In this article in the journal Internationales Verkehrswesen, Laura Mark, Annika Busch-Geertsema, Jessica LeBris, Gesa Matthes and Kerstin Stark present a practical approach to assess the justice of transport measures in various dimensions. The approach and the article were developed in the context of the working group “Mobilität, Erreichbarkeit und soziale Teilhabe” of the Academy for Spatial Development in the Leibniz Association (ARL).
Summary
This paper presents a practical tool for taking a systematic “second look” at mobility transition measures through the lens of justice. It can be used for conceptual support during planning and implementation, for reflection during or after the process as well as ongoing monitoring. Three dimensions of justice can be used to analyse which population-groups benefit from these measures. The dimensions used are distributive justice, recognition of different realities of life and procedural justice, which have been further differentiated and combined in an easy-to-use matrix.
To differentiate the recognition of different realities of life, the Persona approach is employed. In a Persona, specific characteristics are combined that can influence and restrict mobility options, decisions, and activity chains. The article proposes a system for developing custom Personas, but the Personas already developed by the authors can also be used for the application.
The article provides a detailed presentation of the dimensions of justice and the Persona approach. It can be downloaded here:
Furthermore, the evaluation tool, including a user manual and suggestions for Personas, can also be downloaded in Excel format from the ARL Mobility Working Group website (scroll down). The authors welcome feedback and encourage free use and further development.
In this presentation at the 18th annual conference of the Mobility and Transport Working Group (AK MoVe) 2023, Laura Mark, Katharina Holec and Tobias Escher presented a survey on the scope and design of consultation in municipal mobility planning. From the results, statements can be derived about the participation landscape in Germany.
Abstract
Municipalities as key actors in the transport transition are increasingly using consultative public participation in planning. So far, however, it is unclear to what extent they use participatory processes in mobility-related planning and how these are designed. Given the challenges associated with the transition to a climate-neutral transport system, taking stock of existing efforts is highly relevant in order to assess the practical significance of participation processes and to better investigate the role of different types of procedures and contexts.
This study fills this gap based on an analysis of the consultative, discursive participation processes for mobility-related planning in German cities since 2015. The study examined ‘participation-oriented’ cities with guidelines for citizen participation, which were compared to a random selection of ‘typical’ municipalities in North Rhine-Westphalia, Baden-Württemberg and Saxony as well as the three German city states.
Based on these approximately 180 cities and 350 procedures, it becomes clear that discursive consultations are carried out regularly, in particular in municipalities with guidelines and larger cities. Worth criticizing is that the formats used can usually reach only certain groups of the population and that for a significant proportion of the processes examined no information on the results of participation can be found. This means that the potentials of discursive citizen participation in addressing the municipal transport transition have not yet been sufficiently utilised.
Key Findings
Participation in municipal planning procedures related to mobility is no longer an exception, but not yet the rule either. Based on the data of our sample, it can be presumed that in most municipalities in Germany there was no possibility to participate in such procedures in the period under consideration.
In general, cities with guidelines involved their citizens more frequently, more often and with more diverse topics and formats. Medium-sized and large cities consulted their citizens significantly more often than small towns.
Weaknesses are evident in the participation formats used: The majority of municipalities relied on self-selected selection processes. First attempts with target group-specific formats or random selection can be found mainly in the municipalities with guidelines and in the city states. A large proportion of the procedures were also carried out purely online.
For 5 to 10% of the procedures, no current status could be found, and for a larger proportion it was unclear what happened after the consultation. This is true for all municipalities, although less so for those with guidelines, and can be regarded as a lack of transparency and impact of participation.
Publication
Mark, Laura; Holec, Katharina; Escher, Tobias (2024): Die Beteiligung von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern bei kommunalen Mobilitätsprojekten: Eine quantitative Erhebung konsultativer Beteiligungsverfahren in Deutschland. In: RuR (Spatial Research and Planning). DOI: 10.14512/rur.2239.
In the meet the team series, we introduce a member of the research group every week to give an impression beyond the scientific work. For this purpose, our student assistant Philippe Sander asked us a few questions.
Today in the interview: Laura Mark. She is an urban planner and works on the effect of participation on political and planning decisions. More information on Laura’s research can be found here.
Foto: Tilman Schenk
What inspired you to pursue a career in your research field, and how did you get started in your field?
I first studied urban and regional planning. What I found exciting about it was that it unites different subject areas, such as ecology and social and cultural aspects. The task then is to take all these different aspects into account at the same time. After graduating, I worked in an engineering office in the field of transportation and realized that it was a little too technical and focused on numbers for me and that I was missing the social aspect. So now I’ve ended up in this intersection between planning science and social science.
Can you describe your current research project and what you hope to achieve with it? What do you personally find the most interesting about it?
I’m currently looking at the impact of public participation on planning projects for sustainable mobility. What interests me most about it is that it is a topic of current interest. Participation is widely discussed at the moment, and although research on it is still quite thin, the substantive effect on a decision is often taken for granted. Some parties also have little interest in taking a closer look.
How do you go about your research? What methods, theories or frameworks do you use?
I am doing qualitative research and look at two case studies in particular. My approach is modelled on process tracing. Unlike the various studies that have been done, it’s a very detailed approach and takes a lot of different influences on effect into focus. I work mainly with interviews and media analysis as well as participatory observation and partly with project survey data.
What are some of the biggest challenges you face in your work and how do you overcome them?
The biggest challenge is that the planning processes do not work in practice as they do in theory. For me, it’s important to do in-process research, because I mainly look at the substantive effect. However, some of the planning processes have been severely delayed, and not only because of Corona. Therefore, realistic time planning is definitely a challenge. Thus, schedules must always be flexibly adapted to the progress of the project and the situation in the case studies.
How do you stay on top of the latest trends and developments in your field?
I am connected with other researchers on Twitter, and I am also at conferences and in a working group of the Academy for Territorial Development in the Leibniz Association (ARL) with a focus on mobility and social participation.
As my field is not only about science, and since a lot is happening in practice right now – the topic of the transport transition is very much in discussion regarding climate change, etc. – I am of course also staying informed through newspapers and podcasts. There are also often free webinars or workshops from various (‘practitioner’) organisations where you can get further training.
How do you collaborate with other researchers or experts in your field to improve your projects?
The working group I mentioned before is definitely important because although it mainly discusses mobility as a topic, I can also contribute with the aspect of participation. I also participate in various interdisciplinary colloquia and regularly present my work. For example, there is one on socio-ecological transformations with different topics. In addition, we work together closely in the research group and, for example, present our results at conferences together.
What impact do you hope your research will have on society or the field?
I hope that my research will contribute to a better understanding of participation processes and perhaps to better planning for the public sector. I also hope that the research about substantive effects of participation will make public authorities consider this issue more closely. In the future I hope that civil society is taken more seriously and there will be more accountability on how the contributions are used.
What are some emerging trends or future directions you see in your research area?
The focus on participation of civil society is becoming stronger in practice and research. The important question is how this participation can be improved and how to deal with conflicts over urgently needed changes, for example in urban space. In addition, the question of how to reach certain groups that traditionally do not participate much.
Trends in the field of mobility are (among many others), on the one hand, technical aspects such as autonomous driving. In addition, a large part of the issue is how knowledge about the mobility transition can now be implemented in practice – the role of the municipalities is particularly relevant here, as they are trying harder to get more leeway to expand the 30 km/h speed limit or to make certain areas car-free.
Can you tell us about an interesting or meaningful experiences you had during your research?
For me, the most interesting thing was the experience that practice is completely different from theory. What I also found surprising is that the different interviewees contradicted each other very strongly, because their perceptions of the planning process were very different. In the minutes, for example from committee meetings, things looked completely different again; these are all truths and perspectives that I can then use to approach the process.
What advice do you have for students and aspiring scientists just starting out in their careers?
I think you shouldn’t plan too much but go by what interests you. You should have confidence that everything will come together in the end to form something coherent.
Lastly, can you tell us a little about yourself outside of your work? What hobbies or interests do you pursue in your spare time, and how do they complement your research?
I really enjoy being outside, I like hiking and biking; I do martial arts and yoga in my spare time. It definitely complements my research in the sense that I can switch off my head. It’s something completely different, not as intellectual. Sometimes it’s stressful, though, because every now and then when I’m riding my bike, I think to myself, “who approved that, that’s way too narrow, that doesn’t even comply with the standard width, who would do something like that!”.
In my dissertation project at the Faculty of Architecture at RWTH Aachen University, I am using two case studies to investigate the substantive impact of consultative public participation on political decisions and the implications for sustainable development. My object of investigation is planning for the sustainable mobility transition, since on the one hand it is important and urgent for sustainable development and on the other hand it directly affects people’s everyday lives and thus often leads to resistance.
Abstract
A socio-ecological shift in transport requires profound changes in public space that affect the daily lives of users. This redistribution of road space and change in conditions of use is primarily carried out through spatial planning on the part of the public sector, in which the public is also increasingly involved. This is usually associated (implicitly or explicitly) with the public having an influence on the content of the planning; however, the actual effect has hardly been researched.
I am investigating the mechanisms through which the substantive impact of public participation comes about or is prevented, and which factors influence these mechanisms. I am interested in the conditions under which these substantive effects contribute to integrated transport planning, measured both in terms of democratic theory and substantive criteria.
Two municipal transport transition projects in Hamburg serve as case studies, in which the public can participate or has participated through consultation offers and other forms of participation: the redesign of the Elbchaussee in Hamburg and the low-car design of the Ottensen neighbourhood in Hamburg. The processes differ, among other things, in their framework conditions, spatial scale, tasks and participation offerings. For the detailed reconstruction and analysis of these processes, I mainly rely on data from qualitative interviews, document and media analyses, supplemented by results of quantitative population and participant surveys.
Expected Results
Expected results are theses on public participation in the context of the mobility transition. These deal with the mechanisms and factors that influence policy impact and come about through a detailed analysis of the individual case studies, a targeted comparison of the two case studies with each other and the embedding of the empirical results in the state of research as well as other results from the project. These theses are intended to contribute to the discussion on the role of the public in the context of a socio-ecological transformation.
In this presentation at the AESOP (Assosiation of European Schools of Planning) annual Congress in 2022, Laura Mark, Katharina Huseljić and Tobias Escher introduced a framework of distributive socio-spatial justice and the way consultation procedures can contribute, before evaluating the case study Elbchaussee in Hamburg regarding socio-spatial justice, using qualitative and quantitative results.
Abstract
Our current transport system exhibits significant socio-spatial injustices as it has both major negative environmental effects and structurally disadvantages certain socio-economic groups. Planning processes increasingly include elements of public participation, often linked to the hope of better understanding and integrating different mobility needs into the planning process. However, so far there is little knowledge on whether public participation results indeed in more socio-spatial justice.
To approach this question, we focus on socio-spatial justice as distributive justice and investigate how well consultative planning procedures do actually lead to measures that both contribute to sustainability (i.e. reduce or redistribute negative external effects) and cater for the needs of disadvantaged groups (e.g. those with low income or education, women and disabled people). To this end, we have investigated in detail the case study of the reconstruction of the Elbchaussee, a representative main road of citywide importance in the district of Altona in Hamburg, Germany. We are drawing on both qualitative and quantitative data including expert interviews and public surveys.
We first show that the process did result in planning measures that contribute slightly to ecological sustainability. Second, in particular through improving the situation for pedestrians and cyclists as well as the quality of stay, the measures should contribute to more justice for some groups but this is recognized only by non-male groups. Beyond this there are no effects for people with low income, low education, those with mobility restrictions or with particular mobility needs often associated with these groups. Overall, we conclude that the consultative planning process provides only a small contribution to socio-spatial justice and we discuss potential explanations.
Key Findings
The consultative planning process as a whole resulted in measures that contribute slightly to socio-spatial justice, since they support the transition to more sustainable mobility and will benefit some disadvantages groups, though both to a limited degree.
We find that the consultation procedure had no significant influence on the policy. In terms of socio-spatial justice, no positive effects can be traced back to the consultation procedure. Notably, those that participated in the consultation did indeed report less satisfaction with the measures.
We trace those limited contributions back to some general features of consultation and the current planning system, but also find that in the case study the scope of possible influence was very limited due to external restrictions and power imbalances.
Publication
We are working on a publication for a peer-reviewed journal. The publication will be linked here as soon as it is published.
We are pleased that Laura Mark is part of the aforementioned working group and can discuss our research with colleagues. Practitioners and researchers meet regularly in the working group to discuss various topics related to mobility and social inclusion. The working group started in the middle of 2021 and the content-related work is now taking more and more shape: Areas of interface with our research include the question of procedural justice in planning processes for the mobility transition – who participates and whose voices are heard? How should planning and participation processes for a sustainable mobility transition be designed in the future in order to include everyone? Here we will report on the further work and publications and events that develop within the context of this working group!
We are pleased to have Laura Mark participating in the mentioned working group to contribute to discussions with colleagues about our research. Practitioners and academics meet regularly in the working group to work on various topics related to mobility and social participation. The working group was started in mid-2021 and the substantive work is gradually taking shape: Intersections with our research include the question of procedural justice in planning procedures for the mobility transition – who participates and whose voices are heard? How should planning and participation processes be designed in the future for a sustainable mobility transition that includes everyone? We will report on the ongoing work, publications and events that emerge within the framework of this working group!
Evolving our ideas in exchange with the research community in sustainable transport is essential for us – to view challenges from a new angle, get some inspiration and possibly identify some synergies. That´s why we are part of the Urban Change Maker group, a diverse group of PhD and Post-Doc researchers from all over the world that work on issues of sustainable transformation in cities. Focus is on research that enables a sustainable transition in practice, mainly on governance and stakeholder constellations as well as social justice.
The research group is affiliated with the Wuppertal Institute and the TU Berlin as well as various other research institutions and universities.
On March 6th, we met for a creative workshop to identify possible synergies and joint research topics. The workshop started with the researchers introducing their research interests, already starting discussions on possible synergies. This was further continued and concrete paper ideas were discussed, as well as possible topics for Master´s thesis at the affiliated universities.
For our research group, a possible synergy could be comparing our German cases with similar cases of public participation in one of the partner cities and elaborate differences and similarities. The initiated exchange will continue over the following years, in the form of regular workshops and a yearly summer school for the whole group, and more intense exchange for the work on joint research and paper topics. This exchange will help us to discuss and place the topic in a broader thematic and geographical context.
