Measures for cycling promotion in São Paulo: a Multi Actor Multi Criteria Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14295/transportes.v29i1.2316Keywords:
Bicycle, MAMCA, Multi actor multi criteria analysis, São PauloAbstract
This study, which aims at identifying measures for cycling promotion in the city of São Paulo according to different stakeholders, involved planners and representatives of non-governmental organizations by means of an adaptation of the Multi Actor Multi Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) approach. The results, obtained through workshops and questionnaires, showed that the perspectives of the two groups did not vary much, although the influencers were more critical than the planners. Cycling infrastructure was highlighted as key for attracting cyclists. The lack of a cycling culture was also an issue for both groups. However, the most significant point was the fact that planners ignored the role of traffic safety as a measure for cycling promotion. Finally, the evaluation of simplified scenarios showed that, for both groups, the measures adopted by the city of São Paulo were seen as ineffective when compared with other cases.
Downloads
References
Aldred, R.; T. Watson; R. Lovelace e J. Woodcock (2019) Barriers to investing in cycling: Stakeholder views from England. Transportation Research Part A, v. 128, p. 149 1–159. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2017.11.003.
Assunçao-Denis, M. e R. Tomalty (2018) Increasing cycling for transportation in Canadian communities: Understanding what works. Transportation Research Part A, v. 123, p. 288–304. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2018.11.010.
Basu, S. e V. Vasudevan (2013) Effect of bicycle friendly roadway infrastructure on bicycling activities in urban India. Proce-dia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, v. 104, p. 1139–1148. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.11.210.
Baudry, G. e T. Vallée (2018) Assessing the stakeholder support for different biofuel options in France by 2030 using the range-based Multi actor Multi Criteria Analysis framework. In C. Macharis & G. Baudry (Eds.), Decision-making for sus-tainable transport and mobility, p. 2–27. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Inc.
Benedini, D. J.; P. S. Lavieri e O. Strambi (2019) Understanding the use of private and shared bicycles in large emerging cities: The case of São Paulo, Brazil. Case Studies on Transport Policy. v. 8, n. 2, p. 564–575. DOI: 10.1016/j.cstp.2019.11.009.
Bertolini, L. (2017). Planning the mobile metropolis. Transport for people, places and the planet. Palgrave, Macmillan Publishers Limited, London.
Biernat, E.; S. Buchholtz e P. Bartkiewicz (2018) Motivations and barriers to bicycle commuting: Lessons from Poland. Trans-portation Research Part F, v. 55, p. 492–502. DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2018.03.024.
Bruhèze, A. A. A. e F. C. A. Veraart (1999) Fietsverkeer in praktijk en beleid in de twintigste eeuw: overeenkomsten en verschillen in fietsgebruik in Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Enschede, Zuidoost-Limburg, Antwerpen, Manchester, Kopenhagen, Hannover en Basel. Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Rijkswaterstaat, Hoofdkantoor van de Waterstaat, Den Haag.
Chen, M.; Y. Gong; D. Lu e C. Ye (2019) Build a people-oriented urbanization: China’s new-type urbanization dream and Anhui model. Land Use Policy, v. 80, p. 1–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.031.
Cuppen, E.; S. Breukers; M. Hisschemöller e E. Bergsma (2010) Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dia-logue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands. Ecological Economics, v. 69, n. 3, p. 579–591. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.09.005.
Dean, M. e R. Hickman (2018) Comparing Cost-Benefit Analysis and Multi Actor Multi Criteria Analysis: the case of Blackpool and the South Fylde Line. In Macharis, C. e G. Baudry (Eds.), Decision-making for sustainable transport and mobility, p. 2–27. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Inc.
Félix, R.; F. Moura e K. J. Clifton (2019) Maturing urban cycling: Comparing barriers and motivators to bicycle of cyclists and non-cyclists in Lisbon, Portugal. Journal of Transport & Health, v. 15, 100628. DOI: 10.1016/j.jth.2019.100628.
Freeman, R. E. e J. A. McVea (2001) Stakeholder approach to strategic management. Darden Business School Working Paper, n. 01–02. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.263511.
Harms, L.; L. Bertolini e M. te Brömmelstroet (2016) Performance of municipal cycling policies in medium-sized cities in the Netherlands since 2000. Transport Reviews, v. 36, n. 1, 134–162. DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2015.1059380.
