Pushing low-carbon mobility: a survey experiment on the public acceptance of disruptive policy packages
Creators: name: Thaller, Annina
name: Wicki, Michael
name: Fleiß, Eva
name: Maier, Raphaela
name: Posch, Alfred
Publisher: name: Taylor & Francis
Year: 2023
Subjects: subject: Space Science
subject: Medicine
subject: Pharmacology
subject: Biotechnology
subject: Environmental Sciences not elsewhere classified
subject: Sociology
subject: FOS: Sociology
subject: Cancer
subject: Science Policy

description: 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 insightsAcceptance 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. 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.