An importance–performance analysis (IPA) technique was used to evaluate 11 travel demand management (TDM) strategies in Seoul, South Korea, to improve TDM programs. The IPA technique, initially developed in the field of marketing, is known as an efficient tool for assessing the effectiveness of marketing strategies as well as their expected outcomes. On the basis of a survey addressed to four expert groups and a citizen group, importance and performance ratings for TDM strategies were obtained and analyzed. Results suggested that public transportation–related strategies should be kept as key elements of TDM strategies, on the basis of their high scores in both importance and performance evaluations. In addition, comparative analyses indicated that citizens’ perception of the strategies is different from that of the experts, especially in the performance evaluations. In conclusion, the IPA technique is a useful and efficient tool for identifying whether a TDM strategy is being effectively implemented, in terms of its expected level and compared with other strategies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FujiiS., and TaniguchiA.Reducing Family Car-Use by Providing Travel Advice or Requesting Behavioral Plans: An Experimental Analysis of Travel Feedback Programs.Transportation Research, Part D, Vol. 10, No. 5, 2005, pp. 385–393.
2.
ShaheenS. A., and NovickL.Framework for Testing Innovative Transportation Solutions: Case Study of CarLink, a Commuter Carsharing Program. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1927, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 149–157.
3.
ShaheenS. A., and RodierC. J.Travel Effects of a Suburban Commuter Carsharing Service: CarLink Case Study. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1927, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 182–188.
4.
LaneC.PhillyCarShare: First-Year Social and Mobility Impacts of Carsharing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1927, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 158–166.
5.
SundoM., and FujiiS.The Effects of a Compressed Working Week on Commuters’ Daily Activity Patterns.Transportation Research, Part A, Vol. 39, No. 10, 2005, pp. 835–848.
6.
RoseG., and AmptE.Travel Blending: An Australian Travel Awareness Initiative.Transportation Research, Part D, Vol. 6, 2001, pp. 95–110.
7.
MeyerM.Demand Management as an Element of Transportation Policy: Using Carrots and Sticks to Influence Travel Behavior.Transportation Research, Part A, Vol. 33, No. 7, 1999, pp. 575–599.
8.
ZhouL., and WintersP.Empirical Analysis of Compressed Workweek Choices. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2046, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 61–67.
9.
LyonsG., and HaddadH.Commute Replacement and Commute Displacement: The Rise of Part-Day Home Working. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2082, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 1–7.
10.
GeorggiN., WintersP., RaiS., and ZhouL.Measuring the Impacts of Employer-based Transportation Demand Management Programs on an Interstate Corridor.Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2007, pp. 51–78.
11.
DelucchiM.Environmental Externalities of Motor-Vehicle Use in the U.S.Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2000, pp. 135–168.
12.
Saving Oil in a Hurry.International Energy Agency, Paris, 2005.
13.
TanadtangP., ParkD., and HanaokaS.Incorporating Uncertain and Incomplete Subjective Judgments into the Evaluation Procedure of Transportation Demand Management Alternatives.Transportation, Vol. 32, No. 6, 2005, pp. 603–626.
14.
WadeD. and P. Eagles. The Use of Importance–Performance Analysis and Market Segmentation for Tourism Management in Parks and Protected Areas: An Application to Tanzania's National Parks.Journal of Ecotourism, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2003, pp. 196–212.
15.
MartillaJ., and JamesJ.Importance–Performance Analysis.Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41, No. 1, 1977, pp. 77–79.
16.
DukeC., and PersiaM.Performance–Importance Analysis of Escorted Tour Evaluations.Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 5, 1996, pp. 207–223.
17.
EnnewC., ReedG., and BinksM.Importance–Performance Analysis and the Measurement of Service Quality.European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27, 1993, pp. 59–70.
18.
JakubiakS., MudgeR. R., and HurdR.NCHRP Report 329: Using Market Research to Improve Management of Transportation Systems.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990.
19.
StradlingS., AnableJ., and CarrenoM.Performance, Importance, and User Disgruntlement: A Six-Step Method for Measuring Satisfaction with Travel Modes.Transportation Research, Part A, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2007, pp. 98–106.
20.
JanesP., and WisnomM.The Use of Importance Performance Analysis in the Hospitality Industry: A Comparison of Practices.Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 4, No. 1-2, 2003, pp. 23–45.
21.
PucherJ., ParkH., and KimM. H.Public Transport Reforms in Seoul: Innovations Motivated by Funding Crisis.Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 8, No. 5, 2005, pp. 41–62.
22.
KoJ., and ChoY. J.Voluntary Program to Reduce Car Use: Weekly No-Driving Day in Seoul, South Korea. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2118, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 1–7.
23.
Transportation Management Strategies in Seoul. SDI Research Report. Seoul Development Institute, Seoul, Korea, 2007.
24.
CronbachL. J.Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests.Psychometrika, Vol. 6, 1951, pp. 297–334.
25.
NunnalyJ.Psychometric Theory.McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978.
26.
BonsallP., BealeJ., PaulleyN., and PedlerA.The Differing Perspectives of Road Users and Service Providers.Transport Policy, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2005, pp. 334–344.
