Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2206.02448

Car-Sharing Subscription Preferences: The Case of Copenhagen, Munich, and Tel Aviv-Yafo

Abstract

Car-sharing services have been providing short-term car access to their users, contributing to sustainable urban mobility and generating positive societal and often environmental impacts. As car-sharing business models vary, it is important to understand what features drive the attraction and retention of its members in different contexts. For that, it is essential to examine individuals preferences for subscriptions to different business models and what they perceive as most relevant, as well as understand what could be attractive incentives. This study aims precisely to examine individuals preferences for the subscription of different car-sharing services in different cities. We designed a stated preference experiment and collected data from three different urban car-sharing settings, namely Copenhagen, Munich, and Tel Aviv-Yafo. Then a mixed logit model was estimated to uncover car-sharing plan subscription and incentives preferences. The results improve our understanding of how both the features of the car-sharing business model and the provision of incentives can maintain and attract members to the system. The achieved insights pave the road for the actual design of car-sharing business models and incentives that can be offered by existing and future car-sharing companies in the studied or similar cities.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mayara Moraes Monteiro, Carlos M. Lima Azevedo, Maria Kamargianni, Yoram Shiftan, Ayelet Gal-Tzur, Sharon Shoshany Tavory, Constantinos Antoniou, Guido Cantelmo. 2022-06-06. Car-Sharing Subscription Preferences: The Case of Copenhagen, Munich, and Tel Aviv-Yafo. https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.02448

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN