ARTICLE IN PRESS

Transport Policy 13 (2006) 339–348
www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol

Determinants of the effectiveness of travel feedback
programs—a review of communicative mobility management
measures for changing travel behaviour in Japan
Satoshi Fujii, Ayako Taniguchi
Department of Civil Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1, Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8552, Japan
Available online 28 February 2006

Abstract
This paper reviews the literature on travel feedback programs (TFPs). These constitute soft measures designed to change travel
behaviour, mainly from automobile to non-automobile travel, in mobility management. We classiﬁed TFPs according to place,technique, procedure, and communication media, and reviewed the effectiveness of 10 TFPs in Japan. We found that TFPs in Japan
reduced CO2 emissions by about 19% and car use by about 18%, while increasing the use of public transport by about 50%. In addition,
we found that TFP effectiveness increased when participants were asked to make behavioural plans to change their travel behaviour.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Behaviour change; Behavioural modiﬁcation; Individualised marketing mobility management; Personalised travel planning; Sustainabletransportation; Travel blending

1. Introduction
Automobile use has many negative social consequencessuch as air pollution, trafﬁc congestion, land use patterns
with reduced accessibility, and a reduction in the numberof rail and bus users, which may in turn lead to
discontinued rail or bus services. Consequently, transportation planners in Europe, Australia, and Japan recognise
the importance of changing individual travel behaviour
from automobile use to modes of transportation such as
buses, trains, bicycles, or walking. Mobility management
offers a viable, effective transportation measure that is
expected to solve transportation and trafﬁc problems.
Mobility management focuses on attempting to change
travel behaviour using communication; it also aims to
manage transportation and trafﬁc systems.
The communicative measures mobility management uses
for travel behaviour modiﬁcation are called ‘‘soft measures’’ (c.f., Jones, 2003) or ‘‘psychological and behaviouralstrategies’’ (c.f., Fujii, 2003b; Taniguchi et al., 2003); they
include the provision of speciﬁc information on public
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +81 03 5734 2590.

E-mail address: taniguchi@plan.cv.titech.ac.jp (S. Fujii).
0967-070X/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.12.007

transport, travel campaigns, and travel education. A travel
behaviour study (c.f., Fujii and Gärling, in press) indicatedthat personalised communication, which is one type ofmobility management measure, is more effective in changing travel behaviour than non-personalised mass communications. Examples of personalised communication
include individualised marketing (Brög, 1998), travel
blending (Ampt and Rooney, 1999; Rose and Ampt,
2001; Taylor and Ampt, 2003), personalised travel plans(Department for Transport, UK, 2004a, b), and otherpersonalised communication, such as that implemented in
Sapporo (Taniguchi et al., 2003). Here, we refer to forms of
personalised communication aimed at changing travel
behaviour from car use to non-auto transport (such as
public transport, bicycles, or walking) as travel feedback
programs (TFPs), a term used by Fujii and Taniguchi(2005).
The TFPs mentioned above differ in many ways, but all
share a common feature: the participants in each program
receive information designed to modify behaviour. Suchfeedback may be effective because it induces behaviouralawareness, an essential element in modiﬁcation (Dahlstrand and Biel, 1997). This feedback may also prompt
participants to increase their knowledge of speciﬁc methods

ARTICLE IN PRESS
340

S. Fujii, A. Taniguchi / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 339–348

for modifying their travel behaviour (Verplanken et al.,1997).
A review of TFP effects previously implemented by the
Department for Transport, UK (2004a) reported that‘‘individualised marketing’’ TFPs implemented in several
cities in Australia, Germany, Sweden, and the UnitedStates, produced a reduction in car use up to 14% (South
Perth, Australia), and at least 2% (Breisgau-Hochschwartwald, Germany). The review also indicated that ‘‘travel
blending’’ TFPs implemented in Australia and the UnitedStates produced a reduction in car use up to 15%(Adelaide, Australia) and at least 9% (Brisbane, Australia).
The report (Department for Transport, UK, 2004a) and aconference presentation (Department for Transport, UK,2004b) indicated that TFPs implemented in UK cities such
as Gloucester, Bristol, and Nottingham had reduced car
trips by 7–15% in urban areas, and by 2–6% in rural areas.
Transport for London implemented four different pilot
TFPs, called ‘‘personalised journey planning’’ under thebrand name TravelOptions, which reduced car use by
5–11% (Transport for London, 2004).
The Department for Transport, UK (2004a, b) also
implied that TFP effectiveness was dependent on location(urban vs. rural areas) and types of TFP techniques (suchas ‘‘individualised marketing’’ or ‘‘travel blending’’).
Making effective TFPs requires collecting not only thissort of information, but also information about what
determines rates of effectiveness in terms of behaviouralchange. For this purpose, this paper reviews reported TFPs
to evaluate their effectiveness, while considering their type
and the situations in which they were implemented.
2. Types of travel feedback programs
Before reviewing examples of TFPs, we describe parameters that may be useful for classifying TFPs: locations,
techniques for travel behavioural change, procedures, andcommunication media.
2.1. Location
TFPs can be implemented in three basic settings: schools,
workplaces, and residential areas. The targets of TFPs
implemented in residential areas are household members.
Examples of this target type can be found in Ampt andRooney (1999); Brög (1998), the Department of Transport,
Western Australia (2000); Rose and Ampt (2001); Taniguchi et al. (2003), and the Department for Transport, UK(2004a, b). In such cases, all daily car use behaviour canconstitute a target of the program.
For TFPs implemented in the workplace, the target
individuals are ofﬁce workers and the main target
behaviour is commuting travel. Such TFPs can also target
all car use. Examples of this type of TFP have been
implemented in Toyonaka (Daito et al., 2004) andKanazawa (Hashimoto et al., 2002), Japan.

Finally, for TFPs in schools, the target individuals
include students and the students’ families. Again, thetarget behaviour is all daily car use. Commuting travel toschool can also be targeted. Examples have been reported
in Taniguchi et al. (2002, 2003) and Fujii and Taniguchi(2005).
In each location, TFPs have multiple objectives. The
objectives of TFPs in residential areas may be to solve
transportation problems in those areas, such as trafﬁccongestion and air pollution, while promoting public
transport. The objectives of TFPs in workplaces may be
to solve similar transportation problems, and more
speciﬁcally, those that arise from commuting. Likewise,
the objectives of TFPs in schools may be to solve similartransportation problems near the school. Another important objective of TFPs in schools is education with respect
to the consequences of individual travel behaviours:
environmental problems, trafﬁc congestion, and the levelof public transportation service. Classes that instruct the
public about the relationship between individual travel
behaviours and a number of social problems can help to
educate people about socially desirable behaviour in oursociety (c.f., Fujii, 2003a). For this reason, since 2004,
transport and education departments have funded a‘‘school travel plan’’ program for all elementary and juniorhigh schools in England (Department for Transport, UK,
2004a).
2.2. Techniques for changing travel behaviour
TFPs use many techniques to change travel behaviour.
These techniques differ in three main ways, based on thefollowing issues: Do they motivate travel behaviourchange?; Do they request a plan for changing travel
behaviour?; Do they provide individualised information?
Individualised marketing is a type of TFP without
motivational support (Brög, 1998), while travel blending
includes such support (Ampt and Rooney, 1999; Rose andAmpt, 2001). In one individualised marketing program,participants were asked whether they intended to change
their travel behaviour, but received no messages aimed atmotivating them to change their behaviour. Participants
who intended to change their behaviour were then asked
what type of information would be necessary in order toprompt a behavioural change. This type of TFP program
was implemented in 2002 in Bristol and London, UK(Department for Transport, UK, 2004a, b). By contrast,
participants in a travel-blending program received abooklet describing why an individual’s travel behaviour isimportant; this booklet was written to motivate participants to change their travel behaviours. Participants also
received a booklet describing how they could change theirtravel behaviour. A TFP implemented in Sapporo, Japan is
one example of a program that supports motivation in thismanner (Taniguchi et al., 2003).
A TFP that involves planning includes a request thatparticipants make plans with a view to changing their

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Fujii, A. Taniguchi / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 339–348

travel behaviour. Fujii and Taniguchi (2005) proposed a
TFP that required participants to devise a behavioural planfor changing their travel behaviour; this was implemented
in Hyogo Prefecture (Doi et al., 2004), Suita (Matsumura
et al., 2003), and Obihiro (Taniguchi et al., 2005), Japan. A
social psychological study on how behavioural intentions
are actually implemented indicated that requesting abehavioural plan has a strong effect on actual behaviouralchange (Gollwitzer and Brandstätter, 1997; Gärling andFujii, 2002; Fujii, 2005; Fujii and Taniguchi, 2005). Fig. 1
shows the social psychological theory of the process of
behavioural change (Gärling and Fujii, 2002; Fujii, 2005).
As the ﬁgure indicates, behavioural intention is actually
implemented only when implementation intention (Gollwitzer and Brandstätter, 1997) is formed. A behaviouralintention (or goal intention) speciﬁes a behaviour thatpeople intend to perform; an implementation intention,
however, entails a plan for when, where, and how to
implement the target behaviour. Furthermore, Rise et al.
(2000) and Fujii (2005) indicated that participants with an
implementation intention are more strongly committed to
implementing target behaviour than those with only abehavioural intention. Because an implementation intention is formed as a result of making a behavioural plan,
requesting a behavioural plan has a strong effect on actual
behavioural change. In fact, Fujii and Taniguchi (2005)
showed that a TFP with a behavioural plan had asigniﬁcantly greater behaviour-changing effect than a
TFP without a behavioural plan.
The ﬁnal issue is whether the TFP provides individualised information; e.g., both travel blending and individualised marketing provide individualised information. In one
travel-blending program (Ampt and Rooney, 1999; Roseand Ampt, 2001), participants received individualised
advice deemed helpful for changing travel behaviour.
These comments were based on a 1-week travel diary
provided by the participants. The TFPs reported in Fujii
and Taniguchi (2005); Hashimoto et al. (2002); Matsumura
et al. (2003), and Taniguchi et al. (2002, 2003) provided
similar individualised information to participants. In one
individualised marketing program (Brög, 1998), participants received information that they had requested
previously. TFPs in the United Kingdom followed asimilar procedure (Department for Transport, UK,
2004a, b).
In contrast, a simple TFP implemented in Obihiro,
Japan provided participants with non-individualised information on how to use bus service, and requested thatthey make a behavioural plan on how to use the bus(Taniguchi et al., 2005). Although an important TFP
characteristic is that it usually provides individualised
information, this is not always necessary if the TFP
includes a request that participants devise a behaviouralplan. This TFP without individualised information actually
had a strong effect (about a 100% increase in the frequencyof bus use; see Taniguchi et al., 2005). Still, providing
individualised information would be preferable even in a

341

TFP requesting a behavioural plan (c.f., Fujii and Gärling,in press).
2.3. Procedure
TFP procedures differ; e.g., individualised marketing
involves two or three contacts to conduct a simple survey
on behaviour and the intention to change behaviour, giveindividualised information, and provide further individualised information if necessary (Brög, 1998).
Travel blending involves four contacts (Ampt andRooney, 1999; Rose and Ampt, 2001) to provide information to motivate a behaviour change and conduct a travel
diary survey, provide individualised comments, conduct a
travel diary survey, and provide additional individualisedcomments.
The TFP reported in Fujii and Taniguchi (2005)
involved four contacts to conduct a questionnaire survey
about travel behaviour, request a behavioural plan on how
to change travel behaviour, conduct a simple survey on
travel behaviour, and provide individualised information
about the travel behaviour change measured by means of
two surveys. In the TFP implemented in Hyogo Prefecture(Doi et al., 2004), some participants were contacted twice,once to conduct a questionnaire survey about travel
behaviour, and again to request a behavioural plan on
how to change travel behaviour.
The simplest TFP includes a single step. TFPs in Obihiro(Taniguchi et al., 2005) and Suita (Matsumura, 2004),
Japan provided participants with a single questionnaire
and non-individualised information. The questionnaire
included a request that participants formulate a behavioural plan on how to change their travel behaviour.
2.4. Communication media
Forms of communication used in TFPs include face-toface communication, regular mail, telephone, and e-mail.
For example, in individualised marketing (Brög, 1998), theﬁrst contact is usually via telephone, and communicators
often visit target households for the second contact. The
TFP implemented in Hyogo Prefecture (Doi et al., 2004)
used mail for all communication. In a TFP implemented inworkplaces in Toyonaka (Daito et al., 2004), the ﬁrst
contact involved face-to-face communication in a group
brieﬁng, and subsequent communication was done via
e-mail and an Internet Web site.
3. Effectiveness of TFPs
To investigate the determinants of TFP effectiveness, we
focussed on Japanese cases; investigating the effects ofdifferent types of TFPs on travel behaviour using cases
from one country avoided the problems due to culturaldifferences. Figs. 1–3 summarise the effects that TFPs
reported in previous studies had on CO2 reduction, car use
reduction, and public transport use increase, respectively

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Fujii, A. Taniguchi / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 339–348

342

Making a behavioural plan

Implementation
intention

Behaviouralintention(Example)

Behaviour change(Example)“I will walk from home tobus stop X, catch the bus
departing bus stop X at
n:nn pm, get off at bus
stop Y, and then walk to
my office.”“I will use the bus
instead of my car to
get to workfrom home.”

3.1. Effects of TFPs on CO2 emissions and car use

Fig. 1. A social psychological theory of the behaviour change process andthe effects of making a behavioural plan.
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Sapporo & Ebetsu†(2000)
Osaka (2001)[Using a 1-week travel diary]
Osaka (2001)[Using a 1-day travel diary]
Sapporo (2000)†$ Sapporo (2002)†[With a behavioural plan]
Sapporo (2002)†[Without a behavioural plan]$ Izumi (2002)†
AVERAGE†: Effectiveness calculated without comparison to the control group.
$: TFPs with request for a behavioural plan.

