Assessing the impact that car-sharing can have in rural area and the contribution to dealing with social exclusion by Zhenjiang Li

Thesis presented in part-fulfilment of the degree of Master of Science in accordance with the regulations of the University of East Anglia

School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia University Plain Norwich NR4 7TJ August 2009

© 2009 Zhenjiang Li This copy of the dissertation has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that no quotation from the dissertation, nor any information derived therefrom, may be published without the author’s prior written consent. Moreover, it is supplied on the understanding that it represents and internal University document and that neither the University nor the author are responsible for the factual or interpretative correctness of the dissertation.

Abstract
The rural area is always gained less concern. It is difficult to develop economic in rural area due to its special location. Transport and accessibility are important factor in the development of society and economy. Some people cannot afford private vehicle and because of poor public transport, they have fewer opportunities to wider areas. UK government has tried to develop rural economy and improve rural accessibility, as well as dealing with social exclusion.

Car-sharing is a more and more popular transport mode that appears in recent decades. It may help reduce the car numbers in the road and protect environment. It also may be introduced to rural area to improve transport and accessibility services. To see the impact of car-sharing may have on rural area and on social area, it is necessary to see people’s travel behaviour and whether they are willing to use. A questionnaire survey is taken to analyze people’s opinion. From the findings we can also give some suggestion to the car-sharing scheme in rural area.

i

Acknowledgements
I will acknowledge the help of liftshare, who is going to launch car-sharing scheme in Reepham. They have provided professional knowledge on this research and give necessary guide for my survey. Good luck to their car-sharing projects.

I also need to thank all staffs in ENV, they have provided a good study environment for us. Especial thanks to Dick Cobb, who is my advisor and supervisor of this dissertation. He is patient and knowledgeable all the time and gives great advice to my study. Also thanks Alan Bond and David Benson, both them have given help in the past yeas. Best wishes to them.

Finally I have to thank my parents in China. They have been working hard and sponsor my study in UK. I wish them to be healthy and have a happy life forever.

ii

Content
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1 2 Literature Review ..........................................................................................................................3 2.1 Accessibility .......................................................................................................................3 2.2 Social Exclusion.................................................................................................................3 2.3 Transport ............................................................................................................................7 2.3.1 Car-sharing ............................................................................................................10 2.3.2 Private Car versus Public transport .......................................................................12 2.4 Aims and Objectives ........................................................................................................14 3 Methodology ...............................................................................................................................16 3.1 Reepham...........................................................................................................................16 3.2 Questionnaire ...................................................................................................................17 4 Result and Discussion .................................................................................................................19 4.1 Information of age, gender and working place ................................................................19 4.2 Characteristic of the respondents/car ownership..............................................................21 4.3 Work travel habit..............................................................................................................22 4.4 Non-work travel habit ......................................................................................................24 4.5 Public transport research ..................................................................................................26 4.5.1 Frequency ..............................................................................................................26 4.5.2 Opinion..................................................................................................................28 4.6 Car-sharing attitude ..........................................................................................................30 4.7 Social exclusion................................................................................................................35 5 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................37 5.1 Impact of car-sharing .......................................................................................................37 5.2 Suggestion: .......................................................................................................................37 5.3 Monitoring........................................................................................................................39 6 Reference.....................................................................................................................................42 7 Appendix: Reepham Car-sharing Questionnaire.........................................................................45

iii

1 Introduction
Transport has been an important issue in history. Since last century, with the development of modern technology, all modes of transport are improving all the time, which makes people’s lives become more and more convenient. In fact, transport has played a significantly vital role in society. Business cannot be done without vehicles. To a large extent, economy relies on good transport and accessibility.

However, some transport problems appear as the society and economy development. For example, people rely on vehicles too much makes it that too many cars on the road, which results in that traffic congestion is normal in big cities, as well as environmental pollution. In addition, it is not all people share the equal opportunities due to imbalanced development in different regions. Some rural areas have poor accessibility and poor public transport. With regard to rural area, it is usually associated with isolation and poverty.

Rural area is special regions that usually lack of concern. It is lack of resource and difficult to develop in society and economy. UK government has set up three proprieties for rural development: 1. Economic and Social Regeneration – supporting enterprise across rural England, but targeting greater resources at areas of greatest need. 2. Social Justice for All – tackling rural social exclusion wherever it occurs and providing fair access to services and opportunities for all rural people. 3. Enhancing the Value of our Countryside – protecting the natural environment for this and future generations (defra, 2004,p5). Transport usually regards as a constraint for poor economy and business in rural area (Farrington and Farrington, 2005). As a result, it is difficult for the people to develop as they do not have the same equal resource as that in cities. Some people may be isolated or separated with the world and only live in a small society. It is called social exclusion. This is a phenomenon that occurs in rural area especially highlight some problems such as poverty, isolation and participation into decision-making (Hodgson and Turner, 2003).
1

Car-sharing is a new transport mode which has developed in recent decades. It aims to reduce cars on the road. For individuals, it can save costs from driving alone. In order to research people’s opinion on car-sharing, find out the impact of car-sharing may have and promote carsharing scheme in rural area, a survey has been done in Reepham, Norfolk. This includes a basic study of people’s travel behaviour and social exclusion. This dissertation will firstly introduce car-sharing and social exclusion, followed by the analysis of the questionnaire in result and discussion section. Finally, the conclusions will assess the impact of car-sharing and how to improve the efficiency of car-sharing scheme in rural area based on the survey and make recommendation.

2

2 Literature Review

2.1 Accessibility
Accessibility is defined as to “give individuals or groups of individuals the opportunity to participate in activities in different locations” (Geurs and Wee, 2004, p128). An area of poor accessibility is usually associated with poverty, crime and other social problem. This is mainly due to lack of control and management by the government, or people there cannot access to the opportunities they want. Hence, better accessibility and appropriate transport are essential to an area’s social and economic development. In contrast, good accessibility may lead to strong economy development. In the past 30 years China has invested a lot in road infrastructure, which is identified as one of the engines in the economic growth (Fan and Chan-Kang, 2008). Besides economy, “transport access is complementary to other services such as health and education” (Fan and Chan-Kang, 2008, p306). This is especially true for rural area. If a region wants to gain the benefit of economic development, it should make sure the business can reach to the local area easily. Some other service may be developed as well. All these business and service are vital to the society. A flourishing community is able provide excellent lives for the residents and improve security. Consequently, accessibility should be one of the priorities in local development.

2.2 Social Exclusion
“Social exclusion refers to the dynamic process of being shut out, fully or partially, from any of the social, economic, political and cultural systems which determine the social integration of the person in society”(Sheppard, 2006, p7).

Another definition: “Social exclusion is a constraints-based process which causes individuals or groups not to participate in the normal activities of the society in which they are residents and has important spatial manifestations” (Preston and Rajé, 2007, p151).
3

People who is socially excluded is defined as: “An individual is socially excluded if (a) he or she is geographically resident in a society and (b) he or she does not participate in the normal activities of citizens in that society” (Hodgson and Turner, 2003, p267). Social exclusion is a phenomenon that may appear in poor area. People who are socially excluded seem to be isolated from the society. They do not or they cannot understand the world well. It is difficult for them to learn the information of the society, not even to see how the world is upgrading. In this way, many problems may occur. “Poverty, ill-health, unemployment, physical isolation, lack of education and lack of confidence” usually accompany with social exclusion (Bonsall and Kelly, 2005, p407). Donaghy et al(2004) also regards that the study emphasis of social exclusion is “not only low-income, but also access to equally relevant aspects such as jobs, education, housing, healthcare, the degree of satisfaction of basic needs and the ability to participate fully in society” (DONAGHY et al., 2004, p683). From this point of view it can be seen that the people who are socially excluded are suffering a lot of problems and it seems that they live in the lower class of the society, which is a separated one and difficult for them to improve themselves.

The reasons for social exclusion: Kenyon et al (2002) have listed some of the reasons of social exclusion. See table 1

4

Table 1 Reasons for social exclusion

Source: (Kenyon et al., 2002)

5

From the table above we can see that transport and accessibility are one of the factors that cause social exclusion. In fact, all these factors are not independent. They may affect together to social exclusion. One factor may be the reason for another. It is widely agreed that accessibility is one of the major reasons for social exclusion (Hodgson and Turner, 2003), (Preston and Rajé, 2007), (Bonsall and Kelly, 2005), (Raje, 2003). It is possible to create social opportunities for the public but it is difficult to allow them to access these opportunities (Preston and Rajé, 2007). Preston and Rajé (2007) also hold the view that poverty is not decisive factor in social exclusion. People who have highly income still may be socially excluded (Preston and Rajé, 2007). It means that even rich people who live in rural area may have accessibility problem and isolated from the society. Priya and Uteng (2009) regards that “Transport disadvantage was posited to be an important factor leading to social exclusion” (Priya and Uteng, 2009, p2). This is reflected in four main ways. (i) the negative impact of road traffic (ii) inadequate public transport (iii) reduced or poor accessibility to basic facilities (iv) travel poverty (Priya and Uteng, 2009, p2)

One of the five goals of DfT (Department for Transport) is to promoting greater equality of transport opportunity for all citizens (DfT, 2007, p24). It means that people who are social excluded have the equal right to share the benefit of transport even they live in rural area. Preston (2009) thinks that the policy addresses the social exclusion directly (Preston, 2009). Currently the global recession may continue to affect social economy for a certain time. It seems that transport policy will be a better tool in tackling social exclusion (Preston, 2009).

Better accessibility and transport may help to promote the development of a region. To social exclusion, in terms of transport, some approaches are suggested: 1. Reduce transport cost/time; 2. Increase social contact using information technology (virtual mobility); 3. Increase proximate facilities and contacts, for example, through decentralization and land-use planning; 4. Increase incomes to reduce transport budget constraints; and 5. Increase proximate contacts by pro-family/pro-neighbour-lines policies (Preston and Rajé, 2007, p153).

6

To measure accessibility of social exclusion, it is necessary to set up indicators and targets to focus on. “access to work, access to learning, access to healthcare, access to food shops, access to social, cultural, and sporting activities and impact of traffic on deprived communities” can be utilized to monitor (Priya and Uteng, 2009, p4). These indicators may show whether a person is socially excluded and how.

2.3 Transport
Transport is part of our daily lives, which is used for work, business, leisure, etc. It has become a vital issue in the society and played significantly important role in the development of economy. It is said that transport is playing a role that “maximise people’s participation in social and economic life” (Priya and Uteng, 2009, p4). Cars, trains and planes can be seen everywhere. Road design and planning are trying to make it convenient for people’s travel. Nowadays, transport is helping to save time and improve reliability. It also allows new markets to access and new business to trade in a wider area. Transport’s contribution can appear in labour market and employment (DfT, 2007). All these shows how transport affects economy. Most crimes and social problems come from poverty. A community may be well developed based on convenient access and transport in many aspects. In the modern world, it is difficult for most areas to develop just by its own. It is widely accept that cooperation and communication is vital to economic grow and social improvement. A regional economy should be associated with its surroundings or even further places, which allows more opportunities to be shared in development. In fact, excellent transport and easy accessibility make it possible to come true.

To ensure transport is making contribution and continue to play increasingly important role, there are five aspects need to be improved.

1 Maximising the overall competitiveness and productivity of the national economy, so as to achieve a sustained high level of GDP growth.

7

2 Reducing transport’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, with the desired outcome of avoiding dangerous climate change. 3 Contributing to better health and longer life-expectancy through reducing the risk of death, injury or illness arising from transport, and promoting travel modes that are beneficial to health. 4 Improving quality of life for transport users and non-transport users, including through a healthy natural environment, with the desired outcome of improved well-being for all. 5 Promoting greater equality of transport opportunity for all citizens, with the desired outcome of achieving a fairer society (DfT, 2007, p24). Transport is facilitating the economy development and improving human’s life. However, environment and safety issues related to transport should be paid attention to and considered. Cullinane et al (1996) has indicated that traffic noise and visual intrusion may appear if too many cars in rural area, as well as some other problems such as loss of land area. This is due to more vehicles needs more road signs, more junctions and more facilities for drivers (Cullinane et al., 1996).

Another important aspect is equal opportunity of transport. Since transport is making great contribution in the society, it is necessary to allow all the people gain benefit from it. Some groups, for example, people in rural area, disabled group, and low-income group do not satisfy with the transport. These people may have to rely on transport much than others. A common transport problem would be a difficulty for them. Hence, better accessibility will make them a little more independent from transport. Some research has been done to see what people want. In terms of different income and age groups, table 2 shows how people are vulnerable to poor accessibility.

8

Table 2 Transport to different groups Target group Low-income Transport issues Low travel horizons, fear of crime on public transport, some require help with travel costs to work to support job retention and address inwork poverty. Job-seekers Require support with job search activities and to prevent transport being a barrier to employment. Some low-income parents Low-income rural households Access to social and cultural networks, healthcare and healthy food shops for parents and families at risk of social exclusion. Transport-related exclusion in rural areas regarding access to employment, healthcare, healthy food shops, education and social and cultural networks. Disabled workingage adults Disabled children and young people Older people with limited mobility Appropriate transport for older people with limited mobility and at risk of social exclusion. Transport-related exclusion for disabled adults; current multiple forms of transport assistance; to give additional help to job search activities for disabled people. Assistance needed for families to avoid transport-related exclusion for disabled children and young people.

Black and minority Some groups more likely to be low-income; socio-cultural barriers ethnic groups sometimes a barrier to travelling and using public transport. Some groups likely to be fearful of using public transport because of personal security issues. Source: (DfT, 2007, p42)

To ensure the equal transport opportunity is provided for the public, it is necessary that all people have the right to access everywhere. Public transport should be available for majority especially in rural area. Private vehicles need to be taken into account as well. Department for Transport (DfT) are promoting equal opportunity for the public. They are trying to “provide everyone with
9

access to the goods and services, employment opportunities and social and leisure activities they desire. As well as providing connections to, from and within areas away from the main population centres, such as rural areas and market towns”, besides, they need to consider the transport to be “accessible, affordable, available and acceptable to transport users” (DfT, 2008a, p16).

Transport planning 1 Planning should focus on the desired connectivity of places and improvements in the quality of life, rather than focusing on predicting future congestion levels. 2 There is a need for a planning process which engages the wider social and economic community and provides a platform for the generation and discussion of different policy alternatives 3 Planners have to present information to decision makers in an understandable and useful form and they have to assist decision makers to select interventions, establish priorities and develop planning strategies Source: (Straatemeier, 2008) This guideline tells the importance of convenience in transport issue. Transport is facilitating people’s mobilities, all planning should aims to improve the convenience. Besides, it is necessary to take society and economic into account. Many social problems are associated with transport; hence, a wide consideration is important, which means a better understanding of local transport condition is vital. This also needs a lot of information and wide discussion.

2.3.1 Car-sharing
The term 'car sharing' refers “to two or more people traveling together by car for all or part of a trip. One of the people traveling is usually the owner of the vehicle and the other(s) usually make a contribution towards fuel costs” (DfT). Research has been shown that car-sharing scheme can lead to reduction of vehicle hours and distance, as well as the fuel use and emission (Fellows and Pitfield, 2000). Car sharing is becoming more and more popular in the society, as it is contributing to better transport system and improving the environment. In car-sharing scheme, “cars are used more intensely than privately owned cars” (TRUFFER, 2003, p143). It is described as linking “existing transport technology with new use patterns that may ultimately
10

lead to a more sustainable transport regime” (TRUFFER, 2003, p140). Private car and public transport are major modes that people have relied on for long time. It seems that car-sharing is a combination of the two and take their advantages. It may even result in “reorganization of mobility patterns” (TRUFFER, 2003, p151).

Car sharing schemes are particularly appropriate where: + people are travelling relatively long distances to work; + public transport is poor; + car ownership and car dependency are high; and + there are many journeys to a limited number of places (for example, from surrounding villages into a town centre). Source: DfT, making smarter choice work Nowadays, car-sharing is becoming more and more popular and encouraged to be used. Some benefits have been found of car-sharing: 1 Improved access to work, improved flexibility of travel options and reduced social exclusion Comparing to public transport, car-sharing may have better flexibility. People may have complaint on time waiting or poor service of public transport, but they can negotiate each other when they share the car in their trip. In some rural area, there may not have enough public transport for local population, which means they have limit choices on transport to other area. As a result, they have limit choices on employment. In addition, with car-sharing, people who are socially excluded, especially those without any vehicles can have more chances to go to surrounding area (e.g. cities) and keep up with the society.

2 Financial savings for the organisation Car-sharing can be utilized in organization. Staffs who have similar routes on the way from home to work can share a car. This can reduce the car numbers and then reduce the fuel cost for the staffs. The organization can save the parking space as well.

3 Financial benefits for the individual For individuals who drive a car usually, as mentioned before, car-sharing can save the fuel cost and parking fee as the car partners share this.

11

4 Improved work-life balances In a report it was said that people have leave from work on time everyday. This avoids that some people work too late and have few time on others such as family, friends and entertainment. It may help to balance people’s lives

5 Improved sociability When sharing the trip, people in a car may not know each other. Car-sharing gives the chances for car partners to talk and make friends. If the partners from the same organization, they have chance to communicate and increase the relationship. (Cairns et al., 2004, p243)

2.3.2 Private Car versus Public transport
“Car is more than a convenient means of transport: it is a symbol of freedom, it signals social status and it is an expression of one’s identity. Users are predominantly considered as ‘consumers’ who have the right to vote for their preferred transportation mode by their purchase decision” (TRUFFER, 2003, p141). Cars including private cars are vital to the society, which have been making contribution for the society. Private vehicles facilitate personal’s travel and give a comfortable feeling for drivers and passengers. Private car has been developed as a symbol more than a transport tool. However, too many cars on the road have brought us a lot of problems. For example, vehicles are said to be the major source of air and noise pollution, 70% of the carbon monoxide, 45% of the nitrogen oxides, and 33% of hydrocarbon emissions come from the all kind of cars in USA (Katzev, 2003).

To investigate the car-sharing, it is necessary to see the how many cars are used. Table 3 shows the percentage of household owning cars in terms of different incomes in UK.

12

Table 3 Income and car ownership

Source: (DfT, 2008b)

From the data above it can be seen that on average the first two low levels income groups do not have a car per household. Over half of the poorest people have no car. They may just rely on public transport or work near where they live. This means that they have limit choices on employment. On other hand, it seems that car is normal in most other families. Hence, it is possible to set up car-sharing projects in most area of the country and the poor groups may gain benefits significantly.

Research has shown that some problems of public transport are complained by its customers, such as reliability (being on time), frequency and comfort (Beira and Cabral, 2007). It is organized by company but not individual so it is not flexible for people use it. Huwer U (2004) also thinks that public transport can be used for short trips (bus) and long trips (train), but its flexibility determine that it cannot meet all purpose (Huwer, 2004). With regard to rural area, it is difficult to manage rural transport. Nutley S (2003) regards that “public transport is not generally viable” due to low population density and long distance (Nutley, 2003, p55). It means that people in rural area may have poor bus service. This is difficult for those who have no private car and have to rely on public transport. They have fewer opportunities to share the resource in wider areas.

13

The advantages and disadvantages of private car and public transport (bus) are shown in figure 1.

Figure 1: comparison of private car and public transport Source: (Beira and Cabral, 2007)

2.4 Aims and Objectives
The main objective of the survey is to find out how car-sharing may have impact on rural area. The survey is to research people’s travel habit in Reepham. Through the information they provide from questionnaire, it is necessary to see the main transport modes (i.e. private car, public
14

transport and car-sharing) usage in remote places like Reepham. This study also needs to learn about the public transport condition in countryside, which is related to the private vehicle ownership. In addition, attitudes towards car-sharing will be given to reflect people’s choice and awareness, which may help to promote car-sharing scheme in rural area. Finally, the study will try to find and tackle the problem of social exclusion to see whether car-sharing can make contribution.

15

3 Methodology
3.1 Reepham
Reepham is selected as the rural area in this research and the questionnaire will be done there. It is located in Broadland of Norfolk, east England. It is an attractive 18th century Market Town situated on the B1145, 12 miles northwest of Norwich. See the maps below:

Figure 2 location of Broadland and Norfolk in East England Source: http://www.broadland.gov.uk/GIS/map.html

16

Figure 3 Reepham and Norwich Source: http://maps.google.co.uk/

From the map it can be seen that Reepham is not located besides road class A or B, which means there may be poor accessibility. In addition, there is only one trip bus between Reepham and Norwich in weekdays (source: information centre of Norwich Bus Station). It seems that the public transport is not convenient for local residents. The population in Reepham is about 2125 and 970 household (OCSI, 2006). Reepham town council decides to try and become a sustainable, low carbon community. They recently won £30,000 to cut the carbon and run a car club in the rural town. To complement this, liftshare is going to set up a car-sharing group for them that they can promote in the town and then monitor its impact.

3.2 Questionnaire
To investigate car-sharing in rural area, it is necessary to learn people’s travel habit and their attitude to all kinds of transport. To do this, questionnaire may be appropriate for this study. A

17

public transport and car-sharing research has been done by Huwer U (Huwer U, 2004), which contains the following topics in their survey: † Global satisfaction; † Critical incidents; † Satisfaction with public transport; † Satisfaction with car-sharing; † Assessment of the combined service; † Individual mobility situation; † Attitude towards environmental problems and the car; † Customer loyalty; and † Personal details (actual living situation, etc.) (Huwer, 2004, p81) Based on the topics above, the Reepham car-sharing questionnaire are made into three parts. According to the accessibility indicators and aiming to learn about the attitude of public to carsharing to Reepham, the questionnaire is made to see the people’s transport behaviour (see appendix). The survey is done through questionnaire which contains 12 questions (11 closed questions and 1 open question). The first part is to investigate the basic information. The second part is to see the travel behaviour and part three is to ask the opinion towards car-sharing. A focus is taken to people that socially excluded, who may rely on transport to improve their lives. All the questions have been consulted with the officer from liftshare. The questionnaire is sent to 392 household in Reepham and posted by hand. The households are selected randomly. All the letters are collected after about 50 days later.

