IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v22y2012icp80-87.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimizing the implementation of policy measures through social acceptance segmentation

Author

Listed:
  • Cools, Mario
  • Brijs, Kris
  • Tormans, Hans
  • De Laender, Jessie
  • Wets, Geert

Abstract

This paper proposes Q-methodology as a technique for the identification of more homogeneous subgroups or ‘segments’ within a rather heterogeneous overall population when it comes to social acceptance of demand-restricting policy measures. Identification of such segments would allow policy makers to better tailor their future actions and thereby increase the chance for a successful implementation of the measures they propose. A set of 33 persons, selected in function of age, gender and car ownership evaluated the acceptability of a total number of 42 demand-restricting policy measures. Special care was taken that the final set of statements covered the four classically distinguished demand-restricting strategies, i.e., improved transport options, incentives for the use of alternative transport modes, parking and land-use management, and institutional policy revision. In addition, a balance between both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ and ‘push’ and ‘pull’ measures was strived for. The results indicate that four different segments in terms of social acceptance of demand-restricting policy measures can be distinguished, i.e., travelers in favor of traffic calming, travelers against hard push measures, travelers in favor of demand restriction, and travelers against policy innovations. Besides the differences and similarities between these segments, the practical implications for policy makers are discussed, together with a series of specific recommendations and suggestions for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Cools, Mario & Brijs, Kris & Tormans, Hans & De Laender, Jessie & Wets, Geert, 2012. "Optimizing the implementation of policy measures through social acceptance segmentation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 80-87.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:22:y:2012:i:c:p:80-87
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.05.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X12000832
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.05.013?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. Diana, Marco & Pronello, Cristina, 2010. "Traveler segmentation strategy with nominal variables through correspondence analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 183-190, May.
    2. Boussauw, Kobe & Witlox, Frank, 2009. "Introducing a commute-energy performance index for Flanders," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 580-591, June.
    3. Marshall, Stephen & Banister, David, 2000. "Travel reduction strategies: intentions and outcomes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 321-338, June.
    4. Anable, Jillian, 2005. "'Complacent Car Addicts' or 'Aspiring Environmentalists'? Identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 65-78, January.
    5. Guiver, J.W., 2007. "Modal talk: Discourse analysis of how people talk about bus and car travel," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 233-248, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Litman, Todd, 2003. "The Online TDM Encyclopedia: mobility management information gateway," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 245-249, July.
    8. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    9. 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.
    10. May, A. D. & Jopson, A. F. & Matthews, B., 2003. "Research challenges in urban transport policy," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 157-164, July.
    11. Stradling, S. G. & Meadows, M. L. & Beatty, S., 2000. "Helping drivers out of their cars Integrating transport policy and social psychology for sustainable change," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 207-215, July.
    12. Mario Cools & Elke Moons & Brecht Janssens & Geert Wets, 2009. "Shifting towards environment-friendly modes: profiling travelers using Q-methodology," Transportation, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 437-453, 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. S. S. Ganji & A. N. Ahangar & Samaneh Jamshidi Bandari, 2022. "Evaluation of vehicular emissions reduction strategies using a novel hybrid method integrating BWM, Q methodology and ER approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(10), pages 11576-11614, October.
    2. Hickman, Robin & Garcia, Milena Martinez & Arnd, Michel & Peixoto, Luisa Feyo Guimaraes, 2021. "Euston station redevelopment: Regeneration or gentrification?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    3. Cools, Mario & Fabbro, Yannick & Bellemans, Tom, 2016. "Free public transport: A socio-cognitive analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 96-107.
    4. Sehatpour, Mohammad-Hadi & Kazemi, Aliyeh & Sehatpour, Hesam-eddin, 2017. "Evaluation of alternative fuels for light-duty vehicles in Iran using a multi-criteria approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 295-310.
    5. Paula Vicente & Elizabeth Reis, 2016. "Profiling public transport users through perceptions about public transport providers and satisfaction with the public transport service," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 387-403, December.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Yongqing Xiong & Shufeng Qin, 2021. "Differences in the effects of China’s new energy vehicle industry policies on market growth from the perspective of policy mix," Energy & Environment, , vol. 32(3), pages 542-561, May.
    9. Zhiyu Fang & Ling Jiang & Zhong Fang, 2021. "Does Economic Policy Intervention Inhibit the Efficiency of China’s Green Energy Economy?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-20, December.
    10. Ganji, S.S. & Ahangar, A.N. & Awasthi, Anjali & Jamshidi Bandari, Smaneh, 2021. "Psychological analysis of intercity bus passenger satisfaction using Q methodology," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 345-363.
    11. Jana, Arnab & Harata, Noboru, 2016. "Provisioning health care infrastructure in communities: Empirical evidences from West Bengal, India," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 37-46.
    12. Di Wang & Yuman Li, 2022. "Measuring the Policy Effectiveness of China’s New-Energy Vehicle Industry and Its Differential Impact on Supply and Demand Markets," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-16, July.
    13. Luo, Erga & Yan, Ru & He, Yaping & Han, Zhen & Feng, Yiyu & Qian, Wenrong & Li, Jinkai, 2024. "Does biogas industrial policy promote the industrial transformation?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    14. 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).
    15. Guoxing Zhang & Zhenhua Zhang & Xiulin Gao & Lean Yu & Shouyang Wang & Yingluo Wang, 2017. "Impact of Energy Conservation and Emissions Reduction Policy Means Coordination on Economic Growth: Quantitative Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-19, April.

    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. 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).
    2. Habibian, Meeghat & Kermanshah, Mohammad, 2013. "Coping with congestion: Understanding the role of simultaneous transportation demand management policies on commuters," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 229-237.
    3. Creemers, Lieve & Tormans, Hans & Bellemans, Tom & Janssens, Davy & Wets, Geert & Cools, Mario, 2015. "Knowledge of the concept Light Rail Transit: Exploring its relevance and identification of the determinants of various knowledge levels," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 31-43.
    4. 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.
    5. Dacko, Scott G. & Spalteholz, Carolin, 2014. "Upgrading the city: Enabling intermodal travel behaviour," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 222-235.
    6. S. S. Ganji & A. N. Ahangar & Samaneh Jamshidi Bandari, 2022. "Evaluation of vehicular emissions reduction strategies using a novel hybrid method integrating BWM, Q methodology and ER approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(10), pages 11576-11614, October.
    7. Christophe Alaux, 2012. "Confiance, acceptabilité et comportement d’achat: la performance des politiques publiques environnementales," Post-Print hal-01824049, HAL.
    8. Romero, Fernando & Gomez, Juan & Paez, Antonio & Vassallo, José Manuel, 2020. "Toll roads vs. Public transportation: A study on the acceptance of congestion-calming measures in Madrid," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 319-342.
    9. Uba, Chijioke Dike & Chatzidakis, Andreas, 2016. "Understanding engagement and disengagement from pro-environmental behaviour: The role of neutralization and affirmation techniques in maintaining persistence in and desistance from car use," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 278-294.
    10. Dawkins, L.C. & Williamson, D.B. & Barr, S.W. & Lampkin, S.R., 2018. "Influencing transport behaviour: A Bayesian modelling approach for segmentation of social surveys," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 91-103.
    11. Santoso, Djoen San & Yajima, Masaru & Sakamoto, Kunihiro & Kubota, Hisashi, 2012. "Opportunities and strategies for increasing bus ridership in rural Japan: A case study of Hidaka City," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 320-329.
    12. Ali, Fazilatulaili & Dissanayake, Dilum & Bell, Margaret & Farrow, Malcolm, 2018. "Investigating car users' attitudes to climate change using multiple correspondence analysis," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 237-247.
    13. Maria Juschten & Shannon Page & Helen Fitt, 2020. "Mindsets Set in Concrete? Exploring the Perspectives of Domestic Travellers on New Zealand’s (Auto-)Mobility Culture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-21, September.
    14. Sottile, Eleonora & Giacchetti, Tommaso & Tuveri, Giovanni & Piras, Francesco & Calli, Daniele & Concas, Vittoria & Zamberlan, Leonardo & Meloni, Italo & Carrese, Stefano, 2021. "An innovative GPS smartphone based strategy for university mobility management: A case study at the University of RomaTre, Italy," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    15. Chowdhury, Subeh & Ceder, Avishai (Avi), 2016. "Users’ willingness to ride an integrated public-transport service: A literature review," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 183-195.
    16. Vecchio, Yari & Di Pasquale, Jorgelina & Del Giudice, Teresa & Pauselli, Gregorio & Masi, Margherita & Adinolfi, Felice, 2022. "Precision farming: what do Italian farmers really think? An application of the Q methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    17. Ganji, S.S. & Ahangar, A.N. & Awasthi, Anjali & Jamshidi Bandari, Smaneh, 2021. "Psychological analysis of intercity bus passenger satisfaction using Q methodology," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 345-363.
    18. Beirão, Gabriela & Sarsfield Cabral, J.A., 2007. "Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 478-489, November.
    19. 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.
    20. Eldeeb, Gamal & Sears, Sean & Mohamed, Moataz, 2023. "What do users want from transit? Qualitative analysis of current and potential users' perceptions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 171(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:trapol:v:22:y:2012:i:c:p:80-87. 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.