Fig. 2. Reductions in CO2 emissions attributable to TFPs.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

ways: some programs reported a reduction in the distancescars were used or CO2 emissions; others reported increased
use of public transport. These differences were due todifferences in each TFP’s main objectives. Note that only
some studies included a control group.

50%$

Kawanishi/Inagawa (2003)[2 steps for PT users]$

Kawanishi/Inagawa (2003)[4 steps for PT users]$

Kawanishi/Inagawa (2003)[4 steps for non-PT users,with incentives to use PT]†
Kanazawa (2001)†
Toyonaka (2003)
AVERAGE†: Effectiveness calculated without comparison to the control group.
$: TFPs with request for a behavioural plan.

Fig. 3. Reduction in car use due to TFPs.

(Hashimoto et al., 2002; Taniguchi et al., 2002, 2003, 2005;
Matsumura et al., 2003; Daito et al., 2004; Doi et al., 2004;
Matsumura, 2004; Fujii and Taniguchi, 2005). Tables 1–3
show the details for residential areas, workplaces, andschools, respectively. The tables summarise each city and
year, main objective, techniques, procedure, communication media, effects, and existence of a control group foreach TFP. TFP effectiveness was reported in different

Studies done in Sapporo, Ebetsu, Osaka, and Izumi
indicated that changes in travel behaviour reduced CO2
emissions by 15–35%, as shown in Fig. 2. The mosteffective reduction, about 35%, occurred in Sapporo in2002 (Fujii and Taniguchi, 2005). This reduction was
brought about by a group of participants requested tomake a behavioural plan. Similar results were exhibited bya group in Osaka (2001), who received individualised
information based on their 7-day travel diaries (Matsumura et al., 2003). A TFP conducted in Sapporo in 2002
that did not involve behavioural planning, resulted in noCO2 reduction (Fujii and Taniguchi, 2005), although theauthors argued that the absence of a control groupprevented knowing whether the TFP mitigated a possible
increase in CO2 emissions. Including this case, TFPs had a
19% unweighted mean average effectiveness in reducing
CO2 emissions arising from changed travel behaviour(SD ¼ 11%). The Sapporo (2002) results indicated thatrequesting a behavioural plan had a major effect inreducing CO2 emissions (35% vs. no reduction, for TFPs
with and without a behavioural plan, respectively).
Matsumura et al. (2003) reported that the CO2 reduction
resulting from a TFP with individualised informationdiffered based on the length of the travel diary survey.
The 2001 Osaka TFP resulted in different rates of
reduction according to whether 1- or 7-day travel diarysurveys were used (20% vs. 35%, respectively). This
indicates that individualised comments based on moretravel data were more effective with respect to travel
behaviour modiﬁcation. Nevertheless, even a 1-day travel
diary was sufﬁcient to reduce CO2 emissions.
Three cases reported a reduction in car use: Kawanishi/
Inagawa, Kanazawa, and Osaka, as shown in Fig. 3. The
least effective was the Kanazawa TFP (Hashimoto et al.,2002), although there was no control group, as with
Sapporo. The greatest results were exhibited during the
Kawanishi/Inagawa TFP; car use decreased by about 25%
as a result of the TFP, which requested that participants
make a behavioural plan (Doi et al., 2004). The unweighted
mean average car use reduction in these three cases was
18% (SD ¼ 12%).
3.2. Effect on non-auto transport use
Increased public transport use was reported for Suita,
Kanazawa, and Obihiro, and averaged 51% (SD ¼ 36%),
as shown in Fig. 4. While the main objective of the study in
Kanazawa was to reduce car use, the main objective of theother studies was to promote public transport. The TFPs inOsaka (2001)

Suita (2002)

Kawanishi/
Inagawa (2003)

Obhiro (2003)

2

3

4

5

ca. 15,000 HHs

ca. 700 persons

ca. 500 persons

ca. 100 HHs

ca. 200 HHs

TargetPromote PT

Reduce car use
and promote PT

Promote PT(a) No motivation(b) Plan(c) Provide nonindividualised
information(a) Motivation(b) Plan(c) Provide
individualised
information(a) No motivation(b) Plan(c) Provide nonindividualised
information(a) Motivation(b) No plan(c) Provide
individualised
information(a) Motivation(b) No plan(c) Provide
individualised
information

CO2 reduction

Reduce car use

Techniques

Main objective(1) Request behavioural plan on how to
use PT with non-personalised
information on bus use (mail)(1) Questionnaire survey (mail)(2) Request a behavioural plan on how tochange travel behaviour withpersonalised information on PT use(mail)(3) Repeat ﬁrst questionnaire survey(mail)(4) Provide personalised comments (mail)ca. 100% increase in bus use

ca. 15% reduction in car use (2 steps, for
PT users)
ca. 25% reduction in car use (4 steps, for
PT users) ca. 40% reduction in car use (4steps and incentives to use PT, for non-PT
users) [the average reduction in car use
was ca. 25%]

behavioural plan ca. 90% for new residents with abehavioural plan ca. 50% for new residents nobehavioural plan ca. 60% for non-bus users with abehavioural plan

 0% for frequent bus users
 ca. 25% for non-bus users no

Bus use frequency increase:

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

ca. 35% reduction in CO2 (with 1-week
travel diary), andca. 20% reduction in CO2 (with 1-day
travel diary)(1) Travel diary survey with leaﬂet for
motivation (mail)(2) Provide personalised comments (mail)(3) Travel diary survey (mail)(4) Provide personalised comments (mail)(1) Provide non-personalised information
on bus use with or without requestinga behavioural plan on how to use PT(mail)No

Controlgroup

ca. 15% reduction in CO2

Effect(1) Travel diary survey with leaﬂet for
motivation (mail)(2) Provide personalised comments (mail)(3) Travel diary survey (mail)(4) Provide personalised comments (mail)

Procedure and communication media

1
Taniguchi et al. (2003); 2Matsumura et al. (2003); 3Matsumura (2004); 4Doi et al. (2004); 5Taniguchi et al. (2005).
HHs: households; PT: public transport.

Sapporo andEbetsu (2000)

1

City (year)

Table 1
Summary of residential area TFPs implemented in Japan

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Fujii, A. Taniguchi / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 339–348
343

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Fujii, A. Taniguchi / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 339–348

No
ca. 10 % reduction in car use

the latter two studies produced a considerable increase inpublic transport use. The greatest increase was in Obihiro(about 100%). In this case, the TFP included a request to
construct a behavioural plan on how to use public
transport.
Matsumura (2004) found that two factors inﬂuenced theeffectiveness of the Suita TFP: whether the residents were
new or old (43% vs. 70% increase in public transport use,
respectively), and whether the TFP included a behaviouralplan (38% without a behavioural plan vs. 75% with aplan). The TFP was more effective when it targeted new
residents and requested that participants make a behavioural plan on how to use public transport.

4. Discussion
This section reviews the literature on Japanese TFPs, i.e.,
soft measures or psychological and behavioural strategies
for changing travel behaviour from automobile to nonautomobile use.

(1) Questionnaire survey (e-mail)(2) Request a behavioural plan on tochange travel behaviour (e-mail)No
ca. 30% increase in bus use,ca. 50% increase in bicycle use, andno reduction in car use.
(1) Travel diary survey with by hand)(2) Provide personalised comments (mail,by hand)(3) Travel diary survey (mail, by hand)(4) Provide personalised comments (mail,by hand)(a) Motivation(b) Plan(c) Provide nonpersonalised
information

4.1. Overall effectiveness1
Hashimoto et al. (2002); 2Daito et al. (2004).
PT: public transport.

Reduce car use
Toyonaka (2003)
2

100 workers in
one company(a) Motivation(b) No plan(c) Provide
personalised
information
Kanazawa (2001)
1

ca. 50 HHs (100persons) working
in 10 companies

Reduce car use

Controlgroup
EffectProcedure and communication media
Techniques
Main objective
TargetCity (year)

Table 2
Summary of workplace TFPs implemented in Japan344

We classiﬁed TFPs by location, technique, procedure,
and communication media. The 10 TFPs implemented inJapan resulted in a 19% reduction in CO2 emissions, an
18% reduction in car use, and a 50% increase in public
transport use. Since previous TFPs implemented inAustralia, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the UnitedStates reduced car use by 2–15%, and increased public
transport use by 10–44%, it is likely that TFPs in Japando not produce results substantially different from thosereported in other developed countries (Brög, 1998; Ampt
and Rooney, 1999; Rose and Ampt, 2001; Jones, 2003;
Department for Transport, UK, 2004a, b; Transport for
London, 2004).
Although most studies reported overall effectiveness one
or a few months after the TFPs intervention, some reported
long-term TFP effects. Matsumura found that rates of bus
use remained equally high even 1 year after the 2002 Suita
TFP implementation (Matsumura, 2004). Taniguchi et al.
(2003) found that participants in a 2001 Sapporo TFP still
signiﬁcantly reduced their car use 1 year after the TFP
ended, and Someya and Fujii (2005) also found statisticallysigniﬁcant long-term effects of a TFP conducted in
Kawanishi/Inagawa in 2003. These results imply that TFPs
appear to be able to change travel behaviour over thelong term.
Some researchers have ascribed all the TFP effectivenessto the possibility that TFP participants were mainly‘‘aspiring environmentalists’’ (Anable, 2005) who werealready very likely to give up their cars. However, this isunlikely because TFPs that were able to successfully
involve all of the contacted households (i.e., the Sapporo
TFPs in 2000 and 2002) had similar effects to other TFPs.

