research report on transportation

8/3/2019 Research Report on Transportation

1/64

Page | 1

Research Report on 2011

Supervisor: Mr. Armagan Mazh

By:

Malik Saad Noman

12/26/2011

Usage of Public and Private

Transportation in IIUI

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.


2/64

Page | 2

Contents

Sr. no Topics

1 Introduction 32 Exploratory Research 43 Literature Review 44 Research Questions & Objectives 4

5 Questionnaire 5

6 Research Model 7

7 Dependent Variables 88 Independent Variables 89 Variables 8

10 Busses timing and Class timings 811

Status (living standard) 8

12 Topography 813 Safety 814 Economic stability 815 Valuation of time 916 Health 917 Emergency 918 Methodology 9

19 Target population 9

20 Population & sample 921 Sampling frame 922 Sample size 923 Sampling unit 924 Techniques 9

25 Types of survey 1226 Sampling Method 1027 Research Design 10

28 Hypothesis 10

29 Descriptive Table 10

30 Result 11

31 Conclusion 13

32 Graphs & Tables 14

33 Appendix 1 1434 Appendix 2 2235 Appendix 3 3736 Appendix 4 4837 Appendix 5 58



3/64

Page | 3

Introduction

In last one and half decade economic down turn which has been caused by the Capitalist society

of Pakistan which includes (Industrialists, Bureaucrats, Land lords and more importantly loan lenders and

Banks) overextensions of credit, because of that the Pakistan economy is declining. The daily purchase

has changed from direct payment to loan of the people of Pakistan because every department and field ofthe nation is under the strong hand of banking and lending industries loans. People in Pakistan have

started to feel the air and heat of decline in their daily life due to more burdens of loans on Pakistan and

the de value of its currency. Because of this major population of the Pakistan is affected other than the 5%

elite of Pakistan. And from that major population of somewhat above 90% have the families which has

just been trying to cope up with the situation by earning hand to mouth and to decrease the number of

children and also by literate their children. And this major population consists of youth (even a rough and

rounded figure tells us that 30 million is youth is there) so it is a good part of the population which is

effected directly and indirectly effected by the down turn in economy. As most of the youth is studying

the feel the air like a thunder when a tsunami hit the HEC and government institutes that the government

of Pakistan is not ready any more (as they were) to support the students on education. In the tenure of

Musharaf govt., HEC and Government was on the upfront to support education and IT field. But after

2008 it has a decline and with that privatization of the public departments has pulled the trigger tighter on

the daily life. Because of all this the prices of basic necessities, fee structure of the colleges and

universities takes a drastic move towards high which push the youth and students and their families under

the hammer so hard that there is stress and struggle on high in every part of student life (from family to

the university) there are a lot of things which they have to look for comprising on their budget which has

been allotted to them from their family. Having the future of them and their family students are much

stressed up. Because the place and the country they are living in is the place where even higher education

is not worth a lot now. As for the sake of success every person going to get the best education to get the

job according to their field but issue is gets even worst for them when there comes the factor of terrorism

and uncertainty in economy on the scene. Due to this the multi-national companies are not muchinterested to invest in Pakistan. Which means that there would go to be fewer jobs for the students of high

education? And if there are any (jobs) there would be a big competition due to the less job places and

more applicants for the jobs. A better word which can suit this is an unemployment and inflation with

which country is fighting with.

And the problem which we are now looking to find out what the transportation part of

students life is affecting them. Because in our point of view it is extra and still an important thing to cope

up with for students. As having fewer budgets and private institutes more with less budget colleges and

universities do not prefer to have hostels accommodations for boarders which awakes the point to use

means to move to the campus. We have tried to look what means of transportation students use keeping

have in mind their personal expenses and fathers income plus the age and degree and also the place that person is living during the study tenure. Because these factors we believe also affect the means of

transportation.

A significant portion of Pakistan economy contains on transportation. One segment of the

population effected by these downturns is University Students.



4/64

Page | 4

The strong need to improve transportation of students in university has most notably been

demonstrated in efforts to change the model split of transport from private to public means. Society is

faced with problems like traffic congestion, air pollution, and limited accessibility. And students are also

facing the problems like .for this sake we have try to find out what are the ease of students of Islamic

university as far as the transportation is concerned. And we also have try some what our best to know

what the people have opinion on ways of transportation means.

Exploratory Research:

There are many secondary researches on this topic but for primary research we did research to

explore the reality that what mode of transportation students, faculty members and staff prefer for coming

to university. We collected the data through questionnaires and knew lot of things which one cannot reach

directly. We used to fill out questionnaires from International Islamic University Islamabad we collect

information from 149 people and get data about different aspects including their father occupation, age,

residence, and income etc. through asking different questions to know what exactly their views about

transportation.

Literature Review:

On the basis of the recent down turn of economy which have been discuss earlier under the light

of HEC and non government funds we came up with this topic to have the opinion of our honorable

student of Islamic university that what are the reasons they have in the mind to opt for whether university

transport or private transport. Because some of the people have the higher education programs during

which they are teaching too or having a part time job somewhere. So what they say about the usage of

university transport, either they this is suitable for them or not. There are also some students which are

living in Rawalpindis cheap area or in the background area or in the area where the university buses

dont move we try to find out their view too. And also the students which have classes on that timing

which is not matching to busses timings. We also try to find out the view which students dont have themoney to use the private transport. Plus the students which feel feasible to use university transport on

different other reason.

Research Questions & Objectives

Research Model:

Purpose of research model is to discover what the relationship is between our chosen variable and

students, staffs, and faculty members preference of traveling mode. We think there will be a

relationship between preferences of mode of transportation and the following variables: Busses timing

and Class timings, Status (living standard), Topography, Safety, Economic stability, Valuation of time,Health, and Emergency.

The core objective of this research project was to measure the effect of all the independent

variables on University students, staff, and faculty members preference of traveling mode and overall

attitude toward transport arrangements for university.

Questionnaire:



5/64

Page | 5

Name: _____________________________ Age: ____________ Sex: Female Male

1. Occupation:Student Staff Faculty Other_________

2. For how many days you go to University for your work or classes in a week?2 Days 3 Days 4 Days 5 Days 6 Days 7 Days

3. Where do you live while attending school?On campus hostel Off campus hostel Surroundings (within 5km) Own

Home Other ______________4. What is your fathers occupation?

Business Agriculture Job Other ___________

5. Approximately how much monthly income of your father is? (In Rs.)30,000 - 60,000 60,000 - 90,000 90,000 - 120,000 above 120,000

6.

How much your monthly income or pocket money is? (In Rs.)

1,000 - 5,000 5,000 - 10,000 10,000 - 15,000 above 15,0007. Do you love to drive yourself?

Yes No

8. Do you have vehicle at home?Yes No

9. Which vehicle you own?Cycle Motor bike Car Other___________

10.How many cars you have at home?One car Two cars Three or more No car

11.Do you have driving license?Yes No (page 1)

General



6/64

Page | 6

Questions Strongly

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strong

Disagree

1. University buses are safe for travel2. I go by car for job or attending classes3. I encourage university transportation4. An officer should travel on buses5. University transport is good6. Car is not good for students7. I prefer car if my pocket money will double8. Buses are not good for health9. I use university buses in emergency10.Student should travel on taxi11.I use bicycle because it maintain my fitness12.Travelling on public transportation saves my

money

13.You feel better while using privatetransportation for going to university

14.On private transportation I have more freedomthan public transport for university

15.If my pocket money or income doubles then Iwill prefer Taxi

16.I will use university buses if my pocket moneywill double

17.I feel better while using private transportationfor going to university

18.If my pocket money or income doubles then Iwill prefer motorbike

19.I prefer university buses because universitycharge transportation fee forcefully

20.I do not use car/bike because of unexpectedaccidents

21.Private transportation is responsible ofcongestion on the road

22.Transport section in university is just wastage ofmoney and time

23.My father prefers car/bike for me rather thanuniversity Buses

24.I prefer car/bike because of rush in universitybuses

25.I use bike because my house is far away fromuniversity

26.Im very satisfy with my arrangements oftransportations



7/64

Page | 7

Research Model:

Dependent Variables: Independent Variables:

Buses timing Economic stability

Class or Office timing Valuation of time

Status (living standard) Health

Topography Emergency

Safety Peer group acceptance

Transportation

Private

Cars, Motorbikes,

Bicycle and Taxies

Public

University Buses

Satisfaction

Modes



8/64

Page | 8

Variables

The variables used in this research project are drawn after an exploratory research and literature

review of previous transportation studies and relating journal articles regarding student population. Model

includes more complicated and interrelated variables which prove to be too difficult to logically link

together and test via our statistical techniques. We learned to carefully craft our variables and our model,so we can measure what we are really interested in not any irrelevant relationships. Detail of all variables

is given below:

Busses timing and Class timings:

Under this variable, intentions are to measure the derived busses timing of students has adapted

during his/her stay in University. Question 2(page1) and 9(page2) in questionnaire contains to this

variable. Question 2 (page 1) employs a simple nominal scale. Question 9 (page2) is a likert scale

question. Questions under this variable are about the class timings, buses timings, working days and

usage of transportation in emergency. Its purpose is to isolate class timings from buses timings.

Status (living standard):

This variable will measure different types of occupations, monthly income, pocket money, and

ownership of vehicles. Intentions are to measure the derived lifestyle, student, staff and faculty members

have adapted to during his/her university life. Question on page 1 are Q no.1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and on page 2

are Q no.2, 4, 7, 12, 15, 16, 18, 23, and 24. On page 1 Q no. 1, 6, 9, 10 are of nominal scale and 4, 5 are

of ordinal scale. On page 2 all questions are of likert scale. Question items under this variable are about

type of residence, income, traveling desire, and also ownership of vehicles. Its purpose is to isolate

traveling preferences from lifestyle maintenance spending.

Topography:

Different demographic attributes of selected sample will be recorded under this variable and then will

gauged with data collected under other variables to try to discover unknown relationships and validate

previously know relationships. Under this variable, intention is to measure residence of student during

the study or work in university. Question no.1 (on page 1) is if nominal scale and Q no. 25 (on page 2) is

of likert scale in the questionnaire pertaining to this variable.

Safety:

Purpose of this variable is to measure safety on university buses or private transportation.

Question no 1, 19, 20, and 23 (on page 2) in questionnaire pertain to this variable. And both questions use

likert scale for measuring respond.

Economic stability:

This variable simply measures fathers income of responder and monthly income/pocket money

of responder. Question 5 and 6 (on page 1) in the questionnaire pertain to this variable. Both questions

use ordinal scale for measuring the response.



9/64

Page | 9

Valuation of time:

This variable intend to measures responding students attitude towards travel for educational

purposes and traveling effect on his/her time of study. Questions 9, 17, 21, 24, and 25 (on page 2) in the

questionnaire pertain to this variable. All of the question items regarding this variables use likert scale to

record the response.

