Search results

As part of a national plan to govern professional and organizational development in Norwegian specialist healthcare, the country’s hospital clinics are tasked with constructing development plans. Using the development plan as a case, the paper analyzes how managers navigate and legitimize the planning process among central actors and deals with the contingency of decisions in such strategy work.

This study applies a qualitative research design using a case study method. The material consists of public documents, observations and single interviews, covering the process of constructing a development plan at the clinical level.

The findings suggest that the development plan was shaped through a multilevel translation process consisting of different contending rationalities. At the clinical level, the management had difficulties in legitimizing the process. The underlying tension between top-down and bottom-up steering challenged involvement and made it difficult to manage the contingency of decisions.

The findings are relevant to public sector managers working on strategy documents and policymakers identifying challenges that might hinder the fulfillment of political intentions.

This paper draws on a case from Norway; however, the findings are of general interest. The study contributes to the academic discussion on how to consider both the health authorities’ perspective and the organizational perspective to understand the manager’s role in handling the contingency of decisions and managing paradoxes in the decision-making process.

Public participation is sometimes suggested as a way to establish legitimacy for contentious policies needed to realise a transformation in the transport sector to meet sustainability and climate goals. In this chapter, we first aim to summarise and draw conclusions from each part of the book, not least in relation to the transformative potential of public participation in the sector. The chapter also suggests recommendations for further research in the field. Important topics discussed are the diversity of public participation in transport; limits to participation; the specifics of participation in the field of transport; and the issue of consensus and dissensus. As regards transformation of the sector, public participation is considered a prerequisite, but the book also includes several cases where public participation does not seem to possess a transformational potential. We suggest representative, deliberative forms of participation as a possible solution to overcome dilemmas of representativeness, (lack of) knowledge, and the participation burden. We conclude that public participation is not easy, it has to be prepared and designed carefully to avoid unexpected consequences, and there is currently a need for more experiments and pilot projects on public participation in the field of transport.

A general global wave of public participation is occurring. Students and researchers as well as civil servants, policy-makers, and NGO representatives are encouraged to study, propose, and engage in public participation. New innovative forms of participation are suggested, and experiments in participation are ongoing locally and nationally. Within the transport sector, most studies of participation focus on road infrastructure and other land use changes. However, for other areas within transport, studies are limited and fragmented. Based on this, we see a need for a volume on public participation in transport, aimed at practitioners, students, and researchers, in what are unarguably times of change. The overall aim of the volume is to provide examples of different forms of public participation in transport, which can work as a setting for further analyses and discussions of public participation in transport. Drawing on different cases, eight empirical chapters are presented covering three main themes: grass-roots participation initiatives, participation in unconventional areas, and public participation that throws up unexpected results. In this introductory chapter, we set the scene for later discussions and analyses of public participation in transport. This chapter also provides an overview of the structure and content of the volume.

This chapter explores the potential for involving the public in planning healthy urban mobility using a case study of two neighbourhoods in Oxford, UK. We draw specifically on lessons learned from the UK case of a large-scale international study entitled Healthy Urban Mobility (HUM). The HUM project was based on the need to address health inequalities within urban areas by implementing new approaches to planning and health that use novel research methods to encourage active dialogue with a wide range of stakeholders. The two principal objectives of the research were firstly, to understand the impact of everyday (im)mobility on health and wellbeing within different social groups, and secondly, to explore the potential for participatory mobilities planning with local communities to support and develop solutions for healthy urban mobility.

The chapter is organised into six parts. Following the introduction, we highlight the theories behind the need for public participation in urban mobility planning and calls for active dialogue and mutual learning between practitioners and communities for effective action on improving urban health. Then in the third and fourth parts, we provide an overview of the approach to participatory mobilities planning with local communities in the UK as part of the HUM project. In the fifth part, we report the outcomes of the project and critically reflect on the overall approach and lessons learned that may be of use to practitioners and communities. Finally, we conclude with the significance of the study and implications for public participation in planning healthy urban mobility. The research demonstrates the significant potential of participatory methods in transport infrastructure project but also highlights the complexities of public engagement and points to the need for a continual, long-term process to build trust between partners.

After a technocratic period predominating in mobility literature and practice, the rhetoric of participation has been incorporated as a vital condition for the sustainable mobility agenda and, more recently, for achieving transport and mobility justice. Considering the social significance of mobility beyond simple movement and participation as a term that can accommodate a wide range of motivations and implications, this chapter explores the complex interplay of participation and mobility in the global south context. To this end, this study adopts the spaces for participation framework to investigate the multiple roles of participation in urban mobility. With a focus on the Brazilian context, this chapter uncovers the nature, dynamics, and reach of invited and claimed spaces for participation in mobility planning. Using Rio de Janeiro as the case study site, the chapter examines the invited spaces for participation enabled by the city's mobility plan and analyses whether marginalised populations engage with and/or create further spaces for participation. This was achieved through document analysis, online photo-elicitation interviews with residents of Favela Santa Marta as well as semi-structured interviews with municipal government professionals and representatives of non-government organisations involved in the development of Rio's mobility plan. The chapter discusses the interconnectedness or lack of, within invited and claimed spaces for participation and the multiplicity of meanings attributed to participation and mobility by different actors. The chapter closes with a reflection on what this means for participatory mobility planning in Brazil but which may apply to similar regions in the global south.

Public participation in policy-making can play a fundamental role in improving effectiveness via two mechanisms: strengthening the alignment between public needs and proposed measures, and increasing public consensus (and compliance) about them. It is, therefore, particularly relevant to foster public participation in sustainable mobility planning at the urban scale, as strongly recommended by the European Union, not only to avoid protests and resolve conflicts but also to find the best solutions for the city. Among many different tools and methodologies for implementing public participation, Living Labs have also shown great potential in enhancing the co-creation of strategies and measures for achieving sustainable mobility for both passengers and freight.

Through the analysis of the participatory process carried out by the municipality of Rome to support the definition of the Sustainable Urban Mobility and Logistics Plans, this chapter explores different involvement levels, tools and strategies in this field, with a particular focus on the innovative Logistics Living Lab developed in this city. This also contributes to filling a gap in the literature on how and to what extent citizens could or should participate in city logistics planning. The results of the analysis highlight that, despite these efforts, citizen participation in planning urban logistics is still a challenge that deserves additional effort and resources to be properly enhanced and improved and that a Living Lab offers great potential to meet this challenge. In turn, this case study could help policy-makers to identify solutions for more effective and acceptable measures to addressing city logistics and the externalities it generates.

Both guidance to transport planning practitioners and scientific literature advocate the adoption of in-depth and inclusive participation and consultation methods when developing new transport plans and measures. The motivations for this normative stance are however unclear, other than general statements that public participation is inherently a good thing, and that new forms of transport planning must be different from what has gone before. However, these documents cite little or no evidence to demonstrate that more participatory transport planning has produced ‘better’ decisions or outcomes. It is also important to note that the legitimacy conferred on governments from adopting this form of participation and consultation is only one of several forms of legitimacy. The purpose of this chapter is thus to attempt to assess whether more participatory approaches to transport planning do indeed lead to ‘better’ decisions and outcomes. It does this by developing, based on the literature, a number of criteria by which to judge the decisions made and outcomes delivered. It then reviews the experience of consultation and participation in a non-random sample of four pairs of transport plans or measures, and evaluates the experience in each against the criteria developed. It finds little evidence that more in-depth and inclusive participation processes that follow the normative stance found in practitioner guidance and the literature lead to better outcomes, and some evidence that such processes may in some cases compromise legitimacy by slowing and changing measure implementation.

Given the unprecedented scale of the climate emergency and the need for swift and radical change in how we travel, it is important for local authorities to consider how best to use their ‘authority’ to initiate sustainable change. However, without collective decision-making, longstanding issues around equity, real, and perceived injustices will trump any good intentions and policies. In this chapter, I attempt to make sense of why the initial stages of the Emergency Active Travel Fund (EATF) a mobility scheme designed to tackle two emergencies – the pandemic and the climate – largely failed in the eyes public, even though it was designed with their benefit in mind.