IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i10p3494-d172813.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research on Commuting Travel Mode Choice of Car Owners Considering Return Trip Containing Activities

Author

Listed:
  • Ruifen Sun

    (School of Economics and Management, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China
    Integrated Transportation Economics and Management Research Center, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China)

  • Min Li

    (School of Economics and Management, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China
    Integrated Transportation Economics and Management Research Center, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China)

  • Qunqi Wu

    (School of Economics and Management, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China
    Integrated Transportation Economics and Management Research Center, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China)

Abstract

Taking car owners as research objects, the present study investigates the choice of travel mode from the perspective of the travel chain. This study mainly focused on how car owners make travel mode choices during return trips containing activities. The research methods were based on two different decision criteria, namely, the expected utility theory and prospect theory. In the present study, the investigators considered that influence factors for decision-making were uncertainty of travel time and uncertainty of parking. Taking arrival time as the variable, two travel mode models based on these two theories were established. An example of the application of these two models was given to determine whether the return trip containing activities would make the car owners give up driving on the way to work, and under what conditions would they give up driving and switch to public transport. The results indicate that when the return trip contains activities and there are time constraints in these activities, car owners may give up driving to work in their departure trip. The uncertainties of arriving and parking are the main factors that make car owners give up driving. The demarcation points from car to public transport based on these two theories are very close, which indicates the consistency of the expected utility theory and prospect theory. It turns out the importance of the punctuality of public transport to attract the passenger flow, thereby reducing car travel and realizing low-carbon transportation.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruifen Sun & Min Li & Qunqi Wu, 2018. "Research on Commuting Travel Mode Choice of Car Owners Considering Return Trip Containing Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-12, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3494-:d:172813
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3494/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3494/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Md. Tazul Islam & Khandker M. Nurul Habib, 2012. "Unraveling the relationship between trip chaining and mode choice: evidence from a multi-week travel diary," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(4), pages 409-426, January.
    2. 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..
    3. 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.
    4. Ye, Xin & Pendyala, Ram M. & Gottardi, Giovanni, 2007. "An exploration of the relationship between mode choice and complexity of trip chaining patterns," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 96-113, January.
    5. Eric Miller & Matthew Roorda & Juan Carrasco, 2005. "A tour-based model of travel mode choice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 399-422, July.
    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. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    2. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    3. Jonathan Meng & Feng Fu, 2020. "Understanding Gambling Behavior and Risk Attitudes Using Cryptocurrency-based Casino Blockchain Data," Papers 2008.05653, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    4. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    5. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    6. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    7. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    8. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    9. Bin Zou, 2017. "Optimal Investment In Hedge Funds Under Loss Aversion," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-32, May.
    10. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    11. Wiafe, Osei K. & Basu, Anup K. & Chen, En Te, 2020. "Portfolio choice after retirement: Should self-annuitisation strategies hold more equities?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 241-255.
    12. Nicholas Barberis, 2012. "A Model of Casino Gambling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 35-51, January.
    13. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    14. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    15. Carolin Bock & Maximilian Schmidt, 2015. "Should I stay, or should I go? – How fund dynamics influence venture capital exit decisions," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 68-82, November.
    16. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2013. "Risk-averse and Risk-seeking Investor Preferences for Oil Spot and Futures," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2013-31, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico, revised Aug 2013.
    17. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    18. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    19. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    20. Carter, Steven & McBride, Michael, 2013. "Experienced utility versus decision utility: Putting the ‘S’ in satisfaction," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 13-23.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3494-:d:172813. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.