Pushing low-carbon mobility: a survey experiment on the public acceptance of disruptive policy packages

Annina Thaller, Michael Wicki, Eva Fleiß, Raphaela Maier and Alfred Posch

Climate Policy, 2024, vol. 24, issue 7, 949-962

Abstract: 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 registration ban for fossil fuel cars or a fuel price increase), the more negatively these measures were evaluated by survey respondents. 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.Successful and acceptable mitigation policies for low-carbon mobility require multiple push measures that are communicated in policy packages together with pull measures.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.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.Responses to the presented push measures vary across society, with frequent car users showing higher levels of rejection dependent on the included policy measures, underlining the need to tailor policies for specific contexts.

Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14693062.2024.2302322 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:24:y:2024:i:7:p:949-962

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/tcpo20

DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2024.2302322

Access Statistics for this article

Climate Policy is currently edited by Professor Michael Grubb

More articles in Climate Policy from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().