Does Parking Type Preference Behavior Differ According to Whether It Is Paid or Free? A Case Study in Istanbul, Türkiye
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Parking Choice Model
3.1. The Data
- Travel time (min): This refers to the average time from the beginning of the trip until the destination is reached and the vehicle is parked.
- Parking search time (min): This refers to the average time the driver searches for an available parking spot after reaching the destination.
- The walking distance (m): This refers to the average distance from the parking spot to the final destination. Here, the final destination is the end of the trip, which is reached by getting out of the parked vehicle and walking.
- Parking duration (h): This refers to the average time the vehicle remains parked at the parking spot.
3.2. Methodology
3.3. Modeling Approach
4. The Analysis and the Model
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.1.1. The Evaluation of the Continuous Variables
4.1.2. The Evaluation by Grouping the Variables
- It was observed that free on-street parking was preferred, especially for compulsory trips, at 64%. In other parking types (free off-street, paid off-street, and paid on-street), there was a more balanced distribution according to trip purposes. According to the Parking Master Plan, individuals making compulsory trips are more likely to prefer free parking, whereas those making non-compulsory trips are more likely to choose paid parking [42].
- Travel time was divided into five groups with 15 min intervals. Accordingly, drivers’ parking type preferences differed according to the payment status, especially for trips lasting 15 min or less. Drivers tended to use free parking more for trips lasting 15 min or less (22%), while paid parking was used less for these short trips (7%). Moreover, paid parking was used more frequently for trips lasting 1 h or more (33%).
- Parking search time was divided into four groups. Accordingly, the parking type preferences of drivers who spent less time searching for a parking spot differed by payment status, especially for search times of 2 min or less. Drivers who spent less time searching for parking were more likely to prefer free parking (43%), especially free off-street parking (47%), and were less likely to prefer paid parking (23%), particularly paid on-street parking (14%). Considering drivers’ motivation to reduce parking search time, the high search time in paid parking indicates that drivers initially look for free parking spots. Moreover, the higher search time (over 10 min) for on-street parking is an issue that needs attention due to its potential effects on overall traffic.
- The walking distance from the parking spot to the final destination was divided into three groups: short, medium, and long. Accordingly, the parking type preferences of drivers with short walking distances differed more significantly based on payment status. The share of short walking distances (100 m and below) was higher for free parking (77%), especially for free off-street parking (81%), and lower for paid parking (41%), especially for paid off-street parking (39%). Conversely, the share of long walking distances (over 200 m) was higher for paid parking choices (42%).
- Parking duration was divided into four groups. Accordingly, drivers’ parking type preferences for short-term parking, which represents a parking duration of 2 h or less, were more significantly differentiated by payment status. It was observed that short-term parking was higher for paid parking (42%), especially for paid on-street parking (61%). Conversely, short-term parking was lower for free parking (34%), especially for free on-street parking (28%). Additionally, long (5–9 h) and very long (10 h or more) parking durations were more commonly used for free parking (21% and 13%, respectively).
4.2. Binary Logit Model
4.2.1. The Effect of Driver Characteristics on Parking Type Preference
- High driving experience: The variable was significant only in the free parking model. The negative-signed coefficient estimate shows that experienced drivers prefer and do not hesitate to use on-street spots if the parking is free. Even though free on-street parking generally poses problems because of not-well-designed parking spots, safety issues, etc., they are preferred more, possibly due to expected proximity to the destination. On the other hand, there was no significant relationship between the preference for paid parking types and high driving experience. This result is because the paid parking spots are planned and standardized. Thus, even with a lack of experience, drivers are not disadvantaged and discouraged from using them. A study conducted in China also found that driving experience is associated with shared parking choices, with a negative correlation between them [51].
- Low household income: The variable was significant in both models. The coefficient was negative for free parking and positive for paid parking. These estimates indicate that low household income influences the choice between off-street and on-street parking differently for free and paid facilities. Accordingly, individuals who belong to low-income households will more likely use on-street facilities if free parking is available and off-street facilities if the parking requires a fee. This situation is also related to where low-income individuals are located, which might also be an indication of fewer free off-street parking places in these locations. On the other hand, low-income drivers are more inclined to park at more affordable off-street parking spots. In the literature, while some studies show that income is not effective in determining parking preference [13,14], other studies have found a relationship between income and willingness to pay for parking [17,24].
- Car ownership: The variable was significant only in the free parking model. The positive-signed coefficient estimate reveals that in terms of safety, car owners are more inclined to use relatively safer off-street parking facilities rather than uncontrolled and unprotected on-street parking, as anticipated. In Istanbul, the disorganized and unregulated use of free on-street parking spots, combined with the lack of physical design elements such as lines and barriers, has numerous adverse effects on traffic. These include increased traffic from vehicles searching for parking spots, double parking, and parking in unsuitable locations, all of which contribute to making these parking spots unsafe [52]. Moreover, it has been noted that on-street parking is particularly hazardous on main streets, where its presence increases the likelihood of accidents [53]. On the other hand, there was no significant relationship between preference of paid parking type and car ownership. Thus, this is an expected result, considering that paid parking is generally available in all planned and protected parking areas. However, vehicle owners are obviously more affected by parking expenses than non-vehicle owners [18].
- Habit of parallel parking: The variable was significant only in the free parking model. The negative-signed coefficient estimate indicates that the likelihood of using on-street facilities is higher for drivers who get used to parallel parking when there is a free parking alternative. On the contrary, there was no significant relationship between parking type preference and having the habit of parallel parking for paid parking. These outcomes suggest that when the cost of parking is not influential in the decision, driver habits might be the factor in preferring parking places that are more difficult to park in.
4.2.2. The Effect of Vehicle Characteristics on Parking Type Preference
- Small-size vehicles: The variable was significant in both models. The coefficient had a positive sign for free parking and a negative sign for paid parking. These estimates show that small-size vehicles distinctly affect the preference between off-street and on-street parking for free and paid facilities. Accordingly, in the free parking model, driving a small-size vehicle increases the probability of choosing off-street parking, while in the paid parking model, it increases the likelihood of selecting on-street parking. Individuals who drive vehicles with a high ability to enter smaller parking spots are more inclined to prefer isolated parking places such as free off-street parking, possibly due to the risks associated with unregulated on-street parking places (damage, theft). Oppositely, drivers with easily maneuverable vehicles are more likely to use paid on-street parking due to better safety. This situation also shows that in cases where parking fees are not present, safety is more critical in choosing parking types, followed by ease of parking.
- Low vehicle purchasing cost: The variable was significant only in the free parking model. The negative-signed coefficient estimate reveals that drivers with relatively low-cost vehicles are likelier to use on-street parking when parking is free. Indeed, low-cost vehicles might cause less concern to their drivers against the risk of theft and damage. In parallel, the literature suggests that drivers with relatively cheaper vehicles take more risks and may prefer uncontrolled on-street parking to pay for parking [17]. On the other hand, since safety risks are minimized for paid parking, drivers’ choice between off-street and on-street parking is unaffected by vehicle purchasing costs.
- LPG-fueled vehicles: The variable was significant only in the free parking model. The negative-signed coefficient estimate indicates that drivers who want to avoid paying for parking prefer on-street parking due to safety requirements, since free off-street parking is unsuitable for LPG vehicles. According to the regulations published for LPG vehicles in Türkiye, these vehicles can only use off-street parking under certain conditions. As stated in the regulation, these conditions pertain to the operation and safety of parking facilities. The operational conditions require that parking garages in shopping and commercial centers obtain a service qualification certificate and relevant approval from the local fire department. The safety requirements specify that LPG vehicles must be informed at the entrance to the parking area, parking must be restricted to designated floors, and spark safety must be ensured for ventilation and electrical installations [54]. On the other hand, the fuel type of the vehicle does not affect the driver’s preference for paid parking types due to sufficient safety and control services for LPG vehicles.
- Vehicles equipped with parking technology: The variable was significant only in the free parking model. The negative-signed coefficient estimate shows that with the confidence of parking in narrow places provided by these technologies, drivers can park in a cost-effective and more accessible way, increasing drivers’ tendency towards on-street parking. In brief, among the participants, the users of vehicles equipped with parking technologies have the benefit of parking at difficult locations with relative ease. This is more important for free on-street parking that is generally used irregularly, unplanned, and sometimes occurs on narrow streets. On the other hand, paid on-street parking provides more appropriately sized, regular parking spots where horizontal signs designate vehicle parking spots. Thus, drivers who use these parking spots do not need much assistance from parking technologies, and these technologies do not affect the preference of parking type.
4.2.3. The Effect of Travel and Parking Characteristics on Parking Type Preference
- Compulsory trips: The variable was significant only in the free parking model. The negative-signed coefficient estimate reveals that the tendency of drivers to park for compulsory trips in free parking is towards on-street parking. Drivers are more likely to use on-street parking because they have faster access to the desired final destination, and there needs to be more free off-street parking in the districts. Also, in one study, the parking choice probability was found to be affected by trip purposes, which was higher for business trips than for other purposes [55]. Another study shows that off-street parking is preferred for business purposes, while on-street parking is preferred for other trip purposes [16]. On the other hand, there was no significant relationship between parking type preference and trip purpose for paid parking. Thus, trip purposes do not affect parking type preference when there is a parking fee.
- Short-term trips: The variable was significant in both models. In terms of signs, there was a negative-signed coefficient in both models. Accordingly, regardless of the parking fee, individuals who make short trips are more inclined to use on-street parking. Similarly, in the literature, it is indicated that off-street parking is more likely to be used by drivers whose travel time is higher [16]. For short-term trips, drivers aim to reach their destinations quickly and easily. In addition, these trips may be more frequent within a specific region (district, neighborhood, etc.). In this case, it is essential to determine the region’s parking supply and parking type distribution, and the dominance of on-street car park use shows that traffic congestion in the region will increase. Especially when the coefficients of the models developed for free and paid parking are examined, the tendency to prefer on-street parking is higher in the case of a choice between paid parking facilities.
- Low search time expectations for parking: The variable was significant in both models. With regard to signs, the coefficients had positive signs in both models. Accordingly, when drivers have low search time expectations for parking, they mostly prefer off-street parking, with a higher probability of finding an empty parking spot, especially if they pay for parking. One study shows that when the search time for on-street parking increases, the attractiveness of off-street parking also increases [14]. On the other hand, parking search time is often higher for on-street parking facilities, which creates more traffic, time loss, and additional costs.
- Short walking distance to the destination: The variable was significant in both models. The coefficient had a positive sign for free parking and a negative sign for paid parking. These estimates show that although the parking type preference differs for paid and free parking, the effect levels are similar due to the coefficients of this variable being close. When the walking distance expectations to the final destination are relatively shorter, there is a higher tendency to choose off-street parking for free, while on-street parking is more preferred for paid parking. Free off-street parking facilities are generally located in shopping malls, public institutions, business centers, and residential buildings. Therefore, these parking places may be closer to the final destination. On the other hand, paid on-street parking facilities are closer to the city center, commercial places, and attractive trip destinations. The parking behavior tendency is also to prefer a parking spot close to the final destination. In one study, nearly half of the commuters stated that the main reason for choosing a parking spot was proximity to the final destination [13].
- Short-term parking: The variable was significant in both models. The coefficient had a positive sign for free parking and a negative sign for paid parking. These estimates indicate that short-term parking causes the preference between off-street and on-street parking to be different when they are free or paid. Although drivers who park for shorter durations choose off-street parking facilities for free parking, they choose on-street parking facilities when they pay for parking. The causes of this situation are that among the free off-street parking facilities, those belonging to shopping malls, public institutions, and business centers are generally suitable for short-term parking. In contrast, those belonging to residential areas are more suitable for long-term parking. Here, it is seen that drivers are more inclined to park on-street in residential areas, probably due to the low amount of residential off-street parking available in some districts. This situation in free parking shows that off-street parking is used for relatively shorter parking durations. As opposed to free parking, paid on-street parking is preferred for relatively short-term durations. A study has shown that the attractiveness of off-street parking increases as the parking duration increases [14]. Similarly, when the parking duration rises, the share of on-street parking decreases by 15% versus 3% for off-street parking compared to underground parking spots [13]. Considering the time-based fee tariffs in paid parking, it is seen that drivers looking for short-term parking tend to use on-street locations. Paid off-street parking is preferred by drivers for longer-term parking because this parking type offers more advantageous parking fees when the parking duration increases.
5. Discussion
- Since free on-street parking spots need to be organized and planned, the current arrangement of these spots in Istanbul reduces the tendency of relatively inexperienced drivers to park in these locations. In order to ensure equal use of these public parking spaces by all individuals and to prevent potential traffic incidents, a parking policy should be developed to organize these parking spots according to vehicle size and maneuvering movements. One of the strategies aimed at Istanbul is to establish usage standards and legal regulations for managing on-street parking throughout the city. This includes implementing paid on-street parking around residential areas, offering user-based discounted rates (for residents, visitors, disabled individuals, and commercial users), and ensuring safe and appropriate parking spots. This approach aims to make parking management more sustainable and safer, ensuring residents can easily find affordable and safe parking spots [42].
- Low-income drivers, who are more affected by the situation of paying parking fees, are more likely to park at free on-street parking places, which increases irregular parking, causes long parking search times, and negatively affects traffic and road safety. Moreover, low-income individuals tend to park farther away and walk to save money on parking fees [62]. Local authorities might not charge for on-street parking and may continue to require significant off-street parking for all land uses. If this occurs, free parking will shift transportation mode choices towards car use. This will result in more time wasted in traffic, increased energy consumption, more air pollution, and higher costs for everything except parking. Thus, everyone, including those who do not use parking facilities, will pay the cost. Local authorities will even impose high free parking costs on everyone, including low-income individuals. Therefore, instead of planning for free on-street parking, planning based on variable pricing is recommended [42,63]. On the other hand, a better approach is to determine the maximum rather than the minimum off-street parking requirements in residential areas [2]. According to this approach, providing off-street parking spots (such as underground parking spaces) in existing and planned residential buildings would provide an alternative to free on-street parking for everyone, including low-income individuals.
- In cases where free car parking that meets expectations is not available, considering the desire of low-income individuals to minimize parking costs, parking fee policies should be implemented and developed for short-term use of paid on-street parking places by individuals at these income levels. However, if it is desired to reduce access to the districts by private cars, it is seen that providing access by public transport systems supported by park-and-ride services will be more easily adapted by low-income individuals due to their parking type preferences. Accordingly, the planned parking strategies in Istanbul include developing high-capacity park-and-ride facilities near existing and under-construction stations as well as enhancing pedestrian access from these parking facilities to the stations [42].
- Car owners tend to use free off-street parking due to their concerns for safety and comfort. Especially in residential, work, and school places, providing free off-street parking is necessary by considering car ownership of the districts and accurately determining the existing parking demand. Therefore, the construction of fully automated and mechanical parking systems that serve the region’s needs is planned in Istanbul, especially in regions with high vehicle ownership and where no new parking supply will be constructed [42].
