With the use of cleaner technology the climate problem will be solved 0

1 _{Prior to performing principal component analysis, the suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed}

(methods based on Pallant, 2007). The KMO value was 0.92, exceeding the recommended value of 0.6 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity reached statistical significance (P<0.000), thus supporting the suitability of the factor analysis of the correlation matrix. The PCA revealed four components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, each component subsequently explaining 21.4%, 18.4%, 8.7% and 5.6% of the variance.

2 _{Rotation converged in 6 iterations. For ease of interpretation only loadings above 0.4 have been displayed.}

storylines are not used or recognized by citizen-consumers, however, from the survey they could not be verified as separate components of the general dispositional lifestyle.

7.5 Conjunctural specific environmental concerns

In the previous paragraph the general environmental debates surrounding sustainable consumption and production were analysed and discussed. One of the suppositions of the social practices approach is that these debates may vary from one domain to the next. Therefore in this section the environmental debate surrounding sustainable mobility is investigated in more detail. Comparable to the general dispositional lifestyle segment, the four segments of the sustainable mobility debate were investigated with four groups of questions. This will give us insight into how citizen- consumers perceive (environmental) problems in the domain of mobility. Do citizen-consumers acknowledge the existence of persistent problems related to automobile-based lifestyles? What role for themselves do they see?

In Figure 7.6 the responses to the twelve statements measuring the conjunctural specific environmental concerns are presented. The response to the first segment (‘environmental scepticism’) reveals a consistent pattern: only a small part of the population is sceptical to environmental issues in the domain of mobility and most citizen-consumers acknowledge that environmental problems are important87_{. Only 13% of the respondents (totally) agree with the}

statement that the contribution of transport to environmental problems is negligible. Furthermore, 69% of the respondents find it important that traffic and transport are environmentally friendly.

The second segment (‘environmental issues must be solved by government regulations and technological fixes’) does not show a clear pattern. The far majority (totally) agrees with the statement that there should be stricter European laws on the polluting emissions of new cars. On the other hand, most citizen-consumers do not think that a technological fix such as particle filters will quickly solve local air pollution. The response to the final statement of this segment is also very interesting. A hefty 72% of the respondents feel that one cannot expect car drivers to travel with public transport modes as long as public transport fails to be good alternative to the car!

The third segment focuses on whether or not the respondents see an active role for themselves in the greening of the mobility domain. The responsibility of citizen-consumers in the domain of mobility is higher than one might expect considering the preliminary research described in Paragraph 7.2. The RIVM report, based on a consumer survey conducted in 2004, considered the domain of mobility to be in the initial phases of sustainable development (see Table 7.1). The outcomes in Figure 7.6 seem to indicate that in 2008 citizen-consumers are reasonably willing to actively become part of transition processes to sustainable development in the domain of mobility88_{. Almost half of the respondents (totally) agree with the statement that car drivers}

should alter their behaviour as they are primarily responsible for transport-related environmental problems. Moreover, the respondents not only feel co-responsible, they are also positive of the market effects of green consumer choices: almost 80% beliefs that car producers will increase the 87 _{The average response in the first segment, based on the five-point Likertscale, is only 2.39 (with 3 being}

neutral).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

The contribution of transport to environmental problems is negligible During car sales there is far too much attention for the environment I do not find it important that traffic and transport are environmentally friendly As long as public transport fails to be a good alternative to the car, you cannot expect car drivers to travel with public transport modes There should be stricter environmental regulations which prescribe how much toxic gasses a new car may maximally emit If particle filters become obligatory for freight traffic, diesel cars and busses, air pollution will soon be over Car drivers themselves are responsible for transport-related environmental problems and therefore should change their behaviour If more consumers would buy energy-efficient cars, car producers would increase the number of efficient cars available on the market For short trips (less than 6 km.) people should predominantly use the bicycle In stead of driving on petrol or diesel we should rapidly switch to radical alternatives such as hydrogen or biofuels The car as a mode of transport has reached its limits so we should swiftly strive for a completely different and environmentally friendly transport system Cars that heavily pollute the air should be banned from driving into the city

Totally agree Agree Neutral Disagree Totally disagree I don't know 1. Scepticism 2. Self -correcting society 3. Co -responsibility 4. Radical change Fi gu re 7.6. S ta tem en ts r ep re sen tin g c on ju nc tu ra l s pe cifi c en vi ro nm en ta l c on cer ns (n=2,242, C ro nb ac h’s a lp ha ’s 1=0.59; 2=0.42; 3=0.61; 4=0.52).

number of fuel-efficient cars on the market when more consumers start buying these cars. The question whether the relative position of the domain of everyday mobility has shifted in relation to the other consumption domains is addressed shortly hereafter.

Finally, the fourth segment represents the storyline that radical changes in the current system of mobility are necessary to cope with transport-related environmental problems. A surprisingly large proportion of the respondents agree with these firm statements which would imply a major shift in the current ways of doing things. Most illustrative of this is that exactly 50% of the respondents (totally) agree with the statement that the car as a mode of transport has reached its limits and that we should swiftly strive for a completely different and environmentally friendly transport system! In contrast, only 17% (totally) disagrees with this statement. The rapid shift to alternative fuels such as hydrogen and biofuels is supported by an even larger proportion, namely 68%. A latent market for sustainable fuels seems to be present.

An initial conclusion is that environmental change in the domain of mobility is supported by a surprisingly large part of the Dutch citizen-consumers. Clearly the domain of mobility has surpassed the phase of scepticism. Environmental issues are recognized and acknowledged as problematic and almost a majority of respondents feels at least partly co-responsible for dealing with these issues. More importantly, the current system of petrol-based automobility is seen as unfavourable and a systemic change to other modes of transport or fuels is supported by most.

To test whether or not the abovementioned four segments are supported by the empirical data as a coherent scale, a principal component analysis has been conducted (Table 7.3). The principal component analysis shows coherence in the second component which contains the statements of the first segment (scepticism). The other three segments are primarily found in the first component and to a lesser degree in the third component. This outcome implies either that three of the four segments are not present as mutually exclusive storylines in the Dutch sustainable mobility debate or that the statements were not illustrative of these story-lines. This, however, does not alter in any way the significance of the citizen-consumer’s response to the individual statements portrayed in Figure 7.6. It does mean that we need to search for other ways of grouping citizen-consumers in the domain of everyday mobility. This will be carried out in the next paragraphs where we will discuss a typology of travelling and go into the mobility portfolios (on the basis of citizen- consumer’s experience with innovations).

7.5.1 Comparison with the other consumption domains

Next to describing environmental concerns in the domain of everyday mobility, it is also interesting to relate these outcomes to the other consumption domains investigated in the Contrast research programme. Because the previous sections revealed that the four proposed segments do not come out as mutually exclusive storylines it is difficult to compare these five consumption domains. An exception to this is the storyline ‘environmental scepticism’ (or ‘environmental change is not a priority’) which was shown to be an existing component both in the general dispositional and in the conjunctural specific environmental concerns. Therefore for each of the five consumption domains

the three statements representing the first segment have been added together (Figure 7.7)89_{. The}

degree to which the respondents (totally) agree with the statements of the first segment can be seen as a measure of the environmental concern in that domain; the more respondents that agree with these statements the more environmental change is perceived to be unnecessary.

89 _{In order to make a reliable comparison of the consumption domains only those respondents were selected}

who had filled in all of the first segment statements. After removing the missing cases 1,158 respondents remained who had filled in every statement.

Table 7.3. Principal component analysis of the conjunctural specific environmental concerns1_.

Statements Components2

1 2 3