Breaking automotive modal lock-in: a choice modelling study of Jakarta commuters

Research Article
  • 81 Downloads

Abstract

The automotive domination in high-growth Asian conurbations is typically seen as the outcome of conventional market forces driven by income and aspirational consumer motivations. Proposed here is a more complex explanation, where path-dependent growth and associated positive feedback mechanisms underlie a staged process that evolves into a non-Pareto efficient form of market failure, inflicting a decline in the quality of urban life. Positive feedback mechanisms and imperfect information create ‘automotive modal lock-in’ (AML) forming a barrier to possible superior alternatives. This study uses a choice modelling experiment with Jakarta commuters to test the role of negative externalities in modal choice, measuring the extent to which commuters may be willing to trade off automotive use for a reduction in negative externalities. The results present an indication of how the process of AML reversal could begin.

Keywords

Automotive Public transport Market failure Path dependence Lock-in 

References

  1. Addleman S (1962) Symmetrical and asymmetrical fractional factorial design plans. Technometrics 4(1):47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alpizar F, Carlsson F (2001) Policy implications and analysis of the determinants of trave mode choice: an application of choice experiments to Metropolitan Costa Rica. Working Paper in Economics no. 56, Department of Economics, Goteborg UniversityGoogle Scholar
  3. Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Peter Martinsson P (2003) Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Working Papers in Economics No. 52 Department of Economics Göteborg UniversityGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvinsyah A, Seohodho S, Nainggolan P (2005) Public Transport user attitude based on Choice model parameter characteristics: a case study: Jakarta Busway system. J East Asia Soc Transp Studies 6:480–491Google Scholar
  5. Arthur WB (1983) Competing technologies and lock-in by historical small events: the dynamics of allocation under increasing returns. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis paperGoogle Scholar
  6. Arthur WB (1989) Competing technologies, increasing returns and lock-in by historical events. Econ J 99(394):116–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Asensio J (2002) Transport mode choice by commuters to Barcelona’s CBD. Urban Studies 39(10):1881–1895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day BW, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson S (2003) Guidelines for the use of stated preference techniques for the valuation of preferences for non-market goods. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  9. Beaudoin JY, Farzin H, Lawell CY (2015) Public transit investment and sustainable transportation: a review of studies of transit’s impact on traffic congestion and air quality. Res Transp Econ 52:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman SR (1985) Discrete choice analysis—theory and application to travel demand. The MIT Press, Cambridge MaGoogle Scholar
  11. Bennett JJ, Blamey RK (2001) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  12. Berkhout F (2002) Technological regimes, path dependency and the environment. Glob Environ Change 12(1):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calfee J, Winston C (1998) The value of automobile travel time: implications for congestion policy. J Public Econ 69(1):69–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dargay JD, Gately G, Sommer M (2007) Vehicle ownership and income growth, worldwide: 1960–2030. Energy J 28(4):143–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. David PA (1975) Technical choice, innovation, and economic growth. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. David PA (1985) Clio and the economics of QWERTY. Am Econ Rev 75(2):332–337. Papers and proceedings of the ninety- seventh annual meeting of the American Economic AssociationGoogle Scholar
  17. Doi N, Asano K (2011) Understanding the factors affecting the urban transport energy in Asian cities—pathways of urban transport indicators from 1995 to 2009. Environ Econ 2(2):37–49Google Scholar
  18. FHWA (1997) Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study. USDOT (http://www.dot.gov), Table V-22. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/summary/index.htm
  19. Fukuyama H, Yoshida Y, Managi S (2011) Modal choice between air and rail: a social efficiency benchmarking analysis that considers CO2 emissions. Environ Econ Policy Studies 13(2):89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Furth PG, Killough GF, Ruprecht GF (1988) Cluster sampling techniques for estimating transit patronage. Transp Res Record Issue 1165:105–114Google Scholar
  21. Geels FW (2005) Technological transitions and system innovations: a co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Handy S, Lawell CL (2015) Introduction to the special issue on sustainable transportation. Res Transp Econ 52:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hensher DA (1981) Applied discrete choice modelling. Croom-Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Hensher DA (2001) Measurement of the travel time savings. J Transp Econ Policy 35(1):71–98Google Scholar
  25. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Ortúzar JD, Rizz LI (2005) Estimating the value of risk reduction for pedestrians in the road environment: an exploratory analysis. J Choice Model 4(2):70–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoffman SD, Duncan GJ (1988) A comparison of choice-based multinomial and nested logit models: the family structure and welfare use decisions of divorced or separated women. J Hum Resour 23(4):550–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ito N, Takeuchi K, Managi S (2013) Willingness-to-pay for infrastructure investments for alternative fuel vehicles. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 18(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jakarta Post (2012) Only 11% of Jakartans use public transportation. Jakarta Post 16th February, 2012 http://www.m.theJakartapost.com/2012/02/16/only-11-jakartans-use-pubic-transport