- Since drivers with parallel parking habits are more likely to use on-street parking, there is a need to develop applications where on-street parking spots can be found or reserved online. Thus, drivers can find a parking spot that serves their needs and use on-street parking spots more efficiently.
- While driving a small-size vehicle is an advantage in paid on-street parking, it does not positively affect free on-street parking. This advantageous situation is because of the fact that paid on-street parking spots are organized and planned to be more suitable for vehicle size. In free on-street parking spots, the safety risks due to vehicles parking closer to each other cause threats, even for small-sized vehicles.
- Drivers of low-purchasing-cost vehicles are more inclined to use free on-street parking, which shows that their risk level against possible accidents or theft is low. Indeed, this situation contributes to irregular vehicle parking at free on-street parking places. As a result, in addition to the regulations for on-street parking, it is necessary to determine and control these specific individual groups that cause irregularity.
- While individuals driving LPG-fueled vehicles tend to use free on-street parking, this is not the case for paid parking. It is possible to interpret this as a need to examine the suitability of free off-street parking for LPG-fueled vehicles. Moreover, it is also understood that safe off-street parking facilities are available for LPG-fueled vehicles in paid parking under Türkiye’s regulations [54]. Therefore, according to the regulations, developing or constructing free off-street parking for LPG-fueled vehicles is necessary. Thus, the parking demands of these vehicle drivers can be balanced between different types of parking.
- The availability of vehicle parking technologies increases the tendency to use free on-street parking. The widespread use of these technologies in vehicles eases the use of these facilities, especially where parking spots are smaller than standard ones. This situation increases the number of unsafe parking spots and the time it takes to search for a parking spot, and accordingly, it has negative traffic impacts. Therefore, designing free on-street parking spots and guiding vehicles to free parking spots will increase efficiency. Hence, horizontal and vertical markings in locations where free on-street parking is allowed will prevent these safety risks.
- Drivers tend to use free on-street parking for compulsory trips. This situation is due to the lack of sufficient accessible off-street parking facilities. Free or low-priced on-street parking is sometimes seen as causing traffic congestion and increasing parking search time problems [6,64]. Therefore, a strategy of reducing on-street parking capacity and making it paid (except for residents) has been proposed for certain regions of Istanbul [42]. Thus, it can be proposed to use the revenue generated from on-street parking for improvements and to remove off-street parking requirements [64].
- The share of short-term trips in total trips is significant. The high tendency for the short-term use of free on-street facilities leads to more unregulated parking and additional traffic. Furthermore, where free parking is unable to meet expectations, there is a higher inclination to use paid on-street parking spots for short-term trips. Therefore, the share of short-term trips and the tendency toward the parking locations for these trips should be considered when determining the supply of parking types.
- Drivers with low search time expectations for parking are more likely to prefer off-street parking. On the other hand, it is known that the parking search time is higher for on-street parking, which contributes to traffic congestion, time loss, and additional costs. Therefore, planning on-street parking, locating it only in the required areas, and using Parking Guidance and Information (PGI) systems to inform users in real time about empty parking places can significantly reduce traffic. Future plans in Istanbul include developing PGI systems, implementing mobile payment systems, introducing reservation systems for facility parking on a zone basis, and using parking meter systems for on-street parking [42]. Furthermore, implementing off-street parking reservation mechanisms is an appropriate parking policy to reduce the demand for on-street parking [65]. These plans aim to increase parking management efficiency and reduce traffic congestion by minimizing parking search times. The literature also emphasizes that successful parking demand management is the principal action to reduce the parking search time [66].
- For free parking, drivers with short walking distance expectations prefer off-street parking facilities, while in situations where free parking that meets expectations is not available, these individuals choose paid on-street parking facilities. In both cases, the main tendency of drivers is to choose the location that is the closest to their destination. Therefore, the locations of free and paid parking types affect parking demand, and distances to attraction centers should be considered to create a balanced supply of parking types.
- In general, off-street parking facilities are used for relatively short-term parking among free alternatives. When free facilities that meet expectations are not available, paid on-street parking is preferred more for relatively short-term parking. Therefore, parking efficiency levels can be increased in these parking types with parking duration or period limitations. Accordingly, flexible pricing techniques and the organization of a parking subscription system are among Istanbul’s parking strategies for managing the parking supply [42]. As another parking policy, on-street parking fees must be higher than off-street parking fees. Studies have shown that underpricing on-street parking results in significant efficiency losses [23,64]. Accordingly, it is aimed to charge 25% more for on-street parking than off-street parking in Istanbul [42]. Therefore, it is recommended that on-street parking be regulated and priced to ensure the full capacity utilization of off-street parking facilities [67].
6. Conclusions
- For driver characteristics, low-income individuals tend to use on-street parking for free parking and off-street parking for paid parking.
- Concerning vehicle characteristics, individuals who drive small-size vehicles tend to park in off-street parking for free parking and on-street parking for paid parking.
- Regarding parking characteristics, individuals with short walking distance expectations to their final destination tend to use off-street parking for free parking and on-street parking for paid parking. Additionally, it is observed that for short-term parking, off-street parking for free parking and on-street parking for paid parking is preferred.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Shoup, D.C. The High Cost of Free Parking; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, Z. From Parking Minimums to Parking Maximums in London. In Parking and the City, 1st ed.; Shoup, D., Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 191–198. [Google Scholar]
- Shoup, D. Learning from Parking Reforms in Other Cities. In Parking: An International Perspective; Pojani, D., Corcoran, J., Sipe, N., Mateo-Babiano, I., Stead, D., Eds.; Elsevier: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Hess, S.; Polak, J.W. Mixed Logit Modelling of Parking Type Choice Behaviour. In Transportation Statistics; JD Ross Publishing: London, UK, 2009; pp. 77–102. [Google Scholar]
- Brooke, S.; Ison, S.; Quddus, M. On-Street Parking Search: Review and Future Research Direction. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2014, 2469, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shoup, D.C. Cruising for Parking. Transp. Policy 2006, 13, 479–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnott, R.; Rowse, J. Downtown Parking in Auto City. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2009, 39, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, H.; Yang, X.; Wu, Y.; Guan, H.; Wang, P.; Shahinpoor, N. Analysis of Parking Cruising Behaviour and Parking Location Choice. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2020, 43, 717–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Waerden, P.; Timmermans, H.; Borgers, A. Pamela: Parking Analysis Model for Predicting Effects in Local Areas. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2002, 1781, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simićević, J.; Milosavljević, N.; Maletić, G. Influence of Parking Price on Parking Garage Users’ Behaviour. Promet-Traffic Transp. 2012, 24, 413–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antolín, G.; Ibeas, Á.; Alonso, B.; Dell’Olio, L. Modelling Parking Behaviour Considering Users Heterogeneities. Transp. Policy 2018, 67, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonsall, P.; Palmer, I. Modelling Drivers’ Car Parking Behaviour Using Data from a Travel Choice Simulator. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2004, 12, 321–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassine, S.B.; Mraihi, R.; Lachiheb, A.; Kooli, E. Modelling Parking Type Choice Behavior. Int. J. Transp. Sci. Technol. 2022, 11, 653–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golias, J.; Yannis, G.; Harvatis, M. Off-Street Parking Choice Sensitivity. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2002, 25, 333–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Waerden, P.; Timmermans, H.; da Silva, A.N.R. The Influence of Personal and Trip Characteristics on Habitual Parking Behavior. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2015, 3, 33–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uysal, M.; Alver, Y. An Investigation of Drivers’ Parking Choice Behavior in Izmir, Turkey. In Proceedings of the 13th International Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, Izmir, Turkey, 12–14 September 2018; pp. 12–14. [Google Scholar]
- Soto, J.J.; Márquez, L.; Macea, L.F. Accounting for Attitudes on Parking Choice: An Integrated Choice and Latent Variable Approach. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 111, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mo, Y.; Zhang, B.; Yan, K. A Study of Parking Behavior and Parking Information Requirements in Shanghai CBD. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of Chinese Transportation Professionals-Plan, Build, and Manage Transportation Infrastructure in China, Shanghai, China, 21–22 May 2007; pp. 673–682. [Google Scholar]
- Rodríguez, A.; Dell’Olio, L.; Moura, J.L.; Alonso, B.; Cordera, R. Modelling Parking Choice Behaviour Considering Alternative Availability and Systematic and Random Variations in User Tastes. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Waerden, P.; Timmermans, H.; de Bruin-Verhoeven, M. Car Drivers’ Characteristics and the Maximum Walking Distance between Parking Facility and Final Destination. J. Transp. Land Use 2015, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Axhausen, K.W.; Polak, J.W. Choice of Parking: Stated Preference Approach. Transportation 1991, 18, 59–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roth, G.J. Paying for Parking; The Institute of Economic Affairs: London, UK, 1965. [Google Scholar]
- Arnott, R.; Inci, E. An Integrated Model of Downtown Parking and Traffic Congestion. J. Urban Econ. 2006, 60, 418–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibeas, A.; Dell’Olio, L.; Bordagaray, M.; Ortúzar, J.d.D. Modelling Parking Choices Considering User Heterogeneity. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2014, 70, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, Y.; Ren, Y.; Jia, H.; Sun, M.; Dali, Z. Modeling Parking Choice Behavior Using Cumulative Prospect Theory. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Xie, B.; Wang, X.; Li, G.; Yao, Z. Parking Choice Behavior of Urban Village Residents Considering Parking Risk: An Integrated Modeling Approach. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2024, 15, 101145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shiftan, Y.; Burd-Eden, R. Modeling Response to Parking Policy. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2001, 1765, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Şenbil, M.; Yetişkul, E. Night-Time Parking Behaviour Model for Istanbul (in Turkish). Teknik Dergi 2016, 27, 7515–7532. [Google Scholar]
- Qin, H.; Xu, N.; Zhang, Y.; Pang, Q.; Lu, Z. Research on Parking Recommendation Methods Considering Travelers’ Decision Behaviors and Psychological Characteristics. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simićević, J.; Milosavljević, N. The Impact of On-Street and Off-Street Parking Regulations on Parking Type Choice. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2023, 46, 912–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mingardo, G.; Vermeulen, S.; Bornioli, A. Parking Pricing Strategies and Behaviour: Evidence from the Netherlands. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2022, 157, 185–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zong, F.; Yu, P.; Tang, J.; Sun, X. Understanding Parking Decisions with Structural Equation Modeling. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2019, 523, 408–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kobus, M.B.W.; Gutiérrez-i-Puigarnau, E.; Rietveld, P.; Van Ommeren, J.N. The On-Street Parking Premium and Car Drivers’ Choice between Street and Garage Parking. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2013, 43, 395–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Der Goot, D. A Model to Describe the Choice of Parking Places. Transp. Res. Part A Gen. 1982, 16, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uysal, M.; Alver, Y. Factors Affecting Parking Choice Behaviors: The Case of Izmir (in Turkish). Teknik Dergi 2022, 33, 11887–11901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Etikan, I.; Musa, S.A.; Alkassim, R.S. Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. Am. J. Theor. Appl. Stat. 2016, 5, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- General Directorate of Security, Traffic Department. Distribution of Driver Numbers by Provinces (in Turkish). 2017. Available online: https://www.trafik.gov.tr/kurumlar/trafik.gov.tr/04-Istatistik/Genel/Arac_Surucuu.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2024).
- Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK). Address-Based Population Registration System Results (in Turkish). 2017. Available online: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Adrese-Dayali-Nufus-Kayit-Sistemi-Sonuclari-2017-27587 (accessed on 10 August 2024).
- Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK). Address-Based Population Registration System Results (in Turkish). 2021. Available online: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Adrese-Dayali-Nufus-Kayit-Sistemi-Sonuclari-2021-45500 (accessed on 10 August 2024).
- Krejcie, R.V.; Morgan, D.W. Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1970, 30, 607–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurauchi, F.; Wahaballa, A.M.; Othman, A.M.; Uno, N.; Takagi, A. Determinants of Travel Choice Behaviour with Travel-Time Variability in the Presence of Real-Time Information. Int. J. Intell. Transp. Syst. Res. 2019, 17, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM), Transportation Planning Directorate. Istanbul Parking Master Plan (in Turkish). 2022. Available online: https://www.surdurulebilirulasim.istanbul/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/IBB_OTOPARK_ANA_PLANI-2022.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2024).
- Ma, X.; Sun, X.; He, Y.; Chen, Y. Parking Choice Behavior Investigation: A Case Study at Beijing Lama Temple. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 96, 2635–2642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hess, S.; Polak, J.W. An Analysis of Parking Behaviour Using Discrete Choice Models Calibrated on SP Datasets. In Proceedings of the 44th Congress of the European Regional Science Association: Regions and Fiscal Federalism, Porto, Portugal, 25–29 August 2004; pp. 1–29. [Google Scholar]
- McFadden, D. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In Frontiers in Economics; Zarembka, P., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1974; pp. 105–142. [Google Scholar]
- Ortúzar, J.d.D.; Willumsen, L.G. Modelling Transport, 4th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM), Transportation Planning Directorate. Istanbul Transportation Master Plan Household Survey (in Turkish). 2012. Available online: https://data.ibb.gov.tr/dataset/6cefaa5b-bd1b-4e98-a27e-94ddac1ecd2b/resource/1fa02d91-f794-4560-8754-00b635c8efe1/download/istanbul-ulam-ana-plan-hanehalk-aratrmas.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2024).
- Mohler, B.J.; Thompson, W.B.; Creem-Regehr, S.H.; Pick, H.L.; Warren, W.H. Visual Flow Influences Gait Transition Speed and Preferred Walking Speed. Exp. Brain Res. 2007, 181, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Litman, T. Parking Management Best Practices; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK). Driver’s License Ownership by Gender (in Turkish). Available online: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Search/Search?text=sürücübelgesi&dil=1 (accessed on 10 August 2024).
- Zhu, Y.; Chen, S.; Wu, Y.; Qiao, F.; Ma, Y. Use of Structural Equation Modelling and Neural Network to Analyse Shared Parking Choice Behaviour. Promet-Traffic Transp. 2023, 35, 712–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM), Transportation Planning Directorate. Istanbul Parking Master Plan (in Turkish). 2016. Available online: https://ispark.istanbul/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/istanbul-otopark-ana-plani.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2024).
- Marshall, W.E.; Garrick, N.W.; Hansen, G. Reassessing On-Street Parking. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2008, 2046, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Official Gazette. Regulation on Fire Protection of Buildings (in Turkish). 2007. Available online: https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=200712937&MevzuatTur=21&MevzuatTertip=5 (accessed on 10 August 2024).
- Yun, M.; Lao, Y.; Ma, Y.; Yang, X. Optimization Model on Scale of Public Parking Lot Considering Parking Behavior. In Proceedings of the The 8th International Conference of Chinese Logistics and Transportation Professionals-Logistics: The Emerging Frontiers of Transportation and Development in China, Chengdu, China, 8–10 October 2008; pp. 2692–2699. [Google Scholar]
- D’Acierno, L.; Gallo, M.; Montella, B. Optimisation Models for the Urban Parking Pricing Problem. Transp. Policy 2006, 13, 34–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnott, R.; Rowse, J. Curbside Parking Time Limits. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2013, 55, 89–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Najmi, A.; Bostanara, M.; Gu, Z.; Rashidi, T.H. On-Street Parking Management and Pricing Policies: An Evaluation from a System Enhancement Perspective. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2021, 146, 128–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albalate, D.; Gragera, A. The Impact of Curbside Parking Regulations on Car Ownership. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2020, 81, 103518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Z. Residential Street Parking and Car Ownership. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2013, 79, 32–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanzl, J. Design of Incentive Parking Lots in the Region—Conception, Technology and Pricing Policy. Transp. Res. Procedia 2021, 53, 244–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harmatuck, D.J. Revealed Parking Choices and the Value of Time. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2007, 2010, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manville, M. Parking Pricing. In Parking Issues and Policies; Ison, S., Mulley, C., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2014; Volume 5, pp. 137–155. [Google Scholar]
- Shoup, D.C. The Ideal Source of Local Public Revenue. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2004, 34, 753–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macea, L.F.; Serrano, I.; Carcache-Guas, C. A Reservation-Based Parking Behavioral Model for Parking Demand Management in Urban Areas. Socioecon. Plan. Sci. 2023, 86, 101477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simićević, J.; Vidović, N.; Đorić, V. Ordinal Regression Model of Parking Search Time. Promet-Traffic Transp. 2023, 35, 904–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Şenbil, M.; Yetişkul Şenbil, E. Two Recommendations for Paradigm Change in Turkey’s Parking Policy (in Turkish). J. Plan. 2022, 32, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Survey Parts | Description | Questions |
---|---|---|
Driver characteristics | Participants’ demographic, socioeconomic characteristics, and habits of parking spot type | Gender, age, household income *, driving experience, car ownership, and preference of parking spot type |
Vehicle characteristics | Vehicle characteristics used by the participants | Vehicle type, vehicle age, vehicle purchasing cost *, fuel type, and presence of parking technologies |
Travel and parking characteristics | Participants’ travel and parking characteristics for both compulsory and non-compulsory trip purposes | Travel time, parking search time, walking distance, and parking duration |
Parking preference information | Parking fee and location | Free off-street and on-street parking Paid off-street and on-street parking |
Features | Variables | Free Parking | Paid Parking | All Parking | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Off- Street | On- Street | Total | Off- Street | On- Street | Total | Off- Street | On- Street | Total | ||
[333] | [188] | [521] | [230] | [59] | [289] | [563] | [247] | [810] | ||
Driver Characteristics | Age | 32.0 (9.0) | 31.8 (10.5) | 31.9 (9.5) | 34.0 (10.0) | 34.5 (11.1) | 34.1 (10.2) | 32.8 (9.4) | 32.5 (10.7) | 32.7 (9.8) |
Household Income * | 4.0 (2.9) | 3.4 (2.1) | 3.8 (2.6) | 4.0 (2.9) | 4.6 (4.9) | 4.1 (3.4) | 4.0 (2.9) | 3.7 (3.0) | 3.9 (2.9) | |
Driving Experience (year) | 9.8 (8.0) | 10.8 (9.8) | 10.1 (8.7) | 11.4 (9.2) | 11.7 (10.7) | 11.5 (9.5) | 10.4 (8.6) | 11.1 (10.0) | 10.6 (9.0) | |
Vehicle Charac. | Vehicle Age | 7.5 (5.9) | 8.4 (6.5) | 7.8 (6.1) | 6.7 (5.7) | 6.1 (5.7) | 6.6 (5.7) | 7.2 (5.9) | 7.8 (6.4) | 7.4 (6.0) |
Vehicle Purchasing Cost * | 61.6 (42.0) | 60.4 (47.7) | 61.1 (44.1) | 80.2 (62.7) | 76.0 (78.8) | 79.3 (66.2) | 69.2 (52.2) | 64.1 (56.9) | 67.6 (53.7) | |
Travel and Parking Characteristics | Travel Time (min) | 38.3 (27.0) | 40.7 (32.1) | 39.2 (28.9) | 54.0 (36.6) | 53.0 (39.0) | 53.8 (37.0) | 44.7 (32.2) | 43.7 (34.2) | 44.4 (32.8) |
Parking Search Time (min) | 5.4 (7.3) | 7.2 (7.8) | 6.0 (7.5) | 9.7 (9.1) | 10.1 (8.3) | 9.8 (8.9) | 7.2 (8.3) | 7.9 (8.0) | 7.4 (8.2) | |
Walking Distance (m) | 94 (156) | 127 (197) | 106 (173) | 283 (326) | 263 (319) | 279 (324) | 171 (258) | 159 (238) | 168 (252) | |
Parking Duration (h) | 4.7 (4.0) | 5.8 (5.5) | 5.1 (4.6) | 4.4 (4.7) | 3.1 (2.7) | 4.1 (4.4) | 4.6 (4.3) | 5.1 (5.1) | 4.7 (4.6) | |
Parking Fee (TRY) | - | - | - | 21.3 (10.4) | 18.5 (11.5) | 20.8 (10.7) | - | - | - |
Features | Variables | Group | # | % | Features | Variables | Group | # | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Driver Characteristics | Gender | Male | 320 | 79 | Vehicle Characteristics | Vehicle Size | Small-size | 131 | 32 |
Female | 85 | 21 | Mid-size | 194 | 48 | ||||
Age | 18–29 | 166 | 41 | Large-size | 68 | 17 | |||
30–39 | 155 | 38 | Extra-large-size | 12 | 3 | ||||
40–49 | 49 | 12 | Vehicle Age | 0–2 | 73 | 18 | |||
50–59 | 28 | 7 | 3–5 | 118 | 29 | ||||
≥60 | 7 | 2 | 6–9 | 105 | 26 | ||||
Household Income | ≤2∙MW | 96 | 24 | ≥10 | 109 | 27 | |||
2∙MW–3∙MW | 84 | 21 | Vehicle Purchasing Cost | ≤36∙MW | 113 | 28 | |||
3∙MW–4∙MW | 79 | 19 | 36∙MW–60∙MW | 111 | 28 | ||||
4∙MW–5∙MW | 39 | 10 | 60∙MW–120∙MW | 139 | 34 | ||||
≥5∙MW | 107 | 26 | ≥120∙MW | 42 | 10 | ||||
Driving Experience | 0–2 | 67 | 17 | Fuel Type | Gasoline | 153 | 38 | ||
3–5 | 65 | 16 | Diesel | 220 | 54 | ||||
6–9 | 86 | 21 | Hybrid | 5 | 1 | ||||
10–14 | 89 | 22 | LPG | 27 | 7 | ||||
≥15 | 98 | 24 | Parking Technology | None | 123 | 30 | |||
Car Ownership | Yes | 202 | 50 | Only sensor | 170 | 42 | |||
None | 203 | 50 | Camera or APS | 112 | 28 |
Variables | Free Parking | Paid Parking | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficients | t-Statistics | Coefficients | t-Statistics | ||
Off-Street Parking | |||||
Driver Charac. | High driving experience (≥10 years = 1; otherwise = 0) | −0.76 | −3.44 * | 0.31 | 0.91 |
Low household income (≤4∙MW = 1; otherwise = 0) | −0.46 | −2.02 * | 0.57 | 1.70 ** | |
Car ownership (owning a vehicle = 1; otherwise = 0) | 0.87 | 3.94 * | 0.28 | 0.84 | |
Having habit of parallel parking (Yes = 1; otherwise = 0) | −0.45 | −1.76 ** | −0.33 | −0.78 | |
Vehicle Charac. | Small-size vehicles (yes = 1; otherwise = 0) | 0.47 | 2.07 * | −0.98 | −2.90 * |
Low vehicle purchasing cost (≤36∙MW = 1; otherwise = 0) | −0.78 | −3.12 * | 0.29 | 0.58 | |
LPG-fueled vehicles (yes = 1; otherwise = 0) | −0.77 | −1.97 * | −0.31 | −0.39 | |
Vehicles equipped with parking technology (yes = 1; otherwise = 0) | −0.67 | −2.67 * | −0.12 | −0.28 | |
Travel and Parking Charac. | Compulsory trips (compulsory = 1; otherwise = 0) | −0.98 | −4.53 * | −0.32 | −0.99 |
Short-term trips (≤15 min = 1; otherwise = 0) | −0.60 | −2.35 * | −1.00 | −1.68 ** | |
Low search time expectations for parking (≤2 min = 1; otherwise = 0) | 0.67 | 2.87 * | 1.07 | 2.24 * | |
Short walking distance to the destination (≤100 m = 1; otherwise = 0) | 0.54 | 2.13 * | −0.55 | −1.65 ** | |
Short-term parking (≤2 h = 1; otherwise = 0) | 0.47 | 2.10 * | −0.91 | −2.69 * | |
Constant | 1.38 | 3.35 * | 1.93 | 3.55 * | |
Number of observations | 521 | 289 | |||
−340.68 | −146.26 | ||||
−292.04 | −129.92 | ||||
97.29 | 32.69 | ||||
0.14 | 0.11 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sarısoy, G.; Tezcan, H.O. Does Parking Type Preference Behavior Differ According to Whether It Is Paid or Free? A Case Study in Istanbul, Türkiye. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7269. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177269
Sarısoy G, Tezcan HO. Does Parking Type Preference Behavior Differ According to Whether It Is Paid or Free? A Case Study in Istanbul, Türkiye. Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7269. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177269
Chicago/Turabian StyleSarısoy, Gürcan, and Hüseyin Onur Tezcan. 2024. "Does Parking Type Preference Behavior Differ According to Whether It Is Paid or Free? A Case Study in Istanbul, Türkiye" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7269. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177269
APA StyleSarısoy, G., & Tezcan, H. O. (2024). Does Parking Type Preference Behavior Differ According to Whether It Is Paid or Free? A Case Study in Istanbul, Türkiye. Sustainability, 16(17), 7269. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177269