首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


Four types of fare evasion: A qualitative study from Melbourne,Australia
Affiliation:1. Bus Association Victoria Inc, 450Graham Street, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia;2. MorelandBus, 65 Colebrook St, Brunswick, VIC 3056, Australia;1. Institute for Transport Studies, Leeds University, UK;2. Institute for Transport Studies, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, (BOKU), Vienna, Austria.;1. Technomobility srl, viale Trieste 159/3, 09123 Cagliari, Italy;2. CTM SpA, viale Trieste 159/3, 09123 Cagliari, Italy;1. Universidad de Costa Rica, National Laboratory of Materials and Structural Models (LanammeUCR), Sede Rodrigo Facio, Ciudad de la Investigación, Finca 2, Montes de Oca, San José 11501-2060, Costa Rica;2. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Department of Transport Engineering and Logistics, Centre for Sustainable Urban Development (CEDEUS), Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul, Santiago 7820436, Chile;3. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Department of Transport Engineering and Logistics, Institute in Complex Engineering Systems, BRT+ Centre of Excellence, Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul, Santiago 7820436, Chile
Abstract:Fare evasion on public transport can reduce revenue by millions of dollars, undermining the financial viability of transit. However little research examines how public transport users think about fare evasion or attempts to understand why people fare evade. This paper presents the results of a program of qualitative research conducted in Melbourne, Australia to understand the attitudes toward and motivations behind fare evasion. A total of 67 people participated in face-to-face or online focus groups.Results established a spectrum of perceived circumstances where someone might travel without a valid ticket. ‘Fare evasion’ was considered to be at only one end of that spectrum. The degree of intent to evade was a critical factor explaining the severity of fare evasion from user perspectives. People’s attitudes toward fare evasion differed significantly; four key attitude segments were uncovered based on the attitudes and behaviours that group members tended to share. These included 1. ‘Fare evasion is wrong – the accidental evader’ who held strong views against fare evasion, 2. The ‘it’s not my fault’ evader who meant to pay but sometimes find themselves fare evading due to barriers to payment, 3. The ‘calculated risk-taker’ evader who deliberately fare evade if they think the reward outweighs risk and 4. ‘Career evaders’ who always fare evade. Attitudes, feelings and motivations for these segments are described and implications for revenue protection policy are discussed.
Keywords:Fare evasion  Qualitative research  Focus groups  Segmentation
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号