Health:

This variable intends to measure attitude of students, faculty members and staff toward traveling

effect on his/her health. Questions 8, 20 and 11 (on page 2) are relevant to this variable.

Emergency:

This variable will measure the attitude of responder toward preference in emergency. Question

no 9, 13, 14, 17, and 24 in questionnaire are related to this variable.

Methodology

Target population

Population & sample:

The target population for this study is all individuals that share the common characteristic of

begin currently enrolled university students, staff & faculty members.

Sampling frame:

The sampling frame or working population, for this study is all currently enrolled students, staff

& faculty members found on the 704 acre International Islamic University, Islamabad during a typical 12

hour period. The current student & staff population of IIUI is 16000 approximately.

Sample size:

The group plans on gathering 149 questionnaires in which male & female both are included. It is

an anticipated that by simply following the random sampling procedures outlined above that we will

achieve the goal without any effort given to purposely selecting men or women to balance the study.

Sampling unit:

Our sampling unit is individual people in IIUI including staff, student & faculty members usingthe random sampling method.

Techniques

Types of survey:

This survey is a combination of likert, nominal and ordinal scales. The survey will be administered by

using the intercept method at specific location on the IIU new campus.



10/64

Page | 10

Sampling Method:

The group used a multistage area sampling. We divide the IIU into 4 equal parts roughly based upon

population density and assign each quadrant a number 1 through 4. Each group member have equally

questionnaires and all questionnaires were distributed among male & female in two category and student,

staff and faculty members are in sub category.

Research Design

This is a field study and the research design in descriptive in nature. This study is being

undertaken in order to understand and describe the factors that are the causes of usage of university

transportation as well as private transportation. Our group utilizes the written questionnaire as the primary

data collection mode. The Questionnaire method for use in this study is appropriate because questionnaire

enable the group to evaluate a large sample of population efficiently and at a low cost. This is especially

true for studies involving large sample sizes and large geographic areas. Written questionnaires become

even more cost effective as the number of research questions increases. Questionnaires are easy to

analyze. Data entry and tabulation for nearly all surveys can be easily done with computer software SPSS.Questionnaires are familiar to most people. Nearly everyone has had some experience completing

questionnaires and they generally do not make people aware. Questionnaires reduce bias. There is

uniform question presentation and no middle-man bias. The researcher's own opinions will not influence

the respondent to answer questions in a certain manner. There are no verbal or visual clues to influence

the respondent.

Hypothesis:

H 0:Students promote University transportation but others all promote Private transportation.

H 1: Who go for work for few days to university, prefer private transportation



11/64

Page | 11

Results of Research

Effect of Occupation on traveling mode

(Appendix 1)

As we see on statistical data over

research sample is contains on 149, which are

contains on male and female students, staff

members, faculty members and others of IIUI. In

which almost 90% are students, 8% staff, 1%

faculty and 1% others (Figure 1.a). Most of the

sample size contains on students. Occupation

also effect on the desire of preference of

traveling mode. We think that students prefer

university transportation but faculty members

most prefer to personal transportation (private

transportation). When we talk about satisfactionand safety of university people about university

transportation, so in the respond of a frequent

question almost answer of all is same. Students

respond on this is the university buses are safe

for travel. Mean of students answer is 1.92

which is in between of strongly agree and agree.

And the mean of Staff is 1.67 which is again

in positive towards the safety (figure 1.1.2,

1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5). Students and staff lays

between agree and disagree but others are in

between neutral.

When investigate through research

about the level satisfaction of students and staff

of IIUI. Through we find amazing things that

most of the students and staff members are

satisfied on arrangements of university

transportation. Mostly students and staff

members rely on university transportation. They

consider university transportation is good.

Students are lying between agree and neutral,which shows that students are also confused. But

they are most probably satisfied. In case of staff

they are almost fully satisfied and feel safe in

university transportation then private

transportation. (See in figure 1.2.3, 1.1.5)

Effect of Residence on travelling mode

(Appendix 2)

Our sample was containing on five

categories of residence. In which there are

almost 21% people who are living at on campus

hostel and 14% are those who are living in off

campus hostel, both are hostelries. 7% living in

surrounding (with in 5km range of university),

54% in own home and 4% living in others. A

person who lives in hostel has some different

opinion from those who lives in surroundings or

in others. People who lives in hostel or in own

home they think that university transportation issafe. But people who are not living in hostel or

own home, who lives in flats and apartments,

they confused. Some of them are feeling

comfortable in university transport and some of

them prefer private transportation. Mean of

other is 3. Mean they are somewhat agree

(figure 2.1.2) people who lives at their own

homes they use university transport.

Most of the students and others who

lives at on campus hostel or in own home they

believe that personal arrangements of

transportations while going to university is not

good. It may be much expensive. But people

lives in off campus hostel or surroundings they

consider private transportation is good. (See

figure 2.2.2, 2.2.3). People who lives in their

own home they relying on both personal and

university arrangements for come to university.

Factor is that who is living in hostel or in

surrounding have not his/her own vehicle. Butwho live in own home have the opportunity of

personal convince for coming to university.

People who are living in hostels or in

surroundings have neutral opinion on the

preferences to private transportation, because

they are having financial problems. People

living in own home or others they do not feel



12/64

Page | 12

good for travel on bike. Most of the people

desire more than enough money, for status and

want to be unique. IIUI is located in Islamabad

and it is the capital of Pakistan, people who are

living in Islamabad are rich. Most of the people

want higher status so people do not want to use bike, because in this society using bike as

compare to car is sham. In our research we

found the people of IIUI who lives in Islamabad

and Rawalpindi are greedy people. (See figure

2.3.3)

Effect of Working Days on traveling

mode (Appendix 3)

Our hypothesis was that people, who gofor work for few days to university, prefer

private transportation and who goes daily prefer

university transportation.

We categorized people according to

their working days. Almost 4.7% comes to

university for 2 days, 3.4% for 3 days, 34.2% for

4 days, 49.7 for 5 days, 3.4% for 6 days and

4.7% comes 7 days to university. (See figure 3a)

Most of the people come to university 5days. A different thing which we found through

this research is that people who come to

university for 7 days means complete week, they

discourage university transportation. And all

other who come to university 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6

days they encourage university transportation.

The reason of that conflict is because peoples

work schedule and busses timings are not same

so that people who have duty of 24/7 discourage

university transportation. (See figure 3.1.5)

Through this research we find that most

of the people thought that private transportation

is the reason for congestion on roads. If public

transport will use then congestion on the roads

may be reduces. People who come to university

daily or for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 days they all are against

of private transportation. (See figure 3.2.4,

3.2.5)

Effect of pocket money on traveling mode

(Appendix 4)

Sample size of research also categorized

in four categories. (See figure 4a, 4b and

Deceptive table)Most of the people whom

pocket money or income is in range of 1, 000-5,

000 their opinion is confusing about private

transportation. They feel freedom in university

transportation. Mean of answer of this category

is 3.17. Means they prefer public transportation

and lying between somewhat agree and disagree.People whom income or pocket money range is

5,000-10,000 they are near to somewhat agree

but also disagree. As income of people increase

preference of people also change. And in third

category people of income range 10,000-15, 000

they prefer to private transportation rather than

public. They feel free in private transportation.

In all these three categories we conclude that

income have an effect on traveling mode

preference. But in fourth category of income

range of above then Rs.15, 000, mean of

answers of the people is 3.44 (See figure 4.1.1)

they are totally opposite. They are near to

disagree and lying between neutral and disagree.

As in bar chart (figure 4.1.5) over all

result is that people whom income is low they

feel free and prefer private transportation and

whom income range is high they prefer

university transportation.

Income effects on the preference of

mode of transportation. People in IIUI lying in

low income category they have not cars and

whom income is laying in highest category they



13/64

Page | 13

have cars and other vehicles and also use for

coming to university. (See figure 4.2.1) mean of

answer of income level of 1, 000-5, 000 is 3.88,

5, 000-10, 000 is 3.63, 10, 000-15, 000 is 3.50

and mean of above 15, 000 income is 2.83. Rich

people prefer cars rather than university buses

they are laying between agree and disagree and

lower class people prefer university

transportation they are laying between neutral

and disagree. See bar chat (figure 4.2.4) most of

the people who comes on car are laying in 1st

category but their wattage is high as compare to

people belongs to 4rth category.

Effect of desire of traveling on travelingmode (Appendix 5)

Preference of everything depends on

desire. Desire of driving also affects the

preference of transportation mode. In our sample

size of 149, 77.2% have desire to drive. And

22.1% of people dont want to drive. We

conclude that people who love to drive they

dont care about accidents and people who dont

drive or having not desire of drive, they have

fear of accidents. See figure 5.1.2, people who

loves to drive, whom response of question is

lying between agree and disagree. And who does

not want to derive their answer is lying between

neutral and disagree. Means they do not prefer to

drive because of unexpected accidents. But if we

see figure 5.1.5 then we found many people who

love to drive but also having fear of unexpected

accident. And majority of having no desire ofdriving is agreeing and strongly agree the fear of

accidents.

Those people who want to drive their

income or pocket money effect on preference of

private transportation. They will prefer to drive

if their income or pocket money. People who

love to drive they will prefer to car or motorbike

if their income increases and those who do not

want to drive their income will not affect on

preference of transportation mode.

Conclusion:

Conclusion of this research is that every

factor occupation, residence, working days,

pocket money & income, and desire of driving

effect on preference of traveling mode. These

are some points which we conclude after our

research:

Students prefer university transportationwhile staff prefers private transportation.

But both are satisfied from university

transportation.

People who lives in hostel and ownhome they travel in university buses but

who stay at home, they prefer to cars for

coming to university.

Most important point is that who cometo university for 7 days he/she prefer

private transportation but who come for

2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 days he/she prefer

university transport.

People whom income is low they preferuniversity transport and whom income is

high they prefer private transport.

Desire of drive also depends uponunexpected accidents. Most of the

people do not want to drive because of

accidents. And their income has noeffect on their desire of driving.



14/64

Graphs & Tables

Appendix 1Figure 1.a

Occupation of responder

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Student 133 89.3 89.3 89.3

Staff 12 8.1 8.1 97.3

Faculty 1 .7 .7 98.0

Other 2 1.3 1.3 99.3

6 1 .7 .7 100.0

Total 149 100.0 100.0Figure 1.b



15/64

Page | 15

Variable 1:

Figure 1.1.1

ANOVA

University buses are safe for travel

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 12.044 4 3.011 3.023 .020

Within Groups 142.409 143 .996

Total 154.453 147

Figure 1.1.2

Explore Table:

Descriptives

Occupation of responder Statistic Std. Error

University buses are safe for

travel

Student Mean 1.92 .086

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean

Lower Bound 1.75

Upper Bound 2.09

5% Trimmed Mean 1.83

Median 2.00

Variance .971

Std. Deviation .986

Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4

Interquartile Range 1

Skewness 1.320 .211

Kurtosis 1.648 .419

Staff Mean 1.67 .333


Mean

Lower Bound .93

Upper Bound 2.40




16/64

Page | 16

Median 1.00

Variance 1.333

Std. Deviation 1.155

Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness 2.488 .637

Kurtosis 7.036 1.232

Other Mean 2.50 .500


Mean

Lower Bound -3.85

Upper Bound 8.85

5% Trimmed Mean .

Median 2.50

Variance .500

Std. Deviation .707

Minimum 2

Maximum 3

Range 1

Interquartile Range .

Skewness . .

Kurtosis . .

a. University buses are safe for travel is constant when Occupation of responder = Faculty. It has been omitted.

b. University buses are safe for travel is constant when Occupation of responder = 6. It has been omitted.

Figure 1.1.3



17/64

Page | 17

Figure 1.1.4

Occupation of responder * University buses are safe for travel Cross tabulation

Count

University buses are safe for travel

TotalStrongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Occupation of responder Student 49 60 11 8 4 1

Staff 7 4 0 0 1

Faculty 0 0 1 0 0

Other 0 1 1 0 0

6 0 0 0 0 1

Total 56 65 13 8 6 1



18/64

Page | 18

Figure 1.1.5

Variable 2:

Figure 1.2.1

ANOVA

I'm very satisfy with my arrangements of transportations


Between Groups 13.832 4 3.458 2.413 .052

Within Groups 203.487 142 1.433

Total 217.320 146



19/64

Page | 19

Figure 1.2.2

Descriptivesa,b

Occupation of responder Statistic Std. Error

I'm very satisfy with my

arrangements of transportations

Student Mean 2.44 .105


Mean

Lower Bound 2.23

Upper Bound 2.65


Median 2.00

Variance 1.449


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness .647 .212

Kurtosis -.324 .420

Staff Mean 1.67 .284


Mean

Lower Bound 1.04

Upper Bound 2.29


Median 1.00

Variance .970

Std. Deviation .985

Minimum 1

Maximum 4

Range 3


Skewness 1.498 .637


Other Mean 2.50 1.500

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound -16.56



20/64

Page | 20

Mean Upper Bound 21.56

5% Trimmed Mean .

Median 2.50

Variance 4.500


Minimum 1

Maximum 4

Range 3


Skewness . .

Kurtosis . .

a. I'm very satisfy with my arrangements of transportations is constant when Occupation of responder = Faculty. It has been omitted.

b. I'm very satisfy with my arrangements of transportations is constant when Occupation of responder = 6. It has been omitted.

Figure 1.2.3



21/64

Page | 21

Figure 1.2.4

Occupation of responder * I'm very satisfy with my arrangements of transportations Cross tabulation

Count

I'm very satisfy with my arrangements of transportations

TotalStrongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Occupation of responder Student 32 43 34 10 12 1

Staff 7 3 1 1 0

Faculty 0 0 1 0 0

Other 1 0 0 1 0

6 0 0 0 0 1

Total 40 46 36 12 13 1

Figure 1.2.5



22/64

Page | 22

Appendix 2Figure 2.a

Where do you live while attending school?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Perc

Valid On campus hostel 31 20.8 21.1

Off campus hostel 20 13.4 13.6

Surroundings(within 5km) 10 6.7 6.8

Own Home 80 53.7 54.4

Other 6 4.0 4.1

Total 147 98.7 100.0

Missing System 2 1.3

Total 149 100.0

Figure 2.b



23/64

Page | 23

Variable 1

Figure 2.1.1

ANOVA

University buses are safe for trave


Between Groups 9.482 4 2.371 2.482 .04

Within Groups 134.689 141 .955

Total 144.171 145

Figure 2.1.2

Explore table

Descriptives

Where do you live while attending school? Statistic Std. Error

University buses are safe for

trave

On campus hostel Mean 2.03 .205


Mean

Lower Bound 1.61

Upper Bound 2.45


Median 2.00

Variance 1.299


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness 1.377 .421

Kurtosis 1.487 .821

Off campus hostel Mean 1.63 .175


Mean

Lower Bound 1.26

Upper Bound 2.00


Median 2.00



24/64

Page | 24

Variance .579

Std. Deviation .761

Minimum 1

Maximum 4

Range 3


Skewness 1.616 .524


Surroundings(within 5km) Mean 1.70 .300


Mean

Lower Bound 1.02

Upper Bound 2.38


Median 1.00

Variance .900

Std. Deviation .949

Minimum 1

Maximum 3

Range 2


Skewness .742 .687

Kurtosis -1.640 1.334

Own Home Mean 1.90 .103


Mean

Lower Bound 1.69

Upper Bound 2.11


Median 2.00

Variance .851

Std. Deviation .922

Minimum 1

Maximum 5



25/64

Page | 25

Range 4


Skewness 1.394 .269

Kurtosis 2.350 .532



Mean

Lower Bound 1.52

Upper Bound 4.48


Median 3.00

Variance 2.000


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness .000 .845

Kurtosis -.300 1.741



26/64

Page | 26

Figure 2.1.3

Figure 2.1.4

Where do you live while attending school? * University buses are safe for travel Cross tabulation

Count

University buses are safe for trave

TotalStrongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Where do you live while

attending school?

On campus hostel 11 14 2 2 2 3

Off campus hostel 9 9 0 1 0 1

Surroundings(within 5km) 6 1 3 0 0 1

Own Home 28 40 6 4 2 8

Other 1 1 2 1 1

Total 55 65 13 8 5 14



27/64

Page | 27

Figure 2.1.5

Variable 2Figure 2.2.1

ANOVA

I feel better while using private transportation for going to university


Between Groups 22.442 4 5.610 3.403 .011

Within Groups 227.530 138 1.649

Total 249.972 142

Figure 2.2.2

Explore table:

Descriptives




28/64

Page | 28

I feel better while using private

transportation for going to

university



Mean

Lower Bound 3.15

Upper Bound 4.12


Median 4.00

Variance 1.689


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness -.466 .427

Kurtosis -1.248 .833



Mean

Lower Bound 1.82

Upper Bound 2.98


Median 2.00

Variance 1.516


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness .444 .512

Kurtosis -.735 .992



Mean

Lower Bound 1.32

Upper Bound 3.68




29/64

Page | 29

Median 2.00

Variance 2.000


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness .808 .752




Mean

Lower Bound 2.96

Upper Bound 3.52


Median 3.00

Variance 1.518


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness -.306 .271

Kurtosis -.936 .535



Mean

Lower Bound 1.38

Upper Bound 5.29


Median 4.00

Variance 3.467


Minimum 1



30/64

Page | 30

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness -.723 .845

Kurtosis -1.875 1.741

Figure 2.2.3

Figure 2.2.4

Where do you live while attending school? * I feel better while using private transportation for going to university Crosstabulation

Count

I feel better while using private transportation for going to university


Strongly

Disagree


attending school?

On campus hostel 1 8 2 9 10 30

Off campus hostel 6 5 5 3 1 20



31/64

Page | 31

Surroundings(within 5km) 2 3 1 1 1 8

Own Home 8 16 16 27 12 79

Other 2 0 0 2 2 6

Total 19 32 24 42 26 143

Figure 2.2.5

Descriptives


If my pocket money or income

doubles then I will prefer

motorbike



Mean

Lower Bound 2.54

Upper Bound 3.52


Median 3.00

Variance 1.766


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness .120 .42

Kurtosis -1.083 .82



Mean

Lower Bound 2.38

Upper Bound 3.72


Median 3.00

Variance 1.942


Minimum 1



32/64

Page | 32

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness .172 .52

Kurtosis -1.415 1.01



Mean

Lower Bound 2.39

Upper Bound 4.27


Median 3.00

Variance 1.500


Minimum 2

Maximum 5

Range 3


Skewness .233 .71

Kurtosis -1.556 1.40



Mean

Lower Bound 3.65

Upper Bound 4.17


Median 4.00

Variance 1.321


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness -.940 .27



33/64

Page | 33

Kurtosis -.006 .54

Other Mean 3.83 .60


Mean

Lower Bound 2.29

Upper Bound 5.38


Median 4.00

Variance 2.167


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness -1.840 .84

Kurtosis 3.912 1.74



34/64

Page | 34

Variable 3

Figure 2.3.1

ANOVA

If my pocket money or income doubles then I will prefer motorbike


Between Groups 23.817 4 5.954 3.864 .005

Within Groups 211.112 137 1.541

Total 234.930 141

Figure 2.3.2

Explore Table



35/64

Page | 35

Figure 2.3.3

Figure 2.3.4

Where do you live while attending school? * If my pocket money or income doubles then I will prefer motorbike Cross tabulat

Count

If my pocket money or income doubles then I will prefer motorbike

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree


attending school?

On campus hostel 4 8 8 5 6

Off campus hostel 2 7 2 4 4

Surroundings(within 5km) 0 3 2 2 2

Own Home 3 9 9 27 29

Other 1 0 0 3 2

Total 10 27 21 41 43



36/64

Page | 36

Appendix 3

Figure3.a

For how many days you go to university for your work or classes in a week?


Valid 2 Days 7 4.7 4.7 4.7

3 Days 5 3.4 3.4 8.1

4 days 51 34.2 34.2 42.3

5 Days 74 49.7 49.7 91.9

6 Days 5 3.4 3.4 95.3

7 Days 7 4.7 4.7 100.0

Total 149 100.0 100.0



37/64

Page | 37

Figure3.b

Variable 1

Figure 3.1.1

ANOVA

I encourage university transportation


Between Groups 21.903 5 4.381 3.065 .012

Within Groups 198.690 139 1.429

Total 220.593 144

Figure3.1.2

Explore Table

Descriptives

For how many days you go to university for your work or classes in a

week? Statistic Std. Error



38/64

Page | 38

I encourage university

transportation

2 Days Mean 1.86 .143


Mean

Lower Bound 1.51

Upper Bound 2.21


Median 2.00

Variance .143

Std. Deviation .378

Minimum 1

Maximum 2

Range 1


Skewness -2.646 .794


3 Days Mean 1.80 .800


Mean

Lower Bound -.42

Upper Bound 4.02


Median 1.00

Variance 3.200


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness 2.236 .913


4 days Mean 2.08 .161


Mean

Lower Bound 1.76

Upper Bound 2.40




39/64

Page | 39

Median 2.00

Variance 1.300


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness .957 .337

Kurtosis .143 .662

5 Days Mean 2.15 .144


Mean

Lower Bound 1.87

Upper Bound 2.44


Median 2.00

Variance 1.476


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness .924 .285

Kurtosis .014 .563

6 Days Mean 2.40 .245


Mean

Lower Bound 1.72

Upper Bound 3.08


Median 2.00

Variance .300

Std. Deviation .548

Minimum 2



40/64

Page | 40

Maximum 3

Range 1


Skewness .609 .913

Kurtosis -3.333 2.000

7 Days Mean 3.86 .634


Mean

Lower Bound 2.31

Upper Bound 5.41


Median 5.00

Variance 2.810


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness -1.177 .794


Figure3.1.3



41/64

Page | 41

Figure3.1.4

For how many days you go to university for your work or classes in a week? * I encourage university transportation Cross

tabulation

Count

I encourage university transportation


Strongly

Disagree

For how many days you go to

university for your work or

classes in a week?

2 Days 1 6 0 0 0 7

3 Days 4 0 0 0 1 5

4 days 19 17 7 5 2 50

5 Days 27 21 13 5 5 71

6 Days 0 3 2 0 0 5

7 Days 1 1 0 1 4 7

Total 52 48 22 11 12 145

Figure 3.1.5



42/64

Page | 42

Variable 2

Figure 3.2.1

ANOVA

Private transportation is responsible of congestion on the road


Between Groups 17.232 5 3.446 2.500 .034

Within Groups 187.500 136 1.379

Total 204.732 141



43/64

Page | 43

Explore Table

Figure3.2.2

Descriptives

For how many days you go to university for your work or classes in a

week? Statistic Std. Error

Private transportation is

responsible of congestion on the

road

2 Days Mean 2.50 .563


Mean

Lower Bound 1.05

Upper Bound 3.95


Median 2.50

Variance 1.900


Minimum 1

Maximum 4

Range 3


Skewness .000 .845

Kurtosis -2.299 1.741

3 Days Mean 1.60 .400


Mean

Lower Bound .49

Upper Bound 2.71


Median 1.00

Variance .800

Std. Deviation .894

Minimum 1

Maximum 3

Range 2


Skewness 1.258 .913

Kurtosis .312 2.000



44/64

Page | 44

4 days Mean 2.57 .162


Mean

Lower Bound 2.24

Upper Bound 2.90


Median 3.00

Variance 1.292


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness .038 .340

Kurtosis -.743 .668

5 Days Mean 2.86 .143


Mean

Lower Bound 2.57

Upper Bound 3.14


Median 3.00

Variance 1.429


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness .126 .287

Kurtosis -.810 .566

6 Days Mean 2.20 .490


Mean

Lower Bound .84

Upper Bound 3.56




45/64

Page | 45

Median 2.00

Variance 1.200


Minimum 1

Maximum 4

Range 3


Skewness 1.293 .913


7 Days Mean 3.71 .474


Mean

Lower Bound 2.55

Upper Bound 4.87


Median 4.00

Variance 1.571


Minimum 2

Maximum 5

Range 3


Skewness -.682 .794

Kurtosis -1.099 1.587



46/64

Page | 46

Figure 3.2.3

Figure 3.2.4

For how many days you go to university for your work or classes in a week? * Private transportation is responsible of congestion

on the road Cross tabulation

Count

Private transportation is responsible of congestion on the road

TotalStrongly Agree Agree Neutral

Strongly

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

For how many days you go to

university for your work or

classes in a week?

2 Days 2 1 1 2 0 6

3 Days 3 1 1 0 0 5

4 days 12 8 20 7 2 49

5 Days 10 18 21 14 7 70

6 Days 1 3 0 1 0 5

7 Days 0 2 0 3 2 7

Total 28 33 43 27 11 142



47/64

Page | 47

Figure 3.2.5



48/64

Page | 48

Appendix 4

Figure 4.a

How much your monthly income or pocket money is? (In Rs.)


Valid 1,000-5,000 65 43.6 44.8 44.8

5,000-10,000 36 24.2 24.8 69.7

10,000-15,000 22 14.8 15.2 84.8

Above 15,000 19 12.8 13.1 97.9

5 3 2.0 2.1 100.0

Total 145 97.3 100.0

Missing System 4 2.7

Total 149 100.0

Figure 4.b



49/64

Page | 49

Variable 1

Figure4.1.1

ANOVA

On private transportation I have more freedom than public transport for university


Between Groups 18.759 4 4.690 2.739 .031

Within Groups 231.127 135 1.712

Total 249.886 139

Figure4.1.2

Explore table

Descriptives

How much your monthly income or pocket money is? (In Rs.) Statistic Std. Error

On private transportation I

have more freedom than

public transport for university

1,000-5,000 Mean 3.17 .173


Mean

Lower Bound 2.83

Upper Bound 3.52


Median 3.00

Variance 1.922


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness -.097 .299


5,000-10,000 Mean 3.06 .207


Mean

Lower Bound 2.64

Upper Bound 3.48


Median 3.00



50/64

Page | 50

Variance 1.540


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness -.111 .393


10,000-15,000 Mean 2.26 .263


Mean

Lower Bound 1.71

Upper Bound 2.82


Median 2.00

Variance 1.316


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness .903 .524

Kurtosis .370 1.014

Above 15,000 Mean 3.44 .315


Mean

Lower Bound 2.78

Upper Bound 4.11


Median 3.50

Variance 1.791


Minimum 1

Maximum 5



51/64

Page | 51

Range 4


Skewness -.447 .536


5 Mean 2.00 .577


Mean

Lower Bound -.48

Upper Bound 4.48

5% Trimmed Mean .

