4.7 Article

A social stakeholder support assessment of low-carbon transport policy based on multi-actor multi-criteria analysis: The case of Tianjin

期刊

TRANSPORT POLICY
卷 41, 期 -, 页码 103-116

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.01.006

关键词

Multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA); Social network analysis; Low-carbon transport policy

资金

  1. Tianjin government
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71271143, 71203153, 71231006]
  3. Ministry of education of Humanities and Social Science project in China [11YJA630107]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Based on multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA), this paper evaluates the low-carbon transport policies in Tianjin, China. MAMCA is a methodology that is used to evaluate different policy measures by explicitly accounting for the opinions of various stakeholders. This paper refines the model based on social network analysis to measure the weights of stakeholder opinions and applies the model to the case of Tianjin. Six intervention low-carbon transport policies (tax adjustment, pricing adjustment mechanisms, multi-operation mechanisms, environmental propaganda, traffic demand management, and state funding and subsidies) are evaluated based on the aims and objectives of various stakeholders (government supervisory authorities, end users, infrastructure operators, infrastructure suppliers, academics, the traffic management sector, the technology division, and the planning department) using snowball sampling techniques. Overall, the results showed that the most supportive policies are traffic demand management and state funding and subsidies. The MAMCA also provided insights into the position and preferences of stakeholders in relation to the aims and objectives of low-carbon transport policy. As such, the results can assist decision makers in comparing, selecting and adjusting low-carbon transport policies as well as attracting support for policy implementation. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据