Earth & E-nvironment 3: 282-317                                                                                      Unive...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.                         ...
Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK
Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK
Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK
Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK
Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK
Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK
Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK
Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK
Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK

1,377 views

Published on

Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK

Published in: Design, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,377
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK

  1. 1. Earth & E-nvironment 3: 282-317 University of Leeds Press Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK Richard S. Ward-Jones School of Earth & Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, W. Yorkshire LS2 9JT; Tel: 0113 3436461Abstract This paper reports on environmentally friendly cars and how their use can be promoted andincreased in the UK. It is based on a review of the academic literature on alternative fuel vehicles (AFV’s)and their current use and promotion schemes, as well as a public survey and interviews with experts inorder to gather an overview of what may influence or encourage the public to purchase an EFV. Having acknowledged transport emissions as both the fastest rising cause of greenhouse gases(GHG’s) in the UK and accounting for around 25% of all UK carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, there isclearly an urgent need to reduce them. Herein lies the role of the environmentally friendly vehicle (EFV).The study identifies the different available alternative vehicle technologies, their advantages anddisadvantages and goes on to establish that the current lack of environmentally friendly cars can beattributed to a number of factors, predominantly a lack of public awareness and the additional costsinvolved with alternative technologies. Current promotion schemes are examined and shown to be relatively ineffective in increasing theuse of EFV’s. Following the combined analysis of past literature and study results, recommendations weremade on how to promote and increase the use of EFV’s. The indicated strategy stated that a campaign topromote knowledge and awareness of EFV’s would be necessary in conjunction with fiscal incentives anddevelopment of the alternative fuel/vehicle infrastructure. In conclusion it seems that EFV’s can and must have an instrumental role in reducing GHGemissions from transport. A strategy to promote and increase the use of environmentally friendly cars is anessential step towards achieving zero emissions from road transport; however it can not be expected tohave an immediate effect. Instead it is likely that it will take until 2050 for EFV’s to occupy a significantproportion of the market..ISSN 1744-2893 (Online)© University of Leeds
  2. 2. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-3171 IntroductionGlobal warming is a reality which was acknowledged by governments at the Rio summit in 1992and at Kyoto in 1997 (Cannell, 1999). Not only was it acknowledged but it is also generallyaccepted that the global climate is changing as a result of anthropogenic activities (IPCCa, 2001).Caused by the release of greenhouse gases, climate change (CC) is one of the biggest challengesfacing the global community today (LCVPa 2005, Orindi & Murray 2005).In looking at the causes of climate change, transport is one of the key factors amplifying thecurrent situation (Kwon, 2005). Transport emissions are the fastest rising cause of greenhousegases (GHG’s) and account for around 25% of all UK carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (Brevitt2002, Foley 2003, SMMTa 2006 & Price et al. 1998). Between 1970 and 2000 in the UK,emissions from road transport increased by 93% (Kwon, 2005). This increase is expected tocontinue into the foreseeable future, with emissions from transport expected to be higher in 2020than they were in 1990 (Tight et al, 2005). Figure 1.1 shows that of all the polluting sectors,transport is the only one with predicted emissions due to increase during this period as well asshowing that transport will become the UK’s leading GHG emissions sector soon after 2020.Both of these highlight the seriousness of the issue of transport’s contribution to climate change. Figure 1.1 – A Table showing UK GHG emissions by sector (MtC) (Source Tight et al. 2005)The problem of reducing emissions from transport is very difficult. This is due to modernsociety’s ever increasing reliance on and use of transport. In 2002, car sales reached a record 2.5million, 11% higher than in 2000 (SMMTb, 2006) and they continue to increase albeit at areduced rate in recent years. Major policies have been introduced during the last decade in orderto reduce emissions from transport but their success has been limited. They include EuropeanPolicy: the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) – a voluntary agreementwhich requires car manufacturers to improve the fuel efficiency of new cars by at least 25% by2008-2009; and National Policy: A new deal for transport, better for everyone - 1998 White Paper(DFTa, 1998), The Transport Ten Year Plan 2000 (DFTb, 2000) and The Future of Transport WhitePaper (DFTc, 2004). Within these national policies there is much talk about an integratedapproach to transport, better public transport and increased environmental standards of vehiclesand infrastructure.Although these policies have caused significant improvements in vehicle technology, particularlyin fuel efficiency (as reduced CO2 emissions), these have not been enough to neutralise the effectof increases in traffic and car size (EUROPA, 2007). The intentions of these policies areunquestionably good, but results are not being seen fast enough, especially not to meet any of thecurrent targets. - 283 -
  3. 3. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317 Figure 1.2 – Graph showing reduction in emissions per vehicle 1995 – 2008 (Source: DFTc (Crown copyright) 2004)As shown by Figure 1.2, emission reduction policies are not on target. CO2 emissions per vehiclein 2004 were 12.4% lower than in 1990, way off target for being 25% lower by 2008 (Times 2006& DFTc 2004). There are many reasons that these targets are not being met, firstly punishmentsfor not meeting the targets set by these policies are either not strict enough or the policiesthemselves are voluntary and car manufacturers are taking advantage of this. As well as this, thereis a lack of campaigning to encourage public interest in sustainable transport and too fewpractical alternatives to the petrol car currently exist. So, the question of how we can significantlyreduce emissions from transport is becoming increasingly important. As more people arebecoming more concerned about emissions from transport, augmented pressure is being put onboth car manufacturers and the government to consider a different approach.This different approach is to look at the role of environmentally friendly cars in combatingclimate change. Low carbon car technologies and fuels present car manufacturers, fuel suppliersand the Government with one of the principal means of reducing the CO2 emissions from roadtransport (Foley, 2003). However, the current situation is hugely complex, with many factorsaffecting the development and marketing of low carbon car technologies. These complexitieshave meant that the sales of alternatively fueled vehicles have remained extremely low,accounting for only 0.26% of new car sales in 2005 (SMMTa, 2006). Still, the news is not all bad.Figure 1.3 shows that the sales of alternatively fueled vehicles have increased sevenfold between2000 and 2005 and although they are still low, it seems that they are starting to increase. Figure 1.3 – A graph to show the sales of alternatively fuelled vehicles (Source SMMTa, 2006) - 284 -
  4. 4. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317The government has recently introduced a new target requiring one in ten new cars sold in theUK to be low carbon with exhaust emissions of 100 g/km of CO2 or less by 2012 (Foley, 2003).In order to meet this target, the market for ‘green cars’ must be promoted to increase their sales.The technology for environmentally friendly cars exists, but there is not enough demand todevelop this technology or to produce a substantial number of ‘green cars’. There is also a lack ofresearch into how it would be possible to promote and increase the use of environmentallyfriendly cars. This gap in the research, once filled, could help to identify strategies for promoting‘green cars’, therefore increasing their use.1.1 Research QuestionsThe market for environmentally friendly cars has not followed predicted growth trends. The‘green car’ market accounts for a tiny minority of cars sold and its promotion/development couldhelp to significantly decrease CO2 emissions from transport, which are currently the fastest risingcause of global warming in the UK (Brevitt, 2002).Questions which arise from this statement include: 1. What are the reasons behind the lack of environmentally friendly cars being sold? (Design? Performance? Comfort? Cost? Reliability? Lack of marketing/advertising? Lack of knowledge? Symbolism?) 2. What more can be done in order to promote and increase the use of environmentally friendly cars? 3. What do the public feel would influence them to buy an environmentally friendly car? 4. When is it likely that ‘green cars’ will occupy a more substantial part of the motor vehicle market?1.2 Aims & ObjectivesThe main aim of this project is to look at the reasons behind the current lack of environmentallyfriendly cars on the road and how it would be possible to increase and promote their use.In order to achieve this, it will be necessary to: • Review the literature on environmentally friendly cars in order to determine reasons why their market has not developed • Investigate public and professional opinion through surveys and interviews on why ‘green cars’ have not become mainstream and what can be done to promote their use • Analyse the results from the interviews and surveys, highlighting any common trends • Evaluate primary and secondary data in order to recommend possible strategies which may positively influence the promotion of the ‘green car’ market • Provide a clear and concise conclusion which identifies the projects’ main findings.2 Literature Review2.1 The Transport Situation todayCarbon emissions from fossil fuel use in the transport sector are rising faster than those from anyother sector (Price et al., 1998). In the UK, transport currently accounts for 25% of CO2emissions (Foley, 2003) and these are expected to increase to 30% by 2015 (Williamson et al.1997). This increase is due to an ongoing rapid rise in car ownership, which outweighsdevelopments in engine technology and cleaner fuels (Richards 2001 & Nieuwenhuis & Wells2003). The dominant vehicle propulsion system in the world today is the Internal CombustionEngine (ICE) (Pischinger 2004 & Mizsey et al. 2001). It has taken over our cities, clogging andpolluting them to an unacceptable level (Nieuwenhuis et al, 2006). Developments in engine - 285 -
  5. 5. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317technology and clean fuels have significantly reduced emissions of pollutants from cars poweredby the ICE but it is still far from being sustainable in terms of its well-to-wheel efficiency or CO2emissions. So, why does the number of cars built with ICE’s continue to rise? The answer: itrequires the lowest investment cost. Past studies have shown that in order for individuals toswitch to more sustainable modes of transport a cost incentive must be provided (Garling et al,2007). Consequently, whilst the cost incentive remains with the ICE, car manufacturers/peoplewill continue to produce/buy them. Currently, more sustainable alternatives cost more toproduce and often to run. In light of this their demand has not been sufficient to entail mass-production. Dependant though both the car manufacturing industry and society are upon theICE, it must go. However, in order to replace it a viable alternative must be sought and hereinlies the role of environmentally friendly vehicles (EFV’s).2.2 Looking Forwards2.2.1 Sustainable TransportSince the notorious Brundtland report stated that ‘a sustainable condition for this planet is one inwhich there is a stability for both social and physical systems, achieved through meeting theneeds of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their ownneeds’ (WCED, 1987, p 43), transport questions are increasingly being put in the context ofsustainable development (Nijkamp 1994 & Booth et al. 2001). In turn, there has been increasedpressure on motor vehicle manufacturers to design progressively cleaner cars and ultimately toreach zero emissions (Peake, 1997). Technology and, more specifically, improvements in the rateand direction of technological change, will play a very important role. Some new low-carbonemission technologies are not adopted because their cost and performance characteristics makethem unattractive relative to existing technologies. To be adopted, these technologies require taxadvantages, cost subsidies, or additional cost-reducing or performance-enhancing research anddevelopmentTechnology will play a very important role in switching to clean low carbon transport as itrequires no major change in how activities need be carried out (Banister 2005, Turton 2006 &IPCCb 2001). Aside from being attractive to the general public it is also politically attractive as ithelps diversify fuel sources and reduces dependence on imported oil (Banister, 2005). In terms ofthe available technology, sustainable transport can be looked at in three stages; short, mediumand long term. In the short term, the use of light-duty vehicles (LDV’s) with improved energyefficiency provides the most cost effective and therefore sustainable means of reducing oilconsumption (IEAa, 2001). Simply by using the best available current petrol and dieseltechnologies average fuel consumption could be decreased by 25-30% (Banister, 2005).Medium term sustainable transport will involve a shift from petrol and diesel vehicles to Hybridand alternative fuel vehicles running on Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Natural Gas andBiofuels. Hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles can reduce petrol consumption by 30-50% andtherefore GHG emissions with no change in vehicle class (Romm, 2006). The transition towardsthese alternatives is already beginning, with over 100,000 vehicles running on LPG and theintroduction of hybrid vehicles such as the Toyota Prius to the UK market. Finally, in the longterm, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles offer a mode of transport which could be entirely sustainablebut which is not presently commercially possible.2.2.2 The Role of the environmentally friendly carThe current role of environmentally friendly cars is a small one, but increasing public andprofessional awareness of issues such as air and noise pollution and the overarching problem ofclimate change will, and already are changing this. The potential for EFV’s is huge, with theultimate goal to achieve zero emissions. It is important to recognise the numerous different kindsof EFV; each is unique and offers slightly different social, environmental and economic benefitsto any other. - 286 -
  6. 6. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-3172.3 Environmentally Friendly Fuels and Technologies2.3.1 Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)Worldwide, LPG vehicles are the most widely produced alternative fuel vehicles (OECD, 2004).LPG is a by-product of oil refining but it also occurs naturally from gas production. In the UKeach year, four million tonnes surplus of LPG is produced from refining in the North Sea (Priceet al. 2004). It has been used as a motor fuel for over 60 years though much of this use has beenin agricultural vehicles and fork-lift trucks (ETSU, 1996). In the UK, LPG vehicle numbersincreased between 1997 and 2003 but have since stabilised in conjunction with the increasingavailability of hybrid cars (SMMTa, 2006).There are over 120,000 LPG cars on the road in the UK, with approximately 1300 LPG fillingstations (Total 2007 & BoostLPG 2007). LPG gives comparable performance to petrol enginevehicles on levels of pollutant emissions, and offers reduced CO2 emissions of 10-15%. Incomparison to diesel engine vehicles LPG technologies offer very good results, but producesimilar or slightly augmented levels of CO2 emissions (OECD 2004 & Tsioliaridou et al. 2004).Most LPG cars are ‘bi-fuel’, carrying both petrol and LPG, enabling them to switch from onefuel to the other. (Foley, 2003). To make the conversion to LPG costs around £1500 and theseconverted vehicles account for virtually all of the LPG vehicles in Britain. The cost of running anLPG vehicle is calculated to be between 30 and 40% less than running a standard petrol enginevehicle.2.3.2 Natural GasNatural gas is a mixture of hydrocarbons (mainly methane) and is produced as a by-product of oilproduction and from gas wells (DoE, 2005). The interest in natural gas as an alternative fuelstems mainly from its clean burning qualities, its domestic resource base, and its commercialavailability to end users (Tsioliaridou et al. 2004). In the UK in 2004, there were only 543 vehicleson the road which used natural gas (IANGV, 2007). There are two forms of natural gas-poweredvehicles (NGV’s), compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG). Another useof natural gas is to blend it with hydrogen for use in fuel cell vehicles (Tsioliaridou et al. 2004).2.3.3 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)CNG has been used in vehicles since the 1930’s (Aslam et al. 2006). It burns more completelythan petrol and therefore offers significant air quality benefits, particularly in terms of reductionsof particulate matter (PM10), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), benzene and carbon monoxide (CO) incomparison to diesel, petrol or LPG engines (Brevitt, 2002). Carbon dioxide emissions arereduced by approximately 20% but a negative aspect is increased methane emissions.Similar to LPG vehicles, CNG vehicles are commonly ‘bi-fuel’ vehicles, though dedicated CNGvehicles do exist. The bi-fuel conversion process costs around £3000 (Brevitt, 2002). CNG isstored in tanks which are considerably larger and heavier than conventional petrol tanks, thusreducing the range, passenger space and performance of the vehicle (ETSU, 1996). Refuelingoptions range from cheap, slow fill options which work overnight, to more expensive systemswith similar refuel times to petrol but there are very few of these in the UK (around 20 in 2001(Brevitt, 2002)). Currently CNG vehicles are most practical for fleets (i.e. taxi’s, buses, anddelivery vehicles) which are centrally maintained and fueled and can install their own dedicatedrefueling station. In order for their success as private level vehicles, the refueling infrastructurefor CNG vehicles must be improved and an effective gas storage system which gives acceptablevehicle range must be developed.2.3.4 Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)LNG records very similar emissions to CNG and differs more in terms of the on-board fuelsystem and the fuelling infrastructure (ENGVA, 2006). It has a much higher energy density thanCNG, about two thirds that of petrol, which gives greatly improved vehicle ranges. On thedownside, the tanks are even heavier and more expensive than those used to store CNG (ETSU1996 & ENGVA 2006). In light of the on-board system weight, LNG systems are most - 287 -
  7. 7. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317commonly used in heavy goods vehicles (HGV’s). The fuelling facility cost of LNG is higherthan conventional fuels in terms of equipment costs and in order for it to be economically viable,high throughput volumes are required (ENGVA, 2006). For these reasons, the ideal use for LNGis as the fuel of large fleets which refuel at a central station.2.3.5 BiofuelsBiofuels have been recognised as a major world renewable energy source (Demirbas 2007,Ozcimen et al. 2004 & Jefferson et al. 2006). They offer total carbon savings because fuels aremade from waste or plant material which absorb CO2 during growth thereby making the fuelemissions carbon neutral (SMMTa 2006 & Brevitt 2002). Once the feedstock, waste and plantmaterial is collected it is converted into useful energy but this process is not cheap, costing 3times more than petroleum fuels (DTIb 2003 & IEAc 2004). As well as the cost, producingbiofuels from grain feedstock requires a huge amount of land. In fact, to meet all of France’stransport needs with biofuels over 25% of France’s land area would be required (OECD, 2004).As a consequence of the high costs and large land areas involved in the collection andmanufacturing of biofuels, the number of vehicles running on them is low. In the UK in 2005just 0.3 per cent of fuels sold in the UK were biofuels (SMMTa, 2006). The number of biofuelvehicles is increasing though, especially in the U.S and Brazil (Demirbas, 2007). Futuretechnologies are likely to produce cost improvements but it remains unlikely that biofuels willever provide enough fuel to meet transport demands, however they could contribute (IEAb,2003). There are three main biofuels: bioethanol, biomethanol and biodiesel.2.3.6 BioethanolBio-ethanol is a simple alcohol that can be used as a fuel or blended with petrol to power vehicles(Saab 2006 & Brevitt 2002). It is derived from renewable sources of feedstock; typically plantssuch as wheat, sugar beet, corn, straw, and wood but it is also to produce bioethanol fromconverted household waste (Demirbas, 2007). The most efficient production of bioethanol isfrom sugarcane in the tropics where no external energy supply is required for its conversion to afuel (Saab 2006). Brazil in particular produces much bioethanol, shown here by Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1 – World and Regional Fuel Ethanol Production (million litres p/a), 1975-2003 (Source: IEAc, 2004).As with all biofuels it is very expensive to produce, which has led to its predominant use as ablend with petrol. This blend can range from 5% bioethanol to 15% without engine modificationand then up to 85% (E85) with modification (Demirbas, 2007). - 288 -
  8. 8. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-3172.3.7 Bio-methanolMethanol was widely used in the early part of the century before inexpensive petrol wasintroduced (Demirbas, 2007). It is predominantly produced from natural gas but can be producedfrom biomass, hence producing biomethanol (Maclean et al. 2003). Numerous disadvantages ofmethanol; including its corrosiveness, lower vapor pressure (making cold starts difficult), watercontamination and toxicity to ecosystems; have led to its predominant use as a blend with petrol(Maclean et al. 2003 & OECD 2004). Methanol could play a part in meeting future transportdemands as a fuel with advances in technology and a shift to producing methanol from biomassrather than from natural gas.2.3.8 BiodieselBiodiesel is a renewable diesel fuel substitute produced from vegetable oils or animal fats (inNorth America biodiesel is most commonly produced from soybean oil and in Europe, fromrapeseed oil) (Maclean 2003 & Demirbas 2007). Biodiesel can be used as a pure fuel in modifiedengines or mixed with petroleum-diesel and used in current engines without modification. Itproduces fewer PM10, CO and sulphur dioxide (SO4) emissions than a petroleum diesel engine aswell as reducing CO2 emissions by more than 75%. Using a blend of 20% reduces CO2 emissionsby 15% (Tsioliaridou et al. 2004).On the other hand, biodiesel costs about 1.5 - 2 times more than diesel, increasing the costs ofbiodiesel blends to above the price of standard diesel (Demirbas 2007 & Tsioliaridou et al. 2004).Thus, it is currently not economically viable and is used on a very small scale. Figure 2.2 showsthat in the UK, levels of oilseed production to produce biodiesel have remained low between1984 and 2001 because of the economic disincentives involved with its production. Figure 2.2 – UK Harvested Production of Oilseed 1984-2001 (Source: Brevitt, 2002).More research and technological development will be needed in order for biodiesel to occupy amore substantial part of the UK fuel market (Demirbas 2007 & Bender 1999).2.3.9 Electric Vehicles (EV’s)Electric vehicles, otherwise known as battery powered vehicles (BPV’s), are powered byrechargeable batteries, producing no local emissions and running very quietly during operation(Tsioliaridou et al. 2004, ETSU 1996, Romm 2006 & Tzeng et al 2005). There is a range of batterytechnologies currently including lead-acid, nickel-metal and lithium polymer batteries. Each canbe recharged off of the national grid at home or in the future at recharging stations (Tsioliaridouet al. 2004, Brevitt 2002 & Maclean et al. 2003). Depending on the source of energy used to chargethe batteries EV’s have ranging total emissions, from low-zero (when the source of energy for - 289 -
  9. 9. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317charging is from renewable or nuclear sources) to slightly higher (when the source of energy forcharging is from coal or non-renewable sources). Nonetheless, a study by Tsioliaridou et al.(2004) calculated that even when coal source emissions are included, overall EV’s remain 90%cleaner than the cleanest conventional vehicle. Among the other advantages of EV’s are lowerfuel and maintenance costs.On the other hand EV’s do have disadvantages. Batteries are expensive, take prolonged periodsof time to charge (about 6-7 hours) and must be replaced every four to six years (Dubois 1999,Tsioliaridou et al. 2004, OECD 2004 & Maclean et al. 2003). Their driving range is significantlylower than that of a petrol/diesel car, averaging between 60 and 120 miles (Sperling 1995,Nieuwenhuis et al, 2006 & Tsioliaridou et al. 2004) which although suitable for urban travel andcommuting, is not suitable for longer distances. The top speed of a BPV is also lower than for anequivalent petrol/diesel (Tsioliaridou et al. 2004). There is a lack of current infrastructure forcharging batteries (OECD, 2004).Having researched the positive and negative aspects of EV’s, one of the commonrecommendations in order for them to be able to compete in the market is to improve theperformance of the batteries to give better top speeds and vehicle ranges. Research is underwaybut the mainstream application of full electric vehicles does not appear too likely in the nearfuture. However, new concepts are being developed of which the most promising is the hybrid-electric vehicle (OECD, 2004).2.3.10 Hybrid-Electric Vehicles (HEV’s)Hybrid-electric vehicles have overcome the limitations of dedicated electric vehicles bycombining an electric battery with the power and performance of a conventional engine (Frank2007, Foley 2003 & Brevitt 2002). They have proven extremely popular and since theirbreakthrough into the UK market in 2001, they now account for over 90% of all AFV’s sold (SeeFigure 1.3, SMMTa 2006). The most notable of the HEV’s is the Toyota Prius, which currentlyoccupies 64% of the U.S. hybrid market and 65% of the UK’s (SMMTb 2006 CBS News 2005 &Lipman et al. 2006).HEV’s run on their batteries in stop-start traffic and on their engines when travelling at higherspeeds but for many, the most ingenious property of the hybrid system is that the engine chargesthe electric battery so HEV’s do not require electric refuelling (Foley, 2003). In terms of theirenvironmental benefits, CO2 emissions are reduced by 30% as well as reductions in other airpollutants (Foley 2003, OECD 2004 & Romm 2006). One of the disadvantages to HEV’s is theproduction costs, which are typically slightly higher than for standard vehicles (OECD 2004 &Brevitt 2002). Nevertheless, the manufacturing costs are slowly falling as new technologies areintroduced.2.3.11 Fuel Cell Vehicles (Hydrogen)Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCV’s) are considered by many to be the most promising alternativetechnology for personal transportation vehicles in the future (Schwoon 2006, Romm 2006,Pischinger et al. 2006, Maclean et al. 2003). Essentially, a fuel cell is a catalytic device whichconverts the energy stored in fuel (e.g. hydrogen) directly into electrical energy to turn an electricmotor. Unlike a battery, where the supply of chemicals is limited by its size, fuel cells can becontinuously fed with fuel to produce electricity indefinitely (Brevitt 2002 & Maclean et al. 2003).The current fundamental fuel required in order for FCV’s to produce zero-emissions and highefficiency is hydrogen. Technically it is possible to produce hydrogen from petrol or diesel if thefuel cell is equipped with a reformer but this results in CO2 emissions similar to those of futureadvanced diesel vehicles (Tsioliaridou et al. 2004). However, in the future the use of other fuelsmay be possible (OECD, 2004). Whilst hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCV’s) are zero emission,this does not account for any emissions created during the process of producing the hydrogen inthe first place (Foley, 2003). Ideally, the hydrogen is produced by renewable means; however thisis not the case in the world today, rather something to aim for in the future. - 290 -
  10. 10. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317Literature reveals that FCV’s require considerable research and development to refine thetechnology and that numerous problems must be overcome in order for their commercialisation.Some of these problems include: the cost of fuel cell production, the supply of the pure hydrogenfuel that is required, and the difficulties involved in creating a hydrogen fuelling infrastructure. Acombination of these problems means that FCV’s are unlikely to achieve significant (>5%)market penetration by 2030 (Romm 2006).2.4 The current take up of AFV’s in the UKThe sales of AFV’s in the UK have remained extremely low, accounting for only 0.26% of newcar sales in 2005 (SMMTa, 2006). The statistics are not all bad though. Since 2000, when less then500 AFV’s were sold in the UK, a 14 fold increase to nearly 7000 vehicles sold in 2005 hasoccurred (Shown in Figure 1.3). The introduction of the HEV to the UK market has boostedtheir sales massively – it is now possible to buy an AFV which looks and drives the same as astandard vehicle, but which is cheaper and cleaner to run. The Toyota Prius leads this marketthough other car manufacturers (Honda and Lexus) are starting to introduce their own HEV’s.Environmentally friendly vehicles have gained relatively widespread consumer acceptance in theUK during recent years (Turton, 2006) and though it is difficult to pinpoint the reasons for this,it would appear that increased public and professional awareness of issues such as globalwarming and air traffic pollution have had a drastic effect on the take-up of EFV’s. The addedsupport of government initiatives such as grants and tax exemptions has also led to theirincreased take-up (Turton 2006 & Lane 2000); however it is questionable what percentage of thegeneral public are actually aware of the government support available. So, there is a generalincreasing trend in the sales of EFV’s but they are still a long way from achieving their potential.2.4.1 Reasons behind the low take-upAttempts to introduce EFV’s have so far been unsuccessful (Banister, 2005). When consideringwhat they offer in terms of environmental advantages it seems strange that this is the case butresearch shows why the take-up has remained so low. Although EFV’s present environmentaladvantages, motorists simply do not seem to be interested in them. Predominantly, this comesdown to their performance and to a lesser extent the supposed extra costs associated with EFV’s.Among the multitude of benefits attributed to cars, (high) speed, reliability, high performance,style/design and fuel autonomy appear to be the more important motoring variables for car users(OECD 2004 & Booth et al. 2001). Freund and Martin (1993) link such preferences with the‘ideology of the automobile’, in which individual freedom and pleasure have been associated withthe speed and mobility that cars provide (Niuewenhuis et al. 2006). These same attributes are notcommonly associated with alternative fuelled vehicles and even discounting the additional costs,many of the AFV’s are likely to be disadvantaged based on one or more of the other attributes(OECD, 2004).The ‘chicken and egg problem’ remains a critical barrier to the low take-up of AFV’s – who willbuild and buy the AFV’s if a fueling infrastructure is not in place and who will build the fuelinginfrastructure before the AFV’s are built (Romm, 2006). This problem can be applied to theentire range of alternative vehicles listed in section 2.3.2.4.2 Ensuring the full potential of EFV’sTo ensure that the full potential of this technology in contributing towards sustainabledevelopment is realised, certain barriers must be overcome. Firstly, public support and awarenessto ensure sales and therefore economic production is needed. Secondly, key barriers such as fueland infrastructural costs and development must be overcome and thirdly, government rebates,subsidies and promotion schemes to create additional confidence and awareness in new AFVtechnologies must be provided. Of these the most important, in terms of helping AFV’s achievetheir potential role in reducing GHG emissions from transport, is their promotion; for withoutthis the need to develop alternative fuels or their infrastructures will never become sufficient tomerit its occurrence. - 291 -
  11. 11. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317A study by the Alternative Fuels Group of the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force (DTIa, 2000)concluded that in terms of the promotion of EFV’s, certain factors must be addressed:• Increasing the current low knowledge base regarding the potential benefits of cleaner fuels and vehicles.• Increasing the current low knowledge base regarding the incentives and grants available for cleaner fuels and vehicles.• Reducing the current resistance to change transport behaviour among vehicle users• Increasing the current lack of consumer confidence in performance and image of alternative fuel vehicles.• Perceptions of safety associated with cleaner vehicles.2.5 The importance of promoting AFV’sTo recognise the importance of promoting AFV’s it is beneficial to return to the global problemof increasing GHG emissions from transport and the effects of this on climate change. AsClaude Mandil, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), said in May 2004, “In the absence of strong government policies, we project that the worldwide use of oil in transport will nearly double between 2000 and 2030, leading to a similar increase in greenhouse gas emissions” (IEAd, 2004)Research undertaken by Ben Lane on behalf of the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership (LowCVP)in 2005 indicated that although consumers in the UK support the concept of purchasing anddriving low carbon cars, in reality they do not make low carbon choices (SMMTb, 2006). Thishighlights the importance of their promotion – if people know about AFV’s but are not buyingthem then promotion schemes are likely to solve this issue.The impacts of climate change are numerous, including flooding, weather system changes,species extinction and adverse effects of air pollution on public health. Given that transportemissions are contributing an ever-increasing and substantial amount to climate change, thesocial, environmental and economical benefits of promoting AFV’s and therefore reducingemissions from transport are of monumental importance.2.6 Schemes to promote the use of EFV’s in the UK2.6.1 National & International PolicyAlthough they are not dedicated AFV promotion schemes, national and EU policy on reducingCO2 emissions from transport can help to inadvertently promote the use of environmentallyfriendly vehicles. The governments 10 year transport plan assumed the EU Voluntary ACEAtarget (to reduce average CO2 emissions from new cars to 140g/km) would be met in the UK(LCVPb, 2006). Following on from this, when it was realised this was an unrealistic target, the2004 Transport White Paper set a target for future average CO2 emissions from new cars of 152g/km by 2008 (DFTc 2004 & LCVPb 2006). EU legislation from 1999 means that car dealers arerequired to have a label showing the fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of each differentmodel on display, either on or near the vehicle.Much more recently, in March of this year the UK took another major step towards tacklingclimate change with the release of a new draft Climate Change Bill. If it comes into force the UKtargets for a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 and a 26-32% reduction by 2020 willbecome legally binding (DEFRA, 2007). Because it is only a draft bill nothing is certain, howeverif it becomes legislation then the UK transport sector will have to comply, inadvertentlypromoting the use of AFV’s. - 292 -
  12. 12. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-3172.6.2 PowerShift ProgrammeThe first national scale promotion scheme created by the government was the PowerShiftprogramme, which was created in 1996 to operate on behalf of the Energy Saving Trust (EST).This program subsidizes up to 75 percent of the increased cost of electric, hybrid, CNG, andLPG vehicles (Lane, 2000). Its objectives were to:• Raise awareness of clean fuel vehicles• Provide objective information for fleet operators• Encourage the establishment of a refuelling infrastructure• Establish standards for clean fuel vehicles• Reduce the capital cost of clean fuel vehiclesGiven a budget of £10 million a year to provide grants towards the additional costs of purchasingcleaner fuels, the scheme spent roughly £8 million a year on providing grants for LPGconversions. A PowerShift register was created, comprising of alternative fuel vehicles which areeligible for 100% discount from the London congestion charge. Most of the schemes focus wason providing grants rather than promoting the use of AFV’s. The grant scheme was close in 2005however the register still exists and is updated on behalf of Transport for London (EST, 2007).During its existence the PowerShift programme funded the conversion to either LPG, electric,hybrid or CNG fuels for 17,000 vehicles (CfIT, 2005). This is a fantastic achievement but hadmore money been allocated to advertising and the promotion of AFV’s the results could havebeen even better.Since the PowerShift programme was closed, no new grant scheme has been introduced by theUK government. Although a low carbon car grant programme was developed, it was neverdeveloped beyond an idea. Instead the government opted to launch a ‘low carbon transportcommunications campaign’ to promote EFV’s. As far as it is possible to ascertain, this campaignhas not yet had any significant effects, nor does it seem to be campaigning very successfully.2.6.3 The TransportAction CleanUp ProgrammeThe CleanUp programme was launched in 2000 by the EST with the aim of reducing pollutionfrom vehicles operating in urban areas (Brevitt, 2002). It gives grants to operators of commercialand public sector diesel vehicles (including black cabs, lorries, buses, emergency vehicles andrefuse trucks) to assist with the cost of fitting emission reduction technologies (CfIT, 2005). Priorto the scheme, PowerShift dealt with grants for buses and minicabs but it was felt that theCleanUp programme could increase the conversion rate to alternative fuels2.6.4 Powering Future Vehicles StrategyThe powering future vehicles strategy (PFVS) was launched by the government in July 2002(DFTc, 2004). It introduced a new target for low carbon cars which requires 1 in 10 new carssold in the UK to be low carbon with exhaust emissions of 100g/km of CO2 or less by 2012(Foley 2003 & DFTc 2004). Its objectives are to:• promote the development, introduction and uptake of clean, low carbon vehicles and fuels• ensure the full involvement of the UK automotive industry in the new technologies.In order to achieve these objectives a number of measures have been put into place:• Fiscal and grant incentives for consumer and business take-up of cleaner, more efficient vehicles and fuels• Research, development and demonstration funding for new technologies, including the Ultra Low Carbon Car Challenge to develop ultra-efficient family vehicles capable of mass productionIt is very difficult to say exactly how effective the strategy has been. In their 2nd annual reportmany improvements are listed as being positive changes made by the PFVS however some ofthese improvements, such as a reduction in average CO2 emissions from vehicles, have notnecessarily been made simply by the PFVS. Their report has a section entitled ‘Encouraging - 293 -
  13. 13. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317consumer take-up of clean, low carbon vehicles and fuels’ (DFTd, 2004) but from what iswritten, it appears that little has been done in terms of promoting consumer take-up. In terms ofmeeting its target for 10% of cars to have emissions of less than 100g/km, progress has beenmicroscopic. Of the 2.5 million cars sold, only 467 met this target in 2005 (House of Commons,2006) and in order to meet it by 2012, roughly 250,000 need to be sold a year.One positive to take from the report is that for the first time, in 2003/2004 all available fundingwas fully utilised (DFTd, 2004). So whether this is as a result of the PFVS or not, at least thepublic awareness of grant schemes and public take-up of AFV’s is increasing.2.6.5 The Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership (LCVP)The powering future vehicles strategy has also led to the creation of a new joint government-industry body called the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership. The LCVP is an action and advisorygroup that aims to promote the shift to low carbon transport, help industry, consumers,environmental and other stakeholders to participate in the shift, and maximise competitiveadvantage to the UK (DTIc, 2003).2.6.6 Vehicle Excise Duty (VED)In March 2001 a new Vehicle Excise Duty system for cars was introduced based entirely on CO2emissions (See Table 2.1). Within each band there is also a discount rate for cars using cleanerfuels and technology as well as a small supplement for diesel. Since its introduction it has beenmodified each year so that in 2007 there are now seven bands (A-G) and no supplements fordiesel vehicles (See Table 2.2). Table 2.1 – VED Bands based on CO2 emissions in 2001The VED system means that motorists can save money by choosing the most efficient and leastpolluting cars. Working out how successful the VED system is proving complex. Some evidence(See Table 2.3) suggests that more people are buying cars in the lower bands (i.e. less polluting) in2006 than were in 2001 (SMMTc, 2007). - 294 -
  14. 14. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317 Table 2.2 VED as of 2007 and how it compares to VED in 2006. 2007 Alternative Fuel Change from CO2 (g/km) Petrol cars Diesel cars VED band Cars 2006 VED band A < 100 £0 £0 £0 0 B 101 to 120 £15 £35 £35 -£5 C 121 to 150 £95 £115 £115 +£15 D 151 to 165 £120 £140 £140 +£15 E 166 to 185 £145 £165 £165 +£15 F 186 to 225 £190 £205 £205 +£15 £300 (£400 in £300 (£400 in +£90 (+£190 in G* > 226 £285 2008) 2008) 2008)*for new cars registered after 23 March 2006However, other evidence suggests that graduated VED has not influenced consumer choice.Research by MORI for the Department for Transport has shown that new car purchasing isdependent on a number of key factors (price, fuel consumption, size, reliability and comfort) butroad tax is not among the most significant (DFTe, 2005). Nevertheless the government believesthat the VED system is an important tool in providing signals to consumers about theenvironmental impacts of their vehicles. Perhaps improvements could be made to the scheme inorder for it to better promote the use of EFV’s. Table 2.3 Distribution of new car market by current VED bands (Source: SMMTc) VED Band CO2 emissions 2001 - % new cars 2006 - % new cars (g/km) A < 100 0 0 B 101 to 120 0.1 4.7 C 121 to 150 19.2 31.9 D 151 to 165 23.8 24.2 E 166 to 185 22.7 17 F 186 to 225 24 14.8 G > 226 11.3 7.52.7 Overview of Promotion SchemesResearch into the UK’s promotion schemes for alternative fuel vehicles reveals that very little hasbeen done to encourage their take-up. Of the above measures, one has now closed and one is apurely fiscal incentive to purchase a less polluting car. The intentions of the remaining strategiesare good, but they are predominantly focused on the technological and financial side of thealternative car in pursuit of its promotion, rather than on soft measures. One of the key findingsof the Visioning and Backcasting for UK Transport Policy (VIBAT) study was that on their own,technological and fiscal measures will not be enough to drive the take-up of AFV’s and that it isimperative they are accompanied by ‘soft’ measures such as promotion schemes (DFTf, 2006).Overall, there are very few designated promotion schemes for environmentally friendly vehiclesand where they exist they seem uncommitted and unplanned. In order to play a truly effectiverole in promoting and increasing the use of EFV’s, it is essential that the Government is bothclear in its own mind as to how to achieve its goals, and shows long term commitment to them. - 295 -
  15. 15. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-3172.8 Why this research is needed – gaps in the literatureDespite the fact that their take-up is currently low, alternative fuel vehicles are the best and mostcomplete solution to the problem of reducing GHG emissions from cars as they have thepotential to completely eliminate harmful emissions. The literature provides an overview of thetransport situation today, the future role of the environmentally friendly vehicle, the differentalternative fuel vehicles available, the importance of promoting their use and the currentpromotion schemes. Having studied a wide range of literature relating to environmentally friendlyvehicles, it becomes apparent that gaps do exist. Much of the current research is on the differenttypes of alternative fuels, how sustainable they are and the likelihood of their commercialisationin the future whereas very little research has been carried out concerning the promotion ofenvironmentally friendly vehicles. Having established a gap in the literature, this study aims toresearch and recommend the best strategies and incentives to promote the use of AFV’s. Inorder to discover the most effective schemes it is important to understand what the consumerslook for in a car and what could sway their minds towards buying an EFV.3 MethodologyIn order to complete this project it is important to carry out extensive qualitative and quantitativeresearch related to environmentally friendly cars, as well as public and professional opinion onhow their use could be promoted and increased. Qualitative and quantitative data collection willdraw on previous literature to explore, explain and discover public opinion on the use andpromotion of environmentally friendly cars (Marshall et al. 1999).3.1 QuestionnairesThe first method of data collection intended for this investigation is the use of questionnaires.Questionnaires will be used as they are able to provide a fast, cost effective way of discoveringthe opinion of a sample population in relation to environmentally friendly cars and how theirtake-up could be increased (Marshall et al. 1999). The reason for using a sample population isbecause it would not be possible to survey the entire population due to time restraints anddifficulties in organising such a scheme (Maykut et al.1994). A sample population whichrepresents all university students (male, female, age ranges) will be chosen. Students are notalready set in their ways and as the ‘drivers of tomorrow’ are most likely to be directly affected bychanges in the marketing of green cars over the next ten years.3.1.1 Sampling MethodIn total, 64 questionnaire responses were gathered during March 2007. A stratified samplingstrategy was chosen in order to collect the data. Questionnaires were primarily sent via emailwhilst a minority were completed with the author present. Distribution of the questionnaire viaemail has many advantages. Firstly, it increases both the time and cost-efficiency of a piece ofresearch (Hewson et al. 2003). It also avoids the ‘soul destroying’ experience of gaining anindividuals attention in the street (McQueen et al. 2002). Instead, the participant can complete thequestionnaire in the comfort of their own home or office (Hewson et al. 2003). Finally, it allowsfor controlled snowball sampling, whereby the researcher can request a participant to forward theemail to a group of people who fall into the sample population category. Snowball sampling dealswith an inter-connected network of people or organisations (Neuman, 2003) and within thisstudy, enables access to a vast group of potential research participants (Hewson et al. 2003)3.1.2 Pilot QuestionnairePilot surveys allow the researcher to find out ‘if the proposed methods of collecting data ‘work’,in terms of achieving their goals’ (McQueen et al. 2002). A pilot questionnaire will be used inorder to determine the final questionnaires usefulness and reliability and to identify any changes - 296 -
  16. 16. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317that will help increase the accuracy of the final questionnaire’s results before it is distributed infull.The pilot questionnaire highlighted several problems with the original design and samplingmethod which needed to be addressed before the real sample could be collected. Immediately,results from the pilot survey highlighted a problem with the sample population; not enoughstudents had ever personally bought or owned a car and were therefore unable to accuratelyrespond to questions regarding their influences on car-purchasing. For this reason, the samplepopulation was limited to car owners only. Furthermore, it was decided that because only a smallpercentage of students fall into the car-owners category, the sample population not be limitedjust to students. This stratified sampling technique was developed in order to obtain sampleswhich were more appropriate for analysis in relation to the subject issue.Another problem identified by the pilot survey involved questions which required the partaker tolist several answers (for example, in question 6 the respondent was asked to list what influencedhim/her when purchasing a car). Putting pressure on the respondent to give answers in this waywas having an adverse effect on the replies in conjunction with perceived difficulties in the dataanalysis stage. To overcome this it was decided to adopt Likert Scales, enabling easier analysis andinterpretation of results as well as greatly reducing the complexity of the questionnaire and timetaken for the respondents.3.1.3 DesignThe questionnaire was designed to assist in achieving the goals of the research and ultimately toanswer the research questions (Robson, 2002). The questionnaire was split into quantitativequestions which have structured response categories for comparative analysis and qualitativequestions which are open-ended, allowing for the discovery of new ideas which may influence theoutcome of the project (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). This design was based upon a study byMcQueen et al. (2002), which stated that ‘the most effective and reliable studies contain bothquantitative and qualitative questions’. Time considerations meant that the survey is made uppredominantly of quantitative questions with brief qualitative questions where appropriate so thatthe interviewee has the option to expand on certain answers. The questions were chosen carefullyso that they did not lead interviewees to a particular stance or response and so that early answersdid not influence later ones. These considerations were used to ensure the questionnaireremained unbiased so that results would be more viable and accurate.3.1.4 Likert ScalesSeveral of the questions are in the form of a 5-point Likert Scale, as a result of modification afterthe pilot survey. The reasoning for this is that Likert Scales enable easier analysis andinterpretation of results as well as greatly reducing the complexity of the questionnaire and timetaken for the respondents.When considering the size of the scale, careful consideration was given as ‘too few responsecategories [can] result in too coarse a scale and loss of much of the [respondents’] discriminativepowers… [while] a too fine a scale may go beyond the respondents’ limited powers ofdiscrimination’ (Jacoby et al. 1971). A smaller Likert scale can significantly ‘reduce response timeand respondent fatigue’ (Gregg et al. 2001), two important factors which must be consideredwhen interviewing the general public. It was therefore decided to incorporate a 5-point LikertScale in the appropriate questions as it has been reported that 5 to 7 point scales are the optimallength for a public questionnaire (Green et al. 1970).3.2 InterviewsThe second method of qualitative data collection to be used is interviews. Interviews are usefulways of getting large amounts of data quickly (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). The interviews will beheld with professionals who will be affected by the promotion and increase of ‘green car’ use.This could include persons within the car manufacturers industry and government transport - 297 -
  17. 17. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317policy. Interviews will provide detailed professional opinions and feelings (Maykut, 1994) on howit might be possible to promote the use of environmentally friendly cars and why the market hasnot been taken-up by the public yet. The interviews will be semi-structured insofar as questionswill be specified, but expansion beyond the questions may occur if the interviewer wishes to seekclarification or elaboration of certain issues (May, 2001). This gives a greater degree of freedomof conversation to the interview and enables more information to be discovered than a structuredinterview. The interviews will be completed both in direct contact with the interviewees and viathe telephone. Due to time restraints the sample size will be kept to a minimum but so that agood amount of information is collected and can be analysed in comparison with thequestionnaires.3.3 Secondary DataSecondary data in the form of documents will be collected in order to draw links to past researchand give detailed background information. By using three different methods of data collection itis hoped that sufficient data is collected from a large enough range of peer reviewed sources,public and professional opinion so that the findings of the investigation are not biased orminority views. This will ensure the best possible data is collected in aim of completing theproject.3.4 Data Analysis MethodsData analysis is the process of bringing order, structure and interpretation to a mass of collecteddata (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). To compliment the data collected during the questionnairesand interviews, documentary analysis will be used. Research journals as well as formal policystatements can be informative as well as providing both background and specialised data(Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Using documentary analysis in conjunction with the interpretationof the questionnaires and interviews is known as triangulation (Robson, 2002). The analysis ofdocuments will be started very early, even during its collection because it is a very timeconsuming process.When analysing the data collected from the questionnaires it is difficult to know exactly where tostart, though often it is best simply to become familiar with the data (Robson, 2002). There is noclear and accepted single set of conventions for analysis of data from questionnaires (Robson,2002). Instead an integrated approach to analysis can be used. To analyse data from closedquestions, the use of graphical displays and tables enables comparisons to be made within thesample population. This will facilitate the process of identifying patterns and anomalies within thedata (Sapsford, 1999). However, the same form of analysis is not possible for open endedquestions, which can instead be coded in order to identify similar themes and ideas within theresearch (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996). This method of data analysis, known as ‘open coding’ splitsqualitative data up into discrete parts (Robson, 2002). These codes must be subject to change, asnew ideas may arise during analysis (Marshall & Rossman, 1999).Analysing data from the interviews is a complex process, so the small sample population will helpto simplify this to a large extent. Respondents’ answers will be coded according to key themesand patterns. Comparative analysis will be used to find anomalies and trends between data fromdifferent interviews and these findings will be further analysed in terms of their relation to datafrom the questionnaires and to secondary data.3.5 Limitations to Research Methods3.5.1 Limitations to QuestionnairesAs with any research limitations are virtually unavoidable, therefore results are rarely 100%accurate or representative. In regard to the questionnaires, one limitation to combining qualitativeand quantitative questions is that the effectiveness of qualitative questions in exploring thepublic’s private opinions is reduced - respondents tend to give an answer that is socially - 298 -
  18. 18. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317acceptable or what they believe is desired by the researcher (Pole & Lampard, 2002). Otherlimitations include data being affected by the characteristics of the respondents (memory,personalty etc), misunderstandings of the survey questions by the respondents and respondentsnot treating the exercise seriously. Each of these can have adverse effects on the viability of theresults (Robson, 2002).3.5.2 Limitations to InterviewsInterviews can be particularly time consuming and this combined with a predefined timescale inwhich to complete the project meant that not as many could be completed as would have beendesired. Another drawback of interviews is that their analysis is complex, making it difficult tomake comparisons between them (May, 2001). Data collected may be affected by characteristicsof the interviewer which could lead to unwittingly forced influences on the interviewee and aswell as this, differences between the interviewer/respondent such as class or ethnic backgroundmay influence how forthcoming and honest respondents are (Robson, 2002).4 ResultsThe questionnaire explored the target samples’ knowledge and concerns of climate change whilstattempting to establish potential influencing factors involved with car-buying. The questionnairealso looked at the effect different factors may have on the take-up of environmentally friendlycars and what aspects the respondents felt were important in order to encourage them to buy anenvironmentally friendly car.The results from the questionnaire are displayed on the following pages. It should be noted thatthese results are representative of the sample collected and can not be considered as an accuraterepresentation of the general public as a whole.4.1 Establishing the respondents’ environmental awarenessUtilising 5 point Likert Scales, respondents were asked to rank what they considered theirknowledge on climate change and their concern of its effects.4.1.1 Knowledge on Climate ChangeRespondents were asked to rate their knowledge of climate change on a 5 point Likert Scalewhere 1 = no knowledge and 5 = high knowledge. These results are shown in figure 4.1 70 60 50 Percentage of Sample 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 Rating Figure 4.1 – A graph to show how respondents ranked their level of knowledge on Climate Change (%).Figure 4.1 indicates that the public perceive their knowledge on climate change to be relativelygood, as shown by a higher percentage ranking their knowledge between the mid and higher end - 299 -
  19. 19. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317of the Likert Scale. This is further backed up by the mean rank which is calculated to be 3.22,therefore above the scales average middle value of 3.4.1.2 Concern on the effects of Climate ChangeRespondents were also asked to rate their concern of the effects of Climate Change using thesame 5 point Likert Scale (where 1 = no concern & 5 = high concern). Figure 4.2 shows theseresults. 60 50 Percentage of Sample 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 Rating Figure 4.2 – A graph to show how respondents ranked their concern on the effects of Climate Change (%)Figure 4.2 illustrates a relatively high level of concern for the effects of Climate Change. Onlyone person (2%) ranked their concern as below the mid-value of 3, whilst more than half (69%)ranked their concern as 4 or 5. The mean rank of concern was calculated to be 3.80.4.2 Knowledge of Alternative Fuel Vehicles.Having established the samples’ awareness and concern on Climate Change and its effects,respondents were questioned on their awareness of Alternative Fuel Vehicle’s (AFV’s) andwhether they’d seen one advertised. The interviewees responses’ to whether they knew AFV’sexist is shown in figure 4.3. 100 93.75 90 80 70 Percentage of Sample 60 50 40 30 20 10 6.25 0 Yes No Response Figure 4.3 – A graph to show whether respondents knew that alternative fuel vehicles existed (%)Figure 4.3 shows that 93.75% of the respondents answered that ‘yes’ they did know alternativefuel vehicles exist. Following this, respondents were asked if they had ever seen an alternative fuelvehicle advertised. The results to this question are illustrated in figure 4.4 which shows that 65%of the interviewees who knew that AFV’s existed had also seen one advertised. - 300 -
  20. 20. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317 70 65 60 50 Percentage of Sample 40 35 30 20 10 0 Yes No Response Figure 4.4 – A graph to show the number of respondents who have seen an alternative fuel vehicle advertised (%)4.3 Factors Influencing Respondents Car-Purchasing ChoicesQuestion 6 required respondents to rank what factors influenced their car-purchasing decisions.The factors were listed previously; the respondents were simply required to rank their influenceon a 5 point Likert Scale (where 1 = not influential and 5 = highly influential). The results weredivided into three categories – highly influential factors, moderately influential factors and leastinfluential factors. These results are shown by figures 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 below. 100 90 80 Percentage of Sample 70 60 Initial Cost 50 Reliability Safety 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 RatingFigure 4.5 – A graph to show the most highly ranked influential factors on respondents when purchasing a car (%) - 301 -
  21. 21. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317 100 90 80 Percentage of Sample 70 60 Design Comfort 50 Performance 40 Fuel Economy 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 RatingFigure 4.6 – A graph to show the moderately ranked influential factors on respondents when purchasing a car (%) 100 90 80 Percentage of Sample 70 60 Size 50 VED Insurance Costs 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 RatingFigure 4.7 – A graph to show the lowest ranked influential factors on respondents when purchasing a car (%)Figure 4.5 shows that the respondents ranked the three most influential factors on car-purchasingto be, in order 1-3; initial cost, reliability and safety. In fact, each was ranked as 5 on the LikertScale (i.e. as highly influential) by more than 50% of the respondents with both the initial costand a car’s reliability being ranked 5 by more than 80% of the sample. The figure shows thatalthough safety received a lesser percentage of rank 5 scores, it made up for this with a highnumber of rank 4 scores. None of the factors were ranked below 3 by respondents and less than15% of participants ranked any of the factors as 3 on the Likert Scale. The mean rank score foreach of the three factors was above 4.5.Figure 4.6 shows what factors the respondents ranked as moderately influential when purchasinga car: design, comfort, performance and fuel economy. The most common ranking for each byrespondents was 4 on the Likert Scale, all of them received this ranking from over 60% ofrespondents. The vast majority of the remaining partakers ranked each factor as 3 or 5, thoughdesign and comfort were both ranked as 2 (not very influential) by 6% of participants. The meanranks for these factors ranges between 3.81 and 4.13. - 302 -
  22. 22. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317Finally, figure 4.7 shows the least influential factors when purchasing a car, as ranked byrespondents. These are size, VED and insurance costs. The ratings for each of these factors areevenly distributed between ranks with no majority choices being made by the sample. VEDreceived the largest number of low ranks, with over 50% of respondents ranking it as 2. Size andinsurance costs were more commonly ranked as 3 or 4 and have higher mean rank scores thanVED because of this.4.3.1 Whether respondents are truly influenced by a car’s environmental friendlinessRespondents were asked first ‘How much of an influence does a car’s environmental friendlinesshave on your purchase decision?’ and then ‘When you brought your last car, how muchconsideration to the car’s environmental friendliness did you give?’ The results, shown below byfigure 4.8, illustrate that respondents believed that a cars’ environmentally friendliness wouldhave more influence on their next purchase than it actually had in reality on their last. This isportrayed by the black line, which shows a majority of people gave little or no consideration tothe cars environmental friendliness during their last purchase; and the yellow line, which showsrespondents believe a cars’ environmental friendliness would have a larger influence on theirpurchase decision (majority of people ranked its influence as 3 on the Likert Scale). 70 60 Percentage of Sample 50 Influence a vehicles environmental friendliness has on 40 respondents purchase Consideration given to vehicles 30 environmentally friendliness during respondents last purchase 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 Rating Figure 4.8 - A graph comparing how much influence a cars environmental friendliness would have onrespondents purchase decision compared with how much consideration a cars environmental friendliness had the last time they purchased a car (1=Unimportant/No consideration, 5=Very important/Much Consideration)4.3.2 What would influence respondents to purchase an EFV?Question 10 determined that of the 64 participants, only 1 would not purchase an EFV. Question12 was aimed at discovering what would encourage respondents to buy an EFV. The samplewere asked to rank each factor on a scale of 1-5 in regards to how much influence it may have onencouraging them to buy an EFV. Results are shown in figures 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11. - 303 -
  23. 23. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317 100 90 80 Percentage of Sample 70 60 Reduced Initial EFV Cost Better EFV technology 50 Increased EFV performance 40 Advertising Campaigns 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 RatingFigure 4.9 – A graph to show respondents’ opinions on what factors would have the largest influences on them buying an EFV (1= No influence, 5 = Large influence) 100 90 80 Percentage of Sample 70 60 Increased Knowledge 50 Better EFV fuel efficiency 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 RatingFigure 4.10 – A graph to show respondents’ opinions on what factors would have a moderate influence on them buying an EFV (1= No influence, 5 = Large influence) 100 90 80 Percentage of Sample 70 60 Increased car tax 50 Increased petrol/diesel prices Government Grants 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 RatingFigure 4.11 – A graph to show respondents’ opinions on what factors would have the lowest influences on them buying an EFV (1= No influence, 5 = Large influence)Figure 4.9 shows the factors which respondents ranked would have the most influence onencouraging them to buy an EFV: increased EFV performance, reduced initial EFV cost, better - 304 -
  24. 24. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317EFV technology and advertising campaigns. With the exception of advertising campaigns, allthese factors are ranked very similarly to each other, showing that the respondents regard each ashaving a similar influence on encouraging them to buy an EFV. Between 45-55% of participantsranked each factor as 5 on the Likert scale, whilst 30-40% of those who did not, ranked eachfactor as 4. Respondents appear to have mixed opinions on the influence advertising would haveon encouraging them to buy an EFV, with rankings evenly distributed between 3, 4 and 5. Themean rank scores for these four factors range between 4.45 and 3.80.Figure 4.10 shows which factors respondents ranked as having a moderate influence onencouraging them to buy an EFV: better EFV fuel efficiency and increased knowledge of EFV’s.Both of these factors were predominantly ranked as 4 by respondents and their mean rankscores, in the order listed above, are 4.20 and 3.78.Figure 4.11 shows what factors respondents ranked as having the lowest influence onencouraging them to buy an EFV: increased petrol/diesel prices, government grants andincreased car tax. Their mean rank scores are, as in the order above, 3.66, 3.59 and 3.47, showingthat although participants still consider them as being influential, these factors are regarded asbeing less influential in encouraging them to buy an EFV than those mentioned in the priorparagraphs.4.3.3 Factors which would be important to respondents when buying an EFV.The final question stated that the respondent had hypothetically chosen to buy an EFV, and thisbeing the case asked them to rank 5 out of 10 factors in order 1-5 in terms of their importance inchoosing their EFV. The results are shown below by figures 4.12 and 4.13 100 90 80 Percentage of Sample 70 Fuel Efficiency 60 Performance 50 Initial Cost Safety 40 Reliablilty 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 Rank score (1=Very Important, 5=Not important) Figure 4.12 - A graph to show the most common factors which were identified by respondents as beingimportant if they were to buy an environmentally friendly vehicle (1= most important, 5= less important) - 305 -
