# A Path Recommendation Method Considering Individual Driving Preferences
## 5 Case Studies
### Personalized Path Recommendation Results and Analysis
#### 5.3.1 Differences in Path Selection for Different Types of Travelers  
The path selection behavior of a driver during travel is influenced by their various preferences, which are reflected in this study through the weights assigned to the different factors affecting satisfaction. Table 22 presents the satisfaction weights of drivers a, b, c, and d. Driver a primarily considered path difficulty and traffic conditions; driver b relied on personal travel experience and tended to choose familiar paths, placing an emphasis on historical path similarity; driver c prioritized the stability of travel time and preferred paths with minimal risk of delay; and driver d did not exhibit a significant preference, as the influence of each attribute on satisfaction was relatively balanced.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Paths** & **PI** & **PMK** & **PAK** & **Satisfaction** \\ \hline
5122 \_5123, 5126, 5132 \_5061 \_4961 \_4854 \_4863 \_4724 & 1.97 & 16.54 & 11.96 & 66.90 \\
5122 \_5012\_5021 \_9163 \_9177 \_9164 \_4973 \_4904 \_4863 \_4724 & 1.87 & 23.52 & 13.11 & 54.23 \\
5122 \_5123 \_5126 \_9162 \_9163 \_9177 \_9164 \_4973 \_4904 \_4863 \_4724 & 2.14 & 23.52 & 8.95 & 52.40 \\
5122 \_5123 \_5126 \_9162 \_9163 \_5010 \_4927 \_4806 \_4697 \_4706 \_4724 & 2.30 & 30.21 & 15.19 & 41.21 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 21: Path satisfaction (partial).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Path 1** & **Actual Value** & **Percentile** & **Value** \\ \hline \(B21\) PTT & 1009 s & 80.07 & 19.93 \\ \(B22\) PL & 4666 m & 57.68 & 42.32 \\ \(B23\) PLN & 2.35 lane/km & 81.90 & 81.90 \\ \(B24\) PTI & 2.79 /km & 16.02 & 83.98 \\ \(B25\) PI & 2.14 /km & 35.97 & 64.03 \\ \(B26\) PAK & 8.95 veh/km/lane & 29.06 & 70.94 \\ \(B27\) PMK & 23.52 veh/km/lane & 51.35 & 48.64 \\ \(B28\) HPS & 31.98\% & 0.12 & 0.12 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 20: Calculation results for index values related to Path 1.  
Figure 10 illustrates the path with the highest satisfaction for each driver, considering a departure time of 7:30. The paths are represented by lines of different color. Table 23 provides the actual values and _value_ for the dynamic and static attributes associated with these paths. By analyzing the graphs and data, it is evident that, in the morning peak scenario, the drivers of different types exhibited distinct path selection behaviors. Driver a (who prioritized path difficulty and traffic conditions) selected Path 6 due to its lower average path density, higher maximum path density, and favorable ratings for steering coefficient and number of lanes. Driver b (driven by historical inertia) and driver c (who valued time stability) both chose Path 5, which exhibited attributes that aligned with their preferences. On the other hand, driver d (who had no significant preference) achieved the highest satisfaction with Path 4, as it had the highest importance rating. These results demonstrate that the recommended paths obtained through this method better cater to the individual travel needs of drivers.