Factors Associated with Travel Behavior of Millennials and Older Adults: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to synthesize knowledge on the travel behavior of millennials and older adults based on literature from 2010 to 2018. The study looks into the different factors that contributed to shaping each generation’s travel behavior. Both qualitative and quantitative studies that fall within the selection criteria are reviewed, with a total of seventy-eight studies selected for review. Thirty-four papers focused on young adults/millennials, 35 included an older adult population, and 9 investigated both younger and older age groups. Six of the studies utilized qualitative methods, 68 applied quantitative methods, and 4 used mixed methods to explore the factors associated with travel behavior. Travel behaviors are explored in terms of mode choice, trip distance, trip frequency, use of alternative transport, ridesharing, and mobility tool ownership. Associated factors are categorized into five themes: personal attributes, geography and built environment, living arrangements and family life, technology adoption, and perceptions and attitudes towards travel options and environment. This study concludes that difference exists between generations in terms of travel behavior, and that the factors that influence each generation’s travel characteristics are either different or differ in their nature of influence (increase/decrease). Finally, based on the reviewed literature, this study proposes future research directions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".