Advertisement

Economia Politica

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 887–912 | Cite as

How do people choose their commuting mode? An evolutionary approach to travel choices

  • Chiara CalastriEmail author
  • Simone Borghesi
  • Giorgio Fagiolo
Article

Abstract

A considerable amount of studies in the transport literature is aimed at understanding the behavioural processes underlying travel choices, like mode and destination choices. In the present work, we propose the use of evolutionary game theory as a framework to study commuter mode choice. Evolutionary game models work under the assumptions that agents are boundedly rational and imitate others’ behaviour. We examine the possible dynamics that can emerge in a homogeneous urban population where commuters can choose between two modes, private car or public transport. We obtain a different number of equilibria depending on the values of the parameters of the model. We carry out comparative-static exercises and examine possible policy measures that can be implemented in order to modify the agents’ payoff, and consequently the equilibria of the system, leading society towards more sustainable transportation patterns.

Keywords

Commuter choices Transportation Travel behaviour Evolutionary dynamics Evolutionary game theory Bounded rationality Environmental policy 

JEL Classification

C73 R40 R41 Q50 

References

  1. Abrantes, P. A., & Wardman, M. R. (2011). Meta-analysis of UK values of travel time: An update. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45, 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2010.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antoci, A., Borghesi, S., & Marletto, G. (2012). To drive or not to drive? A simple evolutionary model. Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment, 2012, 31–47.Google Scholar
  4. Arnott, R., & Small, K. (1994). The economics of traffic congestion. American Scientist, 82, 446–455. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29775281.
  5. Bamberg, S., Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Choice of travel mode in the theory of planned behavior: The roles of past behavior, habit, and reasoned action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beatty, T. K., & Shimshack, J. P. (2011). School buses, diesel emissions, and respiratory health. Journal of Health Economics, 30, 987–999.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.05.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ben-Akiva, M., & Bierlaire, M. (1999). Discrete choice methods and their applications to short term travel decisions. Handbook of Transportation Science, 23, 5–33.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5203-1_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhat, C. R. (2000). Incorporating observed and unobserved heterogeneity inurban work travel mode choice modeling. Transportation Science, 34, 228–238.  https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.34.2.228.12306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cacciola, R., Sarva, M., & Polosa, M. (2002). Adverse respiratory effects and allergic susceptibility in relation to particulate air pollution: Flirting with disaster. Allergy, 57, 281–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Commission for Integrated Transport. (2008). The CfIT report: public attitudes to transport in England, London. Technical Report.Google Scholar
  11. David, Q., & Foucart, R. (2014). Modal choice and optimal congestion. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 48, 12–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2014.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dell’Olio, L., Ibeas, A., & Cecin, P. (2010). Modelling user perception of bus transit quality. Transport Policy, 17, 388–397.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.04.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dell’Olio, L., Ibeas, A., & Cecin, P. (2010). Modelling user perception of bus transit quality. Transport Policy, 17, 388–397.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.04.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dugundji, E., & Walker, J. (2005). Discrete choice with social and spatial network interdependencies: An empirical example using mixed generalized extreme value models with field and panel effects. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1921, 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eriksson, L., & Forward, S. E. (2011). Is the intention to travel in a pro-environmental manner and the intention to use the car determined by different factors? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16, 372–376.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2011.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fillone, A.M., Montalbo, C.M.J., & Tiglao, N.C.C. (2007). Transport mode choice models for Metro Manila and urban transport policy applications. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 7, 454–469. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/130000087375/en/.
  17. Fujii, S., & Kitamura, R. (2003). What does a one-month free bus ticket do to habitual drivers? An experimental analysis of habit and attitude change. Transportation, 30, 81–95.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021234607980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gardner, B., & Abraham, C. (2007). What drives car use? A grounded theory analysis of commuters’ reasons for driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 10, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gardner, B., & Abraham, C. (2007). What drives car use? A grounded theory analysis of commuters’ reasons for driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 10, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herrstedt, L. (1992). Traffic calming design a speed management method: Danish experiences on environmentally adapted through roads. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 24, 3–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(92)90067-S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hofbauer, J., & Sigmund, K. (1998). Evolutionary games and population dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. International Energy Agency. (2017a). \({CO}_2\) Emissions From Fuel Combustion Highlights 2017, Paris. Technical Report.Google Scholar
  23. International Energy Agency. (2017b). Key World Energy Statistics. Technical Report.Google Scholar
  24. Kain, J. F., & Liu, Z. (1999). Secrets of success: Assessing the large increases in transit ridership achieved by Houston and San Diego transit providers. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 33, 601–624.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(99)00009-9.Google Scholar
  25. Khreis, H., Kelly, C., Tate, J., Parslow, R., Lucas, K., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2016). Exposure to traffic-related air pollution and risk of development of childhood asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment International,.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.11.012.Google Scholar
  26. Lajunen, T., Parker, D., & Summala, H. (1999). Does traffic congestion increase driver aggression? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2, 225–236.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8478(00)00003-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mazzulla, G., & Eboli, L. (2006). A service quality experimental measure for public transport. European Transport, pp. 42–53.Google Scholar
  28. Nurdden, A., Rahmat, R. A., & Ismail, A. (2007). Effect of transportation policies on modal shift from private car to public transport in Malaysia. Journal of Applied Sciences, 7, 1014–1018.Google Scholar
  29. Nurdden, A., Rahmat, R. A., & Ismail, A. (2007). Effect of transportation policies on modal shift from private car to public transport in Malaysia. Journal of Applied Sciences, 7, 1014–1018.Google Scholar
  30. Sperling, D., & Gordon, D. (2008). Two billion cars; transforming a culture. TRNEWS. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews259billioncars.pdf.
  31. Steg, L. (2005). Car use: Lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39, 147–162.Google Scholar
  32. Storchmann, K. H. (2001). The impact of fuel taxes on public transport—an empirical assessment for Germany. Transport Policy, 8, 19–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00033-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stradling, S., Carreno, M., Rye, T., & Noble, A. (2007). Passenger perceptions and the ideal urban bus journey experience. Transport Policy, 14, 283–292.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Su, Q., & Zhou, L. (2012). Parking management, financial subsidies to alternatives to drive alone and commute mode choices in Seattle. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 42, 88–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tertoolen, G., van Kreveld, D., & Verstraten, B. (1998). Psychological resistance against attempts to reduce private car use. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 32, 171–181.Google Scholar
  36. Toledo, T. (2007). Driving behaviour: Models and challenges. Transport Reviews, 27, 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Transport for London. (2008). Impacts Monitoring—Sixth Annual Report. Mayor of London, London. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/sixth-annual-impacts-monitoring-report-2008-07.pdf.
  38. Transport for London. (2008). Impacts Monitoring—Sixth Annual Report. Mayor of London, London. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/sixth-annual-impacts-monitoring-report-2008-07.pdf.
  39. Vega-Redondo, F. (Ed.) (1996). Evolution, Games, and Economic Behaviour. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  40. Wall, G., & McDonald, M. (2007). Improving bus service quality and information in Winchester. Transport Policy, 14, 165–179.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2006.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weibull, J. W. (1995). Evolutionary game theory. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  42. Williams, M. (1978). Factors affecting modal choice decisions in urban travel: Some further evidence. Transportation Research, 12, 91–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-1647(78)90047-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. World Carfree Network. (2017). http://www.worldcarfree.net.
  44. World Health Organization. (2017). Global status report on road safety 2015: Supporting a decade of action, Geneva. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2015/en/.
  45. Yang, F., Liu, X., Ran, B., & Yi, P. (2005). An evolutionary game theory approach to the continuous-time day-to-day traffic dynamics. TRB Annual Meeting Paper, 2005, 05–0413.Google Scholar
  46. Zhang, H., Su, Y., Peng, L., & Yao, D. (2010). A review of game theory applications in transportation analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Computer and Information Application (ICCIA), Tianjin, pp. 152–157.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCIA.2010.6141559.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chiara Calastri
    • 1
    Email author
  • Simone Borghesi
    • 2
    • 3
  • Giorgio Fagiolo
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute for Transport Studies and Choice Modelling CentreUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Scienze Politiche e InternazionaliUniversità di SienaSienaItaly
  3. 3.Florence School of Regulation ClimateEuropean University InstituteFlorenceItaly
  4. 4.Istituto di Economia, Scuola Superiore Sant’AnnaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations