Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 1309–1319

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Transport Geography

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate / j t rangeo

Public participation in municipal transport planning processes – the caseof the sustainable mobility plan of Ponta Delgada, Azores, Portugal

Artur Gil a,1, Helena Calado b,1, Julia Bentz b,⇑,1

a CITA-A (Azorean Biodiversity Group), Department of Biology, University of Azores, Rua Mãe de Deus, 9501-801 Ponta Delgada, Portugalb CIBIO – Research Centre in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources (Azores Unit), University of Azores, Rua Mãe de Deus, 9501-801 Ponta Delgada, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords:Stakeholder participationSustainabilitySmall citiesSmall islands

0966-6923/$ - see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.06.010

⇑ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: arturgil@uac.pt (A. Gil), calado@

uac.pt (J. Bentz).1 Tel.: +351 296650479; fax: +351 296650100.

a b s t r a c t

Public participation in transport planning is a recent trend. There is an increasing number of cases inEurope where the public is involved in the decision-making process. In Portugal, where the use of a motorvehicle as a means of transportation still enjoys a deep approval in the society, a participatory approach isan opportunity to change perceptions towards more sustainable transport modes. In Ponta Delgada(Archipelago of the Azores), for the first time in Portugal, the relevant stakeholders were involved inthe development process of a sustainable mobility plan. It proved that, on a participatory basis, sustain-able transport planning provides more satisfactory and efficient solutions. This paper presents the meth-odology and results of a participative transport management planning model. This model can be adaptedto the specific needs and problems of other small island cities.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Mobility can be seen as a basic human activity, as it results fromthe need to reach various activities such as work, leisure, personaland household management. In the current environment of rapidglobal change, the role of transportation and mobility has becomeespecially important (Banister, 2008; van Wee, 2002). Effective andreliable transport systems are crucial for the functioning of post-industrial economies, yet the current transport systems generatesignificant negative externalities like air pollution, noise, energyconsumption, emission of greenhouse gases and the loss of openspace (Kahn Ribeiro et al., 2007; Friedl and Steininger, 2002).

Ensuring progress towards a more sustainable development is apolitical priority in European Union (EU) and many other countries.As shown in several environmental reports, the transport sector isa significant and growing contributor to CO2 emissions accountingfor 26% of the CO2 emissions in Europe. It is highly dependent onfossil fuels (98%) and is responsible for 60% of total oil consump-tion (Woodcock et al., 2007).

1.1. Small island territories

Research on transport, and particularly sustainable transport insmall islands, is relatively scarce (Enoch and Warren, 2008; Attard,

ll rights reserved.

uac.pt (H. Calado), jbentz@

2005; Enoch, 2003). However, the specific characteristics of smallislands require a sophisticated approach to transport planning tocope with local conditions.

Small islands, in general, have similar and unique characteris-tics in terms of their economics, social, culture, geography, climateand environment. The most obvious limitations for small islandsare their geographic parameters of smallness, remoteness and iso-lation, and often an outward-looking economic orientation. Smallislands are, therefore, considered as closed systems (Calado et al.,2007). Small islands typically have limited natural resources, lim-ited capacity in terms of production, high costs in accessing exter-nal goods, high costs of external transport, and general economicdependence from external supply. These factors, when coupledwith rapid population changes, can impede economic develop-ment. The limited availability of natural resources such as water,soil, air, shore systems and wildlife also dictate the capacity of anisland to embrace sustainable development. Their overexploitationcan result in damages of the whole insular ecosystem, which canbe irreversible due to the low capacity of closed ecosystems torecover. Therefore, remoteness, isolation, smallness and closedecosystems make planning and management on small islandsmore challenging, in scientific and technical terms (Calado et al.,2007).

1.2. The Azores islands

The Azores archipelago is located in the North Atlantic, ca.1430 km from Lisbon and 3900 km from the east coast of NorthAmerica. The archipelago consists of nine islands of volcanic origin,

Fig. 1. The Azores Archipelago (CIGPT, UA, 2009).

1310 A. Gil et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 1309–1319

located between 37–40�N and 25–31�W (Fig. 1). Due to their geo-graphic distribution, the islands are divided into three groups: theWestern Group (Flores and Corvo), the Central Group (Pico, Faial,São Jorge, Graciosa and Terceira) and the Eastern Group (São Mig-uel and Santa Maria).

Due to its geographic isolation, the Azores archipelago is con-sidered as an outermost region in Europe, together with Madeira,Canaries, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Reunion, and French Guiana.Portugal, including its autonomous regions (Azores and Madeira),had access to structural funding from the European Commission(EC) since 1986. This subsidy contributed significantly to Portu-guese infrastructure, education, new technologies, and grossdomestic product (GDP) growth rate (Baer and Nogueira Leite,2003). However, rapidly growing car ownership and related prob-lems of congestion and air-pollution have notable side-effects.Consequently, greenhouse gas emissions have multiplied over thelast few years (APA, 2009).

1.3. Study drivers

To promote the reduction of negative environmental and healthimpacts of the Portuguese municipal transport systems, the Portu-guese Environmental Agency (Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente;APA) with the Ministries of Environment, Spatial Planning andRegional Development, Construction, Transport and InternalAdministration, created the Sustainable Mobility national pro-gramme. In order to develop balanced and sustainable solutionsto address existing mobility issues, 15 universities and researchcentres participated in this initiative to develop and implementsustainable mobility plans (SMP) for 40 selected Portuguesemunicipalities. Ponta Delgada (S. Miguel Island, Archipelago ofthe Azores) was the only selected municipality that is located in

the Azores and Madeira autonomous regions. This case was desig-nated as an outstanding case study model for good practises due tothe involvement of all relevant stakeholders in the SMP develop-ment process (APA, 2010).

