Public acceptability of policies to reduce urban air pollution: A population-based survey experiment

Christian Oltra; Roser  Sala; Sergi López-Asensio; Silvia Germán

doi:10.22325/fes/res.2023.195

Authors

Christian Oltra Investigación Sociotécnica, Departamento de Medio Ambiente, CIEMAT http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9118-4655
Roser Sala Investigación Sociotécnica, Departamento de Medio Ambiente, CIEMAT
Sergi López-Asensio Investigación Sociotécnica, Departamento de Medio Ambiente, CIEMAT
Silvia Germán Investigación Sociotécnica, Departamento de Medio Ambiente, CIEMAT

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22325/fes/res.2023.195

Keywords:

acceptance, survey, urban air quality, congestion charge, Spain

Abstract

Low-emission zones, congestion charges and pedestrian areas have the potential to improve urban air quality. However, the lack of public and political support for these policies is often a significant obstacle to their introduction. In this article, we present the results of two studies. First, we investigated the public acceptability of three policies to reduce urban air pollution: pedestrianization, low emission zones and congestion charges. Second, based on an experimental online survey, we examined the effect of various framing conditions on the acceptability of congestion charges. The results show, first, that public acceptability is higher for pedestrianization and low emission zones and lower for congestion charging. Second, we find a positive effect on acceptability of information emphasizing the benefits of congestion charges and of positive labelling, comparing the wording “environmental contribution” with “urban toll”; and a negative effect of making political ideology prominent. Our findings suggest that while some interventions aimed at mitigating urban air pollution may be more readily supported than others, their acceptability can be enhanced (or diminished) through careful design and effective communication.

References

Anderson, B., Böhmelt, T., & Ward, H. (2017). Public opinion and environmental policy output: A cross-national analysis of energy policies in Europe. Environmental Research Letters, 12(11), 114011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8c9d

Baranzini, A., & Carattini, S. (2017). Effectiveness, earmarking and labeling: Testing the acceptability of carbon taxes with survey data. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 19(1), 197-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-016-0169-1

Bartley, B. (1995). Mobility impacts, reactions and opinions: Traffic demand management options in Europe: The MIRO Project. Traffic Engineering & Control, 36(11), 596-602.

Beelen, R., Raaschou-Nielsen, O., Stafoggia, M., Andersen, Z. J., Weinmayr, G., Hoffmann, B., ... Hoek, G. (2014). Effects of long-term exposure to air pollution on natural-cause mortality: An analysis of 22 European cohorts within the multicentre ESCAPE project. The Lancet, 383(9919), 785-795. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62158-3

Beiser-McGrath, L. F., Bernauer, T., Song, J., & Uji, A. (2021). Understanding public support for domestic contributions to global collective goods. Climatic Change, 166(3), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03117-4

Börjesson, M., Eliasson, J., & Hamilton, C. (2016). Why experience changes attitudes to congestion pricing: The case of Gothenburg. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 85, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.12.002

De Groot, J. I., & Schuitema, G. (2012). How to make the unpopular popular? Policy characteristics, social norms and the acceptability of environmental policies. Environmental Science & Policy, 19, 100-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.02.001

Eliasson, J. (2014). The role of attitude structures, direct experience and reframing for the success of congestion pricing. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 67, 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.07.011

Ejelöv, E., & Nilsson, A. (2020). Individual factors influencing acceptability for environmental policies: A review and research agenda. Sustainability, 12(6), 2404. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062404

Eriksson, L., Garvill, J., & Nordlund, A. M. (2008). Acceptability of single and combined transport policy measures: The importance of environmental and policy specific beliefs. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42(8), 1117-1128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2008.03.017

European Environment Agency [EEA]. (2018). Air quality in Europe- 2018 report. EEA Report No 12/2018. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2018.

European Environment Agency. (2021). Air quality in Europe 2021. Report No. 15/2021. https://doi.org/10.2800/549289

Gärling, T., & Schuitema, G. (2007). Travel demand management targeting reduced private car use: Effectiveness, public acceptability and political feasibility. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 139-153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00495.x

Gehlert, T., & Nielsen, O. A. (2007). Triangulation of data sources for analysing car driver's responses to road pricing in Copenhagen. In Proceedings of the European transport conference 2007 held 17-19 October 2007. Leiden, The Netherlands.

