IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/transp/v46y2019i4d10.1007_s11116-017-9833-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

My way or the highway? Framing transportation planners’ attitudes in negotiating professional expertise and public insight

Author

Listed:
  • Geoffrey A. Battista

    (McGill University)

  • Kevin Manaugh

    (McGill University)

Abstract

Transportation planning continues to expand beyond traditional engineering and economic performance measures toward a broader scope of impacts across space and society. However, the attitudes of transportation planners as they balance their expert knowledge against public insights are not well-understood. We test a two-dimensional attitudinal framework using survey data from 311 U.S. and Canadian transportation planners. We reveal four attitudinal categories using principal component analysis, and hypothesis testing shows significant differences in personal and institutional attributes across these categories. We discuss what our results mean for training and regulatory measures striving to influence planner attitudes before proposing future directions for research.

Suggested Citation

  • Geoffrey A. Battista & Kevin Manaugh, 2019. "My way or the highway? Framing transportation planners’ attitudes in negotiating professional expertise and public insight," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 1271-1290, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:46:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s11116-017-9833-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11116-017-9833-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11116-017-9833-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11116-017-9833-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lucas, Karen, 2006. "Providing transport for social inclusion within a framework for environmental justice in the UK," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 801-809, December.
    2. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John & Greaves, Stephen, 2014. "Hypothetical bias in Stated Choice Experiments: Is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 164-177.
    3. Hatzopoulou, M. & Miller, E.J., 2008. "Institutional integration for sustainable transportation policy in Canada," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 149-162, May.
    4. Mouter, Niek & van Cranenburgh, Sander & van Wee, Bert, 2017. "An empirical assessment of Dutch citizens' preferences for spatial equality in the context of a national transport investment plan," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 217-230.
    5. Jean Hillier, 2000. "Going round the Back? Complex Networks and Informal Action in Local Planning Processes," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(1), pages 33-54, January.
    6. Hatzopoulou, M. & Miller, E.J., 2009. "Transport policy evaluation in metropolitan areas: The role of modelling in decision-making," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 323-338, May.
    7. Elisabeth R. Gerber & Clark C. Gibson, 2009. "Balancing Regionalism and Localism: How Institutions and Incentives Shape American Transportation Policy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(3), pages 633-648, July.
    8. Vossler, Christian A. & Evans, Mary F., 2009. "Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: Environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 338-345, November.
    9. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & Wee, Bert van, 2013. "Attitudes towards the role of Cost–Benefit Analysis in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects: A Dutch case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 1-14.
    10. Innes, Judith E. & Gruber, Judith, 2005. "Planning Styles in Conflict: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt6pf9k6sk, University of California Transportation Center.
    11. Linda Fox-Rogers & Enda Murphy, 2016. "Self-perceptions of the role of the planner," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 43(1), pages 74-92, January.
    12. Laura Taylor & Mark Morrison & Kevin Boyle, 2010. "Exchange Rules and the Incentive Compatibility of Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 197-220, October.
    13. Hyard, Alexandra, 2012. "Cost-benefit analysis according to Sen: An application in the evaluation of transport infrastructures in France," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 707-719.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bondemark, Anders & Andersson, Henrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2023. "Do the distributional preferences of national infrastructure planners diverge from those of the public?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    2. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    3. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    4. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    5. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    6. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    7. Jie He & Jérôme Dupras & Franck Ndefo & Thomas Poder, 2020. "Payment and provision consequentiality in voluntary contribution mechanism: separate or joint effects?," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 11-36, April.
    8. Jie He & Jérôme Dupras & Thomas G. Poder, 2018. "Payment and Provision Consequentiality in Voluntary Contribution Mechanism: Single or Double “Knife-Edge” Evidence?," Cahiers de recherche 18-02, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    9. Meginnis, Keila & Burton, Michael & Chan, Ron & Rigby, Dan, 2021. "Strategic bias in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    10. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid, 2018. "Hypothetical bias and decision-rule effect in modelling discrete directional choices," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 361-388.
    11. S. Van Cranenburgh & S. Wang & A. Vij & F. Pereira & J. Walker, 2021. "Choice modelling in the age of machine learning -- discussion paper," Papers 2101.11948, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2021.
    12. Veeneman, Wijnand & Wilschut, Janneke & Urlings, Thijs & Blank, Jos & van de Velde, Didier, 2014. "Efficient frontier analysis of Dutch public transport tendering: A first analysis," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 101-108.
    13. Andersson, Henrik & Ouvrard, Benjamin, 2023. "Priming and the value of a statistical life: A cross country comparison," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    14. Andersson, Henrik & Ouvrard, Benjamin, 2023. "Priming and the Value of a Statistical Life: A Cross Country Comparison," TSE Working Papers 23-1439, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    15. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    16. Mouter, Niek & van Cranenburgh, Sander & van Wee, Bert, 2017. "An empirical assessment of Dutch citizens' preferences for spatial equality in the context of a national transport investment plan," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 217-230.
    17. Bardal, Kjersti Granås, 2020. "Contradictory outcomes of cost-benefit analyses – Findings from Norwegian public-investment projects," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    18. Sciara, Gian-Claudia, 2012. "Financing congressional earmarks: Implications for transport policy and planning," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1328-1342.
    19. Bondemark, Anders & Andersson, Henrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2022. "Public preferences for distribution in the context of transport investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 160-184.
    20. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:46:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s11116-017-9833-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.