The stakeholders and their criteria in road safety measures.

Transcription

1 The stakeholders and their criteria in road safety measures. The next step in the development of the MAMCA. K. Van Raemdonck, E. Novikova, F. Van Malderen, C. Macharis Prof. dr. C. Macharis Evaluatietechnieken VUB, UHasselt, UGent, PHL, VITO RA-MOW WETENSCHAPSPARK 5 B 3590 DIEPENBEEK T F E [email protected] I

2

3 The stakeholders and their criteria in road safety measures. The next step in the development of the MAMCA. RA-MOW K. Van Raemdonck, E. Novikova, F. Van Malderen, C. Macharis Onderzoekslijn Evaluatietechnieken DIEPENBEEK, STEUNPUNT MOBILITEIT & OPENBARE WERKEN SPOOR VERKEERSVEILIGHEID

4 Documentbeschrijving Rapportnummer: Titel: RA-MOW The stakeholders and their criteria in road safety measures Ondertitel: The next step in the development of the MAMCA. Auteur(s): K. Van Raemdonck, E. Novikova, F. Van Malderen Promotor: Prof. dr. C. Macharis Onderzoekslijn: Evaluatiemethoden Partner: Vrije Universiteit Brussel MOSI T Aantal pagina s: 36 Projectnummer Steunpunt: 5.1 Projectinhoud: Evaluatietechnieken Uitgave: Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken, april Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken Wetenschapspark 5 B 3590 Diepenbeek T F E [email protected] I

5 Samenvatting Een van de grote uitdagingen voor de beleidsmakers bestaat erin een afweging te maken tussen de belangen van economische ontwikkelingen en het milieu, terwijl tegelijkertijd rekening dient gehouden te worden met de sociale prioriteiten en verdelingseffecten van de beslissingen. Mobiliteit is een goed voorbeeld van dit complexe gegeven, waarbij moeilijke keuzes dienen gemaakt te worden. De beleidsmakers die de betrokken stakeholders betrekken bij het beslissingsproces zullen potentieel meer inzicht en kennis hebben over de problemen en alternatieven. Bij de evaluatie van de duurzaamheid van verkeersveiligheidsmaatregelen dient dus rekening gehouden te worden met de voorkeuren en objectieven van de stakeholders. Daarvoor wordt de Multi-Actor Multi- Criteria Analyse, ontwikkeld door Macharis (2004), voorgesteld als een evaluatiemethode die het mogelijk maakt om materiële en immateriële criteria te combineren wanneer men de belangen van de verschillende stakeholders in kaart tracht te brengen. Eerst wordt in dit rapport het concept van duurzame verkeersveiligheid uitgelegd, waarna de theorie van de stakeholders wordt toegelicht. Vervolgens worden er enkele scenario s weergegeven voor de belangrijkste verkeersveiligheidsmaatregelen. In het vierde deel wordt er een overzicht gegeven van de belangrijkste stakeholders en hun criteria op basis van hun doelstellingen. De beoordeling van de directe en indirecte effecten van verkeersveiligheid wordt nagegaan door middel van een literatuurstudie en een grondige analyse van de Europese projecten waarvan het hoofddoel de uitvoering en evaluatie van verkeersveiligheidsmaatregelen was. Het rapport eindigt met enkele besluiten. Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 3 RA-MOW

6 English summary Title: The main stakeholders and their criteria in road safety measures. Subtitle: The next step in the development of the MAMCA Abstract One of the great challenges facing policy makers is to reconcile the different priorities between economic development and environment, while at the same time considering the different social priorities and the distributional consequences of decisions. Transport is a good example of the complexity of these choices. Those policy makers who engage the stakeholders within the domain of sustainability can potentially affect government s understanding and knowledge. In order to evaluate sustainability of road safety measures the preferences and objectives of all stakeholders need to be taken into account. Therefore, a Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria approach, developed by Macharis (2004), is proposed as an evaluation method which allows to combine tangible and intangible criteria while considering the interests of all stakeholders. The concept of sustainable road safety is introduced first. The theory of stakeholder is explained next. In section 3 an overview of the main road safety measures is given aiming to define the possible scenarios in road safety. In section 4 the main stakeholders and their criteria are identified based on their objectives and the assessment of direct and indirect effects of road safety measures through a literature survey and thorough analysis of the European projects whose main focus was the implementation and assessment of road safety measures. Conclusion finalises the report. Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 4 RA-MOW

7 Table of Content 1. INTRODUCTION ADVANCING THE SUSTAINABLE SAFETY THE STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ROAD SAFETY MEASURES: 4 ES ENGINEERING-ENFORCEMENT-EDUCATION- ETHICAL DECISION MAKING. THE MAIN STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR CRITERIA User related measures: training and education, traffic law enforcement Traffic law enforcement Training and education Vehicle related measures: active safety, passive safety, telematics, e-safety Infrastructure related measures: road design, road construction, maintenance Cases from the literature The stakeholders and their criteria User related measures Vehicle related measures Infrastructure related measures CONCLUSION Future Research 30 REFERENCES Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 5 RA-MOW

8 1. I N T R O DUCTION One of the great challenges facing policy-makers is to reconcile the different priorities between economic development and environment, while at the same time considering the different social importances and the distributional consequences of decisions. Transport is a good example of the complexity of these choices. Those policy makers who engage the stakeholders within the domain of sustainability can potentially affect government s understanding, interpretations and knowledge. Sustainability is the ability to maintain balance of a certain process or state in any system. The three pillars of sustainability are economic, social and environmental. They are not mutually exclusive but mutually reinforcing. The current concern with sustainability shows a clear change in the social values and leads to a new perception of road safety with a domineering role of the systematic approach. A lot has been said about sustainable transportation and its influence on the environment (Haq 1997, Fontela et al. 2007, Kohler 2006, Geurs and Van Wee 2000) but little attention has been paid to sustainability in road safety and how that will affect the policy making and the importance given to each criterion by the main stakeholders. The question that the policy makers should bear in mind is how to estimate the impact of all measures and the rebound effects. Traditionally the driver was the only responsible for the road accident. Currently road safety is seen as a system where the responsibility is shared among all parties involved. The approaches to driving have been altered accordingly. Malaterre (2006) distinguishes the systematic and the driver-centered approaches. According to the first approach the blame cannot be attributed to a single actor but it has to be attributed to the interaction between multiple actors within the system, whereas within the second approach the drivers are encouraged to act according to their moral obligations as an individual and are fully responsible for the road accident. Following the systematic approach three factors may play a role in the occurrence of road accidents: human error, the vehicle and the physical environment. In many cases it is shown that the interaction of these factors is responsible for the accident. Considering this human-vehicle-environment model and the chronology precrash-crash-postcrash, a matrix of factors that affect road safety, and that could be used to improve road safety, can be set up (Haddon, 1968; MOW 2008). This matrix is shown in Table 1. Precrash Accident prevention Crash Injury prevention during accident Postcrash Life conservation, care Bron: MOW, 2008 Table 1. The Haddon-matrix Human Vehicle and Equipment Environment Information Speed control Road layout & Attitudes Lightning infrastructure Disorders Brakes Speed limits Police enforcement Technical equipment Use of protective tools (e.g. seatbelt) Injury-avoiding design Facilities for vulnerable road users Protective elements in road design Protective tools First aid Accessibility Congestion Specialized aid Fire danger Call facilities emergency services Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 6 RA-MOW

9 A good example of the systematic approach is a road safety program, introduced by the Swedish government, called Vision Zero. This new safety paradigm is built around the idea that even if not all crashes can be avoided, all severe injuries can be in principle avoided. Vision Zero is a system where all predicted crashes and collisions have tolerable health losses. Its design is based on the human biomechanical forces (Johansson 2009). In this respect the engineer should aim at constructing a traffic system where this human tolerance is not exceeded. Therefore, this change in the approach to road safety calls for introduction of the idea of sustainability in the evaluation methods. In this context sustainability can be regarded as a principle under which all the other aspects (safety, economic development, environmental impact, public health, mobility, community needs, etc.) should be addressed. Needless to say that road safety is a prerequisite for sustainable transport system. Its assessment is usually based on cost benefit analysis or cost effectiveness analysis. However, in order to evaluate sustainability of road safety measures the preferences and objectives of all stakeholders need to be taken into account. Therefore, a multi-actor multi-criteria approach (MAMCA), developed by Macharis (2004), is proposed as an evaluation method which allows to combine tangible and intangible criteria while considering the interests of all stakeholders. The purpose of this report is to identify the main stakeholders and their criteria in the context of sustainable road safety. The concept of sustainable road safety is introduced first based on the Dutch and Belgian approaches. The stakeholder theory is explained next. Stakeholder analysis evolved out of concern with distribution of power and the role of interest groups in decision-making process. In section 3 an overview of the main road safety measures is given aiming to define the possible scenarios in road safety. In section 4 the main stakeholders and their criteria are identified based on their objectives and the assessment of direct and indirect effects of road safety measures through a literature survey and a thorough analysis of the European projects whose main focus was the implementation and assessment of road safety measures. Conclusion finalises the report. Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 7 RA-MOW

10 2. A D V ANCING THE SUSTAINABLE SAF E T Y The concept of sustainable road safety has been adopted by the Dutch Government as an official part of its policy. It has been developed in the early nineties by the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research and can be defined as followed: The Sustainable Safety vision aims to prevent road accidents and, if this seems impossible, it aims to reduce the severity of an accident so that the risk of (serious) injury is virtually excluded. These goals are pursued through a proactive approach; to assess in which traffic conflict situations serious injuries can occur. Then there are two possibilities: the conditions are adapted so that either the probability of an accident to occur is virtually impossible, or, if an accident is unavoidable, the risk of serious injury in that accident is eliminated. To this end, man is taken as the measure of things in this vision (SWOV, 2010; MOW, 2008). Inspired by the Brundlandt-report on sustainable development, published in 1987, it brings the knowledge from different fields together: transportation planning, traffic engineering, social sciences, biomechanics, management and economics. The report deals with sustainable development and gives the following definition of the term: "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs Sustainable safety is defined by five fundamental principles (see Table 2): Sustainable Safety Principles Functionality of roads Homogeneity of masses and/or speed and direction Predictability of road course and road user behaviour by a recognisable road design Forgiveness of the environment and of road users State awareness by the road user Source: Table 2. The five Sustainable Safety Principles Description Monofunctionality of roads, as either flow roads, distributor roads, access roads, in a hierarchically structured road network. Equality in speed, direction and masses at medium and high speeds Road environment and road user behavior that support road user expectations via consistency and continuity in road design Injury limitation through a forgiving road environment and anticipation of road user behavior Ability to assess one s own task capability The principles are based on theories from traffic planning and engineering, biomechanics and psychology. This approach states that traffic has to be safe for everybody and not just for the average road user. This is illustrated by a task capability model (Wegman, 2005). This model states that the task capability level of road users is the result of their competences and their situational state, such as fatigue, stress, drugs, etc. In order to be a safe road user the task capability should be good enough to cope with the task demands. These task demands are dominated by the environment. Because people differ in their task capability, generic safety measures should be supplemented with specific measures targeted at groups with a diminished task capability. These specific measures are mainly a matter of education and e-safety aimed at the Sustainable Safety principle of state awareness. If road users have enough task capability to assess their state they can decide not to travel. The other principles should be considered as well when evaluating the sustainability of a road safety measure. Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 8 RA-MOW

11 The elaboration of a road safety plan in Belgium and specifically in Flanders started in the beginning of Its framework is focused on a policy of sustainable mobility. Since Belgium is a federalised country with a large autonomy for the three regions (Flanders, Wallonie and the Brussels Capital region), the road safety plan has strong links with other plans and policy domains on vertical and horizontal levels (Daniels & Hout 2006). The vertical level are road safety plans that exist on local, national and international levels. The horizontal level comprises of road safety and mobility in general. In the Flanders policy vision the horizontal integration is expressed as sustainable mobility based on principles of sustainable development (MVG 2003). Therefore the road safety plan aims at integrating the environmental plans, economic development plans, housing and urban planning. It is worth noting that the federal sustainable mobility plan was running from as one of the specific programs under the Scientific Plan for Sustainable Development Policy. The sustainable mobility program mainly focuses on environmental and road safety aspects. Among the projects whose main focus was the relations between transport and sustainable development we should mention the following: Towards Sustainable Mobility: economic and spatial effects of increasing goods traffic Sustainable Mobility Information System (SMIS) Assessment of the risks of toxicity from the road traffic pollution: a molecular epidemiology approach The external costs of transportation LAMBIT: a tool for achieving sustainable intermodal transport in Belgium Impact of traffic safety and traffic endurability problems: objective and subjective factors Impact of spatial planning on sustainable traffic safety, Belgian situation analysis Overall the sustainability adds integrity to road safety whose aims are mobility and safety. Many measures and instruments should be examined in the light of these three goals. Therefore the stakeholders and their criteria should also reflect the integrity of road safety. Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 9 RA-MOW

12 3. T H E ST AKEHOLDER ANAL Y S I S As it has been previously mentioned the evaluation of transport projects in general and road safety in particular has grown in complexity which made the use of multi-criteria analysis increasingly popular. At the same time the importance of stakeholders acquired a new dimension since many different often conflicting priorities need to be taken into account during the decision-making process, especially in order to support the ideals of sustainability because selection of stakeholders groups will reflect the values of those selecting. The inclusion of stakeholders and their priorities into the evaluation process will thus significantly increase the public acceptance of the chosen measure. The concept of stakeholder is not new and was introduced in the management literature by Freeman (1984). The variety of views as to who are the stakeholders dictates a need for being more specific about the definition and process of identifying stakeholders. There are several methods and techniques for identifying and managing stakeholders (Bryson 2003, Banville et. al. 1998, Geudens et al. 2009). People acquire the status of stakeholders because they have vested interest in a problem in any of three different ways: 1) by mainly affecting it; 2) by being mainly affected by it; 3) or both, by affecting it and being affected by it (Banville et al. 1998). In other words, a first way that stakeholders can have a vested interest in a problem is when they are in a position through the resources they control. Secondly, they have a vested interest when the problem has a direct impact on them. A third way is when people are in a position to influence and being influenced. The interests of all stakeholders are of intrinsic value. That is, each group of stakeholders has consideration for its own sake and not because of its concern to further the interest of some other group (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). Not all stakeholders are necessarily participating in the decision-making process. The inclusion of stakeholders depends on many factors, namely the type of decision process, the characteristics of the situation, the time constraints or the physical proximity. Therefore, the identification and classification of stakeholders are very much situationdependent. In practice, the notion of stakeholder must be directly related to that of the problem. The stakeholders identification process assists significantly in formulating the problem as well as the nature of a problem helps in identifying the stakeholders. Needless to say that the participation of stakeholders is extremely important for multicriteria decision analysis due to the socio-political dimension of the problem-solving process. The stakeholder involvement serves two goals: to clarify the criteria for sustainable outcomes, and to activate the practices according to these criteria. Although stakeholder management receives considerable attention in literature, the problem of actual stakeholder identification is yet unresolved. Stakeholder analysis should be viewed as a tool that would help to identify the range of stakeholders to be consulted and whose views should be taken into account in the evaluation process. Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 10 RA-MOW

13 4. R O A D S AFETY M E A SU R E S: 4 E S E N G I N E E R I N G- E N F O R C E M E N T-EDUCAT I O N-ETHIC AL D E C I SION M A K I N G. T H E M A I N ST A K E H O L DERS AND T H E I R C R I T E R I A. Road safety measures aim at an integrated approach and target driver behavior, vehicle design and road infrastructure. They can be classified as user related measures, vehicle related measures and infrastructure related measures. This approach is consistent with the human-vehicle-environment relationship in Haddon s systematic approach (1968). 4.1 User related measures: training and education, traffic law enforcement Besides enforcement education is an essential instrument for informing and training the road users. It is expected that educational measures will have a long-term impact on driver s behavior and will lead to increased road safety Traffic law enforcement. This group of measures contains a number of conflicting objectives and deserves special attention, since not all stakeholders are convinced of the impact of such a measure. First traffic law enforcement will be discussed, thereafter education and training will be treated. In 2004 the project SARTRE3 (Social Attitude to Road Traffic Risks in Europe), co-funded by the European Commission, asked 24,000 EU citizens about their views on road safety enforcement. 76 % of all the drivers questioned were in favor of safety enforcement and 35 % were strongly in favor. After the public consultation the results have shown that 15% of the respondents favor EU action limited to the three main traffic offences responsible for traffic accidents (speeding, drink-driving and non-use of seat belts), 19 % of them propose to extend EU actions to some other offences; 26% of them propose an extension of the scope to all other traffic offences; 34% of them propose to initially limit the scope to the three main traffic offences and then progressively extend it to all other offences. The analysis of the impact of these measures will help to define the criteria. The main positive impacts are expected on safety of road users. Better enforcement will lead to a decrease in the number of traffic offences. Among the positive impacts the following should be distinguished (Working Paper, 2008): Respecting the traffic rules has a positive impact on traffic fluency which will result in less time pressure for the professional drivers. Besides less time pressure for truck and bus drivers, an indirect positive impact for professional transport can be expected regarding the physical damage in accidents and the time lost due to congestion. An indirect effect of improved enforcement will be less congestion due to accidents. Vehicles use more energy at very low speeds; as a result energy consumption goes up with congestion. Fewer accidents will lead to less energy consumption. According to recent studies 12 % of the congestion is a result of an accident (Van Raemdonck, 2009), Impact of speed on environment: Impact on production of exhaust fumes (carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrocarbon, nitrogen monoxide, particles): pollutant productions are optimised at a constant speed of 40 to 90 km/h for individual vehicles and at a constant speed of 50 to 70 km/h for trucks and buses Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 11 RA-MOW

14 Impact of fuel consumption: speeding increases fuel consumption in regular traffic. Fuel consumption is about 23 % lower at a constant speed of 90 to 110 km/h Impact on ozone: ozone is not directly produced by motor vehicles. They produce a high proportion of hydrocarbon and nitrogen monoxide which result in complex chemical reactions and consequently produce ozone in the atmosphere. Impact of speed on noise: There are two sources of noise: the engine and the interaction between tyres and road surface. The latter is the most important, from 20 to 40 km/h for individual vehicles, and from 30 to 60 km/h for trucks. It increases when speeding, about 12 db(a) each time speed is doubled. The negative impacts are mainly related to additional costs for the governments Training and education Education comprises of driver training, traffic education and information campaigns. Public information campaigns provide information or advice on a particular subject related to all road users, or aim at a particular transport mode or age group. Road Safety Education (RSE) emphises on: 1) Promotion of knowledge and understanding of traffic rules and situations 2) Improvement of skills through training and experience 3) Strengthening and/or changing the attitude towards risk awareness, personal safety and the safety of other road users. It is important to stress that RSE is no longer only a school-based activity but rather the involvement of several other organizations, such as health care, youth centers and sport associations. Therefore, one of the main objectives of RSE is creating partnerships among all the parties involved at regional, national and European levels. The coordination in RSE is shown in Figure 1: Figure 1: Source: ROSE 25, EU (2003) Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 12 RA-MOW

15 According to recent studies road safety education and training proved to be largely ineffective in reducing death and injury (Mayhew et al. 2002, Dragunovic & Twisk, 2006). Therefore, it is not always taken into account. The education programs are aimed at three key road user groups: drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. The drivers education often improves driver knowledge and skill but it does not lead to a change in on-road behavior. Therefore, over-confidence may distort the hazard and risk perception which increases exposure-to-risk. A complex area in this respect is how to recognise the personal skill limitations and how to manage safety margins in accordance with it. Furthermore, when implementing the education programs one should consider vulnerable target groups such as young people, the elderly and children. The fatality rate among young drivers is significantly higher than among the older drivers. According to the European Road Safety Observatory young people are at most twice the average risk of being killed in a road accident compared to the average number of the respective population across the 19 EU countries. Based on the principle of sustainability the following objectives should be defined within education and training (Wegman & Arts, 2005): Encourage people to take safety into account when making decisions about transport mode, vehicle and routes. Change of perspective and seeing the context. The perspective changes between one s own safety and other areas (environment, noise) Hazard perception and risk acceptance should be considered along with the ability of recognising and respecting one s own and other people s limitations. 4.2 Vehicle related measures: active safety, passive safety, telematics, e-safety This group of measures may be considered as the least controversial ones. Automotive manufactures aim at protecting the passengers of cars and also the third parties in case of an accident, which is called passive safety. The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) and the European Union introduced the approval legislation in order to provide a safety rating on new passenger cars based on crash-tests. The safety belt is a very effective and best known passive safety device. Active safety devices are based on the art information technology within the car and in communication with the other cars and infrastructures. Most of these technologies are deployed in E-Safety initiative. E-safety is a joint initiative of the European Commission, industry and other stakeholders. It aims to accelerate the development and deployment of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems that use information and communication technologies to increase road safety. A public consultation has been launched and the following stakeholders have been consulted: manufactures, policy makers and road users. 4.3 Infrastructure related measures: road design, road construction, maintenance Within this group of measures the priority is given to road infrastructure safety management and sustainable road safety engineering. Roads are usually designed according to criteria concerning urban and regional planning, travel time, user comfort and convenience, fuel consumption, construction cost and environmental impact. Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 13 RA-MOW

16 After the implementation of the EU-directive 2008/96/EG there will be used four measures in EU Member States in relation to infrastructure(tren E3): Road safety impact assessment. Through road safety impact assessment the safety impacts are fully assessed, documented and transparent before a choice is made between alternative projects (Ampe et al, 2008; van Lier et al, 2009). Road safety impact assessments should take place at an early stage to allow the results of the assessment to influence the further planning process, as in the case of environmental impact assessment. Moreover, it is proposed to carry them out on all transport policy measures having an influence on road safety such as infrastructure investments, standardization, pricing, etc. Road safety audits. Once the road design is chosen the dangerous elements can be identified and rectified. The road safety audits provide the tools and know-how to identify possible mistakes before the road is cast in concrete. Introducing the early improvements and corrections at planning and design stages will allow the economic and social costs of accidents to be reduced. Network safety management. This group focuses on measures that have the highest accident reduction potential. It will consider the parts of the network where most can be gained in relation to the cost. Identification of high-risk road sections or black spots is expected to decrease the number of fatal or severe accidents significantly. Safety gains are expected to be high in a high risk management program. Once the black spots are dealt with, the quality of the whole network can be improved. Assessments could range from identifying and treating accident patterns at a single high-risk site to managing safety over the whole route. Safety Inspections The inspections could enable a risk analysis to indicate both where accidents are likely to happen and which action would be appropriate. The risk analysis can be used to establish the link between the design elements and accident occurrence. Accident reports play a crucial role in improving road infrastructure. Therefore, the importance of the accurate data should be brought into attention. 4.4 Cases from the literature Comments were received from the main stakeholders, namely national governments, research institutes and safety experts, health, transport and road safety organizations, user associations and road operator associations in relation to road safety assessments. In the 2 nd Verona declaration (26 Oct 2004) it is stated that road safety criteria should be included in any investment as well as a road safety audit. The following stakeholders have been consulted regarding this directive: a platform of road users such as motorists, professional drivers, two-wheelers and pedestrians, network managers and other safety specialists. The safe design and engineering of roads, reduced congestion, improved mobility, environmental and social impact assessments, efficient transport system and safety awareness were the criteria to consider. Furthermore, according to the European Directive 2008/96/EC: Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 14 RA-MOW

17 Thus, safety must be integrated in all phases of planning, design and operation of road infrastructure. It must be regarded in its own right and separately from economic and environmental analysis. However, within sustainable road safety the priority is given to sustainable versus ethical approach to road safety which implies the consideration of economical and environmental factors in a complementing rather than opposed approach. After the public consultation took place, the response given by the UK Department for Transport was as follows: In our opinion it is important that Road Safety Impact Assessment is not seen to mean achieving improved safety at any cost, nor without considering the many competing objectives that the promotor of any road infrastructures project has to consider. For example, whilst it may be physically possible to achieve improved levels of road safety when realigning a road, it would be not appropriate to set the unrealistic target for safety where this may compromise other objectives or EU laws, such as protecting vital habitats This opinion supports the sustainable approach to road safety measures proposed here. Based on the above, it seems logical to define the stakeholders and their criteria as a group that shares responsibility and reaches for the same goal, rather than different groups responsible for the implementation of a certain road safety measure. Moreover, sustainability implies interaction and co-dependency of different elements aimed at the improvement of the whole process. In order to appropriately assess the impacts of road safety measures, an in-depth understanding of each stakeholder group s objectives is critical. The stakeholder analysis has already taken place during the pan-european project Infrastructure and Safety (IN-SAFETY), an EU funded project under the framework program in which 29 partners from 12 different countries participated (De Brucker et al. 2008). For the definition of criteria, a two-step procedure was followed. First, a workshop with leading experts coming from IN-SAFETY consortium partners was organized. In the second step the draft was presented to a forum of public policy makers, users and manufactures for public validation. After an extensive analysis and discussions in workshops the following stakeholders have been identified, namely 1) the users, 2) society/public policy makers and 3) manufacturers. Within each group the subcategories have been identified: drivers, fleet owners and emergency centers, authorities and road managers, car manufactures, equipment manufactures, system providers and content providers. This classification is based on common objectives and preferences. Within the framework of this project several workshops have taken place and the final set of criteria has been proposed: Road user Driver comfort Full user cost Traffic safety Travel time Society/public policy makers Network efficiency Overall safety Socio-political acceptance Public expenditure and environmental effects Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 15 RA-MOW

18 Automotive manufacturer/industry Investment risk Liability risk Technical feasibility Within the scope of another pan-european project called Action for advanced Driver assistance and Vehicle control systems Implementation, Standardization, Optimum use of the Road network and Safety (ADVISORS) whose purpose was to assess the impact of different types and different levels of penetration of advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) in terms of safety, efficiency and environmental performance of the road transport system, similar stakeholders were identified. The initial classification was made in the first workpackage meeting in Brussels (April 2002). Later, this work was completed by voting. The group of stakeholders was selected based on the assumption that they have an extensive view of both the problems related to traffic and the different ADAS-systems. System manufactures, vehicle manufactures, transport ministries, road authorities and fleet managers were selected as the main stakeholders. In addition, other relevant stakeholders were classified as umbrella organizations, namely consumer, private driver, taxi associations, public transport association, EU, governments and policy makers (concerning vehicles), road operators, insurance companies, car rental companies as well as researchers and consultants. After a thorough analysis, the various stakeholders were pulled into three groups which are as follows (Macharis 2004c): The ADAS users (individual drivers, fleet owners, etc.) Society as a whole (local and national public agencies, other drivers, weak road users such as pedestrians) The ADAS producers/sellers (system and car manufacturers) The opinions of the parties involved were collected mainly via the telephone interviews. Moreover, this measure has been assessed in terms of driver s performance, environmental issues and road network efficiency. Based on the identified stakeholders objectives, the following criteria were defined (Macharis et. al 2004c): Road user The full user cost: monetary cost of the ADAS to be paid by the user (includes purchasing and operating costs) Driver comfort: changes in driving comfort from the point of view of the driver Driver safety: safety effects for the user of the system Travel time duration Society as a whole Public expenditures linked to ADAS introduction Environmental effects (impacts on emissions, noise, etc.) Third party safety Network efficiency Acceptability Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 16 RA-MOW

19 Manufactures Technical feasibility Acceptance risk In the domain of vehicle technology (active safety) the alcolock implementation in European Union was assessed based on an in-depth qualitative field trial from (Alcolock 2004, EU). The general objective of the project was to contribute to a number of road victims by preparing and facilitating legal implementation of alcolocks through research on the psychological, behavioral and practical impact on drivers whose vehicles are equipped with an alcolock. A qualitative field trial was conducted in four European countries. Five groups of drivers, Norwegian and Spanish bus drivers, German truck drivers and Belgian drink driving offenders and alcohol dependent patients, drove for one year with the system. After a one year trial the drivers and their social surroundings were interviewed. The general acceptance of the alcolocks was good. From the interviews it appeared that the truck drivers clients reacted rather indifferently while bus passengers had a positive attitude towards the devices. Overall the results showed that it is feasible to implement alcolocks in commercial and non-commercial contexts provided that the inclusion process and the monitoring procedures are carefully prepared. To assess the practical impact of the alcolock the daily use of the devices was studied. To assess the psychological impact of the alcolock, the drivers expectations, ideas and attitudes towards the alcolocks were studied. To assess the social impact of the alcolocks the reactions of the drivers social environment, such as persons living together with the drivers, clients of professional drivers etc. were analysed. However, it appeared that the use of the devices is very costly, therefore additional subsidies are needed in order to encourage its implementation. In the course of the trial three different types of data were collected: 1) behavioural measurements registered by the alcolock s data logger 2) the drivers and related subjects answers to standardized questionnaires 3) the feedback provided by the collaborating partners and stakeholders in each of the national trials. The questionnaires translated the specific objectives of the project into standardized questions. Among the participants two groups can be distinguished. The first group comprises of bus drivers, truck drivers, drink-driving offenders and alcohol dependent patients. Justice department, company management, psychiatrists, driver s social environment and manufactures belong to the second group. This classification is to be simplified further with the following criteria: Government/Justice Department Ethical and social acceptance Incentives Cost-effectiveness Measures efficiency The alcolock user Privacy State awareness Full-user cost Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 17 RA-MOW

20 Third party safety Manufacturer Cost effectiveness Technical feasibility Social acceptance Society as a whole (driver s social environment, company management, health professionals, passengers) Acceptance from the drivers Competitive advantage Safety It should be mentioned that the implementation of the alcolocks raises important ethical issues. Some participants declared to have been embarrassed on many occasions when outsiders saw them using the alcolock. Companies management were concerned with the suspicion of drinking and driving created among the drivers. Thus the ethical criteria play a major role in this assessment. Within the framework of training and education in 2003 the European Commission tendered a project called ROSE 25 to investigate the situation of Road Safety Education (RSE) in all 25 Member States. The main purpose was to collect measures of good practice in RSE for children and teenagers in the Member States. The target groups were children and teenagers aged 3 to 17, moped users and pre-drivers, parents (especially parents of smaller children aged 0 to 3). The data collected in the course of the project include 27 school curricula, 114 media sorted by mode of traffic participation, and by media type, 193 other actions. The collected measures are shown in Table 3: Table 3: Collected measures Actions (within and outside of the school system) Pedestrians Cyclists Car Passengers Moped users Pre-drivers Users of public transport/school bus Inline skating & scooters General RSE actions with a broad focus (including all modes of traffic participation) Media Books/booklets Collections of games CDs/MC Films/videotapes CD-ROM Internet Radio/TV Source: ROSE 25, EU (2003) Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 18 RA-MOW

21 The selection of examples consisted of three steps: 1) Definition of selection criteria 2) Based on these selection criteria, the selection of good practices (actions and media) that were performed in the EU. A description and assessment of each measure using a standardized questionnaire was provided. 3) The final step was analysis of all actions and media, also taking recent evaluation studies into account It is evident that the different development paths of school systems, and the differences in traffic, mentalities, cultures and administrations have all led to a wide variety of RSE initiatives. The following objectives are distinguished: Prioritization of RSE and strengthening its role in public Strong coordination of all potential partners Prioritization of RSE at school and kindergarten - making RSE visible in curricula Promoting synergies and combinations of road safety education and mobility education Addressing teenagers as risk group Promoting the involvement of parents Promoting synergies and combinations of education with enforcement and engineering In ideal cases, RSE includes elements of Mobility Education. RSE intends to provide basic life skills and to promote safety-oriented attitudes, whereas mobility education seeks to stimulate changes in mobility patterns towards more ecological and more sustainable forms of transport. Such an integrated approach adds on to sustainable road safety. Therefore, the following group of stakeholders and their criteria can be defined while taking into account all the factors previously mentioned: Government (authorities) Public awareness of the role of RSE and its function An effective operational framework (promoting synergies and combinations of education with enforcement and engineering, promoting partnerships within the network) Integrated approach towards safe behaviour Strengthening research, evaluation and quality control Parents Cost effectiveness due to parents acting as volunteers Level of interaction with children Role model for children Target group (car passengers, pedestrians, cyclists, users of public and school transport, moped users, pre-drivers, children, young people, elderly people, cyclists) Traffic safety Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 19 RA-MOW

22 Social behaviour and correct attitudes Educational services (traffic police, healthcare centers, schools, kindergarten, associations) Addressing the right target group Parents involvement Promoting safe behaviour, social responsibility and self-evaluation Prioritization of RSE, making RSE visible in curricula Country reports have been submitted and a list of main stakeholders was mentioned within traffic education. In Belgium and specifically in Flanders the following parties are involved in designing and implementing training and education: The teachers responsible for RSE The police: local municipal or urban police (with their own education center) or the federal police with the department education and prevention, among which the mobile traffic parks for fundamental education for each province and teachers for the secondary grade Representatives of associations (cyclers association, etc.) Flemish Traffic Foundation (Vlaams Stichting Verkeerskunde) The foundation concentrates on trainings within the field of traffic. It assembles the players in a Stuurgroep onderwijs (advisory committee education), meant to stimulate and support traffic and mobility education. Belgian Road Safety Institute (Belgisch Instituut voor Verkeersveiligheid) The institute aims to develop and diffuse the educative material and logistic support to schools wanting to develop RSE actions. VerkeerPedagogisch Instituut This institute was founded by a teacher with the intention to provide material and knowledge for RSE. Their work consists of traffic education and school traffic and providing information about these topics (e.g. teaching material for kindergartens, primary and secondary schools, ). School traffic in the broadest sense of the word is their scope: traffic and mobility education, traffic policy and road safety (source: Another good example is the Dutch system. The Netherlands In the Netherlands the road safety education is based on the concept of Life long learning. This means that during a person s life at important shifts in modes of traffic participation, people will have to receive the road safety education which is necessary for participating in traffic in a safe way. Among the main stakeholders in pre-school and school education are pointed out the following: Traffic police Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 20 RA-MOW

23 Traffic police can provide a lot of information when it comes to traffic rules and police enforcement. The Dutch Road Safety Organisation 3VO This organization has developed a lot of information material for all age groups such as leaflets and posters. Education Support Service Education support services carry out all kinds of support activities in the field of education and teaching methods. They can provide professional support for schools and teachers in implementing new teaching methods. Finally and before making our suggestions, a brief overview of the project called New Road Construction Concepts (NR2C) will be given. Our choice is not accidental since this project develops long-term perspectives, pilot projects and research recommendations, linking long-term visions and ideas to short-term actions. This project supported by the European Commission is based on a vision that reflects society s perception of road infrastructure in the year It aims to identify and define the research required in the field of road engineering to guarantee comfortable and reliable transport in a sustainable and environmental-friendly way for the coming future. This Vision 2040 describes how society may look in the year 2040 by focusing on changes in road concepts as a result of future needs and demands initiated by social and economic developments combined with technical advances. Therefore the importance of the stakeholders and their interests is undeniable in generating future-oriented initiatives by short-term actions. In road safety the sustainable safety approach is a good example of a long-term vision. Furthermore the sustainable safety vision offers the possibility of getting attention paid to a sustainable society that promotes the quality of life whose indicators are presented in Table 4: Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 21 RA-MOW

24 Table 4: Description and importance ratings of 22 quality-of-life indicators. Source: Steg and Gifford (2005) As it can be seen the highest score was given to the ethical criteria such as freedom, privacy, social justice, safety and environmental quality. Many agree that sustainability plays an important role in the design of every system. However, little is known about which criteria should be used for sustainability. The effects of policies aimed at stimulating sustainable road safety should be also concerned with human needs and values. Therefore, the policy-makers should especially consider possible impacts on the most important indicators when implementing road safety measures because the public will negatively evaluate the measures that oppose to these indicators. In other words every measure should consider the criteria that would reflect economic efficiency, societal and individual quality of life such as health and safety and effects on environmental qualities such as resource use, emissions and waste, water and air. Based on this figure we believe that the presented indicators are useful for assessing the future impacts of road safety measures. By applying a multi-actor multi-criteria analysis the decision makers are able to see what quality of life indicators would improve or would deteriorate after the implementation of a road safety measure. In addition the importance of the different criteria is mentioned in the table above. In case of law enforcement and vehicle related measures it would be advisable to take into account such indicators as privacy, freedom, social justice, security and environmental quality. Restrictions in freedom of choice might lead to negative perception of the proposed measure. While within road infrustracture nature and bio- Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 22 RA-MOW

25 diversity would be given preference by the society as a whole in addition to an efficient network. 4.5 The stakeholders and their criteria Taking into account the haddon matrix, the previous cases and the sustainable safety approach, the following stakeholders and their criteria are proposed within road safety measures. Precrash Accident prevention Crash Injury prevention during accident Table 5: Stakeholders in the Haddon matrix Human Vehicle and Equipment Environment Educational services Government Road manufacturers Road Users Users Government Government Vehicle manufacturers Society Road users Road users Vehicle manufacturers Vehicle users Road manufacturers Government Road users Postcrash Life conservation, care Source: Own setup Government Vehicle manufacturers Road manufacturers Society Government Road manufacturers Government In the matrix, only the main stakeholders are being retained. However, it could be argued that other stakeholders also exist, e.g. the police, emergency services and other organizations such as GOCA (umbrella organization for the technical inspection of vehicles). For simplicity these are placed under the different main stakeholder groups. The emergency services and police are placed under government, because of the general role they play in the society and because the government is, directly or indirectly, their employer. Besides, for emergency services it is irrelevant whether or not a measure is implemented, because they are always expected to make every effort to help victims of road accidents. GOCA is also counted among the government, since an annual technical vehicle inspection is obligated by law for all registered vehicles older than four years, some exceptions excluded ( Stakeholders will be listed by type of measure, i.e. user related measures, vehicle related measures and infrastructure related measures. A table with the criteria and their explanation will be given for every stakeholder User related measures Stakeholder: Road users This is the target group on which the measure applies. This can be car drivers and passengers, but also pedestrians, cyclists, users of public transportation, moped users, pre-drivers, children, elderly people, etc. Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 23 RA-MOW

26 Criteria Traffic safety Social behavior and correct attitudes Cost (Travel) time Freedom and privacy Description of the criteria Changes in traffic safety for the road users, the target group of the measure. Not only the risk for the road user to get hurt, but also the risk that he or she might hurt someone else in an accident. Changes in behavior and attitude will result in changes in risk awareness, personal safety and the safety of the other road users. What is the cost for the road user? (E.g. A course he has to follow, etc.) Everybody has to be able to pay for the necessary education. Some road users will associate driving more carefully with a longer travel time. They can also see an eventual course on how to drive safer as a loss of time. Limitations in freedom, the ability to decide for yourself, and privacy, the opportunity to be yourself, will lead to a negative perception of a particular measure. This can be the case if the measure imposes something on the road user. Stakeholder: Government Local and federal authorities can focus on improving road safety education and awareness, but also on the enforcement of traffic rules. This can be done with intensified efforts aimed at promoting behavior concerning speed, alcohol, wearing seatbelt, etc. Police (and other emergency services) as a stakeholder can also be placed under this header. Criteria Overall safety Cost of the measure Implementation period Socio-political and ethical Description of the criteria The changes in the overall traffic safety due to the user related measure and not just the changes in safety of the target group. A measure can, for instance, have a positive impact on the safety of car drivers, but in the meantime have a greater negative impact on the safety of the other road users. The overall safety in this situation has worsened, so the measure does not have a positive effect. To what extent does the measure have an impact on reducing the number of accidents? Does the measure decrease the number of deaths and fatally wounded victims? Does it decrease the number of heavily and lightly injured victims? Money outlay necessary to implement the new measure, in this case this is the money outlay necessary for the campaign, enforcement action or education. This is the time necessary to implement the measure. In general, a shorter implementation period is preferred to a longer one. This represents the societal acceptability of the measure by Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 24 RA-MOW

27 acceptance Livability the users/decision makers. Quality of life (freedom, privacy, social justice, education): Limitations in, for instance, freedom of choice, will lead to a negative perception of a particular measure, so the government has to take into account the quality-of-lifeindicators presented in table 5. Stakeholder: Educational services Educational services and instances that are responsible for the spreading of the campaign (traffic police, school, local authorities, companies, media, etc.). Also istances such as Vlaamse Stichting Verkeerskunde (VSV), Verkeerspedagogisch Instituut (VPI), etc. may be placed under the header educational services. Criteria Feasibility Cost Addressing the right target group Safe behavior, social responsibility & self-evaluation Description of the criteria Is the incorporation of Road Safety Education (RSE) into school curricula feasible? In primary schools, traffic education is often already implemented in the curriculum. But in secondary schools not enough attention is paid to RSE, and thus it is not always incorporated into the curriculum. This while teenagers are in fact a high risk group (they are learning how to drive a car, they are driving mopeds, etc.) Budgetary constraint resulting in lack of materials, frustrated teachers due to low wages or police officers who, due to staff shortages, have to focus on their core business, which is not RSE. Road safety education, especially outside schools, often has the form of campaigns, and is not in direct contact with the target group. These campaigns should thus reach the right target group. To what extent does the measure lose its efficiency if the right target group is not reached? To what extent does the campaign or road safety education program promote such behavior? Vehicle related measures Stakeholder: Users Only the road users who already use the new system, the others are third party. Criteria Acceptance Driver comfort Description of the criteria Does the implementation of the system causes any important ethical issues? (E.g. Alcolock: see p. 20) This represents the difference in comfort from the point of Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 25 RA-MOW

28 view of the car driver/system user. Driver safety Full user cost Travel time Quality of life Impact on the safety of the car driver/system user and the risk to hurt someone else in an accident. Does the user drive safer and more carefully after the implementation of the system? Monetary cost of the system to be paid by the user, this includes purchasing- and operating costs. More efficient performance of the road transport network and increased capacity, due to safer traffic as a result of the implementation of the vehicle related measure, lead to less travel time. Does the new system lead to a travel time reduction? This represents the changes in e.g. privacy or state awareness from the point of view from the users of the system. Stakeholder: Manufacturers Criteria Acceptance risk Costeffectiveness Technical feasibility Description of the criteria Do the consumers accept the system or do they have some important ethical issues about it? Is it worth the risk of the investment? The risk of failure to develop the desired system and to implement it into the newly manufactured cars. Stakeholder: Government/Society as a whole Concerning vehicle related measures, next to the local and federal authorities, GOCA (technical vehicle inspection) is also part of this stakeholder group, since an annual technical inspection is obligated by law for vehicles older than four years. Criteria Ethical and social acceptance Quality of life Overall safety Description of the criteria This represents the social acceptability of the measure by the users and their surroundings. Does the implementation of the vehicle related measure change the quality of life of the system users and/or of their surroundings (family, friends, colleagues, etc.) This represents the efficiency of the measure. To what extent does the measure have an impact on reducing the number of accidents? Does the measure decrease the number of deaths and fatally wounded victims? Does it decrease the number of heavily and lightly injured victims? The expected effects on Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 26 RA-MOW

29 the safety of other road users and especially vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, are also important for the government and the society. Public expenditure Environmental effects Implementation period Network efficiency Money outlay necessary to implement the new system, including investments in infrastructure and support measures such as educational campaigns to promote the use of the new system. Effects on the environment caused by the new system such as more noise, more emissions, etc. It is one of the main goals of the government to increase the traffic livability by reducing the damage to the environment and nature, even if mobility is increasing. This is the time necessary to implement the measure. Faster feasible measures are preferred to measures which require a longer implementation period in equal conditions for expected impact, cost, etc. This also means that a measure with very beneficial expected effects, even if it has a longer implementation period, will still be selected and that the implementation will start. More efficient performance of the road transport network and increased safety, which results in less congestion, faster travel times, etc Infrastructure related measures Stakeholder: Road users Criteria Travel time Comfort Safety Fuel consumption Description of the criteria The time lost by road users due to detours as a result of the infrastructure change. Another reason for travel time losses can be the obligation to drive less fast as a result of the infrastructure (E.g. 30 zone, speed bumps, etc.). On the other hand, if the new infrastructure is a reason for less accidents and congestion, the driver has to spend less time on the road. These are the changes in comfort from the point of view of the driver due to the implementation of the measure. The difference in the number of road accidents in comparison with the situation before the implementation of the infrastructure related measure. Impact on the safety of the driver and the risk to hurt someone else in an accident. If the infrastructure related measure has a positive impact on travel time, less fuel will be used (until a speed of approximately 110 km/h), and conversely (Working Paper, 2008). Maybe the driver has to slow down and accelerate again due to infrastructure change, which results in more fuel consumption. Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 27 RA-MOW

30 Stakeholder: Government/Society as a whole Criteria Accessibility Livability Cost Public expenditure Overall safety Network efficiency efficiency of the measure Implementation period Functionality Homogeneous use Predictable use Forgiveness Description of the criteria Accessibility is one of the main objectives described in the mobility plan of the government. They want to maintain the current accessibility on a sustainable manner. The infrastructure related measure should target not to compromise this objective. Quality of life (nature and biodiversity, environmental quality): The impact of the measure on secondary effects such as emissions, noise, the view, etc, which can all be positive or negative. One of the objectives of the government regarding mobility is to decrease the damage to environment and nature, even though mobility is increasing. How much does it cost to implement the measure? Does the measure improve the traffic safety to the extent that it is worth the investment? The difference in the number of road accidents, fatalities and heavily injured victims in comparison with the situation before the implementation of the infrastructure related measure. More efficient performance of the road transport network and increased safety, which results in less congestion, faster travel times, etc. Time necessary to implement the measure. Faster feasible measures are preferred to measures which require a longer implementation period in equal conditions for expected impact, cost, etc. This also means that a measure with very beneficial effects, even if it has a longer implementation period, will still be selected and that the implementation will start. Each road is related to just one task in a hierarchical structured road network. Roads should flow (flow roads), provide access (access roads) or connect other roads (distributor roads). This mono-functionality minimizes the number of potential accidents with a potential serious outcome on a specific road. Encounters with large differences in speed, direction and mass should be avoided, making the outcome of any collision much less severe. This is aimed at preventing any human error by providing a recognizable road design for all road users. It clarifies the road course and the behavior of all road users and decreases the number of collisions. If an accident occurs, the environment must be designed so that injury severity is as low as possible. Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 28 RA-MOW

31 Acceptance rate Do the road users accept the changes in road infrastructure? The compliance of a measure will be grater if some restrictions apply only under special circumstances such as school hours, rain, peak hours, etc. One such measure are the so-called intelligent traffic signs. Stakeholder: Manufacturers/Industry Criteria Costeffectiveness Liability Technical feasibility Description of the criteria Is it worth the investment? If, after the realization of the infrastructure related measure, something goes wrong, is wrong, or is not made appropriately, so there are still accidents with heavily injured and fatalities, to what extent is this the responsibility of the manufacturers/industry? Is it possible to build the adjustments in the road infrastructure in time? Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 29 RA-MOW

32 5. C O N C L U S I O N This report is the next step in the long-term research into the development of a decision support model for the evaluation of road safety measures. To achieve this, the development of a Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) is launched, which, in the context of the evaluation of road safety measures, seems to have an advantage against other existing socio-economic evaluation methods. To this end, we began by arguing that the systematic approach to road safety calls for the introduction of the concept of sustainability and leads to a new map of stakeholders and their criteria when assessing the effectiveness of measures. The analysis of measures in education and training underlines the importance of attitudinal change rather than the importance of the improved skill and knowledge. Within enforcement a more ethical approach is suggested. This approach includes such criteria as privacy and responsibility as well as moral justification of legal restrictions on personal liberty. Engineering becomes sustainable and aims to fulfill the requirements of the government, the citizen and the urban environment. It is argued that holistically linking and integrating the road safety measures leads to better definitions of stakeholders and their criteria. Finally, combining ethical perspectives and road safety measures with active participation of stakeholders will enable the policy makers to make better decisions by evaluating the alternatives in a consistent way. As a result, road safety has become an ethical issue which calls for the introduction of ethical criteria and new evaluation methods. Thus the Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis is proposed given that many effects of the road safety measures cannot be translated into monetary terms. It is suggested to hold face-to-face interviews with the main stakeholders in order to allow respondents to argue their scores on different criteria. Another option would be to organize workshops in order the stakeholders could express their preferences. Furthermore one should bear in mind that the new approach to road safety introduced a new share of responsibility. Therefore the main objective changed from preventing road accidents to analysing the effects of safety measures on the main stakeholders. This in turn extends the traditional approach to road safety to 4Es: enforcement, education, engineering and ethical decision making. 5.1 Future Research This report is the sequel of reports written in 2008 and 2009 regarding the value of using the MAMCA in the evaluation of road safety measures (Ampe et al, 2008a), the bottlenecks encountered within the formatting of the indicators in the context of road safety (Van Lier et al, 2008) and a literature study about socio-economic evaluation methods for traffic safety (Ampe et al, 2008b). In 2010 the construction of this evaluation method (the MAMCA) will be finalized by determining which indicators will be used to valorize the different criteria. Thus for each criterion, the most suited indicator will be appointed. This is very important because different indicators can be appointed to one criterion, which could give a different value to the criterion (e.g. congestion pricing could be valued according to the travelled distance or the time spent on travelling). A good, substantiated choice for each indicator is therefore desirable. Afterwards some cases will be performed using the MAMCAmethodology, but also using other socio-economic evaluation techniques such as the social cost-benefit analysis, the cost-effectiveness analysis and the conventional multicriteria analysis. These other evaluation techniques can be useful when the MAMCA is not Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 30 RA-MOW

33 preferred as the ideal decision method. To decide which evaluation should be used a decision tree was set up in Work Package 5.2 (Van Malderen & Macharis, 2009a; Van Malderen & Macharis, 2009b) Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 31 RA-MOW

34 R E F E R E N C E S Achterkamp M., Vos, de J., (2008). Investigating the use of the stakeholder notion in project management literature, a meta-analysis, International Journal of Project Management, 26 (7), pp Achterkamp M., Vos, de J., (2007). Critically Identifying Stakeholders. Evaluating boundry critique as a vehicle for stakeholder identification. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 24, pp Alcolock, ( ). Belgian Road Safety Institute, Deliverable 2, Description, results and discussion of the alcolock field trial. Alcolock implementation in the European Union. Ampe J., Geudens T. & Macharis C. 2008a. Socio-economische evaluatiemethoden voor verkeersveiligheid: Tussentijds vergelijkend rapport, literatuurstudie. Steunpuntrapport RA-MOW Diepenbeek, België: Steunpunt Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken spoor Verkeersveiligheid. Ampe J., Geudens T. & Macharis C. 2008b. Multi-Criteria Analyse an Multi-Actor Multi- Criteria Analyse: Mogelijke meerwaarde voor de evaluatie van verkeersveiligheidsmaatregelen. Steunpuntrapport RA-MOW Diepenbeek, België: Steunpunt Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken spoor Verkeersveiligheid. Banister, D., Stead, D., Steen, P., (e.a.), (2000). European Policy and Sustainable Mobility, London: Spon, 255 p. Banville C., Landry M., Martel J.-M., Boulaire C. (1998). A Stakeholder Approach to MCDA. System Research, 15, pp Beatly, T., (1995). The many meanings of sustainability, Journal of Planning Literature, 9 (4), pp a Beierle T.C. (2002). The quality of stakeholder-based decisions, Risk Analysis 22, (4), pp Bouyssou, D., (1990). Building criteria: a prerequisite for MCDA. In Bana e Costa, C. A. (ed.), Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid (pp ), Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Brugha, R., Varvasovszky, Z., (2000). Stakeholder Analysis: a review. Health policy and planning, 15 (3), pp Bryson, J., (2003). What to do when stakeholders matter: a guide to stakeholder identification, analysis and influence techniques, A paper presented at the London School of Economics and Political Science 10 February Croft, P., (2005). Sustainable road safety engineering. European Transport Conference Proceedings, available at: Daniels, S. & K. Van Hout, (2006), Towards a Road Safety Plan for Flanders-Belgium, Belarus, Minsk, 19th ICTCT workshop. De Brucker K., C. Macharis, M. Wiethoff and V. Marchau (2008). A strategic analsysis of stakeholder preferences regarding the design of innovative road safety measures. Results from the pan-european IN-SAFETY project regarding forgiving and self-explaining road environments. HUB Research Paper 2008/42. Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 32 RA-MOW

35 De Brucker, K., C. Macharis, A. Verbeke and E. Bekiaris (2002). Integrated multi-criteria analysis for advanced driver assistance systems, Final Deliverable of the research project for the Shared-cost RTD project Action for advanced Driver assistance and Vehicle control systems Implementation, Standardisation, Optimum use of the Road network and Safety (ADVISORS), available at: Donaldson, T., L. Preston, (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concept, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20 (1), pp Dooms, M., C. Macharis, A. Verbeke (2004). Proactive stakeholder management in the port planning process: empirical evidence from the port of Brussels. Available at: Dragutinovic, N. & D. Twisk (2006). Effectiveness of traffic education; A Literature review: SWOV-rapport R Leidschendam, Nederland: SWOV. Elvik, R., Vaa, T. ( 2004). The Handbook of Road Safety Measures, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1078 p. Elvebakk, B., (2005). Ethics and road safety policy, Report 786, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo Fontela, P., Soria, A., Mielgo, J., Sierra, J.F., de Blas, J., Gauchia, L., Martinez, J.M. (2007). Airport electric vehicle powered by a fuel cell. Journal of power sources, 169 (1), pp Freeman, R., (1984). Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman. Genard, J-L., and Pirlot, M., (2002). Multi-criteria decision aid in a philosophical perspective, In: Bouyssou, D. et al., (ed.) Aiding decisions with multiple criteria. Essays in honor of Bernard Ro (pp ), Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. Geurs, K.T., Van Wee, G.(2000). Environmentally Sustainable Transport: Implementation and Impacts for the Netherlands for 2030, RIVM, Belthoven, the Netherlands. Geudens, T. Macharis, C. Plastria, F. & Crompvoets, J. (2009). An evaluation framework for the optimization of the spatial data infrastructure in Flanders. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, submitted for publication. Goodpaster, K., (1991). Business Ethics and stakeholder Analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1, pp Gray, C., (ed.), (1999). The Philosophy of Law: an encyclopedia, New York: Garland, 2 volumes. Haddon, W. (1968). The changing approach to the epidemiology, prevention, and amelioration of trauma: the transition to approaches etiologically rather than descriptively based. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 58, pp Hayek, F., von (1985). Law, Legislation and Liberty: a new Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy. Volume 1: Rules and Order, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hill, C., T. Jones (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29 (2), pp Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 33 RA-MOW

36 Hof, A. & Vermeulen, J. (2001). Maatschappelijke kosten van ongevallen met vrachtauto s buiten de bebouwde kom, Delft: CE. Kaler, J., (2003). Differentiating Stakeholder Theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 46 (1), pp Keeney R. (1996). Value-Focused Thinking. A Path to Creative Decisionmaking. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Kohler, J., (2006). Transport and the environment: the need for policy for long-term radical change. IET Proceedings Intelligent Transport Systems, 153 (4), pp Kunsch, P; M.Theys, J. Brans (2007). The importance of systems thinking in ethical and sustainable decision-making. Central European Journal of Operational Research, 15, pp Kunsch, P;, I. Kavathatzopoulos, F. Rauschmayer, (2009). Modelling complex ethical decision problems with operations research. Omega, 37 (6), pp Macharis, C. (2004a). The importance of stakeholder analysis in freight transport: The MAMCA methodology. European Transport, (25-26), pp Macharis, C. (2004b). Multi-criteria analysis as a tool to include stakeholders in project evaluation: the MAMCA method. In E. Haezendonck (ed.), Transport Project Evaluation, Extending the Social Cost-Benefit Approach (pp ), Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Universiteit Antwerpen. Macharis, C., A. Verbeke, K. De Brucker (2004c). The strategic evaluation of new technologies through multicriteria analysis: the ADVISORS case, Research in Transportation Economics, 8, pp Maesen, K., T. Steenberghen, T. Dufays (2001). Impact of Spatial Planning on Sustainable Traffic Safety: Belgian Situaion Analysis. Summary report MD/01/041. Available at: Malaterre, G., (2006). The act of driving, In: Research and road safety. Towards Renew Public Action. Program for Research, Experimentation and Innovation in Land Transport, Operational group 3. New knowledge for safety. Publications de la MSH-ALPES. Mayhew, D., H. Simpson, A. Robinson (2002). The safety value of driver education and training. Injury Prevention 8 (Supplement 2), pp. ii3-ii8. Mill, J., Wollheim, R., (ed.), (1984). Three essays: on liberty, representative government. The subjection of women. Oxford. Mitchell, Ronald K., Bradley R. Agle, and Donna J. Wood, (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts, Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), pp MOW. (2008). Verkeersveiligheidsplan Vlaanderen. Brussels: Vlaams ministerie van Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken. MVG, (2003). Ontwerp mobiliteitsplan Vlaanderen. Naar een duurzame mobiliteit in Vlaanderen. Brussel: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. NR2C-New Road Construction Concepts, available at: Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 34 RA-MOW

37 Pouloudi, A., (1997). Stakeholder analysis as a front-end to knowledge elicitation, AI and Society, 11, pp Sayers T. H., Jessop A. T., Hills P.J., (2003). Multi-criteria evaluation of transport options-flexible, transparent and user-friendly? Transport policy, 10, pp ROSE 25, (2003). Inventory and compiling of a European Good practice Guide on road safety education targeted at young people, available at: SARTRE 3, ( ). Project on social attitudes towards road traffic risk in Europe, available at: Sharp, R, Finkelstein, A, Galal, G (1999). Stakeholder Identification in Requirements Engineering Process, Database and Expert Systems Applications, Proceedings, pp Steg, L., R.Gifford (2005). Sustainable transportation and quality of life, Journal of Transport Geography, 13, pp Steenberghen, T., Dufays, T. (1999). Impact of spatial planning on sustainable traffic safety, Belgian situation analysis, Second European Road Research Conference, 7-9/6/ pp. SVR. (2009). Vrind Vlaamse Regionale Indicatoren. Brussel: Studiedienst van de Vlaamse Regering. Available at: vrind2009.aspx SWOV (2010). Duurzaam Veilig: uitgangspunten, misverstanden en relatie met andere visies. Leidschendam: Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid. Tingvall, C., Haworth, N., (1999). Vision Zero-An ethical approach to safety and mobility, 6 th International Conference in Road Safety and Traffic Enforcement: Beyond 2000, Melbourne. Available at: cited 24 May TREN 3 E Road Infrastructure Safety Management Trans-European Network-Consultation Paper TREN 3E, 2006, Ulrich, W., (1987). Critical heuristics of social system design. European Journal of Operational Research, 31; vol. 3, pp Van Lier, T. Van Malderen, F. & Macharis, C. (2009). Indicatoren bij de beoordeling van verkeersveiligheidsmaatregelen. Knelpunten en mogelijke oplossingen. Steunpuntrapport RA-MOW Diepenbeek, België: Steunpunt Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken spoor Verkeersveiligheid. Van Malderen F. & Macharis C. 2009a. Handleiding voor het evalueren van verkeersveiligheidsmaatregelen: Een eerste aanzet. Steunpuntrapport RA-MOW Diepenbeek, België: Steunpunt Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken spoor Verkeersveiligheid. Van Malderen F. & Macharis C. 2009b. Handleiding voor het evalueren van verkeersveiligheidsmaatregelen: Vervolg rapport. Steunpuntrapport RA-MOW Diepenbeek, België: Steunpunt Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken spoor Verkeersveiligheid. Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 35 RA-MOW

38 Van Raemdonck, K. (2009). De economische kost van een wegongeval gerelateerd aan de waarde van tijd. Masterproef TEW. Wegman, F. and L. Arts (ed.) (2005). Advancing Sustainable Safety. National Road Safety Outlook for Leidschendam, the Netherlands: SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research. Working paper (2008), Commission staff working document; Proposal for a directive of the European parliament and of the Council facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety. Full impact assessment. SEC 351/2. Available at: World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our common future. (1987) Oxford University Press, Oxford. Zimmer, M., (2005). Surveillance, privacy and the ethics of vehicle safety communication technologies, Ethics and information technology, 7 (4), pp Internet sources: The European Road Safety Observatory, available at: Belgian Science Policy, available at: Verkeerspedagogisch Instituut: Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 36 RA-MOW