Median 2.00

Variance 1.000


Minimum 1

Maximum 3

Range 2


Skewness .000 1.225

Kurtosis . .



52/64

Page | 52

Figure 4.1.3

Figure 4.1.4

How much your monthly income or pocket money is? (In Rs.) * On private transportation I have more freedom than public

transport for university Cross tabulation

Count

On private transportation I have more freedom than public transport for

university


Strongly

disagree

How much your monthly

income or pocket money

is? (In Rs.)

1,000-5,000 8 18 7 17 14 64

5,000-10,000 4 10 6 12 4 36

10,000-15,000 5 8 3 2 1 19

Above 15,000 2 2 5 4 5 18

5 1 1 1 0 0 3

Total 20 39 22 35 24 140



53/64

Page | 53

Figure 4.1.5

Variable 2

Figure 4.2.1

ANOVA

I go by car for job or attending classes


Between Groups 15.859 4 3.965 2.564 .041

Within Groups 211.838 137 1.546

Total 227.697 141



54/64


55/64

Page | 55

Kurtosis -.667 .7

10,000-15,000 Mean 3.50 .3


Mean

Lower Bound 2.86

Upper Bound 4.14


Median 4.00

Variance 2.071


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness -.791 .4

Kurtosis -.639 .9

Above 15,000 Mean 2.83 .3


Mean

Lower Bound 2.10

Upper Bound 3.56


Median 3.50

Variance 2.147


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness -.309 .5

Kurtosis -1.701 1.0

5 Mean 3.33 .6


Mean

Lower Bound .46

Upper Bound 6.20



56/64

Page | 56

5% Trimmed Mean .

Median 4.00

Variance 1.333


Minimum 2

Maximum 4

Range 2


Skewness -1.732 1.2

Kurtosis .

Figure4.2.2



57/64

Page | 57

Figure 4.2.3

How much your monthly income or pocket money is? (In Rs.) * I go by car for job or attending classes Cross tabulation

Count

I go by car for job or attending classes


Strongly

Disagree

How much your monthly

income or pocket money is?

(In Rs.)

1,000-5,000 1 6 16 18 23 64

5,000-10,000 3 5 5 11 11 35

10,000-15,000 4 1 3 8 6 22

Above 15,000 6 1 2 8 1 18

5 0 1 0 2 0 3

Total 14 14 26 47 41 142

Figure 4.2.4



58/64

Page | 58

Appendix 5

Figure 5.a

Do you love to drive yourself?


Valid Yes 115 77.2 77.2 77.2

No 33 22.1 22.1

3 1 .7 .7 100.0

Total 149 100.0 100.0

Figure 2.b



59/64

Page | 59

Variable 1:

Figure 5.1.1

ANOVA

I do not use car/bike because of unexpected accidents


Between Groups 11.449 2 5.724 3.534 .032

Within Groups 229.999 142 1.620

Total 241.448 144

Figure 5.1.2

Explore table:

Descriptivesa

Do you love to drive yourself? Statistic Std. Error

I do not use car/bike because

of unexpected accidents

Yes Mean 3.21 .123


Mean

Lower Bound 2.97

Upper Bound 3.46


Median 3.00

Variance 1.722


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness -.209 .227


No Mean 2.65


Mean

Lower Bound 2.24

Upper Bound 3.05




60/64

Page | 60

Median 3.00

Variance 1.237


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness .152 .421

Kurtosis -.214 .821

a. I do not use car/bike because of unexpected accidents is constant when Do you love to drive yourself? = 3. It has been

omitted.

Figure 5.1.3

Figure 5.1.4

Do you love to drive yourself? * I do not use car/bike because of unexpected accidents Crosstabulation



61/64

Page | 61

Count

I do not use car/bike because of unexpected accidents


Strongly

Disagree

Do you love to drive

yourself?

Yes 13 27 17 35 21 113

No 6 6 14 3 2 3

3 0 0 0 0 1 1

Total 19 33 31 38 24 145

Figure 5.1.5



62/64

Page | 62

Variable 2

Figure 5.2.1

ANOVA

I prefer car if my pocket money will double


Between Groups 27.918 2 13.959 7.736 .001

Within Groups 250.821 139 1.804

Total 278.739 141

Figure 5.2.2

Explore table

Descriptivesa

Do you love to drive yourself? Statistic Std. Error

I prefer car if my pocket money

will double

Yes Mean 2.45 .131


Mean

Lower Bound 2.20

Upper Bound 2.71


Median 2.00

Variance 1.883


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness .585 .230

Kurtosis -.989 .457

No Mean 3


Mean

Lower Bound 2.97

Upper Bound 3.87



63/64

Page | 63


Median 4.00

Variance 1.518


Minimum 1

Maximum 5

Range 4


Skewness -.316 .421

Kurtosis -.891 .821

a. I prefer car if my pocket money will double is constant when Do you love to drive yourself? = 3. It has been omitted.

Figure 5.2.3

Figure 5.2.4

Do you love to drive yourself? * I prefer car/bike because of rush in university buses Crosstabulation



64/64

Count

I prefer car/bike because of rush in university buses

TotalStrongly Agree Agree neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Do you love to drive yourself? Yes 24 29 20 29 13 115

No 7 6 5 10 4

3 0 0 0 0 1 1

Total 31 35 25 39 18 148

Figure 5.2.5


research report on transportation

Documents