Personal carbon allowances have been of considerable interest in environmental research in the last decade, yet no policy implementations have been adopted, partly due to uncertainty around the political acceptability of equal allowances. We tackled this issue by surveying public perceptions of fairness in carbon allowance allocation in urban mobility. Qualitative and quantitative inquiry data of 304 respondents were analysed statistically and thematically. Three distributive principles according to equity perceptions of equality, equity by capability, and equity by responsibility, were examined. The distribution of personal carbon allowances, which is sensitive to differing needs and capabilities, was perceived fairer than the other proposed options. The allocation preference differed according to isolationist and integrationist approaches, where both equity by capability and equity by responsibility evoked talk of benefits and burdens that could be produced by emission rights, while those who alluded to equality were interested in the distribution of emission rights as such. Prioritising needs and capabilities demonstrated that questions of managing the daily life still edge ahead of climate questions in many citizens eyes. Therefore, policy propositions should focus more on the shared mobility practices of everyday life and how they could be supported and incentivised towards sustainability. We concluded that due to the lack of absolute distributive consensus, policies gain legitimacy by procedural equity, and including citizens in decision making.

在过去十年中，个人碳配额在环境研究中引起了相当大的兴趣，但尚未采取任何政策实施，部分原因是平等配额的政治可接受性存在不确定性。我们通过调查公众对城市交通中碳配额分配公平性的看法来解决这个问题。对304名受访者的定性和定量查询数据进行了统计和主题分析。研究了根据平等、能力公平和责任公平的公平观念的三个分配原则。个人碳配额的分配对不同的需求和能力很敏感，被认为比其他提议的选择更公平。分配偏好因孤立主义和整合主义方法而异，其中，能力公平和责任公平都引发了关于排放权可能产生的利益和负担的讨论，而那些提到平等的人则对排放权本身的分配感兴趣。优先考虑需求和能力表明，在许多公民眼中，管理日常生活的问题仍然领先于气候问题。因此，政策主张应更多地关注日常生活中的共享出行实践，以及如何支持和激励这些实践以实现可持续性。我们的结论是，由于缺乏绝对的分配共识，政策通过程序公平获得合法性，并让公民参与决策。而那些提到平等的人则对排放权的分配感兴趣。优先考虑需求和能力表明，在许多公民眼中，管理日常生活的问题仍然领先于气候问题。因此，政策主张应更多地关注日常生活中的共享出行实践，以及如何支持和激励这些实践以实现可持续性。我们的结论是，由于缺乏绝对的分配共识，政策通过程序公平获得合法性，并让公民参与决策。而那些提到平等的人则对排放权的分配感兴趣。优先考虑需求和能力表明，在许多公民眼中，管理日常生活的问题仍然领先于气候问题。因此，政策主张应更多地关注日常生活中的共享出行实践，以及如何支持和激励这些实践以实现可持续性。我们的结论是，由于缺乏绝对的分配共识，政策通过程序公平获得合法性，并让公民参与决策。政策主张应更多地关注日常生活中的共享出行实践，以及如何支持和激励这些实践以实现可持续性。我们的结论是，由于缺乏绝对的分配共识，政策通过程序公平获得合法性，并让公民参与决策。政策主张应更多地关注日常生活中的共享出行实践，以及如何支持和激励这些实践以实现可持续性。我们的结论是，由于缺乏绝对的分配共识，政策通过程序公平获得合法性，并让公民参与决策。