Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:54:24.882Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can policy-packaging increase public support for costly policies? Insights from a choice experiment on policies against vehicle emissions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2019

Michael Wicki Open the ORCID record for Michael Wicki [Opens in a new window] ,
Robert Alexander Huber Open the ORCID record for Robert Alexander Huber [Opens in a new window]  and
Thomas Bernauer Open the ORCID record for Thomas Bernauer [Opens in a new window]
Michael Wicki
Affiliation:
ETH Zurich Institute of Science, Technology and Policy (ISTP) and International Relations (CIS), Switzerland E-mail: [email protected]
Robert Alexander Huber
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and Sociology, University of Salzburg, Austria E-mail: [email protected]
Thomas Bernauer
Affiliation:
ETH Zurich, Institute of Science, Technology and Policy (ISTP) and International Relations (CIS), Switzerland Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Public support is usually a precondition for the adoption and successful implementation of costly policies. We argue that such support is easier to achieve with policy-packages that incorporate primary and ancillary measures. We specifically distinguish command-and-control and market-based measures as primary measures and argue that the former will usually garner more public support than the latter given the low-visibility tendency of costs associated with command-and-control measures. Nevertheless, if included in a policy-package, ancillary measures are likely to increase public support by reducing negative effects of primary measures. Based on a choice experiment with a representative sample of 2,034 Swiss citizens, we assessed these arguments with respect to political efforts to reduce vehicle emissions. The empirical analysis supported the argument that policy-packaging affects public support positively, particularly generating more support when ancillary measures are added. Lastly, we ultimately observe that command-and-control measures obtain more public support than market-based instruments.

Keywords

ancillary measurescommand-and-control measuresconjoint experimentmarket-based regulationpublic opiniontransportation policy
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 599 - 625
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, B, Böhmelt, T and Ward, H (2017) Public Opinion and Environmental Policy Output: A Cross-National Analysis of Energy Policies in Europe. Environmental Research Letters, 12(11): 114011. http://stacks.iop.org/1748-9326/12/i%3d11/a%3d114011.10.1088/1748-9326/aa8f80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, D and Nässén, J (2016) The Gothenburg Congestion Charge Scheme: A Pre–post Analysis of Commuting Behavior and Travel Satisfaction. Journal of Transport Geography, 52: 82–89. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692316000430.10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.02.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, JB (2017) Ggthemes: Extra Themes, Scales and Geoms for ‘ggplot2.’ R package version 3.4. 0. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ggthemes/index.html.Google Scholar
Balmer, U (2005) The Window of Opportunity: How the Obstacles to the Introduction of the Swiss Heavy Goods Vehicle Fee Have Been Overcome. OECD Papers, 5(5): 1–39. https://ideas.repec.org/a/oec/packaa/5lgmkvgbcj0p.html.Google Scholar
Bamberg, S and Rölle, D (2003) Determinants of People’s Acceptability of Pricing Measures: Replication and Extension of a Causal Model. In Schade, J and Schlag, B (eds.), Acceptability of Transport Pricing Strategies. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science, 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banister, D (2003) Critical Pragmatism and Congestion Charging in London. International Social Science Journal, 55(176): 249–264. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2451.2003.05502006.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bansak, K, Hainmueller, J, Hopkins, DJ and Yamamoto, T (2019) Beyond the Breaking Point? Survey Satisficing in Conjoint Experiments. Political Science Research and Methods, forthcoming: 1–19. doi: 10.1017/psrm.2019.13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, DN, Benavides, K, Chacon-Cascante, A, Le Coq, JF, Quiros, MM, Porras, I, Primmer, E and Ring, I (2017) Payments for Ecosystem Services as a Policy Mix: Demonstrating the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework on Conservation Policy Instruments. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(5): 404–421. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/eet.1769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D, Mächler, M, Bolker, B and Walker, S (2015) Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1): 1–48. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v67/i01/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beiser-McGrath, LF and Huber, RA (2018) Assessing the Relative Importance of Psychological and Demographic Factors for Predicting Climate and Environmental Attitudes. Climatic Change, 149(3–4): 335–347.10.1007/s10584-018-2260-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellé, N, Cantarelli, P and Belardinelli, P (2018) Prospect Theory Goes Public: Experimental Evidence on Cognitive Biases in Public Policy and Management Decisions. Public Administration Review, 78(6): 828–840. doi: 10.1111/puar.12960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bemelmans-Videc, ML, Rist, RC and Vedung, EO (2011) Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation. New Brunswick (USA) and London (UK): Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Bernauer, T, Prakash, A and Beiser-McGrath, LF (2018) Do Exemptions Undermine Environmental Policy Support? An Experimental Stress Test on the Odd-Even Road Space Rationing Policy in India. Regulation & Governance. doi: 10.1111/rego.12225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böcher, M (2012) A Theoretical Framework for Explaining the Choice of Instruments in Environmental Policy. Forest Policy and Economics, 16: 14–22. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.03.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bontoux, L and Bengtsson, D (2016) Using Scenarios to Assess Policy Mixes for Resource Efficiency and Eco-Innovation in Different Fiscal Policy Frameworks. Sustainability, 8(4): 309–321. doi: 10.3390/su8040309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bristow, AL, Wardman, M, Zanni, AM and Chintakayala, PK (2010) Public Acceptability of Personal Carbon Trading and Carbon Tax. Ecological Economics, 69(9): 1824–1837. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800910001643.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunetti, A and Straubhaar, T (1996) Direkte Demokratie -- Bessere Demokratie? Was Lehrt Uns Das Schweizer Beispiel. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 6(1): 7–26.Google Scholar
Carson, RT and Hanemann, WM (2005) Chapter 17 Contingent Valuation. Handbook of Environmental Economics, 2: 821–936. doi: 10.1016/S1574-0099(05)02017-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, TL, Kallbekken, S and Kroll, S (2012) The Acceptability of Efficiency-Enhancing Environmental Taxes, Subsidies and Regulation: An Experimental Investigation. Environmental Science & Policy, 16: 90–96. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.11.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, TL, Kallbekken, S and Kroll, S (2014) The Impact of Trial Runs on the Acceptability of Environmental Taxes: Experimental Evidence. Resource and Energy Economics, 38: 84–95. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092876551400058X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dargusch, P and Griffiths, A (2008) Introduction to Special Issue: A Typology of Environmental Markets. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 15(2): 70–75. doi: 10.1080/14486563.2008.9725186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dermont, C, Ingold, K, Kammermann, L and Stadelmann-Steffen, I (2017) Bringing the Policy Making Perspective in: A Political Science Approach to Social Acceptance. Energy Policy, 108: 359–368. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517303531.10.1016/j.enpol.2017.05.062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowle, M and Srinivasan, A (2017) Data.table: Extension of ‘data.frame’. https://cran.r-project.org/package%3ddata.table.Google Scholar
Drews, S and van den Bergh, JCJM (2016) What Explains Public Support for Climate Policies? A Review of Empirical and Experimental Studies. Climate Policy, 16(7): 855–876. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2015.1058240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekvall, T, Hirschnitz-Garbers, M, Eboli, F and Śniegocki, A (2016) A Systemic and Systematic Approach to the Development of a Policy Mix for Material Resource Efficiency. Sustainability, 8(4). doi: 10.3390/su8040373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, L, Garvill, J and Nordlund, AM (2008) Acceptability of Single and Combined Transport Policy Measures : The Importance of Environmental and Policy Specific Beliefs. Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42(8): 1117–1128.Google Scholar
European Environment Agency (2017) Monitoring CO2 Emissions from New Passenger Cars and Vans in 2016. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/co2-emissions-new-cars-and-vans-2016.Google Scholar
Federal Office for Spatial Development (2016) Externe Kosten Und Nutzen Des Verkehrs in Der Schweiz. Strassen-, Schienen-, Luft- Und Schiffsverkehr 2010 Bis 2013.Google Scholar
Federal Office for the Environment (2017) CO2 Emissions from Thermal and Motor Fuels. https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/en/home/themen/thema-klima/klima--daten--indikatoren-und-karten/klima--indikatoren/indikator-klima.pt.html/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaW5kaWthdG9yZW4uYWRtaW4uY2gvUHVibG/ljL0FlbURldGFpbD9pbmQ9S0wwMDEmbG5nPWVu.html (accessed 6 July 2017).Google Scholar
Federal Statistical Office (2018) Angenommene Und Verworfene Abstimmungsvorlagen, Nach Typ. https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/kataloge-datenbanken/tabellen.assetdetail.6666047.html (accessed 31 January 2019).Google Scholar
Felder, S and Schleiniger, R (2002) Environmental Tax Reform: Efficiency and Political Feasibility. Ecological Economics, 42(1): 107–116. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180090200109X.10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00109-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, K, Uyarra, E and Laranja, M (2010) The ‘policy Mix’for Innovation: Rethinking Innovation Policy in a Multi-Level, Multi-Actor Context. Research Policy, 40(5): 702–713. https://ssrn.com/abstract%3d1629744.10.1016/j.respol.2011.02.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J (2003).Effect Displays in R for Generalised Linear Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 8(15). http://www.jstatsoft.org/v08/i15/ (accessed 4 November 2016).Google Scholar
