Aggregate Fuel Indicators and Spatial Autocorrelation as Pitfalls in the Distributional Analysis of Zero Emission Zones: A Cautionary Study Using Dutch CBS and RDW Open Data

Öz

Zero Emission Zones (ZEZ) are spreading rapidly across the Netherlands, and their distributional consequences are increasingly assessed at the municipal scale with open administrative data. This study shows, with a worked Dutch example, that two methodological traps can invert or fabricate such conclusions, and identifies the data level at which the genuine signal survives. Two public sources are used: the CBS StatLine Kerncijfers wijken en buurten 2017 table (325 municipalities) and RDW open vehicle-registration micro-data. First, the widely available CBS "non-petrol vehicle share" (other_fuel_share) pools electric vehicles with diesel and LPG; because diesel and LPG concentrate in lower-income rural-agricultural municipalities (Friesland, Flevoland, Overijssel and Groningen), the indicator produces a counter-theoretical negative income association (Pearson r = −0.15, p = 0.006) that does not measure EV adoption at all. Second, the corresponding OLS income coefficient (β = −0.0021, p = 0.014) is largely a spatial artefact: the residuals are strongly autocorrelated (Moran's I = 0.34, P<0.001), and under Spatial Error (SEM) and Spatial Lag (SLM) models the coefficient loses significance (p = 0.62 and p = 0.37), with both spatial models decisively outperforming OLS on AIC. A ZEZ dummy is the only municipal predictor that survives spatial correction (β = 0.052, P<0.001), reflecting that ZEZ adoption is concentrated in larger, higher-income cities rather than any income gradient in EV uptake. The constructive corollary is that the genuine distributional signal must be sought at the vehicle level: in a same-year (2022) registration cohort the BEV median catalogue price (€46,274) exceeds the pooled-ICE median (€37,340) by about 24% (Mann–Whitney U, P<0.000001; rank-biserial |r| = 0.37). We conclude that municipal-scale distributional claims about ZEZ built on composite fuel indicators and non-spatial regressions are unreliable; the apparent income gradient is geographically structured, not a household-level income effect, and individual-level micro-data are required to recover the real barrier — the BEV purchase-price premium.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Zero emission zone
• Spatial autocorrelation
• Ecological fallacy
• Composite indicator bias
• Electric vehicle
• Open administrative data

Etik Beyan

Ethics committee approval was not required for this study because there was no study on animals or humans. The study uses only publicly accessible, aggregated open data and does not process directly identifiable personal data.

Kaynakça

1. Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial econometrics: Methods and models. Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7799-1
2. Bastiaanssen, J., Johnson, D., & Lucas, K. (2020). Does transport help people to gain employment? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Transport Reviews, 40(5), 607–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2020.1747569
3. Bernardo, V., Fageda, X., & Flores-Fillol, R. (2021). Pollution and congestion in urban areas: The effects of low emission zones. Economics of Transportation, 26–27, Article 100221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecotra.2021.100221
4. Blumenberg, E., & Pierce, G. (2017). The drive to work: The relationship between transportation access, housing assistance, and employment among participants in the welfare-to-work voucher program. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 37(1), 66–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X16633501
5. Bockarjova, M., & Steg, L. (2014). Can protection motivation theory predict pro-environmental behavior? Explaining the adoption of electric vehicles in the Netherlands. Global Environmental Change, 28, 276–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.010
6. CBS. (2017). Kerncijfers wijken en buurten 2017 [Dataset 83765NED]. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/
7. Cervero, R., Sandoval, O., & Landis, J. (2002). Transportation as a stimulus of welfare-to-work: Private versus public mobility. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0202200105
8. Chang, H., & Behrendt, F. (2026). From sustainable toward 'city-friendly' logistics: Using light electric freight vehicles in zero-emission zones. Cities, 170, Article 106716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2025.106716

9. European Commission. (2021). European climate law: Climate neutrality as a legal objective [Regulation (EU) 2021/1119]. European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R1119
10. Fransen, K., Boussauw, K., Deruyter, G., & De Maeyer, P. (2019). The relationship between transport disadvantage and employability: Predicting long-term unemployment based on job seekers' access to suitable job openings in Flanders, Belgium. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 125, 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.01.023
11. Fried, T., Tejada, C., Dennis-Bauer, S., Bolbaatar, O., Goodchild, A., Marshall, J. D., Olmedo, O., & García, L. (2026). Logistics of zoning, zoning for logistics: Toward healthy and equitable development for urban freight. Journal of the American Planning Association, 92(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2025.2515134
12. Gobillon, L., Magnac, T., & Selod, H. (2011). The effect of location on finding a job in the Paris region. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 26(7), 1079–1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.1168
13. Kain, J. F. (1968). Housing segregation, negro employment, and metropolitan decentralization. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 82(2), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.2307/1885893
14. Kangur, A., Jager, W., Verbrugge, R., & Bockarjova, M. (2017). An agent-based model for diffusion of electric vehicles. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 52, 166–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.01.002
15. Kaya, M. N. (2025). Numerical investigation of hydrofoil cavitation using OpenFOAM: Effect of thickness and camber. Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science, 8(5), 1585–1594. https://doi.org/10.34248/bsengineering.1759120
16. Korsu, E., & Wenglenski, S. (2010). Job accessibility, residential segregation and risk of long-term unemployment in the Paris Region. Urban Studies, 47(11), 2279–2324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009357962
17. LeSage, J., & Pace, R. K. (2009). Introduction to spatial econometrics. Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420064254
18. Liao, F., Molin, E., & van Wee, B. (2017). Consumer preferences for electric vehicles: A literature review. Transport Reviews, 37(3), 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1230794
19. Manville, M., & Shoup, D. (2018). People, parking, and cities. In D. Shoup (Ed.), Parking and the city (pp. 74–80). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351019668-4
20. Marsden, G. (2006). The evidence base for parking policies—A review. Transport Policy, 13(6), 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2006.05.009
21. Op weg naar ZES. (2025). Waar komen de zero-emissiezones [Register of municipal zero-emission zones for city logistics]. Op weg naar Zero-Emissie Stadslogistiek. https://www.opwegnaarzes.nl/bedrijven/waar-komen-de-ze-zones
22. Openshaw, S. (1984). The modifiable areal unit problem (Concepts and Techniques in Modern Geography No. 38). Geo Books.
23. Pierce, G., & Shoup, D. (2013). Getting the prices right. Journal of the American Planning Association, 79(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2013.787307
24. Quak, H., Kin, B., van Duin, R., Streng, J., & Sjouke, T. (2026). The introduction of a zero emission zone for city logistics – A case study from Rotterdam. Transportation Research Procedia, 98, 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2026.04.103
25. RDW. (2026a). Gekentekende voertuigen [Dataset m9d7-ebf2]. Rijksdienst voor het Wegverkeer. https://opendata.rdw.nl/resource/m9d7-ebf2.json
26. RDW. (2026b). Gekentekende voertuigen brandstof [Dataset 8ys7-d773]. Rijksdienst voor het Wegverkeer. https://opendata.rdw.nl/resource/8ys7-d773.json
27. Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15(3), 351–357. https://doi.org/10.2307/2087176
28. Sierzchula, W., Bakker, S., Maat, K., & van Wee, B. (2014). The influence of financial incentives and other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption. Energy Policy, 68, 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.043
29. Tobler, W. R. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography, 46(sup1), 234–240. https://doi.org/10.2307/143141
30. Verbeek, T., & Hincks, S. (2022). The 'just' management of urban air pollution? A geospatial analysis of low emission zones in Brussels and London. Applied Geography, 140, Article 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2022.102642
31. Wong, D. W. S., Zhang, F., Siddiki, S. N., & Yang, C. (2025). Spatial variabilities in factors affecting electric vehicle adoption across Virginia: A county-level analysis. Applied Geography, 178, Article 103600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2025.103600