# Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report

# Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report

Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

and

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

United States Department of Transportation

Prepared for EPA by PRR, Inc.

EPA Contract No. GS-23F-0364P Task Order 0001

EPA-420-R-10-907 August 2010

# Table of Contents

**Executive Summary**

**............................................................ 3** � **Introduction**

**....................................................................... 9** � **Demographic Profile**

**.......................................................... 13** � **Vehicle Use**

**...................................................................... 15** � **Vehicle Purchase Process**

**.................................................. 17** � **Role of Fuel Economy**

**........................................................ 25**  **Motivators and Barriers to Purchasing Fuel Efficient Vehicles**

**.... 33** � **Market Segments**

**.............................................................. 37** � **Appendix - Phase 3 Survey Questions**

**................................. 39** �

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 1EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 2

# Executive Summary

Introduction and Methods

In 2006, EPA updated how the city and highway fuel economy values are calculated to better reflect typical real-world driving patterns and provide more realistic fuel economy estimates. EPA is now initiating a new rulemaking to ensure that American consumers continue to have the most accurate, meaningful and useful information, as well as an understanding of how the labeled vehicle impacts the environment. With the introduction of advanced technology vehicles on the market the EPA must provide metrics that are relevant and useful for vehicles such as Electric Vehicles, Extended Range Electric Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles.

To help inform the creation of the new label, EPA engaged PRR Inc. to work with them in the design and implementation of several information gathering tasks including:

•� Literature review

•� Focus groups in 3 phases, including pre-group online

surveys

•� Expert panel

•� National online survey of new vehicle buyers and intenders

The purpose of the pre-group online survey was to obtain additional information regarding their vehicle purchase process, the role of fuel economy in their purchase decision, how they used the current fuel economy label, and motivators and barriers to their purchasing alternative fuel vehicles. Data from all the three pre-group online surveys was merged into one database for analysis purposes since the survey questions were very similar across all three phases. A total of 404 of those recruited completed the online survey.

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 3This report presents a comprehensive summary of the findings from the three pre-group online surveys. It should be noted that the results of these surveys are not intended as representative of any larger group of new vehicle buyers and reflect only the experience of the focus group participants. Nonetheless, these results can provide important insights to be used in conjunction with the other research tasks connected with this overall project.



# Key Findings

• Vehicle use:

• Most (88.1%) were the principal drivers of their new
vehicles and almost all drove their vehicles five to seven days a week (91.8%).

• Over half (54.7%) reported that they planned to drive this new vehicle between 9,001 to 15,000 miles per year, with another fifth (20.1%) planning to drive between 15,001 to 20,000 miles per year.

• Respondents mostly used their new vehicles for errands and shopping (93.1%), visiting family and friends (83.4%), for recreation (81.3%), and for travel to and from work (75%).

• Vehicle purchase process:

• Over a third (34.1%) purchased a new vehicle less frequently than every five years. Around a fifth reported purchasing a new vehicle every five years (17.5%), every four years (18.7%), or every three years (21.1%).

• More than three-quarters (77.5%) had a specific vehicle in mind before they first started looking, and just over half (51.5%) started researching vehicle information about one to three months before buying.

• More than half (53.6%) compared two to three vehicles before making their final decision, with only 12.7% considering just one vehicle.

4 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign•� More than three-fifths (62.8%) considered more than one vehicle type, with a third (32.9%) considering two vehicle types and another fifth (19.7%)considering three vehicle types.

•� More than half (52%) considered a sport utility (SUV) vehicle when they were first looking.

•� The top five most important factors they considered when buying their newest vehicle were driving comfort, price, safety, reliability, and gas mileage.

•� Over three-fourths (78%) reported that they compared common factors across the vehicles. The top five common factors were: size/seating capacity/cargo capacity (50%), gas mileage/fuel economy (39.8%), vehicle type/category (25.4%), vehicle price (21.2%), and make/model reputation (18.6%).

•� One-fourth (25.5%) relied on themselves the most when deciding which vehicle to purchase. A fifth (21.2%) reported that they relied on their spouse/ partner and/or their immediate family for their vehicle purchasing decision.

• Role of fuel economy:

•� Fuel economy was fairly important when choosing a new vehicle. Three-fifths (60.4%) rated it a ‘9’ or above on a 10-point importance scale.

•� Over two-thirds (67.5%) indicated they searched for information about fuel economy before buying their most recent new vehicle. Most respondents looked for this information at manufacturer’s websites (67.1%), on the fuel economy label (59.5%), using Consumer Reports (56.3%), and/or at auto dealerships (31.3%).

•� Almost three-quarters (72%) reported that they trust the EPA for fuel economy information.

•� Close to one-third (31.1%) indicated in their qualitative comments that EPA is an unbiased, trustworthy, reliable and reputable agency that is regulated by the government.

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 5• Another 15.6% said that it was EPA’s job to test vehicles and set standards for fuel economy.

• About 11% said that EPA was committed to protecting the environment and fuel economy regulation was part of protecting the environment.

• Of those who did not trust the EPA for fuel economy
information:

• Overone-fourth(27.2%)indicated intheirqualitative comments that they had not thought about EPA as a source of information on fuel economy.

• Another 17.5% thought the EPA was biased towards its own agenda and did not think it was trustworthy.

• About another 17% were unfamiliar with the EPA and about another 17% stated that EPA mpgestimates were not accurate and higher than reallife estimates.

• Most (88.2%) remembered seeing the fuel economy label when they bought their most recent new vehicle (without the aid of seeing the label in the survey). Of those who did not remember unaided, when shown a copy of the label almost all (95.9%) then remembered seeing the label.

• The fuel economy label played a fairly important role in helping respondents choose a vehicle (mean importance score = 7.41 on a scale of 1 to 10). The most helpful fuel economy label information was the highway mpg, city mpg, combined fuel economy compared to other vehicles, expected range for most drivers in regard to highway mpg, and expected range for most drivers in regards to city mpg.

• Most (83.7%) did not think the fuel economy label was hard to understand or that it needed to be improved. Of those who thought that the fuel economy was hard to understand and needed to be improved, over one-fifth (21%) stated that they had difficulty understanding the combined fuel economy section of the label.

6 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign•� Motivators and barriers to purchasing fuel efficient vehicles:

•� The top motivators that might persuade respondents to seriously consider buying an advanced technology vehicle include: lower alternative fuel cost or higher gas prices (73%), lower vehicle price (60.3%), better mileage than a gasoline fuel vehicle (34.9%), positive environmental impact (29%), and higher reliability and dependability of the vehicle and vehicle parts (17.1%).

•� The top barriers that prevent respondents from seriously considering buying an alternative fuel vehicle include high cost of vehicle (66.3%), expensive maintenance (45.8%), expensive cost of parts/battery (45%), and parts/vehicles are unreliable (36.8%).

•� The most compelling factors for buying a fuel efficient vehicle were ‘to save money’, followed closely by ‘because it was better for the environment’, and ‘to reduce our dependency on other countries’.

•� When it came to environmental concerns, the top two
environmental factors of most concern were toxic exhaust emissions and smog.

•� Market segments: A cluster analysis was performed to identify possible market segments from among the respondents to the online survey. Cluster analysis is an exploratory data analysis technique designed to reveal natural groupings within a collection of data. As such, cluster analysis can suggest potentially useful ways of grouping market segments. Three clusters were identified:

•� Cluster 1: ‘ Care more about the environment than fuel

economy ’ - less concerned about fuel economy and other vehicle factors, but more concerned about environment (33%)

•� Cluster 2: ’ Care most about fuel economy as well as the

environment’ - most concerned about fuel economy, other vehicle factors, as well as environment” (44%)

•� Cluster 3: ’Care less about fuel economy and the

environment’ - less concerned about fuel economy and other vehicle factors, and least concerned about environment” (23%)

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 7EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 8

# Introduction

Background

In 2006, EPA updated how the city and highway fuel economy values are calculated to better reflect typical real-world driving patterns and provide more realistic fuel economy estimates. In addition, EPA redesigned the fuel economy label to make it more informative for consumers. The redesigned label more prominently featured annual fuel cost information, provided contemporary and easy-to-use graphics for comparing the fuel economy of different vehicles, used clearer text, and included a Web site reference to www.fueleconomy.gov which provided additional information.

EPA is now initiating a new rulemaking to ensure that American consumers continue to have the most accurate, meaningful and useful information, as well as an understanding of how the labeled vehicle impacts the environment. With the introduction of advanced technology vehicles on the market the EPA must provide
metrics that are relevant and useful for vehicles such as Electric Vehicles, Extended Range Electric Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrid
Electric Vehicles.

To help inform the creation of the new label, EPA engaged PRR Inc. to work with them in the design and implementation of several information gathering tasks including:

•� Literature review

•� Focus groups (in 3 phases, including pre-group online surveys)

•� Expert panel

•� National online survey of new vehicle buyers and intenders

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 9It was decided to use a three-phase approach for the focus groups in order to accommodate the sheer amount of information required to be covered in the focus groups, as well as to use each phase to inform the next phase on overall label design in regard to both content and look. The three phases were designed to address the following issues:

• Phase I – Use of the current fuel economy label, as well as content and design of the label for internal combustion engine vehicles

• Phase II – Understandability of and preference for metrics for advanced technology vehicle labels

• Phase III – Assessment of full label designs for conventional and advanced technology vehicles in regard to content and
look



# Methodology

This document provides an overview of the results of the pre-group online surveys from all three focus group phases. (See Appendix A for the survey questions from Phase 3 1 .) The data was merged into one database for analysis purposes since the survey questions were very similar across all three phases. In those cases where a question was not asked in all three phases of the survey, it is noted in the body of the report.

A total of 32 focus groups were conducted between February 22 nd and May 27 th , 2010 in the cities of Seattle, Chicago, Houston and Charlotte. Groups were gender specific, were conducted in English,
and each lasted two hours.

Participants were recruited from within panels developed and maintained by the focus group facility used in each city. In order to screen out ‘professional focus group participants,’ only those who had not participated in a focus group in the last six months were included. In addition, participants were required to demonstrateevidence that they had purchased a new vehicle (not a used or preowned vehicle; not a motorcycle; not a‘Cash for Clunkers’ purchase) in the last 12 months. In addition, participants must have been the sole or primary decision maker with regard to this new vehicle 1 Although the survey questions were similar across the three phases of focus groups, the Phase 3 survey questions provides the most complete set of questions and is provided in Appendix A.

10 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesignpurchase. Having internet access was also a requirement so that they could complete the pre-group online survey. To ensure a good cross-section of participants, each focus group included individuals representing diversity in: type of new vehicle, price range of new vehicle, distance they typically travelled daily in this new vehicle, if they had seriously considered an advanced technology vehicle before purchasing their vehicle, and demographic characteristics.

Recruits were asked to complete an online survey before they took part in the focus group discussions. The purpose of the online survey was to obtain additional information regarding their vehicle purchase process, the role of fuel economy in their purchase decision, how they used the current fuel economy label, and motivators and barriers to their purchasing alternative fuel vehicles. The survey questions were developed by PRR, with input from the EPA, NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) and OMB (Office of Management and Budget).

Those recruited were sent a link to the pre-group online survey approximately one week in advance of the scheduled focus groups. They were instructed to complete the online survey at least 2 days prior to their group. Follow-up reminder calls were made to those who had not completed the survey in the specified timeframe. A total of 404 of those recruited completed the online survey. It should be noted that not all those who completed the online survey participated in the subsequent focus groups. It should also be noted that the results of these surveys are not intended as representative of any larger group of new vehicle buyers and reflect only the experience of the focus group participants. Nonetheless, these results can provide important insights to be used in conjunction with the other research tasks connected with this overall project.



# Data Processing and Analysis

Data processing consisted of coding and entering quantitative and qualitative responses. Open-ended question responses were coded to allow for inclusion in the quantitative analysis. Response range and logic checks (with the use of frequency tables) were performed in order to check for miscoded variables thereby cleaning the final data file. Data analysis was conducted with SPSS software (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences).

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 112 Cramer’s V is a measure of the relationship between two variables and is appropriate to
use when one or both of the
variables are at the nominal level
of measurement. Cramer’s V ranges from 0 to +1 and indicates the strength of a relationship. The closer to +1, the stronger the relationship between the
two variables. Kendall ’s tau- c is a measure of the relationship
between two variables and is appropriate to use when both of
the variables are at the ordinal
level of measurement. Tau-c ranges from ‐1 to +1 and indicates the strength and direction of a relationship. The accompanying “p” scores presented in this report
for Cramer’s V and tau‐c indicate the level of statistical significance reported if they are at the .o5
level or less. Data analysis involved the use of appropriate descriptive statistical techniques (frequencies, percentages and means) and explanatory statistical techniques (in this case Cramer’s V and Kendall ’s tau-c)

to t est for the statistical significance of relationships between
variables. 2 A cluster analysis was also performed to identify possible market segments from among the respondents to the online survey.



### Throughout this report, relationships between variables that are statistically significant at the .05 level or less, and that are meaningful to an understanding of the data are reported. It should also be noted that some of the charts presented in the report are for “multiple response variables”, meaning that the survey respondent could select more than one answer. In such charts the percentages will add up to more than 100 percent.

12 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

# Demographic Profile�

Sample demographics as a percentage of the total sample.



### Sample

Gender (n = 404)

Female 45.0%

Male 42.3%

Did not answer 12.6%
Age (n =404)

20 - 24 3.2%

25 - 34 20.5%

35 - 44 21.8%

45 - 54 22.0%

55 - 64 15.6%

65 or older 5.7%

Did not answer 11.1%

Household income before taxes (n = 404) $15,000-$25,000 2.0% $25,000-$50,000 10.4% $50,000-$75,000 19.3% $75,000-$100,000 17.1% $100,000-$125,000 12.9% $125,000-$150,000 5.4% $150,000 and more 6.9%

Did not answer 26.0%

Education (n = 404)
HS diploma or GED 4.5%
Some college/AA/Technical degree 25.0%
College graduate 40.8%
Post graduate 17.8%

Did not answer 11.9%

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 13

### Sample

Vehicles per household (n = 404)

1 15.3%

2 41.1%

3 12.4%

4 5.0%

5 or more 2.5%

Did not answer 23.8%

Licensed drivers in household (n = 404)

1 14.9%

2 46.5%

3 9.9%

4 4.0%

5 or more 0.7%

Did not answer 24.0%

14 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

# Vehicle Use

Respondents were asked if they were the principle driver of the new vehicle, how many days their new vehicle was driven, approximate annual mileage, and for what trip purposes the vehicle was used.



# More than half drive their new vehicle between 9,001 and 15,000 miles per year

Most of the respondents (88.1%) were the principle drivers of their new vehicles and almost all drove their vehicles five to seven days a week (91.8%). Over half (54.7%) reported that they planned to drive this new vehicle between 9,001 to 15,000 miles per year, with another fifth (20.1%) planning to drive between 15,001 to 20,000 miles per year. Only 7% planned to drive more than 20,000 miles

per year.

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 15

# Most used new vehicles for errands, visiting family/friends, recreation, and/or commuting to work

Respondents mostly used their new vehicles for errands and shopping (93.1%), visiting family and friends (83.4%), for recreation (81.3%), and for travel to and from work (75%).

16 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

# Vehicle Purchase Process

Respondents were asked how often they purchased a new vehicle and to describe the process they used for purchasing their most recent new vehicle, including who or what they relied on the most when deciding which vehicle to purchase. Additional questions focused on the importance that various factors played in their final purchase decision, as well as the number and types of vehicles they had seriously considered before making their final choice.



# Many reported a fairly systematic purchase process involving research before visiting a dealership

More than three-quarters (77.5%) had a specific vehicle in mind before they first started looking, and just over half (51.5%) started researching vehicle information about one to three months before buying.

When they were asked to describe the process they used to buy their most recent vehicle, many said that they started with online
research to learn more about vehicles that fit their needs and preferences (such as particular vehicle type/category, manufacturer preference, price range,etc.).They visited websites such as Edmunds. com, manufacturers’ websites, auto-dealer websites, auto-blogs, consumer review websites, etc. to create a list of comparable vehicles to consider further. Many also said that they read Consumer Reports and found it to be a reliable source of information on vehicles. As a part of this search process, they gathered information on specific factors such gas mileage, safety, reliability, warranty, etc. that they thought were important for each vehicle that was in their consideration set. Subsequently, they visited auto-dealers based on their preference for particular makes, availability of vehicle model, consumer reviews of dealers, price quotes, financing options, etc.

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 17They then test drove the vehicles at these dealerships, bargained for price and financing, and subsequently bought the vehicle that they liked the most during the test drive and that best fit their needs, preferences and price range.



### Most considered more than one vehicle and shopped across **vehicle types**

More than half (53.6%) compared two to three vehicles before making their final decision, with only 12.7% considering just one vehicle.

However, when it came to the types of vehicles seriously considered, more than three-fifths (62.8%) considered more than one vehicle type, with a third (32.9%) considering two vehicle types and another fifth (19.7%)considering three vehicle types.

18 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

### Most popular vehicle types shopped for included SUVs, **midsize cars, crossovers and compact cars**

More than half (52%) considered a sport utility (SUV) vehicle when they were first looking. Almost as many considered midsize cars (44%), with about a third (31.1%) considering crossover vehicles, and about a quarter (27.4%) considering compact cars.

***Multiple responses allowed; percents can add up to more than 1 00%** 

Seventy-eight percent of the respondents reported common factors across the vehicles compared. The following are top five common factors across the vehicles they compared: size/seating capacity/ cargo capacity (50%), gas mileage/fuel economy (39.8%), vehicle type/category (25.4%), vehicle price (21.2%), and make/model reputation (18.6%).

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 19Of those who did not purchase the vehicle(s) that they first considered, close to one-third (30%) said that they had changed their decision based on their changed need at that time. For example, participants were now looking for a bigger vehicle, a more fuel efficient car such as a hybrid, etc. as compared to when they initially considered a particular vehicle. Twenty percent said that they changed their decision after they test-drove the vehicles. Another 16.7% found the vehicle that they had originally considered to be more expensive than they could afford.

20 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

### Comfort, price, safety, reliability, and gas mileage top the list **of influencing factors**

The top five most important factors they considered when buying their newest vehicle were driving comfort, price, safety, reliability, and gas mileage. 3 But, as can be seen in the table below, many other factors were also important, including, but not limited to: interior& exterior appearance, performance/handling/power/, warranty, size/ interior volume, and seating capacity.

3 Based on phases 2 and 3 data where the question was asked as a rating question (as opposed to a ranking question as in phase 1).

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 21It was further found that:

• Comfort was more important for women 4

• Price was more important for those with lower incomes 5

• Safety was more important to those who were younger 6
and with less education 7

• Reliability/repair costs was more important to those with
less education 8

• Gas mileage was more important for those with less
education 9 and lower income 10

• Interior & exterior appearance was more important for those in Houston and Chicago 11 and for those who purchase new vehicles more frequently 12

• Performance/handling/power was more important to those
with less education 13

• Warranty was more important for those with less education 14 and those from Charlotte, Houston and Chicago 15

• Size/interior volume was more important to those with
less education 16 and those with more licensed drivers in the
household 17

• Seating capacity was more important to females 18

• Brand was more important to those who compared fewer vehicles before making a purchase decision 19

• Low emissions was more important for women 20 and those
with less education 21

• Alternative fuels were more important for younger buyers 22

• Towing capacity was more important to those who were

younger 23 , those with more working motor vehicles in the
household 24 , and those with more licensed drivers in the
household 25

22 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 5

10

15

20

25 4 Cramer’s V = .239, p = .026

Tau-c = -.119, p = .008

6 Tau-c = -.1-9, p = .013

7 Tau-c = -.155, p = .001

8 Tau-c = -.116, p = .019

9 Tau-c = -.180, p = .000

Tau-c = -.149, p = .001

11 Cramer’s V = ,246, p = .006

12 Tau-c = -.122, p = .009

13 Tau-c = -.149, p = .003

14 Tau-c = -.199, p = .000

Cramer’s V = .236, p = .014

16 Tau-c = -.136, p = .009

17 Tau-c = .130, p = .004

18 Cramer’s V = .265, p = .041

19 Tau-c = -.165, p = .001

Cramer’s V = .297, p = .009

21 Tau-c = -.164, p = .001

22 Tau-c = -.154, p = .001

23 Tau-c = -.104, p = .020

24 Tau-c = .143, p = .001

Tau-c = .124, p = .002

### Almost half relied on themselves or family members when **making a vehicle choice**

One-fourth (25.5%) said that they relied on themselves the most when deciding which vehicle to purchase. A little more than a fifth (21.2%) reported that they relied on their spouse/partner and/ or their immediate family for their vehicle purchasing decision. Another 19.3% said that they relied on online vehicle reviews and research, with another 18.5% relying most on checking for factors such as vehicle price, looks, mileage, reliability, size, comfort, safety, features, etc. when deciding which vehicle to purchase.

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 23

### About a third purchased new vehicles less frequently than **every 5 years**

Just over a third (34.1%) of the respondents purchased a new vehicle less frequently than every five years. Around a fifth reported purchasing a new vehicle every five years (17.5%), every four years (18.7%), or every three years (21.1%). Only 8.6% purchased new vehicles more frequently than every three years.

24 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

# Role of Fuel Economy

Respondents were asked how important fuel economy was to their vehicle buying decision, if they searched for information about fuel economy, where they searched for this information, and if they trusted fuel economy information provided by the EPA. They were also asked if they remembered seeing the fuel economy label on the vehicle window, how important this label was in helping them choose their new vehicle, and lastly how helpful specific label information was in their vehicle buying decision.



# Fuel economy was fairly important when choosing a new vehicle

The average city mpg of respondents’ new vehicles was 23 mpg, and the average highway mpg was 28 mpg. In regard to the importance of fuel economy, the average importance score was 8.07 (on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 meant fuel economy was very important ), with 60.4% rating the importance of fuel economy a 9 or 10.

Further, it was found that the lower the education level 26 and the lower the household income, 27 the more likely one was to attach more importance to fuel economy in a vehicle choice. In addition, the higher the concern about environmental factors, 28 the more likely one was to attach more importance to fuel economy in a vehicle. 29 26 Tau-c = - .105, p = .013

27 Tau-c = -.129, p = .003

28 Concern about environmental factors was based on an index constructed by adding up the individual responses to each of the environmental concern items. The items were weighted equally. Overall, females scored higher on this index than males (Tau-c = .277, p = .000)

29 Tau-c = .190, p = .000

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 25

# Majority searched for fuel economy
information

Just about two-thirds (67.5%) indicated they searched for information about fuel economy before buying their most recent new vehicle. Most respondents looked for this information at manufacturer’s websites (67.1%), on the fuel economy label (59.5%), using Consumer Reports (56.3%), and/or at auto dealerships (31.3%). Males were more likely than females to search for such information, 30 as were those who compared more vehicles before making a final vehicle
choice 31 and those who had higher environmental concerns. 32

30 Cramer’s V = .163, p = .009

31 Tau-c = .228, p = .000

32 Tau-c = .106, p = .035

26 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

### Most trust the EPA for fuel economy information

Almost three-quarters (72%) trust the EPA for fuel economy
information. Females 33 and those who were younger 34 were more likely to trust the EPA fuel economy information.

Of those who reported that they trusted the EPA for fuel economy information, close to one-third (31.1%) indicated in their qualitative comments that EPA is an unbiased, trustworthy, reliable and reputable agency that is regulated by the government. Another 15.6% said that it was EPA’s job to test vehicles and set standards for fuel economy. About 11% said that EPA was committed to protecting the environment and fuel economy regulation was part of protecting the environment. 33 Cramer’s V = ,119, p = .026

34 Tau-c = -.158, p = .002

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 27Of those who did not trust the EPA for fuel economy information, over one-fourth (27.2%) indicated in their qualitative comments that they had not thought about EPA as a source of information on fuel economy. Another 17.5% thought the EPA was biased towards its own agenda and did not think it was trustworthy. About another
17% were unfamiliar with the EPA and about another 17% stated that EPA mpg estimates were not accurate and higher than real-life estimates. Ten percent indicated that the EPA is responsible for providing accurate fuel economy and auto industry information.

28 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

# Most saw the fuel economy label and thought the label was fairly important

When asked if they remembered seeing the fuel economy label when they bought their most recent new vehicle, most (88.2%) did remember without the aid of seeing the label in the survey. Of those who did not remember unaided, when shown a copy of the label almost all (95.9%) then remembered seeing the label.

In regard to how important the fuel economy label was in helping to choose a vehicle, the average importance score was 7.41 out of 10 (on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 meant the fuel economy label was very important)

. 35 The fuel economy label was more important to those:

•� The higher their new vehicle city mpg was 36

•� The higher their new vehicle highway mpg was 37

•� The more important gas mileage/fuel economy was in
vehicle choice 38

•� The more important low emissions was in vehicle choice 39

•� The more important alternate fuels was in vehicle choice 40

•� The higher their environmental concerns were 41

Most of the respondents (83.7%) did not think the fuel economy label was hard to understand or that it needed to be improved. The most helpful fuel economy label information was: 42

•� Highway mpg (more so for those with less education 43 )

•� City mpg

•� Combined fuel economy compared to other vehicles

•� Expected range for most drivers in regard to highway mpg

•� Expected range for most drivers in regards to city mpg

Other findings regarding the helpfulness of specific fuel economy
label information include:

•� Estimated annual fuel costs information was more helpful to those who were younger 44 and those with less education 45

•� Statement about ‘your actual mileage will vary’ was more helpful to those with lower income 46

•� Those with higher environmental concerns were more likely to think that all the information on the fuel economy label was more helpful 47 35 Based on phases 2 and 3 data where the question was asked as a rating question (as opposed to a ranking question as in phase 1).

36 Tau-c = .252, p = .000

37 Tau-c = .207, p = .000

38 Tau-c = .448, p = .000

39 Tau-c = .206, p = .000

40 Tau-c = .190, p = .000

41 Tau-c = .169, p = .000

42 Based on phases 2 and 3 data where the question was asked as a rating question (as opposed to a ranking question as in phase 1).

43 Tau-c = -.108, p = .030

44 Tau-c = -.114, p = .018

45 Tau-c = -.111, p = .034

46 Tau-c = -.144, p = .003

47 Tau-c ranging from .144 to .234, p < .05

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 29Of those who thought that the fuel economy was hard to understand and needed to be improved (n=62), 48 over one-fifth (21%) stated that they had difficulty understanding the combined fuel economy section of the label. About 15% reported that the annual fuel cost estimate reported on the label was not accurate (as gas prices changed over time and across different locations in the county). Another 13% reported that the expected range estimate was unclear and ambiguous. According to them, the label needed to provide
information on the factors that were considered to calculate the range and who represented “most drivers”. About 10% indicated that the statement about the free fuel economy guide needed to be more prominent on the label.

48 This was especially more so the case among those who compared five or more vehicles (Tau-c = .196, p = .000)

30 EPA Fuel Economy Label RedesignPre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 31EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 32

# Motivators and Barriers to Purchasing Fuel Efficient Vehicles

Respondents were asked to rate how serious certain environmental concerns were to them, what were the top motivators and barriers to purchasing advanced technology vehicles, and how compelling specific factors were to buying a fuel efficient vehicle.



# The biggest environmental concerns were for toxic exhaust emissions and smog

In regard to environmental concerns, the top two environmental factors of most concern were toxic exhaust emissions and smog (on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 means a serious concern ). Carbon dioxide, greenhouse gasses, and climate change/global warming came in closely tied for third. 49 Women were more concerned about all these environmental factors, 50 except for smog and greenhouse gases where there were no significant gender differences.



### Lower fuel costs, lower vehicle prices, and better mileage **were top motivators for purchasing alternative fuel vehicles**

When asked in an open-ended question, the following were the top things mentioned that would motivate respondents to seriously consider buying an alternative fuel vehicle: lower alternative fuel cost or higher gas prices (73%), lower vehicle price (60.3%), better mileage than a gasoline fuel vehicle (34.9%), positive environmental impact (29%), and higher reliability and dependability of the vehicle and vehicle parts (17.1%). 49 Based on phases 2 and 3 data where the question was asked as a rating question (as opposed to a ranking question as in phase 1).

50 Cramer’s V ranging from .262 to .320, p <.05.

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 3334 EPA Fuel Economy Label RedesignThe following are the top things that were reportedly preventing respondents from seriously considering buying an alternative fuel vehicle: high cost of vehicle (66.3%), expensive maintenance (45.8%), expensive cost of parts/battery (45%), and parts/vehicles are unreliable (36.8%).

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 35

### ‘Saving money’ and ‘better for environment’ the most **compelling reasons or buying fuel efficient vehicles**

The most compelling factors for buying a fuel efficient vehicle were to save money, followed closely by because it was better for the environment, and to reduce our dependency on other countries. Females found all of the items in the chart below more compelling than males, 51 except for ‘better for the environment’ and to ‘reduce our dependency on other countries’, where there were no significant gender differences.

Other findings include:

• Those from Charlotte, Houston and Chicago found ‘better for the environment’ more compelling than those from
Seattle. 52

• Those with less education found ‘makes our oil supplies last longer’ more compelling. 53

• Those who drove their vehicles more days per week 54 or more miles per year 55 found ‘to reduce the number of trips to the gas station’ more compelling.

• Those who were younger 56 or who drove their vehicles more miles per year 57 found ‘to reduce our dependency on other countries’ more compelling.

36 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 51 Cramer’s V ranging from .353 to .461, p < .05

52 Cramer’s V = .313, p = .001

53 Tau-c = -.123, p = .047

54 Tau-c = .107, p = .044

55 Tau-c = .120, p = .036

56 Tau-c = -.188, p = .000

57 Tau-c = .115, p = .038’ 

# Market Segments

58 The variables in the cluster analysis included those dealing with: reported city and highway mpg of new vehicle, importance A cluster analysis was performed 58 to identify possible market of specific factors in the segments from among the respondents to the online survey. Since new vehicle buying process, the respondents were comprised of persons specifically recruited for importance of fuel economy in vehicle buying process, the focus groups in four cities, the results of this cluster analysis do importance of fuel economy not represent new vehicle buyer segments in the general population.� label and its specific metrics in vehicle buying process, Nonetheless, these results may shed some additional light on the trust in EPA for fuel economy overall issue of the content and design of fuel economy label.� information, level of concern with environmental threats, and how compelling specific factors Cluster analysis is an exploratory data analysis technique designed are in motivation to buy fuel to reveal natural groupings within a collection of data 59 . As such,� efficient vehicles Because these different variables are measured cluster analysis can suggest potentially useful ways of grouping on different scales (for example, market segments. Three clusters were identified:� some 10 point scales, some dichotomous, some interval as in the case of city mpg), the

•� Cluster 1: ‘ Care more about the environment than fuel variables were standardized through the use of Z-score economy ’ - less concerned about fuel economy and other conversion prior to the cluster vehicle factors, but more concerned about environment (33%) analysis being performed.

59 The K-means cluster analysis • Cluster 2: ’ Care most about fuel economy as well as the procedure was used. This environment’ - most concerned about fuel economy, other procedure attempts to identify relatively homogeneous vehicle factors, as well as environment” (44%) groups of cases based on selected characteristics, using

•� Cluster 3: ’ Care less about fuel economy and the environment’ an algorithm that can handle large numbers of cases.

- less concerned about fuel economy and other vehicle Distances are computed using factors, and least concerned about environment” (23%) simple Euclidean distance. The algorithm requires one to specify the number of clusters. The following were some factors that differentiated one cluster It provides cluster membership, distance information, final from another, as can be seen in the table below. cluster centers, and analysis of variance F statistics. While these statistics are opportunistic (the procedure tries to form groups that do differ), the relative size of the statistics provides information about each variable’s contribution to the separation of the groups.

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 37Cluster 1 –‘Care more about theenvironment than fuel economy’(n= 127, 33%)Cluster 2 –‘Care most about fueleconomy as well as the environment’(n= 169, 44%)Cluster 3 –‘Care less about fueleconomy and the environment’(n=92, 23%)• Most likely to consider SUVs (57%), mid-sizecars (38%), crossover vehicles (35%), and/orcompact cars (20%).• Place more importance on safety, price,emissions, seating capacity, towing capacity,and alternative fuels when choosing a newvehicle, as compared to Cluster 3.• Place least importance on fuel economy andthe fuel economy label when choosing a newvehicle as compared to the other clusters.• More likely to find the reference to the ‘FreeFuel Economy Guide’ on the fuel economylabel to be helpful as compared to Cluster 3.• Most likely to consider EPA a trusted sourceof fuel economy information as compared tothe other clusters.• Were more concerned about CO2, globalwarming, green house gases, smog, toxicexhaust emissions, drilling for oil, andburning coal for electricity, as compared toCluster 3; more likely to find ‘better for theenvironment’ and ‘reduces climate change’ ascompelling in regard to buying a fuel efficientvehicle, as compared to Cluster 3.• Get lower than average reported city andhighway mpg.• More likely to be female (54%) than male(46%).• More likely to be from Seattle (35%) andleast likely to be from Houston (18%).• Most likely to consider mid-size cars (54%),SUVs (53%), compact cars (37%), and/orcrossover vehicles (34%).• Place more importance on safety, price,performance, comfort, emissions, size/interiorvolume, seating capacity, towing capacity,appearance, features, reliability, brand,warranty, and alternative fuels when choosinga new vehicle, as compared to other clusters.• Place most importance on fuel economy andthe fuel economy label when choosing a newvehicle as compared to the other clusters.• Most likely to find estimated annual fuelcosts, city mpg, highway mpg, combined fueleconomy comparison scale, expected citympg range, expected highway mpg range,the statement about ‘your actual mileagewill vary’ and the reference to the ‘Free FuelEconomy Guide’ on the fuel economy label tobe helpful as compared to the other clusters.• More likely to consider EPA a trusted sourceof fuel economy information as compared toCluster 3.• Were most concerned about CO2, globalwarming, green house gases, smog, toxicexhaust emissions, drilling for oil, andburning coal for electricity, as compared tothe other clusters; most likely to find ‘betterfor the environment’ and ‘reduces climatechange’ as compelling in regard to buying afuel efficient vehicle, as compared to otherclusters.• Get higher than average reported city mpgand somewhat higher than average reportedhighway mpg.• More likely to be female (57%) thanmale (43%).• Most likely to be from Chicago (31%) andleast likely to be from Seattle (15%).• Most likely to consider SUVs (47%), mid-sizecars (39%), crossover vehicles (24%), and/orcompact cars (23%).• Place more importance on performance,comfort, appearance, and brand whenchoosing a new vehicle, as compared toCluster 1.• Place more importance on fuel economy andthe fuel economy label when choosing a newvehicle as compared to Cluster 1.• More likely to find city mpg, highway mpg,combined fuel economy comparison scale,expected city mpg range, expected highwaympg range, and the statement about ‘youractual mileage will vary’ on the fuel economylabel to be helpful as compared to Cluster 1.• Least likely to consider EPA a trusted sourceof fuel economy information as compared tothe other clusters.• Were least concerned about CO2, globalwarming, green house gases, smog, toxicexhaust emissions, drilling for oil, andburning coal for electricity, as compared tothe other clusters; least likely to find ‘betterfor the environment’ and ‘reduces climatechange’ as compelling in regard to buying afuel efficient vehicle, as compared to otherclusters.• Get higher than average reported city mpgand somewhat higher than average reportedhighway mpg.• More likely to be male (62%) than female(38%).• Most likely to be from Charlotte (32%) andabout equally likely to be from Houston(25%), Chicago (22%), or Seattle (22%).

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 38Appendix - Phase 3 Survey Questions

Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 3940 EPA Fuel Economy Label RedesignPre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 4142 EPA Fuel Economy Label RedesignPre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 4344 EPA Fuel Economy Label RedesignPre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 4546 EPA Fuel Economy Label RedesignPre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 4748 EPA Fuel Economy Label RedesignPre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 4950 EPA Fuel Economy Label RedesignPre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 5152 EPA Fuel Economy Label RedesignPre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 5354 EPA Fuel Economy Label RedesignPre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 5556 EPA Fuel Economy Label RedesignPre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 5758 EPA Fuel Economy Label RedesignPre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report 59