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
annual km <= 10.000 km annual km > 10.000 km
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
annual km <= 10.000 km annual km > 10.000 km
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
annual km <= 10.000 km annual km > 10.000 km
Fairness: main effect annual Fairness: main effect annual kilometragekilometrage
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
decrease road taxes improve health services
Per
ceiv
ed f
airn
ess
annual km <= 10.000 km annual km > 10.000 km
Individual benefits: main effect Individual benefits: main effect annual kilometrageannual kilometrage
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
decrease road taxes improve health services
Per
ceiv
ed in
divi
dual
ben
efit
s
annual km <= 10.000 km annual km > 10.000 km
ConclusionsConclusions
Confirmation hyp 2;
Main effect RURU that benefit individual are more acceptable than RU that benefit the collective
ConclusionsConclusions
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
ConclusionsConclusions
Two factors affect the acceptability:
Fairness
Individual benefits
Top Related