When Are Transport Pricing Policies Fair and Acceptable?

Abstract

This study examines the relative importance of six policy outcomes related to different fairness principles for the perceived fairness and acceptability of pricing policies aimed at changing transport behaviour. The fairness and acceptability of six different types of transport pricing policies were systematically higher if policy outcomes were related to environmental justice and equality. The policy measures were evaluated as more acceptable and fair when respondents believed that future generations, nature and the environment were protected (reflecting environmental justice), and to a lesser extent, when everybody was equally affected by the policy outcomes (reflecting equality), irrespective of absolute differences in fairness and acceptability of the policies. Policy outcomes reflecting egoistic concerns (e.g. being financially worse off and being worse off than others) and equity (e.g. proportional to people's income and contribution to problems) were related to the fairness and acceptability of some policy measures, but no systematic pattern was found across six policy measures. This suggests that policy outcomes related to distributions that focus on collective considerations appear to be more important for the fairness and acceptability of transport pricing policies than those focusing on individual interests. Theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.

Charges for plastic bags: Motivational and behavioral effects

“…This is in line with research on transport pricing policies where those who support the policy stress environmental and collective consequences, while those who find the policies less acceptable focus on the negative consequences for themselves (Schuitema, Steg & Rothengatter, 2010;Schuitema, Steg & Van Kruining, 2011). This suggests that environmental considerations are crucial for policy support and that stressing environmental benefits of the charge might increase public support.…”

Rethinking the role of scenarios: Participatory scripting of low-carbon scenarios for France

“…This result is supported by several empirical studies (Eriksson et al, 2006(Eriksson et al, , 2008Joireman et al, 2001;Schuitema et al, 2011;de Groot and Schuitema, 2012). This is particularly true for the building sector with the perceived acceptability of incentives versus compulsory retrofitting.…”

Consumer acceptance of intervention strategies for healthy food choices

“…Transport policy research provides additional knowledge on the process of consumer acceptance of interventions (Eriksson, Garvill, & Nordlund, 2008;Schuitema, Steg, & Van Kruining, 2011;Steg, Dreijerink, & Abrahamse, 2005;Steg & Vlek, 2009). Studies in this application domain show that acceptance of interventions depends on two distinct drivers: general beliefs and intervention-specific beliefs.…”

“…In addition, the acceptability of an intervention is an important condition for its implementation. Stakeholders will be reluctant to intervene without public support (Schuitema et al, 2011). Knowledge of factors influencing consumer acceptance of intervention strategies thus is crucial.…”

“…In contrast, sufficient acceptance elicits rationalization, leading people to 88 be more likely to adopt the intended behaviour (Laurin et al, 2012). In addition, acceptance of interventions is an important condition for its implementation because stakeholders will be reluctant to intervene without public support (Schuitema et al, 2011). Despite its importance, extensive knowledge on the processes underlying acceptance of intervention strategies for food choices is currently lacking (Mazzocchi et al, 2014).…”