Acceptability of transport pricing

Acceptability of transport pricingAcceptability of transport pricing

Geertje SchuitemaUniversity of Groningen

With thanks to:Vanessa Okken en Leander van der Mey

Problem caused by increasing Problem caused by increasing car usecar useDegradation of the …

accessibility(e.g. congestion)

environmental quality(e.g. CO2- emissions)

urban quality of life(e.g. reduced traffic safety)

My other car is My other car is environmentally environmentally

friendlyfriendly

Why study acceptability of policies?Why study acceptability of policies?

Policies may not be implemented if lack of public support

Policies are less effective if lack of public support: reactance

Acceptability of pricing policiesAcceptability of pricing policies

Various features of policies affect acceptability:

Push versus pull

Price level

Degree of variabilisation

Revenue use

Degree of variabilisationDegree of variabilisation

Static pricing; charge: 2 cents per km driven

Variable pricing;charge: 2 cents per km driven for first 10.000 km

5 cents per km driven for > 10.000 km

Hypothesis:Variable pricing is more fair and consequently more acceptable than static pricing

Revenu useRevenu use

Benefit individual car user;decrease road taxes by 50%

Benefit collective;improve health services

Hypothesis:Revenues that benefit the individual are more acceptable than revenues that benefit the collective

QuestionnaireQuestionnaire

4 scenario’s were judged on:

Acceptability

Perceived fairness

Perceived individual benefits

7 point scales; 1 = not…, 7 = very…

Hyp 1: static versus variable pricingHyp 1: static versus variable pricing

st

atic

v

aria

ble

st

atic

v

aria

ble

st

atic

var

iab

le

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

acceptability perceivedfairness

perceived ind.benefits

Acceptability: interaction annual Acceptability: interaction annual kilometrage and variabilisationkilometrage and variabilisation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

static variable

acce

ptab

ilit

y

annual km <= 10.000 km annual km > 10.000 km

Fairness: no interaction annual Fairness: no interaction annual kilometrage and variabilisationkilometrage and variabilisation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

static variable

perc

eive

d fa

irne

ss


Individual benefits: interaction annual Individual benefits: interaction annual kilometrage and variabilisationkilometrage and variabilisation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

static variable

perc

eive

d in

divi

dual

ben

efit

s


Hyp 2: halve road taxes versus Hyp 2: halve road taxes versus improve health servicesimprove health services

road

tax

hea

lth

ser

vic

e

road

tax

hea

lth

ser

vic

e

road

tax

hea

lth

ser

vic

e

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

acceptability perceivedfairness

perceived ind.benefits

Acceptability: maineffect annual Acceptability: maineffect annual kilometragekilometrage

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

decrease road taxes improve health services

acce

ptab

ilit

y


Fairness: main effect annual Fairness: main effect annual kilometragekilometrage

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Per

ceiv

ed f

airn

ess


Individual benefits: main effect Individual benefits: main effect annual kilometrageannual kilometrage

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Per

ceiv

ed in

divi

dual

ben

efit

s


ConclusionsConclusions

Confirmation hyp 2;

Main effect RURU that benefit individual are more acceptable than RU that benefit the collective


No confirmation hyp 1;

Main effect degree of variabilisationStatic pricing is more acceptable than variable pricing;

Interaction effect with annual kilometrageHowever, people with a annual km find variable pricing especcially not acceptable


Two factors affect the acceptability:

Fairness

Individual benefits

Acceptability of transport pricing

Documents

Transcript of Acceptability of transport pricing