Dimitrios Xenias

@article{1406,

title = {Future Priorities for a Climate-Friendly Transport. A European Strategic Research Agenda Towards 2030},

author = {L Whitmarsh and E Anoyrkati and D Xenias and A Lu{`e} and C Bresciani and A Colorni and F Lia and V Maras and Z Radmilovi{'c}},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

journal = {Sustainable Transportation},

abstract = {<p>Research is a key factor for a successful reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transport. This paper summarizes the main results of REACT, a project co-financed by the European Commission, which aimed to develop a European Strategic Research Agenda for low GHG transport. A literature review and a multi-stage expert consultation process were used to map technological and non-technological research areas and evaluate them according to different criteria (i.e., GHG emissions reduction, cost-efficiency, feasibility, timeframe of research stages). We consulted the research agendas of the European Technologies Platforms on transport and current EU research programs. Expert opinions were collected through web forms, interviews and participation in structured workshops. The REACT Research Agenda identified the following research priorities for a more climate-friendly transport system by 2030: (a) in the short term, cost-effective solutions consist of (1) more efficient, lighter vehicles with advanced internal combustion engines, (2) reducing road transport demand and (3) fostering GHG emission legislation; (b) in the medium/long-term, the focus shifts towards (1) electric vehicles and hydrogen, (2) Intelligent Transport Systems, and (3) spatial planning and economic and social measures to reduce transport demand. In addition, one of the main findings identified strong links between technology research and planning, social sciences and economy.</p>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{1440,

title = {Dimensions and determinants of expert and public attitudes to sustainable transport policies and technologies},

author = {D Xenias and L Whitmarsh},

year  = {2012},

date = {2012-01-01},

journal = {Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice},

abstract = {<p>This paper investigates (a) attitudes to sustainable transport and how these differ between experts and non-experts, and (b) factors that influence these attitudes and their relevant importance in explaining why such differences occur. Attitudes of experts (N = 53) and British public (N = 40) were compared using open-ended questionnaires, attitude scales, analytic hierarchy process and preference ranking. Both samples prioritised reduction in transport demand in qualitative measures. In quantitative measures, however, experts preferred techno-economic measures while the public prioritised behaviour change and public transport improvement. Some options for sustainable transport also varied with individuals&$#$39; values, suggesting that expertise alone does not fully account for variation in attitudes. Different perspectives and values imply a need for a broader definition of expertise in transport policy-making, and that the public may not accept transport policies/technologies designed by experts - underlining the importance of early public engagement. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</p>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{609,

title = {Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: biased assimilation and attitude polarisation},

author = {A Corner and L Whitmarsh and D Xenias},

year  = {2012},

date = {2012-01-01},

journal = {Climatic Change},

abstract = {<p>&$#$39;Scepticism&$#$39; in public attitudes towards climate change is seen as a significant barrier to public engagement. In an experimental study, we measured participants&$#$39; scepticism about climate change before and after reading two newspaper editorials that made opposing claims about the reality and seriousness of climate change (designed to generate uncertainty). A well-established social psychological finding is that people with opposing attitudes often assimilate evidence in a way that is biased towards their existing attitudinal position, which may lead to attitude polarisation. We found that people who were less sceptical about climate change evaluated the convincingness and reliability of the editorials in a markedly different way to people who were more sceptical about climate change, demonstrating biased assimilation of the information. In both groups, attitudes towards climate change became significantly more sceptical after reading the editorials, but we observed no evidence of attitude polarisation-that is, the attitudes of these two groups did not diverge. The results are the first application of the well-established assimilation and polarisation paradigm to attitudes about climate change, with important implications for anticipating how uncertainty-in the form of conflicting information-may impact on public engagement with climate change. © 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.</p>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}