TRANSFORMING TRANSPORTATION IN COMMUNITIES OF OPPORTUNITY: THE CLEVELAND STUDY
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
TRANSFORMING TRANSPORTATION IN COMMUNITIES OF
OPPORTUNITY: THE CLEVELAND STUDY
&
Alexis Danielle Blomqvist
Prepared on behalf of
EVHYBRIDNOIRE and CLEAN FUELS OHIO
January 2021
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY
Transforming Transportation in Communities of Opportunity: The Cleveland Study ♦ January 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
Overview and Background ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Organizational Background .................................................................................................................................... 4
Planning ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Recruitment and Participant Information ...................................................................................................... 5-6
Consumer Perceptions
‘Environmentally Friendly’ ....................................................................................................................................... 7
‘Expensive but High Returns’ ................................................................................................................................. 8
‘High Association with Tesla’ ................................................................................................................................11
‘Electric Vehicles as Unrepresentative of Lived Reality’..............................................................................12
‘Lack of Stylish EV Models’ ....................................................................................................................................14
Consumer Experiences
Community Awareness ...........................................................................................................................................16
Role of Discriminatory Financial Practices.......................................................................................................19
Housing and Confidence in Charging Infrastructure ..................................................................................20
Public Transportation and COVID-19 ...............................................................................................................22
Policy Recommendations
Area 1: Charging Infrastructure Access ............................................................................................................28
Area 2: Shared Mobility and Public Transportation.....................................................................................29
Area 3: Increasing Time Of Purchase Benefits And Educational Awareness ......................................30
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................................31
References........................................................................................................................................................................32
PAGE 2
Transforming Transportation in Communities of Opportunity: The Cleveland Study ♦ January 2021
Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
Currently, higher income, predominantly white communities are experiencing EV adoption at disproportionately
higher rates than their Black and low-income counterparts. This means that those communities are
disproportionately reaping the localized benefits of EV adoption. To ensure equity in the distribution of the
benefits of transportation electrification, it is crucial to understand the impacts of environmental racism, to
explore and promote electric vehicle adoption, and to develop models for transportation electrification in low-
income urban communities. Included in these efforts is advocacy for polices at both local and state level that
are designed to move toward equitable outcomes for all. It is clear that widespread adoption of electric vehicles
provides significant benefits to both owners and communities alike, including improved health outcomes,
financial benefits (such as lower maintenance costs for owners and downward pressure on rates for all
electricity ratepayers regardless of vehicle type), and community-wide economic benefits derived from reducing
the exportation of energy revenue. It should therefore be a key priority for all stakeholders in this industry to
ensure that these benefits are shared by all.
In pursuit of this goal, EVHybridNoire and Clean Fuels Ohio developed a joint report detailing the attitudes,
beliefs, and knowledge of next generation mobility in the Greater Cleveland area to identify unmet
transportation needs in target communities. By gathering data on these participants’ experiences with clean
transportation, governmental agencies, advocacy organizations and utilities can begin to understand and plan
to meet the needs of low income and Black communities, who have thus far been largely excluded - on an
institutional level - from outreach, education and policy efforts.
Audiences of all sorts can benefit from the dissemination of this work, but there is specific and actionable
content for governmental agencies and utilities, who are uniquely situated to impact the distribution of
developments in electrification efforts.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
Among the learning outcomes the Cleveland Study aims to impart to relevant stakeholders are the specific and
unique transportation needs of low income and Black communities. Readers will gain more insight into the
current policy, outreach and educational inequities that exist in the clean transportation sector and acquire a
foundational framework for meeting these disparities. This report will provide an in-depth comparison of EV
perception and consumer experience across demographics that share both similarities and differences with LMI
(low and moderate income) communities on a national and statewide level. Through careful analysis, the results
of the report will illuminate what inequity in electrification means for the EV market as a whole, what it means
for low income and Black communities, and how a deeper understanding of this knowledge can be used to
move advocacy efforts forward in these communities.
PAGE 3
Transforming Transportation in Communities of Opportunity: The Cleveland Study ♦ January 2021
Overview and Background
OVERVIEW
In pursuit of the Cleveland Study, EVHybridNoire wrote a letter of intent to the Cleveland Foundation, the
Energy Foundation, and the George Gund Foundation requesting funding to undertake the project. This report
is a cumulation of those project goals and is a starting point for the continued advocacy and outreach that the
Cleveland Study represents. It is a shared belief among the project partners that long-term organizing and
engagement with the targeted communities will create opportunities to build a sustainable, racially and
geographically diverse community of EV advocates beyond the higher-income, predominantly white early
adopters who currently make up most of the advocate community. That diversity will substantially increase the
power, reach, and legitimacy of the EV advocate community in Ohio. Therefore, the results of this report should
not represent an end point for the Cleveland Study, but rather the foundational start for long-term power
building in these communities.
ORGANIZATIONAL BACKGROUND
EVHybridNoire is a nationally recognized award-winning thought leader in equity within the e-mobility, transportation
and energy equity space. EVHybridNoire has built the nation's largest network of diverse EV drivers and
enthusiasts. Our focus is on growing the number of diverse EV drivers, expanding charging infrastructure
deployment in diverse communities of opportunity, education and outreach, and public policy advocacy. Although
we have a national footprint, EVHybridNoire's team includes Cleveland natives with deep ties to Greater Cleveland
developed through a long history of work in the community.
Clean Fuels Ohio is a nonprofit organization seeking to advance clean transportation across the state through policy,
consulting, advocacy and organizing efforts. As a member of the Clean Cities Coalition, Clean Fuels Ohio works with a
variety of similar organizations in pursuit of this common goal and has built a national network of partners and
members. The Drive Electric Ohio program specifically targets electric vehicle adoption through seven pillars: [1]
grassroots consumer education; [2] local, state, and federal policymaker education; [3] electric utility, co-op and
regulator engagement; [4] EV dealer and manufacturer engagement; [5] fleet electrification; [6] charging infrastructure
deployment; and [7] equity and access advocacy.
QUESTION TOPICS
• Screener question about vehicle ownership to determine eligibility
• Participants’ concepts and associations of electric vehicles, clean transportation, and electrification
• Participants’ current knowledge of electric vehicles
• Current community transportation options in Cleveland
• The effect of COVID-19 on public transportation use and perception
• Participants’ perception of EV ownership in relation to themselves
• Cultural and community barriers that inhibit electrification in Cleveland
• The role of financing in vehicle ownership
• Suggestions and opinions from participants on how to advance transportation solutions in their
communities
PROJECT GOALS AND OUTCOMES
• Engage with targeted communities to determine modes of transportation currently used
• Engage with targeted communities to assess attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge of next generation
mobility
PAGE 4
Transforming Transportation in Communities of Opportunity: The Cleveland Study ♦ January 2021
• Identify targeted communities’ unmet transportation needs
• Work with targeted communities to identify changes that facilitate electrification in commonly used
modes of transportation
• Work with target communities to determine changes that would aid the deployment of electrified
solutions for unmet transportation needs
• Increase knowledge of electrification options through awareness, education, and outreach in targeted
communities.
• Educate targeted communities on public health and financial benefits of zero-emission vehicles.
PLANNING
Before reaching out to participants focus group materials were created including the following:
✓ Focus group checklist
✓ Focus group consent form
✓ Focus group script
✓ Focus group PowerPoint
A consent form and a script were also created to facilitate key informant interviews with prominent community
members. Consent forms were provided to all study participants while online survey participants completed a
web-based consent.
RECRUITMENT & PARTICIPANT INFORMATION
Recruitment for this project was done in several different ways. The first step was to compile a list of local
community organizations that provide programs or services to African American communities in Cleveland.
From this list, EVHybridNoire sent an introductory email to either the Executive Director or another
organizational contact to introduce the organization, along with the study purpose and goals. EVHybridNoire
asked for their support and help to reach out to members of the community as data collection efforts were
launched, including focus groups, key informant interviews, and an online survey. Simultaneous to this effort, a
variety of posts were made utilizing social media and word of mouth to help with participant recruitment.
Interested participants were able to complete a screener for both the focus groups and the online survey. In the
screener, participants were able to fill out their zip code, city of residence, race/ethnicity, email, phone number,
and time/day that they are available to participate in a focus group. After filling out the screener, participants
who met the requirements, including current vehicle ownership, were then contacted by email. The same
process was used to screen and confirm participants for the online survey. Once confirmed, interested
participants were emailed the link to complete the survey.
Recruitment for key informant interviews involved reaching out to several community partners and many
influential African American/Black community members. Key informant interview participants included
prominent community members, a local City Council member, entrepreneurs, and state officials. At the end of
the study, participants were compensated with a $40 one-time payment. The total participant pool consisted of
58 focus group participants and 11 key informant interviewees, with an additional 50 participants for the online
survey. Data collection represented 20 total hours of interviews and focus group sessions. The table on the left
illustrates demographic data for the key informant interviews and pie charts on the right visualize the online
data for survey participants.
PAGE 5
Transforming Transportation in Communities of Opportunity: The Cleveland Study ♦ January 2021
Online Survey Participants’ Demographic Data
Key Informant Demographic Data
Respondent Age Ranges: Online Survey
21-30
ID Interview Gender Race Age
# Organizational Length Range 31-40
Association
41-50
1 43 min M African 31-40
Non-Profit 51-60
American
2 35 min F African 51-60 61-70
Environmental Justice
American 70+
3 42 min F African 41-50
Government Entity
American
4 47 min F African 41-50
Private Sector Racial Identity: Online Survey
American
5 1hr 6 min F African 31-40 Asian
Non-Profit
American
Black
6 37 min M African 31-30
Private industry
American
Hispanic or
7 Non-Profit (Faith- 1hr 14 min F African 41-50 Latino
Based) American Multiracial or
8 53 min F African 31-50 Multiethnic
Environmental Justice
American White
9 1hr 7min M African 51-60
Private Industry
American
10 50 min M African 61-70
Elected Official
American Annual Household Income: Online Survey
11 57 min F African 51-60 Under $25,000
Elected Official
American
Between $25,000
and $49,999
Between $50,000
and $74,999
Between $75,000
and $99,999
Between $100,000
and $124,999
Over $124,999+
CASE STUDY APPROACH TO RESULTS
The results of the study are reflective only of participants’ experiences in the Cleveland area; however, many of
the patterns and themes that emerged in the Cleveland Study follow broader, national trends. The purpose of
this report, therefore, is to highlight the similarities and differences among various demographic groups using
the Cleveland Study as a case study rather than a nationally representative study.
PAGE 6
Transforming Transportation in Communities of Opportunity: The Cleveland Study ♦ January 2021
CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS
Participants answered questions about their perception of electric vehicles, their experiences with transportation in
general, and their preferences when considering a vehicle purchase. To begin, participants were probed on their
personal conceptions of electric vehicles, including associations pertaining to clean transportation. Several
prominent themes emerged from both the focus group studies and the individual interviews. These themes are
dissected in greater detail and analyzed among the broader topic of equity in transportation in the sections below.
PERCPETION 1: ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY
In each of the individual interviews and focus group sessions, the positive relationship between clean
transportation and environmental sustainability was mentioned in some form. Participants demonstrated a clear
association between electric vehicles and reduction of pollution, often citing electric vehicles as the solution to
emission issues. A participant in focus group three pointed out the “bigger picture [is] the health and safety of
the planet and the people,” noting that “in many places, cars are polluting the environment” and that “electric
vehicles are actually going to help reduce air pollution.” Furthermore, three participants specifically pointed out
the association between pollution levels and health risks in the community; Participant #2 states “using fossil
fuels is putting toxicity in the air” which is “affecting our community with asthma, with all these health issues.”
HEALTH OUTCOMES
Health disparities between Black communities and their affluent, white counterparts are a long-standing impact
of institutional inequity in environmental standards. In Ohio, Black residents had an asthma related emergency
department (ED) visit rate of 121.7 per 10,000 residents in 2017, which is over five times higher than the asthma
related ED visit rate of their white counterparts (24.1 per 10,000) [1]. Even when controlling for income, well-off
Black residents still face greater risk of premature death due to particle pollution compared to less wealthy
white residents [2], suggesting that decades of residential segregation have forsaken African Americans to live
in areas with greater exposure to air pollution [3].
Even if Black residents aren’t impacted directly by increased health risks, there is a higher chance that they know
someone who is. In an interview session, Participant #4 said that while no one in her immediate circles suffered
health concerns, “there are places within the overall community that [have] pockets of asthma and different
cancers…[which can] definitely be traced to more concentration of [pollution].” Health disparities in Black
communities are even felt by those who aren’t personally affected, illustrating the ripple effect of environmental
racism in vulnerable communities.
EVS AS “LOGICAL” AND “NECESSARY” TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
In addition to the health and environmental benefits, participants in the study unanimously recognized the
logic and necessity of electric vehicles. Figure 1.1 illustrates sample text from interview and focus group
transcripts on the necessity of clean transportation.
Figure 1.1: Cleveland Study participants’ view on the necessity of clean transportation solutions
PARTICIPANT SESSION/INTERVIEW QUOTE
TYPE #
FOCUS GROUP Group 2 “It is apparent that given the contribution that our pollution has made to the climate, that we need to
be looking at something more realistic, workable and functional in the future. Logical is right there in
the center of it all.”
FOCUS GROUP Group 1 “I do think that we do need to do whatever we need to do as far as to get down pollution and to
stop using fossil fuels.”
INTERVIEW Participant #2 “We can reduce the carbon footprint in our communities, if that means electric vehicles and all
capacities, we've got to do it.”
INTERVIEW Participant #7 “We should stop using fossil fuel due to the fact that pollution is getting into our air system...With
renewable energy, there is less opportunity for air pollution as well as it would be more cost-effective
as well as more beneficial to the general population as opposed to fossil fuel.”
PAGE 7
Transforming Transportation in Communities of Opportunity: The Cleveland Study ♦ January 2021
This result is not localized; a survey conducted by ThinkNow gathered 1,261 representative participants and
evaluated beliefs, conceptions, and preferences in regard to electric vehicles. The survey found that Black
respondents along with Hispanic respondents were most likely to accept electric-powered vehicles [4]. A report
conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Consumer Review found similar results: People of
color were more likely to be considering a PEV (plug-in
electric vehicle) for their next vehicle compared to all other
surveyed buyers combined (42% vs. 36%) [5]. However,
despite willingness to embrace clean transportation “The benefits resulting from EV
technologies, there is still evidence that the environmental
benefits generated by increased electric vehicle deployment could very well elude the
deployment disproportionately favor higher income communities that need it the most.”
individuals. The National Bureau of Economic Research
(NBRER) collected data from a cluster of currently
registered electric vehicles and found that people living in
census block groups with a median income greater than about $65,000 receive more positive environmental
benefits from electric vehicles, while those below this threshold receive negative environmental benefits [6].
Taken together, it becomes evident that while Black communities show real potential to drive the growth of
electric vehicles, the benefits resulting from increased EV deployment could very well elude the communities
that need it most.
RECOGNITION OF PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLE BENEFITS
Respondents in the Cleveland Study ranked slightly lower than other demographic counterparts in recognition
of electric vehicle benefits. 72% of respondents in a nationally representative survey conducted by Consumer
Review agreed with the statement “widespread electric vehicle use will help reduce pollution”, compared to
53.6% of Cleveland Study respondents who answered a similar question [7]. Respondents in the Cleveland
Study who were skeptical of widespread renewable energy use cited concerns with disrupting the status quo
too quickly. Participant #6 said that converting to renewable energy should be “gradual” mainly “because you
will really disrupt a lot of supply chains, you're going to aggravate an already untenable unemployment
situation. The skills are not there yet.” It is important to note that participants who abstained from fully agreeing
with the statement were concerned with making the technological transition smooth, rather than doubting the
efficacy of the technology itself.
PERCEPTION 2: EXPENSIVE BUT HIGH RETURNS
The results of the focus groups and individual interviews conducted in conjunction with the Cleveland Study
indicate that high cost is strongly associated with electric vehicles. The role that cost plays in relation to
electrification is complex and not immediately straightforward: nearly all participants mentioned cost as a
barrier to EV deployment in their communities, but also indicated that the long-term returns of electric vehicles
were a major benefit. As participant #8 stated, low income and Black communities “are not a monolith,”
indicating that the evaluation of cost in relation to race and income cannot be reductionist in nature due to the
wide array of diversity and experiences in these communities. Therefore, to analyze the full breadth of the cost
question, results will be dissected by upfront price perceptions followed by an evaluation of long-term cost and
benefits over time.
INITIAL COST AS A BARRIER TO EV
ADOPTION ACROSS DEMOGRAPHICS
Despite strong evidence that electric vehicles are reaching price
parity with ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles, a major
consumer perception of electric vehicles continues to be their
cost. Advances in battery technology have resulted in
considerable cost mitigations, driving down the market price of
electric vehicles. In 2016, battery production and procurement
Figure 1.2: EV component costs and ICE median prices represented a whopping 48% of total EV production costs,
Source: BloombergNEF
PAGE 8
Transforming Transportation in Communities of Opportunity: The Cleveland Study ♦ January 2021
but that number is projected to be as low as 18% by 2030 [8]. Figure 1.2 displays the downward trajectory of
cost predictions for electric vehicles across various segments.
Although there remains a price difference
between ICE vehicles and EVs today, the Figure 1.3: What are you most concerned about when it comes
difference is shrinking much faster than to electric vehicles?
perceptions of cost are. Over 50% of 30
survey participants in the Cleveland Study
disagreed with the statement “electric 25
vehicles cost about the same to buy as 20
Responses
petrol or diesel vehicles”, a stark contrast 15
to the 19% of participants who selected
10
“strongly agree”. Similarly, 42% of survey
responses ranked “expense” as a concern 5
about EVs, a response that was only 0
eclipsed by lack of infrastructure (65%) as They are Insufficient Technology The technology I am not
expensive charging isn't ready isn't concerned
respondents’ most pressing concern infrastructure safe/reliable about EVs
(Figure 1.3), The perceptions of
participants in the Cleveland Study follow national averages, indicating that beliefs around EV pricing are steady
across various income and racial groups.
A survey conducted by Axios illustrates that
the trend is consistent regardless of race:
both white and non-white respondents
ranked similar reasons for not purchasing
an electric car, namely cost and charging
infrastructure scarcity. When including data
from all respondents, the results remain
constant, as indicated by Figure 1.4.
LONG-TERM COST BENEFIT OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES
Qualitatively, respondents echoed many of the same beliefs. Participant #2 from the individual interview
sessions cited price as a specific barrier to adoption in Black communities, because “people think that they're
really expensive” explaining that it’s “cultural in my community, the black community.” He continues stating, “I
think people feel it's expensive.” Another participant expanded, adding “most people who are at least similarly
educated in knowing about transportation” will probably “think Tesla or something expensive” when asked
about electric vehicle awareness, citing it as a main “stigma.”
At the same time, participants readily lauded the long-term cost savings of electric vehicles as a major
positive. Despite “initial expense on the front end, [electric vehicles] save a lot of money on the back end.” The
decreased maintenance costs were also cited as a benefit, given that electric vehicles are “cheaper to maintain”
and, in the long run “saves so much in fuel [costs].” In short, “[electric vehicles] pay for themselves.”
The cost savings that electric vehicles offer is one of the major selling points that appeal to consumers of all
types. Future fuel savings and reduced maintenance costs can add significant savings over time; a report by
Consumer Review estimated that lifetime ownership costs for all nine of the most popular EVs on the market
with a price under $50,000 are much lower than the best-selling and top-rated ICE vehicle equivalents, with
typical savings ranging between $6,000 and $10,000 [9]. Maintenance costs alone can save consumers around
PAGE 9
Transforming Transportation in Communities of Opportunity: The Cleveland Study ♦ January 2021
$4,600 in repair costs over the life cycle of electric vehicles compared to ICE vehicles; Figure 1.5 illustrates how
the per-mile repair savings compare across three types of vehicles as mileage increases.
In terms of fuel costs, savings can also
be impressive. A study conducted on
average fuel costs in Ohio estimates
that a gasoline-powered vehicle would
cost the owner around $1,389 in gas
expenditures over a period of 15,000
miles, compared to the mere $614 in
charging costs that electric vehicles
accrue [9]. For consumers, the savings
potential can be a persuasive
justification in convincing owners to
switch to EVs.
VIRTUES AND VALUES VS COST BARRIERS
For electric vehicles to be a viable option for communities of opportunity, initial cost must be within a range of
affordability. The Cleveland Study survey echoes the core conflict of
upfront price and other considerations like sustainability; nearly half of
respondents chose “initial price” as an important factor in the decision to
purchase an EV, compared to only 19% who cited environmental
“Our communities are
benefits. The discrepancy suggests what a participant in the individual struggling to put food on a plate,
interviews shared: even though “African Americans are becoming more trying to keep the house warm,
aware of overall environmental factors and how they impact long term so any vehicle that is affordable
health and well-being” it is still a “luxury for Caucasians to be able to is what will be purchased.”
focus on [environmental consideration] rather than the “day-to-day”
existence, a “luxury” that allows Caucasian counterparts “to do some
forward thinking.”
Another participant added that “our communities are struggling to put food on a plate, trying to keep the
house warm” which means “any vehicle that is affordable is what will be purchased.” In other words, even
though Black communities have a largely positive view of electric vehicles and agree with the environmental
imperative, they may not have as many
Figure 2.6: Real Median Household Income by Race and Hispanic
Origin, 1967 to 2017 resources to prioritize “virtue signaling” over
Source: Census.gov affordability. Participant #7 noted that
“[white people] can experiment a little bit
more with their finances” when it comes to
“technology based vehicles” while “African
Americans and people in lower-income
communities “just need to know that they
have a car that’s safe, reliable, and can get to
and from work.” As another participant
described it, Black communities are more
likely to be living in “crisis mode” which
reduces “the bandwidth to think about
things like EVs.”
Institutional practices have long kept Black individuals from having equal opportunity to acquire “safer” forms
of assets such as stocks and bonds while simultaneously stripping Black communities of material resources and
limiting social mobility through wage disparities. Median household incomes for Black individuals still lag
PAGE 10Transforming Transportation in Communities of Opportunity: The Cleveland Study ♦ January 2021
significantly behind white and Asian counterparts; Figure 1.6 shows that, despite growth in median household
incomes, there are still insurmountable disparities between racial demographics that leave Black communities
more vulnerable to poverty and material deprivation.
The result is a greater risk for poverty, which can develop into financial stress and “survivalist” mentalities due
to scarcity. Research has shown that scarcity - having too few resources to meet all of one’s needs - can have its
own psychological effects [10]. Scarcity can lead to unreliable environments, which requires increased
awareness and preparedness to navigate. In other words, those experiencing material deprivation “must be
more aware of their surroundings
Figure 1.7 i Financial Shocks and Ways to Address Them in 2016, by Race
because they cannot insulate
themselves from them” (Krauss et al.,
2012). Within the framework of
scarcity psychology, it becomes easier
to understand a quote one of the
interview session participants shared:
“I think [my community] doesn’t look
at the long-term. We just look at
today.”
The path forward in changing the
perception of prohibitive expense in
communities of opportunity lies in
addressing institutional racism. It is a
well-known fact that negative social
determinants of
health - including stress responses
and the psychology of scarcity - pose
a greater risk to Black communities
than other racial demographics. The
Center for American Progress
developed Figure 1.7 as an illustration
of disparity in financial security
experienced by white and Black
respondents. In nearly every metric,
Black participants fare worse than their white counterparts by substantial margins. The development of
equitable transportation solutions therefore needs to include advocacy for institutional change at a broader
level to truly address the realities of disadvantage that Black communities face.
PERCEPTION 3: HIGH ASSOCIATION WITH TESLA
Another pervasive theme that the study results
illuminate is the strong association that Tesla
carries in public perception of electric vehicles. In
the interviews alone, Tesla was mentioned 24
total times, making the popular EV brand the
most broadly recognizable concept among
participants. However, even more telling than
the pervasive name recognition attached to
Tesla are the perceptions that Tesla invokes. For
many participants, Tesla is the electric vehicle
prototype; by understanding the beliefs that
Tesla symbolizes, broader consumer conceptions
about electric vehicles can be extracted.
PAGE 11Transforming Transportation in Communities of Opportunity: The Cleveland Study ♦ January 2021
There is certainly a case to be made that Tesla has earned its name recognition. In 2020, Tesla dominated
competitors, representing a total share of 18% in the EV market. The next leading brand is Volkswagen,
representing a mere third of Tesla’s share [11]. According to a report by NVC, Tesla’s Model 3 is the most
desired electric car model, with 1,852,356 global monthly searches [12]. In both market shares and consumer
interest, Tesla continues to be a trailblazer in the electric vehicle industry.
TESLA PERCEPTIONS AND ELECTRIC VEHICLES
In the Cleveland Study survey, 68% of respondents expressed preference for considering the purchase of a
Tesla over other brands like Nissan and Toyota. The preference for Tesla goes beyond just name recognition;
Tesla is seen as futuristic, luxurious, and a sign of status, all things that the participants tend to view
positively. In the focus groups, participants noted that “[when] I think of the future, I think of Tesla;” another
added being “very impressed” after riding in a Tesla. Others associated Tesla with luxury: as one participant
stated, “when people think of a luxury vehicle, Tesla’s there” because “Tesla is a luxury type of vehicle.”
Despite positive associations with Tesla, participants in the interview sessions emphasized the inaccessibility of
the popular model. Participant #2 pointed out a relationship between income and vehicle type, explaining that
“higher income” people “have a Tesla with all their other cars”. Middle income people “[own] a Prius” due to the
balance of cost and values - “something that’s reasonably priced but helping protect the community.” Both
scenarios contrasted with the participants’ view of his own position on the socioeconomic spectrum and the
accessibility of new vehicles: “if we could purchase a vehicle, it’s going to be used.” In the words of another
contributor, “if I was to get everything I wanted in a vehicle, like a Tesla, that would be $100,000” which, to the
participant, “is not doable for the average person.”
The Cleveland Study participants’ views on Tesla emphasize many of their broader views of electric vehicles,
again stressing the dissonance that communities of opportunity experience. Despite wide support and
admiration of the concept, electric vehicles are perceived to be an elusive ideal, one that does not always match
the experiences and needs in communities of opportunity.
PERCEPTION 4: ELECTRIC VE HICLES AS UNREPRESENTATIVE OF LIVED REALITIES
Through a collection of perceptions that participants shared, it is evident that many do not see EVs as part of
their lived realities. Respondents noted lack of representation, racial disadvantage, and geographic
incompatibilities as major barriers preventing greater EV adoption in their communities. All three perceptions
have a single common theme: the omnipresent effect that inequity imposes on the reality of communities of
opportunity.
PRACTICALITY OF ELECTRIFICATION IN THE MIDWEST
Several participants noted that electrification efforts are
concentrated in the West Coast, with some going further to state
that electrification is “impractical” anywhere else. Two participants
in Focus Group 3 shared opinions on where electrification is best
suited: one stated that “it’s more real out there on the West Coast
than it is here” because of a larger population of people “in that
mindset moving towards clean, sustainable energy
transportation.” Another stated seeing electric vehicles in
California, “especially around the Silicon Area valley.”
Studies have shown that California and other West Coast states
are better positioned to encourage EV adoption and absorb
greater numbers of electric vehicles on the road. A large part of
the equation are the EV-friendly policies pioneered by California;
the Zero Emission Vehicle program, which is touted as “one of the
nation’s most forward-looking climate policies” originated in California and is a major driver of electric vehicle
adoption at both a state and national level [13]. Since then, 10 other states have adopted ZEV standards. Figure
PAGE 12Transforming Transportation in Communities of Opportunity: The Cleveland Study ♦ January 2021
1.7 illustrates the geographical divide in the adoption of progressive EV policy. It is obvious that Midwestern
states lag seriously behind in adopting pro-EV policies. Perhaps this is why a focus group participant dismissed
the idea of electrification, stating ”it’s not something that I saw as being really practical here” because “it seems
like Ohio is not necessarily a place yet” for widespread electrification.
However, there are some institutional advantages
that make the transition to electric vehicles more
possible on the West Coast. Cleaner grids are
shown to be more conducive to electric vehicle
adoption, which condenses policy driven EV
growth in areas more suited to handling new grid
requirements [14]. A study conducted by NBER
concluded that such a strategy concentrates
benefits of electric vehicles among non-Black
populations congregated in the West where the
grid is cleaner [15]. In reverse, urban areas with
high Black populations like Atlanta, Georgia
Source: NBER suffer worse environmental outcomes, despite
record-setting electric vehicle registrations. The Midwest and Southern regions of the United States both fare
worse than their Northeastern and Western counterparts regarding net environmental benefit from electric
vehicles, with Southern regions bearing the most negative impact ($-5,174) [16].
RACIAL DISADVTANGES
When prompted to discuss differences between experiences with electric vehicles in Black communities and
other demographics, a considerable number of respondents cited racial disadvantages as a barrier separating
their experiences from other groups. Figure 1.9: Inflation Adjusted Median Wealth in 2016 by Race, Marital Status, Age,
Participant #7 addressed the fact that and Income Level
“Caucasian counterparts have families
that set them up with trust funds and
businesses after college” which allows
them more financial freedom in
choosing a car. The participant
continued, stating “African Americans
are less likely to have the resources and
finances for those types of vehicles.”
The participant pointed out that Black
individuals are less likely to land “upper
management positions because [we]
don’t have those types of resources, so
we aren’t able to have those same
opportunities as opposed to Caucasian
counterparts.”
The realities of systemic obstacles faced by Black communities are pervasive and multi-dimensional. The Center
for American Progress developed Figure 1.9 to demonstrate the extent of racial disparities; even controlling for
variables like education, income level and marital status, the outcomes for Black Americans are still shockingly
worse than outcomes for white counterparts. Until these issues are addressed, it is likely that both the
perception and reality of inequity in the distribution of electric vehicles will persist.
PAGE 13Transforming Transportation in Communities of Opportunity: The Cleveland Study ♦ January 2021
ELECTRIC VEHICLE OWNERS AS A WHITE STEREOTYPE
Like the previous section, participants
noted that EV owners are “usually upper-
middle class to wealthy white people” who
are “middle-age, usually men.” Even in
“[activist] campaigns,” another participant
added, “you don’t see people who look like
us. You don’t really see these cars in black
communities.” A study conducted by
Morgan State University shines a light on
the truth of this perception; among 1,257
EV owners that were surveyed in Maryland,
clear demographic patterns emerged.
Figure 2.1 illustrates an overwhelming
percent of EV owners in the study were
male (74.9%), white (85.3%), and high
income earners making at least 100k (80%)
[17]. Because EV ownership intersects with
many other demographic “privileges,”
disparities clearly aggregate when
surveying EV owners, illustrating the strong
necessity to address these disparities in making EV distribution more equitable for all. Part of the solution in
shaping perceptions of EV ownership also includes making Black EV owners more visible to all consumers; as
indicated by participants, seeing someone who “looks like them” in their communities owning an electric
vehicle can go a long way in making the EV ownership profile look more representative of the consumer market
as whole.
PERCEPTION 5: LACK OF STYLISH EV MODELS
A major reason that consumers invest in vehicles is the aesthetic that the vehicle carries. Among communities
of opportunity, stylistic perception can be an even stronger motivator: vehicles can convey status and prestige,
which, as participant #5 in the interview sessions explained, “[makes] me feel like I kind of moved up in the
world.” A study conducted by ThinkNow seems to confirm the importance of prestige among non-white
participants; African Americans and Hispanic consumers were more than twice as likely to factor in prestige
when considering a vehicle [18].The lack of prestige that participants cited in relation to EVs can therefore be a
major barrier to EV adoption in these communities.
In the focus group sessions, participants noted that electric vehicles “look like a complex go-kart,” often citing
size as a constraining factor in adoption. Another participant noted never having seen “an electric size SUV that
can fit five people or so”, adding that most EVs “are
small.” A participant in Focus Group 3 said that, when
“People have ideas about what's nice thinking of electric vehicles, the association is of “a
and what's affordable...That culture smaller car, maybe less stylish.” A big part of vehicle
informs wanting and having the ownership among participants was the feeling of
upgrading: one noted that “perceived exclusivity is a huge
attainment of a nice thing.” motivating factor”, noting the need to make them “look
more luxurious.” Brands like Cadillac or Mercedes give the
impression of upgrading, with another participant adding
that “if higher-end vehicles become electric… it would be upgrading.” As a participant in Focus Group 4
explained: “We are consumers, we’re going to basically go for what’s hot, what’s in the new.” Interview
participants echoed many of the same beliefs. To one interviewee, the feeling “of fuel and fire” is very American,
which creates a cultural barrier: “people have ideas about what's nice and what's affordable... That culture
PAGE 14Transforming Transportation in Communities of Opportunity: The Cleveland Study ♦ January 2021
informs wanting and having the attainment of a nice thing.” Another participant said that in a vehicle, he values
“vroom vroom,” an attribute that crosses racial lines: “the decidedly red-leaning Trump supporter with a big
giant pickup truck and a Blue Lives Matter flag hanging from the back [wants] the same type of vehicle as me.“
Vehicle ownership can mean being perceived as “trendy and cool,” a signal that “[you’re] moving up.”
Consumer concerns about style in electric vehicles will require greater model availability and greater adoption
among community figureheads. As one participant stated, “getting leadership and celebrities on board with
EVs” would be a major cultural shift because “everybody will follow suit. I think it's just like everything else in
our country. People have to see other people that they admire using it and then they'll follow suit.” With more
time and a greater cultural capital value on electric vehicles, the perception of EVs as unstylish will begin to shift
as well.
PAGE 15Transforming Transportation in Communities of Opportunity: The Cleveland Study ♦ January 2021
CONSUMER EXPERIENCES
Consumer experience can be a major determinant of where electrification succeeds and where it lags. The
Cleveland Study in particular sought to understand aspects of the consumer experience that may diverge from
other demographics, with the belief that these experiences must be identified and understood in order to properly
advocate for climate progressive policies in these communities. This section will dive into these standout
experiences, including the level of community awareness around electrification, the role of discriminatory financial
practices in communities of opportunity, housing barriers that limit charging station deployment, and unmet
public transportation needs. Through a thorough dissection of these topics, a set of policy recommendations can
be developed that will be more representative of the realities in communities of opportunity.
LOW COMMUNITY AWA RENESS
Awareness around electrification can prime communities for the transition to EVs, increasing the likelihood that
electrification will be successful. Likewise, awareness can arm communities with the information needed to
advocate for their needs to lawmakers and other stakeholders, which increases the probability that electric
vehicle policies will be reflective of their community’s conditions.
AWARENESS CAN MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS
The Cleveland Study underscores an interesting duality in the concept of “awareness.” Survey data collected
from respondents indicates that many participants are aware of electric vehicles and related infrastructure: 53%
of respondents in the survey had driven in an electric vehicle, and 73.1% reported seeing a charger in their
community. However, the qualitative data from interviews and focus group sessions suggests that recognizing
and experiencing electrification isn’t the same as awareness around the concept. Many participants still cited
low collective awareness as a barrier to electrification in their communities, especially among those in their
immediate circles. Still more importantly, the participants strongly recommended greater awareness efforts as a
major need in their communities.
CURRENT COMMUNITY AWARENESS
In the focus group sessions, a clear pattern of low community engagement around EVs emerged. Some
participants “hadn’t heard the term [clean transportation] very much,” adding that it was “new to see this
particular combination of words.” Even if the participants themselves knew about the concept, they stressed
that the likelihood of others around them being familiar with clean transportation is low. Two participants
stated that they don’t hear about clean transportation in their “personal circles,” citing that any knowledge
comes “from television” but not “in my own social circle.” Another participant expanded on this idea, agreeing
that they “don’t really hear a lot of direct conversation around clean transportation” adding that “there seems
to be a lack of awareness in my community.” Among family members, convincing them of the value of EVs is
also unlikely: a participant stated that if they “went through all my family members and said, “you all need to
think about an electric car”, I don’t think I’d get any support.”” For the participant, “that’s just where black folks
in my particular family are.”
In a survey conducted by the Center for Sustainable Energy,
recipients of a California EV rebate were surveyed on their
experience purchasing an EV. Participants in the study
heavily favored white males with high levels of educational
attainment and incomes over 100k: 64% of respondents
were white, 75% were male, nearly half had a graduate
degree, and 43% of respondents made 100-199k a year.
The study asked participants about factors influencing their
decision to purchase an EV, which illustrated a clear pattern
of community impact on EV acquisition. Unlike their
PAGE 16Transforming Transportation in Communities of Opportunity: The Cleveland Study ♦ January 2021
Cleveland Study counterparts, the CVRP respondents had the privilege of discussing EV options among
community members, often citing it as a driving factor in their decision to purchase. Figure 2.2 illustrates the
means of various information sources and their importance; bars in orange represent a mean of 3.0 or greater.
Over half of participants ranked information from family members or colleagues as “Very important” or
“Extremely important”, illustrating the significance that inner circles can have in influencing decision making.
These participants had the privilege of knowing EV drivers, with nearly two-thirds reporting contacting one or
more people regarding electric vehicles before their purchase. Over half of participants lived within a mile of
one or more EVs in their neighborhoods. Close proximity to EVs, acquaintances with EV owners, and high
awareness of EVs in social circles proved to be important factors in the acquisition of an electric vehicle among
CVRP participants, advantages that do not exist to the same degree in the communities of Cleveland Study
participants.
DESIRE FOR GREATER COMMUNITY AWARENESS MOVING FORWARD
Manufacturing has long been an anchoring industry in low income and Black communities. The wages in the
automotive industry are roughly 11% higher than the economy-wide average (without including fringe
benefits), which has offered a foothold of opportunity for low income and Black workers to “lead well
established, middle-class lives while building a solid economic foundation for their family.”[18] Black workers
make up a significant share of the workforce in the automotive industry (14.2%), which is greater than the
overall share they hold in the labor force (11.2%) [19]. These facts “underscore the linkage between a robust
manufacturing economy and more equitable opportunity for workers marginalized by structural racism” [20].
In Ohio, manufacturing job loss has been particularly severe, with three of the largest counties (Cuyahoga,
Hamilton, and Montgomery) losing over half of their share of manufacturing jobs between 1990-2016 [21].
Figure 2.3 illustrates the contraction of the manufacturing workforce to underscore just how severe the loss
was. According to a report conducted by the Century Foundation, “Cleveland and the surrounding area suffered
the worst from deindustrialization, losing by far the greatest number of manufacturing jobs, and near the top in
loss of manufacturing share of employment” [21]. The impact of lost industry was not evenly distributed, and
deindustrialization proved
to be disastrous for Black
workers in Ohio. White
workers experienced a
28.5% loss of employment,
compared to Black workers
whose loss was nearly
double at 46% [22].
According to the report, it
was the “suburbanization
of remaining
manufacturing, accelerated
Source: Century Foundation by economic development
policies” that were responsible for “moving manufacturing jobs out from urban cores” leaving workers most
impacted by systemic racism to survive the wake [23].
However, with the redevelopment of the GM plant in Lordstown, new hope is on the horizon for the future of
manufacturing. The Lordstown plant represents a $2.3 billion investment in the Lordstown area and 1,100 new
clean-energy manufacturing jobs making electric vehicle batteries [24]. The potential for the revival of
manufacturing and the development of a clean energy industry in Ohio is a massive boon for electrification
stakeholders and community members alike.
PAGE 17Transforming Transportation in Communities of Opportunity: The Cleveland Study ♦ January 2021
Focus group participants also noted the hope that new manufacturing jobs represent, saying “if there was a plant
built here that hired a lot of people… it would help the city out.” Many more participants mentioned having
family members or loved ones in the automotive industry of previous generations, underscoring the historic link
between Black communities and manufacturing in Ohio. For these families, the resurrection of manufacturing
around clean energy would represent both economic opportunity and greater electric vehicle awareness in
communities that are impacted by manufacturing jobs. As a participant in the interviews shared, “both of my
parents worked in the automobile industry. They worked for GM and were always oriented toward vehicles and
transportation.” For her, having family members in the manufacturing sector means learning about advances in
the industry, including electric vehicles, again underscoring the importance that familial links have in
disseminating knowledge in communities. The participant highlighted the importance of associations among
those in the automotive industry adding that “if my dad was living, we would be having these conversations
about electric vehicles.”
The possibility of electric vehicle manufacturing in Ohio is an exciting development that could expedite crossing
some bridges that keep communities of opportunity outside of the EV market. If managed correctly,
electrification could offer a boost up into middle-class wage security for Black workers while also allowing them
greater opportunity to purchase an electric vehicle for themselves. This promising symbiosis has been a sign of
hope for many: an interview participant shared that he felt “really inspired” with “the Lordstown story in Ohio”
and the efforts to implement something that “black men could embrace.”
ACCESS TO INFORMATION SOURCES
For awareness to grow around electric vehicles,
Figure 2.3a: What sources do you trust to get
sources of information must be conducive to information from? (Identify all
channeling new, novel information into applicable sources)
communities. Diverse information sources and
5%
community-based outreach can help to 19%
disseminate knowledge among people whose 14% Family
information sources lay out of the mainstream. Friends
By tailoring outreach efforts to the unique needs Faith Leader
of the target community, there is a greater Radio
chance of success in implementing programs 17% Television
that are aimed specifically for that community. 24% Internet
Social Media
Figure 2.3a displayed summarizes the results Newspaper
11%
from the Cleveland Study on the topic of 4% 6%
information sources. A large majority of
participants identified friends or family as a trusted information source, which follows many of the qualitative
points that participants shared in the interview and focus group sessions. Comparatively, the National
Benchmark Study fielded a similar question to a demographic matching the “stereotypical” EV driver (white,
wealthy, male, highly educated) and found that participants in their study had acesss to a diverse set of
information sources when considering a new vehicle, including manufacturer websites, ride and drive events,
and targeted marketing. A summary of the responses is displayed in the table below.
%
SOURCE TYPE EXPOSED
Manufacturer websites 62%
Technology blogs 40%
Referral by friends/family 35%
Print Advertisements 24%
Increasing efforts to ensure that information is being disseminated in channels that specific communities trust
is a big step in ensuring that all communities have equal access to knowledge. Best practices include partnering
with community organizations that already hold high community trust (like faith-based organizations),
PAGE 18You can also read
