IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v187y2024ics0965856424002246.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Navigating acceptance and controversy of transport policies

Author

Listed:
  • Mehdizadeh, Milad
  • Solbu, Gisle
  • Klöckner, Christian A.
  • Moe Skjølsvold, Tomas

Abstract

The current study contributes to the literature by exploring the acceptance and controversy surrounding different transport policies, examining how public preferences/attitudes explain these dispositions in the context of transitions towards more sustainable transport systems. A random and representative Norwegian-population-based sample (n = 1002) was used for the analysis purpose. A two-fold approach is employed. A principal component analysis is performed first to determine which transport policies (20 policies) are homogeneously evaluated. Secondly, a latent class analysis is used to classify unobserved subgroups of people and distinguish classes of acceptance/controversy patterns. We identify three distinct components of public evaluations of transport policies: “traditional pull policies” focusing on non-restrictive strategies such as incentives for public transport; “car-based push policies” focusing on actively limiting car use; and “emerging policies” focusing on innovative technologies such as electrification and automation. The latent class analysis uncovers six distinct classes, illustrating a spectrum of preferences and attitudes. These classes encompass individuals ranging from strong opposition and neutrality to strong support for various policy types. A highly environmentally conscious class, characterized by higher education levels, strongly supports diverse transport policies, including push and emerging measures, showcasing a commitment to sustainability and readiness for personal sacrifices. However, challenges arise from a class that strongly opposes all types of policies, including traditional pull measures. This class exhibits robust expectations and concerns about policy (features) impacts such as clarity, effectiveness, and fairness, and it is skewed towards a higher proportion of men, with relatively older members. Moreover, they have concerns that such policies might cause adverse consequences for them, such as additional travel time and reduced social interactions. In conclusion, the diverse patterns identified within the population highlight the need for a comprehensive approach to developing transport policies. For the transition towards more sustainable transport systems, the findings show potential for more radical transport policies compared to today’s policy landscape.

Suggested Citation

  • Mehdizadeh, Milad & Solbu, Gisle & Klöckner, Christian A. & Moe Skjølsvold, Tomas, 2024. "Navigating acceptance and controversy of transport policies," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:187:y:2024:i:c:s0965856424002246
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2024.104176
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856424002246
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2024.104176?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. Haugen, Katarina & Vilhelmson, Bertil, 2013. "The divergent role of spatial access: The changing supply and location of service amenities and service travel distance in Sweden," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 10-20.
    2. Mehdizadeh, Milad & Shariat-Mohaymany, Afshin, 2021. "Who are less likely to vote for a low emission charging zone? Attitudes and adoption of hybrid and electric vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 29-43.
    3. Wang, Yacan & Geng, Kexin & May, Anthony D. & Zhou, Huiyu, 2022. "The impact of traffic demand management policy mix on commuter travel choices," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 74-87.
    4. Goodwin, Phil, 1999. "Transformation of transport policy in Great Britain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 33(7-8), pages 655-669.
    5. Cassetta, Ernesto & Marra, Alessandro & Pozzi, Cesare & Antonelli, Paola, 2017. "Emerging technological trajectories and new mobility solutions. A large-scale investigation on transport-related innovative start-ups and implications for policy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-11.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Lisa Winkler & Drew Pearce & Jenny Nelson & Oytun Babacan, 2023. "The effect of sustainable mobility transition policies on cumulative urban transport emissions and energy demand," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    9. Straubinger, Anna & Rothfeld, Raoul & Shamiyeh, Michael & Büchter, Kai-Daniel & Kaiser, Jochen & Plötner, Kay Olaf, 2020. "An overview of current research and developments in urban air mobility – Setting the scene for UAM introduction," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    10. Tørnblad, Silje H. & Kallbekken, Steffen & Korneliussen, Kristine & Mideksa, Torben K., 2014. "Using mobility management to reduce private car use: Results from a natural field experiment in Norway," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 9-15.
    11. Lawrence Frank & Mark Bradley & Sarah Kavage & James Chapman & T. Lawton, 2008. "Urban form, travel time, and cost relationships with tour complexity and mode choice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 37-54, January.
    12. Gary T. Henry & Craig S. Gordon, 2003. "Driving less for better air: Impacts of a public information campaign," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(1), pages 45-63.
    13. Xenias, Dimitrios & Whitmarsh, Lorraine, 2013. "Dimensions and determinants of expert and public attitudes to sustainable transport policies and technologies," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 75-85.
    14. Kirschner, Franziska & Lanzendorf, Martin, 2020. "Support for innovative on-street parking policies: empirical evidence from an urban neighborhood," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    15. Dugan, Anna & Mayer, Jakob & Thaller, Annina & Bachner, Gabriel & Steininger, Karl W., 2022. "Developing policy packages for low-carbon passenger transport: A mixed methods analysis of trade-offs and synergies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    16. Anne Aguilera & Joseph Cacciari, 2020. "Living with fewer cars: review and challenges on household demotorization," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(6), pages 796-809, November.
    17. Hössinger, Reinhard & Peer, Stefanie & Juschten, Maria, 2023. "Give citizens a task: An innovative tool to compose policy bundles that reach the climate goal," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    18. Danique Ton & Lara-Britt Zomer & Florian Schneider & Sascha Hoogendoorn-Lanser & Dorine Duives & Oded Cats & Serge Hoogendoorn, 2020. "Latent classes of daily mobility patterns: the relationship with attitudes towards modes," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1843-1866, August.
    19. 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.
    20. May, A. D. & Roberts, M, 1995. "The design of integrated transport strategies," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 97-105, April.
    21. Bert Van Wee & Gerard De Jong & Hans Nijland, 2011. "Accelerating Car Scrappage: A Review of Research into the Environmental Impacts," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(5), pages 549-569.
    22. Rogge, Karoline S. & Reichardt, Kristin, 2016. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1620-1635.
    23. 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.
    24. Huang, Yuhan & Ng, Elvin C.Y. & Zhou, John L. & Surawski, Nic C. & Chan, Edward F.C. & Hong, Guang, 2018. "Eco-driving technology for sustainable road transport: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 596-609.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.
    4. Ye, Hui & Wu, Fei & Yan, Tiantian & Li, Zexuan & Zheng, Zhengnan & Zhou, Dequn & Wang, Qunwei, 2024. "Decarbonizing urban passenger transportation: Policy effectiveness and interactions," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 311(C).
    5. Tobias Eibinger & Hans Manner & Karl Steininger, 2024. "Shifting Gears? The Impact of Austria's Transport Policy Mix on CO2 Emissions from Passenger Cars," Graz Economics Papers 2024-10, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    6. Tian, Lijun & Cui, Shuang & Huang, Haijun & Xu, Yan & Wang, Yacan, 2024. "How the norm activation model explains the individuals’ response to Tradable Credit Schemes and reducing car use," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 208-223.
    7. Cayetano Medina-Molina & Noemí Pérez-Macías & Sierra Rey-Tienda, 2024. "Strategies for urban cycling: an analysis through generalized analytic induction," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 21(4), pages 963-997, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Karimi, Sina & Karami, Hossein & Samadzad, Mahdi, 2024. "The role of travel satisfaction and attitudes toward travel modes in the prospect of adoption of urban air taxis: Evidence from a stated preference survey in Tehran," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    10. Mohamad Shatanawi & Fatma Abdelkhalek & Ferenc Mészáros, 2020. "Urban Congestion Charging Acceptability: An International Comparative Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-15, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Selzer, Sina, 2021. "Car-reduced neighborhoods as blueprints for the transition toward an environmentally friendly urban transport system? A comparison of narratives and mobility-related practices in two case studies," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    13. Ghada Alturif & Wafaa Saleh, 2023. "Travel Demand Management in an Auto Dominated City: Can Travel Behaviour Be Nudged in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-19, June.
    14. Axsen, Jonn & Wolinetz, Michael, 2021. "Taxes, tolls and ZEV zones for climate: Synthesizing insights on effectiveness, efficiency, equity, acceptability and implementation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    15. Gomez, Juan & Papanikolaou, Anestis & Vassallo, José Manuel, 2016. "Measuring regional differences in users' perceptions towards interurban toll roads," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 22-33.
    16. 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.
    17. Mehdizadeh, Milad & Shariat-Mohaymany, Afshin, 2021. "Who are less likely to vote for a low emission charging zone? Attitudes and adoption of hybrid and electric vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 29-43.
    18. Holguín-Veras, José & Encarnación, Trilce & González-Calderón, Carlos A., 2020. "User perception of fairness of time-of-day pricing and other typical toll discounts," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 560-581.
    19. Torkayesh, Ali Ebadi & Venghaus, Sandra, 2024. "Decoding the transport policy maze towards climate neutrality: Cross-sectoral policy landscapes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    20. Saeed Vasebi & Yeganeh M. Hayeri, 2021. "Collective Driving to Mitigate Climate Change: Collective-Adaptive Cruise Control," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-30, August.

    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:187:y:2024:i:c:s0965856424002246. 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.