Priming for Coherent Country Action: Prototype and Country Action Plans

Abstract

The Catalogue of Policy Measures toward Sustainable Mobility (CPM) (Sustainable Mobility for All. Catalogue of Policy Measures Toward Sustainable Mobility. Washington DC: Sustainable Mobility for All, 2019. ISBN: 978-1-7341533-8-5. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0, 7–8. Note that the resilience criteria was added in a recent update of the catalogue (Sustainable Mobility for All. 2022. Catalogue of Policy Measures 2.0 Toward Sustainable Mobility. Washington DC, ISBN: 979-8-9860188-1-2. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0) identified more than 190 policy instruments to overcome transport problems and achieve sustainable mobility. Rarely will any single policy instrument on its own tackle all of a country's or city’s problems, or meet all of the four goals that define sustainable mobility. It is important therefore to assess which instrument will be the best and select those that should be prioritized in a given country for action. The most impactful policy instruments could then form country action plans embedded in a roadmap of action toward sustainable mobility.

To achieve coherence and level of prioritization among policy measures, new methodologies and tools were needed. International organizations and companies coalesced under the Sustainable Mobility for All (SuM4All) umbrella addressed this need by (i) appraising each policy instrument option in the CPM by assigning scores, using three criteria—impact, country relevance, and resilience; (ii) developing a selection algorithm of measures with a booster; (iii) generating a prototype action plan (PAP) for a country by applying the selection algorithm to the CPM; and (iv) producing a tailored country action plan, using the PAP as a starting point and pursuing deeper country engagement in refinement.

This approach takes the view that a one-size-fits-all approach for decision-making in transport is ineffective; policy and infrastructure investment decisions should be tailored to countries’ performances on sustainable mobility and reflect national priorities and realities.

Appendices

Annex 11.A—Selection Algorithm of Policy Measures

The process to filter the Catalogue of Policy Measures (CPM) (see Note 1) for the most impactful policy measures and generate the prototype action plan (PAP) consists of three steps (Fig. 11.A.1).

Fig. 11.A.1

(Source Original to the authors)

Development process of a prototype action plan

1.1 Step 1: Determination of Country Group for Each Policy Goal

Countries are clustered into groups that have similar mobility performances, groups A to D, based on the benchmarking conducted through the Global Tracking Framework for Transport (GTF) (see Note 3) according to the principal indicator for each policy goal (Table 11.A.1). Country group A includes the countries that have the best mobility performances, while group D clusters the bottom performers. Countries in each of the four groups may have different characteristics, but they are likely to face similar mobility challenges with respect to a particular policy goal. These similarities are the main reason why they are grouped together.⁴

Table 11.A.1 Country group thresholds

As an illustrative example, the best-performing country in the world on the efficiency policy goal has a logistics performance index (LPI) score of 4.2. Rather than the highest possible value for the index, this upper performance mark will be used to set a more realistic target for efficiency for countries in group A. On the other end of this spectrum, the LPI for the worst-performing country is 1.9. This is used as the lower bound for country group D. After excluding outliers, all countries were clustered into 4 groups.⁵

When this process is repeated for all policy goals and their respective indicators, scores for each policy goal are combined into a Composite Index Score. This composite score allows for a global comparison of countries across all the policy goals.⁶

1.2 Step 2: Impact of Measures on Policy Goal and Country Group

After country groups were established for each policy goal, each policy measure in the Catalogue of Policy Measures was assigned an impact score by policy goal. Possible impact scores for each goal can be zero for no impact, 1 for some impact, or 2 for high impact. The full impact score for a policy measure is the sum of scores across all policy goals (Table 11.A.2).⁷

Table 11.A.2 Sample of an impact score measured against each policy goal

In parallel, a policy measure’s relevance to country groups by policy goal is determined. The score for each country group ranges from zero for not relevant to 2 for very relevant (Table 11.A.3).

Table 11.A.3 Sample of the relevance of a policy measure to a country's goal

The country group relevance rating accounts for two important aspects: (i) policy measures are not rated very important in countries that already implement the measure successfully—which is that no additional effort may be required; and (ii) policy measures are not rated very important when conditions to make the policy measure effective are not in place, or when the country must focus its financial resources and public budget on more urgent policy measures. The scores were assigned collectively and reviewed extensively by experts from international organizations coalesced under the Sustainable Mobility for All involved in the process.

1.3 Step 3: Aligning Policy Measures to Overall Country Goals

After a country has been placed in a group for each policy goal and refined impact and resilience scores have been assigned to all measures, the algorithm proceeds iteratively, selecting in each step as the next measure to be included in the PAP the one not yet selected that has the highest average (across all policy goals and resilience aspects) of gaps to the defined threshold of achievement, and then revising the achievement scores across all those goals and aspects thanks to inclusion of the new measure. This procedure provides automatic balancing of the PAP across all policy goals and resilience aspects. The achievement threshold was selected so that the vast majority of PAPs would have between 20 and 30 measures—for further refinement through consultation with country stakeholders.

Appendix 11.B—Action Plan Booster (Conditional), an Extension of the Selection Algorithm

An extension to the selection algorithm included in the Global Roadmap of Action toward Sustainable Mobility⁸ published in 2019, was added to assess performances by transport market segments. This segmentation framework differentiates between who (passenger) and what (freight) is being transported, and where, domestic (subdivided for passengers in urban areas within agglomerations and interurban), and international settings. If deficiencies are discovered, an action plan booster (booster) provides a targeted reinforcement of a country’s prototype action plan in those market segments that are deficient. The assessment process includes a more refined peer benchmarking and the selection of additional measures to enhance the performance of the lagging market segments.

