UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON

FACULTY OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING

What major motives affect automobile usage

in the Philippines, and how can these regular
users be motivated to switch to green public
transport?

Kyle Tinga, BSc Urban Studies

Being a dissertation submitted to the faculty of The Built Environment as part

of the requirements for the award of the MSc [NAME OF MSC] at University College
London: I declare that this dissertation is entirely my own work and that ideas,
data and images, as well as direct quotations, drawn from elsewhere are identified
and referenced.

KYLE TINGA

03/09/2018
ABSTRACT

The Philippines is a nation known for extensive congestion and pollution issues,
with a major contributor to this being perceived lack of adequate public transport
and reliance on private automobiles. Keeping this in mind the aim of this paper was
to investigate what major motives affect this usage, as well as how what could
motivate these regular users to switch to green public transport.

In order to accomplish this, an experiment was conducted in which respondents

were to complete two exercises based on a series of thirty episodes, or prompting
scenarios. Respondents were split into three groups based on their daily usage of
private and public transport, with the aim of the experiment to compare and
contrast the results of Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf to the context of a different
environment.

Although the small size of the groups as well as a change in the methodology meant
that the scope of the question could not be adequately addressed, the paper
concludes with recommendations of potential avenues for research. In particular, it
cites existing literature and the need to examine the socioeconomic dynamics of
public transportation not only in the Philippines but also within the region.
Additionally, it confirms the validity of the Q-sorting and semantic differential
methods used by Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf are an effective baseline for future
research, although with adjustments as detailed explicitly in the report.

INTRODUCTION

Gustavo Petro said that the wealth of a city is determined not by whether the poor
are driving private vehicles but whether the rich are riding public transportation
(Petro). Nowhere can this theory be tested better than the roads of South East Asia.
Many of the major nations within this region were formerly under Western
occupation, with nations such as the United Kingdom, France and the Unites States
of America still exerting political and cultural influence. This means that transport
planning within South East Asia is often based around extensive private vehicular
usage. Already a model with limited success and a large number of detractors in its
country of origin (Santiago, 2016), this heavy emphasis on automobile-oriented
policy design has resulted in nations plagued with congestion and pollution
problems.

The Philippines, in particular, is a textbook case study in automobile-oriented policy

leading to transport issues. Having been strongly influenced by the American
automobile culture, the Philippines demonstrates roads at or near saturation level
within Metro Manila as well as on older expressways (ALMEC Corporation, 2014).
This has contributed to two large overarching issues: pollution and congestion, both
leading experts to predict that the Metro Manila area will be uninhabitable by 2020
(Mercurio, 2017). The core of these issues lies with both the prevalent automobile
positive culture as well as lack of trust and capacity within currently available public
transportation methods such as the Manila Metro Rail Transport System (MRT) and
private bus companies (Uy, 2014). Local policy has attempted to address these
issues over the past decades with policies ranging from the construction of new
highways to restricting vehicular travel by license plate number. However, it is only
within the past twenty years that green transports and mass public transport has
been seen as a more viable option. Even then these measures face opposition from
figures within the government as well as external stakeholders such as energy and
automobile corporations, who have been known to place roadblocks and extensive
barriers to the implementation of non-automotive positive measures (Uy, 2014).

The main question of this paper is “What major motives affect automobile usage in
the Philippines, and how can these regular motor car users be motivated to switch
to green public transport?” As stated in Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf users may be
consciously aware of instrumental factors such as fuel pricing or comparatively
automobile-supportive measures (Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf, 2001), but may be less
aware or less willing to admit that cultural or symbolic factors such as prestige
affect the reasons for their usage. This may be relevant in the context of Philippines,
a country where the automobile and the “American dream” of stability often
coincide, meaning that as a culture citizens are unwilling to yield their personal
vehicles.

This topic is important because although the current breadth of literature

surrounding the usage of public vehicles and green transport themselves is
extensive, it has not necessarily explored the topic in sufficient depth at the
passenger level within the Philippine context. Much of the policy enacted and
analysis provided is predicated on the assumption that automobile users are reliant
on their cars for feasibility reasons and instrumental factors. However, in light of the
literature on user motives for transport choice as well as observations on the nature
of the green transport market from authors such as Hoang-Tung, Kojima and Kubota
and Sierzchula, Bakker, Maat and van Wee, it is important that a discussion be
instigated concerning not only the nature of the vehicles themselves but also on
their user base. There is also relevance of this paper not only within the context of
Philippine electric transport, but also the validity of the research methodology used
not only for Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf’s original experiment purposes but also in
determining user motivations for varied and different user groups.

This paper will first review key literature following three major themes:
motivations for vehicular use, discussion of the transport situation in the
Philippines, and public reactions to sustainable or green transport, examining how
they relate to each other as well as what they might mean within the Philippine
context. It will then provide the methodology for analysis, which will consist of a Q-
sorting and similarity episode sorting exercise, followed by analysis keeping in mind
which motivations are more prominent and what impact this has on their
perception of public transportation. Afterwards will be a summation and reflection
on the paper as a whole, to determine whether the question can be adequately
answered.
In the case of green public transport it is here defined as a form of public
transportation, such as a bus or train service, that is environmentally friendly. This
could mean that the vehicle is low or no emission, or that it makes use of an
alternative fuel source such as electricity rather than diesel. Within the context of
this paper it will usually be used to refer to electric public transport such as buses or
mini-buses.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature reviewed for this dissertation falls into three main categories:
motivations for vehicular use, discussion of the transport situation in the
Philippines, and public reactions to sustainable or green transport. In terms of
motivations for vehicular use, priority was given to literature surrounding not only
instrumental factors but also symbolic-affective motives. Literature on the transport
situation in the Philippines is focused on the technical implications of public
transport changes, rather than discussing the effects of the current cultural
paradigms, but will also briefly reflect on potential reasons for lack of depth in this
field. The discussion of public reaction and adoption of electric vehicles, while
usually centred around the adoption of private vehicles, will also head into
discussing their validity for larger public transport and mass transit as a whole.

Motivations for Vehicular Use

There are two main categories of motivations given by Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf as
to vehicular usage: instrumental-reasoned, which discusses more “rational”
motivations such as fuel pricing and symbolic-affective, which discusses more
abstract factors such as cultural influence or personal emotions. Previous research
from the 1980s and 1990s as collated and exemplified by Marsh and Collett
concludes that the reason for most purchases of private automobiles had to do with
issues of practicality (e.g. mileage, family needs) over more abstract concepts (e.g.
sense of identity, pride) (Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf, 2001). However, Steg, Vlek and
Stotegraaf argued that this data was skewed since the designs of previous
experiments and models of analysis already assumed that riders and transport
users were acting rationally and made transport decisions based on the most
“sensible decision”. Their findings were later corroborated in other studies, such as
Jaskiewickz (Jaskiewickz and Besta, 2014) and Hoang-Tung, Kojima, and Kubota
(Hoang-Tung, Kojima, and Kubota, 2015), which found that the practicality of their
respective modes of public transport was related to their perceived quality of life.
However, in the literature review of Liao, Molin and van Wee on electric vehicles it
was found instrumental factors such as availability of charging stations and battery
life do play an arguably more important role in customer decisions to adopt the
vehicle (Liao, Molin and van Wee, 2016). It is notable that these studies reference
mostly private vehicles, meaning that these factors may not be applicable to public
transport. This implies that the lessons learned may not necessarily apply due to the
newer market, where hard statistics and the ability to prove viability are more
important to adoption than the idea and goodwill behind green or clean transport.

The core of Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf’s paper is their method of analysis and further
model of analysis, which reasoned that from finding similarities between different
usage episodes, rating the attractiveness of different car episodes or even sorting
desirability, there would be less bias in user motivation studies (Steg, Vlek and
Stotegraaf, 2001). Of particular note for utilising the Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf model
are the samples of both Hoang-Tung and Kubota and Jaskiewickz and Besta, which
adapt the model here for more specific case studies. Rather than using the more
detailed but also more complicated regression model to subsequently analyse their
data, they instead used a simplified model to find the average of the similar episodes
and plot these and find if there are significant correlations. However, the most
important findings from the paper are those that prove previous studies in the field
did have skewed results, as with their adjusted model more respondents had results
that correlated to symbolic factors rather than instrumental factors. Additionally, in
the exercise created to be more explicit about the nature of the task and its desire to
determine motivations, more instrumental factors were pointed out. These findings
were also echoed in the work of Steg, Geurs and Ras, whose activities were based on
the previous paper (Steg, Geurs and Raas, 2001). Unlike that work, which focuses
mostly on affective motives for car use, Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf is more concerned
with the end results rather than the formative methodology for reaching said
results.

In terms of more specific public transport literature, Hoang-Tung, Kojima, and

Kubota as well as Jaskiewickz and Besta looked more towards use of buses, looking
into motivations for their usage as well as what steered users away. Both make use
of the Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf study as a springboard for their further
investigations, but the Hoang-Tung, Kojima and Kubota example looks at the
environmental implications and their effect on motivations while the Jaskiewickz
and Besta work instead looks at the potential effect of place on public transport
usage (Jaskiewickz and Besta, 2014). Their findings corroborate each other, noting
the relationship between symbolic factors such as place and environmental concern
were, in fact, more relevant to user intent than instrumental factors.

With regards to these findings, it is also important to understand their impact on the
individual and their motivations not only in theoretical work but also on real world
passengers. Litman found that “sustainable transportation measures are not limited
to mobility measures”, with Ercan et al. noting that transport mode choice is “often
individual decision-making, affected by social and psychological factors”(Ercan et al,
2017). Ultimately he finds that perceptions and behaviours are mutually related,
noting that a shift in perception such as seeing public transport as a thrifty option
can cause a noted change in behaviour.

Transport Context in the Philippines

In order to understand the transport situation in the Philippines, it is important to
discuss not only what research is and is not being done. A fair amount of literature
written within the Philippines looks to the technical aspects of individual vehicles or
their adoption on a macro scale in terms of the national and city-wide contexts. For
example, looking at the work of Nacino we find heavy discussion of the nature of the
jeepney and the comparison of engine build as well as the economic “boundary”
model governing their current operation (Nacino, 2014). It is assumed that riders of
both public and private transportation put more stock in instrumental factors, and is
implicitly implied that given a cleaner and more efficient alternative there would be
an immediate or at least notable shift towards using said transport method, whether
bus, train or jeepney, the jeepney being a vehicle based on retrofitted World War
Two American Army jeeps.

When discussing public transport in the Philippines it is always relevant to discuss

the jeepney as it is the most widely used forms of transport in the country, but in
this case it is especially pertinent due to the e-jeepney phenomenon as well as its
cornerstone in transport policy. Although many companies have looked into private
and public electric vehicles such as e-jeepneys or e-tricycles, current government
policy seems to favour a switch to low-emission diesel under the Euro 4 standard
(Implementation of Vehicle Emission Limits for Euro 4/IV and In-Use Vehicle
Emission Standards). Regardless of this seeming shift, there is no denying their
relevance to the makeup of public transport considering they make up 39% of the
traffic on the roads and carry over 70% of all public transport users (Santiago,
2016).

Both Nacino’s and Uy et al’s papers look at the prevalence of jeepneys as well as
their impact and future in public transport, with Nacino focusing more specifically
on electric jeepneys as a whole, while Uy et al. puts more emphasis on an
examination of them through the specific Makati case study. Jalotjot (Jalotjot, 2012)
found that electric vehicles were more costly to run, with Nacino concurring the
point and adding that any electric vehicle would be likely to have negligible
mitigation of carbon emissions due to the current Philippine reliance on fossil fuels
to power electricity (Nacino, 2014). Already we can see potential barriers to the
argument that electric vehicles would be beneficial for solving a large number of
problems. One point of contention that will be discussed later is the issue
ofinfrastructure, or rather the lack of current infrastructure in place to support a
major shift in public transport.

It is a major point of the analyses that e-jeepneys, or at least short-length first mile
last mile transport solutions are a necessary part of the future development of the
Philippines, but are not being addressed adequately. Uy et al’s can be seen as the
more comprehensive analytical paper, while Nacino’s is somewhat incomplete in
that it doesn’t establish context nor look to further set precedent for more in-depth
research for the future. The tone of both of these papers is ultimately hopeful,
finding that there is a desire both within government policy as well as theorised
within the general public for cleaner and better transport solutions. Some
suggestions for policy measures are also provided, establishing that there is
precedent for green and sustainable policy.

Sustainable transport solutions in the global North are usually predicated on highly
technical megainfrastructure technology (Sivak and Tsimhoni, 2008), allowing for
solutions such as high-speed rail or more restrictive traffic measures due to
availability of financing. Pojani and Stead bring up the important note that the
solutions and realisations come to by analysts on public transport, which is
especially relevant in the context of the writings being consulted for this paper, are
often Western-centric or not necessarily relevant to the current state of affairs
(Pojani and Stead, 2015). As well, many developing countries with heavy automobile
emphasis also come from a heavily American-influenced post World War 2 world,
which has had a profound effect on their development. Linking back to the
Philippines we can see that the scenario that is described by Pojani and Stead, in
which current road transport and other forms of public transport are inadequate to
meet the needs of the public. The Boston Consulting Group classified Manila as a
“Tier 3” city, which involves cities that “have relatively undeveloped public
transport networks, or rely heavily on informal road-based transport networks”
(Boston Consulting Group, 2017), although as part of a paper commissioned by the
company UBER such an observation should be taken with the understanding that
there was some motivation to portray the city and its policies negatively.

What we can take away from this is that the pattern for public transport within the
Philippines is one plagued by inadequate solutions to currently existing problems.
Brillo even finds that policy implementation is often predicated on existing
relationships between powerful individuals, which “steers policy-making towards
the pursuit of providing rewards… while offering little incentives to pursue
categorical programs” (Brillo, 2011). Existing PPP models have also seen limited
success when there is extensive government intervention, doing much better when
more trust is given to the individual firm rather than working too closely with the
government.

Electric Transport

With regards to specifically electric transport much of the literature available

relates to public reaction to private vehicles, such as those manufactured by Tesla or
Ford. While this may mean that certain lessons and observations on phenomena
such as personal pricing issues and personal charging stations are not necessarily
relevant to the issue of green public transport, more general issues such as public
assumptions about vehicular usage and electricity usage retain relevance. There
have also been certain papers, such as in the works of authors found in the Liao,
Molin and Van Wee, where clean transport is often seen as a form of convenience
available only for the well-to-do rather than a viable means for the average
commuter due to pricing and charging infrastructure necessary for full
implementation (Liao, Molin and Van Wee, 2016).
The general consensus within literature, as found in Sierzchula et al., Moller and
Thogerson and Green and Winebrake is that users are willing to make certain
allowances for electric vehicles due to the untested nature of the technology as well
as their desire to aid the environments, alongside other less significant factors. For
example, Green and Winebrake found that despite certain models of electric car
having less features at the same price point, users were more willing to accept this
so long as there was some environmental benefit (Green and Winebrake, 2014). In
terms of other common instrumental factors for vehicular purchase such as price,
ease of refueling/recharging and convenience in terms of distance travelled per
charge, these are also occasionally excusable for reasons related to more symbolic
factors such as perceived environmental impact and a general desire to do good.

This seems to suggest that the instrumental factors are less relevant to electric
vehicles and the means by which they would appeal to users, while factors related to
more intangible or symbolic concepts such as environmental friendliness and being
perceived as a good green citizen are more important to individuals. However, this
does contradict the findings of Sierzchula et al., as mentioned earlier, which
suggested that these environmental benefits are considered less impactful or
important as opposed to the instrumental factors surrounding the electric vehicle
(Sierzchula et al, 2014). As well, a number of studies suggest that accompanying
policies such as subsidies for electric vehicles have limited usefulness and
applicability, since the only people benefiting from such policies are those who
could already purchase or already wanted to purchase the vehicles without need for
financial subsidies or assistance (Rezvani, Jansson and Bodin, 2015). This may
initially mean that there might be underlying and all-encompassing paradigms
governing the usage and purchase of electric vehicles relating to an inherent desire
for change that is only applicable and available for the wealthy, making them feel
better for potentially increased transgressions against the environment. However,
Sierzchula’s paper brings up the valid points that the results coming from the
industry have often been conflicting and in most cases can vary depending on the
individual model, battery style and a host of other conflicting factors, which is
especially pertinent given the relative youth of the market. Bringing back Pojani and
Stead, their observation that within developing countries there are a number of
barriers to entry for electric or clean vehicles, mostly to do with cost and lack of
energy, are much more relevant (Pojani and Stead, 2015).

In Revzani, Jansson and Bodin’s literature view on electric vehicle adoption, they
found that studies were split into two types: economic and psychological. They
found that while both types of studies were able to uncover the relations between
construct and intention, most studies in the field were not able to provide more than
a limited insight into how attitude changes contributed to behavioural changes with
regards to electric vehicles (Revzani, Jansson and Bodin, 2015). As well, there was
usually a lack of large-scale data which is to be expected considering EVs are not
that widespread compared to other forms of vehicles and haven’t been fully adopted
by different users. In terms of specific attributes desirable by EV adopters, these
were often scaled to the size and affordability of the car, with a preference for lower
prices with a smaller vehicle similarly to conventional automobiles.

If we were to apply this to public transport policy, it could imply that electric
transport is notably volatile and more affected by appeals to not only individual
users but users en masse, especially taking Ercan et al’s feedback loop of
infrastructure into consideration (Ercan et al., 2017). Without a successful
infrastructure already in place, it would be difficult to propagate an adequate
campaign of appeal, especially considering that electric vehicles are not widely
advocated as appealing to the mass market. Keeping this in mind it is then necessary
to implement an extensive electric infrastructure or, failing that, it is necessary to
find a way to supplement the needs of the public potentially through hybrid electric
vehicles as opposed to fully electric.

Within this body of literature there seems to be a general understanding that with
regards to electric vehicles there is a real desire both from a practicality standpoint
and a cultural standpoint to appeal to the needs of the people. Taking into account
the Philippine context, however, although the desire for some form of cleaner
transport and the culture and policy governing the islands means that there is
potential to make a lasting change, the literature makes it clear that there will be a
number of internal and externally difficult factors which could negatively impact
attempts to introduce new transport solutions. There have already been threatened
transport strikes quashed only by threats of non-employment which are lethal in a
country with such a high poverty rate, demonstrating that as an issue it is multi-
faceted and could be extremely difficult for the average citizen to come to terms
with.

Overall what the literature suggests is that private vehicle users do prioritise
symbolic factors such as feelings of freedom pride, and this intensely affects their
desire to use any form of public transport. This is compounded by lack of sufficient
infrastructure and support as is found common in developing countries, and is an
issue that could cause a number of intense difficulties.

METHODOLOGY

For the purposes of this paper the methodology will be based on that used by Steg,
Vlek and Stotegraaf with one notable exception. In this case we will be looking to
create a matrix of thirty unique car and public transport use episodes, episodes here
being used to describe theoretical situations in which an interviewee could find
themselves, related to five distinct categories. These were: social comparisons,
expressions of self-identification, safety, emotional functions and practical usage.
These episodes are contained in Appendix 1, and encompass a range of scenarios
such as driving a car during a traffic jam or being bothered while riding public
transportation in order to determine which motives are considered more important.
Interviewees will be interviewed using two distinct activities, these being the
episode cognition method and Q-sorting method.
The episode cognition method asks users to sort different activities for and related
to car usage, such as government policy, a car stalling or an angry driver. The sorting
is based on which activities they believe are more similar, grouping them together in
their own categorisation based on similarity (Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf, 2001). Q-
sorting, on the other hand, aims to have participants rate usage episodes on an
attractiveness scale of 1-7, with 1 being the least attractive and 7 being the most
attractive, with these then being rated according to a linear scale.

The reason for choosing these two activities is to help mitigate the possibility of
bias towards instrumental motivations when undertaking the necessary exercises,
as in the semantic differential method. The episode cognition sorting works to have
participants subconsciously associating episodes in ways that are most attractive
with other attractive episodes, and less attractive episodes with equally less
attractive episodes. The Q-sorting more specifically addresses the intent of the
testing while also not being entirely explicit in stating that the purpose is to test
reader perception of public transportation based on car ownership. For the
purposes of this paper it was not deemed necessary to use the semantic differential
method, as it was proven in the studies of Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf that there was
an inherent bias in the way that this study presented information to intended
participants, since it was the most blatant about its desire to examine the
relationship between automobile ownership and perception of public transport
(Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf, 2001). Therefore participants in Steg, Vlek and
Stotegraaf’s study were more likely to give answers related to instrumental factors
as they were more aware of the purpose of the survey and more critical of their own
answers.

The interviewees were selected in three groups of ten individuals. First, from a
group of average transport users selected through advertisement under the
conditions that they commute or travel within Metro Manila but not with the GET e-
jeepney service. Second, from users of the GET service in particular. Selection will
take place via anonymous advertisement and without bias as necessary. The third
group will be a control group, not necessarily commuting within the Metro Manila
area but to give commentary on their opinions in the same manner as the other
groups. Additionally, participants will be asked to provide any additional
commentary or critique to help shed light on the issue at hand through non-
structured discussion, although no full interviews will be initially given due to the
desire not to impede on the daily routines of GET’s passengers and an agreement
with the firm. At most both activities took 15 - 20 minutes per participant, with a
short briefing and debriefing in order to clarify the purpose of the experiment as
well as to ensure full transparency for all of the participants.

LIMITATIONS

Due to the interview and survey based nature of the methodology, there is a lack of
major quantitative data collection, especially since these are done on a small
personal group by group basis rather than on a larger scale such as if mailed out
surveys had been used. This has been consciously understood, which is why
reference to data provided by transport research groups from local universities and
transport bodies will be critical. It must also be noted again that research on
passenger motivations is not well-documented nor heavily used by Philippine
academics, but there is sufficient information on government response and policy
which should help clarify many of the issues present.

The choice not to conduct further follow-up interviews with all participants was
consciously made after understanding that in terms of the group chosen from GET
passengers, it would majorly inconvenience them to ask too many follow-up
questions. The company was also reluctant to have more than the initial exercises as
it could make customers too uncomfortable despite the fact that this research could
be of benefit to them. The compromise was made that they would be kept only for
the exercise and additional comments, along with the provision of contact details
should they voluntarily decide to discuss and be inducted in a Skype or telephone-
based interview.

Despite the fact that samples from three distinct groups were taken they should also
be noted as not necessarily being representative as a whole of the Philippine
population. Instead the purpose of this paper was to extrapolate potential trends for
a more in-depth and larger body of interview based research. It would be able to
provide some cursory examination of the underlying benefits and issues with
current public transport as well as give a better sense of context and analysis for
private vehicular usage in the Philippines, and what approaches can be taken to
resolving unhealthy paradigms surrounding private vehicles.

One major issue that came up when conducting the study was that although the
initial balance of the experiment was to be a Control Group, private transport users
and public transport users, when reviewing the composition of participants in the
Control group a majority were private transport users. While somewhat
undermining the above, a discussion will be made under data analysis as to the
further implications found in the experiment as conducted. This is due to the
interesting results that were found, which will be described further under data
analysis.

Of additional concern in the future is the potential language barrier, both in

presenting the initial survey exercises as well as during follow-up interviews. The
exercises had both English-language and Filipino-language versions, but
respondents who answered in English were better able to grasp the intent of the
exercises. Simplification of the exercises and terminology may better serve the
purposes of future research.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
As with all interview-based methods it is important to consider that the exercises
are conducted in a fair and non-exploitative manner. Initially participants were told
that the exercises were merely to determine whether participants were satisfied
with public transport and in what way it could be improved. In order to ensure
there was a sufficient level of transparency for all participants they were debriefed
sufficiently on the full purpose of the exercises they completed.

All exercises were taken and data given in the strictest of confidentiality, as well as
able to complete the exercises at their own pace. All participants were asked for
permission to have their opinions be given and utilised for this survey. As well,
contact information was requested from each to provide voluntarily if they wished
to be further involved in the study and received the final published dissertation. For
the further Skype interviews again the participants were asked voluntarily if they
wished to consent to the interviews.

DATA METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS

In the data gathering and subsequent analysis this paper will look to find which
statements are the most closely associated with each other by the three user groups,
and subsequently relative attractiveness of each statement. In this way, we can see
whether this correlates with the hypothesis that private transport users are more
inclined to view public transport in a negative light, as well as the reasoning for
these results. It is worth noting, as was established during the methodology section,
that the method used here is imperfect due to an erroneous user group split, with
the implications for experiment design to be discussed later on.

GROUP ONE

Firstly, the results of the first group, which was initially the control group, were
supposed to establish what a more varied range of participants would answer to
compare to the more specified user groups. The control group consisted of ten
individuals: four private transport owners who did not use public transport, three
private transport owners who used public transport, and three public transport
users who did not own private transport. The public transport used was primarily
the electric jeepney, alongside several secondary forms of public transport such as
buses or tricycles. Their results can be found in Appendices B and C of this paper.

In terms of the statement associations, the general trend from this group was that
negative statements would relate to negative statements more strongly, and vice
versa with more positive statements. This is most clear in statements 2, 9, and 18-
21, which were to do with physical maintenance issues and invasions of personal
space, and statements 8 and 14, which were positive public statements about
intangible feelings of satisfaction.

With regards to the positive transport statements, the general trend was that
positive statements about both public and private transport were associated with
positively. For specific examples, in the case of 6, 8, 13 and 14, which were
statements that conveyed an associated feeling of pleasantness such as waiting for a
stop, driving one’s car or being surprised, they were most often associated with each
other. The associations were strongest in particular amongst the public transport
statements, which was considered unusual considering the group composition.

From here we move to the relative attractiveness of various statements for Group
One. Positive statements given about private transport such as 6, 8 and 15, were
found to be moderately attractive to attractive. Meanwhile, potentially more
negative private transport statements such as 10 and 20 were divisive, with a wide
spread of responses ranging from very unattractive to very attractive. In terms of
statements concerning public transport, positive public transport statements,
barring statement 1, were considered either mixed or positively attractive. Negative
public transport statements such as 17, 19 and 21 which involved personal
inconveniences such as lateness or lacking change for a snack were on average
considered much more unattractive than equivalent private transport statements.

GROUP TWO

The next group is that of public transport users who also owned private vehicles. In
this case, most participants owned only one vehicle, although where they owned
two vehicles it would usually be an automobile and motorcycle or bicycle as
alternative transport. When asked about their travel patterns and vehicle usage,
private transportation was most often used for long distances and parked along the
outskirts of a city where parking was more readily available. The results can be
found in Appendices D and E of this paper.

The statement associations showed some significant initial deviation from the
results of Group One, particularly with regards to the extreme polarity of results.
Negative private transport statements such as 3, 4, and 10 that involved the
interruption of the driving experience were closely associated with both negative
public and private transport statements, as well a few positive private transport
statements. Meanwhile, negative public transport statements such as 9, 12 and 21-
26 which involved the general experience of riding public transport under many
facets were linked mostly to each other although with occasional relation to positive
public transport statements.

Most positive private transport statements such as 6 and 8 were related to a large
mixture of statements from both the public and private transport side. Meanwhile,
positive public transport statements in general were more likely to be associated
only with negative public transport statements universally. From this we can
already see a predisposition from users in this small group to dislike public
transport for a wide number of reasons.

In terms of attractiveness, what was found was that almost all statements were
found to have either mixed or overwhelming unattractiveness, including the more
positive statements. Regardless of whether it was for public transport or private
transport, on average response was unattractive barring a few key exceptions.
Statements 10, 14, and 30 displayed the most attractiveness, which is interesting
since 14 and 30 were considered positive public transport statements and
statement 10 was considered a negative private transport statement. What this
demonstrates to us is that, in general, the private transport owners generally find
anything to do with transport to be an unattractive situation.

GROUP THREE

The third group was composed of participants who rode public transport without
owning their own private vehicles. Amongst these users a wide amount of public
transport options were utilised on a day-to-day basis, including a practice most
common to South-East Asia of motorcycle taxis where individual motorcyclists
would pick up single passengers. While not a formal form of mass transit, nor a form
of public transport since it is more akin to a taxi, many participants stressed that
they placed the option on the form due to the fact it is usually readily available, with
motorcyclists situated en masse near major busy highways and bus stops where
delays are almost always inevitable. The results can be found in Appendices F and G.

In terms of statement associations, for the most part there was a pattern in terms of
negative statements being associated with negative and positive with positive,
regardless of designation as public or private transport statements. There were no
associations with positive public transport statements from these negative private
transport statements, such as with statement 3, which involved the negative
experience being caused by external forces as opposed to the participant’s actions.
Negative public transport statements were linked to both positive and negative
public transport statements On the other hand, both positive public and private
transport statements were associated with negative public and private transport,
showing mixed statement associations.

With regards to the attractiveness of statements, what was found in the results of
the third group was quite interesting in that they expressed not only more
forgiveness in terms of the attractiveness of negative public transport statements,
but also with regards to negative private transport systems. That is not to say that
these options were overwhelmingly more attractive when compared to “negative”
results in the first two groups: more often than not, there were broad spectrums of
results ranging from unattractive to attractive. However, this shows some
divisiveness within the group and some sympathy or acceptance of these situations,
where they are seen in a more “attractive” light. This demonstrates to us that, even if
this was not universal among all participants, at least some of the respondents in
group three were willing to give public transportation the benefit of the doubt.

Subsequently in terms of positive statements, positive public transport statements

were considered for the most part attractive, although not to the extent of Group
One. We can see here already a divergence from Group Two, which consistently
attributed both positive and negative public transport systems with mixed to
unattractive responses. There is more similarity with regards to the negative
statements in that they were still considered mostly unattractive whether they were
related to public transport or private. This was contrary to the expectation that
there would be a more positive attitude amongst Group Three towards public
transport.

FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS

Before beginning this analysis it is worth adding a disclaimer to the results that
follow. During data gathering although the initial setup was split into Control Group,
Group One and Group Two due to the realised uneven makeup of the Control Group
the results were re-examined. However, keeping this in mind this section will
examine what those results could mean in terms of avenues for future research and
potential trends to investigate to answer the main question of this paper. This
analysis will also examine the validity of the above experiments as a form of
research methodology of use not only in the Global North where it originated but
also the Global South, and the ways in which its scope can be refined or expanded.

Framework Analysis - Motivations for Vehicular Use

Before this analysis it is important to note a few critical differences between their
study and that conducted here. Both studies had different objectives: the Steg, Vlek
and Stotegraaf (Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf, 2001) study was meant to determine
whether there was an unconscious researcher bias in previous research on
motivations, while the study conducted here was to determine both the validity of
the methodology and potential trends in Philippine public transport. The study here
also omitted the original Marsh and Collett-type straightforward exercise, since it
had already been proved that there would be bias when answering it and therefore
the results derived would lack the neutrality required to be accurate.

Keeping these points in mind, we move forward to the results above. In the context
of the results found under the original Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf study, motivations
were given under the categories of instrumental-reasoned (“rational”) motivation
and symbolic-affective (“irrational”) motivation, with the ensuing result being that
automobile owners actually possessed more irrational motivations for their
ownership and usage of private transport. While the results here also refute the
original Marsh and Collett study, there are some discrepancies in terms of results
between this study and the ultimate results of Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf. For
example, there were still instrumental factors such as noise and privacy that seemed
to come into play as reasons for preferring private transportation in the case of
Group 2 rather than there being purely symbolic. Group 1 demonstrated traits of
positive statement associations more similar to the results originally derived by
Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf. This could be a result of usage of public transport by
Group 2 which the original 2001 study’s participants did not have, and may have
given Group 2 an overall different point of view on the subject.
However, what is more evident from these results is the statement of Ercan et al.
(Ercan et al, 2017) concerning the relation between perception and behaviour.
Those who held negative views about public transport or expressed negative
associations were more likely to have been regular users of public transport, due to
exposure and usage. As mentioned before, this is not a declarative statement nor
defining of a larger trend, but even on a small scale demonstrates research can be
conducted further specific to demographics of public transport users and affected
motivations.

Unfortunately due to the erroneous user group split in what should have been the
Control Group, we cannot conclude that in this specific case the experiment
methodology works as initially presented. The choice was made here to instead
present an alternative version of the exercise that does not require a base control
group, instead utilising the results from the original Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf
experiment as a comparison point. As seen above, by comparing these results to our
own we have found on a very small-scale some potentially interesting discussion
points concerning the wealth disparity of the Philippines, and whether reasons for
private and public transport use is not universal.

Framework Analysis - Transport Context in the Philippines

Now that we have developed a better understanding of the motivations of vehicular

use and where our study results fit into those definitions, we will move into
examining these results within the context of transport in the Philippines. As noted
during the literature section on transport within the Philippines, it is not an
uncommon attitude in informal discussion to find that public transport is perceived
quite negatively. While not declarative of this position due to sample size, the trend
among Group One and Group Two in which public transport statements with
negative sentiments were found to mostly have negative associations is in line with
what would be expected based on current public attitude in the Philippines towards
public transport.

It is interesting to note that statements about noise and personal space were often
those with mixed to positive associations with each other, which may be due to
participant experiences not only within public vehicles but also in public spaces.
Although more of an observation rather than a researched conclusion, being within
Philippine public spaces one can see they are often tightly packed and teeming with
noise, a result of a fairly extroverted culture. This can be taken to mean that in the
case of Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf where participants had very different cultural
norms, within the context of the Philippines it is somewhat natural for participants
to give different results. It can also be considered the product of a less individualistic
society, where one’s privacy and personal space are much less of a concern than the
welfare of the whole or not causing dissent. With this in mind, this betrays a certain
acceptance and resignation that can be demonstrated on a small scale in Group 3’s
results, where overall the relative associations to public transport were “neutral”
rather than fully positive or negative.

A particular point that is worth investigating in future iterations and larger sample
sizes within not only the Philippine context but that of high density and private
transport usage would be the results found in Group One, particularly the
attractiveness and positive associations to “positive” public transport statements.
These were amplified in comparison to both Group Two and Three, which is
especially interesting considering Group 3 were hypothesised to have the best.
When looking specifically at the experiment participants, those participants who
used only private transport reported ownership of multiple private vehicles. What
this indicates to us is that they are more likely to be part of the upper strata of
earners in the country.

The Philippines and other countries in the ASEAN region possesses a large wealth
disparity between the upper class and lower class as is common not only in that
country but in a number of other post-WW2 countries (Pojani and Stead, 2015). The
implication of those with wealth is they have access to more opportunities,
including travel, to countries where it is more convenient or more prevalent for the
average citizen to use public transport. While not declaring any confirmed
statement here, there is some precedent for further research into the hypothesis
that private transport users consider positive public transport statements more
attractive than positive private transport statements, due to exposure to public
transport standards and methods in other countries. Should this hypothesis be
confirmed, it would demonstrate that the results found in Steg, Vlek and Stotegraaf
are not universal. Specifically, in countries where public transport is not to the
precedent set by other countries, users of private transport could be more inclined
to transition from private transport provided there is a reassurance of standards or
strict guidelines of quality assurance.

Framework Analysis - Electric Transport

This section of the analysis will focus on providing a cohesive link between the
insight gained from discussion, and combine it into particular insight specifically
into electric transport literature. While the experiment here did not specify public
transport needing to be electric transport, this section will expand on the
conclusions found in the previous section, as well as on the researched literature,
and provide context for potential avenues of further research.

According to the writings of Liao, Molin and van Wee, clean transport was perceived
as available only for the well-off as opposed to the masses (Liao, Molin and van Wee,
2016). While this sentiment does not have an exact echo in the results of an
experiment of this scale, again looking at the results of Group 1 as compared to
Group 2 as discussed previously, the reaction to public transport statements
demonstrates some agreement with their findings within a small group. Worth
investigating here is whether this conclusion can be replicated in a larger
experiment, or if there will be further deviation.

The implications of widespread adoption of electric transport cannot be confirmed

or substantiated by the data gathered here, but electric transport can be more
specifically addressed and clarified in future iterations of this experiment, or further
discussion. One can infer from the more inexpensive models of automotive vehicle
within the Philippines (Jalotjot, 2012) (ALMEC Corporation, 2014) as well as the
lack of government support for electric vehicles that most public and private
transport runs on diesel. Normally, this would mean that the results of this
experiment would not be useful in a discussion of electric transport. However, since
this paper is discussing methodology success rather than conclusive large-scale
results, we can instead use the results given to discuss potential avenues for
discussion and research.

Keeping the above in mind a number of the statements given on public transport in
the experiment implied that the public transport vehicle being utilised was or could
be an electric vehicle, which is where the basis for this analysis begins. This results
in the positive attractiveness and associations from Group 1 and Group 3 providing
a case for exploring the hypothesis predicted in Green and Winebrake (Green and
Winebrake, 2014), while more likely refuting the case given by Sierzchula et al.
(Sierzchula et al, 2014). That is to say, it suggests that environmental benefits rather
than instrumental factors play a more important role in the adoption of electric
public transport, and then electric transport as a while.

Should this be substantiated in a larger scale-study, it could reflect not only on the
Philippine context for transport but also on that of South-East Asian or post-WW2
countries as a whole. While not rewriting the narrative of these countries
extensively considering their heavy reliance on diesel automobiles, as noted by
Nacino (Nacino, 2014) the narrative of diesel transport studies is heavy in the
Philippines, potentially indicating a trend in South-East Asia and its predominantly
private transport user base. Using the methodology here but adjusted for local
context with more electric transport specific vehicles would allow us to consider
whether there is a fundamental difference in attitudes to electric transport between
countries, as well as determine better ways in which to address these attitudes,
whether they be animosity or support.

Having reflected on the results of our data, we can see that the results cannot be
substantiated as conclusive both due to the small sample size utilised as well as the
imbalance in grouping. Despite this, the fact that even on a small scale there are
significant differences between the results and the literature available on transport
provides a window into two interesting avenues of investigation: attitudes to
electric transport, and discussion of them on a public transport scale. It also
provides a potential way to survey and analyse a more widespread population,
again should the survey questions be adjusted.
CONCLUSION

As stated in the introduction, the initial question of this paper was to ask about what
major motives affect automobile usage in the Philippines, as well as how automobile
users could be motivated to switch to green public transport. Having now
undergone the process of writing this paper, it would behoove the author to state
the enormity of this task was far too ambitious to be answered within a single paper
and with an untested methodology for the purpose. However, where the answer has
gone unanswered this paper will instead endeavor to provide recommendations of
where further research should be directed.

Looking through the lens of three key points for analysis, we were able to explore a
number of means by which this research could be further expanded to question or
corroborate existing research: discussing the context of variance in data between
different countries and regions, examining the relationship between wealth and
adoption of public transport, and discussing electric transport’s specific role and
perception in research. By expanding on the scope of the experiment by utilising any
of these points, it could be possible to not only substantively answer in specific what
motivates private transport users in the Philippine context, but to answer questions
of motivation across a number of situations.

