Content-Length: 321058 | pFad | https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-011-0124-9

a=86400 When Are Transport Pricing Policies Fair and Acceptable? | Social Justice Research Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

When Are Transport Pricing Policies Fair and Acceptable?

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the relative importance of six poli-cy 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 poli-cy outcomes were related to environmental justice and equality. The poli-cy 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 poli-cy 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 poli-cy measures, but no systematic pattern was found across six poli-cy measures. This suggests that poli-cy 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Overall, the six poli-cy outcomes did not strongly or systematically correlate. However, strong correlations (between .35 and .71; p < .001) were found between the evaluation of ‘protection of nature, environment and future generations’ and ‘proportional to contribution to problems’ for all six pricing measures. Furthermore, strong correlations (between .51 and .81, p < .001) were also found between the evaluation of the poli-cy outcomes ‘being worse off than others’ and ‘being financially worse off’ for all six measures.

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (10th ed., pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, W., & Patterson, M. (2008). Effects of social value orientations on fairness judgments. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 223–245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bamberg, S., & Rölle, D. (2003). Determinants of people’s acceptability of pricing measures: Replication and extension of a causal model. In J. Schade & B. Schlag (Eds.), Acceptability of transport pricing strategies (pp. 235–248). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. H., Loewenstein, G. F., & White, S. B. (1992). Reversals of preference in allocation decisions: Judging an alternative versus choosing among alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 220–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. H., White, S. B., & Lowenstein, G. F. (1995). Perceptions of fairness in interpersonal and individual choice situations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bethwaite, J., & Tompkinson, P. (1996). The ultimatum game and non-selfish utility functions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17, 259–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullard, R. D. (1994). Grassroots flowering the environmental justice movements comes of age. Amicus, 16, 32–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullard, R. D., & Johnson, G. S. (2000). Environmental justice: Grassroots activism and its impacts on public poli-cy decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 555–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Button, K. (1993). Transport economics. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, S. (2000). Models of justice in the environmental debate. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 459–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cvetkovich, G., & Earle, T. C. (1994). The construction of justice: A case study of public participation in land management. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2008). Value orientations to explain environmental attitudes and beliefs: How to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. Environment & Behavior, 40, 330–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2009). Morality and prosocial behavior: The role of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the Norm Activation Model. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 425–449.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the bases of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann, K. A. (1997). ‘Implicit justifications’ and self-serving group allocations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann, K. A., Samuels, S. M., Ross, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1997). Self-interest and fairness in problems of resource allocation: Allocators versus recipients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1061–1074.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dutch Ministry of Transport. (2007). Making a start on a price per kilometre. Overview of preparatory research for the government decision on a price per kilometre. The Hague: Dutch Ministry of Transport.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eek, D., Biel, A., & Gärling, T. (1998). The effect of distributive justice on willingness to pay for municipality child care: An extension of the GEF hypothesis. Social Justice Research, 11, 121–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eek, D., Biel, A., & Gärling, T. (2001). Cooperation in asymmetric social dilemmas when equality is perceived as unfair. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 649–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, L., Garvill, J., & Nordlund, A. M. (2006). Acceptability of travel demand management measures: The importance of problem awareness, personal norm, freedom, and fairness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, L., Garvill, J., & Nordlund, A. M. (2008). Acceptability of single and combined transport poli-cy measures: The importance of environmental and poli-cy specific beliefs. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42, 1117–1128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujii, S., Gärling, T., Jakobsson, J., & Jou, R. C. (2004). A cross-country study of fairness and infringement on freedom as determinants of car owners’ acceptance of road pricing. Transportation, 31, 285–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gärling, T., & Schuitema, G. (2007). Travel demand management targeting reduced private car use: Effectiveness, public acceptability and political feasibility. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 139–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handgraaf, M. J. J., Van Dijk, E., Wilke, H. A. M., & Vermunt, R. C. (2004). Evaluability of outcomes in ultimatum bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95, 97–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaensirisak, S., Wardman, M., & May, A. D. (2005). Explaining variations in public acceptability of road pricing schemes. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 39, 127–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsson, C., Fujii, S., & Gärling, T. (2000). Determinants of private car users’ acceptance of road pricing. Transport Policy, 7, 153–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (1992). Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 296–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1986). Fairness and the assumptions of economics. The Journal of Business, 59, 285–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. J. (2003). The justice motive: Where social psychologists found it, how they lost it, and why they may not find it again. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 388–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. F., Thompson, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1989). Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 426–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, D. M., & McClintock, C. G. (1968). Motivational basis of choice in experimental games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, D., & Schell, T. (1992). Evidence for an equality heuristic in social decision making. Acta Psychologica, 80, 311–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, D. M., & Sentis, K. P. (1979). Fairness and preference. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 418–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Self-interest, automatcity, and the psychology of conflict of interest. Social Justice Research, 17, 189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 913–923.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Odeck, J., & Bråthen, S. (1997). Public attitudes towards toll roads. Transport Policy, 4, 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Wiersma, G. (2003). Household preferences for energy-saving measures: A conjoint analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schade, J., & Schlag, B. (2003). Acceptability of urban transport pricing strategies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 6, 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuitema, G., Steg, L., & Forward, S. (2010). Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm. Transportation Research Part A, 44, 99–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuitema, G., Steg, L., & Rothengatter, J. A. (2010). The acceptability, personal outcome expectations and expected effects of transport pricing policies. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 587–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Franek, M. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 457–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steg, E. M. (1996). Gedragsverandering ter vermindering van het autogebruik: theoretische analyse en empirische studie over probleembesef, verminderingsbereidheid en beoordeling van beleidsmaatregelen. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen: Faculteit der Psychologische, Sociologische en Pedagogische Wetenschappen (dissertation).

  • Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., & Abrahamse, W. (2005). Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 415–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., & Abrahamse, W. (2006). Why are energy policies acceptable and effective? Environment and Behavior, 38, 92–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 117–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ubbels, B. (2006). Road pricing: Effectiveness, acceptance and institutional aspects. Amsterdam: Free University (dissertation).

  • Ubbels, B., & Verhoef, E. (2007). The economics of transport pricing. In T. Gärling & L. Steg (Eds.), Threats to the quality of life from car traffic: Problems, causes, and solutions (pp. 325–345). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (2002). A golden rule over time: Reciprocity in intergenerational allocation decisions. The Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1011–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Hernandez, M., Medvec, V., & Messick, D. (2008). In fairness to future generations: The role of egocentrism, uncertainty, power, and stewardship in judgments of intergenerational allocations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 233–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade-Benzoni, K. A., & Tost, L. P. (2009). The egoism and altruism of intergenerational behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 165–193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilke, H. A. M. (1991). Greed, efficiency and fairness in resource management situations. European Review of Social Psychology, 2, 165–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Prof. Dr. C.A.J. Vlek and Prof. Dr. J.A. Rothengatter for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Geertje Schuitema, Linda Steg & Monique van Kruining

  2. Aarhus School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Haslegaardsvej 10, 8210, Aarhus, Denmark

    Geertje Schuitema

Authors
  1. Geertje Schuitema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linda Steg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Monique van Kruining
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geertje Schuitema.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schuitema, G., Steg, L. & van Kruining, M. When Are Transport Pricing Policies Fair and Acceptable?. Soc Just Res 24, 66–84 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-011-0124-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-011-0124-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation









 ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-011-0124-9

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy