Research Report On Transportation

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator Foxit Software http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.
Research Report on
2011
Usage of Public and Private Transportation in IIUI
Supervisor: Mr. Armagan Mazhar By: Malik Saad Noman
12/26/2011
Page | 1
Contents
Sr. no
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Topics
Introduction
Exploratory Research
Page
3 4 4 4 5 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 12 10 10 10 10 11 13 14 14 22 37 48 58 Page | 2
Literature Review
Research Questions & Objectives Questionnaire Research Model

Dependent Variables Independent Variables
Variables
Busses timing and Class timings
Status (living standard) Topography Safety Economic stability Valuation of time Health Emergency
Methodology Target population

Population & sample Sampling frame Sample size Sampling unit
Techniques
Types of survey Sampling Method
Research Design Hypothesis Descriptive Table Result Conclusion Graphs & Tables Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5
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 of the 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 much interested 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.
Page | 3
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 the money 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:
Page | 4
Name: _____________________________ Age: ____________ Male
Sex: Female
General
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 Other ______________ Surroundings (within 5km) Own
Home
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 15,000
7. Do you love to drive yourself? Yes Yes Cycle No
8. Do you have vehicle at home? No
9. Which vehicle you own? Motor bike Car Three or more Other___________
10. How many cars you have at home? One car Two cars No car
11. Do you have driving license? Yes No (page 1)
Page | 5
Questions
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. University buses are safe for travel I go by car for job or attending classes I encourage university transportation An officer should travel on buses University transport is good Car is not good for students I prefer car if my pocket money will double Buses are not good for health I use university buses in emergency Student should travel on taxi I use bicycle because it maintain my fitness Travelling on public transportation saves my money You feel better while using private transportation for going to university On private transportation I have more freedom than public transport for university If my pocket money or income doubles then I will prefer Taxi I will use university buses if my pocket money will double I feel better while using private transportation for going to university If my pocket money or income doubles then I will prefer motorbike I prefer university buses because university charge transportation fee forcefully I do not use car/bike because of unexpected accidents Private transportation is responsible of congestion on the road Transport section in university is just wastage of money and time My father prefers car/bike for me rather than university Buses I prefer car/bike because of rush in university buses I use bike because my house is far away from university Im very satisfy with my arrangements of transportations
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree Strongly Disagree
Page | 6
Research Model:
Transportation
Private Modes
Public
Cars, Motorbikes, Bicycle and Taxies
University Buses
Satisfaction
Dependent Variables:
Buses timing Class or Office timing Status (living standard) Topography Safety
Independent Variables:
Economic stability Valuation of time Health Emergency Peer group acceptance
Page | 7
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.
Page | 8
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 using the 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. Page | 9
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
Page | 10
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 satisfaction and 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 is safe. 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. But who 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 Page | 11
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)
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 Page | 12
Effect of Working Days on traveling mode (Appendix 3)

Our hypothesis was that people, who go for 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 5 days. 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
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.
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 transportation while staff prefers private transportation. But both are satisfied from university transportation. People who lives in hostel and own home they travel in university buses but who stay at home, they prefer to cars for coming to university. Most important point is that who come to 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 prefer university transport and whom income is high they prefer private transport. Desire of drive also depends upon unexpected accidents. Most of the people do not want to drive because of accidents. And their income has no effect on their desire of driving.
Effect of desire of traveling on traveling mode (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 of driving 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
Page | 13
Graphs & Tables Appendix 1

