IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v146y2021icp29-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who are less likely to vote for a low emission charging zone? Attitudes and adoption of hybrid and electric vehicles

Author

Listed:
  • Mehdizadeh, Milad
  • Shariat-Mohaymany, Afshin

Abstract

Based on data derived from a self-reported questionnaire survey (n = 595), the current study was carried out to (a) determine the extent to which residents support a Low Emission Charging Zone (LECZ) via a hypothetical referendum voting, (b) examine the relationship between intention to adopt Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (HEVs) by voting for/against LECZ through employing the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), and (c) investigate public attitudes towards the proposed system. The results indicated that around two-thirds of the participants voted against the LECZ scheme, and that latent psychological factors had a stronger impact on voting against the LECZ than observed variables. The results also revealed that people would be more likely to adopt and less likely to oppose the LECZ if the price, maintenance, and repair of HEVs were affordable. Regarding public attitudes towards the proposed system, distrust in government concerning the use of LECZ-derived revenues was noticeably related to the LECZ rejection. In the light of the findings, some policy and planning implications are recommended.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:146:y:2021:i:c:p:29-43
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2021.02.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096585642100029X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2021.02.001?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Börjesson, Maria & Kristoffersson, Ida, 2018. "The Swedish congestion charges: Ten years on," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 35-51.
    4. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    6. Shanyong Wang & Jin Fan & Dingtao Zhao & Shu Yang & Yuanguang Fu, 2016. "Predicting consumers’ intention to adopt hybrid electric vehicles: using an extended version of the theory of planned behavior model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 123-143, January.
    7. Geertje Schuitema & Barry Ubbels & Linda Steg & Erik Verhoef, 2008. "Car Users’ Acceptability of a Kilometre Charge," Chapters, in: Erik Verhoef & Michiel C.J. Bliemer & Linda Steg & Bert van Wee (ed.), Pricing in Road Transport, chapter 11, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Erik Verhoef & Michiel C.J. Bliemer & Linda Steg & Bert van Wee (ed.), 2008. "Pricing in Road Transport," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4192.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Mehdizadeh, Milad & Zavareh, Mohsen Fallah & Nordfjaern, Trond, 2019. "Mono- and multimodal green transport use on university trips during winter and summer: Hybrid choice models on the norm-activation theory," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 317-332.
    12. Cools, Mario & Brijs, Kris & Tormans, Hans & Moons, Elke & Janssens, Davy & Wets, Geert, 2011. "The socio-cognitive links between road pricing acceptability and changes in travel-behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 779-788, October.
    13. Khalid Alzahrani & Adrienne Hall-Phillips & Amy Z. Zeng, 2019. "Applying the theory of reasoned action to understanding consumers’ intention to adopt hybrid electric vehicles in Saudi Arabia," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 199-215, February.
    14. S. Jaensirisak & M. Wardman & A. D. May, 2005. "Explaining Variations in Public Acceptability of Road Pricing Schemes," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 39(2), pages 127-154, May.
    15. 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.
    16. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & McFadden, Daniel & Train, Kenneth & Börsch-Supan, Axel, 2002. "Hybrid Choice Models: Progress and Challenges," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 02-29, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    17. Shanyong Wang & Jin Fan & Dingtao Zhao & Shu Yang & Yuanguang Fu, 2016. "Predicting consumers’ intention to adopt hybrid electric vehicles: using an extended version of the theory of planned behavior model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 123-143, January.
    18. Hysing, Erik, 2015. "Citizen participation or representative government – Building legitimacy for the Gothenburg congestion tax," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-8.
    19. 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.
    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. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Zheng, Zuduo & Liu, Zhiyuan & Liu, Chuanli & Shiwakoti, Nirajan, 2014. "Understanding public response to a congestion charge: A random-effects ordered logit approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 117-134.
    5. 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.
    6. Enam, Annesha & Konduri, Karthik C. & Pinjari, Abdul R. & Eluru, Naveen, 2018. "An integrated choice and latent variable model for multiple discrete continuous choice kernels: Application exploring the association between day level moods and discretionary activity engagement choi," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 80-100.
    7. Jaiswal, Deepak & Deshmukh, Arun Kumar & Thaichon, Park, 2022. "Who will adopt electric vehicles? Segmenting and exemplifying potential buyer heterogeneity and forthcoming research," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    8. Krabbenborg, Lizet & van Langevelde-van Bergen, Chris & Molin, Eric, 2021. "Public support for tradable peak credit schemes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 243-259.
    9. Chun-Hsi Vivian Chen & Yu-Cheng Chen, 2021. "Assessment of Enhancing Employee Engagement in Energy-Saving Behavior at Workplace: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-18, February.
    10. Yu Wang & Shanyong Wang & Jing Wang & Jiuchang Wei & Chenglin Wang, 2020. "An empirical study of consumers’ intention to use ride-sharing services: using an extended technology acceptance model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 397-415, February.
    11. Wei Zheng & Hongliang Qiu & Alastair M. Morrison, 2023. "Applying a Combination of SEM and fsQCA to Predict Tourist Resource-Saving Behavioral Intentions in Rural Tourism: An Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-23, January.
    12. Tuğba Yeğin & Muhammad Ikram, 2022. "Analysis of Consumers’ Electric Vehicle Purchase Intentions: An Expansion of the Theory of Planned Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-27, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Muhammad Yaseen Bhutto & Yasir Ali Soomro & Hailan Yang, 2022. "Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior: Predicting Young Consumer Purchase Behavior of Energy-Efficient Appliances (Evidence From Developing Economy)," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, February.
    15. Long, Xingle & Chen, Yaqiong & Du, Jianguo & Oh, Keunyeob & Han, Insoo, 2017. "Environmental innovation and its impact on economic and environmental performance: Evidence from Korean-owned firms in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 131-137.
    16. Jinkyung Jenny Kim & Heesup Han, 2022. "Hotel Service Innovation with Smart Technologies: Exploring Consumers’ Readiness and Behaviors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-15, May.
    17. Chien-Chi Lin & Chih-Ming Dong, 2023. "Exploring Consumers’ Purchase Intention on Energy-Efficient Home Appliances: Integrating the Theory of Planned Behavior, Perceived Value Theory, and Environmental Awareness," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-16, March.
    18. Chuanhui Liao & Hui Li, 2019. "Environmental Education, Knowledge, and High School Students’ Intention toward Separation of Solid Waste on Campus," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-15, May.
    19. Andriosopoulos, Kostas & Bigerna, Simona & Bollino, Carlo Andrea & Micheli, Silvia, 2018. "The impact of age on Italian consumers' attitude toward alternative fuel vehicles," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 299-308.
    20. Secinaro, Silvana & Calandra, Davide & Lanzalonga, Federico & Ferraris, Alberto, 2022. "Electric vehicles’ consumer behaviours: Mapping the field and providing a research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 399-416.

    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:146:y:2021:i:c:p:29-43. 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.