The Essentials
- In France, low-emission zones (LEZs) are at the center of a political and regulatory saga; accused of being socially unjust, they are fueling mistrust among a segment of the population.
- Research has identified six typical reaction profiles to Low-Emission Zones, which provide a better understanding of the social attitudes at play.
- The good news is that the “enthusiasts” make up the largest group, followed by the “potential allies,” who are convinced of the benefits of the Low-Emission Zone for public health but are concerned about its potential social repercussions. This group can be persuaded through targeted support measures.
This timeline reflects a distrust of Low-Emission Zones (LEZs), which have been accused of being socially unjust. The argument goes as follows: they would benefit only the affluent residents of urban centers at the expense of low-income households living on the outskirts, who—lacking the financial means or transportation alternatives—would see their access to the city center restricted, which could also limit their employment opportunities.
A media disinformation campaign aimed at discrediting low-emission zones has further amplified the sense of social injustice.
Research we conducted in Grenoble (Isère) on household vulnerability to Low-Emission Zones (LEZs) shows that it is possible to precisely identify the most vulnerable households and, among them, those who are unable to adapt to the LEZ. It is these households—which, ultimately, are few in number—that support programs prioritize.
What are the links between support for supporting measures and support for Low-Emission Zones (LEZs)? New research we recently published in *Transport Policy* identifies six typical profiles. First, three groups that are generally supportive: the enthusiasts, those opposed to exemptions, and those not affected. Then there are three other profiles that are more or less critical: potential allies, the unconvinced, and detractors.
While Low-Emission Zones continue to spark heated debate, these findings are valuable because they can help better target supporting measures.
Proven benefits abroad
Thirty years after the first Low-Emission Zones (LEZs) were established in Sweden—and with nearly 300 LEZs now in place across Europe—it is well established that they have led to a 5% to 25% reduction in NO₂ and PM₁₀ emissions, as well as in cardiovascular disease and diabetes. They can even help reverse the deficits in lung development caused by air pollution in children, which is crucial for preventing respiratory and cardiovascular morbidity in adulthood.
These benefits extend beyond physical health alone. In London (United Kingdom), the implementation of the Low-Emission Zone was accompanied by an 18.5% decrease in sick leave, leading to a significant improvement in workplace productivity. Residents there also report being happier, having higher self-esteem, and experiencing less anxiety.
There are also economic benefits: a cost-benefit analysis estimates that London’s Low Emission Zone generates approximately 37 million pounds sterling in savings per year (or nearly 43 million euros) for the entire population.
Overcoming the Tension Between Social Justice and the Environment: The Example of Grenoble
In our study, based on a survey conducted in Grenoble prior to the implementation of the Low-Emission Zone (LEZ) in the metropolitan area, we explore a way to reconcile social justice with environmental and health effectiveness through the implementation of supporting measures for LEZs. We analyzed the links between support for the LEZ and support for measures aimed either at strengthening its environmental and health goals or at improving its social equity by helping low-income households adapt.
The supporting measures we have considered are those that policymakers had in mind prior to the implementation of the Low-Emission Zone.
-
Three of these were exemptions designed to address social concerns: for artisans and street vendors, certain public service vehicles, and people with disabilities.
-
Two others encouraged the use of private cars (a scrappage program for the purchase of a newer vehicle and permission to drive in the Low-Emission Zone when carpooling), which were also intended to address the concerns of users who had no other transportation options or who preferred not to give up using their cars.
-
Others were aimed at encouraging a shift in transportation modes.
Five measures, in particular, were designed to encourage the use of public transportation:
-
improving the public transportation network within the area;
-
improvements to the network outside the area;
-
the expansion of park-and-ride facilities near public transportation;
-
the introduction of a single transit pass valid throughout the department’s public transit network;
-
and finally, a reduction in public transportation fares.
Another measure promoted cycling, while the final measure consisted of a personalized advisory service designed to help users adapt their travel patterns within the Low-Emission Zone.
The Six Profiles Identified in Relation to Low-Emission Zones
Our analysis identified six typical attitudes toward Low-Emission Zones, as shown in the diagram below.
A majority of respondents supported the implementation of the Low-Emission Zone. Among those in favor, three distinct groups emerged.
-
The “enthusiasts, ” the largest group (32% of respondents), support all the accompanying measures and are firmly convinced of the positive effects of the Low-Emission Zone on air quality and traffic.
-
Those opposed to exemptions (15%) are strongly convinced of the health benefits of the Low-Emission Zone (LEZ), an issue they consider all the more important because they are more likely to live in the city center. They oppose exemptions that could undermine the zone’s environmental and health goals.
-
Support for the Low-Emission Zone (LEZ) among those “not affected” (8%) appears to stem from the fact that they are not impacted (since they live outside the city center) and are largely unconcerned about the social implications, making this support all the more fragile given that they are not ardent environmentalists.
Among those who oppose or are neutral toward the Low-Emission Zone, three other profiles emerge.
-
The “potential allies” (the second-largest group, accounting for 19% of respondents) support all the supporting measures, particularly personalized counseling. Although convinced of the positive effects of the Low-Emission Zone (LEZ), they are nevertheless concerned about potential social repercussions (perhaps because they have relatively modest incomes), which limits their support for the LEZ. This group is particularly important for local policymakers to target. Addressing their concerns—such as fear of increased economic vulnerability—through appropriate support measures, particularly personalized advice, could win them over to the ZFE.
-
The “undecided” (17%) are primarily skeptical about the effectiveness of the Low-Emission Zone. While concerned about its social consequences, they nevertheless support most of the accompanying measures, with the exception of personalized counseling, which they view as costly and ineffective.
-
Finally, the “critics” (9%) admit to a lack of interest in the environment and a negative attitude toward cycling. For them, the Low-Emission Zone (LEZ) serves no purpose, and they do not support any of the measures. Trying to convince this group seems futile. They could, however, pose significant opposition to its implementation.
What This Means for Public Policy
Targeted communication campaigns—focusing on the health impacts of air pollution, socioeconomic and spatial inequalities in exposure, and the proven benefits of Low-Emission Zones (LEZs) in Europe—could reduce misunderstandings or underestimation of these benefits and thereby strengthen support for LEZs. But communication alone will likely not be enough. Perceived effectiveness and equity must be addressed together.
Our analysis highlights the challenge of mobilizing “potential allies” without jeopardizing the support of those opposed to exemptions, in order to garner broad public support. This requires addressing the social equity concerns of “potential allies,” particularly those of households living outside the Low-Emission Zone (LEZ), who may feel limited in their ability to adapt.
To that end, it is essential to combine the implementation of a Low-Emission Zone with measures that:
-
on the one hand, strengthen the credibility of the expected health benefits (and thus prevent widespread exemptions),
-
and, second, provide solutions tailored to households. The introduction of highly targeted exemptions, tailored to specific situations, could alleviate concerns about increased vulnerability regarding mobility among low-income households, without compromising the environmental effectiveness of the Low-Emission Zone.
Such flexibilities already exist: in the Lyon metropolitan area (Rhône), for example, the “Petit rouleur” exemption allows drivers to drive up to 52 days a year in a vehicle that would normally be subject to the restrictions. In Grenoble, too, there are a number of targeted exemptions.
Personalized mobility counseling services are another promising tool. In Grenoble, following an interview designed to assess each individual’s ability to adapt to the Low-Emission Zone (LEZ)—particularly in terms of modal shift—participants are eligible for a 1,000-euro mobility allowance. Valid for one year, the allowance can be used for long-term rentals of conventional or electric bicycles, the purchase of public transportation passes, as well as for car-sharing or carpooling services.
The broader issue goes beyond the survival of Low-Emission Zones (LEZs), which—even if they survive this parliamentary deadlock—will struggle to recover from these repeated attacks. Above all, it is about recognizing that it is possible to improve air quality and everyone’s health, reduce inequalities in exposure, and decrease the role of cars in our transportation. Current events—particularly those related to fuel prices—remind us that dependence on cars continues to strain household budgets, especially those of the least affluent, while undermining France’s energy security and exacerbating global warming.
It is worth noting that air pollution accounts for 5 to 7 percent of deaths in Europe and 7 percent of deaths in France. In French urban areas, it is the lowest-income households that are most exposed to poor air quality—and those whose health would benefit the most from improvements in air quality.
That is why the European Directive on Air Quality aims for “zero pollution” by 2050. Its implementation at the national level, which must be completed by the end of this year, will require a drastic reduction in regulatory air pollution thresholds in order to align with these new standards. Is eliminating Low-Emission Zones without providing an alternative really the best way to prepare for this?
