IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/transp/v40y2013i5p935-959.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the relationship between perceived acceptability and referendum voting support for alternative road pricing schemes

Author

Listed:
  • David Hensher

Abstract

A dominant theme in the debate on road pricing (RP) reform is securing buy in from all key stakeholders as a pre-condition for gaining support from politicians. This paper explores the key influences and the extent to which particular RP schemes are acceptable to the community at large, and how this translates into support if a scheme were subject to a vote in a referendum. Using data collected in Sydney in 2012 from a sample of car users, we estimate a recursive simultaneous bivariate probit model that recognises the endogeneity effect of scheme acceptability on voting plans. We find that there is a very strong link between voting intentions and scheme acceptability, and provide a series of direct elasticity estimates of the influence that the cost elements of RP reform schemes have on the joint probability of accepting and voting for a scheme. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Suggested Citation

  • David Hensher, 2013. "Exploring the relationship between perceived acceptability and referendum voting support for alternative road pricing schemes," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 935-959, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:40:y:2013:i:5:p:935-959
    DOI: 10.1007/s11116-013-9459-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11116-013-9459-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11116-013-9459-4?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
    ---><---

    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. Ubbels, Barry & Verhoef, Erik, 2006. "Acceptability of road pricing and revenue use in the Netherlands," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 32, pages 69-94.
    2. Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), 2013. "Choice Modelling," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15006.
    3. Rose, John M. & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2008. "Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 395-406, May.
    4. Eliasson, Jonas & Hultkrantz, Lars & Nerhagen, Lena & Rosqvist, Lena Smidfelt, 2009. "The Stockholm congestion - charging trial 2006: Overview of effects," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 240-250, March.
    5. Schade, Jens & Schlag, Bernhard, 2000. "Acceptability of Urban Transport Pricing," Research Reports 72, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    6. Small, Kenneth A., 1992. "Using the Revenues from Congestion Pricing," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt32p9m3mm, University of California Transportation Center.
    7. Kenneth Button & Erik Verhoef (ed.), 1998. "Road Pricing, Traffic Congestion and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 940.
    8. David A. Hensher & John M. Rose & Andrew T. Collins, 2013. "Understanding Buy-in for Risky Prospects: Incorporating Degree of Belief into the ex-ante Assessment of Support for Alternative Road Pricing Schemes," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 47(3), pages 453-473, September.
    9. Hess, Stephane & Hensher, David A. & Daly, Andrew, 2012. "Not bored yet – Revisiting respondent fatigue in stated choice experiments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 626-644.
    10. Li, Zheng & Hensher, David A., 2012. "Congestion charging and car use: A review of stated preference and opinion studies and market monitoring evidence," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 47-61.
    11. Nancy J. Burnett, 1997. "Gender Economics Courses in Liberal Arts Colleges," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(4), pages 369-376, December.
    12. Jacob Nielsen Arendt & Anders Holm, 2006. "Probit Models with Binary Endogenous Regressors," CAM Working Papers 2006-06, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. Centre for Applied Microeconometrics.
    13. King, David & Manville, Michael & Shoup, Donald, 2007. "The political calculus of congestion pricing," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt9js9z8gz, University of California Transportation Center.
    14. Schade, J. & Baum, M., 2007. "Reactance or acceptance? Reactions towards the introduction of road pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 41-48, January.
    15. King, David & Manville, Michael & Shoup, Donald, 2007. "The political calculus of congestion pricing," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 111-123, March.
    16. David A. Hensher, 2006. "How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 861-878.
    17. Hensher, David A. & Li, Zheng, 2013. "Referendum voting in road pricing reform: A review of the evidence," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 186-197.
    18. David Hensher & Corinne Mulley, 2014. "Complementing distance based charges with discounted registration fees in the reform of road user charges: the impact for motorists and government revenue," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 697-715, July.
    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. Sugiarto, Sugiarto & Miwa, Tomio & Morikawa, Takayuki, 2017. "Inclusion of latent constructs in utilitarian resource allocation model for analyzing revenue spending options in congestion charging policy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 36-53.
    2. Tariq Munir & Hussein Dia & Hadi Ghaderi, 2021. "A Systematic Review of the Role of Road Network Pricing in Shaping Sustainable Cities: Lessons Learned and Opportunities for a Post-Pandemic World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-20, October.
    3. Balbontin, Camila & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2017. "Do familiarity and awareness influence voting intention: The case of road pricing reform?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 11-27.
    4. Mehdizadeh, Milad & Shariat-Mohaymany, Afshin, 2021. "Who are less likely to vote for a low emission charging zone? Attitudes and adoption of hybrid and electric vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 29-43.
    5. Grisolía, José M. & López, Francisco & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2015. "Increasing the acceptability of a congestion charging scheme," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 37-47.
    6. Zhang, Yiyuan & Luo, Xia & Qiu, Yuansen & Fu, Yuxue, 2022. "Understanding the generation mechanism of BEV drivers' charging demand: An exploration of the relationship between charging choice and complexity of trip chaining patterns," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 110-126.
    7. Ramos, Raúl & Cantillo, Víctor & Arellana, Julián & Sarmiento, Iván, 2017. "From restricting the use of cars by license plate numbers to congestion charging: Analysis for Medellin, Colombia," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 119-130.

    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. 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.
    2. David Hensher & Corinne Mulley, 2014. "Complementing distance based charges with discounted registration fees in the reform of road user charges: the impact for motorists and government revenue," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 697-715, July.
    3. Hensher, David A. & Bliemer, Michiel C.J., 2014. "What type of road pricing scheme might appeal to politicians? Viewpoints on the challenge in gaining the citizen and public servant vote by staging reform," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 227-237.
    4. 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.
    5. Mohamad Shatanawi & Fatma Abdelkhalek & Ferenc Mészáros, 2020. "Urban Congestion Charging Acceptability: An International Comparative Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-15, June.
    6. De Borger, Bruno & Proost, Stef, 2012. "A political economy model of road pricing," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 79-92.
    7. Li, Xun & Rey, David & Dixit, Vinayak V., 2018. "An axiomatic characterization of fairness in transport networks: Application to road pricing and spatial equity," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 142-157.
    8. Glavic, Drazenko & Milos, Mladenovic & Luttinen, Tapio & Cicevic, Svetlana & Trifunovic, Aleksandar, 2017. "Road to price: User perspectives on road pricing in transition country," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 79-94.
    9. 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.
    10. Vonk Noordegraaf, Diana & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2014. "Policy implementation lessons from six road pricing cases," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 172-191.
    11. Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Bascuñán, Raúl & Rizzi, Luis Ignacio & Salata, Andrés, 2021. "Assessing the potential acceptability of road pricing in Santiago," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 153-169.
    12. Hensher, David A. & Li, Zheng, 2013. "Referendum voting in road pricing reform: A review of the evidence," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 186-197.
    13. Yacan Wang & Yu Wang & Luyao Xie & Huiyu Zhou, 2018. "Impact of Perceived Uncertainty on Public Acceptability of Congestion Charging: An Empirical Study in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, December.
    14. Mohamad Shatanawi & Mohammed Hajouj & Belal Edries & Ferenc Mészáros, 2022. "The Interrelationship between Road Pricing Acceptability and Self-Driving Vehicle Adoption: Insights from Four Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-32, October.
    15. Cipriani, Ernesto & Mannini, Livia & Montemarani, Barbara & Nigro, Marialisa & Petrelli, Marco, 2019. "Congestion pricing policies: Design and assessment for the city of Rome, Italy," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 127-135.
    16. Koh, Wee Ping & Chin, Kian Keong, 2022. "The applicability of prospect theory in examining drivers’ trip decisions, in response to Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) rates adjustments - a study using travel data in Singapore," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 115-127.
    17. Grisolía, José M. & López, Francisco & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2015. "Increasing the acceptability of a congestion charging scheme," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 37-47.
    18. Mirabel, François & Reymond, Mathias, 2011. "Bottleneck congestion pricing and modal split: Redistribution of toll revenue," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 18-30, January.
    19. Eliasson, Jonas & Jonsson, Lina, 2011. "The unexpected "yes": Explanatory factors behind the positive attitudes to congestion charges in Stockholm," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 636-647, August.
    20. Krabbenborg, Lizet & Molin, Eric & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2020. "Public frames in the road pricing debate: A Q-methodology study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 46-53.

    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:kap:transp:v:40:y:2013:i:5:p:935-959. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.