  25. 25. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317 100 90 80 Insurance Costs Percentage of Sample 70 Tax 60 Size 50 40 Design 30 Vehicles Range (on one tank/charge) 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 Rank score (1=Very Important, 5=Not important) Figure 4.13 - A graph to show the least common factors which were identified by respondents as being important if they were to buy an environmentally friendly vehicle (1= most important, 5= less important)Figure 4.12 shows that the most important factor to respondents who are, hypothetically, buyingan EFV is the initial cost, which received over 75% of participants’ number 1 rank. Of theremaining 9 factors, figure 4.12 shows 4 others which were commonly ranked by respondentsbetween 1 and 5. It shows that besides initial cost, an EFV’s safety was of much importance,followed by its fuel efficiency, performance and reliability. Figure 4.13 shows the remaining 5factors, all of which were less commonly ranked by respondents therefore identifying them asless important to participants who were hypothetically purchasing an EFV. Design was onlyranked between 1 and 5 by a total of 9 participants.4.4 Qualitative Responses to Survey QuestionsA total of two open-ended questions were asked to the sample in order to allow respondents toexpress their opinions on EFV’s and how they could be promoted. Table 4.1 summarises theparticipant’s responses to the questions.Table 4.1 – A table summarising participant’s responses to the open-ended questions in the questionnaireQuestion Summary7. Can you think of • Among the respondents replies, colour and price depreciation were mentionedanything else that most frequently.may influence your • Interestingly, no-one mentioned a cars environmental statusdecision to buy a car?11. What do you • Participants often seemed to have some kind of idea of what could be done inthink could be done order to promote the sales of EFV’s.to encourage people • Reducing the cost was mentioned frequently as well as advertising, promotingto buy more environmental awareness and ensuring that they can compete with theenvironmentally stereotypical car in terms of performance.friendly cars • Incentives and government subsidies were also mentioned as ways to promote EFV’s though they were mentioned by fewer respondents4.5 Data collected from InterviewsA total of four semi-structured interviews were completed with professionals from a range ofcompanies including Saab, ULTra, EST and Toyota. Summarised below are the main findingsfrom the interviews. - 306 -
  26. 26. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317 Table 4.2 - A table summarising interviewee’s responses to questionsQtn Summary of Findings1. What do you think • The demand for EFV’s is very low – main barrierare the main barriers to • Cost is very high without demand to ensure salesthe mass production of • New technology requires new production plants which is expensiveenvironmentally • The process requires the support of managers either in local authorities or largefriendly vehicles? corporations who put their career at risk by taking risky decisions. If they choose the widely accepted option (e.g. in the case of the car a non-hybrid) they are at no risk.2. Why do you believe • There is a lack of awareness as to the reality of the EFV.that their take-up has • EFV’s stereotyped as being slow and electric - need plugging in to chargebeen so low? • Perceived as ‘un-cool’ (except in London) • Supposedly very expensive • Difficulties in re-fuelling – currently very few locations • The public is also very conservative, which probably explains to the low take up of Hybrids. This has led to increased cost as a result of a small take up.3. In your opinion, • Increase the cost to drive non-alternative vehicles.what measures should • Subsidies and incentives for EFV’s to be made available, but more importantly tobe taken to encourage ensure the public know about themmore people to buy • Advertising campaigns on a national scaleEFV’s? • Making sure that people know the true performance capabilities of EFV’s today – similar to standard petrol/diesel vehicles – plus the advantages associated with them (quieter, more efficient, cheaper to run)4. Is it a case of • Vehicle technologies are already extremely advanced, it is more a case of educatingimproving/fine-tuning the public and convincing them EFV’s are the vehicles of the futurethe alternative vehicle • Without mainstream public knowledge and support EFV sales will always remaintechnologies or of very low.educating the public to • However, improvements to EFV’s still play an important role in encouraging theirincrease their awareness take-up. If a big breakthrough were to occur it could kick-start the public into buyingof the benefits coupled EFV’s.with EFV’s?5. When is it likely that • Very difficult to estimate; no knowing what technological developments may occurEFV’s will occupy a or how proactive the government / car manufacturers will be in the futuremore substantial part of • Hopefully occupy 10% of the UK market by 2050the UK car market?6. Do you feel that the • The government is not doing enough to promote the use of EFV’s.government should be • Measures such as increasing VED on heavily polluting cars to £400 make almost nodoing more in order to difference – the people who drive these cars paid thousands for them and so an extrapromote the use of £200 a year in road tax is not a big price to pay.EFV’s and if so, how • Currently no available grants for alternative fuel cars – must be remediedcould they do this most immediately. Even small grants could help make a difference to get the market off-effectively? the-ground. Obviously once EFV’s occupy a more substantial part of the market grants will have to be stopped or it the cost will be too much. • A multifaceted strategy must be taken which uses both; ‘push’ factors to encourage people to buy EFV’s and ‘pull’ factors to attract public interest in them7. Do you feel that car • Mixed responses, interviewees from car companies tended to answer that theirmanufacturers should company was doing enough but that others generally weren’t.be doing more in order • On the whole it appears that car manufacturers are not doing as much as they couldto promote the use of be. Most are researching alternative fuel vehicles or even producing them (thoughEFV’s and if so, how not on a mass-scale) but few are pushing to sell them.could they do this most • Increased advertising in order to raise the publics’ awareness to the reality of EFV’seffectively? today (i.e. highlighting the fact that many alternative vehicles have performance specs equal to those of a conventional car) - 307 -
  27. 27. Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK. Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-3175 DiscussionThis section brings together and analyses the results and findings from the previous sections inrelation to each other and to the research questions outlined in section 1.1 of this paper.Following this, recommendations will be provided on how best to promote and increase the useof environmentally friendly cars in the UK.5.1 Implications of questionnaire / interview results5.1.1 A willingness to change?It is clear from the results that although public knowledge on climate change is not vast, most arehighly concerned with the effects of CC, shown by figure 4.2. In conjunction, the 1998 Lexsurvey reported that over two-thirds of drivers consider climate change to be a ‘major problem’in Britain today (Lane, 2000). This is an encouraging sign that people could be willing to dosomething about the problem. Further evidence for this is provided by figure 5.1, which showsmore than 98% of questionnaire participants would consider buying and EFV, and car salefigures released by SMMT which show a sevenfold increase in the sales of EFV’s between 2005and 2007 (SMMTa, 2006). Overall it seems that people are willing to start changing their ways tohelp combat CC in terms of emissions from transport, but that certain barriers are preventingthis change from occurring at a faster rate. 98.44 100 90 80 Percentage of Sample 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 1.56 0 Yes No Response Figure 5.1 - A graph to show whether respondents would ever consider buying an environmentally friendly car (%)5.1.2 Current influences on car purchasing – can EFV’s compete?In a study by Maclean et al, it was established that in order to displace conventional vehicles,alternative vehicles must be viewed by consumers as at least equally attractive or ‘comparable’ tothese conventional vehicles (2003). Maclean identified that these comparable factors are likely toinclude vehicle price, performance, range, comfort, lifetime, and safety standards (2003). Theresults of this study reinforce this: figure 4.5 and 4.6 reveal that influential factors in car buyinginclude the initial cost, reliability, performance, comfort, fuel efficiency & safety of a vehicle.Accordingly, to compete with conventional vehicles, EFV’s must offer similar levels of comfort,convenience and performance in order to satisfy the customers’ requirements.Whilst cost appears to be the most influential factor associated with car purchasing (figure 4.5indicates that over 80% of respondents ranked it as highly influential), cost is also commonlyrecognised as one of the main drawbacks to alternative fuel vehicles. These additional costsinclude alternative fuel and vehicle production, fuel distribution and storage; and overall theyaccount for one of the central conditions affecting the widespread use of low emission vehicles. - 308 -

×