<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5889">
    <title>DSpace Collection:</title>
    <link>http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5889</link>
    <description />
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5897" />
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5896" />
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5895" />
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5894" />
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
    <dc:date>2013-05-24T22:29:59Z</dc:date>
  </channel>
  <item rdf:about="http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5897">
    <title>Evaluating different pricing policies on social welfare: an application to Madrid Barajas</title>
    <link>http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5897</link>
    <description>Title: Evaluating different pricing policies on social welfare: an application to Madrid Barajas
Authors: Martin, Juan Carlos; Betancor, Ofelia
Abstract: In this paper, we assess the potential impacts of different airport charges schemes that can be applied in&#xD;
Madrid Barajas airport. We use a model that has already been applied in the literature to calculate the&#xD;
social welfare of the different price regimes. The term social welfare refers to the social welfare generated&#xD;
from only aeronautical services, while the social welfare created from non-aeronautical activities will not&#xD;
be discussed here. We define, as is common in the literature, that the social welfare is the sum of&#xD;
consumer surplus and producer surplus. We analyze the potential impact of different pricing policies&#xD;
using the values obtained on social welfare, and using the concept of ‘potential loss of social welfare’&#xD;
when the lack of adequate capacity preclude the potential demand from using the airport. Thus, we&#xD;
evaluate the “losses” or “gains” of each alternative pricing policy. Our results may contribute to the ongoing&#xD;
debate in Madrid and around Europe about the merits of adjusting airport charges to different&#xD;
scenarios, e.g. congestion or lack of capacity or excess of capacity, in which airports are usually involved.
Type: Articolo</description>
    <dc:date>2006-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5896">
    <title>An investigation into the reasons for the rejection of congestion charging by the citizens of Edinburgh</title>
    <link>http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5896</link>
    <description>Title: An investigation into the reasons for the rejection of congestion charging by the citizens of Edinburgh
Authors: Allen, Simon; Gaunt, Martin; Rye, Tom
Abstract: In February 2005, residents of Edinburgh, a medium-sized city in the United Kingdom, were given the&#xD;
opportunity to vote in a referendum on the introduction of a road user charging scheme, which had been&#xD;
in development for almost a decade. The public voted against the scheme by a ratio of 3:1 and it was&#xD;
consequently abandoned. This paper describes the evolution of the scheme, and presents results of&#xD;
research to determine the principle factors responsible for the public's overwhelming opposition to the&#xD;
scheme. The research used a postal, self-completion questionnaire that was distributed to 1300 randomlyselected&#xD;
households in central and southern Edinburgh three months after the referendum. The&#xD;
questionnaire responses were analysed to assess the influence of several factors on the way respondents&#xD;
voted in the referendum. Car use was shown to be the principle determinant of voting behaviour, with car&#xD;
owners strongly opposing the scheme while non-car owners only weakly supported it. The public’s&#xD;
limited understanding of the scheme increased the strength of the opposing vote. Further, the public were&#xD;
largely unconvinced that the scheme would have achieved its dual objectives of reduced congestion and&#xD;
improved public transport. The findings suggest that more attention should have been paid to designing a&#xD;
simpler, more easily communicated, scheme and convincing residents, particularly public transport users,&#xD;
of its benefits. Some other aspects of the scheme that militated against its successful introduction are also&#xD;
briefly identified.
Type: Articolo</description>
    <dc:date>2006-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5895">
    <title>Acceptability of road pricing and revenue use in the Netherlands</title>
    <link>http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5895</link>
    <description>Title: Acceptability of road pricing and revenue use in the Netherlands
Authors: Ubbels, Barry; Verhoef, Erik
Abstract: This paper presents the empirical results of a questionnaire among Dutch commuters regularly&#xD;
experiencing congestion, asking for their opinion (in terms of acceptance) on road pricing measures and&#xD;
revenue use targets. We find that road pricing is in general not very acceptable and that revenue use is&#xD;
important for the explanation of the level of acceptance. Road pricing is more acceptable when revenues&#xD;
are used to replace existing car taxation or to lower fuel taxes. Moreover, personal characteristics of the&#xD;
respondent have an impact on support levels. Higher educated people, as well as respondents with a&#xD;
higher value of time and with higher perceived effectiveness of the measure, seem to find road pricing&#xD;
measures more acceptable than other people. When we ask directly for the acceptability of different types&#xD;
of revenue use (not part of a road pricing measure), again abolition of existing car (ownership) taxes&#xD;
receives most support whereas the general budget is not acceptable.
Type: Articolo</description>
    <dc:date>2006-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5894">
    <title>Evaluation of the implementation process of urban road pricing schemes in the United Kingdom and Italy</title>
    <link>http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5894</link>
    <description>Title: Evaluation of the implementation process of urban road pricing schemes in the United Kingdom and Italy
Authors: Ieromonachou, Petros; Potter, Stephen; Warren, James P.
Abstract: This paper is based upon detailed research that has taken place in the UK and Italy, on the&#xD;
implementation strategies for urban road pricing schemes. In the UK, both in London and Durham, the&#xD;
Road User Charging schemes required new legislation, and were implemented rapidly. The time from&#xD;
announcement to implementation took three years and the schemes were introduced after short periods of&#xD;
intensive planning, consultations and stakeholder networking. In Italy, the situation has been very&#xD;
different. The road pricing schemes in Rome and Genoa were not introduced under specific legislation&#xD;
but rather evolved from access control zones originally implemented in historic urban centres. The&#xD;
incremental introduction of the Italian road pricing experiments has taken approximately ten years.&#xD;
The paper undertakes a comparison of these different strategies to introduce urban road pricing and the&#xD;
lessons they contain for the development of similar measures elsewhere. The comparison of the different&#xD;
implementing experiences is undertaken using Strategic Policy Niche Management, a method designed to&#xD;
explore, among other factors, the dynamics of the stakeholder networks involved in planning, introducing,&#xD;
marketing and managing radical urban Travel Demand Management policies.
Type: Articolo</description>
    <dc:date>2006-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </item>
</rdf:RDF>

