Policy determinants in the context of the EU's carbon neutrality goals
Název práce v češtině: | Politické faktory v kontextu cílů EU v oblasti uhlíkové neutrality |
---|---|
Název v anglickém jazyce: | Policy determinants in the context of the EU's carbon neutrality goals |
Klíčová slova: | udržitelnost, Evropská unie, plán udržitelné městské mobility, dopravní plánování, šíření politiky, organizované zájmy, akademická spolupráce, evropeizace, víceúrovňové vládnutí, sítě měst |
Klíčová slova anglicky: | sustainability, European Union, Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan, transport planning, policy diffusion, organized interests, academic cooperation, Europeanization, multi-level governance, city networks |
Akademický rok vypsání: | 2018/2019 |
Typ práce: | diplomová práce |
Jazyk práce: | angličtina |
Ústav: | Katedra mezinárodních vztahů (23-KMV) |
Vedoucí / školitel: | Mgr. Viera Martinková, Ph.D. |
Řešitel: | skrytý![]() |
Datum přihlášení: | 30.06.2019 |
Datum zadání: | 30.06.2019 |
Datum a čas obhajoby: | 15.09.2021 08:00 |
Místo konání obhajoby: | Pekařská 16, JPEK314, 314, Malá učebna, 3.patro |
Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby: | 26.07.2021 |
Datum proběhlé obhajoby: | 15.09.2021 |
Oponenti: | Mgr. Jan Mazač |
Kontrola URKUND: | ![]() |
Seznam odborné literatury |
Please see below. |
Předběžná náplň práce |
Please see below. |
Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce |
The first universal legally binding international agreement on combating climate change – the Paris Agreement, ratified by approximately 197 countries, entered into force on November 4th 2016. Its aim is to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, with an effort towards 1.5 degrees compared to pre-industrial levels.
Specific to the Paris Agreement is its recognition of the role of non-Party stakeholders in addressing climate change. A very important type of stakeholder, and for the purpose of this research the most interesting one – are cities and subnational authorities. They are called upon to take their own steps in reducing emissions, building resilience in the wake of climate change externalities and foster cross regional and international cooperation. The European Comission has adopted a series of documents refining its recommendations to cities, with the aim of enabling them to develop Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs); Action Plan on Urban Mobiltiy on September 30th 2009 [COM(2009) 490], White paper 2011 – Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area [COM (2011) 144], and ultimately [COM(2013) 913] A Concept for Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans which more precisely defined the goals, objectives, vision, implementation and assessment of SUMPs. The concept of SUMPs has seen a rise in popularity across all Member States (a process called “take up”) from 2013 and the launch of the EU Mobility Package which saw 800 SUMPs, up to a 1000 in 2018. “Rather than prescribing specific policy instruments, such as the introduction of congestion charges or parking management systems, the concept provides a process standard for urban mobility planning. The approach inter alia promotes policy integration, interdisciplinary planning, involvement of the public and of stakeholders, and a stronger focus on people and quality of life instead of on undisturbed traffic flows (Werland, 2020)”. Such a difference in uptake of the SUMPs concept and a discrepancy in SUMP quality presents numerous research paths. For the purpose of this Thesis project, I shall lay out two broader research questions; • What causes cities to take up SUMPs (what are their specifics that cause them to do so, how much time passed from SUMP policy birth till document finalization of a given city) For those which do; • What influences the difference in the quality of SUMPs (actual adaptation, their the ultimate results) Theoretical/conceptual background and research gaps This Thesis project should cover the topic of SUMPs on a more all-encompassing, cross EU level. Most of the research so far has been done on a country/city specific single case analysis basis (Bezerra, dos Santos, Delmonico, 2020; Przyblowski, 2018; Decker, Hećimović, Wolek, 2012; de Freitas Miranda, Rodrigues da Silva 2012, etc.). Even the policy evaluation conducted by EU organizations has been mostly qualitative, based on interviews and feedback with responsible persons form the local government. Furthermore, political science has been in the back seat of the research when it comes to specifically Urban Mobility policy and politics. Transport Studies (May, 2015), Environmental Studies (Pisoni, Chirstidis, Thunis, Trombetti, 2019) Logistics Studies (Fossheim, Andersen, 2017), Urban Planning experts etc. have all had the louder say in this field, which has been dominated by technical recommendations, guidelines and evaluations literature. Existing ones have focused more on a single dimension of determinants (e.g. Citizen-stakeholder involvement - Lindenau, Böhler-Baedeker, 2014; Fernandez – Heredia, Fernandez – Sanchez, 2020 etc., city size – Rudplph, Damert, 2017, etc.). Most importantly, with a continuous influx of new initiatives and stakeholders as well as accelerated SUMP take up, more research in this field is a constant necessity. I have thus selected a number of potential explanatory concepts (major ones marked with *): • Political (Ideological) affiliation* In constitutional democracies, a major determinant of policy choices is shaped by party compositions of the government (Schmidt, 1996). Here we would observe city council seat distribution and mayor’s party affiliation (Knill, Debus, Heichel, 2010). Gender of mayor (Stevens, 2010; DG for the Internal Policies of the Union, 2019) would also be considered. • Europeanization of local government* Here we would take a closer look at participation of cities in European projects and networks that promote sustainable mobility. Networks like CIVITAS, POLIS, URBACT (and several others), promote EU values, best practices, help with capacity building, staff training etc. Therefore, I would observe membership effects. Special attention would be given to border area cities (De Rooij, 2002). Lastly, I would explore the effects of twin/sister cities. How much does having one (or more) city with a SUMP as a twin/sister, help in the elaboration of own SUMP (seeing as city twinning is a tool for integration (Joenniemi, 2011)). • Policy diffusion* Closely following the Europeanization theory, policy diffusion explains why policy choices in one unit are influenced by policy choices in other units (Maggetti, Gilardi, 2016). The regional diffusion model from Walker (Walker, 1969) postulates that jurisdictions with similar socio-economic modules tend to imitate each other in adaption of policies. Chandler (Chandler, 2009) in the same vain suggests that geographical proximity plays a role in adopting climate policies as was the case with neighboring US states and the SEPS. • Economic power* How much does economic power enable implementation of innovative policy solutions. We would observe NUTS2 regions economic power, NUTS2 R&D expenditure, presence of academic institutions. • Organized interests* Citizen groups should have certain sway over policy decisions if they possess the moral high ground on a salient issue (Dür, De Bievre, 2007; Mahoney 2007). In the specific context of transformative urban mobility, notable pressure group are cyclists. Their activities are most noticeably empowered by the European Mobility Week, the European Cyclist Federation and smaller organizations such as the Dutch Cycling Embassy and Employers friends of Cycling. We will measure events in cities organized by these organizations. • Tangential policies Here I would measure historical data on NO2, CO, CO2and PM2.5 emissions in cities. Also road deaths per capita. In this way, we can see if SUMPs are motived by from other policy branches – health, road safety etc. Lastly, if city is a major touristic hub (i.e. percentage of tourist population in city against permanent population) plays an influence on mobility policies as well – see if it also influences SUMP take-up and efficiency. • Wider infrastructural nodes SUMPs emphasize multimodality and mobile shift towards, amongst others, rail transport (the avoid-shift-improve concept). Here we will take into account if cities are part of TEN-T rail network, average proximity to rail station, density of motorways (NUTS2 region data). • Existing national policies* Ministerial structure – is there a separate Ministry for environment (Knill, Debus, Heichel 2010). Party membership of Minister of Transportation and Environment. Existing legislation regarding sustainable urban mobility. Status of SDGs (Most notably no.11). Status of national Long Term Strategies (LTS). Methodology For existence of SUMPs – ELTIS database of all SUMPS. Excluding countries that have legal obligation to implement SUMPs. Focus is on small and mid sized EU towns. Series of binomial and multivariate regressions to test the variables. |