Skip to main content Accessibility help

Can policy-packaging increase public support for costly policies? Insights from a choice experiment on policies against vehicle emissions

  • Michael Wicki (a1), Robert Alexander Huber (a2) and Thomas Bernauer (a3)
  • Please note a correction has been issued for this article.


Public support is usually a precondition for the adoption and successful implementation of costly policies. We argue that such support is easier to achieve with policy-packages that incorporate primary and ancillary measures. We specifically distinguish command-and-control and market-based measures as primary measures and argue that the former will usually garner more public support than the latter given the low-visibility tendency of costs associated with command-and-control measures. Nevertheless, if included in a policy-package, ancillary measures are likely to increase public support by reducing negative effects of primary measures. Based on a choice experiment with a representative sample of 2,034 Swiss citizens, we assessed these arguments with respect to political efforts to reduce vehicle emissions. The empirical analysis supported the argument that policy-packaging affects public support positively, particularly generating more support when ancillary measures are added. Lastly, we ultimately observe that command-and-control measures obtain more public support than market-based instruments.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Can policy-packaging increase public support for costly policies? Insights from a choice experiment on policies against vehicle emissions
      Available formats

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Can policy-packaging increase public support for costly policies? Insights from a choice experiment on policies against vehicle emissions
      Available formats

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Can policy-packaging increase public support for costly policies? Insights from a choice experiment on policies against vehicle emissions
      Available formats



