IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i9p3695-d353554.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Goal Framing as a Tool for Changing People’s Car Travel Behavior in Sweden

Author

Listed:
  • Kerstin Westin

    (Transportation Research Center, Umeå University, Umeå, SE 901 87, Sweden
    Department of Geography, Umeå University, Umeå, SE 901 87, Sweden)

  • Annika Nordlund

    (Transportation Research Center, Umeå University, Umeå, SE 901 87, Sweden
    Department of Psychology, Umeå University, Umeå, SE 901 87, Sweden)

  • Johan Jansson

    (Transportation Research Center, Umeå University, Umeå, SE 901 87, Sweden
    Department of Business Administration, Lund University, Lund, SE 220 07, Sweden)

  • Jonas Nilsson

    (Transportation Research Center, Umeå University, Umeå, SE 901 87, Sweden
    School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, SE 406 30, Sweden)

Abstract

This paper reports on a study of car drivers’ assessment of a sustainability policy involving increased car parking fees in Swedish city centers. The aim of the study was to investigate how framing of information in text and pictures influences acceptance of increasing car parking fees and how values, general beliefs and norms as well as measure-specific beliefs influence the acceptability of the measure. Drawing on Goal Framing Theory, the acceptance of a parking fee policy was tested using three different goal frames (hedonic, gain and normative); the frames were compared with each other and a control message. The study was based on a survey directed to residents (18 to 75 years of age) in 51 larger municipalities in Sweden. The survey had an experimental design. Respondents were presented with a scenario of an increase in parking fees to promote environmental sustainability. The scenario was presented in three ways (manipulations), highlighting hedonic (e.g., emotional), gain, and normative aspects, respectively, in text and pictures. The results showed that the three message frames had different effects and were overall more effective than the control message in engendering the desired reduction in private car use and, thus, the intended environmental impact. Further, the degree of acceptability of the increased parking fee influenced the expected behavioral change in the groups receiving a goal framed message in relation to the parking fee measure. Implications from a sustainability perspective concern the importance of how environmental policies are framed when communicated to the public in order to increase acceptance and support.