  29. Kenworthy JR, Laube FB (1999a) An international sourcebook of automobile dependence in cities: 1960–1990. University Press of Colorado, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  30. Kenworthy JR, Laube FB (1999b) Patterns of automobile dependence in cities: an international overview of key physical and economic dimensions with some implications for urban policy. Transport Res Part A: Policy Pract 33(7):691–723Google Scholar
  31. King MT, Hall J, Lancsar E, Fiefig D, Hossian I, Lourvier J, Reddel H, Jenkins R (2007) Patient preferences for managing asthma: results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ 16(7):703–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koundouri P, Kountouris Y, Stithou M (2012) A choice experiments application in transport infrastructure: a case study on travel time savings, accidents and pollution reduction. Department of International and European Economic Studies, Athens University of Economics and Business. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/38274/1/MPRA_paper_38274.pdf
  33. Kuhfeld WF, Tobias RD, Garratt M (1994) Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J Mark Res 31(4):545–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kumari S, Rao DN (2000) Valuing the benefit of air pollution abatement using a health production function: a case study of Panipat thermal power station, India. Environ Res Econ 20(2):91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Litman T (2009) Transportation cost and benefit analysis techniques, estimates and implications. 2nd edn. Victoria Transport Policy InstituteGoogle Scholar
  36. Louviere JJ, Hensher D, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lubis H, Dharmowijoyo DB, Armijaya H (2005) The competition of passenger transport modes along Jakarta- Bandung corridor. Proc East Asia Soc Trans Stud 5:75–89Google Scholar
  38. Maimunah S, Oliva EC, Ahmad ZB, Yu W, Sun L, Masuda H (2102) Promoting green transport systems in cities of developing countries through implementing bus rapid transit (comparative study; Jakarta and Hang Zhou. J Int Dev Coop 19(2):57–67Google Scholar
  39. McFadden D (1974a) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. McFadden D (1974b) The measurement of urban travel demand. J Public Econ 3(4):303–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McFadden D, Talvitie AP and Associates (1977) Demand model estimation and validation. University of California Institute of Transportation Studies, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  42. McTaggart-Cowan HM, Shi P, Fitzgerald JM, Aslam AH, Kopec JA, Bai TR, Soon JA, Lynd LD (2008) An evaluation of patients’ willingness to trade symptom free days for asthma related treatment risks: a discrete choice experiment. J Asthma 45(8):630–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peer S, Koopmans CC, Verhoef ET (2012) Prediction of travel time variability for cost-benefit analysis. Trans Res Part A: Policy Pract 46(1):79–90Google Scholar
  44. Resosudarmo BP, Napitupulu L (2004) Health and economic impact of air pollution in JakartaGoogle Scholar
  45. Rodrigue JP, Comtois C, Slack B (2009) The geography of transport systems, 2nd edn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Ryan M, Gerard K (2003) Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2(1):55–64Google Scholar
  47. Senbil M, Zhang J, Fujiwara A, Asri DU (2005) Development of a choice model for evaluating sustainable urban form. Proc East Asia Soc Trans Stud 5:2164–2178Google Scholar
  48. Simon H (1947) Administrative behavior: a study of decision-making processes in administrative organization, 4th edn. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Small KA (1997) Economics and urban transportation policy in the United States. Reg Sci Urban Econ 27(6):671–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Small CA, Winston C, Yan J (2005) Uncovering the distribution of motorists’ preferences for travel and time reliability. Econometrica 73(4):1367–1382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stiglitz JE (1986) Economics of the public sector. W.W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Stiglitz JE (1989) Markets, market failure and development. Am Econ Rev 79(2):197–203Google Scholar
  53. Stiglitz JE (2002) Information and the change in the paradigm in economics. Am Econ Rev 92(3):521–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Strathman JG, Hopper JR (1991) Evaluation of automotive passenger counters: validation, sampling and statistical inference. Transp Res Record 1308:69–77Google Scholar
  55. Suryo R, Fan C, Weiler S (2007) Commuting choices and congestion taxes in industrialising Indonesia. Soc Sci J 44(2):253–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thompson SK (1990) Adaptive cluster sampling. J Am Stat Assoc 85(412):1050–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Train K (1980) A structured logit model of auto ownership and mode choice. Rev Econ Stat 47(2):357–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Truong P, Hensher DA (1985) Measurement of travel time values and opportunity cost from a discrete-choice model. Econ J 95(378):438–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Unruh GC (2000) Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 28(12):817–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vedagiri P, Arasan TA (2009) Modelling modal shift due to the enhanced level of bus service. Transport 24(2):121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Webb J (2014) Theory and practice of automotive modal lock-in—an Indonesian case study. Unpublished thesis, School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  62. Yagi S, Mohommadian AK (2008) Joint models of home-based tour mode and destination choices. Transport Research Record. J Transp Res Board 2076:29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhang Z, Fujii H, Managi S (2014) How does commuting behavior change due to incentives? An empirical study of the Beijing subway system. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 24:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies and Springer Japan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.QUT Business School, School of Economics and FinanceQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.AMPR, QUT Business School, School of Advertising, Marketing and Public RelationsQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations