Análisis del modelo

This report is the sequel of reports written in 2008 and 2009 regarding the value of using the MAMCA in the evaluation of road safety measures (Ampe et al, 2008a), the bottlenecks encountered within the formatting of the indicators in the context of road safety (Van Lier et al, 2008) and a literature study about socio-economic evaluation methods for traffic safety (Ampe et al, 2008b).

In 2010 the construction of this evaluation method (the MAMCA) will be finalized by determining which indicators will be used to valorize the different criteria. Thus for each criterion, the most suited indicator will be appointed. This is very important because different indicators can be appointed to one criterion, which could give a different value to the criterion (e.g. congestion pricing could be valued according to the travelled distance or the time spent on travelling). A good, substantiated choice for each indicator is therefore desirable. Afterwards some cases will be performed using the MAMCA- methodology, but also using other socio-economic evaluation techniques such as the social cost-benefit analysis, the cost-effectiveness analysis and the conventional multi- criteria analysis. These other evaluation techniques can be useful when the MAMCA is not

preferred as the ideal decision method. To decide which evaluation should be used a decision tree was set up in Work Package 5.2 (Van Malderen & Macharis, 2009a; Van Malderen & Macharis, 2009b)

RE F E R E N C E S

Achterkamp M., Vos, de J., (2008). Investigating the use of the stakeholder notion in project management literature, a meta-analysis, International Journal of Project Management, 26 (7), pp. 749-757

Achterkamp M., Vos, de J., (2007). Critically Identifying Stakeholders. Evaluating boundry critique as a vehicle for stakeholder identification. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 24, pp. 3-14

Alcolock, (2004-2006). Belgian Road Safety Institute, Deliverable 2, Description, results and discussion of the alcolock field trial. Alcolock implementation in the European Union. Ampe J., Geudens T. & Macharis C. 2008a. Socio-economische evaluatiemethoden voor verkeersveiligheid: Tussentijds vergelijkend rapport, literatuurstudie. Steunpuntrapport RA-MOW-2008-005. Diepenbeek, België: Steunpunt Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken – spoor Verkeersveiligheid.

Ampe J., Geudens T. & Macharis C. 2008b. Multi-Criteria Analyse an Multi-Actor Multi- Criteria Analyse: Mogelijke meerwaarde voor de evaluatie van verkeersveiligheidsmaatregelen. Steunpuntrapport RA-MOW-2008-009. Diepenbeek, België: Steunpunt Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken – spoor Verkeersveiligheid.

Banister, D., Stead, D., Steen, P., (e.a.), (2000). European Policy and Sustainable Mobility, London: Spon, 255 p.

Banville C., Landry M., Martel J.-M., Boulaire C. (1998). A Stakeholder Approach to MCDA. System Research, 15, pp. 15-32.

Beatly, T., (1995). The many meanings of sustainability, Journal of Planning Literature, 9 (4), pp. 339-342a

Beierle T.C. (2002). The quality of stakeholder-based decisions, Risk Analysis 22, (4), pp. 739-749.

Bouyssou, D., (1990). Building criteria: a prerequisite for MCDA. In Bana e Costa, C. A. (ed.), Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid (pp. 58-80), Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Brugha, R., Varvasovszky, Z., (2000). Stakeholder Analysis: a review. Health policy and planning, 15 (3), pp. 239-246

Bryson, J., (2003). What to do when stakeholders matter: a guide to stakeholder identification, analysis and influence techniques, A paper presented at the London School of Economics and Political Science 10 February 2003.

Croft, P., (2005). Sustainable road safety engineering. European Transport Conference Proceedings, available at: http://etcproceedings.org/paper/sustainable-road-safety- engineering

Daniels, S. & K. Van Hout, (2006), Towards a Road Safety Plan for Flanders-Belgium, Belarus, Minsk, 19th ICTCT workshop.

De Brucker K., C. Macharis, M. Wiethoff and V. Marchau (2008). A strategic analsysis of stakeholder preferences regarding the design of innovative road safety measures. Results from the pan-European IN-SAFETY project regarding forgiving and self-explaining road environments. HUB Research Paper 2008/42.

De Brucker, K., C. Macharis, A. Verbeke and E. Bekiaris (2002). ‘Integrated multi-criteria analysis for advanced driver assistance systems’, Final Deliverable of the research project for the Shared-cost RTD project ‘Action for advanced Driver assistance and Vehicle control systems Implementation, Standardisation, Optimum use of the Road network and Safety’ (ADVISORS), available at: www.advisors.iao.fhg.de

Donaldson, T., L. Preston, (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concept, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20 (1), pp. 65-91

Dooms, M., C. Macharis, A. Verbeke (2004). Proactive stakeholder management in the port planning process: empirical evidence from the port of Brussels. Available at: http://biblioteca.universia.net/irARecurso.do?page=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-

sre.wuwien.ac.at%2Fersa%2Fersaconfs%2Fersa04%2FPDF%2F271.pdf&id=39969339 Dragutinovic, N. & D. Twisk (2006). Effectiveness of traffic education; A Literature review: SWOV-rapport R-2006-6. Leidschendam, Nederland: SWOV.

Elvik, R., Vaa, T. ( 2004). The Handbook of Road Safety Measures, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1078 p.

Elvebakk, B., (2005). Ethics and road safety policy, Report 786, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo

Fontela, P., Soria, A., Mielgo, J., Sierra, J.F., de Blas, J., Gauchia, L., Martinez, J.M. (2007). Airport electric vehicle powered by a fuel cell. Journal of power sources, 169 (1), pp. 184-193

Freeman, R., (1984). Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman. Genard, J-L., and Pirlot, M., (2002). Multi-criteria decision aid in a philosophical perspective, In: Bouyssou, D. et al., (ed.) Aiding decisions with multiple criteria. Essays in honor of Bernard Ro (pp. 89-120), Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

Geurs, K.T., Van Wee, G.(2000). Environmentally Sustainable Transport: Implementation and Impacts for the Netherlands for 2030, RIVM, Belthoven, the Netherlands.

Geudens, T. Macharis, C. Plastria, F. & Crompvoets, J. (2009). An evaluation framework for the optimization of the spatial data infrastructure in Flanders. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, submitted for publication.

Goodpaster, K., (1991). Business Ethics and stakeholder Analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1, pp. 53-73

Gray, C., (ed.), (1999). The Philosophy of Law: an encyclopedia, New York: Garland, 2 volumes.

Haddon, W. (1968). The changing approach to the epidemiology, prevention, and amelioration of trauma: the transition to approaches etiologically rather than descriptively based. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 58, pp. 1431-1438.

Hayek, F., von (1985). Law, Legislation and Liberty: a new Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy. Volume 1: Rules and Order, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hill, C., T. Jones (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29 (2), pp. 131-154

Hof, A. & Vermeulen, J. (2001). Maatschappelijke kosten van ongevallen met vrachtauto’s buiten de bebouwde kom, Delft: CE.

Kaler, J., (2003). Differentiating Stakeholder Theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 46 (1), pp. 71-83

Keeney R. (1996). Value-Focused Thinking. A Path to Creative Decisionmaking. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Kohler, J., (2006). Transport and the environment: the need for policy for long-term radical change. IET Proceedings Intelligent Transport Systems, 153 (4), pp. 292-301 Kunsch, P; M.Theys, J. Brans (2007). The importance of systems thinking in ethical and sustainable decision-making. Central European Journal of Operational Research, 15, pp. 253-269

Kunsch, P;, I. Kavathatzopoulos, F. Rauschmayer, (2009). Modelling complex ethical decision problems with operations research. Omega, 37 (6), pp. 1100-1108

Macharis, C. (2004a). The importance of stakeholder analysis in freight transport: The MAMCA methodology. European Transport, (25-26), pp. 114-126

Macharis, C. (2004b). Multi-criteria analysis as a tool to include stakeholders in project evaluation: the MAMCA method. In E. Haezendonck (ed.), Transport Project Evaluation, Extending the Social Cost-Benefit Approach (pp. 115-131), Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Universiteit Antwerpen.

Macharis, C., A. Verbeke, K. De Brucker (2004c). The strategic evaluation of new technologies through multicriteria analysis: the ADVISORS case, Research in Transportation Economics, 8, pp.443-462.

Maesen, K., T. Steenberghen, T. Dufays (2001). Impact of Spatial Planning on Sustainable Traffic Safety: Belgian Situaion Analysis. Summary report MD/01/041. Available at: www.belspo.be

Malaterre, G., (2006). The act of driving, In: Research and road safety. Towards Renew Public Action. Program for Research, Experimentation and Innovation in Land Transport, Operational group 3. New knowledge for safety. Publications de la MSH-ALPES.

Mayhew, D., H. Simpson, A. Robinson (2002). The safety value of driver education and training. Injury Prevention 8 (Supplement 2), pp. ii3-ii8.

Mill, J., Wollheim, R., (ed.), (1984). Three essays: on liberty, representative government. The subjection of women. Oxford.

Mitchell, Ronald K., Bradley R. Agle, and Donna J. Wood, (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts, Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), pp. 853-886.

MOW. (2008). Verkeersveiligheidsplan Vlaanderen. Brussels: Vlaams ministerie van Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken.

MVG, (2003). Ontwerp mobiliteitsplan Vlaanderen. Naar een duurzame mobiliteit in Vlaanderen. Brussel: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap.

Pouloudi, A., (1997). Stakeholder analysis as a front-end to knowledge elicitation, AI and Society, 11, pp. 122-137.

Sayers T. H., Jessop A. T., Hills P.J., (2003). Multi-criteria evaluation of transport options-flexible, transparent and user-friendly? Transport policy, 10, pp. 95-105.

ROSE 25, (2003). Inventory and compiling of a European Good practice Guide on road safety education targeted at young people, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/rose25/index_en.htm

SARTRE 3, (2002-2004). Project on social attitudes towards road traffic risk in Europe, available at: http://sartre.inrets.fr/

Sharp, R, Finkelstein, A, Galal, G (1999). Stakeholder Identification in Requirements Engineering Process, Database and Expert Systems Applications, Proceedings, pp.387- 391

Steg, L., R.Gifford (2005). Sustainable transportation and quality of life, Journal of Transport Geography, 13, pp. 59-69.

Steenberghen, T., Dufays, T. (1999). Impact of spatial planning on sustainable traffic safety, Belgian situation analysis, Second European Road Research Conference, 7- 9/6/1999. 14 pp.

SVR. (2009). Vrind 2009. Vlaamse Regionale Indicatoren. Brussel: Studiedienst van de Vlaamse Regering. Available at: http://www4.vlaanderen.be/dar/svr/Pages/2009-07-01- vrind2009.aspx

SWOV (2010). Duurzaam Veilig: uitgangspunten, misverstanden en relatie met andere visies. Leidschendam: Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid.

Tingvall, C., Haworth , N., (1999). Vision Zero-An ethical approach to safety and mobility, 6th _{International Conference in Road Safety and Traffic Enforcement: Beyond} 2000, Melbourne. Available at:

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/papers/visionzero.html, cited 24 May 2009. TREN 3 E Road Infrastructure Safety Management Trans-European Network-Consultation Paper TREN 3E, 2006, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety

Ulrich, W., (1987). Critical heuristics of social system design. European Journal of Operational Research, 31; vol. 3, pp. 276-283

Van Lier, T. Van Malderen, F. & Macharis, C. (2009). Indicatoren bij de beoordeling van verkeersveiligheidsmaatregelen. Knelpunten en mogelijke oplossingen. Steunpuntrapport RA-MOW-2009-002 Diepenbeek, België: Steunpunt Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken – spoor Verkeersveiligheid.

Van Malderen F. & Macharis C. 2009a. Handleiding voor het evalueren van verkeersveiligheidsmaatregelen: Een eerste aanzet. Steunpuntrapport RA-MOW-2009- 003. Diepenbeek, België: Steunpunt Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken – spoor Verkeersveiligheid.

Van Malderen F. & Macharis C. 2009b. Handleiding voor het evalueren van verkeersveiligheidsmaatregelen: Vervolg rapport. Steunpuntrapport RA-MOW-2009-008. Diepenbeek, België: Steunpunt Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken – spoor Verkeersveiligheid.

Van Raemdonck, K. (2009). De economische kost van een wegongeval gerelateerd aan de waarde van tijd. Masterproef TEW.

Wegman, F. and L. Arts (ed.) (2005). Advancing Sustainable Safety. National Road Safety Outlook for 2005-2020.Leidschendam, the Netherlands: SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research.

Working paper (2008), Commission staff working document; Proposal for a directive of the European parliament and of the Council facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety. Full impact assessment. SEC 351/2. Available at: www.ec.europa.eu World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our common future. (1987) Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Zimmer, M., (2005). Surveillance, privacy and the ethics of vehicle safety communication technologies, Ethics and information technology, 7 (4), pp. 201-210

Internet sources:

The European Road Safety Observatory, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/wcm/road_safety/erso/intro2.htm

Belgian Science Policy, available at: www.belspo.be

Verkeerspedagogisch Instituut: www.verkeervpi.be