Description of the results

In total, 21 responses were received. These were subsequently analysed.

This section presents the main results found.

3.4.2.1. The situational factors

Overall, the analysis shows that there is a link of indicators for the four environmental issues climate change, noise pollution, air pollution and habitat loss with situational factors, albeit only weak. It is most strong for the decision tiers (i.e. policies, plans, programmes, projects).

Figure 12 shows the frequency with which four environmental issues were considered in assessments at strategic (i.e. policy), tactical (i.e. plan) and operational (i.e. programme and project) tiers of decision making. Overall, indicators related to ‘habitat loss’ was found to be consistently considered to a lesser extent than ‘climate change’, ‘air pollution’ and ‘noise pollution’. In addition, Figure 12 suggests that assessments at different decision tiers indeed give some preference to the consideration of certain implications. Here, this is

particularly evident when looking at ‘noise pollution’, which is considered to a lesser extent at the higher policy and plan tiers than in more project oriented assessments, confirming what was said earlier in section 3.3. Whilst, according to the hypotheses formulated earlier, climate change should have been considered particularly at higher tiers, here it was found to be given similar attention at different tiers. Based on the results from other questions in the survey, it appears that the consideration of climate change is frequently politically driven, i.e. it is not really looked at whether it may be appropriately considered in a certain situation. What is very surprising here is the low rate of consideration of habitat loss, air and noise pollution at the project level.

Figure 12. Percentage of documents that use an indicator for the different tiers

Figure 13. Percentage of documents that use an indicator for the different cycles

Figure 13 shows the extent to which policies, plans programmes and projects considered indicators for the four environmental issues at different stages of the decision cycle, namely in ex-ante assessment (e.g. SEA / EIA), within continuous monitoring and in ex-post evaluation. Climate change, together with air pollution were considered most frequently at all stages, which may, as indicated above, reflect in particular political pressures. Somewhat surprisingly, noise pollution and habitat loss received the poorest attention in ex-post evaluation.

Figure 14. Percentage of documents that use indicators for the different administrative levels

Figure 15. Percentage of documents that use indicators for the different instruments

Figure 14 shows the extent to which indicators for the four environmental issues are used at different administrative levels. Interpretation of international, corridor and site specific levels is not possible, as these represent only one case each. National and regional levels show similar pictures with climate change and air pollution considered by 80 % / nearly 80 %, noise pollution by 50 % and habitat loss at national level also by 50 %, but at regional level only by 30 %. Again, it is somewhat unclear why habitat loss is comparatively poorly considered at the regional level. Here, similarly to e.g. noise pollution, this should become more relevant the closer you come to the project level.

Figure 15 shows different types of measures suggested in policy, plan, programme and project making and the use of indicators for the four environmental issues. Differences are only small. Within this context, it doesn’t come as a surprise that climate change plays a more important role when fiscal incentives and technological innovation are discussed than when concrete transport infrastructure construction is considered and vice versa for habitat loss.

Finally, Figure 16 makes the link between the use of indicators for the four environmental issues and the consideration of different transport modes in PPPP making. Here, generally speaking, when cycling and walking are considered, indicators are considered to a lesser extent than when motorized transport is considered, including individual and public transport. However, again connections of transport modes and indicators are weak.

Figure 16. Percentage of documents that use indicators for the different modes

3.4.2.2. Why were indicators used or not used?

Our initial analysis reveals interesting results concerning why the respondents believed indicators were used or not used. The percentage for each response is shown in Table 17 and Table 18.

It is apparent that most respondents believed that indicators were used primarily because of theoretical / situational reasons. On the other hand, only about half believed that indicators were used for legal, political, or data availability reasons. This supports the idea that whilst indicators may be selected based on theoretical (and situational) reasons, political considerations and data availability may also play an important role. This same conclusion can be drawn based on the results shown in Table 18. It appears that most respondents did not feel data availability was a key reason for excluding an indicator; instead, most of the time they felt it was due to theoretical reasons.

Table 17. Why do you think indicators were used for climate change, air pollution, noise pollution, and habitat loss?

N

Legal reasons Data exists Political reasons Public request Theoretical reasons Common practice Easy to communicate Other

climate change 16 36 % 50 % 50 % 36 % 79 % 57 % 43 % 21 % air pollution 16 62 % 38 % 38 % 46 % 85 % 62 % 38 % 15 % noise pollution 12 50 % 50 % 50 % 70 % 100 % 80 % 30 % 10 % habitat loss 8 60 % 20 % 60 % 20 % 100 % 40 % 20 % 20 % Note: The respondents could choose more than one reason.

Table 18. Why do you think indicators were not used for climate change, air pollution, noise pollution, and habitat loss?

N

Theoretical reasons Too expensive to get data Not enough time to get data Political reasons No way to measure or forecast Other

climate change 5 50 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 25 % 0 %

air pollution 5 50 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 0 % 0 %

noise pollution 11 20 % 0 % 0 % 20 % 20 % 20 %

habitat loss 13 50 % 13 % 13 % 38 % 38 % 13 %

Note: The respondents could choose more than one reason.

3.4.2.3. How were the indicators used?

Another interesting result of our initial analysis concerns how the indicators were used. Table 19 shows the responses to the five dichotomous questions concerning indicator use. It seems from this table that most of the time the indicators were used prescriptively, quantitatively, as a standalone, and with a target.

Table 19. How were indicators used?

N Descriptive

\ prescriptive Quantitative

\ qualitative Cause

\ symptom Standalone

\ composite Target

\ no target Climate change 16 6 \ 9 14 \ 2 9 \ 5 9 \ 5 8 \ 5 Air pollution 16 6 \ 10 13 \ 3 9 \ 7 10 \ 6 11 \ 4 Noise pollution 12 4 \ 8 9 \ 3 8 \ 4 9 \ 3 8 \ 4

Habitat loss 8 2 \ 6 6 \ 2 3 \ 5 4 \ 4 1 \ 7

Note: The respondents could choose only one of the two choices or “I don’t know”.

3.5. Conclusions

In this chapter, the question was raised as to whether the dimensions and context of decision making may provide for a suitable basis for choosing environmental indicators. This was said to potentially give rise to a ‘situation driven approach’ to selecting indicators (in addition to data driven and politically driven approaches).

Firstly, the contexts within which transport policy, plan, programme and project making is happening were discussed. Conflicts were said to be a

‘normal feature’ of transport decision making, which were, however, more or less strong, depending on the overall consensus on values and solutions. The application of structured processes for channelling and managing conflicts was suggested to be of great importance. Indicators were suggested to have different functions in different contexts. Whereas in situations with little or no conflict they may serve as decision makers, in situations of great conflict they are likely to only inform actors.

Secondly, basic decision making models were introduced that may be used to explain how decisions are made. Depending on the specific context within which decision making is happening, these were said to include the rational model, the bounded rational model and the garbage can model of decision making. Furthermore, political or coalition approaches to decision making were identified as being of importance. Finally, the normative concept of communicative planning was discussed. Authors from different research fields were found to make similar suggestions regarding the structuredness of different types of transport situations and associated acting strategies. These appeared to be connected with different stages of the policy cycle and the strategic, tactical and operational decision tiers (as reflected in policies, plans, programmes and projects; PPPPs). Consensus on norms and values, certainty in a PPPP situation and the degree of communication all appear to be closely connected. All of these aspects were said to be potentially related to the choice of appropriate indicators, with indicators potentially taking the role as quasi decision makers in concrete project situations that are with little or no conflict, and as more generic informants in more uncertain of conflict laden policy or tactical situations.

Possible functional criteria for selecting suitable indicators were introduced next. These were identified in several working group meetings. These were said to include the decision making tier and related to this the stage in the policy cycle at which decision making is happening. Furthermore, the transport modes covered and the administrative as well as functional boundaries were said to be potentially of importance. Other possible factors for defining functional criteria were said to include the spatial scale of the impacts, the type of formal requirements, the users and stakeholders involved as well as the timescale of the policy, plan, programme or project.

Results of a survey on 21 transport policies, plans, programmes and projects were presented, using five situational factors, including the decision making tier, the stage of the decision making cycle, the administrative level, as well as the instruments and transport modes covered in decision making, indicators for four environmental issues were considered; climate change, air pollution, noise pollution and habitats loss. Here, it was found that only the decision tier appeared to play a clear role in indicator selection. The more geographically limited impacts of noise and air pollution were more frequently considered at programme and project levels than at policy and plan levels of decision making.

However, this wasn’t the only factor able to explain the choice of indicators and there appeared to be an overlap with other factors. It was suggested that these may include in particular the political dimension, as climate change was an issue consistently considered at all levels. At the time when the survey was conducted, climate change had been high on the political agenda. Somewhat worryingly, habitat loss was considered only occasionally and there didn’t appear to be any obvious connection with a particular decision tier.