Izumi (2002)3(a) Motivation(b) No plan(c) Provide
individualised
information(a) Motivation(b) No plan(c) Provide
individualised
information

130 school students (5th grade) CO2 reduction andenvironmental educat ion
in an elementary school in
Sapporo and their families.

200 school students (5th grade) CO2 reduction andenvironmental educat ion
in two elementary schools in
Izumi and their families.

Techniques(a) Motivation(b) No plan(c) Provide
individualised
information

Main objective

150 school students (5th grade) CO2 reduction andenvironmental educationin an elementary school in
Sapporo and their families.

TargetTaniguchi et al. (2002, 2003); 2Fujii and Taniguchi (2005); 3Kinki Transport Agency (2004).
HHs: households; PT: public transport.

Sapporo (2002)

2

1

Sapporo (2000)

1

City (year)

Table 3
Summary of school TFPs implemented in Japan
EffectNo

Controlgroup(1) Travel survey with a classca. 15% reduction in CO2
for motivation (in class)(2) Request behavioural plan(in class)(3) Travel diary survey (in class)(4) Provide personalisedcomments (in class)Noca. 35% reduction in CO2 with a(1) Travel survey with a classNo
for motivation (in class)behavioural plan, no reduction without(2) Provide personalised
a behavioural plancomments or request a
behavioural plan (in class)(3) Travel diary survey (in class)(4) Provide personalisedcomments (in class)(1) Travel survey with a classca. 15% reduction in CO2
for motivation (in class)(2) Provide personalisedcomments (in class)(3) Travel diary survey (in class)(4) Provide personalisedcomments (in class)Procedure and communication
media

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Fujii, A. Taniguchi / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 339–348
345

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Fujii, A. Taniguchi / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 339–348

346
0%Suita (2002)†[For frequent bus users]
Suita (2002)†[For non-bus users,
Without behavioural plan)]$ Suita (2002)†[For non-bus users,
With behavioural plan)]
Suita (2002)†[For new residents,
Without behavioural plan)]$ Suita (2002)†[For new residents,
With behavioural plan)]
Obihiro (2003)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Kanazawa (2001)†
AVERAGE†: Effectiveness calculated without comparison to the control group.
$:TFPs with request for a behavioural plan.

Fig. 4. Increase in public transport use due to TFPs.

4.2. Importance of requesting a behavioural plan
Although the TFP cases in Japan are too few to allow
thorough investigation of all the factors that determine
TFP effectiveness, our review indicates that requesting abehavioural plan is a determinant of the effectiveness of a
TFP. TFPs with behavioural plans yielded the greatest
reduction in CO2 (35% reduction in Sapporo; Fujii andTaniguchi, 2005), the greatest reduction in car use (25%reduction in Kawanishi/Inagawa; Doi et al., 2004), and thegreatest increase in public transport use (100% increase in
Obihiro; Taniguchi et al., 2005).
The least effective TFP with a behavioural plan was in
Toyonaka; Daito et al. (2004) reported that car use wasonly reduced by about 10%. This TFP differed from otherswith a behavioural plan in that the Toyonaka TFP used
only e-mail and a Web page for communication. Internet
communication may have a lesser inﬂuence on participants’travel behaviour than other modes of communication suchas face-to-face interviews and mail.
These review results imply that requesting a behaviouralplan, ﬁrst proposed in experimental TFPs implemented in
Sapporo during 2002 (Fujii and Taniguchi, 2005), likely
increases the effectiveness of a TFP in changing travel
behaviour. At least three comparative analyses between
TFPs with and without behavioural plans support thisview; two of these comparative analyses resulted from acase implemented in Suita during 2002 (Matsumura, 2004).
Results of that study indicated that a TFP with abehavioural plan caused a greater increase in public
transport than ones without a behavioural plan, both fornon-bus users (25% vs. 60% increase in public transportuse) and for new residents (50% vs. 90% increase in public
transport use). These comparative analyses were madebetween TFPs with and without a behavioural plan; both
TFPs provided the same kind of individualised information
to participants, and the only difference was whether or nota behavioural plan was included. Therefore, the results

indicate that requesting a behavioural plan had an
additional effect on changing travel behaviour.
Another direct test of behavioural plan effectiveness
was found in a case implemented in Sapporo during 2002
(Fujii and Taniguchi, 2005). In this case, a TFP witha behavioural plan but without individualised advice(a behavioural-plan TFP) was compared to a TFP withindividualised advice but without a behavioural plan (anindividualised-advice TFP). The result was that the
behavioural-plan TFP had a substantially greater effecton reducing CO2 emissions than the individualised-advice
TFP.
These results imply that requesting a behavioural plan isa promising technique for increasing TFP effectiveness inchanging travel behaviour. However, we cannot conclude
that TFPs with behavioural plans are always more effective
than TFPs without behavioural plans. TFPs that lack abehavioural plan but, e.g., provide further detailed
individualised advice such as ones used in personalised
journey planners (c.f., Department for Transport, UK,
2004a, b) may be as effective as TFPs with behaviouralplans. It is likely that TFP effectiveness is dependent on thequality of information provided, as summarised below.
4.3. Quality of information provided
The quality of information provided to participants wasan important factor in determining the effectiveness of a
TFP. Matsumura (2004) found that individualised information based on a 7-day travel diary was more effective
than that based on a 1-day travel diary, suggesting thathigh-quality information is more effective than low-quality
information in establishing behavioural change.
However, our analysis cannot clearly determine theeffects of non-individualised vs. individualised information
because only one TFP provided non-individualised information (Obihiro in 2003). This TFP was very effective(100% increase in Obihiro bus use). From a cognitive
psychological perspective, individualised information
should be more effective, since it minimises the cognitive
cost (c.f., Gärling et al., 2001) of searching for informationthat facilitates a behavioural change. The Obihiro data
indicate that although individualised information may help
with a behaviour change, it may not be always necessary
for a behaviour change, at least when participants arerequested to create a behavioural plan.
4.4. Target
The effectiveness of a TFP may be dependent on its
targets, but to date the differences between workplace,residential area, and school targets seem to be unclear. One
study about the 2002 Suita TFPs implemented by
Matsumura (2004) indicated that a difference in targets
has an impact. The study found that TFPs might be more
effective in promoting public transport in non-frequent
public transport users than in frequent public transport

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Fujii, A. Taniguchi / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 339–348

users. This supports a ﬁnding by Fujii and Gärling (2003),
who reported that once infrequent riders had experienced
public transport, they used public transport more than thefrequent users. In addition, results from the 2002 Suita
TFP indicated that TFPs were more effective in promoting
public transport use for new residents than for old
residents; new residents were less likely to develop travel
behaviour habits (c.f., Fujii and Gärling, 2003) that could
impede change in travel behaviour resulting from TFPs.
4.5. Concluding remarks
Because we only reviewed 10 TFPs, we are not able todetermine all the important determinants of TFP effectiveness. Nevertheless, we found that if a TFP required
participants to create a behavioural plan for their travel
behaviour, it resulted in a dramatic increase in TFP
effectiveness in terms of behaviour change. In addition,
we found that individualised advice based on richer
information tended to be more effective, and TFPs may
be more effective for new residents. TFPs may also be more
effective in promoting public transport for non-riders thanfor frequent riders.
Importantly, we found that TFPs are effective soft
measures for promoting travel behaviour change in a nonWestern country, i.e., Japan. Furthermore, the effects of
TFPs in Japan did not differ from effects found in Westerncountries; soft transportation measures based on communication programs, such as TFPs, appear to be effective not
only in Western countries, but also in other cultures.
To demonstrate the effectiveness of soft transportation
measures, more case studies will need to be conductedworldwide.
Acknowledgements
We thank Patrick Allcorn and Flavin Sinead (Transportfor London), Jacqui Wilkinson (Department for Transport, UK), James Ryle (Sustran, UK), and Sally Cairns(University College London, UK) for providing valuable
information about travel feedback programs in the UK
through interviews, reports and papers.
References
Ampt, E., Rooney, A., 1999. Reducing the impact of the car—asustainable approach. Travel Smart Adelaide, 23rd AustralasianTransport Forum, Perth, 29 September–1 October.
Anable, J., 2005. ‘Complacent car addicts’ or ‘aspiring environmentalists’?
Identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory. Transport
Policy 12, 65–78.
Brög, W., 1998. Individualized marketing: implications for TDM. In: CDROM of Proceedings of the 77th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 14 January 1998, Washington, DC.
Dahlstrand, U., Biel, A., 1997. Pro-environmental habits: propensity levels
in behavioral change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 27,
588–601.

