Integrating Behaviour Change for Safety and Sustainability

1. Understanding behaviour change Safety and Sustainability: developing a seamless approach PACTS conference, London, 11th March 2009 Dr Jillian Anable The Centre for Transport Research University of Aberdeen j.anable@abdn.ac.uk

2. Interpretation of my remit • What can road safety policy and campaigning learn from travel demand management? • What are the synergies between policies aiming to achieve a safe and sustainable transport system?

3. Key messages • Not so much about learning from each other as learning to work together • Much to learn from psychology and marketing – particularly that information is necessary but not sufficient to change behaviour • For most people – ‘health’ is a stronger motivator than the environment • Much to gain from focussing on ‘win win’ policies

4. (1) What can road safety learn from travel demand management?

5. But .. isn’t that the wrong way round? Travel behaviour change experts look to road safety policy for inspiration. E.g.: • Strong culture of campaigns and enforcement • Seat belts and drink driving campaigns are viewed as exemplary • Campaign messages are hard hitting, creative and draw upon the heart strings effectively • Road safety education is better embedded in the curriculum than travel awareness

6. Common constructs

7. Improve service Improve knowledge Improve attitudes Change Behaviour If only it were this simple …

8. But … • Information is necessary but insufficient on its own – there are multiple objective and subjective barriers to behaviour change • Different barriers are experienced by different people – there is no one size fits all message or solution

9. Change needs to be influenced at three levels • Individual – incorporating values, attitudes, beliefs, social norms, identity and intentions • Interpersonal – the relationship between individuals (trust, social networks) • Community – dynamics of structures and institutions (societal norms and culture; communications and the media)

10. Theories of behaviour change Source: Anable, J.; Lane, B and Kelay, T. (2006) An Evidence Base Review of Attitudes to Climate Change and Transport. Report for the UK Department for Transport, London.

11. The ‘deficit model’ still prevails

12. Awareness raising – how not to do it … “If everyone in the UK washed their laundry just 10 degrees cooler we would need one less 250 Megawatt power station!!” Mistakes with this statement: • What is a 250 MW power station? • Who cares? • Where is the benefit at the individual level? • What if ‘everyone’ else doesn’t do it? • What if I want to wash my clothes with hot water to get the washing cleaner? (based on Hounsham (2006))

13. Improve service Improve knowledge Improve attitudes Change Behaviour Why its not so simple … TRUST in the information provider Perceived CONTROL Sense of responsibility Objective knowledge or PERCEPTION? Identity Social norms Efficacy Habit Generalised cost Cognitive dissonance Behaviour informs attitudes

14. Barriers to behaviour change

15. Social norms “The south blames the north, cyclists blame car drivers, activists blame oil companies and almost everyone blames George Bush.” • Lack of action by others validates own inactivity • Look to others to set own moral compass • Persuasion efforts need to be focused at the group level – the ‘weight watchers’ effect • Information is important to change social norms, NOT to secure voluntary change

16. The attitude – behaviour gap • No grand unifying theory of travel behaviour • Theories/ models at a number of different levels: Individual, Interpersonal and Community • + ‘Stages of change’ models • Information is necessary but not sufficient • Attitudes are only one factor in a complex set of motivators

17. Minding the ‘gap’ • Value-action gap - complex - but need to try and understand the barriers to change • What we think the public ought to know about is irrelevant: we must start from what they care about • Different for different population segments • Different for each type of travel behaviour

18. Different behaviours need different triggers Travel behaviour can change in at least three ways: • Change which cars are bought • Change how cars are driven • Change how much cars are driven

19. Car buying paradoxes Factors reported when deciding what car to buy • Capital cost • Fuel consumption • Size/Practicality • Reliability • Comfort • Safety • Running costs • Style/Appearance • Performance • Image • Brand • Insurance • Engine size • Equipment levels • Depreciation • Experience • Sales Package • Dealership • Environment • Vehicle Emissions • Road tax • Alternative fuel Source: DfT 2004

20. Segmentation

21. Why segment the market? • Little point in targeting theaveragemotorist/ traveller • No ‘one size fit all’ approach • Different people aremotivated by different things • Allows its user toidentify clearly differentiated groupswithin a broad audience, and tounderstand the most effective means by which to engage those groups. • Tried and tested technique in commercial marketing –psychographic segmentation

22. But, there is good segmentation and bad segmentation … • Segmentation of travellers has relied on demographics or behaviours. • E.g.road safety – has tended to segment by ‘young drivers’, ‘old pedestrians’. But … • Need to find psychologically meaningful groups • Draw upon marketing and psychology • Design targeted messages • Investigate how segments change over time

23. Malcontented Motorists • Find driving increasinglystressful • Moral responsibility to reduce car use • Some willingnessto sacrifice for the sake of the environment • Guilt when the car is used unnecessarily • BUT they see big problems with all other modes

24. Car Complacents • Do not see problems with car use and congestion but also don’t ‘love’ their cars; • No attempt so far to reduce car use • Motivated by cost, not the environment • ‘Indifferent’ about public transport. (but at least they don’t say they hate it)

25. Die Hard Drivers • Lowest desire to reduce car use • Highest psychological car dependency • Care about what their car says about them • Perceive many problems with most other modes • Unwilling to sacrifice for the sake of the environment

26. AspiringEnvironmentalists • Have a ‘practical approach to car use • Already reduced their car use and will reduce further if given the chance • Don’t particularly enjoy car travel; enjoy cycling and train travel • Feel responsible for environmental problems

27. Car Sceptics • Do not own a car • Have ahigh sense of green awarenessand concern • Have apositive view of public transport and cycling • Enjoy travelling by alternative modes

28. Reluctant Riders • Do not own a car • Would prefer to have greater access to a car • Use the car when they have a chance • Not motivated by environmental issues • Older and have lower incomes

29. Car Aspirers • Desire car ownership • High bus useat the moment • Not motivated by environmental issues • Socially excluded? • Potential to shape future habits?

30. (2) What are the synergies between policies aiming to achieve a safe & sustainable transport system?

31. Synergies • Road safety cannot be achieved in isolation from other policy objectives • E.g. A road safety professional working on a narrow agenda may suggest moving a bus stop to a completely inappropriate location • We need to start by asking what sort of places we want and how transport can meet people’s needs • Transport delivery is then based on creating places for people and road safety is just one element • A joint strategy is what is needed

32. Safe environments facilitate sustainable behaviour • Unattractive and unsafe environments are an obstacle to non-motorised modes • Safe routes to school – should not distinguish whether the infrastructure, education and publicity are about health or environment or economy – it is all of them • Imagine a transport word where safety and sustainability (and marketing) were built in as standard … • Contrast with food market – complementary legislation, marketing, education and information culture which consumes up to 10% of the budget

33. Win-win policies • Safe routes to school • Speed enforcement / reduction • Eco-driving • Urban design • Cycle routes and training

34. CONCLUSIONS • Not so much about learning from each other as learning to work together • Much to learn from psychology and marketing – particularly that information is necessary but not sufficient to change behaviour • For most people – ‘health’ is a stronger motivator than the environment • Much to gain from focussing on ‘win win’ policies