Public Transportation and Satisfaction in Copenhagen Megan McTague Goldman May 15th, 2014
Created for Copenhagen Area Survey / København Omrüde Oversigt (KOO) Rice University: Kinder Institute for Urban Research and the Danish Institute for Study Abroad
Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................2 REPORT .............................................................................................................................................3 I.
THE ISSUE ....................................................................................................................................3
II.
THE RESEARCH ...........................................................................................................................4
III. THE FINDINGS ...............................................................................................................................7 IV. CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................................9 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................................. 12
1|Page
Executive Summary Copenhagen, Denmark can typically be found at the top of both livability and satisfaction rankings, and consistently receives awards for its outstanding public transportation and bicycle infrastructure. For example, Copenhagen is number one on Monacle Magazine’s ‘Most Livable Cities’ Index (Monacle 2013) and multiple indices also rank Danes as the world’s happiest people (World Happiness Report 2013) (Better Life Index 2012). The OECD Better Life Index also gave Denmark a ranking of 7.6 for its Life Satisfaction Indicator, which measures how people evaluate their life as a whole rather than their feelings at the time (OECD, 2013). This is one of the highest measured life satisfaction scores, as the average score within the OECD is a 6.6 (OECD, 2013). It has also been named the world’s Most Walkable City, Best Bike City (Discovery 2010), and was awarded Best Overall Metro (Metrorail 2010). Much research suggests a relationship between the ease of transportation and overall satisfaction, and I wished to see if such a relationship exists in Copenhagen. Data from the comprehensive Copenhagen Area Survey (KOO) indicates that public transportation usage has a substantial influence on the satisfaction of Copenhagen residents. Most directly, I found that 48% of public transportation users say that they are very satisfied with their quality of life, while only 33% of those who do not use public transit reported that they were very satisfied.
2|Page
Report I.
The Issue
Is urban design really powerful enough to impact the quality of one’s life? According to several scholars, signs point to yes. Specifically, the availability of accessible, reliable, and efficient transit has been shown to increase one’s overall sense of satisfaction with their lives (Cao 2013), while the inverse has also been demonstrated (Cantwell, Cauldwell, et al. 2009). Stress induced by commuting has social consequences, especially in the family. For example, “as travel time increases, time spent in familial interaction, especially child-rearing activities, decreases” (Yago, 185). Conversely, satisfaction with ones mode of transportation could increase social satisfaction and allow users to spend more time with their loved ones (Yago 1983). Public transportation satisfaction has not only social, but also economic benefits. More satisfied workers could increase the productivity of the institutions where commuters travel to and work (Duarte 2010). If satisfaction is impacted by mode of transportation, there is incentive for cities with lower satisfaction ratings to reevaluate their transportation networks to improve the well-being of its residents and, in turn, the city itself. Although the trend seems to be that satisfaction with transportation and overall life satisfaction are correlated, more research is needed to substantiate this fact. Evaluating the relationship between life satisfaction and public transportation in Copenhagen, Denmark could add depth to this debate. According to Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn of Rutgers University (2012), Copenhagen is one of only a small cluster of cities reporting a proportion of satisfied residents over 90% and an
3|Page
objective Mercer livability rating over 100. Denmark also ranks as one of the most satisfied nations according to the OECD Better Life Index. Copenhagen is also constantly noted for its well-designed, efficient, and inviting, integrated public transportation infrastructure (Gemzoe 2001). Figure A. The city’s driverless metro line runs 24 hours, with trains arriving every four to six minutes throughout the day and every fifteen to twenty minutes at night. The metro was ranked “Best in the World” in 2010 over London, Madrid Sao Paolo and Seoul due to its high passenger satisfaction, the technological innovation with regard to safety and security, and not the less the 24 hour service seven days a week (Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster 2010). Additionally, the city’s system of S-trains, regional trains, and buses run from 5am and 12.30am and a night bus service is also available. The city’s high satisfaction ratings and award ranking public transportation network begs the following question: Does Copenhagen’s well-received public transportation infrastructure have an impact on its residents’ perceived life satisfaction? I attempt to answer this question using data from the Copenhagen Area Survey (KOO) to see if there is a statistical relationship between the two factors.
II.
The Research
A wide body of research suggests a link between transportation and satisfaction. However, many researchers have focused on the correlation between transportation and stress levels instead 4|Page
of on transportation’s impact on satisfaction. Various studies have shown that commuting can cause considerable stress, whether by public transport or private car (Tse et al. 2000; Bhat and Sardesai 2006; Wener et al. 2005). For example, researchers from Trinity College used an online survey to
measure the impact of commuting on Dubliners’ overall quality of life (Cantwell, Cauldwell, et al. 2009). Dublin’s public transportation system is known to be congested, unreliable and slow, with over 46% of residents reporting an average commute of over 30 minutes (Cantwell, Cauldwell, et al. 2009). The results of the survey suggest that stress increased and commute satisfaction levels decreased among public transport users who travel on crowded or unreliable services and those who have long wait-time. Bergstad and Gamble also hypothesized that “daily travel is likely to affect individuals’ mood and cumulative satisfaction” (Bergstad and Gamble et al. 2011), and performed a survey in Sweden to investigate whether satisfaction with daily travel has a positive impact on subjective well being. Additionally, they tested whether transportation affected subjective wellbeing either directly or indirectly, through facilitating the performance of out-of-home activities. The results confirmed that satisfaction with daily travel increased subjective well being in both direct and indirect ways. According to Veenhoven and Erhardt’s livability theory, the better the living-conditions in a country, the more satisfied its inhabitants will be (Veenhoven and Ehrhardt 1995). The authors also suggest that objective conditions such as infrastructure matter for subjective wellbeing (Veenhoven and Ehrhardt 1995), defined as individuals’ cognitive and affective evaluations of life in general (Ettema et al 1998). Bergstad and Gamble also hypothesized that “daily travel is likely to affect individuals’ mood and cumulative satisfaction” (Bergstad and Gamble et al. 2011), and performed a survey in Sweden to investigate whether satisfaction with daily travel 5|Page
has a positive impact on subjective well-being. Additionally, they tested whether transportation affected subjective wellbeing either directly or indirectly, through facilitating the performance of out-of-home activities. The results confirmed that satisfaction with daily travel increased subjective well-being in both direct and indirect ways. The effects of commuting stress transcend the well-being of the individual. Transport induced stress has also been linked to increased absenteeism and decreases in productivity and efficiency in tired workers (Bhat and Sardesai 2006). This loss in productivity has been estimated to cost London city at least £230 million each year (Cox et al. 2006). Much data exist about the objective qualities of livability, such as the Mercer Index and Gallup Polls which measure quality of life, standard of living or general well-being of a population in some area such as a city (Okulicz-Kozaryn 2012). Glenn Yago notes, however, that the subjective aspect of quality of life in cities has been woefully under-discussed. He indicates that there is an advantage to studying subjective indicators as they “capture experiences that are important to residents of a city, [rather than the interpretations of] the experts who construct livability indices” (Yago, 5). Ettema and colleagues (1998) agree that subjective well-being is a more appropriate measure of capturing the benefits individuals derive from travel improvements, and the results of his survey indicate that subjective well-being is affected by factors such as travel mode, travel time, and access to public transit. To investigate whether a Copenhagener’s mode of transportation impacts his or her levels of satisfaction, I use data from the Copenhagen Area Survey (KOO). The KOO, conducted by the survey firm Epinion, is a representative survey of 1093 residents living in Copenhagen and surrounding suburbs. The survey was conducted on-line, in Danish, and took on average of 17
6|Page
minutes to complete. The response rate was 77%. The survey is meant to assess residents’ quality of life and their opinions on major issues of the day. This comprehensive survey measures demographic patterns, experiences, attitudes, and beliefs in addition to exploring the basis for individual differences in areas such as economic outlooks, volunteerism, quality-of-life concerns, happiness, interest in mixed-development urbanism and transit, thoughts on Copenhagen as a city, comfort with diversity, the impact of the new immigration, and political views. My analysis will particularly stem from participant responses to the following: The response to the statement “My quality of life is high” (Q15_LIFEQUAL_resp), and the question “how do you usually get to work?” (RIDETRAN). However, it is important to also account for the impacts of demographics, commute time, and proximity to one’s place of work when evaluating responses, which I do through the use of appropriate statistical methods.
III. The Findings To see if satisfaction and one’s usage of public transportation are associated, I crosstabulated the transportation and satisfaction variables, testing for statistical significance using the chi-square test of difference. I recoded the RIDETRAN variable to separate the five results into either “uses public transportation” or “does not use public transportation.” Similarly, I recoded the LIFEQUAL variable to isolate those who reported that they “strongly agreed” that they were satisfied with their quality of life. Recoding these variables allowed me to examine whether public transportation use has an effect on satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Figure B depicts the findings.
7|Page
Figure B.
As noted, 48% of respondents indicated that they were both very satisfied and used Copenhagen’s public transportation methods, whereas only 32.8% of very satisfied respondents did not use Copenhagen’s public transit system. This difference suggests that people are more likely to be less satisfied if they do not take advantage of the city’s public transit network. The Chi-Square result for the crosstab was valued at .018. Any chi squared value at or under .050 is statistically significant, so these trends indicate a legitimate trend. To see if this effect remains when controlling for differences in income, education, where people live (city or suburb), age, and gender, I conducted a binary logistic regression. I found that even when accounting for differences in these other factors, whether one rides the train matters. In fact, for those who do not ride the train at all, I found that they were only 54% as likely as train riders to report being very satisfied with the quality of their lives (as show in Table 1). 8|Page
Table 1: Logistic Regression: Factors Influencing One’s Likelihood of Being “Very Satisfied” with Their Quality of Life Variables in the Equation B
Step 1
Wald
df
Sig.
Exp(B)
RIDETRAN_RE
-.625
.314
3.971
1
.046
.535
Areas
-.141
.143
.970
1
.325
.868
.150
.136
1.217
1
.270
1.162
-.002
.005
.249
1
.618
.998
.137
.025
31.078
1
.000
1.147
EDUC
-.017
.034
.251
1
.616
.983
Constant
-.683
.381
3.213
1
.073
.505
Female a
S.E.
Age INCOME
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: RIDETRAN_RE, Areas, Female, Age, INCOME, EDUC.
Note: RIDETRAN_RE measured as “1” if not riding the train at all in the past year, 0 otherwise. As also seen in Table 1, income also matters—the more household income, the more satisfied with life. None of the other variables are statistically significant. This is solid evidence that riding public transportation leads to greater life satisfaction, as the effect is found even when accounting for differences in age, gender, where live, education, income, and in the case of the earlier model—for those working—commute time.
IV. Conclusions The results of the analyses revealed that Copenhageners report greater satisfaction with the quality of their lives if they were users of Copenhagen’s public transportation system, and lower levels of satisfaction if they do not. This relationship is statistically significant, and it therefore appears that Copenhagen’s efficient and reliable public transportation system has benefits that transcend quickly transporting people around the city. It is also important to consider that these results were obtained in April 2014, during the 9|Page
new City Circle metro line expansion. Several stations within the city center including Nørreport. the largest transfer center in the country, were under construction while the survey was being conducted (Danish Architecture Center, 2014). Given our results, this construction could have encouraged respondents to indicate that they were less satisfied than they would be without the construction. In other words, the effect found in this paper may actually be a conservative estimate of the role riding public transportation can have on life satisfaction. It would be interesting to perform the same analysis in 2018, when the new metro line is expected to be running, to see if even more transit users express that they are “very satisfiedâ€? with the quality of their lives. After all, the new M2 and M3 metro lines are supposed to make transportation around the city center even more efficient by running in a circular formation as exhibited in
Figure E. Figure E.
Although the analysis of these variables yielded interesting, statistically relevant results, 10 | P a g e
there is always room for improvement. To gain even more insight about the relationship between public transportation use and satisfaction in Copenhagen, future editions of the KOO may benefit from including questions that directly ask respondents about their satisfaction with the quality of each component of Copenhagen’s public transportation network. This would allow for a more specific comparison to life satisfaction, so we could see if there is a correlation between satisfaction with a specific mode of transportation and overall life satisfaction. Wording the question in this way would likely account for fewer missing cases, since one can be satisfied with a mode of public transportation without actually using it. Additionally, it would be possible to pinpoint which method of public transit yields the highest amount of satisfied respondents. As mentioned in the research section, several scholars have indicated a need for more data about subjective well-being. These findings are an important step in quantifying and expanding discussions of subjective well being in academic circles. Additionally, very little data exists about the positive effects of efficient public transportation on satisfaction. Most of the scholarship on the topic instead focuses on the negative impacts of inefficient, poorly run transportation networks, and, for the most part, it has only been assumed that the inverse must be true. Now, statistical data exists to substantiate this assumption.
11 | P a g e
Bibliography Andreassen, Tor Wallin. "(Dis)satisfaction with Public Services: The Case of Publictransportation." Journal of Services Marketing 9.5 (1995): 30-41. Print. Cantwell, Maired, Brian Caulfield, and Margaret O’Mahony. "Examining the Factors That Impact Public Transport Commuting Satisfaction." Journal of Public Transportation 12.2 (2009): Web. <http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT12-2Cantwell.pdf>. Cutler, S. J. "Transportation and Changes in Life Satisfaction." The Gerontologist 15.2 (1975): 155-59. Print. D’Acci, Luca. "Monetary, Subjective and Quantitative Approaches to Assess Urban Quality of Life and Pleasantness in Cities (Hedonic Price, Willingness-to-Pay, Positional Value, Life Satisfaction, Isobenefit Lines)." Social Indicators Research 115.2 (2014): 531-59. Print. Danish Architecture Center. "Metro City Circle Line - Danish Architecture Centre." Metro City Circle Line - Danish Architecture Centre. http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-life/copenhagen-xgallery/cases/metro-city-circle-line/ (accessed May 8, 2014).
Dewey, Ralph L. "Criteria for the Establishment of an Optimum Transportation System." The American Economic Review 42.2, Papers and Proceedings of the Sixty-fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (1952): 644-53. JSTOR. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1910635>. Fellesson, Markus, and Margareta Friman. "Perceived Satisfaction with Public Transport Service in Nine European Cities." Journal of the Transportation Research Forum 47.3 (2011). Print. Guihaire, Valérie, and Jin-Kao Hao. "Transit Network Design and Scheduling: A Global Review." Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 42.10 (2008): 1251-273. Print. Okulicz-Kozaryn, Adam. "City Life: Rankings (Livability) Versus Perceptions (Satisfaction)." Social Indicators Research 110.2 (2013): 433-51. Print. Yago, Glenn. “The Sociology of Transportation.” Annual Review of Sociology , Vol. 9, (1983) , pp. 171-190
12 | P a g e