32,292 rated or chosen profiles from 3,359 respondents, in up to 5 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 5 attributes.

About this table

Description	Swiss Mobility Panel respondents (wave 2, 2021; n=3,359 with a recorded choice) chose between and rated pairs of road-pricing proposals in 5 tasks, varying motorway toll, city-centre entrance fee, motorway and urban peak speeds and the use of the revenue; a randomised information vignette preceded the tasks. Outcomes are the chosen proposal and a 1-5 favour/oppose rating of each.
Reference	Lichtin, F. M., Smith, E. K., Axhausen, K. W., & Bernauer, T. (2024). How to design publicly acceptable road pricing? Experimental insights from Switzerland. Ecological Economics, 218, 108102.
DOI	10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.108102
Licence	CC BY 4.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18255559

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint_2). Choice between Proposal A and B in a referendum (no opt-out) and rating of each proposal on a 5-point favor/oppose scale stored raw (1 = strongly favor, 5 = strongly oppose; 'Don't know' = NA). 5 tasks x 2 proposals, 5 attributes; levels were stored in the respondent's language (de/fr/it/en) and are given here in English; the information-vignette arm is trial_info_treatment. Tasks without a recorded choice (6%) were dropped, leaving 3,359 of 3,448 respondents; the paper's N was not checked.

These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.

Size and shape

Respondents	3,359
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	32,292
Tasks per respondent (most)	5
Profiles per task	2
Attributes	5
Tasks with no profile chosen	0

Design

Topic	climate energy environment
A profile represents	policy
Country	CH
Language shown	de, fr, it, en
Language of stored levels	en
Randomization restrictions	unknown
Task order	recorded in the deposit
Profile position	recorded in the deposit

Outcomes:

choice	Suppose you had to decide between the two proposals in a referendum today. Would you rather support Proposal A or Proposal B? [choice, forced]
rating	How much would you favor or oppose Proposal A? (B_3_X; Proposal B: B_4_X) [rating, 1 (Strongly favor) to 5 (Strongly oppose)]

Columns

attr_entrance_feeattr_motorway_speedattr_motorway_tollattr_revenue_useattr_urban_speedchoicecov_car_owncov_household_incomecov_languagecov_urban_ruralidprofileratingtasktrial_info_treatment

The layout (one row per respondent, task and profile; choice/rating outcomes; attr_ columns holding each attribute level as displayed) is defined in the IRW conjoint standard. What the outcomes asked is under Design above.

Get the data

Download CSVno account needed Browse on Redivisexplore and query Croissant metadataHugging Face, Kaggle, OpenML

Or load it directly in R or Python (both need a free Redivis account; the first call opens a browser to sign in):

# R
install.packages("remotes")
remotes::install_github("itemresponsewarehouse/Rpkg")
library(irw)
df <- irw_fetch("lichtin_2024_road_pricing", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("lichtin_2024_road_pricing", source="conj")

How to cite

@article{Lichtin_2024, title={How to design publicly acceptable road pricing? Experimental insights from Switzerland}, volume={218}, ISSN={0921-8009}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.108102}, DOI={10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.108102}, journal={Ecological Economics}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Lichtin, Florian and Smith, E. Keith and Axhausen, Kay W. and Bernauer, Thomas}, year={2024}, month=Apr, pages={108102} }

Version and provenance

IRW version	v584
Redivis dataset	irw_conjoint_2 v1.4
Redivis dataset DOI	10.57761/hk97-wv30
Manifest pin for this IRW version	v1.4
Metadata source	irw_meta v44.0