IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/netspa/v13y2013i3p327-350.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling Parking Behavior Under Uncertainty: A Static Game Theoretic versus a Sequential Neo-additive Capacity Modeling Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Liya Guo
  • Shan Huang
  • Jun Zhuang
  • Adel Sadek

Abstract

This paper proposes two types of parking choice models, a static game theoretic model and a dynamic neo-additive capacity model, to capture the competition among drivers for limited desirable parking spaces. The static game assumes that drives make decisions simultaneously and with perfect knowledge about the characteristics of the parking system and the strategies of their fellow drivers in the system; the model thus captures only the rational aspect of parking choice behavior and pays no attention to modeling individual drivers’ psychological characteristics. The dynamic model, on the other hand, considers individual drivers’ psychological characteristics under uncertainty (i.e. optimistic and pessimistic attitudes) and thus captures the impacts of the irrational side of parking behavior in addition to the rational aspect. Following the formulation of the two models, they are both used to predict parking behavior as observed on a set of parking lots on the University at Buffalo north campus. Specifically for the dynamic model, the model is first calibrated based on real data collected from video recorded observations for a pair of parking lots, and then used to predict behavior on another pair. Validation results show higher predictive accuracy for the dynamic neo-additive capacity model compared to the static game theoretic model. This in turn suggests that the psychological characteristics of drivers play an important role in the parking lot choice decision process, and points to the potential for parking information systems to eliminate the unnecessary additional traffic generated by the parking search process. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Liya Guo & Shan Huang & Jun Zhuang & Adel Sadek, 2013. "Modeling Parking Behavior Under Uncertainty: A Static Game Theoretic versus a Sequential Neo-additive Capacity Modeling Approach," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 327-350, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:netspa:v:13:y:2013:i:3:p:327-350
    DOI: 10.1007/s11067-012-9183-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11067-012-9183-1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11067-012-9183-1?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. Wakker, Peter P, 2001. "Testing and Characterizing Properties of Nonadditive Measures through Violations of the Sure-Thing Principle," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(4), pages 1039-1059, July.
    2. Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon, 2007. "Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 538-567, November.
    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. Sarin, Rakesh & Wakker, Peter P, 1998. "Revealed Likelihood and Knightian Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 223-250, July-Aug..
    5. Goyal, S. K. & Gomes, L. F. A. M., 1984. "A model for allocating car parking spaces in universities," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 267-269, June.
    6. Andre Palma & Moshe Ben-Akiva & David Brownstone & Charles Holt & Thierry Magnac & Daniel McFadden & Peter Moffatt & Nathalie Picard & Kenneth Train & Peter Wakker & Joan Walker, 2008. "Risk, uncertainty and discrete choice models," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 269-285, December.
      • André de Palma & Moshe Ben-Akiva & David Brownstone & Charles Holt & Thierry Magnac & Daniel McFadden & Peter Moffatt & Nathalie Picard & Kenneth Train & Peter Wakker & Joan Walker, 2008. "Risk, Uncertainty and Discrete Choice Models," THEMA Working Papers 2008-02, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    7. Thompson, Russell G. & Richardson, Anthony J., 1998. "A Parking Search Model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 159-170, April.
    8. Florian, Michaël & Los, Marc, 1980. "Impact of the supply of parking spaces on parking lot choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 14(1-2), pages 155-163.
    9. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    10. Wang, Xiaofang & Zhuang, Jun, 2011. "Balancing congestion and security in the presence of strategic applicants with private information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(1), pages 100-111, July.
    11. Cheng-Chang Lin & Chao-Chen Hsieh, 2012. "A Cooperative Coalitional Game in Duopolistic Supply-Chain Competition," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 129-146, March.
    12. C. Richard Cassady & John E. Kobza, 1998. "A Probabilistic Approach to Evaluate Strategies for Selecting a Parking Space," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 30-42, February.
    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. Zhibin Chen & Stephen Spana & Yafeng Yin & Yuchuan Du, 2019. "An Advanced Parking Navigation System for Downtown Parking," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 953-968, September.
    2. Bergantino, Angela Stefania & De Carlo, Angela & Morone, Andrea, 2015. "Individuals’ behaviour with respect to parking alternatives: a laboratory experiment," MPRA Paper 63815, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Du, Lili & Gong, Siyuan, 2016. "Stochastic Poisson game for an online decentralized and coordinated parking mechanism," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 44-63.
    4. Chaniotakis, Emmanouil & Pel, Adam J., 2015. "Drivers’ parking location choice under uncertain parking availability and search times: A stated preference experiment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 228-239.
    5. Semeneh Hunachew Bayih & Surafel Luleseged Tilahun, 2024. "Dynamic vehicle parking pricing. A review," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 34(1), pages 35-59.
    6. Xiao, Jun & Lou, Yingyan & Frisby, Joshua, 2018. "How likely am I to find parking? – A practical model-based framework for predicting parking availability," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 19-39.
    7. He, Fang & Yin, Yafeng & Chen, Zhibin & Zhou, Jing, 2015. "Pricing of parking games with atomic players," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1-12.
    8. Pel, Adam J. & Chaniotakis, Emmanouil, 2017. "Stochastic user equilibrium traffic assignment with equilibrated parking search routes," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 123-139.
    9. Sayarshad, Hamid R. & Sattar, Shahram & Oliver Gao, H., 2020. "A scalable non-myopic atomic game for a smart parking mechanism," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).

    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. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Do Bayesians Learn Their Way Out of Ambiguity?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 269-285, December.
    2. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey & Burkhard C. Schipper, 2009. "Ambiguity and social interaction," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 61(2), pages 355-379, April.
    3. Zimper, Alexander, 2009. "Half empty, half full and why we can agree to disagree forever," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 283-299, August.
    4. Alexander Zimper, 2008. "Asset pricing in a Lucas ‘fruit-tree’ economy with non-additive beliefs," Working Papers 092, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    5. Tarik Driouchi & Lenos Trigeorgis & Raymond H. Y. So, 2018. "Option implied ambiguity and its information content: Evidence from the subprime crisis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 262(2), pages 463-491, March.
    6. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    7. Zimper, Alexander, 2012. "Asset pricing in a Lucas fruit-tree economy with the best and worst in mind," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 610-628.
    8. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.
    9. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 2014. "Optimism And Pessimism In Games," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 55(2), pages 483-505, May.
    10. Alexander Ludwig & Alexander Zimper, 2013. "A decision-theoretic model of asset-price underreaction and overreaction to dividend news," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 625-665, November.
    11. Fontini, Fulvio & Umgiesser, Georg & Vergano, Lucia, 2010. "The role of ambiguity in the evaluation of the net benefits of the MOSE system in the Venice lagoon," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 1964-1972, August.
    12. Katarzyna Werner & Horst Zank, 2012. "Foundations for Prospect Theory Through Probability Midpoint Consistency," Economics Discussion Paper Series 1210, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    13. Eichberger, Jürgen & Grant, Simon & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2008. "Neo-additive capacities and updating," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 08-31, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    14. A. Ludwig & A. Zimper, 2013. "A parsimonious model of subjective life expectancy," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 519-541, October.
    15. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7332 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier l’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2009. "Separating Curvature and Elevation: A Parametric Weighting Function," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0901, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    17. Alexander Zimper & Alexander Ludwig, 2009. "On attitude polarization under Bayesian learning with non-additive beliefs," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 181-212, October.
    18. repec:awi:wpaper:0443 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Hagen Lindstädt, 2004. "Entscheidungskalküle jenseits des subjektiven Erwartungsnutzens," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 56(6), pages 495-519, September.
    20. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey & Burkhard C. Schipper, 2009. "Ambiguity and social interaction," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 61(2), pages 355-379, April.
    21. Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2006. "Investment behavior under ambiguity: The case of pessimistic decision makers," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 111-130, September.
    22. Katarzyna M. Werner & Horst Zank, 2019. "A revealed reference point for prospect theory," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 67(4), pages 731-773, June.

    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:kap:netspa:v:13:y:2013:i:3:p:327-350. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.