# Modeling Public Transportation Use Among Short-Term Rental Guests in Madrid
## 3 Results
### Ordered Logistic Regression Parameters  
Table 5 presents the results of three ordered logistic regression models explaining the level of public transport use among tourists, focusing on three dependent variables: (1) the overall use of public transport (metro and bus combined), (2) the use of the bus, and (3) the use of the metro. Below, we discuss the statistically significant results at the 10% level.  
Tourists visiting the city for the first time are significantly less likely to be frequent users of public transport in all three models. The negative association is strongest for bus use (\(\beta=-0.6951\), \(p<0.00\)) and remains significant for metro use (\(\beta=-0.4607\), \(p=0.01\)) and overall public transport use (\(\beta=-0.3939\), \(p=0.02\)).  
Tourists from Europe and the rest of the world exhibit significantly lower metro use compared to Spanish tourists (Europe: \(\beta=-0.8799\), \(p<0.00\); rest: \(\beta=-1.0634\), \(p=0.01\)). In the overall model, both groups are also less likely to use public transport in general (Europe: \(\beta=-0.7256\), \(p=0.01\); rest: \(\beta=-0.9805\), \(p=0.02\)). Notably, visitors from outside Europe also show a marginally significant negative association with bus use (\(p=0.099\)). This pattern may reflect differences in familiarity, expectations, or local transport literacy by region of origin. Access mode to the city shows a limited role overall, and only metro use is significantly lower among those arriving by land-based public transport (\(\beta=-0.4558\), \(p=0.08\)). The use of private cars is associated with lower use in all models, but the effects fall short of conventional significance thresholds.  
The number of touristic points of interest (POIs) visited is positively and significantly associated with all three outcomes. The coefficients are relatively consistent (overall: \(\beta=0.1650\); bus: \(\beta=0.2260\); metro: \(\beta=0.1923\); all \(p<0.001\)), indicating that more active tourists tend to use public transport more frequently, regardless of mode.  
The importance of public transport in accommodation choice is one of the strongest predictors in all models. Compared to tourists who do not consider public transport important when choosing accommodation, those who rate it as medium or high importance are significantly more likely to report higher use. The effect is especially strong for metro use (high importance: \(\beta\) = 1.6109, \(p\) \(<\) 0.00) and remains robust in the overall and bus-specific models.  
Tourists staying in the central almond or periphery of the city differ significantly from those in the city center. For metro use, both groups are more likely to use it (central almond: \(\beta\) = 0.7472, \(p\) \(<\) 0.00; periphery: \(\beta\) = 1.0207, \(p\) \(<\) 0.00), likely reflecting longer distances and less walkability. For the overall model, the same trend holds (central almond: \(\beta\) = 0.6440, \(p\) = 0.01; periphery: \(\beta\) = 1.1320, \(p\) \(<\) 0.00). Interestingly, for bus use, staying in the central almond is negatively associated with this factor (\(\beta\) = \(-\)0.6346, \(p\) = 0.04), suggesting that buses may be less relied upon in this area compared to the metro. Finally, the distances to the nearest bus or metro stops do not show significant effects in any model. This may reflect generally good public transport accessibility across accommodation areas in the city.