IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sot/journl/y2009i42p26-46.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A methodology to evaluate the prospects for the introduction of a Park&Buy service

Author

Listed:
  • Marcucci, Edoardo
  • Rotaris, Lucia
  • Paglione, Guido

Abstract

The paper analyses the potential for introducing a Park&Buy service in the city of Pesaro (Italy) along the lines of the pilot project introduced in Siena, Italy, in 2004. It attempts to empirically evaluate the preferences of the parties involved and derives some suggestions on the potential compromise solution via a specifically designed stated preference experiment, drawing from the literature on interactive agency discrete choice modelling. Although various theoretical and methodological issues are still open for discussion, the methodology proves useful in giving insights not only on the parties’ preference structure - as normally achieved by discrete choice models - but also on shopkeepers perception of customers’ preferences, on the room for bargaining, on each party’s influence on choice attributes and on the determinants of the probability of achieving a comprise solution.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcucci, Edoardo & Rotaris, Lucia & Paglione, Guido, 2009. "A methodology to evaluate the prospects for the introduction of a Park&Buy service," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 42, pages 26-46.
    • Handle: RePEc:sot:journl:y:2009:i:42:p:26-46
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10077/6128
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Muthoo,Abhinay, 1999. "Bargaining Theory with Applications," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521576475.
    2. Kooreman, Peter & Soetevent, Adriaan, 2002. "A discrete choice model with social interactions: an analysis of high school teen behavior," CCSO Working Papers 200214, University of Groningen, CCSO Centre for Economic Research.
    3. Brock,W.A. & Durlauf,S.N., 2003. "Multinomial choice with social interactions," Working papers 1, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
    4. William A. Brock & Steven N. Durlauf, 2001. "Discrete Choice with Social Interactions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 68(2), pages 235-260.
    5. repec:dgr:rugccs:200214 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Donna Dosman & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2006. "Combining Stated and Revealed Preference Data to Construct an Empirical Examination of Intrahousehold Bargaining," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 15-34, March.
    7. Zhang, Junyi & Fujiwara, Akimasa, 2006. "Representing household time allocation behavior by endogenously incorporating diverse intra-household interactions: A case study in the context of elderly couples," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 54-74, January.
    8. Charles F. Manski, 2000. "Economic Analysis of Social Interactions," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 115-136, Summer.
    9. Rose, J. & Hensher, D. A., 2004. "Modelling agent interdependency in group decision making," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 63-79, January.
    10. Zhang, Junyi & Timmermans, Harry J. P. & Borgers, Aloys, 2005. "A model of household task allocation and time use," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 81-95, January.
    11. Eric Molin & Harmen Oppewal & Harry Timmermans, 1997. "Modeling Group Preferences Using a Decompositional Preference Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 6(4), pages 339-350, July.
    12. Ann Brewer & David Hensher, 2000. "Distributed work and travel behaviour: The dynamics of interactive agency choices between employers and employees," Transportation, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 117-148, February.
    13. John C. Harsanyi, 1955. "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63(4), pages 309-309.
    14. John Gliebe & Frank Koppelman, 2002. "A model of joint activity participation between household members," Transportation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 49-72, 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. Glenn W. Harrison & Jimmy Martínez-Correa, 2014. "Choice modeling and risk management," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 18, pages 413-426, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    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, Junyi & Kuwano, Masashi & Lee, Backjin & Fujiwara, Akimasa, 2009. "Modeling household discrete choice behavior incorporating heterogeneous group decision-making mechanisms," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 230-250, February.
    2. Yan, Qianqian & Feng, Tao & Timmermans, Harry, 2023. "A model of household shared parking decisions incorporating equity-seeking household dynamics and leadership personality traits," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    3. Kato, Hironori & Matsumoto, Manabu, 2009. "Intra-household interaction in a nuclear family: A utility-maximizing approach," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 191-203, February.
    4. Chinh Ho & Corinne Mulley, 2015. "Intra-household interactions in transport research: a review," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1), pages 33-55, January.
    5. Matthew J. Beck & John M. Rose, 2019. "Stated preference modelling of intra-household decisions: Can you more easily approximate the preference space?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 1195-1213, August.
    6. Yao, Mingzhu & Wang, Donggen & Yang, Hai, 2017. "A game-theoretic model of car ownership and household time allocation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 667-685.
    7. Peter Kooreman & Adriaan R. Soetevent, 2007. "A discrete-choice model with social interactions: with an application to high school teen behavior," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 599-624.
    8. Pamela Giustinelli, 2016. "Group Decision Making With Uncertain Outcomes: Unpacking Child–Parent Choice Of The High School Track," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 57(2), pages 573-602, May.
    9. Huai, Yue & Lo, Hong K. & Ng, Ka Fai, 2021. "Monocentric versus polycentric urban structure: Case study in Hong Kong," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 99-118.
    10. Zhang, Junyi & Fujiwara, Akimasa, 2006. "Representing household time allocation behavior by endogenously incorporating diverse intra-household interactions: A case study in the context of elderly couples," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 54-74, January.
    11. Chandra Bhat & Konstadinos Goulias & Ram Pendyala & Rajesh Paleti & Raghuprasad Sidharthan & Laura Schmitt & Hsi-Hwa Hu, 2013. "A household-level activity pattern generation model with an application for Southern California," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 1063-1086, September.
    12. Lu, Ying & Prato, Carlo G. & Sipe, Neil & Kimpton, Anthony & Corcoran, Jonathan, 2022. "The role of household modality style in first and last mile travel mode choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 95-109.
    13. Adriaan R. Soetevent, 2006. "Empirics of the Identification of Social Interactions; An Evaluation of the Approaches and Their Results," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 193-228, April.
    14. Brock, William A. & Durlauf, Steven N., 2007. "Identification of binary choice models with social interactions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 52-75, September.
    15. Brock,W.A. & Durlauf,S.N., 2003. "Multinomial choice with social interactions," Working papers 1, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
    16. Ho, Chinh & Mulley, Corinne, 2015. "Intra-household Interactions in tour-based mode choice: The role of social, temporal, spatial and resource constraints," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 52-63.
    17. Weiss, Adam & Habib, Khandker Nurul, 2018. "A generalized parallel constrained choice model for intra-household escort decision of high school students," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 26-38.
    18. Iyer, S. & Weeks, M., 2009. "Social Interactions, Ethnicity and Fertility in Kenya," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0903, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    19. Hu, Yang & van Wee, Bert & Ettema, Dick, 2023. "Intra-household decisions and the impact of the built environment on activity-travel behavior: A review of the literature," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    20. Beck, Matthew J. & Hess, Stephane, 2016. "Willingness to accept longer commutes for better salaries: Understanding the differences within and between couples," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 1-16.

    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:sot:journl:y:2009:i:42:p:26-46. 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: Romeo Danielis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/xxxxxxx.html .

    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.