Next Article in Journal
Scientometric Analysis of Hiking Tourism and Its Relevance for Wellbeing and Knowledge Management
Next Article in Special Issue
Travel Behaviour of Vulnerable Social Groups: Pre, during, and Post COVID-19 Pandemic
Previous Article in Journal
Care Recommendations for the Chronic Risk of COVID-19: Nursing Intervention for Behaviour Changes
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Transition of Cities towards Innovations in Mobility: Searching for a Global Perspective
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 14
10.3390/ijerph19148533
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Carpooling Systems for Commuting among Teachers: An Expert Panel Analysis of Their Barriers and Incentives

by
María del Carmen Rey-Merchán
1,†,
Antonio López-Arquillos
2,*,†,‡ and
Manuela Pires Rosa
3,*,†,‡
1
Consejería de Educacion y Deporte, Junta de Andalucía, 41018 Sevilla, Spain
2
Economics and Business Management Department, University of Málaga, 29016 Malaga, Spain
3
CinTurs—Research Center for Tourism Sustainability and Well-Being, University of Algarve, 8005-139 Faro, Portugal
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
‡
Current address: Departamento de Economía y Administración de Empresas, Escuela de Ingenierías Industriales, Universidad de Málaga, 29016 Malaga, Spain.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(14), 8533; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148533
Submission received: 31 May 2022 / Revised: 8 July 2022 / Accepted: 10 July 2022 / Published: 12 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Urban Mobility and Public Health)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Sustainable mobility is a current challenge in our society. Research shows that carpooling systems are potential solutions that could mitigate environmental pollution and urban congestion and provide cost savings for their users. Despite their potential benefits, the levels of carpooling practices among some occupations could be improved. Teachers are suitable for carpooling experiences due to their specific working conditions (e.g., timetables, destinations changes, path matches); however, there is no research solely focused on teachers. Thus, the current research aimed to analyze the barriers and incentives for teachers using carpooling systems for commuting. A panel member was selected following the staticized group technique. Panelists were surveyed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of carpooling. Results showed that fuel savings were considered by the expert panel as the most important incentive for carpooling. For short distances, carpooling was not considered the best commuting option. Additionally, the increase in travel time and loss of personal independence were identified as relevant barriers. Based on the opinions of experts, it can be concluded that carpooling barriers outweigh the incentives for the commuting of teachers. To promote carpooling practices, institutional mobility plans with advantages for carpoolers could improve the teachers’ perceptions about carpooling. Future carpooling strategies should consider these results to promote incentives and address the identified barriers.

1. Introduction

Transportation and mobility are key factors in societal development [1]. Sustainable economic and social development cannot be possible without sustainable transportation infrastructure and solutions [2]. The increased demand for safe, environmentally-friendly, and fast transportation of goods and individuals requires specific solutions [3].
In the European Union, institutions, enterprises, and governments are committed to increasing their knowledge, performance, and management of sustainable development. In this context, many communities are focused on limiting CO2 emissions through climate change adaptations and mitigation measures, to minimize the effects of CO2 emissions. For the success of the eco-friendly programs, profound changes are also required in the consumption patterns of citizens, as well as their participation in communities. Individual sustainability describes the potential of actions that enable and lead to attitudes and practices according to sustainability. The involvement of citizens, in an active way, in the sustainable development process, is the key to success [4].
Deep changes are needed for sustainable mobility, where the behaviors of citizens are determinant. Shared mobility, associated with the emerging ‘collaborative and sharing economy’ expressed in the European agenda [5], is one of the main citizen-centered contributions for smart and sustainable mobility. It contributes to a reduction in traffic congestion, decreased reliance on private vehicles, and lessens parking pressure in cities [6]. This innovative means of transportation has been mainly developed using technology to connect users and providers [7]. To promote sustainable solutions to mobility issues, some authors classified sustainable mobility measures on the basis of previous experiences [8], while other researchers studied travel patterns and psychological aspects associated with car-sharing [9].
One of the most simple examples of shared mobility is car-pooling, where people can offer free rides in their vehicles [10]. Research shows that the implementation of carpooling systems (by local authorities) is a potential solution that could mitigate environmental pollution and urban congestion [5]. Thus, a better understanding of drivers’ attitudes in practicing carpooling is necessary to promote the cited sustainable systems.
Carpooling can be defined as people—with similar origins and destinations—who share the same car (owned by one of the carpoolers) [11,12,13]. In car-sharing systems, users are not the owners of the car. They usually pick up a vehicle at one location and return it at any location [14], or they pay for a ride through an app [15].
Carpooling practices present several advantages from different perspectives. On the one hand, carpooling is an efficient way to reduce fuel consumption. In the 1970s, casual carpooling clubs (motivated by the oil crisis) were habitual in the USA [16]; however, a drop in oil prices contributes to the decline of carpooling [17]. The concern about pollution and congestion, and the continuous increase of oil prices in recent years, have contributed to an upward trend related to carpooling and car-sharing practices. In this sense, a previous study observed a direct relationship between carpooling and fuel price. It concluded that, in mainline lanes, traffic flow decreased when fuel prices increased, while carpool lane traffic flow increased [18].
Some authors have studied the impacts of this fuel reduction in different countries, such as the United States of America [19], China [20], and Iran [21]. The positive environmental effects of carpooling practices are complemented with other advantages, such as improved parking facilities [22], the reduction of congestion and traffic flow, and more efficient high-occupancy lanes [23]. Other positive effects of carpooling have been identified, such as increased productivity and morality of workers, and reduced stress from shared driving responsibilities [24]. However, psychological factors play important roles in adopting carpooling solutions [25,26,27,28]. Previous studies have identified some sociodemographic barriers, such as finding carpoolers with matching schedules, fear of sharing vehicles with strangers, and loss of freedom [29,30,31]. Other relevant barriers include extra travel times [32,33], distant meeting points [34,35,36], and loss of independence [37,38].
Commuting carpoolers will more likely address some of the cited potential problems [15,30,39], because colleagues share workplaces and timetables, and it is easier to trust people we know. In this sense, recent studies point out the importance of carpooling with a colleague, exhibiting the key role of trust [40]. Other authors have found large heterogeneities among solo commuting drivers [41], although they concluded that, for solo drivers, finding carpool drivers will be easier than carpool passengers.
Nowadays, the importance of carpooling programs has motivated the study of their effectiveness [42]. The cited authors propose a practical evaluation framework for a commuting carpool program [42].
In the particular case of Spanish teachers, their specific labor conditions provide good opportunities to practice carpooling. For the majority of teachers, they could change their habitual schools each year, if they agree to participate in an official procedure. In this procedure, teachers are ranked according to the length of service and some additional achievements. Based on these ranks, they can choose among the available destinations. Thus, once a year, many teachers are relocated according to the results of the cited procedure. According to that, the distance that a teacher must cover each academic year may vary. In addition, they share the same workplace with several colleagues, they have similar timetables, and in many cases, they match paths from their city of residence to their habitual workplace. However, the use of private cars by solo drivers is the most extended practice.
As previously described, several research studies can be found on the incentives and barriers of carpooling in the literature [43,44,45,46]. However, specific research studies were not found on teachers and their commuting trips. Due to the specific characteristics of this profession, a specific study that focused on teachers was of interest.
Thus, the current research aimed to analyze the barriers and incentives of carpooling systems (for teachers who commute). The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, the methodology is described. The results of the panel member selections, questionnaire content, and data collection are presented in Section 3. Finally, we summarize the main findings and future research prospects in our conclusion.

2. Methodology

We used the Delphi Method (a single round), called the staticized group technique. The Delphi method is demonstrated to be an effective group-based judgment and decision-making method [47]. According to previous research based on the Delphi approach [48], the method can be defined as a systematic and interactive research technique used to obtain judgments from a panel of independent experts on a specific topic. Expert participants were selected according to predefined guidelines and they were required to participate in two or more rounds of structured surveys in a collaborative approach. After each round, an anonymized summary of participants’ results was provided. In each subsequent round, experts were encouraged to review the anonymous opinions of the rest of the experts and revise their previous inputs. The aim of this procedure was to decrease the variability of results and achieve a consensus about a correct value. Finally, the process was finished once the consensus was achieved or a number of predefined rounds were completed.
The staticized group technique is very similar to the Delphi Method. The only methodological difference is the absence of feedback or additional rounds in the staticized group technique. The Delphi methodology was carried out in fields, such as information systems [49] or worker safety [50]. Some studies have presented different opinions about the accuracy of consensus in the Delphi method. Some researchers did not report substantial differences in the accuracy of the results between Delphi and staticized approaches [51,52]. In contrast, other authors [53] promoted the use of the staticized group because participants were not led to achieve a consensus on a value that was not demonstrated as the best value. This was the main reason to use staticized groups in the current study.
It was not possible to generalize the results obtained from a small number of participants from a larger population (with statistical significance). However one of the main strengths of the staticized group methodology is that it takes advantage of the knowledge of experts in a specific topic. Experts selected were considered to have knowledge beyond a representative group. Then, the results obtained from the panel produced benefits for research and practice.

2.1. Panel Member Selection

In the methodology applied, expert selection is a key factor in the quality of the research. The majority of previous studies incorporated between 8 and 16 panelists and a minimum of 8 was suggested, while the authors suggested between 12 and 15 members [48]. The authors contacted 15 potential panelists from 4 different workplaces, in the region of Andalusia, in Spain. Finally, 12 experts completed the questionnaire provided on incentives and barriers to carpooling. Half of the selected experts were men (Experts 1 to 6) and the other half were women (Experts 7 to 12).
The level of expertise was defined by the previous authors [48] as the most important facet of a panel member. They proposed guidelines for the selection of experts with a flexible point system. Adaptation of the suggested point system to the specific objectives of our research is summarized in the following requirements, included in Table 1.
All members of the panel scored at least 30 points in addition to the 4 achievements (Table 2). Three other experts did not complete the questionnaire and they were excluded from the final results.
Regarding the personal conditions of the participants, the panel of experts was finally made up of 6 female professors and 6 male professors. Their ages ranged from 30 to 55 years. Ten of them were married with children, and only two were single. They all obtained a bachelor’s or baster’s degree before they started teaching.

2.2. Study Area and Potential Carpoolers

The region studied in the current research was Andalusia (Spain). It has a total area of 87.268 km2. Its extension is larger than some countries, such as Denmark, Holland, or Belgium, and is similar to Portugal. The number of teachers officially employed in Andalusia in the education sector (excluding universities) was higher than 125,000 in 2021. They daily commuted to one of the 3500 schools and high schools located in the region. Women represented 65% of teachers and men 35%.
Once a year, many teachers are relocated to a different school or high school; the distance that a teacher must commute varies. However, there are no official data available about their mobility patterns and transportation alternatives.

2.3. Questionnaire Content

The items selected for the questionnaire were chosen after a literature review focused on carpooling practices. In the first approach, 35 factors were considered. Then, the carpooling factors were classified as incentives or barriers. Finally, they were grouped and reduced to 20 items.
The following items were evaluated by the members of the expert panel. Items were classified into two main groups. In the first group, incentives for using the carpooler system were included (Table 3). The other group included the barriers to not participate in a carpooling system (Table 4). Additionally, items were classified by the following categories:
  • Vehicle: includes the advantages and disadvantages related to the vehicle (such as fuel consumption or maintenance costs).
  • Time: includes aspects related to the length of the commute (such as delay or length of displacement).
  • Personal: individual factors, such as the genders of the carpoolers, or physical and mental fatigue.
  • Social: human factors related to the social aspects of sharing a car.
  • Environmental: reduction of emissions was considered in this category.

2.4. Conducting Phase-Data Collection

A digital survey was used to collect the participants’ opinions. The following strategies were integrated into the survey to reduce the bias and to improve the quality of the research:
  • The order of the questions was randomized for each participant to reduce the contrast effect and primacy effect.
  • The anonymity of each panel member was ensured.
A Likert scale was proposed to the experts to evaluate the items. The Likert scale can be defined as a psychometric tool with a set of statements of the study’s hypothesis [67]. Panelists were asked to state their levels of agreement with the given statements (from strongly agree to strongly disagree). The length of the Likert scale could be designed with different measurement ranges in terms of the number of response options (from two to eleven points) [68]. Despite shorter rating scales being quick to use, scales with 10 and 11 alternatives were preferred to express respondents’ feelings adequately. In this sense, some authors concluded that 10-point, 9-point, and 7-point scales are the most preferred rating scales [69]. In the current research, a 10-point scale was used to collect opinions from the expert panel.

3. Results and Discussion

Different benefits and barriers of carpooling practices have been evaluated in the research. Some of them were previously studied in the literature. A consensus was not required for the staticized group methodology; variance and standard deviations were calculated to compare the results obtained with a Delphi method approach with additional rounds of feedback. On the one hand, all incentive items obtained values under 10% variance and deviation. On the other hand, some barrier items did not reach consensus values under the cited 10%. Thus, it can be said that consensus is lower regarding the barriers to adopting carpooling. Questionnaire reliability was calculated with Cronbach’s alpha values. Items classified as incentives obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.67. This value is considered a satisfactory level of consistency [70]. For the group of barriers, Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.83, which is considered a high level of consistency [70]. Then, the incentives and barrier questionnaires obtained reasonable and accepted values of reliability.

3.1. Incentives for Carpooling

One of the most studied incentives is the impact of cost-saving (regarding attitude toward carpooling) [24,37,38,44,54,55]. Our results (Table 5) showed that the expert panel considered fuel saving to be the most important incentive to carpooling (AVG = 9.83; VAR = 0.31; DESV = 0.58). Similarly, other authors identified saving money as the main advantage perceived by users [37,44]. Commuting cost burden is not a new reason for carpooling—it was highlighted by previous researchers a long time ago [71,72]. Current research identifies cost-saving as the most important encouraging factor for carpooling [43]. In the cited research, 46.1% of current carpoolers note that carpooling is less expensive than driving alone. Potential carpoolers showed lower scores in this factor (39.5%). Aligned with the cited results, in research carried out in Sweden based on carpooling experiences, it was concluded that 43.4% of participants stated cost as the most important motive to carpool [73]. It can be observed that percentages associated with cost savings are similar in different countries.
Different types of costs associated with the use of the vehicle, such as fuel, parking, or maintenance, were similarly rated in our research. The difference between fuel-saving and maintenance saving (AVG = 9.58; VAR = 0.41; DESV = 0.67) was very low. Regarding cost savings (fuel and maintenance), there were no significant differences between male and female opinions. In the literature, the differences were not significant. Cost of parking (41.3%) and cost of fuel (40.1%) were noted as relevant factors by habitual carpoolers [43]. Aligned with these findings, other research based on the opinions of usual carpoolers in San Francisco Bay (USA) concluded that the most important reason for casual carpooling was monetary savings (40%) [19].
The impact of fuel-saving decreases when the commuting distance is low [54]. In the same way, carpooling is more likely to be considered when the costs of solo-driving are high [46]. Then, other factors can increase their importance. Moreover, it should be considered that some variations in fuel costs, or the introduction of electric cars, could change the importance of fuel-saving as an incentive.
The group of personal factors was scored as the second group of highest values. Mental and physical fatigue reduction were scored with values near to 8 and over 10 in the Likert scale. Aligned with that results, previous researches revealed a positive relationship between carpooling and well-being during commuting [56]. Similarly, other researchers highlighted stress reduction as an important benefit associated with carpooling experiences [24]. Physical and mental benefits are difficult to quantify, but their positive effects should not be undervalued.
Regarding the social advantages of carpooling, they obtained values over 7, but they were the lowest-rated group of advantages when compared with the rest of the items. Then, social advantages were the less important group in the sector studied. Similarly, other research found that socializing was the least popular motive to carpool. Only 5.7% of the participants noted that reason as an incentive [73].
Finally, environmental reasons, such as a reduction in emissions, obtained an average value of 8.08. Although the value could be considered high, it was lower than fuel saving (9.83). Results associated with environmental concerns varied. On the one hand, previous research ranked low environmental reasons for carpooling [19]. On the other hand, other authors [73] found that 35.2% of users stated environmental concerns as the reason for carpooling. To increase the knowledge about the environmental benefits of carpooling, the design and use of indicators that inform the users of the polluting gases not emitted due to carpooling are recommended.

3.2. Barriers to Carpooling

Once the perceptions of incentives were analyzed, the next step was to analyze the barriers to adopting carpooling with the aim to understand the low levels of carpooling practices in the sector.
According to the experts (Table 6), the main barrier to adopting carpooling for commuting was low fuel saving (AVG = 9.92; VAR = 0.08; DESV = 0.29). This value was aligned with the results obtained from the incentives related to fuel consumption. Previous studies concluded that sharing the costs makes carpooling economically competitive compared to solo driving, at least in long distances [45,57]. As a consequence, for short displacements with low fuel cost savings, carpooling is not considered the best commuting option [54]. However, these costs can be underestimated by the user, since the daily sum of short journeys represents an accumulated expense throughout the year that could make the user change his/her mind. A carpooling platform that estimates the annual savings based on the length of the journey could be of interest to eliminate this barrier.
Spending time waiting for workmates (AVG = 8.00; VAR = 1.00; DESV = 1.04) and a bigger probability of delay (AVG = 8.08; VAR = 0.58; DESV = 0.79) were identified as second and third barriers in weight. In research carried out in the USA [43], it was found that more than half of the participants stated that they did not have time to wait on others. This barrier obtained similar values among users, potential users, and people not interested in carpooling.
The increase in travel time and waiting time were previously noted as important disadvantages to carpooling [32]. Some authors found that the value in travel time in carpooling is more than twice for solo driving for long distances [45]. Other authors found a slightly higher value in travel time for carpool modes than for solo driving [33]. The majority of studies noted that carpooling increased travel time.
Another relevant barrier in the opinions of experts was the need for displacement to the meeting points (AVG = 7.75; VAR = 0.52; DESV = 0.75). This problem was addressed in previous studies [35,36]. They considered meeting points or hubs as possible solutions in the design of carpooling systems (instead of barriers) and some authors concluded that adding the option of meeting hubs improves system-wide savings from carpooling. However, it is important to place meeting points properly, because some authors identified distant meeting points as one of the most important barriers to adopting carpooling [34].
In real-world carpooling, an extra displacement to the hub is considered a disadvantage by carpoolers when they decide between carpooling or solo-driving; however, optimized hubs can promote carpooling practices [35]. A higher number of potential users could provide the best matching rates to reduce the need for meeting points.
Regarding personal variables, they scored relevant values. Loss of personal independence to travel was considered an important barrier. The results are aligned with previous studies [37,38]. In a previous carpooling experience carried out in New Zealand, users noted that being dependent on other users’ timetables and the lack of flexibility as relevant disadvantages [46]. Low matches in working tables obtained low values among the expert participants. Aligned with that opinion, the variety of pick-off and drop-off times obtained low values among habitual users (25.7%) [43]. In contrast, potential carpoolers were more concerned with the timetables (43%).
Finally, the group of social barriers obtained the lowest values of importance, but the higher values of variance and deviation. In the case of social awkwardness (AVG = 4.00; VAR = 2.83; DESV = 1.76), the low values can be motivated because teaching is a team task, and teachers are in constant communication with their colleagues. Therefore, most of them know each other. This factor contributes to increased trust in potential carpooler mates [15,39]. The higher values of variance and deviation were motivated by the differences between male and female scores. In previous studies, females were found to be less attracted to carpooling [33,66,74], possibly due to security concerns. A higher number of potential users could provide the best matching rates according to the gender preferences of the carpoolers.

