Even though route choice behavior and drivers’ acceptance of advanced traveler information systems have been studied in the past, little or no attention has been given to the route choice behavior and acceptance response to social navigation systems. What separates social navigation systems from traditional traffic navigation is that the route advice aims to minimize the individual travel time and the marginal total travel time in the network. In this study, drivers’ behavioral responses to social navigation route guidance were empirically evaluated under different information and incentive strategies. A traffic navigation application based on social navigation was developed and used in a pilot multiuser laboratory experiment. Participants were asked to make route choices in a virtual travel environment under various information and incentive strategies. Drivers were more willing to comply with the social advice when they were well informed and well rewarded. The results also show that female and novice drivers are more willing to comply with the social advice than are male drivers and experienced drivers. Aside from the level of altruism, a driver's indifference to switching routes also affects a driver's compliance with social advice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HelbingD., FarkasI., and VicsekT.Simulation Dynamical Features of Escape Panic. Nature, Vol. 407, No. 6803, 2000, pp. 487–490.
2.
ZuurbierF.Intelligent Route Guidance. PhD thesis. TRAIL thesis series T2010/8. Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands, 2010.
3.
MahmassaniH. S., and PeetaS.Network Performance Under System Optimal and User Equilibrium Dynamic Assignments: Implications for Advanced Traveler Information Systems. In Transportation Research Record 1408, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 83–93.
4.
van den BoschA., van AremB., MahmodM., and MisenerJ.Reducing Time Delays on Congested Road Networks Using Social Navigation. IEEE Forum on Integrated and Sustainable Transportation Systems, Vienna, Austria, 2011, pp. 26–31.
5.
MichonJ. A.A Critical View of Driver Behavior Models: What Do We Know, What Should We Do? In Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety (EvansL., and SchwingR. C., eds.), Plenum Press, New York, 1985, pp. 485–520.
6.
XuH.Decentralized Traffic Information System Design Based on Inter-Vehicle Communication. PhD dissertation. University of California, Riverside, 2006.
7.
SchakelW. J., van AremB., and NettenB.Effects of Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control on Traffic Flow Stability. Proc., 13th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Funchal, Madeira Island, Portugal, 2010, pp. 759–764.
8.
FioraniM., MarianiM., TangoF., and SaroldiA.SASPENCE—Safe Speed and Safe Distance: Project Overview and Customer Benefit Analysis of a Novel Driver's Collision Avoidance Support System.Siena University, Tuscany, Italy, 2005.
NettenB., WilminkI., HogmaJ., HegyiA., WangW., BaanJ., and PasschierI.Dynamax InCar: System, Concepts, Research Questions, Hypothesis, Simulation and Evaluation. TNO report. Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, 2011.
11.
WardropJ. G.Some Theoretical Aspects of Road Traffic Research. Proc., Institute of Civil Engineers, Part II, 1952, pp. 325–378.
12.
WieW., TobinR. L., BernsteinD., and FrieszT. L.A Comparison of System Optimum and User Equilibrium Dynamic Traffic Assignments with Schedule Delays. Transportation Research Part C, Vol. 3, No. 6, 1995, pp. 389–411.
13.
RoughgardenT., and TardosE.How Bad Is Selfish Routing?Journal of the ACM, Vol. 49, No. 2, 2002, pp. 236–259.
14.
BoyceD., and XiongQ.User-Optimal and System-Optimal Route Choices for a Large Road Network. Review of Network Economics, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2004.
15.
PeetaS., and MahmassaniH. S.System Optimal and User Equilibrium Time-Dependent Traffic Assignment in Congested Networks. Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 60, No. 1, 1995, pp. 81–113.
16.
SrinivasanK. K., and MahmassaniH. S.Modeling Inertia and Compliance Mechanisms in Route Choice Behavior Under Real-Time Information. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1725, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 45–53.
17.
KahnemanD., and TverskyA.Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica, Vol. 47, No. 2, 1979, pp. 263–292.
18.
ChowJ. Y. J., LeeG., and YangI.Genetic Algorithm to Estimate Cumulative Prospect Theory Parameters for Selection of High-Occupancy-Vehicle Lane. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2157, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 71–77.
19.
RamosG. M., FrejingerE., DaamenW., and HoogendoornS. P.A Revealed Preference Study on Route Choices in a Congested Network with Real-Time Information. Proc., 13th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2012.
20.
Ben-EliaE., and ShiftanY.Which Road Do I Take? A Learning-Based Model of Route-Choice Behaviour with Real-Time Information. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 44, No. 4, 2010, pp. 249–264.
21.
VerhoefE. T., BliemerM. C. J., StegL., and Van WeeG. P.Pricing in Road Transport: A Multidisciplinary Perspective.Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, England, 2008.
22.
SchuitemaG., StegL., and VlekC.Are Pricing Policies Effective and Acceptable for Changes in Car Usage?IATSS Research, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2007, pp. 92–111.
23.
KnockaertJ., BliemerM., EttemaD., loksimovicD., MulderA., RouwendalJ., and van AmelsfortD.Experimental Design and Modelling Spitsmijden, Bureau Spitsmijden, The Hague, Netherlands, 2007.
24.
BieJ., van AremB., and IgamberdievM.Economic Incentives to Influence Drivers’ Route Choices for Safety Enhancement: AWin-Win Situation. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2187, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 76–84.
25.
AjzenI.The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, No. 2, 1991, pp. 179–211.
26.
MujcicR., and FrijtersP.Altruism in Society: Evidence from a Natural Experiment Involving Commuters. IZA Discussion Paper 5648. 2011. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1820939.
27.
TalaatH.Decision Field Theoretical Analysis and Modelling of Dynamic Route Choice Deliberation Process. PhD thesis. University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2008.
28.
KoutsopoulosH., LotanT., and YangQ.A Driving Simulator and Its Application for Modelling Route Choice in the Presence of Information. Transportation Research Part C, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1994, pp. 91–107.
29.
AdlerJ. L., ReckerW. W., and McNallyM. G.A Conflict Model and Interactive Simulator (FASTCARS) for Predicting Enroute Driver Behavior in Response to Real-Time Traffic Condition. Transportation, Vol. 20, No. 2, 1993, pp. 83–106.
30.
BonsallP., FirminP., AndersonM., PalmerI., and BalmforthP.Validating the Results of a Route Choice Simulator. Transportation Research Part C, Vol. 5, No. 6, 1997, pp. 371–387.
31.
MahmassaniH. S., and LiuY. H.Dynamics of Commuting Decision Behavior Under Advanced Traveller Information Systems. Transportation Research Part C, Vol. 7, No. 2-3, 1999, pp. 91–107.
32.
BogersE. A. I., VitiF., and HoogendoornS. P.Joint Modeling of Advanced Travel Information Service, Habit, and Learning Impacts on Route Choice by Laboratory Simulator Experiments. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1926, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 189–197.
33.
ChorusC. G., MolinJ. E. E., ArentzeT.A., HoogendoornS. P., TimmermansH. J. P., and van WeeB.Validation of a Multimodal Travel Simulator with Travel Information Provision. Transportation Research Part C, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2007, pp. 191–207.
34.
RazoM., and GaoS.Strategic Thinking and Risk Attitudes in Route Choice: Stated Preference Approach. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2156, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 28–35.
35.
RazoM., and GaoS.A Rank-Dependent Expected Utility Model for Strategic Route Choice Model with Stated Preference Data. Transportation Research Part C, Vol. 27, 2013, pp. 117–130.
36.
Di PaceR., Dell'OrcoJ., GalanteF., and MarinelliM.Application of Data Fusion for Route Choice Modelling by Route Choice Driving Simulator Data. 17th WSC17 Online Conference on Soft Computing in Industrial Applicants Anywhere on Earth, 2012.
37.
SchakelW. J., KnoopV. L., and van AremB.Integrated Lane Change Model with Relaxation and Synchronization. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2316, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 47–57.
38.
ZiliaskopoulosA. K., and ZhangJ.A Zero Public Infrastructure Vehicle Based Traffic Information System. Presented at 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2003.
39.
KrajzewiczD., BoyomT., and WagnerP.Evaluation of the Performance of City-Wide, Autonomous Route Choice Based on Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication. Presented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2008.
40.
MinciardiR., and GaetaniF.A Decentralized Optimal Control Scheme for Route Guidance in Urban Road Networks. Proc., IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2001, pp. 1195–1199.
41.
HawasY. E., and MahmassaniH. S.Comparative Analysis of Robustness of Centralized and Distributed Network Route Control Systems in Incident Situations. In Transportation Research Record 1537, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 83–90.
42.
YangX., and ReckerW. W.Modeling Dynamic Vehicle Navigation in a Self-Organizing, Peer-to-Peer, Distributed Traffic Information System. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2006, pp. 185–204.
43.
KimH. K.Development and Evaluation of Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) Using Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication System. PhD dissertation. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 2010.
44.
ChuL., OhJ. S., and ReckerW. W.Adaptive Kaiman Filter Based Freeway Travel Time Estimation. Presented at 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005.
45.
HanQ., TimmermansH. J. P., DellaertB. G. C., and van RaaijF.Route Choice Under Uncertainty: Effects of Recommendations. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2082, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 72–80.
46.
HeymanJ., and ArielyD.Effort for Payment: A Tale of Two Markets. Psychological Science, Vol. 15, No. 11, 2004, pp. 787–793.
47.
MahmassaniH., and ChangG. L.On Boundedly-Rational User Equilibrium in Transportation Systems. Transportation Science, Vol. 21. No. 2, 1987, pp. 89–99.
48.
YangH., and WangX.Managing Network Mobility with Tradable Credits. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 45, No. 3, 2001, pp. 580–594.
49.
JahnO., MöhringR. H., SchulzS., and Stier-MosesN. E.System-Optimal Routing of Traffic Flows with User Constraints in Networks with Congestion. Operations Research, Vol. 53, No. 4, 2005, pp. 600–616.
50.
YangI., and JayakrishnanR.Modeling Framework to Analyze Effect of Multiple Traffic Information Service Providers on Traffic Network Performance. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2333, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 55–65.
