Skip to main content

Table 2 The advantages and disadvantages of different mobility solutions for permanent and temporary residents in rural areas

From: In search of sustainable and inclusive mobility solutions for rural areas

  Permanent residents Temporary residents
Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages
Conventional public transport + fixed stops and routes are easy to understand − no flexibility in routing, stops, or scheduling
− typically, low frequency
− typically, long travel time
− typically, stops are not close to all users
− not convenient for people with poor health (physical effort required)
− scheduling cannot consider all user groups and purposes (commuting, healthcare, groceries, etc.)
+ fixed stops and routes are easy to understand
+ good opportunities to communicate with locals
− no flexibility in routing, stops, or scheduling
− routes and stops not designed according to tourist needs
− typically, long travel time
− ticket information might not be well available for tourists
Designated tourist buses   − cannot be used by local residents + on−demand service
+ optimal travel and short waiting time
+ price might remain unnoticed in a full cost model
− not adaptive to individual interests
− fixed times, limited frequency
− fixed routes, no flexibility
− no opportunities to communicate with locals
− limited opportunities to spend time and money on local services
Semi-flexible DRT + shorter travel time
+ additional connections to stops or areas assigned according to local residents needs
+ flexibility depends on specific DRT solution, can be provided on different levels
+ cost not very high
− availability depends on predefined service area
− smaller vehicles may not cover the demand
+ higher frequency than traditional public transport
+ shorter travel time
+ flexibility depends on specific DRT solution, can be provided on different levels
+ good opportunities to communicate with locals
+ cost not very high
+ can be organised to be in line with second-home owners’ destinations
− availability depends on predefined service area
− only semi-flexible travel planning possibilities
− smaller vehicles may not cover the demand
− ticket information might not be well available for tourists
Flexible door-to-door DRT + as frequent as necessary
+ short travel time
+ possibility to wait at the origin point
+ very flexible
+ preferred by groups who prefer one-seat trips
− depends on the availability of vehicles
− may become more expensive
+ as frequent as necessary
+ short travel time
+ possibility to wait at the origin point
+ very flexible
+ can be organised to be in line with second-home owners’ destinations
− depends on the availability of vehicles
− may become more expensive
− ticket information might not be well available for tourists
Car-sharing + as frequent as necessary
+ possibility to arrange own trip
+ short travel time
+ privacy
+ very flexible
+ typically, not very high costs
− depends on the availability of cars (which usually is a challenge)
− in destination, might be issues with parking
+ as frequent as necessary
+ possibility to arrange own trip
+ short travel time
+ privacy
+ very flexible
+ typically, not very high cost
− depends on the availability of cars
− in destination, might be issues with parking
− information about the cost and availability of cars is not easy to find for tourists (usually, in the local language)
Ride-sharing + short travel time
+ flexible, if supply and demand are balanced (which usually is a challenge)
+ typically, not very high cost
− availability depends on similar travel routes
− safety issues with an unknown driver
+ short travel time
+ flexible, if supply and demand are balanced (which usually is a challenge)
+ possibility to get to know local people
+ typically, not very high cost
− availability depends on similar travel routes
− difficult to match the needs of different user groups
− information about the cost and availability of cars is not easy to find for tourists (usually, in the local language)
− fee system might be set up in a way not suitable for tourists (platform fee)
  1. Compiled from information provided in the following studies: Cass et al. [91], Guiver et al. [62], Le-Klähn and Hall [15], Graham et al. [33], Berg and Ihlström [34], Martín Martín et al. [61], Morsche et al. [11], Næss et al. [2], Scuttari et al. [60], Cottrill et al. [1], Juschten and Hössinger [40], Orsi et al. [59] and Lygnerud and Nilsson [64]