the impact that their travel mode choice has before selecting a particular mode of travel. Perspective 4 is the only perspective that has participants that are against the use of cars for their travel needs. Finally, perspective 5 consists of participants that are heavy car users and believe that it is essential to satisfy their travel needs. A consensus within the perspectives still shows a preference towards car use. This goes against the claim that we can expect a decline in the number of cars in The Netherlands. Although perspective 4 has participants with an inherent dislike towards cars and car use, this only makes up 15% of the participants who took part in the study. The Dutch culture of travel could also have played a role in the heavy car use observed within the perspectives. The Netherlands has always had a very heavy culture of bike usage. While the countries and cities worldwide have recently started building up their biking infrastructure to encourage people to use bikes within cities rather than cars, this may not work in the case of The Netherlands, where using a bike is already deep-rooted within the mobility culture. The Dutch population has historically always used a bike for inner-city travel and, in some cases, inter-city. It is only for the longer trips, trips that require the transport of heavy goods or the trips to remote areas where a car is used. Upon analysing the study results, we can see that although we may be experiencing peak car in The Netherlands, this does not guarantee a reduction of car usage and ownership in the future. Studies have shown that young people play a significant role in this shift away from car use, but what is seen in this study is that the choice of not owning or using a car is something that has been forced upon the young people due to their financial situation and other factors rather than an active choice not to use a car. Based on this observation, this thesis postulates that there may not be a significant change in the affinity towards car use as the "younger population" becomes older; therefore we should not expect any drastic decline in car use within The Netherlands.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 68 Analysis and results of the Q sorts

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis Chapter 5

Conclusion and Discussion

The aim of this was to find out what the young population of The Netherlands views are on car ownership and shared mobility and what role peak car plays in this. To reach the goal of answering this, sub research questions were formulated. This chapter will answer these sub research questions and give recommendations to the various actors involved. This will be followed by the scientific contribution and the limitations of the research and finally presenting the conclusion and the recommendations for future research.

5.1 Sub research questions

5.1.1 What is the peak car phenomenon and what are its determinants?

Peak car is a concept that was first observed by [Puentes and Tomer, 2008] when they were studying the vehicle miles travelled trend in the United States of America. It describes a phenomenon wherein there has been an interruption in-car usage growth in several countries, leading to a reduction in average annual distance travelled by car. This phenomenon has been observed in developed countries around the world. Research has shown a reduction in vehicle km’s travelled (VKT) in countries such as the United States of America, United Kingdom, Germany, Australia and The Netherlands to name a few. Even though there has been a reduction in VKT, there is still some disagreement regarding the future trend that this current plateau will follow, that is if car use will still keep decreasing, maintain its plateau or continue to increase after the interruption. Different authors have hypothesized different reasons for peak car and what led to it. During the literature review, these reasons have been grouped into three themes that were created by the author, which are 1) Economic and monetary which includes authors such as [Le Vine and Jones, 2012, Rohr and Fox, 2014, Millard-Ball, 2005, Metz, 2010] who argue that peak car is caused due to economic and monetary factors such as high costs of car ownership, maintenance, taxation and lower incomes. 2) Attitudes and preferences includes authors such as [Garikapati et al., 2016, Klein and Smart, 2017, Prillwitz and Barr, 2011, Metz, 2010] that talk about

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 70 Conclusion and Discussion the role of lifestyle choices, saturation in travel, an ageing population that cannot use a car anymore and a younger population that prefers more sustainable modes plays in the peak car phenomenon. 3) Infrastructure, urbanisation and technology where authors such as [Headicar, 2013, Stapleton et al., 2017, Peter Newman and Jeﬀ Kenworthy, 2011, Wee, 2015] talk about the role that changes in infrastructures such as urbanization, ICT, shared mobility and introduction of alternative modes of transport play in the shift towards peak car. At the end of the literature review, no single answer regarding what caused peak car was found. These factors could have individually or in conjunction played a role in the shift towards peak car. The purpose of this thesis is not to highlight what particular reason played how much of a role to propel a shift towards peak car; instead, to gain a better understanding of what it is and what the possible reasons are that could have led to it and use those learnings to understand the peak car phenomenon for the case of The Netherlands especially for the young people in the country.

5.1.2 What are the perspectives of the young people, and what are the factors aﬀecting these perspectives?

The Q methodology was used in this study to investigate the various perspectives. A total of 20 young people were interviewed and asked to conduct the Q sort process. As part of the sorting process, the participants were asked to rank 40 statements based on how much they agree or disagree with a particular statement. Based on the sorting process and the factor analysis, ﬁve diﬀerent perspectives were formed. These perspectives are shown below in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1: Young people’s perspectives

A common theme observed among all the perspectives is that car is still seen as an essential mode of transportation. While most perspectives are open to using other modes of transport such as public transport or shared mobility, they still believe that owning a car is essential for the gaps that these modes cannot fill. This includes travelling to a remote location, travel that requires transportation of heavy objects, and some participants also mentioned how owning a car let them "explore" and go "wherever they pleased, whenever they pleased". Nevertheless, even with this preference towards cars and car use, only 50% (10 out of 20) of the participants have a car in their household, out of which only 2 of them have a personal car. This considerable discrepancy can be explained by one common factor observed in all the themes: the costs attributed to car use and ownership make it very difficult to own a car. The participants who did not have a car also expressed how they would own a car if they could financially.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 5.1 Sub research questions 71

While perspectives 1,2, and 3 were all pro car users, they also considered other modes of transport and would potentially consider a permanent shift if the eﬃciency of these modes were to increase. These other modes included public transport, walking and shared mobility. Perspective 4, on the other hand, had participants that were against the use of a car in any scenario. They would prefer using any other mode of transport over a car. This stemmed from various reasons, including environmental reasons, costs, safety and just an inherent dislike towards car use. Finally, the participants of perspective 5 had a strong preference for car use. This perspective did not believe any other mode of transport could replicate the convenience and the ease of travel that was inherent to car use and ownership. Synonymous with the Dutch culture of biking, all the perspectives that were a part of the study showed heavy bike usage.

5.1.3 What can we synthesize from the literature on peak car and perspectives obtained from the Q study?

The literature on peak car talked about how the countries in the western world have already reached peak car with car use now stagnating or declining in the coming years. [Focas and Christidis, 2017] and [van der Waard et al., 2013] in their studies even showed this for the case of The Netherlands. Based on the various perspectives obtained from the study, it can be seen that this may not be the case for The Netherlands. Out of the twenty participants that took part in the study, only three responded, saying, that they would not like to own/use a car now and in the future. Upon analyzing the various perspectives, it can be observed that a majority of them still feel the need to own or use a car now or in the future. Other modes of transport cannot easily replace the inherent need for a car. Furthermore, out of the five perspectives, four of them included participants that showed a preference towards car use and ownership with one of them (perspective 5) which had the biggest sample set, including participants that were very enthusiastic about car use and ownership. Upon analyzing the literature on peak car, several reasons for peak car were obtained. These reasons were later used for the Q study to understand what led to peak car and what the different perspectives were regarding mobility usage. The reasons obtained from literature ranged from economic factors, attitudes and preferences, ICT to changes in infrastructure. Based on the analysis done in Chapter 4, it is seen that one of these "reasons" played a much more significant role than the other. This reason is the cost associated with the procurement and maintenance of a car. The participants expressed how the high costs attributed to car ownership made it difficult for them to buy a car. It was not their preference for alternative modes or a change in attitude that pushed them away from car use; instead, it was the high costs of car ownership. Authors such as [Puentes and Tomer, 2008, Millard-Ball, 2005, Le Vine et al., 2013, Metz, 2013, Dutzik et al., 2014, Brown, 2017, Klein and Smart, 2017] talk about this in their papers and the role that these costs play in peak car and the levelling off/reduction in car usage. This thesis claims that this may possibly be a significant reason for the observed reduction in VKT and car ownership. The Q methodology cannot provide us with a single answer to what led to peak car. However, it does give an understanding of the concourse on the topic. A common theme that pops out is the monetary aspect of car ownership. Young people are not driving cars since they may not be able to afford to drive cars. This does not take away their inherent desire to own a

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 72 Conclusion and Discussion car in the future. Studies have found that life events such as having a family usually result in individuals buying cars. Governments will need to offer more attractive incentives to induce a modal shift towards more sustainable modes of transportation by studying in more details what it is about car use that people value so much. This study found that people value the convenience, independence and freedom that come with owning a car this however is not an exhaustive list. Although the scientific literature has been indicating that we have reached peak car, this may not be the case for a country like The Netherlands where car use was already limited since most inner city transit is done using bicycles coupled with the well developed public transportation network that is often used for inter-city transit. A further decline in car use although possible is difficult to imagine in the near scenario unless influential policies are implemented.

5.2 Recommendations

This section will ﬁrst highlight identify the actors for whom the results of this study can be of importance by conducting an actor analysis after which recommendations will be provided for each one of these actors.

5.2.1 Actors involved

An actor analysis gives an overview of all the actors that may be directly or indirectly involved. Table (5-2) highlights all the major actors that are involved. The ﬁrst is the municipality. Municipalities are an essential part of the Dutch political system and are the lowest level of the government. The Netherlands has 352 municipalities, each responsible for the "operation" of their respective municipal areas. One level above the municipality is the province. The Netherlands has twelve provinces and represents the middle tier of the government by acting as a link between the municipalities and the National government. The provinces are responsible for the tasks that are too small for the national government and too large for the municipalities. The ﬁnal piece to the puzzle is the Dutch National government responsible for all pivotal policy decisions within the country. The transport decisions and infrastructure and mainly led by the Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat or the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. The public transport operators in The Netherlands have the responsibility of ensuring connectivity in their respective regions. All the long-distance commute is managed by trains and by busses in some cases. Travel within cities is done by metro, tram, bus and ferries in some cases. There are 18 public transport authorities in The Netherlands, with the Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS) being the state-owned national rail services operator. On the other hand, actors such as the Rotterdamse Elektrische Tram (RET) are city or privately owned and follow the strategy and objectives set by the national government.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 5.2 Recommendations 73

Table 5-2: Actor analysis

Actor Role The municipality is in charge of overseeing the operations of a municipal region. Municipalities One of the municipalities major functions includes executing policies that are made at the National and Provincial level. Their role includes coordinating and planning policy implementation in the Provincial Executive province by acting as a link between the national government and the municipalities. The National government is responsible for the planning and implementation Dutch National Government of all the major policy decisions. Another important role of the government is the allocation of funds for various projects. The operation of public transport in The Netherlands, which includes trains, trams and busses are awarded on a competitive contract by a mixture of state Public Transport Operators and privately owned actors. Their role is to provide inter and intra-city mobility to the citizens. They are responsible for providing the citizens with shared mobility options. Shared Mobility Companies This could involve shared bikes, scooters, cars. These could be free ﬂoating, on demand or have a ﬁxed station.

5.2.2 Actor recommendations

Dutch National Government The Dutch government can play a significant role in facilitating efficient and sustainable travel among its citizens. The recommendations to the Dutch government depend heavily on what their strategy would be for the future. Currently, cars are seen as a bane in society, causing congestion, pollution and accidents. Based on the trends observed in the study, the participants have a strong preference for car use. This preference towards car use stems from the fact that the other available modes of transport cannot fill in the gap that using a car fills. Public transport has long been seen as an alternative to car use. However, the study participants bring out certain shortcomings of using public transportation to justify using a car. The first is regarding the connectivity that it provides. Although already very efficient, the public transportation network in the Netherlands is still not as well-connected as it could be. Upon analysing the participant sorts and statements, it can be seen that the participants who live in the rural part of The Netherlands or those who have families that live in the rural part are forced to use a car due to the long wait times, multiple changes and a general lack of connectivity. Added to this, the heavy costs that they need to incur (Most expensive public transport network in the EU [Brown, 2019]) demotivate them from seeing public transportation as a viable option. This can especially be noticed when the participants indicated that they currently use public transportation since it is free to use for all Dutch students. However, once this expires, they would prefer using a car since it is cheaper and more convenient. The government can make the public transport network more accessible, cheaper and better connected to foster a shift. In the study, it was seen that, currently, shared mobility does not play an instrumental role in motivating a shift away from car use. However, in the post sorting interviews, the participants have mentioned how they would consider a move towards shared mobility if it were more accessible. Shared bikes and scooters within towns and municipalities mainly compete with buses, trams or private bikes. However, shared cars, on the other hand, compete with trains

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 74 Conclusion and Discussion and personal car use. The participants in the study expressed how if there were a greater availability of shared cars with more drop off and pick up locations, flexibility in terms of booking, they would consider using shared mobility services in the future. In their study [Liao et al., 2020] found that 40% of car drivers were willing to shift to a sharing option while an additional 20% were willing to forgo a planned purchase for a car and use a shared option instead. They also highlighted a very high potential for shared cars, and policies that stimulate shared car use could significantly impact car ownership. Incentivising shared vehicles by providing priority or free parking spots for shared cars, cheaper tolls, etc., could help increase their adoption. The government can accelerate innovations such as MaaS and other shared services to create strategic partnerships with private players to foster more adoption. The participants of perspective three also expressed how it should be the government’s responsibility to provide ’green’ modes of travel that are as attractive in terms of cost and time to their unsustainable counterparts. The government can do this by investing in green energy, giving concessions to users of greener modes and helping with the shift towards sustainable modes of transport. The Dutch government is already investing heavily in sustainable transportation by enhancing their public transportation, switching to greener fuels and making stations sustainable [Netherlands, 2021], but providing more sustainable options that are cost-effective as well as provide end to end connectivity can help the transition towards sustainable transition. Finally, creating more awareness about the harmful effects of car use can go a long way in aiding the transition towards sustainable travel—sustainability in terms of the environment and infrastructure. Although electric cars that use green sources to run are environmentally sustainable, they may not be a sustainable option in terms of infrastructure. Since more cars would require more roads, increased parking spots would further lead to congestion, traffic accidents, etc. The municipalities and the government need to promote the use of other sustainable modes of transport with the help of awareness campaigns or incentives. Provincial Executive The provincial executives can look towards translating the national-level policies and strategic goals into actions within their respective regions. The connectivity of shared mobility between provinces can be enhanced by establishing partnerships between the respective provinces and industries. Routes, where heavy traffic is observed can be helped by implementing car- sharing programs or increased frequency of public transport. According to [CBS, 2013], nearly 56% of employees do not work in their municipality, leading to much commuting for work. Since the cost was another central point observed among the study participants, reducing costs by providing cheaper travel packages could further promote public transport. Better collaboration between and within provinces will help facilitate a smoother flow of travel. Municipalities The municipalities are responsible for organising the well being of the citizens within their region. This can be done by increasing the operating hours’, frequency of public transport, providing more excellent connectivity within the municipality. Additionally, municipalities can also facilitate shared mobility hubs where the citizens can easily pick up shared services. Fostering greater connectivity of shared cars between various municipalities with the help of the provincial executive can help promote it further. The municipality can look into a strategic partnership with private companies to help promote shared services usage over private cars,

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 5.2 Recommendations 75 thus helping get rid of the negative aspects inherent to car usage. Finally, incentivising public transportation by campaigns are monetary concessions that can go a long way to promote the shift towards sustainable travel. Public transport operators Public transport operators can work with the government at all levels to ensure proper effi- ciency and connection within the network. Like the OV-Fiets and Greenwheels, collaboration with private and mobility companies can help expand the transport network a facilitate greater last mile connectivity. Another point of action for transport operators is looking at the costs. Introducing deals and packages for regular travellers can help promote public transportation among the citizens. Shared mobility companies In general, among all the perspectives, there is a medium to low participation in shared mobility. While shared bikes and scooters are widely used, shared cars have not reached the same level in The Netherlands. Shared cars present a better substitute for personal car ownership. Its adoption can help motivate people to use cars only when they need to do so, thus helping in the reduction of congestion and emissions. Nevertheless, that option of having a car when you need it always remains. The biggest problem with shared cars in The Netherlands are: Firstly, its availability. Not enough shared cars are available for users. The Q sorting has shown that a particular part of the population sees the potentially shared mobility has in replacing car ownership, but at present, the participants have expressed how they are unable to find these cars when they need them. Conventional car rentals have a long-drawn rental process, which is why companies like "Greenwheels" are slowly gaining popularity. The next big problem when it comes to shared mobility is its network. Shared options usually have a range within which they can operate and need to stay within those limits. This makes it difficult for people to use, especially if they are looking to replace a personal car. Not having the freedom of range limits the adoption of shared cars. During the post Q sorting interviews, the participants mentioned how shared options do not solve the problem and make it easier for you to use public transportation or replace it within cities. Companies can look at more flexible options of allowing users to go from one city to another; reduced rates for longer rent times and greater availability in remote areas will potentially attract more users towards shared mobility. Shifting to a wholly electric fleet for shared vehicles could also reap benefits. [Liao et al., 2020] in their study saw that having electric vehicles as shared options has the potential of attracting new users to adopt shared mobility without affecting current shared mobility users. This could help increase the number of people adopting shared mobility while also being better for the environment. Another aspect is accommodating for one way car sharing. A significant hindrance of car-sharing in some instances is having to return it to the pickup location. Allowing users to travel one way could lead to broader adoption of shared options [Liao et al., 2020]. One point of observation, especially among the participants of perspective 2, was the uncertainty of shared mobility. The participants talk about how sometimes you do not know if you will find a shared mobility option within your vicinity. NS, the Dutch train operator, has a model wherein the train station acts as a hub for the shared bikes. The bikes can be picked

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 76 Conclusion and Discussion up and returned to the station. Combining this with the conventional way of distributing shared vehicles could lead to greater diﬀusion of shared mobility in the population.

