Making sense of public opinion on clean air zones

Public opinion on clean air zones and liveable neighbourhoods can sometimes appear to be contradictory.

On the one hand, there are clear indicators of (moderate) public support:

• The unexpected (and narrow) ‘hold’ by the Conservatives of the Uxbridge by-election in July 2023 was widely interpreted as a referendum on the expansion of London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). But a week before the election, a Redfield & Wilton poll showed more Londoners supported the expansion than opposed it, as well as other policies favouring pedestrians and public transport.
• Back in 2016, ahead of the implementation of the original ULEZ, surveys suggested 76% of people wanted to bring their cities in line with European limits on air pollution.
• Surveys often find little difference in support for congestion charges between frequent drivers and the general public.
• Polling in the summer of 2023 by Ipsos found more people support (43%) than oppose (33%) making it harder to drive by car in some areas to encourage more walking and cycling.
• The most recent Climate Barometer tracker data (October 2023) shows that overall public support (38%) continues to outweigh opposition (27%) for low traffic neighbourhoods. However, this pattern is reversed for Conservative voters and opposition is most pronounced among Conservative MPs.

However – and in common with the siting of energy technologies or new housing – support for policies at a general, abstract level can’t be automatically assumed to apply in specific local circumstances.

There are signs of coordinated opposition to liveable neighbourhoods, sometimes linked to groups promoting conspiracy theories. This can create a skewed sense of perspective, with loud/local opposition then mistakenly conflated with national public opinion.

But there are also genuine questions and concerns held by different constituencies in cities around the country – and although media opposition has tended to come from right-leaning outlets, these questions and concerns are held by voters across the political spectrum. How people travel in their local area is understandably something that many people have strong views about. Creating and supporting processes that ensure these concerns are listened to at the earliest possible stage remains the most effective way to develop policies that alter these behaviours.

Leading questions?

As well as the conflation of national and local opinion, some of the differences between polls on this topic stem from people being asked very different questions.

Some polls – including those which seem designed to amplify or exaggerate differences in public opinion – describe vague policies that will levy daily charges for regular road users (when, in fact, only a minority of vehicles incur charges in clean air zones). Others make it clear that only certain vehicles incur charges: opposition is much lower when the specifics of the policies are made clearer.

This isn’t just a methodological question about which wording most accurately captures public opinion. It matters because how we form our beliefs is so heavily influenced by our perceptions of what others believe.

If people believe – as MPs do – that the public is far less supportive of onshore wind than it really is, this can have far-reaching consequences. In the same vein, if clean air zones acquire the reputation of being unpopular, this is likely to prevent the ‘quiet majority’ who support them from making their own voices heard.