IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v204y2026ics0965856425004410.html

Assessing acceptability of push-pull TDM policy packages: Integrating objective and subjective factors via hybrid choice modeling

Author

Listed:
  • Moeinaddini, Amin
  • Habibian, Meeghat
  • Zou, Yajie
  • Zhang, Tianren
  • Li, Linbo

Abstract

The acceptability of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policies significantly impacts their feasibility of implementation in cities. Even if pricing TDM policies (e.g., cordon and parking pricing) effectively reduces private car usage, they will not be adopted unless deemed sufficiently acceptable by citizens. The acceptability of TDM can be influenced by both objective factors (e.g., socio-economic characteristics, trip attributes, and policy levels) and subjective factors (e.g., perceived fairness, freedom, and effectiveness of a policy). A core aim of this study is to assess these effects on policy acceptability simultaneously. In this study, the acceptability of a package of three policies—cordon pricing, parking pricing, and improved public transit access time—was evaluated using face-to-face interview responses from the Central Business District (CBD) of a megacity. An integrated Hybrid Choice Model (HCM) was employed, incorporating latent variables including perceived fairness, freedom, policy effectiveness, and policy acceptability. Results indicate that cordon pricing is the most influential factor in the acceptability of policy packages, and using the pull policy of transit development can enhance the acceptability of both push policies, including cordon and parking pricing. The results of this study show that having a pro-environmental attitude and concern about transportation comfort significantly has an indirect effect on the acceptability of TDM policy packages. Other variables, such as workplace parking access and household car/house values, significantly increase the acceptability of policy packages, while motorcycle ownership reduces it.

