Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Expected benefits and drawbacks of Baltic Sea European transport corridors: implications for complementary governance of TEN-T Core network corridors
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Architecture and Water.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8624-8271
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Architecture and Water.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8870-2626
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Architecture and Water.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6075-9885
2018 (English)In: Cogent Business & Management, E-ISSN 2331-1975, Vol. 5, no 1, article id 1423870Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In this paper, stakeholders’ expected benefits and concerns are presented regarding the development of Core Network Corridors (CNCs) within the European transport initiative, the Trans-European Network for Transports. An interview study was conducted with 23 stakeholders from different parts of the society in the Baltic Sea area. The results show that stakeholders have a range of expectations, both positive and negative, for the development of the CNC. Stakeholders’ views were sorted into three categories based on the gathered data: matters that are already regulated; unregulated matters that often include vaguely defined responsibilities and require diverse stakeholder engagement for improvement; and matters for which there are concerns about negative outcomes. The results indicate (a) a need for cost-effective complementary governance, here described as additional governance measures to those regulated in the initial framework, (b) that a wider group of stakeholders than is currently involved is needed in the on-going implementation process. Additional regional and local level stakeholders, within and outside of the CNC, and private businesses, would enhance the benefits and/or mitigate negative implications of the developed CNCs, (c) an openness for complementary governance in the on-going CNC implementation process. This openness needs to be considered when developing models for policy packaging.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Cogent OA , 2018. Vol. 5, no 1, article id 1423870
National Category
Transport Systems and Logistics Architectural Engineering
Research subject
Architecture
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-65142DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2018.1423870ISI: 000424844100001Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85045254901OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-65142DiVA, id: diva2:1133762
Note

Validerad;2018;Nivå 2;2018-02-09 (rokbeg)

Available from: 2017-08-16 Created: 2017-08-16 Last updated: 2018-04-24Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Governance for sustainable development of major European transport corridors: The Scandinavian-Mediterranean TEN-T core network corridor
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Governance for sustainable development of major European transport corridors: The Scandinavian-Mediterranean TEN-T core network corridor
2017 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Intermodal road, rail, air and sea transport networks across the European Union (EU) calledTrans-European Networks for Transport (TEN-T) are currently being implemented. Keyelements, which should be implemented by 2030, are the most strategic TEN-T Core networkcorridors. These nine corridors are expected to enhance smoothness and sustainability oftransport across the EU, thereby enhancing cohesion between EU nations, and relate to non-EU nations. In the EU Regulation 1315/2013 a governance framework for implementation ofthe Core network corridors is outlined, which mainly involves appointment of a Europeancoordinator for each corridor, establishment of Corridor forums for consultations, andformulation of work plans and follow-up measures.This framework is now being implemented in practice. A recognised challenge in the processis engaging the numerous, diverse stakeholders. A possible solution is to introduceappropriate elements of complementary governance. Thus, in this doctoral research, suitablecomplementary governance to support the sustainable development of a Core networkcorridor was investigated. Complementary governance, a concept that was developed andrefined during the project, refers here to additional governance in relation to the governanceframework described for the EU Core network corridors in the EU Regulation 1315/2013.To address an identified gap in knowledge on the nature and utility of complementarygovernance a series of studies was carried out. The studies included a study of relevantacademic literature, studies of EU transport policy and implementation documents regardinggovernance and sustainability, a survey of views of Scandinavian-Mediterranean Corridorforum participants, and interviews with stakeholders in the Baltic Sea region. These studiescollectively constitute a case study, focusing on the Scandinavian-Mediterranean Corenetwork corridor, of the need for, and if a need is present the optimal design of,complementary governance in the process of sustainable development of a Core networkcorridor.The main findings of the studies are that the implementation process of the Core networkcorridors could benefit from complementary governance measures, mainly to increaseinclusiveness, which is crucial for a sustainable development. Complementary governancecould both deepen and broaden stakeholder awareness and involvement. This may haveseveral advantages, such as increasing possibilities for stakeholders to influence the processand benefit from the corridor, align activities, and promote cooperation and learning betweenstakeholders. Moreover, including stakeholders who are based outside the corridors mayimprove distributive aspects of the investments and reduce risks of focusing attention tooclosely on the corridors per se. However, broadening stakeholder inclusion also hasdisadvantages, as it increases the complexity of the process, which may impair itseffectiveness, and may lead to unrepresentative involvement due to differences instakeholders’ interests, administrative capacities and power. It also increases requirements forcoordination.The nature of complementary governance is multifaceted and related to diverse dimensions ofgovernance, such as processes, stakeholder participation and implementation documents. For complementary governance measures a flexible and task-specific multi-level design isemphasised, which may involve various types of engagement mechanisms. Further, thefindings showed a need to extend previously recognised types of public engagementmechanisms based on communication, consultation and participation in the decision-makingstage, by recognising another category, named stakeholder exchange. This category ischaracterised by stakeholder cooperation and collaboration in an implementation stage wheremain goals and policies already are in place.Areas for complementary governance in the implementation process of the Core networkcorridors were indicated in the interview study. They consisted of extended involvement ofprivate stakeholders, extended involvement of regional and local stakeholders, extendedinvolvement of stakeholders geographically external to the immediate corridor, and extendedinformation both generally and specifically (i.e. directed information to specific stakeholders).Several complementary governance measures that could potentially improve implementationof the Core network corridors were raised in the interviews, ranging from minor adjustment inthe existing process to entirely new solutions. These ideas correspond well to the indicatedareas and provide robust foundations for further discussion.Thus, findings from the research suggest several governance measures to systematicallyinvolve and engage diverse stakeholders in the Core network corridor implementationprocess. However, before introducing such measures, they should be assessed together withexisting governance measures, to avoid overlapping or contradictory initiatives, possiblyusing policy packaging approaches, where policies are combined and analysed together toachieve a desired overall outcome. Proposals for future research and practices are presented.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Luleå University of Technology, 2017
Series
Doctoral thesis / Luleå University of Technology 1 jan 1997 → …, ISSN 1402-1544
National Category
Transport Systems and Logistics
Research subject
Architecture
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-65579 (URN)978-91-7583-961-5 (ISBN)978-91-7583-962-2 (ISBN)
Public defence
2017-11-10, E632, 09:00 (English)
Funder
Swedish Transport Administration
Available from: 2017-09-12 Created: 2017-09-11 Last updated: 2018-09-14Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopushttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311975.2018.1423870

Authority records BETA

Öberg, MariaNilsson, KristinaJohansson, Charlotta M.

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Öberg, MariaNilsson, KristinaJohansson, Charlotta M.
By organisation
Architecture and Water
Transport Systems and LogisticsArchitectural Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 132 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf