IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jotrge/v60y2017icp217-230.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An empirical assessment of Dutch citizens' preferences for spatial equality in the context of a national transport investment plan

Author

Listed:
  • Mouter, Niek
  • van Cranenburgh, Sander
  • van Wee, Bert

Abstract

This study presents empirical insights into Dutch citizens' preferences for spatial equality in the context of decision-making regarding the composition of a national transport investment plan. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first study worldwide which empirically investigates citizens' preferences for the spatial distribution of benefits accruing from a transport investment plan. We conducted two Stated Choice experiments: one involving an investment plan for travel time savings, the other involving an investment plan for traffic safety. Our results show that in the context of travel time savings, a vast majority of citizens has a strong preference for spatial equality. When the investment program involves traffic safety improvements, the share of citizens that has a preference for spatial equality is considerably smaller. Specifically, using a Latent class discrete choice analysis we identified distinct segments. The first segment has a very strong preference for the investment program having the largest total reduction in traffic deaths; the second segment assigns a substantial value to an equal distribution of reductions of traffic deaths across the Netherlands. Highly educated citizens are found to have a relatively strong preference for spatial equality as compared to low educated citizens. Contrary to our expectations, explanatory variables such as political orientation, income, car ownership and region of residence do not appear to associate with citizens' preferences for spatial equality.

