Crowdsourced shipping presents an innovative shipping alternative that is expected to improve shipping efficiency, increase service, and decrease cost to the customer, and such shipping promises to enhance the sustainability of the transportation system. This study collected data on behavioral responses to choose from available crowdsourced shipping jobs. The goal of the study was to measure the potential willingness of individuals to change status from pure commuters to traveler–shippers. In particular, the study quantified potential crowdsourced shippers’ value of free time, or willingness to work (WTW) in a hypothetical scenario in which crowdsourced shipping jobs were available in a variety of settings. This WTW calculation is unique compared with the traditional willingness to pay (WTP) in that it measured the trade-off of making a profit and giving up time instead of spending money to save time. This work provides a foundation to analyze the application and effectiveness of crowdsourced shipping by exploring the WTW propensity of ordinary travelers. The analysis was based on a newly developed stated preference survey and analyzed choice across three potential shipping jobs and the option to choose none of the three (i.e., the status quo). Results showed that the experiment was successful in recovering reasonable WTW values that are higher than the normal WTP metrics. The results also identified many significant sociodemographic variables that could help crowdsourced shipping companies better target potential part-time drivers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MacharisC., and KinB.. The 4 A's of Sustainable City Distribution: Innovative Solutions and Challenges Ahead.International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2017, pp. 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2016.1196404.
2.
LuceR., and TukeyJ.. Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1964, pp. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(64)90015-X.
3.
BatesJ.Stated Preference Methods in Transport Research.Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 22, 1988.
4.
HensherD.Stated Preference Analysis of Travel Choices: The State of Practice, Transportation, Vol. 21, No. 2, 1994, pp. 107–133.
5.
OrtuzarJ.Stated Preference Modelling Techniques.PTRC Education and Research Services, Ltd., London, 2000.
6.
LouviereJ., HensherD., and SwaitJ.. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application.Cambridge University Press, England, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753831.
7.
DomencichT., and McFaddenD.. Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioural Analysis.North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1975.
LancasterK.A New Approach to Consumer Theory.Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 74, No. 2, 1966, pp. 132–157. https://doi.org/10.1086/259131.
10.
Ben-AkivaM., and BolducV.. Multinomial Probit with a Logit Kernel and General Parametric Specification of the Covariance Structure.Department d'Economique, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada, 1996.
11.
HensherD., and GreeneW.. The Mixed Logit Model: The State of Practice.Transportation, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2003, pp. 133–176. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022558715350.
LittleJ., and BerrensR.. Explaining Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis.Economic Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 6, 2004, pp. 1–13.
14.
MurphyJ. J., AllenP. G., StevensT. H., and WeatherheadD.. A Meta-Analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation.Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2005, pp. 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-004-3332-z.
15.
Ben-AkivaM., and MorikawaT.. Estimation of Switching Models from Revealed Preferences and Stated Intentions.Transportation Research Part A: General, Vol. 24, No. 6, 1990, pp. 485–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-2607(90)90037-7.
16.
AdamowiczW., LouviereJ., and WilliamsM.. Combining Stated and Revealed Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1994, pp. 271–292. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1017.
17.
DosmanD., and AdamowiczW.. Combining Stated and Revealed Preference Data to Construct an Empirical Examination of Intrahousehold Bargaining.Review of Economics of the Household, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2006, pp. 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-005-6695-1.
18.
ReadyR. C., ChampP. A., and LawtonJ. L.. Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment.Land Economics, Vol. 86, No. 2, 2010, pp. 363–381. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.86.2.363.
19.
LuskJ. L., and SchroederT. C.. Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks.American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 86, No. 2, 2004, pp. 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00592.x.
20.
LouviereJ. J., MeyerR. J., BunchD. S., CarsonR., DellaertB., HanemannW. M., HensherD. A., and IrwinJ.. Combining Sources of Preference Data for Modeling Complex Decision Processes.Marketing Letters, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1999, pp. 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008050215270.
21.
LoriJ. R., RominskiS. D., RichardsonJ., Agyei-BaffourP., KwekuN. E., and GyakoboM.. Factors Influencing Ghanaian Midwifery Students’ Willingness to Work in Rural Areas: A Computerized Survey.International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 49, No. 7, 2012, pp. 834–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.02.006.
22.
PaloheimoH., LettenmeierM., and WarisH.. Transport Reduction by Crowdsourced Deliveries—A Library Case in Finland.Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 132, 2016, pp. 240–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.103.
23.
PanS., ChenC., and ZhongR. Y.. A Crowdsourcing Solution to Collect E-Commerce Reverse Flows in Metropolitan Areas.IFAC-PapersOnLine, Vol. 48, No. 3, 2015, pp. 1984–1989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.379.
24.
RougèsJ.-F., and MontreuilB.. Crowdsourcing Delivery: New Interconnected Business Models to Reinvent Delivery. Presented at 1st International Physical Internet Conference, Québec City, Québec, Canada, 2014.
25.
StopherP.Collecting, Managing, and Assessing Data Using Sample Surveys.Cambridge University Press, England, 2012.
26.
HensherD. A., GreeneW. H., and RoseJ. M.. Deriving Willingness to Pay Estimates of Travel Time Savings from Individual-Based Parameters.Environment and Planning A, Vol. 38, No. 12, 2006, pp. 2365–2376. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37395.
27.
PaletiR., VovshaP., GivonD., and BirotkerY.. Impact of Individual Daily Travel Pattern Value on Time.Transportation, Vol. 42, No. 6, 2015, pp. 1003–1017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9654-6.
28.
CaussadeS., de Dios OrtúzarJ., RizziL. I., and HensherD. A.. Assessing the Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choice Experiment Estimates.Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 39, No. 7, 2005, pp. 621–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2004.07.006.
29.
LouviereJ. J., HensherD. A., and SwaitJ. D.. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, England, 2003.
30.
LouviereJ. J., StreetD., BurgessL., WasiN., IslamT., and MarleyA. A. J.. Modeling the Choices of Individual Decision-Makers by Combining Efficient Choice Experiment Designs with Extra Preference Information.Journal of Choice Modelling, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2008, pp. 128–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1755-5345(13)70025-3.
31.
BierlaireM.BIOGEME: A Free Package for the Estimation of Discrete Choice Models, In Proceedings of the 3rd Swiss Transport Research Conference, Ascona, Switzerland. 2003.
AsensioJ., and MatasA.. Commuters’ Valuation of Travel Time Variability.Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 44, No. 6, 2008, pp. 1074–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2007.12.002.
