attitudes to aviation and climate change - ipsos · half of the public say they are very or fairly...

Atti tudes to Aviati on and Clim ate Change

Final Report

Research study conducted for

Com m issi on for Integrated Transpor t

February 2007

Contents

1. Executi ve Sum m ary 1

2. Introducti on 9

2.1. Backgr ound 9

2.2. Overall aims and object ives 9

2.3. Object ives for t he publ ic at tit udes survey 10

3. M ethodol ogy 11

3.1. Sample desi gn 11

3.2. Questionnai re desi gn 13

3.3. Fieldwork 13

3.4. Deliberat ive workshop 15

4. Sum m ary of quanti tati ve fi ndings 17

4.1. Quantit at ive Fi ndings 17

4.2. Consumer Segmentat ion 20

5. Travel behavi our 23

5.1. Air tr avel 23

5.2. Choice of m ode 26

6. Attitudes to avi ati on and the envi ronm ent 30

6.1. Knowledge and concer n about t he impact of cl im ate change 30

6.2. Attit udes towards the envi ronmental effect s of air tr avel 35

6.3. Tackl ing the envi ronmental effect s of air tr avel 41

7. Consum er segm entati on 56

7.1. Overview of anal ysi s techni que 56

7.2. Overview of t he clust ers 57

8. Deliberati ve research fi ndings 69

8.1. Overview – who shoul d take responsi bilit y? 69

8.2. Views on Policy Options 73

8.3. Adverti sing and Comm unicat ions 74

8.4. Tax/ W illi ngness to pay 78

8.5. Incent ives for Aviat ion Indust ry 82

8.6. Carbon footpr ints and off-set ti ng 85

8.7. Conclusi ons - Importance of Technol ogy 86

9. Im plicati ons 87

Attitudes to Aviation and Climate Change for the Commission for Integrated Transport

1

1. Executi ve Sum m ary This research report is based on findings from a three-stage research process, designed to give detailed insight into current and future flying behaviour and how this links with attitudes towards climate change. Initial qualitative groups explored the scope of people’s understanding, a face-to-face random pre-selected survey of 1,122 people, supplemented with two booster samples (business flyers and people living near airports) then quantified these views. Finally, we hosted a one and a half day deliberative event in which we brought together members of the public with stakeholders from the aviation industry and environmental lobby in order to discuss the implications of the research for policy.

1.1.1. Travel behaviour Consistent with previous research studies1, 44% of people in England have flown for leisure in the past 12 months. While 77% of these have flown just once or twice in the last year, nearly a quarter of those who have flown (23%) have done so three or more times. Existing air travel statistics highlight that it is this latter group of frequent flyers who are primarily driving the growth in leisure air travel abroad; with the biggest growth area coming from scheduled flights to mainland Europe offered by low cost airlines2. In line with forecasts, the majority of people expect to fly as often or more frequently in the future (82%), with half of those who have not flown in the past year expecting to fly at some point in the future. Only a small proportion (11%) expect to fly less frequently in the future, and this is predominantly due to changes in personal circumstances rather than a concern about the environmental impact of aviation. Although climate change is still not front-of-mind amongst the majority of the public in terms of prompting behavioural change, it is now seen as a more immediate issue that will affect the UK today (50% believing the UK is already affected). Up until recently, climate change has been seen as much more remote – something that affects other countries and future generations3. There is now a growing awareness of the link between emissions and climate change. In the qualitative research, participants note that increased media coverage and changes they think they have personally observed in the UK climate (perceived warmer and shorter winters, more extreme weather conditions) have made them increasingly aware of the environmental impact of their actions. Half of the public say they are very or fairly concerned about the environmental impact of flying and less than one in ten (7%) say they are not at all concerned. This is a similar level of concern to other recent studies, such as the YouGov survey for BATA of August 2006, where 56% of the population were at least fairly concerned about this issue. However, participants in the deliberative workshop, after becoming better informed on the issues, feel that there is more scope for

1 Cairns, S., Dargay, J., Menaz, B., Public Attitudes towards Aviation and Climate Change Stage 1 : Desktop Research, September 2006, Institute for Transport Studies (University of Leeds)/Transport Research Laboratory 2 Cairns et al (2006) 3 Anable, J., Kelay, T., Lane, B., An Evidence Base Review of Public Attitudes to Climate Change and Transport Behaviour, July 2006, DfT.


2

raising awareness further. There is significant support for public information campaigns designed to communicate more widely the link between emissions and climate change, and the impact of aviation as a part of this.

1.1.2. Tackl ing cl im ate change Given this context, the majority of the public are receptive to the idea of policies designed to reduce the environmental impact of flying. However, their support comes with the strong caveat that they are not willing to sacrifice foreign holidays altogether. For many, flying is an aspiration with travelling abroad seen to be a ‘good thing’ and one that people are reluctant to give up. While 74% believe that it is important that the UK does what it can to tackle climate change, support is lessened for policies directly designed to restrict growth in air travel (57% support), with qualitative findings indicating that support would fall further still if people felt that they would be ‘priced out’ of flying altogether. Consequently the focus of discussions is how to find an equitable way to raise the funding required to invest in technological solutions. As with other studies, the onus is still placed on national and global institutions to mitigate the effects of transport emissions. The UK Government is identified as the key institution who should be taking responsibility for tackling the environmental impact of aviation in the UK – 59% believe this is the case. The Government is seen as having three important roles. Firstly, ensuring that the aviation industry takes its responsibility seriously and invests in the research and development required to ensure aviation becomes more efficient in the future. Currently only a quarter of people believe that airlines are working hard to reduce their environmental impact whereas 36% disagree. Secondly, to develop ways to ensure that the general public are aware of the impact of their behaviour and to encourage them to adopt more sustainable behaviours. Finally, participants believe the Government has a role in ensuring that other countries around the world are also considering what they can do to reduce their impact, so that people in the UK are not changing their behaviour in isolation.

1.1.3. Encouragi ng travel lers to take responsibi li ty People are enthusiastic about introducing measures that provide alternative mode options. Therefore, they are very supportive of a policy designed to encourage people to use trains rather than domestic and short haul flights where possible. However, it is felt that significant change is needed – in particular, an improved (faster, more reliable) UK rail network, cheaper fares and better booking systems enabling people to consider the train for European destinations. Flying for the main annual holiday is not very price sensitive, with people likely to absorb increased fares by reducing their holiday budget in other areas (eg. cheaper hotel, less eating out etc) rather than change their destination. Half of people who have flown in the past 12 months or think they will fly in the future say they are willing to pay higher prices to take into account their environmental impact and only a third (35%) disagree. Comparing these findings with those identified in the recent literature review undertaken by the


3

Environmental Change Institute in 2006 (where around 60% of the public support the principle of higher taxes on flying)4; this continues to underline a gradual shift in public opinion, with the majority of the public now recognising the need make flying more expensive to reflect the environmental damage. When asked how much they would be willing to pay to reflect the environmental damage done by a short haul flight, on average people would consider paying up to 10% in addition to their ticket price, and prices would have to be increased by up to 50% before the average person would decide not to fly. The public are particularly keen to ensure that any pricing policy is equitable, and that it does not stop people with less money or large families from travelling altogether. Therefore, some suggest that everyone should have an allowance of one flight per year which is free of environmental taxes, but that tax should be payable on any further flights. It is important to note, however, that people will only be happy to pay such a tax if they have evidence that the money is being spent on measures to reduce the impact of aviation on climate change – they would not be happy for the money to be diverted into the public purse more generally. Many (53%) are cynical and believe that Government is taking an interest in the environment as a way to increase tax revenues and would require strong proof that this is not the case. Whereas nearly two thirds (62%) would support a fuel tax with revenues used to improve the environment or to fund travel alternatives, only a third (35%) would support such a tax if it was used elsewhere (e.g. the NHS). There is limited support for carbon offsetting schemes – mainly as a result of a limited understanding of their effectiveness and how such a scheme would operate in practice. Even when the broader range of options is explained, many feel that money would be better spent funding travel alternatives and developing new technological solutions.

4 Cairns, S. and Newson, C., Predict and Decide: Aviation, Climate Change and UK Policy, 2006, Environmental Change Institute


4

1.1.4. Different pol ici es for different groups It is possible to divide the population into different attitudinal and behavioural segments, each of whom is likely to respond differently to ‘carrot’ and ‘stick’ measures that could be introduced by Government. These are outlined in the table overleaf. The groups that are likely to be most responsive to policy measures aimed at reducing carbon emissions from aviation are the Ultra Greens (13% of population), Young Receptives (13% of population) and Uninformed Supporters (21% of population). ‘Ultra Greens’ are already highly informed and although they are predominantly frequent fliers they are aware of the impact of their behaviour and keen to change it. For this group, providing them with alternatives they see as viable (in particular making train travel less expensive and more reliable) will be important. In contrast, the other two groups are less aware of climate change. However, with or without detailed information they are likely to respond to government interventions. Uninformed Supporters are already generally positive about ‘green’ policies whereas the Young Receptives may require more convincing. ‘Affluent Environmentalists’ (14%) stand apart as a group already concerned about climate change who are well informed about the issues. Unlike many of the other segments, price is not an issue for this group and information provision is not necessarily required. Consequently, the most effective way to alter the behaviour of people in this group will be to lead by example and encourage them to believe that by changing their behaviour they can make a significant difference. Groups whose behaviour will be harder to change are ‘The Disengaged’ (11%), and ‘Informed Middle England’ (28%). Both groups are reluctant to change their behaviour and feel they would be unlikely to be influenced by many of the policy ideas we proposed. The former group come from an uninformed viewpoint, whereas the latter believe themselves to be well informed, but in both cases there is low motivation to change behaviour and changes are likely to lag behind those in the other segments identified.


5

Name of cluster Who they are Flying behaviour What they would respond to

The Ultra Greens (13%)

Predominantly female, ABC1, regular newspaper readers (especially broadsheets)

Frequent flyers, usually ‘low cost’ airlines and likely to fly for ‘short breaks’

Most pro-environmentalist and are willing to change their behaviour.

Likely to be very responsive to a variety of measures:

Increasing fares to be in line with train fares would be most effective

Fuel tax with proceeds used to improve the environment

Advertising about the UK’s responsibility to set an example to other countries

Government policies to reduce air traffic

The Affluent Environmentalists (14%)

ABC1, aged 35-44, live in London and South East, read quality newspapers

More likely to fly for business and to visit friends and family, use low-cost and standard airlines. Not regular flyers outside Europe

Well informed and are concerned about climate change. Are already acting to help the environment in other ways.

Increasing fares would have little impact upon this group. But, could be influenced by other measures:

Leading by example – encouraging them that their actions will make a difference

Policies which may impact upon personal convenience or business productivity (e.g. not allowing planes to fly unless ¾ full or limiting people to 2 flights per year)

Attitudes to Aviation and Climate Change for Commission for Integrated Transport

6


The Young Receptives (13%)

Under 35, more likely to be female, social grade DE, working, tabloid readers

Price-dependent flying behaviour, use low cost airlines, take short breaks

Low knowledge of causes and effects of air travel. Ambivalent about government policies – but not averse to supporting them.

Likely to respond to:

More information about the consequences of their behaviour to address their lack of knowledge

More forceful government interventions and regulation – e.g. preventing planes from taking off unless three-quarters full, limiting them to two flights per year

Less cynical (or informed) about government actions, e.g. where the proceeds of a fuel tax goes to

The Uninformed Supporters (21%)

Women, middle aged, White, C2/D, live in North East, not car owners, tabloid newspaper readers

Not frequent flyers – two-thirds have not flown at all in last 12 months

Low knowledge and average concern; however high levels of support for “green” policies. Policies may have little impact on them personally, as many are not current flyers:

Need to convert their support into behavioural change/deter them from flying in future – emphasis on social responsibility, as well as effect of aviation on noise pollution and airport expansion, two of their key concerns.

Supportive of fare increases – prepared to pay a fair amount more. Fairly amenable to proceeds going to either the environment or other Treasury expenditure


7


Informed Middle England (28%)

Older, men, working, B/C1, live in the South

Business flyers, also leisure flyers, more likely to travel to long-haul destinations

Claim to know a fair amount, are moderately concerned, but unwilling to change own behaviour. The challenge will be to overcome this group’s inertia/complacency:

Emphasis on responsibility of UK/aviation industry rather than personal compromise might be effective

Fare increases would be most likely to make them fly less, but not to a great extent

Are likely to lag behind until behaviour change enters into the mainstream

The Disengaged (11%)

Young (under 35), social grades C1C2DE), tend to live in the North West, own 2 or more cars or light vans, not newspaper-readers (if they do they read tabloids)

Holidays abroad using package airlines, not really frequent flyers. Choice of airline is influenced by past experience and discount/ loyalty schemes

The Disengaged are likely to be the most difficult group to reach, being unconcerned about climate change and cynical about efforts to help the environment.

Information/education will be crucial to begin to engage them – much of their lack of concern is attributed to not knowing about the issues. A targeted communications campaign could prove invaluable.

Unlikely at present to be influenced by any policy, as the decision of transport mode is not a conscious one

Alternative holiday options may be an effective way of reducing the amount this group fly – offering packages that do not include flying, for example – providing an easy and affordable alternative.


8

1.1.5. M easures for the avi ati on industry Participants feel strongly that the solution will ultimately lie in technology and that the aviation industry must be encouraged to find solutions. They are also keen to encourage airlines to maximise the use of capacity and to ensure that planes do not fly half empty – although they recognise that this could create contrary behaviour by motivating airlines to cut prices to ensure they fill seats. There is significant concern about keeping the UK aviation industry competitive – participants are keen for London to remain a major hub and want to ensure that any policies introduced do not impact on this. In particular, tax on aviation fuel, or environmental landing taxes are seen to be potentially unworkable as airlines will choose to use other European destinations as their hub instead. There is some support for emissions trading schemes, but people generally struggle to understand the context in detail and, once informed, are concerned about how such a scheme could be fairly policed. They call for Government to involve an independent agency which can police the behaviour of the industry and can ensure that policies have an equal impact across the sector. People are supportive of differential taxes on airline profits depending on the efficiency of the airline’s fleet – this is seen to be a positive way to encourage airlines to buy more efficient planes and therefore to reduce emissions. Participants suggest that the travelling public could also have a role in encouraging airlines to become more environmentally sensitive, but to do so they will need more information. Some suggest that a scheme similar to that used to grade the efficiency of fridges could also be transferred to the aviation industry – information could be available on websites and on travel tickets, indicating how efficient each airline is. Efficiency is thought to be a composite measure, reflecting emissions per passenger (i.e. how fuel efficient the aircraft is and also the average percentage of capacity filled), and also investment into R&D. Participants hope that if information about efficiency is made widely known, airlines will feel pressurised to improve their performance and also, in the longer term, people will start to vote with their feet. Again, there are some challenges – particularly how low-cost airlines might be judged, as while their planes may rate well on emissions per passenger this is in part because they artificially stimulate demand by supplying tickets at a very low cost, consequently encouraging people to make journeys that they may otherwise have not done. With all the options involving airlines, participants feel it is important to focus on the world-wide impact of policy decisions. In particular, they are concerned that policies in this country could potentially just shift a problem elsewhere. For example, if airlines feel they have to replace older aircraft to cut emissions they may be tempted to sell them to developing countries and participants feel strongly that this should not be allowed.


9

2. Introducti on 2.1. Background

Ipsos MORI was commissioned by the Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) to undertake a research project to understand the public’s attitudes towards, and understanding of, the links between air travel and climate change. The research project has three main elements:

(i) Exploratory qualitative research in the form of discussion groups amongst leisure and business travellers and depth interviews with employees who are responsible for arranging business travel. This element of the project was designed to explore knowledge of the issues, attitudes towards flying, current behaviour and the key motivators and drivers to change.

(ii) A public attitudes survey that was guided by findings from the qualitative research in order to provide quantification of public attitudes towards climate change affording comparisons to be made between different geo-demographic and attitudinal groups. The survey was preceded by cognitive interviews amongst the general public to test the questionnaire before it was used in the main stage.

(iii) A stakeholder seminar was conducted on 26th and 27th January, which provided the opportunity to bring together members of the public and key stakeholders to discuss the implications of the research findings with policy makers and the aviation industry.

Alongside this primary research, the Institute for Transport Studies and TRL conducted a desk research project, using secondary data to establish demand elasticities for air travel.

2.2. Overal l aim s and objecti ves

The key objectives of the research project are below. The first three are within the scope of this research programme, and the final one will be predominantly addressed in the desk research:

Test current attitudes and behaviours towards air transport and climate change among a robust sample of English residents;

Consider how public attitudes and behaviours might affect possible public policy responses on climate change;

Consider how public attitudes and behaviours might affect the way that the airline industry responds to climate change;

Examine the evidence base on trends in demand for air travel, including any projections for future numbers of trips.


10

2.3. Objecti ves for the publ ic atti tudes survey

The purpose of this report is to provide findings from the public attitudes survey research. In this report we provide hard data and comparisons in terms of current behaviour and attitudes between different geo-demographic and attitudinal groups, as well as identifying emerging implications for policy-makers and the aviation industry for further discussion in the stakeholder workshop. Where relevant we make comparisons between leisure and business traveller demographics, attitudes and behaviour.

More specifically, we assess:

Travel behaviour profiles

- particular destinations travelled to and how frequently,

- frequency of flying and reasons for choice of transport.

- changes in flying behaviour in the last 5 years and potential changes in future behaviour

Attitudes towards aviation and the environment

- overall knowledge and concern about climate change

- knowledge and concern about the environmental impact of air travel

- attitudes towards potential policies to help reduce the impact of air travel on climate change

- willingness to change own personal behaviour


11

3. M ethodology 3.1. Sam ple desi gn

The public attitudes survey was conducted using the following sampling frame:

Main household sample – a random representative sample of adults aged 16+ in England

Booster sample 1 – people living in close proximity to airports

Booster sample 2 – people who have flown abroad for business purposes at least once in the last 12 months

3.1.1. M ain househol d sam ple

A sample of random pre-selected households was obtained for the study. The sampling approach utilised the Postcode Address File (PAF) as the sampling frame, with 1 in “n” addresses being selected as postcode sectors from 153 Primary Sampling Units stratified across the nine Government Office Regions (GORs) in England; the number drawn being proportional to the population in each GOR. Up to five call-backs were made at each address in the attempt to undertake an interview with a member of the household.

The main sample comprises 1,122 respondents, with a 46% response rate5. Of these, 527 had flown for leisure in the last 12 months and 94 for business. Full details of the achieved sample profile and weightings given in the appendices.

3.1.2. Sam ple of those li vi ng cl ose to airports

A booster sample of 68 interviews (with an achieved response rate of 42%) was used to provide sufficient numbers of respondents living near airports to facilitate analysis to be undertaken on this specific sub-set of the population. This affords opportunity to compare views relating to environmental concerns with respect to aviation, such as noise or air pollution, from those living close to airports with the population as a whole. After comprehensively auditing the distribution of airports in England, an agreed sub-set of airports was selected for inclusion in the survey, as detailed overleaf.

Addresses were selected at random from two Output Areas within 5 miles of each selected airport. Since the sampling approach in selecting respondents within these areas is the same as for the main sample, this booster sample was combined with the main sample, though down-weighted to reflect the population of the GOR from which it was selected.

5 Project timing necessitated fieldwork to be conducted within a restricted window leading up to Christmas, which was not ideal and as such impacted in the achieved response rate.


12

The main sample therefore comprises 1190 respondents, 1122 from the main household sample and 68 from the airport booster (downweighted). Unless otherwise stated, reported survey findings are base on this main sample with an overall sample size of 1190.

Airport Type Locations

London International Heathrow, London City, Gatwick, Stansted

Regional International Southampton, Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle, Norwich

Internal (domestic passenger flights only)

Plymouth City, Sandown (Isle of Wight)

3.1.3. Business Flyer sam ple

The findings from the initial qualitative research stage confirmed that a booster sample of business travellers should be used to ensure that their views are sufficiently represented and any key attitudinal and behavioural differences are quantified.

The business flyer booster sample was gathered from existing leads of business travellers who have agreed in to previous Ipsos MORI Omnibus surveys to take part in further research. As the Omnibus survey question ascertained if they had flown for business in the last 3 years, a screener question was asked prior to conducting the interview to assess whether they had flown for business in the last 12 months. This booster sample of business flyers (72) has been combined with business flyers obtained in the main sample (94), where relevant, to provide a subsample (166) weighted to the profile of business flyers as found in the ONS International Passenger survey 2006 (provided in the appendices).

A degree of caution should be noted in interpreting findings from this business flying sample; given this relatively small sample size, which was not wholly obtained by random sampling methods.


13

3.2. Questi onnai re design

3.2.1. Business and leisure questi onnai res

Building on the findings from the explorative qualitative phase of the research, draft questionnaires were designed in close consultation with the CfIT project team. Two different variants of the questionnaire were designed, with one focussing on leisure travel behaviour and the other focussing on business travel.

The main questionnaire (addresses to the main and airport booster sample) focussed on leisure flying questions with a few broad business flying questions at the start. This enabled us to understand what proportion of our sample are leisure and business flyers and provides some understanding of their behaviour in each case.

The business flyer variant was used with the business booster sample only, while reducing the potential fatigue of answering travel behaviour in detail for both leisure and business flights. This questionnaire included broadly the same questions as the main variant so that, where possible, the differences between business, leisure and non-flyers can be compared. In thinking about the issues regarding policy options, this sub-sample were similarly asked to consider themselves from a business flyer perspective only.

3.2.2. Cogniti ve testi ng

The draft questionnaires were cognitively tested prior to the main stage of the fieldwork to test the questionnaire length and flow, and further refine the final questions. Twenty cognitive interviews took place in early October; amongst a mix of people to provide a good spread across the socio-demographic structure, as well as flying behaviour and environmental attitudes. Participants were asked questions in their home by an Ipsos MORI executive team member, who observed and recorded the respondents’ reactions, following up initial answers with a series of open ended and structured questions. The composition of the interview sample is provided in the Appendices to this report.

Following this stage, recommendations were made and the main questionnaire was finalised by the project team and Steering Group.

3.3. Fieldwork

Fieldwork for the main and booster samples was carried out face-to-face in the home by Ipsos MORI and FACTS International Ltd interviewers between 30th October and 20th December 2006 using CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing).

Prior to fieldwork commencing, a letter was sent to all selected households and business flyer leads in the sample explaining the purpose of the research and providing respondents with contact details at Ipsos MORI should they have questions or wish to opt out of the research. Full written interviewer instructions, plus a copy of this letter were also provided to the interviewing teams.


14

3.3.1. Response rates

Taking into account addresses issued that were not eligible (e.g. properties that are vacant, derelict, demolished, or non-residential), the following adjusted response rates were achieved6: A detailed breakdown of final outcomes for the main and airport booster samples is appended to this report. It should be noted that fieldwork was conducted within tight time constraints in order to meet CfIT’s reporting schedule, and also included the lead up to Christmas, which is not the most productive period for achieving high response rates.

Main household sample – 1,122 interviews were completed, with the adjusted response rate being 46%.

Airport booster sample – 68 interviews were completed, with the adjusted response rate being 42%.

Business booster sample – 72 interviews were completed. Leads were drawn on a ratio of 5:1, with the actual percentage of interviews to leads achieved being 18%.

3.3.2. Data val idation and weighti ng

Selecti on probabi li ty weighti ng

A three stage weighting process was used on the combined main household and airport booster samples to provide a combined representative sample of English residents. Firstly, account was made of the increased probability of addresses near the designated airports being selected, as these could potentially fall in both the airport booster and main household samples. As a result of this weighting, the final proportion of individuals within 5 miles of an airport was down-weighted to 10% to reflect the percentage of the total population of England addresses in the Postcode Address File being within 5 miles of these airports.

Secondly, the selection probability of dwellings or households within each address was calculated, and finally the selection probability of individuals within each household was calculated. For example, if there were 3 individuals within a household, then each individual had a 1 in 3 chance of selection. The combination of these three stages formed the overall relative selection probability of each individual response.

6 Adjusted response rate is the number of achieved interviews over the total number of addresses issued once any ineligible and unused addresses have been removed.


15

Post-stratifi cati on weighti ng (airport and m ain)

Following this, the main household and airport booster samples were weighted to the demographic profile for England – based on relative population profile for each Government Office region, as well as overall weightings on age, gender and working status, and social class. Full details of the weighting used to correct for this are in the Appendices of this report.

Finally, the business booster sample was weighted to the profile of business flyers as found in the ONS International Passenger survey 2006 (provided in the appendices). Again, full details of the weighting used to correct for this are in the Appendices of this report.

3.3.3. Segm entati on anal ysi s

Segmentation analysis was then undertaken on the main and airport booster samples. This will help us better understand which groups of people understand the link between aviation and climate change and are willing to do something about it, and more importantly understand any differences between these clusters in terms of demographics, behaviours and attitudes that may influence the development and communication of future policies relating to aviation and climate change.

3.3.4. Interpretati on of data and defi niti ons

Where percentages do not add up to 100, this is due to rounding, the exclusion of “don’t know” categories, or multiple answers. Throughout the volume of tables an asterisk (*) denotes a value less than half a per cent. Comment has been made on subgroups that are significantly different from the overall average throughout the context of the report.

Leisure flyers –those from the main sample who claimed to have flown for leisure purposes in the past year (527)

Business flyers – combined booster sample and those identified from main sample as having flown for business in past 12 months (166)

3.4. Deliberati ve workshop

Following the completion of the survey, we designed a deliberative workshop in which to develop our understanding of the quantitative survey findings and their implications.

Sam ple design

The attendees for the workshop came from two categories – public and stakeholders. In order to ensure the public felt they were able to give their views and not be dominated by stakeholders, we invited twice as many members of the public to attend.


16

The twenty public participants were predominantly recruited from the respondents who took part in the survey. This ensured we had a group of people who had already started to think about the issues. Participants were recruited to quotas to ensure a good mix of age, gender, class and attitudes towards aviation and climate change. Two-thirds of the people who took part in the workshop were re-recruited from the survey. The final third were recruited face to face to top up the low quotas.

We also recruited ten stakeholders, although due to last minute cancellations seven were able to attend on the day. The list of stakeholders was developed by Ipsos MORI with input from CfIT on the most important organisations to target. For the final session we had three stakeholders from the aviation industry and three from other organisations with a more environmental focus.

Fieldwork

The general public were invited to an initial two-hour evening discussion session on Friday 26th January. This session enabled them to build their confidence and to start building group dynamics. The session also provided the opportunity to give the public information about aviation and climate change (see appendix) and also to present to them some of the key findings from the survey (see appendix).

On Saturday 27th January the public were joined by the stakeholders for a full day discussion. The full agenda/topic guide for the day are appended. In the morning stakeholders and the public were kept separate and the stakeholders were presented with the same key findings from the survey while the public started to generate ideas for policy options. In the afternoon the public and stakeholders worked together to reach recommendations on the most effective policy options to pursue.

Interpretati on of the data

The workshop was attended by 27 people. Therefore the results are qualitative in nature and should be considered indicative of public feeling. It is also worth noting that the deliberative methodology means that by the end of the workshop participants are significantly better informed about the issues than the general public as a whole, and therefore the findings would not necessarily be replicated in a quantitative survey. This is a key strength rather than a weakness of the methodology as it enables us to get beyond initial reactions and understand what people think when they are in possession of all the relevant facts.


17

4. Sum m ary of quanti tati ve fi ndings

4.1. Quanti tati ve Findings

4.1.1. Travel behaviour

To set aviation in context, 44% of people in England have flown for leisure in the last 12 months, with 77% of these flying once or twice per year, and 23% being frequent leisure flyers (3+/year). In contrast, 8% of the public have flown for business purposes; with this group flying far more frequently - over a third flying more than six times in the last year on business.

While 47% of current leisure flyers believe that they have not changed their flying behaviour in the past 5 years, frequent flyers are more likely to be flying more than previously (63% now flying more often). Increased levels of flying are mainly attributed to cheaper flights, as well as lifestyle factors such as retirement/children leaving home or higher earnings. Those who expect to fly more in the next five years, while citing cheap air fares, are also motivated by experiential factors of wanting to see the world, while visiting friends and family is also on the increase.

Motivations for modal choice amongst leisure and business travellers for long distance domestic and overseas trips are primarily speed of reaching the destination, personal convenience, and cost. The most important factors in the choice of airlines used are similarly cost and convenience-related; with the airline offering the cheapest fare being of particular importance for frequent flyers.

Environmental factors are not yet front-of-mind amongst the vast majority of travellers, either in their choice of mode or airline. Although a higher than average proportion of those who have chosen not to fly on at least one of their journeys say they are concerned about the environmental impacts of air travel, these concerns have generally not yet translated into action – the main reasons for choosing an alternative mode still being those of price, convenience and personal preference.

4.1.2. Attitudes to avi ati on and cl im ate change

Although environmental concerns are not yet influencing travel behaviour, levels of awareness about climate change in general are high – 49% of the public feel they know at least a fair amount about the subject. It is an issue that concerns 64% of the population, with 49% believing that the UK is already affected.

The majority of people hold human activity either partly or mainly responsible for causing climate change (42% of the population respectively). Transport emissions in general are blamed by 40%. Twenty eight percent consider cars to be the most environmentally damaging mode per passenger mile and the same proportion consider planes to be so (assuming all modes are fully occupied).


18

Half of the public are at least fairly concerned about the environmental impact of air travel specifically, with air-pollution and carbon emissions causing greatest consternation (60% being at least fairly concerned about these issues). Levels of concern are predominantly attributed to the belief that air travel is a growing contributor to climate change and that it is an important issue that affects us all. However, even those with the highest levels of concern allude to the reasons why this issue is not yet prompting personal action – namely insufficient knowledge about the subject, the belief that there is nothing that they can do about it personally and that other issues are more worrying.

Frequent leisure flyers and business flyers, as well as those from ABC1 socio-economic backgrounds are amongst the most well-informed and concerned about the matter, while non-flyers, young people aged 25 or under and those from C2DE backgrounds tend to be less knowledgeable and concerned. The former groups are also more likely to be environmentally-conscious in other respects, and are already undertaking a greater range of other “green” or “ethical” actions.

4.1.3. Tackl ing the envi ronm ental effects of air travel

The UK government and the aviation industry are held to be primarily responsible for tacking this issue in the UK (59% and 41% respectively); while it is felt that other governments, international bodies and the aviation industry should address it in the global arena. A slight majority (57%) of the public say they would support the development of government policies that help reduce the growth in air travel, with this being considerably higher amongst those who are concerned about the impact of air travel on the environment (three-quarters being in favour). However, there is some cynicism about the motivations of the UK government. 53% think that they are only taking an interest to increase tax revenue and this being a more prevalent point of view amongst socio-economic groups C2DE and regular readers of popular newspapers. Opinion is divided over the extent to which airlines are playing their part to reduce carbon emissions, with 25% believe they are, while 36% believe they are not.

Only one in ten members of the public believes that the UK public or the traveller should be responsible, despite levels of concern about this issue. This is borne out in public attitudes towards the individual steps that could be taken to address the issue. 94% of the population support, in principle, the sentiment that the UK has a role to play in setting an example to other countries; however when this is related directly to personal circumstances, there is less support by flyers to take actions themselves.


19

We summarise the potential support for and influence of specific types of policy options below:

Thirty eight percent of current leisure flyers and 43% business flyers are not prepared to reduce their levels of air travel in order to reduce carbon emissions, with dissent being highest amongst frequent flyers (55%). The possibility of a policy limiting people to two-flights a year is overwhelmingly the least popular option, being opposed by three-quarters of current leisure flyers and over eight out of ten business flyers. While frequent leisure flyers show highest level of opposition to such a prospect (80%), this option clearly is one that would be targeted at frequent flyer groups and indeed around two-thirds of them feel it would force them to fly less.

Business flyers show high levels of support for incentives to encourage organisations to invest in new technologies such as tele-conferencing. The majority (85%) would support such an initiative and 63% feel it would have at least a fair amount of influence on reducing the number of business flights they take.

Flyers are more willing to pay higher ticket prices to take account of the environmental impact of air travel – almost half agreeing and this being higher amongst the more affluent socio-economic groups. The average flyer is willing to pay:

Up to £10 more in addition for a return flight on a low-cost flight to Europe (assumed at£100).

Up to £48 in addition for a return flight to a long-haul destination on a standard airline (assumed at £500).

The caveat for any policy-making relating to the increase of air ticket prices to include an aviation fuel tax is that the proceeds should be used directly for actions to benefit the environment - two-thirds of the public would support this option, as opposed to a third who would support a fuel tax where the proceeds were used for other social causes such as the NHS, Education or Crime. Support is lower for air ticket prices to rise generally to be in line with train fares, with nearly half of the public in favour of this option.

Price-related policy is most likely to influence flying behaviour, with that of increasing fares to be in line with rail fares perceived to hold greatest potential for behavioural change. 40% of leisure flyers consider this would have at least a fair amount of influence on their behaviour, with this being of particular influence among frequent leisure flyers and business flyers.

Around a third would be influenced by an aviation fuel tax, again with this measure having a higher impact on frequent leisure flyers.


20

Price sensitivity analysis shows that the average leisure flyer would be deterred from flying at a cost of:

£148 for a low-cost return flight to Europe; however this would need to rise to £191 to dissuade the average frequent leisure flyer from taking this flight.

£595 for a long-haul return flight, with this rising to £630 for the average frequent leisure flyer.

4.1.4. Adverti si ng and indi rect pol ici es

The majority of the public (over three-quarters) would be in favour of advertising to make people aware of the relative impact of air travel. This is of most interest to those with a pre-existing interest or concern about environmental issues, but is also supported by those who need it most – nearly two thirds of those who know little or nothing about the subject. Information provision would only have a limited influence on behaviour, with only a third believing it would encourage them to fly less.

Support is also higher for policies which could be seen as indirectly influencing public behaviour. Over 60% would favour policies which prevent planes from taking off unless three-quarters full, while 40% would support policies which prevent airport/runway expansions. Business flyers show higher levels of opposition for the former option as resulting cancellations could affect their ability to reach destinations on time. This type of intervention is likely to have a greater impact on this group, along with those who use low cost airlines and flyers to destinations within the UK.

4.2. Consum er Segm entati on

Different groups of people are driven by different sets of priorities, and so populations can be segmented according to these priorities. The benefit of identifying these segments is that specific groups can be given specific messages, so that they strike the right chords with the right types of people.

In the case of this study it is vital to understand which groups of people understand the link between aviation and climate change and are willing to do something about it, as opposed to which groups are not, and more importantly, to understand how these groups differ on other aspects of their behaviours and attitudes. This will help identify mechanisms and possible policy initiatives for influencing a particular group of the population, as well as ways of communicating with them.

A six cluster solution was selected as the most useful way to segment the sample. These six segments identify people with similar attitudes towards climate change and similar levels of receptiveness to different policies aimed at tackling it. Reviewing the demographic profile of each segment allows us to draw a detailed picture of each of the groups – where they live, how old they are, their social grade, as well as their travel behaviour. The chart below shows the relative size of each cluster.


21

1Base: All who have flown for leisure or might fly in the future (948)

28%

13%21%

11%

13%

14%

The Six Clusters

Uninformed Supporters

Informed Middle England

Affluent Environmentalists

The DisengagedYoung Receptives

Ultra Greens

We summarise the profile of each cluster as follows:

4.2.1. The Ultra Greens

One group emerged as extremely pro-environmentalist. They are concerned about climate change, know a lot about it, support government policies to deal with it and are likely to fly less as a result of such policies. This group, the ‘Ultra Greens’, are the primary target in communication to reduce air travel and likely to ‘demonstrate by example’ to others. Although they do still fly, and contain a high proportion of frequent flyers, they are aware of the effects of aviation on climate change and are beginning to consider other forms of transport as a result.

4.2.2. The Affl uent Envi ronm ental ists

The Affluent Environmentalists are concerned about climate change and are most likely of all the clusters to believe that it is important and will affect us all. They are well informed about the debate, and could be influenced to fly less by government actions. While increasing the cost of air fares would not make them fly less; alternative policies would be more effective with this group to tackling the impact of emissions from aviation. Particular Policies are those which may impact upon personal convenience or business productivity, e.g. not allowing planes to fly unless three-quarters full or limiting people to 2 flights per year.

4.2.3. The Young Recepti ves

The ‘Young Receptives’ do not know much about climate change and do not actively support government policies to tackle the impact of flying. However, they could potentially be influenced to fly less. Their opinions are not strongly held and in many cases they say they do not have an opinion about an issue or policy.


22

They are moderates who could possibly be persuaded into changing their flying behaviour by communicating the consequences of their behaviour, or through more forceful government interventions and regulation, e.g. preventing planes from taking off unless three-quarters full or setting a limit of two flights per year.

4.2.4. The Uninform ed Supporters

Uninformed Supporters are characterised by low knowledge and average concern. While they are unlikely to change their behaviour, they demonstrate high levels of support for green policies. There is clearly an opportunity to convert their environmental support into actions, and price may be a key factor. Their support is highest for increasing air fares and they are prepared to pay between £21-£50 extra on a low cost flight to a European city should the money be invested in reducing the environmental impact of aviation (the highest proportion who would do so apart from the Ultra Greens).

4.2.5. Inform ed M iddle England

The ‘Informed Middle England’ segment constitutes the largest cluster. While they claim to know a fair amount about climate change, they do not tend to support government policy options and are reluctant to change their behaviour due to government actions. They are slightly more likely to be influenced to fly less by higher fares but not to a great extent. They are fairly in line with the average attitudes across England in terms of their concern about climate change and their support for the various policy options.

4.2.6. The Disengaged

The Disengaged are not concerned about climate change, do not support government policies to deal with it and are unlikely to be influenced into changing their flying behaviour. This group primarily travel abroad on package holidays and flying is simply part of this deal. They are not well informed about the climate change debate, and it is perhaps this that needs to be addressed initially if this group are to be persuaded to change their behaviour.


23

5. Travel behavi our 5.1. Air travel

5.1.1. Frequency of fl yi ng

Forty-four percent of the public have flown at least once for leisure in the last 12 months. In line with existing statistics on leisure flying behaviour, this study identifies just a small proportion of people who are frequent leisure flyers (4%). The chart below compares the overall frequency of flying between those who have flown for leisure in the last 12 months and those who have flown for business. Amongst flyers, 52% have flown for leisure once in the last year, with a futher 26% flying twice and 23% have flown three or more times. Frequent leisure flyers are most likely to come from the more affluent socio-economic groups ABC1, with a higher than average propensity to live in London and the South East.

