1. The Effect of Fairness on individual’s Acceptability of Road Pricing Policy Kuang-Yih Yeh Hao-Ching Hsia National Cheng Kung University

2. OUTLINE INTRODUCTION SURVEY DESIGN MODEL SPECIFICATION EMPIRICAL STUDY CONCLUSIONS

3. INTRODUCTION Continuous growth and excessive use of private vehicles would result in serious environmental problems and traffic problems, such as, global warming, air pollution, illegal parking, traffic accident, as well as traffic congestion etc. Based on the following concepts -“Energy Conservation & Carbon Reduction” and “Sustainable Development”, we try to increase the utilization of public transportation, reduce traffic congestion, and solve environmental problems.

4. INTRODUCTION The Practical Measures of Travel Demand Management DIMENSIONSSTRATEGIESMEASURES Transportation Efficiency improvements of transportation facilities Disperse traffic peak time Increase occupancy of vehicles Restriction District restriction Route restriction Parking restriction Pricing Road pricing Parking pricing Taxation Non-Transportation The change of city and society Urban form Society attitude Technology improving

5. INTRODUCTION Major barrier to implementing road pricing is low public acceptance. ▫ Road infrastructure used to be a free good or service, but now payment of usage is necessary in the case of road pricing!! ▫ Implementing this policy may result in decay of business performances in the proposed charge zone. Why should I pay for it? My business!!

6. INTRODUCTION Different stakeholders have distinct concerns and desired objectives. ▫ Authority: reducing the usage of private car ▫ Store owner: more consumers ▫ Driver: low cost or free In order to increase public acceptance of road pricing policy, it is necessary to reconsider the content of road pricing policy.

7. INTRODUCTION Parking Deposit System (PDS) ▫ It is introduced by Japanese scholars of Nagoya University. ▫ It is different with traditional RP. It takes both charge and refund into consideration at the same time. Visitors who enter the charge zone For passing through (no parking) For some purposes (parking) Parking in the parking lot If no shopping, just levy congestion fee. If shopping, they can use refund for shopping. If no shopping, they can use refund for parking. If shopping, they can use refund for shopping or parking. Parking at the roadside charge ＆ refund charge

8. HOW PDS WORKS? They can use refund when parking in the parking lot. They are levied fee upon area entry. They can use refund when shopping in the store. To enter the charge zone, visitors have to pay the fee. 12 If parking in the specific parking lot, they can use the refund. If shopping in the specific stores, they can use the refund. Enter the charge zone, you have to pay NT$ ○○. Parking fee is NT$ 100, deduct form refund NT$ ○○, you have to pay NT$ △△. I want to use my refund NT$ ○○. Your product is NT$2,500. Parking lot Store

9. SOCIAL INTERACTION MATTERS? The social psychological aspect ▫ Public rejection of road pricing can be regarded as a phenomenon of social dilemma. ▫ Individual’s behavior depends on other members’ behavior in the reference group. The effect of social interaction on individual’s decision behavior has been taken into consideration in this study by stated preference survey.

10. OBJECTIVES To analyze the effects of the amount of charge and social interaction on policy acceptance by using a choice behavior model of acceptance. To compare the difference between the acceptance of traditional RP and PDS.

11. TAINAN, TAIWAN

12. ANPING, TAINAN

13. The local traffic of Anping commercial district is always congested on weekends and holidays. The business is very active in Anping commercial district on weekends and holidays. To examine the public applicability of road pricing policy in the areas where have serious traffic congestion problems except for city center.

14. SURVEY DESIGN TARGET SAMPLE ▫ Visitors using private vehicle SURVEY METHOD ▫ Face-to-face interview + questionnaire survey SURVEY ITEMS ▫ Individual characteristics of visitors ▫ general visiting situation of visitors ▫ trip characteristics of visitors ▫ personal assessment of existing traffic environment and policy ▫ personal assessment of RP ▫ personal assessment of PDS

15. SURVEY DESIGN Proposed Charging Zone

16. SURVEY DESIGN Scenario design of Stated Preference Survey ▫ There are total 24 (=8 ╳ 3 )types of scenario. Casechargerefundnet fee approval rate of other visitors 150 0 10% approval 50% approval 90% approval 2503020 3120 0 4 8040 51204080 6250 0 7 17080 825080170

17. MODEL SPECIFICATION To establish a choice behavior model of acceptance for RP and PDS ? no refundwith refund RP PDS approval disapproval ? ? REFERENCE GROUP Decision of two policies is viewed as non-independent and correlated. Bivariate Binary Probit Model (BBP) Bivariate Binary Probit Model (BBP) APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL approval disapproval

18. Group AGroup B The choice model of group A The choice model of group B FAIR GROUP UNFAIR GROUP MODEL SPECIFICATION Bivariate Binary Probit Model Under Market Segmentation ▫ which based on “fairness”( assessment of fairness of RP ) TypeNumberPercentage Fair group11354.6% Unfair group9445.4% Total207100.0%

19. variables FAIR GROUPUNFAIR GROUP RPPDSRPPDS Coefficient (t-value) constant 0.966**(2.48)1.458***(4.05)1.662***(3.79)1.954***(5.10) Group behavior other visitors’ approval rate 0.46 *** (2.65)0.097 (0.44) Policy variables RP charge -0.011***(-10.01) ─ -0.012***(-8.84)─ PDS charge ─ -0.010***(-6.85)─ -0.016***(-11.03) PDS refund ─ 0.006***(3.43)─0.012***(6.92) Individual variables age 0.092 (0.46)-0.212 (-1.17)-0.127 (-0.62)-0.288 (-1.48) income -0.047 (-0.16)-0.420 (-1.58)-0.326 (-1.26)-0.707***(3.04) visit frequency -0.094 (-0.42)-0.313 (-1.60)-0.964***(-3.03)-0.653***(-2.84) frequency of car use 0.131 (-0.67)-0.119 (0.56)-0.471*(-1.77)-0.061 (-0.21) Correlation 0.1980.444 Sample size Hit ratio 52.80%59.92% *** Variables statistically significant at the 99% confidence interval. *** Variables statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval. *** Variables statistically significant at the 90% confidence interval.

20. The equilibrium of social interaction ─ RP Policy 71.69% 58.00% 59.75% 46.95%

21. The equilibrium of social interaction ─ PDS Policy 36.67% 34.34% 18.82% 44.40% 53.84% 28.58%

22. The effect of charge scheme on individual’s decision of acceptance is significant. The higher the charge is, the lower the visitors’ approval rate of RP and PDS is. The higher the refund is, the higher the visitors’ approval rate of PDS is. CONCLUSION

23. The effect of social interaction on individual’s decision of acceptance is significant to fair group but not significant to unfair group. However, the signs of the social interaction variables in both models are positive. It is recognized that the effect of social interaction on human behavior is possibly existing. The persuasive communication method can be implemented to reduce the unfairness of policy that people feel.

24. CONCLUSION The uncertainty of PDS is evident for visitors. The higher the charge is, the lower the equilibrium of social interaction of RP and PDS is. The comparison of social interaction equilibrium between RP and PDS shows that the former is bigger than the later as the net fee is the same. The possible reason might be that visitors are not sure how and where to spend the refund. How do I use this refund? Where can I use this refund?