comparative proﬁtability analysis of electric, pedicab

Journal of Education and Human Resource Development 6:1-11 (2018)Southern Leyte State University, Sogod, Southern Leyte, Philippines

Comparative Profitability Analysis of Electric, Pedicab,and Gasoline-Fuelled Tricycles

Lady Fritz C. SarsalejoLemuel S. Preciados*

Visayas State UniversityVisca, Baybay City, Philippines

Abstract

This study compared the profitability of the three transport service enterprises namely electrictricycle, gasoline-fuelled tricycle, and pedicab. These three enterprises are widely used astransportation facilities and serve as a means of livelihood for low-income drivers of themunicipality of Isabel, Leyte. In assessing the profitability, the gross profit analysis anddiscounting cash flow analysis which includes Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate ofReturn (IRR), Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR), and payback period were used. Based on the resultsof the gross profit analysis and the discounting flow analysis of a random sample of 177drivers, positive returns of investment was experienced. Gasoline-fuelled vehicle has thelargest net present values indicating highest financial profitability. Pedicab, with its lowest costof investment and the lowest operating cost, generates highest benefit-cost ratios and lowestpay-back period. The electric-tricycle, with its highest purchase cost and highest maintenancecost, resulted in lowest positive returns compared with other two vehicles. However, theseindicators of profitability only considered financial returns, and exclude the intangible benefits(i.e. the environmental benefits and other social benefits). This research highlighted the needto encourage adoption of vehicles that is economically profitable, but also environment-friendlyvehicles. The results may also provide insights for local government initiatives to improvelivelihood opportunities at the same time provide healthier environment for the communities.

Keywords: Investment; Benefit-cost analysis; Discounting cash flow

Introduction

Several studies emphasized that the utilizationof renewable energy used in the transportsector could be a vital step to globally reducegreenhouse gas emissions (Gustafsson &Johansson, 2015). At present, the Philippinesis extensively promoting the use of batteryelectric vehicles, as this is seen as one ofthe solutions to reduce carbon emissions inthe country. Asian Development Bank (ADB)reported that electrically powered tricyclescould reduce dependence on foreign fuel andcould cut operating costs for tricycle driversup to 60 percent (ADB, 2012). However,these vehicles have also been reported to

suffer from high battery costs and short-rangeproblems. The municipality of Isabel hasalready an extensive usage of electric tricycleand were reported to have replaced significantnumber of alternative vehicles like “pedicabs”(pedal operated vehicle) and gasoline-fueledtricycles in the municipality. The evaluationof the profitability of these three typesof vehicles remains contentious and theeconomic potential of electric tricycle stillneeds to be fully understood.

In most developing cities of the world, thepopular mode of transportation is the use oftricycle (Gullen et al., 2007). In India, theuse of tricycle as mode of transportation bycommon people has posed a critical problem

*Correspondence: [email protected]; ORCID: 0000-0001-5558-606X ISSN 2545-9759

Sarsalejo and Preciados JSET Vol.6, 2018

to the government and the growing populationabout maintaining good air quality (Kokaz &Rogers, 2002). In other countries like Nigeriathe use of motorized tricycle is encouragedwithin the city to decongest the traffic (Taofeek& Afolabi, 2017). In Metro Manila, Philippines,tricycle is the popular mode of transportation inthe secondary streets (Manasan & Mercado,1999). In addition, Cabanatuan City whichwas dubbed as the “Tricycle Capital of thePhilippines” also considered the tricycle as thecommon transport of their people. The city hasabout 30,000 registered gas-fed four-strokemotorized tricycles and has become thesource of livelihood for around 10,000 families(Balaria et al., 2017). However, studies haveshown that tricycles have largely contributedto the problem of noise and air pollution inthe Philippines. For instance, in Quezon Citywhich has the highest population of tricyclesin the country with 20,316 units and wasreported as a location of high traffic congestionand accidents, and air and noise pollution inManila. Also in Puerto Princesa, capital ofPalawan, the 2,824 tricycle units plying alongthe city proper accounted for about 153 milliontons of carbon dioxide emissions. Also, it wasreported as contributor for noise pollution, withlevels measured at 83-97 decibels (dB).

In the Philippines, transport is a key sectorof the economy (ADB, 2012). The latestreport from the Philippine Statistics Authoritynoted that Gross Domestic Product (GDP)from the transport sector in the Philippines hasincreased from Php 7,1164.85 million in thefirst quarter of 2018 to Php 8,0303.47 millionin the second quarter of the year (PSA, 2018).From 2008 until 2018, GDP from transportwas recorded amounting to Php 5,0253.48million on average with a recorded low valueof Php 3,4827.71 million in the third quarterof 2009. These increasing contribution ofthe transport sector to Philippine economyindicates the important role of the transportsector in an archipelagic country such asPhilippines. An efficient transport in thePhilippines is vital to improve accessibilitybetween, and mobility within, the islands of

the country. However, the transport sectorof the country continues to face importantchallenges including the poor quality of theroad network, poor intermodal integration,weak sector governance and institutionalcapacity, lack of quality urban transportsystems, and limited private investment intransport infrastructure (ADB, 2012).

The Philippines has various transportvehicles such as pedicabs, gasoline-fuelledtricycle, and the electric motorcycles. Themost common non-motorized vehicle in thePhilippines is the pedicab. Pedicab is amixture of the words ‘pedal’, referring to howthe bike is powered, and ‘cab’, referring tothe sidecar that ferries people. It is alsocalled the padyak or sikad, the equivalent ofthe phrase ‘to pedal’ in Tagalog and Bisaya.Since the great majority of urban trips areover short distances, non-motorized mode oftransportations have an important role to playin supporting mobility within rural and urbancities. However, there are some problemsassociated with the use of non-motorizedvehicles. Though it is environment-friendly,they add spaces which causes traffic andcongestion especially in urban areas.Moreover, some studies noted that theuse of pedicabs is often viewed as a symbolof economic “backwardness” (Repogle, 1992).Interestingly, Guillen (2000) contends thatpedicab driving is becoming a major source ofadditional income for limited-resource families.Further, pedicab driving could generate anincome that ranges from Php1,000-Php3,000pesos per month (Guillen, 2000). Thegasoline-fuelled tricycle is also a commonmeans of passenger transport anywhere in thePhilippines especially in the small town andcities. Unfortunately, the increased volumeof commuters has also translated into highernumber of complaints and even accidents.Studies have also reported that the directnuisance is already a cost to society and havelikely affected house prices and is indirectlycontributing to health problems because of thehigh noise which are noted to lead to stress,hypertension and cardiovascular disease

2


(Jacobsen, 2003).The Asian Development Bank is looking

towards a national move to shift to a cleaner,more environment-friendly version of thetricycle. E-trikes are seen to help replacethe noisy, more expensive motorized tricycleand energy wasting pedicabs (ADB, 2012).In the succeeding years, studies have shownthat electric vehicles are widely spreading overthe world. Until the present, electric vehiclesare still used by people and has graduallydeveloped to a new electric type of motorin year 2010 which is the electric tricycleor the ‘e-trike’. The electric tricycle marketis still a developing segment of the generaltricycle industry, which shows generally a solidgrowth. The utilization of the electric tricyclewill generate employment as job growth inelectric tricycle industries will likely offset thereduction of jobs in traditional fuel industries.This will also create economic developmentthrough reduced energy spending, decreasedreliance on foreign fuel and cut operating costfor tricycle drivers up to 60 percent (ADB,2012).

The municipality of Isabel is one of the 1stclass towns in Leyte based on the NationalCompetitiveness Council of the Philippines.However, it considers tricycles and pedicabsas essential mode of transportation, asidefrom buses and multicabs. From August1, 2015 to the present, the electricallypowered tricycle is now one of the majorpublic vehicles in town. This development inthe transport system in the municipality hasbrought debates on the feasibility and potentialeffects for the existing other types of vehiclescurrently operating in the town.

Therefore, it is critical to determine thefinancial profitability of this vehicle ascompared with its alternatives. In view ofthis, proper accounting of its associatedbenefits and costs should help driversstrategically plan, before switching to andinvesting in this new type of vehicle. For thecurrent pedicab and gasoline-fuelled tricycledrivers, there could be significant changes totheir operating cost and income associated

with adopting e-trikes. Addressing the issueof financially feasibility in adopting an e-tiketransport system is therefore also significant.The analyses presented in this study thenaddressed the issue of profitability of the threetypes of vehicles in Isabel, Leyte (Fig. 1).

Conceptual Framework

An investment project makes a differenceand the role of benefit-cost analysis (BCA)is to measure that difference (Campbell andBrown, 2003). This study used BCA as theunderlying tool to assess the profitability ofthe three different vehicle enterprises. Thisstudy assumed that current pedicab driversand gasoline-fed tricycle drivers are tryingto examine the income potential of switchingto an e-trikes operations. However, theircapacity to decide where it is likely morefeasible to invest is limited. Therefore, usingthe benefit-cost analysis in their decisionto either undertake or not to undertake aninvestment shall be investigated by assessingthe project benefits of the three existing vehicleenterprises in Isabel, Leyte. If Project X(such as e-trikes could provide bigger benefitsfor them than project Y (currently pedicab org-trikes) then that course serves as bases toinvest in Project X – the e-trikes (Fig. 2). Also,using the standard measures of profitability(NPV, IRR, BCR), the decision to adopt orinvest into a new project shall then guide thevehicle operators with the wise decision fortheir investments (see Fig. 3).

The conceptual framework of this study wasused to answer the study’s objectives: toidentify and compare the associated revenuesand costs of each of the vehicle enterprise andto assess the profitability of each enterprise,using the standard financial discounting cashflow analysis. Results of the analyses willdetermine which project is to be recommendedfor investment.

3


Figure 1. Three types of vehicles covered in the analysis of the study.

Table 1. Types of vehicles and sample distributions of respondents

Type of Vehicle Number ofDrivers

Sample Size %

Pedicab 125 55 31.07Gasoline-fuelled tricycle 165 62 35.03Electric tricycle 150 60 33.9Total 440 177 100

Figure 2. Framework for project investment(Adapted from Campbell & Brown,2003)

MethodologyThe main question answer when doingfinancial analysis is whether it is financially

feasible to invest in a new project. Thisissue is relevant as a decision guide beforeinvesting in an enterprise such as the case ofthe three vehicle enterprises in Isabel, Leyte.The two most common tools in assessingprofitability are the gross profit analysis anddiscounting cash flow analysis. However, themost widely used are the Net Present Value(NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), andBenefit-Cost Ratio (BCR). Others include thenet future value (rarely calculated), paybackperiod and the peak deficit (Harrison &Herbohn, 2008). In this current study, theNPV, IRR, BCR and payback period wereused. When comparing three projects, it isimportant to select a project from a number ofalternatives and to rank a number of projectsin order of priority. Using the investmentdecision-making criteria, this study assumesthat a project with highest NPV, highest BCR,highest IRR, and lowest payback period

4


Figure 3. Methodological framework for comparative profitability assessment

should be the first priority project and the mostprofitable investment opportunity (see Fig. 3).

Data Collection and Procedure

Slovins’ formula was used to determine thenumber of respondents of the study. Wheren is the sample size, N is the population size,and e is the margin of error. From a total of 440respondents on the three types of vehicles,177 was the total sample size (Table 1).

n =N

1 + Ne2

Using actual survey from the randomlysampled respondents, a total of 177 driverswere interviewed for the three different types ofvehicles in Isabel, Leyte. About 31.07 percentwere pedicab drivers, 35.03 percent were

gasoline-fuelled tricycle, and 35.90 percentwere electric tricycle drivers (Table 1.)

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Gross Profit Analysis

Gross profit is the firm’s total revenue minusthe cost of goods sold or the variable inputsused to produce the outputs sold. The totalrevenue comprises the fee multiplied by thenumber of passengers in the day. The variablecost includes per day cost of each of thevehicle enterprise. These may include fuelcost, charging cost, foods/snacks, plus thefixed operating costs such as boundary perday, installment per day, municipal tickets perday, and others. Mathematically, gross profit isthe difference between the total revenue andthe variable cost.

5


Table 2. Template used for discounting cash flow analysis

Table 3. Revenue earned from the operation of the vehiclesRevenue Items Pedicab Gasoline-fuelled

TricycleElectricTricycle

Gross RevenueSeating Capacity (# of seats) 2 7 4 & 8No. of Passengers (person/day)Minimum 25 40 66Maximum 45 74 121Most Likely 38 50 90Fee (Pesos/passenger) P10.00 P63.00 P20.00 &

P40.00Total RevenueMinimum P127.00 P362.00 P332.00Maximum P224.00 P664.00 P607.00Most Likely P191.00 P448.00 P452.00Revenue (Pesos/Day) P191.00 P448.00 P452.00

Discounting Cash Flow Analysis (DCFA)

In project evaluation, the challenge for theanalysts is to identify the relevant cost andrevenue items for a project over time, derivethe monetary estimates of these, and thencalculate the incremental annual net cashflows. Once these net cash flows are derived,it is relatively mechanical procedure to derivevarious financial performance cirteria for aproejct (Harrison & Herbohn, 2008).

In this study, the concept of annualincremental net cash flow was used tocalculate the benefits and cost associatedwith the investment of these three differentvehicle enterprise, which state that: Ct = Bt -COt - OCt

Capital outlays (COt) are the ‘investment’component in a project in each year t (i.e.the investment in new vehicle). The operating

costs (OCt) are the recurrent expendituresof items such as repairs and maintenance,electricity or fuel, and other relevant operatingexpenses. Cash inflows (Bt) are typically theannual revenue generated by a project (i.e.income earned from passenger’s fee).

Table 2 shows the template used fordiscounting cash flow. The benefitscalculated were from the gross revenueof each enterprise. The per day revenue(Fee/passenger x Qty. passengers/day)were converted into annual revenue. Theseassociated annual cost and revenue werespread and discounted based on the lifespanof each enterprise.

Results and Discussion

The results presented below are based fromthe standard tools of assessing financial

6


feasibility. Answers to the objectives of thestudy are also presented. The first part of theresults and discussion introduces the resultsfrom the identification and comparison ofrevenue and costs followed by the comparisonof the difference in gross profits from the threedifferent vehicle enterprises.

Identification and Comparison ofRevenues and Costs

The Different Revenues Earned from theOperation

Table 3 shows the comparative revenuesof the pedicab, gasoline-fuelled tricycle andelectric tricycle of the vehicle owners. Itis shown that among the three passengervehicles being examined in this study, it isthe e-trikes who had the highest revenue thatcould be earned in a day by the vehicle owner.G-trikes had higher revenue, but relativelylesser than the e-trikes. The pedicab, onother hand had the lowest revenue earned ina day. These differences could primarily beattributed by the different seating capacities ofthe vehicle enterprises being examined. Also,this study shows the range of the possiblenumber of passengers that each of the vehicleenterprise could take in a day.

Pedicab. This type of vehicle is commonlyknown in rural areas as “potpot” that has aseating capacity of only 2 persons becauseof its limited space for the seats of thepassengers. This study identified thatpedicab operators could get a minimum of 25passengers in a day that could generate aminimum of Php127 per day from a Php10 fareper passenger. This pedal-operated vehiclecould also get a maximum of 45 passengersa day that could provide the operators of thisvehicle a maximum of Php224 revenue in aday. Interestingly, this study found that thecommon experience of the pedicab operatorsis that they could only get about 38 passengersin day that in return is already gives them aboutPhp191 revenue in a day.

G-Trikes. G-trikes have a 7 passenger

capacity and could get a number ofpassengers from a minimum of 40 personsto a maximum of 74 passengers in a day.This study found based on actual surveys thatowners of the vehicle could get a range froma minimum of Php 362 to a maximum of Php664 per day. Interestingly, the vehicle ownersnoted during the survey that commonly theycould get passengers of about 50 persons aday that is in return giving them about Php448 revenue per day.

E-Trikes. For e-trikes, vehicle ownersnoted that they could get about 66 to 121passengers a day. Owners of e-trikes couldget a minimum revenue of about Php332to a maximum of Php667 a day. Ownersnoted that most likely they get about Php452revenue in day for operating E-trikes.

B. The Different Costs of Operations

Table 4 shows the comparative cost of thepedicab, gasoline-fuelled tricycle, and electrictricycle of the vehicle owners.

Pedicab. The daily costs and expenses ofthe drivers are: Php1 for municipal tickets fordaily operation, Php21 for food and snacks,and dispatcher’s fee of Php2. The operatingcosts is Php39 everyday including the Php15for maintenance cost of their pedicab.

G-trikes. Daily, the usual cost for g-trikesdrivers is Php117 for the gasoline, includingthe dispatcher’s fee, food, and municipaltickets.

E-trikes. Drivers usually acquired theire-trike unit through an installment basiswhich has a price of Php120,000 within threeyears, but once the unit is paid in cash itis only Php101,400, including the battery.Expectedly, drivers of e-trikes have to pay forPhp120-Php180 on a daily basis for a durationof 2-3 years. Additionally, they spend Php30for charging the two batteries and Php49.06for maintenance cost per day.

7


Table 4. Identified costs of operations of the three different vehicle enterprises

Costs Items of Operation Pedicab Gasoline-fueledTricycle

ElectricTricycle

A. Fixed Operating Costs1. Boundary per day P 0.00 P 0.00 P 0.002. Charging Cost per battery perday

P 0.00 P 0.00 P 30.00

3. Payment for installment per day P 0.00 P 0.00 P 120.004. Payment for Municipal Tickets P 1.00 P 2.00 P 1.25Total Fixed Operating Cost P 1.00 P 2.00 P 151.25B. Variable Cost1. Gasoline expenses P 0.00 P 117.00 P 0.002. Food/Snacks P 21.00 P 17.00 P 15.003. Dispatcher P 2.00 P 10.00 P 0.00Total Variable Cost P 23.00 P 144.00 P 15.00C. Maintenance Cost1. Front Wheel P 2.00 P 2.83 P 2.402. Side Wheel P 6.00 P 14.9 P 6.003. Interiors P 0.75 P 0.75 P 2.494. Back Bearings P 1.00 P 9.51 P 0.725. Front Bearings P 1.00 P 9.51 P 1.986. Spraket P 0.867. Rios P 0.098. Plato P 2.009. Chain Wheel P 1.00 P 0.6810. Change Oil P 1.27 P 0.6711. Sparkplug P 0.4712. Headlights P 0.05 P 0.2513. Break lights P 0.16 P 0.1014. Signal lights P 0.24 P 0.1215. Break shoe P 3.88 P 0.9416. Change Grease P 0.6717. Gasket Maker P 0.2018. Gearbox P 5.4919. Motor (winding) P 3.3320. Lead Acid Battery P 23.721. Mini Battery P 6.11Total Maintenance Cost P 15.00 P 50.33 P 49.06

Total Cost of Operations (A+B+C) P 39.00 P 196.33 P 215.31

Table 5. Discount cash flow of the three different types of vehicles

Discount Rate (15%) Net PresentValue (NPV)

Internal Rate ofReturn (IRR)

pedicab 259,627 365%gasoline-fuelled tricycle 344,705 82%electric tricycle 184,230 80%

8


Assessment of the Profitabilityusing the Financial DiscountingCash Flow

Discounting Cash Flows

Table 5 shows the future valuation forthe investment through discounting cashflows. Results tell if these three differenttypes of vehicles are financially worthwhilefor investment and when all costs canbe recovered through time. NPV wasused as a valuation method and as thebasis to estimate the attractiveness of aninvestment opportunity. IRR was used incapital budgeting measuring the profitabilityof potential investments. It is a discount ratethat makes the NPV of all cash flows froma particular project equal to zero. It alsoensures that the investment makes moremoney than its actual cost.

