By Nadine Karnetzke and Michael Palocz-Andresen

Human behavior is at the root of the climate crisis, the recently published IPCC report leaves no doubt about that. Therefore, a psychological understanding of the crucial influencing factors for sustainable behavioral change is necessary. The COVID-19 pandemic activated some of these factors. This paper explores which drivers of sustainable behavior were activated in the context of the pandemic and how they might promote sustainable development in the future. 

Introduction

The global pandemic caused disruption to people’s daily life and led to drastic behavioral changes, e.g. in work, travel and lifestyle. Some of these changes were accompanied by (albeit minimal) positive impacts on the environment. In April 2020 there was for example a temporally global decrease in CO₂ emissions of 17 % compared to 2019 [1]. Although this short period of time will not have a lasting impact on the climate [1], a lot might be learned from it, especially about people’s decision-making and behavior when confronted with a crisis. According to the latest data, searches for Psychologists near me in Sydney have increased by more than 47% since the beginning of the pandemic.

This paper explores which psychological mechanisms may have triggered behavior change during the pandemic and offers an outlook on how this can be strengthened in the future. In doing so, an environmental psychological perspective is adopted to provide an understanding of what promotes individual sustainable behavior. Which psychological factors are crucial for environmentally friendly behavior? Which ones have been activated in times of pandemic? And how can sustainability agents maintain and promote this in the future? 

Examining key factors of the decision-making processes and shedding light on the role of the social context, this paper finally outlines practical examples and implications.

Introduction to Psychological Factors Associated with Pro-environmental Behavior

In the process of developing a certain behavior, various aspects interplay and influence individuals. To approach the mechanisms of environmental protection behavior, the following model of the decisive influencing factors for sustainable behavior was developed, see Fig. 2.

The main elements are:

1. Individual ecological norm (activated by problem awareness, sense of responsibility, self-efficacy)
2. Social norms (consisting of prescriptive and descriptive social norms)
3. Consideration process and intention formation, which is influenced by habits and emotional states
4. A resulting behavioral intention leads to environmental behavior and its consequences

In the following, the focus will be on the activation of norms (personal and social norms) as a decisive influencing factor for sustainable behavior in view of the complexity of the topic.

Individual Psychological Influencing Factors

Individual ecological norms describe personal attitudes towards ecological behavior and the commitment to environmentally friendly behavior. They are activated by problem awareness, a sense of responsibility and perceived self-efficacy [2], see Fig. 3.

Problem awareness refers to an individual’s perception of whether the natural ecological environment is threatened [2]. It can be further divided into problem knowledge (a person is aware about environmental issues) and action knowledge (he/she knows about environmentally friendly actions) [3].

The sense of responsibility is accompanied with the perception that parts of the environmental problem are rooted in one’s own person [2]. This self-attribution, as well as the feelings of guilt that can accompany it, can be motivating factors for sustainable behavior [4]. However, they can also lead to cognitive dissonance. This means that people have incompatible cognitions simultaneously.

For example, people might see it as valuable to protect the climate and know that flying is harmful, but at the same time they fly for business trips. They try to resolve this state of mental imbalance by either changing their behavior according to their values (e.g. ‘I don’t fly any more’) or by neutralizing their values and adapting them to behavior (e.g. ‘climate protection is less important to me when it comes to my job’) [5]. The latter happens especially when people see no room for manoeuvre or experience low self-efficacy [6]. 

Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s own abilities, resulting from the knowledge of one’s own competencies and the perception of using them successfully. For example, people can experience themselves as self-efficacious when they use their skills in sustainability initiatives, e.g. urban gardening groups, sustainable tourism, education, etc. This perceived self-efficacy regarding environmental issues can then increase the motivation for sustainable action [7].

The three psychological aspects of personal ecological norm intertwine and influence each other. Problem and action knowledge, for example, are important in increasing both the sense of responsibility and self-efficacy [6]. 

Social influencing factors 

Once a single person becomes part of a group the individual norms oftentimes tend to be overridden by social norms [8]. Social norms are rules and standards shared by many people that guide behavior without the need of formal laws [9]. The term ‘social norm’ refers to people’s perceptions and beliefs about what is appropriate behavior (i.e. socially accepted) in a given social situation [10]. Oftentimes the perception of what one ‘should do’ in a group differs from the observation of what other group members ‘actually do’.

Therefore, social norms are differentiated into two types: prescriptive and descriptive social norms [6]. Prescriptive norms (‘should norms’) describe what should be done according to the group opinion. Whereas descriptive norms (‘actual norms’) come from the observation of others’ actual behavior [6]. It is more likely that people do what they see others doing. Hence, the influence of descriptive norms is stronger [8].

For example, in a company everyone might talk about the environmental benefits of cycling, leading one member to believe: ‘I should cycle to work because everyone is talking about it’. (prescriptive norm). On the other hand, this person finds that the actual behavior of organizational members differs: ‘observe that my colleagues come by car every day’ (descriptive norm). In this case, it is more likely that the descriptive norm will be followed and the person will eventually also drive to work.

Self-efficacy can also be found in a social setting and is then referred to as collective self-efficacy [6]. It can be more effective, especially when a person does not feel capable on an individual level [11].

Learning from role models is another way of social influence that promotes pro-environmental behavior [12]. The concept of social role models in this context refers to people learning from others through observation, imitation and modelling of pro-environmental behavior [6]. Fig. 4 presents the most important social influencing factors. 

Having laid a foundation with this outline of the influencing factors of personal and social norms, it will now be examined which of these aspects were activated during the COVID 19 pandemic.

Impact of Covid-19 and Psychological Influencing Factors of Sustainability Behavior

Although the impact of the Corona pandemic on persistent behavioral change will only be accurately ascertainable in the long term, initial research observations have been made. In several areas of daily life, such as education or travel, people radically adjusted their behavior, some of which were accompanied by benefits for the environment. Reduced mobility and travel, for example, led to a reduction in air pollution and improved air quality (NO₂ levels decreased up to -40% in Chinese cities, and up to -38% in Western Europe and the United States [13]). The change in people’s individual transport behavior and the economic depression associated with the COVID-19 pandemic also led to a significant decrease in global carbon dioxide emissions of 8% in 2020 compared to 2019 [14].

What is it about the Pandemic that made Individuals Change their Behavior to a more Environmentally Friendly Way? 

It has been shown in the past that major disruptions lead to behavioral changes and the breaking of habits [15], in the case of this pandemic also in a sustainable favorable way [16]. Looking at the Model of the crucial factors influencing decision-making for sustainable behavior (Fig. 2), various factors at different levels could play a role.

The Pandemic and the Activation of Individual Ecological Norms

Schmidt et. al. [16] found that in the pandemic, the strength of existing individual ecological norms moderated the relationship between the influence of external changes and sustainable behavior change (specifically mobility behavior) in that COVID-19-related changes had a stronger effect on individuals with pre-existing higher personal norms. This could be due to the phenomenon that people with high personal norms are more sensitive to change. Previous research showed that long-term behavioral changes are more likely when a person has high personal norms that favor these changes [17]. In the model (Fig. 2), this sensitivity could indicate strengthened problem awareness and responsibility as activating factors of individual ecological norm.

Problem awareness and a sense of responsibility may also have been strengthened because the connection between human health and nature became more visible, as the virus was most likely transmitted from animals to humans through the destruction of natural habitats [18]. A meta-analysis by Mackay et al. [19] shows that an increased sense of connectedness with nature has a significant relationship with pro-environmental behavior. Thus, the tangibility of the ecological crisis as a threat to human health may have activated the individual ecological norm, generating a new climate identification moment.

Furthermore, gaining first-hand experience is an effective starting point for behavioral change (e.g. increased climate awareness and willingness to save energy was observed after experiencing a flood disaster, [20]).

On an individual level, the pandemic also influenced people’s intention towards climate protection behavior. The United Nations surveyed one million people worldwide about their wishes for the future after COVID-19. The majority said that climate action was very important and should be included as a priority in COVID-19 recovery plans [21]. Other opinion polls show that the return of blue skies, clean air or wildlife was perceived positively, and a ‘return to normal’ was doubted as a state to strive for [22]. These considerations can also be attributed to the activation of individual ecological norms through increased awareness during the pandemic period.

Social Influencing Factors activated through the Pandemic

On a social level, observing others carrying out environmentally friendly behavior in times of the pandemic might have activated descriptive social norms. This was observable, for example, within the sector of work.

During the pandemic, remote work increased, and business travel decreased [23]. The Global Business Travel Association reported that 89% of member countries cancelled international business travel at the time of the pandemic [24].

As a result, international business travel experienced a sharp decrease of -70 % in 2020 [25]. Looking at the Model (Fig. 2), this change in work can be attributed not only to the individual, but also to a social level. The social culture in many organizations changed, e.g. in establishing new ways of communicating or social gatherings [23]. Therefore, it is not only the place of work that transformed, but also the (social) image people have of it. This is confirmed by Microsoft’s global report [26] that shows how people’s idea of work has changed: 73% of workers want to keep flexible remote working, 66% of managers plan to redesign offices after the pandemic.

Another area of social influence is education. Unfortunately, in the wake of the pandemic, the education system collapsed in many places. On the other hand, many study programs and projects in the field of sustainability switched to virtual learning [22]. Online education can impart knowledge on the one hand and exert social influence on the other. By reshaping social aspects of education, learners could have turned to new role models and participate in social groups globally, which may have fostered social norm activation.

Collective self-efficacy, as another social impact factor, got apparent especially in the way people responded to the Corona virus outbreak to successfully manage restrictive lifestyle changes together [27].

The disruption of the pandemic and the accompanying personal as well as social ecological norm activation opened an opportunity for sustainable change. Nevertheless, the influence of political decision-making should not be underestimated.

From a psychological perspective, these politicians themselves are individuals, being influenced by personal and social norms. During the pandemic, they might have been encouraged more strongly (also socially) to take actions they would hardly have taken before. For example, more than 1800 cities around the world expanded public transport in course of the pandemic (e.g. Bogotá, Milan, Auckland, Berlin [28]). However, other steps towards a sustainability transmission were missed even though the window of opportunity was open (e.g. environmental requirements linked to government substitutions).

In summary, the COVID-19-related disruption was accompanied by an activation of individual and social influencing factors that stimulated behavioral change. Crucial psychological mechanisms also became evident in coping with the crisis. It will now be examined what is needed to maintain or further strengthen this after the pandemic.

A Psychological Window of Opportunity for the Long-term Behavior Change

Some opportunities and learnings can be drawn from the pandemic period. The following ideas are categorized in three main psychological intervention levels: knowledge level, skill level and mindset level. Figure 5 shows the connection between the intervention levels and the psychological influencing factors they address.

Knowledge Level: Interventions to promote Problem Awareness

Interventions on the knowledge level aim at activating problem awareness as part of individual ecological norm activation. They strengthen problem knowledge and convey it hand in hand with action knowledge. Here, education of all kinds is a worthwhile path.

Invest in online education: As described above, online education can exert social influence in addition to problem awareness. Through the virtual place, people with existing or pandemically activated high individual ecological norms can be reached worldwide. They could be trained to become promoters of sustainability in their local communities, e.g. launch a local initiative to protect the environment. Social influence would thus be potentiated, see Fig. 6.

Skill Level: Interventions to Provide Action Knowledge & Enhance Self-Efficacy

Promote participation in green recovery: Creating a green recovery after the pandemic is one way of picking up the upsurge in sustainability awareness and the experiences that individuals gained. The term ‘green recovery’ refers to creating green jobs, investing in education and digital infrastructure, or tying government subsidies to green [22].

A green recovery requires participation of politics and citizens. Participatory interventions are a way to strengthen (collective) self-efficacy. Therefore, such interventions should incorporate three factors: Knowledge about effectiveness, training in ecologically sustainable behavior and frequent feedback [6]. An exemplary intervention is a participatory simulation game in the city of Hamburg, in which citizens are asked to help shaping the mobility for Hamburg 2030 [29], see Fig. 7.

Mindset Level: Interventions to Address a Sense of Responsibility & Social Factors

Address experiences made: In the pandemic, first-hand experience was made. For example, people experienced the interconnectedness of humans with the environment and the fragility of nature, but also how quickly man-made systems can change. These experiences remain anchors that sustainability actors can refer to even after the pandemic. On a mindset level, they can create a sense of responsibility and (collective) self-efficacy (for example in knowing after the pandemic, that ‘we can deal with crisis’).

Create a new narrative: Unlike single catastrophic events (such as a virus outbreak), climate change is a process whose long-term nature requires continuous stimulation of behavioral change. An effective way at a mindset level is the transmission of social norms through storytelling. People seem to identify more easily with stories than with pure data. Moreover, stories can bridge the gap between present and future, which is why stories are a suitable approach for climate communication [30].

The Model (Fig. 2) suggests that each person needs an individual story to activate sustainable behavior, depending on the personal inner compass and the social environment. Both levels (individual and social) should be addressed (Why is it worthwhile for a farmer in his community to protect the climate? Or for church members? etc.). Intertwined with a story, norms can be activated more continuously.

Strength social norms of remote work: With COVID-19 remote work increased, business travel decreased and the nature of social cooperation changed. These already broken habits can be reinforced by activating the social aspects organizationally (e.g. strengthening a social home-working norm), see Fig. 8.

Working from home can lead to employees becoming their own sustainability advocates, feeling more responsible (e.g. for their own energy consumption), and experiencing self-efficacy. This can be socially reinforced if they do it together with their colleagues. Training or feedback structures would promote self-efficacy here (e.g. a tracking app that shows the collective sustainability performance in a company), see Fig. 9.

Discussion & Conclusion

In this paper, crucial psychological factors for sustainable behavior within and after the COVID-19 pandemic were described. Further, some ideas for practical implications on the knowledge, skill and mindset level were presented. However, to master the transition to sustainable living, there is no way around far-reaching systemic shifts that will always provide the framework for individual action [6].

The many interdependencies must not be forgotten: Individual and group behavior, cultural, technological, economic and political factors, see Fig. 10.

One aspect cannot be fully transformed without considering the others. It is important to stress that responsibility can never be shifted to the individual action alone, even though it is the focus of this paper. Nevertheless, it was shown that individual behavior plays a crucial role, especially as it can exert a powerful social influence and thus lay the foundation for systemic change.

Moreover, it became clear that the climate crisis is not just a one-off disruption, but a process that requires continuous and fundamental change. Psychologically speaking, this means breaking with patterns or world views and behaving in a way that one may never have done before.

One of the most important aspects to keep in mind is the inclusion of people’s experiences as effective reference points for future sustainability campaigns. A major obstacle to environmentally friendly behavior may be the separate perception of people and nature. The pandemic has shown that humans, as biological beings, are extremely dependent on nature.

Finally, on an individual and societal level, the pandemic has helped to overcome the lack of imagination that change is possible. It clearly showed that tomorrow does not necessarily have to be like today. This can continuously serve booster (collective) self-efficacy.

Summary

In summary, this paper showed that environmental psychology provides important theoretical background on crucial influencing factors and can thus help to promote environmentally friendly behavior after the pandemic. On the way to fight human-induced climate change, it is important to include the presented psychological mechanisms, which lie at the root of it, in future sustainability debates. 

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Prof. Dr: Gerd Michelsen, Institute for Environmental Communication, UNESCO Chair HESD for years of support for the above seminar series at the Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany.

This article was originally published in The European Financial Review 23 February 2022. It can be accessed here: https://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/psychological-crucial-factors-of-sustainable-behavior-within-and-after-the-pandemic/

About the Authors

Nadine Karnetzke holds two bachelor’s degrees in cultural studies and psychology from Leuphana University Lüneburg. In her work, she promotes interdisciplinary exchange. As a psychological consultant, she supports individuals and teams. She is now studying in the interdisciplinary Master’s programme in Sustainability Science at Leuphana University Lüneburg.

Michael Palocz-Andresen has been working as a full professor for Sustainable Mobility since 2018, supported by the DAAD at the TEC Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores in Mexico. He became a full professor at the University West Hungary till 2017. Currently, he is a guest professor at the TU Budapest, the Leuphana University Lüneburg, and at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University. He is a Humboldt scientist and instructor of the SAE International in the USA.

References:

• [1] Le Quéré, C., Jackson, R.B., Jones, M.W. et al.: Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement. Nat. Clim. Chang., 2020;10:647-653. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0797-x
• [2] Matthies, E.: Wie können PsychologInnen ihr Wissen besser an den/die PraktikerIn bringen? Vorschlag eines neuen integrativen Einflussschemas umweltgerechten Alltagshandelns/How can psychologists better put across their knowledge to practioners? Suggesting a new, integrative influence model of pro-environmental everyday behaviour. Umweltpsychologie, 2005;9:62-81
• [3] Steg, L., Van den Berg, A. E., De Groot, J. I. M.: Environmental psychology: An introduction. 2012
• [4] Bamberg, S., Möser, G.: Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2007;27:14-25
• [5] Festinger, L.: A theory of cognitive dissonance. 1962;2
• [6] Hamann, K., Baumann, A., Löschinger, D.: Psychologie im Umweltschutz: Handbuch zur Förderung nachhaltigen Handelns. 2016
• [7] Sia, A. P., Hungerford, H. R., Tomera, A. N.: Selected predictors of responsible environmental behavior: An analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education. 1986;17:31-40
• [8] Sevillano, V., Olivos, P.: Social behavior and environment: The influence of social norms on environmental behavior. Papeles del Psicólogo. 2019;40:182-189
• [9] Nolan, J., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Griskevicius, V.,Goldstein, N.: Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2008;34:913-923
• [10] Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R.: Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In: D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, G. Lindzey (Eds.): The handbook of social psychology. 1998:151-192
• [11] Homburg, A., Stolberg, A.. Explaining pro-environmental behavior with a cognitive theory of stress. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2006;26:1-14
• [12] Steg, L., Vlek, C.: Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of environmental psychology. 2009;29:309-317
• [13] Bauwens, et al.: Impact of coronavirus outbreak on NO2pollution assessed using TROPOMI and OMI observations. Geophys Res Lett. 2020. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1029/ 2020G L0879 78
• [14] International Energy Agency: Global Energy Review 2020. 2020
• [15] Klöckner, C.A., Matthies, E.: How habits interfere with norm directed behavior – A normative decision-making model for travel mode choice. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004;24:319–327
• [16] Schmidt, K., Sieverding, T., Wallis, H., Matthies, E.: COVID-19–A window of opportunity for the transition toward sustainable mobility?. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives. 2021;10:100374
• [17] Lattarulo, P., Masucci, V., Pazienza, M.G: Resistance to change: Car use androutines. Transp. Policy. 2019;74:63-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.11.013
• [18] Sironi, M., Hasnain, S. E., Rosenthal, B., Phan, T., Luciani, F., Shaw, M. A., Sallum, M. A., Mirhashemi, M. E., Morand, S., & González-Candelas, F.: SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A genetic, epidemiological, and evolutionary perspective. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2020;84:104384
• [19] Mackay, C. M., Schmitt, M. T.. Do people who feel connected to nature do more to protect it? A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2019;65:101323
• [20] Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Butler, C., Pidgeon, N. F.: Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nature climate change, 2011;1:46-49
• [21] United Nations-UN. UN75: The future we want, the UN we need. 2020. https:// www. un. org/ en/ un75/ press kit. (September 20, 2021)
• [22] Shulla, K., Voigt, B. F., Cibian, S., Scandone, G., Martinez, E., Nelkovski, F., Salehi, P.: Effects of COVID-19 on the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Discover Sustainability. 2021;2:1-19
• [23] McKinsey Global Institute: The Future Work After Covid-19. Februar 2021. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/the-future-of-work-after-covid-19. (September 21, 2021)
• [24] Global Business Travel Association – GBTA: Coronavirus poll results. 2020
• [25] U.S. Travel Association: Getting back to business: Navigating the safe return of meetings and their role in economic recovery. 2020
• [26] Microsoft: 2021 Work Trend Index: Annual Report: The Next Great Disruption Is Hybrid Work – Are We Ready?. March 2021. https://ms-worklab.azureedge.net/files/reports/hybridWork/pdf/2021_Microsoft_WTI_Report_March.pdf
• [27] Lunn, P., Belton, C. A., Lavin, C., McGowan, F. P., Timmons, S., Robertson, D.: Using behavioural science to helpfight the Coronavirus: A rapid, narrative. Review Journal of Behavioral Public Administration. 2020;3:1-15. https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.31.147
• [28] Goetsch, H. G. & Peralta Quiros, T. P. Q.: COVID-19 creates new momentum for cycling and walking. We can’t let it go to waste! World Bank Blogs. 7^th August 2020. https://blogs.worldbank.org/transport/covid-19-creates-new-momentum-cycling-and-walking-we-cant-let-it-go-waste. (September 20, 2021)
• [29] Behörde für Verkehr und Mobilitätswende. Denk Deine Mobilität. Das Online-Spiel für die Hamburger Mobilität 2030. 2021. https://www.hamburg.de/pressearchiv-fhh/14833088/2021-01-14-bvm-denk-deine-mobilitaet/ (September 30, 2021)
• [30] Arnold, A.: Climate change and storytelling: Narratives and cultural meaning in environmental communication. 2018

By Lena Wege and Michael Palocz-Andresen

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the air traffic industry, including travel and tourism-related issues. As of 11 March 2020, since the World Health Organisation declared the COVID-19 virus to be a pandemic, commercial flights have dropped from an average of over one hundred thousand daily to less than fifty thousand¹. Throughout 2020, they remained below average. As of November 2021, daily flight numbers had reached almost the same level as in November 2019². Concerning the reduction of the environmental impact of the flight industry, technological innovations play an important role, as do government-funded projects and private actors.

