Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
Korean Society of Leisure, Recreation & Park
[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Leisure, Recreation & Park - Vol. 45, No. 3, pp.47-61
ISSN: 1598-0413 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Sep 2021
Received 05 Aug 2021 Revised 02 Sep 2021 Accepted 17 Sep 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26446/kjlrp.2021.9.45.3.47

공유자전거의 여가 목적적 사용의도에 대한 분석: UTAUT2 모형을 적용하여

이민석1 ; 김민정2 ; 이철원3
1연세대학교 박사후연구원
2한국외국어대학교 사범대학 교수
3연세대학교 교수
An Analysis of the Intention to Use Shared Bicycles for Leisure Purposes: by Applying UTAUT2 Model
Lee, Minseok1 ; Kim, Minjeong2 ; Lee, Chulwon3
1Yonsei University
2Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
3Yonsei University

Correspondence to: Lee, Chulwon E-mail: wakeford@yonsei.ac.kr

Abstract

This study was conducted by applying the UTAUT2 model to analyze the intention to use shared bicycles for leisure purposes for shared bicycle users. Data was sampled online and offline using purposive selection, and 476 questionnaires were used after data cleaning. SPSS 24 and AMOS 22 were used as statistical processing programs. Among the components of UTAUT2, it was found that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, price value, hedonic motivation, and habit influence intention to use. Social influence did not affect intention to use, and facilitating conditions did not affect Leisure purpose usage. Finally, it was confirmed that intention to use affects leisure purpose usage. These results proved that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, price value, hedonic motivation, and habit are the main factors in using shared bicycles. In addition, it is significant that it has proved that habit is the factor that has the greatest influence on allowing shared bicycles to be used for leisure purposes.

Keywords:

shared bicycle, UTAUT2 Model, leisure purpose

키워드:

공유자전거, 여가목적 참여, 사용의도, UTAUT2

Acknowledgments

이 연구는 2021학년도 한국외국어대학교 교내학술연구비의 지원에 의하여 이루어진 것임

References

  • 곽민석, 원도연(2013). 리조트 기업에서의 미그말리온 리더행동과 LMX의 질, 직무수행간의 구조적 관계. 한국스포츠산업경영학회지, 18(3), 33-51.
  • 김성진, 장재훈, 박치수, 이형묵, 이준동(2021). 공유 모빌리티, 따릉이 효율성 증대를 위한 이용률 분석 및 재배치 방법 연구. 한국컴퓨터정보학회 학술발표논문집, 29(1), 91-93.
  • 김숙희, 이남일, 정가형(2019). 수원시 스테이션 없는 공유자전거 이용만족도 분석. 대한교통학회 학술대회지, 대한교통학회 제 80회 학술발표회, 309-314.
  • 도명식, 노윤승(2014). 대전시 공유자전거 이용수요에 영향을 미치는 요인에 관한 연구. 대한토목학회논문집, 34(5), 1517-1524.
  • 변현, 조광민, 배정섭(2017). UTAUT2 모형을 적용한 대학생들의 온라인 스포츠 미디어 사용행동 분석. 체육과학연구, 28(2), 424-439.
  • 사경은, 서지민, 이수기(2020). 출근시간대 공유자전거 출발・도착지 및 최단이동경로 특성 분석 – 서울시 공유자전거 2017 통행 DF자료를 중심으로. 한국도시설계학회지 도시설계, 21(6), 105-120.
  • 사혜지, 한지훈, 이민석(2019). UTAUT 모델을 통한 기후변화(미세먼지) 문제인식에 따른 스크린 스포츠 수용 의도. 한국여가레크리에이션학회지, 43(2), 23-34.
  • 손현정, 이상원, 조문희(2014). 대학생의 웨어러블 기기 사용의도에 영향을 미치는 요인 : UTAUT2 모델의 응용. 한국언론정보학보, 68(4), 7-33.
  • 우샤오롱, 김병재(2019). 공유경제 성과에 영향을 미치는 서비스 요인과 소비자 요인에 관한 연구 - 중국 공유자전거 시장을 중심으로 -. 한국항공경영학회지, 17(1), 107-123.
  • 우종필(2012). (우종필 교수의) 구조방정식모델 개념과 이해 : Amos 4.0~20.0공용. 서울:한나래아카데미.
  • 이경중, 이철원, 김민정(2021). 확장된 목표지향적 행동 모델을 적용한 Covid-19 Pandemic 상황에서의 캠핑 참여의도 연구. 한국체육학회지, 60(1), 401-413.
  • 이민석, 이동희(2021). UTAUT2 모형을 적용한 베이비붐 세대의 모바일 게임 참여의도 분석. 한국여가레크리에이션학회지, 45(1), 1-11.
  • 이민석, 한지훈, 이철원(2020). UTAUT2 모형을 적용한 액티브 시니어의 레저스마트기기 사용의도 분석. 한국사회체육학회지, 79, 263-273.
  • 이선웅, 정진섭, 윤영호(2019). UTAUT2 모델을 이용한 블록체인 기술의 수용의도에 대한 실증연구. 기업경영연구, 26(6), 1-28.
  • 임희종, 정광헌(2019). 서울시 공유자전거의 수요 예측 모델 개발. 한국콘텐츠학회논문지, 19(1), 132-140.
  • 전성범, 임진선(2017). 여가스포츠 참여자의 진지한 여가와 웨어러블 디바이스 수용 간의 관계: UTAUT 모델 분석. 한국체육학회지, 56(6), 417-430.
  • Alalwan, A. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Rana, N. P. (2017). Factors influencing adoption of mobile banking by Jordanian bank customers: Extending UTAUT2 with trust. International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 99-110. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.01.002]
  • Aswani, R., Ilavarasan, P. V., Kar, A. K., & Vijayan, S. (2018). Adoption of public WiFi using UTAUT2: An exploration in an emerging economy. Procedia computer science, 132, 297-306. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.05.180]
  • Brown, S. A., and Venkatesh, V. 2005. "Model of Adoption of Technology in the Household: A Baseline Model Test and Extension Incorporating Household Life Cycle," MIS Quarterly, 29(4), 399-426. [https://doi.org/10.2307/25148690]
  • Buck, D., Buehler, R., Happ, P., Rawls, B., Chung, P., & Borecki, N. (2013). Are bikeshare users different from regular cyclists? A first look at short-term users, annual members, and area cyclists in the Washington, DC, Region. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2387(1), 112–119. [https://doi.org/10.3141/2387-13]
  • Chang, H. L., & Chang, H. W. (2009). Exploring recreational cyclists’ environmental preferences and satisfaction: Experimental study in Hsinchu technopolis. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36(2), 319–335. [https://doi.org/10.1068/b34030]
  • Chen, L. H., & Chancellor, H. C. (2020). Examining the leisure use of a bicycle share program: A case study of YouBike in Taipei. Journal of Leisure Research, 51(2), 183-205. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2019.1660598]
  • De Bruijn, G.-J., Kremers, S. P., Singh, A., Van den Putte, B., & Van Mechelen, W. (2009). Adult active transportation: Adding habit strength to the theory of planned behavior. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(3), 189–194. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.10.019]
  • Deenihan, G., & Caulfield, B. (2015). Do tourists value different levels of cycling infrastructure?. Tourism Management, 46, 92–101. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.06.012]
  • Fishman, E., Washington, S., & Haworth, N. (2012). Barriers and facilitators to public bicycle scheme use: A qualitative approach. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 15(6), 686–698. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2012.08.002]
  • Fitt, H. M. (2015). The influences of social meanings on everyday transport practices. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey.
  • Hazen, B. T., Overstreet, R. E., & Wang, Y. (2015). Predicting public bicycle adoption using the technology acceptance model. Sustainability, 7(11), 14558–14573. [https://doi.org/10.3390/su71114558]
  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118]
  • Kapser, S., & Abdelrahman, M. (2020). Acceptance of autonomous delivery vehicles for last-mile delivery in Germany–Extending UTAUT2 with risk perceptions. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 111, 210-225. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.12.016]
  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
  • Lee, M. S. (2021). Development and Application of Safety Service Scale for Recreational Tourism Destination. Doctoral Dissertation, Yonsei University.
  • Liao, Y. (2016). Association of sociodemographic and perceived environmental factors with public bicycle use among Taiwanese urban adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(3), 340–350. [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13030340]
  • Nikolopoulou, K., Gialamas, V., & Lavidas, K. (2020). Acceptance of mobile phone by University students for their studies: An investigation applying UTAUT2 model. Education and Information Technologies, 1-17. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10157-9]
  • Pai, J. T., & Pai, S. Y. (2015). User behaviour analysis of the public bike system in Taipei. International Review for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development, 3(2), 39–52. [https://doi.org/10.14246/irspsd.3.2_39]
  • Rebar, A. L., Elavsky, S., Maher, J. P., Doerksen, S. E., & Conroy, D. E. (2014). Habits predict physical activity on days when intentions are weak. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 36(2), 157–165. [https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2013-0173]
  • Shaw, N., & Sergueeva, K. (2019). The non-monetary benefits of mobile commerce: Extending UTAUT2 with perceived value. International Journal of Information Management, 45, 44-55. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.024]
  • Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 1–36. [https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000003]
  • Sherwin, H., Chatterjee, K., & Jain, J. (2014). An exploration of the importance of social influence in the decision to start bicycling in England. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 68, 32–45. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.05.001]
  • Ting, Y.-F. (2014). The study of experiential motivation, satisfaction and re-lease intention in YouBike users (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Taipei, Taipei City, Taiwan.
  • Van Winkle, C. M., Bueddefeld, J. N., Halpenny, E. A., & MacKay, K. J. (2019). The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2: understanding mobile device use at festivals. Leisure Studies, 38(5), 634-650. [https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2019.1618895]
  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. [https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540]
  • Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. [https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412]
  • Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., Knippenberg, A., & Moonen, A. (1998). Habit versus planned behaviour: A field experiment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37(1), 111–128. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1998.tb01160.x]
  • Zander, A., Passmore, E., Mason, C., & Rissel, C. (2013). Joy, exercise, enjoyment, getting out: A qualitative study of older people’s experience of cycling in Sydney, Australia. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2013, 1-6. [https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/547453]