08 September 2015 Step By Step Final Conference Stepping Stones Cracow, ERA-NET Transport III Stepping Stones Program Wim Korver IBDiM: Road and Bridge Research Institute (Poland)

2 Content Background Research questions Can cities be grouped based on their transport characteristics? Our cases: an overview Our approach to “measure” success Analysis based on success ratings Policy Recommendations based on case analysis Conclusions

3 Background Transport will become in Europe the major producer of CO 2 emissions Technology will help, but on a local/regional scale more is needed: behavioural changes are needed to reach objectives (a sustainable mobility system) A lot of national initiatives: e.g. CIVITAS, Better Benutten (NL) and Forschungsprogramm Stadtverkehr (GE) What can we learn from existing behavioural interventions (case analysis)

4 Research Questions

5 Main Objective Stepping Stones: 1.To understand the successful (policy) measures aimed at making mobility patterns more sustainable and the underlying mechanisms (the how) including social & psychological factors. 2.The research results should be of common interest across Europe or in several regions. Step By Step: Identifying potential successful policy measures for changing the transport behaviour of people based on structural differences between cities and cultures What we know after the project is completed

6

7 Base Research Approach A.Empirical based: the use of (urban) cases B.Structural versus behavioural factors CASES & CITIES City Type Type of measure Theory of Cialdini Persuasion strategies

8 Can European cities be clustered into homogeneous groups?

9 Approach: two datasets Urban Audit (Eurostat): 785 cities Mainly demographical, geographical and economical data Base year 2009 Limited information on transport use TEMS-EPOMM dataset: 165 cities Different base years Shares of different transport modes (modal split) No information on total transport volumes New dataset is created and will be available for others (via ERA-NET Transport website)

10 Analysis: combining all kind of variables

11 Analysis: 6 major explanatory factors for mobility 1.Total population of a city 2.Average household income (not a person!) 3.Surface: total area of the city 4.Population density 5.Total number of private cars registered 6.Cars per inhabitant of that city

12 European cities can be clustered into three major groups. But some overlaps occur, European cities are not that easy to cluster Cat. 3 Multimodal Cat. 1 Car Cat. 2 Public transport Cat. 4 Cat. 7 Cat. 6 Cat. 5 Cat. 8

13 O1 O2 31 CASES 15 CITIES

14 Structural Factors: Typology of cities TypeNWithin Step By Step Car Oriented4Rotterdam, Tubingen, Gothenburg, Manchester Public Transport Oriented 6Dresden, Berlin, Warsaw, Cracow, Wroclaw, Stockholm Multimodal oriented5Amsterdam, Breda, Munich, Freiburg, Malmo/Lund

15 Empirical work based on 31 cases

16 Empirical work based on 31 cases

17 Within report one page descriptions with: description of the project project objective(s) results and lessons learned

18 Step By Step Approach Cities/ Regions Structural factors Other factors not measured Measures taken in our cases Other measures taken in the city at the same time or before Classification of type of ”behavioural” influence in the cases B Typology of cities based on ”structural” factors A (indications of) Success as a function of C=f(A & B) Assess successful- ness C

19 What is success? Depends on whom you ask Project leader, politician, interest groups, user, all will have different views Success on what? Success can be divided in several aspects Less car use, different opinions, budget spent, etc. There are grades of success

20 Rating every case based on Five Steps Approach 1. Was the process well performed? identification of problem/problems to be solved/reduced? choice of measure that were "appropriate" to solve the problem/problems? formulation of targets or goals? "enough" communication and dialogue with stakeholders and/or the public? 2. Barriers for implementation and how they were handled There were barriers for implementation but they were overcome and the implementation was fully performed There were barriers for implementation which were only partly overcome and the implementation process had to be adjusted. There were non, or only small, barriers and the implementation could be performed according to plan 3. Were the effects evaluated? All effects were evaluated according to initial formulation of targets and/or goals Some effects were evaluated No evaluation was made 4. Were the goals reached? Or (if no targets) were the effects "large"? Yes/ partly/ no 5. Is the work being continued to maintain or increase effects? yes to large extent/ partly / no

21 Success rate between 3 and 9

22 M ix of successfull & unsuccessfull cases. Rating per type of measure is more or less the same Attitude Demand Transport concept

23 Rating per city type is more or less the same, however car oriented cities rate lowest

24 Lower success rates as a result of less evaluation and lower goal fulfillment N=31

25 Behavioral aspects “The power of persuasion” CIALDINI: Social Proof - People do things they see other people doing Authority - People will obey authority figures Liking - People are persuaded by others they like (“Facebook”) Scarcity - Perceived scarcity will generate demand Reciprocity – Tit for tat. Fairness Commitment and Consistency - If committed, continue N=31

26 Behavioural Aspects No relation between kind of persuasion strategy and success If no persuasion strategy could be found (29%), success rates are lower. Think at before hand about the kind of persuasive strategies Do not communicate in terms like objective elements like the bus/bicycle is quicker, cheaper or things like that, but try to relate to the actual behavioural motives Adaptive approach: Successful cases show different kind of persuasion strategies In most cases behavioural persuasion strategies are implicitly included, not explicitly

27 General policy recommendations 1.Process 2.Implementation 3.Evaluation 4.Goal Fulfilment 5.Continuation

28 1. Process oriented In order to influence travel behavior, there needs to be a person who is responsible. Meaning: This person (or group of persons) plays the role of a spider in the network function and preferably this person can be found within city administration, sometimes outside city administration In most successful cases, the person/group was able to create a special local network of key institutions and players supporting the strategy Focus on positive aspects (benefits, such as health or better accessibility) and not negative aspects (higher costs)

29 2. Implementation A sound problem analysis is needed What is the problem/challenge & what are the options “Window of opportunity” needs to be identified Coming from a specific national or European funding scheme, special event (National Road Construction Plan, Dresden flood 2002, Extra funding from car parking fees in Amsterdam, etc.) If there is no obvious window, use an experiment project or a temporary project first As each city with its players, its culture, its level of discussion etc. at one time is different from another city with other specific conditions, all windows of opportunity are somehow different from each other (e.g. German reunification) Use experimental opportunities like European week of mobility/car free Sunday for the first steps City administration always is a central player and needs to act: In most all cases, support by a highly visible mayor/politician is essential City administrations needs both the will and the resources to do something

30 3. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E): After implementing, M&E are absolutely essential for identification of positive/negative effects a. M&E for identifying the positive and expected effects, which is needed to promote the result that the measure was successful b. M&E are essential to identify any negative effects so that these could be corrected in the next round c. M&E is essential to be able to identify changed conditions which require changed objectives for the next round d. M&E is essential to maintain the process, to keep the momentum and to establish a SUMP – tradition in the city e. M&E should be constructed in such a way that not only regular aspects like accessibility and environmental effects are measured, but more soft impacts like “Quality of Life” f. Measure that influence land use patterns are most important in the long run, they should be included in all long term strategies. However, from an M&E viewpoint, they are difficult to monitor. If possible include them. g. M&E is only possible if the target groups are defined properly even in the early stages of the process

31 4. Goal Fulfilment Set realistic goals Behavioural changes take time Push & pull packages are more efficient and superior to other packages of measures Every type of measure can be successful or unsuccessful Economic incentives seem to be slightly more effective than other measures Size doesn’t matter: small projects can be effective and large ineffective and visa versa

32 5. Continuation There is a life after the project Maintain, improve and develop Ideally, aspects of continuation are already included by setting up the project

33 Conclusions All policy measures can be successful (or unsuccessful), though: Economic incentives measures seem to be more successful Cities do differ (structural factors) but this has a small impact on successfulness of policy measures Measures in car oriented cities are slightly less successful (more resistance?) How measures are implemented and defined has a major impact on successfulness. Successful measures have a sound problem definition, realistic targets, use a specific window of opportunity, have an elaborate M&E program and have thought at before hand on the life after the project Behavioural methodologies/strategies are mostly used implicitly