18

4 Result and Discussion
The questionnaires were sent to 392 households in Reepham. 152 of them were returned. Response rate is 38.7%. However, five of the questionnaires are incomplete and they cannot be counted. Hence, the valid questionnaires are 147 and the response rate is 37.5%. This result seems good enough for the postal questionnaire in this research than others (11.6%) (Dobbs, 2005).

4.1 Information of age, gender and working place
In the 147 household of Reepham there are 312 people living in, 55 of them are under 18, 36 are between 19-35, 115 are 36-60, the other 106 are over 60. The percentage is shown in figure 4:

Figure 4 Age group in Reepham

From the figure above it can be seen that about 70% of the respondents are over 35. Only 12% are young group who age from 19 to 35. It seems that the young people may usually study or work in other place but not in Reepham. Bigger towns or cities may be more attractive to them and may be more chance to get a job. It refects the business and economy are poor in Reepham. Surpisingly, people who age 36-60 occupy 37% of the population. Two reasons may explain this: the first one is that they satisfyt and enjoy the quiet village life in Reepham. The second is that this group of people are more willing to do the questionnaire and send it back.
19

There are 150 male in 147households who have returned the questionnaire, while the number of female is 162. This is almost the same.

When asking the working and study location, 69 persons are in Reepham, nine are within two miles of Reepham. Most people, 116, are working more than two miles of Reepham. Three persons are unemployed and 90 old people have retired. These data are based on 147 households as well. See figure 5.

Figure 5 working location of residence in Reepham

Only 3% are working or study within two miles and 24% in Reepham. These groups of people do not have to rely on cars or buses. It seems that walking or cycling is enough for them despite some of them may use cars very often. Of those 24% in Reepham, there should be quite a lot people are student who are under 18. Hence, not many people who are working in Reepham (the number cannot be counted because some respondents do not tell the exact number that where the young people are studying). It is likely that there is not much business in Reepham. The surrounding area cannot provide a lot of job opportunities either. People prefer to find jobs more than two miles from Reepham. As the figure shown, 40% people have to go to places that are beyond walking distance for work or study. It proves that cars or public transport is necessary for

20

them. Similarly, the retired group is about 31% of the 147 households, almost the same many as who are over 60 (34%) from the figure 4.

4.2 Characteristic of the respondents/car ownership
Of the 147 people who fill the questionnaire, 129 said they own a car in their household. The car ownership of household is 87.75%. In this group, 37 people have retired. While to 18 persons who have no car of them, 15 have retired and only three persons are still working.

According to table 3, 87.75% car ownership in Reepham, on average, is in the third level. It demonstrates that cars are important for the residents in Reepham, where a place with poor business. People can go far away from Reepham with their vehicles. As mentioned before, most people prefer to work more than two miles from Reepham. High car ownership makes it possible for this. People with cars have more choice on employment despite the place where they live is of low chances for job. This proves the importance of transport in people’s lives. If car ownership is not high, most people will not go farther places too often despite the public transport is available. This will limit the choice of employment for the people in Reepham. They may have to work in Reepham and surrounding area where there seems to have poor business. As a result, they may have to face poverty problem. Hence, again, private cars are important for the people living in rural area. Some studies point out that people in rural area have excessive dependence on cars and long-distance commuting (Nutley, 1996). This also tells why the group of people who age from 36 to 60 are of highest percentage. While to those over 36 and still with a job, they have been working for long time and it is more probably to have a private car. Transport issue is not a serious problem for their jobs. Living in rural area do not makes them feel inconvenient so it is more probably elder people will choose to stay in Reepham. However, people use their private car too often makes many environment problems, air pollution, noise, as well as traffic congestion, etc. It seems it is necessary to reduce car numbers on the road and encourage people to choose more environmentally friendly transport mode, such as car-sharing. In addition, high car ownership and long distance for working are appropriate for car-sharing scheme as previously

21

stated. There should be some group of people who are working at the same towns or cities and share the journey.

4.3 Work travel habit
When asked about how to travel to work, 64 people purely rely on car while 13 usually use both cars and other modes. Of the people who own a car in their household but do not use for work, 14 may choose cycle or walk, six will use public transport and seven prefer car-sharing as one of transport modes. There are also eight persons will work at home and may need no transport for working. Within those who have no cars, 15 are retired as mentioned before. While to the other three, one is walking or cycling to work, one relies on public transport and another one will choose both. In business trips, 27 people will drive on own, seven people use car-sharing, five people use public transport, two people use flight and two people may walk or cycle. All the others, most of the returned questionnaires, said they don’t make business trip.

From the data above we can see again that most people use private cars for work and as the only transport mode. Only six persons (7.8% of all the respondents that are still working) will use public transport and seven persons (9.1%) has chosen car-sharing as one of their options. In business trip “driving on own is still the favourite one”. Despite that private cars may cost more on parking fee and fuel fee, most people still would like to choose the more convenient transport mode. This may reflect that public transport service need to improve because it gains very little trust. Car-sharing is used by few people as well. Despite that car-sharing have been introduced for long time and widely used in some places, it seems that car-sharing is not very popular in Reepham, where a place should be appropriate for car-sharing. The major reason for this may not be the poor service but the low awareness. Perhaps there are different people driving different cars everyday in the same road, but they do not know each other or do not want to share the car. The advantages of private cars, as mentioned before, such as freedom, flexible, safe, etc are highly valued by the Reepham drivers. This can be reflected from their comments in the final question:

22

“Lack of flexibility is potential problem with car sharing” “I would not want to car share with anyone I didn’t know, as I care about my personal safety and would be concerned also that the person driving would be a safe and responsible driver or not” “The reason I don’t car share at the moment is that my hours are not regular and I have to work around my children” “It sounds a good idea to share going to work but often not practical as I tend to stay in Norwich after work to shop or visit friends and family. Also sometimes work later” “I am self employed and travel to the place of work which may be only a few days at a time” “Car sharing is a very good idea although I would initially be wary about the person I was sharing with if they were not known to me” “I would not get into a car not knowing how the person drives” From all these comments it seems that people do not want constrained by the time or others and care about their privacy, as well as their safety. These are shows why people would like to choose private vehicle if they can afford. Convenience is still the first choice for most people, which is also what they want the transport issue going to be.

It also means that the disadvantages such as cost and environmental problems are not that serious for them. Even among the three people who have no private cars and are still working, no one has chosen car-sharing as one of their transport mode. To some extent, it seems car-sharing is not introduced very well in places like Reepham. Again, we can see some people want to use carsharing but they do not know how:

“Difficult to know who is doing what and when” “I would be prepared to try it if someone would benefit from my (weekday) daily trips to work in Cromer and want to share trips” “Car sharing is a good idea; I have no problem with giving people lifts if they are travelling to the same places as me”

23

In a word, car-sharing is suitable but not popular in Reepham. It is necessary and appropriate to launch a car-sharing scheme in Reepham in terms of the problems that too many private vehicles have brought.

4.4 Non-work travel habit
In the non-work travel, i.e. entertainment/leisure, shopping, hospital/doctor/bank and visiting friends/relatives, private car are still the most popular transport mode. 47 people said they mainly rely on their cars, and 69 will drive their cars as well as walking/cycling. Public transport is more utilized in these travels, which is 24 people that who may use it sometimes. With regard to carsharing, only 16 people would like to choose this mode. Interestingly, 12 of them have retired. In the group of people have no car, the three models, walk/cycle, public transport and car-sharing, are equally chosen. 12, night, night people use it, respectively.

Most people still choose private car as the main option for their non-work travel. It again represents the importance of cars in Reepham transport. Walking/cycling is a little more used in the non-work trips, mainly on shops or hospital travel, which can be found in Reepham or surrounding area. While to entertainment or leisure trips which may need to go further, the vehicles are still needed for residents. The data shows that public transport is playing a role in people’s travel, 24 persons (16.3%) of the respondents may use it. However, the use rate is still low; besides, public transport is just one of the alternatives. Those who choose public transport also have chosen other modes. It means that not many people use buses or trains often or even just see it as the last option. In addition, among those who have cars, only 11.7% have selected public transport. This number is 50% to those who are non-car owners, much higher than the previous one. It demonstrates that people with cars are not likely to use public transport. With regards to car-sharing, it is similar to public transport. In total, 16 persons of 147 (10.8%) see carsharing as one of their travel options. Whether on work or non-work travel, car-sharing is not widely utilized. Seven of 129 people (5.43%) who are car owners may use car-sharing sometimes. Comparing to night of 18 (50%) that have no private vehicles, the previous data is much lower. It seems that people who have cars are not likely to share journeys with others. In fact, among the

24

seven persons that own cars and would like to share, 5 of them are retired. They use car-sharing mainly on visiting friends or relatives. It again reflects car owners, especially people who are still working, private cars are their first choice and very frequently used. Not only independence but also flexibility and comfort are important factors for car-owners, but also the symbol of a car is meaningful to them. Car, as its definition indicated in previous section, shows the social status and express the identity of its owner. The meaning of private car to human is sometimes heavier than its actual function to some extent. This is one of the reasons that why some older people are likely to choose car-sharing than those who are still have jobs. The other reason may be that older people have mobility problems and would like to travel with someone else. When talking about those non-car owners, although the usage of the three transport modes (i.e. car-sharing, walk/cycle and public transport) is similar, car-sharing may be less trusted by them. Most of noncar owners are using public transport or walk/cycle in most of the entertainment/leisure, shopping, service or visiting trips. Car-sharing does not appear as often as the previous two modes.

When talking about the distance, people with cars are likely to go further. Only one person would like to stay in Reepham or within five miles of Reepham. It seems that Reepham and surrounding area is enough for him/her. All the others have chosen more than five miles from Reepham or Norwich as one of the trips for entertainment, shopping, service and visiting. Only about 25% of these trips were chosen in Reepham or surrounding area. The trips are mainly the service and visiting friends and relatives. Differently, people without private cars cannot go to places that far away. As a sequence, 60% of the options have chosen in Reepham.

From this question we can see how transport and vehicle contribute to people’s lives. Car-owners usually go to further places in their non-work time for entertainment/leisure, shopping, service or visiting. It seems that places more than five miles are more attractive. Aylsham (about six miles from Reepham), a larger market town and Norwich (about 12 miles from Reepham), the busiest town in Norfolk should be the places that most car-owner will go and enjoy their lives. Nutley S (2005) also indicated that car-owners are willing to seek goods and services of better quality and lower price from wider choices. They may compare the cost of the distance and the benefits of what they purchase (Nutley, 2005).Urban areas are with better transport, more business and welldeveloped economy. More choices and opportunities than that of Reepham are available in most

25

aspects, such as restaurant, shopping, and many other social lives. These allow people participate in the society fully and make their lives colourful. People may know the world well and enlarge their learning. They are able to keep up with the pattern of the society. In contrast, it is difficult for people without private cars to go other towns easily. They may have to rely on public transport, which is an inconvenient transport mode in Reepham. The transport issue limits their activities area. They may just have to look for things that are interesting in Reepham and surrounding area but this will make them lost the opportunities to share the benefit that modern technology has brought and to see how the world is changing. Their non-working time mostly is spent on places with poor business and they have less chance to know friends. As a result, they may easily feel lonely, isolated, boring and upset to the lives. These feelings not only affect the efficiency of their working and health, but also, more seriously, may produce crimes in local area. That may be the reason why some departments need to deal with social exclusion and claim fair opportunities for all residents. It seems that people cannot afford a car are more likely to be socially excluded to some extent in rural area. Transport planning and management shoulder the responsibility to make them to connect the society more easily and frequently. Hence, it is necessary to address the need of people in rural area, especially those who have no vehicles. All kinds of ways should be tried to allow most public to get access to the service they want. In addition, business and economy in rural area need to be enhanced and improved. This should be a long-term strategy for local council.

4.5 Public transport research

4.5.1 Frequency
The next part questioned respondents’ experience to public transport coupled with their attitude to car-sharing. The table 4 below shows the situation.

26

Table 4 frequency of people using public transport in Reepham Group People who have private car Non-retired Every day 2 or 3 times a week Once a week Once a month Rarely or never 1 3 4 11 73 Retired 0 2 2 6 27 People who have no private car 0 2 4 1 10

Of the people who own private car and are not retired, 79.3% rarely or never use public transport. This number is 72.9% for retired group and 58.8% for non-car owners. In total, 36 people of 147 household take public transport at least once a month, which means public transport is making contribution to their lives to some extent.

Public transport is a basic element and an important part in a transportation system both in urban and rural area. Despite the negative words such as poor service, waste of time, crowded are always with public transport, it is still contributing to people’s transport issue especially for lowincome group. Its price determines that it cannot be as convenient as taxi. Most low-income people or young people have to rely on buses or trains in their lives and work or study. Public transport has played a significant role in economic development and daily lives. Bus is and will be a common transport mode that last for a long time on the road. However, from the result of this investigation, public transport is not very popular in Reepham. It shows that very few people use public transport regularly and even few people said they have to rely on it. People who have no private vehicle even do not use public transport very often, which is not reliable for their travel. It seems that public transport usage rate in Reepham is much lower than that in urban area. This may be the reason that private vehicles are the most important and most utilized transport mode as previously stated. The car ownership is high and residents in Reepham are likely to use private cars for whatever travel. Public transport is important in a transportation system, but it seems that it does not bring a lot of benefit and convenient for local public. Actually, it is difficult to increase public transport routes for Reepham. From the map in figure 3, Reepham is far from urban areas, more importantly, it is not located besides the first class routes (i.e. Road A or B
27

routes). Consequently, the public transport in Reepham and surrounding area cannot guarantee that there are enough people to take a trip, which makes it that buses are rare in Reepham. Residents in Reepham that have no private car may have to wait and waste a long time in public transport, or they seldom go out and just stay in local area. All these mean that it is not fair for them to share the resource in urban cities or towns where there are better businesses. Again, some social problems may appear as previous mentioned.

4.5.2 Opinion
Of these 36 people who are still using public transport usually or sometimes, in generally, they have acceptable opinion to public transport. See table 5.

Table 5 people’s opinion to public transport 1(those who take public transport at least one a month) Group People who have private car Non-retired Very good Good Either good or bad Bad Very bad 0 6 9 2 2 Retired 0 5 4 0 1 People who have no private car 0 2 3 1 1

Of them are 13 having positive comments on public transport and 16 have no opinion to it. To them, public can basically satisfy their needs. Interestingly, the retired car owners are seems happier with the bus service in Reepham than other two groups. Maybe they just use public transport as a substitution and use for non-emergency so that they do not have to worry about the time very much. However, there are still seven of 36 (19.4%) people who are not satisfied with the public transport despite that they have use it.

These results differ remarkably from the opinion of those 110 people who rarely or never take public transport. The details from table 6 show that 54 people have said public transport is bad or
28

very bad, which means that the unsatisfied rate is 49%, much higher than the previous one (19.4%). In fact, those who said “either good or bad” are mainly because they never use it. If more people have ever used public transport, the unsatisfied rate may be higher. The people who have car and are non-retired complained more than other groups. They have a dissatisfied rate is 51.6% and only 12.5% (8people) believe it be “good”. It seems that people with jobs are more likely to care the time they spend on transport every day they are more likely to complaint about the inconvenience of buses.

Table 6 people’s opinion to public transport 2(those who rarely or never take public transport) Group People who have private car Non-retired Very good Good Either good or bad Bad Very bad 0 8 23 27 15 Retired 1 4 15 5 2 People who have no private car 0 2 3 3 2

Back to the work travel habit section, from this result we can see that one of the major reasons that people are likely to use private car, obviously, is the poor service of public transport. People would like to choose the more convenient transport mode if they can. Bus is vital in urban transport but it seems that it cannot be widely used and become popular in Reepham. The population is Reepham is small, most of which are aged over 36. The people who use public transport frequently should young group and low-income group. Both of them are not in large amount. This determines the bus cannot be very frequently and the time for a trip will take long time. Besides, the working location may be much dispersed and it is difficult to meet the entire passenger’s requirement. Hence, it is not appropriate to invest too much on public transport in rural area especially places such as Reepham.

29

4.6 Car-sharing attitude
Table 7 people’s opinion to car-sharing Group People who have private car Nonretired Yes, I already do May be on work May be on entertainment or shopping or service trips Never 35 20 0 9 5 20 32 6 0 11 0 1 1 4 0 3 Retired People who have no private car Non-retired Retired

When asking people whether they will choose car-sharing in future, different group have different views. Not surprising, from the table 7 it can see that in the non-retired, retired and noncar owner groups, the percentage of people who will consider car-sharing are 62%, 29.7% and 27.7%, respectively. Over half of car-owners and non-retired people may consider car-sharing in the future. Hence, the emphasis of promotion of car-sharing should be this group. From the table it is clear that people would like to choose car-sharing in entertainment or shopping or service trip than on work travel, which reflects that most people still worry about the time and are not sure about the time control of car-sharing. They may also want more choices on non-work trips. However, there are still about 44% people who do not think about car-sharing in future. Almost half of them have been retired. They may see car-sharing not comfortable as private car or not that convenient. It is necessary to think about the need of the old people if a car-sharing scheme is launched. They are a special group that need more attention. Another half of people who dislike car-sharing seem to lack of sufficient information about car-sharing and awareness to the environmental problems, or they are a very independent group.

The next question is about the reason they (may) choose car-sharing. About 60% people who did the questionnaire gave their rating. The most important reason is given a value of five and the

30

lease one is one. Of all the options the value is in table 8 as below (the number in bracket shows how many people choose it as the first choice, i.e. the value is five).

Table 8 the importance of the reasons that encourage people to car-sharing Group People who have private car Nonretired To reduce the cost of travelling by car It is cheaper than public transport There is no public transport available Public transport is too inconvenient I have more choice of work locations/job opportunity It gives me more choice of entertainment/shopping/services I can’t drive myself/don’t have access to a car I have mobility problems I think it’s important to reduce the number of cars on the road Incentives provided by employer Other 3 (0) 5 (1) 0 () 2 () 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 125 (9) 10 (2) 41 (2) 3 (0) 3 (0) 5 (0) 23 (3) 6 (0) 1 (0) 3 (0) 16 (1) 46 (1) 20 (0) 1 (0) 7 (0) 186 (16) 63 (1) 78 (5) 144 (9) 17 (0) 43 (3) 7 (0) 24 (3) 43 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) 5 (0) 0 (0) 4 (0) 11 (0) 0 (0) 23 (3) 12 (1) 0 (0) Retired People who have no private car Non-retired retired

It can be seen that the numbers of the first choice are similar to the total ranking in general. Only in retired car owner list, “no public transport” option is chosen as most important reason by three times despite that it is total value is not high. It means a few people want to use public transport but most others do not care. To see the difference in each group, it is necessary to compare the importance of each option. See figure 6, 7, 8, 9.

31

Figure 6 factors that use car-sharing by car-owner and non-retired group

Some research has shown that reducing car cost and long time waiting of public transport are the first two major motivation for those who join car-sharing club (Katzev, 2003). The result above shows the same situation. Reducing the car cost is usually the major concern for car owners. The fuel cost, parking fee, insurance fee are problems for car owners when they enjoy the comfortable and convenient trip. Hence, although private car shows the social status of individual, everyone have to pay for that. Some car owners may have ever thought about public transport, but they find it inconvenient for their work. This also related to the cost problem. The third most concern is to reduce car numbers in the road. This is mainly for traffic congestion and environmental pollution. It seems that traffic congestion is not that serious, so pollution problems should be a major part of their consideration. It is necessary to note that not many people would like to choose entertainment or shopping or service trip, not even to mention work location. It is different from previous question. People may want to use car-sharing to these trips, but these are not the major reasons. If car-sharing cannot cut down the cost, they may give up car-sharing; even they have found the above benefits after they join in.

32

Figure 7 factors that use car-sharing by car owner and retired group

This figure shows the older car-owners have more concern on public transport. Perhaps some old people have mobility problems, if a bus cannot provide special service, people may complaint about that. Some people may be too old to drive even they have private vehicle. Other reasons such as too many transfer, long distance and long time also have significantly negative impact on old people. This group also care about the car cost, as well as the environmental problems, which for example they may be vulnerable to air pollution.

33

Figure 8 factors that use car-sharing by non-car owner and non-retired group

There are only three people in this group and give their rating. They hope the car-sharing can be better than public transport. There is one person hoping car-sharing to have contribution to his employment.

Figure 9 factors that use car-sharing by non-car owner and retired group

34

This group of people want to improve environment most when considering car-sharing. Some shows that they cannot drive and quite concern public transport, it seems that they need public transport sometimes but not satisfy very much.

4.7 Social exclusion
Among all the respondents, based on the working information and travel habit consideration, only one person is very likely to be socially excluded. He is a under 60 but unemployed. He has no car and has to rely on public transport in most trips and sometimes walk/cycle. He seldom goes out for leisure or service purpose. He may have mobility problem because he choose this as his reason for considering car-sharing. It seems that he does not participate into social activities or he cannot. He also has some comment:

“The public transport has been poor for over 21years……I am trying to move house and find a village—with better NHS service and public transport and local shop”

It seems that this person is not satisfied with the life in Reepham. It is likely that he just has a limited area for his work and life because his problem of mobility and poor bus service as he said. In car-sharing attitude question, he only mentioned that he does not access to a car. He does not worry about working despite he is unemployed. It seems that he wants cars that can bring him to everywhere not only for work.

According to the social exclusion definition, there should be some old people are socially excluded. They seldom go out and always stay in Reepham. However, in terms of accessibility, these people do not want to go because of their age but the one mentioned above do not go because he cannot. Some of them are over 80 or even 90 years old. It seems that they are too old to go and convenience or safety will be an important issue for them. It is not necessary to define them to be socially excluded. They will not arouse serious problems. Still, car-sharing can contribute to these old people by offering a convenient and safe environment.

35

There should be some more people are socially excluded due to its location. However, not many of this group have responded to the questionnaire. Besides, it is difficult to find out people socially excluded by just a letter or questionnaire. Some more information of the local residences is necessary to address social exclusion. Hence, car-sharing scheme may need help from local council.

36

5 Conclusion
5.1 Impact of car-sharing
To conclude, rural accessibility is vital for local social and economic issue. The lives of residences may have to depend on the accessibility and transport in a region. To enlarge the effect of transport and make sure it is contributing to people’s travel positively, it is important to have a detail plan on local transport development. In rural area, car ownership is high and private vehicle is frequently used. This may leads a lot environmental problems. Besides, public transport is difficult to provide convenient service to residence and meet most public’s requirement. It seems that car-sharing is appropriate in rural area and facilitate a large amount of people. All people can use it to and gain benefits. Car owners can reduce the cost of driving alone; non car owners can gain better service than public transport. However, there are still some people unwilling to change their transport mode. Flexibility is a major problem comparing to private car. Car-sharing may also help to deal with social exclusion by providing more choices and accessibilities to wider area for those are unable to participate into the society fully due to transport constraint. In a word, the impact of car-sharing on rural area may be improving the accessibility for local people, but the impact on employment seems to be limited and the contribution to benefiting social exclusion is not clear. This needs further study and more information of people who are socially excluded.

5.2 Suggestion:
To make the car-sharing scheme is launched effectively, there are some suggestions in the following paragraphs.

1 Age Research showed that in a car-sharing organization (CSO), most members are between 25-43 years old (Steininger et al., 1996). It seems that young people (under 25) do not know or believe

37

car-sharing very much. While to the elderly group, car-sharing may be too inconvenient for their daily lives. Hence, it seems that people aged from 25 to 60 is appropriate group for car-sharing. In this survey, there are not many young people in Reepham. Nevertheless, from the result we can see that people aged 36-60 have a larger proportion of willing to choose car-sharing as one of the transport modes. The figure 10 below shows the age structure of members of car-sharing group.

Figure 10 Age structure of members Source: (Steininger et al., 1996)

2 Education and Awareness Steininger K et al(1996) also pointed out that a significant characteristic of members from CSO is that they are highly educated (Steininger et al., 1996). It is possible that awareness is an important factor in choosing car-sharing. People with high education usually could like to concern about the transport and environment. Huwer U (2004) also indicate that people’s knowledge and awareness to car-sharing is low(Huwer, 2004).From the result it can be seen that environmental consideration is usually less than cost and convenience consideration. People may care more about what they can gain from what they do first, and then think about what may cause from what they do.

3 meet people’s need “It is necessary to understands people’s needs and expectations and acknowledge that different people have different needs and are motivated by different factors” (Beira and Cabral, 2007).

38

Any planning or scheme is designed for facilitate people’s lives. It is important to know people’s requirement to make a project well. Besides, to attract consumers, knowing their problems and making improvement are necessary steps. It is difficult to encourage people give up their private car to choose car-sharing by just telling the advantages. Instead, it is possible to learn about the trouble of private car owners. In fact, in addition to the cost, many other issues are concerned by private car owners. For example, Nutley S (1996) has said that some car owners in rural area may fear long distance driving, night driving, winter driving or congestion towns (Nutley, 1996). As previous result indicated, in terms of flexibility, car-sharing is much poor than private vehicles. However, if a car-sharing scheme can help to tackle the problems that car-owners may have to face, more people may consider car-sharing.

4 time of promotion Normally, people will not change their travel behaviour easily. Travel habit is fixed and “Habit changes are most likely to correspond with changes or breaks in life”. People will rethink their mobility behaviour when they start a new job or move to a new place. In this way, car-sharing may be adopted by these people as one of the alternatives (Huwer, 2004, p78). Katzev also give an example of the reason why some people choose car-sharing. It is said that they divorce and lost the car, or they change their jobs or residence (Katzev, 2003). It means that some promotion can be done for those who are new in a place or who just find a job. It seems that the information of car-sharing provided in this time is more effective to the people. It is in this time that people will put some time to think about their travel behavior. On the other hand, appropriate car-sharing may encourage people to move or help their employment.

5.3 Monitoring
Monitoring is vital to see whether a scheme or an action is successful. As mentioned before, transport is essential for people’s lives. Aiming to enhance the convenience and protect the environment, car-sharing scheme is trying to improve the public’s satisfaction. To monitor the improvement of accessibility for the people, some criteria are made presented in table 9

39

Table 9 criteria for monitoring

Source: (Priya and Uteng, 2009,p3)

40

The table above shows the indicators of rural accessibility. To measure how accessibility is and whether it is improved, the criteria may be useful. It is not necessary to use all the criteria when monitoring. Depending on what focus is, measurement can select some of the indicators to monitor. For example, aiming to improve environment, air pollution needs to be monitored; aiming to improve public transport, it is necessary to see the how frequent people use it, their cost on it and their satisfaction. When a scheme is planned, it is important to set up aims and objectives, which can see how the rural accessibility has improved.

Car use monitor

As regards to car-sharing, once a car-sharing scheme is launched, some more monitoring needs to be done. The first is to see whether people have reduced the use of private car. It is reported that in several car-sharing organizations in Europe, members who are car owners drive significantly less distances. Besides, the car ownership has decreased and the use of public transport has increased (Katzev, 2003). Another is the cost, which is concerned by most people. Car-sharing may be used coupled with some other transport modes. The additional fee needs to be taken into account. In addition, most importantly, people’s feeling or satisfaction towards car-sharing should be collected. As the survey result shows, many people care about the issues of safety, flexibility. If they feel uncomfortable to share cars with others, they may easily give up carsharing. Hence, the monitoring should be done all the time.

41

6 Reference
Beira, G and J A S Cabral (2007), "Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study", Transport Policy, 14(2007), pages 478-489. Bonsall, P and C Kelly (2005), "Road user charging and social exclusion: The impact of congestion charges on at-risk groups", Transport Policy, 12(2005), pages 406-418. Cairns, S, L Sloman, C Newson, J Anable, A Kirkbride and P Goodwin (2004), "‘Smarter Choices – Changing the Way We Travel’", available at , last accessed August 5th, 2009. Cullinane, S L, K P B Cullinane, J Fewings and J Southwell (1996), "Rural traffic management The Burrator Reservoir experiment", Transport Policy, 3(4), pages 213-224. defra (2004), "Rural Strategy", available at , last accessed 5th August, 2009. DfT "Car Clubs and Car Sharing", available at , last accessed August 5th, 2009. DfT (2007), "Towards a Sustainable Transport System", available at , last accessed August 5th, 2009. DfT (2008a), "Delivering a Sustainable Transport System: Main Report", available at , last accessed August 5th, 2009. DfT (2008b), "Road Transport Forecast 2008", available at , last accessed August 5th, 2009. Dobbs, L (2005), "Wedded to the car: women, employment and the importance of private transport", Transport Policy, 12(2005), pages 266–278. DONAGHY, K, G RUDINGER and S POPPELREUTER (2004), "Societal Trends, Mobility Behaviour and Sustainable Transport in Europe and North America", Transport Reviews, 24(6), pages 679–690. Fan, S and C Chan-Kang (2008), "Regional road development, rural and urban poverty: Evidence from China", Transport Policy, 15(2008), pages 305-314. Farrington, J and C Farrington (2005), "Rural accessibility, social inclusion and social justice: towards conceptualisation", Journal of Transport Geography, 13(2005), pages 1-12.
42

Fellows, N T and D E Pitfield (2000), "An economic and operational evaluation of urban carsharing", Transportation Research Part D, 5(2000), pages 1-10. Geurs, K T and B v Wee (2004), "Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions", Journal of Transport Geography 12(2004), pages 127140. Hodgson, F C and J Turner (2003), "Participation not consumption: the need for new participatory practices to address transport and social exclusion", Transport Policy, 10(2003), pages 265-272. Huwer, U (2004), "Public transport and car-sharing—benefits and effects of combined services", Transport Policy, 11(2004), pages 77-87. Katzev, R (2003), "Car Sharing: A New Approach to Urban Transportation Problems", Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3(1), pages 65-86. Kenyon, S, G Lyons and J Rafferty (2002), "Transport and social exclusion: investigating the possibility of promoting inclusion through virtual mobility", Journal of Transport Geography, 10(2002), pages 207-219. Nutley, S (2003), "Indicators of transport and accessibility problems in rural Australia", Journal of Transport Geography, 11(2003), pages 55-71. Nutley, S (2005), "Monitoring rural travel behaviour: a longitudinal study in Northern Ireland 1979–2001", Journal of Transport Geography, 13(2005), pages 247-263. Nutley, S D (1996), "Rural transport problems and non-car populations in the USA A UK perspective", Jownal of Transport Geography, 4(2), pages 93-106. OCSI (2006), "DEPRIVATION IN RURAL NORFOLK Reepham Profile", available at , last accessed August 5th, 2009. Preston, J (2009), "Epilogue: Transport policy and social exclusion—Some reflections", Transport Policy, 2009. Preston, J and F Rajé (2007), "Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social exclusion", Journal of Transport Geography, 15(2007), pages 151-160. Priya, T and A Uteng (2009), "Dynamics oftransport and social exclusion: Effects of expensive driver’s license", Transport Policy, 2009.

43

Raje, F (2003), "The impact of transport on social exclusion processes with specific emphasis on road user charging", Transport Policy, 10(2003), pages 321-338. Sheppard, M (2006), Social Work and Social Exclusion The idea of practice (Ashgate, Hampshire). Steininger, K, C Vogl and R Zettl (1996), "Car-sharing organizations The size of the market segment and revealed change in mobility behavior", Transport Policy, 3(4), pages 177-195. Straatemeier, T (2008), "How to plan for regional accessibility?" Transport Policy, 15(2008), pages 127–137. TRUFFER, B (2003), "User-led Innovation Processes: the Development of Professional Car Sharing by Environmentally Concerned Citizens", The European Journal of Social Science Research, 16(2), pages 139-154.

44

7 Appendix: Reepham Car-sharing Questionnaire
I am a student from the University of East Anglia (UEA), Norwich. I am doing a research project investigating car-sharing as part of my course. The Reepham Green Team is setting up a carsharing scheme for Reepham with help and advice from liftshare. The results of this survey will be used to make sure that the car-sharing scheme is useful for you. Car-sharing is when two or more people, usually who are heading to the same destination, travel together by car for all or part of a journey. It is also known as lift sharing. I would be very grateful if you could take a few minutes of your time to complete the enclosed questionnaire (it should not be more than 5 minutes). It would be very important for my research. All the data will be anonymous and kept strictly confidential. No one will be identified in any published work. Please could you use the envelope provided and return it to the address: Zhenjiang Li Msc in Environmental Assessment and Management School of Environmental Science University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ

Thank you very much in advance.

45

Car-sharing questionnaire Part 1 1 How many people are there in your household? Please write the number in the appropriate box according to your gender and age group Age Under 18 19-35 36-60 Over 60 Gender male female where do they work or study? Please tick in the appropriate box according to your age group. Age Under 18 19-35 36-60 Over 60 Work place Reepham within 2 miles of Reepham more than 2 miles from Reepham unemployed retired 2 Do you or any members of your household own a car?(please tick one) □ Yes □ No Part 2 3 How do you travel to work? (please choose the main means) □walk/cycle □ drive on own □public bus/coach/train □car-sharing (with non-household member) □work at home □ unemployed □ other (please specify)______________ 4 How do you travel on business trips? (please choose the main means) □I don’t make business trips □ walk/cycle □ drive on own □public bus/coach/train □car-sharing (with non-household member) □ fly □ other (please specify)______________ Please tick the appropriate box in the following tables for question5, 6 and 7. 5 How do you usually travel for the trips below? walk/cyc privat public bus car-sharing (with le e car or coach or non-household train member) Entertainment/leisure(e.g . cinema, restaurant, sports) shopping Hospital/doctors/bank Visiting friends/relatives

othe r

46

6 Roughly how far are these trips? In Reepham Entertainment/leisure(e.g. cinema, restaurant, sports) shopping Hospital/doctors/bank Visiting friends/relatives

Within 5 mile of Reepham

More than 5 miles from Reepham (not Norwich)

Norwich

7 How often do you make these trips? Every 2 or 3 day times week Entertainment/leisure(e.g. cinema, restaurant, sports) shopping Hospital/doctors/bank Visiting friends/relatives

Once a week

Once a Very rarely month or never

Part 3(please tick one answer) 8 How often do you use public transport (bus, coach, train)? □ every day □ 2 or 3 times a week □ once a week □ once a month □ rarely or never 9 What do you think of the public transport in Reepham? □ very good □ good □ either good or bad □ bad □ very bad 10 Would you use car-sharing (with a non-household member) as a mode of transport? □yes, I already do □ maybe to work □maybe on entertainment/shopping/service trips □Never 11 If you are considering car-sharing, what are the reasons? (Please choose your top five and then rank them with 1 as the most important and 5 as the least important, write the number in front of each option) • To reduce the cost of travelling by car • It is cheaper than public transport • There is no public transport available • Public transport is too inconvenient • I have more choice of work locations/job opportunity. • It gives me more choice of entertainment/shopping/services • I can’t drive myself/don’t have access to a car • I have mobility problems • I think it’s important to reduce the number of cars on the road • Incentives provided by employer

47

•

Other (specify)____________________

12 Do you have any other comments about car-sharing or this research? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ _____ Thank you for your time

48