Irlam, J. H. e M. Zuidgeest (2018) Barriers to cycling mobility in a low-income community in Cape Town: A Best-Worst Scaling approach. Case Studies on Transport Policy, v. 6, n. 4, p. 815–823. DOI: 10.1016/j.cstp.2018.10.003.
Iwińska, K.; M. Blicharska; L. Pierotti; M. Tainio e A. Nazelle (2018) Cycling in Warsaw, Poland – Perceived enablers and bar-riers according to cyclists and non-cyclists. Transportation Research Part A - Policy Pract, v. 113, p. 291–301. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2018.04.014.
ITDP (2015) Políticas de mobilidade por bicicleta e rede cicloviária da cidade de São Paulo: análise e recomendações. Instituto de Políticas de Transporte & Desenvolvimento. Disponível em: <http://itdpbrasil.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Relatorio-CIclovias-SP.pdf>. (Acesso em: 06/06/2019).
Jones, T. e L. N. Azevedo (2013) Economic, social and cultural transformation and the role of the bicycle in Brazil. Journal of Transport Geography, v. 30, p. 208–219. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.02.005.
Lemos, L.; M. K. Harkot; P. F. Santoro e I. B. Ramos (2017) Mulheres, por que não pedalam? Por que há menos mulheres do que homens usando bicicleta em São Paulo, Brasil? Revista Transporte y Territorio, v. 16, p. 68–98. ISSN 1852-7175.
Lemos, L.e H. Wicher Neto (2014) Cycling infrastructure in São Paulo: Impacts of a leisure-oriented model. In: Spinoffs of Mobility: Technology, Risks & Innovation - 12th Annual Conference of the International Association for the History of Transport, Traffic and Mobility (T²M), Filadélfia. Spinoffs of Mobility: Technology, Risks & Innovation.
Li, H.; H. Ding; G. Ren e C. Xu (2018) Effects of the London cycle superhighways on the usage of the London cycle hire. Trans-portation Research, v. 111, p. 304–315. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2018.03.020.
London (2018) Mayor's Transport Strategy. Greater London Authority, London, UK.
Louw, E. e K. Maat (1999) Enschede: measures in a package. Built Environment, Travel Reduction: Policy into Practice, v. 25, p. 118–128.
Lyons, G. e C. Davidson (2016) Guidance for transport planning and policymaking in the face of an uncertain future. Trans-portation Research, v. 88, p. 104–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2016.03.012.
Macharis, C.; L. Turcksin e K. Lebeau (2012) Multi actor multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) as a tool to support sustainable decisions: state of use. Decision Support Systems, v. 54, n. 1, p. 610–620. DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2012.08.008.
Macharis, C. e G. Baudry (2018) The Multi Actor Multi Criteria Analysis framework. In Macharis, C. e G. Baudry (Eds.), Deci-sion-making for sustainable transport and mobility, p. 2–27. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Inc.
Macharis, C.; K. de Brucker e K. van Raemdonck (2018) When to use Multi Actor Multi Criteria Analysis or other evaluation methods? In Macharis, C. e G. Baudry (Eds.), Decision-making for sustainable transport and mobility, p. 28–47. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Inc.
Marshall, W. E. e N. F. Ferenchak (2019) Why cities with high bicycling rates are safer for all road users. Journal of Transport & Health, v. 13, 100539. DOI: 10.1016/j.jth.2019.03.004.
Martens, K. (2007) Promoting bike-and-ride: The Dutch experience. Transportation Research Part A, v. 41, n. 4, p. 326–338. DOI:10.1016/j.tra.2006.09.010.
Metrô (2019) Pesquisa Origem Destino 2017. Relatório Técnico, Companhia do Metropolitano de São Paulo, São Paulo.
Nkurunziza, A.; M. Zuidgeest; M. Brussel e M. van Maarseveen (2012) Examining the potential for modal change: Motivators and barriers for bicycle commuting in Dar-es-Salaam. Transport Policy, v. 24, p. 249–259. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.09.002.
Pucher, J. e R. Buehler (2008) Making cycling irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transport Reviews, v. 28, n. 4, p. 495–528. DOI: 10.1080/01441640701806612.
Pucher, J.; J. Dill e S. Handy (2010) Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review. Pre-ventive Medicine, v. 50, p. S106–S125. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.07.028.
Rietveld, P. e V. Daniel (2004) Determinants of bicycle use: do municipal policies matter? Transportation Research, v. 38, i. 7, p. 531–550. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2004.05.003.
Roukouni, A.; C. Macharis e S. Basbas (2018) Evaluation of value capture financing schemes for urban transportation infra-structure with the aid of Multi Actor Multi Criteria Analysis focusing on a Greek city. In Macharis, C. e G. Baudry (Eds.), Decision-making for sustainable transport and mobility, p. 2–27. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Inc.
São Paulo (2020) Infosiga, Base de dados. Governo do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo. Disponível em: <http://www.respeitoavida.sp.gov.br/>. (Acesso em: 02/02/2020).
São Paulo (2016) Decreto municipal nº 56.834, de 24 de fevereiro de 2016. Institui o Plano Municipal de Mobilidade Urbana de São Paulo – PlanMob/SP 2015, Município de São Paulo.
Savan, B.; E. Cohlmeyer e T. Ledsham (2017) Integrated strategies to accelerate the adoption of cycling for transportation. Transportation Research A, v. 46, p. 236–249. DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2017.03.002.
Sharifi, M. A.; L. Boerboom; K. B. Shamsudin e L. Veeramuthu (2006) Spatial multiple criteria decision analysis in integrated planning for public transport and land use development study in Klang Valley, Malaysia. ISPRS Technical Commission II Symposium, Vienna, p. 12–14.
Silva. A.; I. Pinto; D. Ribeiro e J. Delgado (2014) Multicriteria analysis for evaluation of bike lane routes integrated to public transportation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, v. 162, p. 388–397. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.220.
Silva, L. M. e A. N. Rodrigues da Silva (2009) Planejamento estratégico de uma experiência pedagógica inovadora. Pesquisa e Tecnologia Minerva, v. 6, n. 1, p. 99–106.
Sousa, A. A.; S. Sanches e M. A. G. Ferreira (2014) Perception of barriers for the use of bicycles. Procedia - Social and Behavior-al Sciences, v. 160, p. 304–313. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.142.
Taleai, M.; A. Sharifi; R. Sliuzas e M. Mesgari (2007) Evaluating the compatibility of multi-functional and intensive urban land uses. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, v. 9, n. 4, p. 375–391. DOI: 10.1016/j.jag.2006.12.002.
Tennøy, A.; L. Hansson; E. Lissandrello e P. Næss (2015) How planners’ use and non-use of expert knowledge affect the goal achievement potential of plans: experiences from strategic land-use and transport planning processes in three Scandi-navian cities. Progress in Planning, v. 109, p. 1–32. DOI: 10.1016/j.progress.2015.05.002.
Turcksin, L.; C. Macharis; K. Lebeau; F. Boureima; J. van Mierlo; S. Bram; J. de Ruyck; L. Mertens; J. Jossart; L. Gorissen e L. Pelkmans (2011) A multi-actor multi-criteria framework to assess the stakeholder support for different biofuel options: The case of Belgium. Energy Policy, v. 39, n. 1, p. 200–214. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.033.
Van Goeverden, K.; T. S. Nielsen; H. Harder e R. van Nes (2015) Interventions in bicycle infrastructure, lessons from Dutch and Danish cases. Transportation Research Procedia, v. 10, p. 403–412. DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2015.09.090.
Van Lier, T.; D. Meers; H. B. Rai e C. Macharis (2018) Evaluating innovative solutions for sustainable city logistics: an en-hanced understanding of stakeholders perceptions. In Macharis, C. e G. Baudry (Eds.), Decision-making for sustainable transport and mobility, p. 2–27. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Inc.
Withanaarachchi, J. e S. Setunge (2014) Decision making on transport network planning and the impact on community, economy and the environment. Procedia Economics and Finance, v. 18, p. 882–891. DOI: 10.1016/S2212-5671(14)01014-4.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Hellem de Freitas Miranda
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who submit papers for publication by TRANSPORTES agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant TRANSPORTES the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors may enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of this journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in TRANSPORTES.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) after publication of the article. Authors are encouraged to use links to TRANSPORTES (e.g., DOIs or direct links) when posting the article online, as TRANSPORTES is freely available to all readers.
- Authors have secured all necessary clearances and written permissions to published the work and grant copyright under the terms of this agreement. Furthermore, the authors assume full responsibility for any copyright infringements related to the article, exonerating ANPET and TRANSPORTES of any responsibility regarding copyright infringement.
- Authors assume full responsibility for the contents of the article submitted for review, including all necessary clearances for divulgation of data and results, exonerating ANPET and TRANSPORTES of any responsibility regarding to this aspect.