5.3 Scientiﬁc Contribution

This thesis aims to understand how we can further study the peak car phenomenon and its determinants among the young population in The Netherlands to understand what the various perspectives are. This stemmed from a lack of understanding of the peak car phenomenon, what led to it, its implications, and an understanding of the young people’s perspectives. The contribution of this thesis to the scientific community has been the following. Summary of literature on peak car During the literature, several academic papers were studied to understand what the peak car phenomenon is and what led to it. These insights were summarised in a tabular form in table (2-1). This summary acts as a good starting point for all future research on the peak car phenomena by presenting an understanding of the current research done and what domain they align to. Perspectives of young people in The Netherlands Performing the Q study shed light on the five varying perspectives that exist within the Dutch population when it comes to peak car. These perspectives can lead to more specific studies towards each of these perspectives to further understand them. Additionally, understanding these perspectives can aid in studying the implications of particular policy recommendations on a specific subset of the population. Continued relevance of car use Studying the perspectives that were found during the study highlighted the importance of cars in peoples daily lives. Four out of the five perspectives showed a preference for car use, with a majority of the respondents indicating that they would like to own a car in the future. The thesis was able to shed light on what it is about car travel that the participants find appealing. This included comfort, safety, privacy and time to name a few. These results give us an idea of what is required in an alternative mode of transport to replace car travel in some scenarios. Importance of costs when selecting travel mode A continued theme that was observed within all the perspectives was the role that the cost of travel played when selecting a mode of transport. Although already highlighted in previous studies, this reaffirms the claim that costs do indeed play a pivotal role in young people when selecting a mode of transport.

5.4 Limitations of the research

Certain limitations exist in this project. Due to the inherent limitations that come with using the Q methodology coupled with those that exist in the data collection process, this section will cover those diﬀerent limitations.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 5.4 Limitations of the research 77

5.4.1 P Set

The P set refers to the participants that will be a part of the Q study. Some of the limitations are:

1. Size of the P set - The higher the number of participants, the more variety in the diﬀerent perspectives captured during a study. However, the number of participants should not exceed the number of statements (40). This brings in a paradox since increasing the number of statements will, in turn, increase the time taken to conduct the study, which will demotivate participants from participating.

2. Diversity in opinions and views - A lack of opinion and views in the P set acts as a hindrance to uncover the full extent of the options that may exist within the population. [Kampen and Tamás, 2014] shed light on how no test exists to ensure that there is good diversity amongst the respondents in a P set. If the P set is not diverse enough, certain perspectives may be overlooked. The thesis was able to uncover 5 diﬀerent perspectives among its participants showing that there was indeed a diversity in views and opinions among the participants.

3. Diversity in socio-demographic characteristics - Another limitation within the P set is the diversity of socio-demographic characteristics. It was an arduous task prepar- ing a P set that was representative of the variety of socio-demographic characteristics present within The Netherlands. This was since the author did not have enough contacts to ﬁnd participants to participate in the experiment, coupled with the complexity and time-consuming nature of performing a Q sort which demotivated many participants from taking part in the study without any incentive. This diversity is mainly in terms of income, including participants of varying income levels would help understand what relationship a person’s income or quality of life has with the transport choice they make. This is mainly motivated by the fact that in the thesis, it is seen that the costs of travel play a massive role in the travel choices that people make.

5.4.2 Q Set

1. The complete list found from the concourse could not be used for the Q study since it would take much time for the participants to sort through these statements. For this purpose, the number of statements was limited to 40, with the best eﬀorts to cover all the discussions available within the concourse.

2. The number of statements (40 statements) took approximately 45 minutes to sort and complete the survey. This demotivated some participants from taking part in the Q study.

3. For a Q study, the concourse can never be fully known [Farrimond et al., 2010]. [Kampen and Tamás, 2014] have explained how there exists no proper procedure to conduct a sound and complete collection of statements from the concourse. This will aﬀect the Q set, which aims to be a proper and complete representation of the concourse.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 78 Conclusion and Discussion

5.4.3 Q Sort

1. Ideally, the participants should read all the cards before the sorting process begins. Here they can look at the diﬀerent cards and familiarize themselves with the statements before the sort begins. Due to the online nature of the Q sort process, this could not be done. However, as an alternative, the participants were provided with a list of statements (numbered the same way as they would be in the study) in English and Dutch so that they can refer to them as and when required.

2. On account of the restriction imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Q sort model had to be adapted to an online version. This did not allow for the shuﬄing of the deck for each respondent, which is a typical procedure when performing the Q study.

3. In some instances, the respondents could not provide a proper explanation and reasoning behind the placement of a specific statement in a particular spot on the grid. This was observed with 3 out of the 20 participants that took part in the study. Upon investigation the participants conveyed that "I have never thought about this when I am travelling". In those cases the participants left the field to justify the position of the sort empty. Although it is preferred that all of the participants justify the positioning of the statements the lack of justification by the 3 participants did not have drastic effects on the study since the justification provided by the remaining seventeen participants was enough to form a perspective.

4. While conducting the Q sort, the participant is forced to think about the topic in question, when in fact, they may never think about it in their daily lives. To conclude that the perspectives found indeed exist, it must be assumed that the respondents are unconsciously exhibiting this type of behaviour, which is impossible to check. To counter this, the participants were asked questions about aspects of peak car they relate to, after which information will be extracted from their sorting. The participants were asked about car ownership, car use, public transport, shared mobility, etc. All indicators that aﬀect the peak car phenomenon.

5.4.4 Factor Analysis

Another limitation highlighted by [Kampen and Tamás, 2014] talks about the number of factors or perspectives which can be identified in a Q study. Even though the P set may be complete and has the ability to sufficiently represent the whole population, "The mathematics dictates that we are impotent to find all the factor groups". These are constraints imposed by the mathematics behind factor analysis which is only aggravated by the limitation of the software used for analysis which only allows a maximum of 8 factors.

5.4.5 Personal Bias

Personal bias refers to the bias which the researcher may induce. When performing the Q study, there are several parts where personal bias could be introduced. These are discussed below:

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 5.4 Limitations of the research 79

1. The composition of the Q set depends on the researcher’s discretion of making sure that a wide variety of concourse is considered when making the ﬁnal Q set.

2. Since the researcher is responsible for selecting the participants for the study, the research must make sure that the participants represent the larger population in society. A bias can be introduced if the researcher is unable to compile a group of participants that best represents the society.

3. Factor analysis and factor rotation require a level of judgement from the researcher [Kampen and Tamás, 2014]. The researcher needs to pick how many factors to rotate and to what extent these should be rotated.

4. Finally, bias can also enter from the description that is composed by the researcher for the diﬀerent perspectives. The researcher can pick and chose quotes from literature that they feel may support their study.

5.4.6 Static to dynamic, how can the results of the Q study be used?

How we travel is continuously changing and developing over time thus making it a dynamic trend. This thesis on the other hand has used the Q methodology with a static approach studying the perceptions of the young people at present with the exception of one statement, In the future I will buy/continue using my car. The approach that was used was unable to capture the continuously changing travel choices that an individual might make which will aﬀect future trends. However, the results of the current study can be expanded upon with future studies that are able to capture the dynamic characteristics of peak car and travel behaviour. This can be done in the following ways:

1. Including dynamic statements: In the current study only one dynamic statement was included in the ﬁnal Q set of 40 statements. Even though the complete list of statements does include certain dynamic statements such as "I would like to buy a car once I have a good job", "If I were to have a child I would deﬁnitely buy a car", "Most of my friends have a car, I think I will get one in the future as well" and "I don’t feel the need of a car for my day to day tasks and can continue to do without one". Future studies could use a greater set of dynamic statements to push the participants to think about the future.

2. Retrospective questioning: Retrospective is deﬁned as looking back at what hap- pened in the past. Including retrospective statements such as "I travel by car more now than i did earlier" can help us understand the evolution of travel behaviour over time. This can be useful since it can help give an idea of what the future trend may look like.

3. Intermittent questioning: Another way to tackle this problem can be to conduct an intermittent questioning. In this way participants will be asked to sort the same set of statements after a set time period. The results of the two studies can be compared to gain insight regarding the trends observed.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 80 Conclusion and Discussion

5.5 Conclusion

At the beginning of the thesis, we looked at how even with the stagnation of growth in car usage as shown by [van der Waard et al., 2013], 47% of the trips in The Netherlands were still taken by car in 2016 [Olde Kalter et al., 2020]. This reached an all-time high of 147.6 billion Km’s in 2017 [Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2018]. However, even with these trends, researchers hypothesized that The Netherlands, like other developed western nations around the world, is approaching peak car or saturation of car usage, after which the usage and ownership of the car will either stay stagnant or decline. Upon studying the results of this thesis, it can be seen that the hypothesis regarding peak car may not wholly hold for the case of The Netherlands. The results of the Q study are in no way concrete proof that affirms if a trend exists or not; instead, they only give us an understanding of the general sentiment towards peak car, car use and its various indicators. Based on the results of the study, young people in The Netherlands show a high preference towards car ownership and car use. Even though only 45% of the participants currently had a car in their household, 85% of them indicated that they would like to have one in the future. The costs attributed to car ownership were the main hindrance for these participants. For the participants, a car outperforms public transport and shared mobility because of its instrumental function and its representation of cultural and psychological values, such as the freedom and convenience that it provides. These results that show a preference towards car ownership are in line with a study conducted by [Steg, 2003] where they showed that a large chunk of the population in The Netherlands still has a preference towards car use due to the comfort, independence and status symbol that comes with car ownership. Like their study, this thesis also observed that even the respondents that did not own a car, or use it regularly, showed a preference towards car use and ownership. Additionally, shared mobility does not play a huge role in its influence on the population. In general, there was a "lukewarm" response from the respondents when it came to shared mobility. This means that there were no extreme views regarding shared mobility like public transport and car use. Some participants were open to using shared mobility as a replacement or supplement to the car and public transport use; however, they had problems with certain aspects of shared mobility, such as accessibility, range, and high costs. The young population currently viewed shared mobility as a supplement and competitor to public transport in some cases (within cities). If it is to compete with car ownership, the citizens will require better connectivity, cheaper costs and more significant availability of shared bikes, scooters and cars. If properly facilitated, shared mobility could potentially compete to replace vehicle ownership, thus helping get rid of the negative facets that are inherent to owning your vehicle and promoting the use of shared services and public transportation.

5.6 Recommendation for future research

Over the past six months of conducting this research, I have had to make several decisions regarding whether I should include certain indicators, participants, factor, demographics, etc., within the study. However, since six months is too short of a time frame to include everything, many of these ideas had to be scrapped away. Below, recommendations for future research regarding this thesis topic will be discussed.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 5.6 Recommendation for future research 81

Due to the lockdown and other restrictions, gathering participants was one of the most challenging tasks in this thesis. A future recommendation would be to include more participants having different educational backgrounds in the study. Currently, the study is heavily dom- inated by participants who have a WO educational background. More participants with an MBO and HBO background, once included, could give more insight since it is a more accurate representation of the population. Currently, the P set was chosen based on car ownership, level of education, level of urbanization and shared mobility use. During the study, it was noticed how income level plays a significant role in selecting travel modes and car ownership. Therefore, it would be an excellent addition to sample participants from different levels of income. The Q set was obtained from the concourse, which included interviews and an extensive literature review. For future studies, a recommendation would be to include more interviews with the target audience to get a richer Q set. Since this will include the complete concourse present within the population. Furthermore, the factor selection and factor rotation have an inherent bias to them. Conducting a sensitivity analysis on these results will help better substantiate results. Initially, it was planned to conduct an extensive data analysis using the mobility panel data to understand the travel trends in The Netherlands and compare them to the results of the Q sort and participant answers. However, due to the short time frame of the study, that was not possible to do. In a future study, the mobility panel data can be leveraged to extract more insights from the Q sorts. From the results, we saw that car ownership played a considerable role in most perspectives. A further recommendation would be to understand what is it in cars that still make them appealing and irreplaceable for particular perspectives that encapsulate the young Dutch population. Initial results showed that it was the comfort, convenience and connectivity, to name a few, that owning a car provides. A study understanding these indicators better will help make more holistic policy decisions. Furthermore, it has been postulated that the current preference towards car use of the younger population will not have any drastic effects on them as they get older. Exploring if this preference towards car use shifts as the population ages and how drastic the implication of this may be will be interesting to study.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 82 Conclusion and Discussion

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis Bibliography

[Akhtar-Danesh, 2017] Akhtar-Danesh, N. (2017). A Comparison between Major Factor Ex- traction and Factor Rotation Techniques in Q-Methodology. Open Journal of Applied Sciences, 07(04):147–156.

[ANWB, 2018] ANWB (2018). 20 procent meer ﬁles op Nederlandse wegen.

[Aproxima, 2015] Aproxima (2015). HtmlQ.

[Banasick, 2019] Banasick, S. (2019). KADE: A desktop application for Q methodology.

[Bashatah, 2016] Bashatah, L. S. (2016). Q-methodology : What and how ? Journal of Research & Method in Education, 6(5):37–43.

[Bastian and Börjesson, 2015] Bastian, A. and Börjesson, M. (2015). Peak car? Drivers of the recent decline in Swedish car use. Transport Policy, 42:94–102.

[Bastian et al., 2016] Bastian, A., Börjesson, M., and Eliasson, J. (2016). Explaining “peak car” with economic variables. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 88:236– 250.

[Belgiawan et al., 2014] Belgiawan, P. F., Schmöcker, J.-D., Abou-Zeid, M., Walker, J., Lee, T.-C., Ettema, D. F., and Fujii, S. (2014). Car ownership motivations among under- graduate students in China, Indonesia, Japan, Lebanon, Netherlands, Taiwan, and USA. Transportation, 41(6):1227–1244.

[Brown, 2017] Brown, A. E. (2017). Car-less or car-free? Socioeconomic and mobility diﬀer- ences among zero-car households. Transport Policy, 60(August):152–159.

[Brown, 2019] Brown, E. (2019). The Netherlands has the most expensive transportation costs in Europe.

[Brown, 1982] Brown, S. R. (1982). Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science, volume 19.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 84 Bibliography

[CBS, 2013] CBS (2013). More than half of employees commute to work.

[Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2018] Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2018). Meer kilometers dan ooit door Nederlandse wegvoertuigen.

[Cuppen et al., 2010] Cuppen, E., Breukers, S., Hisschemöller, M., and Bergsma, E. (2010). Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands. Ecological Economics, 69(3).

[Davis and Michelle, 2011] Davis, C. and Michelle, C. (2011). Q methodology in audience research: Bridging the qualitative/quantitative ‘divide’. Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 8(2):559–593.

[Delbosc, 2017] Delbosc, A. (2017). Delay or forgo? A closer look at youth driver licensing trends in the United States and Australia. Transportation, 44(5):919–926.

[Delbosc and Currie, 2013] Delbosc, A. and Currie, G. (2013). Changing demographics and young adult driver license decline in Melbourne, Australia (1994–2009). Transportation, 41(3):529–542.

[Doğan et al., 2018] Doğan, I., Gültekin, A. B., and Tanrıvermiş, H. (2018). Sustainable transportation. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, 6:232–252.

[Drut, 2018] Drut, M. (2018). Spatial issues revisited: The role of shared transportation modes. Transport Policy, 66(March):85–95.

[Dutzik et al., 2014] Dutzik, T., Inglis, J., and Baxandall, P. (2014). Millennials in Motion: Changing Travel Habits of Young Americans and the Implications for Public Policy. Fron- tier Group, (March):51p.

[Edwards, 2019] Edwards, J. (2019). ‘The pain is just beginning’: After 38,000 layoﬀs, Wall Street wakes up to ‘peak car’.

[Faber, 2019] Faber, R. (2019). The inﬂuence of weather on travel behaviour.

[Farrimond et al., 2010] Farrimond, H., Joﬀe, H., and Stenner, P. (2010). A Q-methodological study of smoking identities. Psychology and Health, 25(8):979–998.

[Focas and Christidis, 2017] Focas, C. and Christidis, P. (2017). Peak Car in Europe? Trans- portation Research Procedia, 25:531–550.

[Francks, 2016] Francks, L. (2016). Future trends in mobility: the rise of the sharing economy and automated transport. MIND-sets, (640401).

[Garceau et al., 2015] Garceau, T. J., Atkinson-Palombo, C., and Garrick, N. (2015). Peak car travel in the United States two-decade-long phenomenon at the state level. Transporta- tion Research Record, 2531:36–44.

[Garikapati et al., 2016] Garikapati, V. M., Pendyala, R. M., Morris, E. A., Mokhtarian, P. L., and McDonald, N. (2016). Activity patterns, time use, and travel of millennials: a generation in transition? Transport Reviews, 36(5):558–584.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 85

[Goodwin, 2012] Goodwin, P. (2012). Three Views on Peak Car. World Transport, Policy & Practice, 17. [Goodwin and Van Dender, 2013] Goodwin, P. and Van Dender, K. (2013). ‘Peak Car’ — Themes and Issues. Transport Reviews, 33(3):243–254. [Headicar, 2013] Headicar, P. (2013). The Changing Spatial Distribution of the Population in England: Its Nature and Significance for ‘Peak Car’. Transport Reviews, 33(3):310–324. [Hu and Creutzig, 2021] Hu, J. W. and Creutzig, F. (2021). A systematic review on shared mobility in China. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation. [Jakob Arendsen et al., 2019] Jakob Arendsen, B., Veeneman Delft MJ Alonso González, W. T., and van Hagen, M. N. (2019). Shared mobility for the first and last mile: Ex- ploring the willingness to share. [Kampen and Tamás, 2014] Kampen, J. K. and Tamás, P. (2014). Overly ambitious: contri- butions and current status of Q methodology. Quality and Quantity, 48(6):3109–3126. [Kenworthy, 2013] Kenworthy, J. (2013). ABSTRACTS AND KEYWORDS Decoupling Ur- ban Car Use and Metro-politan GDP Growth Decoupling Urban Car Use and Metro-politan GDP Growth. World Transport Policy and Practice, 19(October). [Keyes and Crawford-Brown, 2018] Keyes, A. K. M. and Crawford-Brown, D. (2018). The changing influences on commuting mode choice in urban England under Peak Car: A discrete choice modelling approach. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 58:167–176. [Klein and Smart, 2017] Klein, N. J. and Smart, M. J. (2017). Millennials and car ownership: Less money, fewer cars. Transport Policy, 53:20–29. [Kuhnimhof et al., 2011] Kuhnimhof, T., Buehler, R., and Dargay, J. (2011). A new generation: Travel trends for young Germans and Britons. Transportation Research Record, 1989(2230):58–67. [Kuhnimhof et al., 2013] Kuhnimhof, T., Zumkeller, D., and Chlond, B. (2013). Who Made Peak Car, and How? A Breakdown of Trends over Four Decades in Four Countries. Trans- port Reviews, 33(3):325–342. [Le Vine and Jones, 2012] Le Vine, S. and Jones, P. (2012). On the Move Making sense of car and train – Executive Summary. (December):1–12. [Le Vine et al., 2013] Le Vine, S., Jones, P., and Polak, J. (2013). The Contribution of Benefit-in-Kind Taxation Policy in Britain to the ’Peak Car’ Phenomenon. Transport Reviews, 33(5):526–547. [Liao et al., 2020] Liao, F., Molin, E., Timmermans, H., and van Wee, B. (2020). Carsharing: the impact of system characteristics on its potential to replace private car trips and reduce car ownership, volume 47. Springer US. [Ma et al., 2020] Ma, X., Yuan, Y., Van Oort, N., and Hoogendoorn, S. (2020). Bike-sharing systems’ impact on modal shift: A case study in Delft, the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 259:120846.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 86 Bibliography

[Maas and Attard, 2020] Maas, S. and Attard, M. (2020). Attitudes and perceptions towards shared mobility services: Repeated cross-sectional results from a survey among the Maltese population. Transportation Research Procedia, 45(2019):955–962.

[Machado et al., 2018] Machado, C. A., Hue, N. P. M. d. S., Berssaneti, F. T., and Quin- tanilha, J. A. (2018). An overview of shared mobility. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(12):1–21.

[Martinez and Viegas, 2017] Martinez, L. M. and Viegas, J. M. (2017). Assessing the impacts of deploying a shared self-driving urban mobility system: An agent-based model applied to the city of Lisbon, Portugal. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, 6(1).

[McDonald, 2015] McDonald, N. C. (2015). Are millennials really the "go-Nowhere" Genera- tion? Journal of the American Planning Association, 81(2):90–103.

[Metz, 2010] Metz, D. (2010). Saturation of Demand for Daily Travel. Transport Reviews, 30(5):659–674.

[Metz, 2013] Metz, D. (2013). Peak Car and Beyond: The Fourth Era of Travel. Transport Reviews, 33(3):255–270.

[Millard-Ball, 2005] Millard-Ball, A. (2005). Car-sharing: Where and how it succeeds. Trans- portation Research Board.

[Millard-Ball and Schipper, 2011] Millard-Ball, A. and Schipper, L. (2011). Are We Reaching Peak Travel? Trends in Passenger Transport in Eight Industrialized Countries. Transport Reviews, 31(3).

[Ministerie van infrastructuur en Mobility, 2017] Ministerie van infrastructuur en Mobility (2017). To market parties interested in Mobility as a Service (MaaS). pages 1–25.

[Mink, 2019] Mink, E. (2019). MaaS of the Month : Supporting MaaS with pilots National MaaS programme in the Netherlands. (August).

[Mounce and Nelson, 2019] Mounce, R. and Nelson, J. D. (2019). On the potential for one- way electric vehicle car-sharing in future mobility systems. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 120(December 2017):17–30.

[Naughton and Welch, 2019] Naughton, K. and Welch, D. (2019). This Is What Peak Car Looks Like.

[Netherlands, 2021] Netherlands, G. o. T. (2021). Goals of public transport policy.

[Nijland and van Meerkerk, 2017] Nijland, H. and van Meerkerk, J. (2017). Mobility and environmental impacts of car sharing in the Netherlands. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23:84–91.

[Oakil et al., 2016] Oakil, A. T. M., Manting, D., and Nijland, H. (2016). Determinants of car ownership among young households in the Netherlands: The role of urbanisation and demographic and economic characteristics. Journal of Transport Geography, 51:229–235.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 87

[Olde Kalter et al., 2020] Olde Kalter, M. J., La Paix Puello, L., and Geurs, K. T. (2020). Do changes in travellers’ attitudes towards car use and ownership over time affect travel mode choice? A latent transition approach in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 132(October 2018):1–17. [Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy, 2011] Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy (2011). ’Peak car Use’: understanding the Demise of Automobile Dependence. World Transport, Policy & Practice, 17. [Pozoukidou and Chatziyiannaki, 2021] Pozoukidou, G. and Chatziyiannaki, Z. (2021). 15- minute city: Decomposing the new urban planning Eutopia. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(2):1–25. [Prillwitz and Barr, 2011] Prillwitz, J. and Barr, S. (2011). Moving towards sustainability? Mobility styles, attitudes and individual travel behaviour. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6):1590–1600. [Prins, 2019] Prins, T. J. (2019). UCLA UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title. [Puentes and Tomer, 2008] Puentes, R. and Tomer, A. (2008). The Road Less Traveled: An Analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled Trends in the United States. page 40. [Reed et al., 2009] Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C. H., and Stringer, L. C. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5). [Rogers, 1995] Rogers, R. S. (1995). No Title. Wiley. [Rohr and Fox, 2014] Rohr, C. and Fox, J. (2014). EUROPE Evidence review of car traffic levels in Britain. [Rowley and Slack, 2004] Rowley, J. and Slack, F. (2004). Conducting a Literature review. Management Research News. [Rydén and Emma, 2005] Rydén, C. and Emma, M. (2005). Mobility services for urban sustainability: Environmental assessment. Trivector Traffic AB. [Shaheen et al., 2016] Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., and Zohdy, I. (2016). Shared Mobility: Current Practices and Guiding Principles. Fhwa-Hop-16-022 2., (Washington D.C.):120. [Sivak and Schoettle, 2012] Sivak, M. and Schoettle, B. (2012). Recent changes in the age composition of drivers in 15 countries. Traffic Inj Prev, 13(2):126–132. [Stapleton et al., 2017] Stapleton, L., Sorrell, S., and Schwanen, T. (2017). Peak car and increasing rebound: A closer look at car travel trends in Great Britain. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 53:217–233. [Steg, 2003] Steg, L. (2003). Can Public Transport Compete With the Private Car? IATSS Research, 27(2):27–35. [Stephenson, 1935] Stephenson, W. (1935). Correlating persons instead of tests. Journal of Personality, 4(1):17–24.

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 88 Bibliography

[Stokes, 2013] Stokes, G. (2013). The Prospects for Future Levels of Car Access and Use. Transport Reviews, 33(3):360–375.

[Stonehouse, 2019] Stonehouse, A. (2019). Is ‘Peak Car’ Really A Thing?

[Tanner, 1978] Tanner, J. (1978). Long-Term Forecasting of Vehicle Ownership and Road Traﬃc. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 141(1):14–63.

[Throwe, 2019] Throwe, B. (2019). Commentary: Are we approaching “peak car?”.

[van der Waard et al., 2013] van der Waard, J., Jorritsma, P., and Immers, B. (2013). New Drivers in Mobility; What Moves the Dutch in 2012? Transport Reviews, 33(3):343–359.

[Watson and Floridi, 2018] Watson, D. and Floridi, L. (2018). Crowdsourced science: so- ciotechnical epistemology in the e-research paradigm. Synthese, 195(2).

[Watts and Stenner, 2005] Watts, S. and Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(1):67–91.

[Webler et al., 2009] Webler, T., Danielson, S., and Tuler, S. (2009). Using Q Method to Reveal Social Perspectives in Environmental Research. Social and Environmental Research, 01301:1–54.

[Wee, 2015] Wee, B. v. (2015). Peak car: The ﬁrst signs of a shift towards ICT-based activities replacing travel? A discussion paper. Transport Policy, 42:1–3.

[Wittwer et al., 2019] Wittwer, R., Gerike, R., and Hubrich, S. (2019). Peak-Car Phe- nomenon Revisited for Urban Areas: Microdata Analysis of Household Travel Surveys from Five European Capital Cities. Transportation Research Record, 2673(3):686–699.

[Zijlstra et al., 2020] Zijlstra, T., Durand, A., Hoogendoorn-Lanser, S., and Harms, L. (2020). Early adopters of Mobility-as-a-Service in the Netherlands. Transport Policy, 97:197–209.

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis Appendix A

List of Q statements

This chapter will present the complete list of Q statements that was obtained from the concourse in tables A-1,A-2 and A-3. The table consist of the following columns

1. Serial Number

2. Statement - Presents the statement in its raw form as obtained from the concourse

3. Adapted statement - In case a statement could not be used in its raw form it has been adopted to make the language more comprehensible

4. Reference - Indicate the source where the statement was obtained from

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 90 List of Q statements

Table A-1: Q statements from concourse (1)

Serial Number Statement Adapted Statement Reference 1 I like to drive fast Mobility Panel statements 2 Driving is my hobby Mobility Panel statements 3 Driving is sporty and adventurous Mobility Panel statements 4 Having a car gives me a sense of freedom Mobility Panel statements 5 Having a car makes my life easier Mobility Panel statements Using a car is more comfortable since you can stop anywhere 6 Using a car is just more comfortable I can stop on the way and go at my own time. you like and Interview 2 go on your own time. 7 I like driving because it protects me from the weather Mobility Panel statements If a company offers be an option to get a car I will take that because then it is easier If my employer offers me a car I will prefer that over a 8 Interview 3 for me to travel public transport pass. 9 I can easily visit friends and family by car Mobility Panel statements 10 I like using a car for outings and holidays Mobility Panel statements 11 I like using the car because I have my own privacy I like the privacy a car gives when travelling Interview 2 12 I can decide how I want to travel with my car Mobility Panel statements 13 I feel safe when I have a car I think travelling via car since it gives a sense of safety Mobility Panel statements 14 Travelling by a car offers a lot of advantages over other modes [Olde Kalter et al., 2020] When I have to buy groceries its difficult to carry all the things in a bus or on my 15 It is difficult to get groceries on a bike or walking so I would prefer a car. Interview 2 bike so that’s why I prefer the car I prefer using a car over a train because overall it costs less than a train and takes Public transport is expensive. It would be cheaper for me 16 Interview 4 me lesser time per ride if I had a car. While ride-sharing and other auto alternatives are great for folks in urban areas, there’s a whole lot of America that still relies on private vehicles and will continue to do so for a long time. To them and the millions of existing drivers 17 Using a car is an integral part of my commute. It is very essential for me. [Stonehouse, 2019] and enthusiasts who see their cars as more than mere appliances for a daily commute, the death of the private automobile still seems like a far-off notion, as cars still mean something more important than basic transportation. 18 For me the car is more than just a mode of commute, I love driving and cars in general. [Stonehouse, 2019] I don’t mind taking an electric vehicle if its cheaper and if I have charging I don’t mind taking an electric vehicle if its cheaper and if I have charging 19 Interview 1 points near my house. points near my house. 20 My parents use a car because its easier for them to travel with a car. It is easier to travel if you own a car Interview 1 An ageing population means more elderly people who can’t drive. High youth unemployment in Europe may explain why fewer young people are getting 21 I would like to buy a car once I have a good job Guardian (2015) driver’s licences compared to previous generations. Changes in lifestyle have also contributed. 22 Car you have more flexibility, I can take whatever road I want and go wherever I want Having a car gives me the flexibility of picking whatever route I may like Interview 3 23 Having a car is nice because I don’t have to worry about getting a seat or who Having a car is nice because I don’t have to worry about who I sit next to. Interview 2 24 I’m sitting next to Owning a car is nice since you wouldn’t have to worry about getting a seat If I were to have a child I would definitely need a car to make travelling 25 If I were to have a child I would definitely need a car to make travelling easier. [Delbosc and Currie, 2013] easier. 26 I can talk to whoever I am travelling with with ease when I’m using a car I like using a car because I can travel with and talk to whoever I want Interview 2 27 Having a car equals freedom, independence, availability, comfort, and convenience. Having a car can give an individual a sense of freedom. [van der Waard et al., 2013] Similarly, prices (especially for fuel) will almost certainly increase, but it is not clear 28 I don’t mind using a car even if the fuel prices increase [Stokes, 2013] by how much. 29 I have a car and prefer using a car because its more convenient for me I like using a car because it is so much more convenient Interview 2 30 Young people with jobs have a higher rate of car ownership. Most of my friends who work have a car. I think I will get one as well, [van der Waard et al., 2013] 31 I like using my car for work and sports because its so windy and cold Interview 5 32 In the future I will buy/continue using a car. Interview 5 33 When I bought a car I didn’t realise there would be so many additional costs. Owning a car has too many additional costs. Interview 2 Earlier it was easier buying and owning a car because it wasn’t so expensive but now During the time of my parents it was much easier and cheaper to buy a 34 Interview 4 its so expensive to own a car car than it is now I would prefer using shared mobility because having a car is a burden. There is too 35 Having a car is burden. There is too much of paperwork to get one Interview 3 much of paperwork that I need to do 36 The environment would benefit from less car use [Olde Kalter et al., 2020] You don’t really need a car in a city. The difficulty finding parking 37 If I’m going to a big city I don’t take my car because parking is a hassle there Interview 4 just adds to it. 38 Within the city I don’t use the car much, I only use it when I go out of the city . I don’t think there is much use of a car within a city Interview 4 Getting a license is hard, if my parents didn’t’t pay for it I wouldn’t have gotten one. Getting a license is difficult and expensive. That is why I prefer 39 I don’t see the benefit of paying for a license then paying for car to travel its easier Interview 1 using other modes. to just use public transport. I don’t want to use a car/ try to use the car less due to 40 Because of the environment I try to use the car less often [Olde Kalter et al., 2020] environmental reasons. These days I think young people are studying more so they don’t have the money It is difficult for young people to have a car since they start working 41 to buy these expensive cars, but my parents started working at a younger age so Interview 4 at a very late age as compared to older generations. they had the money for a car “I would never go back to owning a car,” marketing CEO Larry Kim told Bloomberg, lamenting the hour a day he used to lose just shoveling his car out of Boston Owning a car is too much of a hassle, especially if I’m living in a city. 42 [Stonehouse, 2019] snowstorms. “Your time is not free, right? Your time is worth more than $20 an hour. I rather spend that money elsewhere So in my case, why not spend $15,000 to $20,000 a year to get all of that time saved?” 43 Because of the expenses I use a car less often [Olde Kalter et al., 2020] 44 Bad and unpredictable weather affects the selection of the mode of transport. The weather is so unpredictable, its easier to travel if I own a car. [Faber, 2019] The problem with car is that you do not know how much you are spending. With a public transport I know exactly how much I will spend. 45 Interview 2 With a public transport you know exactly how much you will be spending But with a car I do not know since there are so many costs. Living with or close to my parents makes it feel like I do not 46 Young people who still live with their parents have a lower car ownership. [Delbosc and Currie, 2013] really need a car to travel Owning a car means thinking about costs like maintenance, 47 Car ownership includes a wide range of additional costs. [Bastian et al., 2016] insurance, parking and repair which become too much I don’t feel the need of a car for my day to day tasks and can 48 Do not need a car and to do what I need and want without a motor vehicle [Brown, 2017] continue to do them without one In the future I will take a car depending on where I have to work and where I live. my motivation to buy a car depends on where I am living 49 Interview 1 If there is no direct connection I may take a car. at that time. Once viewed as mobility-constrained, many now brand zero-car households 50 Owning a car is such a hassle. I prefer not having one. [Brown, 2017] as “car-free”, signaling their liberation from the costs and hassle of car ownership

