A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Explaining voting behavior in the Gothenburg congestion tax referendum
AbstractThe Gothenburg congestion tax was introduced in 2013 and later subjected to a consultative referendum where the citizens, despite getting first-hand experience with the scheme, rejected it. This article explains voting behavior in the referendum using both self-expressed motives and five nested models to test various explanations suggested in previous research. Drawing on an extensive longitudinal study, we conclude first that although a majority voted against the tax in the referendum, attitudinal preferences have become more positive since its introduction – supporting previous findings and hypothesis of familiarity effects. Second, we present a model for voting behavior that explains significant portions of the variance, concluding that it is not the outcomes of the charges that are important, but rather if the charges are in line with basic values, if the uses of the revenues (in this case, infrastructure investments) are supported, and if the institutions and processes introducing the charges are perceived as legitimate, trustworthy, and responsive. The article ends with general policy recommendations on the basis of these findings.
HighlightsUnique longitudinal study on acceptance of the Gothenburg congestion tax, ending with data on referendum voting behavior.Attitudinal preferences became more positive after introduction of the tax, yet a majority voted against its continuation.Motives for voting behavior are disentangled by describing self-expressed motives and testing five nested regression models.Voting is related to values, infrastr. investment attitude, and perceived legitimacy/responsiveness of the institutions/processes.
Explaining voting behavior in the Gothenburg congestion tax referendum
AbstractThe Gothenburg congestion tax was introduced in 2013 and later subjected to a consultative referendum where the citizens, despite getting first-hand experience with the scheme, rejected it. This article explains voting behavior in the referendum using both self-expressed motives and five nested models to test various explanations suggested in previous research. Drawing on an extensive longitudinal study, we conclude first that although a majority voted against the tax in the referendum, attitudinal preferences have become more positive since its introduction – supporting previous findings and hypothesis of familiarity effects. Second, we present a model for voting behavior that explains significant portions of the variance, concluding that it is not the outcomes of the charges that are important, but rather if the charges are in line with basic values, if the uses of the revenues (in this case, infrastructure investments) are supported, and if the institutions and processes introducing the charges are perceived as legitimate, trustworthy, and responsive. The article ends with general policy recommendations on the basis of these findings.
HighlightsUnique longitudinal study on acceptance of the Gothenburg congestion tax, ending with data on referendum voting behavior.Attitudinal preferences became more positive after introduction of the tax, yet a majority voted against its continuation.Motives for voting behavior are disentangled by describing self-expressed motives and testing five nested regression models.Voting is related to values, infrastr. investment attitude, and perceived legitimacy/responsiveness of the institutions/processes.
Explaining voting behavior in the Gothenburg congestion tax referendum
Hansla, André (author) / Hysing, Erik (author) / Nilsson, Andreas (author) / Martinsson, Johan (author)
Transport Policy ; 53 ; 98-106
2016-10-14
9 pages
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
Explaining voting behavior in the Gothenburg congestion tax referendum
| Online Contents | 2017
| Taylor & Francis Verlag | 2015
Accuracy of the Gothenburg congestion charges forecast
| Elsevier | 2016
The Gothenburg congestion charge. Effects, design and politics
| Elsevier | 2015
The Gothenburg congestion charges: cost–benefit analysis and distribution effects
| Online Contents | 2018