Content uploaded by Kevin Fang
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kevin Fang on Mar 25, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Skateboarding for transportation: exploring the factors
behind an unconventional mode choice among university
skateboard commuters
Kevin Fang
1
•Susan Handy
1
ÓSpringer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017
Abstract Efforts to promote non-motorized, active transportation modes typically focus
on walking and bicycling. However, other self-propelled devices such as skateboards,
roller skates, and push scooters can and are being used as means of transportation. In
California, users of these unconventional modes travel up to an estimated 48 million miles
per year. Skateboarding in particular appears to be an increasingly popular niche travel
mode in areas with good weather and younger age groups, including college students. Why
do skateboarders choose to skateboard for travel rather than using more conventional
modes? To investigate this question, we interviewed and surveyed skateboard commuters
at the University of California, Davis, home to over 1000 skateboard commuters. It appears
skateboard travelers are motivated by a feeling that skateboard travel is both fun and
convenient. The importance of fun is not particularly surprising given the common asso-
ciation of skateboarding with recreation. However, the importance of convenience shows
that skateboarders do not think they are sacrificing functionality for fun. In fact, skate-
boarders view skateboarding as uniquely practical, blending near bicycling speeds with
pedestrian-like flexibility. This runs counter to some regulations that restrict skateboard
travel based on a perception that skateboarding is an unnecessary nuisance. The results
demonstrate the attractiveness of a travel mode that blend characteristics of walking and
bicycling.
Keywords Skateboarding Travel behavior Active transportation Non-motorized
transportation
&Kevin Fang
kfang@ucdavis.edu
Susan Handy
slhandy@ucdavis.edu
1
Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, 1605 Tilia Street, Davis,
CA 95616, USA
123
Transportation
DOI 10.1007/s11116-017-9796-9
Introduction
Skateboarding is usually thought of as a recreational activity. However, people can and do
skateboard as a means of transportation. In California, skateboarders and users of similar
modes such as roller skates and push scooters travel up to an estimated 48 million miles
per year (California Department of Transportation 2012). While just a small fraction of
total miles traveled, it is clearly not zero. In Portland, Oregon, observers found skateboard
travelers geographically throughout the city, passing through 79% of intersections studied
(Portland Bureau of Transportation 2015). Skateboard travel has also found a niche at some
college campuses, with mode shares as high as 7% and growing in recent years (UC Santa
Barbara Budget and Planning 2014; UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies 2015;
SJSU Transportation Solutions 2016; University of Oregon Campus Planning 2013).
Travelers who choose to skateboard for travel make an unconventional decision. Unlike
cars or transit vehicles or bicycles, skateboards were not created primarily for utilitarian
travel. Why then do individuals choose to skateboard for travel instead of using more
traditional modes? Given that skateboarding is typically thought of as a recreational
activity, do skateboard travelers choose skateboarding just for fun? Or, are there utilitarian
reasons behind skateboard travel?
This paper explores the range of factors that may impact the decision to skateboard for
travel. We focus on skateboard commuters at the University of California, Davis, where
there are more than 1000 skateboard commuters, providing a concentration of potential
research subjects (UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies 2015). We collected data
primarily through in-depth interviews of skateboarders and questions included in an annual
survey of campus commuting. These data show that skateboarders consider many factors in
their decision, just as other travelers do. Skateboarders do enjoy skateboarding but are also
motivated by unique functional advantages that skateboarding provides.
Background
What do we know about skateboard travel?
Amount of skateboard travel
Skateboarding is not commonly listed in travel surveys as a mode choice option, but some
sporadic quantitative data available on the use of skateboards for travel are available. For
example, the California Household Travel Survey (CHTS) includes four categories of non-
motorized modes: walking, bicycling, wheelchairs/mobility scooters and ‘‘Other Non-
Motorized (Skateboard, etc.).’’ While not exclusively a skateboarding category, skate-
boarding is the only mode specifically mentioned in the category’s title. The CHTS shows
that 0.14% of trips in California are made on ‘‘other non-motorized’’ modes, with an
average trip length of 0.7 miles (1.1 km) (California Department of Transportation 2012).
Extrapolating this over the population of California and their trips per day, users of ‘‘other
non-motorized’’ modes travel approximately 48 million miles per year. While this is a
small fraction of the over 300 billion miles of travel undertaken by Californians annually,
users of ‘‘other non-motorized’’ modes do not ride on transportation facilities on their own.
Over the course of 48 million miles of travel, ‘‘other non-motorized’’ travelers interact
with potentially hundreds of millions of users of other modes. In 2012, at least 11
Transportation
123
skateboarders in California were killed during vehicle collisions, with at least eight while
riding for travel (Fang 2015).
Skateboarding is particularly prevalent for school trips, especially at the college level.
At the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), 7% of students skateboard to
campus, compared to 6% who drive alone (UCSB Budget and Planning 2014). At San Jose
State University (SJSU), the skateboarding mode share has increased over time, from an
almost imperceptible 0.04% in 2005 to 1.4% in 2014, an increase of 3500%, and double the
mode share of motorcycles (SJSU Transportation Solutions, 2016). Skateboarders make up
12% of commuters on wheeled, non-motorized modes (bicycles and skateboards) at UCSB,
and 25% of such commuters at SJSU. A study of three high schools in California found
skateboard mode shares of 1.3, 0.7 and 0.4% respectively (Lovejoy and Handy 2012). Of
students at all levels, approximately 25,000 use ‘‘other non-motorized’’ modes for school
trips in California (California Department of Transportation 2012).
Portland, Oregon recently added skateboard counts to their annual bicycle count pro-
gram. Afternoon peak observations conducted over two hours at 113 intersections in 2014
found skateboard travelers present at 79% of studied intersections (Portland Bureau of
Transportation 2015). Overall, one skateboarder was observed for every 63.3 bicyclists
citywide, but the ratio was as high as one skateboarder for every 19.4 bicyclists in the East
Portland sector. In Los Angeles, California an estimated 2% of transit riders skateboard to
reach transit stops each day (Los Angeles Metro Transit Authority 2015). This is just one
percentage point less than the share of transit riders who bicycle to transit stops and
extrapolates to more than 30,000 skateboard trips. On these trips, skateboards are used for
first- and last-mile access between transit stops and destinations, with transit being used for
the bulk of the distance on the line-haul portion of multi-modal trips.
Characteristics of skateboard travel
Skateboard travel is relatively unexplored in transportation research. A literature review of
several potential low-speed travel modes by Rodier et al. (2003) found data on skate-
boarding mostly lacking. The Federal Highway Administration (2004) included skate-
boards among emerging road and trail users whose presence raises operational and safety
questions that call for further research. O’Brien et al. (2009) reviewed the literature on
youth and sustainable transportation and identified skateboarding as in particular need of
further research. This paper is part of a larger research project examining different aspects
of skateboard travel including skateboarding and safety (Fang 2015), and regulations that
can affect skateboard travelers (Fang 2013).
Skateboard travel is unusually regulated compared to other modes (Fang 2013). Pro-
hibitions restrict skateboarding in certain places and situations in 45 of a sample of 60
California cities. Examples of prohibitions include bans on riding on transportation
facilities, in geographic areas within cities (such as downtowns), in business districts, and
at night. These prohibitions make skateboard travel illegal for certain trips in ways that
other modes are not restricted. Given that skateboarding is commonly seen as a recre-
ational activity, prohibitions are not necessarily targeted at skateboard travelers, but restrict
them nonetheless. That prohibitions are common is consistent with literature that finds that
skateboarding is often negatively perceived, and officials often seek to exclude it from the
public realm (Owens 2001; Borden 2001; Nemeth 2006; Woolley and Johns 2010).
A master’s thesis by Walker (2013) also explored skateboard travel. She convened
focus groups of skateboard travelers in Portland, Oregon and conducted an online survey
for participants living anywhere to find out how skateboarders perceive skateboard travel.
Transportation
123
Walker found that skateboarders think it is an enjoyable, convenient, and logical way to
travel. As presented later in this paper, skateboarders at UC Davis have similar feelings,
and such sentiments are important to mode choice decisions.
Conceptual model
When looking at the question of why travelers choose to skateboard, travel behavior theory
provides a framework for identifying potential contributing factors. This article utilizes the
model on routine mode decision making proposed by Schneider (2013). This model
comprises a cycle of five components: awareness and availability, basic safety and security
(with respect to traffic and crime), convenience and cost (including money, time, and
effort), enjoyment (reflecting personal, societal, or environmental benefits), and habit. The
first components, awareness and availability, are necessary conditions: a traveler must be
aware of a mode and be able to use that mode in order to select that mode. Basic safety and
security, convenience and cost, and enjoyment are ‘‘situational tradeoffs’’: individuals will
try to maximize these factors, but they may have to make trade-offs among them. Finally,
habit reflects the tendency for past or current use of a mode to make its selection more
likely in the future. Habit promotes increased awareness in the future, restarting the cycle.
From among the various conceptual models employed by travel behavior researchers,
the Schneider model is especially well suited as a starting point for considering skateboard
travel. Schneider developed the model as a way to think about sustainable travel. Skate-
boarding, being a non-motorized mode, is clearly a form of sustainable travel. Addition-
ally, the prominence of enjoyment and safety in the model seem particularly applicable for
skateboarding. Since skateboarding was invented as a recreational activity, it is reasonable
to think that enjoyment may be an important factor behind skateboard travel. Skate-
boarding is also commonly perceived as an extreme sport, and thus dangerous, as evi-
denced by a California state law officially designating skateboarding a ‘‘hazardous
activity.’’ Perceptions of danger could thus be a significant barrier to skateboard travel.
At the situational trade-offs stage of the model, individuals can differ in their assess-
ments of the safety, convenience, and enjoyability of a mode and may value these three
sets of factors to different degrees. Differences in assessments of skateboarding as a safe,
convenient, and enjoyable mode of transportation may stem from a variety of influences.
Research on other non-motorized modes point to potentially important influences on the
decision to skateboard such as individual attitudes and preferences (Gatersleben and
Appleton 2007; Akar and Clifton 2009), trip characteristics (Heinen et al. 2011; Lovejoy
and Handy 2012; Iacono et al. 2010), the built environment (Ewing and Cervero 2010;
Winters et al. 2010; Handy et al. 2002; Gatersleben and Appleton 2007), and the natural
environment (Winters et al. 2010; Gatersleben and Appleton 2007).
Methodology
Study area
To investigate the question of why travelers choose to skateboard, we studied skateboard
commuters at UC Davis. According to the annual UC Davis Campus Travel Survey (CTS),
3.6% of students skateboard at least sometimes for at least part of the distance to campus
Transportation
123
(UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies 2015). This extrapolates to nearly 1100
skateboarders, providing a concentration of research subjects for this study.
Study participants skateboard in and around the UC Davis campus and the adjacent City
of Davis in Northern California. Like most of the California Central Valley in which it sits,
Davis is exceptionally flat. The climate is warm and dry with a mean annual average high
temperature of 76.4 °F (24.7 °C) and average precipitation of less than 20 inches (51 cm)
of rain per year (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2014). Davis sees
itself as a premier bicycling city in the country and as such has heavily invested in bicycle
infrastructure. The 10
2
mile (26
2
km) city contains around 50 miles (80 km) of bike lanes
and 50 miles (80 km) of off-street paths (Buehler and Handy 2004). The city has only
approximately 8 miles (13 km) of four-lane roadways, not including freeways, and no city
streets are six lanes or wider. The bicycle mode share at UC Davis is 50.9% for students
and 18.9% for faculty and staff according to the 2014 CTS. Approximately 21% of workers
living in Davis usually commute by bicycle (US Census Bureau 2015). Overall, Davis has
several characteristics that make it conducive to non-motorized travel. Thus, potential
skateboard travelers outside of Davis may face more barriers to travel than the subjects of
this study.
Data sources
Interviews
Data were gathered primarily through in-depth interviews of 30 UC Davis skateboard
commuters. Interviewees were recruited through an invitation to participate that was
extended to respondents of the 2013 CTS who indicated they skateboard, as well as several
other methods: flyers placed on bulletin boards around campus, word of mouth advertising,
and snowball sampling. The CTS is an annual web-based survey administered to a sample
of UC Davis students, faculty, and staff invited over email. Over 4000 individuals,
approximately 10% of the university population, respond to the CTS annually.
Interviews typically lasted between 30 and 45 min, and participants received a 10 dollar
gift card for their participation. The interviewees consisted of 26 men and four women, and
27 undergraduate students and three graduate students. The interviews were conducted by
the first author of this paper (Fang) in an on-campus conference room or office.
The semi-structured interviews consisted of conversations with skateboarders about
their experiences and preferences. To start the interviews, we asked about the circum-
stances of their skateboard trips including where did they go, for what activities, when, and
along what routes. We were also interested in trips for which they chose not to skateboard
but ordinarily would. Looking at those instances helped highlight important barriers and
facilitators to skateboard travel. We also asked interviewees more explicitly what they
liked or disliked about skateboard travel, and whether anything would encourage them to
skateboard more or make their current trips better. In addition to current trips, we also
asked interviewees about their skateboarding history, including past recreational and travel
experience, and the circumstances that led them to skateboard as their commute mode to
UC Davis. Interviewees also completed a written questionnaire on their skateboarding
trips, experience, and preferences.
Written notes and audio recordings were taken during the interviews. The audio
recordings were later transcribed to facilitate data analysis. Peattie (1983) recommends that
qualitative interview data be analyzed in a simple, straightforward process of identifying
and categorizing information into major themes. To identify the major themes from the
Transportation
123
interviews, we used the notes and transcripts to identify all the different points that were
raised by any of the interviewees for each of the topics covered. A matrix was created with
all the points on one axis and the interviewees on the other to identify which interviewees
raised each point and to visualize the prevalence of each perspective. We drew on the
conceptual model and factors identified in the literature review in organizing the points that
emerged into major categories. Specific quotes that help illustrate these categories were
also tagged.
Campus travel survey questions
Data were also gathered through a series of skateboarding-related survey questions asked
to respondents of the 2014 CTS. This included questions on skateboarding experience and
respondents’ agreement or disagreement with ten statements about skateboarding. 41
skateboard commuters completed the skateboarding-related survey questions.
Of the 41 skateboarder respondents, 38 reported their gender, with 21 men and 17
women comprising the sample. Women are over-represented, which was expected, as in
the CTS, women have much higher response rates than men. To compensate, the survey
data was weighted by gender to a 90 to 10% male-to-female gender distribution. To
determine this weighting, we conducted observations of the apparent gender of 200
skateboard travelers passing along a major UC Davis campus thoroughfare. The over-
sampling of women in the CTS does allow for comparison of experience and attitudes
between men and women that was less explored in the male-heavy interview panel.
Skateboarding-related questions in the 2014 CTS were asked not just of active skate-
board commuters, but also to 130 respondents who indicated that skateboarding was a
commute option for them but do not skateboard. For simplicity’s sake, this group is
discussed later as ‘‘contemplators.’’ Comparing the attitudes of active skateboard com-
muters and ‘‘contemplators’’ allows for examination of both sides of the decision to
skateboard for travel.
Results
The following sections discuss the results of the in-depth interviews of skateboard com-
muters, followed by the results of skateboarding-related questions in the 2014 CTS.
Interview results are organized per the themes of the Schneider (2013) travel behavior
model. The survey results are first discussed in comparison to the interview results. Dif-
ferences in survey results are then discussed between male and female skateboarders, and
between active skateboard commuters and skateboarding ‘‘contemplators’’.
Interview results
Awareness and availability
In the interviews, two prominent themes emerged that influence awareness and availability:
past experience and regulations on skateboarding. Having past experience, even for
recreation, can make individuals more aware of the capabilities of skateboards. Addi-
tionally, those with past skateboarding experience have the pre-existing ability to ride a
Transportation
123
skateboard, and may still own a skateboard, thus making it a more available option. The
presence or absence of restrictive policies affect the legal availability of skateboard travel.
Skateboarding experience Most interviewees noted having several years of experience,
most frequently starting to skateboard in their early-teens. Almost all started skateboarding
primarily for recreation. Only three interviewees have only skateboarded for travel.
Skateboarders are thus similar to bicyclists, who usually either ride only for recreation, or
both recreation and transportation; few ride solely for transportation (Moudon et al. 2005).
While most interviewees have past recreational experience, some interviewees noted
that skateboarding was a means of independent travel for them prior to learning how to
drive. One interviewee said, ‘‘As kids, everyone [among him and his friends] was human
powered, on a bike or a skateboard.’’ Another interviewee said ‘‘Skateboarding is how I got
around without my parents.’’ One interviewee’s mother even encouraged him to skateboard
for travel, buying him a skateboard because she thought it took him too long to walk home
from school.
Additionally, interviewees noted that even when they skateboarded for recreation, they
often incidentally used their skateboard for travel. For example, interviewees noted that
when skateboarding recreationally, they would travel on their skateboards to meet up with
friends or to reach recreational ‘‘skate spots’’ (formal skate parks or informal locations).
One interviewee estimated when he was younger he might have skateboarded 4 or 5 miles
(6–8 km) in a day while skateboarding for recreation, riding from one skate spot to
another.
While most interviewees had past skateboard travel experience (Table 1), most said
they did not arrive at the university planning to be skateboard commuters. Once they
arrived on campus though, seeing other skateboard commuters helped some interviewees
become more aware that skateboarding can be a mode choice. One interviewee talked
about how when he moved to Davis, he brought his skateboard but was not intending to
commute using it. However, ‘‘I saw other people doing it, I fell in love, and it became my
main mode of transportation.’’ Another interviewee thought if he had gone to a different
school that had a different culture towards skateboarding or alternative modes in general,
he probably would not have thought to commute on his skateboard. These examples
Table 1 Types of trips
a
taken by skateboard commuters (from interviews)
Trip purpose Before attending university (%) Since attending university (%)
Shopping 48 76
Out to eat/drink 66 72
Visit friends 62 79
Visit skate park 52 41
Go to work 41 52 (on-campus)
24 (off-campus)
School 55 100
b
Any travel other than for school 72 90
Any travel 76 100
b
n=30
a
Trips taken at least once. Not necessarily routine travel
b
Requirement to participate in interviews
Transportation
123
suggest that the presence of some skateboard travelers could beget more skateboard
travelers by demonstrating it is a normal, socially acceptable behavior.
Several interviewees used to be regular bicyclists, but switched to skateboarding only
after bicycling ceased being an available mode for them. Four interviewees switched to
skateboarding after their bicycles were stolen. Another started skateboarding after his
bicycle was impounded. Another had a knee injury that he felt was exacerbated by
bicycling. Each of these commuters have past recreational skateboarding experience, thus
skateboarding was an easy and available option to them once they were looking for a new
mode. However, an unrelated catalyst prompted the actual mode shift.
Skateboarding policy Skateboarding is available as a commute mode at UC Davis
because skateboarding is allowed. As previously mentioned, skateboarding is not allowed
in many places, with skateboarding prohibitions common at other colleges and parts of
many cities (Fang 2013). Anti-skateboarding policies, particularly prohibitions, could be a
significant barrier to skateboard travel. Enforced prohibitions can eliminate skateboarding
as a travel option for those who otherwise might consider it. Dodging enforcement or re-
routing around areas with prohibitions can also make skateboarding less convenient, and
fines can make it costlier. One interviewee reported that he chose to attend UC Davis in
part because skateboarding is permitted: ‘‘I visited the campus in middle school. I learned
you’re allowed to skate on campus, and it’s one of the reasons I wanted to come here.’’
Policies on skateboarding were a point of confusion among interviewees. This is not
particularly surprising, as regulations on skateboarding are highly variable between
jurisdictions (Fang 2013). Policies are confusing even for law enforcement officials. Two
interviewees said they were stopped by police while skateboarding on a street in Davis.
One of them said he was ticketed as being a pedestrian outside a crosswalk. The other was
not ticketed, but the officer asked him to move to the adjacent bike lane, saying that he was
not sure where the student was supposed to ride but preferred that he be in the bike lane.
While interviewees were curious about regulations on skateboard travel, regulations do
not necessarily give UC Davis skateboarders pause. ‘‘I usually don’t think about the law
while I skateboard,’’ said one interviewee. That is perhaps not that surprising given that
when traveling, individuals do not usually have to first consider whether their modes of
travel are legal. Additionally, since skateboarding regulations in Davis are relatively
permissive, restrictions are not as acute an issue for skateboarders in Davis as they may be
for skateboarders elsewhere. That said, UC Davis skateboarders are aware that skate-
boarding can be negatively perceived and those perceptions can translate into anti-skate-
boarding laws. One interviewee said ‘‘I try to be extra courteous’’ while skateboarding, to
avoid negative impressions.
Enjoyment
From the interviews, it is clear that skateboarders think skateboarding is fun and that
hedonic goals are a major factor behind skateboard travel. ‘‘For me, it’s mostly because it’s
fun,’’ said one interviewee. When interviewees talked about what makes skateboard travel
fun, they discussed a wide range of benefits.
Several interviewees described skateboarding as being positive to their mental health.
Skateboarding ‘‘is just relaxing on a nice day,’’ said one interviewee. Other interviewees
called skateboarding ‘‘mental therapy,’’ a ‘‘stress reliever,’’ and ‘‘an outlet.’’ Others liked
how skateboarding gave them positive physical feelings. One interviewee said ‘‘I love the
Transportation
123
feeling of a skateboard under my feet.’’ Another said ‘‘I enjoy the feeling of being on a
skateboard. I like the feel of gliding.’’
Interviewees noted they did not find other modes as enjoyable. When talking about the
relaxing nature of skateboarding, one interviewee said ‘‘[I] don’t get that bicycling or
walking.’’ Another said ‘‘skateboarding is super fun, [but] a bike is so mechanical. You’re
really goal oriented [when riding a bike].’’ Skateboarding was also described as ‘‘more
casual’’ than bicycling, and when skateboarding ‘‘you’re not hunched over’’ like on a
bicycle.
Several interviewees also said they enjoy having the ability to listen to music while
skateboarding. Under the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Sect. 467 skateboarders fit under
the definition of pedestrians. As such, they are not subject to another state law that stip-
ulates that bicyclists can only cover one ear with a headphone. One interviewee, when
discussing whether he would bicycle or skateboard for a given trip, said ‘‘If I want to jam
[listen to music], I skateboard.’’
Beyond simple pleasure, some skateboarders enjoy other personal benefits. One inter-
viewee said skateboarding is ‘‘a lot more fun [than bicycling], but also a bit of a chal-
lenge.’’ This motivation is in line with social cognitive theory that holds that
accomplishing challenging goals can increase interest in an activity (Wood and Bandura
1989). Recreational skateboarders are also similarly attracted to the challenge of the
activity and the satisfaction of accomplishing goals (Seifert and Hedderson 2010).
Since skateboarding requires physical activity, skateboard travel provides an opportu-
nity for routine exercise. This rarely came up in interviews. However, one interviewee who
started skateboarding after age 20 said that since he started skateboarding he feels he has
better fitness, better lungs, and better reflexes.
‘‘Coolness’’/social perception Potential social benefits from skateboarding came up
sparingly in the interviews. One interviewee said he saw someone else skateboarding
around campus and thought that skateboarder was ‘‘pretty cool,’’ one of the reasons he
started thinking about skateboarding for travel himself. He, however, did not describe
himself as cool.
Three other interviewees brought up the idea of ‘‘coolness’’. They did not say that they
commuted via skateboard currently because it is cool, rather it was important in why they
started skateboarding as kids. If past recreational skateboarding experience, however it is
inspired, makes someone more likely to skateboard for their commutes in the future, then
recreational skateboarding being perceived as cool could indirectly promote travel. Con-
ceivably, younger kids thinking skateboarding is cool could generate future skateboard
travelers.
Woolley and Johns (2010) discuss that recreational skateboarders enjoy additional
social benefits of skateboarding including interacting with other skateboarders and
belonging to the unique, identifiable community of skateboarders and culture of skate-
boarding. Notably, these themes did not come up in the interviews for skateboard travel.
This perhaps reflects the more solitary nature of individual commutes versus recreational
experiences that are more likely to be shared.
Convenience and cost
While skateboarders think it is a fun way to travel, they do not think they are sacrificing
function for enjoyment. For instance, one interviewee said ‘‘I skateboard more for pleasure,
Transportation
123
but it’s still a convenient way to get around.’’ Another interviewee said, ‘‘I do it [skate-
board] more for convenience,’’ with convenience being more important than fun. Inter-
viewees noted several convenient aspects of skateboarding, some intrinsic to the mode, and
others related to the environment in which they ride. Characteristics of trips also influence
the convenience and cost of skateboarding.
Intrinsic characteristics: flexible, faster than walking, low cost Skateboards can easily be
picked up and carried when not in use, providing flexibility in several situations. For
example, because skateboards are easy to carry, skateboarders do not need to ‘‘park’’ their
skateboards at a destination. One interviewee said, ‘‘You don’t have to lock it up. You
skateboard to a building, jump off, and walk in.’’ Like pedestrians, skateboarders can travel
from door to door. Unlike bicyclists, skateboarders do not have to worry about finding
parking or spend time diverting to bike racks, locking up, and unlocking. The large number
of bicyclists on campus can also make finding bicycle parking difficult and time con-
suming. One interviewee said ‘‘there are too many bikes and no bike parking, especially if
you’re late. You can go right into class [with a skateboard].’’
The ease with which skateboards can be carried can also enable skateboarders to take
shortcuts. One interviewee said that to traverse four blocks between his apartment and a
bus stop he skateboards through the parking lot of his complex, the parking lot of a
neighboring office building, and down a street for one block. He then dismounts and walks
between some apartment buildings. He then gets back on his skateboard and rides through
that complex’s parking lot. Finally, he crosses the street to the bus stop, overall taking a
straighter path than if he followed local streets.
Skateboards can also be conveniently carried onto transit vehicles or automobiles as a
part of multi-modal trips. Skateboarding is more convenient than bicycling in this regard.
In Davis, bicycles are not allowed on local buses except on the first and last run of the day,
and are much more difficult to transport in automobiles than are skateboards. One inter-
viewee said skateboarding is ‘‘really convenient if you’re taking the bus.’’ The ease with
which skateboarders can make multi-modal trips extends how far they can go. One
interviewee who grew up in a small town said he could ‘‘skate anywhere in town,’’ but
‘‘pairing with the bus makes long range trips possible.’’
Skateboarders retain pedestrian-like flexibility while traveling relatively fast for human
power, at speeds approaching that of bicycling. Experienced skateboarders were bullish in
the interviews about their ability to keep up with bicyclists. One interviewee said ‘‘I can
keep up with friends on bikes.’’ Most interviewees said they at least occasionally pass slow
bicyclists. ‘‘I pass multiple bicyclists daily’’ said one interviewee. The type of bicyclist
matters, however. ‘‘Going to class, I’ll pass people [on bicycles],’’ said one interviewee,
‘‘Unless they’re [riding] road bikes.’’ ‘‘I do pass bicyclists,’’ said another interviewee,
‘‘more times than not, they are [riding] beach cruisers.’’
Observations of travelers at UC Davis are in line with these recollections. Skateboarders
on campus travel between 6 and 13 miles per hour (9–21 km/h), with an average at
9.7 miles per hour (15.6 km per hour) (Fang 2015). Bicyclists on campus travel between 6
and 20 miles per hour (9–32 km per hour), with an average of 11.6 miles per hour (18.7 km
per hour). Skateboarders are thus essentially equivalent to slower-than-average bicyclists.
A study of pedestrians meanwhile estimates adults walk approximately 3.375 miles per
hour (5.4 km per hour) (Knoblauch et al. 1996).
One interviewee highlighted the combination of flexibility and speed when describing
how his commute habits changed over time. He described how he used to ride the bus to
Transportation
123
avoid paying for parking. Eventually, though, he realized he could drive and park for free
several blocks away from campus. The free parking was too far away to conveniently walk
to campus but was at a reasonable skateboarding distance. Ironically, the non-motorized
mode of skateboarding enabled driving alone to be his primary commute mode.
Interviewees generally felt that skateboarding is an inexpensive way to travel, with a
lower capital cost, lower maintenance cost, and required less maintenance time than
bicycling. For example, a cheap skateboard could cost fifty dollars, while higher end
skateboards can cost two-or-three hundred dollars. Comparatively, lower-end bicycles cost
a few hundred dollars, while top of the line road bicycles cost thousands of dollars. One
interviewee rides a particularly inexpensive skateboard; he built his skateboard deck
himself in a woodshop class as a freshman in high school. In terms of maintenance,
skateboards have fewer moving parts than bicycles. Skateboards do not have gears, brakes,
or chains. The solid wheels on skateboards also mean that skateboards do not get flat tires,
which can provide cost and reliability advantages.
Natural and built environment While interviewees found several intrinsic characteristics
of skateboarding convenient, they also felt that environmental conditions in Davis are
favorable to skateboarding and help make it a convenient travel mode. The most prominent
natural environmental advantage is that Davis is flat. Not having to travel uphill is con-
venient, although flat terrain can make skateboarding less fun. Some interviewees said they
enjoy going down slopes where they exist, and a few wished Davis had more terrain.
Travelers using non-motorized modes are exposed to the elements while traveling.
Getting wet when it rains or sweaty during hot weather can also be an inconvenience and
thus a deterrent to non-motorized travel (Gatersleben and Appleton 2007). That said,
interviewees noted the warm and dry climate of Davis was a characteristic favorable to
skateboarding. When interviewees were asked if there was anything that would cause them
to not skateboard for trips they otherwise might, most interviewees mentioned rain.
Interviewees were less worried about getting wet themselves. Instead, they were concerned
with their skateboards getting wet. A couple of interviewees mentioned that they did not
like carrying a wet skateboard around once they reach their destinations. However,
skateboarders’ primary concern was water or sludge getting into their wheels and rusting
the bearings inside of them. One interviewee said ‘‘rain is my nemesis’’ after having to
replace his bearings multiple times. Another said ‘‘When I see people skateboarding in the
rain, it makes me cringe.’’ Water is a concern if it is actively raining or if the ground is wet
and has unavoidable puddles. Some interviewees were not willing to ride in the rain, one
calling it a ‘‘no go’’ condition. However, some were willing to ride in wet weather with a
couple saying they had a backup ‘‘beater’’ skateboard that they would use in wet
conditions.
Davis does not typically experience snow or prolonged frozen conditions that could
hinder skateboarders in other locations. An interviewee who previously lived in Colorado
guessed that if he was still living there, he probably could only skateboard eight to ten
months a year. However, he also mentioned that if he still lived there he would probably
experiment with the setup of his skateboard to see if he could handle more extreme
conditions. Another interviewee originally from Chicago said he has skateboarded in
extreme cold, but that he really did not want to fall in those temperatures because the
ground gets extra hard.
Interviewees also felt that aspects of the built environment in Davis help facilitate
skateboarding and make it more convenient. The compact built environment of Davis, with
Transportation
123
the campus, downtown, and apartment complexes in close proximity, can make trip dis-
tances in Davis short compared to other places. When one interviewee was asked whether
he skateboards for travel when he is back in his hometown, he said ‘‘First problem, there is
nowhere to go. You have to get in a car to go anywhere [because destinations are far
away].’’
Interviewees also generally like that the bicycle facilities in Davis are convenient for
skateboard travel. On bike paths and bike lanes, skateboarders are separated from faster
automobiles and slower pedestrians. One interviewee said ‘‘having bike lanes is ideal.’’
Another said ‘‘we really benefit from the bike lobby,’’ who presumably helped get those
facilities built.
On the written questionnaire given to interviewees, we asked how comfortable skate-
boarders were riding on different facilities. Skateboarders were extremely comfort-
able riding on quiet neighborhood streets, off-street bicycle paths, and empty sidewalks
(Fig. 1). On roads with more traffic, a majority were comfortable riding on both two- and
four-lane streets with bike lanes. If those same roads do not have bike lanes, more
skateboarders would be uncomfortable riding there than would be comfortable. The fact
that Davis has many bicycle facilities gives skateboarders riding there places where they
feel comfortable riding. In other locations, a lack of such facilities could potentially be a
barrier to skateboarding.
Influence of trip characteristics on convenience and cost Characteristics of trips can also
affect whether skateboarding is convenient or costly for that given trip. For example,
travelers on all modes are bound by how much time they have and the speed of their mode.
When interviewees were asked about the longest one-way trip they were willing to take on
a skateboard, the median distance was 5 miles (8 km) and median travel time was 30 min.
The average longest trip skateboarders were willing to take was even farther, extended by
an outlier who said he was willing to skateboard 130 miles (210 km). He was planning
(and completed after his interview) a long skateboard road trip of that length. However,
based on the trips interviewees described, routine skateboard trips are more often within a
38%
30%
13%
10%
19%
7%
1%
27%
4%
30%
16%
31%
27%
21%
4%
9%
9%
9%
31%
31%
23%
43%
26%
43%
4%
6%
13%
34%
69%
9%
28%
13%
53%
87%
81%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Crowded sidewalk
Sidewalk with few pedestrians
Empty sidewalk
Four lane street, no bike lane
Four-lane street with a bike lane
Two-lane street, no bike lane
Two-lane street with a bike lane
Quiet neighborhood street
Off-street bicycle path
1 - Not at all comfortable 2 3 4 5 - Very comfortable
Fig. 1 Level of comfort skateboarding on various transportation facilities (from interviews) n =30
Transportation
123
mile or two or shorter. Farther than that, skateboarding as part of multi-modal trips appears
more likely.
The need to carry cargo can also affect whether an individual skateboards for a trip or
not. One interviewee said when he does not have to carry a lot of weight, he usually
skateboards. Conversely, if he had more stuff to carry, he is more likely to bicycle instead.
Skateboarding is an activity that requires balance. A couple of less experienced intervie-
wees mentioned that carrying a heavy backpack can throw off their balance. Rather than
not skateboarding, one interviewee said she carries fewer books and her laptop less often if
skateboarding. On the other hand, some interviewees liked their ability to carry things
while skateboarding. Unlike bicyclists, skateboarder’s hands are free while they ride,
which can be useful on shopping trips and carrying grocery bags.
A couple of interviewees mentioned they are less likely to skateboard if wearing nice
clothes. This is not necessarily a skateboard-only problem as getting nice clothes sweaty
can be an issue for other active travel modes as well (Heinen et al. 2011). Several inter-
viewees also brought up footwear. The footwear skateboarders use is important as a
skateboarder stays on his or her skateboard due to friction between their foot and the board.
Several interviewees mentioned skateboarding in sandals, which might be tempting in the
warm Davis climate, as particularly dangerous. One interviewee even said, ‘‘That
[skateboarding in sandals] should be illegal.’’
Safety and security
Interviewees overall did not think skateboard travel is unsafe nor did they express major
concern over safety issues. One interviewee said safety is ‘‘Not at all a deterrent.’’ This is
not particularly surprising given that the interviewees actively skateboard for travel and
thus have not been deterred by safety concerns. That said, interviewees did discuss several
safety and security-related topics.
Falls and collisions If a skateboarder loses control of their skateboard, a couple things
can happen. If riders sense they are losing control, they can ‘‘bail’’ from their skateboards.
When bailing, skateboarders step off or jump off their skateboards but remain upright. If
skateboarders come off their skateboards but do not land on their feet, it is a ‘‘fall.’’
Interviewees were fairly indifferent to falls, accepting them as occasional occurrences that
are rarely serious and that decreases with time and experience. One interviewee said, with
falls ‘‘you dust yourself off’’ and roll along. One interviewee said falls are unfortunate,
‘‘more [because] of the embarrassment factor’’ than because of injuries. When interviewees
talked about times they have fallen, they were often self-deprecating. They did not consider
falls an inherent problem with skateboarding, but rather as resulting from their own
incidental carelessness or over-aggressiveness.
Falls may be more likely where pavement condition is poor, such as with cracks,
potholes, gravel, or debris. As one interviewee said, ‘‘A small rock stops your board, but
you keep going.’’ Poor pavement condition, and the risk of falls from it, did not appear to
affect interviewees’ mode choice decisions, but some indicated that pavement affects their
route choice. One interviewee said he takes certain routes because ‘‘I know there are no
potholes.’’ The effect of pavement on route choice could indirectly affect mode choice if
poor pavement results in exceedingly long route options which make skateboard travel less
competitive versus other modes.
Transportation
123
Interviewees generally felt comfortable operating around users of other modes in Davis.
Some thought the bicycle culture of Davis helped as drivers are already aware of the need
to look out for non-motorized travelers. However, some interviewees thought other trav-
elers were unaware of their capabilities, in particular their speed, which can result in
skateboarders being cut-off.
Notably, two interviewees (6.7%) reported having been hit by automobiles while
skateboarding. One did not need medical attention, although the other was hospitalized.
The automobile collisions do not deter the two interviewees from skateboarding. This is in
line with Lee et al. (2015) who found that bicyclists who had crashed were less affected by
actual crashes than non-bicyclists who had heard about crashes. This highlights the
importance of how skateboarding is perceived. That said, an injury, whether from a col-
lision or a fall, can still have a chilling effect on skateboarding. One other interviewee said,
‘‘I got injured skateboarding when I was 13. I didn’t skateboard again until I was a
freshman [in college].’’
Parking and security As discussed previously, most skateboarders find that not having to
park their skateboards is convenient. While in class, interviewees said they typically place
their skateboards underneath their seats or up against a wall. In either case, their skateboard
is secure as either the skateboarder keeps their skateboard with them or they can maintain a
line of sight with it. However, holding onto their skateboards is impractical in destinations
lacking places where they can set their skateboards down securely. Examples of such
places that interviewees mentioned included fitness centers and event venues.
Some places also prohibit skateboards inside their premises, including the dining halls
at the UC Davis dormitories. Not being allowed to bring their skateboards inside, three
interviewees said they hid them in nearby bushes. Parking racks have now been installed
outside the dining halls. However, since skateboard parking is rare, and often unnecessary,
most skateboarders do not carry locks. One interviewee said he still ended up hiding his
skateboard in the bushes outside a dining hall, despite there being racks, because he did not
have a lock with him.
A couple of interviewees also noted they were unsure of the security of skateboard
racks. A common design of skateboard racks either clamp down or wrap around the middle
of a skateboard deck. However, with this design, the skateboard can be pulled out by
removing either the front or rear set of a skateboard’s trucks (axles). Each truck is attached
to the deck by only four screws and nuts and can easily be removed with a ‘‘skate tool’’, a
small handheld combination of screwdrivers and socket wrenches.
Campus travel survey results
Agreement with attitudinal statements about skateboarding
Skateboarders responding to the 2014 CTS were asked whether they agree or disagree with
10 statements about skateboarding. Like the interviewees, the 2014 CTS respondents rated
skateboarding very highly in terms of fun and several measures of convenience (Fig. 2).
Almost all, 94%, agreed that skateboarding is a fun way to travel. In terms of convenience,
94% of respondents also agreed or strongly agreed that skateboarding is inexpensive and
that not having to park their skateboards is convenient. All respondents agreed that
skateboarding is much faster than walking. However, only 56% agreed or strongly agreed
that skateboarding is almost as fast as bicycling. Interestingly, only 60% of respondents
Transportation
123
agreed that skateboarding is a safe way to travel, with 15% in disagreement and 25%
neutral on the statement. These latter groups apparently find the other characteristics of
skateboarding valuable enough to trade-off neutral or negative perceptions of safety.
Women and skateboarding
Observations of on-campus skateboarders and CTS mode share data indicate that about
nine out of 10 skateboard commuters at UC Davis are male. Skateboarders are thus similar
to bicyclists who also tend to be predominantly male. In the United States as a whole, men
bicycle at a rate more than triple that of women (Pucher et al. 2011). At UC Davis, CTS
data shows skateboarding and bicycling (52–48) are the only two modes where men make
up the majority of users. Skateboarders are much more heavily male than bicyclists,
however. That said, skateboarding may have some broadening appeal among women.
Nearly two-thirds of male skateboarders in the 2014 CTS reported having three or more
years of experience. Conversely, more than two-thirds of female skateboarders in the
survey are newer skateboarders with two or fewer years of experience (Table 2).
The attitudinal questions in the 2014 CTS reveal additional differences between gen-
ders. Men and women significantly differed in their perceptions of skateboarding being
much faster than walking, and that not having to park a skateboard is convenient (Fig. 3).
The vast majority of both men and women did agree with these three statements, but a
15%
21%
8%
4%
37%
21%
23%
15%
4%
10%
4%
4%
9%
14%
13%
25%
37%
12%
2%
6%
19%
25%
31%
45%
43%
43%
36%
29%
22%
21%
21%
19%
25%
15%
16%
31%
60%
65%
72%
79%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
I know well what traffic laws apply to
skateboarders
Carrying my skateboard while not riding is a big
hassle
Skateboarding is almost as fast as bicycling
Skateboarding is a safe way to travel
Skateboarding for travel gives me a sense of
accomplishment
It is easy to get around campus on a skateboard
Skateboarding is an inexpensive way to travel
Not having to park my skateboard, like a bike, is
convenient
Skateboarding is a fun way to travel
Skateboarding is much faster than walking
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
Skateboarding is much faster than walking
Skateboarding is a fun way to travel
Not having to park my skateboard,
like a bike, is convenient
Skateboarding is an inexpensive way to travel
It is easy to get around campus
on a skateboard
Skateboarding for travel gives me
a sense of accomplishment
Skateboarding is a safe way to travel
Skateboarding is almost as fast as bicycling
Carrying my skateboard while
not riding it is a big hassle
I know well what traffic laws
apply to skateboarders
Fig. 2 Skateboard commuters’ level of agreement with 10 statements about skateboarding (from Campus
Travel Survey) n =41
Transportation
123
greater proportion of men strongly agreed with each statement. While not quite significant,
women also rate skateboarding less highly in terms of fun and safety. While female
skateboarders hold overall positive opinions of skateboarding, they do not hold as extre-
mely positive opinions of skateboarding as men do. This could help to explain the lower
number of women skateboarders.
The four women interviewed thought skateboarding is definitely something other
women could also do. One female skateboarder said, ‘‘A lot of people don’t know how
Table 2 Skateboard experience
by gender (from Campus Travel
Survey)
Women (n =17) Men (n =21)
Number Percent Number Percent
\1 year 1 6% 1 4%
1–2 years 11 65% 6 25%
3–4 years 0 0% 6 25%
More than 4 years 5 29% 11 46%
Median 1 4
Years 3.8 4.4
24%
14%
4%
5%
4%
17%
4%
46%
23%
22%
27%
39%
34%
21%
17%
48%
34%
28%
15%
46%
60.3%
17%
49%
75%
13%
15%
44%
68%
53%
12%
39.7%
83%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
Skateboarding is much
faster than walking
Skateboarding is
a fun way to travel
Skateboarding for travel
gives me a sense of
accomplishment
Skateboarding is a
safe way to travel
Not having to park my
skateboard, like a bike,
is convenient
p-value
<.01***
.03**
.07*
.17
.18
Fig. 3 Notable differences in perceptions of skateboarding by gender (from campus Travel Survey) n = 21
(men), n = 17 (women). *Significant difference in attitudes by gender. 90% confidence. **Significant
difference in attitudes by gender. 95% confidence. ***Significant difference in attitudes by gender. 99%
confidence
Transportation
123
easy it is, how fun it is. They think it’s difficult.’’ Another said, ‘‘Anyone can do it.’’ One
interviewee acknowledged there can be gender-based perceptions to overcome. She said,
‘‘There is a stereotype that it’s manly, but I still put on makeup and dresses.’’
Individuals who consider skateboard commuting but do not
The 2014 CTS asked respondents what modes are an option for their trips to campus. Over
10% of students said skateboarding is an option for them (Table 3). Far fewer students
consider skateboarding to be an option than walking, bicycling, driving, or bus transit, but
many more consider skateboarding an option than electric bicycles and motorcycles. For
all groups, men are at least twice as likely as women to indicate skateboarding is an option
for them. As previously mentioned, 3.6% of students actually skateboard. These additional
6.6% of students who stated that skateboarding is an option suggests some broader
awareness—beyond active skateboarders—that skateboards can be used for travel.
As previously mentioned, the group that considers skateboarding a viable travel option
but do not do so are referred to here as ‘‘contemplators.’’ Most contemplators still pre-
dominantly use non-motorized transportation: 63% bicycle as their usual mode to campus,
4% walk, 18% use transit, and 15% drive or ride in a motor vehicle.
