可持续城市交通计划实施的驱动因素和障碍:哥本哈根的经验教训

IF 2.4 Q3 TRANSPORTATION
Noah V. Peters , Lucia A. Reisch , on behalf of the PEN-Consortium
{"title":"可持续城市交通计划实施的驱动因素和障碍:哥本哈根的经验教训","authors":"Noah V. Peters ,&nbsp;Lucia A. Reisch ,&nbsp;on behalf of the PEN-Consortium","doi":"10.1016/j.cstp.2025.101417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In 2013, the European Commission introduced Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) to promote healthy and sustainable cities. Because policymakers and researchers seek to understand the drivers of and barriers to SUMP implementation, we assessed the mobility plan of a frontrunner in sustainability: Copenhagen, Denmark. Informed by a review of policy documents, we conducted semi-structured interviews with experts on Copenhagen’s SUMP and analysed the data using thematic analysis. We find that Copenhagen’s SUMP implementation follows city-specific rather than European guidelines and is embedded in opposing institutional and political frameworks. The city’s established commitment to sustainability and urban liveability provides fertile ground for SUMP implementation, but motorised traffic remains dominant. In terms of evaluation, the SUMP defines and follows up on various implementation goals. Nonetheless, evaluation methods, policy lessons and status-group representation remain somewhat selective. Overall, the Copenhagen case shows that cities’ unique characteristics influence how policymakers embrace generic planning frameworks like SUMPs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46989,"journal":{"name":"Case Studies on Transport Policy","volume":"20 ","pages":"Article 101417"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Drivers of and barriers to Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan implementation: Lessons from Copenhagen\",\"authors\":\"Noah V. Peters ,&nbsp;Lucia A. Reisch ,&nbsp;on behalf of the PEN-Consortium\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cstp.2025.101417\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>In 2013, the European Commission introduced Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) to promote healthy and sustainable cities. Because policymakers and researchers seek to understand the drivers of and barriers to SUMP implementation, we assessed the mobility plan of a frontrunner in sustainability: Copenhagen, Denmark. Informed by a review of policy documents, we conducted semi-structured interviews with experts on Copenhagen’s SUMP and analysed the data using thematic analysis. We find that Copenhagen’s SUMP implementation follows city-specific rather than European guidelines and is embedded in opposing institutional and political frameworks. The city’s established commitment to sustainability and urban liveability provides fertile ground for SUMP implementation, but motorised traffic remains dominant. In terms of evaluation, the SUMP defines and follows up on various implementation goals. Nonetheless, evaluation methods, policy lessons and status-group representation remain somewhat selective. Overall, the Copenhagen case shows that cities’ unique characteristics influence how policymakers embrace generic planning frameworks like SUMPs.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Case Studies on Transport Policy\",\"volume\":\"20 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101417\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Case Studies on Transport Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213624X25000549\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"TRANSPORTATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Case Studies on Transport Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213624X25000549","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"TRANSPORTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2013年,欧盟委员会推出了可持续城市交通计划(SUMPs),以促进健康和可持续城市。由于政策制定者和研究人员试图了解SUMP实施的驱动因素和障碍,我们评估了可持续发展领跑者的交通计划:丹麦哥本哈根。根据对政策文件的审查,我们对哥本哈根SUMP的专家进行了半结构化访谈,并使用主题分析分析了数据。我们发现,哥本哈根的SUMP实施遵循的是具体城市的指导方针,而不是欧洲的指导方针,并且嵌入了对立的制度和政治框架。城市对可持续性和城市宜居性的既定承诺为SUMP的实施提供了肥沃的土壤,但机动交通仍然占主导地位。在评估方面,SUMP定义并跟踪各种实施目标。尽管如此,评估方法、政策教训和地位群体代表仍然有些选择性。总体而言,哥本哈根的案例表明,城市的独特特征影响着政策制定者如何接受像sump这样的通用规划框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Drivers of and barriers to Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan implementation: Lessons from Copenhagen
In 2013, the European Commission introduced Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) to promote healthy and sustainable cities. Because policymakers and researchers seek to understand the drivers of and barriers to SUMP implementation, we assessed the mobility plan of a frontrunner in sustainability: Copenhagen, Denmark. Informed by a review of policy documents, we conducted semi-structured interviews with experts on Copenhagen’s SUMP and analysed the data using thematic analysis. We find that Copenhagen’s SUMP implementation follows city-specific rather than European guidelines and is embedded in opposing institutional and political frameworks. The city’s established commitment to sustainability and urban liveability provides fertile ground for SUMP implementation, but motorised traffic remains dominant. In terms of evaluation, the SUMP defines and follows up on various implementation goals. Nonetheless, evaluation methods, policy lessons and status-group representation remain somewhat selective. Overall, the Copenhagen case shows that cities’ unique characteristics influence how policymakers embrace generic planning frameworks like SUMPs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
12.00%
发文量
222
×
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