4.7 Article

A disaggregate analysis of 'excess' car travel and its role in decarbonisation

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2022.103377

关键词

Mobility; Excess consumption; Car use; Mileage; Carbon emissions; Carbon budget

资金

  1. UK Research and Innovation through the Centre for Research into Energy De- mand Solutions [EP/R 035288/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper measures the role of 'excess' car travel in decarbonisation and analyzes the factors associated with excess car travel. The results show that gender, employment and socio-economic status, household income, car availability, residential location, and population density are closely related to excess car travel. Multiple car ownership, business travel, frequent international flights, and ownership of larger and diesel cars are positively associated with excess travel and emissions. Furthermore, a mileage rationing scheme targeting the top 20% users can significantly reduce emissions.
This paper measures 'excess' car travel for its role in decarbonisation. On average, each English adult travels around 5,680 miles a year and emits 1,006 kg of CO2. However, the top 5% 'excess' car users travel 4.8 times and emit 5.7 times the national average. Four binary logistic regression analyses were used to model the probability that people with specified characteristics belong to the 'excess' mileage and emitter groups. Results indicated that gender, employment and socio-economic status, household income (higher quintiles), company car availability, residential location and local population density were highly significant correlates of this 'excess' travel mileage. Multiple car ownership, business travel by car, multiple international flight frequencies and ownership of larger and diesel cars were positively associated with excess travel and emis-sions. A mileage rationing scheme targeting the top 20% users can cut emissions substantially (by 26%) compared to targeting 'excess' (top 5%) users only.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据