Suggested Citation

  • Moeinaddini, Amin & Habibian, Meeghat & Zou, Yajie & Zhang, Tianren & Li, Linbo, 2026. "Assessing acceptability of push-pull TDM policy packages: Integrating objective and subjective factors via hybrid choice modeling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:204:y:2026:i:c:s0965856425004410
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2025.104808
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856425004410
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2025.104808?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas & Hugosson, Muriel B. & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2012. "The Stockholm congestion charges—5 years on. Effects, acceptability and lessons learnt," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 1-12.
    2. Björn Hårsman & John M. Quigley, 2010. "Political and public acceptability of congestion pricing: Ideology and self-interest," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 854-874.
    3. Shiftan, Yoram & Outwater, Maren L. & Zhou, Yushuang, 2008. "Transit market research using structural equation modeling and attitudinal market segmentation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 186-195, May.
    4. Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas & Hugosson, Muriel & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2012. "The Stockholm congestion charges – five years on. Effects, acceptability and lessons learnt," Working papers in Transport Economics 2012:3, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    5. Whitehead, Jake & Franklin, Joel P. & Washington, Simon, 2014. "The impact of a congestion pricing exemption on the demand for new energy efficient vehicles in Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 24-40.
    6. Vredin Johansson, Maria & Heldt, Tobias & Johansson, Per, 2006. "The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 507-525, July.
    7. Kamargianni, Maria, 2015. "Investigating next generation's cycling ridership to promote sustainable mobility in different types of cities," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 45-55.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, August.
    11. 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.
    12. Nikitas, Alexandros & Cotet, Corneliu & Vitel, Alexandra-Elena & Nikitas, Nikolaos & Prato, Carlo, 2024. "Transport stakeholders’ perceptions of Mobility-as-a-Service: A Q-study of cultural shift proponents, policy advocates and technology supporters," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    13. Margareta Friman & Katrin Lättman & Lars E. Olsson, 2020. "Public Transport Quality, Safety, and Perceived Accessibility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-14, April.
    14. Guevara, C. Angelo, 2015. "Critical assessment of five methods to correct for endogeneity in discrete-choice models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 240-254.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Norbert Mundorf & Colleen A. Redding & Andrea L. Paiva, 2018. "Sustainable Transportation Attitudes and Health Behavior Change: Evaluation of a Brief Stage-Targeted Video Intervention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-11, January.
    18. Zeng, Jingjing & Li, Zheng & Hensher, David A., 2025. "Travel decision making under uncertainty and road traffic behavior: The multifold role of ambiguity attitude," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    19. Annina Thaller & Eva Fleiß & Hilmar Brohmer & Daniel Köstenbaumer & Alfred Posch & Ursula Athenstaedt, 2023. "When perceived fairness and acceptance go hand in hand–Drivers of regulatory and economic policies for low-carbon mobility," PLOS Climate, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(5), pages 1-12, May.
    20. Schaller, Bruce, 2010. "New York City's congestion pricing experience and implications for road pricing acceptance in the United States," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 266-273, August.
    21. Tao, Xuezong & Zhu, Lichao, 2020. "Meta-analysis of value of time in freight transportation: A comprehensive review based on discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 213-233.
    22. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    23. Khalilikhah, Majid & Habibian, Meeghat & Heaslip, Kevin, 2016. "Acceptability of increasing petrol price as a TDM pricing policy: A case study in Tehran," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 136-144.
    24. 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.
    25. Harrington, Winston & Krupnick, Alan J. & Alberini, Anna, 2001. "Overcoming public aversion to congestion pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 87-105, February.
    26. 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.
    27. 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.
    28. O'Fallon, Carolyn & Sullivan, Charles & Hensher, David A, 2004. "Constraints affecting mode choices by morning car commuters," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 17-29, January.
    29. Meyer, Michael D., 1999. "Demand management as an element of transportation policy: using carrots and sticks to influence travel behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 33(7-8), pages 575-599.
    30. Thorpe, Neil & Hills, Peter & Jaensirisak, Sittha, 2000. "Public attitudes to TDM measures: a comparative study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 243-257, October.
    31. Buckell, John & Hess, Stephane, 2019. "Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 93-102.
    32. Paba-Larios, María F. & Gutiérrez, Margareth & Ramos, Raúl & Cantillo, Víctor, 2025. "Modeling the influence of built environment on pedestrian perceptions in colombian cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 358-369.
    33. Rossetti, Tomás & Guevara, C. Angelo & Galilea, Patricia & Hurtubia, Ricardo, 2018. "Modeling safety as a perceptual latent variable to assess cycling infrastructure," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 252-265.
    34. Moeinaddini, Amin & Habibian, Meeghat, 2024. "Acceptability of transportation demand management policy packages considering interactions and socio-economic heterogeneity," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    35. Euchi, Jalel & Kallel, Ahmed, 2021. "Internalization of external congestion and CO2emissions costs related to road transport: The case of Tunisia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    36. Zhang, Wenjia & Liu, Chengcheng & Zhang, Hongmou, 2023. "Public acceptance of congestion pricing policies in Beijing: The roles of neighborhood built environment and air pollution perception," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 106-120.
    37. Daziano, Ricardo A., 2015. "Inference on mode preferences, vehicle purchases, and the energy paradox using a Bayesian structural choice model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-26.
    38. Elias, Wafa & Shiftan, Yoram, 2012. "The influence of individual’s risk perception and attitudes on travel behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1241-1251.
    39. Trond Nordfjærn & Torbjørn Rundmo, 2019. "Acceptance of disincentives to driving and pro-environmental transport intentions: the role of value structure, environmental beliefs and norm activation," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 2381-2396, December.
    40. Tørnblad, Silje H. & Kallbekken, Steffen & Korneliussen, Kristine & Mideksa, Torben K., 2014. "Using mobility management to reduce private car use: Results from a natural field experiment in Norway," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 9-15.
    41. 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.
    42. Jin, Zeqian & Li, Zhi-Chun & Yang, Xia & Holguin-Veras, Jose & Li, Chen, 2024. "Public transport mode choice behavior of different-income passengers during large-scale public health incidents," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 140-154.
    43. Marazi, Naveed Farooz & Majumdar, Bandhan Bandhu & Sahu, Prasanta K. & Potoglou, Dimitris, 2022. "Congestion pricing acceptability among commuters: An Indian perspective," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    44. Eliasson, Jonas, 2014. "The role of attitude structures, direct experience and reframing for the success of congestion pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 81-95.
    45. 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.
    46. Litman, Todd, 2003. "The Online TDM Encyclopedia: mobility management information gateway," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 245-249, July.
    47. Fangqing Song & Stephane Hess & Thijs Dekker, 2024. "Uncovering the link between intra-individual heterogeneity and variety seeking: the case of new shared mobility," Transportation, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 371-406, April.
    48. Zgheib, Najib & Abou-Zeid, Maya & Kaysi, Isam, 2020. "Modeling demand for ridesourcing as feeder for high capacity mass transit systems with an application to the planned Beirut BRT," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 70-91.
    49. Maria Kamargianni & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Amalia Polydoropoulou, 2014. "Incorporating social interaction into hybrid choice models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(6), pages 1263-1285, November.
    50. Maya Abou-Zeid & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 2014. "Hybrid choice models," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 17, pages 383-412, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    51. Vij, Akshay & Walker, Joan L., 2016. "How, when and why integrated choice and latent variable models are latently useful," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 192-217.
    52. Gehlert, Tina & Kramer, Christiane & Nielsen, Otto Anker & Schlag, Bernhard, 2011. "Socioeconomic differences in public acceptability and car use adaptation towards urban road pricing," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 685-694, September.
    53. Chung, Younshik & Song, Taijin & Park, Jungsik, 2012. "Freeway booking policy: Public discourse and acceptability analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 223-231.
    54. Guerrero, Thomas E. & Guevara, C. Angelo & Cherchi, Elisabetta & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2022. "Characterizing the impact of discrete indicators to correct for endogeneity in discrete choice models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    55. Fu, Xuemei & Juan, Zhicai, 2017. "Exploring the psychosocial factors associated with public transportation usage and examining the “gendered” difference," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 70-82.
    56. 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.
    57. Kamargianni, Maria & Dubey, Subodh & Polydoropoulou, Amalia & Bhat, Chandra, 2015. "Investigating the subjective and objective factors influencing teenagers’ school travel mode choice – An integrated choice and latent variable model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 473-488.
    58. Guevara, C. Angelo & Hess, Stephane, 2019. "A control-function approach to correct for endogeneity in discrete choice models estimated on SP-off-RP data and contrasts with an earlier FIML approach by Train & Wilson," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 224-239.
    59. Guevara, C. Angelo & Tirachini, Alejandro & Hurtubia, Ricardo & Dekker, Thijs, 2020. "Correcting for endogeneity due to omitted crowding in public transport choice using the Multiple Indicator Solution (MIS) method," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 472-484.
    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. Moeinaddini, Amin & Habibian, Meeghat, 2026. "Accounting for the uncertainty in an analysis of travel choice experiments using a hybrid choice model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).