Drawing from the updates and enhancements detailed (Fig. 11.B.1), the process of generating an action plan is enhanced through two layers that allow a country to strategically consider improvements to sustainable mobility.

Fig. 11.B.1

(Source Original to the authors)

Prototype action plan and selection algorithm evolution

2.1 Phase 1: Transport Market Segment Performance Assessment

The first phase of this process assesses a country’s performance on transport market segments through a more refined peer benchmarking (Fig. 11.B.2).

Fig. 11.B.2

(Source Original to the authors)

Action plan booster development process

The design of Phase 1 was driven by a need to add a more precise peer country comparison and a systemic view of transport. This phase has multiple steps:

• Step 1: Selection of peer countries for comparison

• Step 2: Filtering of the Indicators of the Global Tracking Framework for Transport (GTF) (see Note 3) for market segment analysis

• Step 3: Benchmarking of peer countries on market segments based on filtered indicators.

A closer look at the steps in Phase 1: Transport Market Segment Assessment shows the underlying assumptions that lead to more precision in peer comparison and a modal-agnostic approach.

2.1.1 Step 1A—Selection of Peer Countries for Market Segment Performance Analysis

Criteria for peer selection are based on income, population, latitude, and geographic situation (Fig. 11.B.3). Compared to the more limited country grouping and analysis used for GTF country groupings by policy goal used to compile the PAP, the selection algorithm extension takes a closer look at country characteristics as they relate to transport. The following source data are used for the four country selection criteria: (i) gross national income per capita—atlas method,⁹ (ii) population per the world development indicator database, the World Bank,¹⁰ (iii) latitude of the central point between the northernmost and southernmost points of the country per Google LLC, and (iv) the World Bank classification of landlocked countries, 2020.

This process effectively leads to the selection of eight peer countries for comparison, based on the smallest weighted average of the relative differences of the indicators available data for income, population, latitude, and geographic situation, with weights of 70 percent for income and 10 percent for each of the others. This process also includes filtering out countries that have a favorable weighted average of the relative differences but a very high value in one of the individual relative differences.

Fig. 11.B.3

(Source Original to the authors)

Determining transport market segment performance in Phase I

2.1.2 Step 1B—Filtering of Indicators for Market Segment Analysis

Simultaneously, the complete set of GTF indicators is narrowed down through the following sets of weights and filters. This sub-prioritization seeks to reinforce modal-agnostic market segments into the selection methodology. Two challenges were apparent at the outset of this exercise. (i) Data coverage is rather scant for several indicators, and (ii) many indicators are naturally skewed toward a particular mode of transportation—giving that mode an unintended outsized focus in proposed measures. As a result, filters seeking modal balance were applied.

Considering 183 Indicators in the GTF:

• Filter 1: 35 Indicators—Only indicators with 75 percent data coverage across 183 countries

• Filter 2: 16 Indicators—Filtered for more equitable representation across transport market segments.

These two filters yielded 16 indicators that are determined to have higher rates of data availability and more equitable representation across market segments. Given that some of these 16 indicators apply to multiple market segments, the total number of indicators summed across market segments is 28 (Table 11.B.1).

Table 11.B.1 Tagging indicators for market segment analysis

2.1.3 Step 1C—Determining Market Segment Performance

The final step in determining if an action plan addendum is needed is to assess the performances of the peer countries selected in Step 1A on the indicators selected in Step 1B.

This stage typically sees a reduction in the 16 prioritized indicators based on data availability for this smaller subset of peer countries determined in Step 1A. Indicators where data are available for three or less peers are removed from consideration. For each remaining indicator, a country’s normalized score¹¹ is divided by the median of the normalized value of that indicator for its peers. A country’s performance on a particular market segment is determined by averaging the results of these quotients for the indicators relevant to that market segment as established in Step 1B. The threshold for underperformance has been established as 0.75. If the average of the quotients for a particular country is lower than 0.75 on a particular market segment relative to peers, a country is considered underperforming relative to its peers in that segment.

2.2 Phase 2: Action Plan Booster Measures

This phase revisits the Catalogue of Policy Measures¹² through the original selection algorithm but filters out measures that are already included in the PAP or not relevant to identified underperforming market segments. The selection algorithm detailed in a previous section of this chapter is repeatedly run against this smaller set of policy measures until two booster measures of relevance remain for each underperforming segment.

2.3 On Transport Market Segments

With the exception of pipelines, modes of transport can carry either passengers or freight. Rather than focus on mode, the transport market segment framework differentiates only between who (passenger) or what (freight) is being transported and where—domestic, subdivided for passengers into urban areas within agglomerations and interurban, and international settings.

The five resulting distinct segments—the sixth segment is the collective passenger and freight segments in their entirety—allow us to move entirely away from a mode-centric view of transport systems to a modal-agnostic view. Transport segments also allow for holistic measurement of impact and planning of policy measures. This framework is integrated into the selection algorithm extension for assessing market segment performance (Fig. 11.B.4).

Fig. 11.B.4

(Source Original to the authors)

Transport market segmentation

The prevailing process represents an enhancement from the initial version of the selection algorithm and PAP. Key additions included additional resilience¹³ policy measures and the selection algorithm extension and resulting booster, which emphasizes actions that address underperforming market segments.