IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v126y2019icp230-246.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A mixture-amount stated preference study on the mobility budget

Author

Listed:
  • Zijlstra, Toon
  • Goos, Peter
  • Verhetsel, Ann

Abstract

The mobility budget is considered a promising new tool in remuneration and transport policy in Belgium, especially due to its potential of shrinking the company car fleet and lowering car use. Because revealed preference data were scarce in the context of the mobility budget, we conducted a stated preference study to examine the potential outcomes of the introduction of the mobility budget. A challenge in our study is that it required the respondents to choose between mixtures of remunerations for different total budget amounts. In other words, the study was a mixture-amount stated preference study, which involved modeling challenges as well as experimental design challenges. In this paper, we therefore introduce advanced mixture-amount regression models in the choice modeling literature and present a generic method to set up mixture-amount stated preference studies to collect suitable data. Our case-study data comes from an online questionnaire administered to employees at 12 large companies in Belgium (n = 817). For our choice data, a second-order polynomial mixture model in combination with a quadratic effect for the amount led to the most suitable utility function. Our results indicate that current company car users prefer additional days off, income or a car. The bicycle, pedelec and public transport options are disregarded by most employees. Based on our results, we call for a critical reflection on the current system of company cars and reimbursements in Belgium.

Suggested Citation

  • Zijlstra, Toon & Goos, Peter & Verhetsel, Ann, 2019. "A mixture-amount stated preference study on the mobility budget," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 230-246.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:126:y:2019:i:c:p:230-246
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2019.06.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856418305822
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2019.06.009?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. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    2. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    3. Heiko Großmann & Heinz Holling & Ulrike Graßhoff & Rainer Schwabe, 2006. "Optimal Designs for Asymmetric Linear Paired Comparisons with a Profile Strength Constraint," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 64(1), pages 109-119, August.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    5. Rose, John M. & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2008. "Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 395-406, May.
    6. Michelle Harding, 2014. "Personal Tax Treatment of Company Cars and Commuting Expenses: Estimating the Fiscal and Environmental Costs," OECD Taxation Working Papers 20, OECD Publishing.
    7. De Borger, Bruno & Wuyts, Bart, 2011. "The tax treatment of company cars, commuting and optimal congestion taxes," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 1527-1544.
    8. Dujuan Yang & Harry Timmermans & Aloys Borgers, 2016. "The prevalence of context-dependent adjustment of activity-travel patterns in energy conservation strategies: results from a mixture-amount stated adaptation experiment," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 79-100, January.
    9. Damaraju Raghavarao & James B. Wiley, 2009. "Conjoint Measurement with Constraints on Attribute Levels: A Mixture–Amount Model Approach," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 77(2), pages 167-178, August.
    10. 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, October.
    11. Roselinde Kessels & Peter Goos & Bradley Jones & Martina Vandebroek, 2011. "Rejoinder: the usefulness of Bayesian optimal designs for discrete choice experiments," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 197-203, May.
    12. Dujuan Yang & Harry Timmermans & Aloys Borgers, 2016. "The prevalence of context-dependent adjustment of activity-travel patterns in energy conservation strategies: results from a mixture-amount stated adaptation experiment," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 79-100, January.
    13. Bhat, Chandra R., 2003. "Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 837-855, November.
    14. Fernandez, Raquel & Rodrik, Dani, 1991. "Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1146-1155, December.
    15. John Rose & Michiel Bliemer, 2013. "Sample size requirements for stated choice experiments," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 1021-1041, September.
    16. Aiste Ruseckaite & Peter Goos & Dennis Fok, 2017. "Bayesian D-optimal choice designs for mixtures," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 66(2), pages 363-386, February.
    17. Benoît Laine & Alex Van Steenbergen, 2016. "Working Paper 03-16 - The fiscal treatment of company cars in Belgium: effects on car demand, travel behaviour and external costs," Working Papers 1603, Federal Planning Bureau, Belgium.
    18. Rietveld, P. & Bruinsma, F. R. & van Vuuren, D. J., 2001. "Coping with unreliability in public transport chains: A case study for Netherlands," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 539-559, July.
    19. Peter Goos & Bradley Jones & Utami Syafitri, 2016. "I-Optimal Design of Mixture Experiments," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 111(514), pages 899-911, April.
    20. Hensher, David A. & Ho, Chinh & Mulley, Corinne, 2015. "Identifying preferences for public transport investments under a constrained budget," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-46.
    21. Laura Mørch Andersen, 2014. "Obtaining Reliable Likelihood Ratio Tests from Simulated Likelihood Functions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-12, October.
    22. Roselinde Kessels & Bradley Jones & Peter Goos & Martina Vandebroek, 2011. "The usefulness of Bayesian optimal designs for discrete choice experiments," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 173-188, May.
    23. Carlien Hillebrink & Joop Schippers & Anneke van Doorne‐Huiskes & Pascale Peters, 2008. "Offering choice in benefits: a new Dutch HRM arrangement," International Journal of Manpower, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 29(4), pages 304-322, July.
    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. Timmer, Sebastian & Merfeld, Katrin & Henkel, Sven, 2023. "Exploring motivations for multimodal commuting: A hierarchical means-end chain analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    2. Boonaert, Eva & Hoyweghen, Kaat Van & Feyisa, Ashenafi Duguma & Goos, Peter & Maertens, Miet, 2021. "Twofold Gendered Preferences in the Quantity-Quality Trade-Off Impact the Demographic Transition in Ethiopia," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315224, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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. Palhazi Cuervo, Daniel & Kessels, Roselinde & Goos, Peter & Sörensen, Kenneth, 2016. "An integrated algorithm for the optimal design of stated choice experiments with partial profiles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 93(PA), pages 648-669.
    2. Richard Yao & Riccardo Scarpa & John Rose & James Turner, 2015. "Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 433-455, November.
    3. Sadhukhan, Shubhajit & Banerjee, Uttam K. & Maitra, Bhargab, 2016. "Commuters’ willingness-to-pay for improvement of transfer facilities in and around metro stations – A case study in Kolkata," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 43-58.
    4. Collins, Jill P. & Vossler, Christian A., 2009. "Incentive compatibility tests of choice experiment value elicitation questions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 226-235, September.
    5. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2010. "Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 720-734, July.
    6. Yu, Jie & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2010. "Comparing different sampling schemes for approximating the integrals involved in the efficient design of stated choice experiments," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1268-1289, December.
    7. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Collins, Andrew T., 2019. "New software tools for creating stated choice experimental designs efficient for regret minimisation and utility maximisation decision rules," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 104-123.
    8. Frischknecht, Bart D. & Eckert, Christine & Geweke, John & Louviere, Jordan J., 2014. "A simple method for estimating preference parameters for individuals," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 35-48.
    9. Tobias Holmsgaard Larsen & Thomas Lundhede & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "Assessing the value of surface water and groundwater quality improvements when time lags and outcome uncertainty exist: Results from a choice experiment survey across four different countries," IFRO Working Paper 2020/12, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    10. Luyten, Jeroen & Kessels, Roselinde & Atkins, Katherine E. & Jit, Mark & van Hoek, Albert Jan, 2019. "Quantifying the public's view on social value judgments in vaccine decision-making: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 181-193.
    11. Sadhukhan, Shubhajit & Banerjee, Uttam K. & Maitra, Bhargab, 2017. "Rationality of fare increment for improvement of transfer facilities at metro stations: An experience in Kolkata," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 31-38.
    12. Amador, Francisco Javier & González, Rosa Marina & Ramos-Real, Francisco Javier, 2013. "Supplier choice and WTP for electricity attributes in an emerging market: The role of perceived past experience, environmental concern and energy saving behavior," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 953-966.
    13. Großmann, Heiko, 2019. "A practical approach to designing partial-profile choice experiments with two alternatives for estimating main effects and interactions of many two-level attributes," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Jeroen Luyten & Sandy Tubeuf & Roselinde Kessels, 2022. "Rationing of a scarce life‐saving resource: Public preferences for prioritizing COVID‐19 vaccination," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 342-362, February.
    15. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2011. "Experimental design influences on stated choice outputs: An empirical study in air travel choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 63-79, January.
    16. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    17. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    18. Hasan-Basri, Bakti & Yahya, Nurul & Musa, Rusmani, 2013. "Status Quo Effect and Preferences Uncertainty: A Heteroscedastic Extreme Value (HEV) Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 47(1), pages 163-172.
    19. Danaf, Mazen & Atasoy, Bilge & de Azevedo, Carlos Lima & Ding-Mastera, Jing & Abou-Zeid, Maya & Cox, Nathaniel & Zhao, Fang & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 2019. "Context-aware stated preferences with smartphone-based travel surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 35-50.
    20. Meles, Tensay Hadush & Ryan, Lisa & Mukherjee, Sanghamitra C., 2022. "Heterogeneity in preferences for renewable home heating systems among Irish households," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).

    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:126:y:2019:i:c:p:230-246. 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.