The 40 case-studies were developed using different approachesdetermined by the location, dimension, urban and socio-economicframework of each city. This paper analyses only the methodolog-ical approach and results obtained from the Ponta Delgadacase-study’s development. Being an island based case-study, itsapproach and outcomes can be considered as applicable to othercities in small islands. Furthermore, small cities on the Portuguesemainland with similar dimension and urban structure as PontaDelgada could also benefit from this experience by applying coreprocedures.

The general goal of this project was to present an integrated andsustainable proposal based on stakeholder involvement to addressthe most relevant and complex mobility issues in a small islandcity. The specific objectives were to collect information forimproved decision-making (1); to conduct a participatory process(2); and to develop a management tool (3).

Section 2 of this paper will review the literature on participa-tory planning techniques. Section 3 will set out the methods forthe participatory SMP development. Section 4 will discuss theresults and Section 5 will present the challenges and recommen-dations.

2. A review on participatory transport planning

2.1. Achieving sustainable mobility

There is growing awareness that the positive effects of mobilityare offset by negative externalities such as environmental

A. Gil et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 1309–1319 1311

pollution, traffic congestion (or lack of accessibility), and high acci-dent rates. Current trends on transport indicate that the system ismoving away from sustainability, and that major changes are nec-essary to make the transport system more compatible with envi-ronmental sustainability (Banister et al., 2000).

There is no single universally accepted definition for sustainabletransport. A technique increasingly used is to frame the concept byproposing principles and desirable attitudes of a sustainable trans-port system: liveable streets and neighbourhoods, environmentprotection, equity and social inclusion, health and safety, and sup-port of an efficient economy (Castillo and Pitfield, 2010). Sustain-able mobility is an important part of the concept of sustainabledevelopment which requires all sectors of society to stay withinsustainability levels (Banister et al., 2000). According to Friedland Steininger (2002), a sustainable transport system should beone that allows basic access needs and development of individuals,companies and societies to be met safely and in a manner consis-tent with human and ecosystem health. It should also promoteequity within and between generations, be affordable, operate effi-ciently, and limit emissions, waste, and noise.

To achieve sustainable mobility actions, it is necessary to reducetravel needs, reduce trip lengths, encourage greater efficiency inthe transport system and promote slow modes (Banister, 2008).Consequently, sustainable mobility would offer improvements toindividual health, as well as a cleaner and healthier environment(Woodcock et al., 2007). Implementing sustainable mobility differsfrom the conventional transport planning approach: car use can bereduced through the promotion of walking and cycling, and thedevelopment of a new transport hierarchy. This can be achievedby slowing down urban traffic and redistributing space for publictransport, by parking controls and road pricing. In the sustainablemobility approach, a street is no longer seen as a simple road forcars but also a space for people, for green modes and for publictransport (Banister, 2008).

Many people are highly dependent on car travel. The car repre-sents far more than just a means of transportation. Motives such asthe sense of freedom, status and superiority seem to play a role.Therefore, policies that tend to reduce private transport need tobe combined with ones that provide alternatives to car driving(Beirão and Sarsfield Cabral, 2007). Such policies might involvean improvement of the public transport service and the promotionof cycling and walking. Furthermore, it may be necessary to pro-mote measures to reduce the attractiveness of the car. In theAzores, transport planning is generally executed through the con-ventional approach. However, some of the aspects of sustainablemobility approach, such as environmental concerns, are currentlygaining popularity.

2.2. The public participation concept

The term integrated transport planning is often used to respondto new requirements on transport planning (Hull, 2005; Pember-ton, 2000). It aims to integrate different modes of transport, differ-ent land-uses, and to make transport policies consistent withquality objectives of the environment, health, economy and societyin general. It also implies integration of all social groups and coop-eration amongst all relevant institutions and policymakers (Santoset al., 2010). There is a growing support for enlarging the scope to apublic discourse and empowering the stakeholders through aninteractive and participatory process of transport planning.

Public participation is widely interpreted as involvement indecision-making with the purpose of influencing the choice(s)being made (O’Faircheallaigh, 2010). Nearly 40 years ago, Arnstein(1971) stated that participation was concerned with the redistribu-tion of power, where those normally excluded from the process ofdecision-making had the opportunity to be involved. She also was

critical that participation degenerated to an empty concept when itwas dealing with uncomfortable topics. In many countries (such asthe Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Sweden), the right topublic participation is incorporated into the law. Still, there aremany possible interpretations of this term. A key issue, of course,is the nature of involvement.

Differences can result between modes of consultation – wherelocal authorities receive suggestion and criticism, but can simplyreject the ones they think are inappropriate or irrelevant – and par-ticipation where there is a certain degree of redistribution of power.Real participation implies at least full partnership, or potentially,full control by the participants involved. According to Bickerstaffet al. (2002), effective participation can be achieved by six guidingprinciples: being inclusive, open, interactive, continuous, beginearly in the process, and with effective feedback of participants.Over the years, there has been a shift from very limited levels ofparticipation to broader levels. Higher levels of participation,which can be designated as two-way dialogues, have several ben-efits over one-way processes. Local communities can provide valu-able information for the authorities, thus leading to a wider rangeof possible solutions (Renn, 2006). Further, an active involvementof the relevant stakeholders can help avoid future conflicts as itcreates a sense of ownership (Gil et al., 2011). In decision-makingprocesses, where people have the possibility to participate actively,they feel more committed and responsible for the consequences ofthe process, thereby guaranteeing a better implementation. Fur-thermore, public participation strengthens the democratic fabricof a society and can act as a vehicle for individual and communityempowerment (Reed, 2008; O’Faircheallaigh, 2010).