Suggested Citation

  • Kerstin Westin & Annika Nordlund & Johan Jansson & Jonas Nilsson, 2020. "Goal Framing as a Tool for Changing People’s Car Travel Behavior in Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-18, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:9:p:3695-:d:353554
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/9/3695/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/9/3695/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scheepers, C.E. & Wendel-Vos, G.C.W. & den Broeder, J.M. & van Kempen, E.E.M.M. & van Wesemael, P.J.V. & Schuit, A.J., 2014. "Shifting from car to active transport: A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 264-280.
    2. Cairns, S. & Newson, C. & Davis, A., 2010. "Understanding successful workplace travel initiatives in the UK," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 473-494, August.
    3. Jakobsson, C. & Fujii, S. & Gärling, T., 2000. "Determinants of private car users' acceptance of road pricing," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 153-158, April.
    4. Simićević, Jelena & Vukanović, Smiljan & Milosavljević, Nada, 2013. "The effect of parking charges and time limit to car usage and parking behaviour," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 125-131.
    5. Nordlund, A. & Westin, K., 2013. "Influence of values, beliefs, and age on intention to travel by a new railway line under construction in northern Sweden," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 86-95.
    6. Geertje Schuitema & Linda Steg & Charles Vlek & Talib Rothengatter, 2005. "Effects of revenue use and perceived effectiveness on acceptability of transport pricing policies," ERSA conference papers ersa05p719, European Regional Science Association.
    7. Steg, Linda, 2005. "Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(2-3), pages 147-162.
    8. repec:ucp:bkecon:9781884829987 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Marsden, Greg, 2006. "The evidence base for parking policies--a review," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 447-457, November.
    10. Judith I. M. De Groot & Linda Steg, 2010. "Morality and Nuclear Energy: Perceptions of Risks and Benefits, Personal Norms, and Willingness to Take Action Related to Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1363-1373, September.
    11. Mohammad Dalvi Esfahani & Mehrbakhsh Nilashi & Azizah Abdul Rahman & Amir Hossein Ghapanchi & Nor Hidayati Zakaria, 2015. "Psychological Factors Influencing the Managers' Intention to Adopt Green IS: A Review-Based Comprehensive Framework and Ranking the Factors," International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences (IJSDS), IGI Global, vol. 6(2), pages 28-56, April.
    12. 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.
    13. Albert, Gila & Mahalel, David, 2006. "Congestion tolls and parking fees: A comparison of the potential effect on travel behavior," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 496-502, November.
    14. Eliasson, Jonas & Mattsson, Lars-Göran, 2006. "Equity effects of congestion pricing: Quantitative methodology and a case study for Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 602-620, August.
    15. Schade, Jens & Schlag, Bernhard, 2000. "Acceptability of Urban Transport Pricing," Research Reports 72, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    16. Graham-Rowe, Ella & Skippon, Stephen & Gardner, Benjamin & Abraham, Charles, 2011. "Can we reduce car use and, if so, how? A review of available evidence," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 401-418, June.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Hymel, Kent, 2014. "Do parking fees affect retail sales? Evidence from Starbucks," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 221-233.
    20. Ozaki, Ritsuko & Sevastyanova, Katerina, 2011. "Going hybrid: An analysis of consumer purchase motivations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2217-2227, May.
    21. Fosgerau, Mogens & de Palma, André, 2013. "The dynamics of urban traffic congestion and the price of parking�," MPRA Paper 48433, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    22. Ajanovic, Amela & Haas, Reinhard, 2017. "The impact of energy policies in scenarios on GHG emission reduction in passenger car mobility in the EU-15," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P2), pages 1088-1096.
    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. Marko M. Skoric & Nan Zhang & Juma Kasadha & Chun Hong Tse & Jing Liu, 2022. "Reducing the Use of Disposable Plastics through Public Engagement Campaigns: An Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of Message Appeals, Modalities, and Sources," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Qian Wu & Chei Sian Lee & Dion Hoe‐Lian Goh, 2023. "Understanding user‐generated questions in social Q&A: A goal‐framing approach," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(8), pages 990-1009, August.
    3. Tatjana Mamula Nikolić & Sanja Popović Pantić & Ivan Paunović & Sanja Filipović, 2021. "Sustainable Travel Decision-Making of Europeans: Insights from a Household Survey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, February.
    4. Timmer, Sebastian & Bösehans, Gustav & Henkel, Sven, 2023. "Behavioural norms or personal gains? – An empirical analysis of commuters‘ intention to switch to multimodal mobility behaviour," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    5. Jacek Oskarbski & Krystian Birr & Karol Żarski, 2021. "Bicycle Traffic Model for Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-36, September.
    6. Xue Wang & Suwei Feng & Tianyi Tang, 2023. "Acceptability toward Policy Mix: Impact of Low-Carbon Travel Intention, Fairness, and Effectiveness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-22, October.
    7. Leonie Decrinis & Wolfgang Freibichler & Micha Kaiser & Cass R. Sunstein & Lucia A. Reisch, 2023. "Sustainable behaviour at work: How message framing encourages employees to choose electric vehicles," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(8), pages 5650-5668, 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. Nordlund, A. & Jansson, J. & Westin, K., 2018. "Acceptability of electric vehicle aimed measures: Effects of norm activation, perceived justice and effectiveness," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 205-213.
    2. Krishnamurthy, Chandra Kiran B. & Ngo, Nicole S., 2020. "The effects of smart-parking on transit and traffic: Evidence from SFpark," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Christophe Alaux, 2012. "Confiance, acceptabilité et comportement d’achat: la performance des politiques publiques environnementales," Post-Print hal-01824049, HAL.
    5. 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.
    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. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Martin, Elliot & Shaheen, Susan & Lipman, Timothy & Camel, Madonna, 2014. "Evaluating the public perception of a feebate policy in California through the estimation and cross-validation of an ordinal regression model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 144-153.
    11. He, Mingwei & He, Chengfeng & Shi, Zhuangbin & He, Min, 2022. "Spatiotemporal heterogeneous effects of socio-demographic and built environment on private car usage: An empirical study of Kunming, China," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    12. Jun Guan Neoh & Maxwell Chipulu & Alasdair Marshall, 2017. "What encourages people to carpool? An evaluation of factors with meta-analysis," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 423-447, March.
    13. Milenković, Marina & Glavić, Draženko & Maričić, Milica, 2019. "Determining factors affecting congestion pricing acceptability," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 58-74.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Milosavljević, Nada & Simićević, Jelena, 2016. "User response to parking policy change: A comparison of stated and revealed preference data," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 40-45.
    17. Hsieh, Hsu-Sheng, 2022. "Road pricing acceptability and persuasive communication effectiveness," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 179-191.
    18. 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.
    19. Mohamad Shatanawi & Fatma Abdelkhalek & Ferenc Mészáros, 2020. "Urban Congestion Charging Acceptability: An International Comparative Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-15, June.
    20. Muhammad Waqas & Qian-li Dong & Naveed Ahmad & Yuming Zhu & Muhammad Nadeem, 2018. "Understanding Acceptability towards Sustainable Transportation Behavior: A Case Study of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-24, October.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:9:p:3695-:d:353554. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.