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 91

Table A-2: Q statements from concourse (2)

Serial Number Statement Adapted Statement Reference there is an overall generational shift in the perception of the status and 51 Owning a car is just not as exciting as it was [Throwe, 2019] excitement of car ownership Getting a drivers license is so hard and expensive. I prefer 52 High prices to obtain licenses have led to lower rates of licenses in the population. [Dutzik et al., 2014] not going through that and using other modes of transport. falling out of favor in cities around the world as ride-hailing and other new 53 transportation options proliferate and concerns over gridlock and pollution Cars create so much of pollution! I prefer using other modes. [Naughton and Welch, 2019] spark a reevaluation of privately owned wheels “Before peak car, there’s going to be a peak in internal combustion engine I would consider buying an electric car since I know I will 54 vehicles,” says Colin McKerracher, head of advanced transport analysis for [Naughton and Welch, 2019] not be harming the environment BNEF. Americans are driving less. The changes are most pronounced among I think the older generation in my family depends more on 55 [Klein and Smart, 2017] Millennial’s, those born in the 1980s and 1990s. a car than I do From American research, it can be learned that two-thirds of young adults 56 (both students and workers) prefer having an Internet connection to having I prefer having a high speed internet connection over a nice car. [van der Waard et al., 2013] a car of their own 57 in the social context of car mobility I will use a car if my company gives me one. [Le Vine et al., 2013] Recently there has been new momentum for electric vehicles resulting I don’t want to buy a car because of environmental reasons but 58 [Mounce and Nelson, 2019] from both technological advances as well as developments I wouldn’t’t mind buying an electric car. Electric vehicles (when they are affordable to more people) may make fuel prices much lower, and the implications of other sources of power, or global I don’t use a car because petrol and diesel are bad for the 59 [Stokes, 2013] competition and willingness to pay for fuels of different types are difficult environment. However, I wouldn’t’t mind using an electric car. to predict. falling out of favor in cities around the world as ride-hailing and other new The public transportation is so efficient that I do not feel the 60 transportation options proliferate and concerns over gridlock and pollution [Naughton and Welch, 2019] need to drive a car spark a reevaluation of privately owned wheels Having the internet connection makes it easier for me to travel. 61 ICT has facilitated easier use of public transportation. I do not need to worry about having a car since I can look up [Wee, 2015] timings of public transport and find the best possible route with ease The increased use of the train is probably related to the increased participation Its easier for me to travel using the train because of the 62 in educational activities and the associated availability of a student public Student OV. Once this is over I will probably continue [van der Waard et al., 2013] travel pass, which was introduced in 1991. using the train From a policy perspective, the key message from this study is that a The Netherlands has such a well developed public transportation combination of fuel and other driving cost increases, densification and 63 network that I do not see the point in owning a car. I can get [Bastian and Börjesson, 2015] mixed land-use as well as good public transport supply is effective to wherever I want. in reducing car use. Within a city I would still use public transportation because parking is Within a city I would still use public transportation because 64 Interview 5 so expensive parking is so expensive I use public transport a lot because of the student OV otherwise I 65 Interview 5 would have just used a car. Even if I use public transport to go to my parents it takes too long since Public transportation takes too long and I need to make multiple 66 Interview 2 I have to change multiple modes and then in the end ask them to pick me up changes. So I would like using a car. Where I live the public transport network is not very good I have to walk If the public transportation network was faster and better 67 Interview 2 at least 20 Min’s to reach a bus stand that takes me to the nearest station. connected I would use it more often I will only take a public transport if I have less changes. If I have to change 68 I only like using public transportation if I have less changes. Interview 3 too many times I will prefer another mode of transportation. Public transport is unreliable sometimes because either the Public transport is unreliable sometimes because either the road is 69 road is closed to there is some work in progress on a railway Interview 3 closed to there is some work in progress on a railway line line 70 I don’t like public transport much because I have to plan a lot I don’t like the planning involved in taking public transport Interview 3 Where I grew up everyone had a car because it is very difficult to get there We have good public transport where I am for but you still 71 Interview 1 without one. The public transport is good but not that great. need a car to get around. The increased use of the train is probably related to the increased participation Its easier for me to travel using the train because of the 72 in educational activities and the associated availability of a student public [van der Waard et al., 2013] Student OV. Once this is over I will probably start using a car travel pass, which was introduced in 1991. In the long run it is cheaper if I call an Uber or rent a 73 As on-demand services like Uber and Lyft grow their customer bases, more bike when I need to rather than buying a car people will decide they no longer need to own a car of their own. Why would Because of the shared mobility options, I do not feel the [Edwards, 2019] 74 you, when it’s cheaper to ride around in someone else’s? need to own a car Mobility services are multiplying rapidly, with everything from electric scooters to robot-taxis trying to establish a foothold in the market. Increasingly, major urban I have so many different options like OvFits, Uber, Felix, 75 centers such as London, Madrid, and Mexico City are restricting cars’ access. BlaBla Car, Bird, Mo-Bikes that I do not need any other [Naughton and Welch, 2019] Such constraints, plus the expansion of the sharing economy and the advent mode to go around where I live of the autonomous age, have made automakers nervous. 76 I like trying new ways to travel [Zijlstra et al., 2020] 77 I don’t mind combining various modes of travel together [Zijlstra et al., 2020] I use shared scooters when I want to travel within the city its cheap and its I like using shared bikes and scooters. They’re fast, cheap 78 Interview 2 better than using a car since I don’t have to worry about parking and I don’t worry about parking Having the internet connection makes it easier for me to travel. I do not need 79 [Wee, 2015] to worry about having a car since I can book a car or bike with my app Other items may have taken its place, and if car sharing, public transport, and the infrastructure to walk use the bike and the availability 80 walking and cycling opportunities (in towns and cities) have improved to a of shared services is so good that I do not feel the need [Stokes, 2013] level where fewer people want a car, the long-term effects could be substantial. to use anything else. Since parking availability is a key factor in travellers’ decision-making when it comes to private car use, this can set up a negative feedback mechanism, since Its so difficult finding parking, I prefer calling a cab when 81 [Mounce and Nelson, 2019] increased adoption of car- sharing results in higher parking availability and hence I need a car makes it more attractive to be a car owner. or instance, the website of Zip-car,1 one of the big car sharing companies, I prefer using a shared car when I need a car since its 82 claims that ‘car sharing is about redefining transportation to make cities better [Nijland and van Meerkerk, 2017] better for the environment. places for you and me, and it helps us to ensure a healthier future for the planet’. 83 I like shared mobility but they need to have enough of them I like shared mobility but they need to have enough of them Interview 5 I don’t like using Uber’s or shared taxis because I have to sit in someone I don’t like using shared cars because I need to sit with 84 Interview 2 else’s car and make polite conversation with them people I do not know. I’ve not really used Uber much. I only use Uber or other taxi services when 85 I only like using a taxi when I can share the costs with someone Interview 1 i can share the costs with someone. 86 I really like sharing cars but The Netherlands doesn’t have options I would use car sharing if it were more readily available Interview 4 I prefer walking and taking the public transport over shared mobility because Shared mobility is nice, but its too expensive so I prefer 87 Interview 1 shared mobility is expensive. using PT or walking/biking. 88 I don’t want to use Uber’s and taxi because I feel unsafe to go alone Interview 5 I usually used shared mobility as a tourist. But within the Netherlands 89 I usually sue shared mobility only as a tourist Interview 4 I prefer owning my vehicle 90 I could see using shared mobility as a substitute to car use. I don’t think I would need a car if there was good shared mobility Interview 3

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 92 List of Q statements

Table A-3: Q statements from concourse (3)

Serial Number Statement Adapted Statement Reference I don’t think car sharing is a good alternative to protect the The additional emissions from those forms of consumption may have 91 environment because there are still cars on the road! We need [Nijland and van Meerkerk, 2017] negative environmental impacts. to look for other modes of transport. Its first objective is to support Dutch climate goals, the second to alleviate everyone who wants to use a car should use shared cars as it 92 some of the urban mobility problems, and the third for private parties [Nijland and van Meerkerk, 2017] will help reduce congestion and parking problems. involved to save money Where I live there is no shared mobility but when I go to a 93 Where I live there is no shared mobility but when I go to a city a use it Interview 5 city a use it “This is especially true in big cities where people are becoming more Living in a city makes it easier for me to go for a taxi/shared 94 [Stonehouse, 2019] inclined to share rather than own a vehicle that sits idle most of the time,” mode rather than buying a car where i live will decide if i get a car if i am somewhere where there is no 95 Where I live will decide if I buy a car in the future or not Interview 1 public transportation then i will prefer using a car. With the increasing worldwide trend toward urbanization, for some car Owning a car in the city is too expensive. I need to think 96 ownership is either proving to be more of a hassle than it is worth – or too [Throwe, 2019] about looking for paying for parking everywhere I go. expensive. How I travel depends on where I’m going. I try to pick to fastest, cheapest 97 [Zijlstra et al., 2020] and most efficient way of traveling Car use in the Greater London area has been declining, generally flat in I’ve noticed that people who live in smaller town and 98 [Le Vine et al., 2013] smaller urban areas, while it has continued to grow rapidly in rural areas; village’s use their car more often. If you live in the city and your whole family and network is within the Where I live everything I want and everyone I visit are 99 city then it is easier to not have a car but if you have people who live Interview 2 close by so I don’t need a car. outside its better that you have a car. The social and cultural preference theory suggests that Millennial’s I prefer living in a densely populated area where I know I desire to live in dense areas with access to high-quality public transportation, 100 can find everything that I need in a few minutes walk and [Klein and Smart, 2017] and their adoption of new information technologies has further acted as a I have access to good public transportation. catalyst for changing travel behavior 101 We cant change the environment by ourselves so it makes sense to care about it [Olde Kalter et al., 2020] I don’t look much into which mode of transport is more 102 I don’t look much into which mode of transport is more environmentally friendly Interview 3 environmentally friendly I always pick the cheapest mode of transport. Even if 103 I am more concerned about the cost rather than the environmental aspect. Interview 1 it may not be environmentally friendly. Time and cost are most important to me when picking 104 I always look at the time and cost when I’m deciding how to travel Interview 4 a mode of transport If I had more money I would travel more. Now I try to 105 Due to the high costs of travel there has been a decline in travel in recent times. [Metz, 2010] travel less because its expensive to travel. I like the idea of working form home as I have more E-working, also has several conflicting effects on mobility. Its primary effect 106 time to do other things and do not waste time travelling [van der Waard et al., 2013] is a substitution effect, whereby the physical commute is replaced by telecommuting. to and fro from work. In general, e-shopping leads to a slight decrease in the number of trips and I’ve been online shopping a lot recently. This takes away 107 [van der Waard et al., 2013] the number of kilometres in personal mobility, the need for me to travel a lot. . The group discussions also revealed that ‘WhatsApp’ possibly partly replaces I feel less of a need to go and see my friends regularly 108 visiting friends and relatives, resulting in fewer physical social contacts, thus less because I can just video call them or send them a [van der Waard et al., 2013] mobility message to see how they re doing The environmental awareness crosses my mind but I prefer being comfortable The environmental impact of a mode does matter, 109 Interview 2 when I am travelling but I prefer my comfort. I’ve noticed that they way that I travel has remained 110 Their mobility pattern remains more or less constant over time [van der Waard et al., 2013] constant over time 111 There is a high preference for walk-able communities. I prefer living in a community which is walk-able [Dutzik et al., 2014] Online retailers like Amazon have eliminated many trips to malls and outlet stores. Online transactions nearly tripled in the last decade as a share of US retail – they are now at 6.6% and growing – and are growing at double digits in many European countries My need to travel has reduced in recent times 112 Guardian (2015) (20% last year in Germany). Broadband internet at home also means more telecommuting: since I can do everything online the share of people working from home in the US has increased from 3.3% to 4.4% since 2000, and in the UK by 13% between 2007 and 2012. I feel guilty taking a mode of transport that is not I feel guilty when I take a mode which is not environmentally friendly but using PT 113 environmentally friendly but my time and money Interview 4 takes more time and is more expensive which is why I prefer using a car are more important. “It’s faster to bike, much cheaper, and it’s really nice to start the day with fresh air,” It’s faster to bike, much cheaper, and it’s really nice 114 [Naughton and Welch, 2019] she says, adding that she’ll never buy another car to start the day with fresh air 115 I don’t feel the need to travel as much since I can do most of my work online. [Wee, 2015] 116 My current mode of transport is only walking, using my bike and public transport. Currently I only use the bike, walk or public transport Interview 1

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis Appendix B

Slides to explain the Q sorting

Before performing the Q sorting, each of the participants was given a short introduction presentation that explained the basics of performing the Q sorting to them.

Figure B-1: Introduction Slide 1

Figure B-2: Introduction Slide 2

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 94 Slides to explain the Q sorting

Figure B-3: Introduction Slide 3

Figure B-4: Introduction Slide 4

Figure B-5: Introduction Slide 5

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 95

Figure B-6: Introduction Slide 6

Figure B-7: Introduction Slide 7

Figure B-8: Introduction Slide 8

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 96 Slides to explain the Q sorting

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis Appendix C

Q sorting website

For the purpose of the Q sort a website was developed. The following images show the various steps that the participants were required to take in order to complete the Q sorting.

Figure C-1: Web page for Q sort 1

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 98 Q sorting website

Figure C-2: Web page for Q sort 2

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 99

Figure C-3: Web page for Q sort 3

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 100 Q sorting website

Figure C-4: Web page for Q sort 4

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 101

Figure C-5: Web page for Q sort 5

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 102 Q sorting website

Figure C-6: Web page for Q sort 6

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 103

Figure C-7: Web page for Q sort 7

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 104 Q sorting website

Figure C-8: Web page for Q sort 8

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 105

Figure C-9: Web page for Q sort 9

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 106 Q sorting website

Figure C-10: Web page for Q sort 10

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis 107

Figure C-11: Web page for Q sort 11

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 108 Q sorting website

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis Appendix D

Factor Rotation

This chapter will go over the factor rotation process and explain how the number of factors was decided. The ﬁrst step was to calculate the correlation and then extract factors. After calculating the correlations, the factors were extracted using PCA.

Figure D-1: Unrotated factor matrix

Based on the Eigen value rule discussed in section (3.3.5), a factor that has an EV > 1 is said to be a significant factor. Based on Figure D-1, all factors up to factor 6 are said to be significant factors. The next step is to rotate the selected factors for which the varimax factor rotation method. Based on the table (D-2) it can be seen that factor 6 has only one significant value. This goes against Humprey’s rule as discussed in section (3.3.5).

Master of Science Thesis Manoviraj Singh Shergill 110 Factor Rotation

Figure D-2: Factor loading table for 6 rotated factors

Due to this, in the next factor rotation only 5 factors were rotated. This rotation gave an acceptable result which is used for further analysis in the Q study. This is shown in ﬁgure D-3

Figure D-3: Factor loading table for 5 rotated factors

Manoviraj Singh Shergill Master of Science Thesis