Table 5 presents the NPV of the threeenterprises. At a 15 percent discountrate, the expected net present values forpedicab, gasoline-fuelled tricycle, and electrictricycle were Php259, 627.00, Php344,705.00, and Php184, 230.00, respectively.These represent an internal rate of return ofapproximately 365 percent for pedicab, 82percent for gasoline-fuelled tricycle, and 80percent for electric tricycle.

Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis tests how financialperformance criteria vary in response tochanges in the levels of cash flow parameters.Table 6 reveals how much the performancecriteria (usually NPV and BCR) vary whenthe benefits, the costs, and discount rates arechanged. These parameter values are usuallyadjusted individually, and not in combination.

At normal (no change) discount rate, normalcost, and normal benefit, the NVP and BCRfor pedicab is Php 259,627 and Php 4.04,respectively. However, when cost is increasedby 50 percent, and without changes in the

discount rate and benefit, the NPV wasreduced to Php 216,895. Also, the BCRwas decreased to Php2.69 (for every Php 1cost invested, the benefit is Php2.69). Usinganother scenario where the benefits werereduced by 50 percent, it also resulted to areduced NPV and BCR. When the parameterswere tested with a worst case scenario (i.e.increased cost by 50 percent and reducedbenefits by 50 percent) the analysis revealedthat the NPV for pedicab is Php 44,350 witha benefit:cost ratio of 1.35 indicating thatthe investment for pedicab is still financiallyfeasible. A further increase in cost to 60percent and reduced benefits by 60 percentcan lead to a financially infeasible project case(see table 5, for pedicab).

For the gasoline-fuelled tricycle, Table 6showed that an increase in cost and adecrease in benefits resulted to an inversechange of NPVs and BCRs. The analysisrevealed that an increase in costs by 50percent, at normal discount rate and normalbenefit would lead to a reduction of NPVto Php 112,345 from Php 344,705. Thebenefit:cost ratio is also reduced to 1.16.Further, a decrease in benefits of 50 percentfor gasoline-fuelled tricycle will most likelytranslate to a negative NPV (-Php 60,008)and less than 1 benefit:cost ratio (0.87)which are indicators of a financially infeasibleinvestment. A larger increase in cost anddecrease in benefits would lead to highernegative returns suggesting a dim investment,at worst, a case scenario.

A different result of the scenario analyseswere observed for e-trikes. Table 6 showsthat at normal discount rate (15 percent),and when the benefits and costs remainunchanged, the project for e-trikes is stillfinancially worth investing. However, theanalysis reveals that if the costs are increasedby 50 percent, it would result to a lower NPV(Php 3,614) and a break-even benefit:costratio (1.01). A further increase in costs bymore than 50 percent will certainly result to anegative NPV. If the benefits are decreasedby 50 percent but costs remain unchanged,

9


Table 6. Sensitivity analysis of the three-different types of vehiclesEnterprise Discount

rate (normaldiscountrate, normalcost, normalbenefit)

Increasedcost (normaldiscountrate, normalbenefit)

Decreasedbenefits(normaldiscountrate, normalcost)

Increasedcost anddecreasedbenefits(worst casescenario 1)

Increased costand decreasedbenefits(worst casescenario 2)

Change ∆50% ∆50% ∆50% ∆60%pedicabNPV 259,627 216,895 247,394 44,350 1,295BCR 4.04 2.69 2.75 1.35 1.01gasoline-fueledtricycleNPV 344,705 112,345 -60,008 -292,369 -419,784BCR 1.74 1.16 0.87 0.58 0.44electrictricycleNPV 184,230 3,614 119,820 -269,117 -359,787BCR 1.51 1.01 1.26 0.5 0.38

the project for e-trikes is still financially worthinvesting where NPV is Php119,820 and BCRis Php 1.26 (see Table 6).

ConclusionThis study intended to assess the profitabilitypotential for investment of different publicvehicle enterprises used in Isabel, Leyte.Based on the results of the gross profitanalysis and the discounting flow analysisconducted, the three different types of vehicleshave experienced positive returns on theirinvestment and operations. The resultssuggest that gasoline-fuelled vehicle havethe largest net present values indicatingthe highest financial profitability. Pedicab,with its lowest cost of investment and thelowest operating cost, generated the highestbenefit-cost ratios and lowest pay-back period.The electric-tricycle, with its highest purchasecost and highest maintenance, resulted tolowest positive returns compared with thetwo vehicles. This result is a product of anunbiased analysis of the alternative vehicles.Apparently, when financial indicators areused as decision guide for adoption of

these vehicles, e-trikes provided lessernet returns than its best alternative - thegasoline-fuelled tricycle. Further, it is alsoexpected that pedicabs are still feasible for thelimited-resource driver operators who cannotafford to invest on e-trikes and g-trikes. Itis important to note that these indicators ofprofitability only considered financial returns,excluding the intangible benefits (i.e. theenvironmental benefits, and other socialbenefits). Further study should be conductedto include these variables to provide newinformation.

References CitedAsian Development Bank (2012). Philippines:

Transport sector assessment, strategy,and road map (Company Report).

Balaria, F., Pascual M., Santos, M., Ortiz,A., Gabriel, A., Luz, T., & Mangahas,S. (2017). Sustainability of e-trike asalternative mode of public transportationsystem: The case of Cabanatuan City,Philippines. Open Journal of CivilEngineering, 7, 362-377.

10


Campbell, H. & Brown, R. (2003). Benefit-costanalysis: Financial and economicappraisal using spreadsheets. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Guillen, D. & Guzon, B. (2000). Towards asustainable transportation environment:The case of pedicabs and cyclingin the Philippines. Retrieved fromhttps://dev.codatu.org/wp-content/uploads/Towards-a-sustainable-transportation-environment.-The-case-of-Pedicabs-and-cycling-in-the-Philippines-Brian-GOZUN-Marie-Danielle-GUILLEN.pdf

Gullen, M. D. V., Ishida, H., Okamoto, N. &Tsutsumi, M. (2007). Public transportpolicies and the road-based publictransport service in developing countries:The case of indigenous public transportmodes in Davao City, Philippines. The 7thInternational Conference of Eastern AsiaSociety for Transportation Studies, 18.

Gustafsson T., & Johanson A. (2015).Comparison between electric vehiclesand internal combustion engine vehiclesfueled by electro fuels [Masters thesis].Chalmers University of Technology,Gothenburg, Sweden.

Harrison, S. & Herbohn, J. (2008). Financialand economic research methods. ACIARTraining Manual 1, 86 pp. MeredithErrington. ISBN: 978 1 921434 28 0.

Jacobsen, P. (2003). Safety in numbers: Morewalkers and bicyclists, safer walking andbicycling. Injury Prevention, 9, 205-209.

Kokaz, K. & Rogers, P. (2002). Urbantransportation planning for air qualitymanagement: Case study in Delhi, India,of role of social and economic costs inwelfare maximization of mobility choice.Transportation Research Record Journal

of the Transportation Research Board,1817, 42-49.

Manasan, R.G. & Mercado, R.G. (1999)Governance and urban development:Case study of Metro Manila. Makati:Philippine Institute for DevelopmentStudies

Repogle, M. (1992). Bicycles and rickshawsin Asian cities: Issues and strategies.Transportation Research Record1372, Transportation Research Board.Washington D.C.: National ResearchCouncil, pp.76-84.

Taofeek, G.K. & Afolabi, O.J. (2017) Anassessment of motorcycle operation inAdo-Odo Ota local government area ofOgun State. Science, Technology &Public Policy, 1(3), 41-46.

Trading Economics, (2018). Philippines GDPfrom Transport 2008-2018. Retrieved fromhttps://tradingeconomics.com/philippines/gdp-from-transport

11

comparative proﬁtability analysis of electric, pedicab

Documents