Givoni, M. (2014). Addressing transport policy challenges through policy-packaging. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 60, 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.12.007

Grisolía, J. M., López, F., & de Dios Ortúzar, J. (2015). Increasing the acceptability of a congestion charging scheme. Transport Policy, 39, 37-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.12.003

Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (1999). Designing Smart Regulation. In B. Hutter (Ed.), A Reader in Environmental Law (pp. 305-334). Oxford University Press.

Jagers, S. C., Matti, S., & Nilsson, A. (2017). How exposure to policy tools transforms the mechanisms behind public acceptability and acceptance —The case of the Gothenburg congestion tax. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 11(2), 109-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2016.1231589

Joireman, J. A., Van Lange, P. A., Van Vugt, M., Wood, A., Leest, T. V., & Lambert, C. (2001). Structural solutions to social dilemmas: A field study on commuters’ willingness to fund improvements in public transit. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(3), 504-526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb00204.x

Jonidi Jafari, A., Charkhloo, E., & Pasalari, H. (2021). Urban air pollution control policies and strategies: a systematic review. Journal of environmental health science & engineering, 19(2), 1911–1940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40201-021-00744-4

Knippenberg, D. V., & Daamen, D. (1996). Providing information in public opinion surveys: Motivation and ability effects in the information-and-choice questionnaire. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8(1), 70-82. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/8.1.70

Milenković, M., Glavić, D., & Maričić, M. (2019). Determining factors affecting congestion pricing acceptability. Transport Policy, 82, 58-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.07.008

Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica y el Reto Demográfico [MITECO]. (2021). Directrices para la creación de zonas de bajas emisiones (ZBE). Madrid. Retrieved from https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/calidad-y-evaluacion-ambiental/publicaciones/directricesparalacreaciondezonasdebajasemisiones_tcm30-533017.pdf

Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., & Khreis, H. (2016). Car free cities: Pathway to healthy urban living. Environment International, 94, 251-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.04.036

Nilsson, M., & Küller, R. (2000). Travel behaviour and environmental concern. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 5(3), 211-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00022-3

OCU. (2020). Peatonalización en 10 ciudades españolas. https://www.ocu.org/movilidad-inteligente/External/peatonalizacion.html

Oltra, C., Sala, R., López-Asensio, S., Germán, S., & Boso, À. (2021). Individual-Level Determinants of the Public Acceptance of Policy Measures to Improve Urban Air Quality: The Case of the Barcelona Low Emission Zone. Sustainability, 13(3), 1168. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031168

Organización Mundial de la Salud. (2021). WHO global air quality guidelines: particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide. Retrieved from https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/345329

Raux, C., & Souche, S. (2004). The acceptability of urban road pricing: A theoretical analysis applied to experience in Lyon. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP), 38(2), 191-215.

Rienstra, S. A., Rietveld, P., & Verhoef, E. T. (1999). The social support for policy measures in passenger transport: A statistical analysis for the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 4(3), 181-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00007-7

Schade, J., & Baum, M. (2007). Reactance or acceptance? Reactions towards the introduction of road pricing. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(1), 41-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2006.06.003

Schade, J., & Schlag, B. (2015). Acceptability of urban transport pricing. VATT research reports 72. Helsinki. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2196843

Schlag, B., & Schade, J. (2000). Public Acceptability. Traffic Engineering and Control, 41(8), 314-318.

Soni, N., & Soni, N. (2016). Benefits of pedestrianization and warrants to pedestrianize an area. Land Use Policy, 57, 139-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.013

Stehr, N. (2015). Climate Policy: Democracy Is Not an Inconvenience. Nature, 525(7570). https://doi.org/10.1038/525193a

Unsworth, K. L., & Fielding, K. S. (2014). It's political: How the salience of one's political identity changes climate change beliefs and policy support. Global Environmental Change, 27, 131-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.009

Wicki, M., Huber, R. A., & Bernauer, T. (2020). Can policy-packaging increase public support for costly policies? Insights from a choice experiment on policies against vehicle emissions. Journal of Public Policy, 40(4), 599-625. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X20000073