    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. 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.
    2. Moeinaddini, Amin & Habibian, Meeghat, 2024. "Acceptability of transportation demand management policy packages considering interactions and socio-economic heterogeneity," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    3. Moeinaddini, Amin & Habibian, Meeghat, 2026. "Accounting for the uncertainty in an analysis of travel choice experiments using a hybrid choice model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    4. Eliasson, Jonas, 2017. "Congestion pricing," MPRA Paper 88224, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    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. Holguín-Veras, José & Encarnación, Trilce & González-Calderón, Carlos A., 2020. "User perception of fairness of time-of-day pricing and other typical toll discounts," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 560-581.
    11. Milenković, Marina & Glavić, Draženko & Maričić, Milica, 2019. "Determining factors affecting congestion pricing acceptability," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 58-74.
    12. Bouscasse, H., 2018. "Integrated choice and latent variable models: A literature review on mode choice," Working Papers 2018-07, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    13. 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.
    14. Zhang, Wenjia & Liu, Chengcheng & Zhang, Hongmou, 2023. "Public acceptance of congestion pricing policies in Beijing: The roles of neighborhood built environment and air pollution perception," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 106-120.
    15. Hélène Bouscasse, 2018. "Integrated choice and latent variable models: A literature review on mode choice," Working Papers hal-01795630, HAL.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Kim, Seheon & Rasouli, Soora, 2022. "The influence of latent lifestyle on acceptance of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS): A hierarchical latent variable and latent class approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 304-319.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:transa:v:204:y:2026:i:c:s0965856425004410. 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.