To All Research Study of Public Attitudes Toward the Introduction of Low Emission Zones (LEZ) in Almaty
Results of the Study of Public Attitudes Toward the Introduction of Low Emission Zones (LEZ) in Almaty
Introduction
This study was conducted to explore how residents of Almaty perceive and respond to the potential introduction of Low Emission Zones (LEZ). In the context of growing air pollution in the city, understanding public opinion and the level of awareness among residents becomes critically important for development of environmental policies that are both effective and socially acceptable.
As part of the research, six focus groups were conducted involving representatives of different target audiences: car owners, taxi drivers, and pedestrians. Participants varied in age, occupation, lifestyle, and transportation habits, which allowed the study to capture a wide range of perspectives and experiences.
Special attention during the discussions was given to the following topics:
- perceptions of the city’s environmental problems and sources of pollution
- attitudes toward personal responsibility for air quality
- awareness of the LEZ concept and perceptions of the program
- levels of trust in environmental initiatives and public authorities
- communication needs and expectations regarding the LEZ initiative
- barriers and conditions for public acceptance of such programs
The report is structured to present key observations for each target group, as well as to highlight overall trends, barriers, and recommendations. The final section contains practical conclusions for developing an effective communication strategy and adapting the LEZ concept to the social context of Almaty.
This report aims to promote a more open and trust-based dialogue between the public and government institutions, as well as to support environmental policies that reflect the interests and realities of the city’s residents.
Target Audience Profile
Car Owners
The study involved car owners, both men and women in roughly equal proportions, participants were generally between the ages of 25 and 55. Among this target audience were young professionals and entrepreneurs working in finance, sales, construction, and logistics. Almost all focus group participants lead active lifestyles. Some are constantly busy balancing work and childcare responsibilities, while others frequently travel due to the nature of their work.
Participants owned vehicles manufactured between 1995 and 2024, with a focus on practical, budget-friendly models. Used vehicles dominate among car owners, with affordability being the primary factor influencing purchasing decisions.
Types of vehicles: crossovers, hatchbacks, SUVs, minivans
Car brands: Kia, Toyota, Hyundai, Nissan, Mitsubishi (Pajero), Volkswagen, Audi.
Fuel types: Most participants drive gasoline vehicles (more often AI-92, less frequently AI-95). Some participants own diesel cars, and a few use hybrid or electric vehicles.
For the majority of respondents, a car is not simply a means of transportation but an essential tool in everyday logistics, particularly when balancing work responsibilities, family obligations, and personal errands.
This is especially relevant for women with children. Many of them drive their children to schools, extracurricular activities, and kindergartens on a daily basis. Cars are also used for shopping and transporting strollers and other household items.
Participants who live in mountainous or more remote areas of Almaty emphasized that a car is often the only convenient and sometimes the only feasible way to travel. The limited public transport infrastructure in such areas makes the use of buses or the metro difficult or impossible.
Main criteria for using a car is as follows:
✔ independence from public transport schedules
✔ time efficiency for work that requires frequent travel
✔ convenience for family and household tasks
✔ personal comfort, especially during extreme heat or cold
✔ greater control over routes and travel conditions
Perceived environmental impact of cars:
Car owners tend to rationalize their use of personal vehicles and often shift environmental responsibility toward less controllable sources such as thermal power plants, dense urban construction, and other systemic factors. The influence of cars is acknowledged, but with the clarification: “My car is not the main problem.”
Only a few participants who actively use their vehicles identified the large number of outdated vehicles that do not meet modern environmental standards as a key contributor to worsening air quality in Almaty.
Attitudes toward public transport:
Public transport is seen primarily as an inconvenient alternative that is rarely used. The main reasons for avoiding it include lack of routes serving necessary areas (especially mountainous parts of the city), overcrowding, heat and poor ventilation, lack of air conditioning on buses, irregular schedules, physical discomfort and motion sickness, difficulty combining routes with everyday tasks (e.g., transporting children or goods), rude or disrespectful behavior from drivers (e.g., buses passing stops without stopping or drivers behaving rudely)
Even participants who do not completely rule out using public transport acknowledge that the current level of service in the city is far from the desired standard in terms of comfort and coverage.
At the same time, the metro is viewed much more positively. However, its routes remain limited and therefore unsuitable for the travel needs of most respondents.
Overall, car owners in Almaty tend to be people with significant responsibilities, busy schedules, and a strong need to control their time and mobility. Their behavior is rational and shaped by real-life logistical constraints. Without a systemic alternative, such as a convenient, safe, and well-connected public transport system, giving up personal vehicles is not a realistic option for them.
Taxi Drivers
The focus group discussions also included taxi drivers, both men and women, including mothers on maternity leave, individual entrepreneurs, and professional drivers who have spent many years working in the taxi industry.
Participants ranged in age from 26 to 55.
For most participants, taxi driving represents their primary source of income rather than a temporary side job.
Free time is limited for most of them and is usually devoted to family, children, brief rest, sports, or spending time outdoors.
Vehicle ownership models are different:
✔ some drivers use their own cars (including vehicles purchased on credit)
✔ others work with rented vehicles
Vehicle production years: 2005 to 2025.
Main car brands: Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Chevrolet, BYD, Lada, Chery.
Fuel types: Most vehicles run on AI-92 gasoline, less frequently AI-95. One participant uses an electric vehicle (BYD 2025 model).
Criteria for choosing a vehicle for work:
✔ fuel efficiency and reliability (there is noticeable distrust toward Chinese cars and electric vehicles)
✔ affordability, especially when buying used vehicles (budget remains the main factor in choosing between new and used cars)
✔ design, comfort, and service quality , particularly for those working in higher-end ride categories
✔ recommendations from mechanics and friends, especially among less experienced drivers
Perceived environmental impact of cars:
When asked about the environmental impact of taxis and private vehicles on Almaty’s ecology, many taxi drivers initially reacted with resistance and rejection. While they acknowledge that the city suffers from congestion and pollution caused by many vehicles, they are reluctant to associate this problem with their own activities.
Many drivers simply do not think about the environmental impact of vehicle emissions and instead attribute pollution to what they consider larger issues, such as thermal power plants, private housing areas, or incoming migrants.
Some participants acknowledge the issue but view taxi work as a necessity: “This is a way to survive,” or “This is how I earn a living, there is no other option.”
Pedestrians
Target group included participants aged 25 to 53. These individuals represent active and generally environmentally conscious urban residents who do not view walking as a forced necessity but rather as a deliberate lifestyle choice.
Professionally, the group is quite diverse. Participants included language school managers, IT specialists, teachers, fashion industry workers, musicians, junior researchers, warehouse employees, and representatives of creative and service professions. What unites them is a similar lifestyle pattern: many regularly engage in physical activity, enjoy walking or running, hiking in the mountains, cooking, art, and sports, and prefer spending their free time outdoors. In this context, pedestrian mobility becomes a natural extension of their values and lifestyle.
However, when necessary, participants actively combine different modes of transport, including buses, metro, taxis, and electric scooters. Public transport is generally viewed as an option for longer trips or situations with limited time. The metro receives more positive feedback, as it is perceived as more comfortable, faster, and cooler during the summer. Buses, by contrast, are frequently criticized for overcrowding, poor ventilation, lack of air conditioning, and overall discomfort. Many participants mention that they use buses only as a last resort – if they are running very late or there are no other route options. In some cases, pedestrians use electric scooters for short-distance travel, for example when quickly going to a nearby store, market, or appointment.
Many participants emphasized that they would be willing to use public transport more frequently if it were more comfortable, modern, and served more areas of the city. A particularly common concern is the limited metro network, especially in newly developed or remote residential districts.
Overall, pedestrians in Almaty are not a marginalized group lacking mobility options. Rather, they are urban residents with clear values who consciously choose walking as a healthy and sustainable form of mobility. They are open to alternative transport options but expect the urban environment to provide functionality, environmental responsibility, and comfort.
Perception of Environmental Problems
Almost all participants, regardless of their group, acknowledge that road transport affects the environment and is one of the main sources of air pollution in Almaty. This perception is based both on visual observations (smog, soot, vehicle emissions) and on physical sensations, including worsening allergies, difficulty breathing, unpleasant odors in the streets, fatigue, bronchial symptoms, and more frequent respiratory illnesses.
However, personal responsibility for the situation among car owners and taxi drivers is almost absent. People tend to refer to “other” causes, such as old buses, trucks, minibuses, thermal power plants, and urban construction.
All participants, regardless of their status or lifestyle, agree that the air in Almaty is polluted and that this represents a serious urban problem. This perception is shaped less by media coverage and more by personal observations, for example, when viewing the city from the mountains and seeing the smog layer covering Almaty.
Despite the general recognition of the problem, levels of concern and willingness to support change vary across different groups.
Thus, the most environmentally sensitive group, those who most clearly recognize that cars are a major contributor to air pollution, are pedestrians. They are followed by car owners, who generally acknowledge the problem but are not necessarily willing to sacrifice personal comfort. Taxi drivers, however, represent the most categorical group in terms of denying the scale of the issue. While some of them partially recognize the link between their vehicles and pollution, the environmental discourse does not generate a sense of personal responsibility.
Detailed Perceptions of Air Pollution Sources
Almost all study participants, regardless of their target group, believe that several key factors contribute to air pollution in Almaty. The most frequently mentioned include:
✔ Road transport (especially older vehicles, diesel cars, minibuses, buses, and trucks)
✔ Dense construction, deforestation, and “high-rise buildings that block the wind”
✔ Industrial facilities (thermal power plants and, less frequently, factories)
✔ Private housing areas using coal or wood heating
✔ Weather conditions and the city’s geographical location , “everything settles in the basin”
✔ Tree cutting (leading to less oxygen)
✔ Waste disposal issues
At the same time, nearly all participants emphasized that solving the environmental problem requires a comprehensive government approach. In their view, a single isolated measure, such as restricting car traffic, would not solve Almaty’s air quality issues. Participants frequently stated that authorities should “start with themselves”, for example: stop chaotic urban development that blocks natural airflow through the city, provide subsidies to transition thermal power plants to gas (a measure that was promised but not fully implemented), relocate universities outside the city to reduce traffic, create jobs outside the city to reduce commuter inflow, invest in scientific research and innovation aimed at improving air quality (there are viable ideas, however no one wants to implement them).
Quotes:
“Every winter, especially in the mornings, you can see smoke coming from houses. And it becomes difficult to breathe.” — Woman, 25–34, pedestrian
“There are a lot of cars, but buses and minibuses produce the most smoke. That’s where they should start.” — Man, 35–45, car owner
“I often drive to the residential districts in the morning, the smoke hits you straight in the face, you can’t even open the windows.” — Man, 25–34, taxi driver
“You walk along the sidewalk and exhaust fumes blow right into your face — you almost need a gas mask.” — Woman, 35–45, pedestrian
“I’m not just driving around for fun — I drive to work. It’s the minibuses that pollute all the way, not me.” — Man, 25–34, car owner
“When they heat their houses in the private sector, we can still smell the smoke even on the seventh floor.” — Woman, 25–34, car owner
“As long as minibuses and buses keep running like this, the air won’t change. They are the main polluters, especially in winter.” — Man, 35–45, taxi driver
“The whole city is covered in smoke because everything has been built up. There’s nowhere for the air to circulate. The wind just doesn’t move.” — Man, 35–45, pedestrian
“If they didn’t cut down trees, maybe the air would be cleaner. Now it’s just high-rise buildings and parking lots.” — Woman, 25–34, pedestrian
“Everyone drives — so why are we being blamed specifically? My car isn’t even old.” — Man, 35–45, taxi driver
“In the morning near the power plant it smells like burning — it hits your nose immediately.” — Man, 46–55, taxi driver
Transport Issues of Concern
Regardless of their mode of transportation, all participants agree that the city’s transportation situation causes stress, inconvenience, and frustration. All three groups acknowledge that the city is struggling to cope with the growing transport load.
Most common complaints:
✔ Chronic traffic congestion — affecting drivers, taxi drivers, and even pedestrians when crossing streets
✔ Parking chaos — lack of spaces and sidewalks blocked by vehicles
✔ Inefficient traffic logistics — narrow roads, illogical interchanges, and constant traffic pattern changes
✔ Public transport is not perceived as a viable alternative — it is overcrowded, inconvenient, and poorly connected
Importantly, none of the target groups directly linked transport problems with air quality issues in Almaty. Respondents primarily spoke about the personal discomfort they experience while moving around the city, rather than about the environmental impact of outdated vehicles.
Quotes:
“I leave earlier every morning because I know I’ll get stuck in traffic. There’s no alternative” — Man, 35–45, car owner
“Parking is a nightmare. Even if there is a space — there’s a sign saying you can’t park. And next to it is a paid zone. Everything is designed for fines.” — Woman, 25–34, car owner
“They built an interchange on Al-Farabi, but it only made things worse. Now everyone has to circle around twice.” — Man, 25–34, car owner
“Driving in Almaty feels like survival. Cameras everywhere, road repairs, traffic jams. No comfort, no pleasure.” — Woman, 35–45, car owner
“You just want to pull into your courtyard, but everything is blocked with cars, and a tow truck is already pulling up. It’s crazy.” — Man, 25–34, car owner
“I travel with my children. If I didn’t have a car, how would I transport them? On a minibus with backpacks?” — Woman, 25–34, car owner
“The navigation system keeps glitching — streets get closed, detours appear. Traffic flow isn’t regulated at all” — Man, 35–45, car owner
“If you get into the city center in the morning, that’s it — you won’t get out until afternoon. Orders pile up and customers get angry.” — Man, 35–45, taxi driver
“You wait for a passenger and there’s nowhere to stop. You can’t even pull over for a minute — you’ll get fined.” — Man, 25–34, taxi driver
“If taxis had a dedicated lane, we would work much faster. Right now we’re stuck in the same traffic as everyone else.” — Man, 35–45, taxi driver
“Passengers often think we’re driving around in circles on purpose. But I’m just forced to take a detour.” — Man, 25–34, taxi driver
“They installed cameras everywhere. If you fail to change lanes in time — that’s it, you’re fined. And traffic is very dense.” — Man, 35–45, taxi driver
“The city feels like a trap. You’re driving normally and suddenly — roadworks. No warning, no detours.” — Man, 25–34, taxi driver
“Working has become stressful. Not because of passengers, but because the roads feel like a battlefield.” — Man, 35–45, taxi driver
“With a stroller it’s impossible to walk. Everything is blocked by cars, people have to walk on the road — is that normal?” — Woman, 35–45, pedestrian
“Traffic lights don’t work. Once I almost got hit by a car — and it was on a pedestrian crossing.” — Man, 25–34, pedestrian
“You try to walk to a bus stop but there’s no sidewalk. Just mud, puddles, and cars everywhere.” — Woman, 25–34, pedestrian
“You live in a city but it feels like an industrial zone. Everything is grey, noisy, and smells bad — there’s nowhere to walk.” — Man, 35–45, pedestrian
“I care about safety. But we have no barriers and no lighting. At night it’s scary to walk.” — Woman, 25–34, pedestrian
“Cars don’t stop at pedestrian crossings. Even if they see you already crossing, they push forward.” — Man, 25–34, pedestrian
“No matter how much they build, nothing changes for pedestrians. Everything is only for drivers.” — Woman, 35–45, pedestrian
If Participants Could Change Something About Almaty’s Environmental Situation, Where Would They Start?
✔ Regulation or Ban of Coal-Based Private Heating
Many participants suggested gasifying districts where coal or wood is still used for heating. This topic was often mentioned together with dissatisfaction with the authorities, with comments such as “How long can they keep talking about it with no results?”
“They should finally bring gas everywhere and monitor what people are heating their homes with.” — Man, 25–34, taxi driver
✔ Control Over Old Vehicles
Participants suggested removing old buses and heavy trucks from the roads, introducing stricter environmental standards, and expanding environmentally friendly public transport. Only a few respondents supported restricting the use of older private vehicles, and even then, rarely applied the idea to their own cars.
“Public transport is the one producing smoke all over the road. They should start with that.” — Woman, 25–34, car owner
More Greenery, Trees, and Parks
Participants frequently spoke about restoring trees and expanding green spaces, particularly in residential districts.
“They should stop cutting down trees first. Then we can start cleaning the air.” — Woman, 35–45, pedestrian
✔ Changes in Urban Development and Planning Logic
Many participants expressed dissatisfaction with chaotic urban development, blocked air circulation, and a lack of coherent city planning.
“Everything has been covered in concrete. Too many buildings. Where is the air supposed to come from?” — Man, 25-34, taxi driver
Expansion of Environmentally Friendly Public Transport
Participants often mentioned the need to expand metro stations, build the LRT system, and increase routes for convenient and environmentally friendly public transport.
“You can’t get where you need to go with just one transfer.” — Man, 35–45, car owner
When discussing potential improvements, interview participants often compared these proposals with the actions of the authorities. In general, they expressed little confidence that real changes would occur. Even when suggesting solutions, their comments were frequently accompanied by skepticism or irony.
“First give gas to everyone. Then maybe the air will get cleaner. If they actually want to do it.” — Woman, 35–45, car owner
“Every year they say the same things. Where are the filters and controls? It’s all just words.” — Man, 35–45, taxi driver
Overall, respondents view air pollution as a systemic issue, yet they do not feel that they themselves can influence it.
Most suggestions from participants focus on simple, concrete actions: gasification, planting trees, and filtering emissions from transport.
Perception of the LEZ Program
Awareness and Understanding
Before discussions, almost all participants: car owners, taxi drivers, and pedestrians did not understand what Low Emission Zones were and were unfamiliar with the term LEZ. The concept clearly requires additional explanation. This indicates a low level of public awareness regarding environmental policy programs.
We can be sure that after the program mechanism was explained, participants’ reactions became complex and ambiguous.
Many perceived the program as premature, poorly prepared, and potentially capable of generating significant social tension.
Discussions frequently included arguments, negative reactions, and frustration. Many participants were unwilling to perceive the program as a positive measure for improving the environment and air quality in Almaty.
Dominant opinion across all target groups was that any radical change must be supported by real improvements in people’s lives, otherwise: “People will revolt, because they are already tired of fines and hopelessness.”
Participants also expressed strong empathy for socially vulnerable groups, including: people with disabilities, pensioners, mothers with many children, people requiring medical care, couriers and taxi drivers, migrants who rely on city work because there are no employment opportunities in their hometowns
The program is also perceived by many as creating social inequality, restricting residents’ rights and discriminating against newcomers.
Some respondents described it as a “poverty tax” or “a zone for the wealthy.”
Only a small number of participants supported the introduction of LEZ. These were typically individuals who believed that older vehicles are one of the main causes of poor air quality in the city.
Measures Needed for Public Acceptance of the LEZ Program
Participants noted that the program would be received more positively if people could see real environmental improvements implemented by the government. For example:
Air purification measures beyond vehicle restrictions
✔ installation of urban air filtration towers (like those used in some Asian cities)
✔ greening highly polluted districts
✔ banning diesel-powered trucks from entering the city center
Improvements to Urban Infrastructure
✔ relocating offices, universities, and workplaces to the lower part of the city to balance traffic flows
✔ requiring developers of new residential complexes to include multi-level parking structures, car-free courtyards, playgrounds and green areas
✔ introducing strict environmental standards in urban development (green zones and transport accessibility)
Transport Policy Proposals
✔ scrappage and replacement program for old vehicles
✔ “one family — one car” preferential program
✔ car loans at 1–3% interest rates
✔ partial government coverage of down payments
Development of Transport Alternatives to Private Cars
✔ increased frequency and coverage of bus routes, particularly in suburban areas, launch of night routes
✔ improvements in bus quality: seating, air conditioning, cleanliness
✔ modernization of the metro and tram systems with new lines
✔ creation of a state-run taxi fleet with fixed tariffs and priority for electric vehicles
✔ development of carsharing, electric scooters, and eco-transport with affordable fixed prices
✔ free or discounted travel within LEZ for those who leave their cars outside the zone
✔ convenient commuter routes connecting suburban areas with the city
✔ park-and-ride facilities in suburban areas
✔ employer-provided transportation services supported by government subsidies
Social Protection and Flexible Pricing
✔ preferential conditions for vulnerable groups: people with disabilities, parents with children, elderly residents, migrants working in the city
Differentiated LEZ entry pricing:
✔ more passengers in the vehicle — lower fee
✔ cheaper entry during off-peak hours
✔ discounted or annual permits for residents of the central zone
Increasing Environmental Awareness and Behavioral Change
✔ public campaigns explaining the harm of pollution and benefits of reducing car use
✔ engagement of influencers and community leaders in promoting environmentally responsible lifestyles
✔ stronger environmental education in schools and universities
✔ communication emphasizing that the goal of LEZ is health and quality of life, not punishment
Systemic Support and Fairness
✔ park-and-ride facilities allowing drivers to switch to public transport at the city entrance
✔ development of a mobile app for trip planning and ride sharing
✔ tax incentives encouraging environmentally responsible behavior
Corporate and Workplace Initiatives on Ecology Improvement
✔ participants also proposed innovative measures involving organizations and employees:
✔ “Car-Free Week” initiatives encouraging employees to commute using public or sustainable transport
✔ encouraging remote work one or two days per week to reduce traffic and emissions
✔ bonuses for employees who commute by bicycle, electric scooter, or walking
Community Initiatives
✔ weekday community clean-up events involving company employees as part of corporate social responsibility
✔ city environmental events such as clean-up campaigns, eco-runs, environmental challenges, and awards for the best initiatives
✔ involvement of influencers and local opinion leaders in promoting environmental awareness
Communication and Trust
✔ people want to understand why and how initiatives are implemented – transparency is key to building trust
✔ program information must be clear, visual, and targeted
✔ initiatives must demonstrate concrete results before being expanded
Quotes:
“Many people won’t be able to afford it. It would make more sense to move universities and offices outside the city so people wouldn’t have to travel to the center. Otherwise, it’s just another hit to people’s budgets.” — Man, 35–45, car owner
“If they make the paid zones, there could even be protests. Almaty is already divided: above Abay avenue everything looks beautiful, below it feels like Afghanistan.” — Man, 35–45, car owner
“The government only takes from people. Where is the alternative? If you want us to stop driving, offer transport, scooters, metro.” — Man, 35–45, car owner
“What we need is not just a fee, but motivation. ‘Pay and that’s it’ isn’t an idea. But if you got a discount on a scooter for not driving your car — now that’s a real incentive.” — Man, 35–45, car owner
“I support having fewer cars. But if you do that, you need to plan transport, shuttles, and parking at the same time.” — Woman, 25–34, car owner
“Strict measures are needed. Half-measures don’t work. People will start negotiating, looking for loopholes, and nothing will change again.” — Woman, 25–34, car owner
“Yes, I could take the bus. But if I’m working and need to go back and forth, I need flexible transport. Right now, I don’t have one.” — Woman, 35–45, car owner
“People coming from outside the city should pay more. They’re the main problem — during holidays the city is empty.” — Man, 35–45, car owner
“Inside the city? That would hit people hard. Especially if the entry fee is 1500 tenge — that’s a lot for everyday trips.” — Woman, 25–34, car owner
“They build one metro line every five years. Scooters cost as much as taxis. That’s not an alternative. The whole system is poorly organized from the start.” — Man, 35–45, car owner
“Not everyone can afford a car newer than 2010. And you’re asking them to pay to enter the city as well? That’s absurd.” — Woman, 35–45, pedestrian
“People are already tired — taxes, fines, prices keep rising. Now even the air will be paid for? There will be protests.” — Woman, 25–34, pedestrian
“If you want people to switch to newer cars, introduce a program. A preferential one. Otherwise, nothing will change.” — Man, 35–45, pedestrian
“If everything is explained properly, people will understand. The main thing is that they see it’s not about fines but about helping them.” — Woman, 35–45, pedestrian
“Let people speak and be heard — they’ll conclude that it’s useful. But don’t push it from above.” — Man, 25–34, pedestrian
“It will be better for pedestrians. Less noise, less exhaust pollution. I support it if public transport improves.” — Woman, 25–34, pedestrian
“There are people with health problems, children, disabilities. How are they supposed to get around if their cars are not allowed in?” — Woman, 35–45, pedestrian
“Nothing will change without awareness campaigns. We need to start with environmental education, especially among young people.” — Woman, 35–45, pedestrian
“Introduce a preferential program for one car per family. Then the entire vehicle fleet will gradually renew and become more environmentally friendly.” — Man, 35–45, pedestrian
“People will accept it if there’s an alternative. If you switch transport, you should get benefits and proper conditions.” — Woman, 25–34, pedestrian
“That’s discrimination. You can’t just ban old cars, people rely on them to work.” — Man, 35–45, taxi driver
“So, the rich can drive, and the rest of us should just stop breathing? Everything is only for those who live in the center.” — Woman, 35–45, car owner
“Outside the city there’s no transport and no jobs. And now you’re asking people to pay just to enter the city? People will go mad.” — Woman, 46-55, car owner
“If it were like a mortgage: paying for a car over 20 years, people would agree. But now loans are at 20% interest.” — Man, 25–34, car owner
“Make buses run on schedule like in Europe. And make them follow proper routes instead of driving randomly.” — Man, 35–45, car owner
“I would be happy to take the bus. But how? During rush hour it’s jammed. I’m actually afraid to get on a bus.” — Woman, 35-45, car owner
“You say we should switch transport. But to what? A minibus where you stand for an hour? Or a taxi that now costs twice as much?” — Woman, 35-45, car owner
Across all discussions, participants emphasized that without subsidies, infrastructure improvements, and vehicle fleet renewal, the LEZ program will be perceived negatively and will likely fail.
LEZ Program and Public Trust in Authorities
Lack of Transparency and Clarity of Goals
Many focus group participants expressed doubts that the LEZ program would be aimed solely at improving environmental conditions. Instead, they fear it may become another way to increase government revenue, lack of transparency regarding how collected funds would be used creates a perception of unfairness.
“We are not against improving the environment, but this looks like just another way to collect money. Where are the results?” — Man, 35–45, car owner
Perceived Social Inequality
Another major concern is social injustice. Participants note that most residents of Almaty cannot afford new cars. As a result, they would be forced to pay additional fees even if their existing car is their only means of transportation for work or daily life. This creates a sense that the program does not reflect realities of society and disproportionately affects those who cannot afford environmentally friendly vehicles.
“This is simply a tax on the poor. Those who can afford new cars won’t feel it, but those driving older ones will have to pay.” — Woman, 35–45, pedestrian
Historical Experience and Distrust in Government Effectiveness
Distrust is also rooted in previous experiences, respondents often referenced earlier environmental initiatives that did not produce visible improvements. For example, the eco-posts project was frequently mentioned as ineffective and disappointing. As a result, some people believe that environmental initiatives are more about creating the appearance of action rather than implementing real structural change.
“Until we see results, we won’t believe it. Maybe one day old cars will disappear from the center, but what happens next?” — Man, 35–45, car owner
Fear of Corruption
Some respondents also expressed concerns about potential corruption. They worry that funds collected from owners of older vehicles could be misused. This is particularly relevant considering past dissatisfaction with government actions in other areas, where questions often arise about the appropriateness and transparency of public spending.
“If this is really about the environment, why are there no guarantees that the money won’t end up in officials’ pockets?” — Woman, 46-55, car owner
Lack of a Differentiated Approach
The absence of a differentiated approach within the program also raises concerns among respondents. People believe that the authorities demonstrate insufficient flexibility in considering the different categories of citizens, their financial capabilities, and their real needs. This creates perception that Low Emission Zones may primarily benefit more affluent groups while ignoring the needs of poorer and more vulnerable populations.
“If you introduce such restrictions, at least do something for people with lower incomes. Otherwise, some won’t feel it at all, while others will suffer.” — Man, 35–45, pedestrian
Need for Evidence of Effectiveness
Respondents demand visible proof that the program works, specifically improvements in air quality, reduced pollution levels, and overall environmental improvement. Without clear evidence or measurable results, distrust toward such measures will only increase.
“Show results in at least one district where this has been implemented. Then people will see that it works and that it’s not just about collecting money.” — Woman, 35-45, car owner
LEZ as a Symbol of Social Inequality
For many respondents, LEZ is perceived not simply as an environmental measure but as a symbol of social inequality. Those who own newer cars will easily be able to enter the city center, while those with older vehicles will have to pay. As a result, LEZ is often perceived as a program “for the wealthy.”
“People with cars from 2020 won’t even notice it. But those who work hard using older cars will suffer. This isn’t about the air — it’s about social class.” — Man, 35–45, car owner
If Authorities Failed to Convince, They Must Be Hiding Something
Many respondents believe that the authorities have not provided transparent information: they have not presented clear data on pollution levels, explained how collected funds will be used, or outlined what alternatives will be created.
“If this is really about the environment, where are the numbers? Where are the measurements? Where are the plans for improvement?” — Woman, 25–34, car owner
Sense of Threat and Potential Conflict
Some respondents openly state that if the program is implemented strictly, without support or dialogue, it may provoke public anger and protest.
“People are already at their limit. If they start fining without explanation, there will be a riot. This isn’t about the air — it’s about people.” — Man, 35–45, car owner
Communications
General Awareness
Many respondents learn about environmental changes not from official sources but through word-of-mouth or random mentions on social media, group chats, and online communities. Participants often said things like “I saw something somewhere” or “I heard something about it,” but only a few could name specific sources where they had read about Almaty’s environmental problems. These sources included Telegram channels, Tengri News, Krisp, and Instagram. Some respondents also reported learning about air quality through apps such as AirKaz and IQAir.
“I think I saw something about it on Instagram, someone reposted it, but I’m not sure if it was official.”
“My neighbor said that soon old cars won’t be allowed into the city center. Where he heard that, I have no idea.” — Man, 35–45, car owner
Such uncertainty suggests low reach of official information — messages do not reach the audience
in a timely manner.
What Information Channels are Suggested?
✔ direct meetings with residents before implementing LEZ
✔ awareness campaigns through influencers and popular bloggers
✔ interactive feedback platforms
✔ public meetings and open discussions to explain the changes
✔ pilot zones with open access to environmental data
✔ monthly public reports explaining clearly how LEZ funds are used
✔ unified city platform (website, app, or Telegram bot) with updates, environmental measures, and pollution maps
✔ systematic communication from the city administration and environmental agencies via social media (infographics, stories, explanatory videos)
✔ local chats, brochures, and information boards: especially in older districts and suburban areas
✔ involvement of independent experts and doctors to build trust
Overall, respondents want to see strong engagement from local authorities in working with residents, open dialogue, and support when introducing Low Emission Zones.
Groups That Require Communication First
Participants noted that all residents of the city and surrounding areas require information. However, particular attention should be given to the following groups:
✔ elderly residents
✔ large families
✔ low-income households
✔ working drivers, small entrepreneurs, couriers, and taxi drivers
✔ residents of suburban and rural areas
✔ people with disabilities
Recommendations for Working with City Residents
Based on respondents’ statements, there is a clear need for a more open, respectful, and understandable dialogue between authorities and residents on environmental issues. People are not opposed to change, especially if it improves air quality and public health, but they feel excluded from decision-making. Necessary measures for work with people:
Dialogue and Participation Instead of One-Sided Restrictions
Respondents clearly emphasize that the main issue lies in the style of communication. They do not reject reforms themselves but perceive them as imposed “from above.” People want to be participants in the process rather than passive subjects.
“If they talked to us instead of just presenting decisions as a fact, the reaction would be completely different.” — Woman, 25–34, pedestrian
“Ask people what works for them, where the problems are, what needs improvement. After all, we live in this city.” — Man, 35–45, car owner
Public Visibility and Open Meetings: travel to regions instead of office reports
One of the strongest suggestions was that authorities should “go out to people” hold live discussions in areas where initiatives are planned, give local residents a voice, and respond to questions informally rather than scripted statements.
“Let the Akims or environmental officials come to areas. Not on YouTube, but into the courtyard. So, people can ask questions and get answers.” — Woman, 35–45, pedestrian
This isn’t about the paperwork — it’s about trust.” If they show up and show their faces, the conversation will be different.” — Man, 25–34, car owner
Simplified, Visible and Accessible Communication
Respondents note that official communication is often too complex, formal, and inaccessible to ordinary residents. They suggest:
- using infographics, short videos, and stories
- explaining policies through real-life examples
- providing clear instructions about what individuals should do
- communicating through local bloggers and opinion leaders
“Make a one-minute video: what LEZ is, what will change, who it affects. That’s it. That’s better than a four-page leaflet.” — Woman, 25–34, car owner
Online Platforms and Feedback
Many respondents emphasized the importance of feedback and accessible digital tools. Suggestions included:
✔ chatbots where people can ask questions or submit complaints
✔ maps of environmental issues by district with comments from residents
✔ online voting for environmental priorities
✔ live-stream discussions with experts and city authorities
“Why not collect ideas through an online survey? Someone might suggest a clean-up event, someone else might propose ways to reduce congestion in their district.” — Man, 35–45, car owner
Engagement Through Joint Activities
Respondents believe the most effective way to engage people is through shared activities, particularly those that are simple and tangible.
✔ community clean-up days involving companies and residents
✔ a city-wide “Car-Free Week” with prizes
✔ environmental quests in green zones
✔ “plant and adopt a tree” initiatives
“When you plant something yourself or participate in an activity, you start to care. That’s when awareness really develops.” — Woman, 35-45, car owner
In summary, respondents are willing to participate in environmental initiatives but require respectful treatment, clear communication, and the feeling that their opinions genuinely matter. Keyl Message: “We are not against change — we are against being excluded from the process.”
Quotes:
“They just present decisions as a fact. If they had asked people even once, the reaction might have been completely different.” — Woman, 35–45, pedestrian
“Why can’t they talk to us like adults? Not in the format of ‘this is how it will be,’ but ‘let’s discuss how to do it better.’” — Woman, 25–34, car owner
“There’s no information, as if it’s none of our business. And then they’re surprised that people get angry.” — Man, 35–45, taxi driver
“Not everything has to be decided in offices. If they came to the areas and listened, they’d hear so many ideas.” — Man, 35–45, pedestrian
“If there were platforms where we could speak up, maybe people would perceive things differently.” — Woman, 25–34, pedestrian
“Everything goes in one direction: we are obliged, but no one considers our opinion.” Not a single question: what do you think, what’s convenient for you?” — Woman, 35–45, pedestrian
“They don’t even conduct basic surveys. And today we have social media and messengers, so what’s stopping them?” — Man, 35–45, taxi driver
“It feels like everything has already been decided without us. That’s why there’s no trust, if we’d discussed it beforehand, no one would be upset.” — Woman, 25–34, car owner
“Sometimes it feels like nobody talks to us at all. No explanations, no questions — just orders from above.” — Woman, 35–45, pedestrian
“Create dialogue like the one we’re having now. Hold meetings like this. That would be real work.” — Woman, 25–34, pedestrian
“Referendums, surveys, even a simple Google form would already show that they respect people.” — Woman, 35–45, pedestrian
“You could simply put announcements with QR codes in buses and the metro so people can learn about the plans and share their opinion.” — Woman, 25–34, car owner
“Show things visually. Pictures, diagrams — so people understand why this is needed. Then they will be more willing to participate.” — Woman, 35–45, pedestrian
Final Ideas for Improving Air Quality in Almaty
Initiatives and Proposals from Respondents
Respondents demonstrated strong interest in environmental issues and suggested a range of practical and achievable initiatives. Their ideas include both systemic changes and targeted interventions aimed at gradually engaging residents and encouraging environmentally responsible behavior.
One of the most frequently mentioned directions was environmental education from an early age. Participants emphasized importance of introducing environmental topics into school and preschool curricula to develop a conscious attitude toward the environment among children. There were also suggestions to use interactive and culturally engaging formats, so that environmentally responsible behavior is perceived not as an obligation but as part of personal and social values.
Another important theme was the accessibility and clarity of information. Respondents noted that many residents simply do not know what environmental measures are being planned or already implemented. As a solution, they proposed simpler and more visual communication formats, including short videos, infographics, QR codes in public transport, and banners using clear and accessible language.
All such materials should explain why specific measures are necessary and how they will affect air quality, public health, and everyday life in the city.
Participants also suggested organizing a “Car-Free Week” as a city-wide challenge involving businesses, company employees, and residents, with incentives and rewards for participation. This initiative was seen not as a form of pressure but as a positive opportunity for residents to try alternative transport options and become involved in environmental initiatives. Within this context, respondents also suggested that private companies could encourage employee participation by offering incentives, such as an additional day off for employees who refrain from using their cars.
Many participants emphasized the need for direct, face-to-face communication between authorities and residents. They suggested holding open meetings in neighborhoods where residents could ask questions and propose ideas. A key condition for such meetings is that they should be informal and based on genuine dialogue rather than bureaucratic language or predetermined scripts. In the same context, respondents proposed using online formats such as surveys, open discussions, and idea collection through city platforms.
Another proposal involved engaging respected public figures, such as doctors, teachers, and bloggers, to promote environmental awareness. According to respondents, such voices generate more trust than formal statements issued by government institutions.
Several participants emphasized that it is important not only to inform residents but also to listen to them. There was criticism directed at the authorities for making too many decisions without public involvement. Respondents noted that if people were consulted, and if the reasons and objectives of new measures were clearly explained, public reactions would likely be far calmer and more constructive.
