IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v44y2010i3p169-181.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying individuals' trade-offs between privacy, liberty and security: The case of rail travel in UK

Author

Listed:
  • Potoglou, Dimitris
  • Robinson, Neil
  • Kim, Chong W.
  • Burge, Peter
  • Warnes, Richard

Abstract

Public transport systems have been targets in several terrorist attacks, notably in recent years, resulting in tight security measures worldwide. However, individuals' privacy and liberty often conflict with efforts towards safety and security, making it difficult to assess the implications of security measures balanced against the costs (e.g., citizens may be stopped, searched and asked to provide personal identification data to authorities without any particular reason). Henceforth, our research question asks, "to what extent would people sacrifice their right to privacy and liberty in exchange for potentially safer and more secure travel?" This paper uses a stated choice experiment to quantify individuals' trade-offs between privacy and security within a real-life context, namely rail travel in the UK. Using a nationwide sample, the empirical analysis yields the importance of improvements in the security infrastructure and identifies areas of concern with regard to privacy and liberty controlling for travel related factors. Further, trade-offs across different security measures for rail travel are quantified in terms of individuals' willingness-to-pay extra on top of the average ticket price.

Suggested Citation

  • Potoglou, Dimitris & Robinson, Neil & Kim, Chong W. & Burge, Peter & Warnes, Richard, 2010. "Quantifying individuals' trade-offs between privacy, liberty and security: The case of rail travel in UK," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 169-181, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:44:y:2010:i:3:p:169-181
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965-8564(09)00132-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jan Rouwendal & Arianne T. de Blaeij, 2004. "Inconsistent and Lexicographic Choices in Stated Preference Analysis," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 04-038/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    3. McKinley Blackburn & Glenn W. Harrison & E. Elisabet Rutström, 1994. "Statistical Bias Functions and Informative Hypothetical Surveys," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(5), pages 1084-1088.
    4. Louviere, Jordan J., 1992. "Experimental choice analysis: Introduction and overview," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 89-95, 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. Schaefer, Kerstin J. & Tuitjer, Leonie & Levin-Keitel, Meike, 2021. "Transport disrupted – Substituting public transport by bike or car under Covid 19," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 202-217.
    2. Börjesson, Maria & Fosgerau, Mogens & Algers, Staffan, 2012. "Catching the tail: Empirical identification of the distribution of the value of travel time," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 378-391.
    3. Xiaomeng Shi & Zhirui Ye & Nirajan Shiwakoti & Huaxin Li, 2019. "Passengers’ Perceptions of Security Check in Metro Stations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, May.
    4. Fan, Shiqi & Yang, Zaili, 2022. "Safety and security co-analysis in transport systems: Current state and regulatory development," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 369-388.
    5. Chen, Tiantian & Fu, Xiaowen & Hensher, David A. & Li, Zhi-Chun & Sze, N.N., 2022. "The effect of online meeting and health screening on business travel: A stated preference case study in Hong Kong," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    6. Urciuoli, Luca, 2016. "What are the causes of transport insecurity? Results from a survey with transport operators," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 189-202.
    7. Enoch F. SAM & Albert M. ABANE, 2017. "Enhancing Passenger Safety And Security In Ghana: Appraising Public Transport Operators’ Recent Interventions," Management Research and Practice, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 9(3), pages 62-75, September.
    8. Elias, Wafa & Albert, Gila & Shiftan, Yoram, 2013. "Travel behavior in the face of surface transportation terror threats," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 114-122.
    9. Patil, Sunil & Patruni, Bhanu & Potoglou, Dimitris & Robinson, Neil, 2016. "Public preference for data privacy – A pan-European study on metro/train surveillance," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 145-161.
    10. Andrew Daly & Stephane Hess & Bhanu Patruni & Dimitris Potoglou & Charlene Rohr, 2012. "Using ordered attitudinal indicators in a latent variable choice model: a study of the impact of security on rail travel behaviour," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 267-297, March.
    11. Christina Milioti & Konstantinos Kepaptsoglou & Alexandros Deloukas & Gerasimos Prodromitis & Christina Iliopoulou, 2019. "Modeling traveler recovery time following man-made incidents: the case of the Athens metro," Journal of Transportation Security, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 103-117, December.

    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. Kesternich, Iris & Heiss, Florian & McFadden, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2013. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1313-1324.
    2. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    3. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," DEOS Working Papers 0801, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    4. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    5. Steiner, Bodo E. & Srivastava, Lorie & Gao, Fei, 2007. "Assessing the Consumer Acceptance and Market Potential of Alternative Meats," Project Report Series 7708, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    6. Glenn W. Harrison, 2014. "Real choices and hypothetical choices," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 10, pages 236-254, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Zhai, Guofang & Suzuki, Takeshi, 2008. "Public willingness to pay for environmental management, risk reduction and economic development: Evidence from Tianjin, China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 551-566, December.
    8. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    9. Asgary, Ali & Rezvani, Mohammad Reza & Mehregan, Nader, 2011. "Local Residents’ Preferences for Second Home Tourism Development Policies: A Choice Experiment nalysis," MPRA Paper 29703, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Patil, Sunil & Patruni, Bhanu & Potoglou, Dimitris & Robinson, Neil, 2016. "Public preference for data privacy – A pan-European study on metro/train surveillance," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 145-161.
    11. Shin, Jin-ho & Lyu, Seong Ok, 2019. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate spectators’ willingness to pay for professional baseball park sportscape," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 502-512.
    12. Lyu, Seong Ok, 2017. "Which accessible travel products are people with disabilities willing to pay more? A choice experiment," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 404-412.
    13. B. Douglas Bernheim & Daniel Bjorkegren & Jeffrey Naecker & Antonio Rangel, 2013. "Non-Choice Evaluations Predict Behavioral Responses to Changes in Economic Conditions," NBER Working Papers 19269, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    15. Tin Cheuk Leung, 2013. "What Is the True Loss Due to Piracy? Evidence from Microsoft Office in Hong Kong," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 1018-1029, July.
    16. Richard A. Hofler & John A. List, 2004. "Valuation on the Frontier: Calibrating Actual and Hypothetical Statements of Value," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 213-221.
    17. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    18. Bodo Herzog, 2018. "Valuation of Digital Platforms: Experimental Evidence for Google and Facebook," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13, October.
    19. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    20. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).

    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:transa:v:44:y:2010:i:3:p:169-181. 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: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    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.