1. Proceedings
  2. I3M
  3. 2018
  4. EMSS
  5. 10.46354/i3m.2018.emss.051

How do travellers decide: a stochastic modelling approach to determine decision factor significance

  • a Faboya T. Olusola  ,
  • b Peer-Olaf Siebers   ,
  • c Brendan Ryan  , 
  • d Grazziela P. Figueredo  
  • a , b, d School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
  • c Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
Cite as
"Olusola F.T., Siebers P., Ryan B., Figueredo G.P. (2018). How do travellers decide: a stochastic modelling approach to determine decision factor significance. Proceedings of the 30th European Modeling & Simulation Symposium (EMSS 2018), pp. 361-370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46354/i3m.2018.emss.051"

Abstract

Many factors are involved in travellers’ mode choice decision processes. Such factors include individuals' physical, cognitive, and emotional abilities, which play a significant role in travellers’ attitude and mode usage
patterns. Understanding how important each of these factors is to individuals, as well as understanding their
impact on travellers’ behaviour in general, will assist policymakers to provide appropriate interventions when
necessary. To gain this understanding, we propose to use a stochastic modelling, supported by a fuzzy inference system. In this paper, we describe our approach and demonstrate it with the help of a case study, looking at cyclists and car users in the context of travelling to and from a university. The aim is to understand which of the travel requirements (physical, cognitive, and affective) is considered most when people are planning for their journey, and to understand the level of efforts regarding the three factors required to make use of their mode. The results show that both sets of travellers engage more with their cognitive aspect during journey planning, but cyclists have a higher cognitive share as a result of optimising safe routes to the university.

References

  1. Agrawal, U. et al. (2016): Cancer subtype identification pipeline: A classifussion approach. In IEEE Congress on
    Evolutionary Computation
  2. Bai, Y., & Wang, D. (2006). Fundamentals of Fuzzy Logic Control – Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Rules and Defuzzifications. Adv Fuzzy Logic Tech in Industrial Applications. Berlin: Springer
  3. Baker, C., Naikar, N., & Neerincx, M. (2008). Engineering planetary exploration systems: integrating novel technologies and the human element using work domain analysis. International Astronautical Congress.
  4. Carney, D. R., & Colvin, C. R. (2010). The Circumplex Structure of Affective Social Behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1), 73–80.
  5. Cornelissen, M., Salmon, P. M., McClure, R., & Stanton, N. (2013). Using cognitive work analysis and the strategies analysis diagram to understand variability in road user behaviour at intersections. Ergs, 56, 764–80. Derek Halden Consultancy. (2003). Barrier to Modal Shift. Retrieved from http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/47176/0026887.pdf
  6. Ekkekakis, P., & Petruzzello, S. J. (2002). Analysis of the affect measurement conundrum in exercise psychology: IV. A conceptual case for the affect circumplex. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 3, 35–63.
  7. Faboya, O. T. et al. (2018). Position Paper: The Usefulness of Data-Driven, Intelligent Agent-Based Modelling for Transport Infrastructure Management. In IEEE Intl Conf on Intelligent Transportation Systems. Hawaii, USA.
  8. Faboya, O. T. et al. (2017). A Novel Modal Shift Modelling Framework for Transport Systems. In Proc. of
    the 13th Annual Conf. of Social Simulation. Dublin.
  9. Field Jr., R. V. (2008). Stochastic Models: Theory And Simulation. Sandia, Report SAND2008-1365.
  10. Gardner, B., & Abraham, C. (2008). Psychological correlates of car use: A meta-analysis. Transportation Research Part F, 11, 300–311
  11. Jascanu, N., Jascanu, V., & Bumbaru, S. (2010). Toward Emotional E-Commerce. Agent and Multi-agent Technology for Internet and Enterprise Systems (Studies in, Vol. 289, p. 345). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
  12. Jenkins, Daniel P, et al (2009). Cognitive Work Analysis: Coping with Complexity. Abingdon, GB:
    Lewerenz, M. (2002). Monte Carlo methods: Overview and basics. NIC Series, 10, 1–24.
  13. Mann, E., & Abraham, C. (2006). The role of affect in UK commuters’ travel mode choices: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. B J of Psy, 97(2), 155–176. Möller, D. P. F. (2014). Introduction to Transportation Analysis, Modeling and Simulation
  14. Posner, J., Russel, J. A., & Peterson, B. S. (2005). The circumplex model of affect: An integrative approach to
    affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology. Dev and Psychopathol,17(03).
  15. Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information Processing and Human-Machine Interaction: An Approach to Cognitive
    Engineering. Elsevier Science Ltd.
  16. Rasmussen, J., & Pejtersen, A. M. (1990). Taxonomy for Cognitive Work Analysis. Analysis (Vol. 157).