4. Conclusions

Based on the results obtained, it can be concluded that the barriers to carpooling outweigh the incentives for teachers to travel. Most of the specific results obtained for teachers were aligned with previous general results obtained by other authors. Despite the specific working conditions of teachers, their attitudes toward carpooling were not particularly different compared to other groups of people previously studied, such as students and industry workers.
Cost savings related to fuel consumption were identified as the main incentives (or advantages) of practicing carpooling. However, the importance (or weight) of these incentives decrease if the length of the displacement is short because cost savings are poor.
Psycho-social factors related to personal and social variables were regarded as obstacles to performing carpooling practices. These barriers were difficult to change according to the existing literature. The most effective way to reduce the weight of these disadvantages is to increase the efficiency of carpooling systems because the weight of cost savings will increase too.
In the group of female experts, the items related to barriers obtained higher results than the group of male participants. Females placed different genders of coworkers as the more relevant barrier compared to males for the same item. A possible solution to reduce this barrier could be the management of some vehicles exclusively for women. This solution would allow the group of women with less confidence to share their cars in conditions that are desirable for them. In this sense, some previous experience based on “pink transportation” has been developed in some countries [75].
In contrast, male and female panelists scored similar values regarding the incentives for carpooling.
According to the results obtained, the regional government could develop a carpooling system for teachers in Andalusia based on the main incentives found. An institutional carpooling program would increase the number of possible combinations to carpooling among users and improve their matching possibilities. This could reduce some barriers, such as the need for displacements to meeting points, earlier beginnings of journeys, and the genders of coworkers.
Additionally, a formal carpooling system with real-time information about cost savings and emission reductions could encourage potential carpoolers to carpool.
Future carpooling strategies should consider the results achieved to promote incentives and address the identified barriers.

4.1. Limitation of the Study

The current research was focused on teachers from a specific region of Spain. Different labor conditions for teachers in other regions or countries might change the opinion of experts. Similarly, different cultures, safety levels, or social habits could change the opinions of potential carpooling users.

4.2. Future Research

In future research, a combination of experts from different countries could increase the scope of the results.
The design and assessment of a real carpooling system by the same group of experts combined with a questionnaire for users could improve their knowledge about the real problems of carpooling systems and create new solutions to mitigate existing barriers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.d.C.R.-M. and A.L.-A.; methodology, M.d.C.R.-M.; software, M.d.C.R.-M.; validation, M.d.C.R.-M.; formal analysis, A.L.-A.; investigation, M.d.C.R.-M.; resources, A.L.-A.; data curation, A.L.-A.; writing—original draft preparation, all authors; writing—review and editing, all authors; visualization, all authors; supervision, A.L.-A.; project administration, A.L.-A.; funding acquisition, A.L.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received funding from the project referenced as “UMA20-FEDERJA-078” and titled “Diseño de un sistema smart carpooling para la mejora de la movilidad, y la reducción de la siniestralidad laboral”, from “Plan Propio—Universidad de Málaga”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge “Universidad de Málaga”.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
Aachievement
AVGaverage
Bbarrier
DESdeviation
Iincentive
MEDmedian
VARvariance

References

  1. Wang, L.; Xue, X.; Zhao, Z.; Wang, Z. The impacts of transportation infrastructure on sustainable development: Emerging trends and challenges. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Chen, L.; Deng, X. A modified method for evaluating sustainable transport solutions based on AHP and Dempster–Shafer evidence theory. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Shekhovtsov, A.; Kozlov, V.; Nosov, V.; Sałabun, W. Efficiency of methods for determining the relevance of criteria in sustainable transport problems: A comparative case study. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Rosa, M.P. Innovative Urban Paradigms for Sustainability and Resilience. In Resilience and Regional Dynamics; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 189–207. [Google Scholar]
  5. European Accessibility Act—Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion—Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the Accessibility Requirements for Products and Services; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
  6. Kondor, D.; Zhang, H.; Tachet, R.; Santi, P.; Ratti, C. Estimating savings in parking demand using shared vehicles for home–work commuting. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2018, 20, 2903–2912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Crozet, Y.; Santos, G.; Coldefy, J. Shared Mobility and Maas: The Regulatory Challenges of Urban Mobility; Centre on Regulation in Europe ASBL (CERRE): Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  8. Parezanović, T.; Bojković, N.; Petrović, M.; Tarle, S.P. Evaluation of sustainable mobility measures using fuzzy COPRAS method. Manag. J. Sustain. Bus. Manag. Solut. Emerg. Econ. 2016, 21, 53–62. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ramos, É.M.S.; Bergstad, C.J.; Chicco, A.; Diana, M. Mobility styles and car sharing use in Europe: Attitudes, behaviours, motives and sustainability. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2020, 12, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Standing, C.; Standing, S.; Biermann, S. The implications of the sharing economy for transport. Transp. Rev. 2019, 39, 226–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Aguiléra, A.; Pigalle, E. The Future and Sustainability of Carpooling Practices. An Identification of Research Challenges. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Furuhata, M.; Dessouky, M.; Ordóñez, F.; Brunet, M.E.; Wang, X.; Koenig, S. Ridesharing: The state-of-the-art and future directions. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2013, 57, 28–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Shaheen, S.; Cohen, A. Shared ride services in North America: Definitions, impacts, and the future of pooling. Transp. Rev. 2019, 39, 427–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, L.; Liu, Q.; Ma, W. Optimization of dynamic relocation operations for one-way electric carsharing systems. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2019, 101, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bulteau, J.; Feuillet, T.; Dantan, S. Carpooling and carsharing for commuting in the Paris region: A comprehensive exploration of the individual and contextual correlates of their uses. Travel Behav. Soc. 2019, 16, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chan, N.D.; Shaheen, S.A. Ridesharing in North America: Past, present, and future. Transp. Rev. 2012, 32, 93–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ferguson, E. The rise and fall of the American carpool: 1970–1990. Transportation 1997, 24, 349–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bento, A.M.; Hughes, J.E.; Kaffine, D. Carpooling and driver responses to fuel price changes: Evidence from traffic flows in Los Angeles. J. Urban Econ. 2013, 77, 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Shaheen, S.A.; Chan, N.D.; Gaynor, T. Casual carpooling in the San Francisco Bay Area: Understanding user characteristics, behaviors, and motivations. Transp. Policy 2016, 51, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Liu, X.; Yan, X.; Liu, F.; Wang, R.; Leng, Y. A trip-specific model for fuel saving estimation and subsidy policy making of carpooling based on empirical data. Appl. Energy 2019, 240, 295–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Seyedabrishami, S.; Mamdoohi, A.; Barzegar, A.; Hasanpour, S. Impact of carpooling on fuel saving in urban transportation: Case study of Tehran. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 54, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Rijavec, R.; Dadashzadeh, N.; Žura, M.; Marsetič, R. Park and Pool Lots’ Impact on Promoting Shared Mobility and Carpooling on Highways: The Case of Slovenia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Do, M.; Jung, H. The socio-economic benefits of sharing economy: Colleague-based carpooling service in Korea. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Shaheen, S.; Cohen, A.; Bayen, A. The Benefits of Carpooling; Transportation Sustainability Research Center: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  25. Dinesh, S.; Rejikumar, G.; Sisodia, G.S. An empirical investigation into carpooling behaviour for sustainability. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2021, 77, 181–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hartl, B.; Kamleitner, B.; Holub, S. Take me on a ride: The role of environmentalist identity for carpooling. Psychol. Mark. 2020, 37, 663–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Tsai, Y.T.; Yu, C.H.; Boonprakob, R. Assessing carpooling drivers and barriers: Evidence from Bangkok, Thailand. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2021, 82, 84–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bachmann, F.; Hanimann, A.; Artho, J.; Jonas, K. What drives people to carpool? Explaining carpooling intention from the perspectives of carpooling passengers and drivers. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2018, 59, 260–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Guyader, H.; Friman, M.; Olsson, L. Shared Mobility: Evolving Practices for Sustainability. Sustainability 2021, 12, 12148. [Google Scholar]
  30. Molina, J.A.; Giménez-Nadal, J.I.; Velilla, J. Sustainable commuting: Results from a social approach and international evidence on carpooling. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Maier, R.; Friman, M. Why Do They Ride with Others? Meta-Analysis of Factors Influencing Travelers to Carpool. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2414. [Google Scholar]
  32. Malodia, S.; Singla, H. A study of carpooling behaviour using a stated preference web survey in selected cities of India. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2016, 39, 538–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ciari, F.; Axhausen, K.W. Choosing carpooling or car sharing as a mode: Swiss stated choice experiments. In Proceedings of the 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (TRB 2012), Washington, DC, USA, 22–26 January 2012; pp. 12–4205. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wilkowska, W.; Farrokhikhiavi, R.; Ziefle, M.; Vallée, D. Mobility requirements for the use of carpooling among different user groups. Adv. Hum. Factors Softw. Syst. Eng. 2014, 6, 129–140. [Google Scholar]
  35. Znajmiecka-Sikora, M.; Sałagacka, M. Analysis of the relationship between psychological gender and risk perception style and attitudes towards safety in a group of women and men. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2020, 28, 364–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Montero, J.J. Regulating transport platforms: The case of carpooling in Europe. In The Governance of Smart Transportation Systems; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 13–35. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gheorghiu, A.; Delhomme, P. For which types of trips do French drivers carpool? Motivations underlying carpooling for different types of trips. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 113, 460–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wang, T.; Chen, C. Attitudes, mode switching behavior, and the built environment: A longitudinal study in the Puget Sound Region. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2012, 46, 1594–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Vanoutrive, T.; Van De Vijver, E.; Van Malderen, L.; Jourquin, B.; Thomas, I.; Verhetsel, A.; Witlox, F. What determines carpooling to workplaces in Belgium: Location, organisation, or promotion? J. Transp. Geogr. 2012, 22, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Bulteau, J.; Feuillet, T.; Dantan, S.; Abbes, S. Encouraging carpooling for commuting in the Paris area (France): Which incentives and for whom? Transportation 2021, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Le Goff, A.; Monchambert, G.; Raux, C. Are solo driving commuters ready to switch to carpool? Heterogeneity of preferences in Lyon’s urban area. Transp. Policy 2022, 115, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kuwahara, M.; Gonda, N.; Ohashi, Y.; Hashimoto, T. Evaluation framework for an efficient commuting carpool program. J. Urban Mobil. 2022, 2, 100017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Park, Y.; Chen, N.; Akar, G. Who is interested in carpooling and why: The importance of individual characteristics, role preferences and carpool markets. Transp. Res. Rec. 2018, 2672, 708–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Delhomme, P.; Gheorghiu, A. Comparing French carpoolers and non-carpoolers: Which factors contribute the most to carpooling? Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2016, 42, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Monchambert, G. Why do (or don’t) people carpool for long distance trips? A discrete choice experiment in France. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 132, 911–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Abrahamse, W.; Keall, M. Effectiveness of a web-based intervention to encourage carpooling to work: A case study of Wellington, New Zealand. Transp. Policy 2012, 21, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Belton, I.; MacDonald, A.; Wright, G.; Hamlin, I. Improving the practical application of the Delphi method in group-based judgment: A six-step prescription for a well-founded and defensible process. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 147, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hallowell, M.R.; Gambatese, J.A. Qualitative research: Application of the Delphi method to CEM research. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Skinner, R.; Nelson, R.R.; Chin, W.W.; Land, L. The Delphi method research strategy in studies of information systems. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2015, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. López-Arquillos, A.; Rubio-Romero, J.C.; López-Arquillos, C. Workers’ medication as occupational risk at construction site with formworks. Work 2017, 57, 389–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sniezek, J.A. A comparison of techniques for judgmental forecasting by groups with common information. Group Organ. Stud. 1990, 15, 5–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fischer, G.W. When oracles fail—A comparison of four procedures for aggregating subjective probability forecasts. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 1981, 28, 96–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Erffmeyer, R.C.; Lane, I.M. Quality and acceptance of an evaluative task: The effects of four group decision-making formats. Group Organ. Stud. 1984, 9, 509–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Čulík, K.; Kalašová, A.; Synák, F. Cost calculation and economic efficiency of carpooling. Transp. Res. Procedia 2021, 55, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Minett, P.; Pearce, J. Estimating the energy consumption impact of casual carpooling. Energies 2011, 4, 126–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Echeverría, L.; Giménez, J.I.; Molina, J.A. Carpooling: User profiles and Well-Being. IZA Discussion Paper No. 14736. 2021. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3934753 (accessed on 30 May 2022).
  57. Shaheen, S.; Stocker, A.; Mundler, M. Online and app-based carpooling in France: Analyzing users and practices—A study of BlaBlaCar. In Disrupting Mobility; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 181–196. [Google Scholar]
  58. van der Waerden, P.; Lem, A.; Schaefer, W. Investigation of factors that stimulate car drivers to change from car to carpooling in city center oriented work trips. Transp. Res. Procedia 2015, 10, 335–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Adelé, S.; Dionisio, C. Learning from the real practices of users of a smart carpooling app. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2020, 12, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ma, N.; Zeng, Z.; Wang, Y.; Xu, J. Balanced strategy based on environment and user benefit-oriented carpooling service mode for commuting trips. Transportation 2021, 48, 1241–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ashraf Javid, M.; Al-Khayyat, M.A. Factors affecting the student’s intentions to choose carpooling: A case study in Oman. J. Chin. Inst. Eng. 2021, 44, 332–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Matsuo, M. Carpooling and drivers without household vehicles: Gender disparity in automobility among Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the US. Transportation 2020, 47, 1631–1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Kaplowitz, S.A.; Slabosky, A. Trying to increase carpooling at a major US university: A survey and an intervention. Sustain. J. Rec. 2018, 11, 74–80. [Google Scholar]
  64. Neoh, J.G.; Chipulu, M.; Marshall, A.; Tewkesbury, A. How commuters’ motivations to drive relate to propensity to carpool: Evidence from the United Kingdom and the United States. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 110, 128–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Julagasigorn, P.; Banomyong, R.; Grant, D.B.; Varadejsatitwong, P. What encourages people to carpool? A conceptual framework of carpooling psychological factors and research propositions. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2021, 12, 100493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mitropoulos, L.; Kortsari, A.; Ayfantopoulou, G. Factors Affecting Drivers to Participate in a Carpooling to Public Transport Service. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Taherdoost, H. What is the best response scale for survey and questionnaire design; review of different lengths of rating scale/attitude scale/Likert scale. Int. J. Acad. Res. Manag. 2019, 8, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  68. Simms, L.J.; Zelazny, K.; Williams, T.F.; Bernstein, L. Does the number of response options matter? Psychometric perspectives using personality questionnaire data. Psychol. Assess. 2019, 31, 557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Preston, C.C.; Colman, A.M. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychol. 2000, 104, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Taber, K.S. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018, 48, 1273–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Teal, R.F. Carpooling: Who, how and why. Transp. Res. Part A Gen. 1987, 21, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ben-Akiva, M.; Atherton, T.J. Methodology for short-range travel demand predictions: Analysis of carpooling incentives. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 1977, 11, 224–261. [Google Scholar]
  73. Friman, M.; Lättman, K.; Olsson, L.E. Carpoolers’ Perceived Accessibility of Carpooling. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lee, B.H.; Aultman-Hall, L.; Coogan, M.; Adler, T. Rideshare mode potential in non-metropolitan areas of the northeastern United States. J. Transp. Land Use 2016, 9, 111–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Dunckel-Graglia, A. Women-only transportation: How “pink” public transportation changes public perception of women’s mobility. J. Public Transp. 2013, 16, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table
Table 1. Flexible point system for teacher selection.
Table 1. Flexible point system for teacher selection.
Achievements or ExperienceCodePoints
Teacher who drives to commuteA14
Year of experience as a carpoolerA23
Change in his/her work destinationA32
Habitual workplace in a different cityA43
Table
Table 2. Expert scores in the flexible point system.
Table 2. Expert scores in the flexible point system.
ExpertA1A2A3A4Total
14274338
24302339
34452354
44516364
54364347
64362345
74214332
84456358
94338348
104548369
114426355
124302339
AVG4385349
MED4364348
DESV010.032.28011.27
Table
Table 3. Incentives to adopting carpooling for commuting.
Table 3. Incentives to adopting carpooling for commuting.
CategoryIncentivesAuthorsCode
VehicleFuel-saving[24,37,54,55]I1
 Vehicle maintenance saving[37,54]I2
PersonalReduce driving physical fatigue[37,44,56]I3
 Reduce driving mental fatigue[37,44,56]I4
Rest during the displacement[37,44,56]I5
SocialSupport from coworkers in the same situation[38,44]I6
 Improves relations between coworkers[32]I7
 Socialize out of the worksite[57]I8
 Better communication with coworkers[58,59]I9
EnvironmentalReduce emissions[19,31,60]I10
Table
Table 4. Barriers to adopting carpooling for commuting.
Table 4. Barriers to adopting carpooling for commuting.
CategoryBarriersAuthorsCode
VehicleLow fuel-saving[45,57]B1
TimeSpending time waiting for coworkers[32,33,45]B2
 More probability of delay[32,33,45]B3
 Earlier start of the journey[58]B4
 Need of displacement (regarding the meeting points)[61]B5
PersonalLess Independence[37,44]B6
 Different genders of coworkers[25,30,62]B7
SocialSocial awkwardness[27,63]B8
 Extending work problems to the car[64,65]B9
 Low-match of coworkers’ timetables[66]B10
Table
Table 5. Evaluation of incentives for carpooling from panelists.
Table 5. Evaluation of incentives for carpooling from panelists.
ExpertI1I2I3I4I5I6I7I8I9I10Total
110108777667977
210109988888886
310108888877882
410109998777884
510108887667979
61097777787877
71097877778878
810108888768982
910108888777780
101099998888886
1110107777787878
12887778988777
AVG9.839.587.927.927.757.587.257.177.428.08AVG
VAR0.310.410.580.580.520.240.690.640.240.41VAR
DESV0.580.670.790.790.750.510.870.830.510.67DESV
Table
Table 6. Evaluation of the barriers to carpooling from panelists.
Table 6. Evaluation of the barriers to carpooling from panelists.
ExpertB1B2B3B4B5B6B7B8B9B10Total
11099897673768
21099798574868
31088688555963
410109789454866
51087678543758
61088887653763
71089798343861
81078867244856
91088788235859
101088678662861
111067786124651
12977555321644
AVG9.928.008.086.837.677.427.504.004.503.42AVG
VAR0.081.000.580.811.391.080.752.832.581.24VAR
DESV0.291.040.790.941.231.080.901.761.681.16DESV
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rey-Merchán, M.d.C.; López-Arquillos, A.; Pires Rosa, M. Carpooling Systems for Commuting among Teachers: An Expert Panel Analysis of Their Barriers and Incentives. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8533. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148533

AMA Style

Rey-Merchán MdC, López-Arquillos A, Pires Rosa M. Carpooling Systems for Commuting among Teachers: An Expert Panel Analysis of Their Barriers and Incentives. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(14):8533. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148533

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rey-Merchán, María del Carmen, Antonio López-Arquillos, and Manuela Pires Rosa. 2022. "Carpooling Systems for Commuting among Teachers: An Expert Panel Analysis of Their Barriers and Incentives" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 14: 8533. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148533

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop