Young drivers are over-represented in motor vehicle crashes, and how to improve the risky behaviors of young drivers has been a critical issue around the world. In contrast to penalty programs to improve safety, incentive programs are usually less controversial and more politically feasible. This study used a stated preference survey to investigate the preferences of young drivers for four incentive programs, including two gamified schemes, an insurance fee discount scheme, and a license fee discount scheme, and how these programs may change driving behaviors. A pilot study was conducted on 500 young drivers in Queensland, Australia. The estimation results using a latent class logit model showed the sample of young drivers could be naturally categorized into three groups with more or less equal preference for each scheme. Less than 5% of young drivers were not interested in joining any one of these schemes, suggesting that most of the sample of young drivers could be motivated in the future to have better driving behavior via one of these incentive schemes.
DekkerS.CilliersP.HofmeyrJ.-H.The Complexity of Failure: Implications of Complexity Theory for Safety Investigations. Safety Science, Vol. 49, No. 6, 2011, pp. 939–945.
3.
Scott-ParkerB.GoodeN.SalmonP.The Driver, the Road, the Rules … and the Rest? A Systems-Based Approach to Young Driver Road Safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 74, 2015, pp. 297–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.01.027.
4.
DeterdingS.DixonD.KhaledR.NackeL.From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining “Gamification.”Proc., 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media, Tampere, Finland, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2011, pp. 9–15.
5.
AmbreyC. L.YenB. T. H.How Perceptions Influence Young Drivers’ Intentions to Participate in Gamified Schemes. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, Vol. 58, 2018, pp. 708–718.
6.
FosterJ.SheridanP.IrishR.FrostG.Gamification as Strategy for Promoting Deeper Investigation in a Reverse Engineering Activity. Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, TX, June 10, 2012, pp. 25.662.1–25.662.15.
7.
DennyP.The Effect of Virtual Achievements on Student Engagement. Proc., SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2013, pp. 763–772.
8.
LiW.GrossmanT.FitzmauriceG.GamiCAD: A Gamified Tutorial System for First Time Autocad Users. Proc., 25th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Cambridge, MA, October 7–10, 2012. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2012, pp. 103–112.
9.
HamariJ.LehdonvirtaV.Game Design as Marketing: How Game Mechanics Create Demand for Virtual Goods. International Journal of Business Science & Applied Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2010, pp. 14–29.
10.
LucassenG.JansenS.Gamification in Consumer Marketing - Future or Fallacy?Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 148, 2014, pp. 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.034.
11.
HuotariK.HamariJ.A Definition for Gamification: Anchoring Gamification in the Service Marketing Literature. Electronic Markets, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2017, pp. 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0212-z.
12.
CoombesE.JonesA.Gamification of Active Travel to School: A Pilot Evaluation of the Beat the Street Physical Activity Intervention. Health & Place, Vol. 39, 2016, pp. 62–69.
13.
CugelmanB.Gamification: What it Is and why it Matters to Digital Health Behavior Change Developers. Journal of Medical Internet Research Serious Gamea, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2013, e3139.
YılmazH.İ.O. Coşkun. New Toy of Marketing Communication in Tourism: Gamification. In e-Consumers in the Era of New Tourism (SezginE., ed.), Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2016, pp. 53–71.
18.
BoufousS.IversR.SenserrickT.StevensonM.Attempts at the Practical On-Road Driving Test and the Hazard Perception Test and the Risk of Traffic Crashes in Young Drivers. Traffic Injury Prevention, Vol. 12, No. 5, 2011, pp. 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2011.591856.
BoufousS.IversR.SenserrickT.NortonR.StevensonM.ChenH.-Y.LamL. T.Risky Driving Behavior and Road Traffic Crashes Among Young Asian Australian Drivers: Findings from the DRIVE Study. Traffic Injury Prevention, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2010, pp. 222–227, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1080/15389581003614888.
21.
Mitchell-TavernerP.ZipparoL.Goldsworthy.J.Survey on Speeding and Enforcement. University of Adelaide, South Australia, 2003 [Online]. http://worldcat.org/isbn/0642255164.
22.
PeckR. C.GebersM. A.VoasR. B.RomanoE.The Relationship Between Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC), Age, and Crash Risk. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2008, pp. 311–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2008.02.030.
23.
RhodesN.PivikK.Age and Gender Differences in Risky Driving: The Roles of Positive Affect and Risk Perception. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 43, No. 3, 2011, pp. 923–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.015.
24.
LarssonP.DekkerS. W. A.TingvallC.The Need for a Systems Theory Approach to Road Safety. Safety Science, Vol. 48, No. 9, 2010, pp. 1167–1174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2009.10.006.
YenB. T.MulleyC.BurkeM.Gamification in Transport Interventions: Another Way to Improve Travel Behavioural Change. Cities, Vol. 85, 2019, pp. 140–149.
28.
BenerA.CrundallD.HaigneyD.BensialiA. K.Al-FalasiA. S.Driving Behaviour, Lapses, Errors and Violations on the Road: United Arab Emirates Study. Advances in Transportation Studies, Vol. 12, 2007, pp. 5–14.
29.
MeskenJ.LajunenT.SummalaH.Interpersonal Violations, Speeding Violations and their Relation to Accident Involvement in Finland. Ergonomics, Vol. 45, No. 7, 2002, pp. 469–483.
30.
UllebergP.RundmoT.Personality, Attitudes and Risk Perception as Predictors of Risky Driving Behaviour Among Young Drivers. Safety Science, Vol. 41, No. 5, 2003, pp. 427–443.
31.
WestermanS.HaigneyD.Individual Differences in Driver Stress, Error and Violation. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 29, No. 5, 2000, pp. 981–998.
32.
BhatC. R.An Endogenous Segmentation Mode Choice Model With an Application to Intercity Travel. Transportation Science, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1997, pp. 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.31.1.34.
33.
ChiouY.-C.JouR.-C.KaoC.-Y.FuC.The Adoption Behaviours of Freeway Electronic Toll Collection: A Latent Class Modelling Approach. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 49, No. 1, 2013, pp. 266–280.
34.
GreeneW. H.HensherD. A.A Latent Class Model for Discrete Choice Analysis: Contrasts With Mixed Logit. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 37, No. 8, 2003, pp. 681–698.
35.
GuptaS.ChintaguntaP. K.On Using Demographic Variables to Determine Segment Membership in Logit Mixture Models. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1994, pp. 128–136.
36.
McFaddenD.Modeling the Choice of Residential Location. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1978. 673: 72–77.
37.
WenC.-H.HuangW.-W.FuC.ChouP.-Y.A Latent Class Generalised Nested Logit Model and its Application to Modelling Carrier Choice With Market Segmentation. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, Vol. 9, No. 8, 2013, pp. 675–694.
38.
WenC.-H.WangW.-C.FuC.Latent Class Nested Logit Model for Analyzing High-Speed Rail Access Mode Choice. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 48, No. 2, 2012, pp. 545–554.
39.
YenB. T. H.TsengaW. C.MulleyC.LanL. W.ChiouY. C.Burke.M.Assessing Transfer Policy Effects in Public Transport: A Case Study of South East Queensland, Australia. Presented at the World Conference on Transport Research, 2016.