Suggested Citation

  • Mouter, Niek & van Cranenburgh, Sander & van Wee, Bert, 2017. "An empirical assessment of Dutch citizens' preferences for spatial equality in the context of a national transport investment plan," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 217-230.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jotrge:v:60:y:2017:i:c:p:217-230
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.03.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692316307359
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.03.011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mackie, Peter & Worsley, Tom & Eliasson, Jonas, 2014. "Transport appraisal revisited," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 3-18.
    2. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Martinsson, Peter, 2008. "Are some lives more valuable? An ethical preferences approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 739-752, May.
    3. Nellthorp, J. & Mackie, P. J., 2000. "The UK Roads Review--a hedonic model of decision making," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 127-138, April.
    4. Karner, Alex & Niemeier, Deb, 2013. "Civil rights guidance and equity analysis methods for regional transportation plans: a critical review of literature and practice," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 126-134.
    5. Thomopoulos, N. & Grant-Muller, S. & Tight, M.R., 2009. "Incorporating equity considerations in transport infrastructure evaluation: Current practice and a proposed methodology," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 351-359, November.
    6. Chorus, Caspar G., 2015. "Models of moral decision making: Literature review and research agenda for discrete choice analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 69-85.
    7. Harberger, Arnold C, 1978. "On the Use of Distributional Weights in Social Cost-Benefit Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 86(2), pages 87-120, April.
    8. repec:feb:framed:0073 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Francisco J. Bahamonde-Birke & Uwe Kunert & Heike Link, 2015. "The Value of a Statistical Life in a Road Safety Context -- A Review of the Current Literature," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(4), pages 488-511, July.
    10. Dreze, Jean & Stern, Nicholas, 1987. "The theory of cost-benefit analysis," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 14, pages 909-989, Elsevier.
    11. Nyborg, Karine, 1998. "Some Norwegian Politicians' Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 95(3-4), pages 381-401, June.
    12. Craig E. Landry & John A. List, 2007. "Using Ex Ante Approaches to Obtain Credible Signals for Value in Contingent Markets: Evidence from the Field," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(2), pages 420-429.
    13. Ewa Zawojska & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2015. "Re-examining empirical evidence on contingent valuation – Importance of incentive compatibility," Working Papers 2015-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    14. Mouter, Niek & Chorus, Caspar, 2016. "Value of time – A citizen perspective," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 317-329.
    15. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2013. "Ranking the substantive problems in the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis practice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 241-255.
    16. Karel Martens, 2012. "A justice-theoretic exploration of accessibility measures," Chapters, in: Karst T. Geurs & Kevin J. Krizek & Aura Reggiani (ed.), Accessibility Analysis and Transport Planning, chapter 11, pages 195-210, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Jonas Eliasson & Maria Börjesson & James Odeck & Morten Welde, 2015. "Does Benefit-Cost Efficiency Influence Transport Investment Decisions?," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 49(3), pages 377-396, July.
    18. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    19. Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas, 2014. "Experiences from the Swedish Value of Time study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 144-158.
    20. Olof Johansson-Stenman & James Konow, 2010. "Fair Air: Distributive Justice and Environmental Economics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(2), pages 147-166, June.
    21. Daly, Andrew & Hess, Stephane & de Jong, Gerard, 2012. "Calculating errors for measures derived from choice modelling estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 333-341.
    22. Jan Anne Annema & Koen Frenken & Carl Koopmans & Maarten Kroesen, 2017. "Relating cost-benefit analysis results with transport project decisions in the Netherlands," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 109-127, March.
    23. Nguyen-Hoang, Phuong & Yeung, Ryan, 2010. "What is paratransit worth?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 841-853, December.
    24. Kouwenhoven, Marco & de Jong, Gerard C. & Koster, Paul & van den Berg, Vincent A.C. & Verhoef, Erik T. & Bates, John & Warffemius, Pim M.J., 2014. "New values of time and reliability in passenger transport in The Netherlands," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 37-49.
    25. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    26. Tijs Neutens & Tim Schwanen & Frank Witlox & Philippe De Maeyer, 2010. "Equity of Urban Service Delivery: A Comparison of Different Accessibility Measures," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 42(7), pages 1613-1635, July.
    27. Rotaris, Lucia & Danielis, Romeo & Marcucci, Edoardo & Massiani, Jérôme, 2010. "The urban road pricing scheme to curb pollution in Milan, Italy: Description, impacts and preliminary cost-benefit analysis assessment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 359-375, June.
    28. Karen Lucas & Bert Wee & Kees Maat, 2016. "A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 473-490, May.
    29. Dale Stahl & Ernan Haruvy, 2009. "Testing theories of behavior for extensive-form two-player two-stage games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(2), pages 242-251, June.
    30. Vossler, Christian A. & Evans, Mary F., 2009. "Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: Environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 338-345, November.
    31. Hensher, David A. & Rose, John M. & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I., 2009. "Estimating the willingness to pay and value of risk reduction for car occupants in the road environment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 692-707, August.
    32. Daniel J. Graham, 2007. "Agglomeration, Productivity and Transport Investment," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 41(3), pages 317-343, September.
    33. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & Wee, Bert van, 2013. "Attitudes towards the role of Cost–Benefit Analysis in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects: A Dutch case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 1-14.
    34. Fridstrom, Lasse & Elvik, Rune, 1997. "The Barely Revealed Preference behind Road Investment Priorities," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 92(1-2), pages 145-168, July.
    35. Rafael H. M. Pereira & Tim Schwanen & David Banister, 2017. "Distributive justice and equity in transportation," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(2), pages 170-191, March.
    36. Mackie, P.J. & Jara-Díaz, S. & Fowkes, A.S., 0. "The value of travel time savings in evaluation," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(2-3), pages 91-106, April.
    37. Bert Van Wee & Sabine Roeser, 2013. "Ethical Theories and the Cost--Benefit Analysis-Based Ex Ante Evaluation of Transport Policies and Plans," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(6), pages 743-760, November.
    38. Martens, Karel & Golub, Aaron & Robinson, Glenn, 2012. "A justice-theoretic approach to the distribution of transportation benefits: Implications for transportation planning practice in the United States," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 684-695.
    39. Mouter, Niek, 2017. "Dutch politicians’ attitudes towards Cost-Benefit Analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-10.
    40. Karst T. Geurs & Kevin J. Krizek & Aura Reggiani (ed.), 2012. "Accessibility Analysis and Transport Planning," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14718.
    41. Golub, Aaron & Martens, Karel, 2014. "Using principles of justice to assess the modal equity of regional transportation plans," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 10-20.
    42. James Andreoni & John Miller, 2002. "Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 737-753, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jose Esteves & Daniel Alonso-Martínez & Guillermo de Haro, 2021. "Profiling Spanish Prospective Buyers of Electric Vehicles Based on Demographics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-22, August.
    2. Kim, Sung Hoo & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2023. "Finite mixture (or latent class) modeling in transportation: Trends, usage, potential, and future directions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 134-173.
    3. Bondemark, Anders & Andersson, Henrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2023. "Do the distributional preferences of national infrastructure planners diverge from those of the public?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    4. Mouter, Niek & Cabral, Manuel Ojeda & Dekker, Thijs & van Cranenburgh, Sander, 2019. "The value of travel time, noise pollution, recreation and biodiversity: A social choice valuation perspective," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    5. Chorus, Caspar G. & Pudāne, Baiba & Mouter, Niek & Campbell, Danny, 2018. "Taboo trade-off aversion: A discrete choice model and empirical analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 37-49.
    6. S. Van Cranenburgh & S. Wang & A. Vij & F. Pereira & J. Walker, 2021. "Choice modelling in the age of machine learning -- discussion paper," Papers 2101.11948, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2021.
    7. Geoffrey A. Battista & Kevin Manaugh, 2019. "My way or the highway? Framing transportation planners’ attitudes in negotiating professional expertise and public insight," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 1271-1290, August.
    8. Bondemark, Anders & Andersson, Henrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2022. "Public preferences for distribution in the context of transport investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 160-184.
    9. Hössinger, Reinhard & Peer, Stefanie & Juschten, Maria, 2023. "Give citizens a task: An innovative tool to compose policy bundles that reach the climate goal," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mouter, Niek & van Cranenburgh, Sander & van Wee, Bert, 2017. "Do individuals have different preferences as consumer and citizen? The trade-off between travel time and safety," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 333-349.
    2. Mouter, Niek & Cabral, Manuel Ojeda & Dekker, Thijs & van Cranenburgh, Sander, 2019. "The value of travel time, noise pollution, recreation and biodiversity: A social choice valuation perspective," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    3. Niek Mouter & Paul Koster & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "Participatory Value Evaluation versus Cost-Benefit Analysis: comparing recommendations in the context of urban mobility investments," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-046/VIII, Tinbergen Institute, revised 27 Jan 2020.
    4. Bondemark, Anders & Sundbergh, Pia & Tornberg, Patrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2020. "Do impact assessments influence transport plans? The case of Sweden," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 52-64.
    5. Pereira, Rafael H.M., 2019. "Future accessibility impacts of transport policy scenarios: Equity and sensitivity to travel time thresholds for Bus Rapid Transit expansion in Rio de Janeiro," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 321-332.
    6. Mouter, Niek, 2017. "Dutch politicians’ attitudes towards Cost-Benefit Analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-10.
    7. Asplund, Disa & Eliasson, Jonas, 2016. "Does uncertainty make cost-benefit analyses pointless?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 195-205.
    8. Laird, James J. & Venables, Anthony J., 2017. "Transport investment and economic performance: A framework for project appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 1-11.
    9. Sun, Zhe & Zacharias, John, 2020. "Transport equity as relative accessibility in a megacity: Beijing," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 8-19.
    10. Zhang, Mengzhu & Zhao, Pengjun, 2021. "Literature review on urban transport equity in transitional China: From empirical studies to universal knowledge," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    11. Boisjoly, Geneviève & Serra, Bernardo & Oliveira, Gabriel T. & El-Geneidy, Ahmed, 2020. "Accessibility measurements in São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Curitiba and Recife, Brazil," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    12. Krapp, Agustina & Barajas, Jesus & Wennink, Audrey, 2021. "Equity-oriented Criteria for Project Prioritization in Regional Transportation Planning," SocArXiv xcbhy, Center for Open Science.
    13. Krčál, Ondřej & Peer, Stefanie & Staněk, Rostislav & Karlínová, Bára, 2019. "Real consequences matter: Why hypothetical biases in the valuation of time persist even in controlled lab experiments," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    14. Hananel, Ravit & Berechman, Joseph, 2016. "Justice and transportation decision-making: The capabilities approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 78-85.
    15. Linovski, Orly & Baker, Dwayne Marshall & Manaugh, Kevin, 2018. "Equity in practice? Evaluations of equity in planning for bus rapid transit," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 75-87.
    16. Mouter, Niek & Chorus, Caspar, 2016. "Value of time – A citizen perspective," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 317-329.
    17. Vigren, Andreas & Ljungberg, Anders, 2018. "Public Transport Authorities’ use of Cost-Benefit Analysis in practice," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 560-567.
    18. Allen, Jeff & Farber, Steven, 2019. "Sizing up transport poverty: A national scale accounting of low-income households suffering from inaccessibility in Canada, and what to do about it," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 214-223.
    19. Nick Hanley & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2017. "Stated Preference valuation methods: an evolving tool for understanding choices and informing policy," Working Papers 2017-01, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    20. Sunio, Varsolo & Fillone, Alexis & Abad, Raymund Paolo & Rivera, Joyce & Guillen, Marie Danielle, 2023. "Why does demand-based transport planning persist? Insights from social practice theory," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jotrge:v:60:y:2017:i:c:p:217-230. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-transport-geography .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.