Figure 1.a
Occupation of responder
Frequency Valid Student Staff Faculty Other 6 Total 133 12 1 2 1 149
Percent 89.3 8.1 .7 1.3 .7 100.0
Valid Percent 89.3 8.1 .7 1.3 .7 100.0
Cumulative Percent 89.3 97.3 98.0 99.3 100.0
Figure 1.b
Variable 1:
Figure 1.1.1
ANOVA University buses are safe for travel Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 12.044 142.409 154.453 df 4 143 147 Mean Square 3.011 .996 F 3.023 Sig. .020
Figure 1.1.2
Explore Table:
Descriptives Occupation of responder University buses are safe for travel Student Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Staff Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Statistic 1.92 1.75 2.09 1.83 2.00 .971 .986 1 5 4 1 1.320 1.648 1.67 .93 2.40 1.52 .211 .419 .333 Std. Error .086
Page | 15
Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Other Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range 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. Lower Bound Upper Bound
1.00 1.333 1.155 1 5 4 1 2.488 7.036 2.50 -3.85 8.85 . 2.50 .500 .707 2 3 1 . . . . . .637 1.232 .500
Figure 1.1.3
Page | 16
Figure 1.1.4
Occupation of responder * University buses are safe for travel Cross tabulation Count University buses are safe for travel Strongly Agree Occupation of responder Student Staff Faculty Other 6 Total 49 7 0 0 0 56 Agree 60 4 0 1 0 65 Neutral 11 0 1 1 0 13 Disagree 8 0 0 0 0 8 Strongly Disagree 4 1 0 0 1 6 Total 132 12 1 2 1 148
Page | 17
Figure 1.1.5
Variable 2:
Figure 1.2.1
ANOVA I'm very satisfy with my arrangements of transportations Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 13.832 203.487 217.320 df 4 142 146 Mean Square 3.458 1.433 F 2.413 Sig. .052
Page | 18
Figure 1.2.2
Descriptivesa,b Occupation of responder I'm very satisfy with my arrangements of transportations Student Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Staff Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Other Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Statistic 2.44 2.23 2.65 2.38 2.00 1.449 1.204 1 5 4 1 .647 -.324 1.67 1.04 2.29 1.57 1.00 .970 .985 1 4 3 1 1.498 1.702 2.50 -16.56 .637 1.232 1.500 .212 .420 .284 Std. Error .105
Page | 19
Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis
Upper Bound
21.56 . 2.50 4.500 2.121 1 4 3 . . . . .
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
Page | 20
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 Strongly Agree Occupation of responder Student Staff Faculty Other 6 Total 32 7 0 1 0 40 Agree 43 3 0 0 0 46 Neutral 34 1 1 0 0 36 Disagree 10 1 0 1 0 12 Strongly Disagree 12 0 0 0 1 13 Total 131 12 1 2 1 147
Figure 1.2.5
Page | 21
Appendix 2
Figure 2.a
Where do you live while attending school?
Frequency Valid On campus hostel Off campus hostel Surroundings(within 5km) Own Home Other Total Missing Total System 31 20 10 80 6 147 2 149
Percent 20.8 13.4 6.7 53.7 4.0 98.7 1.3 100.0
Valid Percent 21.1 13.6 6.8 54.4 4.1 100.0
Figure 2.b
Page | 22
Variable 1
Figure 2.1.1
ANOVA University buses are safe for trave Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 9.482 134.689 144.171 df 4 141 145 Mean Square 2.371 .955 F 2.482 Sig. .047
Figure 2.1.2
Explore table
Descriptives Where do you live while attending school? University buses are safe for On campus hostel trave Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Off campus hostel Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Upper Bound Upper Bound Statistic 2.03 1.61 2.45 1.92 2.00 1.299 1.140 1 5 4 1 1.377 1.487 1.63 1.26 2.00 1.54 2.00 .421 .821 .175 Std. Error .205
Page | 23
Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Surroundings(within 5km) Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Own Home Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Upper Bound Upper Bound
.579 .761 1 4 3 1 1.616 4.083 1.70 1.02 2.38 1.67 1.00 .900 .949 1 3 2 2 .742 -1.640 1.90 1.69 2.11 1.81 2.00 .851 .922 1 5 .687 1.334 .103 .524 1.014 .300
Page | 24
Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Other Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Upper Bound
4 1 1.394 2.350 3.00 1.52 4.48 3.00 3.00 2.000 1.414 1 5 4 3 .000 -.300 .845 1.741 .269 .532 .577
Page | 25
