The Research of Tripartite Collaborative Governance on Disorderly Parking of Shared Bicycles Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and Motivation Theories—A Case of Beijing, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Bicycle-Sharing System
2.2. The Challenges for the Sustainable Development of Shared Bicycles
2.3. Collaborative Governance
3. Tripartite Collaborative Governance Model
4. Design Research
4.1. Theory of Planned Behavior and Motivation Theories
4.2. Model Framework
4.3. Research Hypotheses
4.3.1. Behavioral Intention and Regulation of Bicycle Parking Behavior
4.3.2. Behavioral Incentive and the Regulation of Bicycle Parking Behavior
4.3.3. Perception Dimension and the Regulation of Bicycle Parking Behavior
5. Methodology
6. Analysis of Results
6.1. Descriptive Statistical Analysis
6.2. Hierarchical Regression Analysis
6.2.1. Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Block One Variables
6.2.2. Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Block Two Variables
6.2.3. Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Block Three Variables
7. Discussion
8. Conclusions
8.1. Theoretical Significance
8.2. Practical Significance
8.3. Limitations and Future Work
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Caulfield, B.; O’Mahony, M.; Brazil, W.; Weldon, P. Examining usage patterns of a bike-sharing scheme in a medium sized city. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 100, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fishman, E. Bikeshare: A review of recent literature. Transp. Rev. 2016, 36, 92–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, K.B.; Brakewood, C. Sharing riders: How bikesharing impacts bus ridership in New York City. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 100, 264–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Li, L.; Zhang, Y.J. Investigating the CO2 emission differences among China’s transport sectors and their influencing factors. Nat. Hazards 2015, 77, 1323–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purtik, H.; Arenas, D. Embedding social innovation: Shaping societal norms and behaviors throughout the innovation process. Bus. Soc. 2019, 58, 963–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, L.; Liu, X.; Liu, Y. Impact of different stakeholders of bike-sharing industry on users’ intention of civilized use of bike-sharing. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, S.R. First principles for regulating the sharing economy. SSRN Electron. J. 2016, 53, 147–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razzaque, M.A.; Clarke, S. Smart management of next generation bike sharing systems using Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), Guadalajara, Mexico, 25–28 October 2015; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Zhang, J.; Duan, Z.Y.; Bryde, D. Sustainable bike-sharing systems: Characteristics and commonalities across cases in urban China. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 97, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, Y.J.; Liang, H.G.; Wu, L.S. Punishment, justice, and compliance in mandatory IT settings. Inf. Syst. Res. 2011, 22, 400–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Q.; Ou, S.J.; Wei, W. Why Shared Bikes of Free-Floating Systems Were Parked Out of Order? A Preliminary Study based on Factor Analysis. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Qu, Q.; Chen, M.H.; Fang, S.; Cheng, Y. The sustainable existence of China’s bicycle-sharing market: To oversupply or to disappear. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ricci, M. Bike sharing: A review of evidence on impacts and processes of implementation and operation. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2015, 15, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jakovcevic, A.; Ledesma, R.D.; Franco, P.; Caballero, R.; Tosi, J.D. Use of the Planned Behavior Theory to Explain Bicycle Use. Av. Psicol. Latinoam. 2019, 37, 283–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, C. Understanding WeChat users’ liking behavior: An empirical study in China. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 68, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrestha, M.K. Self-organizing network capital and the success of collaborative public programs. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2012, 23, 307–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, Y.; Lan, J.; Thornton, T.; Mangalagiu, D.; Zhu, D. Challenges of Collaborative Governance in the Sharing Economy: The case of free-floating bike sharing in Shanghai. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 356–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mateo-Babiano, I.; Bean, R.; Corcoran, J.; Dorina, P. How does our natural and built environment affect the use of bicycle sharing? Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2016, 94, 295–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shaheen, S.A.; Guzman, S.; Zhang, H. Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: Past, present, and future. Transp. Res. Rec. 2010, 2143, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Midgley, P. Bicycle-sharing schemes: Enhancing sustainable mobility in urban areas. U. N. Dep. Econ. Soc. Aff. 2011, 8, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Bachand-Marleau, J.; Larsen, J.; El-Geneidy, A.M. Much-anticipated marriage of cycling and transit: How will it work? Transp. Res. Rec. 2011, 2247, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, X.H.; Cheng, Z.; Chen, G.; Wang, L.; Ruan, Z.Y.; Zheng, Y.J. The impact of a public bicycle-sharing system on urban public transport networks. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 107, 246–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M.; Zhou, X. Bike-sharing systems and congestion: Evidence from US cities. J. Transp. Geogr. 2017, 65, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeMaio, P. Bike-sharing: History, impacts, models of provision, and future. J. Public Transp. 2009, 12, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.Y. True sustainable development of green technology: The influencers and risked moderation of sustainable motivational behavior. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 27, 69–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, M.; Cheng, L. Better understanding the characteristics and influential factors of different travel patterns in free-floating bike sharing: Evidence from Nanjing, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, L.; Liu, Q. Free-floating bike sharing in jiangsu: Users’ behaviors and influencing factors. Energies 2018, 11, 1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karanikola, P.; Panagopoulos, T.; Tampakis, S.; Tsantopoulos, G. Cycling as a smart and green mode of transport in small touristic cities. Sustainability 2018, 10, 268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cowen, T. Public goods definitions and their institutional context: A critique of public goods theory. Rev. Soc. Econ. 1985, 43, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reiter, M.; Weichenrieder, A.J. Public goods, club goods, and the measurement of crowding. J. Urban Econ. 1999, 46, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, R.A. Private costs of using public goods. South. Econ. J. 1971, 37, 479–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chambers, C.M.; Chambers, P.E.; Whitehead, J.C. Contingent valuation of quasi-public goods: Validity, reliability, and application to valuing a historic site. Public Financ. Rev. 1998, 26, 137–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, T.; Zhang, Z. Design and Research of Bike-sharing Delivery Forecasting. DEStech Trans. Comput. Sci. Eng. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, J.; Qian, L.; Shen, J. From value co-creation to value co-destruction? The case of dockless bike sharing in China. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 71, 169–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, F.; Ding, F.; Qu, X.; Ran, B. Estimating Urban Shared-Bike Trips with Location-Based Social Networking Data. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, M.; Hsu, S.C.; Chen, P.C.; Lee, W.Y. Improving the sustainability of integrated transportation system with bike-sharing: A spatial agent-based approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 41, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Y. Sharing and Riding: How the Dockless Bike Sharing Scheme in China Shapes the City. Urban Sci. 2018, 2, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veeneman, W.; van der Voort, H.; Hirschhorn, F.; Steenhuisen, B.; Klievinl, B. PETRA: Governance as a key success factor for big data solutions in mobility. Res. Transp. Econ. 2018, 69, 420–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vangen, S.; Hayes, J.P.; Cornforth, C. Governing cross-sector, inter-organizational collaborations. Public Manag. Rev. 2015, 17, 1237–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emerson, K.; Nabatchi, T.; Balogh, S. An integrative framework for collaborative governance. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2012, 22, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huxham, C.; Vangen, S.; Huxham, C.; Eden, C. The challenge of collaborative governance. Public Manag. Int. J. Res. Theory 2000, 2, 337–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ansell, C.; Gash, A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2008, 18, 543–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Booher, D.E. Collaborative governance practices and democracy. Natl. Civ. Rev. 2004, 93, 32–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boardman, C. Organizational capital in boundary-spanning collaborations: Internal and external approaches to organizational structure and personnel authority. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2011, 22, 497–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vangen, S.; Huxham, C. The tangled web: Unraveling the principle of common goals in collaborations. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2011, 22, 731–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donahue, J. On collaborative governance: Corporate Social Responsibility InitiativeWorking Paper No. 2; John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Osborne, S.P.; Radnor, Z.; Strokosch, K. Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Manag. Rev. 2016, 18, 639–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, P. On the role of government in integrated disaster risk governance—Based on practices in China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2012, 3, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silvia, C. Collaborative governance concepts for successful network leadership. State Local Gov. Rev. 2011, 43, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malhotra, A.; Van Alstyne, M. The dark side of the sharing econom and how to lighten it. Commun. ACM 2014, 57, 24–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warner, J.F. More sustainable participation? Multi-stakeholder platforms for integrated catchment management. Water Resour. Dev. 2006, 22, 15–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burton, B.K.; Dunn, C.P. Feminist ethics as moral grounding for stakeholder theory. Bus. Ethics Q. 1996, 6, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fletcher, J.; Hamilton, B.; Kinner, S.; King, K.; Harvey, C.; Brophy, L. Working towards least restrictive environments in acute mental health wards in the context of locked door policy and practice. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 2019, 28, 538–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I.; Madden, T.J. Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 22, 453–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miner, J.B. The role motivation theories. In Role Motivation Theories; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Keh, H.T.; Xie, Y. Corporate reputation and customer behavioral intentions: The roles of trust, identification and commitment. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2009, 38, 732–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forsyth, D.R.; Garcia, M.; Zyzniewski, L.E.; Story, P.A.; Kerr, P.A. Watershed pollution and preservation: The awareness–appraisal model of environmentally positive intentions and behaviors. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy 2004, 4, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinev, T.; Hu, Q. The centrality of awareness in the formation of user behavioral intention toward protective information technologies. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2007, 8, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, M.; Wang, D.; Sun, Y.; Waygood, E.O.; Yang, W. A comparison of users’ characteristics between station-based bikesharing system and free-floating bikesharing system: Case study in Hangzhou, China. Transportation 2018, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higgins, E.T. Making a Good Decision: Value from Fit. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 1217–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, S.; Todd, P.A. Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Inf. Syst. Res. 1995, 6, 144–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lathia, N.; Ahmed, S.; Capra, L. Measuring the impact of opening the London shared bicycle scheme to casual users. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2012, 22, 88–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trafimow, D.; Finlay, K.A. The importance of subjective norms for a minority of people: Between subjects and within-subjects analyses. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1996, 22, 820–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, W. Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2000, 51, 539–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Donald, I.J.; Cooper, S.R.; Conchie, S.M. An extended theory of planned behaviour model of the psychological factors affecting commuters’ transport mode use. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 40, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sunstein, C.R. Social Norms and Social Roles. Soc. Sci. Electron. Publ. 2014, 96, 903–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butterfield, K.D.; Trevin, L.K.; Weaver, G.R. Moral awareness in business organizations: Influences of issue-related and social context factors. Hum. Relat. 2000, 53, 981–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, S.H. Normative Influences on Altruism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1977, 10, 221–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cialdini, R.B.; Goldstein, N.J. Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol 2004, 55, 591–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeBono, A.; Shmueli, D.; Muraven, M. Rude and inappropriate: The role of self-control in following social norms. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2011, 37, 136–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Azjen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 1991, 40, 471–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 32, 665–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, K.Y.; Lu, H.P. Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 1152–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawkins, C.E.; Jamali, D.; Karam, C.; Lin, L.; Zhao, J. Corporate social responsibility and job choice intentions: A cross-cultural analysis. Bus. Soc. 2016, 55, 854–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowalkowski, C. Dynamics of value propositions: Insights from service-dominant logic. Eur. J. Mark. 2011, 45, 277–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lan, J.; Ma, Y.; Zhu, D.; Mangalagiu, D.; Thornton, T.F. Enabling value co-creation in the sharing economy: The case of mobike. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bozeman, B. Public-Value Failure: When Efficient Markets May Not Do. Public Adm. Rev. 2010, 62, 145–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koltko-Rivera, M.E. Rediscovering the later version of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: Self-transcendence and opportunities for theory, research, and unification. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2006, 10, 302–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ewen, R.B.; Smith, P.C.; Hulin, C.L. An empirical test of the herzberg two-factor theory. J. Appl. Psychol. 1966, 50, 544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akyelken, N.; Banister, D.; Givoni, M. The sustainability of shared mobility in london: The dilemma for governance. Sustainability 2018, 10, 420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fujii, S. Reducing inappropriate bicycle parking through persuasive communication. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 35, 1171–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, B.; Kietzmann, J. Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing economy. Organ. Environ. 2014, 27, 279–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagozzi, R.P. The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Soc. Psychol. Q. 1992, 55, 178–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmit, M.J.; Allscheid, S.P. Employee attitudes and customer satisfaction: Making theoretical and empirical connections. Pers. Psychol. 1995, 48, 521–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vroom, V.H. Work and Motivation; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
- Vargo, S.L. Toward a transcending conceptualization of relationship: A service-dominant logic perspective. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2009, 24, 373–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, H.E.; Thomas, S.L.; Smith, K.M.; Robinson, P. Surveillance, responsibility and control: An analysis of government and industry discourses about “problem” and “responsible” gambling. Addict. Res. Theory 2016, 24, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouckaert, G.; Van d Walle, S. Comparing Measures of Citizen Trust and User Satisfaction as Indicators of, ‘Good Governance’: Difficulties in Linking Trust and, Satisfaction Indicators. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2003, 69, 329–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Courtois, C.; Montrieux, H.; Grove, F.D.; Raes, A.; Marez, L.D.; Schellens, T. Student acceptance of tablet devices in secondary education: A three-wave longitudinal cross-lagged case study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 35, 278–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, I.Y.L. The factors influencing members’ continuance intentions in professional virtual communities-a longitudinal study. J. Inf. Sci. 2010, 33, 451–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shang, I.W.; Ku, G.C.M. How youth athletes satisfy their team? Identifying significant predictors of perceived coach leadership and team cohesion, team commitment: A hierarchical regression analysis. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2018, 13, 883–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, C.C.; Chin, Y.C. Predicting the usage intention of social network games: An intrinsic-extrinsic motivation theory perspective. Int. J. Online Mark. (IJOM) 2011, 1, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 22, 1111–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, R.; Wu, Z.; Wen, J.; Cai, Y.; Li, Y. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivations as predictors of bicycle sharing usage intention: An empirical study for Tianjin, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 225, 451–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harackiewicz, J.M. The effects of reward contingency and performance feedback on intrinsic motivation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1979, 37, 1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, R.M. Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1982, 43, 450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Eijk, C.; Steen, T. Why engage in co-production of public services? Mix. Theory Empir. Evid. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2016, 82, 28–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | Value | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 54.97% |
Female | 45.03% | |
Age | Below 19 | 6.13% |
20–29 | 42.92% | |
30–39 | 41.65% | |
40–49 | 8.67% | |
50–59 | 0.42% | |
60 and above | 0.21% | |
Education level | Junior college | 4.41% |
Bachelor | 47.48% | |
Postgraduate | 48.11% | |
Occupation | Student | 46.93% |
Owned enterprises | 20.51% | |
Public institution | 19.66% | |
Private enterprises | 5.92% | |
Foreign-owned enterprises | 5.07% | |
other | 1.9% |
Variables | Measurement Items | |
---|---|---|
Behavior | I would seek dedicated parking areas to regulate bicycle parking | |
I won’t park the shared bicycle in no-parking areas | ||
Behavior intention | I would like to park the shared bicycle in a special parking area | |
Attitude | Parking shared bikes in disorder is an uncivilized behavior | |
Regulating parking of shared bicycles could improve the appearance of the city | ||
Subjective norm | Regulating parking of shared bicycles will be recognized by others | |
Disorderly parking of shared bicycles is condemned by others | ||
Most users can park the shared bikes regularly | ||
Disorderly parking of shared bikes attracts the attention of passers-by | ||
Social norms | My regulation of parking shared bikes will be praised by society | |
It is immoral to park a shared bicycle in a no-parking area | ||
Behavior incentive | Spiritual incentive | Parking bikes regularly gives me a sense of accomplishment |
I will be criticized for disorderly behavior | ||
Material incentive | My interests will be harmed by my disorderly behavior | |
To avoid charging dispatch fees, park bikes in dedicated parking areas | ||
I have been punished for parking bicycles carelessly | ||
Perception of effort | It is easy to regulate the parking of shared bikes | |
Every time I park a shared bike, I have enough time to find a parking area | ||
Perception of satisfaction | I am satisfied with the effect of controlling the disorder of the sharing bikes | |
Special parking areas have been set up in areas where bicycles need to be parked in daily life | ||
Cycle frequency | Average weekly usage | Divided into 4 categories, less than 1 times, 1–9 times, 10–19 times, 20 times and above, successively give 1–4 points |
Problem consciousness | The disorder of sharing bikes seriously affects my living environment | |
The disorderly parking of shared bikes seriously affects the appearance of the city | ||
Government governance trust | Government governance can improve the problem of disorderly parking | |
Government governance can enhance the behavioral intention of users of parking regular |
Variables | Cronbach’s α | Mean | Standard Deviation | Min | Max | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent | Behavior | 0.740 | 3.871 | 0.7730 | 1 | 5 |
Independent | Behavior intention | 0.738 | 3.35 | 1.236 | 1 | 5 |
Attitude | 0.788 | 4.104 | 0.7628 | 1 | 5 | |
Subjective norm | 0.830 | 3.6361 | 0.77209 | 1 | 5 | |
Social norms | 0.857 | 3.633 | 0.8213 | 1 | 5 | |
Perceived behavioral control | 0.810 | 3.459 | 0.9825 | 1 | 5 | |
Spiritual incentive | 0.733 | 3.511 | 0.8357 | 1 | 5 | |
Material incentive | 0.704 | 4.081 | 0.8036 | 1 | 5 | |
Moderator | Perceived effort | 3.804 | 0.9020 | 1 | 5 | |
Perceived satisfaction | 2.790 | 1.1681 | 1 | 5 | ||
Exogenous | Frequency of utilization | 2.27 | 0.863 | 1 | 4 | |
Problem consciousness | 3.905 | 0.8319 | 1 | 5 |
Block One | Block Two | Block Three | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Beta | t | p | Beta | t | p | Beta | t | p | ||
Behavior intention | 0.290 | 0.460 | 0.646 | 0.134 | 2.208 | 0.028 | 0.201 | 3.121 | 0.002 | |
Attitude | 0.110 | 2.125 | 0.460 ** | 0.103 | 2.115 | 0.035 | 0.088 | 1.785 | 0.075 | |
Subjective norm | 0.121 | 1.933 | 0.054 ** | 0.113 | 1.740 | 0.083 | 0.111 | 0.697 | 0.090 | |
Social norms | 0.401 | 6.841 | 0.000 | 0.258 | 4.453 | 0.000 | 0.245 | 4.290 | 0.000 | |
Perceived behavioral control | 0.209 | 2.987 | 0.003 | 0.174 | 2.645 | 0.009 | 0.271 | 3.278 | 0.001 | |
Spiritual incentive | 0.034 * | 0.759 ** | 0.449 * | 0.063 | 1.406 | 0.161 ** | ||||
Material incentive | 0.244 | 7.586 | 0.000 | 0.251 ** | 6.304 | 0.000 | ||||
Perceived effort | −0.065 | −2.025 | 0.044 * | |||||||
Perceived satisfaction | −0.148 | −2.888 | 0.004 ** | |||||||
Frequency of utilization | 0.000 | 0.009 | 0.993 | |||||||
Problem consciousness | 0.091 | 2.577 | 0.010 | |||||||
Model summary | R2 | 0.625 | 0.835 | 0.884 | ||||||
F | 12.948 ** | 11.437 ** | 7.623 *** | |||||||
p | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |||||||
∆R2 | 0.625 | 0.210 | 0.049 | |||||||
∆F | 12.948 | 29.380 | 3.764 | |||||||
∆p | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhao, D.; Wang, D. The Research of Tripartite Collaborative Governance on Disorderly Parking of Shared Bicycles Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and Motivation Theories—A Case of Beijing, China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5431. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195431
Zhao D, Wang D. The Research of Tripartite Collaborative Governance on Disorderly Parking of Shared Bicycles Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and Motivation Theories—A Case of Beijing, China. Sustainability. 2019; 11(19):5431. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195431
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhao, Daozhi, and Di Wang. 2019. "The Research of Tripartite Collaborative Governance on Disorderly Parking of Shared Bicycles Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and Motivation Theories—A Case of Beijing, China" Sustainability 11, no. 19: 5431. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195431
APA StyleZhao, D., & Wang, D. (2019). The Research of Tripartite Collaborative Governance on Disorderly Parking of Shared Bicycles Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and Motivation Theories—A Case of Beijing, China. Sustainability, 11(19), 5431. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195431