The Value of Public Transportation for Improving the Quality of Life for the Rural Elderly Page: 3
136 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this report.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures.......................................................................................................................... 5
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... 6
Executive Summary ........................................................................ 7
Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 9
Chapter 2. Literature Review .................................................. 10
Background - Elderly Population of the U.S. and Texas ..................................................... 10
Mobility and the Elderly ........................................ ................................................... 14
Chapter 3. Methodology and Survey Design ......................................................................... 19
Q uestionnaire D esign ..................................................................................................... 19
Survey Questionnaire Design ............................................................................................ 22
D ata C o llection ..................................................................................................................... 24
The Random Utility Model and Model Specification............................ ........................... 24
Chapter 4. Findings - Surveys in Atascosa and Polk Counties ........................................ 31
Respondents' Demographic Characteristics - Atascosa County ........................................... 31
Respondents' Demographic Characteristics - Polk County ...................... ......................... 34
Model Estimation........................................ 37
Differences between the Conditional Logit and Mixed Logit Models ..................................... 52
Chapter 5. Findings - Parker County Survey ....................................................................... 52
Respondents' Demographic Characteristics - Parker County ............................................... 52
Model Estimation........................................ 57
Differences between the Conditional Logit and Mixed Logit Models .................................. 63
Differences among the Three Counties........................................... ...................... 63
Chapter 6. Findings - Student Survey ....................................................... ................... 64
Students' Demographic Characteristics ............................. ....................... 64
M odel Estim ation ...................................................................................... .................... 69
Differences between the Conditional Logit and Mixed Logit Models .................................. 83
Chapter 7. Findings - Population and Individual Willingness-to-Pay Comparisons........... 83
Conditional Logit WTP Comparisons ............................................................................ 83
M ixed Logit W TP Com parisons .............................................................. .......................... 86
Chapter 8. Conclusions............................................................................................................... 96
Transportation Preferences and Willingness-to-Pay........................................................ 97
Comparison of Results between Counties .......................................................... 98
Comparison of Results between Students and County Residents............................................. 98
Mixed Logit versus Conditional Logit Estimation ....................................... 99
Lim itations and Future Research .......................................................... ............................ 99
Chapter 9. Implications ...................................................................................................... 101
R eferences .................................................................................................................................. 103
Appendix A. County Resident Survey ................................................................................ 11
Appendix B. Student Survey.............................................................................................. 125
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Mjelde, James W.; Dudensing, Rebekka; Cherrington, Linda Kay; Yanhong, Jin; Israel, Alicia A. & Chen, Junyi. The Value of Public Transportation for Improving the Quality of Life for the Rural Elderly, report, July 2012; College Station, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth303655/m1/7/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.