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 Strongly Strongly Agree Where do you live while attending school? On campus hostel Off campus hostel Surroundings(within 5km) Own Home Other Total 11 9 6 28 1 55 Agree 14 9 1 40 1 65 Neutral 2 0 3 6 2 13 Disagree 2 1 0 4 1 8 Disagree 2 0 0 2 1 5 Total 31 19 10 80 6 146
Page | 26
Figure 2.1.5
Variable 2
Figure 2.2.1
ANOVA I feel better while using private transportation for going to university Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 22.442 227.530 249.972 df 4 138 142 Mean Square 5.610 1.649 F 3.403 Sig. .011
Figure 2.2.2
Explore table:
Descriptives Where do you live while attending school? Statistic Std. Error
Page | 27
I feel better while using private On campus hostel transportation for going to university
Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Lower Bound Upper Bound
3.63 3.15 4.12 3.69 4.00 1.689 1.299 1 5 4 3 -.466 -1.248 2.40 Lower Bound Upper Bound 1.82 2.98 2.33 2.00 1.516 1.231 1 5 4 2 .444 -.735 2.50 Lower Bound Upper Bound 1.32 3.68 2.44
.237
.427 .833 .275
Off campus hostel
Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis
.512 .992 .500
Surroundings(within 5km)
Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean
Page | 28
Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Own Home Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Other Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound
2.00 2.000 1.414 1 5 4 3 .808 -.229 3.24 2.96 3.52 3.27 3.00 1.518 1.232 1 5 4 2 -.306 -.936 3.33 1.38 5.29 3.37 4.00 3.467 1.862 1 .271 .535 .760 .752 1.481 .139
Page | 29
Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis
5 4 4 -.723 -1.875 .845 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 Strongly Agree Where do you live while attending school? On campus hostel Off campus hostel 1 6 Agree 8 5 Neutral 2 5 Disagree 9 3 Disagree 10 1 Total 30 20
Page | 30
Surroundings(within 5km) Own Home Other Total
2 8 2 19
3 16 0 32
1 16 0 24
1 27 2 42
1 12 2 26
8 79 6 143
Figure 2.2.5
Descriptives Where do you live while attending school? If my pocket money or income On campus hostel doubles then I will prefer motorbike Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Off campus hostel Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Statistic 3.03 2.54 3.52 3.04 3.00 1.766 1.329 1 5 4 2 .120 -1.083 3.05 2.38 3.72 3.06 3.00 1.942 1.393 1 .421 .821 .320 Std. Error .239
Page | 31
Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Surroundings(within 5km) Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Own Home Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound
5 4 2 .172 -1.415 3.33 2.39 4.27 3.31 3.00 1.500 1.225 2 5 3 3 .233 -1.556 3.91 3.65 4.17 4.00 4.00 1.321 1.149 1 5 4 2 -.940 .274 .717 1.400 .131 .524 1.014 .408
Page | 32
Kurtosis Other Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Lower Bound Upper Bound
-.006 3.83 2.29 5.38 3.93 4.00 2.167 1.472 1 5 4 2 -1.840 3.912
.541 .601
.845 1.741
Page | 33
Variable 3
Figure 2.3.1
ANOVA If my pocket money or income doubles then I will prefer motorbike Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 23.817 211.112 234.930 df 4 137 141 Mean Square 5.954 1.541 F 3.864 Sig. .005
Figure 2.3.2
Explore Table
Page | 34
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 tabulation Count If my pocket money or income doubles then I will prefer motorbike Strongly Strongly Agree Where do you live while attending school? On campus hostel Off campus hostel Surroundings(within 5km) Own Home Other Total 4 2 0 3 1 10 Agree 8 7 3 9 0 27 Neutral 8 2 2 9 0 21 Disagree 5 4 2 27 3 41 Disagree 6 4 2 29 2 43 Total 31 19 9 77 6 142
Page | 35
Appendix 3
Figure 3.a
For how many days you go to university for your work or classes in a week?
Frequency Valid 2 Days 3 Days 4 days 5 Days 6 Days 7 Days Total 7 5 51 74 5 7 149
Percent 4.7 3.4 34.2 49.7 3.4 4.7 100.0
Valid Percent 4.7 3.4 34.2 49.7 3.4 4.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent 4.7 8.1 42.3 91.9 95.3 100.0
Page | 36
Figure 3.b
Variable 1
Figure 3.1.1
ANOVA I encourage university transportation Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 21.903 198.690 220.593 df 5 139 144 Mean Square 4.381 1.429 F 3.065 Sig. .012
Figure 3.1.2 Explore Table

