A stated ranking experiment to study policy acceptance: The case of freight operators in ROME's LTZ;Un esperimento di ranking dichiarato sull'accettabilità delle politiche: Il caso degli operatori delle merci nella ZTL romana

Scienze Regionali

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 11-30

  Marcucci, Edoardo ^a   Stathopoulos, Amanda ^b   Gatta, Valerio ^c   Valeri, Eva ^b  

^a ROMA TRE UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TRIESTE   (Italy)

^c SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

Author keywords

Stated ranking experiments; Urban freight distribution

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877867213     PISSN: 17203929     EISSN: 2035603X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Aaker D., Day G. (1990), Marketing Research. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
2. Ben-Akiva M., Lerman S. R. (1985), Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
3. Brewer A., Hensher D. A. (2000), Distributed Work and Travel Behaviour: The Dynamics of Interactive Agency Choices between Employers and Employees. Transportation, 27, 1: 117-148.
4. ChoiceMetrics (2009), Ngene 1.0. User manual & reference guide. The Cutting Edge in Experimental Design. www.choice-metrics.com.
5. Crask M., Fox R. (1987), An Exploration of the Interval Properties of the Three Commonly Used Marketing Research Scales: A Magnitude Estimation Approach. Journal of the Market Research Society, 29, 3: 317-39.
6. de Jong G., Ben-Akiva M. (2007), A Micro-simulation Model of Shipment Size and Transport Chain Choice. Transportation Research Part B, 41, 9: 950-965.
7. Ferrini S., Scarpa R. (2007), Designs with a-priori Information for Non-market Valuation with Choice-experiments: a Monte Carlo study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53, 3: 342-363.
8. Filippi F. (2010), Innovative Solutions to Freight Distribution in the Complex Large Urban Area of Rome, Final Report Smaller Project 2007-50. Göteborg: VREF, Volvo Research and Educational Foundations.
9. Filippi F., Campagna A. (2008), Indagine sulla distribuzione delle merci a Roma nell'ambito dello studio di settore della mobilità delle merci a Roma. Roma: CTL, Centre for Studies on Transport and Logistics and ATAC.
10. Gray R. (1982), Behavioural Approaches to Freight Transport Modal Choice. Transport Reviews, 2, 2: 161-184.
11. Hensher D. A., Puckett S. M. (2008), Power, Concession and Agreement in Freight Distribution Chains: Subject to Distance-based User Charges. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 11, 2: 81-100.
12. Hensher D. A., Barnard P. O. (1990), The Orthogonality Issue in Stated Choice Designs. In: Fischer M., Nijkamp P., Papageorgiou Y. (eds.), Spatial Choices and Processes. Amsterdam North-Holland. 265-278.
13. Hensher D. A., Rose J. M., Greene W. H. (2005), Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Hensher D., Figliozzi M. A. (2007), Behavioural Insights into the Modelling of Freight Transportation and Distribution Systems. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 41, 9: 921-923.
15. Huber J., Zwerina K. (1996), The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs. Journal of Marketing Research 33, 3: 307-317.
16. Johnson L., Desvouges W. (1997), Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 34, 2: 79-99.
17. Kanninen B. J. (2002), Optimal Design for Multinomial Choice Experiments. Journal of Marketing Research 39, 2: 214-217.
18. Kessels R., Goos P., Vandebroek M. (2006), A Comparison of Criteria to Design Efficient Choice Experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 3: 409-419.
19. Liedtke G., Schepperle H. (2004) Segmentation of the Transportation Market with Regard to Activity-based Freight Transport Modelling. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 7, 3: 199-218.
20. Louviere J. (1988), Analyzing Decision Making Metric Conjoint Analysis. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences n. 07-067. Newbury Park CA: Sage Publications.
21. Louviere J. (1992), Experimental Choice Analysis: Introduction and Overview. Journal of Business Research, 24, 2: 89-95.
22. Louviere J. J., Hensher D. A. (1983), Using Discrete Choice Models with Experimental Design Data to Forecast Consumer Demand for a Unique Cultural Event. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 3: 348-361.
23. Louviere J. J., Hensher D. A., Swait J. D. (2000), Stated Choice Methods - Analysis and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Louviere J. J., Woodworth G. (1983), Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: an Approach Based on Aggregated Data. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 4: 350-367.
25. Marcucci E. (ed.) (2005), Introduzione ai modelli a scelta discreta per lo studio dei trasporti, (An Introduction to Discrete Choice Models for the Study of Transportation). Roma: Carocci Editore.
26. Ogden K. W. (1992), Urban Goods Movement: a Guide to Policy and Planning. Ashgate: Aldershot.
27. Ortuzar J., Garrido R. (1994), A Practical Assessment of Stated Preferences Methods. Transportation, 21, 3: 289-305.
28. Puckett S. M., Greaves S. (2009), Estimating Policy-Induced Changes in Freight Vehicle Emissions in Sydney. Sydney: University of Sydney, ITLS, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies.
29. Puckett S. M., Hensher D. A. (2006), Modelling Interdependent Behaviour Utilising a Sequentially-administered Stated Choice Experiment: Analysis of Urban Road Freight Stakeholders. Paper presented at the 2006 Conference of the International Association of Travel Behaviour Research. Held at Kyoto: Japan, August.
30. Puckett S. M., Hensher D. A. (2008), The Role of Attribute Processing Strategies in Estimating the Preferences of Road Freight Stakeholders under Variable Road User Charges. Transportation Research, Part E, Logistics and Transportation Review, 44, 3: 379-395.
31. Roorda M. J., Cavalcante R., McCabe S., Kwan H. (2010), A Conceptual Framework for Agent-based Modelling of Logistics Services. Transportation Research Part E, Logistics and Transportation Review, 46, 1: 18-31.
32. Rose J. M., Bliemer M. C. J. (2005), Constructing Efficient Choice Experiments. Sydney: University of Sydney, ITLS, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies Report ITLS-WP-05-07.
33. Samimi A., Mohammadian A., Kawamura K. (2009), Integrating Supply Chain Management Concept in a Goods Movement Microsimulation. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Service Operations, Logistics and Informatics. Held at Chicago: USA, July.
34. Sándor Z., Wedel M. (2001), Designing Conjoint Choice Experiments Using Managers' Prior Beliefs. Journal of Marketing Research 38, 4: 430-444.
35. Sándor Z., Wedel M. (2002), Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models, Marketing Science, 21, 4: 455-475.
36. Sándor Z., Wedel M. (2005), Heterogeneous Conjoint Choice Designs. Journal of Marketing Research 42, 1: 210-218.
37. Southworth F. (2003), Freight Transportation Planning: Models and Methods. In: Goulias K. G. (ed.), Transportation Systems Planning: Methods and Applications. Boca Ratòn FL: CRC Press. 4-1.
38. STA, Società Trasporti Automobilistici (1999), Quadro conoscitivo del problema della distribuzione delle merci nel Centro Storico di Roma. Roma: STA, ATAC.
39. Stathopoulos A., Valeri E., Marcucci E., Gatta V., Nuzzolo A., Comi A. (2010), Urban Freight Policy Innovation for Rome's LTZ: A stakeholder perspective. In: Macharis C., Melo S. (eds.), Multiple Views on City Distribution: a State of the Art. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.
40. Train K. (2003), Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Wisetjindawat W., Matsumoto S., Sano K. (2005), Supply Chain Simulation for Modeling the Interactions in Freight Movement. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 6: 2991-3004.
42. Yang C. H., Chow J. Y. J., Regan A. C. (2009), State-of-the Art of Freight Forecasting Modeling: Lessons Learned and the Road Ahead. Proceedings of the 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Held at Washington: Usa, January.