# Modeling Public Transportation Use Among Short-Term Rental Guests in Madrid
## 2 Materials and Methods
### Tourist Profiles
Among those who considered it highly important, nearly half (45.5%) were high users, while those who considered it unimportant were mostly low users (46.7%). The accommodation location also shows a spatial gradient. Tourists staying in the city center were less likely to be high users (32.6%) compared to those in the central almond (49.3%) or periphery (56.4%). The spatial distribution of the STRs of the tourists interviewed is shown in Figure 3. This suggests that tourists further from the urban core may depend more on public transport to reach attractions. The mean distance to the nearest bus stop was consistent across all groups, with no meaningful variation. However, distance to metro stations showed a slight positive gradient: high users were, on average, located farther from metro stations (202.78 m), perhaps indicating that those further away are more selective in choosing accommodations based on strategic access. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & **Low Use** & **Medium Use** & **High Use** \\ \cline{3-6}
**Variable** & **Level** & & **Y = 0** & **Y = 1** & **Y = 2** \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **610** & **155 (25.4\%)** & **231 (37.9\%)** & **224 (36.7\%)** \\ \hline First time in the city & No * & 343 (56.2\%) & 82 (23.9\%) & 127 (37.0\%) & 134 (39.1\%) \\  & Yes & 267 (43.8\%) & 73 (27.3\%) & 104 (39.0\%) & 90 (33.7\%) \\ Type of group & Group * & 418 (68.5\%) & 100 (23.9\%) & 164 (39.2\%) & 154 (36.8\%) \\  & Solo & 29 (4.8\%) & 8 (27.6\%) & 8 (27.6\%) & 13 (44.8\%) \\  & Couple & 163 (26.7\%) & 47 (28.8\%) & 59 (36.2\%) & 57 (35.0\%) \\ Zone of the world & Spain * & 159 (26.1\%) & 38 (23.9\%) & 59 (37.1\%) & 62 (39.0\%) \\  & Europe & 248 (40.7\%) & 72 (29.0\%) & 99 (39.9\%) & 77 (31.0\%) \\  & America & 176 (28.9\%) & 38 (21.6\%) & 60 (34.1\%) & 78 (44.3\%) \\  & Rest & 27 (4.4\%) & 7 (25.9\%) & 13 (48.1\%) & 7 (25.9\%) \\ Access to the city & Plane * & 443 (72.6\%) & 109 (24.6\%) & 173 (39.1\%) & 161 (36.3\%) \\  & Land-Based & 129 (21.1\%) & 35 (27.1\%) & 42 (32.6\%) & 52 (40.3\%) \\  & Private Vehicle & 38 (6.2\%) & 11 (28.9\%) & 16 (42.1\%) & 11 (28.9\%) \\ Number of nights (mean (SD)) & & 3.94 (2.62) & 3.85 (1.91) & 3.51 (2.49) & 4.45 (3.10) \\ Visited touristic POIs (mean (SD)) & & 6.63 (2.60) & 5.75 (2.52) & 6.82 (2.36) & 7.05 (2.80) \\ Importance of public transport & Low * & 75 (12.3\%) & 35 (46.7\%) & 28 (37.3\%) & 12 (16.0\%) \\  & Medium & 203 (33.3\%) & 49 (24.1\%) & 93 (45.8\%) & 61 (30.0\%) \\  & High & 332 (54.4\%) & 71 (21.4\%) & 110 (33.1\%) & 151 (45.5\%) \\ Accommodation zone & Center District & 482 (79.0\%) & 137 (28.4\%) & 188 (39.0\%) & 157 (32.6\%) \\  & Central Almond & 73 (12.0\%) & 12 (16.4\%) & 25 (34.2\%) & 36 (49.3\%) \\  & Periphery & 55 (9.0\%) & 6 (10.9\%) & 18 (32.7\%) & 31 (56.4\%) \\ Distance to bus stop (mean (SD)) & & 95.82 (48.74) & 95.64 (48.68) & 97.97 (48.68) & 93.72 (48.99) \\ Distance to metro station (mean (SD)) & & 181.56 (142.67) & 170.75 (131.19) & 168.24 (129.40) & 202.78 (160.36) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Baseline category for categorical variables.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Descriptive statistics of tourists by level of public transport use.