It is the recommendation of the paper’s author that the base Q-sorting and episode
similarity method be utilized, although episodes and user groups should be tailored
based on the study being conducted. More specific research should also be done
based on the potential social dynamics at play between different socio-economic
groups of private transport users. Despite the small sample size of the experiments
conducted in this paper, there is still some basis in addition to the already existing

Ultimately, the results of the paper cannot definitely answer the question first posed
in the title. However, the value here lies in the methodology used as well as the
potential to introduce further discussion into the implementation of public
transport not only in the Philippines but around non-Global North nations. If the
relationship between private transport owners and public transport is not as
unattractive as that found in studies conducted in the Global North, the possibility
remains that a cultural paradigm shift does not need to be dramatic in order for
attitudes to change. Even so, such conclusions and lines of questioning would
benefit from extensive further research, but there are definitely opportunities and
interesting hypotheses to investigate further.
APPENDIX A: Episodes for Car-Use

1. [P]You are riding alongside other passengers on public transport, making

small talk, and the journey is smooth.
2. [C]Your friend has an attractive new car while you cannot afford an upgrade.
Your car may break down soon without maintenance.
3. [C]You are driving when you come into heavy congestion. Horns are honking
and other drivers are swearing loudly.
4. [C]On your way to work a truck begins to unload before you, blocking the
road. You have to wait for some time before
5. [P]Upon boarding your public transport you attempt to swipe your card but
find that you are out of load. After an argument with the driver you are
forced to disembark.
6. [C]You are looking for a place to park your car, and after circling for some
time you are able to find an empty space. You are able to park without
difficulty.
7. [P]On public transport you are attempting to listen to music, but the sound of
your neighbours talking makes it difficult for you to hear.
8. [C]When the traffic light goes green you speed irresponsibly past other cars.
You enjoy the feeling of racing other drivers.
9. [P]Attempting to enjoy a book on public transport, you are harassed by a
drunk man who begins to yell loudly. Other people are watching but no one
tries to intervene.
10. [C]Driving along the highway, you are going noticeably over the speed limit.
You hear police sirens and are forced to pull over, and now have to pay a fine
for speeding.
11. [C]Your vehicle is brand new, and you are cruising along the road when you
scratch the door on the shoulder.
12. [C]When driving home at night, you are soon cut off by a flashy sports car.
However it is no bother to you.
13. [P]You are new to public transport and are late to your stop. You have to wait
another ten minutes for the next vehicle, but thankfully the wait is pleasant.
14. [P]A friend of yours is disdainful of your decision to take public transport to
your place of work and back home. However, you ignore his critique and find
yourself pleasantly surprised.
15. [C]You’re driving at a relaxed pace with your favourite music playing.
However, up ahead you see a roadblock and emergency vehicles. You wonder
what is wrong.
16. [C]Your car is more economical than other cars and looks good, as well as
being very practical. You use your car every day, but are annoyed by
changing car policies.
17. [P]There is a long line for the public transport spot, and the vehicle is late.
You have somewhere important to be.
18. [P]A strike has been announced by public transport drivers, but you don’t
own your own car. You have no choice but to walk or carpool to work.
19. [P]You are riding on public transport, but the weather is hot and the air
conditioning isn’t working. You are sweating, and feel like you’re sticking to
your seat.
20. [C]When you bring your car to your local dealership they say that you have to
replace a number of parts. However, a local garage says your car is in great
working condition.
21. [P] The price of tickets has increased today, and paying for it requires the last
of your spare change. You won’t be able to buy the snack you wanted from
the store.
22. [C]A jeepney comes out of nowhere and nearly collides with you. He shouts
and swears at you, and you want to roll down your window and swear back
at him.
23. [P]Two other passengers are having an altercation on the public transport
you are riding. You attempt to intervene, but eventually the authorities need
to be called.
24. [P]As you ride public transport you notice an unpleasant smell coming from
someone nearby. You don’t voice your concerns since that seems rude, but
you wrinkle your nose at the smell anyways.
25. [P]You have to walk fifteen minutes to your nearest public transport stop.
The heat is unbearable and you find yourself wondering whether to get your
own car.
26. [P]When taking public transport you close your eyes for a quick nap. You
wake up and realise you have overslept your stop.
 27. [P]There is a crying infant onboard, and you are tired and hungover after the
previous weekend. You feel the urge to yell at the child, but another
passenger does it before you. You feel guilty for having those thoughts.
28. [P]You can smell cigarette smoke onboard your public transport, and see that
someone sitting close by is smoking just outside the window. You begin to
cough, and chastise them for smoking inside the vehicle, pointing out a no-
smoking sticker. The person keeps smoking.
29. [C] You are driving your car with your young son in the backseat of your car.
You remind him to put on his seatbelt and refuses. You get into a mild fender
bender and have no injuries, but your son is visibly distressed.
30. [P]You want to do your part to help the environment, and so you take an
electric public transport vehicle. People tell you that you’re very responsible.

APPENDIX B: Statement Associations for Group One

APPENDIX C: Attractiveness for Group One
1.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxx xx x xx xx x

2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xx xxxxxx xxxx x

3.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xxxxx xxxx x

4.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xx xxxxxx xx

5.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxx xxxxxx xx x

6.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
x xxxx x xxx xxxx

7.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxx xxxx xx x x x

8.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
x xx xx xxxxx xxx

9.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxx xxxxx xxxx

10.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xx xx x x xxx xxx x

11.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxxxx xxxx x x

12.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxxx xxxx x xx
13.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
x xxx xxxxxx xxx

14.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
x xx xx xxxx xxxx

15.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxxxxx xx xxx

16.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xx xxxxxx xx xx x

17.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxxxx xxxx x x

18.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xx xxxxxx xx x x x

19.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xxxxx xxxx x

20.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxx xxx xxxx x x

21.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
x xxxxxx xxx xxx

22.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xxxxxx xx x x

23.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
x xx xx x xxxxxx x

24.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xx x xxx xxxxxx xx

25.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xx xx x x xxxx xx

26.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxx xxxxxx xx x

27.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xxxxxxx x xx

28.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxx xxxxxxx x

29.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxx xxxxx xx x x

30.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
x x xx xxxx xxxx
APPENDIX D: Statement Associations for Group Two
APPENDIX E: Attractiveness for Group Two
1.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxx xxxx x x xxx

2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxxx xx xxxx x

3.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxxx xxxxx xx

4.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxx xxxxx xx x x

5.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx x xx xxx x x xx

6.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xxx x x x x xxx

7.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxx xxxx xx xx

8.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xx xx xxxxx x

9.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxx xxxx xx x x

10.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xx xxxxxxx

11.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxx xxxxxx x xx

12.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxxxxx xx x xx
13.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx x xxx x xxxx x

