1

The Car in British Society

Working Paper 5: Expert Seminar

April 2009

Karen Lucas, Roselle Thoreau and Scott Le Vine

2

CONTENTS Executive summary

1. Introduction

2. Aims and objectives

3. Method

4. Morning discussion 4.1 Non-car households 4.2 Car ownership 4.3 The role of identity in car ownership and use 4.4 Single car households

5. Afternoon discussion 5.1 Transition behaviours 5.2 Status and identity 5.3 Psychological and sociological contradictions 5.4 Consumption patterns 5.5 Working from home 5.6 Addressing CO2 emissions

6. Next steps for the study

7. Key points from the afternoon discussion

Appendices

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Aims and objectives The key aim of the seminar was to present and test the team’s current conceptual thinking in terms of whether changing car use trends in the UK since 1995 can be considered to represent an individual and/or societal dependence on the car. This was developed on time series analysis of the National Travel Survey (WP1) and interpretation and synthesis of the theoretical literature on car use behaviours (WP2). We also wished to capture current thinking regarding the likely cost of adjustment to individuals and society as a whole of significantly reducing current levels of car use in the UK by non-voluntary means, such as congestion or road user charging or travel rationing. A list of invited attendees at the event (held at the Royal Automobile Club, Pall Mall, London on the 18th April, 2008) can be found in Appendix 1. Method Participants were sent a briefing paper in advance to inform them of our research progress to date and current conceptual thinking. They were asked to consider this information prior to the meeting in the light of the following questions:

1. Have we got the conceptual framing of the study and our coverage of the issue of car dependence and reliance right?

2. Are there any important themes or references missing from the briefing note that the literature review should consider?

3. Do we fully understand the relationships between car use and individual welfare?

4. Do we fully understand the social and psychological factors influencing car use choices?

5. What are the key structural/situational factors leading to car reliance and/or preventing its reduction?

6. How have (4) and (5) changed over time?

7. Do we have sufficient information about what are the most effective policy measures to reduce overall levels of car use?

8. What are the nature and extent of the likely costs of adjustment arising from significant reductions in car use, for personal lifestyles and social well-being?

4

Key findings from the discussions

1. The question/aims of the study need to be made explicit:

• The study should be politically neutral, and consider policy implications, with the

underlying motivations of the current or a future government stated but not judged. • What problems would these policies be trying to solve? • Does the issue of interest relate only to car use, or also encompass car ownership? • Would car-restrictive policies aim to change outcomes or methods?

2. Numerous factors affect choices around cars. These depend on social groups, stage of

life, economic factors, and can change on a frequent basis depending on circumstance as well as values.

3. Aspirations, status and identity play a larger role in car ownership among some sectors than dependency does.

4. Interaction between personal and environmental factors must be taken into

consideration. 5. Foreseeable government policy is more likely to encourage informed choice about car

use rather than restrict car ownership.

5

1. Introduction This working paper reports on the key discussions at a seminar with lead experts in the field of travel behaviour that was held at the Royal Automobile Club in London on 18th April 2008. The seminar was part of the wider scoping study on car dependence in the UK funded by the Royal Automobile Club in London Foundation for Motoring. It was designed to help inform the team’s thinking on this subject following initial data analysis and literature review work for the study. A copy of the main report for the study and the other accompanying working papers which inform this can be downloaded from the RAC Foundation website at www.racfoundation.org.uk. 2. Aims and objectives The key aim of the seminar was to present the team’s current conceptual thinking in relation to changing car use trends in the UK since 1995 and whether these can be considered to represent individual and societal car dependence. A set of conceptual components were developed based on time series analysis of the National Travel Survey (WP1) and interpretation and synthesis of the theoretical literature on car use behaviours (WP2). We also wished to capture current thinking on the issue of the likely cost of adjustment to individuals and society as a whole of significantly reducing current levels of car use in the UK by non-voluntary means, such as congestion or road user charging or travel rationing. 3. Method Participants were sent a briefing paper in advance to inform them of our research progress to date and current conceptual thinking. They were asked to consider this information prior to the meeting in the light of the following questions:

1. Have we got the conceptual framing of the study and our coverage of the issue of car dependence and reliance right?

2. Are there any important themes or references missing from the briefing note that the literature review should consider?

3. Do we fully understand the relationships between car use and individual welfare?

4. Do we fully understand the social and psychological factors influencing car use choices?

5. What are the key structural/situational factors leading to car reliance and/or preventing its reduction?

6. How have (4) and (5) changed over time?

7. Do we have sufficient information about what are the most effective policy measures to reduce overall levels of car use?

8. What are the nature and extent of the likely costs of adjustment arising from significant reductions in car use, for personal lifestyles and social well-being?

6

A list of attendees can be found in Appendix 1. Professor Peter Jones started the meeting with a presentation of the conceptual components of the research (a separate working paper of this is available as part of this series). The participants were then asked to consider and freely discuss questions 1 and 2 above in the morning session and questions 3 to 8 in the afternoon. 4. Morning discussion 4.1 Non car households Shopping trips – 25% of non-car-owning households report doing their main food shopping by car. This figure is increasing over time. Suggestions for this phenomenon:

• Getting lift from friends • Elderly getting adult children to take them • Those with untaxed uninsured cars (which are thought to number 1-2 million

nationally) • Broader trend towards fewer, more ‘intensive’ shopping trips

It was thought that the travel behaviour of non-car-owning households may show some leading indicators of the effects of major car restrictions. 4.2 Car ownership

• Highest in true rural areas • “urban” areas of different sizes have grown more similar in ownership levels • ownership is increasing in metropolitan areas • ownership in Greater London differs from other regions

It was noted that approximately 1% of drivers do all their travel by private car. The vast majority are multimodal to some degree. Should the study analyse policies to encourage or discourage car use, car ownership, or both? This question needs to be answered before the study proceeds. The group was concerned that discouraging car ownership would not create optimum welfare, and that restricting use is on the policy agenda. There was broad consensus that it is unlikely for a government in the near future to actively seek to restrict car ownership. On the other hand, central and local government policy is beginning to influence the size of cars purchased and their fuel efficiency, via taxation and parking controls or congestion charging, respectively. The concept of ‘competitive failure’ of alternatives to the car was discussed. It was noted that the study should look at what the critical factors to improving alternative travel means may be.

7

4.3 The role of identity in car ownership and use For some sectors of the population owning a car plays a big part in self identity. For example, a car is a symbol of a certain degree of affluence. Therefore if the aim is to encourage less car use, other modes of transport must be made to be more attractive. It was also noted anecdotally that aspirational car owners are understood to be very sensitive to changes in fuel duty, for these reasons. 4.4 Single car households Main drivers in these households are most likely to be male, but the percentage of women main drivers is catching up. As driving by women has risen faster than that of men in recent years, a question was raised whether this phenomenon would be reversible if car use was reduced—i.e. if women would be disproportionally affected. The speaker thought this was unlikely to be a reversible phenomenon due to the evolution of women’s activity patterns in recent years. A growing number of newly-married families today start with two cars, because prior to marriage, single women are more likely to have their own car then previously. Apart from reaching driving age, other trigger points for car and licence acquisition include changing job, and starting a family. In traditional economic terms, increasing car ownership is an unambiguously good phenomenon. It was noted that objective analysis consistently shows higher personal welfare measures for drivers than non-drivers—more doctor visits, more visits to friends/kin (but same number of visits from them), etc. Expected technological changes in new cars may reduce sharply the air quality and carbon issues, thus leaving the spatio-temporal issue to deal with. It was noted that the State of Victoria in Australia, where patterns of settlement are of a dispersed urban and inter-urban form, has done research into fuel supply contingency planning. It was noted that current UK policy has been to not make a value judgment as to what the individual should or shouldn’t do in terms of car use. Instead the Department for Transport (DfT) is more likely to take the approach of supplying the public with as much information as possible so that they are encouraged to make an informed decision on the type and method of their trips. This would be based on a neutral framing of aims, and facilitation of the decisions that people make. Pursuant to this, the consensus of the attendees was that the study should not pursue an agenda, but rather ought to dispassionately follow the evidence. A speaker noted that one could only feasibly reduce car use through an alternative mobility system implemented on a large scale. DfT is currently focusing on providing high reliability to travellers rather than increasing journey speeds. The Department is thinking about which types of trips should be accommodated with greater ease, and about the most sustainable ways to do so. A speaker noted that people use and consider their car as a “mini home on wheels”. Many people consider their time driving to be flexible, comfortable, and secure.

8

The “M25 effect” was mentioned—a term encompassing the growth in the geographic scope of labour markets in peripheral London associated with the accessibility of the M25 orbital motorway. Discussion centred on the fact that long-distance car commuting has both positive and negative aspects. A speaker noted that one could consider the concept of “travel burden” and whether less travel might be an opportunity as well as a constraint. Another speaker mentioned the significant mental effort required for travel/activity coordination, and that a relatively small proportion of society appears willing to take effort to optimise their arrangements. Further, it was noted that a person’s responsibilities and opportunities vary over the course of their life cycle. A speaker indicated that their knowledge was that people tend not to look much at public transit accessibility when making residential choices. The question was asked, “What are the particular policies to consider, and what would they be aimed to achieve?” It was mentioned that in seriously discussing the effects of car use and/or ownership reduction, the study team ought to be specific about how certain policies might have different effects from one another. It was noted that there is a relatively limited ‘menu’ of feasible policy options, so it would not be a major exercise for the study to go through them. The consensus of the attendees was that the study could do such an exercise without making value judgments, but reporting a sort of “if-then” correspondence. (i.e. if policy ‘A’ is chosen, effect ‘B’ can be expected, etc.) The “Smarter Choices” programme was discussed, along with its premise that people tend to change their behaviour if they think proactively about it. It was mentioned, however, that it is unclear if this observed result means that people are happier under those circumstances. The terminology of “car dependence” was discussed. Some attendees thought that it has strong connotations which may distract from the substantive issues. A suggestion was to use the term “car-enabled lifestyles” instead. 5. Afternoon discussion Question 3: Do we fully understand the social and p sychological factors influencing car use choices? Have these changed over time? It was generally agreed that there are a lot of factors that impact on choice, the pathways are very complex, the relative importance is unclear, and the trade-offs and synergies are substantially not known. A list of these isn’t very helpful. Some we have a good understanding of, and some a less-clear understanding. What would be more useful to know (and we don’t) is how they interrelate with each other. The general population can be segmented into numerous groups. These groups all have different factors which impact upon their choice. A speaker indicated that an individual’s

9

placement in segments may vary over a fine-grained timescale (i.e. different attitudes depending on what type of driving they are doing at a particular time and what activity they are travelling to.)

10

5.1 Transitions between behaviours The transitions between different travel behaviours were noted as being points in time of particular importance. Not much is known on the transition from car owner to non car owner. The transition of car ownership is generally life stage related (unemployment, retirement, childbirth, etc.), and relatively few individuals go through a transition in a given year. No data is presently available to look at the social/psychological factors here. It was noted that the paucity of literature on transitions may be an opportunity for the study. Most data available on car ownership is based around demographic and economic factors, and the motivation of groups beyond gender and age stratifications is difficult to understand. However, NTS now has the potential to conduct follow-up interviews/focus groups which could target transition information. 5.2 Status and identity Status and identity factors have not been thought about much in some segments. Lower economic groups often struggle to reach car ownership status and once reached identify with it very strongly. This segment of the population will be unwilling to give up this status. Could NTS data be augmented with psychometric measures? A question was raised, that if we do wish to supplement the NTS with psychometric data, what would we want specifically? The conclusion was that identity is very difficult to measure: some we can, some we can’t. It was noted that it would be possible in principle to arrange focus group of recent NTS respondents, and that recruitment would be through NatCen (the agency which performs the NTS.) 5.3 Psychological and sociological contradictions Psychological and sociological theory and explanations often contradict each other. Do not assume that the two are the same. Car use is cohort and lifestyle specific. It depends upon the activities that are carried out, which are often specific to different social groups and at different stages of life. E.g. eating out, meeting with family, or watching live sports are all activities that necessitate travel. Car use is not necessarily lifestyle specific. Individual attributes and attitudes can change frequently and fluidly between categories. Therefore, a snapshot approach is perhaps not suitable as different circumstances can change influences on a daily, hourly, weekly, monthly basis. A question was raised whether literature exists on systematic behaviour change over time in different contexts—drink driving, smoking, etc.—and whether it would have relevance to car dependence. How do people react to policy?

11

Values are more stable than attributes, but values are not necessarily reliable. Similar values can manifest in different ways Smarter Choices work No long term follow-up has been carried out or published in the UK (just one known study in Perth); only a 6-month follow-up. It was indicated a 2-3 year follow-up would be very desirable. Therefore this means there is a challenge in aggregating the results across studies. It was noted that a study was recently performed for TfL on the impacts of Smarter Choices. An attendee noted that it was thought that soft measures were useful to change behaviour initially, followed by hard measures at a later point in time to ‘lock in’ the changes. Modal shift is more likely to be a change in modal share. For example, if you put on more buses then passenger numbers will increase as a result of (a) current bus users making more frequent trips (b) those who previously walked the route of the bus using the bus. Those who drive are unlikely to have switched mode. Rising aspirations affect choices. People are not addicted to cars, as popular media likes to convey, but addicted to forms of lifestyle. The rise and prevalence of the celebrity culture is currently exerting a strong influence over lifestyle choices, particularly of younger people. It was noted that contemporary lifestyles pre-suppose certain mobility patterns, and that this should be an area of focus. The same was mentioned with regards to current infrastructure, in particular the housing stock. Perhaps change and the capacity for change should be the focus of this study. Lifestyle is not discretionary. Need to take into account that people can’t change everything in their lifestyle, even if they want to. 5.4 Consumption patterns Car use facilitates other consumptive behaviours and is a consumptive behaviour in itself. If we want to try and reduce consumption in car use, then we have to find something to replace it that has similar high value but is itself a non consumptive behaviour. Recent travel behaviour analysis work done in Quebec, Canada, found that mobile phones tend to be associated with less social interaction, and more physical leisure activities. It was mentioned that car occupancy was rising in Canada in the 1980s-1990s, as the proportion of non-work driving increased. A trend towards driving under less-stressful conditions in the late 20th Century NTS data was noted (stress classified through such proxies as paying for parking, driving an older car, driving at peak times, etc.) Travel time budgets appear to be marginally increasing in recent years, but the average mileage that cars are driven per year is trending down. This is partly a reflection of a growing car park.

12

Question 4: What are the key structural/situational factors leading to car reliance and/or preventing its reduction? Have these changed over time? There are two separate aims involved here. Which do we want to pursue? (a) Finding different ways to do the same things

OR

(b) Doing different things and being happy doing them Leisure travel, in particular, is car dependent People make decisions based on what has gone badly wrong and not what is their typical experience. Two bad experiences are enough to change established behaviour patterns. 5.5 Working from home: Not everyone can do this. Those who work from home make other trips that they wouldn’t have if they had travelled to work. Energy consumption costs may well be higher if everyone worked at home than if everybody commuted and worked in their workplace, because of less efficient use of heating, air conditioning and lighting. The concept of Peak Oil production was mentioned.

What is the problem the study wants to look at? This was thought by numerous attendees to be key!

• Congestion? • Demand for urban space (roads, parking, etc.) • Air quality? • CO2? • Social exclusion of non-drivers? • Energy consumption / reliability? The answer to this will change the proposed solutions dramatically

It was asked whether a case exists for subsidising car ownership among excluded groups, if the future will consist of continued automobility with technological green fixes. Car dependency can be categorised in four dimensions:

1) Places 2) Trips 3) People 4) Social groups

Family, work and leisure activities Characteristics of an individual’s social networks create travel obligations. They make the car become the enabler of meeting the obligations associated with being part of these social networks.

13

It was noted that car manufacturers have much proprietary information on car dependency, but that that body of work is inaccessible. The current focus of discussion has been on the present situation. There is also a need to focus more on the future situation. The questions so far this afternoon have focused on the personal factors and the environmental factors, but what about the interaction between the two? Question 5: Do we fully understand the relationship s between car use and individual welfare? What are the nature and extent of the like ly costs of adjustment arising from significant reductions in car use, for personal lif estyles and social well-being? Car ownership versus car use: which is the focus of the study? Only a small percentage of trips are made purely for pleasure – most car trips are necessary. Therefore car use is more important. You don’t want to stop car ownership; you want to reduce car use. BUT if you have a car, you are more likely to use it. Vehicle type choice is important. Can encourage trading down and joining Car clubs Vehicle occupancy Increasing occupancy in vehicles would lead to a big reduction in congestion. Using a car, not owning, creates both benefits and costs. It is unlikely the government would restrict car ownership, but would try and change the type of cars being bought. The value of a vehicle changes depending on how it is being used. For example, a large car is seen as good when used for car sharing children to school or family leisure activities, but the same car is seen as bad when it is then used for sole commuting. The use of the best car for every occasion would mean households should own more cars! Car Clubs offer this diversity. Car ownership and car use: what are people prepared to spend? More cars on the road stimulate the economy. Family expenditure on transport is £75 billion per year. The lowest income group spend 24% of their expenditure on travel 5.6 Addressing CO 2 emissions UK has the highest levels of ownership and use in Europe – for our income levels. There are a number of European studies on the benefits of car ownership. It was noted that, despite the level of technological change that has taken place, the failure to pay attention to car use means that CO2 emissions have not improved. There could have already been a reduction in emissions if car use patterns were different. If cars become less available and people adjust their lifestyles, what do we know would be the costs? What are the costs of adjustment? It was noted that reducing car use implies reducing some activities to some degree.

14

The Government is trying to solve the problems that are associated with car use NOT car use itself. It was noted that a reduction in motorway speed from 70 mph to 55 mph might be a possibility in the future. This would help to reduce CO2, traffic accidents and congestion levels. 6. Next steps for the study The upcoming stages in the study are: 1. Full data and literature review due in approx. 2 months 2. Then meet with policymakers in local authorities that have worked on these issues. 3. Then, interviews with individuals who have had or will have driving changes (drink

driving, elderly drivers about to stop driving, etc.)

7. Key points from the afternoon

1. The question/aims of the study need to be explicit:

• The study should be politically neutral, and consider policy implications, with the

underlying motivations of the current or a future government stated but not judged.

• What would these policies be trying to solve? • Does the issue of interest relate only to car use, or also encompass car

ownership? • Would car-restrictive policies aim to change outcomes or methods?

2. Numerous factors affect choices around cars. These depend on social groups, stage

of life, economic factors, and can change on a frequent basis depending on circumstance as well as values.

3. Aspirations, status and identity play a larger role in car ownership among some

sectors than dependency does.

4. Interaction between personal and environmental factors must be taken into consideration.

5. Government policy is more likely to encourage informed choice about car use rather

than restrict car ownership.

15

Appendix 1: List of attendees Professor John Urry, CEMORE, Lancaster University Dr Janet Dickinson, Bournemouth University Professor Joyce Dargay, ITS, Leeds University Professor Steve Straddling, TRI, Napier University Dr Jillian Anable, University of Aberdeen Professor Martin Lee Goslin, Laval University, Canada and Imperial College London Barbara Noble, Department for Transport Steve Gooding, Department for Transport Phillip Wood, Royal Automobile Club Foundation David Holmes CB, Royal Automobile Club Foundation David Leibling, Royal Automobile Club Foundation

16

Appendix 2: Briefing note for expert seminar April 18th 2008 Introduction In 1995 the RAC Foundation published its influential report “Car Dependence”, based on work led by the ESRC Transport Studies Unit at Oxford University. The study focused on the travel behaviour and decision making of individuals and households in the context of a range of institutional and policy factors that might influence this. The study was based on the analysis of a number of different national and local area surveys and qualitative interviews. The main geographical focus for the research was the UK but with some additional comparative analysis of American, Dutch and international data. Aims and objectives for the 2008/9 study This second study of the same issue a decade later is designed to revisit and build upon many of the same issues in the context of contemporary UK policy. The primary aims of the study are to gain deeper insight into the changing nature and causes of car dependence, to consider whether this is a useful way of characterising the situation, and to identify the economic and social consequences of moving beyond current largely voluntary reductions in car use towards future policy measures that may be more coercive in nature. In order to achieve this we propose to: 1. Critically review the concept of car dependence (which despite its widespread use as a

term in policy discussions has never been coherently defined) with the objective of producing an operational, quantitative definition.

2. Use this definition to identify and characterise the different forms that dependence can take, how it has changed over the past decade and the dynamics of car dependence associated with changes in car ownership/licence holding, in residential and employment location, stage in family lifecycle. Also, to consider the nature of the hardship experienced by people without car access.

3. Identify, as far as possible, the transport and non-transport structural factors that may have led to changes in the nature or extent of dependence over time, including consideration of how government policies may have contributed to such changes.

4. Explore the economic and social consequences of current and proposed car reduction policies, focusing on the nature and magnitude of the costs of adjustment, particularly in cases where we are dealing with non-marginal changes.

5. Suggest cross-sector policy packages that would most effectively and equitably achieve major reductions in car use – where such reductions are considered beneficial.

The study will be undertaken in two iterative phases. The work on the nature and changes in car dependence will draw largely on the existing data sources, but require some novel data merging and analysis techniques and will be the primary task for the Phase 1 study, together with some exploratory interviews with key professionals in local authorities and some preliminary focus groups exercises with the public. The more innovative work on the consequences of forced behavioural change will require substantive data collection and the development of new conceptual and analytical techniques, which, subject to additional funding, will be delivered through Phase 2 of the research. Development of a conceptual framework for the study Rather than attempting at this stage to develop a comprehensive conceptual framework for the study, we have produced a set of six ‘conceptual components’ for discussion, which set out some of the different aspects of our approach.

17

These cover:

1. Factors influencing car travel choices 2. Wider socio-economic factors 3. The ‘car dependence’ score card 4. Degrees of ‘car dependence’ 5. Mechanisms for reducing car use 6. Consequences of car restraint

A separate note describing this is also attached for your information. Analysis of travel behaviour and attitudes to trave l The 1995 report presented an analysis of travel behaviour based on the data from the National Travel Survey (NTS). As a first stage in our work, we have undertaken a refreshment of this analysis, using NTS data covering the period 1988-2004. We are also investigating changing attitudes to car ownership and use, drawing on data from the LEX/RAC surveys of public attitudes to transport, travel and the car, and the British Attitudes Survey. Some preliminary results from the work on the NTS are already available and provide a useful backdrop for the seminar discussions. These results of this analysis are presented in a separate paper, which is attached. Some of the main conclusions are as follows:

• Although high income is still strongly associated with higher access to and use of the car, the effect of income is weakening over time. This appears to have largely taken place at the bottom of the income distribution, as car ownership and driving have diffused lower through the income spectrum.

• Conversely, place (defined as the size of town in which one resides) is becoming

marginally more important over time. Trips are also lengthening over time, and car use is most intense for long trips. Short-distance trips, though broadly falling in number, are increasingly being made by car.

• The activity purposes which generate travel are of critical and growing importance in

explaining car use. Car use has increased its market share most rapidly amongst shopping and school-related trips. For those purposes for which the car is typically significantly more attractive than other modes, such as major food shopping, people will go to significant lengths to secure car access, including it seems borrowing from friends or family members living elsewhere.

• The driving gender gap is shrinking and is now very small amongst younger Britons

though still substantial in middle age and older age groups. In fact it is growing amongst senior citizens, as middle-aged men continue their differentially more driving-intensive lifestyles later in life.

• Mileage has increased significantly through the 1990’s amongst the poorest drivers,

but may have fallen off marginally since 2000. For all other income groups—lower-middle, middle, or upper—trends in driving mileage were very weak or non-existent. Since the poorest drivers tend to drive the fewest miles, we expect to observe a slight weakening of the income-mileage relationship.

18

• The 1995 study observed that average daily driving time varied very little with town size, and had a smoothly increasing relationship with income. This relationship has largely remained constant over time. On the margins, daily driving time has increased amongst the lowest income grouping and conversely decreased amongst the highest. The most striking finding, however, is the consistent positive relationship of car driving time with increasing income.

A summary of the key findings from NatCen’s latest British Social Attitudes report (Straddling et al, 2008) finds that there is widespread concern about the impact that car use has on the climate, and a belief that individual action can make a difference. Some key statistics identified by the authors supporting this finding are as follows:

• Eight in ten people (80%) think that current levels of car use have a serious effect on climate change.

• Two-thirds of people (66%) agree with the view that, for the sake of the environment, everyone should reduce how much they use their cars.

• Six in ten people (59%) disagree with the defeatist statement ‘anyone who thinks that reducing their own car use will help the environment is wrong – one person doesn’t make a difference’.

• Drivers are concerned about these issues too. 82% think that current levels of car use have a serious effect on climate change, and 66% think that everyone should reduce their car use.

The report also identifies a number of different groups based on their attitudes and their views about how easy it would be to cut down on car use for short journeys:

• Nearly one in two drivers (45%) are both willing to reduce their car use and able to do so. They might benefit from more encouragement and support to make the switch away from their cars.

• One in nine drivers (12%) is able to reduce their car use but unsure whether they are willing to do so. They too would benefit from more encouragement and support.

• Nearly one in five drivers (18%) are willing to reduce their car use but unable to do so. This group might benefit from improved public transport and improved walking or cycling facilities.

• 10% are unsure if they are willing to reduce car use and claim to be unable to use alternatives. 5% are unwilling but able and 6% are willing and unable.

The survey identified a hard-core of people who pose a greater challenge to policy-makers. For example, around one in four (23%) think that ‘people should be allowed to use their cars as much as they like, even if it causes damage to the environment’. High mileage drivers are particularly likely to be in this group. Critically examining the concept of ‘car dependence ’ and ‘dependency’ culture We clearly need to unpack the whole language of car dependence and the subsequent construction of a car dependency culture, particularly by policy makers. The 1995 RAC Foundation report quite rightly points out that although many people depend on their cars for many regular journeys, this is far from the ‘dependency culture’ that is described by some of the theoretical and policy literature. People are often reliant on their cars because of personal or external constraints that are largely outside their ability to affect, such as for disability reasons, or because there are no viable alternatives available to them or because they need to move heavy goods. The 1995 RAC Foundation report finds that:

19

‘For many people, the word ‘dependence’ does not accurately describe their perception of how car use helps them to resolve these constraints. Rather, they see cars as providing independence, with concrete other advantages including the immediate convenience to make journeys without planning, real financial savings (and some illusionary ones), privacy from unpleasant people who might be using public transport, enjoyment of a feeling of control over choices affecting their daily lives and pleasure in performing active driving tasks’

RAC Foundation, 1995: 9 Clearly, there is a spectrum of individual and household car reliance from ‘need to addiction’ and there is a huge degree of subtlety needed in determining whether an individual or household is genuinely car reliant or merely wedded to their car because of habits, social norms and other non-physical factors. Our review of the literature, although not comprehensive, will attempt to capture the different ways in which car dependence has been conceptualised. In addition, we believe it will be useful to identify and synthesise some of the parallel literatures describing dependence and dependency culture most normally associated with smoking and drug use but also in one article with fridge dependency. One important issue that we need to address here is whether car consumption is the same as any other consumption, or somehow fundamentally different because of the myriad different other consumer activities and lifestyle choices it gives us access to. Locating car use within wider conceptual and theore tical understandings of individuals’ decision-making processes General theories of behaviour and behaviour change Car user behaviour and behaviour change clearly needs to be located in the wider literature on theories and models of how individual behaviours are formed, barriers to behaviour change and theories of how to affect the behaviour change of individuals. These move from basic linear models of understanding behaviour and behaviour change (see Fig 1) to more complex understandings, which recognise external influencing factors, such as Gatersleb and Vlek’s ‘Needs Opportunities Ability’ (NOA) model (see Fig 2). There are a number of relevant recent synthesis reports on theories and models of behaviour and behaviour change in relation to environmental behaviours that will be useful to inform our thinking on car dependence, most notably the work of Jackson (2005) and Darnton (2004 and 2006). Anable and Kelay (2006) have also undertaken a similar review of theories and models from a transport and climate change perspective. A general overview of the findings of such reviews suggests that there are some core distinctions which can be made between these wide-reaching literatures. Firstly, it is possible to identify a clear separation between the more static models which seek to describe behaviour and more dynamic theories and models of behaviour change. Secondly, there are essentially three different levels of models in these reviews: i) individual; ii) organisational and iii) whole systems. Thirdly, a separation can be made between generic theories and models of behaviour and behaviour change and those that apply to specific behaviours. In his synthesis review of theories and models for understanding pro-environmental behaviours and behaviour change for the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Darnton (2006) makes the following important observations concerning the utility of models:

20

• Individuals’ behaviours are complex; the more accurate a model is (in terms of capturing all the variables that are in play and in the right combinations) the more likely it is to appear complex (with many boxes and many arrows between them). There is a slippery point at which advances in empirical accuracy come at a heavy cost in terms of clarity.

• Models attempt to split out complex behaviours into their contributory factors, and show

the relationships between them. This attempt can be read as one of simplification so that, even if the assumptions and observations informing a model are correct, there can be procedural concerns about the validity of the attempt.

• Social-psychological models share the assumption that human behaviour is informed by

contributory factors (both internal and external), which are the antecedents of the behaviour in question. The debate is commonly about whether these are predominantly rational antecedents (or habitual, or moral etc). However, some behaviours involve less deliberation than others, while some are ruled out from the start.

• Even at best, models generalise the behaviour of diverse individuals; when using

models to develop policy it must be remembered that most people may broadly conform to a model, but they will not behave exactly as it shows.

• When a model is operationalised (and filled with data from a particular context) the

statistical analysis that calculates the relative weighting of each factor upon each other and the end behaviour is expressed in terms of percentage variance upon the outcome. So instead of modelling the average or ‘mean’ behaviour of people, models tend to show the total sum of behaviour of all individuals (and the extent to which that varies); to that extent they describe the behaviour of an everyman.

• Finally, in order to operationalise models they need data from a particular study with a

particular audience, i.e. they need setting in context to begin to be usable. There are also limits to how meaningful a model will be if it is derived from one context and applied in a different one. In other words, models don’t travel well, although they vary in how much they can be stretched to describe different behaviours.

Car use specific theories and models Related to this there have been some car use specific models of decision making, which the review should include. For example, Bamberg and Schmidt (2003) combined and operationalised the three models of Schwartz, Ajzen and Triandis to understand car use based on the propensity of university students to use a car when travelling to the university campus. Their headline finding is that Triandis’ Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour proved to be the best predictive model: habit, the key feature of that model, proved more influential in determining the end behaviour of car use than even the intention to use a car. In addition, the study found that ‘role beliefs’ (what a type of individual like me should do) were much more influential than ‘subjective norms’ (what society says I should do) in determining outcomes. The upshot of this analysis is that, among these university students, travelling to university by car was an habitual behaviour, and one in which moral (including pro-environmental) principles did not significantly impact. In their meta-analyses of 23 unique datasets which measured car use behaviour and/or intentions, Gardner and Abraham (2008) found that intention, habit, and personal behaviour constraint has a large effect on individuals’ decisions on whether or not to drive. Their analysis largely endorses the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991), which suggests that behaviour is determined by intentions, which in turn inform attitudes based on

21

a person’s perception of the consequences of, and control, over their actions. However, they also suggest that:

The emphasis of the TPB on rational agency may fail to adequately capture effects of habit on repeated car use decisions: unlike deliberative cognitions, habits refer to cue-response behaviour initiated outside of awareness [and that, therefore] future TPB applications might benefit from supplementing car use cognitions with measures relating to non-car travel. (Gardner and Abraham, 2008: 8-9)

The authors go on to suggest that people’s reluctance to adopt alternative transport modes may result more from the perceived unattractiveness of alternative options than the appeal of the car. However, they also warn that car drivers may form negative attitudes towards these alternatives based on imperfect information about and/or lack of personal experience of them. Evaluating policy interventions to reduce reliance on the car and encourage modal shift or other behavioural changes Models and theories cannot inform us about what policies to use to affect people’s travel behaviour. However, there is a sizeable body of literature concerning the design and effectiveness of a variety of policy interventions which have been designed to reduce car dependence through a variety of measures including:

• Improving non-car modes

• Congestion charging and other restraint measures

• Land use planning and urban design

• Travelsmart-type initiatives

• Tele-service substitutions

• Other accessibility planning measures

• Effectiveness of other behaviour change programmes (e.g. recycling) In their summary report on developing better policies to influence pro-environmental behaviours, Darnton et al (2006) recommend that: • Behaviours are complex and non-linear with each behaviour comprised of many different

factors, which often need to be addressed simultaneously to facilitate change. Interventions should combine multiple types of instrument in a ‘package’ of measures (e.g. infrastructure, fiscal measures, and information). They identify through the literature that it is suggested that interventions should first address external factors (most notably infrastructure and pricing) and then internal factors (e.g. psychological or attitudinal).

• As well as working on multiple factors, interventions need to work on multiple levels –

ultimately addressing society as a whole in order to achieve long-term normative change. They also identify that different audiences behave differently, and require differentiated interventions; interventions should be context-specific (in terms of the behaviour in question, the setting for that behaviour etc).

• ‘Feedback’ is vital to driving and sustaining change; instead of understanding the

changed behaviour to be the end of the process, interventions should build in ‘feedback loops’ i.e. opportunities to feed learning from the change process back in to subsequent

22

behaviours. Feedback should also be accounted for between individuals and organisations in networks, and across society as a whole. A holistic perspective on facilitating change should be adopted.

• The audience for a change intervention should not be regarded as a passive target

whose behaviour is to be changed, but as ‘actors’ who are themselves at the heart of the change process.

• Individuals are vital to delivering pro-environmental change, not just for themselves (on

the level of individuals) but also within organisations and networks as ‘agents for change’ (both as managers and ‘change champions’). Engaging, and nurturing, key individuals may be more effective in bringing about system-wide change than targeting the behaviour of all individuals.

• Actors and other partners (more commonly referred to within policy discourses as

stakeholders) should be involved in the change process from as early a point as possible. They should not merely support the delivery of the end policy, or be affected by it. At the very least, they should be researched in context to establish what variables in a behaviour change theory are significant from their perspective. Ideally, a total partnership working approach should be adopted in which change partners are involved from the start in defining (and redefining) the problem through a continuous cycle of action and reflection – from which learning and innovation will result.

• Policy makers should attempt to close up the current gap (or ‘feedback loop’) between

policy design and delivery outcomes. The effect of this better co-ordination would be reciprocal: policy would be designed in the light of past experience, and desired outcomes and targets would be set more appropriately (ideally through negotiation with delivery partners and change ‘actors’ themselves).

• Policy makers should not regard behaviours as mechanisms with buttons which can be

pressed in the right combination in order to generate change. Behaviours are complex, and undertaken by individuals in the context of groups and wider networks (which together make up complex systems). As such, setting targets or accurately predicting outcomes is likely to be difficult.

• Where an intervention addresses multiple behaviours simultaneously, those behaviours

should be clustered together as the audience sees them, not as they are arranged in governmental departments or delivery units.

• Returning to individual behaviour change, it should be noted that the widely discussed

(social–psychological) models of behaviour do not demonstrate how to bring about behaviour change. They allow the reader to understand which variables determine an end behaviour and how. However, they also commonly show the factors in generic behaviours (e.g. all pro-social behaviours) rather than behaviours in context (e.g. recycling glass). Finally, they are derived from studies of multiple individuals, yet they average out the findings into one ‘best fit’ model of human behaviour. Policymakers utilising such models should refine them in the relevant context prior to implementation as theory shows that policy changes will not affect all individuals equally.

(Darnton et al, 2006: 28-29)

Most importantly for the conceptualisation of our own research, the authors note that there are many factors impacting on individuals’ behaviours from organisational and societal levels which may prevent change from occurring, however appropriately a policy is designed on the

23

individual level. It is the inter-relations between these factors and levels that argue for a whole systems approach to encouraging behaviour change. They recommend that whole systems thinking may be the best way forward in understanding the complex processes of pro-environmental (i.e. individual behaviour change) policy making. More specifically in relation to car use, Gardner and Abraham (2008) identify a growing literature which testifies to the effectiveness of policy measures that target car use reduction via psychological change, such as personalised travel planning and travel awareness campaigns. However, they find that it remains largely unclear which (if any) cognitive antecedents of driving are targeted by these policy measures, and on what basis behaviour change techniques are chosen. They suggest that possibly the most significant finding of their study is the lack of available evidence about precisely what does and doesn’t work in policy terms to achieve reduced reliance on the car, or encourage modal shift or other behavioural changes associated with car use. Clearly, there is scope for further empirical research to establish this and it is hoped that Phase 2 of our study will go some way to addressing this issue. Next steps for the Phase 1 study

• Complete literature review • Complete NTS, BSA, RAC survey 2007/8 refresh analysis • Assess suitability of other data sets (e.g. Sustainable Towns monitoring) • Further development of the conceptual framework • Interviews with key practitioners • Initial focus group discussions with the public

Identified references to data for the literature re view Conceptual models and theories of behaviours

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). A theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

2. Darnton, A. J. (2006) Promoting Pro-Environmental Behaviour: Existing Evidence to Inform Better Policy Making, Chapter 1: Theory.

3. Halpern, D, C Bates and G Beales (2003) Personal Responsibility and Behaviour Change Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office.

4. Jackson, T (2005) Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A Review of Evidence on Consumer Behaviour and Behavioural Change. A report to the UK Sustainable Development Research Network

5. Triandis H. C. (1977) Interpersonal behavior Monterey: Brooks/Cole. 6. West, R (2006) Outline of a Synthetic Theory of Addiction Available at

http://aspsilverbackwebsites.co.uk/prime/Resources/The%20synthetic%20theory%20of%20addiction2.doc

Car use specific models and theories

7. Bamberg, S and Schmidt P. (2003) ‘Incentives Morality or Habit? Predicting Students’ Car Use for University Routes with the Models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis’ Environment & Behaviour 35 (2), 264-285

8. Forward S. (2004) ‘The prediction of travel behaviour using the theory of planned behaviour’ in T. Rothengatter & R. D. Huguenin (Eds.), Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 481–492). Amsterdam: Elsevier

9. Fujii S., and Garling T. (2003a) ‘Application of attitude theory for improved predictive accuracy of stated preference methods in travel demand analysis’ Transportation Research Part A, 37, 389–402

24

10. Gardner B., and Abraham C. (2007) ‘What drives car use? A grounded theory analysis of commuters’ reasons for driving’ Transportation Research Part F, 10, 187–200

11. Garling T., Eek D., Loukopoulos P., Fujii S., Johansson-Stenman O., Kitamura R., et al. (2002) ‘A conceptual analysis of the impact of travel demand management on private car use’ Transport Policy, 9, 59–70

12. Garling T., Fujii S., and Boe O. (2001) ‘Empirical tests of a model of determinants of script-based driving choice’ Transportation Research Part F, 4, 89–102.

13. Garvill J. (1999) ‘Choice of transportation mode: Factors influencing drivers’ willingness to reduce personal car use and support car regulations’ in M. Foddy, M. Smithson, S. Schneider, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Resolving social dilemmas: Dynamic, structural, and intergroup aspects (pp. 263–279) Hove: Psychology Press

14. Heath Y., & Gifford R. (2002) ‘Extending the theory of planned behavior: Predicting the use of public transportation’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32, 2154–2189.

15. Loukoupolos P., & Garling T. (2005) ‘Are car users too lazy to walk? The relationship of distance thresholds for driving to the perceived effort of walking’ Transportation Research Record 1926, 205–211

16. Mackett R. L. (2003) ‘Why do people use their cars for short trips?’ Transportation 30, 329–349

17. Mann E. and Abraham C. (2006) ‘The role of affect in UK commuters’ travel mode choices: An interpretative phenomenological analysis’ British Journal of Psychology 97, 155–176

18. Matthies E., Klockner C. A. and Preißner C. L. (2006) ‘Applying a modified moral decision making model to change habitual car use: How can commitment be effective?’ Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 91–106

19. Nilsson M. and Kuller R. (2000) ‘Travel behaviour and environmental concern’ Transportation Research Part D, 5, 211–234

20. Steg L. (2003) ‘Can public transport compete with the private car?’ IATSS Research, 27, 27–35

21. Steg L. (2004) ‘Car use: Lust and must’ in T. Rothengatter & R. D. Huguenin (Eds.), Traffic and transport psychology (pp. 443–452) Amsterdam: Elsevier.

