Wu Chenyang, Vine Scott Le, Philips Sandra, Tang William, Polak John
Urban Systems Laboratory, Centre for Transport Studies, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London, United Kingdom.
Department of Geography, SUNY New Paltz, United States.
Travel Behav Soc. 2020 Oct;21:154-166. doi: 10.1016/j.tbs.2020.06.008. Epub 2020 Jul 8.
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.
自由浮动式汽车共享(FFCS)车队的时空灵活性导致网络中车辆库存失衡。管理车队分布的一套策略包括激励用户参与车辆重新安置。本研究的目的是确定FFCS客户对四种激励机制中每一种的偏好:1)车辆交付,2)付费重新安置,以及3 - 4)对替代车辆接送地点的激励。采用来自温哥华和华盛顿特区FFCS用户的调查数据(n = 311;2017年9月收集)来量化对这些机制的支付意愿/接受意愿(WTP/WTA)。我们发现,大多数受访者对四种激励机制中的每一种都持积极态度(“肯定”或“可能”愿意使用),其中替代下车的比例最高(57%),付费重新安置的比例最低(40%)。回归分析发现,与社会人口特征相比,使用FFCS的用户体验通常是WTP/WTA更强的预测因素,(直观地)FFCS不可用的频率是最强的预测因素。年龄是最强劲的社会人口预测因素,车辆交付的WTP随着年龄增长而增加,替代接送地点所需激励的规模随着年龄增长而减小。最后,我们根据受访者报告难以找到可用FFCS车辆的一周中的时间,对受访者进行了k均值聚类分析,并确定了四个不同的用户群体。然而,我们发现WTP/WTA与经历不可用的具体一周中的时间段之间的关系普遍较弱。