The ‘Policy’ Work Package of DaCoTA was designed to fill in the gap in knowledge on road safety policy making processes, their institutional framework and the data, methods and technical tools needed to base policy formulation and adoption on scientifically-established evidence. More specifically, in the DaCoTA project, research on road safety policy had two objectives: 1. Identifying the needs for data and decision-support tools of road safety decision-makers, managers and other key stakeholders in order to develop the European Road safety Observatory, ERSO, and make it as relevant as possible for all the tasks involved in policy-making. 2. Developing knowledge on road safety management systems at the national level, both from a theoretical point of view (defining “good practice” criteria and testing them) and from a practical point of view (describing and assessing existing road safety management systems in European countries and laying the grounds for a European observatory of road safety management to be integrated into ERSO). This report summarises the methodologies developed in order to achieve these objectives and the main results of the analyses. Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies, most of them new, were designed to reach the objectives. In particular: • As results on the actual needs for data and decision-support tools were expected at an early stage of the DaCoTA project to support new developments of ERSO, a consultation of a panel of experts was organized. Two consultation methods were implemented: semi-directive interviews and requests for written contributions. • A broader-scale consultation of road safety stakeholders including decision-makers, managers and other professionals as well as researchers and representatives of the private sector, took place on the basis of an on-line questionnaire. The stakeholders were asked to rank a number of elements concerning road safety data and tools in terms of their needs and priorities, as well as in terms of the availability of these data and tools. • A road safety management investigation model was developed based on several “good practice” criteria, defined by an exhaustive literature review. The model was tested in 14 European countries, by means of interviews with both governmental representatives and independent experts who filled in an extensive DaCoTA questionnaire. The questions related to five main areas of Road Safety Management: • Institutional organisation, coordination and stakeholders’ involvement • Policy formulation and adoption • Policy implementation and funding • Monitoring and evaluation • Scientific support and information, capacity building The data and information collected were analysed by both quantitative and qualitative analysis methods. In particular, the results of DaCoTA WP1 include the following: • Analysis of the experts panel data and stakeholders data: • Descriptive analyses of needs and priorities in data and tools for evidence-based policy making • Components of needs / priorities and of data availability, as well as combined analysis of priorities vs. data availability • Grouping of stakeholders on the basis of their needs and priorities and analysis by stakeholders’ background characteristics • Dedicated analysis of the needs and priorities of the ‘policy-makers’ group among the stakeholders • Analysis of the road safety management data: • Road safety management country profiles of the 14 European countries analysed and compared to a reference “good practice” system, meeting all the criteria defined in DaCoTA. • Country comparisons carried out for all 30 European countries for specific issues within each area of road safety management (on the basis of the DaCoTA questionnaire and additional data sources from the literature). • Clustering of countries on the basis of road safety management components, separately for each one of the five areas of the DaCoTA questionnaire, as well as overall. • Statistical models linking road safety management with road safety performance, within the framework of the SUNflower methodology for road safety management systems. The results of the stakeholder survey may serve as a basis for forming a common picture of the demands of stakeholders (policy-making as well as non-policy-making) for data and knowledge in road safety. One of the main findings was that policymakers and non-policy-makers (e.g. researchers) do not appear to have significantly different needs and priorities. Moreover, regional effects were identifiable, in the sense that stakeholders from Northern, Eastern and Southern European countries expressed different priorities on several issues. The specific analysis performed on the policy-makers’ group is useful to identify where there are gaps in data and tools for this particular group of decision makers. The results of the analyses on road safety management systems suggest that, although a number of “good practice” elements can be established as regards road safety management structures, processes and outputs, it is not possible to identify one single “good practice” model at national level. Best performing countries are not always ranked best in terms of road safety management components. On the other hand, the proposed “good practice” criteria seem to work as regards the worst performing countries. Moreover, similar performance in road safety management can be achieved by means of differing structures and implementation processes. Despite the differences in European road safety management systems, there have been several elements that emerged as more critical “good practice” criteria, such as the presence of a strong lead agency, the efficiency of the implementation — monitoring — evaluation part of the policy making cycle, the embedding of programmes in sustainable and results-focused structures and processes, and the distribution and coordination of responsibilities between federal, regional and local levels. Especially the implementation, funding, monitoring and evaluation elements showed the lowest level of availability in the European countries and appear to be the most problematic sections of the road safety management systems. When examining the relationship between road safety performance and road safety management in the different countries, there appeared a weak effect of road safety management features on safety performance, and in particular on the ‘intermediate outcomes’ (i.e. Safety Performance Indicators). On the basis of the results of DaCoTA WP1, a number of recommendations are made for the enhancement and future development of the ERSO in order to address the stakeholders’ needs, as well as recommendations for the improvement of road safety management both at national / local and European level. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting