Different shades of green: a reflection on ecology and anti-road movements under climate change through the case of the 2024 Swiss referendum on motorway expansion

Introduction

In the context of the current climate crisis, anti-car and anti-road movements are commonly related to green movements in the broad sense. Ecologists have indeed played a crucial part in the history of these movements by questioning and highlighting the disastrous effects of automobility on air pollution, biodiversity and climate change. In the highly mediatised anti-A69 Motorway movement in South-Western France, activists have been called “eco-terrorists” by different politicians, suggesting the perceived “radicality” of their ecological action ¹ . Some of the same activists have been self-named the Squirrels (les Ecureuils) because they have settled in trees to stop them being felled, a rather typical action in anti-road movements (see McNeish, 1999). In France and elsewhere, climate and biodiversity protection remain central arguments mobilised by groups of individuals who protest road-building projects. In Wales, the government decided in 2021 to suspend all future road-building plans to reach the target of net zero emissions by 2050 ² . However, ecological arguments are not the only ones mobilised as other reasons for the contestation lie in human safety and health, the inability of new roads to fix congestion problems in the long run, financial constraints, landscape protection or the fear of endless “development”, for instance (McNeish, 1999; Figure 1).

This paper questions the relation between climate change impacts, climate adaptation and mobility justice. The aim of this paper is threefold: 1) to analyse the November 2024 Swiss referendum on motorway expansion as a rather unique opportunity to explore the weight of climate change when discussing the future of mobilities and more specifically automobility and motorways, 2) to question (and better understand) political strategies to promote low-carbon mobilities and to abandon highly-polluting mobilities, 3) to envision promising research perspectives to better connect literature on environmental mobilities, on sustainable transports and on climate movements. This short paper is structured as follows: After introducing the conceptual framework and methodology, a section presents our Swiss case-study and gives some background on the history of anti-road movements. Then, the results section explains why opponents to motorway expansion in the Swiss context have chosen not to focus on climate issues and reflects on the outcomes and aftermath of this referendum. The last section offers a discussion connecting climate justice with mobility justice issues and mentions theoretical perspectives to research anti-car movements and the promotion of sustainable and low-carbon mobilities.

Conceptual framework

Within social sciences, issues around the acceptability and/or contestation of road-building projects have been addressed mainly by historians (history of infrastructure and technology, see for instance Norton, 2011; Mom, 2022) and sociologists (analysis of social movements, McNeish, 1999). Studies adopting more spatial approaches, around people-place relationships and human ecologies are less common (see Merriman, 2007 for a notable exception). At the intersection of wildlife biology, ecology, animal geography and planning, the field of ‘road ecology’ has developed, especially since the 2000s, to specifically address the multiple impacts of roads on nearby ecosystems. In a 2007 conceptual paper on road ecology, Coffin explains that:

Little attention has been given by geographers to the unintended consequences of road networks, or how their expansion affects the landscapes that they bisect. Far from being anonymously inert features, roads and their concomitant traffic introduce pollutants and exotic elements, fragment populations of plants and animals, kill animals and cause behavioural changes (2007, 397) (Coffin, 2017).

The field of road ecology has so far not been well connected to mobilities studies and other bodies of work on the diverse consequences of human mobilities on the environment. In addition, while a literature has flourished in the last decade on climate migration, later renamed climate/environmental mobilities (Boas et al., 2022), the question of the impacts of climate change, including the perceptions of the climate crisis, on people’s everyday mobilities and mobility preferences remain scarce. The field of environmental mobilities has tentatively incorporated small-scale mobilities and the mobility infrastructure within its scope (Blondin, 2022) but this body of work could fruitfully connect with research on mobility practices and mobility disputes under climate change. If the building of new mobility infrastructure is contested on climatic and environmental grounds, this ‘environmental thinking’ around mobility projects might deserve the attention of ‘environmental mobilities’ scholars. A recent article in the field entitled “Understanding Mobility Through Climate Risk Perceptions” demonstrates that “climate risk perceptions, especially those related to livelihoods and emotional factors like worry, play a critical role in shaping whether people stay, adapt in place, or migrate” (Hermans and Kizilkaya, 2025, 1). Drawing from the title of this paper, scholars working at the intersection of climate/environment and mobilities could also explore how climate risk perceptions influence everyday mobilities and transportation modes (see Enright, 2019; Štraub, 2023): can the fear, worry or restlessness in the face of climate change trigger new types of (more sustainable) mobilities? Such perspective connects with the issue of the rhetorics and strategies used by anti-road movements: how to convince individuals (and in some cases voters) or politicians to oppose or abandon such projects? Which arguments prove to be the most powerful? Answers to these questions may also inform research on individual and collective transitions to more sustainable, decarbonised and active mobilities.

Methodology

In this paper, I present results of an ongoing research project on the contestation of automobility in Switzerland, which first phase focusses on the analysis of the November 2024 Swiss referendum on motorway expansion. Based on a press review of the campaign and on eleven semi-structured interviews conducted with twelve forefront professionals involved in the ‘No’ campaign, I mostly discuss the way climate change and environmental issues have been mobilised and discussed during the campaign. Fifteen people in total were contacted to participate in the interviews, all leading figures in the main organizations involved in the referendum committee. Three persons did not respond to my request. Table 1 presents introduces the concerned organizations and the repartition of interviewees by organization, but we chose to preserve the interviewees’ anonymity.

TABLE 1. Leading organizations in the referendum committee and the repartition of interviewees by organization.

The interviews lasted between one and 2 h and took place during the first half of 2025 in Switzerland. The semi-structured interview guide was articulated around my interlocutors’ personal experiences of the campaign and the strategies deployed by their organization. The following box sums up the main topics covered in every interview (Box 1).

| Semi-structured interview guide

1. Profile of the interviewee and professional links with mobility and car-related issues.

2. The referendum and the campaign.

2.1. Origins and beginnings of the referendum.

2.2. Collaboration between the different organizations of the referendum committee.

2.3. Visuals and slogans.

2.4. Preparation of the campaign and main argumentative strategies.

2.5. Arguments from the YES camp (in favour of motorway expansion) and counterarguments.

2.6 Differences in the campaign between German-speaking and French-speaking Switzerland.

2.7. The main highlights/key moments of the campaign.

2.8. Personal interpretation of the results.

2.9. The aftermath of the results.

2.10. General impressions of the campaign.

2.11. Next steps for your organization(s) following the rejection of motorway expansion.

3. General impressions about challenges and strategies when discussing/contesting road construction and the development of the automobility system in public debates.

A press review also helped identify the main arguments and counterarguments deployed and discussed during the campaign. 67 newspaper articles written in French and published between December 2023 and December 2024 were selected because their main topic was the referendum. Table 2 shows were they were published.

TABLE 2. The repartition of newspaper articles collected for the press review.

The Swiss referendum on motorway expansion: description and value of the case-study to understand anti-road movements

The Swiss referendum on motorway expansion offers a rather unique case to understand how motorways (and more broadly automobility) are discussed and disputed in political debates. Switzerland is one of the only countries in the world where such referendums can take place at the national scale. The referendum was organised following the initiative by a group of organizations and citizens to gather 100,000 signatures against the project proposed by the Federal Council, through the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications and the Federal Roads Office, to extend sections of motorways in different areas of the country in order to remove bottlenecks and improve road safety via new lanes, new tunnel tubes and a new tunnel in six different locations around the country. The referendum committee, lately turned into the ‘NO’ campaigners, was mainly composed of Actif-Trafic/umverkehR and the Transport-Environment Organization (ATE/VCS) - both promoting sustainable mobilities in Switzerland (see Table 1)- and supported by the ecologist parties. The referendum took place on 24 November 2024, and resulted in the rejection of the projects by 52,7% of the voters. In a nutshell, the referendum committee initially insisted on the fact that the projects were contrary to Switzerland’s climate targets, since the new road infrastructure would increase CO₂ emissions. It would also aggravate air pollution, harm biodiversity and the landscape. The opposite camp, composed of the right-wing parties, in particular the Swiss People’s Party and the FDP/Liberal Party, and the Touring Club Switzerland (TCS), a long-standing defender of automobility, considered motorway expansion crucial to alleviate congestion issues and to improve the safety and quality of life of villages near the motorway, the crossing of which is often the main alternative option when the motorway becomes too congested.

If we go further into the central arguments put forward and defended by the referendum committee, we find the reluctance to see automobility develop in Switzerland and congestion increase again in the long term through induced traffic and to spend too much money (5 billion Swiss Francs) in these projects (see Figure 1 and Table 3).

