![]() The results confirm that it is essential to be more sensitive to the motivation of trips, and suggest a clear policy implication: the individuals’ reactions toward policies intended to increase walking frequency depend partly on the utility for walking. Third, attitudinal factors and socio-demographic variables also differently appear in the models of walking. In this regard, utilitarian walking is affected by mixed land use, residential density, facility accessibility, attractiveness, and walking infrastructure and hedonic walking is influenced by mixed land use, attractiveness and safety. Second, the objective and perceived built environment factors differently contribute to explaining both types of walking. ![]() The results reveal some interesting insights: first, both models of walking confirm that neighborhood preferences do not play any important role in explaining walking behavior in our context, inconsistent with previous studies. Using data collected from 863 respondents in six diverse neighborhoods in Isfahan, Iran, we developed negative binomial models for two types of walking namely, utilitarian and hedonic walking. This paper aims to clearly distinguish between utilitarian and hedonic walking and then explores how the built environment influences walking behavior. Accordingly, because of different utilities of travel, it is more likely that the built environment differently affects walking behavior. The point is that most of these studies have not been sensitive to the motivation of trips while travel is a complicated behavior and individuals may have different degrees of motivation and utility for a given trip purpose. Most previous studies have mainly focused on utilitarian or recreational walking and discussed their relationship with the built environment. Sungeun, K & Jungkeun, K 2016, ‘The influence of hedonic versus utilitarian consumption situations on the compromise effect’, Marketing Letters, vol. NordKeyboards 2017, Introducing Nord Stage 3 at Musikmesse 2017, 4 April, Viewed on May 4, 2017, <. LG Global 2017, LG SIGNATURE OLED TV W, a New Style of Life, 14 February, Viewed on May 4, 2017, <. KoganVideo 2012, Ruslan Kogan Keynote Introduction, 25 October, Viewed on May 4, 2017, <. Khan, U, Dhar, R & Wertenbroch, K 2004, ‘A Behavioural Decision Theoretic Perspective on Hedonic and Utilitarian Choice’, Instead, vol. This company shows that the characteristics of these products that would be substantial for utilitarian consumers – affordability, functionality and that the product meets the basic needs.Ĭasio Australia 2014, Casio CDP-230, 6 August, Viewed on May 4, 2017, <. This advertisement shows Kogan – a TV company that is known for their best value. They promote that Kogan TV’s have everything their competitors have, without the ‘high quality’ brand name. Utilitarian needs are bought without second guessing and have little emotional and sensory attachment. Utilitarian usually are products that add ease to your everyday e.g basic car, fridge, phone. On the other side you have utilitarian consumption which places more emphasis on the usefulness, practicality, functionality, and fulfillment of basic needs. Examples of Hedonic consumption in a lot of cases would be designer watches or luxurious cars, all of which exceed the basic need. The emotional pleasure received from products vary for all individuals. Hedonic consumption is products bought by a consumer that satisfies their emotional and sensory needs, after basic needs have been met (food, shelter or clothing). These two types of choices are called Hedonic consumption and Utilitarian consumption. How does an individual choose between a rich exclusive meal at a restaurant for dinner or a home cooked meal? Or, go on a holiday to Bora Bora to relax rather than stay home and using this time to get on top of your work.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |