Mixed-methods analysis reveals user preferences for sustainable transportation solutions in Thailand, indicating effective infrastructure enhancements can boost mobility.
This research examines road users’ willingness to pay for enhanced active mobility infrastructure at King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang (KMITL), a suburban university campus in Bangkok, Thailand. The study addresses the need for sustainable transportation solutions in middle-income urban environments by analyzing factors that influence walking and cycling adoption among university community members. The research employed a comprehensive mixed-methods framework combining qualitative SWOT analysis, a stated preference survey of 400 participants, and regularized logistic regression modeling with cross-validation. The analysis revealed that specific infrastructure improvements significantly increase the likelihood of active mobility adoption. Rest areas demonstrated the strongest positive association (OR = 2.15, 95% CI: 1.08–4.27, p = 0.029), followed by CCTV security systems (OR = 1.89, 95% CI: 0.98–3.65, p = 0.047), and improved public transport connectivity (OR = 2.84, 95% CI: 1.42–5.68, p = 0.003). Demographic analysis uncovered notable resistance patterns, with male participants (OR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.26–0.89, p = 0.020) and higher-income individuals showing reduced willingness to transition from motorized transportation. Using the Contingent Valuation Method with proper bias mitigation strategies, the study quantified potential behavioral changes, projecting a 12–18 min daily increase in active mobility engagement. This enhancement would generate measurable health benefits valued at 2840–4260 THB per person annually using WHO-HEAT methodology. The research contributes valuable insights to the limited body of active mobility literature from Southeast Asian suburban contexts, providing a replicable framework for similar investigations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meesit et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: