Estimating the Modal Split Ratios of Square Visitors in the Case of Istanbul’s Historical Peninsula: Evidence from Multinominal Logistic Regression Model
Publication: Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 148, Issue 4
Abstract
The continuity of urban activities is provided by a well-oriented transportation network, making sustainable transportation systems a prominent component of sustainable urban development. Moreover, urban public areas involve squares that serve as the focal point of social life. As a result, providing efficient transportation infrastructure for communities with the help of different modes of transportation becomes a key issue to increase the accessibility levels of these squares. To clarify, urban squares serve as the focal point of social life, necessitating effective access to these squares with well integrated and different modes of transportation. Starting from this viewpoint, this article aims to identify statistically significant factors affecting mode choice behavior of visitors for their trips to the following five squares: Eminönü, Çemberlitaş, Sirkeci, Beyazıt, and Sultanahmet, located in the historical peninsula of Istanbul. This way, the accessibility levels of these squares could be verified with regard to three modes of transportation: walking, private automobile, and public transport. According to the findings of the multinominal logistic regression model, location of home, monthly transport cost, and age are the three factors that have the highest statistically significant marginal effects on the ratios of walking, driving, and using public transport. Unlike prevailing cases in the provinces of developed countries, our findings suggest that education level is not one of the statistically significant parameters that shape the related modal split trends in Istanbul, Turkey.
Practical Applications
Urban squares serve as focal points for social life, necessitating effective access with well-integrated, multimodal transportation network in urban spaces. From this point forth, this article aims to detect the prominent factors shaping the modal split tendency of the visitors when arriving at urban squares located in the historical peninsula of Istanbul. In this way, the accessibility levels of these squares could be verified with regard to three modes of transportation: walking, private automobile, and public transport. According to the preliminary findings of this study, the factor called location of home mostly affects the walking habits of the square visitors, while monthly transportation cost mostly determines the usage of private automobiles in arriving at urban squares. Furthermore, interestingly, age is the leading factor shaping the modal split trend of the usage of public transportation. Unlike the prevailing cases in the provinces of developed countries, our findings suggest that education level is not one of the prominent parameters in our case. In light of these views, the dynamics of urban square arrivals are highly different in the cases of developed countries when compared with those in developing countries, which has been empirically verified by our findings.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This research is part of the ongoing Master’s dissertation of the corresponding author, Bengüsu Turan, supervised by Prof. Dr. Hatice Ayataç (the co-author of the paper).
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
- e
- natural number;
- multiplier impact on marginal change in Xi when the others are fixed;
- multiplicative effect on the odds of a marginal increase in Xi;
- (j)
- each mode of transport (j);
- Log
- logarithm;
- Log
- logarithm;
- Logit [P(Yj = 1)]
- log odds for each mode of transport (j); namely walking, private automobile, and public transport in our study;
- Logit [P(Yi = 1)]
- log odds for each mode of transport (j);
- m2
- metersquare;
- Xi
- model variable i;
- α
- model constant;
- βi
- coefficient of each explanatory variable i;
- Π
- probability;
- Π(Yj = 1)
- multinominal probability of the passenger selecting the transport mode j; and
- Πj
- estimation of each response probability regarding each transport mode j.
References
Abbasgil, E. 1994. “İstanbul’daki Toplu Taşımacılık Kapsamında Raylı Sistemlerin Değerlendirmesi (Esenler-Aksaray Hızlı Tramvay Örneği).” Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi, S.B.E.
Al-Salih, W. Q., and D. Esztergár-Kiss. 2021. “Linking mode choice with travel behavior by using logit model based on utility function.” Sustainability 13 (8): 4332. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084332.
Ayataç, H. 2018. Aktif Kamusal Yaşam ve Aktif Kamusal Mekanlar. Şehir Toplum, No. 11, Ekim 2018, s. 29-40.
Azak, S. N., and O. Beli˙r. 2020. “Yaşlı Bireylerin Kent Mekânlarını Kullanım Analizleri: Heybeliada’da Bir İnceleme.” Modular J. 3 (1): 20–38.
Bai, T., X. Li, and Z. Sun. 2017. “Effects of cost adjustment on travel mode choice: Analysis and comparison of different logit models.” Transp. Res. Procedia 25: 2649–2659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.150.
Berrigan, D., and R. P. Troiano. 2002. “The association between urban form and physical activity in U.S. adults.” Am. J. Prev. Med. 23 (2): 74–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00476-2.
Bhat, C., S. Handy, K. Kockelman, H. Mahmassani, Q. Chen, I. Srour, and L. Weston. 2001. Assessment of accessibility measure. Research Rep. No. 7-4938. Austin, TX: Texas Dept. of Transportation.
Böcker, L., P. van Amen, and M. Helbich. 2017. “Elderly travel frequencies and transport mode choices in Greater Rotterdam, the Netherlands.” Transportation 44 (4): 831–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-016-9680-z.
