1 / 15

2009/5/15 Ayu Miyakawa Supervisor: Satoshi FUJII

2009/5/15 Ayu Miyakawa Supervisor: Satoshi FUJII. SOCIAL BENEFIT OF PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION THROUGTH MASS-MEDIA FOR MOBILITY MANAGEMENT . PURPOSE. Persuasive MM in Japan Since 1999, persuasive MM experiment have been implemented.

jerome
Download Presentation

2009/5/15 Ayu Miyakawa Supervisor: Satoshi FUJII

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2009/5/15 Ayu Miyakawa Supervisor: Satoshi FUJII SOCIAL BENEFIT OF PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION THROUGTH MASS-MEDIA FOR MOBILITY MANAGEMENT

  2. PURPOSE • Persuasive MM in Japan • Since 1999, persuasive MM experiment have been implemented. • TFPs (persuasive communication technique) for inhabitant reduced car use by about 19% and increased the transportation use by about 32% in average (by the meta analysis in 2006). • Japanese government is now strongly promoting MM. • Problems • However, some transport policy makers still skeptical about MM s effectiveness. • It is necessary to empirically show the social benefit of the measure and to develop the system to assess MM s effectiveness. This study is to propose an assessment method ofsocial benefit, and apply it for evaluation of MM of persuasive communication through mass-media.

  3. MM project using Mass Media • Providing persuasive message to refrain from car dependence through newspaper. • “Living-Kyoto” (weekly newspaper) • circulated to 510,000 households by women called “Living-Lady” • supplies several information about our daily life to women • Area where Living-Kyoto was distributed = Kyoto • Population: about 1,900,000 • （72% of Kyoto prefecture） • Modal Share: Car use 32.4%, • Railway use 15.6% • Bus use 4.6% Kyoto Prefecture Target Area

  4. Persuasive Message in the Newspaper • To suggest using a car in “smart way” (= refraining from too much use of car) • Explanation of negative impacts of car use on global environment and on people’s health with graphs • Introduction of the projectand the results of preliminary TFP • (target atLiving-Ladyto get the outcome inserted into this article) • Message to recruit participant to TFP Living-Kyoto on March 24, 2007 Leaflet with a simple postal card forapplication

  5. Surveys for Evaluation of this project 2007. 3 1 page of newspaper Living-Kyoto was provided 2007.6 Questionnaire survey ・Distributed goods: greeting letter, questionnaire, little gift ・Question: travel frequency, psychological factorhow they remember the newspaper article ・Sample: distributed to randomly sampled 5,000 households, and 1,698 returned(34.0%) • Evaluate how much their behavior changed by reading the newspaper article. 5

  6. RESULTS(TARGET POPULATION) • Classification by the Degree of Remembrance of the Newspaper Article • ※ Degree of remembrance: "Do you remember the article about the project to use car in “smart way" • on March 24, 2007 ? " 1.6% 3.0% Not read Not remember at all Not remember the content Remember vaguely Remember well No answer 9.8% 29.1% 36.9% 19.5% • “Remember well” and “Remember vaguely” might have changed their behavior by reading the newspaper article.

  7. EVALUATION OF MM MEASURE • Expand to Whole Target Area (510,000 households) • Calculate the effects took into accounts the differences of sex distribution • 10 minutes’ car use reduction a day • 6 minutes’ walking increase a day (for remember well) • We used these results for cost benefit analysis based on assumptions that 1) Rate of two groups was same to the whole target area （total: about 65,000 people).  maybe overestimate 2) only one people in any household would change travel behavior  maybe underestimate Differences of travel behavior

  8. EVALUATION INDICATORS OF MM Indicatorsfor Measuring Evaluation indicators of MM Benefit of MM participants difference of travel time for each mode（minute/person・day） (1) Health enhancement （yen/person・day） Walk time and medical care cost (yen/minute) (2) Reduction of traffic accidents (yen/person・day） walk Social cost for a traffic accident (yen/case) car Public transportation (3) differenceof travel cost （yen/person・day） Average fare (yen/time) Average fuel cost (yen/km) Average fare (yen/time) Average travel time (km/h) Increase of travel cost by public transportation difference of travel distance for each mode （km/person・day） Reduction of travel cost by car Cost of CO2 (yen/g-Co2) car Social benefit (4) Reduction of CO2 emission （yen/person・day） Traffic observation data Value of time (5) Reduction of travel time（yen/person・day） (Expect for MM participants) Reduction of total travel time by car Transport operators (6) Increase of freight revenues （yen/person・day） 8

