4.7 Article

Predicting new forms of activity/mobility patterns enabled by shared-mobility services through a needs-based stated-response method: Case study of grocery shopping

期刊

TRANSPORT POLICY
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 60-68

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.12.008

关键词

Stated-adaptation; Activity/travel patterns; Needs-based analysis; One-way carsharing

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/I038837/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. EPSRC [EP/I038837/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One-way carsharing systems are increasingly-prevalent in urban areas, though little is known about their impacts on activity-travel behavior, particularly their effects on usage of motorized and non-motorized travel. Such systems require privileged access to publicly-controlled street space, and in order to prepare suitably for negotiations regarding the price and terms of such access, transport planners require techniques to analyze their usage and impacts. In contrast to previous methods, this study employs activity/mobility behavior as the quantity under study rather than aggregate travel distance. A stated-response method is presented to predict the impacts of one-way carsharing. The survey instrument is based on needs-based theory, in which multiple activity episodes undertaken in service of a broader personal objective are analyzed as a pattern of linked behavior. Food shopping was the activity type employed in the empirical analysis. Substantive findings relating to the impacts of one-way carsharing are discussed, as well as limitations imposed by the survey protocol and limited sample size (n=72). It was found that non-car-owning respondents within our sample would use one-way carsharing to allow them to shop for food less frequently, would visit fewer distinct food shops, and would spend less time traveling for food shopping purposes. Instrument effects specific to this method are also discussed. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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