IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v103y2017icp36-53.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inclusion of latent constructs in utilitarian resource allocation model for analyzing revenue spending options in congestion charging policy

Author

Listed:
  • Sugiarto, Sugiarto
  • Miwa, Tomio
  • Morikawa, Takayuki

Abstract

With the government planning a congestion charging (CC) scheme for Jakarta, public support is regarded as a prerequisite for its implementation. Politicians typically see CC reform as a controversial policy if there is no public support. Yet a CC plan is currently under active development and remains under consideration as a way to mitigate the acute traffic congestion in Jakarta. The CC theme has been recognized as a powerful instrument in both delivering efficient road use and raising revenues. Studies indicate that revenue redistribution is one of the most important determinants of public support for such scheme. Given the absence of studies from the Asian megacity context, this paper presents a systematic study of how public perceptions relate to revenue spending choice behavior. A stated preference (SP) questionnaire is developed to investigate citizen’s perceptions of CC reform, their preferences for revenue redistribution and their current travel behavior. Using data collected using this SP questionnaire in 2013, a hybrid revenue allocation (HRA) model is formulated that captures the impact of tangible factors (i.e. charges, socio-demographic characteristics, travel behavior) and intangible factors (perceptions) during process of deciding among revenue spending alternatives. The proposed model is drawn from traditional utilitarian resource (time) allocation theory, with an extension consisting of latent constructs representing subjective individual psychological perceptions. We find that there is a strong correlation between revenue allocation preferences and an individual’s subjective psychological perceptions. The most preferred revenue allocations are for public transport improvements and traffic safety improvements, with 54% and 29% agreement, respectively. We find there is little support for spending revenues on other issues such as for stimulating local business (13%) and for parks/green spaces, driving education/enforcement and improving the parking system (4% in total). The findings of sensitivity analysis further disclose that the choice of spending on public transport improvements among respondents who frequently visit the central business district (CBD) is sensitive to the level of the CC charge, while for respondents who frequently enter the CBD by car and have a medium-high income the traffic safety allocation is sensitive to charge.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:103:y:2017:i:c:p:36-53
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2017.05.019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856417305025
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2017.05.019?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Phang, Sock-Yong & Toh, Rex S., 1997. "From manual to electronic road congestion pricing: The Singapore experience and experiment," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 97-106, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Walker, Joan & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 2002. "Generalized random utility model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 303-343, July.
    4. Green, Colin P. & Heywood, John S. & Navarro, María, 2016. "Traffic accidents and the London congestion charge," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 11-22.
    5. 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.
    6. Zheng, Zuduo & Liu, Zhiyuan & Liu, Chuanli & Shiwakoti, Nirajan, 2014. "Understanding public response to a congestion charge: A random-effects ordered logit approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 117-134.
    7. Azari, Kian Ahmadi & Arintono, Sulistyo & Hamid, Hussain & Davoodi, Seyed Rasoul, 2013. "Evaluation of demand for different trip purposes under various congestion pricing scenarios," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 43-51.
    8. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    9. Jonathan Leape, 2006. "The London Congestion Charge," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(4), pages 157-176, Fall.
    10. 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.
    11. Ison, S., 2000. "Local authority and academic attitudes to urban road pricing: a UK perspective," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 269-277, October.
    12. Toshiyuki Yamamoto & Ryuichi Kitamura, 1999. "An analysis of time allocation to in-home and out-of-home discretionary activities across working days and non- working days," Transportation, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 231-250, May.
    13. Kitamura, Ryuichi, 1984. "A model of daily time allocation to discretionary out-of-home activities and trips," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 255-266, June.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Schade, Jens & Schlag, Bernhard, 2000. "Acceptability of Urban Transport Pricing," Research Reports 72, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    17. Small, Kenneth A., 1992. "Using the Revenues from Congestion Pricing," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt32p9m3mm, University of California Transportation Center.
    18. David Hensher, 2013. "Exploring the relationship between perceived acceptability and referendum voting support for alternative road pricing schemes," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 935-959, September.
    19. 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.
    20. Ahmadi Azari, Kian & Arintono, Sulistyo & Hamid, Hussain & Rahmat, Riza Atiq O.K., 2013. "Modelling demand under parking and cordon pricing policy," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 1-9.
    21. Li, Zheng & Hensher, David A., 2012. "Congestion charging and car use: A review of stated preference and opinion studies and market monitoring evidence," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 47-61.
    22. DeSerpa, A C, 1971. "A Theory of the Economics of Time," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 81(324), pages 828-846, December.
    23. 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.
    24. Zhang, Junyi & Timmermans, Harry J. P. & Borgers, Aloys, 2005. "A model of household task allocation and time use," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 81-95, January.
    25. Jara-Díaz, Sergio R. & Munizaga, Marcela A. & Greeven, Paulina & Guerra, Reinaldo & Axhausen, Kay, 2008. "Estimating the value of leisure from a time allocation model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 946-957, December.
    26. Farrell, Séona & Saleh, Wafaa, 2005. "Road-user charging and the modelling of revenue allocation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 431-442, September.
    27. Yáñez, M.F. & Raveau, S. & Ortúzar, J. de D., 2010. "Inclusion of latent variables in Mixed Logit models: Modelling and forecasting," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 744-753, November.
    28. Michael Manville & David King, 2013. "Credible commitment and congestion pricing," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 229-249, February.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Milenković, Marina & Glavić, Draženko & Maričić, Milica, 2019. "Determining factors affecting congestion pricing acceptability," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 58-74.
    5. 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.
    6. Zheng, Zuduo & Liu, Zhiyuan & Liu, Chuanli & Shiwakoti, Nirajan, 2014. "Understanding public response to a congestion charge: A random-effects ordered logit approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 117-134.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Jara-Díaz, Sergio & Rosales-Salas, Jorge, 2017. "Beyond transport time: A review of time use modeling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 209-230.
    10. Drago Bokal & Mitja Steinbacher, 2019. "Phases of psychologically optimal learning experience: task-based time allocation model," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(3), pages 863-885, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Christophe Alaux, 2012. "Confiance, acceptabilité et comportement d’achat: la performance des politiques publiques environnementales," Post-Print hal-01824049, HAL.
    13. Mohamad Shatanawi & Fatma Abdelkhalek & Ferenc Mészáros, 2020. "Urban Congestion Charging Acceptability: An International Comparative Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-15, June.
    14. Ding, Hongliang & Sze, N.N. & Li, Haojie & Guo, Yanyong, 2021. "Affected area and residual period of London Congestion Charging scheme on road safety," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 120-128.
    15. M. Rouhani, Omid, 2014. "Road pricing: An overview," MPRA Paper 59662, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. 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.
    17. Xin Li & John W. Shaw & Daizong Liu & Yun Yuan, 2019. "Acceptability of Beijing congestion charging from a business perspective," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 753-776, June.
    18. 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).
    19. Cipriani, Ernesto & Mannini, Livia & Montemarani, Barbara & Nigro, Marialisa & Petrelli, Marco, 2019. "Congestion pricing policies: Design and assessment for the city of Rome, Italy," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 127-135.
    20. Farrell, Séona & Saleh, Wafaa, 2005. "Road-user charging and the modelling of revenue allocation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 431-442, September.

    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:103:y:2017:i:c:p:36-53. 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.