IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i10p3711-d175962.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analyzing Urban Residents’ Appraisal of Ridepooling Service Attributes with Conjoint Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandra König

    (German Aerospace Center, Institute of Transportation Systems, 38108 Braunschweig, Germany)

  • Tabea Bonus

    (Faculty of Cognitive Psychology, Ergonomics University of Twente, 7522 Enschede, The Netherlands)

  • Jan Grippenkoven

    (German Aerospace Center, Institute of Transportation Systems, 38108 Braunschweig, Germany)

Abstract

Public ridepooling systems could contribute to the reduction of traffic volume and emissions in cities by decreasing the number of rides by private car while increasing the average number of passengers per vehicle. Yet, it is unknown how urban travelers value different attributes of the ridepooling’s operational concept. Which characteristics of ridepooling concepts are most important to the users? In order to obtain a deeper understanding of travelers’ preferences concerning a ridepooling system, choice-based Conjoint Analysis was performed. Based on a literature review and a focus group, six relevant attributes of the operational concept of ridepooling systems were determined: fare, walking distance, time of booking, shift of departure time, travel time, and information provision. Data from 237 German city dwellers were analyzed with the help of Cox regression. Except for time of booking, all service attributes significantly affected the respondents’ choice. Besides the high relevance of fare, the results underline the particular importance of the attribute walking distance to the pick-up point for elderly. The results give guidance for the creation of user-centered public transport systems that meet the requirements of the prospective passengers and thus might contribute to the development of shared passenger transport systems for sustainable urban mobility.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandra König & Tabea Bonus & Jan Grippenkoven, 2018. "Analyzing Urban Residents’ Appraisal of Ridepooling Service Attributes with Conjoint Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3711-:d:175962
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3711/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3711/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Cohen, Adam, 2018. "Impacts of Shared Mobility," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt9vx1m1t9, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    2. Beirão, Gabriela & Sarsfield Cabral, J.A., 2007. "Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 478-489, November.
    3. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, June.
    4. Peter M. Guadagni & John D. C. Little, 1983. "A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 203-238.
    5. Christina Pakusch & Gunnar Stevens & Alexander Boden & Paul Bossauer, 2018. "Unintended Effects of Autonomous Driving: A Study on Mobility Preferences in the Future," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-22, July.
    6. Bahamonde-Birke, Francisco J. & Navarro, Isidora & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2017. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 13-23.
    7. Yan Han & Wanying Li & Shanshan Wei & Tiantian Zhang, 2018. "Research on Passenger’s Travel Mode Choice Behavior Waiting at Bus Station Based on SEM-Logit Integration Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-23, June.
    8. Tyrinopoulos, Yannis & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2008. "Public transit user satisfaction: Variability and policy implications," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 260-272, July.
    9. de Oña, Juan & de Oña, Rocío & Eboli, Laura & Mazzulla, Gabriella, 2013. "Perceived service quality in bus transit service: A structural equation approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 219-226.
    10. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    11. Itf, 2016. "Shared Mobility: Innovation for Liveable Cities," International Transport Forum Policy Papers 21, OECD Publishing.
    12. Brake, Jenny & Mulley, Corinne & Nelson, John D. & Wright, Steve, 2007. "Key lessons learned from recent experience with Flexible Transport Services," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 458-466, November.
    13. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Choice Based Conjoint Studies: Design and Analysis," Springer Books, in: Applied Conjoint Analysis, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 127-183, Springer.
    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. Nadine Kostorz & Eva Fraedrich & Martin Kagerbauer, 2021. "Usage and User Characteristics—Insights from MOIA, Europe’s Largest Ridepooling Service," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Papadima, Georgia & Genitsaris, Evangelos & Karagiotas, Ioannis & Naniopoulos, Aristotelis & Nalmpantis, Dimitrios, 2020. "Investigation of acceptance of driverless buses in the city of Trikala and optimization of the service using Conjoint Analysis," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    3. Prateek Bansal & Akanksha Sinha & Rubal Dua & Ricardo Daziano, 2019. "Eliciting Preferences of Ridehailing Users and Drivers: Evidence from the United States," Papers 1904.06695, arXiv.org.
    4. Alexandra König & Christina Wirth & Jan Grippenkoven, 2021. "Generation Y’s Information Needs Concerning Sharing Rides in Autonomous Mobility on Demand Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-19, July.
    5. Prateek Bansal & Yang Liu & Ricardo Daziano & Samitha Samaranayake, 2019. "Can Mobility-on-Demand services do better after discerning reliability preferences of riders?," Papers 1904.07987, arXiv.org.
    6. Gödde, Jan & Ruhrort, Lisa & Allert, Viktoria & Scheiner, Joachim, 2023. "User characteristics and spatial correlates of ride-pooling demand – Evidence from Berlin and Munich," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    7. Muhammad Ashraf Javid & Nazam Ali & Syed Arif Hussain Shah & Muhammad Abdullah, 2021. "Travelers’ Attitudes Toward Mobile Application–Based Public Transport Services in Lahore," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440209, January.
    8. Wen-Yun Chang & Viriya Taecharungroj & Supara Kapasuwan, 2022. "Sustainable Luxury Consumers’ Preferences and Segments: Conjoint and Cluster Analyses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-16, August.

    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. Muhammad Ashraf Javid & Nazam Ali & Syed Arif Hussain Shah & Muhammad Abdullah, 2021. "Travelers’ Attitudes Toward Mobile Application–Based Public Transport Services in Lahore," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440209, January.
    2. Celik, Erkan & Aydin, Nezir & Gumus, Alev Taskin, 2014. "A multiattribute customer satisfaction evaluation approach for rail transit network: A real case study for Istanbul, Turkey," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 283-293.
    3. Grisé, Emily & El-Geneidy, Ahmed, 2017. "Evaluating the relationship between socially (dis)advantaged neighbourhoods and customer satisfaction of bus service in London, U.K," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 166-175.
    4. Puteri Paramita & Zuduo Zheng & Md Mazharul Haque & Simon Washington & Paul Hyland, 2018. "User satisfaction with train fares: A comparative analysis in five Australian cities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-26, June.
    5. Laura Eboli & Gabriella Mazzulla, 2014. "Investigating the heterogeneity of bus users' preferences through discrete choice modelling," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(8), pages 695-710, December.
    6. Dea Lierop & Ahmed El-Geneidy, 2018. "Is having a positive image of public transit associated with travel satisfaction and continued transit usage? An exploratory study of bus transit," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 241-256, August.
    7. Wan, Dan & Kamga, Camille & Liu, Jun & Sugiura, Aaron & Beaton, Eric B., 2016. "Rider perception of a “light” Bus Rapid Transit system - The New York City Select Bus Service," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 41-55.
    8. Hernandez, Sara & Monzon, Andres & de Oña, Rocío, 2016. "Urban transport interchanges: A methodology for evaluating perceived quality," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 31-43.
    9. Ganji, S.S. & Ahangar, A.N. & Awasthi, Anjali & Jamshidi Bandari, Smaneh, 2021. "Psychological analysis of intercity bus passenger satisfaction using Q methodology," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 345-363.
    10. Aydin, Nezir & Celik, Erkan & Gumus, Alev Taskin, 2015. "A hierarchical customer satisfaction framework for evaluating rail transit systems of Istanbul," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 61-81.
    11. Grisé, Emily & El-Geneidy, Ahmed, 2018. "Where is the happy transit rider? Evaluating satisfaction with regional rail service using a spatial segmentation approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 114(PA), pages 84-96.
    12. Eldeeb, Gamal & Mohamed, Moataz, 2020. "Quantifying preference heterogeneity in transit service desired quality using a latent class choice model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 119-133.
    13. Karzan Ismael & Szabolcs Duleba, 2021. "Investigation of the Relationship between the Perceived Public Transport Service Quality and Satisfaction: A PLS-SEM Technique," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-20, November.
    14. Alessandro Vitale & Giuseppe Guido & Daniele Rogano, 2016. "A smartphone based DSS platform for assessing transit service attributes," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 315-340, September.
    15. Zahra Navidi & Nicole Ronald & Stephan Winter, 2018. "Comparison between ad-hoc demand responsive and conventional transit: a simulation study," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 147-167, May.
    16. Shuli Luo & Sylvia Y He, 2021. "Using data mining to explore the spatial and temporal dynamics of perceptions of metro services in China: The case of Shenzhen," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 48(3), pages 449-466, March.
    17. Jomnonkwao, Sajjakaj & Ratanavaraha, Vatanavongs, 2016. "Measurement modelling of the perceived service quality of a sightseeing bus service: An application of hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 240-252.
    18. Díez-Mesa, Francisco & de Oña, Rocio & de Oña, Juan, 2018. "Bayesian networks and structural equation modelling to develop service quality models: Metro of Seville case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1-13.
    19. Singh, Harpreet & Kathuria, Ankit, 2023. "Heterogeneity in passenger satisfaction of bus rapid transit system among age and gender groups: A PLS-SEM Multi-group analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 27-41.
    20. Côté, Elizabeth & Đukan, Mak & Pons-Seres de Brauwer, Cristian & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2022. "The price of actor diversity: Measuring project developers’ willingness to accept risks in renewable energy auctions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).

    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:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3711-:d:175962. 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.