Descriptives For how many days you go to university for your work or classes in a week? Statistic Std. Error
Page | 37
I encourage university transportation
2 Days
1.86 1.51 2.21 1.90 2.00 .143 .378 1 2 1 0 -2.646 7.000 1.80 Lower Bound Upper Bound -.42 4.02 1.67 1.00 3.200 1.789 1 5 4 2 2.236 5.000 2.08 Lower Bound Upper Bound 1.76 2.40 1.99
.143
.794 1.587 .800
3 Days
.913 2.000 .161
4 days
Page | 38
Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis 5 Days Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis 6 Days Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound
2.00 1.300 1.140 1 5 4 2 .957 .143 2.15 1.87 2.44 2.06 2.00 1.476 1.215 1 5 4 2 .924 .014 2.40 1.72 3.08 2.39 2.00 .300 .548 2 .285 .563 .245 .337 .662 .144
Page | 39
Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis 7 Days Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Lower Bound Upper Bound
3 1 1 .609 -3.333 3.86 2.31 5.41 3.95 5.00 2.810 1.676 1 5 4 3 -1.177 -.354 .794 1.587 .913 2.000 .634
Figure 3.1.3
Page | 40
Figure 3.1.4
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 Strongly Agree For how many days you go to 2 Days university for your work or classes in a week? 4 days 5 Days 6 Days 7 Days Total 19 27 0 1 52 17 21 3 1 48 7 13 2 0 22 5 5 0 1 11 2 5 0 4 12 50 71 5 7 145 3 Days 1 4 Agree 6 0 Neutral 0 0 Disagree 0 0 Disagree 0 1 Total 7 5
Figure 3.1.5
Page | 41
Variable 2
Figure 3.2.1
ANOVA Private transportation is responsible of congestion on the road Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 17.232 187.500 204.732 df 5 136 141 Mean Square 3.446 1.379 F 2.500 Sig. .034
Page | 42
Explore Table
Figure 3.2.2
Descriptives 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 2 Days Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis 3 Days Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Statistic 2.50 1.05 3.95 2.50 2.50 1.900 1.378 1 4 3 3 .000 -2.299 1.60 .49 2.71 1.56 1.00 .800 .894 1 3 2 2 1.258 .312 .913 2.000 .845 1.741 .400 Std. Error .563
Page | 43
4 days
2.57 2.24 2.90 2.53 3.00 1.292 1.137 1 5 4 2 .038 -.743 2.86 Lower Bound Upper Bound 2.57 3.14 2.84 3.00 1.429 1.195 1 5 4 2 .126 -.810 2.20 Lower Bound Upper Bound .84 3.56 2.17
.162
.340 .668 .143
5 Days
.287 .566 .490
6 Days
Page | 44
Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis 7 Days Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Lower Bound Upper Bound
2.00 1.200 1.095 1 4 3 2 1.293 2.917 3.71 2.55 4.87 3.74 4.00 1.571 1.254 2 5 3 3 -.682 -1.099 .794 1.587 .913 2.000 .474
Page | 45
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 Strongly Strongly Agree For how many days you go to 2 Days university for your work or classes in a week? 4 days 5 Days 6 Days 7 Days Total 12 10 1 0 28 8 18 3 2 33 20 21 0 0 43 7 14 1 3 27 2 7 0 2 11 49 70 5 7 142 3 Days 2 3 Agree 1 1 Neutral 1 1 Disagree 2 0 Strongly Disagree 0 0 Total 6 5
Page | 46
Figure 3.2.5
Page | 47
Appendix 4
Figure 4.a
How much your monthly income or pocket money is? (In Rs.)
Frequency Valid 1,000-5,000 5,000-10,000 10,000-15,000 Above 15,000 5 Total Missing Total System 65 36 22 19 3 145 4 149
Percent 43.6 24.2 14.8 12.8 2.0 97.3 2.7 100.0
Valid Percent 44.8 24.8 15.2 13.1 2.1 100.0
Figure 4.b
Page | 48
Variable 1
Figure 4.1.1
ANOVA On private transportation I have more freedom than public transport for university Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 18.759 231.127 249.886 df 4 135 139 Mean Square 4.690 1.712 F 2.739 Sig. .031
Figure 4.1.2
Explore table
Descriptives How much your monthly income or pocket money is? (In Rs.) On private transportation I have more freedom than public transport for university 1,000-5,000 Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis 5,000-10,000 Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Statistic 3.17 2.83 3.52 3.19 3.00 1.922 1.386 1 5 4 2 -.097 -1.370 3.06 2.64 3.48 3.06 3.00 .299 .590 .207 Std. Error .173
Page | 49
Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis 10,000-15,000 Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Above 15,000 Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound
1.540 1.241 1 5 4 2 -.111 -1.121 2.26 1.71 2.82 2.18 2.00 1.316 1.147 1 5 4 2 .903 .370 3.44 2.78 4.11 3.49 3.50 1.791 1.338 1 5 .524 1.014 .315 .393 .768 .263
Page | 50
Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis 5 Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Lower Bound Upper Bound
4 2 -.447 -.738 2.00 -.48 4.48 . 2.00 1.000 1.000 1 3 2 . .000 . 1.225 . .536 1.038 .577
Page | 51
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 Strongly Agree How much your monthly 1,000-5,000 income or pocket money is? (In Rs.) 10,000-15,000 Above 15,000 5 Total 5 2 1 20 8 2 1 39 3 5 1 22 2 4 0 35 1 5 0 24 19 18 3 140 5,000-10,000 8 4 Agree 18 10 Neutral 7 6 Disagree 17 12 disagree 14 4 Total 64 36
Page | 52
Figure 4.1.5
Variable 2
Figure 4.2.1
ANOVA I go by car for job or attending classes Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 15.859 211.838 227.697 df 4 137 141 Mean Square 3.965 1.546 F 2.564 Sig. .041
Page | 53
Figure 4.2.2 Explore Table:

Descriptives How much your monthly income or pocket money is? (In Rs.) I go by car for job or attending classes 1,000-5,000 Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis 5,000-10,000 Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Statistic 3.88 3.61 4.14 3.93 4.00 1.127 1.062 1 5 4 2 -.565 -.554 3.63 3.18 4.08 3.70 4.00 1.711 1.308 1 5 4 2 -.674 .398 .299 .590 .221 Std. Error .133
Page | 54
Kurtosis 10,000-15,000 Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Above 15,000 Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis 5 Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound
-.667 3.50 2.86 4.14 3.56 4.00 2.071 1.439 1 5 4 2 -.791 -.639 2.83 2.10 3.56 2.81 3.50 2.147 1.465 1 5 4 3 -.309 -1.701 3.33 .46 6.20
.778 .307
.491 .953 .345
.536 1.038 .667
Page | 55
5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis
. 4.00 1.333 1.155 2 4 2 . -1.732 . 1.225 .
Figure 4.2.2
Page | 56
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 Strongly Agree How much your monthly income or pocket money is? (In Rs.) 1,000-5,000 5,000-10,000 10,000-15,000 Above 15,000 5 Total 1 3 4 6 0 14 Agree 6 5 1 1 1 14 Neutral 16 5 3 2 0 26 Disagree 18 11 8 8 2 47 Disagree 23 11 6 1 0 41 Total 64 35 22 18 3 142
Figure 4.2.4
Page | 57
Appendix 5
Figure 5.a
Do you love to drive yourself?
Frequency Valid Yes No 3 Total 115 33 1 149
Percent 77.2 22.1 .7 100.0
Valid Percent 77.2 22.1 .7 100.0
Cumulative Percent 77.2 99.3 100.0
Figure 2.b
Page | 58
Variable 1:
Figure 5.1.1
ANOVA I do not use car/bike because of unexpected accidents Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 11.449 229.999 241.448 df 2 142 144 Mean Square 5.724 1.620 F 3.534 Sig. .032
Figure 5.1.2
Explore table:
Descriptivesa Do you love to drive yourself? I do not use car/bike because of unexpected accidents Yes Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis No Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Statistic 3.21 2.97 3.46 3.24 3.00 1.722 1.312 1 5 4 2 -.209 -1.184 2.65 2.24 3.05 2.61 .227 .451 .200 Std. Error .123
Page | 59
Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis
3.00 1.237 1.112 1 5 4 1 .152 -.214 .421 .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
Page | 60
Count I do not use car/bike because of unexpected accidents Strongly Strongly Agree Do you love to drive yourself? Yes No 3 Total 13 6 0 19 Agree 27 6 0 33 Neutral 17 14 0 31 Disagree 35 3 0 38 Disagree 21 2 1 24 Total 113 31 1 145
Figure 5.1.5
Page | 61
Variable 2
Figure 5.2.1
ANOVA I prefer car if my pocket money will double Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 27.918 250.821 278.739 df 2 139 141 Mean Square 13.959 1.804 F 7.736 Sig. .001
Figure 5.2.2
Explore table
Descriptivesa Do you love to drive yourself? I prefer car if my pocket money Yes will double Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis No Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Statistic 2.45 2.20 2.71 2.39 2.00 1.883 1.372 1 5 4 3 .585 -.989 3.42 2.97 3.87 .230 .457 .221 Std. Error .131
Page | 62
5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis
3.47 4.00 1.518 1.232 1 5 4 2 -.316 -.891 .421 .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
Page | 63
Count I prefer car/bike because of rush in university buses Strongly Strongly Agree Do you love to drive yourself? Yes No 3 Total 24 7 0 31 Agree 29 6 0 35 neutral 20 5 0 25 Disagree 29 10 0 39 Disagree 13 4 1 18 Total 115 32 1 148
Figure 5.2.5
Page | 64