TABLE 3. The main arguments mobilized by the NO campaigners.

We see that some of these arguments call into question the “system of automobility” (Urry, 2004) in itself, while others criticize the perceived excessive development of this system. Two of the visuals most used by the opponents to the projects were representative of this trend: the ‘madness’ (“folie”) and the ‘monstruosity’ of these projects were denounced and criticized (Figure 2).

Most arguments are typical of anti-road and anti-car movements, with arguments questioning the current mobility system and mobility alternatives, and other being more articulated around costs and externalities or environmental issues in the broad sense (Table 3). Famous environmental and ecologist organizations such as the WWF, Greenpeace and Pro Natura also supported the referendum committee. Pro Natura described motorway expansion as a threat to “nature, climate, food production and health” ³ . Greenpeace Switzerland, in addition to such arguments, also insisted on tyre wear being a primary source of microplastics released into the environment (leading to the spreading of toxic additives). This is the first argument presented on the dedicated page of their website ⁴ . However, this argument has not been central in the campaign. As we will see now, the referendum committee had chosen not to insist too much on environmental issues.

Results

The pale green strategy of the opponents to motorway expansion

The Swiss referendum campaign took place while in a neighbouring country, France, the fight against the projected A69 Motorway (between Toulouse and Castres, in the South-West of the country) was fierce and highly mediatized. While following the development of the two movements, I found that the battle against the A69 appeared much more articulated around biodiversity and climate protection. The issues of climate change and biodiversity were not central in most debates in the Swiss campaign and less debated than mobility issues per se (around questions such as: How to alleviate congestion? How to simultaneously develop different types of mobilities?). While the comparison between the French and the Swiss cases is hazardous given the very different forms of democracy practiced in both countries at the regional and national scales, and the different dimensions of the projects (motorway construction vs. motorway expansion), the environmental and often biocentric framing of the A69 contestation triggered a reflection on the (perceived) lack of insistence on environmental issues in the Swiss context. The interviews I have conducted with key figures of the referendum committee have enabled to understand that this was a deliberate strategy.

Several interviewees -all members of the referendum committee-explained to me that climate change issues were at the heart of their involvement in the campaign (and for some at the heart of their professional commitment). More precisely, several of my interlocutors insisted on the motorway expansion projects being in contradiction with Switzerland’s climate targets (including the reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030) ⁵ as a primary source of motivation to launch a referendum.

“I thought to myself, it's crazy to vote for something like this in the midst of a climate crisis. It's impossible to be a politician and have the population accept that”. ⁶

Some interlocutors explained that the September 2023 demonstration for climate protection in Bern was a key-moment for the anti-road campaign, more than a year before the referendum (see Figure 3). A particular stretch in the March was dedicated to the anti-motorway movement.

Several months later, when members of the referendum committee were leafleting in the street against motorway expansion, a concrete illustration of the limit of the system of automobility in the face of climate change hit the headlines. One of the interviewees explained to me that the case of the deadly and highly destructive floods in Valencia, Spain, in October 2024, have been mobilized as an example of the adverse impacts of concreting and of destructive mobility plans. According to this person, making use of such climate-related examples helped people understand the importance of the issues at stake. Interestingly, this resonates with Khalaj et al. (2020) study on freeway removals in cities which indicates that.

To make the idea [of freeway removal] palatable to others and garner political support, [the local politician in charge] later dressed it in financial, engineering, business or environmental concerns. Sometimes, politicians were “assisted” by the occurrence of natural disasters, such as earthquakes, in promoting this agenda. (p. 569).

However, all interviewees confirmed that the committee as a whole decided that climate change-related issues (especially around Switzerland’s climate commitments would not be central in the campaign). At the beginning of the referendum campaign, a survey has helped the committee frame the campaign around the potentially most impactful arguments. As one of my interlocutors explained:

We also realized that the climate argument is not central to winning, because it's still a… We have a majority in the country that supports climate protection, unless it costs them something. So it's pretty easy to be in favor of climate protection, but if it means that something becomes more expensive or is banned, it becomes much harder. So we thought it was also important to have arguments that appeal to a much more conservative or right-wing population. So we thought more about arguments such as the use of agricultural land and even induced traffic, which is something that no one really thinks is a good thing.

Also referring to the same survey and to the strategy of the committee, another respondant told me:

We just had to convince that particular fringe group, especially when we realized that things were getting tighter and tighter, that we just had to stop talking so much about climate change. Because the supporters are already on board with that anyway. So, in fact, we really had to think about how we could make a difference. And then the question of money was quite decisive, because 5 billion is still a lot of money.

However, even if I have been referring to ‘the referendum committee’ as a unified entity, it is clear that the different organizations at the heart of the referendum and its campaign had different views on the arguments that deserved more or less attention. While some organizations are intrinsically oriented towards climate protection and ecological issues, others are more centred around mobility issues in the broad sense. The organization Actif Trafic -which defines itself as “an ecologist organization centered around sustainable transports” ⁷ -decided to stay aligned with its ecologist rationale and has for instance developed arguments around the protection of biodiversity through the issues of car-related noise pollution and microplastic pollution ⁸ . Greenpeace has also developed on the latter argument with an article called “Tyre dust: our daily poison”, which explicitly calls on readers to vote “no” to the referendum ⁹ .

Such impacts of automobility on global health are concrete and documented. According to some of my interlocutors, while speaking of “climate change” can sometimes appear too vague and intangible -especially at a time of perceived ‘green backlash’ (Bosetti et al., 2025)- more concrete measures might more easily win acceptance. As one interviewee explained: “It's not the climate that works. What works, on the other hand, are measures, direct pollution, and dependence on cars”. In the same vein, another interviewee explained that while “the environment” and “biodiversity” are too abstract for many people, talking about “computer resources and motorways”, for instance, are much more concrete and potentially convincing. The referendum committee had to deal with different purposes and identities between the different organizations and movements involved and it also had to make choices as to convince a maximum of citizens to oppose motorway expansion. As Figure 2 shows, the referendum committee has also appealed to voters’ emotions (especially fear) by putting forward the perceived “madness” and “monstrosity” of the projects, which gives increased weight to some of the arguments. Examining such strategies illuminates the current perceptions and receptions of ecologist and environmental arguments in the Swiss society.

Outcomes and aftermath of the referendum: a contested “green wave”

Despite the lack of emphasis on automobility-related environmental issues, the “victory” of the referendum committee and the popular rejection of the motorway expansion projects have been depicted as a green victory in different medias. The referendum committee has sometimes been personified around Lisa Mazzone, the president of the Green Party (Grüne/Les Vert·e·s) and her success ¹⁰ . For Greenpeace, the victory is due to “an exceptional involvement of the climate movement” ¹¹ . For the French ecologist website “Reporterre”, the refusal of the motorway expansion projects constitutes “an ecologist victory” ¹² . However, some of my interviewees were cautious about such statements:

And then, the Greens in particular said that it was an environmental victory, that it was a victory for the climate, etc. And in any case, personally, I think it's a bit dangerous to say that because it's not the number one reason. There were so many reasons behind it that I think it's complicated to claim it as an environmental victory, when in reality, it was probably in the background, but probably just the increase in traffic and the fact that people realized that in a country as small as Switzerland, you can’t increase it that much but probably [IT WAS MOSTLY] just the increase.....

In press articles, we find similar statements coming from defenders of the motorway projects, considering that the rejection of motorway expansion is less a victory of the Left than a defeat of the Right which has not succeeded in convincing voters. The media also commented on the non-green ‘conservative’ opposition to motorway expansion related to the fear of an uncontrolled demographic growth ¹³ . In order to nuance the “ecologist” dimension of the refusal, journalists have also put forward the simultaneous refusals of motorway expansion and of a Canton-wide climate plan in Canton Valais/Wallis, that suggested that refusing motorway expansion was not necessarily associated with climate sensitivity ¹⁴ . Interestingly, 2 months after the referendum, an article of the “20 min” news website published an article called “Damn the Green Wave: commuters are doing what they did in the 1990s” in which it is explained that half of the Swiss commuters still use their car to go to work and in which the impact of the strong investment in public transport systems and bike lanes on the reduction of car traffic is questioned ¹⁵ . These different elements clearly shows that the ‘green wave’ narrative deserves to be questioned and complexified. While it is true that ecologist arguments have been discussed and have played a role, the multiplicity of arguments described earlier suggest that the popular refusal of motorway expansion should not only be seen as a Green/Left victory as such refusal may reflect more discrete right-wing conservationism and fear of development, as several of my interviewees have declared. The “green wave” framing and its contestation can make us question the different shades of green expressed in politics, not only coming from green parties but from nationalist far-right parties. Studies have showed how far-right/extreme right parties in Europe tackle and embrace environmental issues, but mostly in a nationalist/patriotic and conservative way (for the status quo and the preservation of landscapes rather than towards transitions and transformations, for instance, see Gao, 2024; Domann, 2024).

According to the VOX survey ¹⁶ -mandated by the Swiss Confederation after each national votes to understand voting behaviours and the weight of the different main arguments disputed- 85% of the people who voted against motorway expansion agree with the fact that roadbuilding destroy non-urbanized lands and agrarian lands, while only 31% of those who voted in favour of the projects agree with such statement. Regarding Switzerland’s climate objectives, the gap is wider, with 85% of motorway opponents considering the projects would threaten the climate and contradict Switzerland’s climate targets, and 19% of the defenders considering so. This suggests that climate and land protection did play a role in people’s voting behaviours. However, the survey also shows that 11% of those who voted against motorway expansion disagree with both statements: in this case, different types of arguments were crucial. In order to elaborate on this discussion and assess the weight of the environmental or pro-climate arguments, we would need a thorough investigation of people’s voting behaviours and of the most influential arguments. For now, we can only nuance the green wave narrative to explain the rejection of motorway expansion in Switzerland and consider the multiplicity of ‘pro-environment’ discourses along partisan lines. The contrast between the absence of climate framing by the opponents and the naming of the victory as a “green wave” is rather astonishing and put into question the ecologist dimension of anti-road movements.

Discussion and research perspectives

Ecologist movements engaged in the contestation of roadbuilding projects are multifaceted and mobilize different strategies and arguments. McNeish’s dissertation on anti-roads protest movements in nineties Britain details the differences between several of these movements in this context (1999). This study shows that the issues of pollution, destruction of unspoiled lands, risk-related issues and global warming were of major importance for the opponents and distinguishes between religious and spiritual ecologies and other more moral and ethical ecologies addressing the preservation of next generations’ lives. McNeish’s work also reveals how certain movements had deep ecological biocentric visions while others were more influenced by an anthropocentric perspective. Other framings of the issue included misanthropy and neo-Malthusian assumptions on the perceived dangers associated with demographic growth. Interestingly, on the case of the protest movements fighting the development of England’s M1 Motorway, Merriman explains that “protestors justified their actions through both formal, mainstream understandings of the local and global environment, ecology, archaeology, heritage, landscape design, planning and the law, and more alternative, radical, ‘New Age’ understandings of the environment, political action and the history of protest in Britain” (2007, 207). The different positions within the Swiss referendum committee and the different arguments mobilized also reflect such heterogeneity in the contestation. And a thorough analysis of people’s voting behaviours would probably demonstrate even more heterogeneity. Infrastructural projects and their contestation therefore constitute relevant case-studies to understand the different visions of ecology, emanating from different social movements and political parties, and their contradictory or complementary perspectives (Štraub, 2023).

Political discussions and opposition movements to roadbuilding projects also evidently illuminate how climate justice and climate mobility intersect, or how the fight against climate change connects with the fight for more sustainable mobilities (Sheller, 2018). Roadbuilding projects can be contested both by ecologist movements (which are involved in the contestation of all kinds of projects threatening the environment), by organizations more specifically promoting sustainable mobilities, and by residents mobilising NIMBYism to denounce the negative impacts of the project for their community (see Sebastien et al. (2019) on the multiple dimensions of place-based environmental struggles). The recent development of the literature on mobility justice highlights the importance of social movements engaged for more just mobility futures in the face climate change, and Mimi Sheller has also recently developed work on the resonance of mobility justice with climate mobilities and climate coloniality, for instance (Sheller, 2023).

Would embracing the mobility justice and climate justice perspectives be beneficial to highlight the adverse consequences of automobility in the context of climate change? As suggested in this paper, climate-related arguments might not always be the more impactful, depending on the issue at stake. However, climate protection might be more popular than what most citizens and politicians think. Psychological work on ‘pluralistic ignorance’ show that many people may assume that other people are less supportive of climate measures than they are, leading for instance to self-silencing on this issue and less general support of the measures. This, for instance, “may hinder individual and system changes required to address biodiversity loss” (Geiger et al., 2025, 1). As recent work on motonormativity (cognitive biases leading people to downplay risks associated with motorised mobility) shows, the same pluralistic ignorance effect applies concerning non-car transports. Walker and te Brömmelstroet (2025) study shows that “respondents tended to assume that other people held different views to themselves especially when asked about non-car travel, where respondents quite consistently assumed they were more supportive than they believed other people to be” (6). Authors explain this is a possible barrier to change. Hence the need to research and collectively discuss the influences of psychological and cognitive biases on pro-environmental behaviours, and to connect issues of mobility and climate justice with the literature on barriers to change. In the same vein, discourse analyses on the interface between climate change and mobility could further explore how emotions (including fear or on the contrary pleasure or wellbeing) are mobilized by campaigners or activists when promoting or denouncing certain mobility practices. Limiting the influence of cognitive and psychological biases on collective decisions also involve increasing the visibility of the externalities and adverse impacts of the system of automobility (Urry, 2004).

Studies lying at the intersection of climate/biodiversity studies and (sustainable) mobilities studies could therefore fruitfully engage significantly with the body of work on road ecology. Extending road ecology as a field of research would enable to develop work on the environmental impacts of the system of automobility including on non-human animals and on the biosphere. The recent developments in multi-sensory and more-than-human geographies may also provide theoretical tools to examine the ways such perspectives are rendered visible or silenced. Going in this direction may help envision (and integrate in our framework) different mobility futures and ‘alternative’ framing of mobilities, including those oriented towards more inclusive, slower, careful and hence more ecological (in the original sense) mobilities (Donald, 2023; Pink et al., 2025). Focussing on activism and political tensions in the realm of mobilities therefore offers an interesting starting point in this endeavour.

By presenting results on the qualitative analysis of the 2024 Swiss referendum campaign and by discussing them in light of different bodies of work on the ecologist movements opposing roadbuilding and on the system of automobility, this paper has attempted to underline the importance of (re-)politicising infrastructure such as roads and (re-)ecologising them in order to de-essentialize automobility and its effects. As argued by Walker and te Brömmelstroet (2025), the de-normalization of automobility may help de-passionate emotional debates on mobility futures. It involves researching, discussing and highlighting the multiple adverse effects of automobility and the way these are discussed or ignored.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Marianne Vanderschuren, University of Cape Town, South Africa

Reviewed by: Daniel Štraub, Jagiellonian University, Poland

Andreas Kurths, gruppe F Freiraum für alle GmbH, Germany

Footnotes

https://france3-regions.franceinfo.fr/occitanie/tarn/a69-2500-individus-radicaux-ecoterroristes-et-projet-valide-par-la-justice-les-multiples-approximations-des-politiques-sur-le-projet-d-autoroute-toulouse-castres-2862371.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/ jun /22/welsh-government-to-suspend-all-future-road-building-plans

https://www.pronatura.ch/fr/2024/pro-natura-recommande-de-voter-non-lextension-demesuree-des-autoroutes

https://www.greenpeace.ch/fr/story-fr/113605/votations-du-24-novembre-agrandir-les-autoroutes-cest-non/

https://www.meteoswiss.admin.ch/climate/climate-change/what-we-currently-know-about-global-climate-change/climate-targets.html

All quotes have been anonymized. Interviews were conducted in French. Translations are my own

https://www.actif-trafic.ch/a-propos

https://www.actif-trafic.ch/aktuell/2024-05-02/le-trafic-automobile-ennemi-de-la-biodiversite

https://www.greenpeace.ch/fr/story-fr/113194/poussieres-de-pneus-notre-poison-quotidien/

https://www.letemps.ch/suisse/lisa-mazzone-et-albert-rosti-les-destins-croises

https://www.greenpeace.ch/fr/story-fr/115209/non-a-lextension-des-autoroutes-notre-engagement-a-paye/

https://reporterre.net/Les-Suisses-votent-contre-l-agrandissement-des-autoroutes

https://www.letemps.ch/suisse/lisa-mazzone-et-albert-rosti-les-destins-croises

idem

https://www.20min.ch/fr/story/suisse-au-diable-la-vague-verte-les-pendulaires-font-comme-en-1990-103268695

https://vox.gfsbern.ch/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/fr_schlussbericht_vox_november_2024_def.pdf