نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 پژوهشگر دکتری، گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
2 استاد، گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
چکیده
در بسیاری از کلانشهرهای جهان برای کاهش آثار استفاده روزافزون از اتومبیل از جمله ترافیک و آلودگی هوا، طرح‌های قیمت‌گذاری ترافیک به‌عنوان یک راهبرد به اجرا گذاشته می‌شود. به‌زعم مطالعات صورت گرفته "قابلیت پذیرش عمومی" طرح‌های قیمت‌گذاری ترافیک نقش مهمی در موفقیت اجرای این طرح‌ها دارد. با توجه به تأکید محققان بر این که عوامل مؤثر بر قابلیت پذیرش عمومی طرح‌های قیمت‌گذاری ترافیک و درجه اهمیت آن‌ها در هر زمینه و کشوری باتوجه‌به شرایط اقتصادی، اجتماعی و فرهنگی آن کشور متفاوت است و با توجه به معدود بودن مطالعات در این زمینه در ایران، این مقاله با به‌کارگیری روش تحلیل محتوای مبتنی بر اینترنت، عوامل مؤثر بر قابلیت پذیرش عمومی در طرح اخیر ترافیک تهران (98- 1397) را بررسی و آن را از ابعاد مختلف تحلیل کرده است. بدین منظور نظرات شهروندان (حدود 350 نظر) ارائه شده در ذیل اخبار اطلاع‌رسانی در ارتباط با طرح ترافیک تهران در رسانه‌های خبری آنلاین در بازه‌های زمانی مشخص گردآوری و بر مبنای عوامل مؤثر بر قابلیت پذیرش عمومی استخراج شده از ادبیات نظری، کدگذاری و تحلیل گردید. یافته‌ها حاکی از آن است که شش عامل ادراکی شامل اعتماد، عدالت، میزان تأثیرگذاری، تحمیل شدگی، پیچیدگی طرح و باور به نحوه مناسب تخصیص درآمدهای حاصل از طرح آن گونه که مطرح شده بر قابلیت پذیرش عمومی طرح ترافیک تهران مؤثر بوده‌اند. از میان این عوامل پایین بودن "اعتماد" و "عدالت" دو عاملی است که به ترتیب تأثیر بسزایی در کاهش قابلیت پذیرش عمومی داشته است. همچنین با گذشت زمان و اجرای این طرح در دو سال متمادی، عامل ادراک شده "تأثیرگذاری" نقش مهم‌تری در کاهش قابلیت پذیرش عمومی طرح ترافیک تهران در سال 1398 داشته است.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
Analysis of factors affecting the general tolerability of traffic pricing schemes: the case of Tehran (2018-19)
نویسندگان [English]
- sara vosoughi 1
- Behnaz Aminzadeh 2
1 Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]
Highlights:
Justice, trust, effectiveness, intrusiveness, complexity, and revenue allocation are critical factors in the public acceptability of the Tehran congestion pricing scheme.
Lack of trust and justice are the most important variables that reduce the public acceptability of the Tehran congestion pricing scheme.
Perceived effectiveness of the Tehran congestion pricing reduces in the second year of the implementation of the scheme.
1. Introduction
Congestion charging schemes are implemented in an increasing number of cities as a method of reducing traffic congestion and air pollution. Studies such as Schade & Schlag (2000: 93) and Huber et al. (2020:666) indicate that public acceptability plays a crucial role in the success of these schemes. According to research findings (Schmöcker et al., 2012: 15-17; Fujii et al., 2004: 290-293), factors influencing public acceptability vary by socioeconomic context. Given the absence of such studies in Iran, this paper investigates what factors affect the public acceptability of congestion charging schemes (2018-19) in Tehran. The answer to this question can be useful for urban authorities to better manage congestion charging schemes.
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Factors effective on public acceptance
It is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of acceptability and acceptance. Acceptability concerns the attitude towards a specific object like congestion pricing. In contrast, acceptance pertains to some kind of behavior exhibited as a reaction to an object. It is assumed that attitudes guide people’s behaviors and reactions (Schade & Schlag, 2000: 5). Indeed, the public acceptability of congestion charging schemes is a crucial factor in specification of people’s reactions or behaviors in regard to them. A review of the literature on the public acceptability of transport pricing policies indicates several effective factors, including justice or fairness (Gu et al., 2018: 98; Jakobsson et al., 2000: 154-153; Ittner et al., 2003), expected effectiveness (Schuitema et al., 2010: 588; Jakobsson et al., 2000: 155-156), trust in the government (Sugiarto et al., 2020: 144-145; Grisolía et al., 2015: 38), perceived intrusiveness (Huber et al., 2020: 657), revenue allocation (Glavic et al., 2017: 81; Ubbels & Verhoef, 2005), problem awareness (Jaensirisak et al., 2005: 149-150; Schmöcker et al., 2012: 10), complexity (Gu et al., 2018: 98), social norms (Jakobsson et al., 2000: 154; Schade & Schlag, 2003: 48), and privacy (Ison & Rye, 2005: 461). The context (social, political, and economic) determines which of these factors are most effective on public judgment.
2.2. Case study
The implementation of the congestion pricing scheme in Tehran started in 1980. Since then, the entry of private cars to the central business district (CBD) has been limited, and only drivers with permits have had access to the area. The main policy for reduction of congestion in the CBD of Tehran, specification of limited access areas has been implemented for nearly forty years. In 2018, the city administrators decided to change this policy to facilitate public access to the district, and proposed a congestion charging zone and a low-emission zone. All citizens can pay for daily charges to drive into the former zone, and have limited access (based on the number of days) into the latter. The main purpose of our research is to investigate what factors influence the public acceptability of this new congestion pricing scheme for the CBD of Tehran in two consecutive years (2018-2019).
3. Methodology
The content analysis method is applied to analyze almost 350 online comments made by users on the news about Tehran congestion pricing schemes in 2018-2019.
4. Result and Discussion
The findings indicate that six effective factors, including justice, trust, influence, intrusiveness, complexity, and revenue allocation, are critical in specification of the public opinion about the Tehran congestion pricing scheme. Problem awareness, social norms, and privacy—the other factors identified in the review of the literature—are not observed in the content analysis of the comments. The investigation demonstrates that the public acceptability of the Tehran congestion pricing scheme is heavily affected by two variables. Firstly, a low level of public trust in government policies causes a negative attitude toward them, with some arguing that the Tehran congestion pricing policy is not aimed at environmental concerns or congestion management, and it is the financial advantage of such policies that encourages the administrators to adopt them. Secondly, the public evaluates the Tehran congestion pricing scheme as unjust and unfair. According to the findings, low-income groups and residents of the congestion area perceive the scheme as less just because it does not consider their needs and conditions. This causes an increase in the sense of social discrimination, especially among low-income groups. Furthermore, the results show that the perceived effectiveness of the Tehran congestion pricing decreases in the second year of the implementation of the scheme.
5. Conclusion
The results indicate that the lack of trust in local administrative policies and the sense of injustice are the most crucial variables in the public judgment of the Tehran congestion pricing scheme. Based on these findings, the authors provide recommendations for further studies on the impacts of the Tehran congestion scheme on public welfare in different income groups and the way the pricing systems can be adjusted to their different socio-economic needs. Furthermore, investigation of the methods of building trust in pricing policies can be useful for local administrators to better implement congestion pricing schemes around Iran.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Public acceptability
- Tehran congestion pricing
- Trust
- Justice
- Effectiveness
Asgari, A., Moini, S. M., & Goli, A. (2013). The assessment of proposed traffic control zone of the city of Shiraz from citizen' viewpoint. Modiriat Shahri, 10(29), 165-178. [in Persian]
Ardıç, Ö., Annema, J. A., & van Wee, B. (2013). Has the Dutch news media acted as a policy actor in the road pricing policy debate? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 57, 47-63.
Azari, K. A., Arintono, S., Hamid, H., & Davoodi, S. R. (2013). Evaluation of demand for different trip purposes under various congestion pricing scenarios. Journal of Transport Geography, 29, 43-51.
Berglund, C., & Matti, S. (2006). Citizen and consumer: the dual role of individuals in environmental policy. Environmental politics, 15(4), 550-571.
Börjesson, M., Eliasson, J., Hugosson, M. B., & Brundell-Freij, K. (2012). The Stockholm congestion charges—5 years on. Effects, acceptability and lessons learnt. Transport Policy, 20, 1-12.
Eliasson, J., & Jonsson, L. (2011). The unexpected “yes”: Explanatory factors behind the positive attitudes to congestion charges in Stockholm. Transport Policy, 18(4), 636-647.
Emmerink, R., Nijkamp, P., & Rietveld, P. (1995). Is congestion pricing a first-best strategy in transport policy? A critical review of arguments. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 22(5), 581-602.
Farrell, S., & Saleh, W. (2005). Road-user charging and the modelling of revenue allocation. Transport Policy, 12(5), 431-442.
Fielding, N. G., & Lee, R. M. (1998). Computer analysis and qualitative research. Sage.
Firooz Zare, A., & Ghorbani, M. (2012). Investigation of citizens' WTP for Mashhad air pollution reduction (applying two stage Heckman model). Modiriat Shahri, 28(9), 7-26. [in Persian]
Mashinchi Abbasi, P., & Arabi, M. (2019). Modeling people trips mode choice for entry into the central metropolis Tehran congestion charging zone. Modiriat Shahri,17(52), 65-80. [in Persian]
The History of Tehran traffic congestion scheme (2005). Jostarhae Shahrsazi, 9(1), 8-11. [in Persian]
Fujii, S., Gärling, T., Jakobsson, C., & 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(3), 285-295.
Gaunt, M., Rye, T., & Allen, S. (2007). Public acceptability of road user charging: the case of Edinburgh and the 2005 referendum. Transport Reviews, 27(1), 85-102.
Given, L. M. (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Sage publications.
Glavic, D., Mladenovic, M., Luttinen, T., Cicevic, S., & Trifunovic, A. (2017). Road to price: User perspectives on road pricing in transition country. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 105, 79-94.
Grisolía, J. M., López, F., & de Dios Ortúzar, J. (2015). Increasing the acceptability of a congestion charging scheme. Transport Policy, 39, 37-47.
Gu, Z., Liu, Z., Cheng, Q., & Saberi, M. (2018). Congestion pricing practices and public acceptance: A review of evidence. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 6(1), 94-101.
Huber, R. A., Wicki, M. L., & Bernauer, T. (2020). Public support for environmental policy depends on beliefs concerning effectiveness, intrusiveness, and fairness. Environmental politics, 29(4), 649-673. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1629171
Ison, S., & Rye, T. (2005). Implementing road user charging: the lessons learnt from Hong Kong, Cambridge and Central London. Transport Reviews, 25(4), 451-465.
Ittner, H., Becker, R., & Kals, E. (2003). WILLINGNESS TO SUPPORT TRAFFIC POLICY MEASURES: THE ROLE OF JUSTICE. IN: ACCEPTABILITY OF TRANSPORT PRICING STRATEGIES. MC-ICAM Conference, Acceptability of Transport Pricing StrategiesCommission of the European Communities,
Jaensirisak, S., Wardman, M., & May, A. (2005). Explaining variations in public acceptability of road pricing schemes. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP), 39(2), 127-154.
Jakobsson, C., Fujii, S., & Gärling, T. (2000). Determinants of private car users' acceptance of road pricing. Transport Policy, 7(2), 153-158.
Kim, I., & Kuljis, J. (2010). Applying content analysis to web-based content. Journal of Computing and Information Technology, 18(4), 369-375.
Kim, J., Schmöcker, J.-D., Fujii, S., & Noland, R. B. (2013). Attitudes towards road pricing and environmental taxation among US and UK students. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 48, 50-62.
Lindberg, G. (1995). Road pricing: policy and options for the future. In Road pricing: Theory, empirical assessment and policy (pp. 205-221). Springer.
Ryley, T., & Gjersoe, N. (2006). Newspaper response to the Edinburgh congestion charging proposals. Transport Policy, 13(1), 66-73.
Schade, J., & Schlag, B. (2000). Acceptability of urban transport pricing. Valtion Taloudellinen Tutkimuskeskus Helsinki, Finland.
Schade, J., & Schlag, B. (2003). Acceptability of urban transport pricing strategies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 6(1), 45-61.
Schaller, B. (2010). New York City’s congestion pricing experience and implications for road pricing acceptance in the United States. Transport Policy, 17(4), 266-273.
Schmöcker, J.-D., Pettersson, P., & Fujii, S. (2012). Comparative analysis of proximal and distal determinants for the acceptance of coercive charging policies in the UK and Japan. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 6(3), 156-173.
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(4), 587-593. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.05.002
Sugiarto, S., Miwa, T., & Morikawa, T. (2020). The tendency of public’s attitudes to evaluate urban congestion charging policy in Asian megacity perspective: Case a study in Jakarta, Indonesia. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 8(1), 143-152.
Teubel, U. (2000). The welfare effects and distributional impacts of road user charges on commuters-an empirical analysis of Dresden. International Journal of Transport Economics/Rivista internazionale di economia dei trasporti, 231-255.
Ubbels, B., & Verhoef, E. T. (2005). Acceptability of road pricing and revenue use in the Netherlands 45th Congress of the European Regional Science Association: "Land Use and Water Management in a Sustainable Network Society", Amsterdam, The Netherlands. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/117444
Weare, C., & Lin, W.-Y. (2000). Content analysis of the World Wide Web: Opportunities and challenges. Social science computer review, 18(3), 272-292.
http://traffic.tehran.ir/.
)