347

Daito, T., Matsumura, N., Onishi, K., 2004. A transportation management program targeting work places. In: Proceedings of Infrastructure
Planning Study (CD-ROM), p. 29 (in Japanese).
Department for Transport, UK, 2004a. Smarter Choices: Changing the
Way We Travel. London, UK.
Department for Transport, UK, 2004b. Personalised travel planningdemonstration programme. Presented at Personalised Travel Planning:
End of Programme Conference, 2004, Bristol, UK.
Department of Transport, Western Australia, 2000. Travel smart: acost-effective contribution to transport infrastructure. (http://www.
travelsmart.transport.wa.gov.au)
Doi, T., Honda, Y., Fujii, S., Higuchi, K., Tsuji, N., 2004. Effectiveness of‘‘a program for the wise use of automobiles’’ in mobility management
implemented in the Kawanishi and Inagawa areas. In: Proceedings ofInfrastructure Planning Study (CD-ROM), p. 29 (in Japanese).
Fujii, S., 2003a. Fundamental discussions on the in-school educational program with respect to public works. Journal of Infrastructure Planning Review 20 (1), 105–110 (in Japanese with English
abstract).
Fujii, S., 2003b. Prescriptions for Social Dilemmas: Psychology for Urban,
Transportation and Environment Policies. Nakanishiya Press, Kyoto,
Japan (in Japanese).
Fujii, S., 2005. Reducing inappropriate bicycle-parking through persuasive communication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35 (6),1171–1196.
Fujii, S., Gärling, T., 2003. Development of script-based travel mode
choice after forced change. Transportation Research F: Trafﬁc
Psychology and Behavior 6 (2), 117–124.
Fujii, S., Gärling, T., in press. Role and acquisition of car-use habit. In:
Gärling, T., Steg, L. (Eds.), Threats to the Quality of Urban Life fromCar Trafﬁc: Problems, Causes, and Solutions. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands.
Fujii, S., Taniguchi, A., 2005. Reducing family car use by providing traveladvice or requesting behavioral plans: an experimental analysisof travel feedback programs. Transportation Research D 10 (5),385–393.
Gärling, T., Fujii, S., 2002. Structural equation modeling of determinants of planning. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 43 (1),
1–8.
Gärling, T., Fujii, S., Boe, O., 2001. Empirical tests of a model ofdeterminants of script-based driving choice. Transportation Research
F: Trafﬁc Psychology and Behavior 4, 89–102.
Gollwitzer, P.M., Brandstätter, V., 1997. Implementation intentions andeffective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73,
186–199.
Hashimoto, Y., Tani, J., Takayama, J., Deguchi, D., 2002. A social
movement for pro-environmental travel using a ‘‘coordinator system’’.
In: Proceedings of Infrastructure Planning Study (CD-ROM), p. 26 (inJapanese).
Jones, P., 2003. Encouraging behavioural change through marketing andmanagement: what can be achieved? Presented at the 10th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Kinki Transport Agency, 2004. Cases of mobility management (inJapanese). http://www.plan.cv.titech.ac.jp/fujiilab/ws/download.html.
Matsumura, N., 2004. Mobility management for residents. Presented at
the one-day Seminar Social Transportation Management: Travel
Behavior Can Be Changed due to Communication, Tokyo, Japan.
Matsumura, N., Nitta, T., Tanimura, K., 2003. Effects of simpliﬁcation of
travel feedback programs on attitude and behavior modiﬁcation.
Journal of Infrastructure Planning and Management 737/IV-60,
89–100.
Rise, J., Thompson, M., Verplanken, B., 2000. The intention-behavior
relation: implementation intention and commitment. Presented
at the 27th International Congress of Psychology, Stockholm,
Sweden.
Rose, G., Ampt, E., 2001. Travel blending: an Australian travel awarenessinitiative. Transportation Research D 6, 95–110.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
348

S. Fujii, A. Taniguchi / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 339–348

Someya, Y., Fujii, A., 2005. The study on the longitudinal effect of TFPs
that categorize subjects based on a pre-survey. In: Proceedings ofInfrastructure Planning Study (CD-ROM), p. 32 (in Japanese).
Taniguchi, A., Hara, F., Takano, S., Kagaya, S., 2002. Study of trafﬁcenvironment awareness among elementary schoolers in Japan, and a
program to raise it. In: Wang, K.C.P., Xiao, G., Nie, L., Yang, H.
(Eds.), Trafﬁc and Transportation Studies, Proceedings of theInternational Conference on Trafﬁc and Transportation Study(ICTTS), vol. 1, pp. 9–16.
Taniguchi, A., Hara, F., Takano, S., Kagaya, S., Fujii, S., 2003.
Psychological and behavioral effects of a travel feedback program
for travel behavioral modiﬁcation. Transportation Research Record
1839, 182–190.

Taniguchi, A., Fujii, S., Hara, F., 2005. Promotion of public transport bymobility management and veriﬁcation of its quantitative effect: a casestudy for community bus in Obihiro city. Prepared for EASTS
Bangkok 05, Thailand.
Taylor, M.A.P., Ampt, E.S., 2003. Travelling smarter down under:
policies for voluntary travel behaviour change in Australia. Transport
Policy 10 (3), 165–177.
Transport for London, 2004. TfL Travel Options in London. London,UK.
Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., Van Knippenberg, A., 1997. Habit, information acquisition, and the process of making travel mode choices.
European Journal of Social Psychology 27, 539–560.