The poor man's vehicle : an exploration of social stigmas towards public transportation in the Netherlands

(1)

THE POOR MAN’S VEHICLE

An exploration of social stigmas towards public

transportation in the Netherlands

Stephanie Tilk

stephanietilk@gmail.com Student No.: 12156280

(2)

Abstract

This thesis explored the potential existence of stigmas towards public transportation in the Netherlands and whether they have any impact on public transit ridership. It has been proven in previous studies that a stigma exists in areas of Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and in various Asian cultures, however there have not been any significant studies conducted in progressive European countries. Data was collected through social media platforms, face-to-face interviews, and an online survey which considered respondents attitudes, beliefs, and behaviour towards public transit. Results suggest that some stigmas towards public transit do exist in the Netherlands. In contrast, it was also found that there are a number of areas in which stigmas exist in other areas of the world, but are not present in the Netherlands, most notably, that public transit is a mode of transportation for ‘the poor’.

Keywords: Social stigma; travel behaviour; attitudes; mode choice; public transportation; Theory of Planned Behaviour.

(3)

List of Figures

Figure 1: Summary of existing research in causal relationships towards attitudes and behaviours (Source:

Author) ... 8

Figure 2: Spears, et al (2013) Perceptions - Intentions - Adaptation (PIA) Framework will be used to answer the research questions determining if social stigmas can impact public transit ridership ... 13

Figure 3: Generation Definitions & Breakdown (Source: (CGK, 2016)) ... 18

Figure 4: Resident Location of Survey Respondents (Source: Author, Google Maps) ... 20

Figure 5: Summary of the respondents main transport method from this research (Source: Author) ... 21

Figure 6: Mobility of Dutch people by means of transport - times travelled, 2014. Source: (Statistics Netherlands, 2016, p. 19) ... 21

Figure 7: Distribution of Respondent's Generations (Age) (Source: Author) ... 22

Figure 8: Likert Scale Response Rating ... 26

Figure 9: Median and Mean of Likert Scale Responses ... 26

(5)

“Public transport is painful. It sucks.”

Elon Musk, entrepreneur 1. Introduction

With rapidly increasing populations within urban areas and growing pressures of climate change, it is becoming more imperative that the number of CO2-emitting cars on the road be severely reduced. The most obvious solution to this problem is to encourage more people to use public transportation as their main mode of transport. Unfortunately, even with the increasing threat of climate change and decreasing urban air quality, a large percentage of urban dwellers continue to prefer traveling by personal automobiles rather than utilizing existing modes of public transit. Even the Netherlands, a country that has a well-known history of bicycle use, still has around 50% of all trips being made with private cars and only 5% is made with public transportation (van der Waard, Jorritsma, & Immers, 2013). What is preventing a substantial change in transportation behaviour?

While I was living in Edmonton, Canada, it was not uncommon to hear negative comments towards the use of public transit. It was often seen as a method of transport only used if financially necessary – essentially being a method of transport for the poor. Co-workers would scoff at the rising price of a monthly public transit pass - $90 – while happily paying $300 just for parking at the office. Admittedly, at one point I was one of these people. I owned a car and used it daily – even if not entirely necessary. I cannot explain how or why my attitude towards car-use changed, but I began seeing the overwhelmingly negative perceptions and attitudes of people in my community towards the suggestion of increase public transit use for the goal of positive-environmental change. I began to ask myself why. Why are people actively against publicly funding the expansion of public transit networks? Why do people refuse to commute by bus or LRT? These questions ultimately led me into a Master’s program which would allow me to explore and research the question of stigmas towards public transportation.

In the past there have been numerous studies conducted which have examined the social-psychological aspects influencing human attitudes and behaviour towards their chosen method of travel. However, there have been no significant studies conducted which investigate whether there are social stigmas present which influence an individual’s attitude in the context of transport mode choice. Learner’s Dictionary defines a stigma as “a set of negative and often unfair beliefs that a society or group of people have about something” (“Stigma,” n.d.). The creation of these stigmas

(6)

can find comments like “No one wants to ride a stupid bus”1_{or “Fuck busses dirty disgusting} places”2_.

It is not just internet trolls who radiate these feelings. Some researchers suggest the push against public transportation usage can boil down to culture and what the connotations of taking public transit means within that culture (Ashmore, et al., 2019). For example, some cultural groups would find it disrespectful for a friend or family member to take a public bus to travel to a social event “as the term ‘public transport’ can… have the same symbolic connotation as a ‘public toilet’” (Ashmore et al., 2019, p. 26).

While these cultural connotations are not overtly present in developed countries, it has yet to be explored if they exist in more discrete ways – not being openly discussed or acknowledged, but nevertheless impacting attitude and behaviour. Therefore, this research will explore the following question:

1. To what extent are there perceived social stigmas towards public transit in the Netherlands and how can they influence travel behaviour?

In the process of answering the main research question, there are three sub-research questions I intend to explore in the pursuit of this research. The thesis sub-questions are as follows:

a. What stigmas can be identified and what are they in regards to? (i.e. cleanliness, punctuality, cost, etc.)

b. How can these social stigmas impact public transit ridership?

c. Do perceived stigmas change between generations, and in what way?

These research questions are fairly linear however, further explanation may be required to support the link of sub-question ‘C’ to the previous two. There is reason to suspect that there may be a difference between generations and their values and attitudes when it comes use of public transit. In recent years, ‘millennials’ have taken on climate change activism. Swedish teen-activist, Greta Thunberg has inspired her generation to protest against their environmentally-inactive governments. In some cases, younger generations are taking the legal route. In 2015, Juliana vs.

US saw young Americans sue their government over climate change. Similar cases have been

brought against governments of Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands. The weight of climate change appears to have been put on millennials as they have not and “will never know a time when climate change wasn’t a grave threat” (Holthaus, 2018).

1_{Retrieved from https://twitter.com/z7greens/status/1058466850634264576} 2_{Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=287398718771093}

(7)

Similarly, a study conducted by American Public Transportation Association showed that the millennial generation and younger adults are extremely likely to support the construction and allocation of public funds to high-speed public transportation networks (TechnoMetrica, 2015). Because of this emerging activism and change in transport thing among the younger generations, it will be interesting to see if it translates into the research of stigmas and their behaviour in transport mode choice.

The importance of this area of study should not be underestimated. As environmental pressure builds, cities will be forced to transform; planning away from automobile infrastructure towards mass transit. In order to accomplish this, the public needs to be on board with the necessary lifestyle changes that come with a shift in transport mode.

