SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi / 2024 / Cilt: 23 Sayı: 46

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE FACTORS INFLUENCING UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' MICROMOBILITY PREFERENCES USING K-NEAREST NEIGHBORS AND LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODELS

K- EN YAKIN KOMŞULAR VE LOJİSTİK REGRESYON MODELLERİ KULLANILARAK ÜNİVERSİTE ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN MİKRO-MOBİLİTE TERCİHLERİNİ ETKİLEYEN FAKTÖRLERİN KARŞILAŞTIRMALI ANALİZİ

Mahmut Esad Ergin(ISTANBUL AYDIN UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-1038-3530
Pages
488–503
Publication Date
2024-12-27
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

On the other hand, 51,82% of male students and 62,50% of female students participating in our study reported that they are not inclined to prefer micromobility vehicles at any stage of their trips, and the main challenge for the potential users is safety.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Shared micro-mobility services have swiftly become widely adopted in major urban centers globally.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A face-to-face survey was conducted with 150 students randomly to measure the potential use of micromobility vehicles among university students.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:On the other hand, 51,82% of male students and 62,50% of female students participating in our study reported that they are not inclined to prefer micromobility vehicles at any stage of their trips, and the main challenge for the potential users is safety.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Cinsiyet · k-en yakın komşu · lojistik regresyon

Abstract

Shared micro-mobility services have swiftly become widely adopted in major urban centers globally. In particular, individuals are encouraged to transition to environmentally friendly modes of transportation to support a sustainable transportation system. For this reason, the tendencies and potential of individuals to use micro-mobility vehicles are being investigated. This paper focused on university students, analyzing their preferences for using micromobility vehicles, particularly for first-mile or last-mile trips in terms of gender and travel time variables. In the study, k-Nearest Neighbors (kNN) and Logistic Regression (LR) algorithms are used in machine learning approach and they were compared. A face-to-face survey was conducted with 150 students randomly to measure the potential use of micromobility vehicles among university students. As a result, LR model is better than kNN model according to the accuracy of the models, 0,63 and 0,43 respectively. On the other hand, 51,82% of male students and 62,50% of female students participating in our study reported that they are not inclined to prefer micromobility vehicles at any stage of their trips, and the main challenge for the potential users is safety.

Özet

Paylaşımlı mikro-mobilite hizmetleri, dünya genelinde özellikle büyük şehirlerde hızla benimsenmiştir. Son zamanlarda, bireylerin sürdürülebilir bir ulaşım sistemini desteklemek amacıyla çevre dostu ulaşım modlarına geçiş yapmaları teşvik edilmektedir. Bu nedenle, literatürde, yol kullanıcılarının mikro-mobilite araçlarını kullanma eğilimleri ve potansiyelleri araştırılmaktadır. Bu çalışma, üniversite öğrencilerini hedef alarak, cinsiyet ve yolculuk süresi değişkenleri açısından ilk ve son kilometre (ilk ve son adım) yolculukları için mikro-mobilite araçlarını kullanma eğilimlerini analiz etmektedir. Çalışmada, makine öğrenmesi yaklaşımıyla k-En Yakın Komşu (kNN) ve Lojistik Regresyon (LR) algoritmaları kullanılmış ve karşılaştırılmıştır. Üniversite öğrencileri arasında mikro-mobilite araçlarının potansiyel kullanımını ölçmek amacıyla 150 öğrenciyle yüz yüze anket yapılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, LR modelinin doğruluk açısından kNN modelinden (sırasıyla 0,63 ve 0,43) daha iyi olduğu görülmüştür. Öte yandan, çalışmamıza katılan erkek öğrencilerin %51,82'si ve kadın öğrencilerin %62,50'si, yolculuklarının herhangi bir aşamasında mikro-mobilite araçlarını tercih etme eğiliminde olmadıklarını belirtmiş, potansiyel kullanıcılar için ana zorluğun “güvenlik” kriteri olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ergin, M. E. (2024). A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE FACTORS INFLUENCING UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' MICROMOBILITY PREFERENCES USING K-NEAREST NEIGHBORS AND LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODELS. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 23 Sayı: 46, 488–503. https://doi.org/10.55071/ticaretfbd.1544658

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (48)

