4.4 Article

Carsharing in a University Community Assessing Potential Demand and Distinct Market Characteristics

期刊

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD
卷 -, 期 2110, 页码 18-26

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.3141/2110-03

关键词

-

资金

  1. Midwest Regional University Transportation Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As of September 2007, more than 70 colleges and universities in the United States have partnered with carsharing organizations, and this market segment is expected to continue growing. To maximize the benefits of these partnerships, it is important to understand both the unique features of academic institutions as markets for carsharing and ways to predict university-based demand for carsharing services. A study was done to estimate the potential carsharing market at the University of Wisconsin-Madison by (a) using a stated preference survey to collect information on university affiliates' transportation habits and carsharing preferences, (b) developing a set of probabilistic models of willingness to join a carsharing program based on the stated preference survey data, and (c) applying these models to predict the potential market share under different conditions. Through this process, the relative impact of respondents' socioeconomic characteristics, current travel habits, attitudes on transportation and the environment, and familiarity with carsharing on their decisions to use carsharing were examined. The results show that a respondent's status at the university (e.g., faculty, student, or staff) had a strong influence over her individual acceptance of carsharing, even more so than socioeconomic variables such as income or vehicle ownership, and that people's attitudes play an important role in their decision making. Furthermore, the ease of accessing a car is also a critical factor. Although the University of Wisconsin-Madison population was the focus of the analysis, the findings provide useful insights for targeting carsharing programs in other university communities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据