An examination of how land-use planning can proceed while emphasising sustainability in transport objectives is presented in the authors' view. It is vital that citizen preferences are assessed, and the ‘area development negotiation’ method for obtaining such preferences is detailed within a case study framework. The method permits evaluations by various stakeholder groups of future urban mobility scenarios by means of multiattribute utility analyses. In order to illustrate the method, key results from a Swedish case study are presented, demonstrating that all interest groups—with the exception of business representatives—were aware of the importance of environmental factors and gave these factors greater weight than economic factors. Discussion focuses upon issues relevant to policy analysis, strategic planning including stakeholders, and upon issues relevant to the policy process, such as how the method can support and meaningfully engage the citizen in strategic planning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adolfsson JörbyS, 2002, “Local Agenda 21 in four Swedish municipalities: A tool towards sustainability?”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management45219–244.
2.
AhlstrandI, 1998, “The rise and fall of the heroic transport plan for Stockholm”Transport Policy5205–211.
3.
AndréassonI, 1998, “PRT—a suitable transport system for urban areas in Sweden”, report 1998:38, KFB, Stockholm.
4.
ArnsteinS, 1969, “A ladder of citizen participation”Journal of the American Institute of Planning35216–224.
5.
BacowL SWheelerM, 1984Environmental Dispute Resolution (Plenum, New York).
6.
BanisterD, 2003, “Critical pragmatism and congestion charging in London”International Social Science Journal55249–264.
7.
BazermanM HNealeM A, 1993Negotiating Rationally (The Free Press, New York).
8.
BenneworthPConroyLRobertsP, 2002, “Strategic connectivity, sustainable development and the new English regional governance”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management45199–217.
9.
BertoliniLle ClercqF, 2003, “Urban development without more mobility by car? Lessons from Amsterdam, a multimodal urban region”Environment and Planning A35575–589.
10.
BickerstaffKWalkerG, 2001, “Participatory local governance and transport planning”Environment and Planning A33431–451.
11.
CampbellL MVainio-MattilaA, 2003, “Participatory development and community-based conservation: Opportunities missed for lessons learned?”Human Ecology31417–437.
12.
City of Zurich, 2002Mobilität ist Kult(ur): Die neue Mobilitätsstrategie—Wie wir miteinander weiterkommen [Mobility is cult(ure): The new mobility strategy—how we can move forward together], Civil Engineering Office, City of Zurich, Zurich.
13.
DavisAWagnerJ R, 2003, “Who knows? On the importance of identifying ‘experts’ when researching local ecological knowledge”Human Ecology31463–489.
14.
EdwardsWBarronF H, 1994, “SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes60306–325.
15.
ErikssonF, 1994Lundby på Hisingen—från istid till nutid [Lundby on Hisingen—from the ice age to the current age] (Tre Böckers Förlag, Gothenburg).
FaheyLRandallR M, 1998, “What is scenario learning?”, in Learning from the Future: Competitive Foresight Scenarios Eds FaheyLRandallR M, (John Wiley, New York) pp 3–21.
18.
FernE D, 2001Advanced Focus Group Research (Sage Thousand Oaks, CA).
19.
FischerG W, 1977, “Convergent validation of decomposed multi-attribute utility assessment procedures for risky and riskless decisions”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance18295–315.
20.
FlyvbjergB, 1998Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL).
FoxonT JMcIlkennyGGilmourDOltean-DumbravaCSouterNAshleyRButlerDPearsonPJowittPMoirJ, 2002, “Sustainability criteria for decision support in the UK water industry”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management45285–301.
23.
FreyB SKucherMStutzerA, 2001, “Outcome, process and power in direct democracy”Public Choice107271–293.
24.
FuntowiczS ORavetzJ R, 1994, “The worth of a songbird: Ecological economics as a post-normal science”Ecological Economics10197–207.
25.
GärlingTAxhausenKBrydstenM, 1996, “Travel choice and the goal/process utility distinction”Applied Cognitive Psychology1065–74.
26.
GärlingTEekDLoukopoulosPFujiiSJohansson-StenmanOKitamuraRPendyalaRVilhelmsonB, 2002, “A conceptual analysis of the impact of travel demand management on private car use”Transport Policy959–70.
27.
GärlingTLoukopoulosPLee-GosselinM, 2003, “Public attitudes”, in Handbook of Transportation. Volume 4: Transportation and the Environment Eds ButtonKHensherD, (Elsevier, Amsterdam) pp 725–737.
28.
GärlingTJakobssonJLoukopoulosPFujiiS, 2005, “Adaptation of private car use in response to travel demand management measures; potential roles of intelligent transportation systems”ITS Journal forthcoming.
29.
GlickenJ, 2000, “Getting stakeholder participation ‘right’: A discussion of participatory processes and possible pitfalls”Environmental Science and Policy3305–310.
30.
GohM, 2002, “Congestion management and electronic road pricing in Singapore”Journal of Transport Geography1029–38.
31.
GolobT F, 2001, “Travelbehaviour.com: Activity approaches to modelling the effects of information technology on personal behaviour”, in Travel Behaviour Research: The Leading Edge Ed. HensherD, (Pergamon, Amsterdam) pp 145–183.
GoodwinP, 1998, “The end of equilibrium”, in Theoretical Foundations of Travel Choice Modeling Eds GärlingTLaitilaTWestinK, (Elsevier, Amsterdam) pp 103–132.
34.
GreeneD LWegenerM, 1997, “Sustainable transport”Journal of Transport Geography5177–190.
JossSDurantJ, (Eds), 1995Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe (Science Museum, London).
37.
JungermannH, 1985, “Psychological aspects of scenarios”, in Environmental Impact Assessment, Technology Assessment, and Risk Analysis Eds CovelloV TMumpowerJ LStallenP J MUppuluriV R R, (Springer, Berlin) pp 325–346.
38.
KeinerM, 2001, “Die Raumplanung in der Schweiz im Wandel” [Changes in Swiss regional planning]Geoagenda334–37.
39.
KnoepfelP, (Ed.), 1995Lösung von Umweltkonflikten durch Verhandlung—Beispiele aus dem In- und Ausland [Solving environmental conflicts by means of negotiation—examples from Switzerland and abroad] (Helbing and Lichtenhahn, Basel).
40.
LeachSWingfieldM, 1999, “Public participation and the democratic renewal agenda; prioritisation or marginalisation?”Local Government Studies2546–59.
41.
LitmanT, 2003, “The online TDM encyclopedia: Mobility management information gateway”Transport Policy10245–249.
42.
MaatK, 2002, “The compact city: Conflict of interest between housing and mobility aims in the Netherlands”, in Travel Behaviour: Spatial Patterns, Congestion and Modelling Eds SternESalomonIBovyP H L, (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 3–19.
43.
MaatKLouwE, 1999, “Mind the gap: Pitfalls of travel reduction measures”Built Environment25151–161.
44.
MernitzS, 1980Mediation of Environmental Disputes (Praeger, New York).
PollakM, 1985, “Public participation”, in Regulating Industrial Risks: Science, Hazards and Public Protection Eds OtwayHPeltuM, (Butterworth, Sevenoaks, Kent) pp 76–93.
47.
PruittD GCarnevaleP J, 1993Negotiation in Social Conflict (Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA).
48.
RavinderH VKleinmuntzD N, 1991, “Random error in additive decompositions of multiattribute utility”Journal of Behavioral Decision Making483–97.
49.
RennOWeblerTWiedemannP M, 1995Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation—Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse (Kluwer, Dordrecht).
50.
ScholzR WMarksD, 2001, “Learning about transdisciplinarity: Where are we? Where have we been? Where should we go?”, in Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem-solving among Science, Technology, and Society. An Effective Way for Managing Complexity Eds KleinJ TGrossenbacher-MansuyWHäberliRBillAScholzR WWeltiM, (Birkhäuser, Basel) pp 236–252.
51.
ScholzR WTietjeO, 2002Embedded Case Study Methods: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Knowledge (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).
52.
ScholzR WBöschSKollerTMiegH AStünziJ, (Eds), 1996Industrieareal Sulzer–Escher–Wyss: Umwelt und Bauen: Wertschöpfung durch Umnutzung [Industrial area Sulzer–Escher–Wyss: Environment and construction: Value added through reuse] (vdf Hochschulverlag, Zurich).
53.
ScholzR WStauffacherMBöschSWiekA, (Eds), 2002Landschaftsnutzung für die Zukunft—Der Fall Appenzell Ausserrhoden. UNS Fallstudie 2001 [Sustainable landscape development—Appenzell Ausserrhoden as a case. UNS case study 2001 (Rüegger, Zurich).
54.
ScholzR WKåbergerTKouckyMEngwallYMånssonM, (Eds), 2004Lundby på Gång: Mobilitet och Hållbar Stadsutveckling [Lundby on the move: Mobility and sustainable urban development], Institution för tillämpad miljövetenskap, Göteborgs Universitet, Gothenburg.
SOU, 2000En Uthällig Demokrati [A sustainable democracy] Swedish Public Report Series SOU2000:1Statens Offentliga Utredningar (Fritzes, Stockholm).
57.
StegLVlekC, 1997, “The role of problem awareness in willingness-to-change car use and in evaluating relevant policy measures”, in Traffic and Transport Psychology Eds RothengatterTVayaE Carbonell (Pergamon, Oxford) pp 465–475.
58.
StillwellW GBarronF HEdwardsW, 1983, “Evaluating credit applications: A validation of multiattribute weight elicitation techniques”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance3287–108.
59.
SusskindLMcKearnanSThomas-LarmerL, 1999Consensus Building Handbook (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).
60.
van AsseltM B A, 2000Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk: The Prima Approach to Decision Support (Kluwer, Dordrecht).
61.
van AsseltM B ARijkens-KlompN, 2002, “A look in the mirror: Reflection on participation in integrated assessment from a methodological perspective”Global Environmental Change12167–184.
62.
van den BosKLindE AWilkeH A M, 2001, “The psychology of procedural and distributive justice viewed from the perspective of fairness heuristic theory”, in Justice in the Workplace (Volume 2): From Theory to Practice Ed. CropanzanoR, (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ) pp 49–66.
63.
van PollR, 2003, “A multi-attribute evaluation of perceived urban environmental quality: An overview”, in Human Decision Making and Environmental Perception Eds HendrickxLJagerWStegL, (University of Groningen, Groningen) pp 115–128.
ZimmermanK WJustT, 2000, “Interest groups, referenda, and the political process: On the efficiency of direct democracy”Constitutional Political Economy11147–163.
