Measuring the Emissions Reduction Impact of Episodic Public Education Campaigns and Issues Related t

1
Measuring the Emissions Reduction Impact of
Episodic Public Education Campaigns and Issues
Related to Year-round PM Programs

• 2007 National Air Quality Conferences 13
  February 2007, Orlando, FL
• Eric N. Schreffler, ESTC

2
Purpose

• Assist programs in San Francisco, Phoenix and
  New York
• National review of ozone action program
  evaluations
• Assess programs that evaluate travel and
  emission impacts
• Focus on survey methodologies
• Speculate about shift to year-round programs

3
Why Evaluate?

• To document effectiveness of CMAQ funded
  programs
• To provide management information on program
  effectiveness
• To measure program progress and effectiveness
  over time
• To provide information on impacts to the public
  and the media
• To assess the cost effectiveness of public
  education programs in comparison to other mobile
  source emission reduction strategies
• To quantify emission reductions as part of
  Ozone Early Action Compacts or Voluntary
  Mobile Source Emission Reduction Program
  (VMEP) credits in a SIP

4
Background

• Developed quantification method for CARB/USEPA
• Implemented and refined method in San
  Francisco, San Joaquin, and Chattanooga
• Consulted to Phoenix evaluation effort
• Bay Area interested in how others evaluate
• New York developing new ongoing program

5
Evaluation Team

• Eric N. Schreffler, Transportation Consultant
  (ESTC)
• True North Research
• EarthMatter Environmental Consulting
• Arbor Planning and Management

6
Cities Included in the Research

• San Francisco Bay Area
• Phoenix
• Austin
• Louisville
• Sacramento
• Birmingham
• Cincinnati

7
Bay Area Spare the Air Program

• BAAQMD began summer Spare the Air (STA)
  program in 1991
• In 2002, air district adopted ARB/EPA
  quantification methodology to measure travel and
  emission impacts
• Survey, conducted on evening after STA days,
  asking about travel behavior first and
  awareness of STA program last

8
Bay Area Spare the Air Program

• Definition of a driving reducer is someone who
  1) purposely reduces trips on STA days,
  2) could recall that it was an STA day, and
  3) said they reduced trips for air quality
  reasons
• Two critical data items from survey are
• 1) proportion of reducers among drivers, and
  2) average of trips reduced
• ARB/EPA methods recommends discounting
  self- reported number of trips reduced to
  account for over-reporting

9
Bay Area Program Evaluation

• Critical survey question is
• Sometimes people will purposely decrease the
  amount of driving they do in a day. There are
  several ways people can decrease their driving,
  so let me ask you about each. Today, did you
  ride a bike for a trip that you normally would
  make by driving yourself?
• (If yes) How many trips did you reduce in this
  way?

10
Bay Area Program Evaluation

• Critical Findings
• 3-9 of drivers report reducing two trips in
• response to the program
• three-quarters linking or eliminating trips and
  only one quarter changing driving mode

11
Bay Area Program Evaluation

• Means of Reducing Trips (2005)

12
Bay Area Program Evaluation

• TRAVEL IMPACTS
• 2005 2004 2003 2002
• of Drivers 4.73 million 4.84 million 4.75
  million 4.75 million
• Reducers 7.3 7.2 2.8 3.6
• Total Reducers 345,299 348,244 133,000 171,000
• Avg. Trips Red. 2.0 2.32 2.08 2.60
• Adj. Trips Red. 1.0 1.16 1.04 1.46
• Trip Reduced 345,299 403,963 138,054 249,600
• VMT Reduced 2,173,176 2,595,705 959,584 1,610,7
  08

13
Bay Area Program Evaluation

• EMISSION IMPACTS
• 2005 2004 2003 2002
• TRAVEL IMPACTS
• Daily NOx Reduced 1.525 tons 2.023
  tons 0.833 tons 1.776 tons
• Daily ROG Reduced 1.483 tons 1.945
  tons 0.772 tons 1.86 tons
• Daily PM10 Reduced 0.525 tons 0.627 tons 0.23
  tons 0.4 tons
• CONSUMER PRODUCTS IMPACTS
• Daily ROG Reduced 0.18 tons 0.23 tons 0.2
  tons 0.24 tons

14
Cities that Measure Travel Behavior Impacts

• PHOENIX
• Clean Air Campaign begun in 1987, includes
  summer ozone program
• Conduct pre- and post-season survey to
  gauge awareness and behavior
• Survey asked what, if anything, did you do
  when you heard the advisory?
• Last summer, returned to surveying on
  evening of alerts
• Predominant behavior change stay
  indoors more

15
Cities that Measure Travel Behavior Impacts

• AUSTIN
• Clean Program a partnership, the Clean Air
  Force of Central Texas, begun in 1993
• Program now part of Ozone Early Action Compact
• Add question to triennial regional MPO survey
  on knowledge of reaction to program
• Predominant behavior change delay refueling
  and lawn moving

16
Cities that Measure Travel Behavior Impacts

• LOUISVILLE
• Kentuckiana Air Education (KAIRE) Program
  formerly Ozone Prevention Program
• The program now targets both ozone and
  particulate matter
• Surveys conducted in 2002 and 2004 as pre- and
  post-season surveys
• Key indicator was likeliness, not actual travel
  behavior change
• Most likely behavior change reported as trip
  linking or trip chaining

17
Cities that Measure Travel Behavior and Emission
Impacts

• SACRAMENTO
• Spare the Air campaign and annual evaluation
  survey begun in 1995.
• Methodology involves surveying on alert days
  and on similar control days
• Method is similar to ARB/EPA method used in Bay
  Area
• Proportion of reducers is lower and average
  trips reduced higher than in Bay Area

18
Cities that Measure Travel Behavior and Emission
Impacts

• BIRMINGHAM
• Ozone Action Program begun in 1997 evaluations
  since 2003
• Surveys conducted on evening of alerts three
  conducted in 2005
• Key question is Do you take any actions in
  response toalerts?
• Predominant behavior change - stay indoors more
• Calculate emission reduction based in new
  carpools formed

19
Cities that Measure Travel Behavior and Emission
Impacts

• CINCINNATI
• Do Your Fair Share for Cleaner Air begun in
  1994
• Evaluate original based on surveys and transit
  ridership counts
• Questions added to regional survey used in 2002
• Predominant behavior change - delay refueling
  or lawn moving
• Emission reduction based on who say they
  reduce trips, assuming a round trip

20
(No Transcript)
21
COMPARATIVE FINDINGS

• All the regions studied use RDD telephone
  surveys among adult residents within the program
  area.
• Most of the targeted surveys ranged from
  300-1,000 the multi- purpose surveys had larger
  samples.
• Four of the programs survey on alert days
• two survey in the fall after the season and
• two use a before/after design to measure
  awareness and behavior right before and right
  after the summer ozone season.

22
COMPARATIVE FINDINGS

• Most surveys measure travel behavior change by
  determining whether the respondent was aware of
  the program or the alert and then if they took
  any action in response.
• Most program that measure travel behavior, but
  not emissions, assess the proportion of
  respondents who report making certain desirable
  changes in response to the air quality alert.
• However, the proportion of reducers and the
  average number of trips reduced is crucial to
  estimating emission reduction impacts some
  programs assume one round trip (not empirically
  based).
• All four programs that currently measure
  emission reduction use average trip length from
  planning sources, rather than from air quality
  surveys, to estimate VMT reduction.

23
COMPARATIVE IMPACTS

• Difficult to compare due to difference in
  approach, methods, survey questions and analytic
  techniques
• Program experience relatively high awareness
  (51 - 90)
• Between 1-12 of residents change travel
  behavior
• Staying indoors, eliminating trip and linking
  trips most common means of reducing travel
• Non-work (discretionary travel) trips are
  reduced more than commute trips

24
CONCLUSIONS

• While most regions are not required to, many
  evaluate the travel and emission impacts of
  their OAD program and the methods are improving
  over time
• Several medium-sized cities are including OAD
  programs in their Ozone Early Action Compacts
• Most programs are not included in the regions
  control strategy
• Several program are becoming year-round air
  quality programs to account for PM and the
  8-hour standard

25
IMPLICATIONS OF YEAR-ROUND

• Ongoing just thatmessages and education
  year-round
• Staying indoors and postponing trips infeasible
  on an on-going basis
• Mode shift may play a larger role
• Cannot evaluate on episodic basis impacts
  recall
• Cannot evaluate on specific waves of marketing
• Developing new methodology for New York, will
  call particulate alerts

26
METHODOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

• Could track those who commit via website
• But that will miss indirect influences and is
  self-selective
• Need on-going survey to assess incidence of
  preferred behavior and tease out reasons for
  behavior and influence of program or campaign
• Issue recall of program versus message
• Issue primary influence versus secondary
• Would like to assess differential impact of
  ongoing versus episodic response and impacts

27
RECOMMENDATIONS

• All involved air districts/agencies should
  continue to publish the annual survey results
  and program impacts and broadly disseminate the
  information.
•   An informal working group could be formed among
  agencies that operate or evaluate public
  education programs and could convene at the
  annual National Air Quality Conference to
  compare experiences and coordinate.
• National guidance on quantification of on-going
  program impacts could be developed.
•   Survey and evaluation results could be posted
  on the AIRNOW website (www.airnow.gov) and
  enable internet discussions of methods and
  findings.

28
THANKS!

• Eric N. Schreffler
• Transportation Consultant
• estc_at_san.rr.com
• CARB/USEPA methodology available at
• www.arb.ca.gov/research/abstracts/98-318.htm