Introduction

This article discusses the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the aviation industry, with a special focus on environmental factors and flight behaviour. In order to analyse the change in the aviation industry, we need to take into account the situation before the COVID-19 pandemic. We consider the growth of the aviation sector, as well as environmental factors such as noise exposure and emissions, which have both increased significantly over the last 20 years. Apart from this, we examine the impact on the aviation industry. Environmental factors such as air pollution and noise exposure have benefited, partly due to the decline in commercial flights. Flight behaviour is an interesting factor to consider, as well, since there have been several restrictions in Europe to help contain the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) travel pass has been introduced in order simplify air travel during the COVID-19 pandemic and in the future.

Technological innovations play an important role in the reduction of the environmental impacts of the flight industry, as do government-funded projects. Social norms and businesses can have an impact as well.

This paper focuses on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the aviation industry, with special emphasis on the environment and flight behaviour.

Figure 1 shows the structure of this report.

The Aviation Industry before COVID-19

We start by overviewing the aviation industry before the COVID-19 pandemic. The growth of the aviation industry in Europe has urged economic growth and investment in technological novelties and secured an easy passageway from one place to another within Europe³. In the 12 years between 2005 and 2017, air traffic in Europe greatly increased. Passengers on commercial flights increased by 50 per cent from 2005 to 2017, and this expansion can be accounted for in the overall increase in average flight distance and the introduction of smaller seats in aircraft. This means that more seats can be occupied, resulting in less fuel burn per passenger.

Within the last 15 years, there has been an overall decrease in traditional scheduled flights and an evident increase in low-cost flights. The percentage of low-cost flights more than doubled between 2005 and 2017. In 2017, they had a share of 31.7 per cent of all flights in Europe. The low-cost airlines made air travel more accessible and, at the same time, promoted economic growth and substantial growth in the aviation sector itself ^3,4.

Apart from this, the aviation industry is highly likely to grow even further. In 2040, the total number of flights in Europe is expected to rise by 42 per cent to a total number of 13.6 million³. Through the modernisation of fleets and technological exposure, the efficiency of aircraft will improve in terms of fuel burn and noise.

Figure 2 shows a forecast of passenger numbers, GDP, and the jobs saved by the international aviation industry.

Environmental Impacts: Noise Exposure

Aircraft operations are a discomforting origin of noise in our environment. People living close to airports are especially affected⁵. Moreover, scientists have concerns regarding the health effects of the noise produced by aircraft, since some studies indicate that noise exposure is linked to an increased level of stress.

Noise exposure from aircraft is determined by decibel thresholds. The European Union Environmental Noise directive determined an indicator that averages 55 dB during the day and at night³. A noise contour depicts the areas near the airport that exceed the indicator and represents it visually. People living in the marked areas have to deal with noise disturbances, as shown in figure 3.

In 2017, 2.58 million people were exposed to noise disturbance³. However, the WHO recommends that decibel thresholds should be lowered to an average of 45 dB over the year during the day and at night. It is indicated that the number of people who are affected by noise disturbance is much higher. Still, noise disturbance is expected either to stabilise or decrease by 2030, depending on traffic intensity. New technologies and innovations might compensate for the increase in aircraft size.

Environmental Impacts: Emissions

Another significant environmental factor to consider is emissions. The main pollutants are carbon dioxides, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide. From 1990 to 2016, CO₂ emitted by departing aircraft in Europe increased from 88 to 171 million tonnes. Even though fuel burn per kilometre per passenger has decreased immensely, it cannot compensate for the expansion of the aviation industry.

In Europe, the aviation industry is responsible for 3.6 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, and this is expected to grow further. Furthermore, air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides have to be considered, which have significantly increased since 1990. Nitrogen oxides form acid rain in the atmosphere and cause smog. With advanced technology, fuel consumption and emissions could be reduced. However, in the aviation sector, reductions are challenging to achieve.

Situation during COVID-19: Lockdowns

Tendencies in the global CO₂ emissions

Globally, since March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has had an great impact on human activities, such as road and air mobility. A reduction in energy and the use of fuel for vehicles and, hence, lower CO₂ emissions, are to be expected as a result of the significant drop in overall individual traffic.

The Global Carbon Project (GCP)⁶ projects that fossil emissions in 2021 will reach 36.4 billion tons of CO₂ (Gt CO₂), only 0.8 per cent below their pre-pandemic high of 36.7 Gt CO₂ in 2019 (see figure 4).

A recent study relied on near-real-time data to monitor global CO₂ emissions⁸. The aim of the authors’ research was to quantify the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on global CO₂ emissions. A main result of the investigations was that global CO₂ emissions decreased abruptly by 8.8 per cent (−1,551 Mt CO₂) in the first half of 2020, compared to the same period in 2019. The graphs below illustrate daily and annual global CO₂ emissions from recent years, with a scaling up of the daily emissions in 2019 to 2020 (see figure 4).

The GCP study revealed the sixteenth annual “global carbon budget”. The budget also showed that in 2021, both China and India exceeded their 2019 emission peaks. Emissions from China increased by 5.5 per cent between 2019 and 2021, whereas emissions from India increased by 4.4 per cent. It was also shown that Chinese coal use was a main driver of the global rebound in emissions, mainly contributed to by that country’s power and industry sectors. The use of coal, oil, and gas all decreased during the pandemic; however, both goal and gas emissions have already exceeded their pre-pandemic levels. There is a 2 per cent increase in gas emissions and a 1 per cent increase in coal emissions between the years 2019 and 2021. However, oil emissions remain around 6 per cent below 2019 levels. This persistent reduction is a main reason for why 2021 emissions have not yet surpassed the highest annual emission levels⁶.

Furthermore, COVID 19 caused the largest annual decrease of CO₂ emissions since 1900. In the year 2020, 1.6 gigatons less CO₂ per year was emitted, which is double the drop in emissions that was recorded during the Second World War. This makes the magnitude of the decrease in 2020 larger than during previous economic downturns or the Second World War. The graph on the right illustrates this finding, showing that the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the largest decrease in CO₂ emissions ever recorded (see figure 5).

Moreover, the same study collected data on the change in CO₂ emissions from domestic and international aviation, comparing the years 2019 and 2020. Compared to 2019, CO₂ emissions from domestic aviation dropped by a total of 35.8 per cent in 2020. This effect was even more pronounced in the area of international aviation. Here, compared to the previous year, CO₂ emissions from international aviation dropped by a total of 52.4 per cent in 2020. In other words, less than half the amount of 2019 CO₂ emissions occurred in the first year of the pandemic, 2020.

Improvement of Air Quality during Lockdowns

As soon as lockdowns entered into force nationwide and almost globally, numerous larger cities and metropolises started to report visibly cleaner air and greater ranges of visibility. The cause of this is, first and foremost, the decrease in aviation and road traffic, leading to less aerosol and particulate matter in the atmosphere. One of the particles that pollutes the air most is nitrogen dioxide. In the pictures below, a comparison can be seen between pre-lockdown states of 2019 and the during-lockdown situation in spring 2020, both in Milan, Italy (see figure 6).

In non-pandemic times, Milan is usually a highly polluted urban area that suffers from bad air quality and lack of visibility in the city area. The inhabitants and residents are exposed to high levels of air pollution. During the first complete lockdown in Milan, however, a drastic reduction in nitrogen dioxide pollution could be observed, which means a reduction from 15 moles x 10-5 per square metre in the worst periods of air pollution, down to roughly 10 moles x 10-5 per square metre.

According to the WHO, there are six major air pollutants: particle pollution, ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead⁶. Their recent study has shown that a reduction in air pollution leads to considerable health benefits for humans. Air pollution has been shown to cause adverse health effects, such as respiratory diseases and an affection of the immune system as long-term chronic effects of exposure to polluted air. People who suffer from diseases such as asthma, pneumonia, diabetes, and respiratory and cardiovascular diseases are especially vulnerable to the effects of particulate matter inhaled through breathing the air.

Therefore, with reduced air pollution through the reduction of particulate matter and the number of particles in the air, and lower levels of all kinds of air pollutants, exposure to these health risks could be reduced.

This shows that the overall, global reduction of air pollution, especially in cities and metropolises where a huge number of people live, should be of high priority in environmental governance and policy interventions that are concerned with human health and the environment. According to UN estimates, the number of people living in cities will increase further in the near future¹². In 2018, 55 per cent of the global population already lived in cities. In 2030, this percentage is expected to rise to 60 per cent¹³. Furthermore, the total of 33 so-called ‘mega cities’ that currently exist is expected to rise to 43 by 2030. Thus, it can be concluded that it is absolutely crucial to pay attention and make efforts to prevent air pollution that is hazardous to human health, both in international policy and in city and health governance.

Reduction of Noise Exposure during the Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic forced lockdowns across nations and continents. People have had to stay at home more frequently and for longer than before the pandemic, as work had to be relocated to the homes of those employees and workers for whom working at home was possible. Fewer people were commuting and travelling to workplaces that were outside their apartments and homes. The consequence was a considerable decrease in road and air traffic. This development causes a reduction in noise pollution, an effect that is most pronounced and salient in cities and metropolises that were crowded, busy and loud before the pandemic.

Researchers from New York University measured the sound profiles of a typical day in New York City at the beginning of March 2020 and compared them to the sound levels of a typical day at the beginning of May 2020¹⁴. The findings, measured in decibels, are illustrated in the graph below (see figure 7).

The graph shows that the sound profiles of days during the lockdown resembled more the sound profiles of nights before the pandemic. This means that days during the pandemic were quieter even than nights before the pandemic. Moreover, the typical rhythm of the week before the pandemic, in which Mondays were louder than Sundays, disappeared.

Since the pandemic affected more or less all urban regions and cities across the globe similarly in terms of the severity of lockdown measures, it can be expected that, if the measurements had been replicated there in the exact same manner, similar findings to those from New York would have been observed in other cities from other parts of the world.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) (2021) estimates that long-term exposure to environmental noise causes 12,000 premature deaths and contributes to 48,000 new cases of heart disease every year in Europe³. It is also estimated that 22 million people suffer from chronic high annoyance and 6.5 million people suffer from chronic high sleep disturbance. Therefore, a reduction in chronic noise exposure has numerous health benefits for humans, contributing to better health, sleep, and education, and the cognitive development of children.

These health effects appear when the noise exposure is long-term. Since the reductions in noise levels have been reversed again after each lockdown state due to increasing road traffic, which is the most important source of environmental noise in Europe, the dangers to human health due to noise exposure have increased again after each lockdown. According to the European Environment Agency (2021), 20 per cent of the European population live in areas where noise levels are considered harmful to health. Thus, in order for the health dangers of noise pollution to stay low in the long-term perspective, road traffic needs to be reduced as much as possible. Only then can the health concerns due to noise pollution be eliminated, or at least kept to a minimum level.

Figure 8 shows a prediction of the development of noise emission at Frankfurt Airport.

Aircraft Restrictions and Easing of Policies in the EU

Since the start of the pandemic, the health and well-being of all European citizens has been the priority of all European countries. The EU Commission’s goal is to facilitate meeting friends and family, commuting and holiday travel, but also the transport of goods, while observing and maintaining health and safety measures¹⁶. In January 2021, EU leaders discussed restricting non-essential trips across EU internal borders to contain the spread of the coronavirus, after mutant strains emerged from the UK, South Africa, and Brazil. Starting from 24 January 2021, any traveller arriving from outside the EU – possible only for those with essential reasons – had to have a test for COVID-19 before departure. To combat the virulent UK strain, the EU blocked all but freight shipments or travellers on essential trips from entering the EU from the UK ¹⁸.

The exchange of data between the EU national authorities responsible for identifying contact individuals was particularly important when travellers crossed borders in close proximity to one another, for example in planes or trains.

On 3 May 2021, against a background of ongoing vaccination campaigns and combatting the global infection rate, the Commission proposed a relaxation of the restrictions on unnecessary travel to the EU². The Commission’s proposal intended, among other things, to enable people from countries with good epidemiological situations to enter the country. People who had received an EU-approved dose of a COVID-19 vaccine were permitted to enter. The Commission also proposed to increase the limit value for COVID-19 cases applicable to the compilation of the entry country list.

Beginning in August 2021, each EU country maintained its own standards for deciding whether and how citizens of third countries could enter if they were already in an EU or Schengen country. Each EU member state also decided and implemented its own further measures to curb the spread of the pandemic, such as quarantines upon entry from another region or country. Local regulations also differed widely on various social distancing measures, curfews and mask-wearing requirements ¹⁶.

Since it has been stated by the European Commission that vaccinations provide the best protection against COVID-19 infection and represent the most effective countermeasure to end the pandemic, people are strongly encouraged to get vaccinated, if possible. In the EU, 76.3 per cent of the adult population has already been fully vaccinated. Further vaccinations are strongly encouraged¹⁷. However, beginning in November 2021, the number of infections is steadily and rapidly increasing. Further measures beyond vaccinations to counteract rising infection numbers are currently being debated and passed.

Outlook

As mentioned before, the most likely scenario is an expected expansion of the aviation sector until 2040³. In the future, with enough time for innovation, aircraft will be designed to be more resource-saving and climate-friendly. The following abstracts will consider possible future scenarios concerning the aviation industry.

IATA Travel Pass

Starting in August 2021, the International Air Transport Association planned to introduce an app in Europe and in the US for safe flight regulations. It was planned to be called the IATA Travel Pass and was designed to inform users about vaccination requirements and, at the same time, store verified COVID-19 vaccinations and testing. Although not mandatory, it was designed as a tool to simplify travel during the COVID pandemic²¹. So an online travel pass is a likely scenario for the future, but how can emissions be kept low and possibly change flight behaviour, even after the COVID-19 pandemic? Which innovations or political or societal engagement could make a difference?

Governments

In 2016, numerous EU member states signed a declaration to support and implement the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). The implementation of this scheme aims to reduce CO₂ emissions by offsets such as investments in wind energy or methane capture²². However, it does not intend to reduce efforts to lower carbon emissions through technology and innovation. Through carbon offsetting, the ecological footprint of the aviation industry is reduced. Basically, the participating states are required to monitor and report their fuel use, and the required offsetting schemes are calculated. The aviation industry is estimated to stabilise CO₂ emissions at 600 million tons globally, instead of growing to 900 million tons by 2035. Currently, participation is voluntary, but in 2027 it will be mandatory for all states that contribute more than 0.5 per cent to global air traffic.

Furthermore, governments could provide monetary, normative, and ideological incentives for going on holiday closer to home, using psychology-based approaches like Boosts and Nudges ²³. This would possibly incentivise individuals to seek out locations for going on vacation that are closer to their original homes, so fewer people overall would resort to flying to remote locations. Travelling to holiday locations nearby is a chance to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Businesses

During the pandemic, working from home offices as experienced by many, has proven to be quite a successful and effective way to work in many cases ²⁴. Of course, social exchange in face-to-face conversations cannot be replaced virtually but, nevertheless, trust can be fostered in online co-worker relationships and make the virtual work highly promising in terms of workplace efficiency and performance ²⁵.

Following experiences and research findings, businesses will benefit greatly from the continued organisation of virtual conferences and virtual work via online platforms and video-based communication software, such as Zoom, Skype, Google Meets, Microsoft Teams, etc. By keeping people in virtual work from home offices in this way, emissions from commuting by cars and plane could be reduced further, and CO₂ emissions be kept relatively close to pandemic-level emissions, benefiting the environment and climate system.

Aircraft Engineering and Science

The possibilities of innovation in aviation-related science are nearly limitless. Innovation in aviation technology and engineering has much potential that is yet to be harnessed, and it surely will be if funding and time are sufficient.

However, it is not only technical and economical innovation that plays a decisive role in future aviation. Hygienic aspects for avoiding future pandemics have gained a leading role in planning. Passengers give a high priority to a safe and healthy environment both at airports and in aircraft.

Figure 9 gives an overview of the most important hygienic innovations.

Conclusion

The pandemic and the extensive national lockdowns it necessitated has had an undisputable impact on environmental as well as air traffic-related issues. In comparison to pre-pandemic times, parameters such as noise and air pollution, and concentrations of various pollutants in the environment have decreased during pandemic times. Flight traffic has been enormously affected by the pandemic since global restrictions have been introduced and eased, varying depending on the country and its status quo of infection cases among the public. A desirable future scenario for the aviation industry envisions a lot of innovation to come, developing more environmental- and climate-friendly aircraft technologies that safe resources, contribute to human health and are accessible to all nations and people alike.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Prof. Dr. Thomas Schomerus, Professor for Public Law, especially Energy and Environmental Law, Associate in the Leuphana Law School, for the support of the above seminar series for many years.

This article was originally published in The European Financial Review 02 July 2022. It can be accessed here: https://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/the-aviation-industry-after-the-pandemic/

About the Authors

Lena Wege started her bachelor studies in Global Environmental and Sustainability Studies as a major, and Psychology and Society as a minor at Leuphana University Lüneburg in 2019. In her studies, she focuses on the improvement of climate change communication to the general public and post-pandemic improvements of climate-related societal issues.

Michael Palocz-Andresen has been working as a guest professor for Sustainable Mobility since 2018, supported by the Herder Program of the DAAD at the TEC Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores in Mexico. He was a full professor at the University West Hungary until 2017. Currently, he is a guest professor at the TU Budapest, the Leuphana University Lüneburg, and at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University. He is a Humboldt scientist and instructor of the SAE International in the USA.

References
1. Jones, L., Palumbo, D., & Brown, D. (24 January 2021). Coronavirus: How the pandemic has changed the world economy. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51706225, (12 September 2021)
2. Flightradar24 (29 November 2021). Flight tracking statistics. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/statistics
3. European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), European Environment Agency (EEA), EUROCONTROL (2019). European Aviation Environmental Report, https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2019-aviation-environmental-report.pdf, (7 May 2021)
4. Vidović, A., Babić, R., & Steiner, S. (2006). Impact of Low-Cost Airlines on the European Air Transport Market. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228911978_Impact_of_Low-Cost_Airlines_on_the_European_Air_Transport_Market, (7 May 2021)
5. Canada.ca (2019). Airplanes. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-risks-safety/radiation/everyday-things-emit-radiation/health-effects-airplanes-aircraft-noise.html#a5, (12 September 2021)
6. Hausfather, Z. (4 November 2021). Global CO₂ emissions have been flat for a decade, new data reveals. Carbon Brief. https://www.carbonbrief.org/global-co2-emissions-have-been-flat-for-a-decade-new-data-reveals, (29 November 2021)7. Mazareanu, E. (12 October 2021). Carbon dioxide emissions from commercial aviation worldwide from 2004 to 2022. Statista.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1186820/co2-emissions-commercial-aviation-worldwide/
8. Liu, Z., Ciais, P., & Deng, Z. (2020). Near-real-time monitoring of global CO₂ emissions reveals the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat Commun 11, 5172, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18922-7, (7 May 2021)
9. Adomaite, L., & Baliūnaitė, I. (2020). 11 Before-And-After Comparisons Show The Positive Effect Of Quarantine And How It’s Reducing Pollution. boredpanda. https://www.boredpanda.com/cities-air-pollution-coronavirus-lockdown/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic (20 December 2021)
10. Wisniewska, A. (14 April 2020). How coronavirus stalled climate change momentum. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/052923d2-78c2-11ea-af44-daa3def9ae03 (6 May 2021)
11. Manisalidis, I., Stavropoulou, E., Stavropoulos, A., & Bezirtzoglou, E. (2020). Environmental and Health Impacts of Air Pollution: A Review. Frontiers in Public Health 8, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00014, (15 June 2021)
12. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2020). Education for Sustainable Development: A roadmap. ISBN 978-92-3-100394-3.
13. Deutsches Statistisches Bundesamt (2021). Stadtbevölkerung steigt bis 2030 weltweit um eine Milliarde. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Laender-Regionen/Internationales/Thema/bevoelkerung-arbeit-soziales/bevoelkerung/Stadtbevoelkerung.html, (15 June 2021)
14. Bui, Q. & Badger, E. (25 May 2020). The Coronavirus Quieted City Noise. Listen to What’s Left. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/05/22/upshot/coronavirus-quiet-city-noise.html, (15 June 2021)
15. Pretto, M., Giannattasio, P., De Gennaro, M., Zanon, A. & Kuehnelt, H. (2020). Forecasts of future scenarios for airport noise based on collection and processing of web data. European Transport Research Review 12, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-019-0389-x
16. Euronews (2021). Here are the latest COVID-19 travel restrictions in Europe. https://www.euronews.com/travel/2021/01/25/what-s-the-latest-on-european-travel-restrictions (8 May 2021)
17. European Commission (2021). Coronavirus Response. https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-response_en, (29 November 2021)
18. European Council (2021). COVID-19: Council Updates. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021/05/20/covid-19-council-updates-recommendation-on-restrictions-to-travel-from-third-countries/, (20 August 2021)
19. European Commission (2021). Ein einheitlicher Rahmen für Reisebeschränkungen in der EU. https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-response/travel-during-coronavirus-pandemic/common-approach-travel-measures-eu_de, (6 September 2021)
20. Deutsche Welle (2021). European travel restrictions: Nonessential travel curbed. https://www.dw.com/en/european-travel-restrictions-nonessential-travel-curbed/a-56350272 (20 July 2021)
21. International Air Transport Association (2021). IATA Travel Pass Initiative. https://www.iata.org/en/programs/passenger/travel-pass/, (7 May 2021)
22. International Air Transport Association (2021). Offsetting CO₂ Emissions with CORSIA. https://www.iata.org/en/programs/environment/corsia/#tab-2, (7 May 2021)
23. Hertwig, R. & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2017). Nudging and boosting: Steering or empowering good decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 973-986.
24. Garro-Abarca, V. et al. (2021). Virtual Teams in Times of Pandemic: Factors That Influence Performance. Frontiers in psychology vol. 12 624637. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624637
25. Gajendran, R. & David A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of applied psychology 92.6: 1524.

By Shari Saffran And Michael Palocz-Andresen

In this article, the structure and organisation of car sharing is first explained in more detail and then compared with individual vehicle use and conventional car rental. There follows an illustration of the costs that can or cannot be saved by using or not using car sharing. Subsequently, the environmental aspects and the corona influences are considered and a critical conclusion with the advantages and disadvantages Is drawn.

Introduction

The idea behind car sharing was to make it as cost-efficient as possible, since, unlike a private car, the costs only arise if the car is actually used. This should enable more people to use it.

According to the experiences of the last one and a half years, people who own and drive their own car have a lower risk of infection. Private cars help people to avoid travelling by public transportation, to keep their distance and to stay away from the closed spaces implied by public transport. Travelling by one’s own means of transport is an effective way of maintaining social distance and reducing the risk of infection from airborne coronavirus infection. But poor people around the world don’t have a car of their own. In these cases, car sharing offers people the opportunity to stay mobile and keep their distance, even during the coronavirus pandemic.

To reduce the risk of the infection, it’s best to keep a car for an extended period of time, rather than renting a new car for each trip. As a result, the car comes into less contact with other car sharers, which lowers the overall risk for everyone. Since the coronavirus is transmitted through the air, it makes sense to open the windows and ensure good air circulation. The passenger should leave the car in a clean condition. This contribution pays off in the form of improved hygiene and less risk for other passengers.

Car sharing is intended to be environmentally friendly, since the providers design the range of cars in cooperation with the environmental association. Normally, car-sharing vehicles are more modern and efficient than average private cars. They also reduce pressure on space, as an average of four to eight vehicles become redundant per car-sharing vehicle and free up parking spaces on the streets ¹.

Figure 1 shows the advantages of the car sharing system

International comparison

The car-sharing market has spread worldwide. Continentally viewed, Europe represents almost 50 per cent of the market and the trend should increase even further by 2022². In Europe, almost 40 per cent of vehicles are in free-floating use, with a large proportion in tier 1 cities in countries such as Spain, Italy and Germany. In addition, around 50 different operators are active in more than 130 cities across the continent. The development in Western Europe is still shaped by large operators, such as Share Now, Free2Move or Zity, which are financed by automotive OEMs.

Eastern Europe is experiencing an interesting dynamic. Russia has become the largest and one of the fastest-growing car-sharing markets in the world. The two largest car-sharing providers together have more than 37,000 vehicles in use in cities such as Moscow, St Petersburg, and Sochi³.

While membership increased by 2.4 per cent in the US, there was a large increase of 25.6 percent in Canada. The total in North America in 2018 was 2,110,111 members sharing 23,376 vehicles. Of these, 91 per cent were located in the USA⁴.

In the Asian area, the share economy is less represented in high-income countries, but is mainly used in poorer countries, such as Indonesia and Malaysia. Environmental considerations play less of a role there; ride-hailing and car sharing are simply more affordable than using one’s own car. High-income countries such as South Korea and Japan show an increase in the purchase of private vehicles.

Although the sharing trend has not yet fully arrived in Asia, a sharp increase is expected in the near future. This has nothing to do with a change in income, but with the expectation of advanced technology. Once autonomous-driving or “robo-taxis” can be rolled out on a large scale, the share economy should also rise rapidly. In such a scenario, a much larger increase in share mobility is expected in countries like China than in poorer countries like India⁵.

An improved sharing structure is also expected in parts of Africa. In 2018, Volkswagen started local production in Rwanda and introduced the car-sharing concept⁶. The goal here is to create prospects and generate economic success. Consequently, this is also expected to create thousands of new jobs and tie in with technological progress⁷.

Figure 2 shows the number of car-sharing users in the world between 2017 and 2025.

Table 1 shows the largest car-sharing companies in the world⁸.

Environmental aspects

In Germany, 75 per cent of all passenger kilometres are travelled by car, leading to a high pollution rate that harms the environment [9]. 

Although most trips are short-distance and usually only to work or to do grocery shopping, people consider public transportation to be inconvenient. There may be several reasons for this: on the one hand, it could be because public transport does not go from door to door. Sometimes, people even have to change trains or switch between modes of transport, such as bus, train, bike, etc. On the other hand, one reason could be the loss of control of departure and arrival time. Travellers are dependent on bus and train schedules and have no influence on punctuality. Furthermore, there has been an increase in train cancellations and delays, especially in the major cities of the world.

In order to retain flexibility and independence, while at the same time being more climate-friendly than with an own car, a compromise must be found. First of all, car-sharing vehicles are often more energy-efficient than private cars. Car-sharing providers like Share Now or Cambio adapt their offering to cities and users; they use smaller, newer vehicles with lower emissions, which are serviced regularly. In an increasing trend, more and more electric cars are also being offered as share cars. The My-e-car company, for example, offers only electric cars for sharing. It is not the only company to take this approach; in general, more electric cars are offered and driven in the car-sharing sector than are driven by private owners¹⁰.

However, the condition of the cars is not the sole reason for the environmental benefits. When several people share a car and sell their own, a lot of free space is created. In Germany, the Federal Environment Agency (UBA) found that private cars are moved for only one hour a day on average¹¹. As a result, the car is idle for an average of 23 hours a day, occupying valuable space, especially in cities. Instead of creating more parking space, cities could be equipped with more plants to counteract CO₂ emissions, or the space could facilitate social institutions or healthcare institutions.

Figure 3 shows important environmental aspects of car sharing.

Car sharing does not have to be used as a sole concept. Especially in combination with other means of movement, like public transportation, bicycle riding or simply walking, it brings an enormous added value for the environment and greatly reduces CO₂ emissions.

The UBA study has shown, that a coordinated expansion of car sharing and public transport could reduce CO₂ emissions by more than six million tons per year, which means four per cent of the transport-related CO₂ emissions in Germany¹².

It should be taken into consideration that the proportion of trips made by public transport and by bicycle would also increase. The savings of six million tons of CO₂ emissions can be achieved only if public transport rises from 5.2 per cent to 21.1 per cent, and the share of bicycles increases by 0.2 per cent to 3 per cent. Car sharing use would rise to 1.4 per cent of total transport performance¹³.`

How can this be accomplished?

First of all, people should ask themselves whether it is necessary to take their own car to work or if there are more efficient or even quicker possibilities for getting to the workplace. The idea is that people start considering different modes of transportation and understand that the private car does not necessarily have to be the best.

There are many options that do not require a car. The south German city of Augsburg realised this and was the first city to offer a flat rate that includes all means of public transport and shared vehicles, such as an e-scooter, a bicycle, or even a car¹⁴.

By being able to pay for the mode of transportation on a monthly basis, usage becomes much more attractive than having to open an app or take a ticket at the counter every time there is a need to travel.

It is important to know that car sharing is seen as an alternative to private car ownership, because only in that way can there be an improvement for the environment. Accordingly, offers like that of Augsburg are important in order to make the sharing economy as attractive as possible and to convince car owners to give up their own vehicles and switch to alternatives.

The influence of corona

The pandemic has influenced our daily lives in many ways. It is not just our social and working lives that have changed completely, it is also the way people think about mobility.

The fear of infection is greater than ever before. People pay more attention to hygiene and keep a greater physical distance from other people. To comply with this, places with many people, such as public transportation, car sharing, etc., are being avoided. Although travellers do not have to stay in a confined space with other people, the feeling that another person previously used the vehicle and may have left their germs behind scares many people. The LeasePlan Mobility Insight Report confirms that. In a survey of 22 countries, including Germany, it was found out that around 79 per cent now value their own car more since the pandemic, and 76 per cent prefer it to other modes of transportation¹⁵.

This trend was especially noticeable in times of lockdown. The largest car-sharing provider, Share Now, suffered a reduction of 56 per cent in car rentals in Berlin and 62 per cent in Hamburg, compared to pre-crisis times¹⁶. The only worse development was in public transport, where there was a decrease of 80 per cent.

The curve only went up again when the lockdown was coming to an end, which can be traced back to the willingness to travel more often. The rules were relaxed and borders opened again. The total number of infections has been decreasing, and with it the fear of being infected. Although the opportunities for car sharing were similar to those before corona, many people remain wary¹⁷.

Have they become accustomed to the convenience of having their own car?

It is clear that surveys like LeasePlan’s show that a rethink about mobility has taken place, which means that the old concept of car sharing can no longer function as before. It also needs innovation. That is why car-sharing providers have developed a hygiene concept that should provide enough safety for drivers. Besides the general hygiene rules, some providers, like Share Now, disinfected their vehicles four times more often than usual. All shelves and usable surfaces, such as the steering wheel, gear lever, and handbrake, are cleaned and disinfected¹⁸. There is even an extra-complete package offered that guarantees a deep clean before the vehicle is used.

