Travel behaviour and environmental concerntransctr/pdf/Nilsson Article.pdf · Travel behaviour and environmental concern Maria Nilsson *, Rikard K uller Environmental Psychology Unit,

Travel behaviour and environmental concern

Maria Nilsson *, Rikard K�uller

Environmental Psychology Unit, Lund Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden

Abstract

In two empirical studies, the impact of attitudes and environmental knowledge on driving distance, travelbehaviour and acceptance of various tra�c restrictions was investigated. The ®rst study included thepopulation in Lund, southern Sweden, and the second the politicians and civil servants responsible fortransports and environment in the same city. Comparisons of the two samples revealed similar psycho-logical processes, including environmental concern, hazard/e�cacy perception and car a�ection, whereasenvironmental knowledge seemed to have a subordinate role. Preferences of restrictions di�ered somewhatbetween the public, and the politicians and civil servants. It is suggested that local implementation of newstrategies to reduce private car driving might bene®t from a better understanding of what will be acceptedamong the public. Further, in promoting pro-environmental travel behaviour it may be important to focuson basic attitudes, rather than to rely solely on factual information. Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rightsreserved.

Keywords: Travel behaviour; Acceptance of tra�c restrictions; Pro-environmental attitudes; Environmental knowledge

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

The frequent use of private cars in urban areas has a signi®cant impact on the environment aswell as on human health. Despite the fact that technical improvements, such as catalytic con-verters and fuel e�cient engines, have decreased the pollution per vehicle, the environmental gainshave been lost through the more extensive use of private cars (Nationalkommitt�en f�or Agenda 21,1997). Other increasing problems concern auditory pollution, tra�c accidents, excessive land useand the depletion of natural resources (Kolbensvedt et al., 1996). The Swedish National Envi-ronment Protection Agency and the Swedish Transport and Communications Research Board

Transportation Research Part D 5 (2000) 211±234www.elsevier.com/locate/trd

* Corresponding author.

1361-9209/00/$ - see front matter Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S1361-9209(99)00034-6

amongst others have argued that more emphasis should be placed on peopleÕs values and lifestylesas determinants of the choice of transportation means (Swedish Environmental ProtectionAgency, 1993; Swedish Transport and Communication Research Board, 1995). This study focuseson travel behaviour among urban residents from an environmental psychology perspective, withemphasis on attitude theory.

Generally, an attitude is de®ned as a psychological construct, composed of a�ective, cognitiveand behavioural components, which may be used to describe human evaluative responses(e.g. Eagly and Chaiken, 1993). Ajzen and FishbeinÕs (1980) Theory of Reasoned Action was abreak-through as a general attitude model for predicting behaviour. The theory stated that vol-untary behaviour could be predicted by the intention to act, where the intention was determinedby the attitude towards the behaviour plus a subjective norm. However, the theory was criticisedto be too narrow, since most behaviours are not voluntary (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993). Ajzen(1988) adhered to the critique by developing the Theory of Planned Behaviour, which also in-cluded perceived control over the actual behaviour as a determinant. This theory has been widelyrecognised (Ajzen, 1991), but Eagly and Chaiken (1993) have suggested that attitude towards thetarget, habits, and outcomes from norms and self-identity might also be signi®cant in order toimprove the prediction of behaviours from attitudes.

Already in the early 1970s the ecological problems were de®ned as a crisis of maladaptivebehaviour. It was also recognised that ecologically responsible patterns of human behaviour wererequired to solve the problems (Stern and Oskamp, 1987). The attitude most often discussed isenvironmental concern, a general attitude against environmental deterioration (Fransson et al.,1994). Gagnon-Thompson and Barton (1994) meant that environmental concern is motivatedeither by a true care for the nature as such, or by a care for nature as a human resource. Earlyresearch showed that environmental concern, at least to some degree, would determine actionspromoting a sustainable environment (Arbuthnot, 1977; Kallgren and Wood, 1986; Stern andOskamp, 1987). Perceived threat of environmental degradation was another factor, which seemedto be of signi®cance for pro-environmental behaviour (Campell, 1983; Schmidt and Gi�ord, 1989;Baldassare and Katz, 1992; Fridgen, 1994). Also knowledge of environmental impact caused byhuman activities has been suggested as a motive for actions by, among others, Krause (1993) andGamba and Oskamp (1994).

Within the ®eld of environmental psychology, also more comprehensive models for pre-dicting pro-environmental behaviour have been developed (Hines et al., 1986/1987; Hungerfordand Volk, 1990; Axelrod and Lehman, 1993; Geller, 1995; Grob, 1995; Stern et al., 1995).Several studies, based on models with both a�ective and cognitive components, seem to indi-cate that environmental knowledge is less important than attitudes in predicting pro-environ-mental behaviours (Hines et al., 1986/1987; Axelrod and Lehman, 1993; Grob, 1995). In thesestudies also feelings of control, e�cacy or empowerment aspects of the behaviour, have beensuccessfully introduced. Other variables presently discussed are social and ®nancial expectationsof behaviour outcomes. However, the relations between attitudinal components and pro-envi-ronmental behaviours seem to be very complex and, as shown by L�evy-Leboyer et al. (1996),caution is imperative, especially when extrapolating the results from one culture to another. Intheir study on sub-samples from six European countries, variations in a wide range of pro-environmental behaviours could be explained by either risk perception, subjective knowledge orattitudes.

212 M. Nilsson, R. K�uller / Transportation Research Part D 5 (2000) 211±234

The overall purpose of the present project was not to test any of the previously mentionedattitude models but to apply concepts from these models on transportation issues concerningprivate car driving in an urban environment. Speci®c features of the study included assessing theindividual transports in three distinctly di�erent ways: driving distance, environmental load oftravel behaviour, and acceptance of tra�c restrictions. In one study two urban samples from thecity of Lund, Sweden, were compared. The samples were identical except for one area havingheavier tra�c and higher pollution levels than the other. In the second study a replication wasmade on a group of politicians and civil servants responsible for the planning of tra�c and en-vironment in the municipality.

1.2. Previous research

Environmentally sound travel behaviour seems to be one of the most di�cult pro-environ-mental behaviours to promote in Sweden (Lind�en, 1994; Widergren, 1998). Approximately 50% ofall journeys within urban areas, most of them less than ®ve kilometres, are made by car (Solheimand Stangeby, 1997). Several reasons for the dominance of the private car have been brought up.The car is associated with time saving, comfort, freedom of movement and personal space(Malmberg, 1980; Tengstr�om, 1992). Such features of the car have served it well in town planning(Herbert and Thomas, 1990). The car has also become essential in the life style of large groups inour society and thereby necessary for daily activities (G�arling et al., 1984; Berge and Nondal,1994). During several generations, both men and women have been driving for a long period oftheir lives, and car driving is still increasing (Nynabb, 1995).

On the other hand Swedes, as other Europeans, are very concerned about environmentalproblems caused by tra�c (Worcester, 1993). From a national survey, Gooch (1995) reported that60% of the Swedes perceived air pollution from transport as a serious environmental problem.K�uller and Laike (1993) investigated the acceptance and the perceived intrusion of various tra�crestrictions. Based on the comparison of acceptance and intrusion scores, these authors suggestedthat, in addition to sel®sh motives, there might also be a true concern for the environment.Verplanken et al. (1994) argued that, although the initial choice of transport might depend onattitudes, this relationship weakens when the choice becomes habitual.

Ljungblom (1980) suggested that information about the environmental pollution caused by cardriving might be di�cult for the public to take in, because this information is undermined by aglori®ed presentation of the car in advertisements. In a Swedish study by Gustavsson (1993),factual knowledge of the consequences of tra�c pollution was low, even if the subjects had a goodknowledge of how to drive in order to reduce pollution. In our own pilot study no relation be-tween factual knowledge and travel behaviour was found (Nilsson, 1993a). However, in a scenariostudy by G�arling and Sandberg (1990), where the level of air pollution was varied, the resultsshowed that increased pollution would reduce car driving. It might be that the private experienceof environmental problems is an important determinant of pro-environmental behaviour (Finger,1994).

According to Cvetkovich and Earle (1992), experts tend to perceive environmental risks dif-ferently from the public, because expertsÕ judgements to a greater extent are based on facts. In astudy by Pleschberger (1995) of the ozone problems caused by tra�c, the local elite saw them-selves as a special group, less a�ected by tra�c pollution than the public. Worcester (1993)

M. Nilsson, R. K�uller / Transportation Research Part D 5 (2000) 211±234 213

concluded from a study of public and elite attitudes, that this might lead to the public having littlefaith in governments to take action for environmental issues. In surveys in Sweden, Norway andthe European Union, the local politicians rated urban tra�c as one of the most important mu-nicipality problems, and the main cause of urban air pollution (Stangeby, 1994; Swedish Trans-port and Communication Research Board and Swedish Public Transport Association, 1994).Tra�c restrictions were considered an e�ective means of improving the urban environment. TheSwedish ratings of tra�c as the cause of pollution was one of the highest in Europe, and there wasa consensus from the public in these issues, although the politicians did not seem to be aware of it(Swedish Transport and Communication Research Board and Swedish Public Transport Asso-ciation, 1994).

1.3. Problem

A better understanding of the individual processes behind choice of transport in urban areasmight facilitate attempts to reduce car driving, and thereby limit the environmental impact causedby local transport. The general aim of the project was to study travel behaviour in an urbanenvironment by means of concepts used in models of attitudes and pro-environmental behaviour.A more speci®c aim was to compare the individualsÕ acceptance of tra�c restrictions and actualchoice of transport means, between people living in a heavy polluted area, people living in a lesspolluted area, and the local politicians and civil servants responsible for planning of tra�c andenvironment.

For all groups it was predicted that attitudes would be more strongly related to acceptance oftra�c restrictions than to actual travel behaviour and driving distance. In accordance with pre-vious research on emotion versus cognition, it was further predicted that attitudes would be moreimportant than knowledge for promoting pro-environmental travel behaviour. It was also pre-dicted that people living in the heavy tra�c area would be more concerned about pollution andshow a more pro-environmental behaviour. Finally, it was predicted that persons responsible forplanning of transports and environment in the municipality (e.g. politicians and civil servants)would depend more on environmental knowledge and less on attitudes in their acceptance oftra�c restrictions.

2. Study I: method

2.1. Procedure

The ®rst study was conducted as a survey in two districts in Lund, a city of 71,000 inhabitantsin the south of Sweden. A questionnaire, together with an information sheet, was mailed to therespondents, and a reminder was sent two weeks later. Respondents could call the department ifthey had any questions. According to Shaughnessy and Zechmeister (1990) questionnaire surveysprovide an excellent basis for analysing peopleÕs attitudes. Questionnaires have previously beensuccessfully used in the ®eld of environmental psychology to investigate travel habits and mobilityduring leisure time (G�arling et al., 1984; Fuhrer et al., 1993).


Two pilot studies preceded the study; the ®rst examined peopleÕs perception of various tra�crestrictions in order to construct a scale of acceptance. For this purpose 106 people had beenasked to sort 39 cards in order of acceptability (K�uller and Laike, 1993). The second pilot studywas aimed at developing and pretesting questions for the main study. For this purpose the pre-liminary version of the questionnaire was distributed to 148 driving licence holders in the south ofSweden (Nilsson, 1993a).

The ®nal version of the questionnaire dealt with the citizensÕ journeys as well as their envi-ronmental attitudes and knowledge. Travelling was assessed in three ways:1. Annual driving distance ± the number of kilometres driven during the previous year. This is a

measure of the distance travelled by car, but does not include other means of transport. Neithercan it specify travel by any single person in the household. As reported below, the mean report-ed driving distance agrees with the results of national surveys, which con®rms the validity of themeasure.

2. Travel behaviour ± the environmental impact caused by travelling based on choice of transportmeans and frequency of journeys for di�erent destinations during an average week. Travel be-haviour was assessed both for the respondent and for the family as a whole. The validity of thismeasure lends credibility from the fact that individual and household travel behaviour werehighly correlated (r� 0.93).

3. Acceptance of tra�c restrictions in urban areas was measured with a short version of K�uller andLaike's (1993) scale of acceptance. The reduced version correlated highly with the original scale(r� 0.92). It should be noted that acceptance of tra�c restrictions measures an intention ratherthan actual behaviour.Knowledge of environmental pollution at the local level was measured by three multiple-

choice questions about tra�c noise, air pollution and accidents in Lund, whereas regional andglobal aspects of pollution were dealt with in ®ve statements, such as ``Tra�c pollution con-tributes to the death of forests'', to be checked for correctness. As reported below, an index ofknowledge was constructed. The internal reliability of the index amounted to CronbachÕs al-pha� 0.44. Despite the wide range of subjects covered the Spearman-Brown split-half reliabilityyielded r� 0.53.

Attitudes towards private car driving, public transport services and the environment were as-sessed by 22 modi®ed Likert scales, consisting of 8-cm-long ungraded lines. By means of factoranalyses, ®ve attitude indices were formed, CronbachÕs alpha varied from low 0.35, to satisfactory0.63 (Table 5). Split-half reliabilities were computed for two indices with a fairly homogeneouscontent (hazard/e�cacy and car a�ection, r > 0.60 for both).

Resources included questions about possession of a driving licence and access to a car. Apartfrom age, gender and socio-economic factors, background variables also dealt with the individualÕssensitivity to air pollutants and whether car driving was necessary for reasons of poor health.

2.2. Lund ± tra�c and environment

In Lund, tra�c is the main contributor to air pollutants and noise (Malm�ohus L�ans Landsting,1993). Tra�c accounts for almost all of the carbon monoxide (CO), 80% of carbon dioxide (CO2),75% of nitrogen oxides (NOx), and 35% of volatile organic compounds (HCs). About 10% of thecitizens live in areas where the Swedish recommended maximum level of noise (55 dBA) is


exceeded (Gustavsson, Tra�c Engineer, Lund Municipality). About 300 tra�c accidents per yearwere reported in 1993 and 1994.

Two di�erent districts were chosen for the study, ®rstly the City Centre, a typical commercialurban area with o�ces and multifamily housing, and a fairly high tra�c density. The mean tra�c¯ow was in the range of 6000±10,000 vehicles per day at eight di�erent measuring points (LundsKommun, 1995). Consequently, people living in this area were exposed to high levels of airpollution and a high risk of tra�c accidents. Furthermore 60% were exposed to noise levels above55 dBA. The second district, the North Common (Norra F�aladen), is a residential area, wheremost of the tra�c is concentrated to two thoroughfares with 8100 and 5500 vehicles per day,respectively (Lunds Kommun, 1995). This area is less a�ected by air pollution, accidents andnoise; only 10% of the inhabitants were exposed to levels above 55 dBA.

In the City Centre and the North Common, 32% and 34% of the households, respectively,owned a car. (Children older than 18 yr, who lived with their parents have been counted asseparate households.) (Lunds Kommun, 1994). Bus routes existed in both districts and 98% of theinhabitants had less than 500 m from their home to the closest bus stop (Lunds Kommun, 1995).However the number of routes was much greater and the local and regional coverage much betterin the City Centre (Nilsson, 1993b). In Lund there is a long tradition of bicycling as a means oftransport, and it has been estimated that approximately 20% of the transport mileage is made bybicycle (Linderholm et al., 1993).

2.3. Sampling and drop out

A sample of 1020 residents aged between 18 and 80 yr was randomly extracted from theNational Registration File. To make certain that the ®nal sample would include roughly equalnumbers of people in each age group, the sample was strati®ed according to age. This means thatpeople younger than 30 were somewhat underrepresented in the sample compared with thepopulation of Lund. From the ®nal sample of 827, responses were received from 422 persons(total sample: 51%, City Centre: 52%, North Common: 50%).

Immigrants were not of special interest in the present study and were not distinguished whensampling. However, an analysis of the drop-out rate revealed that immigrants (approx. 15% of thesample) had been somewhat less willing to respond than Swedes (response rate: Swedes 53%;immigrants, City Centre 46%; North Common 35%, v2 � 12:95, d.o.f.� 2, p < 0.01). Reasons suchas not understanding the language or di�culties relating to Swedish conditions may explain thisdi�erence. The larger drop-out rate at the North Common may depend on the high number ofnewly arrived immigrants in that area. Also, the response rate for women was higher than for men(58% compared with 42%; v2 � 19:32, d.o.f.� 1, p� 0.01). This is in line with ®ndings that womenare more concerned than men about environmental issues (Davidson and Freudenburg, 1996). Asa further check for selective drop-out, respondents who returned the questionnaire immediatelywere compared with those who returned it after a reminder. Comparisons of age, gender, annualdriving distance, acceptance of tra�c restrictions and environmental concern showed no signi®-cant di�erences.

Data were treated by means of correlation (Pearson r), variance, factor and regression and, insome cases, chi-squared analyses (SPSSx, 1986). In view of the large number of analyses the levelof signi®cance was set to p� 0.01.


3. Results of Study I

3.1. The participants' backgrounds and resources

The sample consisted of 42% men and 58% women. The mean age was 40 yr, there was nostatistically signi®cant di�erence between the City Centre and the North Common groups. Thedi�erence between the sample and the Lund population (mean age 36 yr) is due to the initialstrati®cation. Somewhat more than 50% were married or lived together with a partner. There werechildren in 47% of the households (children over 18 included). The sample was, on average, highlyeducated, as is typical for a university city such as Lund. Seventy-two per cent had studied aftercollege. Although many worked at the university, a wide range of occupations was represented.The sample also included students (21%) and retired people (11%). The resource items showedthat 86% had a driving licence and 62% had access to a car. The di�erence between our data ando�cial data, which are based on ownership (approx. 30%), could be explained by the wording``access to a car'' in our questionnaire and by the de®nition of household in o�cial data (LundsKommun, 1994). There were no signi®cant di�erences in these respects between the City Centreand the North Common.

3.2. Driving distance, travel behaviour and acceptance of tra�c restrictions

Although this study was focused on individual travel behaviour, travelling is dependent on thehousehold as a unit. Therefore spouseÕs and childrenÕs journeys were included. The mean annualdriving distance was in the range of 5000±10,000 km (Fig. 1). This ®gure is well in line withnational studies of SwedesÕ travelling habits, where the average driving distance is 10,000 km peryear (Vilhelmsson, 1990; Nynabb, 1995).

Fig. 1. The annual driving distance in kilometres of households taking part in the study.


The number of journeys per week varied considerably between the subjects. Most journeys weremade to the work place, but the majority of these journeys were short, since 75% of the sampleworked in Lund (Table 1). Journeys for shopping, leisure and other activities were less frequent.The results for spouseÕs journeys were very similar, except that spouses were considered to makefewer journeys. A private car or bicycle was the most preferred means of transport for all kinds ofjourneys (Fig. 2). Families with children reported between zero and 32 single journeys per weekfor the childrenÕs activities and a bicycle was used in 44% of these journeys. The sparse use ofpublic transport is in accordance with the ®ndings of Holmberg (Professor, Department of Tra�cPlanning, Lund Institute of Technology), who concluded that in this region the bicycle is asubstitute for public transport.

An index of environmental pollution for travel behaviour was created from the frequencies andmeans of transport chosen for di�erent types of journeys. Firstly the impact caused by variousmeans of transport was weighted from 1 to 5 (Table 2). For each subject the impact was thenmultiplied by the number of journeys. After adding the ®gures for all journeys, the sum wasdivided by the total number of journeys reported by each person. This index could vary between 1(no pollution) and 5 (maximum pollution), (m� 2.54, S.D.� 1.44, Mdn� 2.20, N� 407). Asimilar index was created for the household as a whole (m� 2.58, S.D.� 1.37, Mdn� 2.40,N� 411).

Overall, the acceptance of tra�c restrictions was somewhat lower than in K�uller and LaikeÕsoriginal study, but the order of priority was about the same (K�uller and Laike, 1993) (Fig. 3). Theindividual level of acceptance was obtained by adding the number of accepted restrictions. Theacceptance could vary between zero and 10 (m� 3.13, S.D.� 2.01, Mdn� 3, N� 418). There wasno di�erence in overall acceptance between the respondents living in the two areas.

3.3. Environmental knowledge and attitudes

The subjects' knowledge of the environmental impact caused by tra�c was dealt with in threemultiple choice items about local accidents rates, noise and pollution levels. Knowledge of theregional and global impact was checked by ®ve statements about impact on nature and health.Based on all these questions a knowledge index was constructed, items of global/regional andlocal issues were equally weighted. Index could vary between 1 and 3 (m� 1.96, S.D.� 0.38,

Table 1

The respondentÕs and spouseÕs number of single journeys to various destinations during an average week

Destination Respondent Spouse

m SD Mdn N m SD Mdn N

Work 8.89 4.21 10 381 8.87 4.68 10 217

Shopping 3.78 3.39 3 418 2.82 2.98 2 229

Leisure 3.26 3.40 2 418 2.62 2.82 2 231

Visits 3.02 3.43 2 417 1.99 1.94 2 231

Other 1.51 2.45 1 413 1.22 1.69 1 231

Total 2.79 11.06 20 375 17.56 8.49 18 216


Mdn� 2.03). It should be noted that pure guessing in the multiple-choice questions would give anaverage of m� 1.20. No di�erences in overall knowledge were found between the people living inthe City Centre and the North Common.

Fourteen attitude scales plus a question about the future development of Lund were enteredinto a factor analysis in order to ®nd psychologically meaningful constructs and to reduce thenumber of variables. One scale was excluded because of a distorted distribution (``Are you happyliving in your housing area?''). An orthogonal solution was arrived at, which accounted for 48%of the total variance (Table 3).

Factor I may be interpreted in terms of environmental concern on a societal level, whilefactor II describes the attitude towards public transport. Factor III expresses the perceivedhazard level of tra�c and the personal e�cacy in dealing with its environmental impact. FactorIV describes a personal concern of health and environment. A second factor analysis includedan additional four scales that required holding a driving licence and access to a car. In thisanalysis, a ®fth factor appeared, car a�ection, indicating an a�ective aspect of car driving(Table 4). Based on these two factor analyses, ®ve indices of attitude were created (Table 5). Nosigni®cant di�erences in attitudes were found between people living in the City Centre and theNorth Common.

Fig. 2. Choice of transport for the individualsÕ journeys to various destinations.

Table 2

Environmental pollution weighted for various means of transport

Means of transport Environmental impact

Walk/bicycle 1

Walk/bicycle + public transport 2

Walk/bicycle + car 3

Public transport 3

Public transport + car 4

Car only 5


3.4. Variables connected with travel

Naturally, resources, such as possessing a driving licence and having access to a car, werestrongly related to the annual driving distance (licence: F(1, 358)� 14.31, p� 0.000; car:F(1,358)� 210.38, p� 0.000) and to a greater environmental impact of the travel behaviour(licence: m� 2.66, m� 1.88, F(1, 402)� 13.93, p� 0.000; car: m� 3.13, m� 1.63,F(1, 405)� 159.26, p� 0.000), whereas the acceptance of tra�c restrictions was higher for indi-viduals without a car (m� 3.82, m� 2.71, F(1, 412)� 31.66, p� 0.000). Among the backgroundvariables, age was found to be covariant with driving distance (F(3, 359)� 17.04, p� 0.000) andwith travel behaviour (F(3, 398)� 23.94, p� 0.000). Young people drove the least and caused theleast environmental pollution, whereas middle-aged people drove the most. WomenÕs travel be-haviour was more friendly towards the environment than was menÕs behaviour (v2 � 13:39,d.o.f.� 2, p� 0.001).

Fig. 3. Proportion of people who accepted various restrictions for private cars in the Lund city centre.


Table 3

Factor analysis of attitudes about tra�c and environment (orthogonal solution, based on pairwise correlations,

loadings <0.40 not given (SPSSx, 1986))

Attitude scale Factor

I II III IV

Motor society is not a threat to the environment 0.77

To drive a car is good for society 0.74

Lund should be a part of a metropolitan area 0.51

Environmental pollution is worse than unemployment )0.45

Public transport is crowded 0.67

Acceptable to wait for the bus in the evening )0.67

Would use public transport if more comfortable seats 0.54

Public transport expensive to use 0.45

Society responsible for a good environment 0.72

Avoids to cross busy streets 0.60

Worried about tra�c accidents 0.52

Worried about health impact of air pollution 0.50

Self active to reduce tra�c pollution 0.72

Friends feel environmental concern 0.59

Will not use public transport in times of colds 0.44 0.52

Proportion of total variance (%) 13.60 13.30 10.90 10.40

Table 4

A complementary factor analysis on a much smaller sample revealed a ®fth factor (N� 302, orthogonal solution,

loadings <0.40 are not given (SPSSx, 1986))

Attitude scale Factor V

Pleasant to drive a car 0.72

Always chooses to drive a car 0.69

To drive a car is good for society 0.57

A car is a must 0.56

Proportion of total variance (%) 10.80

Table 5

Distribution and internal consistency (ChronbachÕs alpha) of the ®ve attitude indices (environmental concern has been

inverted compared to the factor analysis)

Factor Min Max m Mdn SD N a

1. Environmental concern 5 35 22.47 23.00 5.25 368 0.50

2. Public transport 4 32 16.36 16.00 5.30 352 0.48

3. Hazard/e�cacy 4 32 15.98 16.00 5.75 407 0.61

4. Personal concern 3 24 10.66 10.00 3.84 378 0.35

5. Car a�ection 4 32 20.31 20.00 5.96 302 0.63


Knowledge about the environmental impact caused by tra�c was positively correlated with anattitude of environmental concern (r� 0.31, N� 333, p� 0.01). Covariations with attitudes werefound for all of the dependent variables. The driving distance was greater among those whoscored high in car a�ection (F(2, 275)� 11.11, p� 0.000), whereas environmental concern workedin the opposite direction (F(2, 318)� 10.08, p� 0.000) (Fig. 4).

If the environment was considered important and the car unnecessary the individualÕs travelbehaviour caused less environmental impact (F(2, 352)� 21.74, p� 0.000; F(2, 292)� 36.97,p� 0.000) (Fig. 5). The results for household travel behaviour were almost identical to individualtravel behaviour (Nilsson, 1995).

The acceptance of tra�c restrictions was higher in those who scored high in environmentalconcern (F(2, 364)� 51.33, p� 0.000) and reported high hazard/low e�cacy (F(2, 401)� 8.16,p� 0.000) and also in those who scored low in car a�ection (F(2, 298)� 21.11, p� 0.000) (Fig. 6).A tendency for greater knowledge to induce more acceptance for tra�c restrictions was alsonoticed (F(2, 373)� 4.20, p� 0.02). However, no signi®cant relation was found between knowl-edge and driving distance, or between knowledge and travel behaviour.

3.5. Correlations and regression analysis

In order to identify the magnitude of the relations between attitudes and knowledge on the onehand, and driving distance, travel behaviour and acceptance of tra�c restrictions on the other,correlation analyses were undertaken. As shown in Table 6 both environmental concern and cara�ection correlated with behaviour and acceptance. The correlations between knowledge and thedependent variables were rather weak. No signi®cant relation was found with public transportattitude or personal concern.

An attempt was made by means of multiple regression to ®nd out how much of the variationin the dependent variables could be explained. In order to do this, the independent variables

Fig. 4. Attitudes connected with driving distance.


Fig. 5. Attitudes connected with travel behaviour.

Fig. 6. Attitudes connected with acceptance of tra�c restrictions (acceptance could vary between 0 and 10).

Table 6

Correlations (Pearson r) between attitudes, knowledge and driving distance, travel behaviour and acceptance of tra�c

restrictions (SPSSx, 1986)

Environmental

concern

Public

transport

Hazard/

e�cacy

Personal

concern

Car

a�ection

Knowledge

Driving distance )0.35�� )0.03 )0.02 )0.01 0.46�� )0.16��

Individual behaviour )0.35�� 0.02 )0.01 )0.00 0.42�� )0.17��

Household behaviour )0.20�� )0.06 )0.06 )0.02 0.28�� )0.18��

Acceptance of tra�c

restrictions

0.46�� 0.02 0.23�� 0.07 )0.41�� 0.21��

** p < 0.01.


were divided into ®ve blocks and introduced stepwise into the analysis. First resources andbackground variables were introduced in two steps. Then, the remaining variables were added inthe following order: living area; environmental knowledge; and ®nally, attitudes. Since, in ahierarchical regression analysis, variance shared between two or more variables is assigned tothe variable ®rst introduced, knowledge and attitudes were given the least favoured positions. Intotal, between 37% and 46% of the variance in driving distance, travel behaviour and acceptancewas explained. Resources and background variables accounted for most of the variance indriving distance and travel behaviour, but in the latter case, attitudes also contributed. Ac-ceptance was mainly explained by attitudes. The discrepancies between the analyses of varianceand regression most probably are due to the reduction of the sample in the regression analysis(Table 7).

4. Study II: method

4.1. Procedure and sample

The second study was a survey among local politicians and civil servants in position to takeaction for the environment in Lund. One hundred and forty local politicians with their homeaddress in Lund, and 107 civil servants employed by Lund municipality, were selected from theLund municipality register. A questionnaire was sent to the politicians home address and to thecivil servants work place. Everybody was asked to return the questionnaire in a postage-paidreturn envelope. Seven of the politicians had moved out and one of the civil servants had left theworkplace, therefore they never received their questionnaires. Thus, the actual sample consisted of239 persons, and 122 returned the questionnaire. The response rate of 51% was exactly the samerate as in the study of the public. The ®nal sample consisted of 59% men and 41% women in theage range 21±74 yr (m� 47 yr).

Table 7

Hierarchical regression analysis for driving distance (N� 149), personal travel behaviour (N� 157), household travel

behaviour (N� 158) and acceptance of tra�c restrictions (N� 161) (SPSSx, 1986)a

R2 change R2

Resources +Background +Area +Knowledge +Attitudes

Driving distance 0.34�� 0.07�� 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.46��

Individual behaviour 0.21�� 0.18�� 0.00 0.01 0.09�� 0.49��

Household behaviour 0.27�� 0.09�� 0.00 0.01 0.07�� 0.44��

Acceptance of tra�c

restrictions

0.07�� 0.06� 0.02 0.03� 0.21�� 0.37��

a Resources� driving licence and car; Background� gender, age, civil status, children, distance to work, health causes,

oversensitvity to air pollution; Attitudes� environmental concern, public transport, hazard/e�cacy perception, per-

sonal concern and car a�ection.* p < 0:05��p < 0:01*** p < 0:001


The drop-out analysis revealed that the sample was somewhat over-represented in civil servantsand women compared to the population (response rate, civil servants: 57%, politicians: 46%;women 57%, men 44%). A separate analysis was made to compare those who returned thequestionnaire within a week (N� 84) and those who were more reluctant to answer (3±4 weeksafter receiving the questionnaire; N� 12). No signi®cant di�erences were found in acceptance orattitudes but the reluctant respondents scored signi®cantly lower on the knowledge items(F(1, 87)� 46.69, p� 0.006). This implies that our sample might be over-represented in civil ser-vants and politicians with extensive knowledge of the environment and tra�c.

4.2. The sample compared with the public sample

In comparison to the original samples, the proportion of women in the ®nal samples wassomewhat larger, both for the public in the ®rst study, and for politicians and civil servants in thesecond study (Table 8). This implies that our analyses will be biased towards women, but the biasis equal in the two groups. Furthermore, there were more men among the politicians and civilservants than among the public (v2 � 10:55, d.o.f.� 1, p� 0.001), but this was actually the case inthe municipality of Lund. Finally, the politicians and civil servants as a group were somewhatolder than the public (m� 47, m� 40, F(1, 533)� 19.26, p� 0.000). These sample di�erences havebeen considered by introducing age as a covariate and gender as a grouping factor in the analysesbelow (SPSSx, 1986). Still, there were qualitative di�erences between the two samples, the poli-ticians and civil servants being more homogenous as a group.

4.3. The questionnaire

The questionnaire was a short version of the one previously used in the study of the public. Theshort version included the scale of acceptance of various tra�c restrictions, knowledge items andattitude items. There were also questions about age and gender. The study did not aim to dealwith party-political di�erences, hence the party-political loyalty among the politicians was notfocused.

The statistical calculations include correlations (Pearson r), variance and regression analysesand chi-squared analyses (SPSSx, 1986). Due to the smaller sample, the level of signi®cance wasset to p� 0.05, but in analyses including the public the level was set to p� 0.01.

Table 8

The proportion of men and women in Study I and II

Original sample (%) Response rate (%) Final sample (%)

Study I: public

Men 49 43 42

Women 51 58 58

Study II: politicians and civil servants

Men 65 44 59

Women 35 57 41


5. Results of Study II

5.1. Acceptance of tra�c restrictions

Acceptance of tra�c restrictions was measured with the same scale as used in Study I, con-sisting of ten di�erent restrictions for urban tra�c. The number of accepted restrictions wassummarised into an individual index (m� 3.13, S.D.� 1.86, Mdn� 3, N� 122). The level of ac-ceptance was about the same for the public as for the politicians and civil servants, but whereasthe public was more in favour of public transport, bicycling or walking, the decision-makers weremore positive towards monetary incentives (Table 9).

5.2. Environmental knowledge and attitudes of local politicians and civil servants

Four items of knowledge of the local environmental impact caused by tra�c and ®ve itemsdealing with global and regional environmental impact formed the base for construction of anindex of knowledge. The civil servants and politicians answered one more item than the public,since the public only estimated occurrence of noise disturbance in their own living area, but thepoliticians and civil servants had to estimate noise disturbances in both the City Centre and theNorth Commons. Therefore, a mean value for the two noise items was used in the latter case. Theindex of environmental knowledge could vary between 1 and 3 (m� 2.09, S.D.� 0.31,Mdn� 2.18). As a group politicians and civil servants had more extensive knowledge than thepublic (m� 2, 09, m� 1, 96 F(1, 490)� 31.73, p� 0.000).

The factor analyses of attitudes in Study I served as a basis for the comparisons carried out inthe second study. The distributions of the ®ve indices for politicians and civil servants are given inTable 10. In two instances signi®cant di�erences were found between the public, on one hand, andthe politicians and civil servants on the other. The latter scored higher on personal concern

Table 9

Acceptance of tra�c restrictions among politicians and civil servants compared to the public

Restriction Acceptance of restriction

Politicians and

civil servants (%)

Public

(%)

Signi®cance

for v2-test

1. Considerable increase in number of pedestrian streets 55 57 N.S.

2. Tra�c-free zones in densely populated areas in city centre 50 51 N.S.

3. Public transport, bicycling or walking for everyday shopping

all year round

48 63 p� 0.003

4. Place the car in a car park before visiting city centre 34 38 N.S.

5. Driving prohibited on all streets except those leading to car

park

40 37 N.S.

6. Only cars with catalytic exhaust treatment and unleaded

petrol in city centre

22 28 N.S.

7. Road tolls with special car fees when entering city centre 14 7 p� 0.01

8. Increased ®nes for parking o�ences in city centre 31 20 p� 0.01

9. A substantial increase of petrol tax 16 7 p� 0.004

10. No parking allowed in city centre, not even for residents 2 4 N.S.


(m� 13.20, m� 10.62, F(1, 480)� 30.76, p� 0.000) and were somewhat less dependent on the car(m� 21.46, m� 22.57, F(1, 399)� 5.93, p� 0.015). For environmental concern, public transportattitude and hazard/e�cacy no di�erences were found between the two groups.

5.3. Relations between attitudes, knowledge and acceptance of tra�c restrictions

By means of ANOVAs, relations between acceptance, on one hand, and attitudes andknowledge, on the other, were identi®ed. A high acceptance of tra�c restrictions among politi-cians and civil servants was signi®cantly related to a high level of environmental concern(F(2, 102)� 5.72, p� 0.004) and high hazard/low e�cacy (F(2, 116)� 4.97, p� 0.009). In contrast,strong car a�ection was connected with low acceptance (F(2, 105)� 5.02, p� 0.008). This pictureis very much the same as was found among the public. Among local politicians and civil servants,extensive knowledge of the environmental impact caused by tra�c was related with high accep-tance (F(2, 111)� 5.71, p� 0.004). In the study of the public, only a tendency was found here(Fig. 7).

Fig. 7. Attitudes connected with acceptance of tra�c restrictions among politicians and civil servants (acceptance could

vary between 0 and 10).

Table 10

Means and distributions of the ®ve attitude factors for politicians and civil servants

Factor m Mdn SD N

I. Environmental concern 22.34 22.00 4.00 105

II. Public transport 16.61 17.00 5.64 107

III. Hazard/e�cacy 16.28 16.00 5.11 119

IV. Personal concern 13.03 13.00 3.55 112

V. Car a�ection 21.40 22.00 4.86 108


The last question brought up in the statistical analysis was whether there was a di�erence in therelative impact of various predictors of acceptance, between the group of politicians and civilservants and the public. In a hierarchical regression analysis, group belonging was introduced as adummy variable before the other background variables, knowledge and attitudes. From Table 11it could be seen that the structure from the public analysis remained, with attitudes accounting for20% of the variance, whereas the contribution of knowledge was much less (5%).

6. Discussion

The aim of the ®rst study was to apply concepts from models of attitudes and pro-environ-mental behaviour on private car driving in an urban environment. Another objective was tocompare environmental attitudes and knowledge of people living in areas with high respectivelylow levels of tra�c pollution. In the second study comparisons were made between an expertgroup, consisting of local politicians and civil servants, and the public. The data were collectedwith questionnaires specially developed for the purpose, parts of which were pre-tested in pilotstudies. The reliability of the instrument cannot be established until repeated studies have beenmade. However, the internal reliability of separate indices suggests the use of group scores ratherthan individual scores. The validity is supported by the fact that several of the results are in linewith previous research.

Although the response rate (51%) might limit wide generalisations of the results, the drop-outanalysis gave no indications of selective drop-out for crucial variables. This means that a theo-retical discussion is quite legitimate. However, due to a higher drop-out rate, special cautionshould be applied when generalising to immigrant groups. There is a risk of social desirabilitywhen using the word environment. This risk has been avoided by forming indices based on factoranalyses of questions with varied wordings. Such indices also have the advantage of higher reli-ability compared with single questions.

The most general conclusions are that the intention to behave in an environmentally respon-sible way (acceptance of tra�c restrictions) to a considerable degree may depend on attitudesrelated to the environment, the car and to the hazards of tra�c. Factual knowledge seemed toplay a subordinate role. When it comes to the environmental impact caused by actual behaviour(driving distance and travel behaviour), it was more dependent on the individualÕs backgroundand resources. During the last years there has been a tremendous increase in the application ofpsychological theories in the study of choice of transport means. In the discussion of our resultswe will include some of these later results.

Table 11

Hierarchical regression analysis for acceptance of tra�c restrictions including both the public in Study I, and the

politicians and civil servants in Study II (N� 544) (SPSSx, 1986)

R2 change R2

Study I/II +Background +Knowledge +Attitudes

Acceptance of tra�c restrictions 0.00 0.017 0.05�� 0.19�� 0.26��

*** p < 0.001.


As predicted, attitudes were more strongly related to the intentional acceptance of tra�c re-strictions than to the overt travel behaviour. This result has been con®rmed in a recent nationalstudy by Bennulf et al. (1998). To some degree, the higher correlation with acceptance might de-pend upon measurements of the concepts. Ratings of acceptance come closer to attitudes thanreports of kilometres or descriptions of travel patterns. However, di�erences between acceptanceand actual behaviour could be explained by real practical constraints of leaving the car (G�arlinget al., 1984). Studies, where travel behaviour has been analysed according to the Theory of PlannedBehaviour, concludes that the perceived control of choosing another means of transport couldexplain di�erences in intention and actual behaviour (Staats and Harland, 1995; Forward, 1998).

In accordance with general models of pro-environmental behaviour, it was found that envi-ronmental attitudes were more potent than factual knowledge in promoting pro-environmentaltravel behaviour (Hines et al., 1986/1987; Axelrod and Lehman, 1993; Grob, 1995). Among thevarious attitude factors, environmental concern and car a�ection seemed to be the most impor-tant. These factors a�ected acceptance of tra�c restrictions as well as travel behaviour and drivingdistance. The signi®cance of environmental attitudes has been con®rmed in recent research on``green drivers'', choice of hybrid cars, and travel behaviour (Grob, 1995; Garvill, 1997; G�arlinget al., 1997; Hjortol, 1997). The importance of car a�ection had been recognised previously byTengstr�om (1992), who described it as a habit, where other means of transport are never con-sidered (also Sandqvist, 1997).

In addition, the acceptance of tra�c restrictions was dependent upon perceived hazard/e�cacy.The perceived threat of the environmental impact, as well as the personal e�cacy in dealing withthis threat, have previously been discussed as determinants of pro-environmental behaviours ingeneral, but also, lately, in connection with travel behaviour (Campell, 1983; Baldassare and Katz,1992; Axelrod and Lehman, 1993; Krantz, 1997).

Personal concern had no impact on either travel behaviour or acceptance, probably indicatingthat the personal concern was motivated by reasons other than a care for the environment.Notwithstanding recent interests in design for comfort, the individualÕs attitude towards publictransport seemed to have no in¯uence on travel behaviour. It may be that journeys with publictransport depend more on attitudes towards the car than on attitudes towards public transport assuch. However the residents of Lund are probably less dependent on public transport than thenorm (Holmberg, Professor, Department of Tra�c Planning, Lund Institute of Technology).

It has been stated that peopleÕs private experience of environmental pollution might elicit a carefor the environment (Angel�ow and Jonsson, 1994; Finger, 1994). In our case, it would mean thatpeople living in the heavy tra�c area would be more concerned about pollution and show a morepro-environmental behaviour than people living in the low pollution area. Surprisingly, the tra�cload had no e�ect whatsoever. This is contrary to the results from G�arling and SandbergÕs (1990)scenario study, and to HjortolÕs (1997) ®ndings that people in Oslo perceived tra�c as moreenvironmentally hazardous than people living in less polluted areas. Our results may be due to thefairly small di�erences in pollution between the two districts investigated.

Finally, it was predicted that persons responsible for planning of transports and environment inthe municipality would depend more on environmental knowledge and less on attitudes in theiracceptance of tra�c restrictions. The group of politicians and civil servants showed a more ex-tensive knowledge than the public about the environmental impact caused by tra�c. Still, itseemed to be a similar psychological process of personal attitudes as found among the public,


rather than factual knowledge, behind their acceptance of tra�c restrictions. The similar processalso resulted in about the same level of acceptance as the public had.

However, the more extensive knowledge among politicians and civil servants might have had animpact on the single restrictions preferred. They were more favourable towards restrictions de-pending on monetary incentives, actually advocated in a recent governmental report (Lindbo,1993). Another explanation could be that politicians and civil servants need to consider the ®-nancial aspect of implementing tra�c restrictions. According to Vaughan and Seifert (1992), thesimilar psychological processes behind acceptance might serve to facilitate a common solution.However, di�ering preferences of what restrictions to implement might lead to mistrust betweendecision-makers and the public (L�onngren and Axelsson, 1995).

To limit the environmental impact of private transports in urban areas seems not an easy task.Our studies point to the importance of considering personal attitudes towards the environmentand the car, as well as the perception of tra�c as an environmental hazard, when implementingnew strategies. Despite the weak link between factual knowledge and pro-environmental behav-iour, knowledge must be an operand in establishing environmental concern and should not beneglected. Still, according to our results, it would not be advisable to rely solely on factual in-formation in order to reduce the pollution caused by private car driving.

Although our focus has been on individual attitudes and knowledge, the signi®cance of prac-tical and economical aspects should not be disregarded. PeopleÕs emotions cannot be expected tohave a real e�ect, if at the same time, attempts are not made to reduce the practical obstacles forpro-environmental behaviour. The sensitivity of economical outcomes among the public makescheap substitutes for the car essential. Pro-environmental alternatives may be especially importantfor journeys to new destinations, since once the habit of using the private car has been established,it becomes a strong candidate for future choices (Verplanken et al., 1994, 1998).

Local implementation of new strategies to reduce private car driving might bene®t from a betterunderstanding of what will be accepted among the public. To take advantage of the local Agenda21 process might be one way for the future. The environmental pollution caused by tra�c hasbeen identi®ed as a social dilemma (e.g. van Vugt et al., 1995). In an environment, where mostpeople choose to drive, a single person who considers abstaining from the car will go unnoticeablein terms of pollution levels. Realising this, the choice is likely to be the car. This social dilemmamight be resolved by enhancing collective well-being and building a trust between persons willingto engage in environmentally friendly behaviours (Garvill, 1997; van Lange et al., 1998). Thestudies on the eco-team program in the Netherlands by Staats and Harland (1995) and Harlandand Staats (1997) showed that pro-environmental travel behaviours might develop among smallgroups of persons engaged in environmental issues.

Children and young people are recognised as important groups for the development of asustainable environment (The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development,1993). Since attitudes towards the environment begin to develop already in childhood, it may beimperative to focus on children and young people (Lyons and Breakwell, 1994; Palmer andSuggate, 1996). Because of the increasing tendency to take children by car to various activities,their attitudes towards the environment and the car otherwise might become detrimental to theirown future environment (Heurlin-Norinder, 1997; Lind�en and Carlsson-Kanyama, 1999). In thebeginning of the 1990s, surveys showed that young people would drive more often and for longerperiods of their life than did previous generations (Vilhelmsson, 1990; Bernow, 1991; Carle and


Sj�ostrand, 1993). Today, a decline in driving distance among young people has been observed, butthe underlying reasons and the future implications for choice of transport means is not yet clear(Nynabb, 1995). There is reason to believe that economical factors, rather than changed attitudes,might be the cause for this observation.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by research grants from the Swedish Environmental ProtectionAgency and the Swedish Transport and Communications Research Board. The authors aregrateful to the reference group from Lund Municipality for their advice in the preparation of thisstudy and to Valdimar Briem, Department of Psychology, Lund University, who acted as externalexaminer when the study was presented as part of a Licentiate degree. Special thanks are due toJan Janssens, Marianne K�uller and Thorbj�orn Laike at the Environmental Psychology Unit,Lund Institute of Technology, for their support during the course of the study and their valuablecomments on previous drafts of this manuscript.

References

Ajzen, I., 1988. Attitudes, Personality and Behavior. Open University Press, Milton Keynes.

Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50, 179±211.

Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

Angel�ow, B., Jonsson, T., 1994. Individ och milj�o. Studentlitteratur, Lund (in Swedish).

Arbuthnot, J., 1977. The roles of attitudinal and personality variables in the prediction of environmental behavior and

knowledge. Environment and Behavior 9 (2), 217±232.

Axelrod, L.J., Lehman, D.R., 1993. Responding to environmental concerns: what factors guide individual actions?.

Journal of Environmental Psychology 13 (2), 149±159.

Baldassare, M., Katz, C., 1992. The personal threat of environmental problems as predictor of environmental practices.

Environment and Behavior 24 (5), 602±616.

Bennulf, M., Franssson, N., Polk, M., Biel, A., 1998. Bilismen och milj�on. Attityder och attitydbildning. Report 4:1998,

Swedish Transport and Communication Research Board, Stockholm (in Swedish).

Berge, G., Nondal, T., 1994. Livsstil som barriere. Holdinger til bil og kollektivtransport blant bilbrukere i Oslo og

Akershus. Report 267:1994, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo (in Norwegian).

Bernow, R., 1991. Ungdomars v�arderingar om r�orlighet, resvanor och milj�o. Swedish Road Authority, Borl�ange (in

Swedish).

Campbell, J.M., 1983. Ambient stressors. Environment and Behavior 15 (3), 355±380.

Carle, J., Sj�ostrand, P., 1993. Ung och gr�on, ungdomars milj�ointresse och engagemang. The State Youth Council,

Stockholm (in Swedish).

Cvetkovich, G., Earle, T., 1992. Environmental hazards and the public. Journal of Social Issues 48 (4), 1±20.

Davidson, D.J., Freudenburg, W.R., 1996. Gender and environmental risk concerns: a review and analysis of available

research. Environment and Behavior 28 (3), 302±339.

Eagly, A.H., Chaiken, S., 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace and Company, Orlando.

Finger, M., 1994. From knowledge to action? Exploring the relationships between environmental experiences, learning,

and behavior. Journal of Social Issues 50 (3), 141±160.

Forward, S., 1998. Behavioural Factors A�ecting Modal Choice. Swedish National Road and Transport Research

Institute, Link�oping (in Swedish).


Fransson, N., Davidsson, P., Marell, A., G�arling, T., 1994. Environmental concern: conceptual de®nitions,

measurement methods and research ®ndings. Department of Psychology, University of G�oteborg, G�oteborg.

Fridgen, C., 1994. Human disposition toward hazards: testing the environmental appraisal inventory. Journal of

Environmental Psychology 14 (2), 101±111.

Fuhrer, U., Kaiser, F.G., Hartig, T., 1993. Place attachment and mobility during leisure time. Journal of

Environmental Psychology 13 (4), 309±321.

Gagnon-Thompson, S.C., Barton, M.A., 1994. Ecocentric and antropocentric attitudes toward the environment.

Journal of Environmental Psychology 14 (2), 149±157.

Gamba, R.J., Oskamp, S., 1994. Factors in¯uencing community residentsÕ participation in Commingled curbside

recycling programs. Environment and Behavior 26 (5), 587±612.

Garvill, J., 1997. Choice of transportation mode: a social dilemma. Paper presented at the Eighth IABTR Conference,

Austin, Texas.

Geller, E.S., 1995. Actively caring for the environment: an integration of behaviorism and humanism. Environment and

Behavior 27 (2), 184±195.

Gooch, G.D., 1995. Environmental beliefs and attitudes in Sweden and the Baltic States. Environment and Behavior 27

(4), 513±539.

Grob, A., 1995. A structural model of environmental attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15

(3), 209±220.

Gustavsson, E., 1993. Milj�o och bilk�orning ± en enk�atstudie. Report 385:1993, Swedish National Road and Transport

Research Institute, Link�oping (in Swedish).

G�arling, A., Johansson, A., Latila, T., G�arling, T., 1997. Hush�allens inst�allning till elbilar. Department of Psychology,

University of G�oteborg, G�oteborg (in Swedish).

G�arling, T., S�ais�a, J., Waara, R., 1984. Hush�allens reserutiner. Betydelsen av kognitiva styrfaktorer. Notice no. 401.

Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Link�oping (in Swedish).

G�arling, T., Sandberg, L., 1990. Faktorer som p�averkar bilhush�alls avsikter att resa milj�ov�anligt. Transportation

Research Unit, Ume�a University, Ume�a (in Swedish).

Harland, P., Staats, H.J., 1997. Long term e�ects of the EcoTeam Program in the Netherlands: the situation two years

after participation. Centre for Energy and Environmental Research, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences,

Leiden University, Leiden.

Herbert, D.T., Thomas, C.J., 1990. Cities in Space City as Place. David Fulton, London, UK.

Heurlin-Norinder, M., 1997. Hur kom du till skolan idag? En enk�atstudie kring barns r�orelsefrihet i fyra

bostadsomr�aden. Department of Educational Research, Stockholm Institute of Education, Stockholm (in Swedish).

Hines, J.M., Hungerford, H.R., Tomera, A.N., 1986/1987. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible

environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education 18, 1±8.

Hjortol, R., 1997. Environmental consciousness and choice of transport mode. Paper presented at the Research

Conference Society, Environment and Sustainability ± the Nordic Perspective, Oslo, 25±27 August.

Hungerford, H.R., Volk, T.L., 1990. Changing learner behavior through environmental education. The Journal of

Environmental Education 21, 8±21.

Kallgren, C.A., Wood, W., 1986. Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a determinant of attitude-

behavior consistency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22, 328±338.

Kolbensvedt, M., Silborn, H., Solheim, T., 1996. Miljohandboken. Tra®k og miljotiltak i byer og tettsteder. Institute of

Transport Economics, Oslo (in Norwegian).

Krantz, P., 1997. Pro-environmental beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours ± the role of knowledge. A comparative study of

local chief environmental inspectors and citizens in Sweden. Paper presented at the Research Conference Society,

Environment and Sustainability ± the Nordic Perspective, Oslo, 25±27 August.

Krause, D., 1993. Environmental consciousness: an empirical study. Environment and Behavior 25 (1), 126±142.

K�uller, R., Laike, T., 1993. Metamorphosis in tra�c behavior. In: Mazis, C., Karaletsou, C., Tsoukala, K. (Eds.),

Proceedings of the 12th Biennual Conference of IAPS, vol. 5, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Publications

O�ce, Thessaloniki, pp. 61±65.

van Lange, P.A.M., van Vugt, M., Meertens, R.M., Ruiter, R.A.C., 1998. A social dilemma analysis of commuting

preferences. The role of social value orientation and trust. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28 (9), 796±820.


L�evy-Leboyer, C., Bonnes, M., Chase, J., Ferreira-Marques, J., Pawlik, K., 1996. Determinants of pro-environmental

behaviors: a ®ve-countries comparison. European Psychologist 1 (2), 123±129.

Lindbo, S., 1993. Den smala v�agen. Tra®k och milj�o i det 21:a �arhundradet. Samh�allsgemenskaps F�orlag, Stockholm

(in Swedish).

Lind�en, A.L., 1994. M�anniska och milj�o. Carlssons bokf�orlag, Stockholm (in Swedish).

Lind�en, A.L., Carlsson Kanyama, A., (1999). Di�erences in resource consumption and lifestyles ± what are the

implications for sustainability? Ecological Economics Bulletin.

Linderholm, L., Ljungberg, C., Carlsson, P., Odelid, K., 1993. B�attre cykeltra®k i Lund. Trivector, Lund (in Swedish).

Ljungblom, B.�A., 1980. Bilar och barn i massmedia. In: Barnets totala tra®kmilj�o. Rapport fr�an seminarium p�aNordiska h�alsov�ardsh�ogskolan, G�oteborg 19±21 maj 1980, Nordic Council and Nordic council of Ministers,

Stockholm, pp. 91±98 (in Swedish).

Lunds Kommun, 1995. Gatu-och tra®kn�amndens verksamhetsber�attelse, Lund (in Swedish).

Lunds Kommun, 1994. Statistisk �arsbok. Lund (in Swedish).

Lyons, E., Breakwell, G.M., 1994. Factors predicting environmental concern and indi�erence in 13- to 16-year-olds.


L�onngren, M., Axelsson, S., 1995. Hinder och m�ojligheter f�or milj�oarbete-en kartl�aggning av centrala akt�orers

problembilder. Report 3, Department of Extension Education, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala

(in Swedish).

Malmberg, T., 1980. Human Territoriality. Survey of Behavioural Territories in Man with Preliminary Analysis and

Discussion of Meaning. Mouton Publishers, The Hague.

Malm�ohus L�ans Landsting, 1993. Befolkning och milj�o i Malm�ohus l�ans landstingsomr�ade-Exponering f�or yttre

milj�ofaktorer, Lund (in Swedish).

Nationalkommitt�en f�or Agenda 21, 1997. Program f�or det fortsatta genomf�orandet av Agenda 21. Report 1:1997,


Nilsson, M., 1993a. M�anniskan, bilen och milj�on. Attityden till bilism och dess betydelse f�or transportbeteendet.

Environmental Psychology Unit, Lund University, Lund (in Swedish).

Nilsson, M., 1993b. Kollektivtra®kens problem att konkurrera med personbilen ± En j�amf�orelse. Department of Social

and Economic Geography, Lund University, Lund (in Swedish).

Nilsson, M., 1995. Transportbeteende och milj�o. Betydelsen av kunskap och attityder. Milj�opsykologiska monogra®er

nr 10. Environmental Psychology Unit. Lund Institute of Technology, Lund (in Swedish).

Nynabb, J., 1995. Hur vi reser och varf�or. Om olika samh�allsgruppers resm�onster. Report 11:1995, Samplan,


Palmer, J.A., Suggate, J., 1996. In¯uences and experiences a�ecting the pro-environmental behaviour of educators.

Environmental Education Research 2 (1), 109±121.

Pleschberger, W., 1995. Environmental concern of the local elite. Annals of the American Academy of Political and

Social Science 540 (July), 90±104.

Sandqvist, K., 1997. The Appeal of Automobiles. Human Desires and the Pro®leration of Cars. Swedish Transport and

Communication Research Board, Stockholm.

Schmidt, F.N., Gi�ord, R., 1989. A dispositional approach to hazards perception: preliminary development of the

environmental appraisal inventory. Journal of Environmental Psychology 9 (1), 57±67.

Shaughnessy, J.J., Zechmeister, E.B., 1990. Research Methods in Psychology, second ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Solheim, T., Stangeby, I., 1997. Short trips in European countries. Report from WALCYNG-WP1. Institute of

Transport Economics, Oslo.

SPSSx UserÕs Guide, 1986. Mc Graw-Hill, New York.

Staats, H.J., Harland, P., 1995. The EcoTeam Program in the Netherlands. A longitudinal study on the e�ects of the

EcoTeam Program on the environmental behavior and its psychological backgrounds. Centre for Energy and

Environmental Research, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Leiden University, Leiden.

Stangeby, I., 1994. Holdinger til bil og kollektivtransport. En intervjuundersokelse blant befolkningen og politikerne i

Oslo. Report 288:1994. Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo (in Norwegian).

Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Guagnano, G.A., 1995. The new ecological paradigm in social±psychological context.



Stern, P.C., Oskamp, S., 1987. Managing scarce environmental resources. In: Stokols, D., Altman, I. (Eds.), Handbook

of Environmental Psychology, vol. 2. Wiley, New York, pp. 1043±1088.

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 1993. Ett milj�oanpassat samh�alle, Solna (in Swedish).

Swedish Transport and Communication Research Board, 1995. Forskningsprogram f�or omr�adet strategisk kommun-

ikationsforskning. KFB Kommunik�e 6, pp. 24±26 (in Swedish).

Swedish Transport and Communication Research Board and Swedish Public Transport Association, 1994. �Okad

kollektivtra®k eller �okad bilism? S�a h�ar tycker vi svenskar och v�ara politiker. Report 22:1994, Stockholm (in

Swedish).

Tengstr�om, E., 1992. The use of the automobile. Its implication for man society and the environment. Report 14:1992,

The Swedish Transport Research Board, Stockholm.

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1993. The Earth Summit the United Nations

Conference on Environment and Development 1992, Rio de Janeiro. Graham & Trotman, London.

Vaughan, E., Seifert, M., 1992. Variability in the framing of risk issues. Journal of Social Issues 48 (4), 119±135.

van Vugt, M., Meertens, R.M., van Lange, P.A.M., 1995. Car versus public transportation? The role of social value

orientations in a real-life social dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 25 (3), 258±278.

Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., van Knippenberg, A., Knippenberg, C., 1994. Attitude versus general habit: antedcedents of

travel mode choice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24 (4), 285±300.

Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., van Knippenberg, A., Moonen, A., 1998. Habit versus planned behaviour: a ®eld

experiment. British Journal of Social Psychology 37, 111±128.

Vilhelmson, B., 1990. V�ar dagliga r�orlighet. Om resandets utveckling, f�ordelning och gr�anser. The Swedish Transport

Research Board, Stockholm (in Swedish).

Widergren, �O., 1998. The new environmental paradigm and personal norms. Environment and Behavior 30 (1), 75±100.

Worcester, R.M., 1993. Public and �elite attitudes to environmental issues. International Journal of Public Opinion

Research 5 (4), 315±334.


Documents

Travel behaviour and environmental concerntransctr/pdf/Nilsson Article.pdf · Travel behaviour and environmental concern Maria Nilsson *, Rikard K uller Environmental Psychology Unit,