Transportation

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 75–89 | Cite as

Persuasive communication aimed at public transportation-oriented residential choice and the promotion of public transport

  • Ayako Taniguchi
  • Satoshi Fujii
  • Tomohide Azami
  • Haruo Ishida
Article

Abstract

In this study, we developed a persuasive communication program to induce public-transport-oriented residential (PTOR) choice. We implemented an experiment that targeted students from the University of Tsukuba, Japan, who were in the process of changing their residential location. These students were randomly assigned to four groups: the first group was a control group; the second group received an information brochure about apartment flats typically used by students in Tsukuba city; the third group received a brochure identical to the one given to the second group, except that it also included information about the level of bus service for every flat; and the fourth group was provided with a leaflet that provided motivation for PTOR choice, in addition to the brochure used for the third group. The residential locations were investigated 5 months after the intervention. There was a significant difference between the control group and the third and fourth groups. The ratio of PTOR choice in the group with the information was twice as high as that for the control group. Furthermore, the persuasive message also increased PTOR choice. Additionally, the target groups’ frequency of bus use from home or the university was significantly high compared with the control group.

Keywords

Residential choice Public-transport-oriented residential (PTOR) choice Mobility management Persuasive communication Contingent focus model 

References

  1. Ajzen, I.: Persuasive communication theory in social psychology: a historical perspective. In: Manfredo, M.J. (ed.) Influencing Human Behavior: Theory and Applications in Recreation and Tourism, pp. 1–27. Sagamore, Champaign (1992)Google Scholar
  2. Ampt, E., Rooney, A.: Reducing the impact of the car—a sustainable approach, Travel Smart Adelaide. In: 23rd Australasian Transport Forum, Perth, Australia, September 29–October 1 1999Google Scholar
  3. Brög, W.: Individualized marketing: Implications for TDM. In: CD-ROM Proceedings of the 77th Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, 11–15 January 1998Google Scholar
  4. Cairns, S., Sloman, L., Newson, C., Anable, J., Kikbride, A., Goodwin, P.: Smarter Choices: Changing the Way We Travel. Department for Transport, London (2004)Google Scholar
  5. Commission of European Communities: Green Paper on the Urban Environment. Commission of European Communities, Brussels (1990)Google Scholar
  6. Enoch, M.: Sustainable Transport, Mobility Management and Travel Plans (Transport and Mobility). Ashgate, Aldershot (2012)Google Scholar
  7. Fransson, N., Gärling, T.: Environmental concern: conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. J. Environ. Psychol. 19, 369–382 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fujii, S., Takemura, K.: Risk attitude and attention: psychometric analysis of framing effect using contingent focus model. Jpn. J. Behav. 28(1), 9–17 (2001) (in Japanese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  9. Fujii, S., Takemura, K.: Attention, frame condition, and decision making under risk: An empirical test of the contingent focus model using an eye gaze recorder. In: Society for Judgment and Decision Making Annual Meeting, Vancouver, Canada, 16–19 November 2003Google Scholar
  10. Fujii, S., Taniguchi, A.: Reducing family car use by providing travel advice or requesting behavioural plans: an experimental analysis of travel feedback programs. Transp. Res. D 10(5), 385–393 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gärling, T., Fujii, S.: Structural equation modeling of determinants of planning. Scand. J. Psychol. 43(1), 1–8 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. James, B.: TravelSmart—large-scale cost-effective mobility management. Experiences from Perth, Western Australia. Proc. ICE Munic. Eng. 151(1), 39–47 (2002)Google Scholar
  13. Jenks, A., Burton, E., Williams, K.: The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? E & FN Spon, London (1996)Google Scholar
  14. Jones, P.: Encouraging behavioural change through marketing and management: what can be achieved? In: Presented at 10th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Lucerne, Switzerland, 10–15 August 2003Google Scholar
  15. Lerman, S.R.: Location, housing, automobile ownership and mode to work: a joint choice model. Journal of Transportation Research Board, No. 610, pp. 6–11. TRB, National Research Council, Washington (1976)Google Scholar
  16. Louviere, J.: Modeling individual residential preferences: a totally disaggregate approach. Transp. Res. A 13(6), 373–384 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McFadden, D.: Modeling the choice of residential location. Journal of Transportation Research Board, No. 672, pp. 72–77. TRB, National Research Council, Washington (1978)Google Scholar
  18. Pagliara, F., Preston, J., Simmonds, D.: Residential Location Choice: Models and Applications, Advances in Spatial Science. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rose, G., Ampt, E.: Travel blending: an Australian travel awareness initiative. Transp. Res. 6D, 95–110 (2001)Google Scholar
  20. Sermons, M.W., Koppelman, F.S.: Representing the differences between female and male commute behaviour in residential location choice models. J. Transp. Geogr. 9, 101–110 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Black, J.S.: Support for environmental protection: the role of social norms. Popul. Environ. 8, 204–222 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L.: Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 25, 322–348 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Takami, K., Hatoyama, K.: Sustainable regeneration of a car-dependent city: the case of Toyama toward a compact city. Sustainable city regions: cSUR-UT series: library for sustainable urban regeneration 7, 183–200 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Takemura, K.: A theoretical explanation of the framing effect—the contingent focus model of decision making under risk. Jpn. Psychol. Rev. 37(3), 270–291 (1994). (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  25. Taniguchi, A., Suzuki, H., Fujii, S.: Mobility management in Japan: its development and meta-analysis of travel feedback programs. Transp. Res. Rec. 2021, 100–117 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Timmermans, H., Borgers, A., Dijk, J., Oppewal, H.: Residential choice behaviour of dual earner households: a decompositional joint choice model. Environ. Plan. A 24, 517–533 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 453–458 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. White, M.J.: Location choice and commuting behaviour in cities with decentralized employment. J. Econ. 24(2), 129–152 (1988)Google Scholar
  29. Young, W.: A non-tradeoff decision making model of residential location choice. Transp. Res. A 18(1), 1–11 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhang, J., Fujiwara, A.: Intrahousehold interaction in transit-oriented residential choice behaviour represented in stated preference approach. J. Transp. Res. Board 2134, 73–81 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ayako Taniguchi
    • 1
  • Satoshi Fujii
    • 2
  • Tomohide Azami
    • 3
  • Haruo Ishida
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Risk EngineeringUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapan
  2. 2.Kyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  3. 3.East Japan Railway CompanyTokyoJapan
  4. 4.University of TsukubaTsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations