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

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 3436461

Abstract

This paper reports on environmentally friendly cars and how their use can be promoted and
increased 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 in
order 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 is
clearly 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 and
disadvantages and goes on to establish that the current lack of environmentally friendly cars can be
attributed to a number of factors, predominantly a lack of public awareness and the additional costs
involved with alternative technologies.
Current promotion schemes are examined and shown to be relatively ineffective in increasing the
use of EFV’s. Following the combined analysis of past literature and study results, recommendations were
made on how to promote and increase the use of EFV’s. The indicated strategy stated that a campaign to
promote knowledge and awareness of EFV’s would be necessary in conjunction with fiscal incentives and
development of the alternative fuel/vehicle infrastructure.
In conclusion it seems that EFV’s can and must have an instrumental role in reducing GHG
emissions from transport. A strategy to promote and increase the use of environmentally friendly cars is an
essential step towards achieving zero emissions from road transport; however it can not be expected to
have an immediate effect. Instead it is likely that it will take until 2050 for EFV’s to occupy a significant
proportion of the market.

.

ISSN 1744-2893 (Online)
© University of Leeds

Ward-Jones RS (2008) Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK.
Earth & E-nvironment 3:282-317

1 Introduction

Global warming is a reality which was acknowledged by governments at the Rio summit in 1992
and at Kyoto in 1997 (Cannell, 1999). Not only was it acknowledged but it is also generally
accepted 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 challenges
facing 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 the
current situation (Kwon, 2005). Transport emissions are the fastest rising cause of greenhouse
gases (GHG’s) and account for around 25% of all UK carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (Brevitt
2002, 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 to
continue into the foreseeable future, with emissions from transport expected to be higher in 2020
than 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 as
showing 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 modern
society’s ever increasing reliance on and use of transport. In 2002, car sales reached a record 2.5
million, 11% higher than in 2000 (SMMTb, 2006) and they continue to increase albeit at a
reduced rate in recent years. Major policies have been introduced during the last decade in order
to reduce emissions from transport but their success has been limited. They include European
Policy: the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) – a voluntary agreement
which requires car manufacturers to improve the fuel efficiency of new cars by at least 25% by
2008-2009; 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 White
Paper (DFTc, 2004). Within these national policies there is much talk about an integrated
approach to transport, better public transport and increased environmental standards of vehicles
and infrastructure.

Although these policies have caused significant improvements in vehicle technology, particularly
in fuel efficiency (as reduced CO2 emissions), these have not been enough to neutralise the effect
of increases in traffic and car size (EUROPA, 2007). The intentions of these policies are
unquestionably good, but results are not being seen fast enough, especially not to meet any of the
current targets.

- 283 -


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 vehicle
in 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 punishments
for not meeting the targets set by these policies are either not strict enough or the policies
themselves are voluntary and car manufacturers are taking advantage of this. As well as this, there
is a lack of campaigning to encourage public interest in sustainable transport and too few
practical alternatives to the petrol car currently exist. So, the question of how we can significantly
reduce emissions from transport is becoming increasingly important. As more people are
becoming more concerned about emissions from transport, augmented pressure is being put on
both car manufacturers and the government to consider a different approach.

This different approach is to look at the role of environmentally friendly cars in combating
climate change. Low carbon car technologies and fuels present car manufacturers, fuel suppliers
and the Government with one of the principal means of reducing the CO2 emissions from road
transport (Foley, 2003). However, the current situation is hugely complex, with many factors
affecting the development and marketing of low carbon car technologies. These complexities
have 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 between
2000 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 -


The government has recently introduced a new target requiring one in ten new cars sold in the
UK 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 to
develop this technology or to produce a substantial number of ‘green cars’. There is also a lack of
research into how it would be possible to promote and increase the use of environmentally
friendly cars. This gap in the research, once filled, could help to identify strategies for promoting
‘green cars’, therefore increasing their use.

1.1 Research Questions

The 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 could
help to significantly decrease CO2 emissions from transport, which are currently the fastest rising
cause 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 & Objectives

The main aim of this project is to look at the reasons behind the current lack of environmentally
friendly 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 Review

2.1 The Transport Situation today

Carbon emissions from fossil fuel use in the transport sector are rising faster than those from any
other sector (Price et al., 1998). In the UK, transport currently accounts for 25% of CO2
emissions (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 outweighs
developments in engine technology and cleaner fuels (Richards 2001 & Nieuwenhuis & Wells
2003). The dominant vehicle propulsion system in the world today is the Internal Combustion
Engine (ICE) (Pischinger 2004 & Mizsey et al. 2001). It has taken over our cities, clogging and
polluting them to an unacceptable level (Nieuwenhuis et al, 2006). Developments in engine

- 285 -


technology and clean fuels have significantly reduced emissions of pollutants from cars powered
by the ICE but it is still far from being sustainable in terms of its well-to-wheel efficiency or CO2
emissions. So, why does the number of cars built with ICE’s continue to rise? The answer: it
requires the lowest investment cost. Past studies have shown that in order for individuals to
switch 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/people
will continue to produce/buy them. Currently, more sustainable alternatives cost more to
produce 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 the
ICE, it must go. However, in order to replace it a viable alternative must be sought and herein
lies the role of environmentally friendly vehicles (EFV’s).

2.2 Looking Forwards

2.2.1 Sustainable Transport
Since the notorious Brundtland report stated that ‘a sustainable condition for this planet is one in
which there is a stability for both social and physical systems, achieved through meeting the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs’ (WCED, 1987, p 43), transport questions are increasingly being put in the context of
sustainable development (Nijkamp 1994 & Booth et al. 2001). In turn, there has been increased
pressure on motor vehicle manufacturers to design progressively cleaner cars and ultimately to
reach zero emissions (Peake, 1997). Technology and, more specifically, improvements in the rate
and direction of technological change, will play a very important role. Some new low-carbon
emission technologies are not adopted because their cost and performance characteristics make
them unattractive relative to existing technologies. To be adopted, these technologies require tax
advantages, cost subsidies, or additional cost-reducing or performance-enhancing research and
development

Technology will play a very important role in switching to clean low carbon transport as it
requires 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 it
helps diversify fuel sources and reduces dependence on imported oil (Banister, 2005). In terms of
the available technology, sustainable transport can be looked at in three stages; short, medium
and long term. In the short term, the use of light-duty vehicles (LDV’s) with improved energy
efficiency provides the most cost effective and therefore sustainable means of reducing oil
consumption (IEAa, 2001). Simply by using the best available current petrol and diesel
technologies 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 Hybrid
and alternative fuel vehicles running on Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Natural Gas and
Biofuels. Hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles can reduce petrol consumption by 30-50% and
therefore GHG emissions with no change in vehicle class (Romm, 2006). The transition towards
these alternatives is already beginning, with over 100,000 vehicles running on LPG and the
introduction of hybrid vehicles such as the Toyota Prius to the UK market. Finally, in the long
term, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles offer a mode of transport which could be entirely sustainable
but which is not presently commercially possible.

2.2.2 The Role of the environmentally friendly car
The current role of environmentally friendly cars is a small one, but increasing public and
professional awareness of issues such as air and noise pollution and the overarching problem of
climate change will, and already are changing this. The potential for EFV’s is huge, with the
ultimate goal to achieve zero emissions. It is important to recognise the numerous different kinds
of EFV; each is unique and offers slightly different social, environmental and economic benefits
to any other.

- 286 -


2.3 Environmentally Friendly Fuels and Technologies

2.3.1 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 UK
each year, four million tonnes surplus of LPG is produced from refining in the North Sea (Price
et al. 2004). It has been used as a motor fuel for over 60 years though much of this use has been
in agricultural vehicles and fork-lift trucks (ETSU, 1996). In the UK, LPG vehicle numbers
increased between 1997 and 2003 but have since stabilised in conjunction with the increasing
availability of hybrid cars (SMMTa, 2006).

There are over 120,000 LPG cars on the road in the UK, with approximately 1300 LPG filling
stations (Total 2007 & BoostLPG 2007). LPG gives comparable performance to petrol engine
vehicles on levels of pollutant emissions, and offers reduced CO2 emissions of 10-15%. In
comparison to diesel engine vehicles LPG technologies offer very good results, but produce
similar 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 one
fuel to the other. (Foley, 2003). To make the conversion to LPG costs around £1500 and these
converted vehicles account for virtually all of the LPG vehicles in Britain. The cost of running an
LPG vehicle is calculated to be between 30 and 40% less than running a standard petrol engine
vehicle.

2.3.2 Natural Gas
Natural gas is a mixture of hydrocarbons (mainly methane) and is produced as a by-product of oil
production and from gas wells (DoE, 2005). The interest in natural gas as an alternative fuel
stems mainly from its clean burning qualities, its domestic resource base, and its commercial
availability to end users (Tsioliaridou et al. 2004). In the UK in 2004, there were only 543 vehicles
on the road which used natural gas (IANGV, 2007). There are two forms of natural gas-powered
vehicles (NGV’s), compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG). Another use
of 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 completely
than petrol and therefore offers significant air quality benefits, particularly in terms of reductions
of particulate matter (PM10), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), benzene and carbon monoxide (CO) in
comparison to diesel, petrol or LPG engines (Brevitt, 2002). Carbon dioxide emissions are
reduced by approximately 20% but a negative aspect is increased methane emissions.

Similar to LPG vehicles, CNG vehicles are commonly ‘bi-fuel’ vehicles, though dedicated CNG
vehicles do exist. The bi-fuel conversion process costs around £3000 (Brevitt, 2002). CNG is
stored in tanks which are considerably larger and heavier than conventional petrol tanks, thus
reducing the range, passenger space and performance of the vehicle (ETSU, 1996). Refueling
options range from cheap, slow fill options which work overnight, to more expensive systems
with 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, and
delivery vehicles) which are centrally maintained and fueled and can install their own dedicated
refueling station. In order for their success as private level vehicles, the refueling infrastructure
for CNG vehicles must be improved and an effective gas storage system which gives acceptable
vehicle 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 fuel
system and the fuelling infrastructure (ENGVA, 2006). It has a much higher energy density than
CNG, about two thirds that of petrol, which gives greatly improved vehicle ranges. On the
downside, the tanks are even heavier and more expensive than those used to store CNG (ETSU
1996 & ENGVA 2006). In light of the on-board system weight, LNG systems are most

- 287 -


commonly used in heavy goods vehicles (HGV’s). The fuelling facility cost of LNG is higher
than 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 LNG
is as the fuel of large fleets which refuel at a central station.

2.3.5 Biofuels
Biofuels 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 are
made from waste or plant material which absorb CO2 during growth thereby making the fuel
emissions carbon neutral (SMMTa 2006 & Brevitt 2002). Once the feedstock, waste and plant
material is collected it is converted into useful energy but this process is not cheap, costing 3
times more than petroleum fuels (DTIb 2003 & IEAc 2004). As well as the cost, producing
biofuels from grain feedstock requires a huge amount of land. In fact, to meet all of France’s
transport 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 and
manufacturing of biofuels, the number of vehicles running on them is low. In the UK in 2005
just 0.3 per cent of fuels sold in the UK were biofuels (SMMTa, 2006). The number of biofuel
vehicles is increasing though, especially in the U.S and Brazil (Demirbas, 2007). Future
technologies are likely to produce cost improvements but it remains unlikely that biofuels will
ever 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 Bioethanol
Bio-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 plants
such as wheat, sugar beet, corn, straw, and wood but it is also to produce bioethanol from
converted household waste (Demirbas, 2007). The most efficient production of bioethanol is
from sugarcane in the tropics where no external energy supply is required for its conversion to a
fuel (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 a
blend with petrol. This blend can range from 5% bioethanol to 15% without engine modification
and then up to 85% (E85) with modification (Demirbas, 2007).

- 288 -


2.3.7 Bio-methanol
Methanol was widely used in the early part of the century before inexpensive petrol was
introduced (Demirbas, 2007). It is predominantly produced from natural gas but can be produced
from biomass, hence producing biomethanol (Maclean et al. 2003). Numerous disadvantages of
methanol; including its corrosiveness, lower vapor pressure (making cold starts difficult), water
contamination 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 transport
demands as a fuel with advances in technology and a shift to producing methanol from biomass
rather than from natural gas.

2.3.8 Biodiesel
Biodiesel is a renewable diesel fuel substitute produced from vegetable oils or animal fats (in
North America biodiesel is most commonly produced from soybean oil and in Europe, from
rapeseed oil) (Maclean 2003 & Demirbas 2007). Biodiesel can be used as a pure fuel in modified
engines or mixed with petroleum-diesel and used in current engines without modification. It
produces fewer PM10, CO and sulphur dioxide (SO4) emissions than a petroleum diesel engine as
well as reducing CO2 emissions by more than 75%. Using a blend of 20% reduces CO2 emissions
by 15% (Tsioliaridou et al. 2004).

On the other hand, biodiesel costs about 1.5 - 2 times more than diesel, increasing the costs of
biodiesel 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 shows
that in the UK, levels of oilseed production to produce biodiesel have remained low between
1984 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 a
more 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 by
rechargeable 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 battery
technologies currently including lead-acid, nickel-metal and lithium polymer batteries. Each can
be recharged off of the national grid at home or in the future at recharging stations (Tsioliaridou
et al. 2004, Brevitt 2002 & Maclean et al. 2003). Depending on the source of energy used to charge
the batteries EV’s have ranging total emissions, from low-zero (when the source of energy for

- 289 -


charging is from renewable or nuclear sources) to slightly higher (when the source of energy for
charging 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 lower
fuel and maintenance costs.

On the other hand EV’s do have disadvantages. Batteries are expensive, take prolonged periods
of 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 significantly
lower 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 and
commuting, is not suitable for longer distances. The top speed of a BPV is also lower than for an
equivalent petrol/diesel (Tsioliaridou et al. 2004). There is a lack of current infrastructure for
charging batteries (OECD, 2004).

Having researched the positive and negative aspects of EV’s, one of the common
recommendations in order for them to be able to compete in the market is to improve the
performance of the batteries to give better top speeds and vehicle ranges. Research is underway
but the mainstream application of full electric vehicles does not appear too likely in the near
future. 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 by
combining an electric battery with the power and performance of a conventional engine (Frank
2007, Foley 2003 & Brevitt 2002). They have proven extremely popular and since their
breakthrough into the UK market in 2001, they now account for over 90% of all AFV’s sold (See
Figure 1.3, SMMTa 2006). The most notable of the HEV’s is the Toyota Prius, which currently
occupies 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 higher
speeds but for many, the most ingenious property of the hybrid system is that the engine charges
the electric battery so HEV’s do not require electric refuelling (Foley, 2003). In terms of their
environmental benefits, CO2 emissions are reduced by 30% as well as reductions in other air
pollutants (Foley 2003, OECD 2004 & Romm 2006). One of the disadvantages to HEV’s is the
production costs, which are typically slightly higher than for standard vehicles (OECD 2004 &
Brevitt 2002). Nevertheless, the manufacturing costs are slowly falling as new technologies are
introduced.

2.3.11 Fuel Cell Vehicles (Hydrogen)
Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCV’s) are considered by many to be the most promising alternative
technology 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 which
converts the energy stored in fuel (e.g. hydrogen) directly into electrical energy to turn an electric
motor. Unlike a battery, where the supply of chemicals is limited by its size, fuel cells can be
continuously 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 high
efficiency is hydrogen. Technically it is possible to produce hydrogen from petrol or diesel if the
fuel cell is equipped with a reformer but this results in CO2 emissions similar to those of future
advanced diesel vehicles (Tsioliaridou et al. 2004). However, in the future the use of other fuels
may 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 in
the first place (Foley, 2003). Ideally, the hydrogen is produced by renewable means; however this
is not the case in the world today, rather something to aim for in the future.

- 290 -


Literature reveals that FCV’s require considerable research and development to refine the
technology 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 hydrogen
fuel that is required, and the difficulties involved in creating a hydrogen fuelling infrastructure. A
combination 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 UK

The sales of AFV’s in the UK have remained extremely low, accounting for only 0.26% of new
car sales in 2005 (SMMTa, 2006). The statistics are not all bad though. Since 2000, when less then
500 AFV’s were sold in the UK, a 14 fold increase to nearly 7000 vehicles sold in 2005 has
occurred (Shown in Figure 1.3). The introduction of the HEV to the UK market has boosted
their sales massively – it is now possible to buy an AFV which looks and drives the same as a
standard vehicle, but which is cheaper and cleaner to run. The Toyota Prius leads this market
though other car manufacturers (Honda and Lexus) are starting to introduce their own HEV’s.

Environmentally friendly vehicles have gained relatively widespread consumer acceptance in the
UK 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 global
warming and air traffic pollution have had a drastic effect on the take-up of EFV’s. The added
support of government initiatives such as grants and tax exemptions has also led to their
increased take-up (Turton 2006 & Lane 2000); however it is questionable what percentage of the
general public are actually aware of the government support available. So, there is a general
increasing 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-up
Attempts to introduce EFV’s have so far been unsuccessful (Banister, 2005). When considering
what they offer in terms of environmental advantages it seems strange that this is the case but
research shows why the take-up has remained so low. Although EFV’s present environmental
advantages, motorists simply do not seem to be interested in them. Predominantly, this comes
down 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 with
the speed and mobility that cars provide (Niuewenhuis et al. 2006). These same attributes are not
commonly 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 will
build and buy the AFV’s if a fueling infrastructure is not in place and who will build the fueling
infrastructure before the AFV’s are built (Romm, 2006). This problem can be applied to the
entire range of alternative vehicles listed in section 2.3.

2.4.2 Ensuring the full potential of EFV’s
To ensure that the full potential of this technology in contributing towards sustainable
development is realised, certain barriers must be overcome. Firstly, public support and awareness
to ensure sales and therefore economic production is needed. Secondly, key barriers such as fuel
and infrastructural costs and development must be overcome and thirdly, government rebates,
subsidies and promotion schemes to create additional confidence and awareness in new AFV
technologies must be provided. Of these the most important, in terms of helping AFV’s achieve
their potential role in reducing GHG emissions from transport, is their promotion; for without
this the need to develop alternative fuels or their infrastructures will never become sufficient to
merit its occurrence.

- 291 -


A 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’s

To recognise the importance of promoting AFV’s it is beneficial to return to the global problem
of increasing GHG emissions from transport and the effects of this on climate change. As
Claude 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 and
driving low carbon cars, in reality they do not make low carbon choices (SMMTb, 2006). This
highlights the importance of their promotion – if people know about AFV’s but are not buying
them 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 transport
emissions are contributing an ever-increasing and substantial amount to climate change, the
social, environmental and economical benefits of promoting AFV’s and therefore reducing
emissions from transport are of monumental importance.

2.6 Schemes to promote the use of EFV’s in the UK

2.6.1 National & International Policy
Although they are not dedicated AFV promotion schemes, national and EU policy on reducing
CO2 emissions from transport can help to inadvertently promote the use of environmentally
friendly vehicles. The governments 10 year transport plan assumed the EU Voluntary ACEA
target (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, the
2004 Transport White Paper set a target for future average CO2 emissions from new cars of 152
g/km by 2008 (DFTc 2004 & LCVPb 2006). EU legislation from 1999 means that car dealers are
required to have a label showing the fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of each different
model on display, either on or near the vehicle.

Much more recently, in March of this year the UK took another major step towards tackling
climate change with the release of a new draft Climate Change Bill. If it comes into force the UK
targets for a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 and a 26-32% reduction by 2020 will
become legally binding (DEFRA, 2007). Because it is only a draft bill nothing is certain, however
if it becomes legislation then the UK transport sector will have to comply, inadvertently
promoting the use of AFV’s.

- 292 -


2.6.2 PowerShift Programme
The first national scale promotion scheme created by the government was the PowerShift
programme, 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, and
LPG 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 vehicles

Given a budget of £10 million a year to provide grants towards the additional costs of purchasing
cleaner fuels, the scheme spent roughly £8 million a year on providing grants for LPG
conversions. A PowerShift register was created, comprising of alternative fuel vehicles which are
eligible for 100% discount from the London congestion charge. Most of the schemes focus was
on providing grants rather than promoting the use of AFV’s. The grant scheme was close in 2005
however 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 had
more money been allocated to advertising and the promotion of AFV’s the results could have
been even better.

Since the PowerShift programme was closed, no new grant scheme has been introduced by the
UK government. Although a low carbon car grant programme was developed, it was never
developed beyond an idea. Instead the government opted to launch a ‘low carbon transport
communications campaign’ to promote EFV’s. As far as it is possible to ascertain, this campaign
has not yet had any significant effects, nor does it seem to be campaigning very successfully.

2.6.3 The TransportAction CleanUp Programme
The CleanUp programme was launched in 2000 by the EST with the aim of reducing pollution
from vehicles operating in urban areas (Brevitt, 2002). It gives grants to operators of commercial
and public sector diesel vehicles (including black cabs, lorries, buses, emergency vehicles and
refuse trucks) to assist with the cost of fitting emission reduction technologies (CfIT, 2005). Prior
to the scheme, PowerShift dealt with grants for buses and minicabs but it was felt that the
CleanUp programme could increase the conversion rate to alternative fuels

2.6.4 Powering Future Vehicles Strategy
The 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 cars
sold 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
production

It is very difficult to say exactly how effective the strategy has been. In their 2nd annual report
many improvements are listed as being positive changes made by the PFVS however some of
these improvements, such as a reduction in average CO2 emissions from vehicles, have not
necessarily been made simply by the PFVS. Their report has a section entitled ‘Encouraging

- 293 -


consumer take-up of clean, low carbon vehicles and fuels’ (DFTd, 2004) but from what is
written, it appears that little has been done in terms of promoting consumer take-up. In terms of
meeting its target for 10% of cars to have emissions of less than 100g/km, progress has been
microscopic. 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 funding
was fully utilised (DFTd, 2004). So whether this is as a result of the PFVS or not, at least the
public 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 advisory
group that aims to promote the shift to low carbon transport, help industry, consumers,
environmental and other stakeholders to participate in the shift, and maximise competitive
advantage 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 CO2
emissions (See Table 2.1). Within each band there is also a discount rate for cars using cleaner
fuels and technology as well as a small supplement for diesel. Since its introduction it has been
modified each year so that in 2007 there are now seven bands (A-G) and no supplements for
diesel vehicles (See Table 2.2).

Table 2.1 – VED Bands based on CO2 emissions in 2001

The VED system means that motorists can save money by choosing the most efficient and least
polluting 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) in
2006 than were in 2001 (SMMTc, 2007).

- 294 -


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 2006

However, 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 is
dependent on a number of key factors (price, fuel consumption, size, reliability and comfort) but
road tax is not among the most significant (DFTe, 2005). Nevertheless the government believes
that the VED system is an important tool in providing signals to consumers about the
environmental impacts of their vehicles. Perhaps improvements could be made to the scheme in
order 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 7.5

2.7 Overview of Promotion Schemes

Research into the UK’s promotion schemes for alternative fuel vehicles reveals that very little has
been done to encourage their take-up. Of the above measures, one has now closed and one is a
purely fiscal incentive to purchase a less polluting car. The intentions of the remaining strategies
are good, but they are predominantly focused on the technological and financial side of the
alternative car in pursuit of its promotion, rather than on soft measures. One of the key findings
of 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 is
imperative they are accompanied by ‘soft’ measures such as promotion schemes (DFTf, 2006).
Overall, there are very few designated promotion schemes for environmentally friendly vehicles
and where they exist they seem uncommitted and unplanned. In order to play a truly effective
role in promoting and increasing the use of EFV’s, it is essential that the Government is both
clear in its own mind as to how to achieve its goals, and shows long term commitment to them.

- 295 -


2.8 Why this research is needed – gaps in the literature

Despite the fact that their take-up is currently low, alternative fuel vehicles are the best and most
complete solution to the problem of reducing GHG emissions from cars as they have the
potential to completely eliminate harmful emissions. The literature provides an overview of the
transport situation today, the future role of the environmentally friendly vehicle, the different
alternative fuel vehicles available, the importance of promoting their use and the current
promotion schemes. Having studied a wide range of literature relating to environmentally friendly
vehicles, it becomes apparent that gaps do exist. Much of the current research is on the different
types of alternative fuels, how sustainable they are and the likelihood of their commercialisation
in the future whereas very little research has been carried out concerning the promotion of
environmentally friendly vehicles. Having established a gap in the literature, this study aims to
research and recommend the best strategies and incentives to promote the use of AFV’s. In
order to discover the most effective schemes it is important to understand what the consumers
look for in a car and what could sway their minds towards buying an EFV.

3 Methodology

In order to complete this project it is important to carry out extensive qualitative and quantitative
research related to environmentally friendly cars, as well as public and professional opinion on
how their use could be promoted and increased. Qualitative and quantitative data collection will
draw on previous literature to explore, explain and discover public opinion on the use and
promotion of environmentally friendly cars (Marshall et al. 1999).

3.1 Questionnaires

The 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 discovering
the opinion of a sample population in relation to environmentally friendly cars and how their
take-up could be increased (Marshall et al. 1999). The reason for using a sample population is
because it would not be possible to survey the entire population due to time restraints and
difficulties in organising such a scheme (Maykut et al.1994). A sample population which
represents all university students (male, female, age ranges) will be chosen. Students are not
already set in their ways and as the ‘drivers of tomorrow’ are most likely to be directly affected by
changes in the marketing of green cars over the next ten years.

3.1.1 Sampling Method
In total, 64 questionnaire responses were gathered during March 2007. A stratified sampling
strategy was chosen in order to collect the data. Questionnaires were primarily sent via email
whilst a minority were completed with the author present. Distribution of the questionnaire via
email has many advantages. Firstly, it increases both the time and cost-efficiency of a piece of
research (Hewson et al. 2003). It also avoids the ‘soul destroying’ experience of gaining an
individuals attention in the street (McQueen et al. 2002). Instead, the participant can complete the
questionnaire in the comfort of their own home or office (Hewson et al. 2003). Finally, it allows
for controlled snowball sampling, whereby the researcher can request a participant to forward the
email to a group of people who fall into the sample population category. Snowball sampling deals
with an inter-connected network of people or organisations (Neuman, 2003) and within this
study, enables access to a vast group of potential research participants (Hewson et al. 2003)

3.1.2 Pilot Questionnaire
Pilot 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 in
order to determine the final questionnaires usefulness and reliability and to identify any changes

- 296 -


that will help increase the accuracy of the final questionnaire’s results before it is distributed in
full.

The pilot questionnaire highlighted several problems with the original design and sampling
method 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 enough
students had ever personally bought or owned a car and were therefore unable to accurately
respond to questions regarding their influences on car-purchasing. For this reason, the sample
population was limited to car owners only. Furthermore, it was decided that because only a small
percentage of students fall into the car-owners category, the sample population not be limited
just to students. This stratified sampling technique was developed in order to obtain samples
which were more appropriate for analysis in relation to the subject issue.

Another problem identified by the pilot survey involved questions which required the partaker to
list several answers (for example, in question 6 the respondent was asked to list what influenced
him/her when purchasing a car). Putting pressure on the respondent to give answers in this way
was having an adverse effect on the replies in conjunction with perceived difficulties in the data
analysis stage. To overcome this it was decided to adopt Likert Scales, enabling easier analysis and
interpretation of results as well as greatly reducing the complexity of the questionnaire and time
taken for the respondents.

3.1.3 Design
The questionnaire was designed to assist in achieving the goals of the research and ultimately to
answer the research questions (Robson, 2002). The questionnaire was split into quantitative
questions which have structured response categories for comparative analysis and qualitative
questions which are open-ended, allowing for the discovery of new ideas which may influence the
outcome of the project (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). This design was based upon a study by
McQueen et al. (2002), which stated that ‘the most effective and reliable studies contain both
quantitative and qualitative questions’. Time considerations meant that the survey is made up
predominantly of quantitative questions with brief qualitative questions where appropriate so that
the interviewee has the option to expand on certain answers. The questions were chosen carefully
so that they did not lead interviewees to a particular stance or response and so that early answers
did not influence later ones. These considerations were used to ensure the questionnaire
remained unbiased so that results would be more viable and accurate.

3.1.4 Likert Scales
Several of the questions are in the form of a 5-point Likert Scale, as a result of modification after
the pilot survey. The reasoning for this is that Likert Scales enable easier analysis and
interpretation of results as well as greatly reducing the complexity of the questionnaire and time
taken for the respondents.

When considering the size of the scale, careful consideration was given as ‘too few response
categories [can] result in too coarse a scale and loss of much of the [respondents’] discriminative
powers… [while] a too fine a scale may go beyond the respondents’ limited powers of
discrimination’ (Jacoby et al. 1971). A smaller Likert scale can significantly ‘reduce response time
and respondent fatigue’ (Gregg et al. 2001), two important factors which must be considered
when interviewing the general public. It was therefore decided to incorporate a 5-point Likert
Scale in the appropriate questions as it has been reported that 5 to 7 point scales are the optimal
length for a public questionnaire (Green et al. 1970).

3.2 Interviews

The second method of qualitative data collection to be used is interviews. Interviews are useful
ways of getting large amounts of data quickly (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). The interviews will be
held 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 -


policy. Interviews will provide detailed professional opinions and feelings (Maykut, 1994) on how
it might be possible to promote the use of environmentally friendly cars and why the market has
not been taken-up by the public yet. The interviews will be semi-structured insofar as questions
will be specified, but expansion beyond the questions may occur if the interviewer wishes to seek
clarification or elaboration of certain issues (May, 2001). This gives a greater degree of freedom
of conversation to the interview and enables more information to be discovered than a structured
interview. The interviews will be completed both in direct contact with the interviewees and via
the telephone. Due to time restraints the sample size will be kept to a minimum but so that a
good amount of information is collected and can be analysed in comparison with the
questionnaires.

3.3 Secondary Data

Secondary data in the form of documents will be collected in order to draw links to past research
and give detailed background information. By using three different methods of data collection it
is 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 or
minority views. This will ensure the best possible data is collected in aim of completing the
project.

3.4 Data Analysis Methods

Data analysis is the process of bringing order, structure and interpretation to a mass of collected
data (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). To compliment the data collected during the questionnaires
and interviews, documentary analysis will be used. Research journals as well as formal policy
statements can be informative as well as providing both background and specialised data
(Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Using documentary analysis in conjunction with the interpretation
of the questionnaires and interviews is known as triangulation (Robson, 2002). The analysis of
documents will be started very early, even during its collection because it is a very time
consuming process.

When analysing the data collected from the questionnaires it is difficult to know exactly where to
start, though often it is best simply to become familiar with the data (Robson, 2002). There is no
clear 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 closed
questions, the use of graphical displays and tables enables comparisons to be made within the
sample population. This will facilitate the process of identifying patterns and anomalies within the
data (Sapsford, 1999). However, the same form of analysis is not possible for open ended
questions, which can instead be coded in order to identify similar themes and ideas within the
research (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996). This method of data analysis, known as ‘open coding’ splits
qualitative data up into discrete parts (Robson, 2002). These codes must be subject to change, as
new ideas may arise during analysis (Marshall & Rossman, 1999).

Analysing data from the interviews is a complex process, so the small sample population will help
to simplify this to a large extent. Respondents’ answers will be coded according to key themes
and patterns. Comparative analysis will be used to find anomalies and trends between data from
different interviews and these findings will be further analysed in terms of their relation to data
from the questionnaires and to secondary data.

3.5 Limitations to Research Methods

3.5.1 Limitations to Questionnaires
As with any research limitations are virtually unavoidable, therefore results are rarely 100%
accurate or representative. In regard to the questionnaires, one limitation to combining qualitative
and quantitative questions is that the effectiveness of qualitative questions in exploring the
public’s private opinions is reduced - respondents tend to give an answer that is socially

- 298 -


acceptable or what they believe is desired by the researcher (Pole & Lampard, 2002). Other
limitations include data being affected by the characteristics of the respondents (memory,
personalty etc), misunderstandings of the survey questions by the respondents and respondents
not treating the exercise seriously. Each of these can have adverse effects on the viability of the
results (Robson, 2002).

3.5.2 Limitations to Interviews
Interviews can be particularly time consuming and this combined with a predefined timescale in
which to complete the project meant that not as many could be completed as would have been
desired. Another drawback of interviews is that their analysis is complex, making it difficult to
make comparisons between them (May, 2001). Data collected may be affected by characteristics
of the interviewer which could lead to unwittingly forced influences on the interviewee and as
well as this, differences between the interviewer/respondent such as class or ethnic background
may influence how forthcoming and honest respondents are (Robson, 2002).

