Transcript here - PACTS

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
[email protected]
1
Interpretation of my remit
1. What can road safety policy and
campaigning learn from travel demand
management?
2. What are the synergies between policies
aiming to achieve a safe and sustainable
transport system?
2
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
3
(1) What can road safety learn
from travel demand
management?
4
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
5
Common constructs
Construct
Road safety
TDM
Attitude-behaviour gap
Speeding is dangerous (but I
do it anyway)
I am worried about climate
change
Attitude deficit
I don't think my reactions would
be influenced if I had two drinks
Its ok because I have a
catalytic converter
Cognitive dissonance
Actually, I think there is nothing
wrong with speeding
I can’t make any difference to
solving climate change
Denial
It probably isn’t going to
happen to me
It probably isn’t going to
happen to me
Social norms
Speeding has been made okay
- everyone does it
My mates would laugh if I
turned up on bicycle
Identity and status
Friends in the car make you
show off
Bus travel is for losers
Trust / confidence
You wouldn't go with someone
you didn't know
The government are just
trying to raise revenue
Convenience
I'd get in if it was convenient
I would only use it if it was
convenient
6
If only it were this simple …
Improve service
Improve
knowledge
Improve
attitudes
Change
Behaviour
7
But …
1. Information is necessary but
insufficient on its own – there are
multiple objective and subjective barriers
to behaviour change
2. Different barriers are experienced by
different people – there is no one size
fits all message or solution
8
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)
9
Theories of behaviour change
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Individual Level
The deficit model
Rational choice theory
The theory of planned
behaviour
Norm activation theory
Values-beliefs-norms
theory
Interpersonal Level
6. Triandis’ theory of
interpersonal behaviour
7. Social learning theory
Community/Network Level
8. Social capital theory
9. Diffusion of innovations
Stages of Change Models
10. Transtheoretical model (TTM)
11. Systems theory
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.
10
The ‘deficit model’ still prevails
11
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))
12
Why its not so simple …
Improve service
Improve
knowledge
Improve
attitudes
Habit
Change
Behaviour
13
Barriers to behaviour change
INDIVIDUAL SUBJECTIVE










Values
Moral norms
Sense of responsibility
Perceived control
Self efficacy / agency
Denial
Instrumental attitudes
Affective attitudes
Identity and status
Heuristics
COLLECTIVE SUBJECTIVE



Social dilemmas
Group cultures/ shared
norms
Trust in others and in
government
INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIVE




Knowledge
Habit
Personal capabilities
Actual resource
constraints
COLLECTIVE OBJECTIVE



Contextual/ situational
factors
Communication / the
media
The nature of the
climate change problem
14
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
15
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
16
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
17
Different behaviours need different
triggers
Travel behaviour can change in at least
three ways:
1. Change which cars are bought
2. Change how cars are driven
3. Change how much cars are driven
18
Car buying paradoxes
Factors reported when deciding what car to buy
•Capital cost
•Fuel consumption
•Size/Practicality
•Reliability
•Comfort
•Safety
•Running costs
•Style/Appearance
Source: DfT 2004
•Performance
•Image
•Brand
•Insurance
•Engine size
•Equipment levels
•Depreciation
•Experience
•Sales Package
•Dealership
•Environment
•Vehicle Emissions
•Road tax
•Alternative fuel
19
Segmentation
20
Why segment the market?
• Little point in targeting the average motorist/
traveller
• No ‘one size fit all’ approach
• Different people are motivated by different things
• Allows its user to identify clearly differentiated
groups within a broad audience, and to
understand the most effective means by which
to engage those groups.
• Tried and tested technique in commercial
marketing – psychographic segmentation
21
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
22
Malcontented Motorists
• Find driving increasingly
stressful
• Moral responsibility to
reduce car use
• Some willingness to
sacrifice for the sake of the
environment
• Guilt when the car is used
unnecessarily
BUT they see big problems with all other modes 23
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)
24
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
25
Aspiring Environmentalists
•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 26
Car Sceptics
•Do not own a car
•Have a high sense of
green awareness and
concern
•Have a positive view of
public transport and
cycling
•Enjoy travelling by alternative modes
27
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
28
Car Aspirers
•Desire car ownership
•High bus use at the
moment
•Not motivated by
environmental issues
•Socially excluded?
•Potential to shape future habits?
29
(2) What are the synergies
between policies aiming to
achieve a safe & sustainable
transport system?
30
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
31
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
32
Win-win policies
•
•
•
•
•
Safe routes to school
Speed enforcement / reduction
Eco-driving
Urban design
Cycle routes and training
33
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
34