How does environmental concern influence public acceptability of congestion charging? Evidence from Beijing

References

• Altieri, K. E., and S. L. Keen. 2019. “Public Health Benefits of Reducing Exposure to Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in South Africa.” Science of the Total Environment 684: 610–12. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson, R. W., B. Barratt, B. Armstrong, H. R. Anderson, S. D. Beevers, I. S. Mudway, D. Green, et al. 2009. “The Impact of the Congestion Charging Scheme on Ambient Air Pollution Concentrations in London.” Atmospheric Environment 43: 5493–5500. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.07.023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boardman, A. E., D. H. Greenberg, A. R. Vining, and D. L. Weimer. 2012. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Börjesson, M., J. Eliasson, and C. Hamilton. 2016. “Why Experience Changes Attitudes to Congestion Pricing: The Case of Gothenburg.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 85: 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Börjesson, M., J. Eliasson, M. B. Hugosson, and K. Brundell-Freij. 2012. “The Stockholm Congestion Charges – 5 Years On. Effects, Acceptability and Lessons Learnt.” Transport Policy 20: 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.11.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Börjesson, M., C. J. Hamilton, P. Näsman, and C. Papaix. 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 78: 452–462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creutzig, F., and D. He. 2009. “Climate Change Mitigation and Co-benefits of Feasible Transport Demand Policies in Beijing.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 14: 120–131. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2008.11.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunlap, R. E., and R. E. Jones. 2002. “Environmental Concern: Conceptual and Measurement Issues.” In Handbook of Environmental Sociology, edited by R. E. Dunlap and W. Michelson, 485. London: Greenwood Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eliasson, J. 2008. “Lessons from the Stockholm Congestion Charging Trial.” Transport Policy 15: 395–404. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2008.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eliasson, J. 2014. “The Role of Attitude Structures, Direct Experience and Reframing for the Success of Congestion Pricing.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 67: 81–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eliasson, J., and L. Jonsson. 2011. “The Unexpected “Yes”: Explanatory Factors behind the Positive Attitudes to Congestion Charges in Stockholm.” Transport Policy 18: 636–647. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.03.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eliasson, J., and L. Mattsson. 2006. “Equity Effects of Congestion Pricing: Quantitative Methodology and a Case Study for Stockholm.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 40: 602–620.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaunt, M., T. Rye, and S. Allen. 2007. “Public Acceptability of Road User Charging: The Case of Edinburgh and the 2005 Referendum.” Transport Reviews 27 (1): 85–102. doi:10.1080/01441640600831299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goh, M. 2002. “Congestion Management and Electronic Road Pricing in Singapore.” Journal of Transport Geography 10 (1): 29–38. doi:10.1016/S0966-6923(01)00036-9.
   Google Scholar
• Gupta, A., and D. Spears. 2017. “Health Externalities of India’s Expansion of Coal Plants: Evidence from a National Panel of 40,000 Households.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 86: 262–276. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2017.04.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton, C. J., J. Eliasson, K. Brundell-Freij, C. Raux, S. Souche, K. Kiiskilää, and J. Tervonen, 2014. “Determinants of Congestion Pricing Acceptability.” CTS Working Paper No. 2014. 11. SE-100 44 Stockholm, Centre for Transport Studies, KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Jaensirisak, S., M. Wardman, and A. D. May. 2005. “Explaining Variations in Public Acceptability of Road Pricing Schemes.” Journal of Transport, Economics and Policy 39 (2): 127–153.
   Google Scholar
• Kottenhoff, K., and K. B. Freij. 2009. “The Role of Public Transport for Feasibility and Acceptability of Congestion Charging: The Case of Stockholm.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 43: 297–305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, S., K. Feng, and M. Li. 2017. “Identifying the Main Contributors of Air Pollution in Beijing.” Journal of Cleaner Production 163: S359–S365. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santos, G., H. Behrendt, and A. Teytelboym. 2010. “Part II: Policy Instruments for Sustainable Road Transport.” Research in Transportation Economics 28 (1): 46–91. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2010.03.002.
   Google Scholar
• Schaller, B. 2010. “New York City’s Congestion Pricing Experience and Implications for Road Pricing Acceptance in the United States.” Transport Policy 17: 266–273. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.01.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuitema, G., and L. Steg. 2008. “The Role of Revenue Use in the Acceptability of Transport Pricing Policies.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 11: 221–231. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2007.11.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuitema, G., L. Steg, and J. A. Rothengatter. 2010. “The Acceptability, Personal Outcome Expectations, and Expected Effects of Transport Pricing Policies.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (4): 587–593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souche, S., C. Raux, and Y. Croissant. 2012. “On the Perceived Justice of Urban Road Pricing: An Empirical Study in Lyon.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 46: 1124–1136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stern, P. C., T. Dietz, and L. Kalof. 1993. “Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental Concern.” Environment and Behavior 25 (5): 322–348. doi:10.1177/0013916593255002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streets, D. G., J. S. Fu, C. J. Jang, J. Hao, K. He, X. Tang, Y. Zhang, et al. 2007. “Air Quality during the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games.” Atmospheric Environment 41 (3): 480–492. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.08.046.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vorkinn, M., and H. Riese. 2001. “Environmental Concern in a Local Context: The Significance of Place Attachment.” Environment and Behavior 33 (2): 249–363. doi:10.1177/00139160121972972.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winslott-Hiselius, L., K. Brundell-Freij, Å. Vagland, and C. Byström. 2009. “The Development of Public Attitudes Towards the Stockholm Congestion Trial.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 43: 269–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu, W. C. 2015. “Public Appeal, Government Intervention and Environmental Governance Efficiency: An Empirical Analysis Based on Provincial Panel Data.” Journal of Yunnan University of Finance and Economics 5: 132–139. (In Chinese).
   Google Scholar
• Zelezny, L. C., P. Chua, and C. Aldrich. 2000. “New Ways of Thinking about Environmentalism: Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism.” Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 443–457. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, S., and Y. Li. 2016. “Different Government Smog Governance Strategies in Response to Public Opinion.” Comparative Economic & Social Systems 3: 52–60. (In Chinese).
   Google Scholar
• Zheng, S. Q., G. H. Wan, W. Z. Sun, and D. L. Luo. 2013. “Public Appeal and Urban Environmental Governance.” Management World 6: 72–84. (In Chinese).
   Google Scholar
• Zheng, Z., Z. Liu, C. Liu, and N. Shiwakoti. 2014. “Understanding Public Response to A Congestion Charge: A Random-effects Ordered Logit Approach.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 70: 117–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar