Executive Summary
Australia is one of the largest and most developed countries in the world. Therefore, many Australian residents depend on the road as a mode of transportation. The increased need for quick and personalized transport modes has influenced many Australians to buy petrol and diesel cars. Additionally, the high costs of electric cars and other sustainable transport modes have increased the use of the fuel-powered vehicles. The increased overdependence on diesel and petrol cars is an environmental and health hazard to the country. Therefore, the government should take bold steps to intervene in the situation.
The Australian government has formulated various policies that address vehicle emissions. However, the policies have remained less effective due to the circumventing of political and economic issues. However, the adoption of change behavior and rational decision-making theories can help the government counter the problems. The government should present facts about the advantages and disadvantages of the two modes of transportation before the public. Consequently, Australians will choose the most beneficial option when making travel choices.
An RCT test can help determine the significance of influencing positive behavioral change for transport sustainability. The test will involve the experimental and control groups that will help identify the importance of shifting to a sustainable mode of transport. The study test will adopt a simple design since it will involve a large population and collection of data over a specific duration. The results from the test will be generalized and applied to the Australian population.
Improving Decisions About Sustainable Transport Choices in Australia
The Problem
Problem Motivating Intervention
Petrol and diesel cars are the traditional options when it comes to choosing a car. Electric cars are more expensive than fuel-powered ones (Luo et al., 2021). Although it is sustainable to use electric cars, the technology behind their development makes them so expensive. For instance, electric car batteries are made from rare and expensive minerals like cobalt, lithium, and nickel (Zhang & Azimi, 2022). Recent statistics show that the cost of electric cars is about 40% more than the other types of vehicles (Luo et al., 2021). Many Australians find it more difficult to purchase electric cars than diesel or petrol cars. Therefore, the most convenient and viable option for Australians is to purchase petrol- or diesel-powered motor vehicles.
Australia is one of the largest countries in the world, with advanced infrastructure. However, it has a lower population density, of about 3 people per square kilometer, compared to other countries (Holley et al., 2021). The country’s population density does not mean a reduced number of petrol and diesel vehicles. While diesel cars have generated global-push backs and health concerns, they account for about a third of the total number of cars in Australia (Icaza-Alvarez et al., 2022). Like many countries with less viable options for sustainable transportation means, Australia is at environmental and economic risks precipitated by the use of fuel-powered cars.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (2021) shows that out of the 20.1 million cars registered in the country, about 5.3 million are diesel-powered. The number accounts for about 26.4% of the total car population. Meanwhile, electric cars account for about 0.2% of the vehicle fleet in the country (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020). The majority of the vehicles in Australia run on petrol and diesel, respectively. Therefore, the Australian government should consider influencing its people to choose alternative and sustainable modes of transport to reduce economic and health issues associated with fuel-powered vehicles.
Behavior Creating the Problem
Various human behaviors motivate the overdependence and usage of petrol and diesel vehicles. The obvious behavior is the human desire to save money spent on transportation and for their convenience. Purchasing a sustainable car is more expensive than the traditional fuel-powered one. Consequently, Australians will go for modes that are cheaper and affordable. Additionally, the need for luxury influences the purchase of cheaper modes of transport. It is human behavior to want to feel comfortable and satisfied. The consequences of the need for self-satisfaction lead to over-dependence on petrol and diesel cars, which are environmentally hazardous.
Problem Importance
Economic Impact of the Problem
The increased use of fuel-powered vehicles has a tough economic impact on the Australian government and individual citizens. The vehicles are associated with environmental pollution that encumbers health quality. Consequently, environmental issues such as global warming and resultant pandemics such as floods are caused by the increased use of fuel-driven vehicles. The Australian government spends a lot of money on environmental conservation. According to the Department of Agriculture, Water, and the Environment, the government spent $58.4 million on environmental protection and $210 million for climate adaptation and resilience during fiscal 2021-2022. Therefore, reducing fuel-powered vehicle usage will help save on the government’s budget.
The use of fuel-powered vehicles has an economic impact on ordinary citizens. The over-dependence on fuel leads to a high Transport Affordability Index (TAI). The recent economic crises fueled by the Russian invasion into Ukraine have led to an increase in TAI by about $100.39 on a weekly average. According to the Australian Automobile Association (2022), overdependence on fuel-powered vehicles has led to increased household income expenditure on transport, by about 15.2%. Therefore, on a weekly average, Australians spend about $379.9 on transport (Australian Automobile Association, 2022). Reducing the use of the fuel-powered vehicles will help lower the amount spent by Australians on fuel, leading to a lower TAI.
Social Impact of the Problem and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs)
Environmental degradation has various negative impacts on social life. The government’s over-expenditure on environmental protection and climate adaptation means a reduced amount allocated for health services. Meanwhile, increased household expenses on transport cause less money saved for health and other uses (Shortall et al., 2021). Therefore, overdependence on fuel-powered vehicles leads to increased health-related issues. The pollution caused by emissions from petrol and diesel vehicles can lead to illnesses and conditions such as respiratory infections, heart disease, and lung cancer. The increased health issues but less intervention encumber the quality of life among Australians.
According to Sigel et al. (2021), individuals with lung cancer and other respiratory-related conditions have ten years of life lived at only 75% quality. Consequently, the 25% less optimal life of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases have about 2.5 QALYs. It costs an average of $29,000 per QALY, leading to about $72, 500 per life lost due to lung cancer and respiratory diseases due to petrol and diesel cars’ emissions (Hofer et al., 2018). Reducing the use of petrol- and diesel-powered vehicles can help improve the quality of life among Australians. Therefore, the overdependence and excess usage of fuel-powered vehicles is a significant problem in the country that must be intervened.
The Proposed Intervention
Proposal
Human behaviors are the underlying root cause of excessive pollution caused by petrol and diesel vehicles. While people purchase the vehicle for their convenience, overdependence on the mode of transportation leads to environmental degradation. Therefore, intervening in their behaviors will help reduce the menace caused by the fuel-powered vehicle. A three-dimensional behavioral intervention proposal can be adopted to reduce the problem: of technological adoption, driving habits, and travel mode decisions.
Technological adoption behaviors involve the use of environment-friendly modes of transport such as electric bicycles and motorbikes. Meanwhile, driving habits change behaviors include the use of cars only when necessary and a significant balance between personal and public transport use. The travel modes behavior intervention will include influencing Australians to always prefer sustainable public transport modes to personal means. Therefore, the government should influence Australians to choose sustainable transport by considering technology, driving habits, and their travel mode decisions.
Proposal Development and Theoretical Perspective
Psychological Economics Theory
Behavioral economics is crucial in intervening in human and institutional decisions. The field helps justify the economists’ assumptions of the utility of real people’s behaviors. Therefore, the field, through a theoretical perspective, can help in understanding whether the Australians’ choice to over-rely on petrol and diesel cars meets the subjective expected utility. As proposed, the government should intervene by motivating Australians to adopt technology, change their driving habits, and be mindful of their travel decisions. The proposed behavioral intervention calls to action two significant economics and behavioral theories: change behavior and rational choice theory.
Theory of Change Behavior
Human behaviors change due to various social, political, and economic influences. Social factors such as being born in a particular culture and adopting a given religion may influence human eating patterns among other behaviors (Heiphetz & Oishi, 2021). The political influences include legislation and intervening factors such as wars that impact economic decisions. The economic factors include a change in levels of income among others (Heiphetz & Oishi, 2021). Therefore, the government can utilize the change behavioral theory to influence change among Australians. The government should present the economic and health impacts of over-dependence on fuel-powered vehicles to influence a shift to sustainable modes of transport.
Rational Choice Theory
Human beings tend to make choices that maximize their satisfaction. The rational choice theory states that when various options are presented before people under the conditions of scarcity, they choose the option with the greatest benefit and satisfaction (Khalil & Amin, 2022). Therefore, the government can nudge Australians to shift to a sustainable mode of transportation by presenting the advantages and disadvantages of green and fuel-mode transportation. For instance, adopting cycling saves on fuel and boosts general body health (Ba Obeid et al., 2021). Meanwhile, the use of petrol and diesel vehicles wastes money, and fuel, and can lead to health problems such as lung cancer (Ba Obeid et al., 2021). With the facts presented before Australians, they would choose a better option: sustainable means of transport.
Previous Interventions and Viability of the Current Proposal
The Australian government has tried to intervene in the problem of dependence on petrol and diesel vehicles but has been less successful. The government, through the Direct Action Plan, intended to reduce vehicle emissions by 5% below 2000 by 2020 (Climate Change Authority, n.d.). The government action was strictly political and was boosted by the Emissions Reduction Fund (). Although the formulated policy helped reduce the emissions, its success was least felt since the country still has many petrol and diesel vehicles that are polluting the environment. Directly impacting the Australians’ purchase behaviors and transport choices would be more impactful. Intervening travel choices by shifting their purchase decisions is more viable than formulating solely bureaucratic policies.
Proposal Goals
The suggested behavioral interventions have three significant aims. The proposal’s goals are beneficial to the Australian government and the citizens in general. The first goal is to help the government reduce vehicle emissions by 30% by 2035. Providing Australians with choices of mode of transport would help reduce the number of diesel and petrol cars. The second goal of the proposal is to help Australian households reduce their average weekly transportation rate from $379.9 to about $250 in the next five years. Lastly, this proposal has the goal of influencing policymakers to take bold steps in supporting climate adoption activities such as allocating more budget to sustainable technology.
Proposal Costs
Influencing the proposed behavioral change will take place in various determined phases. The proposal will be implemented through two significant methods: public awareness and new policy proposals. The public awareness activities will include advertisements in mainstream media and holding various town hall meetings. The estimated cost for the entire public awareness activity is $5 billion per year. Meanwhile, the new proposal costs will be about $25 billion, which is subject to change. Cumulatively the government may spend about $ 0 billion per year to influence change behaviors. If projected the proposal may cost up to $390 billion by the year 2035 when significant changes will be observable.
Hoped-for Benefits
Shifting to a sustainable mode of transport has social and economic benefits. Recent studies show that the Australian government can save up to half a trillion dollars by the year 2035 (Whitehead et al., 2022). The cost-benefit is more compared to the total estimated cost, as discussed above. Meanwhile, Australians will enjoy an improved healthy lifestyle since the vehicles’ emissions will have been reduced. Additionally, many Australian households will save more money and channel it to other investment activities. Furthermore, the Australian ecosystem including animals and trees will enjoy the fresh air that is crucial for productivity. Therefore, implementing the suggested proposal will be beneficial to Australia.
Proposed Randomized Control Trial (RCT)
Human behavioral change behaviors can be determined through a quantitative study. RCT can help in determining the significant difference between Australians who have adopted sustainable modes of transport and those who have not. RCT is a trial in which various Australians will be randomly assigned to two groups: the experimental and the control. The experimental group will include individuals who will be subjected to the proposed behavioral intervention. Meanwhile, the control group will involve Australians who live their normal lives without any intervention. The control group will be allowed to use diesel or petrol vehicles. The data on financial costs and benefits will be collected to determine the differences.
Design
The control trial can adopt various designs depending on the study population and the expected duration of the study. The suggested proposal’s RCT will involve results that are impactful to the Australian population. Additionally, the study should reflect the results that can be interpreted per year to determine the long-term benefits. Therefore, the trial study will adopt a simple RCT model. The simple RCT design will allow only one experimental group to receive a common intervention (Epstein & Dallery, 2022). Meanwhile, the control group will receive no intervention. Therefore, unlike the multiple treatment arms and factorial design, the study will involve only one experimental group.
Outcome Variables and Success Criterion
The trial study will measure various variables that will help determine the research outcome. The variables to be used in the study will be gender, “type of vehicle used”, “time spent in public transport”, “fuel expenditure”, and “cases of health conditions”. The gender variable will help in determining travel choices across males and females. The variable is nominal since either of the two responses is expected. The “Time spent in public transport” (“Time”) variable will be crucial in comparing the duration spent on personal cars and sustainable public means. The “fuel expenditure” (“Expense”) will be crucial in determining how much money Australians can save by adopting sustainable means of transport. “Time” and “Expense” variables are continuous since they can take any value. “Case of health conditions” will determine the prevalence of environmentally caused conditions. The variable will be binary, taking a “yes/no” answer.
External Validity
The trial study is likely to be subjected to various conditions that can alter the intended results. The experimental group may mistakenly use unsustainable means of transport and record the time spent. It is recommended that the participants will only record time spent on the assigned mode of transport. The researchers will take over the role of recording the data by closely observing the participants. Additionally, the participants may provide inaccurate data as to the amount spent on fuel. The researchers will require cash receipts that will be used in extracting financial data for the study. Therefore, giving the researchers the sole role of managing and validating the data presented will enhance external validity.
Sample Size
A study’s sample size is crucial in determining the accuracy of the results and consequent generalization of the same. Therefore, the power formula should be adopted in calculating sample size. This study will involve the number of Australians who own cars. Since it is difficult to determine the exact number of Australian households with cars, the study will assume the total fleet population as the population size. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2021), an estimated 20.1 million were registered in the country by 2021. Therefore, the population size (N) will be 20.1 million. Meanwhile, the study will assume a confidence level (Z) of 95% and a margin error (e) of 0.05%. The high confidence level is due to the small chances of the trials being wrong based on existing facts. The sample size formula will be used in calculating the desired sample of 384 as shown in Table 1.
Table 1.0 Excel Data Results for Sample Population Size (n).
Excel formula entered in Sample Size (n) Cell: (N*(e^2) *p*(1-p)/(e^2)/(N-1+((Z^2)*p*(1-p)/(e^2))))
Cost Estimate
The experimental study will require financial resources to be successful. The cost will cater to the researchers’ stipends, securing resources such as laptops and data collection software. The study will involve fifty researchers with each receiving a total stipend of $2000 for the entire study period. Meanwhile, the study logistics are estimated to cost a total of $50,000 excluding the participants’ stipends. The participants will cost a total of $20,000 for stipends and any additional requirements. The miscellaneous cost will be about $15,000 to cater to any other extra costs. Therefore, the entire study trial will cost about $165,000.
Conclusion
Increased use of petrol and diesel vehicles in environmental and health hazards to Australia. Although many Australians are aware of the benefits of sustainable modes of transport, the need for cheaper short-term modes motivates them to purchase fuel-powered vehicles. Therefore, there is increased levels of environmental degradation due to overdependence on petrol and fuel vehicles. The government can influence behavioral change among Australians to adopt sustainable modes by adopting technology and minding their travel decision.
References
Australian Automobile Association. (2022). Data reports: Transport affordability. AAA.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2021). Motor Vehicle Census, Australia.
Ba Obeid, A., Koç, M., & Al-Ghamdi, S. G. (2021). Walkability and its relationships With health, sustainability, and livability: Elements of physical environment and evaluation frameworks. Frontiers in Built Environment, 7.
Climate Change Authority. (n.d.). Policies for Reducing Light Vehicle Emission.
Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (2021). Budget 2021-2022. Australian Government.
Epstein, L. H., & Dallery, J. (2022). The family of single-case experimental designs. Harvard Data Science Review.
Heiphetz, L., & Oishi, S. (2021). Viewing Development Through the Lens of Culture: Integrating Developmental and Cultural Psychology to Better Understand Cognition and Behavior.Perspectives on Psychological Science, p. 174569162098072.
Hofer, F., Kauczor, H.-U., & Stargardt, T. (2018). Cost-utility analysis of a potential lung cancer screening program for a high-risk population in Germany: A modeling approach. Lung Cancer, 124, pp. 189–198.
Icaza-Alvarez, D., Jurado, F., Tostado-Véliz, M., & Arevalo, P. (2022). Decarbonization of the Galapagos Islands. Proposal to transform the energy system into 100% renewable by 2050. Renewable Energy, 189, pp. 199–220.
Khalil, E. L., & Amin, A. (2022). The parallelism of cognitive economy and physiological economy: A rationality-based dual process theory.Current Psychology.
Luo, Y., Wu, Y., Li, B., Qu, J., Feng, S., & Chu, P. K. (2021). Optimization and cutting‐edge design of fuel‐cell hybrid electric vehicles.International Journal of Energy Research, 45(13), pp. 18392–18423.
Shortall, R., Mouter, N., & Van Wee, B. (2021). COVID-19 passenger transport measures and their impacts. Transport Reviews, pp. 1–26.
Sigel, K., Kong, C. Y., Rehmani, S., Bates, S., Gould, M., Stone, K., Kale, M., Park, Y.-H., Crothers, K., Bhora, F., & Wisnivesky, J. (2021). Optimal treatment strategies for stage I non-small cell lung cancer in veterans with pulmonary and cardiac comorbidities.PLOS ONE, 16(3), e0248067.
Whitehead, J., Sturmberg, B., Green, D., Whittlesea, E. R., & Hanna, L. (2022). Australia could rapidly shift to clean transport – if we had a strategy. So we put this plan together. The Conversation.
Zhang, J., & Azimi, G. (2022). Recycling of lithium, cobalt, nickel, and manganese from end-of-life lithium-ion batteries of an electric vehicle using supercritical carbon dioxide.Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 187, p. 106628.