Systemic Practice and Action Research

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 133–146 | Cite as

Exploring an Explicit Use of the Concept of Sustainability in Transport Planning

Original Paper
  • 268 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to explore an explicit use of the concept of sustainability within transport planning. This paper analyses the concept of sustainability based on a practical approach for a sustainable development of Nordhavn, an area of Copenhagen, exemplifying a complex planning problem. An exploration of the application of the concept of sustainability is carried out using elements of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). This approach indicates a need to separate the use of sustainability considerations regarding the transport planning ‘process’ from the transport planning ‘results’. The two approaches are related to the planning levels presented by Ulrich (Syst Prac 1(4):415–428, 1988). It was chosen to focus on the understanding of a sustainable transport planning process. This focus is addressed by four stakeholder groups interviewed based on the ‘ought to’ mode of Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH). Finally an outline of some of the factors of a sustainable transport planning process is proposed.

Keywords

Implicit/explicit sustainability ‘Process’/‘result’ Soft systems methodology Critical systems heuristics 

References

  1. Banister D (2008) The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transp Policy 15:73–80Google Scholar
  2. Checkland P (1993/1999) Systems thinking, systems practice, includes a 30-year retrospective. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  3. Checkland P, Poulter J (2006) Learning for action, a short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  4. CPH City and Port Development (CPH) (2008a) Nordhavnen, brief, open international ideas competition, Cophenhagen, May 2008. CPH City and Port Development, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  5. CPH City and Port Development (CPH) (2008b) Nordhavnen, Jury report, open international ideas competition, Copenhagen, December 2008. CPH City and Port Development, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  6. Jackson MC (2000) Systems approach to management. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Jackson MC (2003) Systems thinking, creative holism for managers. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  8. Jeppesen SL (2009a) Decision simulation technique (DST) as a scanning tool for exploring and explicating sustainability issues in transport decision making. In: Proceedings of the international conference ISSS 2009, 12–17 July 2009, Brisbane, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  9. Jeppesen SL (2009b) Sustainable transport planning—a multi-methodology approach to decision making. Forthcoming PhD thesis. Department of Transport, Technical University of Denmark (submitted 30-11-09)Google Scholar
  10. Jeppesen SL (2010, Spring) Use of short decision conferences (DC) in systemic intervention. In: The international conference UKSS 2009, Anne’s College, Oxford University, UK, 1–2 Sept 2009, Oxford, UK, Anniversary Edition (Systemist 32(1):47–70, UK Systems Society)Google Scholar
  11. Jeppesen SL, Paucar-Caceres A (2008) Critical Soft Systems Framework (CSSF): a Systemic Framework Combining Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH), presented at the international conference UKSS 2008. St Anne’s College, Oxford University, UK, 1–3 Sept 2008 (Systemist 30(2):173–195, UK Systems Society)Google Scholar
  12. Jeppesen SL, Barfod MB, Leleur S (2008) Strategic location planning: a ‘hard’ approach supported by ‘semi-soft’ methods. J Inf Sci Technol, JIST 5(3):24–42Google Scholar
  13. Kane L, Del Mistro R (2003) Changes in transport planning policy: changes in transport planning methodology. Transportation 30:113–131Google Scholar
  14. Khisty J, Leleur S (1997) Citizen participation through communicative action: towards a new framework and synthesis. J Adv Transp 31(2): 119–137Google Scholar
  15. Københavns Kommune (KK) (2009) Bæredygtighedsværktøj, Københavns Kommune (printed 19-10-09). www.kk.dk/bdv. (in Danish)
  16. Phillips LD (2006) Decision conferencing, Chap 19. A Working Paper LSEOR 06.85. Operational Research Group, Department of Management, London School of Economics & Political Science, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Tippett J (2005) The value of combining a systems view of sustainability with a participatory protocol for ecological informed design in river basins. Env Model Softw 20(2):119–139Google Scholar
  18. Ulrich W (1983) Critical heuristics of social planning. A new approach to practical philosophy. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  19. Ulrich W (1988) Churchman’s “process of unfolding”—its significance for policy analysis and evaluation. Syst Prac 1(4):415–428Google Scholar
  20. Ulrich W (2000) Reflective practice in the civil society: the contribution of critically systemic thinking. Reflect Prac 1(2):247–268Google Scholar
  21. Ulrich W (2005) A brief introduction to critical systems heuristics (CSH). Web site of the ECOSENSUS project, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK, 14 Oct 2005Google Scholar
  22. United Nations (UN) (1987) Development and international economic co-operation: environment. Report of the World commission on Environment and development “our common future”—note by the secretary-general. Forty-second session, item 83 (e) of the provisional agenda. General Assembly, United NationsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Københavns Kommune, Teknik- og MiljøforvaltningenCenter for TrafikCopenhagen VDenmark

Personalised recommendations