Fifty-seven percent of business travellers have flown three or more times in the past 12 months for business purposes, with 35% flying more than six times. Business flyers are also more likely to have also flown frequently for leisure purposes, with 41% having flown three or more times for leisure in addition to their business flights.

29%

14%22%

35%

Overall frequency of flying

For business For leisure

Three or five timesOnce Six times moresTwice

Q How many times have you flown in the last 12 months . . . ?

52%

26%

19%4%

Base Business: All who have flown for business in the last 12 months (157)Base Leisure: All who have flown for leisure in the last 12 months (527)

The main reasons for leisure flights are taking a holiday (81%) and visiting friends and family (27%). Fifty-three percent of leisure flyers have friends and family that they visit abroad, with 51% of this group having visited them on their last air trip. The majority of visits (70%) last between 5 nights and 2 weeks, with 17 % of leisure visits being short breaks (1-4 nights).


24

5.1.2. Changes in fl yi ng behavi our

Forty-seven percent of current leisure flyers believe that they have not changed their frequency of flying in the past 5 years, with 24% stating they now travel more often and a similar proportion (26%) less. This may seem surprising given the rapid increase in the number of flights from the UK in recent years, however it can be seen that frequent flyers (3 or more flights a year) are more likely to have increased their air travel since 5 years ago, with 63% flying more often.

24

63

43

47

30

22 35

26 32

11

Flying behaviour compared to 5 years ago

Q Compared to five years ago, would you now say you fly…?

More often Less oftenAbout the same amount

Don’t know

Bases: All who have flown for leisure in last 12 months , or have flown ever and might fly in future (709); Flown 3 or more timesfor leisure (74); Business flyers (72)

All leisure flyers

Business flyers

Frequent leisure Flyers

Business flyers are more evenly divided between those who think they fly more and those who think they fly less (43% and 35% respectively); while twenty-two percent think they fly around the same amount.


25

The chart below, looking at anticipated flying behaviour over the next five years, shows that fifty-three percent of current flyers think they will maintain their current flying patterns, rising to 65% amongst frequent leisure flyers and 55% of business flyers.

29

28

28

53

65

55

11

13

7

4

7

Flying behaviour in the next 5 years

Q And, in the next 5 years, do you plan to . . . ?

All leisure flyers

Business flyers

Fly more often

Fly less often

Fly around the same amount

Don’t know

Frequent leisure flyers

Bases: All who have flown for leisure in last 12 months (498); Flown 3 or more times for leisure (117); Business flyers (72)

Forty-five percent of people who have not flown in the last 12 months, but who think they will fly in future, anticipate that they will fly more in the next five years.

5.1.3. Reasons for growth in air travel

People who think they now fly more for leisure than they did five years ago mainly attribute their change in behaviour to cheaper flights (27%) and lifestyle changes such as retirement/children growing up (15%) or higher earnings (14%). Not surprisingly, those who have used low-cost airlines in the last 12 months are more likely to list cheaper flights as a main reason for having flown more in comparison with 5 years ago (47%).

In addition to low cost flights encouraging increased flying, those expecting to fly more for leisure over the next few years are mainly motivated by experiential factors – twenty-nine percent give the reason of enjoying holidaying abroad and sixteen percent say they want to see the world. A further 14% say they plan to visit friends and family abroad.

Changes in business flying behaviour are mainly due to changes in role or organisational focus. Thirty-nine percent of business flyers who think they fly more now say this is as a result of business expansion, with thirty-four percent saying this is due to a change in their role. The reasons given for planning to fly more for business are similar to those given for flying more over the last five years.


26

5.2. Choice of m ode

Survey findings confirm that cars are the most popular form of transport for long-distance leisure journeys in the UK (69% of trips); with 12% of journeys taken by train. Ten percent of journeys of over 200 miles in the UK were taken by plane among leisure travellers as a whole, but business flyers and those who live within 10 miles of an airport are more likely to fly (19% and 16% respectively). While cars are still the predominant mode of transport for business travel in the UK, choice of transport is more evenly split between three modes with 26% taking a flight on their last business trip in the UK, 43% choosing to travel by car, and 30% travelling by rail.

For journeys to mainland Europe and elsewhere in the world, air travel is by far the predominant form of transport for both leisure and business journeys (78% and 86% respectively). Eleven percent of those who took a leisure trip to mainland Europe travelled by car, while only 5% travelled by train. Business travellers are more likely to fly to Europe, with 7% travelling by train and 6% by car.

Both business and leisure travellers cite three main motivations for their choice of transport mode for all three destination types:

● speed of reaching the destination;

● personal convenience;

● price (preferred mode being cheapest)

Clearly, for journeys made to a destination elsewhere in the world, the absence of a viable alternative way of reaching that destination is a key factor in the decision to fly. Environmental factors are not front-of-mind amongst the vast majority of travellers, being mentioned by less than 3% of travellers as a reason for their choice of mode for each type of destination.

5.2.1. Reasons for choi ce of airl ine

Corresponding with the significant fall in the price of air fares and the proliferation of low-cost airlines in the last five years (short-haul leisure fares falling by over 25%)7, the most important factor in the choice of airline used is also cost-related, with the airline offering the lowest fare being cited by 62% of leisure flyers for their airline choice. This is most important amongst frequent flyers, being listed as a top factor by 76% of those who have flown three or more times in the last 12 months.

Convenience factors – notably, the location of the airport flying from (34%), the availability of flights (30%) and time of flight (23%) – are the next most important factors in airline choice.

7 Cairns, S., Dargay, J., Menaz, B., Public Attitudes towards Aviation and Climate Change Stage 1 : Desktop Research, September 2006, Institute for Transport Studies (University of Leeds)/Transport Research Laboratory


27

While price is also the most important factor for business flyers (55%), convenience of airport location and time of flight are slightly more important than for leisure flyers (being cited by 43% and 32% of business flyers respectively). No-one spontaneously noted that their choice of airline was linked to the airline’s environmental policy.

A more detailed breakdown of reasons for choice of mode and airline are provided in the appendices.

5.2.2. Consideration of alternati ve m odes to fl yi ng

In considering alternative modes to flying, people mainly weigh up fares as well as convenience factors, such as the arrival or departure location/times. Personal preference and enjoyment of alternative modes are also a consideration. Environmental concerns are cited by only 3%. However, while overt environmental concerns are similarly low amongst those who chose not to fly for at least one of their trips (3%), sixty-seven percent of those considering alternative modes to flying say they are concerned about the environmental impact of air travel (compared to an average of 50% for the overall population).

The chart below shows the top mentions amongst those considering/choosing an alternative form of transport rather than flying on at least once occasion in the past year.

49

Top mentions – why considered/took other forms of transport

24%

22%

20%

12%

9%

3%2%

16%

14%

24%

6%

23%

Chose not to flyConsidered other form of transport

Q Why did you consider/take these other forms of transport?

Base: All who considered travelling by plane, but chose not to (95) Base: All who considered another transport option other than flying for leisure (78)

Prefer to use other forms of transport

Convenience of arrival location (e.g. Eurostar)

No convenient airport to fly from

Air tickets are too expensive

Environmental concerns (net)

More enjoyable journey


28

5.2.3. Non-fl yers and those who have reduced/pl an to reduce fl yi ng level s

In addition to not wishing to fly, lifestyle factors such as lack of time, money or health are the main reasons listed by those not flying for not doing so, with environmental concerns only being cited by around 3%.

52

26%

26%

3%

11%

11%

13%

2%

32%

23%

14%

10%

9%

4%

3%

Reasons for not flying

I didn’t want to

Base: All who have never flown for leisure (231); All who have not flown for leisure in last 12 months (443)

Q Why have you not flown for leisure purposes ever/in the last 12 months?

Lack of money/air tickets are too expensive

Prefer to use other modes of transport

Lifestyle change

Fear of flying

Environmental concerns

Lack of time

Not flown in last 12 monthsNever flown

Amongst people who now think they fly less/or who plan to fly less for leisure in the future, the predominant reasons given for flying less are also lifestyle-related – around 45% attribute changes in lifestyle such as getting old or having additional responsibilities such as children or their job to changes in their travel behaviour. Lack of disposable income is also of significance, mentioned by 15% of those who plan to fly less in the future.


29

51

Top mentions – reasons flown less/plan to fly less for leisure

Q And why is that?

Base: All who think they fly less for leisure than 5 years ago (200); All who plan to fly less for leisure next five years (98)

46%

15%

6%

6%

6%

9%

6%

7%

10%

20%

44%

2%

Health concerns, e.g. deep vein thrombosis, air sickness

Lack of opportunity

Less time

Less disposable income

Change in lifestyle, e.g. getting old, children, new job

Environmental concerns (net)

Plan to fly lessFlown less

However, while only 2% of those who have flown less over the last five years specifically mention environmental concerns, 9% of those who plan to fly less in the future cite such concerns as reasons for reducing the number of flights they take.

Seventy-eight percent of business flyers think they fly less as a result of a change in their role at work, while sixteen percent say this is due to changes in the demands of the organisation they work for. Amongst the 10 respondents who plan to fly less on business, 5% see this as a result of changes in their role; while 3% envisage the increased use of technology such as teleconferencing reducing the need to fly for business. Please note that with such a low base such data can only be viewed as indicative.


30

6. Atti tudes to aviati on and the envi ronm ent

6.1. Knowledge and concern about the im pact of cl im ate change

With the extensive media attention being given to the issue of climate change during the fieldwork period, it is not surprising that 49% of the public feel they know at least a fair amount about the subject, with only 11% claiming that they know nothing about it.

1

All public

Knowledge about climate change

% A great deal

% Nothing at all

% Never heard of

% A fair amount

8

14

16

5

5

9

6

41

59

56

33

28

50

31

10

4

1

17

19

5

16

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

Q How much, if anything, would you say you know about Climate Change?

Frequent flyers

Non flyersYoung people under 25ABC1

CD2EBase: All main sample (1,190), All frequent flyers (113), Non-flyers (677), Under 25s (170), ABC1 (655), C2DE (534),

Business flyers (157)

Business flyers

Of note, young people under 25 are least aware, with 19% knowing nothing about climate change, along with those living in the North East (19%), North West (17%), and those from C2DE socio-economic groups (17%). Conversely, frequent and leisure flyers to destinations in the UK are amongst the most informed on the matter, with 79% and 74% knowing a fair amount or great deal about climate change respectively. Business flyers are similarly well informed, with 72% saying they know at least a fair amount about climate change. Non-flyers are less knowledgeable than those who have flown for leisure in the last 12 months (43% believing they know at least a fair amount, versus 58% of current leisure flyers).

Sixty-four percent of those aware of the climate change are concerned about the impact that it may have on the environment, with 15% not worried about the issue.


31

Concern about climate change

Very concerned

Not very concerned

Not at all concerned

Fairly concerned

Q And, how concerned are you about the impact of Climate Change?

All Public 25

22

32

26

28

22

39

56

38

24

44

34

10

4

7

17

8

13

5

2

15

2

8

Frequent flyers

Non flyers

ABC1

CD2EBase: All who have heard of climate change. All main sample (1,170), All frequent flyers (113), Business flyers (157)’

Non flyers (677), ABC1 (647), C2DE (525);

Business flyers

The highest levels of concern are amongst those from socio-economic groups ABC1 (72%), Londoners (73%), business and frequent leisure flyers (70% and 77% respectively). Non-flyers are least likely to be concerned about the future impact of climate change, with fifty percent expressing concern.

Forty-nine percent of the public believe that the UK is already affected by climate change, with a further 27% thinking that it will occur within the next 20 years and only 3% believe that we will not be impacted by climate change at all.

How soon will the UK be affected? It is

already affected

In the next 20 years

Over 20

years

I don’t think it will be

Don’t know

Base: All who have heard of climate change

% % % % %

All main sample (1,170) 49 27 14 3 7 Non-leisure flyers & won’t in future

(202) 40 28 14 3 14

Business Flyers (157) 67 15 13 1 3

Social class ABC1 (616) 54 25 14 2 5

C2DE (555) 43 29 15 3 10

These opinions are fairly consistent across age and gender, although those not working or from C2DE backgrounds are less likely to think that climate change is already affecting the UK (43% for both). Business flyers are more likely to feel that climate change is already affecting the UK, with 67% holding this view.


32

There is variation in opinion across England, with the Eastern side of the country more likely to feel climate change is already having an impact on us (55%), which may relate to the low rainfall experienced in these areas in recent years. Those living in the West Midlands (35%) and non flyers who do not intend to fly in the foreseeable future are less likely to feel that we are already experiencing climate change (40%).

Not surprisingly, those who are not concerned about climate change or know nothing about it are less likely to feel that the UK is already being affected by climate change (36% and 23% respectively).

Percei ved causes of cl im ate change

The majority of people believe that human activity is either the part cause (42%) or main cause (42%) of climate change, while 11% think that it is mainly due to natural causes and only one percent thinks that there is no such thing as climate change. Those who know nothing about it are less likely to feel that human activity is partly or mainly responsible for climate change (33% and 34% respectively).

3

11%

42%42%

1%

3%

Human behaviour or natural causes?

Q To what extent do you think that climate change is a result of human behaviour or natural causes?

Climate change is….

Base : All main sample who have heard of climate change (1,170)

Mainly as a result of natural causes

Partly as a result of natural causes and partly human activity Mainly caused by

human activity

…or do you think there is no such thing as climate change?

Don’t know

Young people under 25 are more likely to feel that human activity is the main cause of climate change (52%), along with those from a BME background (51%), or living close to an airport (47%). There is also geographical variation in opinion on this matter. Human activity is cited as the main cause of climate change by over half the residents of Yorkshire and Humberside (53%), compared to a third of those living in the South East (36%) and East of England(34%); where they are more likely to feel that human activity is a partial cause (48% and 52% respectively). Long haul flyers and business flyers are also more likely to believe that human activity is the primary cause of climate change (50% and 44% respectively).


33

When asked (unprompted) to specify the main causes of climate change; transport emissions in general is cited by 40% of the public, with 44% specifically mentioning emissions from cars and 34% emissions from planes. Other causes include emissions from industry/manufacturing (20%), power stations (19%), deforestation (16%) or CO2 emissions in general (18%). Holes in the ozone layer are mentioned by 10%, while aerosols noted by 7%. Modern lifestyles are blamed by 11%, with use of domestic fuel (12%) and disposal of household waste (7%) also noted as causes of climate change. Cyclical changes naturally occurring in the world are mentioned by 9%.

Main causes of climate change (top mentions)

All main

sample Business

flyers N.

East South West

West Midlands

Base: All who think climate change exists (1,110) %

(152) %

(186)%

(123) %

(124) %

Emissions from cars 44 28 41 47 57 Emissions from transport (general) 40 46 32 41 31 Emissions from planes 34 25 23 41 39 Industry/manufacturing 20 32 30 34 25 Emissions from power stations 19 17 9 17 16 CO2 emissions 18 27 10 20 10 Destruction of forests 16 15 12 11 8 Use of gas and electricity in the home 12 14 6 12 11 Modern lifestyles/pace of life 11 13 6 9 10

Source: Ipsos MORI

Opinion regarding the impact of airline emissions on climate change is consistent across gender, age, working status and socio-economic group. This is also the case for both flyers and non-flyers. Airline emissions are far less likely to be cited by those living in the North East (23%) and more likely amongst residents from the South West (41%) and West Midlands (39%). Business flyers are also less likely to list airline emissions specifically as a main cause of climate change, with higher proportions attributing this to transport emissions more generally (46%), industry and manufacturing (42%), as well as cyclical changes happening naturally in the world (31%).

Perceptions of the relative impact to the environment caused by different modes is mixed. Asked to consider the relative impact of different modes per passenger on a hypothetical journey from London to Edinburgh (assuming each vehicle type is fully occupied), opinion is divided between cars and planes, with 28% citing cars as the most environmentally damaging and 30% planes. Perhaps surprisingly, 17% cited motorbikes, with 13% believing buses and coaches would cause the most impact on the environment.

Only four percent consider trains to cause the most impact, while two percent believe all modes are equally as damaging.


34

23

Vehicles impact on the environment

Base Leisure: All main sample (1,190)

Q Thinking about a trip from London to Edinburgh. If each type of vehicle was fully occupied, which one of the following do you think would have most impact on the environment for each passenger?

2%

5%

28%

17%

13%

4%

1%

30%

CarMotorbikesBuses and coachesTrainsFerries and shipsAeroplanesAll as bad as each otherDon’t know

Young people under 25 are more likely to cite cars as the most damaging (37%) with far less emphasis on planes (15%) and more on buses and coaches (18%).

There is some variation of opinion across the country, with those living in London and the South East being most concerned about cars (38% and 33% respectively), possibly reflecting heightened awareness of motor vehicle emissions as a result of publicity from congestion charging and the proposed low emissions zone around London. It is noteworthy that only one percent of Londoners cite planes as causing the most impact on the environment, along with 5% of those living in Yorkshire and Humberside and 9% of those in the East of England. Conversely, over half of those living in the East Midlands (53%) and over 40% of residents across the rest of Northern England and the South believe planes cause the most damage. Business flyers are more likely to blame planes (43%).

6.1.2. Ethi cal behaviour

In line with other research on ethical and environmental behaviour, recycling is top of the list of actions taken and is well-established as a mainstream action. Eighty five percent of people have recycled household waste at least once in the last 12 months. Of the other types of ethical or environmental behaviour, the most widespread actions taken are switching off electrical equipment on standby (71%), installing an energy efficient device in the home (57%), and buying locally or nationally-sourced produce (37%). Corresponding to existing research, these behaviours are most prevalent amongst those in the ABC1 socio-economic groups.


35

4

Environmental actions taken (top mentions)

10%

17%16%

85%71%

57%37%

29%21%

Base Leisure: All main sample respondents (1,190)

Q And, which, if any, of the following have you done in the last 12 months?

Bought locally/nationally-sourced produce

Switched off electrical equipment on standby, e.g. TV or computer

Used a home composter

Installed an energy-efficient device in your home, e.g. energy-saving light bulb, boiler, washing machine

Recycled household rubbish, e.g. packaging or bot les

Chosen one product over ano her because of its environment-friendly packaging, ingredients, or advertising

Chosen product/service on company's responsible reputation

Fitted a home water buttFelt guilty about purchasing from an unethical company

Across the board, people who are relatively well-informed and concerned about climate change issues are perhaps unsurprisingly also more likely to have taken other environmentally-friendly actions. Half of those who say they know at least a fair amount about climate change have undertaken three or more environmental or ethical actions in the last twelve months, with a similar proportion being seen amongst those who say they are concerned about the impact of air travel on the environment.

Sixty two percent of the organisations that business flyers work for have implemented a recycling scheme, while 42% of organisations have an environmental policy. A similar proportion (44%), say that their organisation has increased usage of technology such as teleconferencing8. While 34% of organisations represented have company guidelines on business travel, only 9% say their organisation has switched to the usage of alternative (more environmentally-friendly) transport options.

6.2. Atti tudes towar ds the envi ronm ental effects of air travel

In this section we look more specifically at current awareness of and attitudes towards the environmental effects of air travel. We then assess levels of receptiveness to policies designed to reduce the environmental impacts of flying, as well as gauge which of these hold the greatest potential for behavioural change amongst different consumer groups.


36

6.2.1. Inform ati on about the envi ronm ental effects of air travel

Recall of information about flying and climate change is high with 79% of the public having seen or heard something in at least one of the sources listed. Sixty-eight percent of the public recall information on the TV news or a documentary, 33% seen something in a magazine or newspaper, while 19% have heard something about the issue on the radio.

Awareness of information about flying and climate change

Age Social class

Total 16-24 25-54 55+ ABC1 C2DE

Base: All main sample (1,190) (101) %

(607) %

(482) %

(623) %

(566) %

TV news/documentaries

68 57 69 72 71 64

Magazines or newspapers –national

33 19 37 33 41 24

Radio 19 6 21 21 22 15

None of these/nowhere in particular

17 23 17 14 14 20

Local Newspapers 8 5 8 9 8 7

The internet / websites 7 11 9 3 11 3

Friends/family talking about it

7 8 8 5 7 7

Colleagues talking about it

4 2 7 2 5 4

Source: Ipsos MORI

In line with existing research on awareness and recall about environmental issues9, those in socio-economic groups ABC1 and those in the 55+ age category are more likely to recall information across each of these sources, while a higher proportion of C2DEs have not seen or heard anything through any of them (20%, versus 14% of ABC1s). Londoners also show higher recall across each of these sources.

There is also a higher recall amongst males across each of these sources, particularly of information on TV news or documentaries (75%). Those living in London, the East Midland and the South West are also more aware of information given through this source (72%, 74% and 76% for each region respectively), with recall being lower in the East of England (58%) and the West Midlands (60%). Those living in the South West are most likely to have heard something on the radio (34%). Business flyers are much more likely to have seen something in a newspaper or magazine than the overall population (53%).

9


37

Unsurprisingly, those who are concerned about climate change issues and say they know at least a fair amount about the subject are more likely to have seen or heard something about it in each of these sources, with a higher percentage also having seen related information on a website (11%).

6.2.2. Concern about the envi ronm ental effects of air travel

Half of the public are at least fairly concerned about the environmental effects of air travel, with 22% not being concerned.

5

Concern over the effects of air travel on climate change

Q And, how concerned are you about the environmental effects of air travel?

Base Leisure: All main sample respondents (1,190), All who know at least a fair amount about climate change (597), All who know no hing (107), All under 25 (170), ABC1 (655), C2DE (534)

% Very concerned

% Not very concerned

% Not at all concerned

% Fairly concerned

14

20

5

5

15

16

36

46

16

18

41

33

28

21

32

38

22

24

15

10

28

32

14

15

7

3

19

7

8

9 3

Know at least a fair amount about climate changeKnow nothing ofclimate change

Young people under 25

All public

ABC1

C2DE

% A littleconcerned

Don’t know

Those who say they know at least a fair amount about climate change are three times as likely to be concerned about the environmental impact of aviation - 66%, in comparison with less than a quarter of those who say they know nothing at all about climate change. Concern is highest amongst those in socio-economic groups ABC1 (54% being concerned versus 46% of C2DEs) and amongst Londoners (60% in comparison with a low of 40% in the East of England and the West Midlands). There is also a correlation between levels of concern and future flying habits, as a higher proportion of those who say they plan to fly the same amount or less are at least fairly concerned about the impact of flying (53% and 60%, versus 44% of those who plan to fly more). Business travellers show a higher level of concern - sixty-two percent are concerned about this issue, including twenty-one percent who say they are very concerned.

Levels of concern are less amongst young people under 25, with this also reflecting the lower levels of knowledge about climate change per se amongst this age group. While 55% of those aged over 35 say they are very or fairly concerned about this issue, only 23% of young people share this level of concern, while 34% are a little concerned and 32% are not very concerned.


38

6.2.3. Reasons for concern about envi ronm ental i m pacts of air travel

Members of the public who say they are at lea

attitudes to aviation and climate change - ipsos · half of the public say they are very or fairly...

Documents