IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v173y2025ics0967070x25003403.html

Context-dependent uncertainty-aware parking choices of autonomous car owners

Author

Listed:
  • Hu, Yan
  • Zhao, Ying
  • Li, Xiaodong
  • Feng, Tao

Abstract

As autonomous vehicle (AV) technology advances, effectively managing parking behavior has become increasingly critical for urban parking systems, traffic congestion, and transportation sustainability. This study aims to investigate AV owners’ parking choices under various activity-travel contexts, uncertainty conditions, and parking attributes. A stated choice experiment was designed, and a mixed logit cumulative prospect theoretical model was developed to analyze parking decisions under uncertain waiting times underlying different parking modes. The findings indicate that individuals exhibit risk preferences in response to waiting time uncertainty. When waiting times are shorter than expected, they show risk aversion with diminishing sensitivity to further reductions. Conversely, longer-than-expected waits lead to risk-seeking behavior, heightened sensitivity, and biases in probability perception. These risk preferences significantly influence individuals' parking choices, particularly in prolonged, uncertain waiting scenarios. Additionally, travel context factors (e.g., purpose, activity duration, and idle time) and parking attributes (e.g., cost, revenue, and social influence) significantly influence AV owners' parking decisions, along with socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., age, education, and car ownership). The findings provide valuable insights for urban planners, policymakers, and car-sharing platforms, suggesting flexible pricing strategies and the promotion of shared mobility services to enhance parking efficiency and support sustainable transportation development.

Suggested Citation

  • Hu, Yan & Zhao, Ying & Li, Xiaodong & Feng, Tao, 2025. "Context-dependent uncertainty-aware parking choices of autonomous car owners," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:173:y:2025:i:c:s0967070x25003403
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2025.103797
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X25003403
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2025.103797?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Theo Arentze & Tao Feng & Harry Timmermans & Jops Robroeks, 2012. "Context-dependent influence of road attributes and pricing policies on route choice behavior of truck drivers: results of a conjoint choice experiment," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1173-1188, November.
    2. Bhat, Chandra R., 1998. "Accommodating variations in responsiveness to level-of-service measures in travel mode choice modeling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 495-507, September.
    3. Hu, Yan & Feng, Tao & Li, Mengxia, 2025. "Examining the temporary use behavior of autonomous vehicles under uncertainty: A stated preference analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    4. Millard-Ball, Adam, 2019. "The autonomous vehicle parking problem," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 99-108.
    5. 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..
    6. 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.
    7. Zhang, Rong & Zhu, Lichao, 2016. "Curbside parking pricing in a city centre using a threshold," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 16-27.
    8. Tang, Zhe-Yi & Tian, Li-Jun & Wang, David Z.W., 2021. "Multi-modal morning commute with endogenous shared autonomous vehicle penetration considering parking space constraint," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    9. Tian, Zhihui & Feng, Tao & Timmermans, Harry J.P. & Yao, Baozhen, 2024. "What to do with commuting time when driving autonomous vehicles? Results of a stated intention experiment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    10. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    11. Ben-Akiva, M. & Bolduc, D. & Bradley, M., 1993. "Estimation of Travel Choice Models with Randomly Distributed Values of Time," Papers 9303, Laval - Recherche en Energie.
    12. Pudāne, Baiba & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Chorus, Caspar G., 2021. "A day in the life with an automated vehicle: Empirical analysis of data from an interactive stated activity-travel survey," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    13. Zhu, Jing & Fan, Yingling, 2018. "Daily travel behavior and emotional well-being: Effects of trip mode, duration, purpose, and companionship," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 360-373.
    14. Ibeas, A. & dell’Olio, L. & Bordagaray, M. & Ortúzar, J. de D., 2014. "Modelling parking choices considering user heterogeneity," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 41-49.
    15. Tian, Zhihui & Feng, Tao & Yao, Baozhen & Hu, Yan & Zhang, Jing, 2023. "Where to park an autonomous vehicle? Results of a stated choice experiment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    16. Geng, Kexin & Wang, Yacan & Cherchi, Elisabetta & Guarda, Pablo, 2023. "Commuter departure time choice behavior under congestion charge: Analysis based on cumulative prospect theory," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    17. Bhat, Chandra R. & Castelar, Saul, 2002. "A unified mixed logit framework for modeling revealed and stated preferences: formulation and application to congestion pricing analysis in the San Francisco Bay area," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 593-616, August.
    18. Hess, Stephane & Palma, David, 2019. "Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Kolarova, Viktoriya & Steck, Felix & Bahamonde-Birke, Francisco J., 2019. "Assessing the effect of autonomous driving on value of travel time savings: A comparison between current and future preferences," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 155-169.
    20. Nicholas C. Barberis, 2013. "Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 173-196, Winter.
    21. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    22. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    23. Assemi, Behrang & Baker, Douglas & Paz, Alexander, 2020. "Searching for on-street parking: An empirical investigation of the factors influencing cruise time," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 186-196.
    24. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    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. Hu, Yan & Feng, Tao & Li, Mengxia, 2025. "Examining the temporary use behavior of autonomous vehicles under uncertainty: A stated preference analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    2. Eran Ben-Elia & Robert Ishaq & Yoram Shiftan, 2013. "“If only I had taken the other road...”: Regret, risk and reinforced learning in informed route-choice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 269-293, February.
    3. Huda, Fuad Yasin & Currie, Graham & Pimenta, Allan & Kamruzzaman, Liton (Md), 2025. "Valuing driverless commuting – Downtown parking impacts," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    4. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    5. Klein, Martin & Deissenroth, Marc, 2017. "When do households invest in solar photovoltaics? An application of prospect theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 270-278.
    6. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    7. Mariya Burdina & Scott Hiller, 2021. "When Falling Just Short is a Good Thing: The Effect of Past Performance on Improvement," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 22(7), pages 777-798, October.
    8. Häckel, Björn & Pfosser, Stefan & Tränkler, Timm, 2017. "Explaining the energy efficiency gap - Expected Utility Theory versus Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 414-426.
    9. Wakker, Peter P. & Zank, Horst, 2002. "A simple preference foundation of cumulative prospect theory with power utility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1253-1271, July.
    10. Arthur E. Attema & Marieke Krol & Job van Exel & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2018. "New findings from the time trade-off for income approach to elicit willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(2), pages 277-291, March.
    11. Thomas Astebro & Frank Fossen & Cédric Gutierrez, 2024. "Entrepreneurs: Clueless, Biased, Poor Heuristics, or Bayesian Machines?," Working Papers hal-04759301, HAL.
    12. Ryan O. Murphy & Robert H. W. ten Brincke, 2018. "Hierarchical Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimation for Cumulative Prospect Theory: Improving the Reliability of Individual Risk Parameter Estimates," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 308-328, January.
    13. Giacoletti, Marco & Parsons, Christopher A., 2022. "Peak-Bust rental spreads," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(1), pages 504-526.
    14. Simon Gächter & Eric J. Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2022. "Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 599-624, April.
    15. Li, Baibing & Hensher, David A., 2017. "Risky weighting in discrete choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 1-21.
    16. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    17. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.
    18. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    19. Wenhui Zhou & Dongmei Wang & Weixiang Huang & Pengfei Guo, 2021. "To Pool or Not to Pool? The Effect of Loss Aversion on Queue Configurations," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(11), pages 4258-4272, November.
    20. Fakhrul Hasan & Umar Nawaz Kayani & Tonmoy Choudhury, 2023. "Behavioral Risk Preferences and Dividend Changes: Exploring the Linkages with Prospect Theory Through Empirical Analysis," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 24(4), pages 517-535, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:trapol:v:173:y:2025:i:c:s0967070x25003403. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    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.