Hide All
Anderson, B, Böhmelt, T and Ward, H (2017) Public Opinion and Environmental Policy Output: A Cross-National Analysis of Energy Policies in Europe. Environmental Research Letters, 12(11): 114011.
Andersson, D and Nässén, J (2016) The Gothenburg Congestion Charge Scheme: A Pre–post Analysis of Commuting Behavior and Travel Satisfaction. Journal of Transport Geography, 52: 8289.
Arnold, JB (2017) Ggthemes: Extra Themes, Scales and Geoms for ‘ggplot2.’ R package version 3.4. 0.
Balmer, U (2005) The Window of Opportunity: How the Obstacles to the Introduction of the Swiss Heavy Goods Vehicle Fee Have Been Overcome. OECD Papers, 5(5): 139.
Bamberg, S and Rölle, D (2003) Determinants of People’s Acceptability of Pricing Measures: Replication and Extension of a Causal Model. In Schade, J and Schlag, B (eds.), Acceptability of Transport Pricing Strategies. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science, 235248.
Banister, D (2003) Critical Pragmatism and Congestion Charging in London. International Social Science Journal, 55(176): 249264. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2451.2003.05502006.x.
Bansak, K, Hainmueller, J, Hopkins, DJ and Yamamoto, T (2019) Beyond the Breaking Point? Survey Satisficing in Conjoint Experiments. Political Science Research and Methods, forthcoming: 119. doi: 10.1017/psrm.2019.13.
Barton, DN, Benavides, K, Chacon-Cascante, A, Le Coq, JF, Quiros, MM, Porras, I, Primmer, E and Ring, I (2017) Payments for Ecosystem Services as a Policy Mix: Demonstrating the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework on Conservation Policy Instruments. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(5): 404421.
Bates, D, Mächler, M, Bolker, B and Walker, S (2015) Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1): 148.
Beiser-McGrath, LF and Huber, RA (2018) Assessing the Relative Importance of Psychological and Demographic Factors for Predicting Climate and Environmental Attitudes. Climatic Change, 149(3–4): 335347.
Bellé, N, Cantarelli, P and Belardinelli, P (2018) Prospect Theory Goes Public: Experimental Evidence on Cognitive Biases in Public Policy and Management Decisions. Public Administration Review, 78(6): 828840. doi: 10.1111/puar.12960.
Bemelmans-Videc, ML, Rist, RC and Vedung, EO (2011) Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation. New Brunswick (USA) and London (UK): Transaction Publishers.
Bernauer, T, Prakash, A and Beiser-McGrath, LF (2018) Do Exemptions Undermine Environmental Policy Support? An Experimental Stress Test on the Odd-Even Road Space Rationing Policy in India. Regulation & Governance. doi: 10.1111/rego.12225.
Böcher, M (2012) A Theoretical Framework for Explaining the Choice of Instruments in Environmental Policy. Forest Policy and Economics, 16: 1422. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.03.012.
Bontoux, L and Bengtsson, D (2016) Using Scenarios to Assess Policy Mixes for Resource Efficiency and Eco-Innovation in Different Fiscal Policy Frameworks. Sustainability, 8(4): 309321. doi: 10.3390/su8040309.
Bristow, AL, Wardman, M, Zanni, AM and Chintakayala, PK (2010) Public Acceptability of Personal Carbon Trading and Carbon Tax. Ecological Economics, 69(9): 18241837.
Brunetti, A and Straubhaar, T (1996) Direkte Demokratie -- Bessere Demokratie? Was Lehrt Uns Das Schweizer Beispiel. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 6(1): 726.
Carson, RT and Hanemann, WM (2005) Chapter 17 Contingent Valuation. Handbook of Environmental Economics, 2: 821936. doi: 10.1016/S1574-0099(05)02017-6.
Cherry, TL, Kallbekken, S and Kroll, S (2012) The Acceptability of Efficiency-Enhancing Environmental Taxes, Subsidies and Regulation: An Experimental Investigation. Environmental Science & Policy, 16: 9096. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.11.007.
Cherry, TL, Kallbekken, S and Kroll, S (2014) The Impact of Trial Runs on the Acceptability of Environmental Taxes: Experimental Evidence. Resource and Energy Economics, 38: 8495.
Dargusch, P and Griffiths, A (2008) Introduction to Special Issue: A Typology of Environmental Markets. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 15(2): 7075. doi: 10.1080/14486563.2008.9725186.
Dermont, C, Ingold, K, Kammermann, L and Stadelmann-Steffen, I (2017) Bringing the Policy Making Perspective in: A Political Science Approach to Social Acceptance. Energy Policy, 108: 359368.
Dowle, M and Srinivasan, A (2017) Data.table: Extension of ‘data.frame’.
Drews, S and van den Bergh, JCJM (2016) What Explains Public Support for Climate Policies? A Review of Empirical and Experimental Studies. Climate Policy, 16(7): 855876. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2015.1058240.
Ekvall, T, Hirschnitz-Garbers, M, Eboli, F and Śniegocki, A (2016) A Systemic and Systematic Approach to the Development of a Policy Mix for Material Resource Efficiency. Sustainability, 8(4). doi: 10.3390/su8040373.
Eriksson, L, Garvill, J and Nordlund, AM (2008) Acceptability of Single and Combined Transport Policy Measures : The Importance of Environmental and Policy Specific Beliefs. Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42(8): 11171128.
European Environment Agency (2017) Monitoring CO2 Emissions from New Passenger Cars and Vans in 2016. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Federal Office for Spatial Development (2016) Externe Kosten Und Nutzen Des Verkehrs in Der Schweiz. Strassen-, Schienen-, Luft- Und Schiffsverkehr 2010 Bis 2013.
Federal Statistical Office (2018) Angenommene Und Verworfene Abstimmungsvorlagen, Nach Typ. (accessed 31 January 2019).
Felder, S and Schleiniger, R (2002) Environmental Tax Reform: Efficiency and Political Feasibility. Ecological Economics, 42(1): 107116.
Flanagan, K, Uyarra, E and Laranja, M (2010) The ‘policy Mix’for Innovation: Rethinking Innovation Policy in a Multi-Level, Multi-Actor Context. Research Policy, 40(5): 702713.
Fox, J (2003).Effect Displays in R for Generalised Linear Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 8(15). (accessed 4 November 2016).
Fox, J and Hong, J (2009) Effect Displays in R for Multinomial and Proportional-Odds Logit Models: Extensions to the Effects Package. Journal of Statistical Software, 32(1): 124. (accessed 4 November 2016).
Franzen, A and Vogl, D (2013) Two Decades of Measuring Environmental Attitudes: A Comparative Analysis of 33 Countries. Global Environmental Change, 23(5): 10011008.
Freitag, M, Vatter, A and Müller, C (2003) Bremse Oder Gaspedal? Eine Empirische Untersuchung Zur Wirkung Der Direkten Demokratie Auf Den Steuerstaat. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 44(3): 348369. doi: 10.1007/s11615-003-0068-2.
Givoni, M (2014) Addressing Transport Policy Challenges through Policy-Packaging. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 60: 18.
Givoni, M, Macmillen, J, Banister, D and Feitelson, E (2013) From Policy Measures to Policy Packages. Transport Reviews, 33(1): 120. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2012.744779.
de Groot, JIM and Schuitema, G (2012) How to Make the Unpopular Popular? Policy Characteristics, Social Norms and the Acceptability of Environmental Policies. Environmental Science & Policy, 19: 100107. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.03.004.
Gunningham, N and Sinclair, D (1999) Designing Smart Regulation. In Hutter, B (eds.), A Reader in Environmental Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 305334.
Gunningham, N and Sinclair, D (2017) Leaders and Laggards: Next-Generation Environmental Regulation. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.
Hahn, RW and Stavins, RN (1992) Economic Incentives for Environmental Protection: Integrating Theory and Practice. The American Economic Review, 82(2): 464468.
Hainmueller, J, Hopkins, DJ and Yamamoto, T (2014) Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1): 1.
Hansla, A, Hysing, E, Nilsson, A and Martinsson, J (2017) Explaining Voting Behavior in the Gothenburg Congestion Tax Referendum. Transport Policy, 53: 98106.
Howlett, M (2011) Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. London: Routledge.
Howlett, M, How, YP and del Rio, P (2015). The Parameters of Policy Portfolios: Verticality and Horizontality in Design Spaces and Their Consequences for Policy Mix Formulation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(5): 12331245.
Howlett, M and Rayner, J (2013) Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy Portfolio Design. Politics and Governance, 1(2): 170.
Huber, RA, Anderson, B and Bernauer, T (2018) Can Social Norm Interventions Promote Voluntary pro Environmental Action? Environmental Science & Policy, 89: 231246. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.07.016.
Huber, RA, Wicki, M and Bernauer, T (2019) Public Support for Environmental Policy Depends on Beliefs Concerning Effectiveness, Intrusiveness, and Fairness. Environmental Politics, forthcoming. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2019.1629171.
Hysing, E and Isaksson, K (2015) Building Acceptance for Congestion Charges -- The Swedish Experiences Compared. Journal of Transport Geography, 49: 5260. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.10.008.
Jaensirisak, S, Wardman, M and May, AD (2005) Explaining Variations in Public Acceptability of Road Pricing Schemes. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 39(2): 127153.
Justen, A, Fearnley, N, Givoni, M and Macmillen, J (2014) A Process for Designing Policy Packaging: Ideals and Realities. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 60: 918. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.016.
Kachi, A, Bernauer, T and Gampfer, R (2015) Climate Policy in Hard Times: Are the Pessimists Right? Ecological Economics, 114: 227241.
Kallbekken, S and Aasen, M (2010) The Demand for Earmarking: Results from a Focus Group Study. Ecological Economics, 69(11): 21832190.
Kallbekken, S, Garcia, JH and Korneliussen, K (2013) Determinants of Public Support for Transport Taxes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 58: 6778.
Kallbekken, S and Sælen, H (2011) Public Acceptance for Environmental Taxes: Self-Interest, Environmental and Distributional Concerns. Energy Policy, 39(5): 29662973.
Kern, F, Kivimaa, P and Martiskainen, M (2017) Policy Packaging or Policy Patching? The Development of Complex Energy Efficiency Policy Mixes. Energy Research and Social Science, 23: 1125. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2016.11.002.
Kim, J, Schmöcker, JD, Fujii, S and Noland, RB. (2013) Attitudes towards Road Pricing and Environmental Taxation among US and UK Students. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 48: 5062.
Kirchgässner, G and Schneider, F (2003) On the Political Economy of Environmental Policy. Public Choice, 115(3): 369396. doi: 10.1023/A:1024289627887.
Krosnick, JA (1999) Survey Research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1): 537567. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.537.
Lehmann, P. (2010) Justifying a Policy Mix for Pollution Control: A Review of Economic Literature. Journal of Economic Surveys, 26(1): 7197.
Leifeld, P (2013) Texreg: Conversion of Statistical Model Output in R to LaTeX and HTML Tables. Journal of Statistical Software, 55(8): 124.
Linder, W (2012) Schweizerische Demokratie: Institutionen, Prozesse, Perspektiven, 3. Auflage. Bern: Haupt Verlag.
Louviere, JJ, Hensher, D and Swait, J (2000) Stated Choice Methods. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lubell, M, Zahran, S and Vedlitz, A (2007) Collective Action and Citizen Responses to Global Warming. Political Behavior, 29(3): 391413.
Marcucci, E, Gatta, V, Marciani, M and Cossu, P (2017) Measuring the Effects of an Urban Freight Policy Package Defined via a Collaborative Governance Model. Research in Transportation Economics, 65: 39.
Mavrot, C, Hadorn, S and Sager, F (2018) Mapping the Mix: Linking Instruments, Settings and Target Groups in the Study of Policy Mixes. Research Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.06.012.
Milkman, KL, Mazza, MC, Shu, LL, Tsay, CJ and Bazerman, MH (2012) Policy Bundling to Overcome Loss Aversion: A Method for Improving Legislative Outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1): 158167. (accessed 18 June 2018).
Mundell, RA (1962) The Appropriate Use of Monetary and Fiscal Policy for Internal and External Stability. Staff Papers, 9(1): 7079. doi: 10.2307/3866082.
Niewenhuis, R, Grotenhuis, M and Pelzer, B (2012). Influence. ME: Tools for Detecting Influential Data in Mixed Effects Models. R Journal, 4: 3847.
Nissinen, A, Heiskanen, E, Perrels, A, Berghäll, E, Liesimaa, V and Mattinen, MK (2015) Combinations of Policy Instruments to Decrease the Climate Impacts of Housing, Passenger Transport and Food in Finland. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107: 455466.
Pereira, Á, Carballo-Penela, A, Guerra, A and Vence, X (2018) Designing a Policy Package for the Promotion of Servicising: A Case Study of Vineyard Crop Protection in Galicia (Spain). Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(2): 348369. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2017.1308317.
Piatkowski, D, Marshall, W and Krizek, K (2019) Carrots versus Sticks: Assessing Intervention Effectiveness and Implementation Challenges for Active Transport. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1): 5064.
Pleger, LE (2017) Voters’ Acceptance of Land Use Policy Measures: A Two-Level Analysis. Land Use Policy, 63: 501513.
Pleger, LE, Lutz, P and Sager, F (2018) Public Acceptance of Incentive-Based Spatial Planning Policies: A Framing Experiment. Land Use Policy, 73: 225238.
R Core Team (2015) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Raîche, G, Walls, TA, Magis, D, Riopel, M and Blais, JG (2013) Non-Graphical Solutions for Cattell’s Scree Test. Methodology, 9(1): 2329.
Rienstra, SA, Rietveld, P and Verhoef, ET (1999) The Social Support for Policy Measures in Passenger Transport. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 4(3): 181200. doi: 10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00005-X.
Ring, I and Barton, DN (2015) Economic Instruments in Policy Mixes for Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Governance. In: Martinez-Alier, J and Muradian, R (Ed.), Handbook of Ecological Economics, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 413449.