14.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xxx x xxxx xx

15.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
x xxxx xxxx x xx x

16.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xx xxxxx xxx x xx

17.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xxxxxx xxxx

18.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxxx xxxxxx x x

19.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxxxxx xxxx x

20.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
x xxxxx xxxxx xx

21.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xxxxxx xx x x

22.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxx xxx xxx x

23.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xx xx xxx x xx xx

24.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xx xxx xx xxx xx

25.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxx xx xxxx xx

26.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xxxxxx xxx

27.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxx xxxxxxx x x x

28.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxxxx xxx xxx

29.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xxxx xx x xx x

30.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xx x x xxx xxxxx

APPENDIX F: Statement Associations for Group Three

APPENDIX G: Attractiveness of Group Three

1.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
x x xxxx x xxx

2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxxx xx x x

3.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxx x xx xx

4.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xxx x x xx

5.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xx x xx x

6.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xx x x xxx

7.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xx x x xx x

8.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxx x xx x x

9.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxx xxx x x

10.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xx x xx x xx x x

11.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxx xx x xx

12.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxx x xx x xx

13.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
x x x xxx x xxx

14.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xx xxx xx

15.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xx x x x xx

16.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxx x xx x xx

17.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxx xx x x xx

18.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xx xx x xx xxx

19.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xx xx x x xxx x

20.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxx xx xx x

21.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xx xxxxx xxx

22.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxxxx x xx

23.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxx xx x x x

24.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xxx xx xx
25.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx xx xxx x x

26.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx x xxxx xx

27.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxxx x xxx x

28.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxxx x xx x xx

29.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
xxx x xx x xx

30.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
x xxxxxxxxx

APPENDIX H: Risk Assessment

Works Cited

ALMEC Corporation (2014). Roadmap for Transport Infrastructure Development for

Metro Manila and its Surrounding Areas (Region III and Region IV-A). Japan
International Cooperation Agency, pp.2 - 24 - 2-30.

Boston Consulting Group (2017). Unlocking Cities: The impact of ridesharing in

Southeast Asia and beyond. Boston: Boston Consulting Group, p.8.

Brillo, B. (2011). A Theoretical Review on Philippine Policy-making: The Weak

State-Elitist Framework and the Pluralist Perspective. Philippine Quarterly of Culture
and Society, [online] 39(1), p.55. Available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23645264?read-
now=1&seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents [Accessed 8 May 2018].
Ercan, T., Onat, N., Tatari, O. and Mathias, J. (2017). Public transportation adoption
requires a paradigm shift in urban development structure. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 142, pp.1789-1799.

Green, E., Skerlos, S. and Winebrake, J. (2014). Increasing electric vehicle policy
efficiency and effectiveness by reducing mainstream market bias. Energy Policy, 65,
pp.562-566.

Hoang-Tung, N., Kojima, A. and Kubota, H. (2015). Travellers' Motivations to Use

Public Transportation: A Changing Strength of Pro-environmental Motivation in
Deciding Bus Use Intention. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation
Studies, [online] 11, p.1523. Available at:
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/easts/11/0/11_1522/_article [Accessed 10
Dec. 2017].

Implementation of Vehicle Emission Limits for Euro 4/IV, and In-Use Vehicle Emission
Standards. 2015-04.

Jalotjot, H. (2012). DETERMINANTS OF VEHICLE CHOICE IN METRO MANILA:

CONSUMER PREFERENCE FOR LOW EMISSION VEHICLES (LEVs). Graduate.
University of Tokyo.

Jaśkiewicz, M. and Besta, T. (2014). Heart and mind in public transport: Analysis of
motives, satisfaction and psychological correlates of public transportation usage in
the Gdańsk–Sopot–Gdynia Tricity Agglomeration in Poland. Transportation
Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 26, pp.92-101.

Kenworthy, J. and Laube, F. (1999). Patterns of automobile dependence in cities: an

international overview of key physical and economic dimensions with some
implications for urban policy. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,
33(7-8), pp.691-723.

Liao, F., Molin, E. and van Wee, B. (2016). Consumer preferences for electric
vehicles: a literature review. Transport Reviews, 37(3), pp.252-275.

Mercurio, R. (2016). ‘Traffic can make Metro Manila uninhabitable in 4 years’.

[online] Philstar Online. Available at:
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/01/04/1539050/traffic-can-make-
metro-manila-uninhabitable-4-years [Accessed 7 Nov. 2017].

Møller, B. and Thøgersen, J. (2003). Car-use habits: An obstacle to the use of public
transportation?. In: TRIP: The Economic and Environmental Consequences of
Regulating Traffic. Hillerød, pp.2-12.

Nacino, J. (2014). Energy Security and Sustainable Transport: The Future of Jeepneys
in the Philippines. Masters. The University of Tokyo.
Penelosa, E. Why buses represent democracy in action. [online video] Available at:
https://www.ted.com/talks/enrique_penalosa_why_buses_represent_democracy_in
_action/up-next

Pojani, D. and Stead, D. (2015). Sustainable Urban Transport in the Developing

World: Beyond Megacities. Sustainability, 7(12), pp.7784-7805.

Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J. and Bodin, J. (2015). Advances in consumer electric vehicle
adoption research: A review and research agenda. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 34, pp.122-136.

Santiago, R. (2016). Easing Metro Manila traffic congestion. [online]

Opinion.inquirer.net. Available at: http://opinion.inquirer.net/91905/easing-
manila-traffic-congestiont [Accessed 21 Nov. 2017].

Sierzchula, W., Bakker, S., Maat, K. and van Wee, B. (2014). The influence of financial
incentives and other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption. Energy
Policy, 68, pp.183-194.

Sivak, M. and Tsimhoni, O. (2008). FUTURE DEMAND FOR NEW CARS IN

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: GOING BEYOND GDP AND POPULATION SIZE. Michigan:
University of Michigan, pp.3-7.

Steg, L., Geurs, K. and Ras, M. (2001). The effects of motivational factors on car use: a
multidisciplinary modelling approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 35(9), pp.789-806.

Steg, L., Vlek, C., and Stotegraaf, G. (2001). Instrumental-reasoned and symbolic-
affective motives for using a motor car. Transportation Research Part F [online],
151-169. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847801000201

Uy, F., Cueto, G., Barazon, J., Camarce, R. and Tria, V. (2014). A Study on the
Effectiveness of Eco-Mobility Component: E-Jeepneys in Makati City. Masters. Mapua
Institute of Technology.