IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v18y2011i6p856-861.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling politicians' preferences for road pricing policies: A regret-based and utilitarian perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Chorus, Caspar G.
  • Annema, Jan Anne
  • Mouter, Niek
  • van Wee, Bert

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a stated choice-study among Dutch local politicians in the context of road pricing policies. Politicians were asked to express their preferences for policy-options that differed in terms of (i) emissions reduction, (ii) congestion reduction, (iii) operational costs, (iv) acceptability among the general public and (v) acceptability among retailers. Utility-maximization-based and regret-minimization-based discrete choice models were estimated, and their results compared, on 238 stated choices made by members of Dutch city-councils. The estimated models allow for the evaluation of the popularity of different road pricing scenarios among Dutch local politicians, as a function of their performance in terms of the above-mentioned criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Chorus, Caspar G. & Annema, Jan Anne & Mouter, Niek & van Wee, Bert, 2011. "Modeling politicians' preferences for road pricing policies: A regret-based and utilitarian perspective," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 856-861, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:18:y:2011:i:6:p:856-861
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X11000813
    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. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(2), pages 158-174, September.
    2. Wernerfelt, Birger, 1995. "A Rational Reconstruction of the Compromise Effect: Using Market Data to Infer Utilities," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(4), pages 627-633, March.
    3. Jakobsson, C. & Fujii, S. & Gärling, T., 2000. "Determinants of private car users' acceptance of road pricing," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 153-158, April.
    4. Michel Beuthe & Veli Himanen & Aura Reggiani & Luca Zamparini (ed.), 2004. "Transport Developments and Innovations in an Evolving World," Advances in Spatial Science, Springer, number 978-3-540-24827-9.
    5. Viegas, José M., 2001. "Making urban road pricing acceptable and effective: searching for quality and equity in urban mobility," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 289-294, October.
    6. Rouwendal, Jan & Verhoef, Erik T., 2006. "Basic economic principles of road pricing: From theory to applications," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 106-114, March.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    8. McKinnon, Alan C., 2006. "Government plans for lorry road-user charging in the UK: a critique and an alternative," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 204-216, May.
    9. Erik Verhoef & Michiel C.J. Bliemer & Linda Steg & Bert van Wee (ed.), 2008. "Pricing in Road Transport," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4192.
    10. Moshe Ben-Akiva & Joffre Swait, 1986. "The Akaike Likelihood Ratio Index," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 133-136, May.
    11. 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.
    12. Rienstra, S.A. & Rietveld, P., 1996. "From the expected to the desired future of passenger transport: a stakeholder approach," Serie Research Memoranda 0006, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    13. Schade, Jens & Schlag, Bernhard, 2000. "Acceptability of Urban Transport Pricing," Research Reports 72, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    14. Eran Feitelson & Ilan Salomon, 2004. "The Political Economy of Transport Innovations," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Michel Beuthe & Veli Himanen & Aura Reggiani & Luca Zamparini (ed.), Transport Developments and Innovations in an Evolving World, chapter 2, pages 11-26, Springer.
    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. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Prato, Carlo G., 2016. "On the robustness of random regret minimization modelling outcomes towards omitted attributes," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 51-70.
    2. Boeri, Marco & Scarpa, Riccardo & Chorus, Caspar G., 2014. "Stated choices and benefit estimates in the context of traffic calming schemes: Utility maximization, regret minimization, or both?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 121-135.
    3. Glavic, Drazenko & Milos, Mladenovic & Luttinen, Tapio & Cicevic, Svetlana & Trifunovic, Aleksandar, 2017. "Road to price: User perspectives on road pricing in transition country," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 79-94.
    4. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid, 2019. "Laboratory experimentation and simulation of discrete direction choices: Investigating hypothetical bias, decision-rule effect and external validity based on aggregate prediction measures," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 134-157.
    5. Boeri, Marco & Longo, Alberto & Grisolía, José M. & Hutchinson, W. George & Kee, Frank, 2013. "The role of regret minimisation in lifestyle choices affecting the risk of coronary heart disease," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 253-260.
    6. Chorus, Caspar G., 2012. "Logsums for utility-maximizers and regret-minimizers, and their relation with desirability and satisfaction," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1003-1012.
    7. Longo, Alberto & Boeri, Marco, 2014. "Information, Random Regret Minimisation, Random Utility Maximisation: Willingness to pay for Renewable Energy," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182670, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Guevara, Cristian Angelo & Chorus, Caspar G., 2015. "New insights on random regret minimization models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 91-109.
    9. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Dekker, Thijs, 2014. "Random regret minimization for consumer choice modeling: Assessment of empirical evidence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 2428-2436.
    10. Caspar G Chorus & John M Rose & David A Hensher, 2013. "Regret Minimization or Utility Maximization: It Depends on the Attribute," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 40(1), pages 154-169, February.

    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. Krabbenborg, Lizet & van Langevelde-van Bergen, Chris & Molin, Eric, 2021. "Public support for tradable peak credit schemes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 243-259.
    2. Chorus, Caspar G. & Koetse, Mark J. & Hoen, Anco, 2013. "Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: Comparing a utility maximization and a regret minimization model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 901-908.
    3. Junghwa Kim & Jan-Dirk Schmöcker & Cecilia Bergstad & Satoshi Fujii & Tommy Gärling, 2014. "The influence of personality on acceptability of sustainable transport policies," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 855-872, July.
    4. Jean-Philippe Meloche, 2019. "Towards a New Era in Road Pricing? Lessons from the Experience of First Movers," CIRANO Working Papers 2019s-35, CIRANO.
    5. Caspar Chorus, 2011. "Random Regret Minimization: An Overview of Model Properties and Empirical Evidence," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1), pages 75-92, July.
    6. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Sobhani, Anae & Szép, Teodóra, 2021. "Obfuscation maximization-based decision-making: Theory, methodology and first empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 28-44.
    7. Alberini, Anna & Ščasný, Milan & Bigano, Andrea, 2018. "Policy- v. individual heterogeneity in the benefits of climate change mitigation: Evidence from a stated-preference survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 565-575.
    8. 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.
    9. Christophe Alaux, 2012. "Confiance, acceptabilité et comportement d’achat: la performance des politiques publiques environnementales," Post-Print hal-01824049, HAL.
    10. 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.
    11. Pinger, Pia & Ruhmer-Krell, Isabel & Schumacher, Heiner, 2016. "The compromise effect in action: Lessons from a restaurant's menu," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 14-34.
    12. 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.
    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. 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.
    15. Ben-Elia, Eran & Ettema, Dick, 2009. "Carrots versus sticks: Rewarding commuters for avoiding the rush-hour--a study of willingness to participate," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 68-76, March.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Chorus, Caspar G. & de Jong, Gerard C., 2011. "Modeling experienced accessibility for utility-maximizers and regret-minimizers," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 1155-1162.
    20. Moeinaddini, Amin & Habibian, Meeghat, 2023. "Transportation demand management policy efficiency: An attempt to address the effectiveness and acceptability of policy packages," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 317-330.

    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:trapol:v:18:y:2011:i:6:p:856-861. 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/30473/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.