Sælen, H and Kallbekken, S (2011) A Choice Experiment on Fuel Taxation and Earmarking in Norway. Ecological Economics, 70(11): 21812190.
Sager, F (2007) Making Transport Policy Work: Polity, Policy, Politics and Systematic Review. Policy & Politics, 35(2): 269288. doi: 10.1332/030557307780712951.
Sager, F, Ingold, KM and Balthasar, A (2017) Policy-Analyse in Der Schweiz-Besonderheiten, Theorien, Beispiele. Zürich: NZZ Libro.
Schade, J and Schlag, B (2003) Acceptability of Urban Transport Pricing Strategies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 6(1): 4561.
Schuitema, G, Steg, L and Forward, S (2010a) Explaining Differences in Acceptability before and Acceptance after the Implementation of a Congestion Charge in Stockholm. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 44(2): 99109.
Schuitema, G, Steg, L and Rothengatter, JA (2010b) The Acceptability, Personal Outcome Expectations, and Expected Effects of Transport Pricing Policies. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4): 587593.
Schulz, T (2001) Framing Environmental Ballot, Propositions: The Influence of Simultaneous’ Pocketbook Measures’ and Negative Framing. University of St. Gallen Working Paper, 2001(5): 343. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.274826.
Sheffer, L, Loewen, PJ, Soroka, S, Walgrave, S and Sheafer, T (2018) Nonrepresentative Representatives: An Experimental Study of the Decision Making of Elected Politicians. American Political Science Review, 112(2): 302321.
Sørensen, CH, Isaksson, K, Macmillen, J, Åkerman, J and Kressler, F (2014) Strategies to Manage Barriers in Policy Formation and Implementation of Road Pricing Packages. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 60: 4052.
Stadelmann-Steffen, I (2011) Citizens as Veto Players: Climate Change Policy and the Constraints of Direct Democracy. Environmental Politics, 20(4): 485507. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2011.589577.
Steg, L, Dreijerink, L and Abrahamse, W (2006) Why Are Energy Policies Acceptable and Effective? Environment and Behavior, 38(1): 92111.
Stehr, N (2015) Climate Policy: Democracy Is Not an Inconvenience. Nature, 525(7570): 449450.
Stradling, SG, Meadows, ML and Beatty, S (2000) Helping Drivers out of Their Cars Integrating Transport Policy and Social Psychology for Sustainable Change. Transport Policy, 7(3): 207215.
Thalmann, P (2004) The Public Acceptance of Green Taxes: 2 Million Voters Express Their Opinion. Public Choice, 119(1/2): 179217.
Thorpe, N, Hills, P and Jaensirisak, S (2000) Public Attitudes to TDM Measures: A Comparative Study. Transport Policy, 7(4): 243257.
Toepoel, V (2015) Doing Surveys Online. Los Angeles: Sage.
Tsebelis, G (2002) Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. New York: Princeton University Press.
Vatter, A (2016) Das Politische System Der Schweiz. 2., aktual. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
Vedung, E (1998) Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories. In Bemelmans-Videc, ML, Rist, RC and Vedung, E (eds.), Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ, and London: Transaction Publishers, 2158.
Vonk Noordegraaf, DM, Annema, JA and van Wee, B (2014) Policy Implementation Lessons from Six Road Pricing Cases. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 59: 172191.
Wickham, H (2009) ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York, NY: Springer.
Wickham, H (2016) Tidyr: Easily Tidy Data with Spread () and Gather () Functions. Version 0.6. 0.
Wickham, H (2017) Forcats: Tools for Working with Categorical Variables (Factors).
Wickham, H and Grolemund, G (2017) R for Data Science: Import, Tidy, Transform, Visualize, and Model Data, 1st ed. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Wicki, M, Fesenfeld, L and Bernauer, T (2019) In search of politically feasible policy-packages for sustainable passenger transport: insights from choice experiments in China, Germany, and the USA. Environmental Research Letters.
Wlezien, C (1995) The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4): 981.
World Health Organization (2008) MPOWER: A Policy Package to Reverse the Tobacco Epidemic.
Zaslawski, V (2017) Keine Pilotversuche. Kantone Bremsen Beim Mobility-Pricing. Neue Zürcher Zeitung.


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Wicki et al. Dataset

Supplementary materials

Wicki et al. supplementary material
Wicki et al. supplementary material 1

 Word (1.4 MB)
1.4 MB

Can policy-packaging increase public support for costly policies? Insights from a choice experiment on policies against vehicle emissions

  • Michael Wicki (a1), Robert Alexander Huber (a2) and Thomas Bernauer (a3)
  • Please note a correction has been issued for this article.


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed

A correction has been issued for this article: