IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jotrge/v44y2015icp33-42.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the benefits and the shortcomings of participation – findings from a test in Bari (Italy)

Author

Listed:
  • Franceschini, Simone
  • Marletto, Gerardo

Abstract

Participation is advocated as an essential component of strategies and policies for sustainable urban mobility. This paper refers to the overall literature on participation and provides the design, test and ex-post evaluation of a deliberative-participative procedure (DPP) aimed at selecting a new scheme for the regulation of traffic and parking in the “Murat”, a central area of Bari (Italy). The potential benefits and shortcomings of participation were explicitly considered when designing a DPP which integrates three tools: an opinion poll and two deliberative arenas – the “stakeholder dialogue” and the “citizens’ jury”. The ex-post evaluation of the test confirmed ex-ante design choices. The DPP was effective and learning was generated: the use of understandable techniques for deliberation and assessment helped participants to generate an unambiguous final result which was based on the “hybridisation” of the alternative schemes proposed to the participants at the beginning of the procedure. The “last word” given to the citizens’ jury avoided that the most powerful stakeholders may capture the DPP. Only a “frustration” effect was clearly generated because of the limited involvement of the Municipality of Bari, thus confirming that the involvement of the relevant Authority is an essential requisite for successful participation. We suggest that the generation of new knowledge and learning could be further assured by the participation of citizens and stakeholders to the definition of the alternatives they will assess later.

Suggested Citation

  • Franceschini, Simone & Marletto, Gerardo, 2015. "Assessing the benefits and the shortcomings of participation – findings from a test in Bari (Italy)," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 33-42.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jotrge:v:44:y:2015:i:c:p:33-42
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.02.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692315000332
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.02.008?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John M. Gowdy, 2004. "The Revolution in Welfare Economics and Its Implications for Environmental Valuation and Policy," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(2), pages 239-257.
    2. Sagoff, M., 1998. "Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:: A look beyond contingent pricing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 213-230, February.
    3. Hensher, D. A. & Brewer, A. M., 2001. "Developing a freight strategy: the use of a collaborative learning process to secure stakeholder input," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, January.
    4. Ibeas, Angel & dell’Olio, Luigi & Montequín, Rosa Barreda, 2011. "Citizen involvement in promoting sustainable mobility," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 475-487.
    5. Macharis, Cathy & De Witte, Astrid & Turcksin, Laurence, 2010. "The Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) application in the Flemish long-term decision making process on mobility and logistics," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 303-311, September.
    6. Michael Lowry, 2010. "Online public deliberation for a regional transportation improvement decision," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 39-58, January.
    7. Milakis, Dimitris & Athanasopoulos, Konstantinos, 2014. "What about people in cycle network planning? applying participative multicriteria GIS analysis in the case of the Athens metropolitan cycle network," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 120-129.
    8. Xenias, Dimitrios & Whitmarsh, Lorraine, 2013. "Dimensions and determinants of expert and public attitudes to sustainable transport policies and technologies," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 75-85.
    9. Richard Willson, 2001. "Assessing communicative rationality as a transportation planning paradigm," Transportation, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 1-31, February.
    10. Taylor, David & Tight, Miles, 1997. "Public attitudes and consultation in traffic calming schemes," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 171-182, July.
    11. Gil, Artur & Calado, Helena & Bentz, Julia, 2011. "Public participation in municipal transport planning processes – the case of the sustainable mobility plan of Ponta Delgada, Azores, Portugal," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 1309-1319.
    12. Martinez-Alier, Joan & Munda, Giuseppe & O'Neill, John, 1998. "Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 277-286, September.
    13. Booth, Chris & Richardson, Tim, 2001. "Placing the public in integrated transport planning," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 141-149, April.
    14. Rye, Tom & Hunton, Kim & Ison, Stephen & Kocak, Nazan, 2008. "The role of market research and consultation in developing parking policy," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 387-394, November.
    15. Paul Stangl, 2008. "Evaluating the pedestrian realm: instrumental rationality, communicative rationality and phenomenology," Transportation, Springer, vol. 35(6), pages 759-775, November.
    16. G. Marletto & F. Mameli & E. Pieralice, 2015. "Top-down and Bottom-up. Testing a mixed approach to the generation of priorities for sustainable urban mobility," Working Paper CRENoS 201501, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    17. Maeve Cooke, 2000. "Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 48(5), pages 947-969, December.
    18. Hodgson, F. C. & Turner, J., 2003. "Participation not consumption: the need for new participatory practices to address transport and social exclusion," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 265-272, October.
    19. Vatn, Arild, 2009. "An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2207-2215, June.
    20. Banister, David, 2008. "The sustainable mobility paradigm," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 73-80, March.
    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. Takeuchi Ayano, 2021. "A survey of methods for evaluating mini-publics," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Gatta, Valerio & Marcucci, Edoardo & Delle Site, Paolo & Le Pira, Michela & Carrocci, Céline Sacha, 2019. "Planning with stakeholders: Analysing alternative off-hour delivery solutions via an interactive multi-criteria approach," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 53-62.
    3. Mozos-Blanco, Miguel Ángel & Pozo-Menéndez, Elisa & Arce-Ruiz, Rosa & Baucells-Aletà, Neus, 2018. "The way to sustainable mobility. A comparative analysis of sustainable mobility plans in Spain," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 45-54.

    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. S. Franceschini & G. Marletto, 2014. "A deliberative-participative procedure for sustainable urban mobility – Findings from a test in Bari (Italy)," Working Paper CRENoS 201408, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    2. Marletto, Gerardo & Mameli, Francesca, 2012. "A participative procedure to select indicators of policies for sustainable urban mobility. Outcomes of a national test," MPRA Paper 36433, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. de Luca, Stefano, 2014. "Public engagement in strategic transportation planning: An analytic hierarchy process based approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 110-124.
    4. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    5. Spash, Clive L., 2007. "Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 690-699, September.
    6. AlSabbagh, Maha & Siu, Yim Ling & Guehnemann, Astrid & Barrett, John, 2017. "Integrated approach to the assessment of CO2e-mitigation measures for the road passenger transport sector in Bahrain," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 203-215.
    7. Spash, Clive L., 2007. "Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) in Theory," MPRA Paper 101132, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Dawei Li & Yujia Zhang & Cheng Li, 2019. "Mining Public Opinion on Transportation Systems Based on Social Media Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-15, July.
    9. Radomíra Jordová & Hana Brůhová-Foltýnová, 2021. "Rise of a New Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning Paradigm in Local Governance: Does the SUMP Make a Difference?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-18, May.
    10. Lo, Alex Y., 2013. "Agreeing to pay under value disagreement: Reconceptualizing preference transformation in terms of pluralism with evidence from small-group deliberations on climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 84-94.
    11. Bunse, Lukas & Rendon, Olivia & Luque, Sandra, 2015. "What can deliberative approaches bring to the monetary valuation of ecosystem services? A literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 88-97.
    12. Hernández González, Yeray & Corral Quintana, Serafín, 2016. "An integrated assessment of alternative land-based passenger transport policies: A case study in Tenerife," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 201-214.
    13. Lowe, Benjamin H. & Genovese, Andrea, 2022. "What theories of value (could) underpin our circular futures?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    14. Lovelace, Robin & Parkin, John & Cohen, Tom, 2020. "Open access transport models: A leverage point in sustainable transport planning," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 47-54.
    15. Tornberg, Patrik & Odhage, John, 2018. "Making transport planning more collaborative? The case of Strategic Choice of Measures in Swedish transport planning," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 416-429.
    16. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chr, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    17. Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos & Plumecocq, Gaël, 2015. "Legitimizing farmers' new knowledge, learning and practices through communicative action: Application of an agro-environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 86-96.
    18. Joanna Oleśków-Szłapka & Irena Pawłyszyn & Joanna Przybylska, 2020. "Sustainable Urban Mobility in Poznan and Oslo-Actual State and Development Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-38, August.
    19. Daniel Kaszubowski, 2019. "A Method for the Evaluation of Urban Freight Transport Models as a Tool for Improving the Delivery of Sustainable Urban Transport Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, March.
    20. Canitez, Fatih, 2019. "Pathways to sustainable urban mobility in developing megacities: A socio-technical transition perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 319-329.

    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:eee:jotrge:v:44:y:2015:i:c:p:33-42. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-transport-geography .

    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.