Research Study Conducted for
The Airfields Environment Trust
June 2006
1
Contents
Introduction
Preface
Summary of Findings
Constraining Growth in Air Travel3
Environment versus Economic Growth4
Support for Tax on Air Travel4
Are Tax Increases Acceptable for a Specific Purpose? 5
Conclusions6
Appendices
Technical Details
Statistical Reliability
Definition of Social Grades
Marked Up Questionnaire
Computer Tables
Introduction
This report presents the findings of a survey among United Kingdom residents (excluding Northern Ireland). The research was conducted by IpsosMORI on behalf of The Airfields Environment Trust. The appendices contain detailed computer analysis of the findings, along with a guide to statistical reliability, and a marked-up questionnaire showing topline results.
The objectives of the research were to establish the mood among the British public regarding air travel and its impact on the environment. It also examines the potential acceptability of an increase in tax on air travel.
Methodology: questions were placed on the Ipsos MORI Omnibus, the regular IpsosMORI survey among the general public. A nationally representative quota sample of 2,050 adults (aged 15 and over) was interviewed throughout Great Britain by IpsosMORI in 196 different sampling points.
Interviews were conducted face to face, in respondents’ homes, using CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing) between 8th and 12thJune,2006.
Reporting: in the graphs and tables, the figures quoted are percentages. The size of the sample base from which the percentage is derived is indicated. Note that the base may vary – the percentage is not always based on the total sample. Caution is advised when comparing responses between small sample sizes.
As a rough guide, please note that the percentage figures for the various sub-samples or groups generally need to differ by a certain number of percentage points for the difference to be statistically significant. This number will depend on the size of the sub-group sample and the % finding itself - as noted in the appendix.
Where an asterisk (*) appears it indicates a percentage of less than one, but greater than zero. Where percentages do not add up to 100% this can be due to a variety of factors – such as the exclusion of ‘Don’t know’ or ‘Other’ responses, multiple responses or computer rounding.
Publication of Data: our standard Terms and Conditions apply to this, as to all studies we carry out. Compliance with the MRSCode of Conduct and our clearing of any copy or data for publication, web-siting or press release which contains any data derived from IpsosMORI research is necessary. This is to protect our client’s reputation and integrity as much as our own. We recognise that it is in no one’s best interests to have survey findings published which could be misinterpreted, or could appear to be inaccurately, or misleadingly, presented.
Preface
Speaking in 2004 at the launch of the Climate Group, an international campaign aiming to speed up greenhouse gas emission reductions, TonyBlair warned that “Climate change is the most important environmental issue facing the world today.”[1] He argued that there is “no bigger long-term question facing the global community” than the threat of climate change.[2]
On 16th December 2003 the government published the White Paper “The Future of Air Transport” which set out its intentions and predictions for the growth in the UK aviation industry. The Civil Aviation Bill followed in 2005. The White Paper aims “to balance those benefits [air travel makes to the economy and individual’s lives] against the environmental impacts of air travel, in particular the growing contribution of aircraft emissions to climate change”.[3]
A recent November 2005 survey – conducted by IpsosMORI on behalf of the University of East Anglia – demonstrated that 91% now believe that the world’s climate is changing – and 77% of the public think this brings risks to Britain.
The current study used a test case scenario wherein a sample of the British public was split in half with one half treated as a control group and asked their opinion without any background information, while the other half were presented with some information about climate change and the sentence “Air travel is set to become one of the main causes of climate change due to the emission of carbon into the atmosphere”. The general purpose of the survey is to establish the base level of support for a shift in policy towards constraining the growth in air travel, and to explain the impact of providing respondents with additional pieces of information..
A second purpose of the study was to ascertain whether substantial tax increases on flying would be acceptable to the public if an indication were given as to the use to which the resulting revenue would be put.
The following summary sets out the key findings.
Summary of Findings
Constraining Growth in Air Travel
The British public, on balance, support rather than oppose a policy aimed at slowing growth in the air travel industry. If respondents are given no information about climate change (version 2), support outweighs opposition by 37% to 22%. When told of the potential contribution that air travel will make to climate change and the effect this will have on the world (see full wording below), support for a change in policy increases significantly, with more than three to one in favour.
Among those presented with the climate change and air travel information, there is majority support for slowing down the growth in air travelacross many of the subgroups analysed;as the table below illustrates. Among those not sharing this view as stronglyare those who fly frequently (47% support) and 15-24 year olds (46%).
% supporting/ opposing the slowing down of air travel growth(Version 1: with preamble)
Gender / Social Class
Base / Men (463)
% / Women (538)
% / AB (259)
% / C1 (281)
% / C2 (185)
% / DE (276)
%
Support / 55 / 59 / 62 / 58 / 55 / 53
Oppose / 21 / 13 / 19 / 18 / 15 / 16
Source: MORI
% supporting/ opposing the slowing down of air travel growth
(Version 1: with preamble)
Age
Base: / 15-24 (131)
% / 25-34 (148)
% / 35-44 (170)
% / 45-54 (165)
% / 55-64 (163)
% / 65+ (224)
%
Support / 46 / 59 / 60 / 62 / 64 / 55
Oppose / 18 / 21 / 17 / 15 / 17 / 14
Source: MORI
% supporting/ opposing the slowing down of air travel growth
(Version 1: with preamble)
Voting Intention / Region
Base: / Con (275)
% / Lab (274)
% / Lib Dem (141)
% / Un-decided (111)
% / North (364)
% / South (337)
% / Mid-lands (300)
%
Support / 55 / 59 / 69 / 48 / 52 / 60 / 60
Oppose / 19 / 16 / 15 / 17 / 18 / 14 / 19
Source: MORI
When given the climate change introduction, Conservative and Labour voters support slower growth by around three to one (support to oppose), and Lib Dems by over four to one (support to oppose). Indeed, support for policies aimed at slowing the growth in air travel is highest among Liberal Democrat voters in both Version 1 (69% Lib Dem voters vs 55% Conservative and 59% Labour) and Version 2 (50% Lib Dem voters vs 35% of Conservative and 38% Labour).
When no introductory text about climate change is used, there remains a plurality of support over opposition to slowing down the growth in air travel among these subgroups, as shown in the tables below.
% supporting/ opposing the slowing down of air travel growth(Version 2: without preamble)
Gender / Social Class
Base / Men (457)
% / Women (592)
% / AB (255)
% / C1 (306)
% / C2 (213)
% / DE (275)
%
Support / 36 / 39 / 40 / 39 / 39 / 32
Oppose / 28 / 17 / 27 / 19 / 19 / 23
Source: MORI
% supporting/ opposing the slowing down of air travel growth
(Version 2: without preamble)
Age
Base: / 15-24 (148)
% / 25-34 (144)
% / 35-44 (188)
% / 45-54 (126)
% / 55-64 (185)
% / 65+ (253)
%
Support / 28 / 35 / 33 / 40 / 37 / 49
Oppose / 27 / 24 / 21 / 24 / 24 / 14
Source: MORI
% supporting/ opposing the slowing down of air travel growth
(Version 2: without preamble)
Voting Intention / Region
Base: / Con (261)
% / Lab (280)
% / Lib Dem (145)
% / Un-decided (130)
% / North (374)
% / South (359)
% / Mid-lands (316)
%
Support / 35 / 38 / 50 / 32 / 32 / 47 / 32
Oppose / 26 / 20 / 17 / 22 / 20 / 19 / 28
Source: MORI
Environment versus Economic Growth
Aclear majority (over two thirds) believe environmental considerations should be placed ahead of economics when planning future air travel in Britain. The following chart shows the combined results as there were no differences between respondents in the two versions.
Those most likely to agree that the environment should be given priority over economic decisions in the air travel industry tend to be older (71% of over 35s versus 60% of 16-24 year olds) and belonging to more affluent social grades (72% of ABC1s versus 64% of C2DEs); these groups are more likely to have formed an opinion and not chosen either ‘don’t know’ or settled with ‘both equally’. Even among those who have flown more than six times in the past year, more than three to one support giving priority for the environment over the economy.
Support for Tax on Air Travel
The following chart shows support for increasing taxes that reflect the environmental damage done by air travel. The results are similar regardless of whether information about climate change had been provided at the start of the survey (Version 1), and also regardless of whether information about current levels of taxes and duties was provided to respondents at this particular question.
The public support higher tax on flying to reflect environmental damageby about three to one; and overall there is slightly more than two to one support for a doubling of the air passenger duty, a surprising result as people do not normally support tax increases. Those most likely to support a doubling of the air passenger duty are the older age groups (45+), ABs and broadsheet readers.
There is greater support than opposition for doubling the air passenger duty among men and women, different age groups, social grades, regions and political affiliation. Frequent flyers (those who have flown between 5 and 16 times in the last year) - while slightly less likely to be supportive than less frequent flyers - never-the-less are more likely to support than oppose the measure (47% support vs 30% oppose).
Are Tax Increases Acceptable for a Specific Purpose?
A further series of questions were asked to explore whether the public would be prepared to accept large increases in tax on flying if they are given information on how the revenue would be spent. Figures for possible tax increases, £20 to Paris and £200 to Australia, were picked as being higher than might normally be considered as politically practicable. The results show that the majority areaccepting of tax increases of this size when the money is to be used to improve the environment or go towards education and the health service, but fewer would support such increases if the revenue is put towards improving high speed rail services or cutting income tax.
Conclusions
In recent years the environment has been lower profile as an issue than concerns like the Iraq war and asylum seekers. However, when prompted it is clear that many view it as a salient issue. The public feel comfortable with the idea of using higher taxes to deal with the issue. Adding significantly to the cost of air travel is supported by the majority - if the tax is used directly to invest in a cleaner environment or better public services in education or health.
The results also show there is majority public support for policy shifts that focus on environmental outcomes at the expense of economic gain.While this may not be a new phenomenon, it is particularly pertinent in the face of the potential threat posed by climate change. Furthermore, a majority of the public appear willing to support a policy restricting the growth in air travel when told of the possible consequences of climate change and the links the air travel industry has to climate change.
©Ipsos MORI/J27495July 2006 / Checked &Approved:
AdamTuffin
Checked &Approved:
AndyByrom
1
Technical Details
Sample Design
The sample design is a constituency based quota sample. There are 641 parliamentary constituencies covering Great Britain. From these, we select one in three (210) to be used as the main sampling points on the Ipsos MORI Omnibus. These points are specially selected to be representative of the whole country by region, social grade, working status, MOSAIC rurality, tenure, ethnicity and car ownership. Within each constituency, one local government ward is chosen which is representative of the constituency.
Within each ward or sampling point, we interview ten respondents whose profile matches the quota. The total sample therefore is around 2,100 (10 interviews multiplied by 210 sampling points).
Gender:Male; Female
Household Tenure:Owner occupied; Council Tenant/HAT; Other
Age:15 to 24; 25 to 44; 45+
Working StatusFull-time; part time/not working
These quotas reflect the socio-demographic makeup of that area, and are devised from an analysis of the 2001 Census combined with more recent ONS (Office of National Statistics) data. Overall, quotas are a cost-effective means of ensuring that the demographic profile of the sample matches the actual profile of GB as a whole, and is representative of all adults in Great Britain aged 15 and over.
Fieldwork
Fieldwork is carried out by IpsosMORI using CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing). All interviews are conducted face to face, in the home - one interview per household. No incentives are offered to respondents.
Weighting and Data Processing
Data entry and analysis are carried out by an approved and quality-assured data processing company. The data are weighted using 6 sets of simple and interlocking rim weights for social grade, standard region, unemployment within region, cars in household, and age and working status within gender. This is to adjust for any variance in the quotas or coverage of individual sampling points so that the sample is representative of the GB adult population.
Statistical Reliability
Because a sample, rather than the entire population, was interviewed the percentage results are subject to sampling tolerances – which vary with the size of the sample and the percentage figure concerned. For example, for a question where 50% of the people in a (weighted) sample of 1,000 respond with a particular answer, the chances are 95 in 100 that this result would not vary more than three percentage points, plus or minus, from the result that would have been obtained from a census of the entire population (using the same procedures). The tolerances that may apply in this report are given in the table below.
Approximate sampling tolerances applicable to percentages at or nearthese levels (at the 95% confidence level)
10% or 90%
/ 30% or 70%
/ 50%
Size of sample or sub-group on which survey result is based
All respondents (2,050) / 1 / 2 / 2
Version 1 respondents (1,001) / 2 / 3 / 3
Version 2 males (509) / 3 / 4 / 4
Source: IpsosMORI
Tolerances are also involved in the comparison of results between different elements of the sample. A difference must be of at least a certain size to be statistically significant. The following table is a guide to the sampling tolerances applicable to comparisons between sub-groups.
Differences required for significance at the 95% confidence levelat or near these percentages
10% or 90%
/ 30% or 70%
/ 50%
Size of sample on which survey result is based
All respondents, Version 1 vs Version 2 (1,001 vs 1,049) / 3 / 4 / 5
Version 2 men vs women (509 vs 540) / 4 / 6 / 7
Version 2 ABs vs DEs (255 vs 275) / 5 / 8 / 9
Source: IpsosMORI
Definition of Social Grades
The grades detailed below are the social class definitions as used by the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, and are standard on all surveys carried out by MORI (Market & Opinion Research International Limited).
Social GradesSocial Class / Occupation of Chief Income Earner / Percentage of Population
A / Upper Middle Class / Higher managerial, administrative or professional /
2.9
B / Middle Class / Intermediate managerial, administrative or professional /
18.9
C1 / Lower Middle Class / Supervisor or clerical and junior managerial, administrative or professional /
27.0
C2 / Skilled Working Class / Skilled manual workers / 22.6
D / Working Class / Semi and unskilled manual workers /
16.9
E / Those at the lowest levels of subsistence / State pensioners, etc, with no other earnings /
11.7
[1]“PA” News, ‘Blair Backs New Climate Change Group’, 27 April 2004
[2]BBC News ‘Climate Change ‘critical’ to Blair’, 27 April, 2004,
[3] White Paper … 16 December 2003