Framing the role of Decision Support in the case of Stockholm Congestion Charging Trial
Congestion charging was - as a trial - introduced in Stockholm from January 3rd to July 31st 2006. After the referendum in September 2006, the charging system was finally introduced as permanent from August 2007 with some adjustments to the Trial design. The idea of congestion charging is unique in a Swedish context, and the introduction of the Stockholm system has been highly controversial. Considerable efforts have therefore been undertaken to provide information that could serve as 'Decision Support' along the way. This has included e.g. modelling and forecasts before the Trial, a comprehensive evaluation programme during the Trial, extensive stakeholder consultations throughout, and various information and communication strategies. But what difference did this information input make, and what was its role in the process from initiating the system, to its final adoption? In this paper we pave the way for investigating the use and role of 'Decision Support' in the Stockholm Congestion Charging experiment. We adopt a definition of Decision Support as the systematic application of externally produced knowledge in transport planning and policy making processes. We then derive an analytical framework from the research literature on 'knowledge utilization' in policy making. This research has generally found that both 'technical', 'communicative', and 'institutional' aspects of the Decision Support matter for its influence on actual policy making processes and results. In our analysis we find a similar pattern. This high technical quality of the monitoring and evaluation programmes provided for solid verified results, while the institutional arrangements and the communication strategies helped to ensure the credibility and legitimacy of the information for the decision makers. The availability of rich contents coupled with strategies for the timely and targeted information delivery suggest that direct 'instrumental' use could have taken place. At a more general level the Trial represents an advanced form of 'Decision Support' that goes beyond the mere application of calculated results to encompass a process where the decision parameters themselves become part of the change process.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 43 (2009)
Issue (Month): 3 (March)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ryley, Tim & Gjersoe, Nathalia, 2006. "Newspaper response to the Edinburgh congestion charging proposals," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 66-73, January.
- Eliasson, Jonas & Hultkrantz, Lars & Nerhagen, Lena & Rosqvist, Lena Smidfelt, 2009. "The Stockholm congestion - charging trial 2006: Overview of effects," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 240-250, March.
- Odeck, James & Bråthen, Svein, 2002. "Toll financing in Norway: The success, the failures and perspectives for the future," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 253-260, July.
- Saleh, Wafaa, 2005. "Road user charging: Theory and practice," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 373-376, September.
- Schade, J. & Baum, M., 2007. "Reactance or acceptance? Reactions towards the introduction of road pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 41-48, January.
- Susan Owens & Tim Rayner & Olivia Bina, 2004. "New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice, and research," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 36(11), pages 1943-1959, November.
- Lisa Kane & Romano Del Mistro, 2003. "Changes in transport planning policy: Changes in transport planning methodology?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 113-131, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:43:y:2009:i:3:p:258-268. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.