www.cero.nu

Robèrt, M. (2009). International Journal of Sustainable Transportation Vol. 3, No. 1

What is CERO?• Developed for an energy sector with large complexity:

a) travel behaviour needs to be modelled explicitly b) need for tailor-made cost-benefit assessments c) a tool for benchmarking to spread good examples

• Engages a broad range of experts and researchers:– Statisticians– Economists– Behaviourists– Environmental consultants– Technical implementers– Change managers

• Developed in a doctoral thesis at KTH: ”Mobility Management and Climate Change Policies”

Developed with empirical support from large organizations

Macro economic effects from 10% trafic reductions in Stockholm county

(Robèrt och Jonsson, 2006) -EUR 75 000 000 accident costs -EUR 36 000 000 emission costs -EUR 57 000 000 in vehicle time costs( = EUR 170 000 000/year)

Why setting climate targets for employee travel?

Travel costs and emissions walk hand i hand- Short-term cost cut potential: 100 000-500 000 Euro/1000 employees and year

Employee travel costs and emissions at the County Council of Kalmar

- “Indirect values” of showing best practiceIT-sector, transport sector, energy sector, public authorities…

CERO is based on backcasting

Travel policiesMapping Target

Mapping- Employee commute trips are in general far most dominant

Benchmarking

A trigger for internal processing and stakeholder dialogues (benchmarking positions are fictitious)

Ton/pers

6,0

5,5

5,0

4,5

40 000 50 000 60 000 70 000 Kr/pers

ArlandaLandvetter

Sturup

Norrköping

Mapping of individual preferences

Car-sharing Taxi

Problem with climate targets:

% - reductions are appropriate for emission audits but hard to follow-up in policy terms

%CO2

Transformation of the backcasting target

%CO2

)(1

ˆ

2111

2,1ji

ji

i

jij

i j m

jim

jimt

j

uusN

suYX

Modules of tailor made 1% CO2-reductions (commute trips)

• 31 car commuters switch to public transport• Train tickets to 4 commuters with longest

commute distance

• Encourage 38 car commuters to renewable fuel cars

• Allow telecommuting at least once a month • Offer eco-driving to at least ¼ of staff• Encourage at least 191 car commuters with

commute distance 0,5-6km to cycle

• Replace 7% of business trips by car to public transport Annual cost reduction 1,1 Mkr

• Replace 4% of business trips by car to virtual meetings Annual cost reduction 2,3 Mkr

• Replace all business trips with private car to car sharingCosts unchanged

• Replace 2% of aviation trips abroad to virtual meetings Annual cost reduction 540.000 kr

• Replace 3% av domestic aviation to trainAnnual cost reduction 215.000 kr

Modules of tailor made 1% CO2-reductions (business trips)

An example of a policy package targeting 40% CO2-reductions…

Policy business trips Substitution rate to alternative

CO2 reduction Potential cost reduction (million SEK)

Car to public transport 19% 2,5% 1,0Car to car-sharing (bio-fuelled) 24% 2,5% 0,6 

Car to video-conference 34% 5,0% 5,7Aviation to videoconference 33% 5,0% 3,5Work commute trips Number of car commuters

switching modePrivate car to Public transport 87 5,0% -Private car to Telework 76 5,0% -long-distance commute to railway 35 5,0% -Petrol car to bio-fuelled car 212 10,0% -Total 40% 10,8

Labour productivity effects

j

iji

ji

i

jij

j

ttNM

P 22111

2,12,1̂

The CERO-process in practiceThree backcasting steps

2. Scenario level – Select an optimized travel scenario from the smorgasbord

1. Principal level – Reach consensus on the target description

3. Plan of action level – Selection of measures that correspond to the optimized travel scenario

CO2

Economy

Employee acceptance

Thank you!

markus@infra.kth.se