IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i24p16877-d1005127.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shared Parking Decision Behavior of Parking Space Owners and Car Travelers Based on Prospect Theory—A Case Study of Nanchang City, China

Author

Listed:
  • Yunqiang Xue

    (School of Transportation Engineering, East China JiaoTong University, Nanchang 330013, China
    School of Transportation, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China)

  • Qifang Kong

    (School of Transportation Engineering, East China JiaoTong University, Nanchang 330013, China)

  • Feng Sun

    (Beiliu City Dawu Urban Design Institute, Yulin 537400, China)

  • Meng Zhong

    (School of Transportation Engineering, East China JiaoTong University, Nanchang 330013, China)

  • Haokai Tu

    (School of Transportation Engineering, East China JiaoTong University, Nanchang 330013, China)

  • Caifeng Tan

    (School of Transportation Engineering, East China JiaoTong University, Nanchang 330013, China)

  • Hongzhi Guan

    (College of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China)

Abstract

Shared parking improves the utilization rate of parking spaces by taking advantage of temporal and spatial differences, which is conducive to alleviating parking problems. From the perspective of bounded rationality, this paper studies the factors that influence the decision behavior of parking space owners and car travelers (non-residential drivers who have parking needs near residential areas) in sharing parking spaces. Prospect theory was used to analyze the bounded rational behavior characteristics of parking space owners and car travelers, and a value function model with rental price as the reference point was established. Combined with the survey data of the Xinhuangcheng district in Nanchang City, China, the shared parking space rental price that satisfied both parties was analyzed in this case study. The results of the study show that factors such as personal characteristics and behavioral habits affect the decision behavior of parking space owners and car travelers, and that rental price is a key factor. When the rental price of parking spaces is close to the maximum price desired by the owner, the owner feels the benefit and is willing to share the private parking space, but when the rental price differs greatly from the maximum price desired by the owner, the owner feels the loss and is not willing to share the parking space. From the survey data, it can be concluded that the ideal rental price of shared parking spaces around the survey area is 5 CNY/h. This paper provides a theoretical basis and guidance for the formulation of shared parking policies, which can help solve parking problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Yunqiang Xue & Qifang Kong & Feng Sun & Meng Zhong & Haokai Tu & Caifeng Tan & Hongzhi Guan, 2022. "Shared Parking Decision Behavior of Parking Space Owners and Car Travelers Based on Prospect Theory—A Case Study of Nanchang City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:24:p:16877-:d:1005127
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16877/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16877/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xu, Su Xiu & Cheng, Meng & Kong, Xiang T.R. & Yang, Hai & Huang, George Q., 2016. "Private parking slot sharing," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 93(PA), pages 596-617.
    2. 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.
    3. Jian, Sisi & Liu, Wei & Wang, Xiaolei & Yang, Hai & Waller, S. Travis, 2020. "On integrating carsharing and parking sharing services," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 19-44.
    4. Wang, Pengfei & Guan, Hongzhi & Liu, Peng, 2020. "Modeling and solving the optimal allocation-pricing of public parking resources problem in urban-scale network," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 74-98.
    5. Hani S. Mahmassani & Gang-Len Chang, 1987. "On Boundedly Rational User Equilibrium in Transportation Systems," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 89-99, May.
    6. Michele Ottomanelli & Mauro Dell'Orco & Domenico Sassanelli, 2011. "Modelling parking choice behaviour using Possibility Theory," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(7), pages 647-667, April.
    7. Shoup, Donald C., 2006. "Cruising for Parking," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt55s7079f, University of California Transportation Center.
    8. Guzman, Luis A. & Hessel, Philipp, 2022. "The effects of public transport subsidies for lower-income users on public transport use: A quasi-experimental study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 215-224.
    9. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    10. Du, Mingyang & Cheng, Lin & Li, Xuefeng & Liu, Qiyang & Yang, Jingzong, 2022. "Spatial variation of ridesplitting adoption rate in Chicago," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 13-37.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lide Yang & Jiemin Xie & Tuo Sun & Junxian Wu & Jinquan Hou & Shuangjian Yang, 2023. "Application of Autonomous Transportation Systems: Detection of a Potential Sub-Leasing Type of Carsharing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-20, September.

    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. Zhang, Fangni & Lindsey, Robin & Yang, Hai & Shao, Chaoyi & Liu, Wei, 2022. "Two-sided pricing strategies for a parking sharing platform: Reselling or commissioning?," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 40-63.
    2. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    4. H. R. N. van Erp & R. O. Linger & P. H. A. J. M. van Gelder, 2014. "Fact Sheet Research on Bayesian Decision Theory," Papers 1409.8269, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2015.
    5. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Chavez, Alfredo, 1997. "Tests of Theories of Decision Making: Violations of Branch Independence and Distribution Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 161-194, August.
    6. Rania HENTATI & Jean-Luc PRIGENT, 2010. "Structured Portfolio Analysis under SharpeOmega Ratio," EcoMod2010 259600073, EcoMod.
    7. Barberis, Nicholas & Huang, Ming, 2009. "Preferences with frames: A new utility specification that allows for the framing of risks," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1555-1576, August.
    8. Diecidue, E. & Schmidt, U. & Wakker, P.P., 2000. "A Theory of the Gambling Effect," Discussion Paper 2000-75, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    9. Hermann Garbers, "undated". "Agents' Rationality and the CHF/USD Exchange Rate, Part II," IEW - Working Papers 169, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    10. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    11. A. Peter McGraw & Eldar Shafir & Alexander Todorov, 2010. "Valuing Money and Things: Why a $20 Item Can Be Worth More and Less Than $20," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 816-830, May.
    12. Michael Birnbaum, 2005. "A Comparison of Five Models that Predict Violations of First-Order Stochastic Dominance in Risky Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 263-287, December.
    13. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
    14. Di Falco, Salvatore & Sharma, Sindra, 2018. "Investing in Climate Change Adaptation: Motivations and Green Incentives in the Fiji Islands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 394-408.
    15. Carvalho, Leandro S. & Prina, Silvia & Sydnor, Justin, 2016. "The effect of saving on risk attitudes and intertemporal choices," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 41-52.
    16. Vidya Awasthi, 2008. "Managerial Decision-Making on Moral Issues and the Effects of Teaching Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 78(1), pages 207-223, March.
    17. Ng, Yew-Kwang & Wang, Jianguo, 2001. "Attitude choice, economic change, and welfare," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 279-291, July.
    18. Oliver, Adam, 2003. "The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 159, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Michael H. Birnbaum & Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Christoph Ungemach & Neil Stewart & Edika G. Quispe-Torreblanca, 2016. "Risky Decision making: Testing for violations of transitivity predicted by an editing mechanism," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 75-91, January.
    20. Gijs Kuilen & Peter Wakker, 2006. "Learning in the Allais paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 155-164, December.

    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:14:y:2022:i:24:p:16877-:d:1005127. 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.