| Literature DB >> 35009778 |
Shuo-Yan Chou1,2, Anindhita Dewabharata1, Ferani Eva Zulvia3.
Abstract
The size of cities has been continuously increasing because of urbanization. The number of public and private transportation vehicles is rapidly increasing, thus resulting in traffic congestion, traffic accidents, and environmental pollution. Although major cities have undergone considerable development in terms of transportation infrastructure, problems caused by a high number of moving vehicles cannot be completely resolved through the expansion of streets and facilities. This paper proposes a solution for the parking problem in cities that entails a shared parking system. The primary concept of the proposed shared parking system is to release parking lots that are open to specific groups for public usage without overriding personal usage. Open-to-specific-groups parking lots consist of parking spaces provided for particular people, such as parking buildings at universities for teachers, staff, and students. The proposed shared parking system comprises four primary steps: collecting and preprocessing data by using an Internet of Things system, predicting internal demand by using a recurrent neural network algorithm, releasing several unoccupied parking lots based on prediction results, and continuously updating the real-time data to improve future internal usage prediction. Data collection and data forecasting are performed to ensure that the system does not override personal usage. This study applied several forecasting algorithms, including seasonal ARIMA, support vector regression, multilayer perceptron, convolutional neural network, long short-term memory recurrent neural network with a many-to-one structure, and long short-term memory recurrent neural network with a many-to-many structure. The proposed system was evaluated using artificial and real datasets. Results show that the recurrent neural network with the many-to-many structure generates the most accurate prediction. Furthermore, the proposed shared parking system was evaluated for some scenarios in which different numbers of parking spaces were released. Simulation results show that the proposed shared parking system can provide parking spaces for public usage without overriding personal usage. Moreover, this system can generate new income for parking management and/or parking lot owners.Entities:
Keywords: intelligent transportation system; prediction; recurrent neural network; shared economy; shared parking; smart cities
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35009778 PMCID: PMC8749656 DOI: 10.3390/s22010235
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1RNN architecture.
Figure 2Framework of the proposed shared parking system.
Figure 3LSTM RNN Structure.
Figure 4Many-to-many LSTM RNN Architecture.
Figure 5Domain modeling diagram describing the requirement needs.
Figure 6Cloud-based architecture system.
Figure 7Use case diagram of parking dashboard for parking owner.
Figure 8Implementation of parking dashboard using web platform.
Figure 9Reservation use case diagram for driver.
Figure 10Implementation of reservation based on mobile platform.
Figure 11Sequential diagram of forecasting process.
The attribute of data collected.
| Attribute Name | Data Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Member ID | VARCHAR | Driver identity number, e.g., “Z532”, “A81214”. |
| Department name | VARCHAR | Driver department name, e.g., “school of management”, “administrative unit”. |
| Check-in/check-out time | DATETIME | Date and time when the car entrance or exit gate’s machine, e.g., “31 December 2016 23:51:26”. |
| Building name | VARCHAR | Parking location name. |
| Machine card | VARCHAR | Entrance or exit machine to open the gate. “A” for entrance gate, “B” for exit gate. |
| Update time | DATETIME | Log date and time when data is inserted to database. |
Example data of parking used.
| Date Time | Weekend | Day | Parking Used |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8 July 2016 19:00 | 0 | 6 | 87 |
| 8 July 2016 20:00 | 0 | 6 | 85 |
| 8 July 2016 21:00 | 0 | 6 | 84 |
| 8 July 2016 22:00 | 0 | 6 | 85 |
Attributed description of data after data preprocessing.
| Attribute Name | Data Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Date and time | DATETIME | Date and time in hourly |
| Weekend | INT | Weekend flag, “1” for weekend or “0” for weekday. |
| Day | INT | Day in number, “1” for Sunday, “7” for Saturday, “2–5” for Monday to Friday. |
| Parking used | INT | Number of parking used by internal usage. |
Figure 12Parking data.
Figure 13Artificial dataset.
Parameter setting for RNN with many-to-many structure.
| No. | Parameter | Value |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Look back | 168 |
| 2. | Target | 168 |
| 3. | Activation | sigmoid |
| 4. | Recurrent activation | sigmoid |
| 5. | Optimizer | Nadam |
| 6. | Loss_function | mse |
| 7. | Epoch | 1500 |
Mean absolute error for artificial dataset.
| Method | Set | Average Value | Minimum Value | Maximum Value | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seasonal ARIMA | Training | 14.148 | NA | ||
| Test | 13.644 | ||||
| Support vector regression | Training | NA | |||
| Test | 8.541 | ||||
| Multi-layer perceptron | Training | 1.552 | 0.399 | 5.461 | 1.570 |
| Test | 8.283 | 7.595 | 10.173 | 0.724 | |
| Convolutional neural network | Training | 0.580 | 0.221 | 0.867 | 0.238 |
| Test | 10.012 | 9.711 | 10.319 | 0.190 | |
| LSTM-EEMD | Training | 17.750 | 16.628 | 19.368 | 1.435 |
| Test | 18.308 | 17.658 | 19.382 | 0.937 | |
| LSTM RNN many-to-one | Training | 15.591 | 8.107 | 29.257 | 6.113 |
| Test | 17.447 | 8.327 | 29.060 | 7.196 | |
| LSTM RNN many-to-many | Training | 8.521 | 8.519 | 8.524 | 0.001 |
| Test | 7.965 | 7.990 | 0.007 | ||
*: Best result.
Mean absolute error for actual dataset.
| Method | Set | Average Value | Minimum Value | Maximum Value | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seasonal ARIMA | Training | 20.997 | NA | ||
| Test | 18.576 | ||||
| Support vector regression | Training | NA | |||
| Test | 15.963 | ||||
| Multi-layer perceptron | Training | 2.856 | 0.974 | 5.107 | 1.387 |
| Test | 23.288 | 18.975 | 25.513 | 2.165 | |
| Convolutional neural network | Training | 1.884 | 0.784 | 4.002 | 0.981 |
| Test | 13.562 | 12.368 | 16.159 | 1.074 | |
| LSTM-EEMD | Training | 33.361 | 31.016 | 35.075 | 2.102 |
| Test | 25.549 | 24.533 | 27.316 | 1.536 | |
| LSTM RNN | Training | 25.489 | 19.370 | 30.956 | 3.836 |
| Test | 24.728 | 17.486 | 29.265 | 3.859 | |
| LSTM RNN | Training | 11.123 | 11.117 | 11.144 | 0.008 |
| Test | 7.931 | 8.130 | 0.056 | ||
*: Best result.
Root mean square error for artificial dataset.
| Method | Set | Average Value | Minimum Value | Maximum Value | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seasonal ARIMA | Training | 18.358 | NA | ||
| Test | 17.974 | ||||
| Support vector regression | Training | NA | |||
| Test | 11.035 | ||||
| Multi-layer perceptron | Training | 1.859 | 0.514 | 6.473 | 1.822 |
| Test | 10.779 | 9.910 | 13.207 | 0.921 | |
| Convolutional neural network | Training | 0.770 | 0.296 | 1.169 | 0.321 |
| Test | 12.947 | 12.504 | 13.290 | 0.234 | |
| LSTM-EEMD | Training | 21.642 | 20.282 | 23.424 | 1.612 |
| Test | 22.064 | 21.309 | 23.378 | 1.141 | |
| LSTM RNN many-to-one | Training | 21.829 | 10.247 | 38.096 | 7.806 |
| Test | 23.635 | 11.165 | 37.080 | 8.469 | |
| LSTM RNN many-to-many | Training | 11.044 | 11.000 | 11.050 | 0.015 |
| Test | 10.397 | 10.408 | 0.003 | ||
*: Best result.
Root mean square error for actual dataset.
| Method | Set | Average Value | Minimum Value | Maximum Value | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seasonal ARIMA | Training | 27.869 | NA | ||
| Test | 25.234 | ||||
| Support vector regression | Training | NA | |||
| Test | 20.974 | ||||
| Multi-layer perceptron | Training | 3.862 | 1.319 | 7.198 | 1.753 |
| Test | 30.337 | 24.150 | 33.331 | 2.883 | |
| Convolutional neural network | Training | 2.590 | 1.065 | 5.215 | 1.261 |
| Test | 18.794 | 16.779 | 23.741 | 1.998 | |
| LSTM-EEMD | Training | 40.744 | 38.397 | 41.926 | 2.033 |
| Test | 30.565 | 29.613 | 32.303 | 1.507 | |
| LSTM RNN many-to-one | Training | 35.872 | 29.172 | 42.340 | 4.107 |
| Test | 33.418 | 24.669 | 40.283 | 4.528 | |
| LSTM RNN many-to-many | Training | 15.372 | 15.363 | 15.385 | 0.008 |
| Test | 10.511 | 10.795 | 0.079 | ||
*: Best result.
Figure 14Pattern of forecasted real and artificial datasets.
Computational time(s).
| Seasonal ARIMA | Support Vector Regression | Multi-Layer Perceptron | Convolutional Neural Network | Lstm-Eemd | Rnn Lstm Many-To-One | Rnn Lstm Many-To-Many |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13.44 | 3.81 | 124.77 | 171.01 | 1650.83 | 8341.55 | 255.71 |
Figure 15Lambda value for external demand scenario.
Simulation result.
| Release Type | Internal Demand | Lambda External Demand | Number of Reservations Accepted | Acceptance Ratio | Revenue (in NT$) * |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dynamic: based on forecasting result | Artificial data | High | 1786 | 100% | 339,990 |
| Dynamic: based on forecasting result | Artificial data | Low | 1125 | 100% | 219,510 |
| Dynamic: based on forecasting result | Real data | High | 1758 | 98% | 334,410 |
| Fix: 20 spaces released | Real data | High | 786 | 44% | 138,990 |
| Fix: 50 spaces released | Real data | High | 1367 | 77% | 250,080 |
| Fix: 100 spaces released | Real data | High | 1650 | 92% | 310,410 |
| Dynamic: based on forecasting result | Real data | Low | 1125 | 100% | 219,510 |
| Fix: 20 spaces released | Real data | Low | 645 | 57% | 116,520 |
| Fix: 50 spaces released | Real data | Low | 1036 | 92% | 200,250 |
| Fix: 100 spaces released | Real data | Low | 1125 | 100% | 219,510 |
*: With assumed parking rate NT$30/h. Revenue = Total hour of rented × parking rate/hour.