The impact of rivalry and excludability on transport choices: a preliminary research

• Autorzy: Paradowska Monika

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.34659/2019/2/28

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose: Many policies aimed at developing sustainable transport are based on a (partial) exclusion of car drivers and on a decrease in rivalry between different transport users. In this context, the primary purpose of this study is to assess the impact of changes in levels of rivalry and excludability resulting from infrastructural changes in the transport system providing enhanced sustainable transport choices. Methodology/approach: Rivalry and excludability determine patterns of consumption and are the basis of many aspects of sustainable transport policies. Therefore, the key issue for policy making is to determine the extent to which changes in these features support sustainable transport choices. To attempt to understand these features, preliminary survey research was conducted among users of the Wrocław (Poland) transport system to investigate; (i) which changes in the transport system are the most important for respondents, (ii) how these changes influence the intensity of rivalry and excludability, and (iii) whether these changes lead to a shift in transport mode choice. Findings: Changes in the transport system led to decreased or unchanged intensity of rivalry. There were few examples of exclusion, which affected primarily car users. Modifications in the levels of the two analysed features were not accompanied by a permanent shift towards more sustainable transport choices. Originality/value: While many studies investigate changes in transport behaviour resulting from particular solutions that promote sustainable transport, this study focuses on how transport users react when faced with many different changes in the transport system. The novelty of this approach sheds light on transport choices resulting from changes in rivalry and excludability and the results obtained may assist evidence-based policy recommendations.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

transport behaviour; transport choice; rivalry; excludability; sustainable transport

PL

zachowania transportowe; wybór transportu; rywalizacja; wykluczalność; transport zrównoważony

• Wydawca: Polskie Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistów Środowiska i Zasobów Naturalnych
• Czasopismo: Ekonomia i Środowisko
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: nr 2
• Strony: 160--178
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 73 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Paradowska Monika

• University of Wroclaw Koszarowa Street 3, 51-149, Wrocław, Poland

Bibliografia

• Ajanovic A., Haas R. (2016), Dissemination of electric vehicles in urban areas: Major factors for success, “Energy” Vol. 115 Part 2, pp. 1451-1458, DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.05.040
• Amos P. (2004), Public and Private Sector Roles in the Supply of Transport Infrastructure and Services. Operational Guidance for World Bank Staff, “Transport Papers” No. 1, The World Bank Group, Washington D.C.
• Anas A., Lindsey R. (2011), Reducing Urban Road Transportation Externalities: Road Pricing in Theory and in Practice, “Review of Environmental Economics and Policy” Vol. 5(1), pp. 66–88, DOI: 10.1093/reep/req019
• Armah F.A. et al. (2010), A Systems Dynamics Approach to Explore Traffic Congestion and Air Pollution Link in the City of Accra, Ghana, “Sustainability” Vol. 2, pp. 252-265, DOI: 10.3390/su2010252
• Bachand-Marleau J. et al. (2011), The much appreciated marriage of cycling and transit: But how will it work?, Proceedings of the 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.
• Barata E. et al. (2011), Parking at the UC campus: Problems and solutions, “Cities” Vol. 28, pp. 406-413
• Blum U. (1998), Positive externalities and the public provision of transportation infrastructure: an evolutionary perspective, “Journal of Transportation and Statistics” No. 3(1), p. 81-88
• Börjesson M. et al. (2015), Factors driving public support for road congestion reduction policies: Congestion charging, free public transport and more roads in Stockholm, Helsinki and Lyon, “Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice” Vol. 78, pp. 452-462, DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2015.06.008
• Bos I. et al. (2004), The choice of park & ride facilities: An analysis using a contextdependent hierarchical choice experiment, Proceedings of the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., DOI: 10.1068/a36138
• Bouscasse H. et al. (2018), How does environmental concern influence mode choice habits? A mediation analysis, “Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment” Vol. 59, pp. 205-222, DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2018.01.007
• Buchanan J. (1965), An Economic Theory of Clubs, “Economica” No. 125(32), p. 1-14
• Cattaneo M. et al. (2018), Students’ mobility attitudes and sustainable transport mode choice, “International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education” Vol. 19(3), pp. 942-962, DOI: 10.1108/IJSHE-08-2017-0134
• Chee W.L., Fernandez J.L. (2013), Factors that Influence the Choice of Mode of Transport in Penang: A Preliminary Analysis, “Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences” Vol. 91, pp. 120-127, DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.409
• Christiansen L.B. et al. (2016), International comparisons of the associations between objective measures of the built environment and transport-related walking and cycling: IPEN adult study, “Journal of Transport & Health” Vol. 3(4), pp. 467-478, DOI: 10.1016/j.jth.2016.02.010
• Cirianni F. et al. (2018), A Review Methodology of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans: Objectives and Actions to Promote Cycling and Pedestrian Mobility, in: A. Bisello et al. (eds.), Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions, Green Energy and Technology, pp. 685-697, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-75774-2_46
• Cornagoi E. et al. (2019), Evaluating the Impact of Urban Road Pricing on the Use of Green Transport Modes: The Case of Milan, “OECD Environment Working Papers” No. 143, DOI: 10.1787/ddaa6b25-en
• Davis S.L., Rives L.M., de Maya S.R. (2017), Introducing Personal Social Responsibility as a key element to upgrade CSR, “Spanish Journal of Marketing – ESIC” No. 21, p. 146-163
• de Abreu e Silva J. et al. (2018), The influence of information-based Transport Demand Management measures on commuting mode choice. Comparing web vs. face-to face surveys, “Transportation Research Procedia” Vol. 32, pp. 363-373, DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2018.10.066
• De Jong G., Van de Riet O. (2008), The driving factors of passenger transport, “European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research” Vol. 8(3), pp. 227-250
• De Vos J. et al. (2013), Travel and Subjective Well-Being: A Focus on Findings, Methods and Future Research Needs, “Transport Reviews” Vol. 33(4), pp. 421-442, DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2013.815665
• De Vos J. et al. (2016), Travel mode choice and travel satisfaction: bridging the gap between decision utility and experienced utility, “Transportation” Vol. 43(5), pp.771-796, DOI: 10.1007/s11116-015-9619-9
• dell’Olio, L. et al. (2018), A methodology based on parking policy to promote sustainable mobility in college campuses, “Transport Policy” In Press, Corrected Proof, DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.03.012
• Delmell, E.M., Delmelle E.C. (2012), Exploring spatiotemporal commuting patterns in a university environment, “Transport Policy” Vol. 21, pp. 1-9, DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.12.007
• Ellaway A. et al. (2003), In the driving seat: psychosocial benefits from private motor vehicle transport compared to public transport, “Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour” Vol. 6(3), pp. 217-231, DOI: 10.1016/S1369- 8478(03)00027-5
• European Commission (2017), Sustainable Urban Mobility: European Policy, Practice and Solutions, Luxemburg European Commission (2017), Sustainable Urban Mobility: European Policy, Practice and Solutions, Brussels, https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2017-sustainable-urban-mobility-european-policy-practice-and-solutions.pdf [15-01-2019]
• Farley J.C. (2012), The Economics of Sustainability, in: H. Cabezas, U. Diwekar (eds.), Sustainability: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, Bentham Science Publishers, p. 40-64
• Ford A.C. et al. (2015), Transport Accessibility Analysis Using GIS: Assessing Sustainable Transport in London, “ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information” Vol. 4(1), pp. 124-149, DOI: 10.3390/ijgi4010124
• Fujii S., Taniguchi A. (2006), Determinants of the effectiveness of travel feedback programs – a review of communicative mobility management measures for changing travel behaviour in Japan, “Transport Policy” Vol. 13(5), pp. 339-348, DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.12.007
• Geels F. et al. (2011), Automobility in transition?: A socio-technical analysis of sustainable transport, Routledge
• Geurs K.T. et al. (2010), Accessibility appraisal of land-use/transport policy strategies: More than just adding up travel-time savings, “Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment” Vol. 15, pp. 382-393, DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2010.04.006
• Grison E. et al. (2016), Exploring factors related to users’ experience of public transport route choice: influence of context and users profiles, “Cognition, Technology & Work” Vol. 18(2), pp. 287-301, DOI 10.1007/s10111-015-0359-6
• Hardin G. (1968), The tragedy of the commons, “Science” No. 162, pp. 1243-1248
• Hess S. et al. (2005), Estimation of value of travel-time savings using mixed logit models, “Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice” Vol. 39(2-3), pp. 221- 236, DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2004.09.007
• Hickman R. et al. (2013), Planning more for sustainable mobility, “Journal of Transport Geography” Vol. 33, pp. 210-219, DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.07.004
• Hiselius L.W., Rosqvist L.S. (2016), Mobility Management campaigns as part of the transition towards changing social norms on sustainable travel behaviour, “Journal of Cleaner Production” Vol. 123(1), pp. 34-41, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015. 08.055
• Kopp J. et al. (2015), Do sharing people behave differently? An empirical evaluation of the distinctive mobility patterns of free-floating car-sharing members, “Transportation” Vol. 42(3), pp. 449-469, DOI: 10.1007/s11116-015-9606-1
• Kuppam A. et al. (1999), Analysis of the role of traveller attitudes and perceptions in explaining mode-choice behaviour, “Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board” Vol. 1676, pp. 68-76
• Litman T. (2008), Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements, “Journal of Public Transportation” Vol. 11(2), pp. 43-63, DOI: 10.5038/2375-0901.11.2.3
• Maunder P. et al. (2000), Economics Explained, Third edition, London
• Mayes M. et al. (1996), A qualitative assessment of attitudes to cycling. Transport policy and its implementation, London
• Meijer L.L.J. et al. (2017), The roles of business models in sustainability transitions: Car sharing in Sydney, in R. Rauter et al. (eds.), Exploring a changing view on organizing value creation: developing new business models: contributions to the 2nd international conference on new business models, Institute of Systems Science, Innovation and Sustainability Reports, Vol. 8, Graz, pp. 72-76
• Meng M. et al. (2017), Impact of traveller information on mode choice behaviour, “Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Transport” Vol. 171 (TR1), pp. 11-19, 10.1680/jtran.16.00058)
• Meurs H., Haaijers R. (2001), Spatial structure and mobility, “Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment” Vol. 6, pp. 429-446, DOI: 10.1016/S1361- 9209(01)00007-4
• Musgrave R.A. (1959), The Theory of Public Finance: A Study in Public Economy, New York
• Musgrave R.A. (1962), Provision for Social Goods, in J. Margolis, H. Guitton (eds.) Public Economics: An Analysis of Public Production and Consumption and Their Relations to the Private Sectors, London, pp. 124-44
• Musgrave R.A. (1962), The Public Interest: Efficiency in the Creation and Maintenance of Material Welfare, in: C.J. Friedrich (ed.) In NOMOS V The Public Interest, New York, pp. 107-14
• OECD (2002a), ECMT Round Tables No. 119: Transport and Economic Development, DOI: 10.1787/19900228
• OECD (2002b), OECD Guidelines towards Environmentally Sustainable Transport, http://www.oecd.org/env/greening-transport/oecdguidelinestowardsenvironmentallysustainabletransport.htm [13-09-2018
• Ostrom E. (1990), Governing The Commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
• Ostrom E. (2010), Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems, “American Economic Review” No. 100(3), p. 1-33
• Outwater M. et al. (2003), Attitudinal market segmentation approach to mode choice and ridership forecasting: Structural equation modelling, “Transportation
• Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board” Vol. 1854(1), pp. 32-42, DOI: 10.3141/1854-04
• Paradowska M. (2014), Problems Involved in the Development of Instruments Supporting the Creation of Sustainable Behaviour in Transport, „Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Bankowej we Wrocławiu” No. 1(39), pp. 255-275
• Paradowska M. (2016), Comparison of road safety policy objectives in Poland and in the European Union, in: M. Bąk (ed.), Transport Development Challenges in the Twenty-First Century, Proceedings of the 2015 TranSopot Conference, pp. 103- 123, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-26848-4_11
• Paradowska M. (2017), Measuring socio-economic welfare and sustainable transport – selected dilemmas, „Ekonomia i Środowisko” No. 60(1), pp. 18-27
• Paradowska M. (2017), Wpływ rywalizacji i wykluczenia na rozwój zrównoważonej mobilności miejskiej (The role of rivalry and exclusion in the creation of (more) sustainable passenger transport modes in cities), „Studia i Prace WNEIZ US” No. 47(2), p. 109-118
• Paradowska, M. (2011), Rozwój zrównoważonych systemów transportowych polskich miast i aglomeracji w procesie integracji z Unią Europejską – przykład aglomeracji wrocławskiej (The Development of Sustainable Transport Systems in Polish Cities and Agglomerations in the Context of European Integration – the Case of the Wroclaw Agglomeration), Opole
• Pfaffenbichler P. (2011), Modelling with Systems Dynamics as a Method to Bridge the Gap between Politics, Planning and Science? Lessons Learnt from the Development of the Land Use and Transport Mode MARS, “Transport Reviews: A Transnational Trans-disciplinary Journal” Vol. 31(2), pp. 267-289
• Platje J. (2011), Institutional capital – creating capacity and capabilities for sustainable development, Opole
• Platje J. (2012), Current challenges in the economics of transport systems – a stakeholder and club good approach, “Logistics and Transport” No. 2(15), pp. 37-49
• Platje J. (2014), Zrównoważone systemy transportowe w kontekście efektów zewnętrznych (Sustainable Transport Systems in the Context of External Effects), „Biuletyn Komitetu Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju PAN” No. 254, pp. 151-166
• Platje J. et al. (2017), Limits to positive externalities of transport and infrastructure, in Economy and social development in the open society, Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference ECOTREND 2017 in Târgu Jiu, Gorj County, Romania 2017, pp. 455-461
• Popuri Y. et al. (2011), Importance of traveller attitudes in the choice of public transportation to work: findings from the Regional Transportation Authority Attitudinal Survey, “Transportation” Vol. 38(4), pp. 643-661, DOI: 10.1007/s11116-011-9336-y
• Pucher J., Buehler R. (2016), Safer Cycling Through Improved Infrastructure, “American Journal of Public Health” Vol. 106(12), pp. 2089-2091, DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303507
• Tyrinopoulos Y., Antoniou C. (2013), Factors affecting modal choice in urban mobility, “European Transport Research Review” No. 5(1), pp. 27-39, DOI: 10.1007/s12544-012-0088-3
• UN-Habitat (2013), Planning and design for sustainable urban mobility. Global report on human settlements 2013, Routledge, Oxon, New York
• Verhoef et al. (2009), Pricing in Road Transport: A Multi‐Disciplinary Perspective, Cheltenham-Northampton
• Verplanken B., Wood W. (2006), Interventions to Break and Create Consumer Habits, “Journal of Public Policy & Marketing” Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 90-103, DOI: 10.1509/jppm.25.1.90
• Wang L. et al. (2018), The Impacts of Transportation Infrastructure on Sustainable Development: Emerging Trends and Challenges, “International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health” Vol. 15(1172), pp. 1-24, DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15061172
• Winters, M. et al. (2011), Motivators and deter-rents of bicycling: comparing influences on decisions to ride, “Transportation” Vol. 38(1), pp. 153-168, DOI: 10.1007/s11116-010-9284-y
• Wulfhorst G. et al. (2017), The TUM Accessibility Atlas as a tool for supporting policies of sustainable mobility in metropolitan regions, “Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice” Vol. 104, pp. 121-136, DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2017.04.012
• Ye R., Titheridge H. (2017), Satisfaction with the commute: The role of travel mode choice, built environment and attitudes, “Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment” Vol. 52, Part B, pp. 535-547, DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2016.06.011
• Zespół Doradców Gospodarczych Tor, Polska Organizacja Branży Parkingowej (2017), Parkingi a transport zbiorowy w miastach (Parking space and collective transport in cities), http://www.pobp.org.pl/images/demo/docs/Raport_parkingowy.pdf [16-01-2019]

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2020).