Changing mobility behaviours

1. Changing mobility behaviours 3 qualitatives case studies: Paris-Nagoya-London

2. Context and objectives • Context of environmental concerns about harmful effects of car use • Policies try to manage and reduce automobile but motorisation and car use still very high ► Why most people are not prepared to refrain from using cars? ► What are the limiting factors to a change and to an acceptability for more sustainable mobility practices?

3. Methodology • Sociological approach • Qualitative method • Semi-directive interviews face to face • Field observations (with pictures) • The aim is not to give a representative image of the population but to show: • A diversity of occurrences • Individuals’ complexity, logics and mechanism of action • Complementary insights to quantitative studies.

4. 3 fields study Paris Region Nagoya London

5. The greater Paris region (France) 40 individuals interviewed face to face, lasting around 2h. majority of 25-35 years old Nagoya (Japan) Around 30 individuals interviewed face to face lasting more than 2h (translation Japanese to english), few in writing majority of 25-35 years old London (UK) Around 30 individuals interviewed face to face lasting 1h30 Majority of 25-35 years old ► Diversity in the mode of transport used: automobile, public transport, bicycle, motorbike, walk. Exclusives with car, Alternative modes users, Multimodes users. ► Diversity in the main types of trips: city to city, city to suburbs/suburbs to city, suburbs to suburbs. 3 fields study

6. Some results of the 3 surveys • Impacts of social symbolic and representations on car acquisition • Modal choice and strategies • Impacts and perceptions of public policies and the decision makers • Environmental awareness and justifications

7. Social symbolics

8. Constraints of car acquisition

9. Strategies and modal choice in daily trip

10. Each household has at least one car and bicycles

11. London: quite good equality between the different modes

12. In London, effectivity of buses: very frequent, many routes, all night…

13. London: always delays or other problems on the subway. But people are informed

14. Impacts of policies

15. Perceptions of policies and their actors Justifications to explain the dissonance between collective values and individual practices: • Lack of credible alternatives • Incoherence of policies: • Taxis and buses should pollute less • Technologies to develop sustainable cars should be improved • PT should be improved more rapidly • Measures in Paris worsen the pollution (more traffic jams, etc) • Congestion Charge in London shifts the emphasis of the zone or is not usefull • Lack of transparency and willingness of decision makers. • They do not do what they preach (in Paris particularly) • They wonder how the government use the benefits of car taxes (in London) • People don’t feel guilty about their car use comparing to decision makers or « others » behaviours • Lack of information about environmental issues and about political objectives and measures implemented.

16. Fines and sanctions are strict and systematic in London

17. Strategy to avoid the Congestion Charge in London

18. Roadworks in Paris for the Tramway increase trafficjams and pollution for some interviewed people

19. Urban development supports the car in Nagoya

20. Police and sanction strict and frequent in Nagoya

21. Incentive measures to encourage people in Nagoya: advantages for environmental practices (points, reductions, gifts, etc.)

22. Perceptions of environmental issues Very few have concerns about environmental issue • Environmental problems too far from them and they don’t see the direct consequences of using cars • Feeling of powerless even fatalism: people do not link their behaviours to global phenomenon • They rely on the role of advanced technologies • Satisfaction of individuals’ needs. They don’t want to be constrained and to feel losses in the change • Giving up the car is perceived by some people as a step back of the society

23. Conclusion • Impact of social influence to get a type of car or to give it up • Social symbolics as well as various constraints influence car acquisition. But car ownership doesn’t necessarly imply the use. • In the greater Paris region, individuals support the mode they usually used and discredit the others. • Keeping control on one’s mobility. Keeping having a choice • Minimizing mental and physical load • Constraining car use in different ways have an impact on behaviours: increasing traffic jam, reducing parking space for car, increasing cost. • But improvment of incentive measure increases acceptability: improvment of PT, bicycle infrastructures, communication, advantages, etc. • Environmental awareness cannot produce a change but may promote it. (weak environmental concerns) • Lack of decision makers credibility and coherence, and lack of confidence. • Social representations of modes of transport, political actions and measures, environmental issue and the question of change perceived as a step back.

25. Context of the 3 cities Sources: www.paris.fr Les cahiers de l’EGT, juillet 2006, n°6. www.greaternagoya.org www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/polfdocs/ltr/london-travel-report-2005.pdf