Modelling personal safety perceptions at bus stop: employing hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation approach
G. Sethulakshmi, M. Mohan
Pages: 87-102
Abstract:
Vehicle-pedestrian interactions occurring within a limited space are quite common at bus stops, making it essential to comprehend passengers' perception of safety near bus stops. Since the sense of perceived safety is subjective, developing a standardized tool to measure travellers' perception of safety, especially of bus users, is complex. The first part of this study aims to identify the indicators for measuring the perceived safety at bus stops, and the second part focuses on modelling the overall perceived safety of users’ at bus stops using structural equation modelling. The research examined the safety factors according to 14 indicators which were further reduced to five latent constructs using exploratory factor analysis. Perceived safety is taken as a second-order latent construct, and the second-order confirmatory factor analysis found that safety derived from five latent variables, namely bus stop facility, bus stop location, bus operator behaviour, other users' behaviour, and pedestrian facility, are potential indicators of overall perceived safety at the bus stop. The results recommend that providing night light facilities, adopting measures to avoid improper stopping of buses and left-side overtaking, avoiding bus stops on curves and junctions, and ensuring better sidewalk facilities could improve perceived safety. Structural equation modelling revealed that safety perceptions are negatively influenced by previous accident victimization and witnessing, age, educational qualification and total household vehicles. The results conclude that female respondents perceive less safety than males, and no effects can be attributed to the frequency of travel and trip length. The research findings will be helpful for the planning agencies to prioritize measures to improve travellers' feeling of safety.
Keywords: bus stop; factor analysis; perceived safety; Structural Equation Modelling
2025 ISSUES
2024 ISSUES
LXII - April 2024LXIII - July 2024LXIV - November 2024Special 2024 Vol1Special 2024 Vol2Special 2024 Vol3Special 2024 Vol4
2023 ISSUES
LIX - April 2023LX - July 2023LXI - November 2023Special Issue 2023 Vol1Special Issue 2023 Vol2Special Issue 2023 Vol3
2022 ISSUES
LVI - April 2022LVII - July 2022LVIII - November 2022Special Issue 2022 Vol1Special Issue 2022 Vol2Special Issue 2022 Vol3Special Issue 2022 Vol4
2021 ISSUES
LIII - April 2021LIV - July 2021LV - November 2021Special Issue 2021 Vol1Special Issue 2021 Vol2Special Issue 2021 Vol3
2020 ISSUES
2019 ISSUES
Special Issue 2019 Vol1Special Issue 2019 Vol2Special Issue 2019 Vol3XLIX - November 2019XLVII - April 2019XLVIII - July 2019
2018 ISSUES
Special Issue 2018 Vol1Special Issue 2018 Vol2Special Issue 2018 Vol3XLIV - April 2018XLV - July 2018XLVI - November 2018
2017 ISSUES
Special Issue 2017 Vol1Special Issue 2017 Vol2Special Issue 2017 Vol3XLI - April 2017XLII - July 2017XLIII - November 2017
2016 ISSUES
Special Issue 2016 Vol1Special Issue 2016 Vol2Special Issue 2016 Vol3XL - November 2016XXXIX - July 2016XXXVIII - April 2016
2015 ISSUES
Special Issue 2015 Vol1Special Issue 2015 Vol2XXXV - April 2015XXXVI - July 2015XXXVII - November 2015
2014 ISSUES
Special Issue 2014 Vol1Special Issue 2014 Vol2Special Issue 2014 Vol3XXXII - April 2014XXXIII - July 2014XXXIV - November 2014
2013 ISSUES
2012 ISSUES
2011 ISSUES
2010 ISSUES
2009 ISSUES
2008 ISSUES
2007 ISSUES
2006 ISSUES
2005 ISSUES
2004 ISSUES
2003 ISSUES