4 Results

The questionnaire explored the target samples’ knowledge and concerns of climate change whilst
attempting to establish potential influencing factors involved with car-buying. The questionnaire
also looked at the effect different factors may have on the take-up of environmentally friendly
cars and what aspects the respondents felt were important in order to encourage them to buy an
environmentally friendly car.

The results from the questionnaire are displayed on the following pages. It should be noted that
these results are representative of the sample collected and can not be considered as an accurate
representation of the general public as a whole.

4.1 Establishing the respondents’ environmental awareness

Utilising 5 point Likert Scales, respondents were asked to rank what they considered their
knowledge on climate change and their concern of its effects.

4.1.1 Knowledge on Climate Change
Respondents were asked to rate their knowledge of climate change on a 5 point Likert Scale
where 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 relatively
good, as shown by a higher percentage ranking their knowledge between the mid and higher end

- 299 -


of 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 Change
Respondents were also asked to rate their concern of the effects of Climate Change using the
same 5 point Likert Scale (where 1 = no concern & 5 = high concern). Figure 4.2 shows these
results.
60

50

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. Only
one 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) and
whether they’d seen one advertised. The interviewees responses’ to whether they knew AFV’s
exist is shown in figure 4.3.
100 93.75
90

80

70

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 alternative
fuel vehicles exist. Following this, respondents were asked if they had ever seen an alternative fuel
vehicle 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 -


70
65

60

50

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 Choices

Question 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 influence
on a 5 point Likert Scale (where 1 = not influential and 5 = highly influential). The results were
divided into three categories – highly influential factors, moderately influential factors and least
influential factors. These results are shown by figures 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 below.
100

90

80

70

60
Initial Cost
50 Reliability
Safety
40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

Figure 4.5 – A graph to show the most highly ranked influential factors on respondents when purchasing
a car (%)

- 301 -


100

90

80
Percentage of Sample 70

60 Design
Comfort
50
Performance
40 Fuel Economy

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

Figure 4.6 – A graph to show the moderately ranked influential factors on respondents when purchasing a
car (%)

100

90

80

70

60
Size
50 VED
Insurance Costs
40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

Figure 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-purchasing
to be, in order 1-3; initial cost, reliability and safety. In fact, each was ranked as 5 on the Likert
Scale (i.e. as highly influential) by more than 50% of the respondents with both the initial cost
and a car’s reliability being ranked 5 by more than 80% of the sample. The figure shows that
although safety received a lesser percentage of rank 5 scores, it made up for this with a high
number of rank 4 scores. None of the factors were ranked below 3 by respondents and less than
15% of participants ranked any of the factors as 3 on the Likert Scale. The mean rank score for
each of the three factors was above 4.5.

Figure 4.6 shows what factors the respondents ranked as moderately influential when purchasing
a car: design, comfort, performance and fuel economy. The most common ranking for each by
respondents was 4 on the Likert Scale, all of them received this ranking from over 60% of
respondents. The vast majority of the remaining partakers ranked each factor as 3 or 5, though
design and comfort were both ranked as 2 (not very influential) by 6% of participants. The mean
ranks for these factors ranges between 3.81 and 4.13.

- 302 -


Finally, figure 4.7 shows the least influential factors when purchasing a car, as ranked by
respondents. These are size, VED and insurance costs. The ratings for each of these factors are
evenly distributed between ranks with no majority choices being made by the sample. VED
received the largest number of low ranks, with over 50% of respondents ranking it as 2. Size and
insurance costs were more commonly ranked as 3 or 4 and have higher mean rank scores than
VED because of this.

4.3.1 Whether respondents are truly influenced by a car’s environmental friendliness
Respondents were asked first ‘How much of an influence does a car’s environmental friendliness
have on your purchase decision?’ and then ‘When you brought your last car, how much
consideration to the car’s environmental friendliness did you give?’ The results, shown below by
figure 4.8, illustrate that respondents believed that a cars’ environmentally friendliness would
have more influence on their next purchase than it actually had in reality on their last. This is
portrayed by the black line, which shows a majority of people gave little or no consideration to
the cars environmental friendliness during their last purchase; and the yellow line, which shows
respondents believe a cars’ environmental friendliness would have a larger influence on their
purchase decision (majority of people ranked its influence as 3 on the Likert Scale).

70

60

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 car's environmental friendliness would have on
respondents purchase decision compared with how much consideration a car's 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. Question
12 was aimed at discovering what would encourage respondents to buy an EFV. The sample
were asked to rank each factor on a scale of 1-5 in regards to how much influence it may have on
encouraging them to buy an EFV. Results are shown in figures 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11.

- 303 -


100

90

80

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
Rating

Figure 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

70

60
Increased Knowledge
50
Better EFV fuel efficiency
40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

Figure 4.10 – A graph to show respondents’ opinions on what factors would have a moderate influence on

100

90

80

70

60
Increased car tax
50 Increased petrol/diesel prices
Government Grants
40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

Figure 4.11 – A graph to show respondents’ opinions on what factors would have the lowest influences on

Figure 4.9 shows the factors which respondents ranked would have the most influence on
encouraging them to buy an EFV: increased EFV performance, reduced initial EFV cost, better

- 304 -


EFV technology and advertising campaigns. With the exception of advertising campaigns, all
these factors are ranked very similarly to each other, showing that the respondents regard each as
having a similar influence on encouraging them to buy an EFV. Between 45-55% of participants
ranked each factor as 5 on the Likert scale, whilst 30-40% of those who did not, ranked each
factor as 4. Respondents appear to have mixed opinions on the influence advertising would have
on encouraging them to buy an EFV, with rankings evenly distributed between 3, 4 and 5. The
mean 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 on
encouraging 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 rank
scores, in the order listed above, are 4.20 and 3.78.

Figure 4.11 shows what factors respondents ranked as having the lowest influence on
encouraging them to buy an EFV: increased petrol/diesel prices, government grants and
increased car tax. Their mean rank scores are, as in the order above, 3.66, 3.59 and 3.47, showing
that although participants still consider them as being influential, these factors are regarded as
being less influential in encouraging them to buy an EFV than those mentioned in the prior
paragraphs.

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 this
being the case asked them to rank 5 out of 10 factors in order 1-5 in terms of their importance in
choosing their EFV. The results are shown below by figures 4.12 and 4.13
100

90

80

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 being
important if they were to buy an environmentally friendly vehicle (1= most important, 5= less important)

- 305 -


100

90

80
Insurance Costs

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, buying
an EFV is the initial cost, which received over 75% of participants’ number 1 rank. Of the
remaining 9 factors, figure 4.12 shows 4 others which were commonly ranked by respondents
between 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 5
factors, all of which were less commonly ranked by respondents therefore identifying them as
less important to participants who were hypothetically purchasing an EFV. Design was only
ranked between 1 and 5 by a total of 9 participants.

4.4 Qualitative Responses to Survey Questions

A total of two open-ended questions were asked to the sample in order to allow respondents to
express their opinions on EFV’s and how they could be promoted. Table 4.1 summarises the
participant’s responses to the questions.

Table 4.1 – A table summarising participant’s responses to the open-ended questions in the questionnaire

Question Summary
7. Can you think of • Among the respondents replies, colour and price depreciation were mentioned
anything else that most frequently.
may influence your • Interestingly, no-one mentioned a cars environmental status
decision to buy a car?
11. What do you • Participants often seemed to have some kind of idea of what could be done in
think could be done order to promote the sales of EFV’s.
to encourage people • Reducing the cost was mentioned frequently as well as advertising, promoting
to buy more environmental awareness and ensuring that they can compete with the
environmentally 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 respondents

4.5 Data collected from Interviews

A total of four semi-structured interviews were completed with professionals from a range of
companies including Saab, ULTra, EST and Toyota. Summarised below are the main findings
from the interviews.

- 306 -


Table 4.2 - A table summarising interviewee’s responses to questions

Qtn Summary of Findings
1. What do you think • The demand for EFV’s is very low – main barrier
are the main barriers to • Cost is very high without demand to ensure sales
the mass production of • New technology requires new production plants which is expensive
environmentally
• The process requires the support of managers either in local authorities or large
friendly 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 charge
been 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 to
be taken to encourage ensure the public know about them
more people to buy • Advertising campaigns on a national scale
EFV’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 educating
improving/fine-tuning the public and convincing them EFV’s are the vehicles of the future
the alternative vehicle • Without mainstream public knowledge and support EFV sales will always remain
technologies or of very low.
educating the public to • However, improvements to EFV’s still play an important role in encouraging their
increase their awareness take-up. If a big breakthrough were to occur it could kick-start the public into buying
of the benefits coupled EFV’s.
with EFV’s?
5. When is it likely that • Very difficult to estimate; no knowing what technological developments may occur
EFV’s will occupy a or how proactive the government / car manufacturers will be in the future
more substantial part of • Hopefully occupy 10% of the UK market by 2050
the 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 no
doing more in order to difference – the people who drive these cars paid thousands for them and so an extra
promote 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 remedied
could 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 them
7. Do you feel that car • Mixed responses, interviewees from car companies tended to answer that their
manufacturers 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 could
to promote the use of be. Most are researching alternative fuel vehicles or even producing them (though
EFV’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’s
effectively? today (i.e. highlighting the fact that many alternative vehicles have performance specs
equal to those of a conventional car)

- 307 -


5 Discussion

This section brings together and analyses the results and findings from the previous sections in
relation 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 use
of environmentally friendly cars in the UK.

5.1 Implications of questionnaire / interview results

5.1.1 A willingness to change?
It is clear from the results that although public knowledge on climate change is not vast, most are
highly concerned with the effects of CC, shown by figure 4.2. In conjunction, the 1998 Lex
survey 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 do
something about the problem. Further evidence for this is provided by figure 5.1, which shows
more than 98% of questionnaire participants would consider buying and EFV, and car sale
figures released by SMMT which show a sevenfold increase in the sales of EFV’s between 2005
and 2007 (SMMTa, 2006). Overall it seems that people are willing to start changing their ways to
help combat CC in terms of emissions from transport, but that certain barriers are preventing
this change from occurring at a faster rate.
98.44
100

90

80

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’ to
these conventional vehicles (2003). Maclean identified that these comparable factors are likely to
include vehicle price, performance, range, comfort, lifetime, and safety standards (2003). The
results of this study reinforce this: figure 4.5 and 4.6 reveal that influential factors in car buying
include 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 4.5
indicates that over 80% of respondents ranked it as highly influential), cost is also commonly
recognised as one of the main drawbacks to alternative fuel vehicles. These additional costs
include alternative fuel and vehicle production, fuel distribution and storage; and overall they
account for one of the central conditions affecting the widespread use of low emission vehicles.

- 308 -

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

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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

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

Similar to Environmentally Friendly Cars: Promoting and increasing their use in the UK (20)

More from ZY8

More from ZY8 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

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