Outline 1. Background Positioning and controlling 2. The problem 3. Aims Walkability policy making 4. Theoretical framework 5. Walking and Sojourning in public space (W+S) 1. Status Quo Walking, Sojourning and Walkability 2. System outcomes 3. System Impacts Rob Methorst 4. Points of special interest 6. Policy input towards W+S system 1. Status Quo Institutional Framework (system input) 2. System outcomes 3. System impacts 4. Points of special interest 7. Keys to change 26-10-2017 1 26-10-2017 2 1. Background 2. The problem • The importance of walking and sojourning in public space (W+S) • Walking and sojourning largely outside the vital citizen’s image • ‘Captives’ (children, elderly, handicapped) experience: • The walkability domain is badly covered in research, data • Limitation of freedom to move about • Inconveniences (obstacles, waiting, discomfort, ugliness and filth, dog shit,…) • Most (academic) research incl. COST 358: content oriented • Danger (specially falls, crossing accidents) • The importance of walking and sojourning (W+S) is severely underestimated • However: in statistics, information, knowledge, media and in policy Problems and countermeasures are more or less (academically) known. Not • W+S does not fit the usual compartments much is being done (institutional process) … • Willfully grown policies, concepts and images obstruct vision • Definitions, disciplines: W+S on #3, no problem owner • Public space: owned by government � Policy responsibility and accountability for all activities in public space • No local figures • Some revealing national data on mobility, sojourning, wandering, un-safety • Focus of academics and policymaker differ (Bax) • Social trends pressurise conditions • Up-scaling, ageing of society, ICT, autonomous cars, living demands & urbanism, decentralisation • ICTCT: and deregulation, participation, health care systems • Increasing number of vulnerable people International Co-operation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety • Often decreasing reachability and accessibility. 26-10-2017 3 26-10-2017 4 2. Aims 4. Aggregate of theories W+S framework Institutional framework A. Deliver consistent framework of theories 1. Systems Theory 8. Policy environment What questions need to be asked for the support of walkability assessment and policy development? 2. System elements 9. Policy playing field B. Determine Status Quo of walking and walkability 3. NOA model 10. Policy lifecycle Insight in walking, sojourning and walkability in public 4. Behavioural hierarchy 11. Critical factors space and current policy making: case The Netherlands 5. Perspectives 12. Adaptation of C. Lay down promising solutions innovations View on kinds of effective and fair measures supporting 6. Pedestrian system model 13. Policy pillars better conditions for walking and sojourning. 7. Measuring Walking 14. 5W + H 26-10-2017 5 26-10-2017 6
See next slides See 3.3 – 3.7 slide 4.1. Systems Theory 4.2. System elements 3.2. output input outcome See slide E E 3.8 – 3.13 ( Physical, Social, Transportation, Economical, Political, ... ) ICT/ITS N N Environment V V Social Trans- environ- portation I I System ment R R input output Throughput O O Pedestrian (i.e. Pedestrian travel N N & sojourn system) M M outcome feedback E E Physical impact environ- Environment N N ment T T (Heylighten, 1992) (Methorst, 2010, 2017) 26-10-2017 7 26-10-2017 8 4.3. NOA 3.4. Behavioural Hierarchy societal developments OS = Opportunity Search MP = Motivation to Perform Levels of Type of decisions Behavioural goal BC = Behavioural Control behaviour Lifestyle Fundamental decisions. Relates to goals ‘Being’ and identity Needs ( N ) for life and skills for living. Strategic Decisions relating to travel or purpose ‘Going’. (motive), where to go (destination) and MP which mode will be used. Tactical Decisions with regard to the route to be ‘Traveling’. Behaviour OS Opportunities ( O ) taken, places to cross, walking or driving speed and so on. Operational Operational decisions or reactions ‘Walking’ and BC concerning other road users, the traffic 'Sojourning' situation and other interacting persons and Abilities ( A ) Abilities (A) obstacles. (Michon, 1979; Hatakka et al., 1999) (Steg & Vlek, 2009) 26-10-2017 9 26-10-2017 10 4.6. Pedestrian System 4.5. Perspectives model Tales Perceived Experiences walkability Perspectives Question Who’s perspective? Lifestyle Strategic Tactical Operational behaviour behaviour behaviour behaviour Functional What is being offered to Expert’s perspective Arriving Being Going Travelling Walking and/or meet the needs and focusing on supply side Human needs, Manifest needs, Behavioural pre- Behaviour, Performance, Sojourning Goals of life, Options for cursors, Basic risk Coping, Disturbances abilities of pedestrians? Skills of life mobility factors in freedom of action Perception Wat is being requested Pedestrian’s Determinants Determinants Determinants Determinants Lifestyle/Strategic level Tactical level Operational level Operational level to meet the pedestrian’s perspective focusing on W+S needs, W+S needs, Individual options for mobility: W+S needs, subjective quality the demand side Task abilities & Task abilities & Needs Task abilities & Perceived Perceived perceived Opportunities Perceived Abilities Opportunities Opportunities needs? Opportunities Interference / Interference / Social context Individual Characteristics of Durability & How can decisions be Expert’s opinions on (Collective needs, rules, norms, communication communication travel communication etc.) nearby people with nearby with nearby motives balanced to take future facilitating and and traffic people and traffic people and traffic Future Physical Environment & Route Site Site interests into account? sustaining pedestrian Land Use characteristics characteristics characteristics characteristics prospects activity Accessibility & Accessibility & Accessibility & Transport system usability of usability of usability of transport modes transport modes transport modes (RARO, 1990; Methorst et al., 2010) (Methorst, 2010, 2017) 26-10-2017 11 26-10-2017 12
4.7. Measuring Walking 4.8. Policy Environment Monitoring / Evaluation Road user activity, Physical modal share, Social and Leadership Transport units, Economic effects International conditions traffic volumes & cultural Modal integration preconditions Performance, behaviour & perceptions activity in public Tools conditions (Institutional) products & activities realm (ambulant hardware) Bottom-line effects (benefits) Knowledge & Institutional framework professional Ecological effects Accidents skills (collisions &falls) & Infrastructure & threats (security) Policy public realm: Political Economic Strategies & features, Social effects Policies Atmosphere & conditions conditions making Qualities experience of (static hardware) space, sociability & culture of Transportation Resources human interaction effects Information, Perceptions, promotion & Scientific & Transportation education / satisfaction, Technological Co-operation & motivations, Information & Enforcement conditions Health effects Partnerships (social context) attitudes & conditions Communication wishes Technology (Methorst, 2017) INPUT OUTPUT OUTCOME IMPACT (Sauter & Tight, 2010) 26-10-2017 13 26-10-2017 14 4.9. Policy playing field 4.10. Policy Lifecycle Strategists (politicians / deciders, policy makers, policy entrepreneurs) Political concern rating Key: two way influence Catalysts main target secondary target (dedicated, respected outsiders) Discovery Political Implemen- Management & Clients W+S Facilitators phase phase tation Control phase (citizens: pedestrians, (planners, providers, phase other public space users, construction, Management time affected persons) & Control) (Winsemius, 1986) 26-10-2017 15 26-10-2017 16 4.11. Critical Factors 3.12. Adaption of innovations Industry Experts Interests IV. Performance I. Awareness Suggested Perceptions Innovation of Problems (Crises) Management Discovery Perceived & Control phase Technical Perceived distribution Non-business phase Key: requirements Effectiveness of Benefits Interest Groups and Costs Cycle direction (generally) Social Experience Sanctioned Feasibility Implemen- Decision Political phase Discourse tation phase making procedures Political Technical Feasibility feasibility Active agents Adoption of III. Competence II.Commitment Requisites for Innovations adoption (Methorst, 2010) (Feitelson & Salomon, 2004) Factors 26-10-2017 17 26-10-2017 18
Recommend
More recommend
