Multi-level governance, modal thinking, and engaging with insights from ITEM after it’s over

Posted on November 17, 2024 by HD Budnitz

The ITEM (Inclusive Transitions to Electric Mobility) project technically ended on 31 August when its ESRC funding ended and I (have had to) move on to other funded projects.

Yet it is unusual for all a project’s outputs to be published within a project’s funded timescale, never mind to see engagement with the outputs or related impact in the short term. Journal articles in particular can be slow to appear, such that publication and publicising findings can often seem detached from the publicity built into the project.

For this reason, it was exciting to see the first comparative article based on primary data collected during ITEM accepted and published in the last couple weeks – and only a couple months after project end. As lead author, I had worked hard to identify patterns in policymaking across our four case study cities, explore the implications of these for more sustainable and just transitions to electric mobility, and highlight the potential learnings for policymakers and practitioners. I may be biased, but I think the article has a lot of exciting insights to offer.

It wasn’t quite published in time to be referenced in the expert comment piece on the University website, which also aimed to publicise the policy brief we produced for Bristol. However, it had just been accepted and the pre-proof published the week I went to Bristol to give a seminar on mobility justice and urban electric mobility at the University of the West of England (UWE).

I was honoured to be asked to present some of the key findings of the ITEM project to fellow transport researchers and students at UWE and beyond. I was able to focus on some of the highlights of the paper, such as the tensions between national pressures to deliver an EV future and local discomfort among transport planners with private automobility – even when it’s electric.

There was some lively discussion on the challenges facing the approaches to increase inclusion that I identified in urban electric mobility policymaking. Could policies to make EV charging infrastructure more affordable and accessible succeed in a competitive, industry-led market? Could shared electric mobility offer alternatives at a scale to make a difference when its uptake remained relatively niche? How could policymakers reach across modal silos and be confident in including diverse groups in decision-making – especially if even when they did so, it is rarely reflected in published policy documents? And how could funding streams be made both more flexible and more fair?

All were valid questions, and I can’t claim to have all the answers. Furthermore, as I said at the start, the ITEM project is technically over, so there is only so much time to go back over the research data we collected during the project and see if there are more answers or insights.

Nonetheless, we do still have other articles to finish and publish. We can still see what impact the project outputs and their findings have. And, having moved on to other projects, we can be creative in linking new data and findings to what we have learned. My research now involves diving deeper into the barriers and opportunities to scaling shared electric mobility and the potential of reaching across not just modal, but also sectoral siloes (e.g. between home energy and mobility demand). As I move forward, I will not forget the insights from ITEM or the further questions it raised that I might yet be able to answer.

The Uneven Road to EV Adoption in the UK

Posted on July 16, 2024 by HD Budnitz

The UK has a net zero target by 2050 enshrined in law, and with transport the largest emitting sector, accelerating electric vehicle (EV) uptake is fundamental to reaching that target. Luckily, the adoption of new technologies is rarely linear, but instead has been shown to follow an S-curve as uptake moves from the tech-savvy to the mainstream. As part of the Park and Charge Oxfordshire research project, we undertook S-curve analysis to understand the potential trajectories (see Enabling the Acceleration of Electric Vehicle Adoption (Policy Brief 1, February 2022)).

After a long hiatus from EV uptake analysis, we recently ventured to re-run the s-curve analysis (initially published in December 2021). Unsurprisingly, the data formats and granularity have changed since then. Although this meant an entire rejig of the code, the higher geographical granularity across the datasets meant more regional insights than before. The primary data file includes the cumulative number of electric vehicles and all vehicles by counties from 2010 through Quarter 4, 2023, from the UK Government’s Department for Transport (VEH0105.ods). It was processed using Python.

The figure below shows the cumulative EV uptake forecasts for England, Scotland and Wales. As can be seen, EV growth forecasts for Scotland and England are quite similar and the vehicle fleet is on target to be near-enough 100% electric by 2045. However, Wales is lagging by almost 8 years.

As our initial interest was for Oxfordshire, we plotted the forecasts for England and Oxfordshire, which are also incredibly similar. Then we took advantage of the higher geographic granularity now available to look further within Oxfordshire. We plotted the five district councils (Oxford City Council, Cherwell, South Oxfordshire, Vale of White Horse, and West Oxfordshire). Though initial uptake was slower, Cherwell has picked up the pace in the last 5 years and is leading the way in achieving all EV status sooner than rest of the districts in the county.

On the other hand, this analysis tells us little about why uptake is faster or slower in different places. We know from other research that commercial fleets and company car schemes are dominating the new EV market in the UK. Cherwell has the highest economic activity rate and the second highest number of jobs in Oxfordshire after Oxford City, where major employers like the University tend to promote non-car commuting. Could this be why they also have a higher EV adoption rates?

The S-curve analysis also does not account for external events nor national policy changes – until any changes in adoption rates enter historic data. As can be seen below, when we first started this research in 2019, the time until full adoption was much longer. Then the pandemic and energy crises hit, and the UK government set a 2030 target to end sales of internal combustion engine (ICE) cars and vans. There has also been substantial investment from the Government and industry in public and private EV charging. Has this pulled the S-curves forward in time, as well as making the exponential growth phase steeper? And what impact has the subsequent push-back of targets and mixed messages had since late 2023? We don’t yet have the data to be able to see any more recent changes in our S-curve analysis.

With the political landscape in the UK altering overnight and the 2030 phase-out date for ICE vehicles potentially back in the frame, the mixed messages may have little to no impact. However, with car dealers reporting that EV sales are still below the Zero Emissions Mandate target, we think our S-curve analysis could help the government in Westminster, local authorities, and industry see where there is still work to do to get adoption on track across the country. Have a look at our online tool for your area of interest and see if you agree!

What do you think? We would welcome questions and comments on the applications of S-curve analysis to EV adoption in the UK, on the influence of different geodemographics or policy change, and thoughts about avenues for further research. Please respond to this post on LinkedIn.

A celebration of car club collaboration

Posted on June 30, 2024 by HD Budnitz

On 24 May, over twenty guests from around Oxfordshire and further afield came together at the School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, to celebrate a year-long, multi-operator pilot of electric car clubs in market towns and villages across the county.

In just twelve months, the shared EVs put over 165,000 electric miles on the clock – saving 36 tons of CO2eq (almost 8 Olympic sized swimming pools) compared to if those miles driven in the average petrol car. The shared EVs are already spending an average of 12% of their time in motion – compared to 4% for the average private vehicle. More efficient and intensive use of EVs means fewer EVs are needed for people to get around, which at 100 kg CO2eq per kWh of battery capacity manufactured, means even more emissions savings!

The clubs also attracted almost 1,000 new car club members / users and more than 3,000 individual hiring sessions in shared EVs outside Oxford City, with some members / users reporting that they have been able to reduce their household car ownership as a result.

Thus, despite doubts about viability outside cities, two of the car club operators believe that a dozen shared EVs will continue to operate in the various towns and villages indefinitely – and there has been discussion about expansion.

And with officers from Buckinghamshire, Kent, and Suffolk in attendance, as well as a high turnout from the Councillors, officers, and operators involved in the Oxfordshire pilot, there’s plenty of interest in the potential of electric car clubs in rural areas.

Considering that cars and vans are responsible for 30-50% of CO2 emissions in rural districts of the UK and public transport in such places is often limited, electric car clubs could offer rural residents a more affordable, efficient and environmentally friendly way to drive an EV. Yet there have been doubts about whether those rural residents will be interested, whether car clubs are viable to operate outside cities, and if there are any unintended long-term impacts.

The Oxfordshire pilot shows that at least in terms of interest and viability, the answer in some of the locations was definitely yes! Indeed, the evaluation findings of the pilot that my policy partner from Oxfordshire County Council, Jenny Figueiredo, and I presented at the celebratory event were based on annualised figures. Utilisation at the more successful locations grew over the course of the year, so in those cases, it’s only getting better!

The carbon savings are also likely an underestimate, as operators were using cleaner than average energy at the local charging hubs and from off-grid sources. In terms of the former, over 10% of energy sold at some of the hubs over the course of the year was to the car clubs – showing that, especially in less densely-populated areas, charge point and car club operation – and business cases – can be complementary.

That said, it is important to caveat that the car clubs in some locations were withdrawn, and we don’t fully understand the place-specific barriers and success factors, business models and narratives needed to meaningfully scale EV sharing in the countryside.

Our attendees agreed that funding, raising awareness, and further research was needed, but they were also incredibly positive about the potential of rural electric car clubs. From accelerating decarbonisation to financial opportunities for both operators and households, the future of electric car clubs in our market towns and villages is looking bright!

Misrecognition in the transition

Posted on May 31, 2024 by HD Budnitz

Urban residents’ reactions to distributional e-mobility policies offer insights into what misrecognition means.

Recognition Justice: Whose issues, needs, values, experiences and understandings are respected in policy and governance?

When we started talking about the different dimensions of social justice to policymakers and stakeholders as part of this research project back in late 2021, we quickly realised that recognition justice was the least recognised.

Matters of distributional justice are often well-integrated – even if not always executed – into planning, design, and appraisal processes. It’s an exercise in identifying costs, benefits, and upon whom they fall.

Now, as we come to the end of the project, we see that whilst matters of recognition justice remain elusive, expressions of distributional injustice in interviews with urban residents offer insights into their experiences of misrecognition… and how it might be addressed by policymakers.

Transport is a spatially organised sector. Spatial and physical accessibility is almost always a key metric for transport infrastructure and service provision. E-mobility is no exception, and policymakers regularly consider the distribution of public charging and shared micro-mobility, for example. Concerns around the affordability of EVs (usually cars and vans, but sometimes e-bikes too) are also widely documented, and policies often aim to make adoption cheaper.

Yet these and other policies to promote electric mobility can misrecognise what would make e-mobility more affordable or accessible to different groups. Our interviews with a wide spectrum of ~100 e-mobility users and non-users in four medium-sized European cities, from Oslo to Poznan, highlight some of the issues and experiences that such policies may need to recognise.

For example, a policy focus on the accessibility of electric mobility and EV adoption is seen by some to distract from the shortcomings of public transport and transport exclusion, misrecognising what certain sections of the population might actually need in terms of transport infrastructure.

Likewise, some social groups would never consider buying or leasing a new car – this can have to do with class and upbringing as much as income. So if grants and loans designed to make EV adoption cheaper don’t apply to second-hand vehicles, then the values of such groups are misrecognised.

Urban residents highlight how policies to improve accessibility for users of services such as shared e-scooters or public charging must be careful not to misrecognise the impacts on non-users. Do these services make other users of the same public spaces less safe? Do the needs of family members, such as children, make the services inaccessible in a way they would not be if the individual were travelling alone?

Restrictive policies like Clean Air Zones can misrecognise who ends up with the most financial burden, as well as how financial incentives could best reduce those burdens. Calls for greater flexibility in the use of loans and incentives highlighted one way to address this inequity, but care is needed.

Different groups understand and react to financial and regulatory policies, never mind their short and long-term impacts, in different ways, threatening further misrecognition, potentially born of poor communication and a perceived gap in procedural justice.

Recognition justice is not the same as distributional or procedural justice, but they all overlap. Through the window of distributional injustice as described by diverse users and non-users of electric mobility, the shape of recognition injustices become clearer. And through more purposive participation, in-depth engagement, and knowledge production, perhaps we can all learn to recognise it.

Making sense of policy mixes

Posted on May 31, 2024 by HD Budnitz

Policy mixes are the complex arrangement of objectives or goals and the instruments or measures devised to achieve them. They are not policy processes, although they develop over time, as outputs from ongoing political and technocratic processes and cycles. They are not policy strategies, although strategy documents often contain lists of goals and references to instruments.
Policy mixes cannot be found in one document – their component parts are spread across strategies and funding bids, guidance and even press releases. Policy mixes are not the responsibility of any individual policymaker – the expertise and resources to prioritise goals and to design and deliver the instruments lie with an array of teams at different levels of governance and across private and third sector, as well as public sector organisations.
Thus, compiling the policy mixes for the electrification of private and shared passenger transport in Bristol and its hinterland was a challenging task. We identified thirty individual policy instruments and grouped them, with some duplication where appropriate, by four modes: private vehicles (including those used for business and taxis), car-sharing, e-bikes, and e-scooters. Each instrument was categorised and listed with its intended goals; its spatial extent and timescale; and its consideration of the distributional, recognition, and participation dimensions of social justice.
The resulting spreadsheet was described as impressive or intimidating – or both! Explaining its contents at our third policy and governance workshop for the ITEM project was not simple. And this despite the fact that all eleven participants were involved with developing policy strategies and goals or implementing policy instruments or lobbying for policy improvements on behalf of particular user groups.
Nonetheless, we not only explained it, but asked the participants to score the policy mixes according to the complementarity of instruments, the coherence of goals, the alignment between instruments and goals, and the implications for distribution, recognition and participation for each mode and all modes together. Academics have attempted to undertake this sort of task to better analyse how policy has driven or could better drive change. We wanted to go one step further and not just analyse as academics, but also encourage action among policymakers. So we guided our participants through the task. We asked them to consider how they could consciously and strategically improve the policy mixes.
One rewarding result of taking this approach was through our work – and our excessively small-print spreadsheet – they could see that lots of great initiatives were happening in Bristol. Their views were broadly positive that the policy mixes showed consistent goals, with instruments reinforced more than undermined, and that whilst more could be added, there was not so much to take away.
Admittedly, the scores for the justice implications were lower – not all the policy mixes were evenly distributed nor recognised every social grouping nor, in particular, enabled much participation or influence in their planning and implementation. Here was room for improvement: finding ways to listen to new voices above the roar from the usual suspects, relying less on digital tools.
As the discussion moved to strengthening the policy mixes, the ever-present spectre of insufficient funding reared its head. Policy instruments and goals might be strategically focused in principle, but if they were not properly funded, then how could they ever extend to all the places and people needed to be just? Could creative distribution of funds help? Just as evaluating policy mixes rather than isolated instruments reveals synergies as well as gaps, so considering how groups rather than individuals are affected could enable recognition of intersecting needs that might be more efficiently met. Likewise, the policy mixes include carrots and sticks. Participants suggested that seeing both on a single page helped them to consider how to match the carrots to where (or whom) the sticks are targeted.
We will be producing a more detailed, structured report of how we evaluated the policy mixes in Bristol and the ideas and recommendations that will accelerate a more inclusive transition to electric mobility in Bristol. But for now, suffice it to say, the first step, making sense of policy mixes together, was completed with a sense of achievement.

Why are we still on the fence about EVs?

Posted on November 8, 2023 by HD Budnitz

Pleased to be able to say that this blog has been published in Citti Magazine: Why are we still on the fence about EVs? | CiTTi Magazine. It shows that our research into how important it is that we understand not just the practical barriers to EV adoption, like the cost or a lack of charging, but also how attitudes and norms influence intentions to switch to EVs. Once conventional car drivers are convinced of the environmental and technological benefits of EVs, then they will start thinking about where and how they can charge. It also shows how our research dovetailed with our partners’ (Oxfordshire County Council and EZ-Charge) approach to recruiting EV champions and holding events to demystify EVs and let drivers talk to their peers who had already made the switch.

Moving Beyond Modes

Posted on September 29, 2023 by HD Budnitz

Many of the policymakers and stakeholders we have interviewed for the ITEM project expressed uncertainty, and even hesitancy about the transition to electric mobility. In Poznań, Poland; Bristol, UK; and even Oslo, Norway, the urban transport policymakers in particular were not sure that supporting the transition to electric mobility is a local priority.

Or more specifically, supporting the transition from personal internal combustion engine (ICE) to electric cars is not a priority in these medium-sized European cities. Why? An electric car is ‘still a car’ as one Poznań policymaker said. The same policymaker went on to describe the importance of investing in public transport, explicitly contrasting it to electric mobility.

In other words, many of our participants interpreted questions about the transition to electric mobility as questions about the transition to electric vehicles (EVs) or even more specifically, to personal / private EVs. Personal, private EVs do not fit urban transport policy visions of less congested, more vibrant cities, any more than ICE vehicles do, even if EVs make the city less polluted and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

We, as researchers, often had to prompt participants to give their policy perspective on the switch to electric propulsion for other vehicle types like buses and bicycles. Their views on new(ish) vehicle types like e-scooters were ambiguous – pleased with their popularity, worried about their impact on space and place. Most didn’t even mention other EV alternatives, such as the electric mobility scooters and wheelchairs, or the pedal-free two- and three- wheelers commonly found in other parts of the world.

Partly this is because the focus of global and national discussions about the transition to electric mobility is often on EVs, as the IEA’s annual report demonstrates. However, that is not the only reason that many transport planners and practitioners default to personal EVs when asked about the transition to electric mobility.

Modes, modal hierarchies and modal shift are useful ways of explaining, learning about, and dividing responsibilities for transport policy, design and operation. Even those responsible for transport strategy across the geographical area of a municipality usually divide transport into modes. E-scooters and alternative types of EVs are not easily assigned to traditional modal categories such as active travel or public transport – no wonder our policymakers are not sure how to regulate them or whether they are a positive addition to their city’s transport system.

Meanwhile, alongside the heuristic of segmenting transport by mode sit other assumptions: Modal hierarchies describe which modes are more or less socially, economically, and environmentally valued in policy terms. Modal shift is what needs to happen so that more people travel by the more valued modes in a given hierarchy. Therefore, transport policy processes should aim to influence individual mode choice to achieve the desired modal shift. They should make more valued modes more attractive and efficient or less valued modes less attractive and efficient.

The problem is that not everyone has the same capability to choose nor the same perception of what is attractive nor the same urge for efficiency of movement. Accessibility and affordability are obvious barriers or motivations, but what about social opportunities and pressures? What about experiences of safety or enjoyment of risk? What about the added value of travelling more slowly if that time is also active or productive or contemplative?

Modal thinking limits how innovative and inclusive policy-making for the transition to electric mobility can be because it comes with so many prior assumptions, not least that personal electric cars are the only type of electric mobility being discussed. We need to move beyond modal knowledge. It is useful, perhaps fundamental to the responsibilities of transport policymakers and practitioners. But it must be complemented by new learning if we are to take advantage of all the opportunities to be innovative and inclusive that the transition to electric mobility can offer.

A partnership in learning by doing

Posted on September 5, 2023 by HD Budnitz

Even before the public charging hubs went live across Oxfordshire, the partners involved in their installation wanted to include electric car clubs in the Park and Charge project. Car club operators would be a dedicated, regular customer for manufacturer and operator, EZ-Charge. Car clubs would offer more Oxfordshire residents access to electric driving, whilst avoiding the high purchase costs. Research, including from myself and colleagues, showed that a reduction in car ownership and use as well as electrification was required to meet emissions targets. Car clubs are compatible with a car-lite lifestyle.

Delays and other challenges to the project, partly due to the pandemic, left no budget nor resource to include electric car clubs before the project funding ended in 2022, but the key partners at Oxfordshire County Council, the University of Oxford and EZ-Charge kept the discussion alive.

They involved other parties in their partnership – Oxford City Council, the shared mobility charity CoMoUK, car club operators, Co-Wheels and Enterprise, community green groups from Eynsham and Thame, district council car park operators. They used survey and public engagement data from the Park and Charge project and Co-Wheels. They used messages and research published by CoMoUK. They built on the enthusiasm of local green groups, and the trust established with the district councils during the hub installation.

Out of this partnership working, Oxfordshire County Council negotiated a year-long trial of electric car clubs at a selection of the Park and Charge hubs and Oxford City’s Redbridge Park and Ride. The car club operators would provide the EVs at their own risk. EZ-Charge and the city / districts would dedicate particular parking spaces and charge points for their use. I applied for and won some University of Oxford internal seed funding to support the trial and develop a roadmap for evaluation and maximising outcomes. All involved would promote the new car clubs through their various outreach channels.

A live experiment is underway. These car clubs are innovative in not only being all-electric, but also in being located in towns and villages, away from the dense urban areas where most car clubs are found. Data is being collected on membership, utilisation, and bookings for the car clubs, and energy utilisation at the dedicated charge points. Mini-surveys provide some insight into user motivations and preferences. A public event in May offered publicity to the trial with a more personal touch. In-depth discussions were held with car sharing advocates from Eynsham and Thame, and with two independent car club organisers in Hook Norton and Banbury, who have developed alternative business models.

The trial is half way through the promised year, and already we have insights to share. The availability of electric cars is attractive to potential customers, who say they prefer commercially-run or community car clubs to peer-to-peer options. The most successful electric car clubs in the trial are in towns where car clubs already existed locally or nearby – Henley, at Redbridge, and Abingdon. Eynsham has also taken off surprisingly quickly, perhaps because of the community interest already in place. The trial car club is not attracting many customers in Banbury, perhaps because of the local competition, and negotiations are underway to shift the operations.

A further research-led project is scheduled for spring 2024 to answer policy questions such as: Are the frequency of bookings and number of unique users of these trial car clubs lower than in city car clubs, but the duration of rentals higher, as data on existing Co-Wheels vehicles in areas with lower population density and higher vehicle ownership suggests? Is the utilisation sufficient to support retaining the trial car clubs and perhaps expanding into other towns and villages? Will car club charge point utilisation help support EZ-Charge’s business model, and encourage other charge point operators to welcome car clubs? Do the electric car clubs make electric driving more affordable and accessible?

These questions can be answered as our partnership continues learning by doing.

All About Audience

Posted on July 24, 2023 by HD Budnitz

I have not posted a blog for three months, but I have presented my research to five different audiences in that time. It’s been busy – and instructive.

My first audience included colleagues from various departments and disciplines across the University at an event to share research on ‘Behaviour and the Environment’. I focused first on my previous project, Park and Charge Oxfordshire, and results from a Stated Choice experiment on parking and charging preferences and the behavioural questions of EV adoption. I concluded with a short summary of my current research project, ITEM: Inclusive Transition to Electric Mobility, which partially questions the behavioural choice perspective on the transition.

My second audience were part-time students on a continuing education Masters. As the seminar was due to last 90 minutes, I started preparing those slides first, so I’d have plenty of material from which to develop my other presentations. I was still updating them the day before, adding extra slides in case I needed them to fill the time. I agreed to answer questions as I went along, and barely got through all the material I had originally included, never mind the extra.

My third audience was our research participants: policymakers and stakeholders, many of whom I’d interviewed as part of the research data collected to analyse the policy perspective. The presentation parts of the workshop had to be quick, to give plenty of time for moderate structured discussions that still felt almost too short.

My fourth audience was at a professional conference attended mainly by transport practitioners from the public and private sector. I wrote a conference paper, which I knew said all I wanted it to. That was to be circulated after the event, but on the day itself, I spoke at 5:30pm in one of five parallel sessions. The last presenter in the last session of a long day. We were all a bit tired!

My fifth and final audience was at an academic conference, where I presented at the end of the first session, 10am, on the last day. With all the previous presentations under my belt, I was no longer making last minute changes to my slides, I kept to time and received useful feedback for the comparative academic paper I am currently drafting on the policy perspective.

All these presentations took a lot of work, as there are not as many economies of scale as you might think in presenting the same work multiple times, if you are doing so for diverse audiences in a variety of formats. The process was, however, instructive and gave me new insights into both how to present my work and the work itself.

For example, the internal academic audience taught me the value of making connections between past and future work.

The teaching taught me to always build in a wide range of audience participation time if you are planning on taking questions as you go along. You never know how engaged your audience will be or which material will draw comment.

At the workshop, my presentation wasn’t as important as the distillation of some of the findings into statements and activities to facilitate discussion. The research participants gave us insights not only into our analysis of the electric mobility transition in Bristol, but also into wider issues and interactions with other places and other research.

Session assignment at a conference is not within a presenter’s control, but once the programme is announced, it is important to think not only about who you are presenting to, but also when. Nobody is likely to be full of energy and enthusiasm in the late afternoon, so I should probably have aimed for less, but more catchy content.

Finally, I found that a little bit of academic theory, if explained briefly and simply, enhanced the more practical points in my presentation. That’s academic expertise at its best, and could well have done the same for some of my presentations to non-academic audiences!

Go-How

Transport Planning and Research by HD Budnitz