All these principles for public participation can be applied tostakeholder participation. This article focuses on stakeholder par-ticipation rather than public participation, and defines stakehold-ers as those who are affected or can affect a decision. Thisdefinition includes individuals, groups or organizations whichare, in one way or another, interested, involved or affected (posi-tively or negatively) by a particular project or action (Freeman,1984).

2.3. Stakeholder involvement and sustainable transportation planningprocess

Transport policy has become a multi-agent, multi-sector andmulti-modal process which must balance and engage with awide-range of interests, issues and policy areas (Booth andRichardson, 2001). It is facing difficult challenges (such as environ-mental pollution or social cohesion) but is also creating newopportunities for public involvement. Initiatives such as LocalAgenda 21 encouraged a greater use of partnerships betweengovernmental agencies and the public. As a result, there has beena movement towards the development of more inclusive and moreparticipatory decision-making processes (Booth and Richardson,2001).

While it is already a common practise to involve stakeholdersand the public in other policy areas, it is a recent trend in transportplanning. In the EU, stakeholders and public involvement intransportation planning has been promoted largely through envi-ronmental legislation. Milestones in this process include Directive2001/42/EC on the Strategic Environmental Assessment of Plansand Programmes, and the International Convention on Access toEnvironmental Information, Public Participation in EnvironmentalDecision-making and Access to Justice – Aarhus Convention(2001). On the one hand, sustainable mobility is a controversialtopic as the ideals of the European integration and EU cohesionhave long demanded freer and inexpensive movement of people,goods and services (Hall, 2010). On the other hand, studies revealthat the majority of European citizens are increasingly concerned

1312 A. Gil et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 1309–1319

about transport and urban issues. Issues such as sustainable devel-opment and climate change are demonstrating growing promi-nence (Stead, 2008) as well as support for environmentallyfriendly modes (Banister, 2008). There has been a remarkable shiftto more integrated transport planning within the EU. Sustainabilitywas first mentioned in connection with transportation in the 1992White Paper ‘‘The Future Development of the Common TransportPolicy’’. This document indicated the objectives for environmentalsustainability and social cohesion and recognized the environmen-tal impacts resulting from transport, particularly with regards toits contribution towards rapid increase in greenhouse gas emis-sions. Though, major criticism on the document was the failureto clearly define sustainable mobility. Ten years later, in 2002,the White Paper ‘‘European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to De-cide’’, was more explicit, recognizing the need to reduce trafficgrowth and its negative consequences, especially pollution andcongestion. The White Paper states that this can only be achievedby a package of measures (Stead, 2008). Special attention was thusgiven to urban transport planning. In order to promote sustainablemobility, the EC strongly recommends local authorities to developand implement Sustainable Urban Transport Plans (SUTPs) due tothe fact that they ensure long-term planning for urban transportdevelopment. Furthermore, SUTP entails a system of regularreporting and monitoring, and provides a framework tool-box tofacilitate the definition of measurable objectives and quality crite-ria. To ensure a better outcome, the EC encourages cities to engagein a constant and continuous dialogue with all relevant stakehold-ers, from citizens to private operators, in the development phase ofthe SUTP (EC, 2005). There is a growing recognition that sustain-able transportation can be reached more easily by involving all rel-evant stakeholders.

Fig. 2. Area of the Ponta Delgada cit

Although progress has been made, transport planning continuesto be perceived as an elitist process in many cases. According toBooth and Richardson (2001), transport planning is still character-ized as democratic deficit with top-down participation strategies.Particularly, the involvement of common citizens is limited toinforming and consulting local communities, rather than encour-aging more active participation and partnership in the planningand decision-making process (Bickerstaff et al., 2002).

However, involving the public is a key factor in enhancing achange in the attitude and behaviour of people towards more sus-tainable modes of transport (Banister, 2008). Public acceptabilityis essential for successful implementation of radical change, andmust therefore involve community and stakeholder commitmentin the process of discussion, decision-making and implementation.In order to create public acceptability of sustainable mobility, it isnecessary to explain the need for change in behaviour and convincethe citizens of the importance of their contribution (Banister, 2008).

Some examples of public involvement in transport managementinclude: in Switzerland, where consultation managers were em-ployed to work on an effective forum for participation; in Germany,where transport strategy round tables were held; in France, wherepublic consultation on regional transport plans were initiated; andin the UK, where public acceptability for congestion charging inLondon was achieved through extensive consultation of all involvedparties (Hall, 2010; Bickerstaff et al., 2002; Banister, 2008).

Europeans, especially southern Europeans, rely heavily on pri-vate automobiles to satisfy their mobility needs as public transpor-tation is often inadequate, especially since investments in modernrapid mass transportation has been insufficient for many years(Beirão and Sarsfield Cabral, 2007; EEA, 2009). In Europe, thereare 460 cars per 1000 inhabitants (in 2002), with an average

y case study (CIGPT, UA, 2010).

Fig. 3. Stakeholder participation in the Ponta Delgada SMP development process.

A. Gil et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 1309–1319 1313

annual growth rate of 2.3% over the period of 1995–2002. The totalstock of cars in absolute terms increased from 175.6 million cars inthe year 1995 to more than 210 million cars in 2002, comprising anaverage annual increase of 2.7% (total population in Europe was456.5 million in 2002) (Emberger et al., 2008). This scenario indi-cates that additional efforts on sustainable mobility have to bemade.

3. Proposal for a participatory sustainable mobility plan (SMP)

3.1. The case study area

In Portugal, the involvement of the public in transportationmanagement is a very recent development. There is still very lim-ited experience and literature about this topic. The case study area,Ponta Delgada city, is the capital of the Azores islands archipelago.Ponta Delgada is located in São Miguel island, the largest and mostpopulated of the nine islands, accounting for 133,816 inhabitantsaccording to the Statistical Yearbook of the Azores Region of2008 (SREA, 2009). São Miguel island is divided into six municipal-ities: Ponta Delgada, Ribeira Grande, Lagoa, Vila Franca do Campo,Povoação and Nordeste. Ponta Delgada city is located within themunicipality of Ponta Delgada, the most populated of the Azores,hosting 28% of the Azorean population (282 inhabitants/m2).

Most of the services, businesses and industries are concentratedin Ponta Delgada, making this city the traffic junction of São Mig-uel. The congestion has increased in recent years due to growingnumbers of vehicles in the island. Public transportation is limitedto intercity and city buses (minibuses) and represents 17% of com-muting transport. Private car is the overall dominating means oftransportation, representing around half of all journeys (INE,2002). The case study intervention area includes the urban par-ishes Santa Clara, São José, São Sebastião and São Pedro, and con-siders their interactions with the suburban parishes Relva,Covoada, Arrifes, Fajã de Cima, Fajã de Baixo and São Roque (Fig. 2).

3.2. Sustainable mobility plan

The adopted strategy for the development of the SMP of PontaDelgada was based on two fundamental principles (Fig. 3):

- Involve all the relevant public and private stakeholders that aredirectly or indirectly affected by urban mobility in an economic,social or cultural way.

- Implement strategies that improve accessibility through theunderstanding of daily mobility problems of all citizens and findmore appropriate, effective and realistic solutions.

The SMP of Ponta Delgada was developed in six methodologicalphases (Fig. 4).

3.2.1. Phase 1 – identification and invitation of stakeholdersIn phase 1, the potential stakeholders were identified and for-

mally invited to participate in the development of the SMP. Poten-tial stakeholders included all actors who were directly or indirectlyaffected by mobility in the case-study area, such as local adminis-tration bodies, regional administration bodies, private or publictransportation companies, trade and industrial unions, organiza-tions for disabled people, regional agencies for energy and environ-ment, environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO),school directors, the police, associations for rural development, cit-izen groups, and regional and local research centres anduniversities.

A group of heterogeneous and multi-domain specialized stake-holders was invited to participate in the development of the SMP(Table 1).

3.2.2. Phase 2: definition of the vision, mission and general goals of theplan

In phase 2, the 1st Stakeholder Workshop was organized. To be-gin, each stakeholder or representative presented themselves and

Fig. 4. SMP development phases involving all relevant stakeholders.

Table 1List of stakeholders involved in the development of the sustain-able mobility plan of Ponta Delgada.

Public institutions Private and non-governmentalorganizations

Ponta Delgada City Council Energy and EnvironmentAzores Regional Agency

Ponta Delgada Council – Urbanand Suburban ParishesBoards

Trade and IndustrialUnion of Ponta Delgada

Portuguese Agency forEnvironment

Environmental NGO‘‘Amigos dos Açores’’

Regional Secretary ofEnvironment

Private TransportationCompanies

Regional Secretary of PublicConstruction andTransportation

Portuguese Associationfor Disabled People

Regional Secretary of Economyand Tourism

National PolicePonta Delgada City Primary

and Secondary SchoolBoards

University of the Azores –Land-use Planning ResearchCentre

Technical University of Lisbon– Transport PlanningResearch Centre

University of Porto – UrbanPlanning Research Centre

1314 A. Gil et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 1309–1319

their expectations and objectives. Based on all compiled and pro-cessed data (Fig. 3), a full characterization of the mobility issuesin the study area was provided by the technical staff. In small

working-groups (4–6 persons), randomly formed, three exerciseswere conducted:

(a) Analysis of available information and identification of datagaps to fulfil for the SMP development process.

(b) SWOT analysis or problem-tree of mobility in the case studyarea.

(c) Definition of the vision, the mission and the general goals ofthe SMP.

The results of each working group were presented to the otherparticipants, who discussed and approved them.

(a) It was pointed out that fundamental data was missing.Therefore the technical staff was asked to collect data con-cerning the number of vehicles and passers-by enteringand exiting the city daily at rush hours (Table 2). Vehiclesand pedestrians were counted between 7.30 and10.30 A.M. (peak period) at 13 strategic locations, coveringall city entrances/exits, indicating more cars (15,002) thanpassers-by (2,471), proving that motorized vehicles are byfar the most used way to enter and exit the city centre.

Additionally, a public survey of passers-by, car-drivers and pub-lic transport users concerning the mobility issues in Ponta Delgadawas carried out. In the public survey (Table 3), 262 pedestrians,car-drivers and minibus users were randomly selected and inter-viewed in the streets of Ponta Delgada. As the interviews were car-ried out in the street, 38% of the respondents were pedestrians, 36%minibus users and 26% car users. The majority of the respondents(43%) commuted by car to the city with low occupancy, with 34% ofthem commuting alone and 26% commuting with one passenger(two occupants). The reasons indicated for car usage were mostly

Table 2Result of vehicles and pedestrians count during rush hours in Ponta Delgada.

Place Pedestrians Vehicles

Strategic locations/cityentrances

7.30–8.00 am

8.00–8.30 am

8.30–9.00 am

9.00–9.30 am

9.30–10.30 am

Total 7.30–8.00 am

8.00–8.30 am

8.30–9.00 am

9.00–9.30 am

9.30–10.30 am

Total

A 7 2 6 5 5 25 274 372 316 159 235 1356B 26 28 58 82 119 313 103 176 120 101 188 688C 4 37 40 12 20 113 53 128 212 167 239 799D 2 15 7 2 7 33 115 420 365 170 220 1290E 13 14 21 18 25 91 313 642 675 465 812 2907F 9 21 14 15 8 67 146 243 225 162 219 995G 38 236 196 100 231 801 154 299 264 178 265 1160H 4 13 9 7 8 41 164 326 265 240 286 1281I 15 7 10 11 10 53 137 202 179 145 260 923J 15 57 20 22 13 127 130 333 281 162 255 1161K 30 36 39 24 55 184 83 152 185 161 190 771L 51 84 166 55 44 400 136 284 247 168 231 1066M 21 94 25 21 62 223 60 198 132 81 134 605

Total 235 644 611 374 607 2471 1868 3775 3466 2359 3534 15,002

A. Gil et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 1309–1319 1315

speed (27%) and comfort (24%), followed by punctuality (14%) andabsence of alternatives (14%). These numbers highlight the culturalhabit in which every adult possesses and uses their own car in adaily basis. The average commuting time was 11–20 min for mostof the respondents (35%) or less (26%), showing that most peopleaccessing and working in the city centre (more than 60%) live inthe outskirts of town, where public transportation connectionsare more frequent and reliable. Interestingly, 22% of the intervie-wees would change their mode of transportation from car to publictransport if the frequency of public transport was higher (33%) andpunctuality was guaranteed (29%). The major reasons for unsatis-factory minibus service in Ponta Delgada were low frequency(52%) and limited extent of the service lines (42%). These figuresindicate a lack of rigourous planning of the three existing mini-bus circuits and a deficient fleet management in order to ensurethis service’s sustainable growth. The people who commute bypublic transport stated that they had no alternative (35%) and thatthey used public transportation due to the price (33%). However,the public interurban bus service does not cater for the needs of37% of the respondents and is considered an unsatisfactory serviceaccording to 24% of the users. Concerning the minibus service, thequality was evaluated as insufficient by 53% of the users. Almostthe same percentage (40%) stated the opposite which indicates thatfurther investigation might be necessary to analyse this topic. Itwas also agreed that shortage of parking spaces which are free ofcharge was a problem. According to 59% of the respondents theparking spaces do not correspond to the need. This fact highlightsthe important effort of the City Council in restricting the access tothe city centre using a personal vehicle, by reducing drastically theavailability of free parking spaces. Although people seem to relyheavily on the private car, most of the interviewees are in favourof more restricted car circulation in the city centre (81%) and morespaces for pedestrians (73%). The evaluation of the conditions fordisabled people was considered as very bad by the majority(58%) or insufficient (29%). The sidewalks were similarly classifiedas either narrow (29%) or totally inadequate (20%). These figuresdemonstrate a lack of urban planning and effective managementof sidewalks and access ramps for disabled people. The medievalarchitecture of a large part of the city centre constitutes a hugehandicap in order to perform all the required changes.

(b) In the second exercise, the stakeholders performed a SWOTanalysis on the mobility issues in the Ponta Delgada city(Table 4). It showed similar results as the survey. The ‘‘men-tality’’ of Ponta Delgada’s citizens was classified as a weak

point regarding minibus use. The stakeholders pointed outthe limited number of parking spaces and on the other sidethe quickness and comfort of private car. Regarding walkinghabits, the lack of practice was seen as a weakness, as well asthe narrow sidewalks. The resistance to alternative transportmodes like walking was considered a threat. On the otherhand, the weather conditions, the small distances and thescenery were seen as strengths in favour for walking.

(c) In the third exercise the participants discussed and approvedthe following statements:

- Vision for the SMP: ‘‘Solutions for a sustainable, efficient,integrated and diversified mobility, adapted to all citizens’’.

- Mission of the SMP: ‘‘Promote an environmentally sustain-able mobility in Ponta Delgada in order to provide a betterquality of life for all citizens’’.

- General goals for the SMP:1. Promote the efficiency of private motorized transporta-

tion in Ponta Delgada.2. Promote the utilization of public transportation in Ponta

Delgada.3. Promote soft modes of mobility in Ponta Delgada (walk-

ing and cycling).4. Integrate Ponta Delgada SMP’s activities into land-use

plans and Local Agenda 21.5. Promote mobility conditions that guarantee equal rights

of all citizens in Ponta Delgada.

3.2.3. Phase 3: development of the SMP Logframe draftIn this phase, the first draft of the Logical Framework (Logframe)

of the SMP was designed by the technical staff. This involved meet-ings with groups of stakeholders (related to public and privatetransportation; urban planning and rural development; environ-ment and quality of life). The Logframe draft included proposalsfor the specific goals and the respective activities, the progress indi-cators, means of verification, important assumptions and the respon-sible institution for the implementation of each activity (Table 5).Phase 3 lasted 3 months as it was dependent on additional infor-mation gathered with the help of the stakeholders.

3.2.4. Phase 4: discussion, approval and ratification of the SMPLogframe (2nd Stakeholder Workshop)

Two months after the 1st Workshop, the 2nd Stakeholder Work-shop was held to discuss, validate and approve the ‘‘proposal for theimplementation of the Sustainable Mobility Plan’’ (Logframe). The

Table 3Results of opinion survey about mobility problem in Ponta Delgada.a

Mode of transportation used fromplace of residence

Car 43% Average time of commuting (place of residence –work place/school)

0–5 min 8%Minibus (urban publictransport)

8% 6–10 min 26%

Inter-urban publictransport

10% 11–20 min 35%

Walking 1% 21–30 min 21%Mixed modes of transport 38% >30 min 10%

Reasons for car use Rapidity 27% Average car occupancy One occupant 34%Comfort 24% Two occupants 26%Punctuality 14% Three occupants 11%Absence of alternatives 14% Four occupants 16%Company car 10% Five occupants 10%Price 7% Nine occupants 1%Family organization 4%

