IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v43y2009i3p258-268.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Framing the role of Decision Support in the case of Stockholm Congestion Charging Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Gudmundsson, Henrik
  • Ericsson, Eva
  • Hugosson, Muriel Beser
  • Rosqvist, Lena Smidfelt

Abstract

Congestion charging was - as a trial - introduced in Stockholm from January 3rd to July 31st 2006. After the referendum in September 2006, the charging system was finally introduced as permanent from August 2007 with some adjustments to the Trial design. The idea of congestion charging is unique in a Swedish context, and the introduction of the Stockholm system has been highly controversial. Considerable efforts have therefore been undertaken to provide information that could serve as 'Decision Support' along the way. This has included e.g. modelling and forecasts before the Trial, a comprehensive evaluation programme during the Trial, extensive stakeholder consultations throughout, and various information and communication strategies. But what difference did this information input make, and what was its role in the process from initiating the system, to its final adoption? In this paper we pave the way for investigating the use and role of 'Decision Support' in the Stockholm Congestion Charging experiment. We adopt a definition of Decision Support as the systematic application of externally produced knowledge in transport planning and policy making processes. We then derive an analytical framework from the research literature on 'knowledge utilization' in policy making. This research has generally found that both 'technical', 'communicative', and 'institutional' aspects of the Decision Support matter for its influence on actual policy making processes and results. In our analysis we find a similar pattern. This high technical quality of the monitoring and evaluation programmes provided for solid verified results, while the institutional arrangements and the communication strategies helped to ensure the credibility and legitimacy of the information for the decision makers. The availability of rich contents coupled with strategies for the timely and targeted information delivery suggest that direct 'instrumental' use could have taken place. At a more general level the Trial represents an advanced form of 'Decision Support' that goes beyond the mere application of calculated results to encompass a process where the decision parameters themselves become part of the change process.

Suggested Citation

  • Gudmundsson, Henrik & Ericsson, Eva & Hugosson, Muriel Beser & Rosqvist, Lena Smidfelt, 2009. "Framing the role of Decision Support in the case of Stockholm Congestion Charging Trial," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 258-268, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:43:y:2009:i:3:p:258-268
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965-8564(08)00159-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Odeck, James & Bråthen, Svein, 2002. "Toll financing in Norway: The success, the failures and perspectives for the future," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 253-260, July.
    2. Eliasson, Jonas & Hultkrantz, Lars & Nerhagen, Lena & Rosqvist, Lena Smidfelt, 2009. "The Stockholm congestion - charging trial 2006: Overview of effects," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 240-250, March.
    3. Cash, David & Clark, William & Alcock, Frank & Dickson, Nancy & Eckley, Noelle & Jager, Jill, 2002. "Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making," Working Paper Series rwp02-046, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Lisa Kane & Romano Del Mistro, 2003. "Changes in transport planning policy: Changes in transport planning methodology?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 113-131, May.
    5. Ryley, Tim & Gjersoe, Nathalia, 2006. "Newspaper response to the Edinburgh congestion charging proposals," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 66-73, January.
    6. Peter Nijkamp & John Baggen & Bert van der Knaap, 1996. "Spatial Sustainability And The Tyranny Of Transport: A Causal Path Scenario Analysis," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(4), pages 501-524, October.
    7. Saleh, Wafaa, 2005. "Road user charging: Theory and practice," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 373-376, September.
    8. Schade, J. & Baum, M., 2007. "Reactance or acceptance? Reactions towards the introduction of road pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 41-48, January.
    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. Odeck, James & Kjerkreit, Anne, 2010. "Evidence on users' attitudes towards road user charges--A cross-sectional survey of six Norwegian toll schemes," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 349-358, November.
    2. Eliasson, Jonas & Jonsson, Lina, 2011. "The unexpected "yes": Explanatory factors behind the positive attitudes to congestion charges in Stockholm," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 636-647, August.
    3. Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas & Hugosson, Muriel & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2012. "The Stockholm congestion charges – five years on. Effects, acceptability and lessons learnt," Working papers in Transport Economics 2012:3, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    4. Bones, Emma J. & Barrella, Elise M. & Amekudzi, Adjo A., 2013. "Implementation of evidence-based design approaches in transportation decision making," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 317-328.
    5. Reinhart Buenk & Sara S (Saartjie) Grobbelaar & Isabel Meyer, 2019. "A Framework for the Sustainability Assessment of (Micro)transit Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-24, October.
    6. Vonk Noordegraaf, Diana & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2014. "Policy implementation lessons from six road pricing cases," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 172-191.
    7. 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.
    8. Naoko Kaida & Kosuke Kaida, 2015. "Spillover effect of congestion charging on pro-environmental behavior," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 409-421, June.
    9. Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas & Hugosson, Muriel B. & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2012. "The Stockholm congestion charges—5 years on. Effects, acceptability and lessons learnt," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 1-12.

    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. 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.
    2. Vonk Noordegraaf, Diana & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2014. "Policy implementation lessons from six road pricing cases," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 172-191.
    3. De Borger, Bruno & Proost, Stef, 2012. "A political economy model of road pricing," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 79-92.
    4. Winslott-Hiselius, Lena & Brundell-Freij, Karin & Vagland, Asa & Byström, Camilla, 2009. "The development of public attitudes towards the Stockholm congestion trial," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 269-282, March.
    5. Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas & Hugosson, Muriel B. & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2012. "The Stockholm congestion charges—5 years on. Effects, acceptability and lessons learnt," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 1-12.
    6. Eliasson, Jonas, 2017. "Congestion pricing," MPRA Paper 88224, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Boggio, Margherita & Beria, Paolo, 2019. "The role of transport supply in the acceptability of pollution charge extension. The case of Milan," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 92-106.
    10. Eliasson, Jonas, 2014. "The role of attitude structures, direct experience and reframing for the success of congestion pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 81-95.
    11. Catherine Althaus & Lindsay M. Tedds & Allen McAvoy, 2011. "The Feasibility of Implementing a Congestion Charge on the Halifax Peninsula: Filling the "Missing Link" of Implementation," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 37(4), pages 541-561, December.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Morton, Craig & Mattioli, Giulio & Anable, Jillian, 2021. "Public acceptability towards Low Emission Zones: The role of attitudes, norms, emotions, and trust," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 256-270.
    15. 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.
    16. Dieplinger, Maria & Fürst, Elmar, 2014. "The acceptability of road pricing: Evidence from two studies in Vienna and four other European cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 10-18.
    17. Koh, Wee Ping & Chin, Kian Keong, 2022. "The applicability of prospect theory in examining drivers’ trip decisions, in response to Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) rates adjustments - a study using travel data in Singapore," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 115-127.
    18. De Borger, Bruno & Glazer, Amihai, 2017. "Support and opposition to a Pigovian tax: Road pricing with reference-dependent preferences," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 31-47.
    19. Eliasson, Jonas, 2014. "The Stockholm congestion pricing syndrome: how congestion charges went from unthinkable to uncontroversial," Working papers in Transport Economics 2014:1, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    20. Andersson, David & Nässén, Jonas, 2016. "The Gothenburg congestion charge scheme: A pre–post analysis of commuting behavior and travel satisfaction," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 82-89.

    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:43:y:2009:i:3:p:258-268. 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.