​THE SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF SUSTAINABLE URBAN MOBILITY PLANS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONSULTATIVE DEMOCRACY IN CITIES

Abstract

The strategy of a city that aims at promoting sustainable mobility policies is usually related to the global objective for environmental protection and the aesthetic objective for regeneration of the local urban environment. However, there is an extremely important dimension regarding the policies for sustainable mobility that has not yet been given the emphasis it deserves. This is the stimulation of the citizens’ interest in the community and the increase of their participation in local decisions, hence the strengthening of the local democracy in decision making. Dewey had pointed out, from 1927, that invasion and gradual destruction of local collectives and face-to-face communication was the immediate source of instability and indifference that already characterized the democratic American society. The inhabitants now choose areas that are away from the old dense and multifunctional neighborhoods, no longer accessible on foot from the city center and with no other land use than residences. Local stores within the neighborhood or the city center created a sense of unity and community to the citizens, by representing their own shops, they felt familiar and also created a daily social gathering, a component of their local identity. The big scale of urban development limits the person’s ability to participate, because the person is unable to get to know the whole of the urban space, while also she/ he is mostly unable to follow its evolution. Most cities that have achieved a high level participation in decision making regarding urban issues were small-sized cities. The topic of this paper is related to the specific research question on how sustainable mobility could contribute towards the building of a consultative democracy in cities

Kaynakça

1. Apostolopoulos, K., Geli, M., Petrelli, P. et al., 2016. A new model for cadastral surveying using crowdsourcing. Survey Review, 10, pp. 1-12.
2. Bakogiannis, E., Kyriakidis, C., Sit, M., Elefheriou, V. and Siolas, A., 2014. Urban planning VS environment. Re conciliatng the conficts. 4th Pan-hellenic Conference in Rural and Surveing Engineering: The role of surveyors in reconstructng Greece. Thessaloniki, Greece, 26-27 September 2014.
3. Bakogiannis, E., Kyriakidis, C., Sit, M., Christopoulos, K. and Karolemeas, C. 2018. Issues on social and technical transiton concerning the partcipatory planning process in the context of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans. 11th Internatonal Conference of the Hellenic Geographical Society. Laurio, Greece, 12-15 April 2018.
4. Barbopoulos, N., Milakis, D. and Vlastos, Th., 2005.Seeking the form of a sustainable city: A critcal approach to the compact urban model.Aeichoros, 4(1), pp. 20-45.
5. Berenson, E., 1984. Populist religion and lef-wing politcs in France, 1830-1852. Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press.
6. Beria, P. and Grimaldi, R., 2014. Cost Beneft Analysis to assess urban mobility plans. Consumers’ surplus calculaton and integraton with transport models. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. [online]htps://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/59590/1/MPRA_paper_ 59590.pdf[Accessed 03 June 2016].
7. Dewey, J., 1927. The public and its problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press.
8. Diez, J.M., Gonzalo Orden, H., Velasco, L. And Lopez-Lambas, M.E., 2013. Situaton of the sustainable mobility plans in Spain. DYN@MO Summer University in Plama Conference, Palma de Mallorca, Spain, June 2013.

9. Dimitriadis, S., Tzortzaki, A., 2010. Marketng: Principles-Strategies-Applicatons. Athens: Rosili Editons.
10. ELTIS, 2013. Guidelines. Developing and implementng sustainable urban mobility plans. European Platorm on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans and European Commission Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport © European Union.
11. European Commission, 2007. Green Paper “Towards a new culture for urban mobility” (COM 2007).
12. European Commission, 2011. White Paper “Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a Compettve and Resource Efcient Transport System” (COM 2011).
13. European Commission, 2013. “Together towards compettve and resource-efcient urban mobility” (COM 2013).
14. European Parliament, Commitee on Transport and Tourism (2014). Draf Report on Sustainable Urban Mobility (2014/2242 (INI)).
15. Gant, R., Ye, F. and Lei, H.,2011. Mobile crowdsensing: Current state and future challenges. IEEE Communicatons Magazine, 49(11), pp. 32-39
16. Gehl, J., 2010. Cites for people. Washington, Covelo and London: Island Press.
17. Kenworthy, J. and Laube, F., 1996. Automobile dependece in cites: An internatonal comparison of urban transport and land use paterns with implicatons for sustainability. Environmental Impact Assesment Review, 16(4- 6), pp. 279-308.
18. Kyriakidis, C., 2016. The functon of urban public space in relaton to local parameters: Comparatve study between Larisa and Notngham. Aeichoros, 24, pp. 67-85.
19. Kyriakidis, C., Bakogiannis, E. and Siolas, A., 2017. Identfying environmental afordances in Kypseli Square in Athens, Greece.Internatonal Conference on Social Sciences (ICONSOS) 2018, New York, USA, 17-19 September 2017.
20. Kyriakidis, C. and Bakogiannis, E., 2018. How the physical characteristcs may afect the social life of streets in Athens, Greece? 14th Internatonal Conference on Social Sciences, f Kyriakidis, C. and Iliadis, F., 2018. Compactness evaluaton of the Athens metropolitan area. 11th Internatonal Conference of the Hellenic Geographical Society. Laurio, Greece, 12-15 April 2018.
21. Lim, H. K. and Kain, J. H., 2016. Compact cites are complex, intense and diverse but: can we design such emergent urban propertes? Urban Planning, 1(1), pp. 95-113.
22. Mouratdis, K., 2017. Is compact city livable? The impact of compact versus sprawled neighbourhoods on neighbourhood satsfacton, Urban Studies, 1-23.
23. Nobis, C., 2010. Multmodality: Facets and causes of Sustainable Mobility Behavior. Transportaton Research Record: Journal of the Transportaton Research Board, 1, pp. 35-44.
24. Ofcial Journal of the European Union, 2003. Directve 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. [online] Available at: htp://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html ?uri=cellar:4a80a6c9-cdb3-4e27-a721-d5df1a0535bc.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF [Retrieved 26th March 2018].
25. Papadopoulou, Ch. and Stratgea, A., 2014. Traditonal VS Web-based partcipatory tools in support of spatal planning in ‘lagging-behind’ peripheral regions, In: Proceedings of Internatonal Conference on ‘Socioeconomic sustainability, Regional Development and Spatal Planning: European and Internatonal Dimensions and Perspectves’. pp. 165-170.
26. Pödör, A. Révész, A., Oscal, A., et al., 2015. Testng some Aspects of Usability of Crowdsourced Smartphone Generated Noise Maps. Journal for Geographic Informaton Science 1(2015), pp. 354-358.
27. Portokalidis , K. and Zygouris, F., 2011. The peculiar “Compact Difusion” of Greek cites. In: Proceedings of the 9th Natonal Conference of ERSA-GR, Athens, 6-7 May 2011.
28. Rigogne, T., 2014.The café as informaton exchange: Cofeehouses at the heart of the communicaton system in eighteenth-century Paris. 128th Annual Meetng American Historical Associaton, Washington, USA, January 2014.
29. Rupprecht Consult - Forschung & Beratung GmbH (2016). Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans – Planning for the people. [online] Available at: htp://www.rupprecht-consult.eu/uploads/tx_rupprecht/SUMP_Brochure_GR_web. pdf [Accessed 03 June 2016].
30. Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F. and Frank, L.D., 2003. Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: fndings from the transportaton, urban design and planning literatures. Annals of behavioral medicines, 25(2), pp. 80-91.
31. Schweizer, I., Bärtl, R., Schulz, A. et al., 2011. NoiseMap-real-tme partcipatory noise maps.Second Internatonal Workshop on Sensing Applicatons on Mobile Phones. [online] Available at: htps://pdfs.semantcscholar. org/8b8d/76765357bd6f82936d25d05512f2b 76ac0b6.pdf [Retrieved 27 Aug 2017].
32. Shokoohi, R. and Nikitas, A., 2017. Urban growth and transportaton in Kuala Lumpur: Can cycling be incorporated into Kuala Lumpur’s transportaton system? Case studies on Transport Policy, 5(4), pp. 615-626.
33. Skagiannis, P., Goudas, M. and Rodakinias, P., 2017. Sustainable mobility and physical actvity: A meaningful marriage. Transportaton Research Procedia, 24C, pp. 81-88.
34. Stojanovic, D., Predic, B., Stojanovic, N., 2016. Mobile crowd sensing for smart urban mobility. In: Capineri, C., Haklay, M., Huang, H. et al. (eds). European Handbook of Crowdsourced Geographic Informaton. Ubiquity Press. London, UK, pp. 371-382.
35. Tomanek, R., 2017. Free-fare public transport in the concept of sustainable urban mobility. Tranport Problems, 12, pp. 95-105.
36. UNECE, 1998. Conventon on Access to Informaton, Public Partcipaton in Decision-making and Access to Justce in Environmental Maters. htps://www.unece.org/ fleadmin/DAM/env/pp/ documents/cep43e.pdf [Retrieved 23 Mar 2008].
37. Vlastos, Th., 1993. Transport and social environment. 4 Wheels, 273, pp. 186-190.
38. Vlastos, Th., 2004. The human scale in trafc planning at the tme of the globalizaton of transport. Ecotopia, 29, pp. 30-33.
39. Vlastos, Th., Barbopoulos, N. and Milakis, N., 2003. The “spatal capacity” approach for a sustainable urban transport planning. The case of Kallithea, Athes. Proceedings of the Congres “Urban Transport and the Environment for the 21st Century IV”, Wessex Insttute of Technology Press, pp. 133-143.
40. Vlastos, Th. and Birbili, T., 1999. Towards a new economic policy for sustainable mobility. Proceedings of the Internatonal Conference of TCG: «Technology and Environment» - HELECO ‘99, Thessaloniki, Greece, June 1999, Vol II, pp. 499-504.
41. Wellman, B., 2008. Physical place and cyberspace: The rise of personalized networking. Internatonal Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), pp. 227-252.
42. Xiao, Y., Simoens, P., Pillai. P., Ha, K. and Satyanarayanan, S., 2013. Lowering the barriers to large-scale mobile crowdsensing. 14th Workshop on Mobile Computng Systems and Applicatons. Jekyll Island, Georgia, 26-27 February