Brookfield, K., and S. Tilley. 2016. “Using virtual street audits to understand the walkability of older adults’ route choices by gender and age.” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 13 (11): 1061. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13111061.
Cameron, C., and P. Trivedi. 2005. Microeconometrics:Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cassas, I. 2007. “Social exclusion and the disabled: an accessibility approach.” Prof. Geogr. 59 (4): 463–477.
Dalgleish, T., J. Williams, A. Golden, N. Perkins, L. Barrett, and P. Barnard. 2007. Introductory econometrics. Greenwich, CT: Wooldridge.
Djurhuus, S., H. Sten Hansen, M. Aadahl, and C. Glümer. 2016. “Building a multimodal network and determining individual accessibility by public transportation.” Environ. Plann. B: Plann. Des. 43: 210–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813515602594.
Doratli, N., and N. Pasaogullari. 2004. “Measuring accessibility and utilization of public spaces in Famagusta.” Cities 225: 232.
Eboli, L., and G. Mazzulla. 2008. “A stated preference experiment for measuring service quality in public transport.” Transp. Plann. Technol. 31 (5): 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060802364471.
El-Habil, A. M. 2012. “An application on multinominal logistic regression model.” J. Stat. Oper. Res. 8 (2): 271–291.
EMBARQ. 2010. İSTANBUL - Herkes İçin Erişilebilir Bir Kent. EMBARQ Türkiye, Sürdürülebilir Ulaşım Derneği.
Engwicht, D. 1993. Reclaiming our cities and towns: Better living with less traffic. Philadelphia: New Society Publishing.
Erkip, F. 1997. “The distribution of urban public services: The case of parks and recreational services in Ankara.” Cities 14 (6): 353–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-2751(97)00026-7.
Evcil, N. 2010. “Designers’ attitudes towards disabled people and the compliance of public open places: The case of Istanbul.” Eur. Plann. Stud. 18 (11): 1863–1880. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2010.512178.
Gašparović, S. 2014. “Impact of transport disadvantage on education of high school population of the City of Zagreb.” In Int. Conf. on Traffic and Transport Engineering. Belgrade, Serbia: City Net Scientific Research Center Ltd.
Geurs, K. T., and B. van Wee. 2004. “Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions.” J. Transp. Geogr. 12 (2): 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005.
Gharebaghi, A., and M. Mostafavi. 2018. “The role of social factors in the accessibility of urban areas for people with motor disabilities.” Int. J. Geo-Inf. 7 (4): 131.
Golan, Y., and J. Handerson. 2019. “Gendered walkability: Building a daytime walkability index for women.” J. Transp. Land Use 501 (5): 26.
Gujarati, D. N. 2003. Vol. 4 of Basic econometrics. New York: McGraw- Hill/Irwin.
Hansen, W. G. 1959. “How accessibility shapes land use.” J. Am. Inst. Planners 25 (2): 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944365908978307.
İETT (İstanbul Elektrik Tramvay ve Tünel İşletmeleri). 2021. https://www.iett.istanbul/tr/main/pages/istanbulda-toplu-ulasim/95.
Joyce, M., and R. Dunn. 2009. “A proposed methodology for measuring public transport accessibility to employment sites in the Auckland CBD.” In Proc., 32nd Australasian Transport Research Forum. Accessed July 14, 2021. https://australasiantransportresearchforum.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2009_Joyce_Dunn.pdf.
Kahn Ribeiro, S., M. J. Figueroa, F. Creutzig, S. Kobayashi, C. Dubeux, and J. Hupe. 2012. “Energy end-use: Transportation.” In The global energy assessment: Toward a more sustainable future. Laxenburg, Austria: IIASA.
Kashfi, S. A., J. M. Bunker, and T. Yigitcanlar. 2016. “Modelling and analysing effects of complex seasonality and weather on an area’s daily transit ridership rate.” J. Transp. Geogr. 54: 310–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.06.018.
Kennedy, P. 1998. “Violating assumption four: Simultaneous equations.” In A guide to econometrics, edited by P. Kennedy, 163–173. Cambridge, UK: MIT Press.
Knupfer, S. M., V. Pokotilo, and J. Woetzel. 2018. Elements of success: Urban transportation systems of 24 global cities. New York: McKinsey & Company.
Krambeck, H. V. 2006. The global walkability index (GWI). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT Libraries.
Lethbridge, J. 2008. Public transport. Poor choices: The limits of competitive markets in the provision of essential services to low-income consumers, 151–178. London: PSIRU.
Levinson, D. M. 1998. “Accessibility and the journey to work.” J. Transp. Geogr. 6: 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6923(97)00036-7.
Liao, B. B. 2020. “How does walkability change behavior? A comparison between different age groups in the Netherlands.” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17 (2): 540.
Litman, T. 2021. Evaluating accessibility for transport planning: Measuring people’s ability to reach desired services and activities. Victoria, BC, Canada: Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Liu, C. P. 2017. “Understanding the factors influencing public transport mode choice in Taiwan.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil, Environmental & Geomatic Engineering, UCL (Univ. College London).
Lo, R. H. 2009. “Walkability: What is it?” J. Urban. 2 (2): 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549170903092867.
Lynch, K. 1960. The image of the city. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Newbold, K. B., D. M. Scott, J. E. L. Spinney, P. Kanaroglou, and A. Páez. 2005. “Travel behavior within Canada’s older population: A cohort analysis.” J. Transp. Geogr. 13: 340–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2004.07.007.
Nguyen, H. T. A., M. Chikaraishi, A. Fujiwara, and J. Zhang. 2017. “Mediation effects of income on travel mode choice: Analysis of short-distance trips based on path analysis with multiple discrete outcomes.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2664 (1): 23–30. https://doi.org/10.3141/2664-03.
Owen, N., N. Humpel, E. Leslie, A. Bauman, and J. F. Sallis. 2004. “Understanding environmental influences on walking.” Am. J. Prev. Med. 27 (1): 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.03.006.
Páez, A., D. Scott, D. Potoglou, P. Kanaroglou, and K. B. Newbold. 2007. “Elderly mobility: Demographic and spatial analysis of trip making in the Hamilton CMA, Canada.” Urban Stud. 44 (1): 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980601023885.
Preston, J., and F. Rajé . 2007. “Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social exclusion.” J. Transp. Geogr. 15 (3): 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.05.002.
Rahman, K. A., and D. Zhang. 2018. “Analyzing the level of accessibility of public urban green spaces to different socially vulnerable groups of people.” Sustainability 10 (11): 3917. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113917.
Rivas, M. E., T. Serebrisky, and A. Suárez-Alemán. 2018. How affordable is transportation in Latin America and the Caribbean. Technical Note No. IDB-TN-1588. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
Scheepers, E., W. Wendel-Vos, E. van Kempen, L. I. Panis, J. Maas, H. Stipdonk, and J. Schuit. 2013. “Personal and environmental characteristics associated with choice of active transport modes versus car use for different trip purposes of trips up to 7.5 kilometers in the Netherlands.” PLoS One 8 (9): 1–10.
Schmöcker, J. D., M. A. Quddus, R. B. Noland, and M. Bell. 2008. “Mode choice of older and disabled people: A case study of shopping trips in London.” J. Transp. Geogr. 16 (4): 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2007.07.002.
Southworth, M. 2005. “Designing the walkable city.” J. Urban Plann. Dev. 131 (4): 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2005)131:4(246).
Stjernborg, V. 2019. “Accessibility for all in public transport and the overlooked (social) dimension—A case study of Stockholm.” Sustainability 11 (18): 4902. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184902.
Stjernborg, V., and O. Mattisson. 2016. “The role of public transport in society—A case study of general policy documents in Sweden.” Sustainability 8 (11): 1120. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111120.
Stojanovski, T. 2019. “Urban design and public transportation – public spaces, visual proximity and transit-oriented development (TOD).” J. Urban Des. 25 (1): 134–154.
Talavera-Garcia, R. 2012. “Improving pedestrian accessibility to public space through space syntax analysis.” In 8th Space Syntax Symp.Accessed July 14, 2021. http://www.integrame.es/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/SSS8_Talavera.pdf.
TOD Design Guidelines. 2011. Calthorpe Associates for Sacramento County Planning & Community Development Department. Originally Prepared: September 1990, Amended: November 9, 2011.
TÜİK (Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu). 2020. Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi Sonuçları Ankara, Turkey: TÜİK.
Tümertekin, E. 1987. Ulaşım Coğrafyası (2. Baskı). İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Yay. No: 2053, Coğrafya Enstitüsü Yay. No: 85.
UN (United Nations). 2006. “CRPD: The convention of the rights of persons with disabilities.” UN. Accessed June 19, 2019. https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convention_accessible_pdf.pdf.
Verseckienė, A., V. Meškauskas, and N. Batarlienė. 2016. “Urban public transport accessibility for people with movement disorders: The case study of Vilnius.” Procedia Eng. 134: 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.01.038.
Wahyuni, E. S., B. Murti, and H. Joebagio. 2016. “Public transport accessibility for people with disabilities.” J. Health Policy Manage. 1 (1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.26911/thejhpm.2016.01.01.01.
Wu, J., and H. Liao. 2020. “Weather, travel mode choice, and impacts on subway ridership in Beijing.” Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 135: 264–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.03.020.
Zhao, J., J. Wang, Z. Xing, X. Luan, and Y. Jiang. 2018. “Weather and cycling: Mining big data to have an in-depth understanding of the association of weather variability with cycling on an off-road trail and an on-road bike lane.” Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 111 (C): 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.03.001.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 148 • Issue 4 • December 2022
Copyright
© 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Aug 19, 2021
Accepted: Jun 23, 2022
Published online: Oct 7, 2022
Published in print: Dec 1, 2022
Discussion open until: Mar 7, 2023
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.