Step By Step: learning from implementing behavioural changes in transport. The uniqueness of the Step-By-Step project is that it tries to combine, or maybe even to bridge the gap between different approaches to analysing mobility behaviour. One approach is strongly quantitative: if you cannot measure it, it is not important. The advantage is that this analytical approach is transparent and easily transferable from one situation to another. However, these kind of analytical studies lead quite often to general conclusions on why the mobility behaviour is as it is. Implications for policy makers are not that easy to make. On the other hand, the behavioural psychological approach is recognizable for policy makers and connects to a more intuitive approach. However, results and analysis based on a behavioural psychological approach lack a framework to transfer the results from one situation to another. The StepByStep approach aims to get the best of both worlds: transferability and recognisability. Within the Step-By-Step project mobility data is collected for 15 European cities. A comparative analysis will be performed resulting in a typology of cities based on their mobility characteristics. Three (initial) city clusters are distinguished: multimodal oriented, transit oriented, and car oriented. In total 31 cases with a behavioural intervention will be analysed. An assessment will be made of the success of the behavioural intervention. The success factor is based on five steps (process, implementation, (quality of the) evaluation, realisation of objectives and structural impact). The Step By Step project is coordinated by Goudappel Coffeng. Partners are: TU Dresden, WSP Sweden and IBDiM.

1. Step By Step:
learning from implementing
behavioural changes in
transport
Frankfurt
European Transport Conference 2014
Wim Korver
21 October 2014
IBDiM: Road and
Bridge Research
Institute (Poland)

2. 2
Content
• Background
• Research questions
• Can cities be grouped based on their transport
characteristics?
• Our cases: an overview
• Our approach to “measure” success
• Analysis based on success ratings
• Policy Recommendations based on case analysis
• Conclusions

3. 3
Background
• Transport will become in
Europe the major producer of CO2 emissions
• Technology will help, but on a local/regional scale more
is needed: behavioural changes are needed to reach
objectives (a sustainable mobility system)
• A lot of national initiatives: e.g. CIVITAS, Beter
Benutten (NL) and Forschungsprogramm Stadtverkehr
(GE)
• What can we learn from existing behavioural
interventions (case analysis)

4. 4
Research Questions

5. 5
Main Objective
• Stepping Stones (Research Program):
1.To understand the successful (policy) measures aimed at
making mobility patterns more sustainable and the underlying
mechanisms (the how) including social & psychological
factors.
2.The research results should be of common interest across
Europe or in several regions.
• Step By Step:
• Identifying potential successful policy measures for changing
the transport behaviour of people based on structural
differences between cities and cultures
What we know
after the project is
completed

6. 6

7. 7
Base Research Approach
A. Empirical based: the use of (urban) cases
B. Structural versus behavioural factors
CASES & CITIES
City Type Type of measure Theory of Cialdini
Persuasion strategies

8. 8
Can European cities be clustered into homogeneous
groups?

9. 9
Approach: two datasets
• Urban Audit (Eurostat):
• 785 cities
• Mainly demographical, geographical and economical data
• Base year 2009
• Limited information on transport use
• TEMS-EPOMM dataset:
• 165 cities
• Different base years
• Shares of different transport modes (modal split)
• No information on total transport volumes
• New dataset is created and will be available for others
(via ERA-NET Transport website)

10. 10
Analysis: combining all kind of variables

11. 11
European cities can be clustered into three major
groups. But some overlaps occur, European cities are
not that easy to cluster
Cat. 3
Multimodal
Cat. 1
Car
Cat. 4
Cat. 7
Cat. 2
Cat. 6
Public transport
Cat. 5
Cat. 8

12. 12
31 CASES
15 CITIES
O1 O2

13. 13
Structural Factors: Typology of cities
Type N Within Step By Step
Car Oriented 4 Rotterdam, Tubingen, Gothenburg,
Manchester
Public Transport
Oriented
6 Dresden, Berlin, Warsaw, Cracow,
Wroclaw, Stockholm
Multimodal oriented 5 Amsterdam, Breda, Munich,
Freiburg, Malmo/Lund

14. 14
Empirical work based on 31 cases
Distribution among countries
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
NL GE SW PL UK

15. 15
Empirical work based on 31 cases
Case Characteristics
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Transport concept
Demand
Attitude

16. 16
Within report one page
descriptions with:
• description of the
project
• project objective(s)
• results and
• lessons learned
Based on:
- Evidence based
- Interviews with
project/case
representative

17. 17
Step By Step Approach
Structural
factors
Cities/
Regions
Other
factors not
measured
Measures
taken in
our cases
Classification
of type of
”behavioural”
influence in
the cases
Assess
successful-ness
Other measures
taken in the city at
the same time or
before
B
Typology
of cities
based on
”structural”
factors
A
(indications of)
Success as a
function of
C=f(A & B)
C

18. 18
What is success?
• Depends on whom you ask
• Project leader, politician, interest groups, user, all will have
different views
• Success on what? Success can be divided in several
aspects
• Less car use, different opinions, budget spent, etc.
• There are grades of success

19. 19
Rating every case based on Five Steps Approach
1. Was the process well performed?
• identification of problem/problems to be solved/reduced?
• choice of measure that were "appropriate" to solve the problem/problems?
• formulation of targets or goals?
• "enough" communication and dialogue with stakeholders and/or the public?
2. Barriers for implementation and how they were handled
• There were barriers for implementation but they were overcome and the implementation was fully performed
• There were barriers for implementation which were only partly overcome and the implementation process had to be
adjusted.
• There were non, or only small, barriers and the implementation could be performed according to plan
3. Were the effects evaluated?
• All effects were evaluated according to initial formulation of targets and/or goals
• Some effects were evaluated
• No evaluation was made
4. Were the goals reached? Or (if no targets) were the effects "large"?
• Yes/ partly/ no
5. Is the work being continued to maintain or increase effects?
• yes to large extent/ partly / no

20. 20
Success rate between 3 and 9

21. 21
Mix of successfull & unsuccessfull cases. Rating
per type of measure is more or less the same
Attitude Demand
Transport
concept

22. 22
Rating
per city
type is
more or
less the
same,
however
car
oriented
cities
rate
lowest

23. 23
Lower success rates as a result of less
evaluation and lower goal fulfillment
N=31

24. 24
Behavioral aspects “The power of persuasion”
CIALDINI:
• Social Proof - People do things they see other people doing
• Authority - People will obey authority figures
• Liking - People are persuaded by others they like (“Facebook”)
• Scarcity - Perceived scarcity will generate demand
• Reciprocity – Tit for tat. Fairness
• Commitment and Consistency - If committed, continue
Use of Cialidini persuasion principles
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Not used
Scaricity
Authority
Reciprocity
Liking
Commitment & consistency
Social proof
N=31

25. 25
Behavioural Aspects
• No relation between kind of persuasion strategy and
success
• If no persuasion strategy could be found (29%), success
rates are lower. Think at before hand about the kind of
persuasive strategies
• Do not communicate in terms like objective elements like the
bus/bicycle is quicker, cheaper or things like that, but try to relate
to the actual behavioural motives
• Adaptive approach: Successful cases show different kind
of persuasion strategies
• In most cases behavioural persuasion strategies are
implicitly included, not explicitly

26. 26
General policy recommendations
1. Process
2. Implementation
3. Evaluation
4. Goal Fulfilment
5. Continuation

27. 27
1. Process oriented
• In order to influence travel behavior, there needs to
be a person who is responsible. Meaning:
• This person (or group of persons) plays the role of a
spider in the network function and preferably this person
can be found within city administration, sometimes
outside city administration
• In most successful cases, the person/group was
able to create a special local network of key
institutions and players supporting the strategy
• Focus on positive aspects (benefits, such as
health or better accessibility) and not negative
aspects (higher costs)

28. 28
2. Implementation
• A sound problem analysis is needed
• What is the problem/challenge & what are the options
• “Window of opportunity” needs to be identified
• Coming from a specific national or European funding scheme, special event (National
Road Construction Plan, Dresden flood 2002, Extra funding from car parking fees in
Amsterdam, etc.)
• If there is no obvious window, use an experiment project or a temporary project first
• As each city with its players, its culture, its level of discussion etc. at one time is
different from another city with other specific conditions, all windows of opportunity are
somehow different from each other (e.g. German reunification)
• Use experimental opportunities like European week of mobility/car free Sunday for the
first steps
• City administration always is a central player and
needs to act:
• In most all cases, support by a highly visible mayor/politician is essential
• City administrations needs both the will and the resources to do something

29. 29
3. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E): After
implementing, M&E are absolutely essential for
identification of positive/negative effects
a. M&E for identifying the positive and expected effects, which is needed to promote the
result that the measure was successful
b. M&E are essential to identify any negative effects so that these could be corrected in
the next round
c. M&E is essential to be able to identify changed conditions which require changed
objectives for the next round
d. M&E is essential to maintain the process, to keep the momentum and to establish a
SUMP – tradition in the city
e. M&E should be constructed in such a way that not only regular aspects like accessibility
and environmental effects are measured, but more soft impacts like “Quality of Life”
f. Measure that influence land use patterns are most important in the long run, they should
be included in all long term strategies. However, from an M&E viewpoint, they are
difficult to monitor. If possible include them.
g. M&E is only possible if the target groups are defined properly even in the early stages of
the process

30. 30
4. Goal Fulfilment
• Set realistic goals
• Behavioural changes take time
• Push & pull packages are more efficient and
superior to other packages of measures
• Every type of measure can be successful or
unsuccessful
• Economic incentives seem to be slightly more
effective than other measures
• Size doesn’t matter: small projects can be
effective and large ineffective and visa versa

31. 31
5. Continuation
• There is a life after the project
• Maintain, improve and develop
• Ideally, aspects of continuation are
already included by setting up the project

32. 32
Conclusions
• All policy measures can be successful (or unsuccessful), though:
• Economic incentives measures seem to be more successful
• Cities do differ (structural factors) but this has a small impact on
successfulness of policy measures
• Measures in car oriented cities are slightly less successful (more
resistance?)
• How measures are implemented and defined has a major impact on
successfulness. Successful measures have a sound problem
definition, realistic targets, use a specific window of opportunity,
have an elaborate M&E program and have thought at before hand
on the life after the project
• Behavioural methodologies/strategies are mostly used implicitly