The main objectives of this study are to understand the motivations for and deterrents to the adoption of carpooling, and model people’s intentions to adopt it in Jordan. A cross-sectional survey based on a conceptual framework was designed to answer all the research questions. A total of 630 valid responses were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling techniques. The study found that the main barriers to the adoption of carpooling are factors related to privacy, security, and trust. In addition, there are no incentives offered by companies or any official institution to encourage the adoption of carpooling, and the insurance system disadvantages the driver. An important finding is that providing private parking spaces will encourage more than half of the participants to adopt carpooling. In addition, decisions to adopt carpooling or not were found to be associated with travel time, gender, and income level. Younger people, males, and those with low income levels were more willing to adopt carpooling. Compared with males, it was found that females were less interested in adopting carpooling because they attached more importance to convenience, privacy, and trust. Postgraduate students were found to be less likely to adopt carpooling. Finally, a structural model was developed with a moderate coefficient of determination.
JavidM. A.MehmoodT.AsifH. M.VainceA. U.RazaM.Travelers’ Attitudes toward Carpooling in Lahore: Motives and Constraints. Journal of Modern Transportation, Vol. 25, No. 4, 2017, pp. 268–278.
2.
FergusonE.Travel Demand Management and Public Policy. Routledge, London, 2018.
3.
JrewB.MsallamM.MomaniM.Strategic Development of Transportation Demand Management in Jordan. Civil Engineering Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2019, pp. 48–60.
4.
SalhiS. E.FarouqF.ObeidallahR.KilaniY.Al ShdaifatE.Real-Time Carpooling Application Based on K-NN Algorithm: A Case Study in Hashemite University. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, Vol. 10, No. 12, 2019, pp. 251–257.
5.
HasnineM. S.WeissA.Nurul HabibK.Development of an Employer-Based Transportation Demand Management Strategy Evaluation Tool with an Advanced Discrete Choice Model in its Core. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2016. 2542: 65–74.
6.
BuliungR. N.SoltysK.HabelC.LanyonR.Driving Factors behind Successful Carpool Formation and Use. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2009. 2118: 31–38.
DelhommeP.GheorghiuA.Comparing French Carpoolers and Non-Carpoolers: Which Factors Contribute the Most to Carpooling?Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 42, 2016, pp. 1–15.
9.
OlssonL. E.MaierR.FrimanM.Why do They Ride with Others? Meta-Analysis of Factors Influencing Travelers to Carpool. Sustainability, Vol. 11, No. 8, 2019, pp. 2414–2430.
10.
ShaheenS.CohenA.Shared Ride Services in North America: Definitions, Impacts, and the Future of Pooling. Transport Reviews, Vol. 39, No. 4, 2019, pp. 427–442.
11.
ChanN. D.ShaheenS. A.Ridesharing in North America: Past, Present, and Future. Transport Reviews, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2012, pp. 93–112.
12.
VanoutriveT.MalderenL. V.JourquinB.ThomasI.VerhetselA.WitloxF.Carpooling and Employers: A Multilevel Modelling Approach. VUB Press, Brussels, 2012.
Al-MasaeidH. R.ShtayatA.Performance of Urban Transit in Jordan. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, Vol. 6, No. 8, 2016, pp. 7–12.
SoltysK. A. “Toward an Understanding of Carpool Formation and Use” (master’s thesis, University of Toronto, 2009).
18.
MassaroD. W.ChaneyB.BiglerS.LancasterJ.IyerS.EcclestonM.GurrolaE.LopezA.Just-in-Time Carpooling without Elaborate Preplanning. Proc., 5th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies, Lisbon, Portugal, 2009, pp. 219–224.
19.
FergusonE.The Rise and Fall of the American Carpool: 1970–1990. Transportation, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1997, pp. 349–376.
20.
AmeyA. M. “Real-Time Ridesharing: Exploring the Opportunities and Challenges of Designing a Technology-Based Rideshare Trial for the MIT Community” (PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010).
21.
FuruhataM.DessoukyM.OrdóñezF.BrunetM.-E.WangX.KoenigS.Ridesharing: The State-of-the-Art and Future Directions. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 57, 2013, pp. 28–46.
22.
JavidR. J.NejatA.HayhoeK.Quantifying the Environmental Impacts of Increasing High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes in the United States. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 56, 2017, pp. 155–174.
23.
BenitaF. Carpool to Work: Determinants at the County-Level in the United States. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 87, 2020, article 102791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102791.
24.
AdeléS.DionisioC.Learning from the Real Practices of Users of a Smart Carpooling App. European Transport Research Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2020, pp. 1–14.
25.
MinettP.PearceJ.Estimating the Energy Consumption Impact of Casual Carpooling. Energies, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2011, pp. 126–139.
26.
LeeB. H.-Y.Aultman-HallL.CooganM.AdlerT.Rideshare Mode Potential in Non-Metropolitan Areas of the Northeastern United States. Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2016, pp. 111–126.
27.
SoltysK.BuliungR.Commuting Connections: Gender, Carpooling and Cyberspace. Proc., 43rd Annual Meeting of the Canadian Transportation Research Forum, Fredericton, NB, 2008, pp. 1–14.
28.
de Almeida CorreiaG. H.de Abreu e SilvaJ.ViegasJ. M.Using Latent Attitudinal Variables Estimated through a Structural Equations Model for Understanding Carpooling Propensity. Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 36, No. 6, 2013, pp. 499–519.
29.
LiJ.EmbryP.MattinglyS. P.SadabadiK. F.RasmidattaI.BurrisM. W.Who Chooses to Carpool and Why? Examination of Texas Carpoolers. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2007. 2021: 110–117.
30.
ParkY.ChenN.AkarG.Who is Interested in Carpooling and Why: The Importance of Individual Characteristics, Role Preferences and Carpool Markets. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2018. 2672: 708–718.
31.
ShaheenS.CohenA.BayenA.The Benefits of Carpooling: The Environmental and Economic Value of Sharing a Ride. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2018. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7jx6z631. Accessed November 15, 2020.
32.
CorreiaG.ViegasJ. M.Carpooling and Carpool Clubs: Clarifying Concepts and Assessing Value Enhancement Possibilities through a Stated Preference Web Survey in Lisbon, Portugal. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 45, No. 2, 2011, pp. 81–90.
NeohJ. G.ChipuluM.MarshallA.What Encourages People to Carpool? An Evaluation of Factors with Meta-Analysis. Transportation, Vol. 44, No. 2, 2017, pp. 423–447.
35.
WangT.ChenC.Attitudes, Mode Switching Behavior, and the Built Environment: A Longitudinal Study in the Puget Sound Region. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 46, No. 10, 2012, pp. 1594–1607.
36.
BuliungR. N.SoltysK.BuiR.HabelC.LanyonR.Catching a Ride on the Information Super-Highway: Toward an Understanding of Internet-Based Carpool Formation and Use. Transportation, Vol. 37, No. 6, 2010, pp. 849–873.
37.
CharlesK. K.KlineP.Relational Costs and the Production of Social Capital: Evidence from Carpooling. The Economic Journal, Vol. 116, No. 511, 2006, pp. 581–604.
38.
DevarasettyP. C.BurrisM.ArthurW.McDonaldJ.MuñozG. J.Can Psychological Variables Help Predict the Use of Priced Managed Lanes?Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 22, 2014, pp. 25–38.
39.
WilkowskaW.FarrokhikhiaviR.ZiefleM.ValléeD.Mobility Requirements for the Use of Carpooling among Different User Groups. Advances in Human Factors, Software, and Systems Engineering, Vol. 6, 2014, pp. 129–140.
40.
GardnerB.AbrahamC.What Drives Car Use? A Grounded Theory Analysis of Commuters’ Reasons for Driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2007, pp. 187–200.
41.
Arbour-NicitopoulosK.FaulknerG. E. J.BuliungR. N.LayJ.StoneM.The Schools Run: Exploring Carpooling as an Intervention Option in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA), Canada. Transport Policy, Vol. 21, 2012, pp. 134–140.
42.
RafiqR.MitraS. K.Shared School Transportation: Determinants of Carpooling as Children’s School Travel Mode in California. Transportation, Vol. 47, No. 3, 2020, pp. 1339–1357.
43.
GalloM.BuonocoreC.The Inclination of University Students Towards Carpooling: Critical Aspects and Opportunities. International Journal of Education and Learning Systems, Vol. 2, 2017, pp. 407–412.
44.
MalodiaS.SinglaH.A Study of Carpooling Behavior Using a Stated Preference Web Survey in Selected Cities of India. Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 39, No. 5, 2016, pp. 538–550.
45.
FrimanM.LättmanK.OlssonL. E.Carpoolers’ Perceived Accessibility of Carpooling. Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 21, 2020, pp. 8976–8989. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218976
46.
JacobsonS. H.KingD. M.Fuel Saving and Ridesharing in the US: Motivations, Limitations, and Opportunities. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2009, pp. 14–21.
47.
CerveroR.GriesenbeckB.Factors Influencing Commuting Choices in Suburban Labor Markets: A Case Analysis of Pleasanton, California. Transportation Research Part A: General, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1988, pp. 151–161.
48.
RietveldP.ZwartB.van WeeB.Van den HoornT. On the Relationship between Travel Time and Travel Distance of Commuters. The Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 33, No. 3, 1999, pp. 269–287.
49.
DoM.JungH.The Socio-Economic Benefits of Sharing Economy: Colleague-Based Carpooling Service in Korea. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2018, pp. 40–51. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc4030040.
50.
HwangK.GiulianoG.The Determinants of Ridesharing: Literature Review. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1990. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0gd0d2fj. Accessed 23 November 2020.
51.
CanningP. E.HughesS. J.HellawellE. E.GaterslebenB. C. M.FairheadC. J.Reasons for Participating in Formal Employer-Led Carpool Schemes as Perceived by Their Users. Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 33, No. 8, 2010, pp. 733–745.
DewanK. K.AhmadI.Carpooling: A Step to Reduce Congestion. Engineering Letters, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2007, pp. 61–66.
54.
AyedH.KhadraouiD.AggouneR.Using MATSim to Simulate Carpooling and Car-Sharing Trips. Proc., 2015 World Congress on Information Technology and Computer Applications (WCITCA), Hammamet, Tunisia, 2015. IEEE, New York, pp. 1–5. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7367046/. Accessed October 30, 2020.
55.
DuekerK. J.LevinI. P.Carpooling: Attitudes and Participation. University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 1976. https://trid.trb.org/view/57130. Accessed November 17, 2020.
56.
OliphantM. The Native Slugs of Northern Virginia: A Profile of Slugging in the Washington D.C. Region. Major Paper. Master of Sciences in Urban and Regional Planning, Urban Affairs and Planning, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA, 2008.
57.
HensherD. A.What Might Covid-19 Mean for Mobility as a Service (MaaS)?Transport Reviews, Vol. 40, No. 5, 2020, pp. 551–556.
58.
HairJ. F. J.BlackW.BabinB.AndersonR.TathamR. L.Multivariate Data Analysis. 2006.
LeiP.-W.WuQ.Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling: Issues and Practical Considerations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2007, pp. 33–43.
62.
LoehlinJ. C.BeaujeanA. A.Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor, Path, and Structural Equation Analysis, 5th ed.Psychology Press, New York, 2017. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781135614348. Accessed March 17, 2021.
63.
HairJ. F.RingleC. M.SarstedtM.PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2011, pp. 139–152.
64.
WongK. K.-K.Mastering Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-Sem) with Smartpls in 38 Hours. iUniverse, Bloomington, IN, 2019.
65.
RigdonE. E.SarstedtM.RingleC. M.On Comparing Results from CB-SEM and PLS-SEM: Five Perspectives and Five Recommendations. Marketing: ZFP-Journal of Research and Management, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2017, pp. 4–16.
66.
GefenD.RigdonE. E.StraubD.Editor’s Comments: An Update and Extension to SEM Guidelines for Administrative and Social Science Research. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2011, pp. 3–14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/23044042.
67.
HenselerJ.On the Convergence of the Partial Least Squares Path Modeling Algorithm. Computational Statistics, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2010, pp. 107–120.
68.
RingleC. M.WendeS.WillA.SmartPLS 2.0 (beta). University of Hamburg, Hamburg, 2005. https://www.smartpls.de. Accessed 25 March 2021.
69.
KumarD. R.Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners. SAGE Publications, London, 2011.
SwansonR. A.HoltonE. (eds.). Research in Organizations: Foundations and Methods of Inquiry. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA, 2005.
72.
HertzogM. A.Considerations in Determining Sample Size for Pilot Studies. Research in Nursing & Health, Vol. 31, No. 2, 2008, pp. 180–191.
73.
HairJ. F.HultG. T. M.RingleC.SarstedtM.A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2017.
74.
CohenJ.Quantitative Methods in Psychology. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 112, No. 1, 1992, pp. 155–159.
75.
HoyleR. H.Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995.
76.
Al OlaimatG. A. “Modelling Determinates of Carpooling among Jordanian Citizens” (master’s thesis, Jordan University of Science and Technology, 2021).
Al-MasaeidH. R.Traffic Accidents in Jordan. Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2009, pp. 331–343.
79.
Al-MasaeidH. R.Al ShehabO. M.KhedaywiT.Trip and Parking Generation for Shopping Centers in Jordan. Journal of Institute of Transportation Engineers, Vol. 88, No. 2, 2018, pp. 45–49.
80.
VinziV. E.ChinW. W.HenselerJ.WangH. (eds.). Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications. Springer, Berlin, 2010. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8. Accessed 10 May 2021.
81.
HairJ. F.RisherJ. J.SarstedtM.RingleC. M.When to Use and How to Report the Results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2019, pp. 2–24.
82.
SarstedtM.RingleC. M.HairJ. F.Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. In Handbook of Market Research (HomburgC.KlarmannM.VombergA., eds.), Springer, Cham, 2017, pp. 1–40. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-1. Accessed 20 April 2021.
FornellC.LarckerD. F.Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1981, pp. 39–50.
85.
HenselerJ.RingleC. M.SarstedtM.A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2015, pp. 115–135.
86.
Arteaga-SánchezR.Belda-RuizM.Ros-GalvezA.Rosa-GarciaA.Why Continue Sharing: Determinants of Behavior in Ridesharing Services. International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 62, No. 6, 2020, pp. 725–742.
87.
ChinW. W.The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, Vol. 295, No. 2, 1998, pp. 295–336.
88.
MartinW. E.BridgmonK. D.Quantitative and Statistical Research Methods: From Hypothesis to Results. John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA, 2012.
AnableJ.‘Complacent Car Addicts’ or ‘Aspiring Environmentalists’? Identifying Travel Behaviour Segments Using Attitude Theory. Transport Policy, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2005, pp. 65–78.
91.
MeekS.IsonS.EnochM.The Role of Bus-Based Park and Ride in the UK: A Temporal and Evaluative Review. Transport Reviews, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2008, pp. 781–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640802059152.
