Impact case study database

A material and substantial effect in influencing debates and changing attitudes and behaviour towards the adoption of electric vehicles amongst businesses; uniquely in the rural economy

R2 and R3 directly informed the BEIS Select Committee’s 2018 investigation of the transition to electric vehicles (S1). Research was cited in relation to barriers to adoption such as cost (para 27 p17), charging and infrastructure (para 48 p25 / para 59 p31 / para 74 p37). Insights into the impact of charging infrastructure availability on consumer behaviour were used to frame a key argument in the Select Committee’s report relating to inadequacies in current charging networks, and in the government moving to regulate to improve consumer experiences:

“The Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill progressed through Parliament and received Royal Assent during the course of our inquiry. The Act introduces enabling provisions for electric vehicle charging... These provisions address many of the concerns about charging infrastructure that we heard, and in general were welcomed by witnesses” (S1, para 59 p31).

R6 involved a co-created evaluation informing and influencing the behaviour of 17 rural small businesses as well as providing potential solutions to overcome barriers to EV adoption. This enabled rural businesses to learn from each other in informing their own transport investment decisions, and to influence the behaviour of businesses beyond the trial. This impact has endured, with seven organisations retaining an electric vehicle beyond the conclusion of the trial period (2014-2016). Another participating business subsequently adopted a hybrid vehicle, so almost half of triallists continue to utilise EV technologies in their vehicle fleets five years after the trial ended formally:

“WREV was a starting point for using an electric vehicle and helped to validate what could be achieved by this technology. Involvement in WREV gave me the confidence to suggest [to clients that] electric vehicles were a viable solution, not only through personal experiences but also those shared by other participants and the evaluation process” (S2).

The evaluation of EV running costs undertaken through R6 also encouraged some participants to see EV adoption as part of the cultivation of an image of sustainability. In turn, this led businesses to explore and adopt other low carbon technologies:

“The electric vehicle is just part of the sustainable solutions used by the business, as there has been increased investment in solar and battery storage since acquiring the vehicle… Sustainability is a big part of the business and the electric vehicle is part of this package” (S3).

Influencing strategic thinking and policy decisions around the challenges of adapting places and spaces to zero-emissions infrastructure in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas

Scarborough Borough Council are actively using recommendations from R5 in ongoing efforts to lobby regional and national bodies for transport related investment. The research (2018-2019) has also informed Scarborough’s current approach to local transport challenges, providing them with a template for new service provision. A specific example is the introduction of a new shuttle bus service:

“The shuttle bus will provide on demand passenger service within one of Scarborough most socially deprived communities… It is the aspiration of the project for the service to be operated by a Community Interest Company and utilise Low Carbon emission technology” (S4).

R5 and R6 are also impacting beyond the UK through knowledge transfer with public administrations elsewhere in the world. R5 is being used as a framework for reviewing and informing ongoing policy developments in Liepajaa (Latvia) (S5). Similarly, R6 has gained interest from US state governments in North Carolina, Montana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Organised through the British Consulate in San Francisco, Officers from each state participated in a knowledge exchange visit to the UK in early 2020, focused on decarbonisation planning. On the recommendation of Defra, they made a special visit to Coventry to learn how they could adapt and implement the WREV trial and evaluation in the extensive rural parts of their own state jurisdictions (S6).

In a metropolitan context, the most substantial impact of the iVMS pilot (G3) has been to develop and extend Coventry’s local test bed environment for vehicle technologies (and related smart city activity) across a number of dimensions; and the impact of its implementation, delivery and evaluation over the period 2016 to 2019 has underlined the critical importance of collaborative relationships:

“…demonstrating the real value that this technology will bring to motorists, the economy and the environment” (S7).

In turn, G3 has enabled the formulation of a strategic roadmap, shaping transport policy and investment decisions, and the evaluation of new transport related project and funding opportunities (S8). Building upon this, most recently and as a rapid response to the first UK Covid-19 lockdown in March 2020, G6 co-created future transport planning scenarios, related to urban mobility, with stakeholders from Coventry City Council, influencing directly the development of Coventry’s post-Covid strategies:

“The post-Covid urban mobility scenarios developed by Drs Jones and Jarvis have been used internally with various teams across the Council, as part of our recovery work and future planning. They have also been shared with our partner organisations regionally to ensure the potential policy impact of the report is maximised” (S8).

Beyond Coventry, learning from G3 is impacting upon transport planning and strategy development in other UK and European cities:

“Learning from the evaluation of iVMS has enabled us to share experiences and lessons with other UK cities, influencing their thinking around transport planning innovation. Good examples are Wakefield and Cardiff. In addition, disseminating our newly gained knowledge through ongoing INTERREG projects, has meant that we’ve been able to influence thinking in EU cities, particularly in Rome” (S9).