Willingness to change car for publictransport

Yes 22% Condition under which would change car for publictransport

Higher frequency of publictransport

33%

No 18% Guarantee of punctuality 29%No answer 58% More flexibility at rush hour 11%Low frequency 52% Tax policy 10%Small extension 42% Inexistence of cost-free

parking spaces8%

Major reason for insufficient service ofminibus

Bad conditions fordisabled people

3% Better quality of publictransport

7%

Others 3% Lower price of publictransport

2%

Evaluation of minibus service Insufficient quality 53% Evaluation of interurban public transport service Does not correspond toneeds

37%

Sufficient quality 40% Unsatisfactory service 24%No answer 3% Need for central bus station 6%

No answer 30%

Reasons for public transportation use Absence of alternatives 35% Evaluation of sidewalks in Ponta Delgada Narrow 29%Price 33% Totally inadequate 20%Rapidity 16% Good 16%Punctuality 8% Uneven 15%Comfort 3% Reasonable 11%Environmental reasons 3% Occupied by cars 9%Absence of parkingspaces

2%

Evaluation of parking spaces in PontaDelgada

Do not correspond toneeds

59% Evaluation of conditions for disabled persons Very bad conditions 58%

Correspond to needs 19% Insufficient conditions 29%No answer 12% Reasonable conditions 11%

No answer 2%

Proposal: more spaces for pedestriansin the city

In favour 73% Proposal: restricted car circulation in city centre In favour 81%Against 27% Against 18%

No answer 1%

Calado et al. (2008).a The majority of the respondents were residents in the case study area (47%) or residents (22%) in the parishes bordering the case-study area (31% were residents in other

parishes of São Miguel island As for the age group, 73% of the interviewees were working-age (26–65 years old), 26% between 16 and 25 years old, and 9% over 65 years old.Concerning the education level, the majority of the respondents possessed primary school level or less (45%), followed by (23%) who had compulsory education level and(21%) higher secondary education level, and the minority (11%) who possessed a university degree. Most of them were employees (57%), followed by students (13%),unemployed (12%) retired (10%) and employers (8%).

1316 A. Gil et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 1309–1319

participants worked in small working groups on the documents(from phase 3) previously provided (2 weeks before).

The participants at this workshop were decision-makers or rep-resentatives. They had the legal mandate to sign and approve theplan. To guarantee an effective and successful development ofthe SMP, it is recommended to conduct this workshop with repre-sentatives who possess decision-making powers.

Table 5 shows an excerpt of the SMP Logframe, including the vi-sion, the mission, the general goals and one example of a specificobjective with its respective activities.

3.2.5. Phase 5: communication and promotion of the planThe design of the SMP should be user-friendly and easy to inter-

pret for any user and interested reader. A sufficiently large numberof copies need to be printed and handed to all stakeholders, li-

braries, educational institutions near the area of intervention,and the press.

To officially enforce the plan, the city council of Ponta Delgadaorganized a small public ceremony, followed by a press conference,where the stakeholders were present. After this ceremony, the planwas published online.

3.2.6. Phase 6: supervision and monitoring of the planFor the supervision and monitoring of the plan, an annual report

will be elaborated with a scheduled and detailed description ofconcluded and ongoing activities. During the annual SMP stake-holder meeting, the stakeholders discuss achievements, problemsand challenges of the ongoing implementation and approve the re-port including all comments, observations and amendments. Thefinal document will then be sent to the stakeholders and will be

Table 4Results of SWOT analysis on mobility problems in Ponta Delgada.

SWOT analysis of minibusin Ponta Delgada

Strengths WeaknessesExistence of minibus Mentality of

citizensConnectivity betweenmini busses and

Limitedinformation

Other modes Uncovered zones(minibus)

Prices Traffic jam at rushhours

Good quality of the fleet Circular, one-waycirculation

Opportunities ThreatsReorganization of publictransport

Increasing fuelprices

Restrictions for cars inthe centre

High investmentcosts

Renewable energies

SWOT analysis of privatetransport in PontaDelgada

Strengths WeaknessesFreedom Limited parking

spaceIndependence Road stateQuickness Narrow roadsComfort Excluded groupsEasy purchase Increased pollution

Traffic jamOpportunities ThreatsRenewable energies Increasing fuel

pricesCar-sharing High investment

costsCarpooling Increasing taxes

Restrictions for carsin the centre

SWOT analysis of walkingin Ponta Delgada

Strengths WeaknessesWeather conditions Lack of practiceSmall distances Narrow sidewalksStreet lights Parking on

sidewalksScenery Occupation of open

spaces for parkingNo sidewalks insome streets

Opportunities ThreatsNew infrastructure Resistance against

alternative modesEconomic advantage forshops and restaurants

Calado et al. (2008).

A. Gil et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 1309–1319 1317

made available online to the public The plan shall be revised andupdated whenever it is necessary and never unjustifiably, too soonor repeatedly, to avoid a loss of its credibility.

For the development of the SMP of Ponta Delgada, 5 of themethodological phases described were applied. Phase 6 (supervi-sion and monitoring of the plan) was not applied due to the recentfinal approval of the plan.

4. Discussion

Fifteen stakeholders (public, private, scientific and non-govern-mental institutions at national, regional and local levels) partici-pated in the Ponta Delgada City SMP development. Most of themtook the full or partial responsibility to carry out some of the 34operational tasks (Logframe activities) that were defined as prior-ities in order to achieve the vision, mission and goals (general andspecific) of the SMP. Therefore, one of the most significant suc-cesses of the SMP development was getting the public stakeholdersto finance the implementation of the plan. Some of the mostimportant and strategic activities were already carried out: inte-

gration of the SMP in the Municipal Agenda 21 Strategy; reinforce-ment and enlargement of the urban mini-bus circuit; severe trafficrestrictions in some of the most traditional streets of the city’shistorical centre; severe reduction of free car parking places inthe city centre; increment of pavement’s quantity and quality inorder to promote walking habits. However the lack of financialinvolvement from the private sector regarding the co-funding ofthe SMP implementation can be seen as a further challenge, andshould be addressed as a priority issue in the forthcoming SMPdevelopment and revision.

