Project no.: 518368

Project acronym: MAX

Project title: Successful Travel Awareness Campaigns and Mobility Management Strategies

Integrated Project

6.2 Sustainable Development1.6.2 Sustainable Surface Transport Objective3.1.1.1.3 Advancing Knowledge on innovative measures in urban transport

Title of Report:

MAX-WPA TF2 European Mobility Week expert interview analysis

Status: Final

Period covered: Date of preparation:Start date of project: 1 Oct. 2006 Duration:

Version: 8.0

Prepared by: ETT

contribution by M21, FIT, VGTU

Checked by:

Verified by:

Status: Final

Dissemination level: Public

Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2008)

page 1 / 44

MAX - introductionMAX ran from 2006 to 2009 and was the largest research project on Mobility Management within the EU’s sixth framework programme. The MAX consortium, of 28 partners, served to extend, standardise and improve Mobility Management – it did so in the fields of quality management, campaigns, evaluation, modelling and land use planning. Much of the work was directly endorsed by the European Platform on Mobility Management (EPOMM) and continues to be supported by EPOMM – in order to provide truly Europe-wide expansion, standardisation and dissemination of Mobility Management.The work has resulted in several products and services that can be downloaded via www.epomm.org.For more information, please visit www.epomm.org or www.max-success.eu

Max PartnersAustrian Mobility Research, FGM-AMOR (project leader) – Austria Mobiel 21 – Belgium

ILS Institut für Landes- und Stadtentwicklungsforschung gGmbH – Germany Eric N. Schreffler, Transportation Consultant – USA

Equipo de Tecnicos en Transporte y Territorio, ETT – Spain FIT Consulting – Italy

Lyle Bailie International Limited – United Kingdom synergo – Switzerland

Timo Finke Consult Aachen – Germany Traject – Belgium

Austrian Standards Institute – Austria Trivector – Sweden

Universities

University of Piraeus Research Centre – Greece University of Maribor, Faculty of Civil Engineering – Slovenia

Cracow University of Technology – Poland Aristotle University of Thessaloniki – Greece

University of Lyon – CNRS-LET – France Edinburgh Napier University – United Kingdom

University of Central Lancashire – United Kingdom Otto-von-Guericke-University of Magdeburg – Germany

University of Giessen, Institute for applied and empirical social research – Germany

Vilnius Gedimas Technical University – Lithuania

Demonstrators

Almada Municipal Energy Agency, AGENEAL – Portugal Almada Municipality – Portugal

Lazio Transport Company COTRAL – Italy Kortrijk Municipality – Belgium

Tallinn Municipality – Estonia Munich Municipality – Germany

page 2 / 44

Table of Contents

1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................5

2 The methodology.............................................................................................................................6

2.1 Background information on the EMW-initiatives.....................................................................................6

2.2 Data sources and sample’s selection criteria...........................................................................................72.2.1 Data source........................................................................................................................................72.2.2 Sample selection criteria...................................................................................................................7

2.3 Survey tools...............................................................................................................................................8

2.4 Interviews and recording..........................................................................................................................8

2.5 Contents of the checklist............................................................................................................................8

2.6 Sample distribution...................................................................................................................................9

2.7 Interviews with national coordinators....................................................................................................12

2.8 Cultural aspects......................................................................................................................................122.8.1 The 5-dimensional model of cultural characteristics......................................................................122.8.2 Country clusters..............................................................................................................................14

3 Analysis of findings.......................................................................................................................16

3.1 Planning and organisation of the campaign...........................................................................................163.1.1 Launching and initiative of the campaign.......................................................................................163.1.2 Organisation and participation........................................................................................................17

3.2 The awareness raising process...............................................................................................................213.2.1 Strategy used...................................................................................................................................213.2.2 Actions............................................................................................................................................223.2.3 Arguments.......................................................................................................................................233.2.4 Tone of message..............................................................................................................................253.2.5 Message giver..................................................................................................................................27

3.3 Supportive and obstructive factors..........................................................................................................273.3.1 Implementation of the campaign into a strategy framework..........................................................283.3.2 The importance of media................................................................................................................293.3.3 Barriers and solutions......................................................................................................................29

4 Conclusions....................................................................................................................................31

4.1 Summary of findings................................................................................................................................31

4.2 Success factors........................................................................................................................................32

4.3 Cultural differences.................................................................................................................................32

4.4 Differences in experience........................................................................................................................33

4.5 Transferability.........................................................................................................................................34

4.6 Recommendations for campaigning the campaign.................................................................................34

5 References......................................................................................................................................36

6 Annexes...........................................................................................................................................37

page 3 / 44

6.1 Annex 1-Checklist for personal expert interviews with local EMW-coordinators.................................37

6.2 Annex 2-Introductory text for personal expert interviews......................................................................42

6.3 Annex 3-List of local EMW-co-ordinators interviewed..........................................................................43

6.4 Annex 4-List of national EMW-co-ordinators interviewed....................................................................44

page 4 / 44

1 Introduction

Task Force 2 “Campaigning the campaign” aims at investigating the main aspects related to the awareness raising process in order to convince policy makers and stakeholders to implement sustainable transport awareness campaigns. The purpose is to go through the process before the campaign has started, when the relevant actors have to be convinced to make or support a travel awareness campaign. A set of key research questions were defined as a basis of enquiry, in order to seek to understand which actions and approaches are most effective in engaging these actors and which are the success factors in the awareness raising process. The principal questions for the research are:

How do you raise the awareness of policy makers and stakeholders on the importance of sustainable transport?

How do you persuade policy makers and stakeholders to invest in sustainable transport campaigns?

In order to give answers to the research questions, personal expert interviews have been carried out in addition to the analysis of the four relevant case studies of good practices selected within Task Force 2; BOB au Volant, Toujours (campaigning against drink driving, Belgium), Streets for people (EMW-campaign in Bologna, Italy), La ciudad sin mi coche (EMW-campaign in León, Spain) and Active for Life (health promotion campaign, United Kingdom). This report focuses on the analysis of interviews with local coordinators of the European Mobility Week (EMW). The EMW was identified as one of the most relevant initiatives for the research as it is a European wide campaign being developed in different cities across the European countries in the field of urban sustainable mobility. For this reason, local EMW-coordinators can be considered as key actors for asking information on the awareness raising process used to convince local policy makers and stakeholders to participate and organise the EMW in their cities. During the analysis of the interviews it became obvious that the national level of the organisation plays an important role. In addition, interviews were conducted with national coordinators of the EMW-campaign, which are also analysed in the report.

The information collected has been verified and analysed in-depth in order to report main results in planning and organisation, the awareness raising process of stakeholders, main barriers and success factors.

This report includes an overview of the EMW campaign initiative, methodology used to carry out the survey, analysis of the main results, and recommendations to campaign initiators on the campaigning the campaign process for travel awareness campaigns. The recommendations follow the campaign framework on how to design a travel awareness campaign developed in the WPA research.

page 5 / 44

2 The methodology

The research focused on the collection of information from local coordinators of the EMW-campaign from all over Europe. The EMW being a European initiative about travel awareness campaigns organised on a similar basis in all European countries, was the main reason for choosing this event as an opportunity to investigate the awareness raising process used to convince local policy makers and stakeholders to participate and organise the EMW in their respective city.

A predefined checklist of identified key research questions was used for the interviews (see Annex 1) and the interview transcripts analysed alongside information regarding regional distribution, cultural differences, size of the city and experience in organising the EMW event. At a later stage, and to collect additional information, interviews with national coordinators were conducted and compared with the information given by local actors.

2.1 Background information on the EMW-initiatives

After the organisation of two successful”In town without my car!” events in Europe, the year 2002 marked the start of a new initiative, the European Mobility Week. Since then, every year, the European Mobility Week is organised from 16 to 22 September and is dedicated to sustainable mobility. The European Mobility Week represents a platform for local authorities and associations and gives the opportunity to initiate a wide range of activities to:

promote their existing policies, initiatives and best practices related to sustainable urban mobility;

contribute to raising citizens’ awareness on the damages that current urban mobility trends generate on the environment and the quality of life;

establish performing partnerships with local stakeholders;

be part of a European wide campaign, sharing a common goal and identity with other towns and cities;

emphasise the local commitment towards sustainable urban transport policies;

launch new longer term policies and permanent measures1.

The campaign is a voluntary initiative open for all European cities. The European Coordination of the European Mobility Week has published a Handbook to help the participants in the organisation of the week. This Handbook gives ideas and practical examples that can be useful when drafting a coherent programme and contacting potential partners2.

Figure 1: The European Mobility Week

The European coordination is based on a partnership between the core consortium (Eurocities, Energie-Cités, and Climate Alliance), representatives from national ministries and agencies, European and International

1 Source: http://www.mobilityweek.eu/-Participating-2 Source: http://www.mobilityweek.eu/-Participating-

page 6 / 44

Associations and Organisations and the European Commission. They take care of the day-to-day management and the promotion of the initiative at European level, to define common objectives and methodologies as well as to provide communication and evaluation strategies and tools. National EMW-coordinators are appointed by their National Ministries in order to link European and local levels and provide country-specific assistance. They respond more closely to regional and local needs and guarantee the delivery of the political message, the definition of a common methodology and the organisation of promotional campaigns at national level.3

2.2 Data sources and sample’s selection criteria

2.2.1Data source

Eurocities, as a subcontractor of the MAX-project, provided contact details of the campaign leaders of the EMW-campaign in cities across Europe to be interviewed.

They selected a sample of 100 cities that have organised the EMW-campaign at least once in 2006 or 2007, following a particular selection criteria (see chapter 2.1.2). The information provided consisted of:

1) Contact details of EMW-campaign leaders

2) Campaign information

Number of times they have participated in the EMW-campaign

Campaign objectives

Description of Campaign targets, activities, results (if available)

2.2.2Sample selection criteria

The selection criteria for the sample of 100 cities, were as follows:

1) Regional spread of the 100 cities over Europe, split into four main groups:

25 cities from North-Western EU-countries (e.g. UK, Ireland, Scandinavian countries)

25 cities from Western-Central EU-countries (e.g. Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France)

25 cities from South-Western EU-countries (e.g. Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece)

25 cities from Eastern EU-countries and accession countries (e.g. Slovenia, Croatia, Czech republic, Hungary, Poland, Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria)

2) Within each group a mixture of different sizes of cities was present. The following distinction for the 100 cities was established:

26 small cities (< 50.000 inhabitants)

62 medium cities (between 50.000 and 500.000 inhabitants)

12 large cities (>500.000 inhabitants)

3) Other criteria taken into account was a mixture of cities regarding the following issues:

3 Source: http://www.mobilityweek.eu/-Coordinator-

page 7 / 44

EMW experience (long (> 5 years), medium (3-5 years) and short (1-2 years)) in participation in the EMW

Organisational type of local EMW-coordinators (NGO, city administration)

4) A more pragmatic selection criterion was the preference for cities with an English speaking contact person among otherwise similar cities.

2.3 Survey tools

Specific tools were prepared to carry out the survey, from the contact phase to collecting the data, as listed below:

1) Introductory e-mail and topic list to reach selected EMW-coordinators to be interviewed (see Annex 2)

2) Checklist of the key research questions to be followed for carrying out the interviews. (see Annex 1)

3) Data entry template to produce the final database of interview results.

In order to verify and finalise the checklist, a partner of the research team attended the EMW workshop held in Brussels (6-7 February 2008) where the checklist was presented. Both the feedback received and direct contact with local EMW coordinators proved useful. As a result of these discussions the interview checklist was validated in terms of relevance and effectiveness.

Having finalised the checklist, five pilot interviews with local EMW-coordinators (four telephone interviews and one face-to-face interview) were carried out during March-April 2008. This testing phase allowed verification of the consistency of data collected for the scope of Task Force 2, identifying possible barriers or problems affecting final results of the survey.

2.4 Interviews and recording

The interviews were conducted following the steps listed below:

1) First contact with EMW-coordinators by e-mail: the introductory e-mail was sent to reach selected EMW-coordinators with a topic list of the content of the interview included as well.

2) Second contact with EMW-coordinators by telephone: selected EMW-coordinators were contacted by phone to ask for their participation and to agree on an appointment for the interview.

3) Third contact conducting the interviews: all interviews were conducted either face-to-face or by telephone, following the pre-defined checklist and were tape recorded. Collected data was transcribed into the checklist sheet. Average time necessary to carry out the interviews was 30-60 minutes.

4) Finally a data entry template was filled in producing the final database of interview results.

2.5 Contents of the checklist

The checklist of the key research questions to be followed for carrying out personal interviews was defined according to the identified TF2 key research questions for the investigation of the campaigning the campaign process. These questions dealt with the identification of:

Organisations who launched the idea to participate in the EMW

Organisations who organized and/or participated in the EMW

Key policy makers and stakeholders necessary for the organisation of the EMW

page 8 / 44

Motivations for organisations to participate in the EMW

Strategies and actions used for the awareness raising process

Opinions on what arguments and messages work best to convince local key policy makers and stakeholders to participate and organise the EMW

Time spent on the awareness raising process

How activities implemented during the EMW were integrated in the overall local transport strategy

Possible barriers for the success of the awareness raising process

2.6 Sample distribution

Of the 100 cities in the sample, 40 were selected in order to conduct the personal interviews. The rest of the 60 cities were saved in a back-up list in case of non-response from the first selection. Finally 35 valid personal interviews were conducted between March and June 2008 with campaign leaders from EMW-cities on the basis of the pre-defined checklist of the identified research questions. In total 49 cities were contacted, but 14 cities did not respond. Main reasons of non-response are linked to language problems, difficulties to find the right person to interview, or not being willing to participate, etc.

The geographical split of the 35 interviews was as follows:

10 North-Western EU-cities: Östersund, Barnstaple Devon, Kristiansand, Karlstad, Trondheim, London Borough of Islington, Turku, Carlow County, Reykjavik and Copenhagen.

8 South-Western EU-cities: San Sebastián, Cascais, Rethymno, Karditsa, Evora, León, Albacete and Bologna.

9 Western-Central EU-cities: Bergen op Zoom, Marburg, Luxembourg, Orléans, Geneva, Frankfurt, Bühl, Zoetermeer and Brussels.

7 Eastern EU-cities: Zilina, Pecs, Ljubljana, Arad, Klaipeda, Vilnius, Budapest.

1 Eastern accession cities: Koprivnica

The interviewed cities are listed in the following table:

page 9 / 44

Table 1: Regional spread of interviewed cities

Regional spread Country City Number of inhabitantsEastern EU-countries Slovakia Zilina 85.425Eastern EU-countries Hungary Pecs 130.000Eastern EU-countries Romania Arad 174.000Eastern EU-countries Lithuania Klaipeda 276.005Eastern EU-countries Slovenia Ljubljana 298.000Eastern EU-countries Lithuania Vilnius 542.287Eastern EU-countries Hungary Budapest 1.800.000Eastern accession countries Croatia Koprivnica 30.994North-Western EU-countries Ireland Carlow County 18.000North-Western EU-countries Sweden Östersund 58.580North-Western EU-countries United Kingdom Barnstaple Devon 25.000North-Western EU-countries Norway Kristiansand 75.000North-Western EU-countries Sweden Karlstad 82.000North-Western EU-countries Iceland Reikjavik 120.000North-Western EU-countries Norway Trondheim 156.000North-Western EU-countries United Kingdom London Borough of Islington 170.000North-Western EU-countries Finland Turku 175.354North-Western EU-countries Denmark Copenhagen 501.664South-Western EU-countries Portugal Cascais 33.255South-Western EU-countries Greece Rethymno 35.000South-Western EU-countries Greece Karditsa 40.000South-Western EU-countries Portugal Evora 41.163South-Western EU-countries Spain León 135.000South-Western EU-countries Spain Albacete 167.222South-Western EU-countries Spain San Sebastián 181.811South-Western EU-countries Italy Bologna 374.425Western-Central EU-countries Germany Bühl 29.700Western-Central EU-countries Netherlands Bergen op Zoom 67.000Western-Central EU-countries Germany Marburg 80.000Western-Central EU-countries Luxembourg Luxembourg 80.000Western-Central EU-countries France Orléans 116.000Western-Central EU-countries Netherlands Zoetermeer 118.483Western-Central EU-countries Switzerland Geneva 185.000Western-Central EU-countries Germany Frankfurt 662.359Western-Central EU-countries Belgium Brussels 1.006.749

page 10 / 44

The distribution (%) of the interviewed sample concerning regional spread, sizes of cities and EMW-experience is provided below.

Graphic 1: Distribution of the regional spread

Regional spread distribution (%)

28%

23%26%

23%

North-Western EU-countriesSouth-Western EU-countriesWestern-Central EU-countriesEastern EU-countries and accession countries

Graphic 2: Distribution of the size of the cities

Sizes of cities distribution (%)

23%

55%

8%

14%

< 50.000 inhabitantsBetween 50.000 and 200.000 inhabitantsBetween 200.000 and 500.000 inhabitants< 500.000 inhabitants

Graphic 3: Distribution of experience in EMW

EMW-experience distribution (%)

23%

46%

31%

Small EMW-experience (1-2 years)Medium EMW-experience (3-5 years)Large EMW-experience (more than 5 years)

page 11 / 44

2.7 Interviews with national coordinators

During the first steps in the analysis, a research gap was found regarding experiences from a higher level than local coordinators could provide. Therefore it was decided to extend the research to interviews with national coordinators of the EMW. Contacts were made with the help of Eurocities at the annual EMW-awards in Brussels in February 2009 and interviews were held in the following month. Additional information was collected at a workshop during the EMW-awards, where campaigning the campaign issues were discussed in smaller groups.

The persons interviewed came from Spain, UK, Ireland, Portugal, Slovakia, Finland, the Netherlands and Czech Republic.

The additional information obtained from the speed networking sessions and the interviews with the national coordinators has been integrated into the analysis of the interviews with local coordinators.

2.8 Cultural aspects

A key difference to have in mind when analysing the sample, is the cultural aspect. Culture is defined by one of the most known professors in this field, Geert Hofstede, as “the collective programming of the human mind which distinguishes the members of one society group from those of another”. Culture consists of patterns of thinking which parents transfer to their children, teachers to their students, friends to their friends, etc. It is reflected in the meaning people attach to various aspects of their lives, the way of looking at the world and the role they have in it, and in collective beliefs. This does not imply, of course, that everyone in a society acts in the same way; statements about culture can only be statements of a central tendency and there will be wide differences among individuals and sub-groups. Culture being a collective component will in many cases be reflected in the society and how people react and interact4. Therefore the interviews will be analysed regarding this characteristic5.

2.8.1The 5-dimensional model of cultural characteristics

After analysing some 116,000 questionnaires on values completed by employees of a single multinational corporation in 67 countries, Geert Hofstede found out that differences in the responses must be due to national values. Statistical analysis of the responses showed the existence of four underlying cultural dimensions within which each country could be positioned. Further research carried out in the Far East identified a fifth dimension.

In the following table the dimensions and their characteristics are described:

4 Source : Itim International, 2005, Intercultural competences: Turning global strategy into tangible reality.5 At the moment of sample selection, beginning of 2008, a sub-division of countries into Eastern, North-Western, South-Western and Western-Central was adopted ; the conclusion is that no regional differences are discovered in the analysis. Therefore it was decided to carry out an additional analysis based on the clustering of Hofstedes « 4 cultural dimensions », although the sample selection was not based on the clustering by culture. (The cultural workshop took place in the end of January 2008, when the sample selection by Eurocities was already finalised.)

page 12 / 44

Table 2: The 5-dimensional model of cultural characteristics6

Dimension Characteristics

Low High

PDI-Power Distance

The extent to which the less powerful members of society accept that power is distributed unequally.

Low dependence needs Inequality minimised Hierarchy for convenience Superiors accessible

All should have equal rights

Change by evolution

High dependence Inequality accepted Hierarchy needed Superiors often

inaccessible Power holders have

privileges Change by revolution

IDV-Individualism

Collectivism: people belong to in-groups (families, clans or organisations) who look after them in exchange for loyalty.Individualism: people look after themselves and their immediate family only.

“We” consciousness Relationships have priority

over tasks Fulfil obligations to family,

in-group, society Penalty: Loss of face and

shame

“I” consciousness Private opinions

Fulfil obligations to self Penalty: Loss of self-

respect and guilt

MAS-Masculinity

Femininity: the dominant values in society are caring for others and quality of life.Masculinity: the dominant values are achievement and success

Quality of life, serving others

Striving for consensus Work in order to live Small and slow are

beautiful Sympathy for the

unfortunate Intuition

Performance ambition, a need to excel

Tendency to polarise Live in order to work Big and fast are beautiful Admiration for the

successful achiever Decisiveness

UAI-Uncertainty Avoidance

The extent to which people feel threatened by uncertainty and ambiguity and try to avoid such situations.

Relaxed, less stress Hard work is not a virtue

per se Emotions not shown

Conflict and competition seen as fair play

Acceptance of dissent Flexibility Less needs for rules

Anxiety, greater stress Inner urge to work hard

Showing of emotions accepted

Conflict is threatening

Need for agreement Need to avoid failure Need for laws and rules

LTO-Long Term Orientation

The extent to which a society shows a pragmatic future-oriented perspective rather than a conventional historical or short-term point of view.

Absolute truth Conventional/traditional Concern for stability Quick results expected

Many truths Pragmatic Acceptance of change Perseverance

6 Source : Itim International, 2007, 5-D pocket guide, Country scores and definitions.

page 13 / 44

2.8.2Country clusters

Based on the 5-dimensional model 6 clusters of countries have been identified, with similar characteristics in organisation and management, each cluster representing a certain combination of the dimensions. In this analysis five clusters have been recognised, the sixth one, Family Cluster, mainly being found in Asia. A short summary of each cluster is provided below: 7

Contest Cluster: These countries are characterised by low power distance, high individualism, low uncertainty avoidance and high masculinity. The countries applicable to this cluster are Anglo-Saxon countries, and some of the former British colonies. The keywords in these societies are competition and freedom, where rules and regulations from the government should remain to a minimum. These countries do not tend to focus on details; but prefer to take an overall view.

Network Cluster: This cluster shares with the contest countries low power distance, high individualism and low uncertainty avoidance. The difference is the extremely high femininity they represent. The cluster comprises the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and the Baltic States. Instead of opting for competition, ambition and winning, network countries prefer cooperation, consensus and friendly relations. An employee expects to be consulted about any matter that concerns him or her no matter of his or her organisational rank. Societal responsibility and, welfare of employees and reliability are also important characteristics.

Pyramid Cluster: In this cluster the countries all share high power distance, high uncertainty avoidance and are collectivist. This is one of the most common profiles in the world, in Europe it comprises among others Portugal, Greece, Slovakia, Romania, Croatia, Slovenia and many Russian countries. The Pyramid configuration provides a clear structure both in terms of hierarchy and mandate, as well as work processes and social arrangements. Authority is highly centralised at the top and strictly delegated. A good leader should be available to support his employees at all levels and be able to answer all questions.

Solar System Cluster: The Solar System has a lot in common with the Pyramid; high power distance and high uncertainty avoidance; however they are rather individualist than collectivist. This cultural profile can be found in France, Belgium, Northern Italy and to a limited extent Spain. People are hard working and motivated to do a good job according to their professional standards. As the employees are individualist, coordination is much more difficult than in Pyramid countries. A leader should be visible and well informed about the work but not control too obviously. Then he will de-motivate the employees and he risks them hiding issues from him.

Well-Oiled Machine Cluster: These countries are characterised by low power distance, high individualism, high masculinity and high uncertainty avoidance. They are mainly German speaking countries and to a certain extent Hungary and the Czech Republic. The dilemma here is that people require structure and predictability, but they will not accept an authority imposing such structure upon them. The emphasis is put on systems, structure and objectivity and people are focused on delivering high quality according to specification. Transparency is a key word and people will readily make information available.

The next graphic shows the distribution of the interviewed cities according to the cluster. To classify the cities, the 5-D Pocket Guide with country scores developed by Itim International has been used. Not all countries have calculated values, but just estimations which have been used. This is the case for most Eastern European countries. What concerns the countries in this analysis, Lithuania has estimated values more related to the Scandinavian countries than Russia, and Switzerland is classified as a Machine country. However differences in the French, Italian and German regions have been detected, while Geneva has been integrated in the Solar System as situated in the French part.

7 Source : Itim International, 2005, Intercultural competences: Turning global strategy into tangible reality.

page 14 / 44

Graphic 4: Distribution of cultural clustering

page 15 / 44

3 Analysis of findings

The results of the interviews have been analysed on the basis of the criteria for the sample selection; geographical spread, size of the city and EMW-experience, and also the cultural cluster distribution.

The analysis has been divided into three main parts;

1. Planning and organisation of the campaign. In this part the content is focused on who takes the initiative on the implementation, organisers and participants and interested parties, and who are the key persons in the planning process.

2. The awareness raising process of stakeholders. This part is divided into chapters about actions and strategy, arguments and tone of message, and who should be a message giver.

3. Obstructive and supporting factors. This chapter analyses factors that could be important for the success or barriers that can obstruct the awareness raising process and how these can be solved.

3.1 Planning and organisation of the campaign

3.1.1Launching and initiative of the campaign

There is a wide spread of persons and organisations who have taken the initiative to participate in the EMW-campaign; from a Ministry of Environment that send information and proposes municipalities to join, to mayors and town councillors with a particular interest in sustainable mobility and local NGOs. On a city level the environmental (and transport) department seems to be one of the most active entities, and in some of the Eastern European countries it is common that the initiative comes from an NGO. Other initiators have been a museum, a public transport company and a student university organisation. In the below table the most common initiators are listed:

Table 3: Most common initiators for the EMW-campaign

Ministry (of Environment and/or Transport)

NGOs

Environmental departments (municipal)

Transport departments (municipal)

Environmental organisations

EU-organisations

Local and regional administrations (individuals)

A significant contribution in promoting, supporting and encouraging local authorities to join the EMW initiative at local level comes from Transport and Environmental Ministries. In Spain, for example, the coordination of the EMW is managed directly by the Ministry of Environment, who acts as a link between Europe and the municipalities. The Ministry coordinates the administrative tasks on a national level and contributes with, among other things, the translation of documents and promotion of a continuous evaluation of the campaign. This type

page 16 / 44

of organisation has allowed Spanish cities to reach significant results from implemented measures during the EMW. A similar organisation exists in several other countries, in Lithuania the Ministry of Environment uses a similar procedure, providing information on the EMW initiative to municipalities through a direct invitation to join the campaign. Also in Luxembourg the initiative comes from the Ministry, concretely the Ministry of Transport and Environment, all mayors are invited to the capital each year for a “start-up” of the EMW.

A specific case is represented by the city of Kartidsa (Greece) in which the EMW was launched by the municipal historical-ethnological museum. The museum cooperates with a centre for documentation, communication and research. Soft transport measures are part of the historical analysis of the city and the museum is very interested not only in encouraging the implementation of these measures but also in documenting them as potentially historical evolution.

It’s remarkable that in the Machine Cluster, four of six cities have joined the EMW on initiatives from an NGO or environmental organisation. These organisations have succeeded in convincing the city administration to organise the event. In Solar System countries the initiative comes, in general, from a higher level than the municipality; whether it be on European, national or regional level. For the other clusters there is no defined structure more common than others.

At the workshop in Brussels, one of the major conclusions reached was that the interest from the municipality to participate increases if there is open support from a national or regional administration. This seems to be the case amongst all European countries.

Although there are national coordinators in most European countries, they don’t work in the same way with the EMW. In some countries it is highlighted that the initiative to participate should come from the local authority or organisation level, if not, it doesn’t work too well. On the other hand in other countries, the national coordinator is actively promoting the participation and implementation of activities.

3.1.2Organisation and participation

Organisers and key decision makers

Organisation and coordination of the campaign is mainly managed by the city administration, sometimes with help from external organisations. Only in a few cases is it an NGO or environmental organisation who takes the full responsibility for the event. Within the city administration, it’s in most cases the environmental department that is the main organiser, followed by the transport or mobility department.

In two cases, the EMW campaign has been organised only by NGOs. In the city of Bergen op Zoom (Netherlands), for example, the first edition was organised by an NGO, whilst the following campaigns have been co-organisedbetween the city administration and the NGO. In the city of Zilina (Slovakia), the organisation was done by the same group of NGOs that also launched the idea to participate. In Slovakia this is a common procedure, normally the regional coordinator contacts both a local NGO and the local administration and encourages them to form a partnership and organise the EMW together. This has worked well in several places.

It is not always that the initiator that succeeds in launching the event. In Frankfurt the local transport company TraffiQ raised the idea of organising the EMW for several years, but didn’t succeed until there was a change of the responsiblity for the traffic department who supported the idea. Now they coordinate the EMW on behalf of the traffic department, with organisational help from NGOs and the city administration.

In Östersund (Sweden) and Ljubljana (Slovenia), two very different cities both in size, experience in sustainable mobility and culture, both have opted for a committee that organises the EMW. In Östersund, the committee consists of a mix of politicians and civil servants from diverse city departments (mobility, environment, health, public transport, etc.) The initiative to form the committee in Ljubljana came from the local Road Safety Council

page 17 / 44

who proposed it to the Mayor and the Department of Environmental Protection. The participants change from year to year, with representation from city administration, public services, research institutes and NGOs.

According to the interviewed coordinators, the Mayor and the City Council are the most important policy makers to convince; as they are the key actors in investing in sustainable transport campaigns in their city. Of second most importance are the Councillors of Environment and Transport. Without the approval of these key persons it is less likely that such a campaign will be carried out. This was reiterated by the national coordinators, who said that they primarily contact the Mayors and/or Councillor of Transport or Environment when initiating a campaign. There are no obvious patterns regarding geographical or cultural distribution, rather a similar system is used in all cities.

With regards to the decision maker of the budget, in half of the cases it’s a matter for the City Council together with the Mayor. The Mayor alone isn’t able to take the decision, but needs the support from the rest of the councillors. In some cases the City Council needs financial support from the region or the national level or seeks support from external private entities. Only in a few cases is the budget decision taken on a city department level, by one councillor only or as in the case of Kristiansand, the transport strategy board.

In network countries the majority of the budget decisions are made by voting in the city council, although there is some autonomy for the organising department to decide how to spend the money already designated to their department. Also for solar system countries the decisions are mainly made by the city council.

In Arad, Romania, the city and the county finance the EMW activities together and in Luxembourg the Ministry of Transport has their own budget which they share between participating cities. One unusual case is Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, where there is no central funding, but those proposing the content of the campaign pays for it. This way the financing is dispersed among the providers.

Graphic 5: Distribution of budget decision makers.

Participants

The tasks of the organiser are to plan, contact partners and stakeholders, decide on themes and activities to be implemented during the EMW campaign, and take up day-to-day coordination of the event. The participants on the other hand, mainly enter the final stages of the planning process of the EMW, they are not a part of the organisation committee, but are in charge or helping out with the daily activities during the week.

page 18 / 44

There is a wide spread of the kinds of participant, depending a lot on local conditions of the city and their relations with citizens groups. A general analysis of the kind of departments, organisations and associations that join this event show that most cities employ first and foremost municipal dependencies; apart from the organising departments, the local police and the education department (schools) are common participants. Also the local public transport company is a frequent participant in almost all cities. Some interesting moves are to involve the local cleaning company like in León (Spain) or the fire brigade like in Brussels (Belgium).

EMW-partners are mainly associations and companies who all have a direct interest in sustainable mobility; most of the NGOs are environmental organisations. There are also quite a lot of social organisations involved, like sports clubs, residents associations, leisure centres and in one case churches. Also private companies are invited, although some cities say that they rarely show interest. Nevertheless, more than half of the cities have sometimes collaborated with private companies, primarily shops in the commercial areas. In Zilina (Slovakia), León (Spain), Östersund (Sweden) and Ljubljana (Slovenia) it has become tradition to invite car manufacturers to exhibit environmental cars.

A ranking of the most common participants are presented in order of most invited. A differentiation has been made between departments in the municipal administration and private organisations and companies.

Table 4: Most invited organisations and departments participating in the EMW.

Participant Number

Public transport company (bus and rail) 23

Local associations (except environmental and biking) 22

Environmental organisations (national and local NGOs) 19

Private companies (except shops) 15

Chamber of commerce and shops 11

Biking associations 9

Environmental and energy agencies (national and local) 9

Environmental car manufacturers 6

University 5

Other NGOs (except environmental) 4

City administration (except the departments below) 14

Education department (including schools) 14

Local police 14

Environmental department (except organisers) 9

Transport (mobility) department (except organisers) 9

Health department 3

According to the EMW-coordinators the most common motivations for the companies and local associations to participate is that they gain publicity and new customers. Other important aspects are related to the “green” image they will get, and that they want to support the actions and measures taken up in the EMW to improve their sustainability. In the following graphic an overview is presented.

page 19 / 44

Graphic 6: Motivation for organisations to participate in the EMW.

.

Regarding cultural differences the analysis show that there are many similarities between the cultural clusters; although the main motivation for organisations in Solar System and Machine countries is related to the publicity and to gain new customers, while for Network countries the publicity is connected to the environment and to improve the sustainable environment.

The main motivation for the organiser to invite companies and associations to participate is to receive help with the daily coordination of the activities. In most cities it is the local associations that are in charge of this task. The public entities are often responsible for the coordination of larger events, while the smaller “street activities” are left for local groups. Private companies are mostly asked to sponsor events with prizes to be given at competitions. An interesting case is presented by Rethymno (Greece) where the tourist organisation help out with the awareness raising process of the EMW.

There is a variety in the number of partners the organisers have during the EMW, from only a couple to a whole network of organisations and associations. Cities surrounded by a network have greater experience of organising the EMW and other sustainable campaigns, allowing them able to “choose” the most appropriate organisation for a certain event. Some of the cities with larger experience comment that they have to say no to associations without an apparent link to sustainable mobility and environment. If not there will be too many participants, and the campaign might lose focus on the initial topic.

There is no apparent connection between the number of associations contacted and years of experience or geographical or cultural context; a more important aspect seems to be the interest shown from the organiser. If the organiser believes in the work, then it’s easier to transfer this interest to other entities.

Some interesting examples concerning different categories of participants in the EMW campaign are provided as follows:

Copenhagen (Denmark): there are around 200 local interest groups (e.g. environmental, for elderly people, policy groups, etc.) who usually work closely with the city administration when implementing actions and campaigns, all of them non-profit organisations. These groups are contacted before an event and asked if they want to join, all interest groups never join a campaign or event at once, but are selected for each occasion. So far no collaboration with private companies has been made during the different editions of the EMW.

page 20 / 44

The coordinator in Frankfurt (Germany) says that it’s important that EMW is a “realistic” campaign. Therefore they only look for companies with an interest in sustainability, e.g. energy companies, environmental or health organisations. Another prerequisite is that the partner is active during the week since they are not interested in “passive” sponsors.

León (Spain), another city with a large network of participants, says that the most important participants of them all, are the schools. First of all because they attend the activities, but also because of the publicity they spread awareness of the key messages to parents, relatives and friends.

3.2 The awareness raising process

Five types of approach have been identified as important when convincing a policy maker or stakeholder; the strategy used, actions and measures, arguments, tone of the message and the message giver. In the following chapter all these approaches have been analysed based on the interviews.

3.2.1Strategy used

This approach is strongly related to the message giver and could be of importance when considering cultural differences; in a country with a well-defined hierarchy, like a Pyramid country, it might be more effective if the strategy used is a top-down strategy. This means that if a person in a higher position takes the initiative, there might be a greater success. On the contrary, for countries with a low Power distance index, the strategy supposedly could be aimed at anyone to be the message giver.

In the interviews three major strategies have been identified; bottom-up, top-down and personal approach on the same level. Many of the interviewees say they haven’t used any particular strategy in convincing the policy makers, although when reading “between the lines” it is quite obvious that there is some kind of strategy behind the first approach, even if it wasn’t consciously made. The most used strategy is the bottom-up, i.e. a person in a “lower” position had to convince someone in a higher one, for example an environmental public officer convincing his/her councillor or the Mayor. This is logical having in mind that many initiators of the campaign idea come from the environmental or transport department or from an NGO. The second most used strategy, top-down, is reflected by the Ministries approaching the municipalities to take part in the campaign. There is also an example from Reykjavik (Iceland) of a mix of top-down/bottom-up strategy. The initiative comes from the politicians who influence public officers to organise it, on the other hand, since the EMW is organised in a neighbourhood the head of the neighbourhood service centre has to convince the public officer in order to arrange the event. In Bühl (Germany), Kristiansand (Norway) and Bologna (Italy) the campaign is included in a general framework, which makes the organisation assured. In this case the strategy used to raise awareness is more related to how to integrate the event into the strategy, and not so much on how to get approval for the initiative.

Analysed according to the cultural clusters, a similar result as for the launching process has been found:

In Solar System countries it is more common with a top-down approach, this was expected since in many cases it’s the Ministry of Transport or Environment that takes the initiative and approaches the Mayor or a councillor at the first stage, however the contact during the organisation is usually held with a civil servant at the municipality.

In Pyramid and Contest countries, a bottom-up strategy is more used.

There is no pattern found in Network and Machine countries.

Regarding the size of the city or the experience in organising the EMW, no conclusions can be drawn.

page 21 / 44

3.2.2Actions

From the analysis of the interviews, it has been possible to identify the specific actions implemented by the interviewed cities to raise awareness of policy makers and stakeholders in the organisation and participation of EMW campaigns. It is important to differentiate the actions depending on who the target is: decision makers or other stakeholders. The most popular actions towards the decision makers referred by the city representatives include the following activities:

establishing direct contact with politicians

making PowerPoint presentations of the national initiatives related to MM

handing out documents or handbooks to assist their decision

making presentations to councillor boards of the EMW concept and previous successful EMW editions

inviting politicians and councillors to participate in various mobility management events, such as national meetings, panel discussions, workshops, etc.

Most of the cities declare that personal contacts and direct meetings are essential to convince them, although in many cases, they do not need to be convinced as they are already aware of the benefits in participating. In any case, their participation in this type of events serves to remind them of the importance of the EMW initiatives and increases the chances of participation in future campaigns.

Only in a couple of case study cities, such as Barnstaple Devon (UK) and San Sebastián (Spain) was there clear involvement of the National Governments (Ministries, State offices) at this level of the awareness raising process. Main activities consisted in promoting the participation by distributing handbooks or organising national meetings of councillors to inform them about this initiative. The fact that State administrations support the organisation of the campaign is seen as a very persuasive argument for cities to follow up the initiative.

When analysing the actions implemented to raise awareness of other stakeholders, such as local associations, chamber of commerce, etc., the most popular activities developed were related to the organisation of meetings, forums and roundtables with the stakeholders, one-day meetings organised by the city with the companies that are more active in sustainable mobility aspects, and expert discussions where they were invited to tell their stories and raise their voices and concerns. In some cases, publicity has been used as an influential argument to engage them.

In general, it can be summarised that the most commonly used actions were the organisation of meetings with politicians and councillors, this was held in cities such as Karlstad (Sweden), Klaipeda (Lithuania), San Sebastián (Spain), Rethymno (Greece) or Luxembourg, and the organisation of meetings and forums with the other stakeholders, was very widely extended in cities such as Arad (Romania), Frankfurt am Main (Germany), Geneva (Switzerland), Orleans (France), Zilina (Slovakia), Zoetermeer (Netherlands), Kristiansand (Norway), León (Spain) or Koprivnica (Hungary).

When referring to direct contact and meetings with the involved agents, in the case of policy makers it involved contacts with a wide range of persons; the Mayor, politicians, councillors, technicians, traffic engineers of the planning departments and environmentalists. The key people among the other stakeholders groups were business owners, local transport operators, local police, environmental agencies, sports associations, health departments or associations, national road associations, etc.

An analysis according to the cultural clusters indicates that the cities that conform to the Contest group have all based their awareness raising process in the realisation of PowerPoint presentations about national initiatives, previous EMW editions, handbooks handouts, and meetings with stakeholders to be able to listen to them and

page 22 / 44

provide them with the opportunity to voice their concerns. It is also worth mentioning that they use the evaluation of previous campaigns as an argument to convince councillors to participate in future campaigns.

The answers of the Machine Cluster cities show that in most cases the city representatives were already convinced of the importance in participating and no further actions were needed. Usually, a meeting with the politicians to present the results of previous editions has been enough to motivate them. In the Network cultural cluster it is common to invite politicians to various events such as workshops, committees, discussion panels, meetings, etc, to encourage them to discuss the subject with other stakeholders.

On the other hand, in the Pyramid cultural cluster, cities are more inclined towards press and publicity actions, media promotion, publications in newsletters, press conferences and meetings with stakeholders. Lastly, the analysis of the replies of the cities that compose the Solar System cluster shows that the three main types of actions implemented were the organisation of forums where the politicians would meet interested citizens, attendance to meetings organised by the Ministry of Environment to inform about the EMW initiatives, and holding meetings with companies and other involved stakeholders.

Regarding the time needed for the awareness raising process, it varies among the different cities interviewed. In the vast majority of cities the decision is taken at least 6 months prior to the campaign date. Only in a few cities like Barnstaple Devon (UK), Brussels (Belgium), London Borough of Islington (UK), Bühl (Germany), Copenhagen (Denmark) and Kristiansand (Norway) the decision is taken close to after the end of the previous year’s campaign, usually 9-10 months before the next campaign, at the moment of evaluating the results of the previous one. It is important to pin point that most cities agree on the fact that the decision making process during the first campaigns is longer and harder, as politicians are keener on participating in the initiative once they have previous experiences.

There is not enough information about the ranking of the implemented actions according to their importance for a successful awareness raising process. From this perspective, a few cities agree that success depends on the implementation of a group of actions altogether, in which direct contact and communication among stakeholders and the public is essential. It is also mentioned that the fact that a campaign is successful the previous year is an important argument to convince the decision makers to participate the coming years. A third conclusion that may be drawn from the interviews is that the support of the State administrations, the Ministries, etc, is a guarantee of success, as in some cases, it is the State’s initiative, and local administrations are encouraged to participate without hesitation.

There are cases where the continuation of the EMW-campaign has been taken for granted and where the funding has been reduced or even suspended. One of the organisers made some auto-criticism during the interview, saying that the awareness raising process with strategy, action and arguments is an important part when planning a campaign.

3.2.3Arguments

There are certain arguments to convince policy makers and stakeholders to take part in the EMW-campaign that are repeated over the countries. The most common ones are related to environmental issues and to be part of a European project, which in turn gives the possibility to share ideas with other cities.

The European level of the initiative is considered in a very positive aspect: being part of a European network and to have the chance to share experiences on sustainable mobility with other cities across Europe are arguments which have been used to convince both local policy makers and stakeholders to participate and organise the EMW campaign. Being the EMW, a local sustainable mobility initiative is seen in a larger context and an opportunity to communicate and share ideas with other cities therefore the EMW itself and its concept has been a successful argument.

page 23 / 44

Table 5: Most common arguments to convince policy makers and stakeholders.

Argument Number

Environmental issues 11

Get publicity and be recognised for the work 6

European action with local impact 6

Promote new projects and try out measures 6

Success of previous editions 6

Share ideas with other cities 5

Health and safety 4

Other arguments 6

However, a deeper analysis shows that there are major differences between the cultural clusters. It is not always an advantage to be part of a European network; in the UK many people are anti-European and against any kind of initiative coming from that level. In the Netherlands the EMW has changed name and they don’t use the logos or templates distributed, although the week is celebrated in a similar way as in the rest of Europe. On the other hand in Eastern- and Southern European countries the importance of Europe is significant and seen as a positive thing.

In Solar System countries publicity is of importance: either promoting a new strategy or to get publicity through media coverage during the event. There is a need to show what has been achieved and that the city takes part actively.

With regards to the Pyramid countries, the most used argument is to share ideas with other cities and to be part of this European event. Someone might state that since many of these countries are located in the east of Europe, it is more of a regional difference than cultural, but also Greece and Portugal, members in the EU for many years, employ this argument. In Evora (Portugal) the fact that the EMW-campaign is an initiative held in a European context and that experiences can be shared with other cities has been used to convince the transport operator and some citizen associations to participate.

In the Network cities there are a wide diversity of arguments used, but two that are employed more than the others are; Environmental issues and to be part of a European project with local impact. One of the network characteristics is high feminity, which is illustrated in, among other things, a high awareness of the environment and quality of life. On the other hand the preference for cooperation and good friendly relations is the evidence for why belonging to a European network could be an effective argument.

As for Contest countries there was no tendency to one type of argument found, because of the lack of respondents, and for Machine countries no real pattern has been found, although it is anticipated that facts are more hardwired in these countries. Success from previous years or from other cities is probably seen as a good argument to convince policy makers. This argument was used by Frankfurt (Germany) for the edition of 2008, since 2007 was the first time they participated in the EMW. They showed to both stakeholders and media that the first edition was a success in reaching the citizens, with the intention to make them more interested for the second year participation.

When it comes to experience it’s remarkable that only cities with long experience, 5-6 years, in organising the EMW, use arguments related to getting publicity: both internationally with the EMW-award and locally that the local media covers the activities.

page 24 / 44

The national coordinators highlighted that it’s important to show all the benefits that the EMW can bring: environmental aspects as well as health, accessibility, quality of life, and making the local coordinators aware of that they can use the campaign to promote existing initiatives and policies in action.

Although it hasn’t been investigated in-depth, different arguments should be used for different stakeholders; e.g. the politicians don’t listen to the same messages as the local associations and the reasons for organisation/participation are different.

3.2.4Tone of message

Not only is the argument used to convince policy makers and stakeholders important, but how the message is given also affects how it will be received. The literature review found three tones of message that could have importance for travel awareness campaigns:

Rational or emotional approach

Positive or negative approach

Basis of the argument; i.e. health, environment, economy, congestion, etc.

Regarding rational or emotional messages, most local coordinators say that it should be a combination of the two. An emotional argument or image needs back-up from statistics showing the possible benefits. Many people think that for travel awareness the rational argument should be more visible than the emotional one in order to be taken seriously. Only in Machine countries it’s thought that the emphasis should be put on an emotional perspective. It is interesting that all cities that think the emotional perspective is important are cities with greater experience in organising the EMW, while first year organisers opt for a combination of both. This might not be a significant success factor, but should be taken into account.

As much as the coordinators agree that a combination of rational and emotional message is the best choice, they think a positive approach is more effective than a negative one. Almost half of the interviewed cities use positive messages in the EMW-campaign, without distinction between the cultural groups, experience or size of the city. A positive message which highlights advantages and benefits in participating in the EMW campaign seems to be more effective in convincing local policy makers and stakeholders. An interesting comment was made by a German coordinator who said that some arguments have a tone of message already built-in; for example climate change. In Germany the discussion on climate change is seen as a very negative subject, sending out negative messages. Approaching a policy maker with such a message would mean a negative approach, no matter how it’s presented; in this case presenting solutions towards the climate change means a positive approach which could be more successful in the awareness raising process.

The third approach considers the focus of the content of the message; if it should be based on environmental issues, health or economy. Which basis makes the policy makers interested?

As can be seen in the following graphic, environmental messages work best followed by a health based focus. Also economy and aspects on traffic problems and congestion are used.

page 25 / 44

Graphic 7: Most used tone of message to convince policy makers and stakeholders.

Regarding cultural differences, in Network countries the most valuable issue is the environment. This was to be expected since according to the cultural analysis one of the characteristics in a “feminine” social structure is the awareness of the environment and striving for a better quality of life. Also in a Machine society the environment has a large role, even though there should be a combination with other messages as well, e.g. health and traffic congestion.

In Pyramid countries the environment is not very important in the awareness raising process; more adequate messages are health and safety issues and questions related to physical traffic problems and congestion. Policy makers and stakeholders in Contest and Solar System cultures seem to listen to economical arguments, but with a relation to the environment.

The tables presented below show the relationships found between tone of message and culture and experience. It should be noted that further research is required to confirm these relationships. A stronger relationship, i.e. if most of the interviewed organisers agree, has been written in italics and a weaker relationship in normal style.

Table 6: Summary of tone of the message related to culture and experience in organisation.

Summary tone of message per culture

Rational/emotional Positive/neagative Environmental/health/etc.

Contest Rational No response Economy, environment

Machine Combination, emotional Positive Environment, (health, congestion)

Network Combination Positive Environment, health

Pyramid Combination Positive Health, congestion

Solar System Combination Positive Economy, environment

page 26 / 44

Summary tone of message per experience

Rational/emotional Positive/neagative Environmental/health/etc.

1 year Combination Combination Various-no conclusion

2 years Rational No response Economy

3-4 years

Combination-rational No response Environment, congestion

5 years Combination-rational Positive Environment

6 years Combination, emotional Positive Health, environment

3.2.5Message giver

As important as the message and how it is distributed is who is distributing it. People trust different kind of people, based on their background and traditions, and a good message can easily be forgotten, or not taken seriously if the wrong person is presenting it. Despite a high number of no answers from the organisers, three groups of message givers which are more successful than others have been discovered:

Citizens and lobby groups from the city.

Experts on transport or environmental issues

Mayors and councillors from other cities

There are some differences regarding the experience in organising the campaign and which message giver has the most credibility; less experienced partners prefer to use experts and best practice cities to convince stakeholders, whilst for cities with longer experience local citizens and lobby groups have a greater importance. This might be a success aspect that has evolved over the years. It is also noteworthy that all cities that consider local citizens groups important have strong collaboration with local partners; more than half of them have a network of organisations taking part in activities during the week.

It was expected that Machine countries would trust experts to a high extent; although in this research this is not the case. They tend instead to rely more on mayors or councillors from another city or region. For Network countries there is a mixture of influences, from mayors to best practice cities, what they seem to have in common, however, is that the message should come from an external source of the city. Pyramid countries on the other hand listen a lot to local citizens and lobby groups, but also to experts.

Geneva (Switzerland) makes a point that the message giver depends on the message; if it’s a practical message it should be sent by a lobby group and if it’s a theoretical message, the most appropriate person is an expert from the university.

3.3 Supportive and obstructive factors

Apart from aspects related to the organisation phase and the awareness raising process, there are external factors that could have importance to the success of the implementation of a campaign. In this study, two major factors have been identified; the existence of a strategy framework in which the campaign can be a part and the attitude from media.

page 27 / 44

3.3.1 Implementation of the campaign into a strategy framework

An interesting issue that could be of great importance for the success of a travel awareness campaign is if that the campaigns and activities are part of an overall strategy framework; e.g. transport strategy, agenda 21, health strategy, etc. The European organisation of the EMW is actively encouraging the inclusion of permanent measures throughout the EMW-week. The cities sign a charter which “binds” them to implement measures which contribute to modal transfer from private car to environmental-friendly transport modes. This requirement was first launched by Spain as a way to make the municipalities more conscious of the importance of organising the event year after year and that it’s not just a one-off event. It’s also one of the prerequisites to be regarded as a fully participating city and to be able to apply for the EMW-award.

In one of the speed networking sessions in Brussels the question was raisedof the importance of integrating the EMW-campaign into a transport strategy, by the local coordinator of Sheffield and the national coordinator of UK. Several representatives from cities claimed that after producing a strategy, they had more success with the measures and that both policy makers and citizens could see a meaning to the organisation of the EMW-campaign.

A fairly large part (around 60%) of the interviewed cities had some kind of strategy in which the EMW-campaign is included, a transport strategy or plan being the most common. The most common relationship is by promoting measures during the campaign week; either as an inauguration of a measure or as a start-up of a new activity.

One of the clearest examples of integration into a transport plan is happening in Kristiansand (Norway). The EMW-campaign is integrated into a transport project which coordinates the transport management between all the municipalities in the region of Kristiansand. In this so-called ATP-project the EMW-week is indirectly approved by the politicians and the project leaders decide on how to spend the budget. In this way there is a continuation from year to year as well as a chance to highlight important mobility measures during one week every year.

Strategies other than transport plans are also used as a framework; in Orleans (France), the actions of EMW fit into their Green Commuter Plan which in turn is a part of the local Agenda 21 programme. All actions of the EMW originate from the Agenda 21 strategy, covering different angles related to sustainable development. In Bühl (Germany), they have a public relation strategy with kindergartens, schools and shop owners where travel awareness campaigns are a part. The city of Bühl is also a member of the Climate Alliance: the EMW is congruent with the target of public relation for measures against global warming. The politicians decided to join the initiative as recommended by the Climate Alliance. An interesting and promising case is Zilina (Slovakia); during the first edition of the EMW some problems like congestion, were pointed out and a discussion between politicians and citizens started. This has led to a general transport plan being under preparation for the city.

Another interesting finding is that the EMW leads to the start-up of projects. Instead of including the EMW campaign in a strategy, the EMW and its activities are the framework for the work during the coming year. This way of working is especially used in Network countries; in Reykjavik (Iceland), the EMW works like a start-up for a project, and to start a debate on an issue in the city. Also in Vilnius (Lithuania) this strategy is used, information form citizens gathered during the campaign is used by decision makers to put priority on measures to execute in the future.

There is a clear tendency of having a strategy and the experience of participation: from the third year of participation, 70% of the cities have included the campaign into their overall strategy and 20% use the strategy of “Campaign leads to projects”.

The ways of integrating the measures and activities are mostly related to the promotion of new measures, two thirds of the cities say they try to coordinate the EMW with the inauguration of a new bus-line or bicycle lane,

page 28 / 44

start-up of a new measure or highlight existing projects that have been finished over the last year. The most important arguments used are:

Promoting measures

Inaugurate measures

Start-up of measures

Highlight existing measures

Experiment planned measures

Start debates and consult citizens

Show benefits of measures

Promote sustainability

An interesting case is happening in Copenhagen (Denmark); they use the week for making full scale experiments of measures they plan to execute. All activities they introduce during the campaign week are thought of as being permanent measures. If the success is low, they try to learn from the experiment and introduce changes. The reasons of implementation for policy makers, and the arguments used for citizens are based on the measure being a permanent action.

3.3.2The importance of media

Media is fundamental for campaigns in general, and also for campaigning the campaign, however in a slightly different way. When analysing the interviews, it was clear that many of the persons interviewed didn’t refer to the kind of media they use to convince policy makers and stakeholders, but the media they use in general to make publicity for the EMW-campaign. In this case, media is more used as an argument to make stakeholders interested in the event rather than as a medium to convince them.

One way this was demonstrated, was that one third of the people interviewed responsible for the EMW-campaign stated that the politicians play an active role during the EMW-week. This is a way to get personal publicity in media and for them to show their interest in the subject to citizens.

With regards to the media used during the campaign; newspapers and print media are the most used and also what policy makers are most in favour of. In second place they prefer TV. Media is seen as an important opinion maker, why it’s essential to have them on “your side”. If media has a negative attitude towards a measure or an action, there’s a risk that the citizens also become negative and the policy makers and stakeholders in turn become less keen on investing in those measures or the whole concept the measure is promoting.

It’s notable that radio isn’t used for publicity in cities larger than 200.000 inhabitants. Newspapers and TV, on the other hand, are used by all sizes of cities at the same extent.

3.3.3Barriers and solutions

Every city has their specific problems to solve in order to organise such an event as the EMW-campaign. Depending on the organisational structure of the city, the interest of key decision makers, traditions, size of the city and many other factors, it is more or less easy to arrange the campaign. However, there are some barriers that are more common than others and that have been interpreted as more important for the success of campaigning the campaign.

page 29 / 44

The most important barrier to overcome is related to the lack of resources; either economical or personal. It’s a normal situation for the campaign organisers to have to negotiate year after year the budget available for the campaign activities or organise the campaign on top of their ordinary work. As a solution different strategies have been developed; everything from organising smaller events ,to look for sponsors and give stakeholders space in media. An effective argument, used in for example Zilina (Slovakia), is to show success from previous years.

The second most important barrier is media. Media is tremendously effective in creating opinion, being positive or negative, and an opinion created, even if it was years ago, can be hard to get rid of. It’s also a fact that decision makers are usually very careful of creating negative publicity, that is why controversial issues are being avoided. An example can be found in closing large areas from car traffic; it’s a controversial action which can be turned into a positive or negative measure depending on how the media portrays it. This has been the case in several cities, especially during the first year of EMW participation, and to change the opinion can be a troublesome work.

Even if it might be difficult to change a negative attitude from the media, there are several possibilities to continue with a campaign:

Change the action that was met with scepticism to another, if possible that reaches people directly, e.g. through a competition.

Start with a small scale action, e.g. a small car restricted area, and increase it from year to year.

Organise non-motorised activities on the streets to change focus from a measure that could have negative impact and stressing the positive impacts that measure will have.

Show the planning of the campaign for media before it’s implemented so they feel they are participating in the organisation.

Another problematic aspect related to media, is to make the message heard. At present there are so many events and campaigns going on that neither policy makers nor citizens take any notice of them. A good solution is to be well prepared and ahead of planning. Most likely a campaign framework for travel awareness campaigns could be of good use to enhance the importance of this subject.

Media is also a key factor when it comes to another barrier; pressure from different interest groups like the chamber of commerce or car lobby groups. They are often powerful organisations with a lot of say at local level. If these groups (and others) are participating in the planning of the campaign they will probably be more positive to the implementation.

A last aspect that should be highlighted is the change of governance in a municipality or the change of a councillor. There are cases were the political party taking over the power has been unwilling to also take over decisions taken by the former term of office. Or the new councillor does not give priority to travel awareness and sustainable mobility.

On the basis of the provided answers, it is important to remark that the awareness raising process is an ongoing and continuous process to be implemented each year. It is a never-ending process to obtain the budget needed to launch a travel awareness campaign.

page 30 / 44

4 Conclusions

The conclusions are structured around six chapters in order to highlight all aspects in a clear way: a general summary of the findings, success factors, cultural differences, differences in experience of the city, transferability and recommendations.

The relationship with the investigation of campaigning the campaign and the design framework of how to make a travel awareness campaign, developed in parallel with this report lie primarily on the first phase of the design chart; the planning phase, although it also guards important relations with the Implementation phase and the post-campaign phase. However, the nature of campaigning the campaign being a “pre-stage” of the actual campaign structure makes it more appropriate for the planning phase.

4.1 Summary of findings

As in the main part of the report, the summary of findings have been divided into the three main parts of the investigation; organisation, awareness raising process and supportive factors.

Organisation

The most common initiators are departments of environment and/or transport on national or local level. These departments are also the most common organisers. An interesting finding in some countries is the partnership between the local administration and a local NGO, sharing the organisation of the campaign week.

The most important policy makers to convince are the Mayor and the City Council. They are the one’s that make decisions on budget allocations, and thus, decide on whether to participate or not.

The most valuable participants during the week come from municipal dependencies; such as the local police, schools and the local public transport companies. Other participations could be local associations like NGOs or sports clubs.

The main motivation for external companies and organisations to participate is to get publicity, gain new customers and to get related to a certain image –in this case a green image.

Awareness raising process

Three major strategies to convince local stakeholders have been identified; bottom-up, top-down and personal approach on the same level. Depending on the characteristics of the city and its situation one strategy or a combination should be used.

Personal contacts and direct meetings with decision makers are important to convince them. However, some cities state that it’s important to combine various actions to succeed in persuadeing a stakeholder. In order to secure the interest a good action is to make the policy makers participate actively in the campaign or event.

The most used arguments are related to environmental aspects and to be part of a European project, which gives the opportunity to exchange ideas between cities.

A combination between rational and emotional approach is the most used tone of message as well as sending a positive image. More than half of the cities think that the message should be based on an environmental and health approach to be more successful.

page 31 / 44

The three most valuable message givers are: citizens and lobby groups, experts on transport and environmental issues, and mayors and councillors from other cities. Depending on the nature of the message or the type of stakeholder one or another message giver should be used.

Supportive factors

The EMW seems to lead to the preparation of a general framework, such as a transport plan, and to the start-up of projects. Ways of integration of the campaign is by the inauguration of new measures, start-up of special actions and to high-light existing projects.

Decision makers are most in favour of newspapers and print media to make publicity. However, media is not used as a way to campaign the campaign, but more as an argument to convince policy makers to participate.

The most important barriers are the lack of resources (human and economical), negative media, pressure from interest groups and change of governance.

4.2 Success factors

Several success factors have been detected after making the detailed analysis of the interviews, the most important are listed below:

The support from national and/or regional administrations gives the travel awareness campaign a more legal basis. This is a fact that can be used as an argument in the awareness raising process, and that usually is of high interest for the Mayor and City Council. If the campaign is a European initiative, on the other hand, the country’s specific characteristics have to be taken into account. Using the European initiative as an argument could have contrary effects.

It is an advantage to have a network of local associations and companies that are interested in participating in municipal events. This way the city administration has a closer relationship to the citizens which can solve possible barriers before they appear. Those cities considering local citizens groups important often have a very strong collaboration with them. Partnerships between the local administration and a local NGO should also be studied, as this has been a successful strategy in many countries in e.g. East Europe.

An important argument to use is the success of previous editions of a campaign. The policy makers want to know what the benefits of the implementation are and judge the importance on that basis.

The experience from cities with large experience in the EMW is that a general transport plan or Agenda 21 framework increases the success of measures implemented during the EMW-week. The policy makers and citizens see a meaning and continuation with the many actions. It is also easier to implement coherent permanent measures if there is a strategy behind them–which in turn leads to greater effects of the actions.

It’s very important that media have a positive attitude towards a campaign and the measures implemented in the campaign. They are an important opinion maker and can change success to failure in a short time. Therefore close relationships should be made with media from the beginning to avoid negative impact.

4.3 Cultural differences

Although the general summary of findings and the success factors described above, in general can be used in all countries and for all types of cities, a summary of the cultural differences and differences in experience have been elaborated. These findings should all be interpreted with caution, as every city is different from another even within a cultural group.

page 32 / 44

Solar System

Solar System countries are characterised by using a quite strict top-down approach, where the Ministry or Regional department takes the initiative and transfers it to the local level. The most important contact person is the Mayor or a councillor who in turn assigns a civil servant to organise and carry out the campaign. Most important actions to convince stakeholders are with forums and meetings targeted at national or local levels, where everyone can participate and be informed. Publicity is a commonly used argument, with emphasis on economical aspects related to the environment.

Pyramid

In the Pyramid countries there is a tendency to use a bottom-up approach when trying to convince the policy makers, however with quite diverse results among the countries. The actions should be followed by publicity coverage and media promotion, using arguments with a focus on the benefits of being part of a European project and share experiences with other cities. The normal tone of message is to highlight health and safety issues and the message giver should be an expert or citizens groups.

Contest

Also in Contest countries the tendency is to use a bottom-up strategy, probably because of the policy of the supporting national departments in UK and Ireland of not to promote the initiative, but that it should be an initiative from the city itself. In order to engage the interest of a policy maker or stakeholder presentations on previous editions and meetings and on the national framework should be highlighted. As in Solar System countries messages based on economical aspects related to the environment works best.

Machine

In Machine countries it’s important to show results from previous editions of a campaign, the best way is in a meeting with the decision makers. Previous success should be highlighted and transferred to environmental benefits. The most trusted message givers are mayors and councillors from other cities with large experience.

Network

Most effective actions to use in Network countries seem to be workshops and discussion panels, exposing arguments connected to the environment. If a message needs to be highlighted it should be given by someone without connection to the city. Another argument to take into account is to be part of a European project.

4.4 Differences in experience

A few differences have been detected when it comes to experience in, first of all organising the EMW, but also in implementing travel awareness measures and actions. The analysis has shown that the longer the experience the more important is the publicity of the event. Many cities with experience in the EMW-campaign for 5-6 years highlight the importance of having good relations with media and an extensive coverage of the campaign in order for it to be successful.

Another interesting finding, (not verified, but a commanlity in the interview data) is that cities with longer experience put more emphasis on an emotional approach of the messages. There is still a combination between rational and emotional aspects, but the emotional part becomes more important.

Regarding the message giver, there is a logical development. Cities with shorter experience tend to trust experts and representatives from other experienced cities to convince there own policy makers and stakeholders. On the other hand those with longer experience listen more to the opinions of citizens and lobby groups.

page 33 / 44

4.5 Transferability

Transferability is a key question for the research in the Max-project, and this research area is not an exception. The kind of research that has been undertaken has made it possible to evaluate in a rather good way the possibilities to transfer an idea from one country or city to another. The EMW-campaign itself has been successful in many different countries and specific conditions. This is proof that the kind of framework provided on European level can be adopted by partners all over Europe.

The national EMW-coordinators were asked about adaptations that are necessary to make from the original European framework, and most of them stated that apart from translation of the material, some changes had been done to adapt information material to national and local conditions. Continually best case practices from their own country are included in handbooks and other information material and in some countries recommendations are given on how to implement best cases from other countries.

The recommendations based on cultural characteristics in the previous chapter could serve as a guide of transferability for campaigning the campaign.

4.6 Recommendations for campaigning the campaign

As a concluding chapter the following recommendations for campaigning the campaign regarding travel awareness are given:

Integrate the TA-campaign in a general transport plan. If TA-campaigns are a part of the general transport plan the whole process of campaigning the campaign will be easier. The campaign will be better justified, there might already be some budget for campaigns, the framework gives a support on the purpose of the campaign, the campaign can be linked to a special action, the evaluation can be more effective and there are higher possibilities for a continuation of the TA-campaign.

Create a network of local associations that participate and support the campaign. It has been shown that the participation of local associations and companies have a positive effect on the citizens. The opinion of citizens is important for the decision makers and if positive they might spend more resources on TA-campaigns.

Work on the relations with media. Good relations with media augment the possibility of success. If media cover the campaign, there are better chances that it has an effect on the citizens and thus, the objective of the campaign might be met. Good media relations are also important for the campaigning the campaign process as stakeholders are interested in getting publicity. Many aspects seen as barriers can be solved with good media relations.

Give stakeholders space in media. When launching a campaign space should be given in media to all participating stakeholders. This is a strong argument when convincing them to organise an event or campaign.

Evaluate the campaigning the campaign process as well as the campaign itself. This is vital for the continuity of the campaign as the decision makers need results in order to decide on future campaigns. A good evaluation means that the organiser can learn from mistakes and make the campaign more effective and reach even better results.

Show best practices or results from previous editions. This is one of the most effective arguments to convince decision makers to organise a TA-campaign and stakeholders to take part in it.

Don’t forget that campaigning the campaign is a never-ending process. The importance shouldn’t be underestimated and every year or launching of a campaign is a new battle.

page 34 / 44

Anyone can take the initiative. The most important thing is that the person/group responsible for the campaign believes in the objective and doesn’t surrender at the first difficulty. An active organiser often leads to better results even if the City Council has given their approval.

page 35 / 44

5 References

Website European mobility week: online available – last access 12.03.2009: http://www.mobilityweek.eu/-Participating-

Website European mobility week: online available – last access 12.03.2009: http://www.mobilityweek.eu/-Coordinator-

Itim International (2005): Intercultural competences: Turning global strategy into tangible reality.

Itim International (2007) 5-D pocket guide, Country scores and definitions.

page 36 / 44

6 Annexes

6.1 Annex 1-Checklist for personal expert interviews with local EMW-coordinators

Questions regarding the organisation of the EMW-campaign.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Country name: Regional spread8:

City name: Number of inhabitants:

EMW-experience9:

Organisational type10 of local EMW-co-ordinator (campaign leader):

Local EMW-co-ordinator (campaign leader):

o Person name:

o Person role:

o Organization:

o Telephone number:

o E-mail address:

EMW-campaign information

o EMW-campaign targets:

o EMW-campaign activities:

o EMW-campaign results:

TF2 - KEY RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Question 1): Who launched the idea to participate at EMW?

(e.g. NGO, a group of NGO’s, the city administration itself - which department -, a local political party)

Question 2): Did the initiative come from environmental organizations, city mobility department, health department, culture organizations, mobility management associations, other?

8 North-Western EU-countries, Western-Central EU-countries, South-Western EU-countries, Eastern EU-countries and Accession countries9 Number of times of participating at EMW-campaign10 NGO, city administration, local transport agency, local energy agency, etc.

page 37 / 44

Question 3): Who organized the EMW? NGO(s) or city administration (e.g. planning, contacting partners, stakeholders, decides on themes, actions, takes up day-to-day coordination, etc.)

Question 4): Who participated at the EMW?

(e.g. NGO, city mobility department, local public transport operators, etc.)

Question 5): Which types of local policy makers and stakeholders had to be convinced to participate and organize the European Mobility Week (EMW)? If they are more than one type, please rank them according to importance

(e.g. 1. city mayor, 2. transport councillor (or city councillors in general), 3. director of urban mobility department, 4. director of financial department of city government, 5. director of local public transport, etc, 6. alderman responsible for mobility, environment, etc.)

Question 6): Which is the key policy maker or stakeholder who finally decided to join (participate) in the EMW? If more than one, please rank them according to importance.

Question 7): What process/strategy was followed to convince them? Is there a kind of strategy used? (e.g. bottom up/top down)

Question 8): Which arguments were used to convince these key policy makers and stakeholders to participate and organize the EMW?

(e.g. EMW is an opportunity to spread local sustainable mobility initiatives among citizens, EMW allows to enter in EU cities network, EMW allows to share experiences in the field of sustainable mobility with other EU cities, EMW is an opportunity to communicate the start-up of new public transport services, participating at EMW provides a good opportunity to gain votes in the local elections, etc.)

Question 9): Were specific actions to raise their awareness on the importance on participating to EMW implemented? If they are more than one action, please list them starting from the oldest (in terms of time) and indicate for each action both type of policy makers/stakeholders involved and who organized this particular action.

(e.g. invite city councillors to a local/national/international workshop on sustainable mobility, organize a meeting to provide aldermen information on experiences of other EU cities participating to EMW, organize a technical visit to a EMW-city to show director of urban mobility department some best practices, etc.)

Question 10): How long time did the awareness raising process take?

(e.g. 1-2 years, 6 months, etc.)

page 38 / 44

Question 11): Please rank the implemented actions according to their importance for the success of the awareness raising process (from the most important-successful action to the less important-successful one).

Question 12): Among the implemented actions, please indicate the “key actions” which really worked guaranteeing the success of the awareness raising process.

Question 13): Did you look for companies and organisations to support the EMW? If yes, what sectors/types of organizations have supported and/or sponsored EMW-campaign? Please indicate actual role of each organization.

(e.g. financial supporting, logistic supporting, taking part in the planning of the EMW-activities, taking part in the implementation of the EMW-activities, etc.)

Question 14): What is motivation of these organizations to participate to the EMW? Did they have an influence on the campaign design/results?

(e.g. increase people using public transport services, reduce traffic congestion, reduce air pollution coming from road traffic, sell low emission vehicles, increase turnover of tradesmen guaranteeing more accessibility to city centre by implementation of mobility management measures, etc.)

Question 15): Were the activities implemented during EMW-campaign integrated in the overall local transport strategy which includes physical and/or fiscal interventions? Yes/no, explain

(e.g. build transport infrastructures, start-up new public transport services, investments in new zero-emission buses, definition of a new urban mobility plan, etc.)

Question 16): If yes, please indicate how these EMW-activities were integrated in the overall local transport strategy? (e.g. organizing a public conference targeted to the general public for presenting a new public transport service, organizing a public conference targeted to stakeholders for presenting a new urban mobility plan, etc.)

Question 17): What do you think that works best to convince local key policy makers and stakeholders to participate and organize the EMW? Please make your choices and indicate reasons of these choices.

1. Emotional arguments – rational arguments – both of them

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

2. Positive tone of message (e.g. street for the people, celebration in the streets, etc.) – negative tone of message (e.g. less votes in the local elections, etc.) – both of them

page 39 / 44

……………………………………………………………………………………………….

3. Health-based arguments – environment-based arguments – congestion-based arguments – economy-based arguments - other

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Question 18): What types of media were mostly used to convince local key policy makers and stakeholders to participate and organize the EMW? What types of media (better PR) were local politicians most in favour of? What about other local stakeholders?

(e.g. TV, radio, Internet, print media, networking, a mass event, etc.)

Question 19): Have you met any barriers to convince local policy makers and stakeholders to organize the EMW? If yes, please describe them.

(e.g. a sponsor decided to withdraw, the participation of one stakeholder prevented the participation of others, conditions of some stakeholders were so tough that you had to adapt (part of) the campaign programme, conflicting stakes, etc.)

Question 20): In case you met barriers, please indicate how you solved these barriers.

Additional questions regarding sustainable transport campaigns in general

Question 21): From your experience, which types of policy makers and stakeholders decide on the budget/resources for sustainable transport campaigns at city level? If they are more than one type, please rank them according to their importance in the decisional process.

Question 22): From your experience, which arguments should be used to persuade local policy makers and stakeholders to implement sustainable mobility campaigns in their cities?

(e.g. importance of sustainable transport campaigns to change unsustainable transport behaviour improving quality of life in cities, importance of the integration of travel awareness campaigns in overall urban transport strategy, importance of sustainable transport campaigns to increase people using public transport services, importance of implementing sustainable transport campaigns to get votes, etc.)

Question 23): From your experience, what (and why) sectors/types of organizations are interested to invest in sustainable transport campaigns?

Question 24): For your experience, which types of messages work best to convince policy makers and stakeholders to implement travel awareness campaigns?

page 40 / 44

(e.g. rational arguments, emotional arguments, positive tone of message, environment-based arguments, etc.)

Question 25): What is the best message giver to convince policy makers in investing in awareness raising actions?

(e.g. local expert in marketing, expert in transport, local pressure group, (colleague) mayor from another city, politician from the same political party, personal private friend, group of citizens, etc.)

Question 26): For your experience, which types of media work best to convince policy makers and stakeholders to implement travel awareness campaigns? What types of media (better PR) were local politicians most in favour of? (e.g. TV, radio, Internet, print media, networking, etc.) What types of PR do decision makers like most?

page 41 / 44

6.2 Annex 2-Introductory text for personal expert interviews

Soft transport measures such as travel awareness raising campaigns, communication and information play an important role in making the urban transport system more sustainable. These measures usually do not ask large investments and can be started up and implemented in a relatively short time. In practice however, we see that policy makers are not always keen on investing in soft measures. They do not believe in the added value of communication next to infrastructural (roads, bike paths, a new tramline) or fiscal measures.

Having said this, how can policy makers and stakeholders be convinced to invest in soft transport measures (such as travel awareness campaigns) to make their transport system more sustainable (so-called “campaigning-the-campaign” approach)? To answer this question, we phrased several research questions, which you can find in attachment.

Within MAX, an ongoing European project on Mobility Management (MM) and Travel Awareness (TA) within the 6th framework, this question is investigated more in depth. For more information on MAX, we refer to http://www.max-success.eu/.

More concretely, we plan to have 40 depth interviews with local campaign leaders of cities spread all over Europe. All 40 cities within the sample have in common that they organized the European Mobility Week-campaign at least once in the past two years. EUROCITIES provided us with the contact details of the city’s local EMW-coordinators. They also provided some background information (from the online registration form) on the details of the campaigns conducted in each city.

Your city was selected as one of the 40 European EMW-cities. We would very much appreciate it if you could provide us information on how you managed to persuade the local policy makers to organise the EMW as an example of a soft measure. Therefore we would like to have a telephone interview with you on this issue during the next weeks. The interview follows a topic list and would take approx. 30 minutes of your time. You can find this topic list in attachment in both English and Spanish according to your preferences.

All information we collect by these interviews will be used only within the scope of the MAX project and will be analysed anonymously.

If it suits you, we will call you within the next week to provide more details. At that time we can set an appointment for the interview.

Thank you very much in advance for your participation.

On behalf of the MAX-team,

page 42 / 44

6.3 Annex 3-List of local EMW-co-ordinators interviewed

page 43 / 44

6.4 Annex 4-List of national EMW-co-ordinators interviewed

page 44 / 44