By combining the study of social-psychology and transport planning, we can enable planners to be aware of potential stigmas and the public’s overall negative opinions towards public transit. This will allow decision-makers to target these problems with future public transportation projects. In doing so, planners will gain public support towards the development and investment in public transport systems (Schweitzer, 2014).

2. Literature Review

This chapter will explore previous work conducted in the line of research related to attitudes, behaviour, and eventually stigmas, specifically in the application of social-psychology in the field of planning and transportation. By conducting this review, the aim is to show the knowledge gap currently existing in this area of study and how it fits into the existing theories.

2.1 Attitudes & Behaviour in Transport Geography

The base theories of attitudes and behaviours were initiated in psychology and sociology. There was general agreement that attitudes and behaviours influenced each other (although the dependent variable was debated among academics). Researchers then began to expand this field of knowledge to explore the indirect factors that could influence attitude and behaviour. For instance, Frideres et al. (1971) and Schofield (1975) studied the manner in which norms, social pressures and constraints can impact attitudes and behaviours. Schofield’s study found that social norms and public disclosure (i.e. telling peers about ‘commitment’) encouraged consistent behaviour in line with their documented attitude. Fazio and Zanna (1978) however, studied the influence an individual’s own personal experiences can have on their attitude towards a certain subject. The authors found that as one’s experience with that subject increases, so does the strength of their

(8)

Geographers realized the importance of social-psychological theories and used them to study the impact of attitudes on behaviour in transportation. More specifically, they studied how the theories could be used to predict human behaviour in terms of preferred transport modes. One of the first researchers to explore this area was Gärling, et al. (1998) who studied the relationship in order to forecast travel behaviour. This opened the door to extensive opportunities of research. For example, Van Acker et al. (2010) used the key variables from the foundational psychological theories (i.e. Theory of Planned Behaviour and Theory of Repeated Behaviour) and created a conceptual model that could allow future researchers to study transport geography through socio-economics and social psychology. The model incorporated not only attitudes but also perceptions, lifestyle and preferences into the framework behind travel behaviour.

The influencing external considerations that Frideres et al. (1971), Schofield (1975), and Fazio and Zanna (1978) explored (i.e. peer pressure), were then explored and applied in the transportation discipline. For example, Tao et al. (2019) theorized that existing car ownership could have a negative impact on people’s attitudes towards public transit. After a comparison study between two cities, the authors concluded that negative opinions of public transit were often present when socio-economic status was represented by car ownership (i.e. when cars are seen as a status symbol).

The types of external factors studied in the above research are directly influencing attitude, however Ben-Elia and Ettema (2011) explored an external factor that directly influences

behaviour. Their study was conducted on highways in the Netherlands and aimed to show if

rewarding drivers could successfully be used to encourage commuters to drive during off-peak hours. The authors concluded that rewards can be an effective tool to influence commuter behaviour. This finding may be somewhat limited on a larger scale, as the mode of travel was not influenced by rewards, just the timing of the commute.

As a summary of literature to date, Figure 1 shows how the research relates to the topic of attitude/behaviour. It also shows where this thesis research of stigmas and perceptions lie within the existing literature.

(9)

Figure 1: Summary of existing research in causal relationships towards attitudes and behaviours (Source: Author)

2.2 Perceptions of Transportation

The following explores research conducted in the field of perceptions towards different modes of transportation. Gatersleben and Uzzell (2007) studied the affective experiences commuters have depending on their chosen mode of travel. They found that drivers found the commute to be quite stressful, but walkers and cyclists had ‘relaxing’ and ‘exciting’ experiences. The authors also determined that those who used public transportation, found their commute is, to some degree, stressful (due to delays) and also boring/depressing – overall, a negative experience.

Other studies of perception were conducted by Fujii and Kitamura (2003) and Fujii et al. (2001). In both studies, habitual drivers were encouraged – either by force (i.e. road closures) or by benefits (i.e. free bus pass) – to use public transportation for their commute. Fujii and Kitamura (2003) found that after a month, the study participant’s attitudes towards public transport had become more positive, public transit ridership increased, and use of private vehicles decreased. Fujii et al. (2001) had similar positive results in which the regular drivers had previously overestimated the length of commute time required by public transit. It was not until a temporary structural change (i.e. freeway closure) forced drivers to consider other modes of transport, that they were accurately informed about the social dilemma of public transit use. The impact of these findings on the study of stigmas will be discussed in section 2.3.

Another interesting research area to consider is not only the negative factors that prevent people from using public transit, but also the pull factors towards private car use. Steg (2005) studied the

(10)

exists towards public transit. The conclusions from this study will be most interesting to compare to my thesis research as they both examine the opinions and experiences of Dutch travelers.

2.3 Stigma Studies in Transportation

There have been no formal studies suggesting a direct link between stigmas and public transportation or the impact it may have on ridership, however there is general agreement among academics that it does exist. For instance, the UN’s Natural Resources Forum posed the following question to a panel of experts: “How can the stigma of public transport as the ‘poor man’s vehicle be overcome to enhance sustainability and climate change mitigation?” (Bromley et al., 2010, p. 327). Academics and innovators from the fields of planning, economics, gender studies, environment, politics, etc. weighed in on how to best address the problem. All contributors had differing solutions however everyone was in agreement that the stigma does in fact exist.

There is also an extensive amount of non-academic literature that supports the suggestion that stigmas towards public transit exist. A significant area where we can see this occurring is Hollywood. NBC’s show Great News called the bus “a car for poor people” (McCarthy-Miller, 2017). Even Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, arguably the most famous ‘green’ automotive company, was quoted as saying: “[Public transit] is a pain in the ass. That’s why everyone doesn’t like it. And there’s like a bunch of random strangers, one of who might be a serial killer, OK, great.” (Marshall, 2017). These negative views coming from Hollywood and famous people, constantly influence the ‘every-day’ person and help shape their opinions of public transit. For example, a guest speaker at a college was told by a student, “most real adults have their own cars” (Grant, 2019). These types of societal expectations continue to act as social barriers which prevent a large scale movement towards every-day public transit use.

Few transport researchers have tackled the theory of stigmas, however there are a couple who have initiated the conversation. For instance, Schweitzer (2014) compared social media content on Twitter in relation to public services provided in the United States and some cities in Canada. She tracked tweets that were directed towards transit authorities, airlines, social programs (i.e. welfare, Obamacare, etc.), police departments, and public park departments. Using machine learning and text mining, Schweitzer took a quantitative approach and was able to apply an algorithm to determine if most tweets were more positive or negative towards a certain service. She found that public transit authorities receive much more negative sentiments than any other public service, leading her to conclude that there is a disproportionate negative perception surrounding public transit authorities in the United States and Canada. She also concluded that the way in which transit authorities interact and communicate with Twitter users had a significant impact on the types of tweets (positive or negative) they received back. For instance, transit authorities who “blasted” service announcements through Twitter often received more negative responses. On the other hand, interaction with individual commenters resulted in much more positive responses. These

(11)

results show that users of public transportation appreciate a more one-on-one interaction with their service providers. Negative feelings towards transit authorities may also stem from poor communication and impersonal or rude responses from operators. This thesis research will tie in with Schweitzer’s findings to establish the importance of communication and customer service between transit authorities and users.

Although the word ‘stigma’ is not used explicitly in her research, Guiver (2007) studied the way in which people in various locations in the UK talk about different modes of transport – car vs. bus. What is interesting to note about Guiver’s research is the social constructs that were noted when discussing the use of private vehicles during the focus groups. She found that those who regularly used private vehicles felt they needed to justify this chosen transport method. Although this may have not occurred had the conversation not been about the comparison between private vehicles and public transit, it demonstrates that there may be a societal shift occurring where a stigma towards car use exists.

Despite this, the results of the study showed that the two transport methods were evaluated using different criteria. Public transit was discussed in the context of ‘worst-case scenario’ whereas private car use was not. For example, complaints were made about busses frequently being stuck in traffic, however personal vehicles which would also be stuck in the same traffic, avoided similar complaints. These findings suggest unfair comparisons between public transit and personal vehicles. Also, some focus groups members were quoted as feeling like ‘second class citizens’ when using the bus (Guiver, 2007, p. 245). This deep-seeded societal belief is particularly intriguing in the study of stigmas and will be explored further in this thesis research.

A similar study was conducted by Clayton et al. (2016) in which public perceptions and media representations of negative experiences using bus travel in Bristol, UK were examined. The study found similar results to Guiver (2007) in that those who were actual users of the bus were able to experience positive emotions such as relaxation and personal benefits such as reading, listening to music, etc.. It was instead, public perceptions of non-users and media portrayals of bus travel that were often more negative. In the end, the study had findings that would support the suggestion that there is a potential stigma around public transit (bus use) in areas of the UK. Clayton’s conclusions support Fujii and Kitamura’s (2003) research mentioned earlier, but disagree with Gatersleben and Uzzell (2007). Clayton’s findings create an interesting situation where stigmas are created from inexperience or ignorance towards public transit. Clayton et al.’s findings will be tested in this thesis research to find if similar results exists in the Netherlands.

(12)

3. Framework

The research mentioned in the Literature Review chapter highlights how much research has been conducted in the area of attitudes and behaviours in the application of transportation geography and planning. This chapter will explore the core theories behind this research and how they have transformed in the transportation geography field. Furthermore, this chapter will explore the theory that will be used in order to structure the research for this thesis.

The core theories behind opinions, perceptions, and behaviour trace back to the social-psychology research which aimed to answer whether there was any correlation existing between attitudes and behaviours. La Piere’s Attitudes vs. Actions (1934) was the first to debate the relationship. While he concluded there was not a strong correlation between attitudes and behaviours, there would be a number of studies conducted decades later which would disagreed with his findings. By the mid-20th_{century, it was widely accepted that a correlation existed. Schuman and Johnson (1976)} concluded that there is a large enough correlation to suggest that causal forces are involved between the two factors. However, they stop short of suggesting that one serves as a “mechanical substitute” of the other (1976, p. 199). These findings were substantiated by their peers (Fazio, 1986; Seligman et al., 1979).

As explored in the Literature Review chapter, this relationship sparked an expansive amount of research in the transport geography field, which included some academics creating their own frameworks and theories. For instance, Heath and Gifford (2002) took the Theory of Planned Behaviour and adapted it in such a way that it could be used to predict and explain travel behaviour. The aim was to determine which beliefs/norms could alter a person’s transportation mode choice. To test their theory extension, the authors implemented a quantitative study among students in B.C., Canada. They considered social pressures such as descriptive and moral norms and to what extent these factors are influencing users and non-users of public transit. The authors were able to conclude that within the field of transport studies, psychological factors continue to alter and shape the behaviour of humans. Similar conclusions were reached by other transportation related researchers (Tardiff, 1977; VanAcker et al., 2010).

It is clear there is extensive existing literature in the area of attitudes, behaviours, contributing factors influencing these two areas, and also the application of theories to transportation. As explored so far in this chapter, there is also a smaller amount of research that has been conducted, both directly and in-directly, on the topic of stigmas. However, there is still a large area of unexplored potential in the area of stigmas and the way they impact ridership. This thesis research will explore this topic and aims to fill the knowledge gap.

(13)

The chosen framework with which this thesis is supported was created by Spears, Houston, and Boarnet (2013). The authors created a theoretical framework called Perception-Intention-Adaptation (PIA) which builds on earlier models of travel behaviour prediction, however the PIA model also incorporates expanded versions of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Simplified, the PIA model hypothesizes that “both the physical environment and cognitive processes have a direct effect on travel behaviour” (2013, p. 42). In conducting this research, I will be looking specifically at the cognitive processes that the authors indicate impact travel behaviour.

For the purposes of this thesis research, I will further breakdown the PIA framework. As seen in Figure 2, Spears et al. considers many aspects to be part of the human cognitive process, however, the highlighted considerations of ‘attitudes’ and ‘social norms’ are of the most importance to this proposed research. This framework will assist in the research design and help contribute and place the findings of this research into the existing field of study.

(14)

Figure 2: Spears, et al (2013) Perceptions - Intentions - Adaptation (PIA) Framework assisted in the research design and helped to contribute and place the findings of this research into the existing field of study.

4. Research Context 4.1 Case Study

As mentioned in the Literature Review chapter, there have already been case studies conducted which show that there are in fact negative perceptions towards public transit in the UK, USA, and Canada, however, this may not be extremely surprising as these countries are notorious for their high personal car usage. After extensive literature research, it is noted that there have been no similar studies conducted in a progressive mainland-European country.

Often, European countries are used as role-models for public transit networks. Their cities frequently contain historic city centres, yet they are still able to build and incorporate extensive public transit networks. Despite the availability of these networks, as well as increased taxes for

(15)

private car usage, the rate of trips made by automobiles is still high; for example, in the Netherlands 50% of trips are still being made by cars and only 5% of trips are made by public transit (van der Waard et al., 2013). When talking about commuter trips, the percentage of people taking private cars rises to 77% (Statistics Netherlands, 2016).

The Netherlands makes for a particularly interesting case to study due to their strong, existing network of public transit, both within its own borders (i.e. regional and intercity connections), as well as with its European neighbours. The country is also famous for its culture of cycling, having the highest level of bicycle use in the entire Western world (Stoffers, 2012).

The capital city, Amsterdam, is lauded as the bicycle capital of the world (Pelzer, 2010). While this is an unsurprising title to anyone who has visited the city in recent decades, the planning history of the city nearly headed in a very different direction. Like most Western cities, in post-war time the city of Amsterdam shifted topost-wards car-oriented development. If it were not for civilian-led social movements, such as the Provos and Fietserbond, the city would have a very different infrastructure landscape (Pelzer, 2010). Similarly can be said for many areas across the country, which also benefit from flat terrain and a mild climate. While the cycling culture has offered the Dutch a degree of freedom from automobiles, it also limits the potential dependence or mass use of public transit. Because the Dutch are so proud of their cycling culture, it will be interesting to study their feelings/attitudes towards public transit and if they are strong enough to prove or disprove the existence of a stigma. I believe their existing impulse towards cycling makes the Dutch (Netherlands) an intriguing public transportation case study.

5. Methodology

This chapter will explain the research design, data collection process, and general methods which were implemented through the course of this research to answer the posed research question and sub-questions identified in the Introduction chapter.

5.1 Research Design

To answer the main research question and sub-questions, I collected questionnaire data and conducted qualitative analysis to formulate results. While it may be more common for transportation studies to be conducted using quantitative data, there are clear benefits to using qualitative data. The main benefit for this research is that it allows respondents to express and elaborate on what their opinions and attitudes are using their own words, which will offer more defined insight into their actual beliefs. Also, as this is exploratory research aiming to

(16)

While there have been other transport studies conducted using qualitative methods, most used interviews or focus groups as their main method of data collection (Guiver, 2007). While these seemed like feasible data collection options for a short term thesis study, only a handful of responses would have been gathered and I considered a wide-spread demographic and opinions to be ideal in order to more accurately answer the research question. In addition, the possible language barrier between Dutch (i.e. respondents) and English (i.e. myself) was a highly probable issue which could lead to important nuances and discussions to be missed or misinterpreted. For these reasons, an online survey was chosen to be the main method of data collection.

The research was carried out through three main phases. The first involved a preliminary search of social media reviews on Dutch public transit providers. Negative comments were entered into a database which compiled similar complaints. The findings from these online reviews were then used to create the survey in phase two. The details of this phase will be further discussed in the

Data Collection section.

The second phase contained the bulk of data collection in the form of the online survey. At first, the survey was taken to pre-arranged sites in Amsterdam and Almere in an attempt to meet with people face-to-face. Unfortunately, as was predicted as a potential limitation in the proposal stage, a language barrier resulted in responses in a face-to-face setting being extremely limited. Therefore, a backup-plan was initiated where the survey was translated to Dutch and implemented online. Native Dutch speakers were used for translating to ensure clarity and simplicity. This will be discussed further in the Data Collection section.

The third phase of this research was to critically analyze the data collected and establish trends and common beliefs that prove or disprove the existence of stigmas towards public transit in the Netherlands using knowledge and material from previous researchers. The discoveries made during this phase will be examined in the Findings and Discussion chapters.

5.2 Methods

The following explains the methods in which the main research question and sub-questions were to be researched and answered.

Main Research Question:

To what extent are there perceived social stigmas towards public transit in the Netherlands and how can they influence travel behaviour?

The answer to the main research question relies on the ability to measure the existence of stigmas. Because there have been very few transportation articles conducted around stigmas, literature outside of the transportation field had to be consulted. Fortunately, the elements that create a stigma can be transferable between fields of study. Therefore, Link and Phelan’s (2001)

(17)

conceptualization on the components of stigmas will be used to identify them. In summary, they identified four components that contribute to the existence of social stigmatization. They are as follows:

1. Distinguishing and labeling differences 2. Stereotyping negative characteristics

3. Separating, or categorizing ‘us’ from ‘them’ 4. Status loss or structural discrimination

By using this definition guideline, I will be able to determine if there is sufficient evidence to describe negative beliefs and attitudes as a social stigma.

The aim of this research is to get a comprehensive opinion of public transit. This includes the opinions of cyclists, drivers, pedestrians, as well as public transit users. Although the opinions of drivers is expected to be more negative than other modes, it is not to say that cyclists, pedestrians, or even public transit users don’t have similar negative attitudes and opinions.

While gathering information on people’s attitudes towards different mode of transportation, this research will also attempt to collect data on the impact these attitudes have on their preferred transportation method. For instance, do public transit users tend to enjoy their commute, or do they dislike their commute but use it purely out of necessity? Or, do car users find driving in traffic stressful, however they perceive a commute by public transit to be worse? The attitudes of respondents in combination with their behaviour will help determine what impact stigmas can have on public transit ridership.

The following methods for the thesis sub-research questions will assist in answering the main research question.

Sub-research Question A:

What stigmas can be identified and what are they in regards to? (i.e. cleanliness, punctuality, cost, etc.)

This question was answered using two methods. The first method was an extensive search through reviews on social media and online platforms; a method that has been used in previous studies (Schweitzer, 2014). Negative comments and customer reviews for Dutch transit authorities/companies were catalogued in a database. Reasons for complaints were collected and compiled to create an initial list of potential stigmas.

(18)

extremely difficult, if not impossible, to guarantee all respondents are citizens. Therefore there are no restrictions on who can be included in the research – as long as they reside in the country. Sub-research Question B:

How can these social stigmas impact public transit ridership?

In previous studies, impact has been measured over time. However, in order to minimize complexities and fit data collection into the thesis timeline, the research question was answered directly through short-answer interview questions. This was the second portion of the survey. First, respondents were asked what their main method of transport is (car, public transit, bicycle, etc.). They were then asked to explain why that mode was their chosen or preferred mode. Finally, respondents were asked to explain why they choose to use, or not use, public transit.

This section of the survey allowed respondents to describe their attitudes towards their chosen method of transport as well as their feelings towards public transportation in comparison to their most frequently used method of transport. This open-answer question also allowed respondents to elaborate on their answers to previous questions about their behaviour. For instance, some respondents who identified personal cars as their main method of transport were able to explain that when they travel alone they happily take public transit, however when traveling with children it is easier to take the car. Allowing this space for respondents to elaborate provided much more detailed findings and conclusions.

These questions were intended to be short and ‘to the point’, as responses tend to get less detailed and accurate when they take up too much time. Prior to collecting data in the field, the survey was conducted with test-subjects, in order to evaluate clarity and ensure the appropriate information was being collected.

Sub-research Question C:

Do perceived stigmas change between generations and in what way?

Respondents were asked to provide their age. With enough responses from a wide age demographic, the goal was to compare beliefs and attitudes between generational groups and determine if there is statistically significant results between ages.

The breakdown of generations proposed by the Center for Generational Kinetics was used to differentiate between generation groups. The breakdown can be seen in Figure 3.

(19)

Figure 3: Generation Definitions & Breakdown (Source: (CGK, 2016))

5.3 Data Collection

Social Media Search

The first phase of data collection was through a social media scan of comments left on transit authority pages. The transit authorities/companies that were reviewed are GVB (Amsterdam), RET (Rotterdam), and NS (Netherlands: country-wide). Social media platforms and websites that were scanned were Facebook, Twitter, Google, and TripAdvisor. Posts on TripAdvisor were only collected when written by users who are listed as living in the Netherlands. To minimize the possibility of misinterpretations, user comments that were in Dutch were translated with the assistance of native-Dutch speakers. 63 user comments were entered into an excel database. A list of 23 different complaints were made. The complete list can be found in Table 1 (Findings chapter). Items on this list were then combined with similar complaints in order to create a more concise list which would be easier to use in a short survey. The final summary of stigmas found on social media sites can be found in Table 2 (Findings chapter). Using these summarized themes, a survey was created. The final survey, and details about its creation, can be found in Appendix A.

Survey Distribution

The original plan for data collection was to distribute surveys face-to-face at various locations in Amsterdam and Almere. The idea was to target two cities with considerably different demographics in order to get more well-rounded responses. In the face-to-face interviews that occurred, anyone who was willing to participate was given a survey. Unfortunately, the language barrier proved to be quite significant. Multiple days were spent at a number of locations in each city, however only a small number of people were willing to take part in the survey. In the end, only 8 face-to-face surveys were completed. With the research time available during this thesis, this preferred method of data collection did not allow for sufficient responses.

(20)

geographic distribution to be achieved. Those who completed the survey were asked to distribute it to their colleagues and friends. In addition, my own colleagues were asked to circulate the survey among their Dutch families and friends. Keeping in mind the third sub-question, diversity in regards to age was important and therefore forums that were relevant to all ages were sought out for survey distribution.

Aside from breaking down the language barrier, online surveys also provided a number of other advantages, for example, speed and timeliness, minimized costs, extended reach, and ease of data entry and analysis (Evans & Mathur, 2018). However, as many researchers have also concluded, there are weaknesses that needed to be weighed and considered.

Previous academics and authors in the field of ‘research’ have determined the main concern with online surveys is the limitation of achieving a random sample and instead creating a sampling bias (Van Selm & Jankowski, 2006). This concern comes from a number of angles, including user age and location. However, over time these concerns have both been minimized with more inclusive training and access to computers and technology. There is no question that younger generations tend to be more tech-savvy, yet over time internet webpages and interfaces have become more user-friendly and older generations have incorporated this technology into their daily lives. Also, access to high speed internet used to be a concern as the infrastructure was only available in high density areas. This is also no longer an issue, especially in the Netherlands where 98% of Dutch households have internet access, which is the highest in the EU (CBS, 2018).

Over time, many of the weaknesses of online surveys have significantly decreased and it was therefore concluded that a methodology switch away from face-to-face surveys would not greatly impact the research.

6. Findings

Throughout the data collection process, a sufficient number of responses and online comments were collected. In the first phase of social media comments towards public transit authorities, 63 negative comments were catalogued. In the second phase of collection – surveys – 256 responses were collected. 8 of these responses were from face-to-face interviews, and 248 were collected online. The following sections will examine respondent demographics and the results and findings from the data. Subsequent sections will explore the findings from each of the data collection methods.

6.1 Respondent Demographics

A total of 256 surveys were completed. Respondents reside in 68 different towns/cities across the country. The distribution can be seen in Figure 4. While there are fewer respondents that live in

(21)

the northern provinces, this can be justified and explained by the population distribution of the Netherlands, due to Friesland, Groningen, and Drenthe accounting for only 10% of the national population. No resident location could be collected from the social media commenters, however comments from people who were clearly not residents of the Netherlands were excluded from the study.

Figure 4: Resident Location of Survey Respondents (Source: Author, Google Maps)

As most of this research revolves around attitudes and beliefs towards transportation modes, it was deemed important that each mode of transportation was adequately represented. Figure 5 summarizes the breakdown of main transport method of the survey respondents. Figure 6 shows the same breakdown from Netherlands Statistics in their 2016 Transport & Mobility report. We can see that this thesis research has collected a higher percentage of responses from public transit users (26% - 66 responses) compared to the national average (4%). The opposite can be said for car users. 22% (56 responses) of respondents in this research was comprised of car users while the national average was 47% (both drivers and passengers). While the numbers do not align entirely, for the purpose of this research, a more diverse demographic of transport method was desired and achieved.

(22)

Figure 5: Summary of the respondents main transport method from this research (Source: Author)

Figure 6: Mobility of Dutch people by means of transport - times travelled, 2014. Source: (Statistics Netherlands, 2016, p. 19)

As age demographic plays a part in the posed Sub-Research Question C, it was also necessary to collect generational data of respondents. Unfortunately, despite my attempt at getting a wide-spread survey distribution, there were still limited responses from Baby Boomers and, not surprisingly, the Silent Generation – as seen in Figure 7. Because of limited responses from these demographics, I am unable to draw any clear conclusions in regards to this sub-question.

66 26% 56 22% 111 43% 17 7% 6 2%

Main Method of Transportation

(Thesis Research)

Public transit Car Bicycle Walking Combination

4%

47% 28%

18% 3%

Method of Transportation [per trip]

(National Statistics)

(23)

Figure 7: Distribution of Respondent's Generations (Age) (Source: Author)

6.2 Social Media Findings

By searching popular social media sites (specifically stated in the Methodology chapter) a list of complaints towards Dutch public transit companies were catalogued. From 63 posted complaints, a list of 21 issues were identified. They can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1: Complete list of complaints found on social media (frequency)

1. Poor customer service (18) 2. Expensive (13) 3. Unreliable (11) 4. Late/Delayed (8) 5. Malfunctioning technology (6) 6. Poorly planned (5) 7. Too busy (4) 8. Experience discrimination (4) 9. Safety concerns (4) 10. Dirty (4) 11. Slow (4) 12. Inaccessible (3) 13. Uncomfortable (2)

14. Inconvenient – Paper Tickets (2) 15. Early (2)

16. Poor service (2)

17. Tickets are bad for environment (1) 18. Confusing/unclear (1)

19. All services are bad (1) 20. Poor communication (1) 21. Bad service (1)

22. Negative social environment (1) 68 27% 150 59% 26 10% 9 4% 1 0%

Generation (Age) of Respondents

(24)

Table 2: Summarized list of stigmas found on social media

1. Public transit does not run on time

2. Lack of safety when taking/getting to public transit 3. Public transit is not clean

4. Public transit is inaccessible

5. Public transit is poorly planned causing inconvenience/bad service 6. Public transit is too expensive

7. Customer service from public transit staff/operators is poor 8. Public transit uses outdated technology (i.e. OV)

The data shows there is a high frequency of complaints made on social media in relation to the customer service provided by transit authorities. Many of these commenters (38%) seemed to focus complaints towards a single encounter they experienced with a transit employee while taking public transit. For example, below is a comment left on RET’s Facebook page, describing an encounter they had on one particular ride.

“Today I found a bus driver that decided to close the doors when I was between them just to teach me a lesson... by luck I did not fall down [from] the push and the laptop in my backpack was not damaged. Nothing important in the laptop, just my f***** thesis. However the person refused to apologize and even when I disembarked he continued talking to me instead of leaving the stop, wasting the time of all other passengers. He shouted "you're a big mouth, saying you're going to report me"... well we'll see what RET has to say about that.”

- G.A.P, 2018

This is a single encounter, however it still led the commenter to leave a “Would Not Recommend” on RET’s page. Many similar complaints were made directed at one individual transit operator or a single experience they had while taking public transit.

There were also many complaints about the reliability of transit – whether it be services running early, late, or showing up at all, and the financial cost of taking public transit.

6.3 Survey Findings

This section will explore the findings from the short answer questions in the survey. On an individual respondent level, there was not a decisive pattern between negative responses and main method of transportation. The respondents who answered questions most negatively were users of all methods of transport. However, the majority of this group, maybe unsurprisingly, identified personal cars as their main mode of transport. Drivers (39%) frequently cited cost as the reason

(25)

they choose to take a personal car rather than public transit, however poor connections (10%), inconvenience (19%) and overall longer travel times due to speed or delays (36%) were also listed as decisive factors. Blunt criticism was also given; one respondent simply saying “I don’t use public transit because it sucks.” Similar feelings and descriptions were also given by those who identify cycling as their main method of transport.

Within this same group of negative respondents were also public transit users. 29% of public transit respondents explained that their use of public transit was entirely out of necessity and not choice – they “don’t have another option”. These respondents went on to explain that their preferred method of transport would be either cycling or driving, however injuries or lack of a license/car was preventing them from utilizing such modes. This finding differs from previous studies (Fujii et al., 2001; Fujii & Kitamura, 2003) which suggest that once people begin using public transit, many of their prepossessed beliefs are altered and frequency of ridership increases. Instead, the data suggests there may be more to their attitudes/beliefs than just ignorance and that negative attitudes towards public transit may be more deeply rooted.

A full summary of complaints made by respondents as an explanation for why they do not use public transit can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3: List of complaints towards public transit made in survey

1. Too expensive 2. Delays

3. Trains malfunction 4. Too crowded/busy 5. Smells bad

6. People are rude

7. Not well connected in region 8. Doesn’t run frequently 9. Inconvenient

10. Slow

11. Schedules are restrictive 12. Always runs late

13. Not well planned/organized 14. Poor connections

15. Doesn’t run late at night 16. Distance to station is too far 17. Causes anxiety

18. Sitting with strangers

19. Lack of safety (at station/walking home from station)

20. Uncomfortable

21. Doesn’t trust OV system 22. Inaccessible

An important point to note is the frequency of comments made by drivers that their car/gas/mileage is covered by their employer leading them to feel no pressure or desire to take public transit.

(26)

they will use cars or bikes as their main method of transport. These comments will be discussed further in the Discussion and Conclusion chapters.

While there were many negative complaints made towards public transit, there were still many positive aspects that some respondents made sure to note. A list of the commendations can be seen below, in Table 4.

Table 4: List of commendations made towards public transit

1. Enjoyable

2. Good for environment 3. Paid for by employer 4. Allows for ‘free time’

5. Can travel far distances without car 6. Can work during commute

7. Cheaper than car 8. Free (for students) 9. Easier than driving 10. Escape from weather 11. Can drink/party safely 12. Convenient

13. Relaxing 14. Comfortable

15. Provides easy access to city centre 16. Reliable

17. Fast

18. Avoid traffic jams 19. Safe

Despite some positive experiences on public transit, many respondents still considered public transit to be the “last resort” for transport, only using it if a car was not available, the travel distance was too far to walk, or poor weather conditions restricted bike use. A similar trend found that 13% of all respondents would only use public transit for their infrequent, long distance trips.

The following sections will use the data and findings from the previous chapter to discuss and answer the posed research question and sub-questions.

6.4 What stigmas can be identified in the Netherlands?

The first sub-question is ‘what stigmas can be identified and what are they in regards to?’. Through the social media search and short answer survey questions, many comments, both good and bad, were made towards public transit. However, by definition, a stigma is negative or unfair beliefs that society has about something. Therefore, it cannot simply be a couple individuals who have these beliefs, it must be a group of people. The Likert Scale statements from the survey will be used to identify which negative attributes of public transit can be considered stigmatized.

(27)

In order to examine the Likert Scale statements as a group, a simple formula was created in which negative beliefs and feelings towards public transit were given a higher rating, positive beliefs and feelings were given a lower rating. The rating scale given can be seen in Figure 8. The rating system allowed statements that received the most negative responses to be numerically identified. The median and mean of each statement were then calculated. The results of these calculations can be seen in Figure 9.

Figure 8: Likert Scale Response Rating

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 1. It i s too expe nsive to ta ke pu blic t ransit … 2. It i s che aper to ta ke m y car than t o tak e… 3. OV card tech nolog y freq uentl y malf uncti ons 4. No t eno ugh t rains /bus ses a re sch edule d… 5. Pu blic t ransit is dirt y 6. Pu blic t ransit is too crowd ed 7. I d on't f eel sa fe wh en ta king p ublic trans it 8. Ot her p ublic trans it pas seng ers ar e rude or… 9. Tra in/bu s ope rators are ru de or unhe lpful 10. O perat ors do n't co mmun icate well w ith… 11. I h ave t o walk /cycle too f ar to get t o a… 12. I c an't g et to my de stina tion u sing p ublic … 13. Pu blic t ransit neve r run s on t ime 14. Pu blic t ransit is slo wer t han t aking a… 15. Pu blic t ransit is slo wer t han c yclin g

Likert Scale Response Statistics

Median Mean

(28)

therefore most negative responses) were to questions 1, 5, and 14, which were in regards to cost and quality of service (i.e. crowded and travel time). Despite this, overall most questions received fairly positive or neutral responses – most rating a 3 or less.

Link and Phelan’s conceptualization described in the Methodology chapter was used to assist in determining if these results can justifiably be called ‘stigmas’. The authors identify four potential components that they consider to be evidence of a stigma. While the components are often interrelated, a combination of the components can justify the existence of a stigma. Within this research, two of the components were identified.

The first component is the existence of distinguishing and labeling differences. This is represented in this research through the unfair comparison of personal cars and public transit. Cars are described using the ‘best case scenario’, often seen as fun and offering freedom in travel, whether it be freedom from schedules or options of possible destinations. Cycling was often described as offering ‘door-to-door’ travel, and being an enjoyable commute. Comparatively, public transit was described using the ‘worst case scenario’ and seen as hectic, stressful, and too expensive, all of which characteristics could also be used to describe driving or cycling – however it’s a matter of attitude and perception.

Link and Phelan’s second component is stereotyping negative characteristics. This component is present in the results of this study where respondents declared that ‘public transit is too crowded’ or ‘operators don’t communicate with passengers’. Of course these statements may be true some of the time, but such bold claims are inaccurate and stereotype public transit as being mediocre and unable to provide sufficient service.

The third and fourth components Link and Phelan identify are a status loss or structural discrimination [by using the specified mode of transport] and the separation or categorization of ‘us’ from ‘them’. Unlike other stigma studies completed in the UK and North America, there did not appear to be any systematic labeling of public transit as a method of transport ‘for the poor’ within the Netherlands.

Nevertheless, with the presence of two of the stigma components, this research collected through the online survey suggests that there are existing stigmas towards public transit in the Netherlands. The areas in which this data identifies stigmas are the following:

1. Public transit is too expensive (especially in relation to car use)

2. Public transit is poorly planned causing inconvenience/bad transit service (i.e. overcrowded and travel time)

3. Customer service from public transit staff/operators is poor (i.e. communication, friendliness, assistance, etc.)

(29)

However, from the original list of complaints and potential stigmas gathered from the social media search, there are no significant results to show there are stigmas towards the following:

1. Public transit does not run on time

2. Lack of safety when taking/getting to public transit 3. Public transit is not clean

4. Public transit is inaccessible

5. Public transit uses outdated technology (i.e. OV)

6.5 Do stigmas impact public transit ridership in the Netherlands?

The second sub-question asks how the identified stigmas are impacting public transit ridership. To examine this sub-question, I will break the results down by the mode of transport respondents’ identified as being the one they use most often. Over half (56%) of the respondents who stated public transit as their main mode of transport made positive comments towards their experiences with public transit service provided in the Netherlands. Only 7% of public transit users responded negatively stating they would prefer to not use the service if they had any other viable mode choice. This group mostly contained students who currently get the service for free but stated they will change modes as soon as their government subsidy has expired and they are forced to pay out of pocket.

As was predicted, drivers were the group with the most negative attitudes towards public transit; the majority of car users (81%) commented negatively towards public transit services in the Netherlands. This group of respondents also had the most diverse complaints towards public transit than all other groups in the study. Excuses used to support their negative beliefs included public transit being an inconvenience, longer travel time, increased cost, having to make transfers/connections, and public transit is too busy or crowded. These excuses seemed to justify their use of a car instead of public transit. The small number of car users (7%) who had positive attitudes towards public transit said they would be happy to use the service more if it weren’t for accessibility issues (i.e. children/strollers, distance to station, etc.)

As the Dutch are known best for their use of bicycles, the attitudes of cyclists may arguably be the most important and influential. The majority of cyclist respondents (49%) made neutral comments towards public transit. They stated they prefer cycling due to the ‘door-to-door’ service it provides, but in certain circumstances they would willingly take public transit. Other common complaints were in regards to cost, reliability, and crowds. There were also a high number of cyclist

(30)

No respondents who identified walking as their main mode of transport had positive comments in relation to public transit use, but an overwhelming majority (71%) were neutral about the service. The comments generally stated that they prefer to walk, but would use public transit for longer distances. The negative comments from pedestrians (29%) were all in relation to the price of public transit – which would obviously be an increased cost compared to walking.

A full breakdown of the types of responses sorted by main mode of transport can be seen below in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Type of Responses by Transport Mode

From these results we can conclude that stigma of higher costs has an impact on public transit ridership – most understandably with cyclists and pedestrians, but also with drivers. Both cyclist and driver ridership was also influenced by the stigma of poor service (i.e. travel time and overcrowded trams/buses/metros). Of course, ridership of current public transit users is not impacted by stigmas, however it is important to note that 7% of riders would prefer not to use the service but are forced to, simply out of personal circumstance.

7. Discussion

So what do these findings mean for transportation planning in the Netherlands? Unlike research conducted in the United States or the United Kingdom, the Netherlands does not appear to have a stigma of public transportation being the ‘poor man’s vehicle’, however there are still polarized attitudes based on a person’s current mode of transport. From this, planners should recognize that there are social barriers keeping Dutch travelers and commuters from utilizing public transit services. While this continues to occur, automobile infrastructure will continue to need upgrades and expansion, which inevitably pulls funding away from bettering mass public transit networks. This remains an important issue as car use continues to be the most popular mode of transport (Statistics Netherlands, 2016) in the country, despite the cultural importance of the bike.

Although it was academically proven in the previous chapter that stigmas exist, it can still be powerful and useful to compare different modes of transport using numbers and statistics to see if the stigmas are accurate. To do this, I will examine the responses to survey questions 2 and 14. These questions are chosen because of their comparison between two modes of transport (i.e. cars

(31)

and public transit). We can see that when comparing these two modes, people overwhelmingly tend to see more negative attributes associated with public transit. It is viewed as slower and more expensive. Are these beliefs accurate?

Survey question 2: It is cheaper to take my car than to take public transit

This line of inquiry will examine the opinion/belief that it is cheaper to take a personal car, rather than public transit. The 2018 LeasePlan Car Cost Index concluded that to own/drive a car in the Netherlands, the average cost is between €700 and €900 per month (LeasePlan, 2018). This estimation includes purchase price, depreciation, insurance, repairs/maintenance, taxes, and the cost of fuel, however it excludes the cost of parking.

Comparatively, monthly transit passes range from €98,50 (GVB) to €291 (RET) for full zone usage. In addition, there are also reduced fare options for NS/RET/GVB travelers using public transit during off-peak hours. Although traveling during off-peak hours is not a viable option for all commuters, there is an increasing amount of flexibility offered by employers, especially in the Netherlands, which ranks among the highest in the EU (McNeill-Adams & Janta, 2018). Based off of these numbers, it is significantly cheaper to take public transit rather than a personal car. Cost is therefore an unfair negative attribute given to public transit by drivers.

Survey question 14: Public transit is slower than taking a personal car

The second line of inquiry is the comparison between the speed in which users can get to their destination by cars vs. public transit. This is difficult to compare without using specific ‘start’ and ‘end’ points, however there are some national statistics that can assist in drawing some conclusions. First, despite the continued investment in road network infrastructure, roadway travel delays continue to rise in the Netherlands (Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, 2016). In contrast, the punctuality rate of Dutch passenger trains continues to rise. In 2018, 91.4% of Dutch trains ran on schedule which placed it third highest in the world (Zasiadko, 2019). While these statistics cannot entirely prove that public transit is faster than a car, it does suggest that trains are more reliable. Of course, this would not necessarily be the case in rural regions or areas with fewer public transit connects. However, these statistics can start to erode the belief that public transit is always a slower transport mode.

Aside from comparing modes of transportation, there are other interesting discussion topics to be pulled from the research findings. As stated in the Findings chapter, 13% of all respondents stated they would only use public transit for long distance trips. This tendency suggests there are conditional factors that influence behavior and persuade people into taking public transit.

(32)

with regional travel on NS – persuading people to trust other modes of transport over trams, metro, and buses. This potential public transit hierarchy will be brought up again in section 8.2.

Another interesting finding is the high number of cases where the cost of car ownership/mileage/fuel is being paid by employers. This encourages the continued habit of driving and eliminates the need for thoughtful behaviour when it comes to transportation mode choice. The cost of owning a car in the Netherlands is one of the highest in Europe, in part due to taxes implemented by the government (LeasePlan, 2018). This tax was likely implemented to discourage the use of cars and lower national carbon emissions, however when corporations pay a large portion of the cost, the tax is essentially redundant. One way in which to address this loophole would be for policy-makers to instead try to make public transit more attractive to commuters, instead of attempting to make private car use less affordable.

Finally, something to consider in the comparison of findings between the survey and social media search is the higher frequency of customer service complaints made on social media. It may partially be explained by the general purpose of social media comment sections. Many people use the comment section to make companies aware of a negative encounter they experienced. In return, they hope the company will make alterations in their system to prevent future occurrences. Complaints of staff/operators being rude towards patrons may seem like an ‘easy-fix’ and therefore more people will make the effort to publicly complain about their encounter. In comparison, a complaint towards the cost of public transit is far more complex and likely won’t result in any changes, therefore fewer people may see point in complaining about it.

7.1 Links to Existing Research

The findings of this research compliment and support the findings completed by previous researchers. For instance, Steg’s (2005) research in the Dutch city of Rotterdam found that affective motives pushed drivers to continue to use this method of transport instead of considering other options. Steg’s finding is comparable to this study in which some drivers continue to choose car use because they consider driving to be ‘fun’. However, Steg also found there to be a sense of ‘superiority’ of drivers towards public transit, which was unfounded in this research.

It is also interesting to compare the differing opinions of drivers vs. public transit users on the same situation as done by Beirão and Cabral (2007). For example, one comment made by a driver in this study described using public transit as being forced to travel through commuter traffic, while taking the car offered “free time”. On the other hand, those who use public transit (and are content with it) see the time as “relaxing”, “enjoyable”, or extra time before/after work in which you can be productive. This proves to be similar to Beirão and Cabral’s research (2007), when drivers would describe a commute by public transit as being frustrating because you are forced to sit in traffic with no control over the route taken. Alternatively, public transit users would counter

(33)

the experience by explaining that the commute time could be used for productive activities (i.e. work) or relaxing activities (i.e. drinking coffee, reading books, etc.).

However, a significant disagreement to previous research is that within this study there was no mention from respondents that public transit is seen as being a mode of transportation for ‘the poor’, as Guiver (2007) found in the UK. Instead, it appears that the Netherlands has a counter-belief that public transit is too expensive, and therefore may not be accessible for lower income earners. Yet, there were some findings that were similar to Guiver’s (2007) study. In the Netherlands there also seems to be a trend in which the ‘worst-case scenarios’ are used to describe public transit, whereas traveling by car is described using a more ‘average scenario’, which inevitably leads to a disparity in transport modes. This is seen notably in the comments made on social media towards single experiences users have had while taking public transit, rather than an overview or average experience.

8. Conclusion

In concluding this thesis research, this chapter will discuss how the findings from this research contribute to the field of social-psychology and transportation. It will then reflect on the research limitations as well as recommendations for further research.

As discussed in the Introduction chapter, there are many practical uses for this type of research. By better understanding the population’s attitudes and beliefs, we can more accurately predict their behaviour. However, in order to understand attitudes, occurrences such as social stigmas must be identified and addressed to allow for social change.

This research has identified three main areas in which social stigmas exist towards public transit in the Netherlands. The stigmas are as follows:

1. It is too expensive to take public transit.

2. Public transit is poorly planned causing inconvenience/bad transit service (i.e. overcrowded)

3. Customer service from public transit staff/operators is poor (i.e. communication, friendliness, assistance, etc.)

It was also found that these stigmas do in fact impact public transit ridership, however it varies between current transport mode as to which stigmas are most influential. For instance, drivers seem to have a longer list of negative beliefs and attitudes towards public transit than pedestrians

The poor man's vehicle : an exploration of social stigmas towards public transportation in the Netherlands