This paper proposes a modeling approach for evaluating the effect of a personalized travel plan on a sustainable mode choice. A panel binary probit was estimated by using the approach of composite marginal-likelihood estimation. The formulation modeled the choice of using a light rail service (versus that of not using it) by means of daily individual panel observations collected in the context of a program of voluntary travel behavior change (VTBC) before and after the provision of a personalized travel plan. In this regard, a VTBC program was a policy measure that used communication and information to encourage individuals to use more sustainable travel modes. In this study, the VTBC program was implemented by providing car users with personalized information about how to introduce the light rail service into their travel patterns.
AmptE.Voluntary Household Travel Behaviour Change: Theory and Practice. Presented at 10th International Conference of Association of Travel Behaviour Research, Lucerne, Switzerland, Aug. 10–15, 2003.
3.
StopherP. R., and BullockP.Travel Behaviour Modification: A Critical Appraisal. Presented at 26th Australasian Transportation Research Forum, Wellington, New Zealand, 2003.
4.
ChatterjeeK., and BonsallP.Special Issue on Evaluation of Programmes Promoting Voluntary Change in Travel Behaviour: An Introduction by the Editors. Transport Policy, Vol. 16, 2009, pp. 279–280.
5.
TaylorM.Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Programs in Australia: The Carrot Rather Than the Stick in Travel Demand Management. Inter national Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 1, 2007, pp. 173–192.
6.
BhatC. R., VarinC., and FerdousN.A Comparison of the Maximum Simulated Likelihood and Composite Marginal Likelihood Estimation Approaches in the Context of the Multivariate Ordered Response Model. In Maximum Simulated Likelihood Methods and Applications, Advances in Econometrics, Vol. 26 (GreeneW., and HillR. C., eds.), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, United Kingdom, 2010, pp. 65–106.
7.
JonesP.Acceptability of Transport Pricing Strategies. Meeting the Challenge. In Acceptability of Transport Pricing Strategies (SchadeJ., and SchlagB., eds.), Elsevier, Amsterdam Netherlands, 2003, pp. 27–62.
8.
FujiiS., and TaniguchiA.Determinants of the Effectiveness of Travel Feedback Programs—A Review of Communicative Mobility Management Measures for Changing Travel Behaviour in Japan. Transport Policy, Vol. 13, No. 5, 2006, pp. 339–348.
9.
RichterJ., FrimanM., and GärlingT.Soft Transport Policy Measures: Gaps Knowledge. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 2011, pp. 199–215.
10.
FujiiS., and GärlingT.Role and Acquisition of Car-Use Habit. In Threats from Car Traffic to the Quality of Urban Life: Problems, Causes, and Solutions (GärlingT., and StegL., eds.), Elsevier, Amsterdam Netherlands, 2007, pp. 235–250.
11.
BrögW., ErlE., KerI., RyleJ., and WallR.Evaluation of Voluntary Travel Behaviour Change: Experiences from Three Continents. Transport Policy, Vol. 16, 2009, pp. 281–292.
12.
RoseG., and AmptE.Travel Blending: An Australian Travel Awareness Initiative. Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 6, 2001, pp. 95–110.
13.
CairnsS., SlomanL., NewsonC., AnableJ., KirkbrideA., and GoodwinP.Smarter Choice, Changing the Way We Travel. In The Influence of Soft Factor Interventions on Travel Demand. Final report. Department for Transport, 2004. www.dft.gov.uk.
14.
CoolsM., MoonsE., JanssensB., and WetsG.Shifting Towards Environment-Friendly Modes: Profiling Travelers Using Q-Methodology. Transportation, Vol. 36, 2009, pp. 437–453.
15.
BhatC. R.A Multi-Level Cross-Classified Model for Discrete Response Variables. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 34, No. 7, 2000, pp. 567–582.
16.
JohanssonM. V., HeldtT., and JohanssonP.The Effects of Attitudes and Personality Traits on Mode Choice. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 40, No. 6, 2006, pp. 507–525.
17.
AnableJ.“Complacent Car Addicts” or “Aspiring Environmentalists”? Identifying Travel Behaviour Segments Using Attitude Theory. Transport Policy, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2005, pp. 65–78.
18.
CurtisC., and HeadicarP.Targeting Travel Awareness Campaigns: Which Individuals Are More Likely to Switch from Car to Other Transport for the Journey to Work?Transport Policy, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1997, pp. 57–65.
19.
AndersonS., and StradlingS. G.Attitudes Towards Car Use and Modal Shift in Scotland.Scottish Executive Social Research, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2004.
20.
CarrenoM., BambergS., RyeT., and WelschJ.How Best To Evaluate Mobility Management Projects: Can Psychological Theory Help? Proc., XVIth Pan-American Conference of Traffic and Transportation Engineering and Logistics, Lisbon, Portugal, July 15–18, 2010.
21.
MeloniI., SpissuE., and BhatC. R.The Effect of Personal Cap-and-Trade Mileage Policies on Individual Activity-Travel Patterns: The Activity Locator Project. Transportation Letters, Vol. 3, 2011, pp. 293–307.
22.
BhatC. R.The Maximum Approximate Composite Marginal Likelihood (MACML) Estimation of Multinomial Probit-Based Unordered Response Choice Models. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 45, No. 7, 2011, pp. 923–939.
23.
CantilloV., OrtúzarJ. de D., and WilliamsH.Modeling Discrete Choices in the Presence of Inertia and Serial Correlation. Transportation Science, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2007, pp. 195–205.
24.
CherchiE., and MancaF.Accounting for Inertia in Modal Choices: Some New Evidence Using a RP/SP Dataset. Transportation, Vol. 38, No. 4, 2011, pp. 679–695.
25.
ThøgersenJ., and ÖlanderF.Spillover of Environment-Friendly Consumer Behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 23, 2003, pp. 225–236.
26.
HalkierB.Nemt at tørre ansvaret af på forbrugerne. Information, Jan. 28, 1997.
27.
PaceL., SalvanA., and SartoriN.Adjusting Composite Likelihood Ratio Statistics. Statistica Sinica, Vol. 21 No. 1, 2011, pp. 129–148.
