IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i14p3991-d250934.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinants of Public Acceptance for Traffic-Reducing Policies to Improve Urban Air Quality

Author

Listed:
  • Seán Schmitz

    (Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Berliner Straße 130, Potsdam 14467, Germany)

  • Sophia Becker

    (Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Berliner Straße 130, Potsdam 14467, Germany)

  • Laura Weiand

    (Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Berliner Straße 130, Potsdam 14467, Germany)

  • Norman Niehoff

    (Department of Urban Planning, Urban Renewal, and Traffic Development, City Administration of Potsdam, Potsdam 14467, Germany)

  • Frank Schwartzbach

    (Department of Urban Planning, Urban Renewal, and Traffic Development, City Administration of Potsdam, Potsdam 14467, Germany)

  • Erika von Schneidemesser

    (Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Berliner Straße 130, Potsdam 14467, Germany)

Abstract

Air pollution remains a problem in German cities. In particular, the nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) annual limit-value set by the European Union of 40 µg/m 3 was not met at ~40% of roadside monitoring stations across German cities in 2018. In response to this issue, many cities are experimenting with various traffic-reducing measures targeting diesel passenger vehicles so as to reduce emissions of NO 2 and improve air quality. Identifying the determinants of public acceptance for these measures using a systematic approach can help inform policy-makers in other German cities. Survey data generated from a questionnaire in Potsdam, Germany, were used in predictive models to quantify support for investments in traffic-reducing measures generally and to quantify support for a specific traffic-reducing measure implemented in Potsdam in 2017. This exploratory analysis found that general support for investments in such measures was most strongly predicted by environmental and air pollution perception variables, whereas specific support for the actual traffic measure was most strongly predicted by mobility habits and preferences. With such measures becoming more common in German cities and across Europe, these results exemplify the complexity of factors influencing public acceptance of traffic-reducing policies, highlight the contrasting roles environmental beliefs and mobility habits play in determining support for such measures, and emphasize the connections between mobility, air pollution, and human health.

Suggested Citation

  • Seán Schmitz & Sophia Becker & Laura Weiand & Norman Niehoff & Frank Schwartzbach & Erika von Schneidemesser, 2019. "Determinants of Public Acceptance for Traffic-Reducing Policies to Improve Urban Air Quality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-16, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:14:p:3991-:d:250934
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/14/3991/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/14/3991/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nilsson, Andreas & Hansla, André & Heiling, Joakim Malmborg & Bergstad, Cecilia Jakobsson & Martinsson, Johan, 2016. "Public acceptability towards environmental policy measures: Value-matching appeals," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 176-184.
    2. Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas & Hamilton, Carl, 2016. "Why experience changes attitudes to congestion pricing: The case of Gothenburg," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 1-16.
    3. Francesco Russo & Antonio Comi, 2016. "Urban Freight Transport Planning towards Green Goals: Synthetic Environmental Evidence from Tested Results," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Buehler, Ralph, 2011. "Determinants of transport mode choice: a comparison of Germany and the USA," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 644-657.
    5. Ünal, Ayça Berfu & Steg, Linda & Granskaya, Juliana, 2019. "“To support or not to support, that is the question”. Testing the VBN theory in predicting support for car use reduction policies inRussia," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 73-81.
    6. Jakobsson, C. & Fujii, S. & Gärling, T., 2000. "Determinants of private car users' acceptance of road pricing," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 153-158, April.
    7. Jesús García & Rosa Arroyo & Lidón Mars & Tomás Ruiz, 2019. "The Influence of Attitudes towards Cycling and Walking on Travel Intentions and Actual Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, May.
    8. Varvara Nikulina & David Simon & Henrik Ny & Henrikke Baumann, 2019. "Context-Adapted Urban Planning for Rapid Transitioning of Personal Mobility towards Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-37, February.
    9. Josse, Julie & Husson, François, 2016. "missMDA: A Package for Handling Missing Values in Multivariate Data Analysis," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 70(i01).
    10. Börjesson, Maria & Hamilton, Carl J. & Näsman, Per & Papaix, Claire, 2015. "Factors driving public support for road congestion reduction policies: Congestion charging, free public transport and more roads in Stockholm, Helsinki and Lyon," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 452-462.
    11. Kallbekken, Steffen & Garcia, Jorge H. & Korneliussen, Kristine, 2013. "Determinants of public support for transport taxes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 67-78.
    12. Friedman, Jerome H. & Hastie, Trevor & Tibshirani, Rob, 2010. "Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 33(i01).
    13. Kottenhoff, Karl & Brundell Freij, Karin, 2009. "The role of public transport for feasibility and acceptability of congestion charging - The case of Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 297-305, March.
    14. Schuitema, Geertje & Steg, Linda & Forward, Sonja, 2010. "Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 99-109, February.
    15. Poortinga, Wouter & Steg, Linda & Vlek, Charles & Wiersma, Gerwin, 2003. "Household preferences for energy-saving measures: A conjoint analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 49-64, February.
    16. Kallbekken, Steffen & Sælen, Håkon, 2011. "Public acceptance for environmental taxes: Self-interest, environmental and distributional concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2966-2973, May.
    17. Julie Josse & Marie Chavent & Benot Liquet & François Husson, 2012. "Handling Missing Values with Regularized Iterative Multiple Correspondence Analysis," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 29(1), pages 91-116, April.
    18. Eriksson, Louise & Garvill, Jörgen & Nordlund, Annika M., 2008. "Acceptability of single and combined transport policy measures: The importance of environmental and policy specific beliefs," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 42(8), pages 1117-1128, October.
    19. Cherry, Todd L. & Kallbekken, Steffen & Kroll, Stephan, 2014. "The impact of trial runs on the acceptability of environmental taxes: Experimental evidence," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 84-95.
    20. Dieplinger, Maria & Fürst, Elmar, 2014. "The acceptability of road pricing: Evidence from two studies in Vienna and four other European cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 10-18.
    21. Hui Zou & Trevor Hastie, 2005. "Addendum: Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 67(5), pages 768-768, November.
    22. Hui Zou & Trevor Hastie, 2005. "Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 67(2), pages 301-320, April.
    23. Sørensen, Claus Hedegaard & Isaksson, Karolina & Macmillen, James & Åkerman, Jonas & Kressler, Florian, 2014. "Strategies to manage barriers in policy formation and implementation of road pricing packages," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 40-52.
    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. Joanna Badach & Małgorzata Dymnicka & Jarosław Załęcki & Maciej Brosz & Dimitri Voordeckers & Maarten Van Acker, 2021. "Exploring the Institutional and Bottom-Up Actions for Urban Air Quality Improvement: Case Studies in Antwerp and Gdańsk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Rodríguez, Andrés & Cordera, Rubén & Alonso, Borja & dell'Olio, Luigi & Benavente, Juan, 2022. "Microsimulation parking choice and search model to assess dynamic pricing scenarios," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 253-269.
    3. Xue Wang & Suwei Feng & Tianyi Tang, 2023. "Acceptability toward Policy Mix: Impact of Low-Carbon Travel Intention, Fairness, and Effectiveness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-22, October.
    4. Leibao Zhang & Liming Sheng & Wenyu Zhang & Shuai Zhang, 2020. "Do Personal Norms Predict Citizens’ Acceptance of Green Transport Policies in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-16, June.
    5. Ilaria Pigliautile & Guido Marseglia & Anna Laura Pisello, 2020. "Investigation of CO 2 Variation and Mapping Through Wearable Sensing Techniques for Measuring Pedestrians’ Exposure in Urban Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-14, May.
    6. Mihai Machedon-Pisu & Paul Nicolae Borza, 2023. "Is the Transition to Electric Passenger Cars Sustainable? A Life Cycle Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-22, February.

    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. Emma Ejelöv & Andreas Nilsson, 2020. "Individual Factors Influencing Acceptability for Environmental Policies: A Review and Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-14, March.
    2. Romero, Fernando & Gomez, Juan & Paez, Antonio & Vassallo, José Manuel, 2020. "Toll roads vs. Public transportation: A study on the acceptance of congestion-calming measures in Madrid," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 319-342.
    3. Boggio, Margherita & Beria, Paolo, 2019. "The role of transport supply in the acceptability of pollution charge extension. The case of Milan," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 92-106.
    4. Jain, Nikunj Kumar & Kaushik, Kapil & Choudhary, Piyush, 2021. "Sustainable perspectives on transportation: Public perception towards odd-even restrictive driving policy in Delhi, India," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 99-108.
    5. Kallbekken, Steffen & Garcia, Jorge H. & Korneliussen, Kristine, 2013. "Determinants of public support for transport taxes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 67-78.
    6. Milenković, Marina & Glavić, Draženko & Maričić, Milica, 2019. "Determining factors affecting congestion pricing acceptability," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 58-74.
    7. Kerstin Westin & Annika Nordlund & Johan Jansson & Jonas Nilsson, 2020. "Goal Framing as a Tool for Changing People’s Car Travel Behavior in Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-18, May.
    8. Nordlund, A. & Jansson, J. & Westin, K., 2018. "Acceptability of electric vehicle aimed measures: Effects of norm activation, perceived justice and effectiveness," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 205-213.
    9. Niklas Harring & Sverker C. Jagers & Simon Matti, 2017. "Public Support for Pro-Environmental Policy Measures: Examining the Impact of Personal Values and Ideology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-14, April.
    10. 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).
    11. Moeinaddini, Amin & Habibian, Meeghat, 2023. "Transportation demand management policy efficiency: An attempt to address the effectiveness and acceptability of policy packages," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 317-330.
    12. Mehdizadeh, Milad & Shariat-Mohaymany, Afshin, 2020. "Who are more likely to break the rule of congestion charging? Evidence from an active scheme with no referendum voting," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 63-79.
    13. 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.
    14. Tutz, Gerhard & Pößnecker, Wolfgang & Uhlmann, Lorenz, 2015. "Variable selection in general multinomial logit models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 207-222.
    15. Mkhadri, Abdallah & Ouhourane, Mohamed, 2013. "An extended variable inclusion and shrinkage algorithm for correlated variables," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 631-644.
    16. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini & Linda Tesauro, 2021. "Designing Effective and Acceptable Road Pricing Schemes: Evidence from the Geneva Congestion Charge," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 417-482, July.
    17. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens & Stefan Wager, 2018. "Approximate residual balancing: debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 80(4), pages 597-623, September.
    18. Christopher J Greenwood & George J Youssef & Primrose Letcher & Jacqui A Macdonald & Lauryn J Hagg & Ann Sanson & Jenn Mcintosh & Delyse M Hutchinson & John W Toumbourou & Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz &, 2020. "A comparison of penalised regression methods for informing the selection of predictive markers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.
    19. Immanuel Bayer & Philip Groth & Sebastian Schneckener, 2013. "Prediction Errors in Learning Drug Response from Gene Expression Data – Influence of Labeling, Sample Size, and Machine Learning Algorithm," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-13, July.
    20. Mostafa Rezaei & Ivor Cribben & Michele Samorani, 2021. "A clustering-based feature selection method for automatically generated relational attributes," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 303(1), pages 233-263, August.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:14:p:3991-:d:250934. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.