The measures have proved to be successful.  Last year, sales increased by 45 per cent in comparison with lockdown times¹⁹. So a recovery of the industry is in sight, at least for those companies that have adapted to the new situations.

A relatively linear development can be predicted up to 2030 (see figure 4).

The general market development shows that the sharing trend is increasing. Despite the corona pandemic, no long-term losses could be identified in figure 4. However, in the event of future pandemics, there will be a clear difference in the growth rate. This is due to the fact that the providers did not consider an expansion of their vehicle fleet to be sensible, because the trend in times of lockdown was rather towards owning cars.

It cannot be predicted what trend will arise after corona, and when corona will even be over. Will there be a time after corona? Or is before corona equal to after corona?

The course of the pandemic will continue to influence the future of car sharing. As long as there are travel restrictions, mandatory home offices, and fewer leisure activities available, demand is also unlikely to increase further. In particular, demand in the countryside, which in any case is not high, is more liable to fall than rise.

Car-sharing providers can only wait and see how the situation develops and how they will be able to adapt their offers accordingly and, all being well, expand them.

The Cost of car Sharing rental and comparison with alternatives

Basic structure of the price

Prices for car sharing are usually clearly defined. There is a price for kilometres travelled, a price for time, and also models where the price is calculated on the basis of kilometres and time. In addition, a monthly or annual basic fee may be charged. In some cases, there is also a one-time registration fee. For example, car-sharing provider Drive Now charges 0.09 cents per minute for a Smart, and 0.34 cents per minute for a BMW X1. Furthermore, a daily rate of €30 euros a day could be charged for the BMW and €19.99 for the Smart²⁰. In addition, significant price differences can be observed among the various car-sharing options. Free-floating offers are generally more expensive than station-based car-sharing offers.

Comparison of individual vehicle and car sharing

With regard to the comparative costs of individual vehicles and car sharing, car sharing eliminates costs that would be incurred with an individual vehicle. These are the purchase cost, parking space costs, vehicle tax, insurance costs, and maintenance. A breakdown service is furnished by the provider. According to Stiftung Warentest (Foundation Product Testing in Germany), the owners of a small car pay an average of €206 euros per month for 5,000 kilometres per year²¹. For the same number of kilometres, a car-sharing member pays only €138 euros per month. In addition, discounts are available for students and trainees, as well as monthly subscriptions.

Saving cost with car sharing

The principle of car sharing is financially worthwhile up to a certain threshold of kilometres that the user wants to drive with the car in a year. According to ADAC calculations, car sharing is worthwhile for people who drive less than 10,000 kilometres a year, compared to an individual vehicle. The Bundesverband Car Sharing e.V. (the Federation of German Car Sharing) also made a calculation of the possible savings. With a mileage of 8,000 kilometres per year, the adoption of car sharing can save €741 per year compared with owning a small car. The total costs, including fixed costs, workshop costs, travel/operating costs, and depreciation, amount to €3,617 per year for a small car. With the car sharing model, the figure is €2,876²².

Comparison between conventional car rental and car sharing

With conventional car rental, the price is usually calculated based on the number of days the car is used. For car sharing, it is calculated per trip, so the user pays only for the actual use. At the end of a conventional car rental, the vehicle has to be refuelled in most cases. Depending on the driving style of the driver, the fuel costs are variable. With car sharing, on the other hand, there is a fixed price per minute, kilometre, or both. Billiger-Mietwagen.de, a comparison portal for rental cars, came up with an example calculation with the conclusion that, on longer distances, a rented car is the more economical choice, while on shorter distances a car-sharing vehicle wins²³. For a weekend trip of 48 hours and a distance of 250 kilometres, the price with car sharing company Share Now is €219. Share Now offers 48 hours as the maximum rental period. With a conventional car rental, the price for the weekend totals €102.96²⁴.

In summary, the advantage of an individual vehicle is that the car is always available. It can be found where it was left parked. This is especially important for people who are dependent on a car. In addition, the private car can be personalised according to one’s own needs and preferences. Furthermore, the hygiene aspect plays a role here. The car is used only by the owner and by the people the owner allows to use it. The car sharing model has the advantage that it is particularly flexible. As long as the model is free-floating, the user can park the car anywhere and get into another car-sharing vehicle in a different place.

Because of the flexibility regarding vehicle types, a spontaneous change of plan is no problem. Another advantage of car sharing is the digital, location-independent booking, which saves the user time. Furthermore, the fewer kilometres a user wants to cover in a year, the more likely it is that car sharing is worthwhile. The point at which owning a car is cheaper is at around 10,000 kilometres per year²⁵. If a user covers longer distances, a car from a conventional car rental service is cheaper.

Conclusion

Car sharing offers many benefits. One of them is that the individual vehicle is always available. In addition to that, most companies offer a variety of models that people can switch between every day, according to their own needs and preferences. So drivers no longer have to commit to a model and can easily change plans spontaneously. This can be particularly beneficial when switching between short and long distances.

Hygiene is also taken into account in car sharing, so that only the hirer or their friends are allowed to use the car. Besides that, the client saves time with the digital, location-independent booking. Car-sharing companies have implemented measures to improve hygiene in shared cars.

However, car sharing is only worthwhile for people who drive less than 10,000 kilometres per year; above that, a private car would be more appropriate. Aside from that, travellers have less responsibility as users, because they are not responsible for repairs and taxes. This is paid by the provider. Car-sharing travellers are also insured for the ride. This means that the overall costs are lower.

Moreover, it is flexible, especially in larger cities with the free-floating-model, as it is offered in many locations and users can park the car anywhere. In the countryside, it is still possible to expand. Car sharing is also environmentally friendly. As already explained under the environmental aspects, it creates enormous benefits for the environment, such as lower emissions.

Because of the benefits, fewer people would use their own car and more space is available in the form of parking spaces. This space could be used for the expansion of green areas.

However, billing based on minutes could be a problem if travellers are stuck, for example, in a traffic jam. So billing in kilometres should be offered in combination with minutes. One remedy for the problem might be linking car sharing to traffic messages.

Car sharing has many benefits, especially since it is, in most cases, cheaper than running an own car. However, it should be expanded in some areas still, such as cost accounting and in rural areas. This would allow more people to use it and discover the advantages it offers.

Table 2 shows the motivation factors and levels of travellers²⁶.

Outlook

Car sharing has faced similar challenges to other mobility sectors as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Reducing the risk of infection has become the most important factor in choosing the mode of transportation.

This article was originally published in The European Financial Review 02 September 2022. It can be accessed here: https://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/car-sharing-before-and-after-the-pandemic/

About the Authors

Shari Saffran studies Business Informatics at the Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany and works in the area of sales/business development alongside her studies. In one module, she looked at the climate-damaging effects of the automobile trend and elaborated car sharing as a solution to this problem.

Michael Palocz-Andresen has been working as a full professor for Sustainable Mobility since 2018, supported by the DAAD at the TEC Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores in Mexico. He became a full professor at the University West Hungary till 2017. Currently, he is a guest professor at the Leuphana University Lüneburg, the Shanghai Jiao Tong University and the TU Budapest. He is a Humboldt scientist and instructor of the SAE International USA

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Prof. Dr Peter Pez, Leuphana University Lueneburg, Germany, Institute for Urban and Cultural Research, Professor of Geography for supporting the above seminar series in international relations at the university for many years. 

References

1. Dannheim, Bettina (2009). “Bundesverband CarSharing – das intelligente Autokonzept für die Mobilität der Zukunft” [online], https://www.carsharing.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/carsharing-intelligente-autokonzept-fur-mobilitat-zukunft [28 August 2021].
2. Deloitte (2017). “Car Sharing in Europe”, https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/de/Documents/consumer-industrial-products/CIP-Automotive-Car-Sharing-in-Europe.pdf#:~:text=Car%20sharing%20is%20successful%20not%20only%20in%20Germany%2C,cars%20and%20number%20of%20users%20in%20the%20past [20 November 2021].
3. Ichi.Pro. “Der aktuelle Stand des Carsharing: Ein Branchenüberblick”, https://ichi.pro/de/der-aktuelle-stand-des-carsharing-ein-branchenuberblick-135520527358563 [1 February 2022].
4. Shaheen, Susan; Cohen, Adam (2020). “Innovative Mobility: Carsharing Outlook Carsharing Market Overview, Analysis, And Trends”, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9jh432pm [20 November 2021].
5. Devesa, Tiago; Laverty, Nicholas; Liang, Gary; Peng, Bill (2021). “Asia’s consumers on the move: The future of mobility”, https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-asia/asias-consumers-on-the-move-the-future-of-mobility [21 November 2021].
6. Volkswagen (2018): Meilenstein in Afrika: Volkswagen startet lokale Produktion und Car Sharing in Ruanda https://www.volkswagen-newsroom.com/de/pressemitteilungen/meilenstein-in-afrika-volkswagen-startet-lokale-produktion-und-car-sharing-in-ruanda-3840 [23.11.2021].
7. Waszkowski, E. (2020): Car Sharing and Transportation Trends (Updated). Future Mind 2020.  https://www.futuremind.com/blog/car-sharing-and-transportation-trends [08.02.2022].
8. Wikipedia: List of carsharing organizations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_carsharing_organizations
9. Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur: Mobilität in Deutschland (MiD, 2017): Ergebnisbericht, [online] http://www.mobilitaet-in-deutschland.de/pdf/MiD2017_Ergebnisbericht.pdf [05.08.2021].
10. Elektroautonews (2018): Carsharing in Deutschland: starkes Wachstum, jetzt mehr als zehn Prozent Elektroautos https://www.elektroauto-news.net/2018/carsharing-in-deutschland-starkes-wachstum-jetzt-mehr-als-zehn-prozent-elektroautos [08.08.2021].
11. Umweltbundesamt (2020): Car-Sharing https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/verkehr-laerm/nachhaltige-mobilitaet/car-sharing#angebotsformen-des-car-sharing [08.08.2021].
12. Umweltbundesamt (2015) : Carsharing könnte CO2-Emissionen um sechs Millionen Tonnen senken https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/carsharing-koennte-co2-emissionen-um-sechs [15.08.2021].
13. Sw Augsburg (2019): Alles fahren zum fixen Preis: Die Mobil-Flat der Stadtwerke Augsburg – Zwei Preis-Pakete für 79 und 109 Euro monatlich https://www.sw-augsburg.de/ueber-uns/presse/detail/alles-fahren-zum-fixen-preis-die-mobil-flat-der-stadtwerke-augsburg-zwei-preis-pakete-fuer-79-und/ [08.08.2021].
14. LeasePlan Mobility Insights Report (2020) : The ‘New Normal’ Edition https://www.leaseplan.com/de-at/blog/mobility-insights-report-teil1/ [20.08.2021].
15. Share Now/Mobility Institute (2020) : Mehr Schutz, weniger Stau – Die Rolle des Carsharing in Zeiten von Corona https://mobilityinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Die – Rolle – des-Carsharing – in – Zeiten – von-Corona_mib_sharenow_V1.01.pdf [24.08.2021].
16. Share Now : Carsharing während der Covid-19-Pandemie https://www.share-now.com/de/de/corona-carsharing/ [26.08.2021].
17. Share Now (2020): Mobilität nach Corona: Carsharing im Aufwärtstrend https://www.share-now.com / de / de/press – release-corona-mobility/ [26.08.2021].
18. Share Now (1.) (2021): SHARE NOW Preise https://www.share-now.com/de/de/pricing/ [28.04.2021].
19. Bundesverband CarSharing (2019): Bis zu einer Fahrleistung von 10.000 Kilometern ist CarSharing auf jeden Fall günstiger https://www.carsharing.de/zu – fahrleistung – 10000-kilometern – ist – carsharing-auf-jeden-fall-guenstiger [29.04.2021].
20. Stiftung Warentest (2012): Carsharing – Für wen sich das Autoteilen lohnt https://www.test.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/Carsharing – Fuer – wen – sich – das – Autoteilen – lohnt-4331325-0/ [28.04.2021].
21. Billiger-mietwagen.de (2018): Free-Floating-Carsharing und Mietwagen im Vergleich https://www.billiger-mietwagen.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/carsharing-vs-mietwagen.htm [16.08.2021].
22. Cision PR Newswire (2021): Peer-to-Peer Carsharing Market to Surpass $7,225.2 Million Revenue by 2030 says P&S Intelligence [11.02. 2022].  https://www.futuremind.com/blog/car-sharing-and-transportation-trends
    Bundesverband CarSharing BCS.  [11.02.2022] https://carsharing.de/alles-ueber-carsharing/carsharing-zahlen
23. billiger-mietwagen.de [12.02.2022]https://www.billiger-mietwagen.de/mietwagen html?gclid=Cj0KCQiA0p2QBhDvARIsAA CSOOOPoHLz4y D2Eni32YG7iWX7fs4sIiiOr HLcS3XucWnHQAWHERfwCcwaAsvREALw_wcB
24. DriveNow. [12.02.2022] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/DriveNow
25. Expaturm. Why you should think of car sharing now! [12.02.2022]. https://www.expaturm.com/german-finance/car-sharing/
26. Mavlutova, A., Kuzmina, J., Uvarova, I., Atstaja, D., Lesinskis, K., Mikelsone, E., Brizga, J.: Does Car Sharing Contribute to Urban Sustainability from User – Motivation Perspectives? MDPI Sustainability [10.02.2022]. file:///C:/Users/PALOCZ~1/AppData/Local/Temp/sustainability-13-10588-v2-1.pdf