As one of the criteria during the SMP development was theinvolvement of all relevant stakeholders in the intervention area,it was considered a success that, the stakeholders formed a work-ing group after the conclusion of the SMP which continues towork actively on the issue. The implementation of Ponta DelgadaSMP could proceed effectively, given the fact that the develop-ment of the plan was based on consensus and on data speciallygathered for it. It demonstrated that, on a participatory basis, sus-tainable transport planning provides more satisfactory and effi-cient solutions. As a pioneer project in Portugal, it can serve asan exemplar for similar projects in other municipalities and inother small island cities, and can be applied to replace traditionaltop-down, standardized, simplified, rigid and short-term manage-ment with local-level, diversified, flexible and long-term transportplanning practices. A more decentralised approach may be moresustainable in the long run than current centralized approaches.Consensual management planning permits a combination of dif-ferent interests such as mobility efficiency with nature and healthprotection. The model of consensual or participative transportmanagement planning is adaptable to the specific needs andproblems of the particular area of intervention. Further steps inthe future could include involving, apart from the relevant stake-holders, the general public in the process of sustainable transportplanning. Initiatives that support walking and cycling need to bedeveloped, as well as car-sharing and car-pooling systems, whichtransform the generally low occupancy car into a high occupancyvehicle.

5. Conclusions

Standard land planning instruments have failed to adequatelypromote a sustainable mobility at local level in Portugal, and espe-cially in the islands’ cities. The achievement of a more sustainablemunicipal mobility system requires the involvement of multipleand heterogeneous public and private stakeholders. This tremen-dous challenge demands the highest levels of strategy, planningand activity programming. Therefore, active and participatorymanagement plans are mandatory in order to fully and truly ad-dress the mobility issues. These issues call for mobility managersto proceed with the utmost transparency and rigour while sharingthe responsibility of management, and to search for the optimalutilization of human, technical, technological and financial re-sources of each of the stakeholders.

The participation and co-responsibility of all stakeholders formthe cornerstone of an effective and successful SMP developmentand implementation. The stakeholders involved in the SMP shouldbe from various domains and functions. To ensure the lowest costand highest success in implementing the SMP, stakeholders shouldincorporate actions that they have committed to as part of theirregular annual agenda. Due to the highly political nature of theprocess, stakeholders should always be represented by participantswho have the authority to make political, administrative and finan-cial decisions. In order to foster public awareness and support forthe SMP, the public must be kept informed throughout the processby disseminating all published documents and developed public

Table 5Logframe of the SMP Ponta Delgada. Source: Calado et al. (2008).

DesignationDesignation Indicators Evaluation methods Important

conditionsResponsibel institution

Vision Solutions for a sustainable, efficient, integrated and diversified mobility, adapted to all citizensMission Promote an environmentally sustainable mobility in Ponta Delgada in order to provide a better quality of life for all citizensGeneral goal 1 Reduce the use of private car in Ponta DelgadaGeneral goal 2 Promotion of public transport in Ponta DelgadaGeneral goal 3 Promotion of soft modes of transport in Ponta DelgadaSpecific goal

3.1Requalification and valorisation of sidewalks in Ponta Delgada

Example:specific goal3.2

Implementation of pedestrian corridors and bicycle lanes in Ponta Delgada

Activity 3.2.1 Identification of potential streets to create pedestrian corridors and bicyclelanes throughout the city of Ponta Delgada. Implementation of limited carcirculation without causing prejudice for residents and businesses

– No. of selected streets Study of technical feasibility – Political will Municipality of PontaDelgada

– Extension of selected streets – Support frompopulation

– Localization of identified streets Municipal GIS – Technicalfeasibility

– Connectivity – Availablefunding

– Existence of study of technicalfeasibility

Activity 3.2.2 Development of plan for pedestrian corridors and bicycle lanes in PontaDelgada based on studies of Activity 3.2.1

Plan for pedestrian corridors andbicycle lanes in Ponta Delgada

– Plan for pedestrian corridors andbicycle lanes in Ponta Delgada

– Political will Municipality of PontaDelgada

– Annual report of activities ofmunicipality of Ponta Delgada

– Support frompopulation

– Website of municipality of PontaDelgada

– Technicalfeasibility

– Press/media – Availablefunding

Activity 3.2.3 Implementation of the plan of corridors for pedestrians and bicycle lanes inPonta Delgada based on studies of Activity 3.2.1

– Number of streets and connectivity – Annual report of activities ofmunicipality of Ponta Delgada

– Political will

– Extension of selected streets andconnectivity

– Website of municipality of PontaDelgada

– Support frompopulation

Municipality of PontaDelgada

– Press/media – Technicalfeasibility– Availablefunding–

Activity 3.2.4 Development of an awareness campaign together with the media and withsecondary schools in Ponta Delgada to promote the utilization of thepedestrian corridors and bicycle lanes

– Number of users of pedestriancorridors and bicycle lanes

– Report of users counting – Political will Municipality of PontaDelgada Schools

– Support frompopulation

– Annual report of activities ofmunicipality of Ponta Delgada

– Technicalfeasibility

– Promotion material – Website of municipality of PontaDelgada

– Availablefunding

– Press/media

1318A

.Gil

etal./Journal

ofTransport

Geography

19(2011)

1309–1319

A. Gil et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 1309–1319 1319

participation tools and materials. It is important to note that theSMP coordinator and his staff should always bear in mind thatwithout the full support and involvement of stakeholders, any at-tempt to propose, create and implement a SMP will be a wastedeffort.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Portuguese EnvironmentalAgency, the City Council of Ponta Delgada and the stakeholders in-volved in the SMP of Ponta Delgada.

References

Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente/Portuguese Environmental Agency, 2009.Portuguese National Inventory Report on Greenhouse Gases 1997–2007 –Submitted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Changeand the Kyoto Protocol, Amadora.

Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente/Portuguese Environmental Agency, 2010. ProjectoMobilidade Sustentável <http://www.apambiente.pt/POLITICASAMBIENTE/MOBILIDADESUSTENTAVEL/Paginas/default.aspx> (accessed 30.06.10).

Arnstein, S., 1971. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the Royal TownPlanning Institute, 2–6.

Attard, M., 2005. Land transport policy in a small island State – the case of Malta.Transport Policy 12, 23–33.

Baer, W., Nogueira Leite, A., 2003. The economy of Portugal within the EuropeanUnion: 1990–2002. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 43, 738–754.

Banister, D., 2008. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy 15, 73–80.Banister, D., Stead, D., Steen, P., Akerman, J., Dreborg, K., Nijkamp, P., Schleicher-

Tappeser, R., 2000. European Transport Policy and Sustainable Mobility –Transport. Development and Sustainability. E & FN Spon-Press, London.

Beirão, G., Sarsfield Cabral, J.A., 2007. Understanding attitudes towards publictransport and private car: a qualitative study. Transport Policy 14, 478–489.

Bickerstaff, K., Tolley, R., Walker, G., 2002. Transport planning and participation: therhetoric and realities of public involvement. Journal of Transport Geography 10,61–73.

Booth, C., Richardson, T., 2001. Placing the public in integrated transport planning.Transport Policy 8, 141–149.

Calado, H., Quintela, A., Porteiro, J., 2007. Integrated coastal zone managementstrategies on small islands. Journal of Coastal Research SI 50, 125–129.

Calado, H., Gil, A., Santos, N., 2008. Ponta Delgada City Sustainable Mobility Plan.Sustainable Mobility in Portugal – National Program. Ponta Delgada: Universityof Azores – Geographical Information and Land Planning Centre/Ponta DelgadaCity Council.

Castillo, H., Pitfield, D.E., 2010. ELASTIC – a methodological framework foridentifying and selecting sustainable transport indicators. TransportationResearch D 15, 179–188.

European Environmental Agency, 2009. Transport at a Crossroads – TERM 2008:Indicators Tracking Transport and Environment in the European Union, EEAReport No. 3/2009, Copenhagen.

Emberger, G., Pfaffenbichler, P., Jaensirisak, S., Timms, P., 2008. ‘‘Ideal’’ decision-making processes for transport planning: a comparison between Europe andSouth East Asia. Transport Policy 15 (6), 341–349.

Enoch, M.P., 2003. Transport practice and policy in Mauritius. Journal of TransportGeography 11 (4), 297–306.

Enoch, M.P., Warren, J.P., 2008. Automobile use within selected island states.Transport Research Part A 42, 1208–1219.

European Commission, 2005. Communication from the Commission to the Counciland the European Parliament on Thematic Strategy on the urban Environment,COM/2005/0718 Final.

Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management – A Stakeholder Approach. Ballinger,Cambridge.

Friedl, B., Steininger, K.W., 2002. Environmentally sustainable transport: definitionand long-term economic impacts for Austria. Empirica 29, 163–180.

Gil, A., Calado, H., Costa, L.T., Bentz, J., Fonseca, C., Lobo, A., Vergilio, M., Benedicto, J.,2011. A methodological proposal for the development of natura 2000 sitesmanagement plans. Journal of Coastal Research SI 64, 1326–1330 (Szczecin,Poland, ISSN: 0749-0208).

Hall, D., 2010. Transport geography and the European realities: a critique. Journal ofTransport Geography 18, 1–13.

Hull, A., 2005. Integrated transport planning in the UK: from concept to reality.Journal of Transport Geography 13 (4), 318–328.

Instituto Nacional de Estatística/Statistics Portugal, 2002. Census 2001 – ResultadosDefinitivos – Região Autónoma dos Açores, Lisboa.

Kahn Ribeiro, S., Kobayashi, S., Beuthe, M., Gasca, J., Greene, D., Lee, D.S., Muromachi,Y., Newton, P.J., Plotkin, S., Sperling, D., Wit, R., Zhou, P.J., 2007. Transport and itsinfrastructure. In: Metz, B., Davidson, O.R., Bosch, P.R., Dave, R., Meyer, L.A.(Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III tothe Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

O’Faircheallaigh, C., 2010. Public participation and environmental impactassessment: purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making.Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30, 19–27.

Pemberton, S., 2000. Institutional governance, scale and transport policy – lessonsfrom Tyne and Waer. Journal of Transport Geography 8 (4), 295–308.

Reed, M.S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: aliterature review. Biological Conservation 141, 2417–2431.

Renn, O., 2006. Participatory processes for designing environmental policies. LandUse Policy 23, 34–43.

Santos, G., Behrendt, H., Teytelboym, A., 2010. Part II: policy instruments forsustainable road transport. Research in Transportation Economics 28 (1), 46–91.

Serviço Regional de Estatística dos Açores/Statistics Azores, 2009. StatisticalYearbook of the Azores Region, 2008, Angra do Heroísmo.

Stead, D., 2008. Effectiveness and acceptability of urban transport policies inEurope. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 2, 3–18.

van Wee, B., 2002. Land use and transport: research and policy changes. Journal ofTransport Geography 10 (4), 259–271.

Woodcock, J., Banister, D., Roberts, I., Prentice, A., Edwards, P., 2007. Energy andtransport. The Lancet 370, 1078–1088.