Research Report On Transportation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Research Report On Transportation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Report On Transportation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Usage of Public and Private Transportation in IIUI

Supervisor: Mr. Armagan Mazhar By: Malik Saad Noman

Research Questions & Objectives Questionnaire Research Model

Methodology Target population

Research Questions & Objectives

Name: _____________________________ Age: ____________ Male

4. What is your fathers occupation? Business Agriculture Job Other ___________

7. Do you love to drive yourself? Yes Yes Cycle No

8. Do you have vehicle at home? No

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

Disagree Strongly Disagree

Cars, Motorbikes, Bicycle and Taxies

Methodology Target population

Effect of Residence on travelling mode (Appendix 2)

of private transportation. (See figure 3.2.4, 3.2.5)

Effect of pocket money on traveling mode (Appendix 4)

Effect of Working Days on traveling mode (Appendix 3)

Effect of desire of traveling on traveling mode (Appendix 5)

Graphs & Tables Appendix 1

Frequency Valid Student Staff Faculty Other 6 Total 133 12 1 2 1 149

Percent 89.3 8.1 .7 1.3 .7 100.0

Valid Percent 89.3 8.1 .7 1.3 .7 100.0

Cumulative Percent 89.3 97.3 98.0 99.3 100.0

21.56 . 2.50 4.500 2.121 1 4 3 . . . . .

Percent 20.8 13.4 6.7 53.7 4.0 98.7 1.3 100.0

Valid Percent 21.1 13.6 6.8 54.4 4.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent 21.1 34.7 41.5 95.9 100.0

.427 .833 .275

Off campus hostel

.512 .992 .500

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean

Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis

5 4 4 -.723 -1.875 .845 1.741

Surroundings(within 5km) Own Home Other Total

Percent 4.7 3.4 34.2 49.7 3.4 4.7 100.0

Valid Percent 4.7 3.4 34.2 49.7 3.4 4.7 100.0

Cumulative Percent 4.7 8.1 42.3 91.9 95.3 100.0

Figure 3.1.2 Explore Table

I encourage university transportation

.794 1.587 .800

.913 2.000 .161

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean

.340 .668 .143

.287 .566 .490

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean

Percent 43.6 24.2 14.8 12.8 2.0 97.3 2.7 100.0

Valid Percent 44.8 24.8 15.2 13.1 2.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent 44.8 69.7 84.8 97.9 100.0

Figure 4.2.2 Explore Table:

.491 .953 .345

.536 1.038 .667

. 4.00 1.333 1.155 2 4 2 . -1.732 . 1.225 .

Frequency Valid Yes No 3 Total 115 33 1 149

Percent 77.2 22.1 .7 100.0

Valid Percent 77.2 22.1 .7 100.0

Cumulative Percent 77.2 99.3 100.0

3.00 1.237 1.112 1 5 4 1 .152 -.214 .421 .821

Name: _________________ Age: Male