By Lea Laue and Michael Palocz-Andresen

Measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic largely brought public life to a standstill from mid-March 2020 around the world. To slow the spread of the novel coronavirus, businesses, schools, and universities were temporarily closed, as were workplaces and cultural institutions. Cancellation of major events and contact restrictions in private spaces, for example, were also aimed at minimising the transmission risks that occur at gatherings and helping to break chains of infection. In this report, the impact of the pandemic and the measures on different groups in society will be addressed¹.

Introduction – Women in the Pandemic

The corona pandemic especially leads to problems in those professions that are carried out mostly by women.

This is not only the case in Germany. While, in Germany, more than 75 per cent of people working in caring professions are female, the figure worldwide is also just over 70 per cent. Moreover, for cultural reasons, the care of relatives is mostly provided by women. This is a phenomenon that can be observed both in Western society and in other parts of the world. In general, it can be said that the poorer the level of healthcare in a country, the more often such tasks are taken on by women.

Conservative family stereotypes may also help to promote this. Especially in families where women are responsible for childcare and child-rearing, women are more likely to be called upon to care for parents and in-laws later in life. In Germany, too, 68 per cent of women take on this task without being paid for it. This problem is further exacerbated by the lack of childcare options, which denies women the opportunity to work because they have to take care of children and the household. At this point, the gender care gap can also be cited to create an international reference. On average, women perform 52.4 per cent more unpaid care work than men; that is, 87 minutes more per day¹.

This is just a brief overview of the basic problem in nursing and its impact on women, which has been exacerbated by the pandemic.

Women, in particular, experience a special burden during a time of pandemic, we explain further below, which is why we have focused on this topic.

Figure 1 presents the structure of the report.
The first question is to what extent the situation for women has changed since the beginning of the pandemic and what the consequences are for mothers.

Although pupils can now go back to regular schooling and children can also go to childcare facilities, the rule for the last year and a half has been a model of alternating or online teaching. Children often cannot cope with the tasks set by the school without help and therefore need intensive assistance from their parents.

Thus, parents and especially mothers often find themselves in the situation of having to take the place of childcare for younger children and teacher for school-age children – and this in addition to their jobs and usual domestic duties, which are also largely taken on by women in families (see figure 2).

Women and their Working Lives

In general, the coronavirus pandemic has also significantly changed working life. In Germany, 24 per cent of employees were working from home in January 2021. This figure had dropped slightly from 27 per cent in March 2020. In contrast, before the crisis, the percentage of employees in home offices was only 4 per cent. But due to the virus’s seasonal character, the number of cases of infections will rise again, which will lead to an increasing number of employees once again working from home.²

In general, the home office is very popular among employees. Thus, 80-90 per cent of people in the home office state that they rate this positively. A large proportion of them even consider that they would like to continue working only from home in the future, or at least have only a few days of compulsory presence in the office. Only 15 per cent of respondents say they would like to return to the office completely. Thus, the coronavirus pandemic is increasing the pressure on companies and legislators to enable home office.³

The situation in other European countries looks similar after the first wave of coronavirus in summer 2020. In Paris, only 26 per cent of employees are still in the home office. Also, in Milan and Madrid, two-thirds are already back on site again.

Nevertheless, there is also criticism of the transition to home office. On the one hand, the danger of loneliness increases and, on the other, the permanent availability of employees increases. Home office is not an option for all employees. Another downside is that women who work in a home office experience an additional burden of unpaid care work. In addition, there are concerns that home offices lead to a confusion between private and working life, so that working and rest times, for example, are not tracked correctly. What long-term consequences flexible digital working can have if the boundaries between work and private life become blurred is a question that is currently being asked.⁴

But what exactly is the state of womenʼs and mothers’ working lives? In April 2021, in the course of a new Infection Protection Act, the German Bundestag passed a home office obligation for all companies, which applied until 30 June 2021.⁵
In order to classify the working situations for women during the pandemic, one must look at the situation before the pandemic. In 2019, around 74.4 per cent of mothers were employed, 66.7 per cent of whom worked part-time.⁶

In Germany, 70 per cent of people working in social as well as care professions are female. If you look at nursing and geriatric care, it is striking that the percentage of women working in geriatric care is 83 per cent, and in nursing care around 80 per cent.⁷ Working with people infected with coronavirus in nursing homes and hospitals, for example, increases the risk of infecting oneself and oneʼs family with the virus, which can be a psychological burden for caregivers on the one hand and a real physical danger for them and their families on the other. Besides that, sick care workers increase the workload for remaining healthcare workers.⁸

Figure 4 shows the number of practising nurses per 1,000 inhabitants and the income per capita in different countries of the world.

Further, about 26 per cent of employed women in Germany work in the low-wage sector, i.e., they earn less than €11.05 per hour.

Although the low-wage sector in Europe has decreased steadily over the past 15 years to an average of 15 per cent, the distribution within Europe varies significantly.
While the low-wage sector in Portugal has shrunk from 20.7 per cent to around 4 per cent during this period, the low-wage sector in Belgium has grown by 7 per cent. Thus, post-Soviet countries in Europe, in particular, often have a low-wage sector share of more than 20 per cent, closely followed by Germany.⁹

On the other hand, in Germany, the percentage of men working in the low-wage sector is only 16 per cent. In particular, women with jobs in catering or event management lost their jobs. Corona-related unemployment notably affects women; 85 per cent of those who lost their jobs due to the pandemic are female.¹⁰

Additionally, during the pandemic, many women have swapped their full-time jobs for part-time work in order to cope with the immense burden of childcare, teaching, and their job. This results in a wide range of problems that have a strong negative impact on the independence, (social) mobility, and psyche of women in the pandemic.

In such cases, women will receive less pension in the future and will be less financially secure and independent in the event of divorce from their more financially stable partners. Especially in cases of domestic violence, this lack of financial independence can be a womanʼs undoing.

Domestic Violence during the Pandemic

In Germany, it is assumed that domestic violence has increased by a total of 10 per cent. However, the number of unreported cases is much higher. This is suggested by the sharp increase in the number of calls to the help line/support hotline last year. The German support hotline “Violence against Women” registered a growth from about 850 calls per week to about 1,000.

Due to contact restrictions, school closures, and the transfer to the home office, many “control mechanisms” fall away. On the one hand, women often turn first to work colleagues, friends, and relatives in such situations. On the other hand, changes in behaviour or injuries can be noticeable to people one sees regularly, who could possibly broach the subject with the woman in question. Factors such as money worries, being at home all the time, and lack of contacts can also lead to more aggressive behaviour and thus to more domestic violence.¹¹

Furthermore, due to the pandemic, women’s shelters are able provide less than half of the number of places. This was mainly due to the distancing rules and a 14-day quarantine that women had to observe there, in order to participate in shelter life.

Nevertheless, the expected rush to the women’s shelters did not occur in the first lockdown. This was due to the lack of opportunity to escape from the control of their partner. It was not until the relaxation of the restrictions in June 2020 that the numbers of people seeking help in women’s shelters increased again.¹²

Of course, these problems do not only result from the pandemic. Rather, the pandemic has exacerbated existing, systematic problems such as domestic violence against women, old-age poverty, and inequitable pay. This leads above all to immense psychological stress. During the pandemic, 45 per cent of women in Germany stated that they had reached their emotional, psychological, and physical limits due to the multitude of tasks.

This can lead to depression and psychosomatic disorders. In addition, mothers usually seek help at a very late stage, because of the enormous number of tasks they have to master. This tense situation for mothers can also lead to the stress they feel being passed on to the children, which leads to further stress for them.¹³

The situation is similar in the rest of the world. Data collection is often very complex, so that there is no reliable (in the meaning of concrete numbers) data on domestic violence or the psychological burden on women during the coronavirus crisis. Even in developed countries, the collection of data relating to acts of violence against women is slow. Thus, these statistics give only an indication of the extent of domestic violence. Nevertheless, it can be said that the greater the systemic injustice towards women in a country, the higher the frequency of domestic violence.

Relation between Women and Children during COVID-19

Surveys during the pandemic make it clear in any case that during the crisis it is mainly women who take care of raising children and doing housework. In a survey on behalf of the Bertelsmann Stiftung shortly after the first lockdown, 51 per cent of mothers said that they would predominantly take care of the children’s home schooling. Only 15 per cent of fathers said that about themselves. In other tasks, the burden on women was even more pronounced; around two-thirds of them said that they usually did the general housework and cooking.

Women and girls who are already affected by institutionalised poverty, racist structures, and other forms of discrimination are particularly at risk. They are more likely to become infected with coronavirus and to die more often from the virus, and are more affected by the secondary effects of the pandemic. For example, in the UK, black women are 4.3 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than white women.¹⁴
One important study examined the effects of the pandemic on various aspects of social inequality in Hungary, including gender inequality, especially with regard to changes in the distribution of repetitive work (childcare, care for the elderly, and housework).

Scientists focused on the most important findings on gender-specific differences in childcare and care for the elderly under the conditions changed by the lockdown situation. Respondents with at least one child aged 18 or younger were asked to state the number of hours they spent with the children before and during the lockdown measures, such as playing, reading, studying, talking, dressing, feeding. Participants with an elderly relative in need of care were asked to state the number of hours they spent on care, in addition to personal hygiene such as washing and changing nappies, shopping, and the like. The respondentsʼ statements were treated as subjective assessments of the time spent on care-related tasks.¹⁵

The number of hours spent on childcare by men without paid work is significantly higher than that of men with work, suggesting that men are willing to step in, at least temporarily, if they have no other day-to-day obligations. It is different with women. They increased the time of care to a similar extent, regardless of whether or not they were in paid work. And finally, working from home compared to working outside the home was reflected in a higher number of hours in childcare, regardless of whether the person was a man or a woman. The age of the children also played a role, and more time was spent on children under the age of 12.¹⁶

The central finding with regard to childcare is that women with a university degree spend significantly more hours looking after their children than men with a similar degree, also in comparison to women and men with less education. Similarly, women who work from home devote more time to their children than men who work from home or women and men who work outside the home.¹⁷

Support of Elderly People by Women during COVID-19

Worldwide, 70 per cent of the workforce in social and care professions consists of women. In addition, they do on average three times as much unpaid care work as men. Since women are increasingly caring for the sick, be it work or unpaid within the family, they are more exposed to the virus and run a high risk of infection. In addition, this burden of care also entails considerable psychological stress.

According to the German Federation of Trade Unions, DGB, the proportion of women working in care is over 80 per cent. Women are still predominantly to be found especially in the care of the elderly. But, despite their disproportionate share, according to the DGB, they sometimes earn less than their male colleagues in similar positions.

In nursing, for example, women receive an average of 10 per cent less. In addition to relatively low pay, there are also low opportunities for advancement, and stressful working hours. Many have now quit their jobs. The consequences are problems with inefficient health services, especially for elderly people.

In Germany, the wage gap between men and women is particularly pronounced compared to other European countries. For years, the so-called gender pay gap was over 20 per cent. More recently, it has fallen slightly to 19 per cent, according to the Federal Statistical Office. The pay gap is most pronounced in the entertainment industry at 29 per cent, followed by scientific and technical services and the health and social services with an average of 25 per cent. The Federal Statistical Office explains the differences primarily through structural factors. For example, women would work more often in poorly paid jobs and less often in well-paid management positions.

Family members supported their older relatives both before and during the pandemic. They made up about half of the sample, a total of 911 participants. The results were quite surprising: women and men reduced support for their older relatives, although the decline was less pronounced for men. In addition, there were also significant differences within the gender groups.

While women of all categories devoted less time to their older relatives, the reduction was less the higher the women’s level of formal education. The picture was completely different for men: men with a low level of education even increased their commitment, while it fell for men in the other categories – albeit to a lesser extent than for women. Similarly to childcare, the situation in the labour market also influenced the time spent on care for the elderly. There were no significant differences between the sexes among the employed.¹⁸

However, among women unemployed or inactive, the number of hours devoted to helping the elderly fell, while it increased among men. This could also be explained by the fact that the lockdown measures required (additional) forms of support: shopping, tidying up and rearranging, and repairs.¹⁹ These activities can be more easily reconciled with common notions of masculinity, which means that society expects men to do more physical and practical work than caring. So, women spend more time caring for the elderly, but the gender gap in this regard narrowed during the pandemic. Men, especially younger men and men outside the labour market, devoted more time to caring for the elderly.²⁰

Figure 7 presents the comprehensive care system
of communities.

Conclusion

In the corona pandemic, women are exposed to extraordinary professional and home-work stresses in immediate care. Many women feel inadequately prepared for this situation. However, the majority of them were confident that they would be able to cope with everyday working and family life. Politicians, society, and managers should identify and respond to the needs of women, especially regarding the load with children and elderly people.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Prof. Dr. Jane Lethbridge, University of Greenwich, Faculty of Business Great Britain for years of support for the above seminar series at the Leuphana University Lueneburg, Germany.

This article was originally published in The European Financial Review 02 July 2022. It can be accessed here: https://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/psychological-effects-of-the-pandemic-on-women/

About the Authors

Lea Laue has been studying law as a major and business administration as a minor at Leuphana University Lüneburg since 2019. Her current focus is on energy law. In addition, she has been working for the Competition and Regulation Institute at Leuphana University as a student assistant since 2020.

Michael Palocz-Andresen is working as a guest professor at the Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla México. Since 2018 till 2022 he was a Herder-professor supported by the DAAD at the TEC de Monterrey. He became a full professor at the University West-Hungary Sopron, a guest professor at the TU Budapest, the Leuphana University Lüneburg, and the Shanghai Jiao Tong University. He is a Humboldt scientist and an instructor of the SAE International in the USA.

References

1. Statistisches Bundesamt (2022), 15 February 2022: Mobilitätsindikatoren auf Basis von Mobilfunkdaten: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Service/EXDAT/Datensaetze/mobilitaetsindikatoren-mobilfunkdaten.html#allgemeines%20Mobilitätsverhalten.
2. UN Women (2021) Corona: Eine Krise der Frauen. UN Women Deutschland. Für die Rechte von Frauen, 15 February 2022: https://www.unwomen.de/aktuelles/corona-eine-krise-der-frauen.html.
3. Destatis: Anteil der im Homeoffice arbeitenden Beschäftigten in Deutschland vor und während der Corona-Pandemie 2020 und 2021, 18 February 2022: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1204173/umfrage/befragung-zur-homeoffice-nutzung-in-der-corona-pandemie/.
4. Destatis: Wollen Sie nach der Corona-Krise so oft von zu Hause aus arbeiten, wie während der Krise?, 18 February 2022: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1196192/umfrage/umfrage-zum-homeoffice-nach-der-corona-krise/.
5. Handelsblatt, Andres Schulte: Die Risiken des Homeoffice werden oft nicht erkannt, 18.02.2022: https://www.handelsblatt.com/technik/medizin/interview-arnd-schaff-die-risiken-des-homeoffice-werden-oft-nicht-erkannt/26781574.html?ticket=ST-18167115-Bgfrh6LBheLwsAPG0jYr-ap4.
6. Beck, Homeoffice-Pflicht läuft mit Bundesnotbremse aus, 15 February 2022: https://rsw.beck.de/aktuell/daily/meldung/detail/homeoffice-pflicht-laeuft-mit-bundesnotbremse-aus.
7. Statistisches Bundesamt, Pressemitteilung No. N 017 (2021), 15 February 2022: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2021/03/PD21_N017_13.html
8. Destatis, Verteilung von Pflegekräften in Deutschland nach Pflegeart und Geschlecht (2020), 15 February 2022: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1029877/umfrage/verteilung-von-pflegekraefte-in-deutschland-nach-pflegeart-und-geschlecht/.
9. DW, Made for Minds (2021). Corona: Pflegerinnen, die Heldinnen der Krise. Pflegenotstand, 15 February 2022: https://www.dw.com/de/corona-pflegerinnen-die-heldinnen-der-krise/a-56783638.
10. Andreas Hammer: Niedriglohnsektor Deutschland weiter überdurchschnittlich hoch, 15 February 2022: https://w9eg9znx6.homepage.t-online.de/hammer-eu/wordpress/?p=1432.
11. Destatis Pressemitteilung Nr. 416 vom 21. Oktober 2020, 15 February 2022: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2020/10/PD20_416_623.html.
12. TUM: Erste große Studie zu Erfahrungen von Frauen und Kindern in Deutschland, 15 February 2022: https://www.tum.de/die-tum/aktuelles/pressemitteilungen/details/36053.
13. WDR (2021), Natalie Sablowski: Corona überlastet Frauenhäuser, 15 February 2022: https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/corona-ueberlastete-frauenhaeuser-100.html.
14. Bailey, L., Ward, M., DiCosimo, A., Baunta, S., Cunningham, C., Romero-Ortuno, R., … & Briggs, R. (2021). Physical and mental health of older people while cocooning during the COVID-19 pandemic.
15. QJM: An International Journal of Medicine. Kohlrausch, Bettina, Zucco, Alina (2020). Die Coronakrise trifft Frauen doppelt.
16. Ravens-Sieberer, U., Kaman, A., Erhart, M., Devine, J., Schlack, R. & Otto, C. (2021). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on quality of life and mental health in children and adolescents in Germany. European child & adolescent psychiatry.
17. Saurabh, K. & Ranjan, S. (2020). Compliance and psychological impact of quarantine in children and adolescents due to Covid-19 pandemic. The Indian Journal of Pediatrics.
18. Moment: Corona-Teilzeit: “Gesellschaftspolitischer Fortschritt wird ohne Arbeitszeitverkürzung nicht möglich sein”, 15 February 2022: https://www.moment.at/story/corona-teilzeit-gesellschaftspolitischer-fortschritt-wird-ohne-arbeitszeitverkuerzung-nicht.
19. Han, S. D. & Mosqueda, L. (2020). Elder abuse in the COVID-19 era. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
20. Makaroun, L. K., Bachrach, R. L. & Rosland, A. M. (2020). Elder abuse in the time of COVID-19—Increased risks for older adults and their caregivers. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.