User characteristics and service satisfaction of car sharing systems: Evidence from Hangzhou, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Car sharing has become a new mode of transport during the past two decades in the world. Its rapid growth in China has attracted a wide range of users and posed some problems. The main focus is on service efficiency and user satisfaction. To explore possible service enhancement and management intervention, this study aims at capturing the user characteristics according to different user types and scrutinizing their satisfaction with station-based one-way car sharing service. The study firstly illustrates descriptive statistics of user profile. This is followed by a study of user satisfaction influenced by user rates on staffs, the efficiency of rental process, vehicle situation, the use of credit card and their familiarity towards rental station. Furthermore, by clustering users according to the total travel time and distance during one rent, two different types of users are identified and defined as User Group A (UGA) and User Group B (UGB). To examine how fully do users utilize the shared cars, ANOVA was conducted implying family car ownership, total travel distance and main travel purpose have strong impact on total rental time for UGB, while for UGA, travel purpose and age have strong impact. Finally, ordinal logistic regression was introduced to find that for UGB, "shopping" is the main travel purpose with longer rental time, whereas for UGA, "out for business", "shopping", "visit friends" or "pick up others" are the main travel purposes with longer total travel time. Based on the findings, advices for operators on how to improve service quality and suggestions for government management strategy are discussed, respectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".