Fox, J and Hong, J (2009) Effect Displays in R for Multinomial and Proportional-Odds Logit Models: Extensions to the Effects Package. Journal of Statistical Software, 32(1): 1–24. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9531.2006.00180.x/abstract%5Cnhttp://www.jstatsoft.org/v32/i01/ (accessed 4 November 2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franzen, A and Vogl, D (2013) Two Decades of Measuring Environmental Attitudes: A Comparative Analysis of 33 Countries. Global Environmental Change, 23(5): 1001–1008.10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freitag, M, Vatter, A and Müller, C (2003) Bremse Oder Gaspedal? Eine Empirische Untersuchung Zur Wirkung Der Direkten Demokratie Auf Den Steuerstaat. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 44(3): 348–369. doi: 10.1007/s11615-003-0068-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givoni, M (2014) Addressing Transport Policy Challenges through Policy-Packaging. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 60: 1–8.Google Scholar
Givoni, M, Macmillen, J, Banister, D and Feitelson, E (2013) From Policy Measures to Policy Packages. Transport Reviews, 33(1): 1–20. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2012.744779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Groot, JIM and Schuitema, G (2012) How to Make the Unpopular Popular? Policy Characteristics, Social Norms and the Acceptability of Environmental Policies. Environmental Science & Policy, 19: 100–107. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.03.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunningham, N and Sinclair, D (1999) Designing Smart Regulation. In Hutter, B (eds.), A Reader in Environmental Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 305–334. https://www.oecd.org/env/outreach/33947759.pdf.Google Scholar
Gunningham, N and Sinclair, D (2017) Leaders and Laggards: Next-Generation Environmental Regulation. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, RW and Stavins, RN (1992) Economic Incentives for Environmental Protection: Integrating Theory and Practice. The American Economic Review, 82(2): 464–468. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2117445.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, J, Hopkins, DJ and Yamamoto, T (2014) Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1): 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansla, A, Hysing, E, Nilsson, A and Martinsson, J (2017) Explaining Voting Behavior in the Gothenburg Congestion Tax Referendum. Transport Policy, 53: 98–106. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X16306825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, M (2011) Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Howlett, M, How, YP and del Rio, P (2015). The Parameters of Policy Portfolios: Verticality and Horizontality in Design Spaces and Their Consequences for Policy Mix Formulation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(5): 1233–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, M and Rayner, J (2013) Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy Portfolio Design. Politics and Governance, 1(2): 170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, RA, Anderson, B and Bernauer, T (2018) Can Social Norm Interventions Promote Voluntary pro Environmental Action? Environmental Science & Policy, 89: 231–246. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.07.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, RA, Wicki, M and Bernauer, T (2019) Public Support for Environmental Policy Depends on Beliefs Concerning Effectiveness, Intrusiveness, and Fairness. Environmental Politics, forthcoming. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2019.1629171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hysing, E and Isaksson, K (2015) Building Acceptance for Congestion Charges -- The Swedish Experiences Compared. Journal of Transport Geography, 49: 52–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.10.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaensirisak, S, Wardman, M and May, AD (2005) Explaining Variations in Public Acceptability of Road Pricing Schemes. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 39(2): 127–153.Google Scholar
Justen, A, Fearnley, N, Givoni, M and Macmillen, J (2014) A Process for Designing Policy Packaging: Ideals and Realities. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 60: 9–18. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.016.Google Scholar
Kachi, A, Bernauer, T and Gampfer, R (2015) Climate Policy in Hard Times: Are the Pessimists Right? Ecological Economics, 114: 227–241. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915000865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallbekken, S and Aasen, M (2010) The Demand for Earmarking: Results from a Focus Group Study. Ecological Economics, 69(11): 2183–2190. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921800910002284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallbekken, S, Garcia, JH and Korneliussen, K (2013) Determinants of Public Support for Transport Taxes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 58: 67–78.Google Scholar
Kallbekken, S and Sælen, H (2011) Public Acceptance for Environmental Taxes: Self-Interest, Environmental and Distributional Concerns. Energy Policy, 39(5): 2966–2973. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511001868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, F, Kivimaa, P and Martiskainen, M (2017) Policy Packaging or Policy Patching? The Development of Complex Energy Efficiency Policy Mixes. Energy Research and Social Science, 23: 11–25. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2016.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J, Schmöcker, JD, Fujii, S and Noland, RB. (2013) Attitudes towards Road Pricing and Environmental Taxation among US and UK Students. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 48: 50–62.Google Scholar
Kirchgässner, G and Schneider, F (2003) On the Political Economy of Environmental Policy. Public Choice, 115(3): 369–396. doi: 10.1023/A:1024289627887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krosnick, JA (1999) Survey Research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1): 537–567. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehmann, P. (2010) Justifying a Policy Mix for Pollution Control: A Review of Economic Literature. Journal of Economic Surveys, 26(1): 71–97. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2010.00628.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leifeld, P (2013) Texreg: Conversion of Statistical Model Output in R to LaTeX and HTML Tables. Journal of Statistical Software, 55(8): 1–24. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v55/i08/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linder, W (2012) Schweizerische Demokratie: Institutionen, Prozesse, Perspektiven, 3. Auflage. Bern: Haupt Verlag.Google Scholar
Louviere, JJ, Hensher, D and Swait, J (2000) Stated Choice Methods. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:cbooks:9780521788304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubell, M, Zahran, S and Vedlitz, A (2007) Collective Action and Citizen Responses to Global Warming. Political Behavior, 29(3): 391–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcucci, E, Gatta, V, Marciani, M and Cossu, P (2017) Measuring the Effects of an Urban Freight Policy Package Defined via a Collaborative Governance Model. Research in Transportation Economics, 65: 3–9. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0739885917301798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mavrot, C, Hadorn, S and Sager, F (2018) Mapping the Mix: Linking Instruments, Settings and Target Groups in the Study of Policy Mixes. Research Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.06.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milkman, KL, Mazza, MC, Shu, LL, Tsay, CJ and Bazerman, MH (2012) Policy Bundling to Overcome Loss Aversion: A Method for Improving Legislative Outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1): 158–167. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597811000793 (accessed 18 June 2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mundell, RA (1962) The Appropriate Use of Monetary and Fiscal Policy for Internal and External Stability. Staff Papers, 9(1): 70–79. doi: 10.2307/3866082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niewenhuis, R, Grotenhuis, M and Pelzer, B (2012). Influence. ME: Tools for Detecting Influential Data in Mixed Effects Models. R Journal, 4: 38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nissinen, A, Heiskanen, E, Perrels, A, Berghäll, E, Liesimaa, V and Mattinen, MK (2015) Combinations of Policy Instruments to Decrease the Climate Impacts of Housing, Passenger Transport and Food in Finland. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107: 455–466. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652614009184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, Á, Carballo-Penela, A, Guerra, A and Vence, X (2018) Designing a Policy Package for the Promotion of Servicising: A Case Study of Vineyard Crop Protection in Galicia (Spain). Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(2): 348–369. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2017.1308317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piatkowski, D, Marshall, W and Krizek, K (2019) Carrots versus Sticks: Assessing Intervention Effectiveness and Implementation Challenges for Active Transport. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1): 50–64. http://journals.sagepub.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/0739456X17715306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pleger, LE (2017) Voters’ Acceptance of Land Use Policy Measures: A Two-Level Analysis. Land Use Policy, 63: 501–513. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837715302660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pleger, LE, Lutz, P and Sager, F (2018) Public Acceptance of Incentive-Based Spatial Planning Policies: A Framing Experiment. Land Use Policy, 73: 225–238. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717305215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2015) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/.Google Scholar
Raîche, G, Walls, TA, Magis, D, Riopel, M and Blais, JG (2013) Non-Graphical Solutions for Cattell’s Scree Test. Methodology, 9(1): 23–29. http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/abs/10.1027/1614-2241/a000051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rienstra, SA, Rietveld, P and Verhoef, ET (1999) The Social Support for Policy Measures in Passenger Transport. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 4(3): 181–200. doi: 10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00005-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ring, I and Barton, DN (2015) Economic Instruments in Policy Mixes for Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Governance. In: Martinez-Alier, J and Muradian, R (Ed.), Handbook of Ecological Economics, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 413–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sælen, H and Kallbekken, S (2011) A Choice Experiment on Fuel Taxation and Earmarking in Norway. Ecological Economics, 70(11): 2181–2190. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800911002710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sager, F (2007) Making Transport Policy Work: Polity, Policy, Politics and Systematic Review. Policy & Politics, 35(2): 269–288. doi: 10.1332/030557307780712951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sager, F, Ingold, KM and Balthasar, A (2017) Policy-Analyse in Der Schweiz-Besonderheiten, Theorien, Beispiele. Zürich: NZZ Libro.Google Scholar
Schade, J and Schlag, B (2003) Acceptability of Urban Transport Pricing Strategies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 6(1): 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuitema, G, Steg, L and Forward, S (2010a) Explaining Differences in Acceptability before and Acceptance after the Implementation of a Congestion Charge in Stockholm. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 44(2): 99–109. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856409001256.Google Scholar
Schuitema, G, Steg, L and Rothengatter, JA (2010b) The Acceptability, Personal Outcome Expectations, and Expected Effects of Transport Pricing Policies. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4): 587–593. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494410000538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz, T (2001) Framing Environmental Ballot, Propositions: The Influence of Simultaneous’ Pocketbook Measures’ and Negative Framing. University of St. Gallen Working Paper, 2001(5): 3–43. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.274826.Google Scholar
Sheffer, L, Loewen, PJ, Soroka, S, Walgrave, S and Sheafer, T (2018) Nonrepresentative Representatives: An Experimental Study of the Decision Making of Elected Politicians. American Political Science Review, 112(2): 302–321. https://www.cambridge.org/core/article/nonrepresentative-representatives-an-experimental-study-of-the-decision-making-of-elected-politicians/3ABB868FCF033666C9FBC22D7D97F24E.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, CH, Isaksson, K, Macmillen, J, Åkerman, J and Kressler, F (2014) Strategies to Manage Barriers in Policy Formation and Implementation of Road Pricing Packages. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 60: 40–52. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856413002012.Google Scholar
Stadelmann-Steffen, I (2011) Citizens as Veto Players: Climate Change Policy and the Constraints of Direct Democracy. Environmental Politics, 20(4): 485–507. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2011.589577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steg, L, Dreijerink, L and Abrahamse, W (2006) Why Are Energy Policies Acceptable and Effective? Environment and Behavior, 38(1): 92–111. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013916505278519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stehr, N (2015) Climate Policy: Democracy Is Not an Inconvenience. Nature, 525(7570): 449–450. https://www.nature.com/news/climate-policy-democracy-is-not-an-inconvenience-1.18393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stradling, SG, Meadows, ML and Beatty, S (2000) Helping Drivers out of Their Cars Integrating Transport Policy and Social Psychology for Sustainable Change. Transport Policy, 7(3): 207–215. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X00000263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thalmann, P (2004) The Public Acceptance of Green Taxes: 2 Million Voters Express Their Opinion. Public Choice, 119(1/2): 179–217. http://link.springer.com/10.1023/B:PUCH.0000024165.18082.db.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorpe, N, Hills, P and Jaensirisak, S (2000) Public Attitudes to TDM Measures: A Comparative Study. Transport Policy, 7(4): 243–257. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X0000007X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toepoel, V (2015) Doing Surveys Online. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G (2002) Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. New York: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vatter, A (2016) Das Politische System Der Schweiz. 2., aktual. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Vedung, E (1998) Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories. In Bemelmans-Videc, ML, Rist, RC and Vedung, E (eds.), Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ, and London: Transaction Publishers, 21–58.Google Scholar
Vonk Noordegraaf, DM, Annema, JA and van Wee, B (2014) Policy Implementation Lessons from Six Road Pricing Cases. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 59: 172–191. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096585641300222X.Google Scholar
Wickham, H (2009) ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York, NY: Springer. http://had.co.nz/ggplot2/book.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H (2016) Tidyr: Easily Tidy Data with Spread () and Gather () Functions. Version 0.6. 0. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/tidyr/index.html.Google Scholar
Wickham, H (2017) Forcats: Tools for Working with Categorical Variables (Factors).Google Scholar
Wickham, H and Grolemund, G (2017) R for Data Science: Import, Tidy, Transform, Visualize, and Model Data, 1st ed. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar
Wicki, M, Fesenfeld, L and Bernauer, T (2019) In search of politically feasible policy-packages for sustainable passenger transport: insights from choice experiments in China, Germany, and the USA. Environmental Research Letters. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab30a2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, C (1995) The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4): 981. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111666?origin%3dcrossref.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization (2008) MPOWER: A Policy Package to Reverse the Tobacco Epidemic. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43888/9789241596633_eng.pdf?sequence%3d1&isAllowed%3dy.Google Scholar
Zaslawski, V (2017) Keine Pilotversuche. Kantone Bremsen Beim Mobility-Pricing. Neue Zürcher Zeitung. https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/keine-pilotversuche-kantone-bremsen-beim-mobility-pricing-ld.1304443%0A.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Wicki et al. Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/LUJC8I
Link
Supplementary material: File

Wicki et al. supplementary material

Wicki et al. supplementary material
Download Wicki et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.4 MB