Examining the effects of urbanization and purchasing power on the relationship between motorcycle ownership and economic development: A panel data
|نوع نگارش مقاله||
scopus – master journals – JCR
۴٫۲۷۶ در سال ۲۰۲۰
۲۶ در سال ۲۰۲۱
۰٫۹۰۱ در سال ۲۰۲۰
|شاخص Quartile (چارک)||
Q1 در سال ۲۰۲۰
خرید محصول توسط کلیه کارت های شتاب امکان پذیر است و بلافاصله پس از خرید، لینک دانلود محصول در اختیار شما قرار خواهد گرفت و هر گونه فروش در سایت های دیگر قابل پیگیری خواهد بود.
فهرست مطالب مقاله:
The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of urbanization, purchasing power, ۲۸
and income on motorcycle ownership and the effects of interactions between these factors. ۲۹
Specifically, we examined how the inverse-U relationship between motorcycle ownership ۳۰
and economic development changed in response to different levels of purchasing power ۳۱
and urbanization. We apply a fixed effects negative binomial panel regression analysis ۳۲
|بخشی از متن مقاله:|
۴۷ Motorcycles are the favoured mode of transport mode in South-East Asia countries1, as they are a relatively cheap form of
48 transport and offer a fast means of transport when travelling on congested city streets. Furthermore, they require just a small
49 parking space. The number of motorcycles has increased each year with concurrent rises in the total number of motorcycle-
50 related deaths. Motorized two- and three-wheelers represent 43% of all deaths in South East Asia countries (WHO, 2018). An
51 investigation of motorcycle-related deaths indicated that riding a motorcycle was ۳۹٫۴ and ۱۷٫۵ times riskier than driving a
52 car in the United Kingdom and Australia, respectively (Houston, 2011). Historically, in 1963, motorcycles have played a crucial
53 part in the motor vehicle fleets of some currently developed countries such as Poland (70%), Sweden (70%), Portugal (64%), Japan
60%), Netherlands (58%), Italy (۵۵%), Austria (44%), and France (۴۱%). By the year ۲۰۱۰, these percentages have dropped to
55 below 14% (Nishitateno and Burke, ۲۰۱۴).
۵۶ Table 1 presents data on motorcycles for various country groups. Motorcycle ownership is higher in middle-income coun-
57 tries (114 motorcycles per thousand population in 2013) than either high-income (83) or low-income (82) countries. This is
58 an initial indication of the existence of an inverse-U shape relationship between motorcycle ownership with per capita
59 income. In contrast, motorcycle ownership is higher in low-urbanized countries (147) than either medium-urbanized (71)
60 or high-urbanized (77) countries. This illustrates the initial existence of a U-shape relationship between motorcycle owner-
61 ship with urbanization level.
62 Recently, several studies confirmed an inverse-U relationship between motorcycle ownership and economic development
63 (Sillaparcharn, 2007; Nishitateno and Burke, ۲۰۱۴; Law et al., 2015). This relationship is referred as the motorcycle Kuznets
64 curve (Nishitateno and Burke, ۲۰۱۴), and it has been attributed to changes in the fundamental development of a country.
65 These comprised developments in urbanization, road infrastructure, travel demand growth and variations in motorcycle ver-
66 sus car ownerships.
67 Three theories have been proposed to support the hypothesis of motorcycle Kuznets curve: (1) the scale of economic
68 activity, (2) diversity in the economic activity composition, (3) increased demand for quality vehicle in accordance with eco-
69 nomic development. Growth in income has a scale effect on the motorcycle ownership-economic growth relationship. Dargay
70 and Gately (1999) indicated that economic development was usually accompanied by an equivalent increase in mobility.
71 Numerous studies showed that in the beginning phases of economic development, the growing demand for mobility
72 increased motorcycle ownership (Pongthanaisawan and Sorapipatana, 2010; Law et al., 2015). Therefore, the scale effect
73 is generally considered to be a monotonic function with motorcycle ownership increasing as per capita income, increases
74 as illustrated in Phase I in Fig. 1. The composition effect, also known as the substitution effect, results in a transformation
75 in vehicle ownerships from low-cost, high-risk motorcycles to high-cost, low-risk passenger cars (Phase II in Fig. 1). This
76 transformation is most likely explained by issues pertaining to safety, prestige, comfort and convenience as per capita
77 income grow (Pongthanaisawan and Sorapipatana, 2010; Law et al., 2015). The third effect, the abatement effect, reduces
78 motorcycle ownership (Phase III in Fig. 1) relates to urbanization and road infrastructure growth. This effect can be viewed
79 from a demand and supply perspective. On the demand side, at a relatively early stage of development, the range of eco-
80 nomic development is confined and less diverse in scope than at later stages of development. These circumstances lead
81 to the use of motorcycles to fulfil the demand for short-distance travel. As the economy and urban sprawl grows, there is
82 more demand for long-distance travel, which contributes to automobile dependency. On the supply side, at a low level of
83 development stages, most of the population is centralized in smaller areas, and commercial activities primarily operate
84 on a local scale. Therefore, there is more government investment in the development of local roads. As pointed out earlier,
85 this will increase the use of motorcycles for short-distance travel. However, as the level of development increases, more pub-
86 lic resources are invested in constructing high-mobility roads, which are needed to sustain increased economic development.
87 The latter leads to an increase in car ownership to meet long-distance travel needs.
88 A previous study proposed that road users were more likely to opt for motorcycles under conditions of less purchasing
89 power, primarily due to their lower running and purchase costs (Law et al., 2015). This resulted in a rise in the motorcycle
90 to passenger car (MPC) ownership ratio at lower income levels. However, as income levels rose, the purchasing power impact
91 on the MPC ownership ratio decreased. The hypothesis put forward in the present study differs from that proposed in the
92 previous study in two aspects. First, we anticipate an inverse-U relationship between CPI (a proxy for purchasing power)
93 and motorcycle ownership. According to the proposed relationship, motorcycle ownership will rise at relatively low level
94 of CPI due to high purchasing power, but decline once a CPI threshold level has been exceeded. This relationship is explained
95 by motorcycles potentially becoming less affordable as purchasing power exceeds a threshold level. This is due to higher
96 level of CPI dampen the purchasing power of consumer. Second, the inverse-U relationship between purchasing power
97 and motorcycle ownership may change as urbanization rises. This may be the result of urbanization increasing the demand
98 for travel, particularly long-distance car travel at higher urbanization levels.
99 Growth in the export of natural resources, manufactured goods and agricultural products facilitates rapid urbanization
100 and growth of countries (Schultz, 1953; Zhang, 2017; Gollin et al., 2007, 2016). However, urbanization may lead to several
101 transportation-related problems, such as a lack of sufficient numbers of parking spaces, traffic congestion, mobility and
102 accessibility constraints. Therefore, we anticipate that a higher urbanization level would likely affect fuel consumption
103 and motor vehicle ownership (number and type) decisions of households.
104 The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of purchasing power, urbanization and income growth on motor-
105 cycle ownership and the effects of interactions between these factors. Specifically, we examined how the previously reported
106 inverse-U relationship between motorcycle ownership and economic development changed in response to different levels of
107 purchasing power and urbanization.
لطفا پیش از ارسال نظر، خلاصه قوانین زیر را مطالعه کنید: فارسی بنویسید و از کیبورد فارسی استفاده کنید. بهتر است از فضای خالی (Space) بیشازحدِ معمول، شکلک یا ایموجی استفاده نکنید و از کشیدن حروف یا کلمات با صفحهکلید بپرهیزید. نظرات خود را براساس تجربه و استفادهی عملی و با دقت به نکات فنی ارسال کنید؛ بدون تعصب به محصول خاص، مزایا و معایب را بازگو کنید و بهتر است از ارسال نظرات چندکلمهای خودداری کنید.