Optimizing the implementation of policy measures through social acceptance segmentation

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.

[1]  David Banister,et al.  Travel reduction strategies: intentions and outcomes , 1997 .

[2]  P. Stenner,et al.  Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation , 2005 .

[3]  W. Stephenson.  The study of behavior : Q-technique and its methodology , 1955 .

[4]  L. Steg,et al.  Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm , 2010 .

[5]  Cristina Pronello,et al.  Traveler segmentation strategy with nominal variables through correspondence analysis , 2010 .

[6]  J. W. Guiver,et al.  Modal talk: Discourse analysis of how people talk about bus and car travel , 2007 .

[7]  Louise Eriksson,et al.  Acceptability of Travel Demand Management Measures: the Importance of Problem Awareness, Moral, Freedom, and Fairness , 2006 .

[8]  M Meadows,et al.  HELPING DRIVERS OUT OF THEIR CARS: INTEGRATING TRANSPORT POLICY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY FOR SUSTAINABLE CHANGE , 2000 .

[9]  Geert Wets,et al.  Shifting towards environment-friendly modes: profiling travelers using Q-methodology , 2009 .

[10]  Jillian Anable,et al.  'Complacent Car Addicts' or 'Aspiring Environmentalists'? Identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory , 2005 .

[11]  Neil Thorpe,et al.  PUBLIC ATTITUDES TO TDM MEASURES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY , 2000 .

[12]  Shand H. Stringham.  DOES QUALITY MANAGEMENT WORK IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR , 2004 .

[13]  T. Gärling,et al.  Travel Demand Management Targeting Reduced Private Car Use: Effectiveness, Public Acceptability and Political Feasibility , 2007 .

[14]  Bryan Matthews,et al.  Research challenges in urban transport policy , 2003 .

[15]  Todd Litman,et al.  THE ONLINE TDM ENCYCLOPEDIA: MOBILITY MANAGEMENT INFORMATION GATEWAY , 2003 .

[16]  Vincent Kaufmann.  Modal Practices : From the rationales behind car and public transport use to coherent transport policies , 2000 .

[17]  J. Garvill,et al.  Acceptability of travel demand management measures: The importance of problem awareness, personal norm, freedom, and fairness , 2006 .

[18]  Steven R. Brown.  A Primer on Q Methodology , 1993, Operant Subjectivity.

[19]  S. Haustein,et al.  Reduced use of environmentally friendly modes of transportation caused by perceived mobility necessities: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. , 2007 .

[20]  John Barry,et al.  Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology , 1999 .

[21]  Jock Given,et al.  Getting from A to B , 2007 .

[22]  F. Rajé,et al.  Using Q methodology to develop more perceptive insights on transport and social inclusion , 2007 .

[23]  Piet Rietveld,et al.  Getting from A to B: Operant Approaches to Travel Decision Making , 2004, Operant Subjectivity.

[24]  F. Witlox,et al.  Introducing a commute-energy performance index for Flanders , 2009 .