IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v168y2025icp263-278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Where are parking policies most popular? Empirical findings about the influence of the residential neighbourhood and car parking characteristics on public acceptability

Author

Listed:
  • Baumgartner, Annabell
  • Lanzendorf, Martin

Abstract

Parking policies are a key factor in reducing car usage and improving liveability in urban neighbourhoods, as they link transport and land use. However, policymakers face the challenge of designing parking policies that effectively address local car parking issues while ensuring acceptability within the same neighbourhood. Our empirical analysis aims to develop a typology of different parking policies based on residents’ acceptability. Furthermore, we investigate the influence of spatial differences on the acceptability of parking policies, focusing on the residential neighbourhood and car parking characteristics. We derive our findings from a quantitative household survey (N = 1186) we conducted in eight neighbourhoods in the two German cities of Darmstadt and Frankfurt am Main. Applying principal component analysis (PCA) to 31 initial parking policies, we identify six policy types: (1) parking restrictions and enforcement, (2) conversion of parking space for liveability, (3) conversion of parking space for mobility services, (4) parking space conversion accompanied by additional measures, (5) additional neighbourhood garages and (6) limited parking for SUVs. Our results show that push measures are both among the most accepted and rejected policies, with restrictions for SUVs being generally more popular than those for regular cars. Moreover, we find that the acceptability of the conversion of parking spaces depends on the proposed alternative land use and accompanying additional measures. Despite some disparities, residents are more supportive of parking space conversions for liveability (e.g. greenery) than for alternative mobility services (e.g. car sharing stations). Our results also highlight the important role of the neighbourhood level when setting parking policies. Multivariate analyses indicate that the residential neighbourhood and car parking characteristics, such as the usual parking location, duration and distance from home, influence the acceptability of parking policies. Policymakers might, therefore, consider the local parking situation to be changed in a neighbourhood, the specific target groups to be addressed by a policy and the benefits for residents to be promoted by a transformation of on-street car parking.

Suggested Citation

  • Baumgartner, Annabell & Lanzendorf, Martin, 2025. "Where are parking policies most popular? Empirical findings about the influence of the residential neighbourhood and car parking characteristics on public acceptability," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 263-278.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:168:y:2025:i:c:p:263-278
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2025.04.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X25001428
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2025.04.006?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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Kuhnimhof, Tobias & Buehler, Ralph & Wirtz, Matthias & Kalinowska, Dominika, 2012. "Travel trends among young adults in Germany: increasing multimodality and declining car use for men," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 443-450.
    6. Scheiner, Joachim & Faust, Nico & Helmer, Johannes & Straub, Michael & Holz-Rau, Christian, 2020. "What's that garage for? Private parking and on-street parking in a high-density urban residential neighbourhood," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    7. Gössling, Stefan & Humpe, Andreas & Hologa, Rafael & Riach, Nils & Freytag, Tim, 2022. "Parking violations as an economic gamble for public space," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 248-257.
    8. Junghwa Kim & Jan-Dirk Schmöcker & Cecilia Bergstad & Satoshi Fujii & Tommy Gärling, 2014. "The influence of personality on acceptability of sustainable transport policies," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 855-872, July.
    9. Mingardo, Giuliano & van Wee, Bert & Rye, Tom, 2015. "Urban parking policy in Europe: A conceptualization of past and possible future trends," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 268-281.
    10. Schade, Jens & Schlag, Bernhard, 2000. "Acceptability of Urban Transport Pricing," Research Reports 72, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    11. 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.
    12. Anna Lower & Agnieszka Szumilas, 2021. "Parking Policy as a Tool of Sustainable Mobility-Parking Standards in Poland vs. European Experiences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-15, October.
    13. Kirschner, Franziska & Lanzendorf, Martin, 2020. "Support for innovative on-street parking policies: empirical evidence from an urban neighborhood," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    14. Ottosson, Dadi Baldur & Chen, Cynthia & Wang, Tingting & Lin, Haiyun, 2013. "The sensitivity of on-street parking demand in response to price changes: A case study in Seattle, WA," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 222-232.
    15. Klinger, Thomas & Kenworthy, Jeffrey R. & Lanzendorf, Martin, 2013. "Dimensions of urban mobility cultures – a comparison of German cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 18-29.
    16. Ejelöv, Emma & Harring, Niklas & Hansla, André & Jagers, Sverker & Nilsson, Andreas, 2022. "Push, Pull, or Inform - an Empirical Taxonomy of Environmental Policy Support in Sweden," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 529-552, September.
    17. Virginia Petraki & Panagiotis Papantoniou & Asimina Korentzelou & George Yannis, 2022. "Public Acceptability of Environmentally Linked Congestion and Parking Charging Policies in Greek Urban Centers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-15, July.
    18. Wang, Siqin & Liu, Yan, 2022. "Parking in inner versus outer city spaces: Spatiotemporal patterns of parking problems and their associations with built environment features in Brisbane, Australia," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    19. Taylor, Dr Elizabeth, 2021. "Free parking for free people: German road laws and rights as constraints on local car parking management," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 23-33.
    20. 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.
    21. Brudner, Amir, 2023. "On the management of residential on-street parking: Policies and repercussions," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 94-107.
    22. Lucas, Karen, 2019. "A new evolution for transport-related social exclusion research?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    23. Cats, Oded & Zhang, Chen & Nissan, Albania, 2016. "Survey methodology for measuring parking occupancy: Impacts of an on-street parking pricing scheme in an urban center," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 55-63.
    24. Fredrik Johansson & Greger Henriksson & Pelle Envall, 2019. "Moving to Private-Car-Restricted and Mobility-Served Neighborhoods: The Unspectacular Workings of a Progressive Mobility Plan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-19, November.
    25. Odeck, James & Bråthen, Svein, 1997. "On public attitudes toward implementation of toll roads--the case of Oslo toll ring," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 73-83, April.
    26. 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.
    27. Klaus Backhaus & Bernd Erichson & Sonja Gensler & Rolf Weiber & Thomas Weiber, 2021. "Multivariate Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-658-32589-3, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Eliasson, Jonas, 2017. "Congestion pricing," MPRA Paper 88224, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. 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.
    3. Gössling, Stefan & Humpe, Andreas & Hologa, Rafael & Riach, Nils & Freytag, Tim, 2022. "Parking violations as an economic gamble for public space," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 248-257.
    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. Milenković, Marina & Glavić, Draženko & Maričić, Milica, 2019. "Determining factors affecting congestion pricing acceptability," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 58-74.
    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. Morton, Craig & Mattioli, Giulio & Anable, Jillian, 2021. "Public acceptability towards Low Emission Zones: The role of attitudes, norms, emotions, and trust," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 256-270.
    8. De Borger, Bruno & Glazer, Amihai, 2017. "Support and opposition to a Pigovian tax: Road pricing with reference-dependent preferences," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 31-47.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Christiansen, Petter, 2018. "Public support of transport policy instruments, perceived transport quality and satisfaction with democracy. What is the relationship?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 305-318.
    13. 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.
    14. Andersson, David & Nässén, Jonas, 2016. "The Gothenburg congestion charge scheme: A pre–post analysis of commuting behavior and travel satisfaction," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 82-89.
    15. Eliasson, Jonas, 2016. "Is congestion pricing fair? Consumer and citizen perspectives on equity effects," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1-15.
    16. Christophe Alaux, 2012. "Confiance, acceptabilité et comportement d’achat: la performance des politiques publiques environnementales," Post-Print hal-01824049, HAL.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Coria, Jessica & Bonilla, Jorge & Grundström, Maria & Pleijel, Håkan, 2015. "Air pollution dynamics and the need for temporally differentiated road pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 178-195.
    20. Kirschner, Franziska & Lanzendorf, Martin, 2020. "Support for innovative on-street parking policies: empirical evidence from an urban neighborhood," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).

    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:trapol:v:168:y:2025:i:c:p:263-278. 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/30473/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.