IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i16p7225-d1461739.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investigation of Perception Differences in Shared Mobility between Driver’s License Holders and Nonholders: A Case Study of Seoul, Gyeonggi, and Incheon in South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Jiin Baek

    (Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Qatar University, Doha P.O. Box 2713, Qatar
    Department of Global Smart City, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 16419, Republic of Korea)

  • Ju-Young Shin

    (School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kookmin University, Seoul 02707, Republic of Korea)

Abstract

Shared mobility (SM) services are transitioning from the introduction stage to the growth stage, driven by the growth of the sharing economy, the promotion of smart cities, the diverse personal transportation modes, and the development of autonomous driving technologies. SM services, such as car sharing, car-hailing, shared bikes, and e-scooters, have emerged as solutions to address issues related to carbon neutrality and traffic congestion in densely populated areas. The purpose of this study is to investigate potential disparities in user perception and satisfaction among groups with or without driving experience when using SM services—through hypothesis testing using the two-proportion Z-test. Subsequently, a satisfaction analysis is conducted. This research creates foundational data for future SM services. The survey targeted 1041 residents living in Seoul, Gyeonggi Province, and Incheon, and was conducted over two weeks in March 2020. This study aims to derive associations between two groups using SM—those with and without driving experience. The results indicate that car sharing and bike sharing showed significant differences in user patterns based on driving experience, whereas e-scooters and car-hailing did not exhibit significant differences. This contradicts the assumption that people without a driver’s license would use SM more frequently. Moreover, the results of each SM’s analysis show different usage patterns and satisfaction between driver’s license holders and nonholders. This study will serve as foundational data for researching strategies to reduce personal car ownership through the promotion of public transportation and SM services. Furthermore, it can be a basis for suggesting policy recommendations to facilitate future mobility systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiin Baek & Ju-Young Shin, 2024. "Investigation of Perception Differences in Shared Mobility between Driver’s License Holders and Nonholders: A Case Study of Seoul, Gyeonggi, and Incheon in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-18, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:16:p:7225-:d:1461739
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/16/7225/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/16/7225/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ho, Chinh Q. & Mulley, Corinne & Hensher, David A., 2020. "Public preferences for mobility as a service: Insights from stated preference surveys," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 70-90.
    2. Eunjeong Ko & Yeongmin Kwon & Woongbee Son & Junghwa Kim & Hyungjoo Kim, 2021. "Factors Influencing Intention to Use Mobility as a Service: Case Study of Gyeonggi Province, Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Yi, Wenjing & Yan, Jie, 2020. "Energy consumption and emission influences from shared mobility in China: A national level annual data analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    4. Efthymiou, Dimitrios & Antoniou, Constantinos & Waddell, Paul, 2013. "Factors affecting the adoption of vehicle sharing systems by young drivers," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 64-73.
    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. Wang, Shunchao & Song, Zhanguo, 2024. "Exploring the behavioral stage transition of traveler's adoption of carsharing: An integrated choice and latent variable model," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    2. Benjamin Maas, 2022. "Literature Review of Mobility as a Service," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-28, July.
    3. Golalikhani, Masoud & Oliveira, Beatriz Brito & Carravilla, Maria Antónia & Oliveira, José Fernando & Antunes, António Pais, 2021. "Carsharing: A review of academic literature and business practices toward an integrated decision-support framework," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    4. Sanjay Gupta & Kushagra Sinha, 2022. "Assessing the Factors Impacting Transport Usage of Mobility App Users in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-20, October.
    5. Eva Malichová & Ghadir Pourhashem & Tatiana Kováčiková & Martin Hudák, 2020. "Users’ Perception of Value of Travel Time and Value of Ridesharing Impacts on Europeans’ Ridesharing Participation Intention: A Case Study Based on MoTiV European-Wide Mobility and Behavioral Pattern ," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-19, May.
    6. Liu, Jianmiao & Li, Junyi & Chen, Yong & Lian, Song & Zeng, Jiaqi & Geng, Maosi & Zheng, Sijing & Dong, Yinan & He, Yan & Huang, Pei & Zhao, Zhijian & Yan, Xiaoyu & Hu, Qinru & Wang, Lei & Yang, Di & , 2023. "Multi-scale urban passenger transportation CO2 emission calculation platform for smart mobility management," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 331(C).
    7. Qian Duan & Xin Ye & Jian Li & Ke Wang, 2020. "Empirical Modeling Analysis of Potential Commute Demand for Carsharing in Shanghai, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, January.
    8. Nikitas, Alexandros & Cotet, Corneliu & Vitel, Alexandra-Elena & Nikitas, Nikolaos & Prato, Carlo, 2024. "Transport stakeholders’ perceptions of Mobility-as-a-Service: A Q-study of cultural shift proponents, policy advocates and technology supporters," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    9. Yue Wang & Yuanfang Zhu & Chunyi Wei & Meilan Jiang & Toshiyuki Yamamoto, 2024. "Carsharing Worldwide: Case Studies on Carsharing Development in China, Europe, Japan, and the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-23, May.
    10. Vinayak, Pragun & Dias, Felipe F. & Astroza, Sebastian & Bhat, Chandra R. & Pendyala, Ram M. & Garikapati, Venu M., 2018. "Accounting for multi-dimensional dependencies among decision-makers within a generalized model framework: An application to understanding shared mobility service usage levels," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 129-137.
    11. Álvaro Aguilera-García & Juan Gomez & Natalia Sobrino & Juan José Vinagre Díaz, 2021. "Moped Scooter Sharing: Citizens’ Perceptions, Users’ Behavior, and Implications for Urban Mobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    12. Mariana de Oliveira Lage & Cláudia Aparecida Soares Machado & Cristiano Martins Monteiro & Clodoveu Augusto Davis & Charles Lincoln Kenji Yamamura & Fernando Tobal Berssaneti & José Alberto Quintanilh, 2021. "Using Hierarchical Facility Location, Single Facility Approach, and GIS in Carsharing Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-13, November.
    13. Diana, Marco & Chicco, Andrea, 2022. "The spatial reconfiguration of parking demand due to car sharing diffusion: a simulated scenario for the cities of Milan and Turin (Italy)," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    14. Hasselwander, Marc & Bigotte, Joao F. & Antunes, Antonio P. & Sigua, Ricardo G., 2022. "Towards sustainable transport in developing countries: Preliminary findings on the demand for mobility-as-a-service (MaaS) in Metro Manila," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 501-518.
    15. Stefan Illgen & Michael Höck, 2020. "Establishing car sharing services in rural areas: a simulation-based fleet operations analysis," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 811-826, April.
    16. Zhou, Fan & Zheng, Zuduo & Whitehead, Jake & Washington, Simon & Perrons, Robert K. & Page, Lionel, 2020. "Preference heterogeneity in mode choice for car-sharing and shared automated vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 633-650.
    17. Picasso, Emilio & Postorino, Maria Nadia & Bonoli-Escobar, Mariano & Stewart-Harris, Maria, 2020. "Car-sharing vs bike-sharing: A choice experiment to understand young people behaviour," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 121-128.
    18. Hörcher, Daniel & Graham, Daniel J., 2020. "MaaS economics: Should we fight car ownership with subscriptions to alternative modes?," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 22(C).
    19. Irfan Ullah & Kai Liu & Tran Vanduy, 2019. "Examining Travelers’ Acceptance towards Car Sharing Systems—Peshawar City, Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, February.
    20. Punel, Aymeric & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2017. "Modeling the acceptability of crowdsourced goods deliveries: Role of context and experience effects," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 18-38.

    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:16:y:2024:i:16:p:7225-:d:1461739. 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.