Among contemplators, 35% have no skateboarding experience. These individuals do
not have the pre-existing ability to ride a skateboard, but still perceive skateboarding as
viable enough to consider for their commutes. Conversely, 65% of contemplators have an
average of 3.0 years of skateboarding experience. The fact that these individuals have
skateboarding experience but do not skateboard for their commutes reinforces that
Table 3 Modes that are options to UC Davis commuters (from Campus Travel Survey)
Undergrad
students (%)
Graduate
students (%)
All
students
(%)
Faculty and
staff (%)
All
(%)
Walk 76.8 59.6 73.6 29.1 62.1
Bike 81.3 73.5 79.8 42.5 70.2
Electric bike 1.3 2.8 1.6 3.9 2.2
Motorcycle or scooter 2.3 4.2 2.6 7.5 3.9
Drive alone 41.3 65.3 45.7 91.1 57.5
Carpool or vanpool 31.4 32.2 31.5 41.4 34.1
Get a ride 21.2 18.5 20.7 18.3 20.1
Bus 82.1 66.8 79.3 55.3 73.1
Train 4.7 8.2 5.3 16.3 8.1
Skateboard
Overall 10.9 6.9 10.2 4.3 8.7
Male 18.8 11.4 17.2 7.6 14.6
Female 7.7 3.9 7.1 2.2 5.8
Actually skateboard 4.1 1.2 3.6 0.0 2.6
‘‘Contemplators’’ (Skateboarding is an
option, but do not skateboard)
6.8 5.7 6.6 4.3 6.9
n=4224
Transportation
123
awareness of skateboarding and ability to ride a skateboard does not by itself lead to
skateboard travel.
Contemplators have a median age of 23 years old. They are statistically significantly
older than active skateboard commuters who have a median age of 20 years old. Con-
tributing to this older age is a higher proportion of faculty, staff, and graduate students. In
general, older commuters could face some constraints that some younger commuters do
not. For example, faculty, staff, and graduate students may have other responsibilities such
as child care. Faculty, staff, and graduate students also tend to live farther away from
campus. The median distance from home to campus is 1.8 miles (2.9 km) for UC Davis
undergraduate students, 2.2 miles for graduate students, and 9.0 miles (14.5 km) for fac-
ulty and staff (Popovich 2014).
Active skateboard commuters and contemplators have significant differences in how
they perceive skateboarding (Table 4). Large majorities of contemplators still think
skateboarding is fun and has convenient aspects, but to a statistically significantly lesser
degree than active skateboarders. For example, almost all contemplators find skateboarding
much faster than walking, but less than one quarter think skateboarding is almost as fast as
bicycling. Additionally, only around a quarter of contemplators find skateboarding safe,
compared to a majority of active skateboarders.
Table 4 Perceptions of the characteristics of skateboarding among UC Davis commuters that consider
skateboarding an option (from Campus Travel Survey)
Agree or strongly agree
Active skateboard
commuters (n =41)
(%)
‘‘Contemplators’’
(n =130) (%)
Difference in
attitudes, pvalue
Skateboarding is much faster than
walking
100 89 \0.01***
Skateboarding is a fun way to travel 95 82 \0.01***
Not having to park my skateboard,
like a bike, is convenient
94 70 \0.01***
Skateboarding is an inexpensive way
to travel
96 87 \0.01***
It is easy to get around campus on a
skateboard
74 49 0.02**
Skateboarding for travel gives me a
sense of accomplishment
58 23 \0.01***
Skateboarding is a safe way to travel 61 27 \0.01***
Skateboarding is almost as fast as
bicycling
56 24 \0.01***
Carrying my skateboard while not
riding is a big hassle
44 53 \0.01***
I know well what traffic laws apply to
skateboarders
39 25 0.11
** Significant difference at 95% level
*** Significant difference at 99% level
Transportation
123
Discussion and conclusions
Skateboard travelers consider many factors when deciding to skateboard for travel.
Unsurprisingly, given the use of skateboards for recreation, many skateboard travelers say
that it is fun. However, skateboard travelers are influenced by more practical attributes of
skateboarding as well. The importance of convenience demonstrates that skateboarders do
not travel in spite of inconvenience. Rather, the practical performance of skateboarding is
an additional positive feature.
The fact that skateboarders balance many considerations, both utilitarian and hedonic,
shows that their travel behavior can be characterized by the same theory as other travelers.
That the thought process of travelers of a given mode can be characterized by existing
theory may seem like an obvious and unimportant point. However, this is an acutely
notable finding for skateboarders. Take the case of regulations prohibiting skateboard
travel in many situations in ways that other modes are not restricted. These prohibitions are
often based on an idea that skateboarders are not like other travelers. Perhaps they are
doing it only for fun, or to look ‘‘cool’’, or are kids who have not yet grown up and
graduated to more adult modes of travel. The results here counter such stereotypes.
The results here also provide some validation of the relatively recently proposed Sch-
neider (2013) model. The model is robust enough to describe a mode of travel not con-
sidered in the original paper. That said, skateboarders do differ from other travelers in how
they weight the relative importance of different factors. At the situational trade-offs stage,
Schneider conjectures that most travelers value safety and security first, followed by
convenience and cost, then enjoyment. From this research, though, it appears skateboarders
are motivated by enjoyment first, followed closely by convenience, and then safety.
Several interviewees said they were motivated primarily by fun, but some also said they
were motivated primarily by convenience. Active skateboarders are unsurprisingly not
deterred by safety, but perceptions of safety could be a critical factor in why other indi-
viduals consider skateboard travel but choose not to do so. ‘‘Contemplators’’ still think
skateboarding is fun and convenient, but are more negative about skateboarding safety than
active skateboard commuters.
That fun is the top motivation for some skateboarders, rather than the least important of
the three situational tradeoffs, shows that some travelers want enjoyment to be more than
just a fringe benefit of travel. That travelers want more enjoyable trips should not be a
surprise, however. Travelers often find commutes stressful and boring (Gatersleben and
Uzzell 2007) and more individuals dislike their commute trips than like them (Ory and
Mokhtarian 2005). Research shows that enjoyment is a critical component of commute
satisfaction (Abou-Zeid et al. 2014) and that commute satisfaction contributes to overall
well-being (Ettema et al. 2010). Skateboarding seems to offer its users several different
qualities identified by travel behavior researchers as relating to enjoyment, including
pleasure, pleasantness, and arousal (Gatersleben and Uzzell 2007; Mokhtarian et al. 2015),
as well as the ‘‘fun’’ factor (Eriksson et al. 2013).
In terms of convenience, study participants liked that skateboarding blends positive
attributes of walking and bicycling. Participants liked they could travel much faster than
walking, but at greater flexibility and lower monetary cost than bicycling. This could mean
that other modes with operational characteristics similar to skateboarding could also be
viable. These characteristics could be provided by similarly human-powered devices such
as roller skates and push scooters as well as powered devices such as electric skateboards,
electric scooters, and ‘‘personal transportation devices.’’ However, skateboards still have
Transportation
123
some advantages compared to some of these modes such as the need to change back into
shoes after roller skating, and the additional cost and weight of electric skateboards and
electric scooters. In the early 2000s, Segways attracted attention in transportation literature
as a potential future travel mode, with speeds between walking and bicycling (Shaheen
et al. 2005) but now fill largely niche uses such as for tourists and security personnel. The
measurable use of skateboards as a mode of transportation, in constrast, shows that
transportation innovations need not be of a ‘‘high tech’’ variety.
Skateboarding, as a human-powered travel mode, also has the benefit of being a
potential part of the effort to increase active transportation for environmental and public
health reasons. However, for that to occur, planners and policy makers need to recognize
that skateboarding is a mode of travel to begin, with and a distinct activity from recre-
ational skateboarding, and they need to address the aforementioned inconsistencies
between regulations on skateboarding versus other modes. Where skateboarders are
prevalent, such as college campuses, planners may also want to consider provision of
parking racks in some key locations, and pavement condition, which interviewees noted
skateboarders are sensitive to. This would also be in-line with recent attention being paid
attention to bicycling and pavement condition (Thigpen et al. 2015). Additionally,
including skateboarding as a mode choice option on travel surveys would generate better
data that could inform planning and policy making.
The skateboard travelers at UC Davis studied here benefit from favorable environmental
conditions that make skateboarding convenient and from permissive policies that make it
feasible. As a result, skateboarders at UC Davis are relatively unencumbered. Skate-
boarders elsewhere may face additional barriers. That said, the skateboarders studied here
show that skateboarding can be a competitive mode under the right conditions and meet
some travelers’ needs and preferences better than traditional modes can.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest statement On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no
conflict of interest.
References
Abou-Zeid, M., Ben-Akiva, M.: Satisfaction and travel choices. In: Garling, T., Ettema, D., Friman, M.
(eds.) Handbook of Sustainable Travel, pp. 53–65. Springer, Berlin (2014)
Akar, G., Clifton, K.: Influence of individual perceptions and bicycle infrastructure on decision to bike.
Transp. Res. Rec. (2009). doi:10.3141/2140-18
Borden, I.: Skateboarding, space and the city: architecture and the body. Berg, Oxford (2001)
Buehler, T., Handy, S.: Fifty years of bicycle policy in Davis CA. Transp. Res. Rec. (2004). doi:10.3141/
2074-07
Eriksson, L., Friman, M., Garling, T.: Perceived attributes of bus and car mediating satisfaction with the
work commute. Transp. Res. A-Policy (2013). doi:10.1016/j.tra.2012.10.028
Ettema, D., Garling, T., Olsson, L., Friman, M.: Out-of-home activities, daily travel, and subjective well-
being. Transp. Res. A-Policy (2010). doi:10.1016/j.tra.2010.07.005
Ewing, R., Cervero, R.: Travel and the built environment: a meta-analysis. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. (2010).
doi:10.1080/01944361003766766
Fang, K.: Skateboarding as a legal travel mode: review of regulations in California cities and college
campuses. In: Proceedings of the 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington (2013)
Fang, K.: Safety indicators for skateboarding on transportation facilities and as a mode of travel–a look at
enigmatic injury, fatality, and incident data. In: Proceedings of the 94th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington (2015)
Transportation
123
Gatersleben, B., Appleton, K.: Contemplating cycling to work: attitudes and perceptions in different stages
of change. Transp. Res. A-Policy (2007). doi:10.1016/j.tra.2006.09.002
Gatersleben, B., Uzzell, D.: Affective appraisals of the daily commute: comparing perceptions of drivers,
cyclists, walkers, and users of public transport. Environ. Behav. (2007). doi:10.1177/0013916506294032
Handy, S., Boarnet, M., Ewing, R., Killingsworth, R.: How the built environment affects physical activity:
views from urban planning. Am. J. Prev. Med. (2002). doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00475-0
Heinen, E., Maat, K., Van Wee, B.: The role of attitudes toward characteristics of bicycle commuting on the
choice to cycle to work over various distances. Transp. Res. D-Transp. Environ. (2011). doi:10.1016/j.
trd.2010.08.010
Iacono, M., Krizek, K., El-Geneidy, A.: Measuring non-motorized accessibility: issues, alternatives, and
execution. J. Transp. Geogr. (2010). doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.02.002
Knoblauch, R., Pietrucha, M., Nitzburg, M.: Field studies of pedestrian walking speed and start-up time.
Transp. Res. Rec. (1996). doi:10.3141/1538-04
Lee, A., Underwood, S., Handy, S.: Crashes and other safety-related incidents in the formation of attitudes
toward bicycling. Transp. Res. Part F (2015). doi:10.1016/j.trf.2014.11.001
Lovejoy, K., Handy, S.: Developments in bicycle equipment and its role in promoting cycling as a travel
mode. In: Pucher, J., Buehler, R. (eds.) City Cycling, pp. 75–104. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)
Mokhtarian, P., Papon, F., Goulard, M., Diana, M.: What makes travel pleasant and/or tiring? An investigation
based on the French national travel survey. Transportation (2015). doi:10.1007/s11116-014-9557-y
Moudon, A., Lee, C., Cheadle, A., Collier, C., Johnson, D., Schmid, T., Weather, R.: Cycling and the built
environment, a US perspective. Transp. Res. D-Trnsp. Environ. (2005). doi:10.1016/j.trd.2005.04.001
Nemeth, J.: Conflict, exclusion, relocation: skateboarding and public space. J. Urban Des. (2006). doi:10.
1080/13574800600888343
O’Brien, C., Ramanathan, S., Gilbert, R., Orsini, A.: Youth and sustainable transportation: a review of
literature. University of Winnipeg - Centre for Sustainable Transportation (2009)
Ory, D., Mokhtarian, P.: When is getting there half the fun? Modeling the liking for travel. Transp. Res.
A-Policy (2005). doi:10.1016/j.tra.2004.09.006
Owens, P.: Recreation and restrictions: community skateboard parks in the United States. Urban Geogr.
(2001). doi:10.2747/0272-3638.22.8.782
Peattie, L.: Realistic planning and qualitative research. Habitat Int. (1983)
Pucher, J., Buehler, R., Seinen, M.: Bicycling renaissance in North America? An update and re-appraisal of
cycling trends and policies. Transp. Res. A-Policy (2011). doi:10.1016/j.tra.2011.03.001
Rodier, C., Shaheen, C., Chung, S.: Unsafe at any speed?: what the literature says about low-speed modes.
In: 82nd proceedings of the annual meeting of the transportation research board, Washington (2003)
Schneider, R.: Theory of routing mode choice decisions: an operational framework to increase sustainable
transportation. Transp. Policy (2013). doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.10.007
Seifert, T., Hedderson, C.: Intrinsic motivation and flow in skateboarding: an ethnographic study. J. Hap-
piness Stud. (2010). doi:10.1007/s10902-009-9140-y
Shaheen, S., Rodier, C., Eaken, A.: Improving California’s bay area rapid transit district connectivity and
access with Segway human transporter and other low-speed mobility devices. Transp. Res. Rec.
(2005). doi:10.3141/1927-22
Thigpen, C., Li, H., Handy, S., Harvey, J.: Modeling the impact of pavement roughness on bicycle ride
quality. Transp. Res. Rec. (2015). doi:10.3141/2520-09
Winters, M., Brauer, M., Setton, E., Teschke, K.: Built environment influences on healthy transportation
choices: bicycling versus driving. J. Urban Health (2010). doi:10.1007/s11524-010-9509-6
Wood, R., Bandura, A.: Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Acad. Manage. Rev. (1989).
doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4279067
Woolley, H., Johns, R.: Skateboarding: the city as a playground. J. Urban Des. (2010). doi:10.1080/
13574800120057845
Dr. Kevin Fang is a lecturer in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of
California, Davis and the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at San Jose State University. His
research includes work on non-motorized transportation, new methods in traffic impact studies, and
sustainable transportation policy.
Dr. Susan Handy is a Professor in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy and Director of the
National Center for Sustainable Transportation at the University of California, Davis. Her research focuses
on the connections between land use and transportation and on strategies for reducing automobile
dependence.
Transportation
123
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Transportation
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
