WP 39 Umschlag vorne - ETH Z · 2020-03-26 · Peter Loukopoulos and Roland W. Scholz ... TDM measures range from the coercive (“push” measures), such as road closures or road

Research Collection

Working Paper

Future urban sustainable mobilityusing "area development negotiations" for scenario assessmentand for assisting the democratic policy process

Author(s): Loukopoulos, Peter; Scholz, Roland W.

Publication Date: 2003

Permanent Link: https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-004605436

Rights / License: In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted

This page was generated automatically upon download from the ETH Zurich Research Collection. For moreinformation please consult the Terms of use.

ETH Library

https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-004605436

http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/

https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch

https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/terms-of-use

Working Paper 40

� Future UrbanSustainable Mobility:Using ‘Area Develop-ment Negotiations’for ScenarioAssessment and forAssisting theDemocratic PolicyProcess

Peter Loukopoulosand Roland W. Scholz

September 2003

Umw

eltn

atur

- und

Um

wel

tsoz

ialw

issen

scha

ften

Nat

ural

and

Soc

ial S

cienc

e In

terf

ace

Scie

nces

nat

urel

les e

t soc

iale

s de

l'env

ironn

emen

t

Publisher:

Prof. Dr. Roland W. ScholzUmweltnatur- undUmweltsozialwissenschaften (UNS)ETH Zentrum HADHaldenbachstrasse 44CH-8092 ZürichTel. ++41-1-632 5892Fax ++41-1-632 10 29E-mail: [email protected]

Authors:

Peter LoukopoulosDepartment of PsychologyGöteborg UniversityBox 500SE-405 30 Gothenburg, SwedenE-mail: [email protected]

Prof. Dr. Roland W. ScholzUmweltnatur- undUmweltsozialwissenschaften (UNS)ETH Zentrum HADCH-8092 ZürichTel. ++41-1-632 58 91Fax ++41-1-632 10 29E-mail: [email protected]

Future Urban Sustainable Mobility:Using ‘Area Development Negotiations’ forScenario Assessment and for Assisting the

Democratic Policy ProcessPeter Loukopoulos & Roland W. Scholz

ContentsContents ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2

2 The Procedure: Area Development Negotiations (ADN) ......................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Description .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4

2.2 The benefits of ADN .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Exploration Parcours (EP) ............................................................................................................................................................................. 7

3 The Lundby Case Study: A Brief History and Description ..................................................................................................... 12

4 Method ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Participants ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

4.2 Procedure .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

4.3 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17

4.4 Some conclusions and potential policy outcomes ......................................................................................................... 21

5 Lundby after the case study ............................................................................................................................................................................... 23

6 Policy and Democracy Implications ............................................................................................................................................................ 24

6.1 Supporting the policy process ............................................................................................................................................................. 24

6.2 Bridging the policy-behaviour gap ................................................................................................................................................. 25

6.3 Benefits to the citizen and the democratic process ..................................................................................................... 25

7 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 28

References ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28

Peter Loukopoulos & Roland W. Scholz

2 September 2003

AbstractAn examination of how land-use planning, conceptualised as a long-range travel demand

management (TDM) measure, can proceed while simultaneously emphasising sustainability intransport objectives is presented. Given the time scale of such a TDM measure it is vital thatcitizen preferences are assessed. The Area Development Negotiation method for obtainingsuch preferences within a case study framework is detailed. The method permits evaluations byvarious interest groups of future urban mobility scenarios, which have been developed amongscientists and case agents, using multiattribute utility analyses. In order to illustrate themethod key results from a Swedish case study are presented demonstrating that all interestgroups with the exception of business representatives had an awareness of the importance ofenvironmental factors and that these factors were given greater weight than economic factors.Discussion focuses upon issues relevant to policy analysis and the democratic process such ashow the method can support the policy process and the potential for meaningfully engagingthe citizen in the democratic policy process.

Keywords: mobility, sustainability, scenario assessment, policy, democracy, participation,Area Development Negotiations, Exploration Parcours

1 IntroductionThe second half of the twentieth century witnessed relatively consistent growth in car

traffic in the industrialised world. Coupled with this was the growth in household ownership ofcars, the expansion of road infrastructure and the decentralisation of economic activity alongwith the separation of housing and working. Recent years, however, have seen the growingrealisation and acceptance that the quality of life in towns and urban areas is under increasingpressure from the growth in volume and use of motor vehicles. As a consequence, there isgreater concern for the environmental and societal costs of traffic such as congestion, noise, airpollution and energy depletion (Goodwin, 1996; Green & Wegener, 1997; Sperling, 1995).

In recognition of the urgency of these problems, many European cities are contemplatingvarious traffic restraint measures, such as vehicle bans or road pricing, where the dual aim is toreduce traffic levels and to obtain funds for alternative transport forms to the private car. Policymeasures have thus historically progressed from the 1960s when increasing infrastructure toalleviate traffic problems such as congestion was commonplace, to the 1970s where the em-phasis was on improving management of existing infrastructure, to the 1980s and beyondwhen policies began to target altering human behaviour (Bovy & Salomon, 2002). An evenmore recent manifestation is the attempt to alter human values and change mobility culture ashas occurred in, for example, some parts of Switzerland with administrations marketing aslower lifestyle and better image for public transport (City of Zurich, 2002).

Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures is the term applied to the variety of poli-cies designed to influence human travel behaviour (see Gärling et al., 2002, for a detailed re-

Sustainable Future Urban Mobility

ETH-UNS Working Paper 40 3

view). TDM measures range from the coercive (“push” measures), such as road closures or roadpricing, to the non-coercive (“pull” measures), such as the provision of cycle paths or the im-provement of public transport (Steg & Vlek, 1997; Vlek & Michon, 1992). Goodwin (1998) alsonotes that TDM measures vary in the time scales for response to their implementation, rangingfrom the immediate (e.g., traffic calming) to the long-term (e.g., land-use and urban planning).In parallel to the variety of TDM measures available to transport planners, there has been acontinued growth in the use of alternative fuel sources, in the establishment of car-pooling andcar-sharing arrangements, and in the growth of alternative work arrangements such as tele-communications. Taken together, Jones (2002) argues the above trends imply that:

… both in policy and behavioural terms, we are rapidly moving into uncharted wa-ters. As a consequence, the modelling and evaluation frameworks that were suited to trendextrapolation and assessing ‘more of the same’ are inadequate to address many of theseemerging transportation planning issues. (Jones, 2002, p. 4).

Therefore, Jones argues that methods are needed that assess commuters’ responses tovarious TDM measures.

However, it is equally important given the long-range time scale of certain TDM meas-ures’ impacts that methods are developed that assess citizens’ preferences for various land-useand urban planning strategies. These TDM measures require a great deal of effort, time andmoney to implement and it is highly undesirable to embark on a certain policy route that iseither ineffective or unpopular amongst citizens. The reason being that if this were the casethen a proposed long-term TDM will ultimately not achieve its goals or will potentially haveother unintended side-effects or both. Given that local authorities are generally responsible forland-use planning, or at least are the first step in an authority chain stretching to regional andnational levels, this presents an opportunity to engage citizens in the policy process and in thedemocratic process in general. Yet the means by which citizens are to be engaged is critical and,as such, the principal aim of the present paper is to describe and demonstrate the use of AreaDevelopment Negotiations (ADN) as a tool for achieving sustainable development and citizeninvolvement in the democratic policy process.

Concomitantly, the present paper also reports some of the substantive findings of a casestudy conducted in Gothenburg, Sweden which sought to understand the nature of the prefer-ences the public has for various future urban mobility scenarios1. These preferences are com-pared with those of various decision makers, including politicians, and with experts from vari-ous fields. The hope was to communicate the preferences of citizens to decision makers and tosee where, if any, differences in preference arose between citizens, decision makers and ex-perts. The focus of the research in the case study, then, was to see how the development of anew neighbourhood area could proceed in a manner fulfilling sustainability criteria.

1 Given the focus of TDM measures is mobility, the term future mobility scenario is used throughout the paper as

opposed to future land-use scenarios. However, it is important to note that the present research is applicable toboth land-use and mobility as the latter depends on the former.


4 September 2003

2 The Procedure: Area Development Negotiations (ADN)2.1 Description

ADN is a procedure developed during case studies of urban and regional planning carriedout by Scholz and colleagues (see Scholz et al., 1996). A case is unique but related to somethinggeneral and can be defined as an empirical unit or a theoretical construct that is subject toevaluation because scientific and practical interests are tied to them (see Scholz & Tietje, 2002,for a review of the history and use of case studies). In the example to be considered in the nextsection, the case of the study was Lundby, a political district with approximately 32 000 inhabi-tants in Gothenburg, Sweden.

The ADN procedure has its roots in mediation (as a policy process) and in negotiation andbargaining (as decision-theoretic scientific objects and techniques). Negotiation and bargain-ing have been defined as the processes by which parties communicate and exchange proposalsin order to come to an agreement, whereas mediation typically involves the use of an inde-pendent party to assist the other parties in resolving their dispute or reaching an agreement(Bercovitch & Jackson, 2001). In the case study context, the terms negotiation and bargainingare specifically used to refer to the sub-discipline within decision science examining individual,organisation and societal decision processes, whereas mediation is considered to be an admin-istrative or adjudicative procedure (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). That the origins of ADN lay in media-tion and negotiation is consistent with the premise that groups of case agents (i.e.,stakeholders, interest groups) have differing interests and powers with respect to the dynamicsof the case. Land-use planning, as it relates to future urban sustainable mobility, is amenable toADN; citizens, politicians and experts all have varying interests and powers.

The aim of ADN is to provide an assessment of case agents’ interests and preferences inan Exploration Parcours (EP), which is the cornerstone of ADN and is a sequence of stimuli, in-terviews, experimental settings and encounters for a case agent that serve to provide the con-text for measures and judgements of preference. The Case Study Team (CST) has various roles.It works as a mediator between the interest groups, is responsible for the analysis of the case(i.e., assumes the role of researcher or analyst), and also participates in the EP. In the case to bedescribed, for example, the stimuli used were detailed descriptions and visual aids of plausible,future urban mobility scenarios. These scenarios differed in various aspects, such as pollution,fuel use, congestion, and shopping structures (shopping centres vs. local town squares). Par-ticipants in the EP were required to immerse themselves in the situation and rate each scenarioagainst several key criteria that had been developed in consultation with case agents (i.e., keyinterest groups and stakeholders) prior to the EP. It is an intensive procedure that requires up-wards of 2 hours commitment by case agents. It is also a data rich procedure, producing dataamenable to analysis using a multiattribute utility framework.

Scholz and Tietje (2002) argue that through the EP and the use of multiattribute utilityanalysis, ADN allows for the identification of areas of conflict and agreement between the dif-ferent case agents and for the examination of any misperceptions. Such information assists the



mediation and negotiation aspects of ADN in enabling better conflict resolution and the estab-lishment of Pareto-optimal solutions2.

After having analysed and familiarised itself with the case and generated hypotheses, theCase Study Team is then able to begin the procedure, a summary of which is presented in Table1.

Step Description1 Obtain and ensure authorities’ will for cooperation2 Explain the mediation mandate; provide an account

of the rules of the mediations, the role of the media-tor and the expected output of the procedure

3 Select the relevant and appropriate case agents (in-terest groups and key players)

4 Conduct an Exploration Parcours so as to record caseagents interests and their evaluations

5 Discuss relevant results with case agents and proceedwith dedicated bargaining and negotiation

Table 1: Summary of Area Devel-opment Negotiations (ADN)

6 Submit the results of the ADN to the relevant authori-ties (see Step 1), particularly if representatives partici-pated in the ADN

As with any procedure, the first step requires that the relevant authorities, owners, andothers who have some form of legal power or right in the case are willing to participate in theADN. This is a critical step as previous experience has often shown that the cooperation ofauthorities is a problem, particularly when defending a strong interest they fear may be dam-aged when direct democracy is introduced (Otway & Peltu, 1985). In this respect, the relativeweight given to direct versus indirect democracy is a crucial factor for the success of proceduressuch as ADN and the need for ADN may differ from country to country. Knoepfel (1995), for in-stance, finishes his historical analysis with a strong statement that Switzerland needs neithermediators nor mediations. It turns out, however, that the ADN procedure is required in Swit-zerland and that there is even a developing practice of professional mediation (Keiner, 2001).

However, it is also argued that the outcomes of such procedures can, when taking a long-term perspective, act as an impetus for a more direct form of democracy (or at least greateractive engagement mechanisms within a representative democracy) in that the results aregrounded in scientific rigour, they include a broad subsection of the community and the out-comes fulfil sustainability criteria when attempting to resolve important societal problems.Furthermore, given the importance of the issues examined with ADN, future urban sustainablemobility being but one, participation and willingness to cooperate is typically not a problem. Inthe Lundby case study, for example, representatives and decision makers from the political dis-

2 Given a fixed set of scenarios, a Pareto-optimal solution refers to a scenario, Xs, for which there exists no alterna-

tive scenario that is preferred by at least one party (i.e., case agent) while at the same time being less preferredthan scenario Xs by at least one other party. If there exists an alternative scenario which is both preferred by atleast one member and not less preferred than Xs by one other member, then Xs cannot be said to be Pareto-opti-mal.


6 September 2003

trict and from superordinate regional authorities were willing to participate as were local resi-dents and local business representatives.

The second step ensures that those parties who are involved in the ADN fully understandthe role of the mediator as well as the concerns and expected output of the mediation. It is alsoimportant that all parties involved accept the mandate of the mediator (i.e., the CST). This en-sures that the results will not be biased in favour of any particular group and that all the partiesinvolved trust and respect the independence of the CST. Again, should authorities or other keyinterest groups not be willing to cooperate for the reasons outlined above, then the ADN pro-cedure is inappropriate. Yet, given the nature of the problems examine with ADN, participationis often ensured, as is the acceptance of the CST’s mediation mandate.

The third step involves determining which of the key players should participate in theADN and in which capacity they should do so. According to Scholz and Tietje (2002), there aretwo ways in which to select interest groups and key players: asking case agents whom theyconsider to be a key player or affected by the case (inductive approach), or by determining in-terest groups according to a sociological or legal model that differentiates between interests,such as those of environmentalists, residents, owners and so on (deductive approach). This lat-ter approach also allows for hypothesis testing of differences between groups in terms of crite-ria weights or scenario preferences. In the Lundby case study both the inductive and deductiveapproaches were utilised so as to ensure the representativeness of participants and to ensuretheir relevance to the case study. An example of one categorisation of interest groups was resi-dents, society representatives (e.g., political decision makers; local associations) and businessinterests (e.g., local business owners; regional and national business interests).

Step 4 in ADN consists of the EP procedure where the aim is to reveal and record the in-terests and evaluations of the various representative and relevant interest groups and key play-ers. The categorisation into interest groups of EP participants was done on the basis of whatrole they played for the mobility of Lundby (Kåberger & Scholz, in press). The central nature ofEP to ADN cannot be emphasised enough. The data collected can be subjected to a multiattrib-ute utility analysis (for reviews, see Edwards & Barron, 1994; Yoon & Hwang, 1995). An exposi-tion of the details of the EP procedure will be provided below.

Step 5 involves discussing the results of the EP with the case agents. The idea is to allowparticipants to gain a better understanding of the conflict structure, obtain better judgementsand interactions amongst the case agents and, if possible, to enable approximations to Pareto-optimal solutions. At the conclusion of the Lundby case study, for example, a local meeting washeld at municipal offices presenting the key findings. The result was a commitment on the partof the local decision makers to take into consideration the views and opinions of the residentswith respect to their desires for the future of local developments and transportation in the dis-trict. The final step requires that the results be submitted to the relevant authorities and deci-sion makers (as defined in Step 1).



2.2 The benefits of ADN

The benefits of ADN lie in the formalisation of the mediation mandate and the devotionto dedicated bargaining and negotiation as well as in its reliance on EP as a means by which toobtain stakeholder evaluations and preferences. The issue of sustainability in general, and ofsustainable urban mobility in particular, is complex. Fischer (1977) has demonstrated that thedecomposition of such complex issues is of benefit to both the decision making process and itsoutcomes. Of particular relevance to the present study, such decompositional approaches per-mit the consideration of a larger number of attributes than holistic approaches, thereby al-lowing for clear communication of value conflicts (a great benefit in the later stages of ADN).

The EP in essence requires the decomposition of future urban sustainable mobility sce-narios into smaller, more manageable parts (defined according to certain evaluation criteria)and then requiring the logical aggregation of these smaller parts so as to obtain an overall util-ity for each scenario. Such a decomposition procedure has higher reliability than holistic, intui-tive judgements because the more manageable, smaller parts of the decision should containless random error (Ravinder & Kleinmuntz, 1991). Furthermore, higher degrees of correspon-dence with an external criterion have been obtained using decomposition methods (Stillwell etal., 1983). In this sense, the decomposition required in the EP renders it superior to holistic pref-erence judgements. The major drawback of holistic judgements is the loss of the explicitnesswhen it comes to criteria weights and ratings, which as already noted is crucial to the media-tion-based stages of the ADN procedure. Giving further impetus for the use of EP, Vlek et al.(1999) have shown that the ordering of preferences for different policy scenarios can be af-fected by the method of elicitation (intuitive, holistic vs. multiattribute, decomposed).

Additionally, because the decomposition (and re-aggregation into an overall utility score)is explicit, the communication between different stakeholders in a case study is greatly assistedin the negotiation and bargaining stage of ADN. As conducting a case study and constructingan EP is a participative and transdisciplinary process (Scholz & Marks, 2001), then the EP proce-dure itself is an ideal means by which to encourage deliberative, citizen engagement in thedemocratic policy process.

2.3 Exploration Parcours (EP)

2.3.1 Procedure

The stimuli utilised in an EP are scenarios. Jungermann (1985) defines a scenario as a rep-resentation of a system’s development from an initial state to an expected and/or desired finalstate. Scenarios can be conceived as paths in a decision tree and their major purpose is to pro-vide descriptions of possible futures in terms of their basic and major events, trends and activi-ties. A useful distinction is between predictive scenarios and prospective (action) scenarios; inthe former one tries to anticipate the future and in the latter one tries to steer towards a givengoal. The scenarios utilised in the case study are created as a combination of both global and


8 September 2003

regional developments (predictive scenarios) and potential local land-use planning develop-ments (prospective scenarios). Examples of scenarios, all designed to be internally consistentand plausible, designed by the CST using the Formative Scenario Analysis Method (see Scholz &Tietje, 2002) will be provided in the following section. The details and processes involved inscenario construction, and the complete set of different scenarios utilised in the EP is availablein Kåberger & Scholz (in press).

It is important to note that the use of multiple scenarios in the EP is an ideal way ofdealing with the phenomenon that single scenarios, characterised by reasons or concrete de-tails, encourage people to exaggerate the likelihood of occurrence and increase confidence inthem (Kuhn & Sniezek, 1996). However, work by Schoemaker (1993) demonstrates that by forc-ing people to consider more than one plausible future scenario, they are unlikely to place toomuch confidence in any one. While participants are not asked to judge the likelihood of anyscenario during an EP, it is important that preferences were not confounded with likelihoodestimates. This is yet another benefit of using EP within the ADN framework. The role of theCST is to define the problem space in which socio-economic discussions and decisions are madeand not to provide prescriptive recommendations about which states (i.e., scenarios) are moredesirable. This is achieved through the selection of scenarios in an EP (within the ADN method-ology framework) upon which case agents’ discussions and decisions will be based.

In essence, the EP requires that participating case agents be asked to evaluate futurescenarios on a series of different criteria to which they then assigned weights. Table 2 providesa summary of the steps required in the EP conducted in the Lundby Case Study (see also Scholz& Tietje, 2002 for a description of the procedure).

Step Description1 • Presentation of the case

• Explanation of EP procedure• Obtain background and personal characteristics

2 • Presentation of scenarios in random order with the useof audio and visual aids

• Interviewer answers any questions about each scenarioand asks participants to report the positive and negativeaspects of each scenario

Break Refreshments provided to participants3 One scenario at a time:

• participants provide intuitive ratings of scenario attrac-tiveness

• participants rate each scenario on each criterion4 Obtain evaluation criteria weights from participants after

all scenarios have been ratedTable 2: Exploration Parcours

(EP) in the Lundby Case Study



Each participant takes part in the EP on an individual basis with two members of the CST,one functioning as the interviewer and the other as secretary. The participants are given apresentation of the case study and of the purpose of the procedure they are about to under-take. Background and personal characteristics are obtained. They are then presented with eachof the scenarios in random order with the use of visual and audio aids such as posters andaudiotapes describing the future scenario. After each presentation they are asked by the inter-viewer to report on the good and bad aspects of each scenario. Upon completion of this task,participants are typically given a short break and provided with refreshments.

After the break participants are presented with each scenario again. One scenario at atime, they are asked to rate the attractiveness of each on a scale from 1 to 100, with 100 beingthe most attractive. The next step involves rating each individual scenario on each criterion,also on a scale from 1 to 100. After doing this for each scenario, participants are provided with alist of the criteria used in order to obtain their respective weights. The method utilised inLundby Case Study was the swing weighting method (Scholz & Tietje, 2002; von Winterfeldt &Edwards, 1986), where swing weights range from 0 to 100 with a swing weight of 100 beingassigned to the most important criterion. All other criteria receive a smaller weight in line withhow the participant judges each criterion’s importance. The total time required for the EP in theLundby Case Study ranged from 2 to 2_ hours.

A final issue worth considering is why an EP should be preferred to a large-scale ques-tionnaire study. A mail-back questionnaire is no doubt convenient and a generally easier toadminister than an EP. However, the stimuli required for an EP are very complex, carefully con-sidered, detailed scenarios. An EP provides close-to-reality encounters with potential futurestates of the world and these would require quite lengthy descriptions in a questionnairebooklet even with the benefit of diagrams and figures. There is furthermore no guarantee thatthe respondent has fully understood the intricacies and nature of each scenario. In the EP pro-cedure, which has the benefit of using audio and visual tools, a member of the CST follows theparticipant and, after each scenario, discusses and answers any questions the participant mayhave. This not only encourages both interaction and deliberation on the part of the participantin contrast to the general passivity of a questionnaire (Leach & Wingfield, 1999), but also en-sures as much as possible that the participant in the EP has a clear understanding of the stimulifor which he or she will provide ratings for on a series of sustainability criteria. One final noterelates to the possibility of the CST influencing EP participants’ judgments. Great care wastaken in scenario construction and EP preparation, as in any experimental research, to ensurethat no biases were introduced. The very nature of the CST as an independent group of re-searchers with no vested interests in the case study is also a necessary precaution in ensuringthe independence of results obtained via the EP (and, as mentioned previously, in obtaining thetrust and cooperation of all case agents involved in the ADN procedure).


10 September 2003

2.3.2 Data

The data obtained from an EP include criteria weights and scenario performance ratingson each of these criteria. Furthermore these weights and performance ratings can be obtainedfrom either the CST or the EP participants allowing for a detailed analysis of future urban mo-bility scenarios in terms of various utility scores, a summary of which is provided in Table 3. Thevarious utility scores defined in Table 3 (maut α , maut β, and maut γ scores, where ‘maut’stands for ‘multiattribute utility theory’) are all explicit means by which to aggregate decom-posed judgements. These scores vary in terms of whose weights and whose attractiveness rat-ings are used in calculating the utility scores.

MAUT utility score1

Source of information Alfa (α) Beta (β) Gamma (γ)Criteria CST2 CST CSTRatings/Judgments CST CST EP3 participantsCriteria weightings CST EP participants EP participants

Table 3:::: Differenttypes of utility scores andtheir source

Notes: 1 There is also a maut δ utility score, which has all three sources of information provided byEP participants. This was not utilised in the present case study but has been used in some Swiss case studies(e.g. Scholz et al., 2002). 2 CST = Case Study Team, 3 EP = Exploration Parcours

All the utility scores are based on the same evaluation criteria outlined in the next section(Table 4), which were developed by the CST in consultation with the various actor groups. Mautα utility scores combine the weights given to the criteria by the CST with predicted values thateach of the future situations would have on each of the criteria. These values are determined inconsultation with the literature, experts, council, regional and national plans and other sourcematerial. Transformation of these scores into utilities is achieved with the Logical Decisionssoftware package (Smith, 1995) using a utility function of an appropriate shape (e.g., in the caseof air quality, a linear function was assumed because the lower the level of nitrogen dioxideand heavy particle emissions the higher the utility). Summing across criteria yields a score foreach situation. As such, these scores represent scientific evaluations of the performance of fu-ture urban mobility scenarios on a range of sustainability indicators. Maut γ scores are derivedby multiplying the weights given to each criterion by EP participants with the ratings andjudgements (0–100) of how each situation performs with respect to each criterion. Summingthese scores across criteria provides a maut γ utility value for each situation. These scores,therefore, serve as a useful point of comparison to maut α scores in that maut γ scores buildupon case agents’ subjective judgements of the performance of future urban mobility scenar-ios with respect to sustainability. Maut β lies somewhere in between the other two and com-bines the predicted values determined by the CST for each scenario on each criterion with theweightings given by EP participants to the appropriate criterion. The motivation behind such anaggregation becomes apparent with reference to the sachbearbeiter concept (Scholz et al.,



1996, p. 270). The idea is that ratings of performance should be conducted by experts and thosewho have the skills and ability to do so, whereas the judgement of the importance and rele-vance of this performance rating ought to be left to those people affected. In other words, citi-zens, unlike experts, may be unaware of scientific foundations and may not know how to judgethe performance of a scenario with respect to its ability to fulfil clean air standards (as meas-ured by emissions), but they are assumed to know how important clean air is to them. Finally,the various utility scores allow for some important comparisons. A comparison between mautα and β scores indicates the difference in criteria weightings between the CST and EP partici-pants. A comparison between maut β and γ scores indicates differences in the performanceratings given to the future urban mobility scenarios.


12 September 2003

3 The Lundby Case Study: A Brief History and DescriptionThe area of Lundby, Gothenburg, Sweden (see map in Figure 1) has witnessed dramatic

changes in recent years to its old harbours and shipyards situated along the foreshore of theGöta River. On the southern foreshore lies Gothenburg’s city centre. Travel between the twoareas, and between the northern and southern parts of Gothenburg in general, is accomplishedeither by bridge (the Älvsborg Bridge on Lundby’s western edge or the Göta Älv Bridge on itseastern edge), tunnel (Tingstad Tunnel)3, or by ferry across the river. For approximately 130years this area was the centre of the Swedish shipbuilding industry and in the 1960s it was oneof the world’s largest shipbuilding centres (Eriksson, 1994). Despite the discontinuation of thisindustry in the 1970s leaving a 5 km strip along the banks of the Göta River, the vast majority ofSwedish and Nordic freight continues to be transported either along the Lundbyleden (by road)or the Hamnbanan (by rail).

Figure 1: Lundby and its location inthe greater Gothenburg area

Notes:

1. The inset illustrates the location ofLundby, Gothenburg in relation to therest of Sweden.

2. The solid white line in the figure repre-sents the political boundaries of Lundby.The southern border includes half of theGöta River.

3. The dashed line shows the focus of thenew residential and business develop-ments in the Lundby area. It coincides,for the most part, with the location ofthe Lundbyleden and Hamnbanan, asdescribed in Section 3.1.

This narrow strip of embankments and industrial buildings is currently undergoing rede-velopment and the plan is for the area to soon accommodate some 50 000 people with anequal distribution of housing, educational institutions and workplaces. Furthermore, it is envis-aged that the area will become an IT centre for Western Sweden (Vision Lundby, 2002).

Over the course of the case study the CST worked in consultation with certain key repre-sentatives (e.g., residents, local business owners, politicians) to develop suitable sustainabilitycriteria by which to judge future urban sustainable mobility scenarios. These criteria (see Table4) cover the ecological, economic and social aspects of sustainability.

3 The tunnel is physically and administratively on the other side of the eastern border but with the vast majority of

entrances and exits going onto the major east-west arterial (Lundbyleden) which lies within Lundby, and whichcuts off the northern areas of Lundby with the foreshore areas.



Criterion Indicator and unit of measurementC1 Climate effects Carbon dioxide emissionsC2 Air quality Nitrogen dioxide and heavy particle emissionsC3 Physical accessibility Barrier effects of the Hamnbanan and the Lundby-

leden: 0 (worst) to 15 (best)C4 Societal costs Infrastructure costs in Swedish kronor (SEK)C5 Transport costs Swedish kronorC6 Turnover Swedish kronor (compared to the present day’s

turnover)

Table 4: Exam-ples of evaluation cri-teria used during theLundby Case Study C7 Price (of goods) Swedish kronor (SEK/grocery bag)

Note: The reader may be concerned that criteria such as congestion or noise are not present. It is im-portant to bear in mind that these are a subset of the evaluation criteria utilised during the case study.More than one EP was conducted in the Lundby case study utilising other relevant evaluation criteria, someof which overlap with the criteria presented in the above table (see Kåberger & Scholz, in press).

It is beyond the scope of the present paper to discuss the suitability of the above criteriaand the definition of the term sustainability, of which the criteria in Table 4 can be seen as part.As with any complex, multi-faceted term there is no single accepted definition although mostdefinitions tend to imply the need for a conservation of natural resources and include a refer-ence to the welfare of both the present society and the society of the distant future (e.g.,Chichilnisky, 1996; Heal, 1998). For a discussion of the main classes of definitions of sustain-ability developed in the literature see Perman et al. (1999). The point to note is that the processinvolved in eliciting and agreeing upon the criteria was ongoing. This not only allows caseagents to feel that they are an indispensable part of the case but also makes multiattributeutility analysis in the EP an efficient one by narrowing the range of criteria and focussing onwhat case agents feel is important. This is an important fact because one does not want par-ticipants judging future scenarios on criteria, which are unimportant and which would in alllikelihood receive a very low weight (Edwards & Barron, 1994). Furthermore, defining sustain-ability in conjunction with case agents in an explicit manner avoided the problems associatedwith multiple definitions and linguistic ambiguity that have arisen in previous research appli-cations and projects (e.g., Benneworth et al., 2002). It is important to note that the criteria ar-rived at were not simply what case agents felt was important but that they also reflected therecent scientific-consensus notions of sustainable development; focus group discussions (seeFern, 2001, for a detailed review of focus group procedures and theoretical underpinnings) wereheld with case agents led by a member of the CST who (i) asked participants what was impor-tant to them with regard to sustainability and (ii) presented common measures and criteria forsustainability, and (iii) led a discussion of the merits of each criterion and of which criteria caseagents saw as relevant to the case study and themselves. The experiences gained from nearly20 EPs in Switzerland indicate that the multiattribute evaluations exhibit high reliability andvalidity (Tietje & Scholz, 2001). In sum, the sustainability criteria were developed and selectedboth with reference to the scientific literature and through ongoing consultation withstakeholders – a procedure that is not without precedent and that has met with success inpractical applications (Foxon et al., 2002).


14 September 2003

The following sections elaborate on a small part of the methods and procedures used inthe Lundby Case Study. More specifically, the results of one of several EPs conducted are pre-sented and discussed in detail in order to provide insight into the nature of the analyses andresults obtained through the EP stage of the ADN procedure. The selected results will focus onkey aspects and typical outcomes of the ADN and EP procedures utilised to demonstrate thebenefits of these procedures to the democratic policy process.



4 Method4.1 Participants

The average age of the EP participant (11 males and 11 females) was 43.5 years with astandard deviation of 10.6 years. There were three groups in the EP. These were business repre-sentatives, society representatives (e.g., politicians and interest groups) and residents, witheach group comprised of 11, 6 and 5 participants, respectively. No significant differences werefound in ages between groups or in sex distribution, nor were there any differences among thesexes in any of the analyses reported in the following section. Greater detail regarding the so-cio-economic background of participants (e.g., educational level and environmental groupmembership) is provided in Kåberger & Scholz (in press).

Despite the small sample size in the Lundby Case Study, representativeness of caseagents was emphasised and the results obtained were still informative and useful in the latterstages of the ADN procedure. However, larger groups should be obtained whenever possible asis typically the case in the Swiss ETH-UNS studies, which served as the template for the LundbyCase Study.

4.2 Procedure

The procedure outlined in Section 2.3 was followed. The stimuli consisted of a total offour local shopping structure variants (i.e., the status quo; shopping centre-based develop-ments; developments focussing on local town squares; internet shopping developments),which were combined with various mobility arrangements (e.g., extension of the road network;public transport investments). The resulting number of scenarios from the combination ofthese two facets was whittled down to seven, in essence developed through consultation ofcouncil, regional and national development plans and with the use of the Formative ScenarioAnalysis Method (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). This method assists in reducing the number of sce-narios by excluding those, which are internally inconsistent and implausible. The scenarios,along with the shopping and mobility arrangements comprising them, are presented in Table 5.

It is important to note that the aim was not to systematically manipulate scenarios so asto determine what affects participants’ judgements although the EP could be adapted to thisscientifically focussed end. Rather, the EP and ADN are crucial components of the Lundby CaseStudy and, as such, the first priority is to provide useful data and input for Lundby, for theauthorities, for the local residents and other case agents. That is, ADN can be seen as a usefultool for the democratic policy process. The usefulness to case study agents, along with plausi-bility and internal consistency, is what drove the final selection of scenarios.


16 September 2003

Table 5: Description of scenarios used by in the Exploration Parcours

Scenario descriptionScenario 0:- continuation of pre-

sent-day trends- Lundby continues to develop in line with the trends apparent in the pre-

sent-day. The most pressing problem is the interplay between the largeshopping centres and local town squares, with the latter having difficultyin competing with the former in terms of, for example, open times, varietyand concentration of goods and services.

Scenario 1:- shopping centres

- small-scale publictransport investments

- Large chains increasingly dominate trade and many areas are dominatedby large multinational and national chains. Shopping centres increasinglyresemble small cities within a city. Backaplan and Eriksberg (shopping cen-tres) are aimed at consumer with cars.

- There are small-scale investments in public transport in the form of moreregular services, more routes and improved comfort. Furthermore there is a20% discount provided to patrons who are also members in a car-sharingscheme. Yet investments also continue to be made on road infrastructure.

Scenario 2:- shopping centres- road infrastructure

investments

- The shopping context in this scenario is the same as for Scenario 1.- Investments are prioritised to the road network (new roads and bridge). No

economic measures are implemented to reduce car-use and now new in-vestments are made on public transport.

Scenario 3:- local town squares

- business as usual

- There has been a concerted effort to provide centrally situated residencesaround smaller town squares. As a result it has become more profitable toown smaller businesses (e.g., grocery stores, cafés, postal centres) at townsquares.

- Society develops in line with present day trends: there is some expansion ofthe tram network, minimal use of road or congestion pricing, and bottle-necks are built away. Additionally, freight traffic is rerouted from theHamnbanan to the north of Lundby before continuing on to the port ofGothenburg.

Scenario 4:- local town squares

- new transport system

- Town squares develop in this scenario mirroring the development de-scribed in Scenario 3.

- No private cars permitted within Lundby. Large-scale investments on publictransport are made in the form of alternative modes to the bus and thetram: personal rapid transit and group rapid transit systems, much like amonorail in the latter case and a car-size monorail in the former (see An-dréasson, 1998), as well as a new ferry service across the river.

Scenario 5:- internet shopping

- small-scale publictransport investments

- Internet shopping comes to occupy a substantial role in the future shop-ping context, partly in response to increase internet usage. Previously smallboutiques are transformed into showrooms, with stock centres in cheaperlocales outside the city centre. Delivery of goods is organised and plannedand as a result total transport is minimised, as consumers do not need totravel as much as they once did.

- Investments in public transport and road infrastructure correspond tothose described above for Scenario 1.

Scenario 6:- internet shopping

- new transport system

- Internet shopping is an important aspect of this scenario’s future urbanshopping context, as described in Scenario 5.

- No cars are permitted within Lundby and extensive investments are madein a new transport system, as described in Scenario 4).



Finally, although the recruitment of relevant case agents in the Lundby Case Study wasachieved with the use of both inductive and deductive methods and although the EP was moreexploratory in nature, a few intuitive hypotheses were proposed by the CST:

i) the criteria relating to the environmental/ecological aspects of sustainability would begiven the greatest weight overall;

ii) the criteria relating to the economic aspects of sustainability were more likely to be givengreatest weight by business representatives; and,

iii) shopping arrangements consisting of local town squares would be the most preferredscenarios due to both the close proximity to households providing high accessibility andto the positive image often associated with lively town squares.

4.3 Results

4.3.1 Shopping variants

Participants’ intuitive attractiveness ratings of the four shopping variants are presentedin Figure 2. The ratings (ranging from 0 to 100) were divided by 100 yielding a scale rangingfrom 0 to 1. This was done in order to enable ease of comparison with later utility analyses.

Figure 2: Intuitive rat-ings for the four shoppingvariants


18 September 2003

The most striking feature in Figure 2 is the clear preference for the variant defined asshopping developments based on local town squares. The remaining variants are not nearly asattractive and do not differ from one another. These findings were confirmed by 3 (actor group:business representatives vs. society representatives vs. residents) by 4 (variant: status quo vs.shopping centres vs. local squares vs. internet shopping) analysis of variance (ANOVA) withrepeated measures on the last factor4. There was a significant main effect of variant, F (3, 17) =8.66, p < .001, but neither the actor group main effect, F (2, 19) = 1.77, ns, nor the interaction ef-fect, F < 1, reached statistical significance. Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc comparisons5 revealed,as hypothesised, that the local town square shopping variant was significantly preferred to thestatus quo, shopping centre developments and the Internet shopping variant.

4.3.2 Scenarios

Criteria weighting Figure 3 shows the weights given to the criteria by the three actorgroups and the CST. The weights given to the criteria by the CST were arrived at by group dis-cussion and took various factors into consideration (e.g., European Union environmental tar-gets and standards, prior meetings with Lundby stakeholders and representatives). The mainpoint to note is that the CST’s weights are only important (as far as the aims of the case studyare concerned) in calculating maut _ scores. If more basic research were being undertaken,then it would be appropriate to adopt another method for obtaining the CST’s criteria weights(e.g., having individual members of the CST provide weights and obtaining means and standarddeviations).

Figure 3: Criteriaweightings for the threeinterest groups and theCase Study Team

4 All statistics reported in the present paper use a Greenhouse-Geisser correction.5 All Bonferroni adjustments reported in the present paper are at the α = .05 level.



A 3 (actor group: business representatives vs. society representatives vs. residents) by 7(criteria, see Table 4) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor revealed no overall ef-fect of actor group6, F < 1, but a significant main effect of criteria, F (6, 114) = 3.39, p < .05, and asignificant group by criteria interaction, F (12, 114) = 2.67, p < .05. Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoccomparisons revealed that, ignoring actor groups, the physical accessibility criterion (c3) wasgiven greater weight than societal costs (c4). However, post-hoc tests gauging the significantinteraction effect revealed that for the business representative group, the climate effects (c1)and air quality (c2) criteria were given significantly less weight than they were given by eitherof the remaining two groups. The business group also gives significantly more weight to theturnover criterion (c6) than the resident group. Finally, these two groups did not differ fromeach other with respect to the price criterion (c7) unlike the society representative group. If onewere to make a broad conclusion from the above data, it would be that the business groupgives less weight to the ecological sustainability criteria than the economic sustainability crite-ria, relative to the remaining groups, with the exception of the price criterion, which is alsogiven a large weight by the resident group. In other words, while the first hypothesis was notsupported, the second hypothesis positing an interaction between criteria weights and actorgroups was supported.

Figure 4: Maut α, mautβ and maut γ utility scores forscenarios

6 As the swing weight method required the sum of all criteria weights to equal 1 for each individual a main effect of

group for criteria weights is not possible.


20 September 2003

Maut α, β, and γ utility scores Figure 4 illustrates the way in which the maut α and mautβ scores tend to be rather similar to each other. This confirms what can be seen in Figure 3; theweights given to the various criteria by the actor groups are similar to those weights arrived atby the CST, as this is the only difference in the calculation of the two utility scores. Taking thisone step further, the implication is that if there are large differences between maut β and mautγ scores, then these must be attributable to the fact that the actor groups rated certain aspectsof situations as either less or more attractive than the CST.

Figure 4 indicates that there tends to be a general agreement between the various utilityscores for most scenarios. The notable exceptions are the maut γ evaluations for Scenario 0(continuation of present-day trends) and Scenarios 1 and 2 (shopping centres combined witheither small-scale public transport investments or road infrastructure investments, respec-tively). Scenario 0 maut γ scores are lower than the remaining two utility scores, suggestingthat EP participants believe this is worse than the CST believes it to be. By the same reasoning,Scenarios 1 and 2 are seen as more attractive by actor groups than the CST. However, these dif-ferences are not so interesting from a practical perspective, as it is Scenarios 3, 4, 5 and 6, whichare clearly preferred to the other scenarios. Participants appear to prefer the local town squareshopping situation and the Internet shopping arrangement (irrespective of the mobility ar-rangement with which either is combined). This is consistent with the third hypothesis withthe added qualification that Internet shopping arrangements can also be highly rated and ap-pealing given the right mobility arrangements. Finally, a future urban scenario with largeshopping centres is much less preferred to the present day trend. Clearly, all this is useful in-formation that town planner and policy makers could utilise.

Further results concerning how the various interest groups differ with respect to utilitiesassigned to the various scenarios can be found in the case study report (Kåberger & Scholz, inpress). The following section is confined to presenting the results from an analysis of maut γutility scores, which are based on the interest groups’ scenario ratings and criteria weightings.

Analysis of maut γ utility scores A 3 (actor group) by 7 (scenario, see Table 5) ANOVA withrepeated measures on the last factor revealed no main effect of actor group, F < 1, a significanteffect of scenario, F (6, 114) = 10.4, p < .001, and no significant interaction, F (12, 114) = 1.31, ns. Thissuggests that despite differences in weightings among actor groups, the utilities assigned toscenarios tend to be similar across actor groups. Follow-up Bonferroni-adjusted pair wise com-parisons revealed a similar pattern of findings as described in the previous section. Namely,Scenarios 3, 4, 5 and 6 receive significantly higher scores than the remaining scenario. The ex-ception is the difference between Scenario 2 and Scenarios 4 and 6, where both comparisonsfail to reach significance after Bonferroni-adjustments but are in the right direction.



4.4 Some conclusions and potential policy outcomes

4.4.1 Environmental awareness

Of the many potential future urban scenarios examined, a general conclusion that maybe drawn is that there is an awareness on the part of participants of the importance of envi-ronmental factors. These are, with the exception of the business representative group and theprice criterion for residents, generally given more weight than economic factors relating tosustainability.

4.4.2 Integrated land-use and mobility planning

The differences in ratings for the shopping variants on their own and for the shoppingvariants in the context of various mobility arrangements (i.e., scenarios) are quite noticeable.There are some important implications from these differences, namely that mobility arrange-ments greatly influence the performance and attractiveness of the various shopping arrange-ments and that holistic and decomposed judgements are not guaranteed to yield similar out-comes. It may be the case that decomposed judgements result in more reasoned judgementsthat are not overly influenced by one or two criteria. It is unfortunate that participants were notasked for intuitive ratings of the various scenarios. It would have been easier to distinguish be-tween differences in ratings arising from differences in method of rating elicitation (holistic vs.decomposed) or those arising from mobility arrangements’ influence on the attractiveness ofvarious arrangements (variant vs. scenario). It does seem plausible, however, to expect thatparticipants’ preferences and ratings of, for example, Internet shopping, to be influenced by themobility context. Therefore, this seems to confirm the importance of and need for integratedland-use and mobility planning.

4.4.3 Visions of urban mobility

When examining the scenarios, it is apparent that participants preferred the idea of localtown squares and Internet shopping to the shopping centre. It is important to note that no-where is it implied that people wish to eliminate shopping centres; they are a valuable tool.However, case participants have a desire to see the possibility of Internet shopping and a livelytown square, as opposed to the steady disappearance of present suburban squares. One caninterpret such results as being consistent with Bertolini and le Clercq’s (2003) contention withrespect to urban development that people ask not for generic mobility per se, but for opportu-nities to participate in spatially disjointed activities. Local town squares and internet shoppingassist residents’ accessibility by increasing the amount and diversity of opportunities, albeit indifferent ways, that can be reached within a certain amount of time.

Nor are either of these possibilities unrealistic; at present, as revealed in a questionnairestudy carried out as part of the Lundby Case Study (Bengtsson, in press), approximately 50% ofdaily grocery purchases by Lundby residents already take place at local squares, whereas 75% ofpurchases of other goods take place at larger shopping centres. Should the variety and breadth


22 September 2003

of goods and services available at local squares improve, then there is a strong chance that alarger number of customers would choose to purchase there thereby potentially influencingthe modal split as documented for certain regions of Amsterdam (Bertolini & le Clercq, 2003).Furthermore, Internet shopping implies a clear link between business strategies and lifestyles.Businesses need to develop ways to coordinate transport, simplify ordering procedures andimprove the variety of goods available on the Internet. Consumers need to utilise the Internetto a greater extent than they do at present in their purchase of goods.

4.4.4 Diagnosing interest group opinions

On a substantive level local authorities can use the provided information to design poli-cies that assist in either of these developments (i.e., internet shopping or local town squares).On a more methodological level, they could do so with the knowledge that these future sce-narios are the ones preferred as revealed in terms of utility scores by various actor groups rep-resenting subsections of the Lundby community. A meeting at the completion of the case studyperiod was arranged between local authorities, case agents, residents, other interested partiesand the CST at council offices. It was mentioned by the mayor that they were pleased that actorgroups were so enthusiastic about local squares, because even though the idea of addressingthe issue had long been contemplated, they were uncertain over whether or not to invest theresources in such a project if residents, for example, were to be opposed to this.

4.4.5 Developing orientations

Finally, it is important to note that the outcome of the study was not a series of recom-mendations for action (the CST is not a decision maker), but rather a series of sustainabilityorientations. This is in line with the focus of the research, which was to examine how the de-velopment of residential and business areas in a neighbourhood area could proceed given a setof sustainability standards and criteria. The idea was to present a series of potential future ur-ban mobility scenarios that varied in terms of their sustainability and their attractiveness,thereby defining the problem space and allowing the relevant case agents to make their deci-sions and discussions regarding the most desired goal or outcome within this space. That is,the case study assisted case agents’ development of sustainability orientations (e.g., throughassessing the weights they place on various sustainability criteria or even by aiding the devel-opment of cognitive or action schemes when dealing with variants and scenarios) but left thedecision of how to realise these orientations up to the decision-makers.



5 Lundby after the case studyA year after the conclusion of the case study, it was apparent that the main results were

incorporated into the day-to-day functioning of the relevant Lundby council authorities. It is aconscious aim of authorities to maintain and reintroduce lively local town squares that areeconomically, socially and environmentally sustainable and that are desired by residents. Tothis end, various support measures have been undertaken both by council and by other actorgroups. For example, the real estate/property-owners association has started a local associa-tion for properties around one local square which has already measured safety and security,with the cooperation of the local administration, with the aim of improving residents’ percep-tions of safety as well as objective measures in order to encourage visitors to return to the localsquare. Additionally, Lundby authorities have begun a crime prevention body with a variety ofpartners. This body is a sub-group of the local public health and well-being authority and thecoordinating authority for local town development (A. Jögård (mayor), personal communica-tion, 21 May 2003). From an economic perspective, arrangements have been established withthe European Union’s Urban II programme (European Regional Development Fund, 2003),which is aimed at increasing employment and cooperation with companies and businesses, aswell as improving infrastructure.

Inter-actor cooperation and communication has also been improved since the casestudy’s conclusion. Local authorities and the Department of Transport have worked closely todevelop new and alternate ways of meeting the different transport patterns of the various ac-tors within Lundby, patterns which authorities became aware of as a direct result of the casestudy. Work is ongoing and the idea is to utilise Vision Lundby (Vision Lundby, 2002) and thenewly established Lundby Mobility Centre as a means of, for example, increasing public trans-port use, improving and increasing car-pooling and car-sharing arrangements and developing“a cycling suburb” (A. Jögård (mayor), personal communication, 21 May 2003).

The point to note is that the results have served as an impetus. Formal negotiation andconflict resolution has not yet been required given the many common interests amongst theactor groups as revealed in the previous section. The product is not a static ‘sustainableLundby’, but rather a dynamic process linking relevant authorities and actor groups in a net-work that continues to exist beyond the case study and which has a ‘sustainable Lundby’ as akey objective. It is unlikely, given the active, newly created network, that any differences andpotential conflicts go unnoticed so that they become irreconcilable. Rather, open dialogue en-sures early diagnosis of potential conflicts and, more importantly, early resolutions. It may bethat differences requiring negotiation arise at a later point. However, if this occurs, mecha-nisms and means of inter-actor communication have been established allowing for the nego-tiation phase to be initiated unaided.


24 September 2003

6 Policy and Democracy ImplicationsThe following sections touch briefly on some fundamental questions relating to policy

analysis and the democratic process. While the aim of the present paper has been to presentand describe the ADN and EP methods, it is nevertheless useful and informative to considertheir position in the broader policy and democracy context. What follows, therefore, can beconsidered an initial, preliminary and initial discussion of potential future research domains inthe field of policy tool development for the implementation of sustainability as well as issuesthat need to be more carefully examined and thoroughly explicated.

6.1 Supporting the policy process

As has been seen in the previous section and in previous Swiss case studies, ADN andmore specifically EP have the ability to clearly add to policy formation and implementationprocesses. The method can be used to identify conflicts and misperceptions. For example, oneETH-UNS case study (Scholz et al., 1996) involved the issue of redeveloping an old industrialsite, the Sulzer Escher Wyss area in the centre of Zurich. Demonstrating the benefit of utilisingdecomposed judgements pinpointing where differences between stakeholders arose, it wasfound that economists differed greatly from other groups in the study when considering crite-ria, references, weights and scenario ratings. Furthermore, it was discovered that owners andpublic administration were not interested in dealing with the residents and environmentalists.Investors were, on the other hand, as they could not ignore the interests of future tenants. Inthis case study, the policy process was assisted not only from the EP but also the ADN stage,where discussions could benefit from knowledge that stakeholders preferred different scenar-ios as a result of differing criteria weights or ratings. Negotiations could focus on these causesof disagreements rather than the observable symptoms (i.e., different scenario preferences) soas to see what compromises and agreements could be reached. Today, the development of theSulzer Escher Wyss area has been demonstrably influenced by the outcomes of ADN and EPconducted among various stakeholders and interest groups. The current realisation of the areais a combination of the best-rated scenarios (i.e., planning variants that were presented in theEP) and are completely different from the realisation suggested by planners at the time the EPwas conducted (Scholz et al., 1996)

At present the Lundby Case Study has not yet needed to proceed to the formal negotia-tion period despite the clear differences in criteria weightings and preferences that have beendetected. This is mainly because of the fact that the magnitudes of the commonalities thathave also been detected (as in the case of council and residents desire for further investmentinto local squares) have been of greater importance. This in itself can be of benefit insofar as animpetus is provided to the policy formation process. The EP also allows a closer examination ofpreferences for various situations. This is achieved by decomposing preferences into criteria,scores and weights, thereby revealing the preference structures of participants.



6.2 Bridging the policy-behaviour gap

The policy-behaviour gap refers to the difference between assumptions underlying policymeasures and the resulting observed behaviour (Maat & Louw, 1999). This gap may arise due topoor implementation of the policy but it is important to keep in mind the fact that successfulimplementation does not guarantee the intended policy effects. There may be other unin-tended side effects or there may be tensions between various policy aims. Maat (2002) providesan example of this with an account of the Dutch government’s housing programme. Briefly,the policy offered subsidies encouraging the building of new private sector housing (aiming torelease cheaper housing for lower income households dependent on government rent contri-butions) that had a density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare. This was done so as to ensuresufficient patronage for public transport services, which were to operate at no less than 50 percent of cost.

Yet, the programme’s success was dependent on the desire of residents to move into thenew areas. This failed to occur, presumably because people preferred green, suburban devel-opments with easy car access to urban residential settings. These neighbourhoods are notcompact and therefore public transport investment has not eventuated. Maat (2002) concludesthat the spatial and mobility objectives of the Dutch government’s policy were incompatiblewith the goal of promoting private-sector housing.

The point being made is that with the case study method used in the present study en-tailing ADN and EP, it is possible to identify when a policy is in conflict and when it may nothave the desired consequences. More importantly, it may potentially suggest when an alterna-tive policy may be required as a necessary first step, such as when new neighbourhood areasare being developed as in the Lundby Case Study. For example, the need to change public atti-tudes with respect to living preferences (as revealed in an EP) would be an appropriate prereq-uisite to the implementation of the Dutch government’s compact city policy. Gärling et al. (inpress) provide both a general discussion of the role of public attitudes and attitude change andprovide examples related to the travel behaviour context.

6.3 Benefits to the citizen and the democratic process

There has been much debate recently on the benefits of direct democracy, which can becharacterised by the fact that, in principle, everyone may participate in the decision makingprocess (Bohnet & Frey, 1994; for a review of the literature on democratic processes and theclaimed benefits of direct democracy compared to representative democracy, the reader is di-rected to Zimmerman & Just, 2000). Frey et al. (2001) claim that direct democracy results inoutcomes that are more favourable to citizens compared to situations where there is no optionfor direct participation. They further demonstrate that direct participation provides utility inand of itself and is associated with greater life satisfaction in the population. This research par-allels psychological research that has examined goal and process utility (e.g., Gärling et al.,1996; Kahneman & Snell, 1990) or distributive and procedural justice (e.g., Leventhal et al.,1980; Tyler & Lind, 1992; Van den Bos et al., 2001). In the former domain, research has demon-


26 September 2003

strated that the way in which a goal is achieved is an important source of utility independent ofachievement of the goal. In the latter, judgements of fairness and justice-involved issues con-cerning how decisions were made and which procedures were utilised as well as what the deci-sions or outcomes were.

While it is not appropriate in this paper to argue either for or against direct democracy, itcan be said that EP embodies an appropriate instantiation of direct participation. It is not only ameans to an end; it is also an end in itself due to the benefits accruing from procedural utility.EP participants were asked on 7-point Likert scales to indicate their opinion of the procedure(anchors: 1-very negative to 7-very positive). The average rating was 5.98 with a standard devia-tion of 1.17. Although further research is required that specifically examines these issues, it isworth noting that the EP procedure was received positively and there is evidence consistentwith notions that direct participation results in positive utility being experienced by those whoparticipate and that it is received positively (and by implication is seen as a fair procedure).Given the importance of process utility and procedural justice, direct participation as embodiedthrough EP may provide a way of increasing acceptance for future urban mobility scenarios(and other TDM measures, in general) both amongst those who like the decisions made and,more importantly, amongst those citizens whose preferred alternative was not selected andimplemented.

The EP is a carefully constructed procedure that is labour and data intensive but has thepotential to yield a wealth of information with beneficial impacts on the policy and democraticprocesses. Furthermore, the procedure overcomes many of the criticisms of tokenism oftentargeted at other attempts to increase participation. In a study by Leach and Wingfield (1999) itwas found that the overwhelming type of participation required of citizens by local authoritieswas passive (e.g. survey- or questionnaire-based). There was little evidence showing the appli-cation of methods encouraging citizen deliberation, which they argued implied in-depth de-bate and knowledge sharing. However, it is claimed that an EP encourages deliberation byplacing people in a moderately challenging environment and asking them to make a series ofjudgements and criteria evaluation. Participants of the EP were also asked to rate the difficultyof the EP procedure on a 7-point Likert scale (anchors: 1-very easy to 7-very challenging). Themean was 4.47 with a standard deviation of 1.77 suggesting that the task was by no meanssimple and required serious deliberation.

Yet, it is incorrect to assume that greater public participation is a good thing; one needsto consider the representativeness, inclusiveness and relevance of those who participate as wasdone in the Lundby case study (see also Bickerstaff & Walker, 2001). Additionally, appropriatedata collection tools need to be used so that the relevant information is elicited from partici-pants, which then needs to be analysed appropriately (Glicken, 2000). This is why the casestudy approach outlined in this paper with its detailed methods and trained staff (i.e., the CST)is an indispensable part of ensuring not only that participation in the democratic policy processis achieved but that this participation is of an appropriate standard with results arising out ofserious thoughtful consideration and deliberation on the part of the participants.



7 ConclusionsThe unabated increase in car traffic witnessed in recent years in the industrialised world

has led to a focus on demand-based traffic restriction measures, in contrast to the usual sup-ply-based measures (Bovy & Salomon, 2002). Such travel demand management (TDM) meas-ures can vary in time-scale with the long-range TDM measures often requiring some form ofland-use planning. As such it is important that not only commuter responses to TDM measuresare assessed, as is often the case, but also that citizen and business preferences for variousland-use strategies be assessed.

The present paper presented an application of the ADN/EP methodology as a means toachieve sustainable development (i.e., through long-term TDM measures), set within the con-text of a case study in Gothenburg, Sweden. The procedure requires deliberation on the part ofparticipants and is therefore an ideal tool for promoting citizen involvement in the democraticpolicy process. Additionally, the involvement is constructive with many benefits. The results ofthe case study proved to be very useful and insightful, allowing for an understanding of whycertain future urban scenarios are preferred to others both in terms of differences in actorgroups and also in terms of criteria weightings. While the later more mediationally basedstages of the ADN procedure, as applied to the Lundby case study have yet to be completed orrequired, the evidence suggests that — comparable to the ETH-UNS case studies in Switzerland— practices and solutions with which all parties and stakeholders will be satisfied are possibleto implement.

The society facing us today is full of complex long-term decision problems, of which fu-ture urban sustainability is but one. As detailed in the present paper, these problems are well-suited to the case study methodology and to the use of ADN, including EP, as the methodologyrequires the use of scenario thinking and future-sketching, which produce future scenarios thatare the result of careful analysis of present trends and plausible future developments. Yet itwould be incorrect to conclude that these problems can be successfully solved using methodsthat only have the benefit of improving the engagement of citizens in societal affairs. Thatwould be missing the point. As Vlek et al. (1999) note:

… without valid scientific support, long-term policymaking can hardly be anything morethan collective trial-and error, democratic or otherwise. (Vlek et al., 1999, p. 121).

Rather, the methods described in this paper attempt to describe a means by which tobetter project potential and expected futures, and a means by which to understand and com-municate preferences for these futures in a scientifically rigorous manner so that long-termpolicies can build upon this information and guide society towards desired and effective — interms of the sustainability objective — future urban mobility scenarios.


28 September 2003

AcknowledgementsThe authors gratefully acknowledge Tommy Gärling, Dirk Grasmück and Michael Stauf-

facher for valuable comments and suggestions during the preparation of this article.

ReferencesAndréasson I, 1998, “PRT – A Suitable Transport System for Urban Areas in Sweden (KFB-Report

1998:38)” (KFB: Stockholm)

Bengtsson J, in press, “Boende in Lundby [Living in Lundby]”, in Lundby på Gång: Mobilitet ochHållbar Stadsutveckling [Lundby on the Move: Mobility and Sustainable Urban Development]Eds T Kåberger, R W Scholz (Institution för tillämpad miljövetenskap, Göteborgs Universitet:Gothenburg, Sweden)

Benneworth P, Conroy L, Roberts P, 2002, “Strategic connectivity, sustainable development andthe new English regional governance” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management45 199–217

Bercovitch J, Jackson R, 2001, “Negotiation or mediation? An exploration of factors affecting thechoice of conflict management in international conflict” Negotiation Journal 17 59–77

Bertolini L, le Clercq F, 2003, “Urban development without more mobility by car? Lessons fromAmsterdam, a multimodal urban region” Environment and Planning A 35 575–589

Bickerstaff K, Walker G, 2001, “Participatory local governance and transport planning” Environ-ment and Planning A 33 431–451

Bohnet I, Frey B S, 1994, “Direct-democratic rules: The role of discussion” Kyklos 47 341–354

Bovy P H L, Salomon I, 2002, “Congestion in Europe: Measurements, patterns and policies”, inTravel Behaviour: Spatial Patterns, Congestion and Modelling Eds E Stern, I Salomon (EdwardElgar, Cheltenham, UK) pp 143–179

Chichilnisky G, 1996, “An axiomatic approach to sustainable development” Social Choice andWelfare 13 231–257

City of Zurich, 2002, Mobilität ist Kult(ur). Die neue Mobilitätsstrategie – Wie wir miteinanderweiterkommen [Mobility is Cult(ure). The new mobility strategy – How we can move forwardtogether] (Civil Engineering Office, City of Zurich, Zurich)

Edwards W, Barron F H, 1994, “SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiat-tribute utility measurement” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60306–325

Eriksson F, 1994, Lundby på Hisingen – från istid till nutid [Lundby on Hisingen – from the ice ageto the current age] (Tre Böckers Förlag, Gothenburg, Sweden)



European Regional Development Fund (2003). “Urban II: Boosting depressed urban areas”,http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/urban2/index_en.htm, retrieved 27 May 2003

Fern E D, 2001, Advanced focus group research (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA)

Fischer G W, 1977, “Convergent validation of decomposed multi-attribute utility assessmentprocedures for risky and riskless decisions” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance18 295–315

Foxon T J, McIlkenny G, Gilmour D, Oltean-Dumbrava C, Souter N, Ashley R, Butler D, Pearson P,Jowitt P, Moir J, 2002, “Sustainability criteria for decision support in the UK water industry”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 45 285–301

Frey B S, Kucher M, Stutzer A, 2001 “Outcome, process and power in direct democracy” PublicChoice 107 271–293

Gärling T, Axhausen K, Brydsten M, 1996, “Travel choice and the goal/process utility distinction”Applied Cognitive Psychology 10 65–74

Gärling T, Eek D, Loukopoulos P, Fujii S, Johansson-Stenman O, Kitamura R, Pendyala R, Vilhelm-son B, 2002, “A conceptual analysis of the impact of travel demand management on privatecar use” Transport Policy 9 59–70

Gärling T, Loukopoulos P, Lee-Gosselin M, in press, “Public attitudes” in Handbook of Transpor-tation. Volume 4: Transportation and the Environment Eds K Button, D Hensher (Elsevier, Am-sterdam)

Glicken J, 2000, “Getting stakeholder participation ‘right’: A discussion of participatory proc-esses and possible pitfalls” Environmental Science and Policy 3 305–310

Goodwin P, 1996, “Simple arithmetic” Transport Policy 3 79–80

Goodwin P, 1998, “The end of equilibrium” in Theoretical Foundations of Travel Choice ModelingEds T Gärling, T Laitila, K Westin (Elsevier, Amsterdam) pp 103–132

Greene D L, Wegener M, 1997, “Sustainable transport” Journal of Transport Geography 5 177–190

Heal G, 1998, Valuing the Future: Economic Theory and Sustainability (Columbia University Press,New York)

Jones P, 2002, “Setting the research agenda: response to new transport alternatives and poli-cies” in In Perpetual Motion: Travel Behavior Research Opportunities and Application Chal-lenges Ed H S Mahmassani (Pergamon, Amsterdam) pp 3–22

Jungermann H, 1985, “Psychological aspects of scenarios” in Environmental Impact Assessment,Technology Assessment, and Risk Analysis Eds V T Covello, J L Mumpower, P J M Stallen, V R RUppuluri (Springer-Verlag, Berlin) pp 325–346


30 September 2003

Kåberger T, Scholz R W (Eds), in press, Lundby på Gång: Mobilitet och Hållbar Stadsutveckling[Lundby on the Move: Mobility and Sustainable Urban Development] (Institution för tillämpadmiljövetenskap, Göteborgs Universitet, Gothenburg, Sweden)

Kahneman D, Snell J, 1990, “Predicting utility” in Insights in Decision Making Ed R M Hogarth(University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) pp 295–310

Keiner M, 2001, “Die Raumplanung in der Schweiz im Wandel. [Changes in Swiss regional plan-ning]” Geoagenda 3 34–37

Knoepfel P (Ed), 1995, Lösung von Umweltkonflikten durch Verhandlung – Beispiele aus dem In-und Ausland [Solving environmental conflicts by means of negotiation – Examples from Swit-zerland and abroad] (1st ed., Vol. 10) (Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel, Switzerland)

Kuhn K M, Sniezek J A, 1996, “Confidence and uncertainty in judgmental forecasting: Differen-tial effects of scenario presentation” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 9 231–247

Leach S, Wingfield M, 1999 “Public participation and the democratic renewal agenda; prioritisa-tion or marginalisation?” Local Government Studies 25 46–59

Leventhal G S, Karuza J, Fry W R, 1980, “Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences” inJustice and Social Interaction Ed G Mikula (Springer, New York) pp 167–218

Maat K, 2002, “The compact city: Conflict of interest between housing and mobility aims in theNetherlands” in Travel Behaviour: Spatial Patterns, Congestion and Modelling Eds E Stern ISalomon, P H L Bovy (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK) pp 3–19

Maat K, Louw E, 1999, “Mind the gap: Pitfalls of travel reduction measures” Built Environment 25151–161

Otway H, Peltu M, 1985, Regulating industrial risks: Science, hazards and public protection (But-terworths, London)

Perman R J, Ma Y, McGilvray J, Common M, 1999, Environmental and Natural Resource Econom-ics (2nd ed.) (Addison Wesley Longman: London)

Ravinder H V, Kleinmuntz D N, 1991, “Random error in additive decompositions of multiattrib-ute utility” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 4 83–97

Schoemaker P J H, 1993, “Multiple scenario development: its conceptual and behavioral founda-tion” Strategic Management Journal 14 193–213

Scholz R W, Bösch S, Koller T, Mieg H A, Stünzi J (Eds), 1996, Industrieareal Sulzer-Escher Wyss:Umwelt und Bauen: Wertschöpfung durch Umnutzung. [Industrial Area Sulzer-Escher Wyss:Environment and Construction: Value Added through Re-use] (vdf Hochshulverlag, Zurich)

Scholz R W, Marks D, 2001, “Learning about Transdisciplinarity: Where are we? Where have webeen? Where should we go?” in Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem-Solving among Science,Technology, and Society. An Effective Way for Managing Complexity Eds J T Klein, W Grossen-



bacher-Mansuy, R Häberli, A Bill, R W Scholz, M Welti (Birkhäuser Verlag AG, Basel, Switzer-land) pp 236–252

Scholz R W, Stauffacher M, Bösch S, Wiek A (Eds), 2002, Landschaftsnutzung für die Zukunft –Der Fall Appenzell Ausserrhoden. UNS Fallstudie 2001 [Sustainable Landscape Development –Appenzell Ausserrhoden as a case. UNS Case Study 2001] (Rüegger, Zurich)

Scholz R W, Tietje O, 2002, Embedded Case Study Methods: Integrating Quantitative and Qualita-tive Knowledge (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA)

Smith G R, 1995, “Logical Decisions – for Windows” (1st ed.) [Computer software]. Denver-Ever-green: Msa Design, PdQ Printing.

Sperling D, 1995, Future Drive: Electric Vehicles and Sustainable Transportation (Island Press,Washington, DC)

Steg L, Vlek C, 1997, ”The role of problem awareness in willingness-to-change car use and inevaluating relevant policy measures” in Traffic and Transport Psychology Eds T Rothengatter,E Carbonell Vaya (Pergamon: Oxford) pp 465–475

Stillwell W G, Barron F H, Edwards W, 1983, “Evaluating credit applications: A validation of mul-tiattribute weight elicitation techniques” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance32 87–108

Tietje O, Scholz R W, 2001, “Methoden für komplexe Probleme: Entwicklung der Fallstudien-methoden” in Zukunft Schiene Schweiz 2 - Ökologisches Potenzial des SBB-Bahngüterverkehrsfür die Region Zugersee. ETH-UNS Fallstudie 2000 [Future of Railway Systems 2: Ecological Po-tential of Freight Rail Traffic in the Region of the Lake of Zug. ETH-UNS Case Study 2000] Eds HA Mieg, P Hübner, M Stauffacher, M Balmer, S Bösch (Rüegger, Zurich) pp 229–241

Tyler T R, Lind E A, 1992, “A relational model of authority in groups” in Advances in ExperimentalSocial Psychology (Vol. 25) Ed M Zanna (Academic Press, New York) pp 115–192

Van den Bos K, Lind E A, Wilke H A M, 2001, “The psychology of procedural and distributive jus-tice viewed from the perspective of fairness heuristic theory” in Justice in the Workplace (Vol.2): From Theory to Practice Ed R Cropanzano (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ) pp 49–66

Vision Lundby, 2002, “The Lundby Vision – A Mobility Management Project in Gothenburg”,http://www.visionlundby.goteborg.se, retrieved 19 November 2002

Vlek C, Mesken J, Steg L, 1999 ”Future-sketching and multi-attribute evaluation may affect yourpreference order of complex policy scenarios” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12107–122

Vlek C, Michon J, 1992, “Why we should and how we could decrease the use of motor vehicles inthe future” IATSS Research 15 82–93

Von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W, 1986, Decision analysis and behavioral research (Cambridge Uni-versity Press, New York)


32 September 2003

Yoon K P, Hwang C –L, 1995, Multiple Attribute Decision Making: An Introduction (Sage UniversityPaper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-104) (Sage: ThousandOaks, CA)

Zimmerman K W, Just T, 2000, “Interest groups, referenda, and the political process: On theefficiency of direct democracy” Constitutional Political Economy 11 147–163

ETH-UNS Working Papers

■ UNS-Working Paper 1 (Out of Print)Scholz, R.W. (1994). Muss man den Formalismus be-herrschen, um die Formalisten zu schlagen? Zürich:ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwis-senschaften.(Published as: Scholz, R.W. (1998). Umweltfor-schung zwischen Formalwissenschaft und Ver-ständnis: Muss man den Formalismus beherrschen,um die Formalisten zu schlagen? [Environmentalresearch between formal science and comprehen-sion: is command of the formalism necessary forbeating the formalists?] In A. Daschkeit & W. Schrö-der (Eds.), Umweltforschung quergedacht: Perspek-tiven integrativer Umweltforschung und -lehre[Environmental research thought laterally: perspec-tives on integrating environmental research andteaching] (pp. 309–328). Berlin: Springer.)

■ UNS-Working Paper 2 (Out of Print)

UNS (1994). Lehrstuhlbeschreibung Umweltnatur-und Umweltsozialwissenschaften (UNS). Fallstudie,Forschung und Berufspraxis. Zürich: ETH Zürich,Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.

■ UNS-Working Paper 3Mieg, H.A. (1994). Die Expertenrolle. Zürich: ETHZürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissen-schaften.

■ UNS-Working Paper 4Heitzer, A. & Scholz, R.W. (1994). Monitoring andevaluating the efficacy of bioremediation – a conc-eptual framework. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltna-tur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.

■ UNS-Working Paper 5 (Out of Print)Scholz, R.W., Weber, O., & Michalik, G. (1995). Öko-logische Risiken im Firmenkreditgeschäft. Zürich:ETH-Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwis-senschaften.(Published as: Scholz, R.W., Weber, O., & Michalik, G.(1995). Ökologische Risiken im Firmenkreditge-schäft. [Ecological risks in loans to enterprises] InOverlack-Kosel, D., Scholz, R.W., Erichsen, S.,Schmitz, K. W., and Urban, G. (Eds.), Kreditrisikenaus Umweltrisiken [Loan risks due to environ-mental risks (pp. 1–49). Bonn: Economica.)

■ UNS-Working Paper 6 (Out of Print)Scholz, R.W., Heitzer, A., May, T., Nothbaum, N.,Stünzi, J., & Tietje, O. (1995). Datenqualität und Risi-koanalysen – Das Risikohandlungsmodell zur Alt-lastenbearbeitung. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umwelt-natur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.(Published as: Scholz, R.W., Heitzer, A., May, T. W.,Nothbaum, N. Stünzi, J., & Tietje, O. (1996). Daten-qualität und Risikoanalysen: Das Risikohandlungs-modell zur Altlastenbearbeitung. [Data quality andrisk analyses. The Risk Action Model of soil remedia-tion] In S. Schulte-Hostede, R. Freitag, A. Kettrup,and W. Fresenius (Eds.), Altlasten-Bewertung:Datenanalyse und Gefahrenbewertung [Evaluationof soil remediation cases: analysis of data andevaluation of risks] (pp. 1–29). Landsberg: Ecomed.)

■ UNS-Working Paper 7 (Out of Print)Scholz, R.W., Mieg, A.H., & Weber, O. (1995). Mas-tering the complexity of environmental problemsolving by case study approach. Zürich: ETH Zürich,Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.(Published as: Scholz, R.W., Mieg, H.A., & Weber, O.(1997). Mastering the complexity of environmentalproblem solving with the case study approach. Psy-chologische Beiträge, [Contributions to Psychology]39, 169–186.)

■ UNS-Working Paper 8 (Out of Print)Tietje, O. & Scholz, R.W. (1995). Wahrscheinlich-keitskonzepte und Umweltsysteme. Zürich: ETHZürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissen-schaften.(Published as: Tietje, O. & Scholz, R.W. (1996). Wahr-scheinlichkeitskonzepte und Umweltsysteme. [Con-cepts of probability and environmental systems] InA. Gheorghe & H. Seiler (Eds.), Was ist Wahrschein-lichkeit? Die Bedeutung der Wahrscheinlichkeitbeim Umgang mit technischen Risiken [What isprobability? The meaning of probability in the caseof technical risks] (pp. 31–49). Zürich: vdf.)

■ UNS-Working Paper 9 (Out of Print)Scholz, R.W. (1995). Grenzwert und Risiko: Problemeder Wahrnehmung und des Handelns. Zürich: ETHZürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissen-schaften.(Published as: Scholz, R.W. (1996). Grenzwerte undRisiko: Probleme der Wahrnehmung und des Han-delns. [Standards and risks: Problems of cognitionand of action] In A. Grohmann & G. Reinicke (Eds.),Transparenz und Akzeptanz von Grenzwerten amBeispiel des Trinkwassers [Transparency in the set-ting of standards and their acceptance in the caseof drinking water] (pp. 5–19). Berlin: Erich SchmidtVerlag.)

■ UNS-Working Paper 10 (Out of Print)Weber, O. (1995). Vom kognitiven Ungetüm bis zurUnverständlichkeit: Zwei Beispiele für Schwierig-keiten im Umgang mit Grenzwerten. Zürich: ETHZürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissen-schaften.(Published as: Weber, O. (1996). Vom kognitiven Un-getüm bis zur Unverständlichkeit: zwei Beispiele fürSchwierigkeiten im Umgang mit Grenzwerten.[From cognitive monsters to incomprehensibility:two examples of difficulties in managing stan-dards] In Umweltbundesamt (Ed.), Transparenz undAkzeptanz von Grenzwerten am Beispiel des Trink-wassers. Berichtsband zur Tagung vom 10. und 11.Oktober 1995 (mit Ergänzungen), [Transparency inand acceptance of standards. The case of drinkingwater] (pp. 133–150). Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.)

■ UNS-Working Paper 11Oberle, B.M., Meyer, S.B., & Gessler, R.D. (1995).Übungsfälle 1994: Ökologie als Bestandteil vonUnternehmens- strategien am Beispiel der Swissair.Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozi-alwissenschaften.

■ UNS-Working Paper 12 (Out of Print)Mieg, H.A. (1996). Managing the Interfaces betweenScience, Industry, and Society. Zürich: ETH Zürich,Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.(Published as: Mieg, H.A. (1996). Managing theinterfaces between science, industry, and society.In: UNESCO (Ed.), World Congress of EngineeringEducators and Industry Leaders (Vol. I, pp. 529-533).Paris: UNESCO.)

ETH-UNS Working Papers (continued from previous page)

■ UNS-Working Paper 13 (Out of Print)Scholz, R.W. (1996). Effektivität, Effizienz und Ver-hältnismässigkeit als Kriterien der Altlastenbear-beitung. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- undUmweltsozialwissenschaften.(Published as: Scholz, R.W. (1996). Effektivität, Effi-zienz und Verhältnismässigkeit als Kriterien derAltlastenbearbeitung. [Efficacy, efficiency andappropriateness as criteria for evaluating soilremediation cases] In: Baudirektion des KantonsZürich in Zusammenarbeit mit ETH-UNS (Eds.).Grundsätze, Modelle und Praxis der Altlastenbear-beitung im Kanton Zürich: Referate zur Altlastenta-gung 1996 [Principles, models and the administra-tive practice of soil remediation in the Canton ofZurich] (pp. 1–22) Zürich: AGW HauptabteilungAbfallwirtschaft und Betriebe.)

■ UNS-Working Paper 14 (Out of Print)Tietje, O., Scholz, R.W., Heitzer, A., & Weber, O.(1996). Mathematical evaluation criteria. Zürich:ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwis-senschaften.(Published as: Tietje, O., Scholz, R.W., Heitzer, A., andWeber, O. (1998). Mathematical evaluation criteria.In H.-P. Blume, H. Eger, E. Fleischhauer, A. Hebel, C.Reij, & G. Steiner (Eds.), Towards sustainable landuse (pp. 53–61). Reiskirchen: Catena.)

■ UNS-Working Paper 15Steiner, R. (1997). Evaluationsbericht: Bewertungder obligatorischen Berufspraxis im StudiengangUmweltnaturwissenschaften durch Betriebe undStudierende. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- undUmweltsozialwissenschaften.

■ UNS-Working Paper 16 (Out of Print)Jungbluth, N. (1997). Life-cycle-assessment forstoves and ovens. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur-und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.(Published as: Jungbluth, N. (1997). Life-Cycle-As-sessment for stoves and ovens. 5th SETAC-EuropeLCAS Case Studies Symposium, (pp. 121–130), Brus-sels.)

■ UNS-Working Paper 17Tietje, O., Scholz, R.W., Schaerli, M.A., Heitzer, A., &Hesske, S. (1997). Mathematische Bewertung vonRisiken durch Schwermetalle im Boden: Zusam-menfassung des gleichnamigen Posters auf derTagung der Deutschen Bodenkundlichen Gesell-schaft in Konstanz. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umwelt-natur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.

■ UNS-Working Paper 18Jungbluth, N. (1998). Ökologische Beurteilung desBedürfnisfeldes Ernährung: Arbeitsgruppen, Me-thoden, Stand der Forschung, Folgerungen. Zürich:ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwis-senschaften.

■ UNS-Working Paper 19 (Out of Print)Weber, O., Scholz, R.W., Bühlmann, R., & Grasmück,D. (1999). Risk Perception of Heavy Metal Soil Con-tamination and Attitudes to DecontaminationStrategies. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- undUmweltsozialwissenschaften.(Published as: Weber, O., Scholz, R.W., Bühlmann, R.,& Grasmück, D. (2001). Risk Perception of HeavyMetal Soil Contamination and Attitudes to Decon-tamination Strategies. Risk Analysis, Vol. 21, Issue 5,pp. 967–967.)

■ UNS-Working Paper 20 (Out of Print)Mieg, H.A. (1999). Expert Roles and Collective Rea-soning in ETH-UNS Case Studies. Zürich: ETH Zürich,Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.(Published as: Mieg, H.A. (2000). University-basedprojects for local sustainable development – ExpertRoles and Collective Reasoning in ETH-UNS CaseStudies. International Journal of Sustainability inHigher Education, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 67–82.)

■ UNS-Working Paper 21Scholz, R.W. (1999). «Mutual Learning» und Proba-bilistischer Funktionalismus – Was Hochschule undGesellschaft von einander und von Egon Brunswiklernen können. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur-und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.

■ UNS-Working Paper 22 (Out of Print)Semadeni M. (1999). Moving from Risk to Action: Aconceptual risk handling model. Zürich: ETH Zürich,Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.(Published as: Semadeni, M. (2000). Moving fromrisk to action: A conceptual risk handling model. InR. Häberli, R. Scholz, A. Bill, & M. Welti (Eds.), Pro-ceedings of the International Transdisciplinarity2000 Conference: Transdisiplinarity – Joint Prob-lem-Solving among Science, Technology and Soci-ety. ETH Zurich. Workbook I: Dialogue Sessions andIdea Market (pp. 239-234). Zürich: HaffmannsSachbuch Verlag.)

■ UNS-Working Paper 23 (Out of Print)Güldenzoph, W. & Scholz, R.W. (2000). Umgang mitAltlasten während dem Transformationsprozess imAreal Zentrum Zürich Nord (ZZN). Zürich: ETHZürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissen-schaften(Published as: Güldenzoph, W., Baracchi, C., Fagetti,R., & Scholz, R.W. (2000). Chancen und Dilemmatades Industriebrachenrecyclings: FallbetrachtungZentrum Zürich Nord [Opportunities and dilemmasin the recycling of industrial "brownfields": Casestudy city center Zurich North]. DISP 143 [Docu-ments and Information on Local, Regional, andCountry Planning in Switzerland], 36, 10-17.)

■ UNS-Working Paper 24Semadeni M. (2000). Soil and Sustainable Land-Use. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Um-weltsozialwissenschaften

■ UNS-Working Paper 25Sell J., Weber, O., & Scholz, R.W. (2001). Liegen-schaftsschatzungen und Bodenbelastungen. Zürich:ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwiss-enschaften

■ UNS-Working Paper 26 (Out of Print)Hansmann, R., Hesske, S., Tietje, O., & Scholz, R.W.(2001). Internet-unterstützte Umweltbildung: Eineexperimentelle Studie zur Anwendung des Online-Simulationsspiels SimUlme im Schulunterricht.Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umwelt-sozialwissenschaften.(Published as: Hansmann, R., Hesske, S., Tietje, O., &Scholz, R.W. (2002). Internet-unterstützte Umwelt-bildung: Eine experimentelle Studie zur Anwen-dung des Online-Simulationsspiels SimUlme imSchulunterricht. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fürBildungswissenschaften, Nr. 1/2002.)

■ UNS-Working Paper 27Scholz, R.W. & Weber, O. (2001). Judgments onHealth Hazards to Soil Contamination by Exposedand Not-exposed Residents. Zürich: ETH Zürich,Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.

■ UNS-Working Paper 28Scholz, R.W., Steiner, R., & Hansmann, R. (2001).Practical Training as Part of Higher EnvironmentalEducation. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- undUmweltsozialwissenschaften.

■ UNS-Working Paper 29Hansmann, R., Scholz, R.W., Crott, H.W., & Mieg,H.A. (2001). Education in Environmental Planning:Effects of Group Discussions, Expert Information,and Case Study Participation on Judgment Accu-racy. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Um-weltsozialwissenschaften.

■ UNS-Working Paper 30Laws, D., Scholz, R.W., Shiroyama, H., Susskind, L.,Suzuki, T., & Weber, O. (2002). Expert Views onSustainability and Technology Implementation.Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umwelt-sozialwissenschaften.

■ UNS-Working Paper 31Flüeler, T. (2002). Robust Radioactive Waste Man-agement: Decision Making in Complex Socio-tech-nical Systems. Part1 = Options in Radioactive WasteManagement Revisited: A Proposed Framework forRobust Decision Making; Part 2 = Robustness inRadioactive Waste Management. A Contribution toDecision Making in Complex Socio-technical Sys-tems. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Um-weltsozialwissenschaften.(Part 1 published as: Flüeler, T. (2001a): Options inRadioactive Waste Management Revisited: AFramework for Robust Decision Making. Journal ofRisk Analysis. Vol. 21. No. 4. Aug. 2001:787-799.Part 2 published as: Flüeler, T. (2001b): Robustnessin Radioactive Waste Management. A Contributionto Decision-Making in Complex Socio-technicalSystems. In: E. Zio, M. Demichela & N. Piccinini(eds.): Safety & Reliability. Towards a Safer World.Proceedings of the European Conference on Safetyand Reliability. ESREL 2001. Torino (I), 16-20 Sep. Vol.1. Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy:317-325.)

■ UNS-Working Paper 32

Hansmann, R., Mieg, H.A., Crott, H.W., & Scholz,R.W. (2002). Models in Environmental Planning:Selection of Impact Variables and Estimation ofImpacts. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- undUmweltsozialwissenschaften.

■ UNS-Working Paper 33Schnabel, U., Tietje, O., & Scholz, R.W. (2002). Usingthe Power of Information of Sparse Data for SoilImprovement Management. Zürich: ETH Zürich,Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.

■ UNS-Working Paper 34Weber, O., Reiland, R., & Weber, B. (2002). Sustain-ability Benchmarking of European Banks andFinancial Service Organizations . Zürich: ETHZürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissen-schaften.

■ UNS-Working Paper 35Kammerer, D., Sell, J., & Weber, O. (2002). Evalua-tion of AIJ Project Proposals – Potential Contribu-tion to Sustainable Development. Zürich: ETHZürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissen-schaften.

■ UNS-Working Paper 36Scholz, R.W., Mieg, H.A., & Weber, O. (2003). Wirt-schaftliche und organisationale Entscheidungen.Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umwelt-sozialwissenschaften.(Published as: Scholz, R.W., Mieg, H.A., & Weber O.(2003). Wirtschaftliche und organisationale Ent-scheidungen, In: Auhagen & Bierhoff. Wirtschafts-und Organisationspsychologie.)

■ UNS-Working Paper 37Scholz, R.W. & Binder, C. (2003). The Paradigm ofHuman-Environment Systems. Zürich: ETH Zürich,Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.

■ UNS-Working Paper 38Hansmann, R., Crott, H.W., Mieg, H.A., & Scholz,R.W. (2003). Is Group Performance Improved byEvaluating Task Difficulty and by Knowing aboutthe Differential Effects of Conformity?. Zürich: ETHZürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissen-schaften.

■ UNS-Working Paper 39Binder, C., Hofer, C., Wiek, A., & Scholz, R.W. (2003).Transition process towards regional wood flows byintegrating material flux analysis and agent analy-sis: The case of Appenzell Ausserrhoden, Switzer-land. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Um-weltsozialwissenschaften.

■ UNS-Working Paper 40Loukopoulos, P. & Scholz, R.W. (2003). Future UrbanSustainable Mobility: Using ‘Area DevelopmentNegotiations’ for Scenario Assessment and forAssisting the Democratic Policy Process. Zürich: ETHZürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissen-schaften.

Documents

WP 39 Umschlag vorne - ETH Z · 2020-03-26 · Peter Loukopoulos and Roland W. Scholz ... TDM measures range from the coercive (“push” measures), such as road closures or road