22. Steg L. (2005) ‘Car use: Lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use’ Transportation Research Part A 39, 147–162

23. Steg L., Geurs K. and Ras, M. (2001) ‘The effects of motivational factors on car use: A multidisciplinary modelling approach’ Transportation Research Part A 35, 789–806

24. Thøgersen J. (2006) ‘Understanding repetitive travel mode choices in a stable context: A panel study approach’ Transportation Research Part A 40, 621–638

25. van Lange P. A. M., van Vugt M., Meertens R. M. and Rutter R. A. C. (1998) ‘A social dilemma analysis of commuting preferences: The roles of social value orientation and trust’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28, 796–820

26. van Vugt, M.,Meertens, R. M., & van Lange, P. A. M. (1995) ‘Car versus public transportation? The role of social value orientations in a real-life social dilemma’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 258–278

27. van Vugt M., van Lange P. A. M. and Meertens R. M. (1996) ‘Commuting by car or public transportation? A social dilemma analysis of travel mode judgements’ European Journal of Social Psychology 26, 373–395

28. Verplanken B., Aarts H. and van Knippenberg A. (1997) ‘Habit, information acquisition, and the process of making travel mode choices’ European Journal of Social Psychology 27, 539–560

29. Verplanken B., Aarts H., van Knippenberg, A. and Moonen, A. (1998) ‘Habit versus planned behaviour: A field experiment’ British Journal of Social Psychology 37, 111–128

30. Verplanken B., Aarts H., van Knippenberg A. and van Knippenberg C. (1994) ‘Attitude versus general habit: Antecedents of travel mode choice’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24, 285–300

Car dependence

31. Beckmann, J. (2001) Automobility – a social problem and theoretical concept. Environment and Planning D vol. 19, pp. 593—607

32. Brindle, R. (2003) Kicking the habit (Part 1): some musings on the meaning of 'car dependence'. Road and Transport Research www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3927/is_200309/ai_n9294664

25

33. CfIT (Commission for Integrated Transport) (2007) Public subsidy in the bus industry: CfIT response to Government consultation on the bus industry. http://www.cfit.gov.uk/docs/2007/psbi/index.htm#cfit

34. Cullinane S. and Cuillinane K. (2003) ‘Car dependence in a public transport dominated city: evidence from Hong Kong’ Transportation Research Part D 8 129-138

35. Featherstone, M. (2004) Introduction: automobilities. Theory, Culture & Society vol. 21, pp. 36. Goodwin P. (1995) ‘Editorial: Car dependence’ Transport Policy Vol. 2 no.3 151-152 37. Gray D., Farrington J., Shaw J., Martin S. and Roberts D. (2001) ‘Car dependence in rural

Scotland: transport policy, devolution and the impact of the fuel duty escalator’ Journal of Rural Studies 17 113-125

38. Gray D., Shaw J. and Farrington J. (2005) ‘Community transport, social capital and social exclusion in rural areas’ Area 38.1 89-98

39. Miller, D. (Ed.) (2001) Car cultures. Oxford: Berg 40. O’Dell, T. (2001) Raggare and the panic of mobility: modernity and everyday life in Sweden.

In Miller, D. (Ed.) Car cultures. Oxford: Berg. 41. O’Donoghue, T. and Rabin, M. (1999) The economics of immediate gratification. Dept. of

Economics, Univ. of California, Berkeley 42. RAC Foundation (1995) Car dependence 43. RAC Foundation RAC Report on Motoring 2008: 20 years on and Car Dependence 44. Urry J. (2002) Inhabiting the Car University Lancaster Centre for Mobilities

http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/sociology/papers/urry-inhabiting-the-car.pdf

Reducing car dependence

45. Adams, J. (1997) Alternative policies for reducing dependence on the car. In Tolley, R. (Ed.) The greening of urban transport: planning for walking and cycling in western cities. London, Wiley, pp. 239—250

46. Anable, J, B Lane and T Kelay (2006) An Evidence Base Review of Public Attitudes to Climate Change and Transport Behaviour. The UK Energy Research Centre et al for the Department for Transport

47. Baldassare, M.; Ryan, S. and Katz, C. (1998) Suburban attitudes toward policies aimed at reducing solo driving. Transportation vol. 25, pp. 99—117 [http://www.springerlink.com/(mzdytcjmipkgfq55qd0l0ofr)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,6,7;journal,37,130;linkingpublicationresults,1:103007,1]

48. Banister, D. (2003) Reducing the need to travel. Presentation to the ESRC mobile network http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/mobilenetwork/mobilenetwork.html

49. Burgess, J.; Bedford, T.; Hobson, G.; Davies, G. and Harrison, C. M. (2003) (Un)sustainable consumption. In Berkhout, F.; Leach, M. and Scoones, I. (Eds.) Negotiating environmental change: new perspectives from social science. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar pp. 261—292

50. Curtis and Hedicar (1997) ‘Targeting travel awareness campaigns: which individuals are more likely to switch from car to other transport for the journey to work?’ Transport Policy Vol.4 No. 1 57-65

51. Darnton, A. (2004) Driving public behaviours for sustainable lifestyles. Report 2 of Desk Research commissioned by COI on behalf of DEFRA http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/publications/pdf/desk-research2.pdf

52. Gärling, T.; Gärling, A. and Johansson A. (2000) Household choices of car-use reduction measures. Transportation Research Part A 34, pp. 309—320

53. Gill Wales Market Research Services (2004) Encouraging car drivers to use public transport in London: summary of existing market research (pdf)

54. Jopson, A. F. (2000) Can psychology help to reduce car use? Paper presented at the Universities Transport Study Group 32nd Annual Conference, University of Liverpool

55. Nordlund A. M. and Garvill J. (2003) ‘Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use’ Journal of Environmental Psychology 23, 339–347

56. Meyer-Ruhle O. (1997) Pilot Project ``Mobile Schopfeim” - to change mobility-related attitudes and traffic behaviour. Annual Summer Meeting Seminar C: Policy, Planning and Sustainability PTRC

57. Mokhtarian, P. L.; Salomon, I.; and Redmond, L. (2001) Understanding the demand for travel: it's not purely 'derived. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research vol. 14

26

58. Polk M. (2003) ‘Are women potentially more accommodating than men to a sustainable transportation system in Sweden?’ Transportation Research Part D, 8, 75–95

59. Polk M. (2004) ‘The influence of gender on daily car use and on willingness to reduce car use in Sweden’ Journal of Transport Geography 12, 185–195.

60. Stradling S. G., Meadows M. L. and Beatty S. (2000) ‘Helping drivers out of their cars: Integrating transport policy and social psychology for sustainable change’ Transport Policy 7, 207–215

61. Stradling, S. (2002) Persuading people out of their cars. Presented to the ESRC Mobile Network http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/mobilenetwork/mobilenetwork.html

62. Steer Davies Gleave (2005) Overcoming Car Dependency Transport for London (pdf) 63. Tertoolen, G.; van Kreveld, D. and Verstraten, B. (1998) Psychological resistance against

attempts to reduce private car use. Transportation Research A, vol. 32, pp. 171—181 64. Wagner, C. and de Tommasi, R. (1998) MOMENTUM mobility management for the urban

environment. EU-DG VII Verkehr and Swiss National Science Foundation, Research Council: Transport and Environment Nr. 41-A1, Bern

65. Wagner, C. and Schad, H. (1998) NIM New, integrated mobility services. Swiss National Science Foundation, Research Council: Transport and Environment Nr. 41-A3, Bern

66. ? (2007) ‘Interrupting habitual car use: The importance of car habit strength and moral motivation for personal car use reduction’ Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour

67. Zhang M. (2006) ‘Travel choice with no alternative: can land use reduce automobile dependence?’ Journal of Planning Education and Research 25 311-326

Travel attitudes, behaviour and lifestyles

68. Balaker T. (2007) Why Mobility Matters to Personal Life Reason Foundation http://www.reason.org/pb62.pdf

69. Buchanan, M., Freer, N. and Edwards, A. (1997) Unsustainability: transport problem or lifestyle problem? Annual Summer Meeting Seminar C Policy, Planning and Sustainability PTRC

70. Cass N., Shove E. and Urry J. (2003) Changing infrastructures, measuring socio-spatial inclusion/exclusion: Final report Dept of Sociology, Lancaster University.

71. Dargay, J. (2007) ‘The effect of prices and income on car travel in the UK’ Transportation Research Part A vol. 41, pp. 949—960 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_cdi=6031&_pubType=J&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e274db34cc2f8f247f84b4964060d559&jchunk=41#41

72. DfT (2007) Evidence Base Review on Mobility: Choices & Barriers for Different Social Groups http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/163944/evidencebasereviewmobility

73. DfT (2006) Attitudes to car use http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/att/attitudestocaruse

74. DfT (2007) Evidence Base Review on Mobility: Choices & Barriers for Different Social Groups http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/163944/evidencebasereviewmobility

75. DfT (2007) Understanding the travel aspirations, needs and behaviour of young adults http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/scienceresearch/social/youngaspirations

76. DfT (2007) Understanding the travel needs, behaviour and aspirations of people in later life http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/scienceresearch/social/olderaspirations

77. ECMT (1998) Infrastructure-induced mobility. Round Table Conference, European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Paris

78. Line, T. (2008). The Attitudes of Young People Towards Transport in the Context of Climate Change. PhD Thesis, Faculty of the Built Environment, University of the West of England.

79. Noland, R. B. and Lem, L. L. (2002) A review of the evidence for induced travel and changes in transportation and environmental policy in the US and the UK. Transportation Research D vol. 7, pp. 1—26

80. Principio, S. L. and Pas, E. I. (1997) The sociodemographics and travel behavior of life style groups identified by time use patterns. Paper to the 76th Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

81. Siren A. and Hakamies-Blomqvist L. (2002) ‘Private car as the grand equaliser? Demographic factors and mobility in Finnish men and women aged 65+’ Transportation Research Part F 7 107-118

27

82. Stradling S., Anable J., Anderson T. and Cronberg A. (2008) ‘Car use and climate change: do we practise what we preach?’ British Social Attitudes: the 24th Report Sage for NatCen.

28

Evaluation of car use reduction measures

83. Bamberg, S., and Moser, G. (2007) ‘Why are work travel plans effective? Comparing conclusions from narrative and meta-analytical research synthesis’ Transportation, 34, 647–666.

84. Bartholomew, L. K., Parcel, G. S., Kok, G., and Gottlieb, N. H. (2006) Intervention mapping: Designing theory and evidence-based health promotion programs San Francisco:Jossey-Bass

85. Darnton, A., Elster Jones, J., Lucas, K. and Brooks, M. (2006), Influencing changes in behaviour: Existing evidence to inform environmental leadership (SD14002), London: Defra, http://www2.defra.gov.uk/research/project_data/More.asp?I=SD14002&M=KWS&V=ex

86. Fujii S., and Garling T. (2003b) ‘Development of script-based travel mode choice after forced charge’ Transportation Research Part F, 6, 117–124

87. Fujii S., Garling T. and Kitamura R. (2001) ‘Changes in drivers’ perceptions and use of public transport during a freeway closure: Effects of temporary structural change on cooperation in a real-life social dilemma’ Environment and Behavior, 33, 796–808

88. Fujii S., and Taniguchi A. (2006) ‘Determinants of the effectiveness of travel feedback programs – A review of communicative mobility management measures for changing travel behaviour in Japan’ Transport Policy, 13, 339–348

89. Garling T. and Schuitema, G. (2007) ‘Travel demand management targeting reduced private car use: Effectiveness, public acceptability and political feasibility’ Journal of Social Issues, 63, 139–153

90. Garvill J., Marell A. and Nordlund A. (2003) ‘Effects of increased awareness on choice of travel mode’ Transportation 30, 63–79

91. Moser G. and Bamberg S. (2008) ‘The effectiveness of soft transport policy measures: A critical assessment and meta-analysis of empirical evidence’ Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 10–26

92. Taniguchi A., Hara F., Takano S., Kagaya S. and Fujii S. (2003) ‘Psychological and behavioral effects of a travel feedback program for travel behavioral modification’ Transportation Research Record 1839, 182–190

93. Vugt M., van Lange P. A. M., Meertens R. M. and Joireman J. A. (1996) ‘How a structural solution to a real-world social dilemma failed: A field experiment on the first carpool lane in Europe’ Social Psychology Quarterly 59, 364–374

29

Figure 1: Blake’s barriers to environmental behavio ur change

30

Fig 2: ‘The Needs-Opportunity-Ability model of cons umer behaviour’, reproduced from Gatersleben & Vlek (1998), with kind permission from Birgitta Gatersleben]

Needs Relations, development, comfort, pleasure, work, health, privacy, money, status, safety,

nature, freedom, leisure time, justice

Opportunities Availability,

advertisement, prices, shops

Abilities Financial, temporal, spatial, cognitive,

physical

Motivation Behavioural control

Intention

Subjective well-being, environmental quality

Technology Economy Demography Institutions Culture

Consumer behaviour