Optimizing the implementation of policy measures through social acceptance segmentation
AbstractThis paper proposes Q-methodology as a technique for the identification of more homogeneous subgroups or ‘segments’ within a rather heterogeneous overall population when it comes to social acceptance of demand-restricting policy measures. Identification of such segments would allow policy makers to better tailor their future actions and thereby increase the chance for a successful implementation of the measures they propose. A set of 33 persons, selected in function of age, gender and car ownership evaluated the acceptability of a total number of 42 demand-restricting policy measures. Special care was taken that the final set of statements covered the four classically distinguished demand-restricting strategies, i.e., improved transport options, incentives for the use of alternative transport modes, parking and land-use management, and institutional policy revision. In addition, a balance between both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ and ‘push’ and ‘pull’ measures was strived for. The results indicate that four different segments in terms of social acceptance of demand-restricting policy measures can be distinguished, i.e., travelers in favor of traffic calming, travelers against hard push measures, travelers in favor of demand restriction, and travelers against policy innovations. Besides the differences and similarities between these segments, the practical implications for policy makers are discussed, together with a series of specific recommendations and suggestions for future research.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Transport Policy.
Volume (Year): 22 (2012)
Issue (Month): C ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.