Search

Restrictive measures are indispensable to achieving sustainable and low-carbon mobility. At the same time, these are often not implemented due to concerns that public support will not materialize; therefore, they are relegated to the background in the debate on policy measures that can be applied to change mobility behavior. In this national study (N = 1,083), we used structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the drivers of and differences between regulatory and economic transport policies. We find that policy-specific beliefs and, in particular, perceived fairness are key drivers of public acceptance. Our results indicate that policies must be perceived as fair, effective, and minimally intrusive for them to be accepted by the public and thus implementable. No major differences were found between the two types of policies examined, namely, regulatory and economic policies. Overall, public acceptance of the proposed measures is low. We discuss these results in terms of the study content and methodology and conclude by describing their implications for transport policy design. Version of record

Disruptive policy packages that fundamentally change the current unsustainable passenger transport structures and enable low-carbon mobility transformation are inevitable. This implies the use of more stringent and multiple restrictive (i.e. push) measures. To enable successful implementation, public acceptance is critical, but what drives this acceptance? In this study, two main hypotheses were tested using survey methods that combined a two-group framing with a conjoint experiment: (1) The acceptance of push measures decreases as disruption increases; (2) disruptive push measures are less likely to be rejected when communicated as part of a policy package that included complementary pull measures (i.e. incentives). We conducted this survey with a quota-representative sample of 1,032 respondents from Austria. Two main findings emerge: First, we find low public acceptance of push measures, but observe differences based on the level of disruption (i.e. the measures’ intensity or rapidity of implementation). The more disruptive the measure (e.g. a fuel price increase), the more negatively these measures were evaluated by survey respondents. Interestingly, this trend was not seen for registration bans, where an earlier introduction is more acceptable than a later one. Second, our results indicate the need to communicate and implement high-impact, more restrictive push measures (e.g. car bans) as part of policy packages that include acceptance-boosting pull measures. Key policy insights - Acceptance levels of push measures are generally low, but acceptance differs depending on how disruptive the respective policy is, with the more disruptive policies being less well accepted. - This does not hold true for a registration ban for cars with an internal combustion engine (ICEVs), where an earlier introduction is favoured. - In addition to banning ICEV registration, acceptable combinations of push measures may include higher parking fees, car-free city centres, and street redesign to, e.g. prioritize non-motorized modes of transport. - Successful and acceptable mitigation policies for low-carbon mobility require multiple push measures that are communicated in policy packages together with pull measures. - Responses to the presented push measures vary across society, with frequent car users showing higher levels of rejection, underlining the need to tailor policies for specific contexts. Version of record

Data and Code for the paper "Pushing low-carbon mobility: a survey experiment on the public acceptance of disruptive policy packages"; doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2023.2182755; pre-reg: https://osf.io/h34c7

Purpose This paper aims to explore the manoeuvring room of higher education institutions to take action to reduce emissions from academic flying. In particular, this study investigates how university staff and central actors in university management evaluate potential measures in this area. Design/methodology/approach The authors applied a single case study design encompassing an online survey directed at staff (N = 338) and 11 semi-structured interviews with key actors from management at an Austrian university. The authors used descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis to examine the data. Findings This study found considerable support among university staff in principle for implementing measures to reduce academic flying, but also serious concerns about the fairness and viability of some restrictive measures, especially disincentives and caps on flying. However, bans on short-haul flights were largely supported. Actors from university management saw their manoeuvring room limited by the potential resistance and non-compliance of staff, as well as by framework conditions external to the university. Practical implications Dedicated leadership is needed to facilitate broad commitment within the university and to avoid shifting the responsibility between different governance levels. Restrictive measures to reduce academic air travel will be more readily accepted if perceived as fair and viable. Originality/value Although several papers have addressed the behavioural and institutional factors that sustain extensive flying in academia, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the first contributions to investigate the potentials and challenges of introducing measures to reduce air travel in higher education institutions. Fonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung W1256 Version of record