  9. (1) Health enhancement • This benefit is derived from the difference of the medical care cost corresponded to the difference of walk time. • ⊿ＭEDICAL = C’me- Cme（yen/person・day） • 　・C’me：medical care cost corresponded to walk time with MM (yen/time). • 　・Cme： medical care cost corresponded to walk time without MM (yen/time). • Calculate the medical care costcorresponded to walk time based on scientific research report. Fig. Walk time and total medical care cost An experimental study about efficiency evaluation of healthcare by analysis of medical care cost, the scientific research report, The report of Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, 2005. Total was 366(millionyen/year) 9

  10. (2) Reduction of traffic accidents • This benefit was derived from the followingequation. • ΔAC=Cac × αac × ΔTcar(yen/ person・day) • Cac：social cost for a traffic accident (yen/number of traffic accident) • αac： probability of encountering a traffic accident by using car in target area • (number of traffic accident/minute) • ΔT car ：difference of car use (minute/person・day) • Cac= social cost for one casualty（yen/person） • × casualties of traffic accident in target area (person/year) • ÷the number of traffic accident in target area (number of traffic accident/year) • = 4,337（yen/ number of traffic accident） • αac=average time of car use in target area （minute/person・day） • ×population of target area（person） • = 0.91×10-6(number of traffic accident/minute) Total was 390 (millionyen/year) 10

  11. (3) Reduction of CO2 emission • This benefit was derived from the followingequation. ΔCO2 = CCO2 ×βm × ΔTm (yen/ person・day) CCO2 ：cost of CO2 (yen/g-CO2) βm ：basic unit of CO2 emission by mode "m“ (g-CO2/time) or (g-CO2/minute) ΔTm ：difference of use mode "m“ (time/person・day)or (minute/person・day) m ：car or bike or public transportation • CCO2※= 1,212×10-6（yen/g-CO2） • βcar = 94（g-CO2/minute）、βpub= 920（g-CO2/time）、 βbike= 380（g-CO2/time） ※Ministry of the environment: The evaluation report aboutJapan’s Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme (JVETS) inJapan,2005 Total was 11(millionyen/year) 11

  12. (4) Reduction of travel time • This benefit was derived from the followingprocess. Obtained OD MatrixTotal travel costs without MM • Reduction rate of OD in target area • Red_O=(X/2)/(S_O), Red_D=(X/2)/(S_D) • 　　　　・ S_O(=1,681,609)， S_D(=1,683,818)： • Total traffic volume depart from ( arrive at ) all zone in target area. • 　　　　　 ・X(=155,312)： • Car trip reduction figured out difference of car use (time/month) • ※Distribution of X is not observed, so we assumed half of X is depart from ( arrive at ) all zone in target area and reduction rate of OD is the same as whole target area. Modified O-D matrix Total travel costs with MM Total was 324(millionyen/year) 12

  13. Increase of freight revenues • This benefit was derived from the followingequation. • ΔFARE ＝ Cpub × ΔTpub (yen/ person・day) • ＝{Cbus× (1 －αtra ) + (Ctra × αtra ) } × Δtpub • Cbus： average fare of bus in target area(yen/time) • Ctra：average fare of railway in target area(yen/time) • αtra：rate of railway use • Δtpub：difference of public transportation use(time/person・day) • Ctra = average fare of an ordinary rail ticket （yen/time）×β • 　　　　　　　　　＋ average fare of commutation ticket（yen/time）×（1-β) • = 281（yen/time）　　　　　　※β:rate of use of ordinary ticket=0.399 • Cbus = the fare of bus inside Kyoto city =220 (yen/time) • αtra = 0.77 Total was 23(millionyen/year) 13

  14. EVALUATION OF MM MEASURE • Health Enhancement=366 (million yen/year) (= Difference of the medical care cost corresponded to difference of walk time) • Reduction of Traffic Accidents = 390 (million yen/year） (= Social cost for a traffic accident × Probability of encountering a traffic accident by using car in target area× Difference of car use) • Reduction of CO2 Emission= 11 （million yen/year), 8,700 （t/year） (= Cost of CO2 × Basic unit of CO2 emission × Difference of use mode “m”) m: car or bike or public transportation • Reduction of travel time in whole road network= 324 （million yen/year） Total Benefit = 1,091 (million yen/year) Total Cost= 33.5 （million yen/year） Cost effectiveness= 32.6 • Increase of Freight Revenues = 23 (million yen/year） (=Average fare of public transportation × Difference of public transportation use)

  15. CONCLUSION • Persuasive message to promote voluntary travel behavior change through domestic news paper could actually change people’s travel behavior. • The social benefit reach a significant level (=32.6) for local municipality. • We have developed a system to assess social benefit of MM while considering various aspectsand, that can be used in various cities and areas in Japan. From now on・・・ • To evaluate MM measures properly ,It is necessary • To discuss the data such as cost of CO2. • To study unconsidered evaluation indicators such as city vitality and value of mobility itself. Thank you for your attention.

More Related