4.7 Article

Examining the influence of social norms on orderly parking behavior of dockless bike-sharing users

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2021.03.022

关键词

Dockless shared-bicycle; Orderly parking; Social norm; Cultural tightness

资金

  1. Chinese National Natural Science Foundation [72071017]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71961137005]
  3. Social Science Foundation of Beijing [20GLA006]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2018JBWB003]
  5. Joint Programming Initiative Urban Europe (NSFC - JPI UE) ('U-PASS') [71961137005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates the impact of descriptive social norms on orderly parking behavior, which can serve as a complementary policy and regulations for dockless bikesharing, providing valuable insights for urban operation and policy making.
With the rapid global expansion of dockless shared bicycles, disorderly parking has not only generated convenience to users but also negative consequences to enterprises and urban management. We proposed an integrated model and recruited 1722 participants from diverse professions and geographic locations in China, examining the influence of individual and social environmental factors on orderly parking behavior. It was shown that descriptive social norms played an important role in shaping user?s attitudes toward orderly parking directly and indirectly via personal norms, and thus influence the behavioral intention of orderly parking. Cultural tightness-looseness further moderated the effect of descriptive social norms. At the individual level, antecedents of personal norms (moral awareness, awareness of consequences, and ascription of responsibility) were investigated based on Norm Activation Model. This study indicates that descriptive social norms can act as a complimentary policy and regulations of dockless bikesharing, which provides valuable insights on urban operation and policy making concerning shared bicycles.

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

4.7
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