The tales of two cities: use of evidence for introducing 20 miles per hour speed limits in Edinburgh and Belfast (United Kingdom).

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Karen Milton, Graham Baker, Claire L Cleland, Andy Cope, Ruth F Hunter, Ruth Jepson, Frank Kee, Paul Kelly, Andrew J Williams, Michael P Kelly
{"title":"The tales of two cities: use of evidence for introducing 20 miles per hour speed limits in Edinburgh and Belfast (United Kingdom).","authors":"Karen Milton, Graham Baker, Claire L Cleland, Andy Cope, Ruth F Hunter, Ruth Jepson, Frank Kee, Paul Kelly, Andrew J Williams, Michael P Kelly","doi":"10.1186/s12961-024-01213-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In 2016, large-scale 20 miles per hour speed limits were introduced in the United Kingdom cities of Edinburgh and Belfast. This paper investigates the role that scientific evidence played in the policy decisions to implement lower speed limits in the two cities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a qualitative case study design, we undertook content analysis of a range of documents to explore and describe the evolution of the two schemes and the ways in which evidence informed decision-making. In total, we identified 16 documents for Edinburgh, published between 2006 and 2016, and 19 documents for Belfast, published between 2002 and 2016.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>In both cities, evidence on speed, collisions and casualties was important for initiating discussions on large-scale 20 mph policies. However, the narrative shifted over time to the idea that 20 mph would contribute to a wider range of aspirations, none of which were firmly grounded in evidence, but may have helped to neutralize opposing discourses.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>The relationship between evidence and decision-making in Edinburgh and Belfast was neither simple nor linear. Widening of the narrative appears to have helped to frame the idea in such a way that it had broad acceptability, without which there would have been no implementation, and probably a lot more push back from vested interests and communities than there was.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"22 1","pages":"120"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11367795/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01213-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In 2016, large-scale 20 miles per hour speed limits were introduced in the United Kingdom cities of Edinburgh and Belfast. This paper investigates the role that scientific evidence played in the policy decisions to implement lower speed limits in the two cities.

Methods: Using a qualitative case study design, we undertook content analysis of a range of documents to explore and describe the evolution of the two schemes and the ways in which evidence informed decision-making. In total, we identified 16 documents for Edinburgh, published between 2006 and 2016, and 19 documents for Belfast, published between 2002 and 2016.

Findings: In both cities, evidence on speed, collisions and casualties was important for initiating discussions on large-scale 20 mph policies. However, the narrative shifted over time to the idea that 20 mph would contribute to a wider range of aspirations, none of which were firmly grounded in evidence, but may have helped to neutralize opposing discourses.

Discussion and conclusions: The relationship between evidence and decision-making in Edinburgh and Belfast was neither simple nor linear. Widening of the narrative appears to have helped to frame the idea in such a way that it had broad acceptability, without which there would have been no implementation, and probably a lot more push back from vested interests and communities than there was.

两个城市的故事:在爱丁堡和贝尔法斯特(英国)采用每小时 20 英里限速的证据使用。
背景:2016 年,英国爱丁堡和贝尔法斯特两座城市大规模实行了每小时 20 英里的限速。本文研究了科学证据在这两个城市实施较低车速限制的政策决策中所发挥的作用:采用定性案例研究设计,我们对一系列文件进行了内容分析,以探索和描述这两项计划的演变过程以及为决策提供证据的方式。我们总共为爱丁堡确定了 16 份 2006 年至 2016 年间发布的文件,为贝尔法斯特确定了 19 份 2002 年至 2016 年间发布的文件:在这两个城市,有关车速、碰撞和伤亡的证据对于启动大规模 20 英里/小时政策的讨论非常重要。然而,随着时间的推移,人们的观点逐渐转变为每小时 20 英里的速度将有助于实现更广泛的愿望,这些愿望都没有坚实的证据基础,但可能有助于中和反对的论调:在爱丁堡和贝尔法斯特,证据与决策之间的关系既不简单,也不是线性的。扩大论述范围似乎有助于使这一想法得到广泛接受,否则就不会得到实施,既得利益者和社区的反弹可能会比现在多得多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信