  1. Adnan, M., Altaf, S., Bellemans, T., Yasar, A.-H., & Shakshuki, E. M. (2019). Last-mile travel and bicycle sharing system in small/medium sized cities: user’s preferences investigation using hybrid choice model. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 10(12), 4721–4731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-018-0849-5
  2. Alrefaei, A., & Ilyas, M. (2024). Using Machine Learning Multiclass Classification Technique to Detect IoT Attacks in Real Time. Sensors, 24(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/s24144516
  3. Campisi, T., Kuşkapan, E., Çodur, M. Y., & Dissanayake, D. (2024). Exploring the influence of socio-economic aspects on the use of electric scooters using machine learning applications: A case study in the city of Palermo. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 56, 101172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2024.101172
  4. Cheng, W., Yang, J., Wu, X., Zhang, T., & Yin, Z. (2024). A Quantitative Study on Factors Influencing User Satisfaction of Micro-Mobility in China in the Post-Sharing Era. Sustainability, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041637
  5. Cho, S.-H., & Shin, D. (2022). Estimation of Route Choice Behaviors of Bike-Sharing Users as First- and Last-mile Trips for Introduction of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS). KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 26(7), 3102–3113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-022-0802-1 Cochran, W.G. (1963). Sampling Techniques (3rd ed.), 75. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
  6. Comi, A., Hriekova, O., & Nigro, M. (2024). Exploring road safety in the era of micro-mobility: evidence from Rome. Transportation Research Procedia, 78, 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2024.02.008
  7. Cover, T., & Hart, P. (1967). Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 13(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1967.1053964
  8. Cubells, J., Miralles-Guasch, C., & Marquet, O. (2023). Gendered travel behaviour in micromobility? Travel speed and route choice through the lens of intersecting identities. Journal of Transport Geography, 106, 103502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103502
  9. Cunningham, P., & Delany, S. J. (2021). k-Nearest Neighbour Classifiers - A Tutorial. ACM Comput. Surv., 54(6). https://doi.org/10.1145/3459665
  10. Degele, J., Gorr, A., Haas, K., Kormann, D., Krauss, S., Lipinski, P., Tenbih, M., Koppenhoefer, C., Fauser, J., & Hertweck, D. (2018). Identifying E-Scooter Sharing Customer Segments Using Clustering. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE.2018.8436288
  11. Delbosc, A., & Thigpen, C. (2024). Who uses subsidized micromobility, and why? Understanding low-income riders in three countries. Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research, 2, 100016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmr.2024.100016
  12. Dozza, M., Violin, A., & Rasch, A. (2022). A data-driven framework for the safe integration of micro-mobility into the transport system: Comparing bicycles and e-scooters in field trials. Journal of Safety Research, 81, 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2022.01.007
  13. Ergin, M. E., & Tezcan, H. O. (2022). Joint Logit Model Approach to Analyze Soccer Spectators’ Arrival Time and Location Preferences for Interim Activities in Istanbul. International Journal of Engineering, Transactions A: Basics, 35(4). https://doi.org/10.5829/IJE.2022.35.04A.01
  14. Espino, R. (2023). Identifying Latent Variables for Active Cycling Mobility. An Application for University Students. Transportation Research Procedia, 71, 140–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2023.11.068
  15. Forum, I. T. (2024). Safer Micromobility. 129. https://doi.org/10.1787/0d2e0dd5-en
  16. Gallego, A.-J., Calvo-Zaragoza, J., Valero-Mas, J. J., & Rico-Juan, J. R. (2018). Clustering-based k-nearest neighbor classification for large-scale data with neural codes representation. Pattern Recognition, 74, 531–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2017.09.038
  17. Geeksforgeeks. (2024). Logistic Regression in Machine Learning. Retrieved September 1, 2024 from https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/understanding-logistic-regression/
  18. Guan, X., van Lierop, D., An, Z., Heinen, E., & Ettema, D. (2024). Shared micro-mobility and transport equity: A case study of three European countries. Cities, 153, 105298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105298
  19. Hensher, D. A., Wei, E., Liu, W., & Balbontin, C. (2024). Profiling future passenger transport initiatives to identify the growing role of active and micro-mobility modes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 187, 104172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2024.104172
  20. Hong, D., Jang, S., & Lee, C. (2023). Investigation of shared micromobility preference for last-mile travel on shared parking lots in city center. Travel Behaviour and Society, 30, 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2022.09.002
  21. Ignaccolo, M., Inturri, G., Cocuzza, E., Giuffrida, N., Le Pira, M., & Torrisi, V. (2022). Developing micromobility in urban areas: network planning criteria for e-scooters and electric micromobility devices. Transportation Research Procedia, 60, 448–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2021.12.058
  22. Jaber, A., Ashqar, H., & Csonka, B. (2024). Determining the Location of Shared Electric Micro-Mobility Stations in Urban Environment. Urban Science 8(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8020064
  23. Ji, Y., Fan, Y., Ermagun, A., Cao, X., Wang, W., & Das, K. (2017). Public bicycle as a feeder mode to rail transit in China: The role of gender, age, income, trip purpose, and bicycle theft experience. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 11(4), 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2016.1253802
  24. Li, Q., Zhang, E., Luca, D., & Fuerst, F. (2024). The travel pattern difference in dockless micro-mobility: Shared e-bikes versus shared bikes. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 130, 104179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2024.104179
  25. Maalouf, M. (2011). Logistic regression in data analysis: an overview. International Journal of Data Analysis Techniques and Strategies, 3(3), 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJDATS.2011.041335
  26. Mahesh, B. (2019). Machine Learning Algorithms -A Review. In International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 9. https://doi.org/10.21275/ART20203995
  27. NABSA. (2022). 4th Annual Shared Micromobility State of the Industry Report. https://doi.org/10.7922/G20R9MRM
  28. NACTO. (2023). Shared Micromobility in the U.S. and CANADA. Retrieved September 1, 2024 from https://nacto.org/publication/shared-micromobility-in-2022/
  29. Özdemir, P. (2023). University students; perspectives on micromobility: An evaluation based on e-scooters TT - Üni̇versi̇te öğrenci̇leri̇ni̇n mi̇kromobi̇li̇teye bakış açıları: E-scooterlar açısından bi̇r değerlendi̇rme. Akıllı Ulaşım Sistemleri ve Uygulamaları Dergisi, 6(2), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.51513/jitsa.1257000
  30. Portal, M. (n.d.). Mobility Portal Europe. Retrieved July 30, 2024, from https://mobilityportal.eu/270-million-users-chose-to-use-shared-micromobility-services-in-europe/#:~:text=While the demand for shared,by 17.7%25 compared to 2021.
  31. Reck, D. J., & Axhausen, K. W. (2021). Who uses shared micro-mobility services? Empirical evidence from Zurich, Switzerland. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 94, 102803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102803
  32. Regulski, K., Opaliński, A., Swadźba, J., Sitkowski, P., Wąsowicz, P., & Kwietniewska-Śmietana, A. (2024). Machine Learning Prediction Techniques in the Optimization of Diagnostic Laboratories’ Network Operations. In Applied Sciences, 14(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/app14062429
  33. Roig-Costa, O., Miralles-Guasch, C., & Marquet, O. (2024). Shared bikes vs. private e-scooters. Understanding patterns of use and demand in a policy-constrained micromobility environment. Transport Policy, 146, 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.11.010
  34. Rymarczyk, T., Kozłowski, E., Kłosowski, G., & Niderla, K. (2019). Logistic Regression for Machine Learning in Process Tomography. Sensors, 19(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/s19153400
  35. Sadeghi, M., Aghabayk, K., & Quddus, M. (2024). A hybrid Machine learning and statistical modeling approach for analyzing the crash severity of mobility scooter users considering temporal instability. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 206, 107696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2024.107696
  36. Sarker, M. A. A., Asgari, H., Chowdhury, A. Z., & Jin, X. (2024). Exploring Micromobility Choice Behavior across Different Mode Users Using Machine Learning Methods. Multimodal Transportation, 100167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.multra.2024.100167
  37. Scikit-learn. (n.d.-a). KNeighborsClassifier. Retrieved September 1, 2024 from https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.neighbors. KNeighborsClassifier.html
  38. Scikit-learn. (n.d.-b). LogisticRegression. Retrieved September 1, 2024 from https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.linear_model. LogisticRegression.html
  39. Sun, B., Garikapati, V., Wilson, A., & Duvall, A. (2021). Estimating energy bounds for adoption of shared micromobility. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 100, 103012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.103012
  40. Tait, C., Beecham, R., Lovelace, R., & Barber, S. (2022). Is cycling infrastructure in London safe and equitable? Evidence from the cycling infrastructure database. Journal of Transport & Health, 26, 101369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2022.101369
  41. Trevor, Hastie; Tibshirani, Robert; Friedman, J. (2019). The Elements of Statistical Learning (2nd Ed.). Springer New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7
  42. Tzouras, P. G., Mitropoulos, L., Karolemeas, C., Stravropoulou, E., Vlahogianni, E. I., & Kepaptsoglou, K. (2024). Agent-based simulation model of micro-mobility trips in heterogeneous and perceived unsafe road environments. Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research, 2, 100042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmr.2024.100042
  43. Uddin, S., Haque, I., Lu, H., Moni, M. A., & Gide, E. (2022). Comparative performance analysis of K-nearest neighbour (KNN) algorithm and its different variants for disease prediction. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 6256. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10358-x
  44. Wang, Y., Pan, Z., & Dong, J. (2022). A new two-layer nearest neighbor selection method for kNN classifier. Knowledge-Based Systems, 235, 107604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107604
  45. Wang, Y., Pan, Z., & Pan, Y. (2020). A Training Data Set Cleaning Method by Classification Ability Ranking for the $k$ -Nearest Neighbor Classifier. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 31(5), 1544–1556. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2019.2920864
  46. Wolnowska, A. E., & Kasyk, L. (2024). Study of the Demand for Ecological Means of Transport in Micromobility: A Case of Bikesharing in Szczecin, Poland. Sustainability, 16(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093620
  47. Yin, Z., Rybarczyk, G., Zheng, A., Su, L., Sun, B., & Yan, X. (2024). Shared micromobility as a first- and last-mile transit solution? Spatiotemporal insights from a novel dataset. Journal of Transport Geography, 114, 103778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103778
  48. Zhang, C., Du, B., Zheng, Z., & Shen, J. (2023). Space sharing between pedestrians and micro-mobility vehicles: A systematic review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 116, 103629. /https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2023.103629