4.6 Article

An Explanatory Model Approach for the Spatial Distribution of Free-Floating Carsharing Bookings: A Case-Study of German Cities

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 9, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su9071290

关键词

carsharing demand analysis; spatial analysis; free-floating carsharing; negative binomial model; booking data

资金

  1. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety for the project WiMobil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When the first free-floating carsharing operators launched their business, they did not know if it would be profitable. They often started in highly populated cities without performing extensive target group analysis, and were less concerned about fleet management. Usually, there are two main datasets that can be used to find areas that would have a high demand for free-floating carsharing: booking data, for measuring the actual demand; and land use and census data for describing the activities performed in different areas in a city. In this paper, we aim to use this information to help predict the demand of free-floating carsharing systems. We use booking data provided by DriveNow for Berlin in 2014 and contextual information about the type of activity each neighborhood has. Using Berlin as a case study, we apply a negative binomial statistical model to explain the number of bookings. From the results, we conclude that free-floating carsharing is predominantly successful in areas with more affluent citizens who are open to trying new and sustainable technologies. Other important determinants that result in a high number of carsharing bookings are the area's centrality and parking lot availability. The statistical model for Berlin was then transferred to Munich and Cologne, two other cities in Germany with similar population sizes. A comparison between the estimated demand categories and actual bookings shows satisfying results, but also non-negligible local conditions influencing the spatial demand for bookings.

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

4.6
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