4.5 Article

Free-floating carsharing users' willingness-to-pay/accept for logistics management mechanisms

期刊

TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR AND SOCIETY
卷 21, 期 -, 页码 154-166

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.tbs.2020.06.008

关键词

Free-floating carsharing; User-based relocation; Willingness-to-pay/accept

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The spatio-temporal flexibility of free-floating carsharing (FFCS) fleets leads to vehicle stock imbalances across the network. One set of strategies for managing fleet distribution involves incentivising users to participate in relocating the vehicles. The objective of this study is to establish FFCS customers' preferences for each of four incentivisation mechanisms: 1) vehicle delivery, 2) paid relocation, and 3-4) incentivisation for alternate vehicle pick-up and drop-off locations. Survey data (n = 311; collected Sept. 2017) from FFCS users in Vancouver and Washington D.C. are employed to quantify willingness-to-pay/accept (WTP/WTA) for these mechanisms. We find that a majority of respondents report positive attitudes (definitely or possibly willing to use) toward each of the four incentivisation mechanisms, with alternate drop-off the highest (57%) and paid relocation the lowest (40%). Regression analysis finds that user experiences using FFCS are generally stronger predictors of WTP/WTA than socio-demographic features, with (intuitively) the frequency of FFCS unavailability the strongest predictor. Age is the strongest socio-demographic predictor, with the WTP for vehicle delivery increasing and the size of required incentives for alternate pick-up/drop-off locations decreasing with age. Finally, we performed k-means cluster analysis of respondents based on the times-of-week that they report experiencing difficulty finding an available FFCS vehicle, and identified four distinct segments of users. However, we found generally weak relationships between WTP/WTA and the specific time-of-week periods that unavailability is experienced.

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

4.5
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