IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v155y2024icp110-123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evolutionary analysis of participation behavior of shared parking in traditional business district

Author

Listed:
  • Guo, Jun
  • Guan, Hongzhi
  • Han, Yan
  • Li, Wanying

Abstract

This paper explores ways to promote the Shared Parking Business Economy Model (SPBEM) in traditional business districts (TBD) to mitigate their declining survival. A microscopic four-party evolutionary game model investigates the mechanisms behind the complex interactions among four typical businesses in TBD. Evolutionary stability is also analyzed based on three different scenarios. Secondly, this paper examines the limited rationality of participants and sifts the impact of significant factors on the dynamic evolution process by using the cumulative prospect theory and the quantitative equation of the conformity effect. The paper validates the game model and main conclusions through realistic scenarios and numerical simulations. Finally, the four main types of parameters are extensively discussed. The findings suggest that the implementation of SPBEM could enhance the economic development of TBD. Furthermore, successful promotion of SPBEM in TBD demands coordinated efforts from the four types of businesses. Initial participation probability, proportion of parking slots, historical average customer flow, and cooperation revenue all positively influence participation behavior; and promoting SPBEM in TBD requires coordination between the four business types. These findings serve as valuable references for TBD managers and operators in their decision-making processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Guo, Jun & Guan, Hongzhi & Han, Yan & Li, Wanying, 2024. "Evolutionary analysis of participation behavior of shared parking in traditional business district," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 110-123.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:155:y:2024:i:c:p:110-123
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2024.01.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X24000246
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2024.01.016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Xueyan Li & Jing Li, 2021. "A freight transport price optimization model with multi bounded-rational customers," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 477-504, February.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Tang, Yanyan & Zhang, Qi & Mclellan, Benjamin & Li, Hailong, 2018. "Study on the impacts of sharing business models on economic performance of distributed PV-Battery systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 544-558.
    5. Xu, Fangyuan & Chen, Xujie & Zhang, Miao & Zhou, Ya & Cai, Yanpeng & Zhou, Yang & Tang, Ruixin & Wang, Yifei, 2020. "A sharing economy market system for private EV parking with consideration of demand side management," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Dan Lovallo, 1993. "Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 17-31, January.
    7. Xiao, Haohan & Xu, Meng & Gao, Ziyou, 2018. "Shared parking problem: A novel truthful double auction mechanism approach," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 40-69.
    8. Weitzman, Martin L, 1983. "Some Macroeconomic Implications of Alternative Compensation Systems," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 93(372), pages 763-783, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chi, Yichun & Zheng, Jiakun & Zhuang, Shengchao, 2022. "S-shaped narrow framing, skewness and the demand for insurance," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 279-292.
    2. Jiakun Zheng, 2020. "Optimal insurance design under narrow framing," Post-Print hal-04227370, HAL.
    3. Zheng, Jiakun, 2020. "Optimal insurance design under narrow framing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 596-607.
    4. Schwaiger, Rene & Hueber, Laura, 2021. "Do MTurkers exhibit myopic loss aversion?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    5. Stefan Schiller, 2017. "The Quest for Rationality: Chief Financial Officers’ and Accounting Master’s Students’ Perception of Economic Rationality," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, April.
    6. Brünner, Tobias & Reiner, Jochen & Natter, Martin & Skiera, Bernd, 2019. "Prospect theory in a dynamic game: Theory and evidence from online pay-per-bid auctions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 215-234.
    7. David Hirshleife, 2015. "Behavioral Finance," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 7(1), pages 133-159, December.
    8. Hwang, In Do, 2024. "Behavioral aspects of household portfolio choice: Effects of loss aversion on life insurance uptake and savings," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 89(PA), pages 1029-1053.
    9. Emily Haisley & Romel Mostafa & George Loewenstein, 2008. "Myopic risk-seeking: The impact of narrow decision bracketing on lottery play," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 57-75, August.
    10. Martin Koudstaal & Randolph Sloof & Mirjam van Praag, 2016. "Risk, Uncertainty, and Entrepreneurship: Evidence from a Lab-in-the-Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2897-2915, October.
    11. Burson, Katherine A. & Faro, David & Rottenstreich, Yuval, 2010. "ABCs of principal-agent interactions: Accurate predictions, biased processes, and contrasts between working and delegating," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 1-12, September.
    12. Yan Li & David Ahlstrom, 2020. "Risk-taking in entrepreneurial decision-making: A dynamic model of venture decision," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 899-933, September.
    13. Neszveda, G., 2019. "Essays on behavioral finance," Other publications TiSEM 05059039-5236-42a3-be1b-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Daniel Gottlieb & Olivia S. Mitchell, 2020. "Narrow Framing and Long‐Term Care Insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 87(4), pages 861-893, December.
    15. Andreas Richter & Jochen Ruß & Stefan Schelling, 2019. "Insurance customer behavior: Lessons from behavioral economics," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 22(2), pages 183-205, July.
    16. Stefan Zeisberger & Thomas Langer & Martin Weber, 2012. "Why does myopia decrease the willingness to invest? Is it myopic loss aversion or myopic loss probability aversion?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 35-50, January.
    17. Andreas Hönl & Philip Meissner & Torsten Wulf, 2020. "Betting the farm and playing it safe? Hyper-core self-evaluation in decisions when managers are winning and losing," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(3), pages 1293-1316, November.
    18. Uri Gneezy & Jan Potters, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 631-645.
    19. Langer, Thomas & Weber, Martin, 2000. "The Impact of Feedback Frequency on Risk Taking: How general is the Phenomenon?," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 00-49, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    20. Halko, Marja Liisa & Kaustia, Markku, 2012. "Are risk preferences dynamic? Within-subject variation in risk-taking as a function of background music," CFS Working Paper Series 2012/09, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:155:y:2024:i:c:p:110-123. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.