Foto: Mostphotos/User_76523
What is meant by a transport-efficient society? New report highlights clear dividing lines
What do different stakeholders actually mean when they talk about a transport-efficient society? That is the starting point for a new report from K2, in which researchers analyse how civil servants and politicians at local and regional levels interpret and apply the concept. The findings show that they are not always referring to the same thing.
The transport sector accounts for roughly one third of Sweden’s emissions and plays a decisive role in achieving the climate targets for 2030 and 2045. Over the past two decades, the concept of a “transport-efficient society” has become increasingly central in policy and planning discussions. At the same time, the concept is contested and has been the subject of conflicts and political debate.
More recently, there has also been a shift in how the concept is understood: from a focus on modal shift towards more sustainable modes and demand reduction, to a greater emphasis on the more technology-oriented notion of transport efficiency. At the same time, there are substantial variations in how different actors—particularly at local and regional levels—interpret and relate to the idea of a transport-efficient society.
Three key lines of conflict
Within the K2 project “What kind of transport-efficient society do we want to achieve?”, researchers have examined how the concept is used by different actors and what kind of society is implied. The conclusions are presented in the K2 report “Olika aktörers tolkningar av det transporteffektiva samhället” (“Different actors’ interpretations of the transport-efficient society”). The aim is to improve understanding of transport policy as a whole by clarifying the meaning of key concepts, as well as identifying any linguistic and substantive shifts.
The report identifies three central lines of conflict. The first concerns differences between national policy and work at local and regional levels. At the national level, there is a strong emphasis on so-called Improve strategies, which aim to enhance existing technologies. In contrast, municipalities and regions tend in practice to focus more on Shift and also Avoid strategies, which involve modal shift to more sustainable transport modes and reducing the need for travel.
The second line of conflict relates to differences between civil servants and politicians. Civil servants are more likely to advocate reductions in car traffic and measures involving structural change, whereas politicians often prioritise technological development and tend to avoid restrictive policy instruments.
The third line of conflict concerns differences between metropolitan regions and rural and commuting municipalities. The latter are more likely to advocate measures that promote “sustainable modes” rather than restrict “unsustainable” ones.
Towards greater understanding
– In a way, the concept of a transport-efficient society encapsulates many of the conflicts and divisions that characterise transport policy as a whole. It is therefore important to understand how different actors relate to the concept, as this provides greater insight into the alliances and opposing positions that shape transport policy, says Elias Isaksson, researcher at Umeå University and K2.
He hopes that the study can help different stakeholders better understand the conflicts and divisions associated with a transport-efficient society and similar concepts.
– In this way, those using the concept may be better equipped to navigate these choices, make more informed decisions and, in the long term, more effectively support the transition of the transport sector.
The study is based on a survey using descriptive statistics and open-ended responses. However, it forms part of a larger project that also includes interviews, document studies, literature reviews and workshops.
Text: Anna Maria Erling