IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v25y2017icp11-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do familiarity and awareness influence voting intention: The case of road pricing reform?

Author

Listed:
  • Balbontin, Camila
  • Hensher, David A.
  • Collins, Andrew T.

Abstract

The choices that individuals make are influenced by the attributes defining alternatives from which to choose as well as their socioeconomic characteristics and beliefs. The literature on choice modelling which informs the decision making process implicitly assumes that individuals are both aware of and familiar with the alternatives being assessed. As far as we are aware, there is limited experience of the role that familiarity and awareness play in conditioning the choice behaviour of individuals. This paper investigates the role of awareness and familiarity in a context of growing interest, namely road pricing reform. Specifically, we analyse how the level of familiarity with the road pricing debate and the awareness of what road pricing means might influence the preferences of individuals for cordon-based and distance-based charging regimes, in contrast to the status quo. Familiarity and awareness are introduced into a choice model that allows for risk attitude, source preference and perceptual conditioning from the attribute level’s variation over repeated occurrences, as well as the perceived acceptability of the proposed scenarios. The data was collected in Sydney using a survey that contrasted the current road pricing situation with cordon-based and distance-based charging regimes. The model structure considers familiarity and awareness as endogenous variables. The final model identifies statistically significant roles for user charging fees and how revenue raised is to be spent. The endogenous consideration of awareness and familiarity together with risk attitude and perceptual conditioning through beliefs, provide significant information in improving our understanding of how individuals respond through preference revelation to a number of road pricing reforms.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:25:y:2017:i:c:p:11-27
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2017.01.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175553451730012X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2017.01.005?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. Kim, Junghwa & Schmöcker, Jan-Dirk & Fujii, Satoshi & Noland, Robert B., 2013. "Attitudes towards road pricing and environmental taxation among US and UK students," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 50-62.
    3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    4. Steffen Andersen & Glenn Harrison & Arne Hole & Morten Lau & E. Rutström, 2012. "Non-linear mixed logit," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 77-96, July.
    5. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-333, March.
    6. George Wu & Richard Gonzalez, 1999. "Nonlinear Decision Weights in Choice Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(1), pages 74-85, January.
    7. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    8. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Camerer, Colin F & Ho, Teck-Hua, 1994. "Violations of the Betweenness Axiom and Nonlinearity in Probability," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 167-196, March.
    10. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    11. 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.
    12. Kenneth Button & Erik Verhoef (ed.), 1998. "Road Pricing, Traffic Congestion and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 940.
    13. Hensher, David A. & Greene, William H. & Li, Zheng, 2011. "Embedding risk attitude and decision weights in non-linear logit to accommodate time variability in the value of expected travel time savings," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 954-972, August.
    14. 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.
    15. Craig R. Fox & Amos Tversky, 1998. "A Belief-Based Account of Decision Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(7), pages 879-895, July.
    16. L. Eeckhoudt & C. Gollier & H. Schlesinger, 2005. "Economic and financial decisions under risk," Post-Print hal-00325882, HAL.
    17. Heath, Chip & Tversky, Amos, 1991. "Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-28, January.
    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. 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.
    2. Muhamad Rizki & Muhammad Zudhy Irawan & Puspita Dirgahayani & Prawira Fajarindra Belgiawan & Retno Wihanesta, 2022. "Low Emission Zone (LEZ) Expansion in Jakarta: Acceptability and Restriction Preference," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-22, September.
    3. Sen, Suman & Charles, Michael B. & Harrison, Jennifer L., 2022. "Usage-based road pricing and potential equity issues: A study of commuters in South East Queensland, Australia," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 33-43.
    4. 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.

    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. Balbontin, Camila & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2017. "Integrating attribute non-attendance and value learning with risk attitudes and perceptual conditioning," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 172-191.
    2. José Lara Resende & George Wu, 2010. "Competence effects for choices involving gains and losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 109-132, April.
    3. Fox, Craig R. & Weber, Martin, 2002. "Ambiguity Aversion, Comparative Ignorance, and Decision Context," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 476-498, May.
    4. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    5. Ilke Aydogan & Yu Gao, 2020. "Experience and rationality under risk: re-examining the impact of sampling experience," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1100-1128, December.
    6. Enrico Diecidue & Peter Wakker & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 179-199, June.
    7. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    8. Gul, Faruk & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 2015. "Hurwicz expected utility and subjective sources," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 465-488.
    9. Bouchouicha, Ranoua & Martinsson, Peter & Medhin, Haileselassie & Vieider, Ferdinand M., 2017. "Stake effects on ambiguity attitudes for gains and losses," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 83(1), pages 19-35.
    10. Olivier L’Haridon & Lætitia Placido, 2010. "Betting on Machina’s reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 375-393, September.
    11. Laure Cabantous & Denis Hilton, 2006. "De l'aversion à l'ambiguïté aux attitudes face à l'ambiguïté. Les apports d'une perspective psychologique en économie," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 57(2), pages 259-280.
    12. Michael Kilka & Martin Weber, 2001. "What Determines the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function Under Uncertainty?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(12), pages 1712-1726, December.
    13. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Umut Keskin & Olivier l’Haridon & Chen Li, 2018. "The Effect of Learning on Ambiguity Attitudes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2181-2198, May.
    14. Gijs van de Kuilen & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Midweight Method to Measure Attitudes Toward Risk and Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 582-598, March.
    15. Albert Burgos, 2004. "Guessing and gambling," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(4), pages 1-10.
    16. Azevedo, Eduardo M. & Gottlieb, Daniel, 2012. "Risk-neutral firms can extract unbounded profits from consumers with prospect theory preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(3), pages 1291-1299.
    17. Yan Li & David Ahlstrom, 2020. "Risk-taking in entrepreneurial decision-making: A dynamic model of venture decision," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 899-933, September.
    18. Andrew M. Davis & Elena Katok & Anthony M. Kwasnica, 2011. "Do Auctioneers Pick Optimal Reserve Prices?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 177-192, January.
    19. Stephen G. Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Peter P. Wakker, 2016. "Ambiguity Attitudes in a Large Representative Sample," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1363-1380, May.
    20. André Palma & Mohammed Abdellaoui & Giuseppe Attanasi & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Ido Erev & Helga Fehr-Duda & Dennis Fok & Craig Fox & Ralph Hertwig & Nathalie Picard & Peter Wakker & Joan Walker & Martin We, 2014. "Beware of black swans: Taking stock of the description–experience gap in decision under uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 269-280, September.

    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:eejocm:v:25:y:2017:i:c:p:11-27. 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.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    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.