4.4 Article

Willingness of Hurricane Irma evacuees to share resources: a multi-modeling approach

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/23249935.2021.2017064

关键词

Joint Choice modeling; multi-choice latent class choice model; portfolio choice model; Hurricane evacuations; sharing economy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent technological advancements have led to the expansion of the sharing economy, coinciding with a growing need for evacuation resources. This study employed a multi-model approach to understand the factors influencing sharing willingness during evacuations. By testing the approach using survey data from Hurricane Irma evacuees, the researchers were able to uncover behavioral nuances that could not be detected with a single model. The findings suggest the importance of considering broader sharing mechanisms across different types of resources and throughout the evacuation process.
Recent technological improvements have expanded the sharing economy (e.g. Airbnb, Lyft, and Uber), coinciding with a growing need for evacuation resources. To understand factors that influence sharing willingness in evacuations, we employed a multi-modeling approach using three model types: (1) four binary logit models that capture sharing scenario separately; (2) a portfolio choice model (PCM) that estimates dimensional dependency, and (3) a multi-choice latent class choice model (LCCM) that jointly estimates multiple scenarios via latent classes. We tested our approach by employing online survey data from Hurricane Irma (2017) evacuees (n=368). The multi-model approach uncovered behavioral nuances undetectable with one model. For example, the multi-choice LCCM and PCM models uncovered scenario correlation and the multi-choice LCCM found three classes - transportation sharers, adverse sharers, and interested sharers - with different memberships. We suggest that local agencies consider broader sharing mechanisms across resource types and time (i.e. before, during, and after evacuations).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据