Transportation Research Part A 89 (2016) 201214

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tra

An integrated assessment of alternative land-based passenger

transport policies: A case study in Tenerife
Yeray Hernndez Gonzlez a, Serafn Corral Quintana b,
a

Departamento de Economa Aplicada y Mtdos Cuantitativos, Universidad de La Laguna, Campus de Guajara, s/n. 38071 La Laguna, S/C de Tenerife, Espaa
Departamento de Economa Aplicada y Mtdos Cuantitativos, CIBICAN, Universidad de La Laguna, Campus de Guajara, s/n. 38071 La Laguna, S/C de
Tenerife, Espaa
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 14 April 2015
Received in revised form 11 May 2016
Accepted 20 May 2016
Available online 30 May 2016
Keywords:
Land-based passenger transport policies
Integrated assessment
Institutional analysis
Stakeholders
Participatory multi-criteria assessment

a b s t r a c t
Over recent decades, there have been numerous cases of land-based transport policies that
have lacked clear and coherent strategies. This has not only hampered the resolution of
issues like road congestion, but has also created new ones (e.g. strong social opposition
to new train infrastructures). The absence of such strategies highlights the need for
long-term transport policies with a wider vision of the issues, since land-based transport
cannot be considered from just a technical perspective.
The main objective of this article is to implement a participatory integrated approach to
facilitate the understanding of land-based passenger transport governance issues on
Tenerife, in the Canary Islands. Relevant policy issues and alternatives are identified by
the stakeholders involved. The inclusion of stakeholders in the assessment process is crucial to frame transport governance issues appropriately and to define and assess plausible
policy alternatives. This assessment process even included a final step of validation of the
results by stakeholders to foster discussion among them about transport issues and policy
alternatives.
Finally, due to the obstructive role played by some stakeholders in influencing past
transport policies, an analysis of possible coalitions among stakeholders is also discussed.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The socio-economic and environmental impacts of transport policies have been thoroughly analysed in recent decades.
Urban congestion in the main European cities is costing approximately 80 billion per year and the predictions indicate this
figure will increase in the coming decades (European Commission, 2011, 2013). There were also approximately 25,900 lives
lost in 2013 as a consequence of road accidents (European Commission, 2015). Vienneau et al. (2015) estimated that 6000
and 14,000 of years of life were lost due to noise and air pollution, respectively, related to transport activities in Switzerland
in 2010, considering road, rail and air transport altogether.
However, transport governance issues go beyond technical ones, tense social relations1 such as strong and opposing
interests and system-related uncertainties2 highlight the need for more inclusive approaches.
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: scorral@ull.edu.es (S. Corral Quintana).
Transport planning is not a linear process, instead it involves complexity, since many links between transportation and households mobility patterns are
produced (Rydin et al., 2012).
2
Hernndez Gonzlez (2014) identifies low uncertainties related to congestion referring to inexactness of estimations (i.e. imprecise speed-flow functions,
value of time, operation cost functions of car usage, and elasticity of traffic demand) and high uncertainties detected for accidents (patient pain and relatives
grief), noise, and air pollution (related to doseresponse functions).
1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.05.016
0965-8564/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

202

Y. Hernndez Gonzlez, S. Corral Quintana / Transportation Research Part A 89 (2016) 201214

As a consequence, transport-related decision-making processes need to be improved through the application of new rules,
practices and participatory decision-making tools (Hodgson and Turner, 2003; Macharis et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2014).
This research discusses the use of integrated assessment processes consisting of the integration of institutional analysis,
participatory methods and multi-criteria analysis. The authors argue that such integrated assessment might assist in
transport-related planning processes and, therefore, apply it to a case of inter-urban transport planning issues on Tenerife
(the Canary Islands).
2. Case study
Tenerife has an area of 2034 km2 and a local population of 897,582 in 2013, distributed among 31 municipalities, with a
density of 441 inhabitants per km2 (ISTAC, 2014b) There are three main urban agglomerations that have the largest populations, most economic activities (Table 1) and the majority of inter-urban trips (Fig. 1) with distances between 40 km (from
the North to the metropolitan area) to 80 km (from the metropolitan area to the Southwest). Thus, the island functions like a
large sprawling city. Just the metropolitan area and its surrounding agglomerations accumulate 4.5 million hours lost in congestion, costing 109 million a year (Hernndez Gonzlez, 2014).
Work, educational and leisure activities are the main purposes of inter-urban trips, with 62% of these trips being made by
car, while alternative transport means (bus, coach, tram, and taxi) account for 18% and car-pooling for 19% (Table 2).
In the late nineties, the Cabildo de Tenerife (Island Council) started to design a tramway as an alternative to road transport that would help improve the public transport system (Cabildo de Tenerife, 2006a). In addition, a new road network was
proposed to guarantee traffic continuity on the Island (Cabildo de Tenerife, 2006b). Even though new road infrastructures
can encourage new demand patterns and greater congestion (Marina-Gonzlez and Marrero, 2012; Waddell et al., 2007),
it was considered (and it is still today) the solution to Islands congestion issues.
Nowadays, over fifteen years later, these two plans have still not been completely implemented. Moreover, newer plans
have been developed but not yet implemented, due to either financial restrictions or social opposition (Table 3). Thus, Tenerifes transport policies might be described as a collection of disperse transport policies leading to a range of easily noticeable
transport impacts in Tenerife (Table 4).
The main objective of this paper is to frame appropriately the disjointed land-based passenger transport governance
strategy3 initiated two decades ago and to propose and to assess more plausible inter-urban transport policy alternatives
through a more inclusive process.
3. Literature and material
Integrated assessment is the combination of existing and/or new methodologies intended to significantly improve scientific analysis of any complex issue. It consists of complementary methods to improve our understanding of the complexities
of transport planning.
In the transport policy literature reviewed, several examples of integrated assessment regarding either transport planning
or transport projects can be found (Hlsmann et al., 2014; Macharis et al., 2012; Nocera et al., 2014; Nurul Hassan et al.,
2013; Tuominen et al., 2014; Vermote et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014; see also Table 5). Integrated assessment can either
be implemented in a technocratic way (where only experts are involved in the analysis) or in a participatory one (where
stakeholders and other members of society might be actively involved).
Examples of technocratic integrated assessments are Hlsmann et al. (2014) and Wang et al. (2014). Hlsmann et al.
(2014) analysed the effects of traffic on air pollution combining the use of a multi-agent-based transport model and a specific
air pollution model for street canyons. According to the authors, this integrated assessment allowed a better understanding
of the causes and effects of air pollution on the environment and human health. Wang et al. (2014) analysed sustainable
transport planning alternatives in Madrid (Spain), using an integrated assessment, based on Delphi and MCA methods, called
integrated transport planning framework. The conclusions pointed out that (a) this process is a promising tool to understand the acceptability of complex transportation measures, and (b) it is a robust and transparent decision-making process to
find compromise solutions compared to other approaches based on one criterion utility-maximisation characteristics.
However, some authors have expressed their concerns about the implementation of technocratic approaches. Thus, for
instance, Nocera et al. (2014) have highlighted that the problem with technocratic approaches is that [t]he perspective of
the society has not been taken into account adequately, thus leading to misunderstandings and conflicts between different perspectives because a real debate has been prevented and the positions tend to be polarized. This DEAD4 approach favours decision-makers
and postpones, or even omits, a real discussion with citizens (Nocera et al., 2014, p. 282).
From this perspective, stakeholders should be considered in decision-making processes as powerful problem-solving
tools (Banville et al., 1998), and also as basic requisites to cope with the complexities of the issues involved (Funtowicz
and Ravetz, 1991, 1993). In those cases, where the engagement of stakeholders in transport planning has actually taken
place, they have brought new insights into transport planning (Legacy et al., 2012) and are suitable approaches to be used
3
4

For simplicity, transport policy will be used throughout the paper.

Refers to Decision, Education, Announcement and Defence. These authors support transport decisions based on ADD (Announce, Discuss and Decide).

Y. Hernndez Gonzlez, S. Corral Quintana / Transportation Research Part A 89 (2016) 201214

203

Table 1
Main urban areas in Tenerife.
Location

% of total population Activities

Metropolitan area, located northeast

43%
Touristic area, located southwest (Abona and Suroeste) 20%
Northern part Valle de La Orotava
12%

Public Administration, finance, and commerce

Tourism and commerce.
Tourism and commerce, as well as several Public Administration offices

Source: ISTAC (2014c).

Source: Cabildo de Tenerife (2012).

Fig. 1. Trip origindestinations in Tenerife. Source: Cabildo de Tenerife (2012).

Table 2
Land-based inter-urban transport patterns in Tenerife.
Means of transport

Trip purpose

Motorcycle
Car
Car-pooling
Bus
Coach
Tram
Taxi

Work
Study
Work affairs
Take children to school
Visiting doctor
Shopping
Leisure
Personal affairs
Accompany another person
Others

1%
62%
19%
9%
3%
4%
2%

Source: Cabildo de Tenerife, 2012.

37%
14%
1%
3%
4%
9%
14%
8%
3%
7%

204

Y. Hernndez Gonzlez, S. Corral Quintana / Transportation Research Part A 89 (2016) 201214

Table 3
Summary of transport policies in Tenerife.
Policy measures

Year

Trams
Roads
Southern train
Northern train
Policy coordination and road demand management measures

1997
1999
2000
2002
2005

Note: Policy coordination refers to a policy that is intended to bring the

tram, road, southern and northern train policies all together under one policy.
Demand management measures refer to a series of measures intended to
discourage the use of cars, such as congestion charges, control of access and
traffic calming measures in urban areas, car park regulation on streets, park
and ride systems, cycle lane building, bike hire systems and improvement of
pedestrian areas.

Table 4
Land transport impacts on Tenerife.
Impact

Estimation

Road congestion Santa Cruz de Tenerife (capital of Tenerife) = 11 million

Metropolitan area of Tenerife = 109 million

Source
(Muoz de Escalona,
2004) (1)
(Hernndez Gonzlez,
2014) (2)

Road accidents

8600 accidents registered in Tenerife in 2012

Air pollution

Limit excesses of PM10 (all stations for the daily average, and half of stations for the annual average), PM2.5 (EA, 2014) (4)
(one third of stations for the daily value, and 8% of stations for the annual average), O3 (half of stations for
the eight hours value), and SO2 (half of stations for the daily value) in 2013

(ISTAC, 2014a) (3)

Noise

Between 85,000 and 90,000 people are exposed to unhealthy road traffic noise in Tenerife, i.e. over
Ln > 55 dB(A)

(SIMAC, 2010) (5)

Note: (1) This study used the congestion costs (value of time lost, vehicle operation costs and air pollution) previously estimated by Robust and Monzn
(1995) for Madrid and Barcelona (since this analysis cannot be tracked, it has been used as a secondary source by means of Muoz de Escalona (2004)).
Based on this previous analysis, Muoz de Escalona made a linear regression for medium-size Spanish cities. The algorithm was presented as Cc = 2.9
+ 0.02P, where Cc made reference to congestion costs per inhabitant, and P refers to population. (2) This study used the value of time lost. It consisted of the
estimation of the dead-weight-loss (DWL) produced by congestion in the north-eastern part of Tenerife. The algorithm is as follows:
RQ
DWLQ qQ  MSECq  Wq  @q, MSEC refers to marginal social external costs, W traffic demand, and q traffic volume per time unit. (3) Refers to
statistical data collected by the local police. The data do not provide information on severe/slight accidents or disabilities. (4) Data are collected by the
Department of Environmental Quality of the Government of the Canary Islands through the air quality station network located in those areas potentially
affected by air pollution, such as the areas surrounding power stations, the oil refinery and main roads. (5) Noise pollution has been measured by the
Department of Environmental Quality too, at main roads as well as urban areas with more than 250,000 inhabitants.

in complex transport policy planning providing sustainable transportation goals (Nocera et al., 2014; Macharis et al., 2009,
2012).
As a consequence, several authors have proposed and implemented integrated approaches where participatory techniques and stakeholders inclusion belong to the methodology amalgam. Thus, Macharis et al. (2012) proposed MAMCA,
i.e. Multi-Actor, Multi-Criteria Analysis of integrated assessment. This term is used for one specific integrated assessment
approach, based on the inclusion of stakeholders in the process of alternative proposal and assessment. Other authors have,
on the other hand, introduced the term MAMCDM (Multiple Agent Multi-Criteria Decision Making) to refer to similar integrated approaches (Nocera et al., 2014).
Some specific consultation and participatory examples should also be mentioned. Tuominen et al. (2014) proposed an
integrated assessment called pluralistic backcasting by which different CO2 transport emission scenarios for Finland were
compared through consultation techniques. The integration of these techniques and methods for the estimation of CO2 emissions led the authors to conclude that integrated pluralistic backcasting is a practical tool to support climate policy for
transport.
Vermote et al. (2014) applied the MAMCA approach in Ramallah (Palestine) to assess alternative traffic-restriction measures. The analysts proposed alternatives and relevant criteria, as well as the corresponding weighting for the criteria in conjunction with the stakeholders. According to the authors, the inclusion of transportation actors was particularly useful to
reach a compromise solution for the problem in hand.
Examples of participatory and consultation techniques similar to the ones applied in this paper can also be cited (Jones,
2011; Nurul Hassan et al., 2013; Shiftan et al., 2003), especially for small island contexts (Gil et al., 2011), as well as the literature regarding transport using multi-criteria analysis (Avineri et al., 2000; Nogus and Gonzlez-Gonzlez, 2014).
To sum up, more inclusive assessment approaches involving the combination of participatory processes techniques with
multi-criteria ones, which allow the inclusion of various types of information in the assessment (scientific data from differ-

Y. Hernndez Gonzlez, S. Corral Quintana / Transportation Research Part A 89 (2016) 201214

205

Table 5
Integrated assessments applied to case studies regarding transportation.
Authors

Issue

Hlsmann Traffic and

et al.
air
pollution
Public bus
Nurul
Hassan system
et al.
Tuominen CO2
et al.
emissions
from
transport
Vermote
Pedestrian
et al.
scenarios

Wang
et al.

Case study Year Methodologies integrated

Social actors

Contribution of integrated assessment

Munich

Modelling cause effect chain of air

pollution emissions and exposure

2014 MAT-Sim and OSPM

Abu Dhabi 2013 Participatory (workshop, discussion

meetings, round tables, and surveys)
(United
and MCA (TOPSIS)
Arab
Emirates)
Finland
2014 Consultation (Delphi method), LIPASTO
system and complementary spread
sheet

Users, transportation Definition of sets of criteria and indicators,

weighting of the criteria and indicators,
experts, operators,
and service providers and data collection
Researchers, policymakers, and high
school students

Ramallah
2014 Consultation (surveys and interviews) Governments,
(Palestine)
and MCA (AHP and Expert Choice)
transport operators,
and local business
actors
Decision makers,
2014 Consultation (Delphi expert-based
Sustainable Madrid
operators,
(Spain)
survey), an integrated land-use and
transport
researchers, and
transport model (MARS), and MCA
planning
consultants
(MAUA)

Multiple visions of the future through

scenario building; mapping of potential
conflicts between stakeholders regarding
policy
Adjustment of alternatives; identification
of assessment criteria and ascertaining
weights
Scenario building, understanding the
acceptability of complex measures

Legend: MAT-Sim (Multi-agent based transport simulation); OSPM (Operational Street Pollution Model); TOPSIS (Technique of Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution); LIPASTO (a calculation system for traffic exhaust emissions and energy use in Finland); AHP (Analytical Hierarchical Process);
MARS (Metropolitan Activity Relocation Simulator); MAUA (Multi-Attribute Utility Analysis).

ent sources, as well as expert and stakeholder opinions) improves the understanding of the assessment outcomes. Moreover,
participatory approaches not only provide crucial knowledge for the assessment but also, through the elicitation of stakeholders positions, facilitate insights into complex governance processes, such as those dealing with land-transport planning.
In the next section, the integrated assessment conducted in this case study will be presented and discussed.
4. Method: An integrated assessment framework for transport policies
The proposed assessment consists of the integration of four methodologies to deal with the complexity of transport governance issues (see bottom of Fig. 2).
4.1. Institutional analysis and participatory techniques
Institutional Analysis (IA) aims at issue framing, as well as identifying the relevant stakeholders (Paneque Salgado et al.,
2009). IA should be considered as an exploratory process to analyse different structures and social relationships (Corral
Quintana, 2004), providing an accurate approximation of the prevailing social and institutional arrangements, understood
as the social context shaped by institutions that define citizens rights and obligations (Bromley, 1989; Commons, 1961;
Schmid, 1972).
Theoretical aspects of IA either justifying the necessity of these approaches (Ostrom, 1990, 2005) or suggesting guidelines
(Ingram et al., 1984) or frameworks of analysis (Imperial, 1999; Koontz, 2006;) have been discussed. Other authors have
focused on its implementation with regard to environmental or transport issues. For instance, Low and Astle (2009) argued
the relevance of path dependency on transport through the analysis of the role and behaviour of transport institutions in
Melbourne; while Shiftan et al. (2003) explored the potential transport policy measures intended to increase the sustainability of the transportation system; and Mitchell et al. (1997) suggested stakeholder identification based on stakeholders possessing one or more of three relationship attributes: power, legitimacy, and urgency.
The potential benefits of stakeholders engagement in transport planning are various (Giering, 2011): (a) ownership of
policies, (b) better decisions in terms of sustainability and the inclusion of community values, (c) transportation agencies
credibility, and (d) faster implementation of transport planning. This is what Susskind and Elliott (1983) described more than
thirty years ago as coproduction. Jones (2011) focused on these processes eliciting accessibility problems and identifying
potential solutions, through the implementation of focus groups and stimulus materials. They are generally carried out
through the implementation of different social techniques and participatory approaches such as interviews, questionnaires
and more inclusive tools such as focus-groups or citizen juries.
4.2. Multi-criteria analysis
Decision-making is not only a technical matter but also involves important social values, which need to be protected
(Vatn, 2005). Thus, multi-criteria analysis (MCA) is an appropriate tool for dealing with problems that involve multiple

206

Y. Hernndez Gonzlez, S. Corral Quintana / Transportation Research Part A 89 (2016) 201214

dimensions or criteria, including those social values. Thus, MCA might be considered particularly relevant to assess transport
policies, as it allows the use of both qualitative and quantitative data at the same time, providing the possibility of including
social values in the assessment (De Brucker et al., 2004; Martinez-Alier et al., 1998).
The NAIADE (Novel Approach to Imprecise Assessment and Decision Environments) MCA method developed by Munda
(1995) was chosen to evaluate the inter-urban transport planning alternatives. NAIADE belongs to the wider family of
outranking methods (Munda,1995, 2004).
NAIADE includes the possibility of using different types of measurement, including crisp (e.g. 1, 20, 34), stochastic (e.g.
probability functions), fuzzy (e.g. ambiguity of information), or linguistic information (e.g. good, not so good, bad) to evaluate
the performance of alternatives. The ability of using fuzzy numbers to deal with inexact information is an advantage when
dealing with transport problems (Avineri et al., 2000; Panou and Sofianos, 2002; Yeh et al., 2000) and energy and environmental performance of different transport technologies (Brand et al., 2002).
NAIADE has been applied in numerous studies related to environmental issues; for instance, Brand et al. (2002) and
Espelta et al. (2003). In some cases NAIADE has been applied within participatory frameworks involving the actors in
the definition of criteria and alternatives and the development of the assessment (Paneque Salgado et al., 2009), highlighting also NAIADEs capacity to cope with uncertain data and to provide a framework for communication among
stakeholders.
However, Garmendia et al. (2010) mentioned that NAIADEs characteristic of not weighting criteria is potentially problematic, since some dimension or criteria may be considered more important than others. Nevertheless, in the current case
weighting is not necessary since all dimensions of the issue at stake are considered equally important.
The NAIADE assessment of alternatives is carried out by means of pairwise comparison with respect to each evaluation
criterion generating a ranking of alternatives (JRC, 1996). Due to its flexibility NAIADE can be implemented without any
modification or adjustment.
Such assessment depends on the number of criteria in favour of a specific alternative and the intensity of the preference
according to each criterion. The final ranking depends on the preference relations between the alternatives. These relations
indicate the degree of credibility whereby one alternative is much better, better, approximately equal, equal, worse and
much worse in relation to another.5
NAIADE produces a structure of alternatives from the best ranked to the worst, according to the different criteria. The final
ranking is based on the U+ and U values for each of the alternatives and their intersection. U+(a) is based on the better and
much better preference relations with a value going from 0 to 1 indicating how alternative a is better than all other alternatives. U(a) is based on the worse and much worse preference relations, its value going from 0 to 1 indicates how a is
worse than all other alternatives.

4.3. Social sensitivity analysis

Finally, a social validation of the assessment results is envisaged. The objective of the proposed Social Sensitivity Analysis
(SSA) is to explore the robustness of the multi-criteria assessment carried out and the feasibility of the results obtained
according to stakeholders knowledge. The term SSA refers to the most frequently applied sensitivity analysis aimed at testing the robustness of the results of a model or system in the presence of uncertainty, as well as at understanding the relationships between input and output variables in a system or model.
This idea of bringing back the assessment results to the stakeholders is crucial when dealing with complex issues in
which stakeholders defend different, strong positions on occasions irreconcilable ones. SSA should not be seen as a mere
process of informing or consulting citizens, two of the lowest rungs on Arnsteins ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein,
1969). It is also as a means to climb further up the ladder to levels of citizen power or at least to assess the degree of social
acceptance of the analysis carried out and in some cases to use the initial assessment as an excuse to drive a reflexive dialogue among the stakeholders about the problematique at hand.
The SSA was carried out by means of a focus-group session developing a social impact matrix that reflect stakeholders
views about the proposed alternatives. The assessment of this social impact matrix produced another ranking of alternatives,
but in this case based on the stakeholders perceptions and not on the assessment criteria.
The analysis of the social impact matrix provides a second outcome, aimed at understanding stakeholder dynamics
through a dendrogram of possible stakeholders coalitions (see Fig. 5). The dendrogram is built on an algorithm, which reflects
the level of conflict among stakeholders. According to Munda (1995), this procedure involves two steps: first, the definition
of a discrete number of well-defined actions; and second, an evaluation of the impacts of management scenarios on different
interest groups by means of linguistic variables. The clustering algorithm indicates the groups whose interests are closer to
the others. The degree of similarity among stakeholders (coalition) is measured between 0 and 1. A value close to 1 implies a
greater degree of similarity, and therefore a greater chance of creating a coalition.
5
More technical information about the application procedure can be found in Joint Research Centre, JRC (1996). NAIADE Manual. JRC, Ispra, Italy, available
at: http://www.aiaccproject.org/meetings/Trieste_02/trieste_cd/Software/NAIADE/naiade.PDF.

Y. Hernndez Gonzlez, S. Corral Quintana / Transportation Research Part A 89 (2016) 201214

207

Fig. 2. Scheme of the proposed integrated assessment.

5. Results: Implementing the participatory multi-criteria assessment

The described integrated approach was applied through a four-step process (see Fig. 2). The first step was aimed at framing the problem and identifying relevant stakeholders as well as identifying potential assessment alternatives and criteria.
The second step dealt with improving knowledge through stakeholder involvement as well as reaching an agreement on
assessment alternatives and criteria proposed in step 1. These alternatives were then evaluated using a multi-criteria
approach; and finally, the results were discussed with stakeholders, in a focus group, where the results were validated
and new stakeholders proposals were integrated, thus improving preliminary research findings.
5.1. Step I. Framing the issue: an institutional analysis
A historical review of the past 20 years of local and regional press articles and legislation, together with two rounds of
interviews, allowed the social and political context of transport issues in Tenerife to be framed. This facilitated an evolutionary analysis of the role and positions of each stakeholder.6
A first set of interviews was carried out. Six experts were selected from among the most relevant researchers in several
fields, one engineer, two geographers, one political scientist and two economists were asked about their opinions on transport issues in Tenerife (i.e. general overview, key characteristics, impacts and effects, policy alternatives. . .).
Another round of interviews was directed at those stakeholders identified during the first set of interviews with experts.
Similarly, these stakeholders were asked about their concerns about transport issues as well as about any other actor
involved in the process. So it was assured that relevant stakeholders and their positions were clearly elicited, based on
two criteria: (a) considering the most relevant stakeholders who have been involved in the debate on transport issues in
Tenerife during the last twenty years, and (b) taking into account the overall picture of transport on Tenerife.
6
This article follows the definition of stakeholders by Corral Quintana (2004), Paneque Salgado et al. (2009) and more recently Macharis et al. (2012) as being
those with a concern or stake in the issue. This stake determines whether a stakeholder can affect or will be affected by the ultimate outcome and the other
actors in the process, as Grimble and Wellard (1997) emphasised. As Pereira et al. (2003) highlight the terminology varies depending on the school; thus, while
social actors are called stakeholders in the North American school, the Dutch and German literature use the term bettrofenen (those concerned) to refer to the
social actors involved in a policy issue.

208

Y. Hernndez Gonzlez, S. Corral Quintana / Transportation Research Part A 89 (2016) 201214

Table 6
Transport policy assessment alternatives.
Acronym

Description

Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C

Business as usual: neither new policies nor measures are implemented

Focuses on car-centre planning: new roads are built and the current bus transport system might be improved
Implement transport policy as planned: new roads are built, along with a railway system; several dissuasive measure for car use
might be adopted
Focuses on train transport policy: a railway system is introduced along with dissuasive measures for car use
Improve current public transport system, as well as the introduction of dissuasive measures for car use

Alternative D
Alternative E

Table 7
Selected transport policy assessment criteria.
Dimension

Criteria

Goal

Description

Measurement unit

Environmental

Air pollution
Noise
Climate change
Land-use change
Visual quality
Urban concentration
Ecosystem conservation

Min.
Min.
Min.
Min.
Max.
Max.
Max.

Emission of PM10
Emission of noise
Emission of CO2
New transport infrastructure
Improvement of the landscape appearance
Concentration of population in urban areas
Maintenance of all plants and animals

Quantitative (tons)
Quantitative (units of noise)
Quantitative (thousands of tons)
Quantitative (hectare)
Qualitative (linguistic)
Qualitative (linguistic)
Qualitative (linguistic)

Social

Slight injury
Serious injury
Fatal accidents
Affected buildings
Time lost for pedestrians
Cycle lanes
Bicycle use
Road safety
Fairness
Urban public space availability

Min.
Min.
Min.
Min.
Min.
Max.
Max.
Max.
Max.
Max.

People injured (no need for hospitalisation)

People hospitalised more than 24 h
People dead within 30 days after the accident
Buildings demolished
Time lost a year by crossing roads
Cycle lanes built
Travelling by bike per year
Reduced risk of accident
Fairness and equal opportunities
Evolution of pedestrian areas and accessibility

Quantitative (nr. of injuries)

Quantitative (nr. of patients)
Quantitative (nr. of fatalities)
Quantitative (nr. of buildings)
Quantitative (h)
Quantitative (km)
Quantitative (km)
Qualitative (linguistic)
Qualitative (linguistic)
Qualitative (linguistic)

Min.
Min.
Min.
Min.
Max.
Max.
Max.
Max.
Max.

Oil equivalent consumed

Level of service of road system
Cost of implementing the alternatives
Running costs of transport infrastructure
Full responsibility for funding a project
Ability of the project to be implemented
Contribution to the Gross Domestic Product
People working for the transport sector
Income of all the members of a household

Quantitative (tons)
Qualitative (linguistic)
Quantitative (million euros)
Quantitative (million euros)
Qualitative (linguistic)
Qualitative (linguistic)
Qualitative (linguistic)
Quantitative (nr. of employees)
Qualitative (linguistic)

Economic & institutional Energy consumed

Congestion
Investment costs
Maintenance costs
Self-funding
Viability
Economic activity
Employment
Household income

Interviews and the literature/press review elicited those involved in transport policies, identifying (a) those who have
either remained active over the last twenty years, (b) have appeared recently or (c) those who used to participate but do
not do so anymore. Care was taken to identify and involve in the analysis possible unrepresented groups (i.e.
mobility-reduced citizen association). Seven groups of stakeholders, representing those involved either as decisionmakers or those affected by the measures taken in the last 20 years of the islands transport policy planning, were revealed
during the IA. These groups are the follow:
The responsibility for transport planning corresponds to both the Regional Government and the Island Council. The Regional Government provides economic resources for the construction of transport infrastructures and public transport services; while, the Island Council of Tenerife is responsible for insular land-use and transport planning. The Island Council is
also the owner of both bus and tram companies.
The second group includes the political parties. Regional Parliament, Government and the Island Council of Tenerife are
mainly made up of members from three main parties: regional nationalists, the Conservative and Labour parties. There
are two other small left-wing and green parties, which have been gaining importance during the last decade and are very
active in transport issues.
The business group comprises the construction sector, automotive dealers and the rent-a-car union. This sector defends
the expansion of transport infrastructures all around the island.
The public transport companies consist of the bus, tram, and taxi companies. They all support the improvement of public
transport systems, as well as the implementation of dissuasive measures for car use.
Trade unions represent workers in both bus and tram companies, they see sustainable mobility as an opportunity to create
employment (directly or indirectly).

209

Y. Hernndez Gonzlez, S. Corral Quintana / Transportation Research Part A 89 (2016) 201214

Table 8
Impact matrix on transport policies.
Criteria/alternatives

Alternative A

Alternative B

Alternative C

Alternative D

Alternative E

Air pollution
Noise
GHG emissions
Land-use change
Visual quality
Urban concentration
Ecosystem conservation
Slight injury
Serious injury
Fatal accidents
Cycle lanes
Bicycle use
Road safety
Affected buildings
Fairness
Energy consumed
Self-funding
Viability
Urban public space availability
Congestion
Economic activity
Time lost by pedestrians
Investment costs
Maintenance costs
Employment
Household rent

Approx. 38
Approx. 1848
Approx. 313
0
Bad
Bad
Bad
Approx. 458
Approx. 36
Approx. 8
0
Approx. 921
Bad
0
Bad
Approx. 127
Bad
Bad
Bad
More or less good
Bad
Approx. 156
184.905
Approx. 1.1
Approx. 19,100
Bad

Approx. 43
Approx. 1780
Approx. 299
Approx. 441
Bad
Bad
Bad
Approx. 428
Approx. 33
Approx. 8
0
Approx. 921
More or less bad
Approx. 513
Moderate
Approx. 120
Very bad
Moderate
Bad
More or less bad
Moderate
Approx. 144
1982.81
Approx. 1180
Approx. 18,100
Moderate

Approx. 31
Approx. 1839
Approx. 308
Approx. 519
More or less bad
Bad
Bad
Approx. 451
Approx. 35
Approx. 8
6.5
Approx. 1842
Moderate
Approx. 620
Moderate
Approx. 125
Extremely bad
Moderate
Moderate
More or less bad
Moderate
Approx. 24
4917.63
Approx. 1057
Approx. 18,900
Moderate

Approx. 31
Approx. 1830
Approx. 307
Approx. 191
More or less good
More or less good
More or less good
Approx. 449
Approx. 35
Approx. 8
6.5
Approx. 1842
More or less good
Approx. 316
More or less good
Approx. 125
Very bad
Moderate
More or less good
Good
More or less good
Approx. 24
3814.62
Approx. 1047
Approx. 18,800
More or less good

Approx. 43
Approx. 1772
Approx. 298
Approx. 116
Good
Good
More or less good
Approx. 426
Approx. 33
Approx. 8
6.5
Approx. 1842
Good
Approx. 212
More or less good
Approx. 120
Bad
More or less good
Good
More or less good
Good
Approx. 144
962.04
Approx. 1170
Approx. 18,000
Good

Note: An explanation of what the cells mean can be seen in Table 7. For example, approx. 38 means approximately 38 tons of PM10 emitted by alternative A.

A. Alternative A
B. Alternative B
C. Alternative C
D. Alternative D
E. Alternative E

Fig. 3. Ranking alternatives based on the impact matrix after NAIADE application.

The group of NGOs is particularly heterogeneous. Each of them has specific interests in transport issues. Environmentalists
are interested in the promotion of sustainable transport policies to protect the environment, while mobility-reduced people are interested in the improvement of accessibility and the public transport users union is focused on the improvement in public services. There is also an organisation composed of those potentially affected by the northern train
proposal, as they are afraid of being either expropriated or disturbed by rail noise.
Finally, two types of experts emerged during the IA. The Councils transport policy-makers, with a more political profile,
including the Department for Transport board. Meanwhile, the other is composed of those with a more technical profile,
who are in charge of developing the Councils transport policy.

5.2. Step II. Inclusionary process of alternatives and criteria definition

Based on a second round of in-depth interviews with experts and stakeholders, five policy alternatives and a set of assessment criteria were defined. The following alternatives (see Table 6) try to respond to Tenerifes inter-urban transport issue,
combining expert and social knowledge and the current transport planning measures:

210

Y. Hernndez Gonzlez, S. Corral Quintana / Transportation Research Part A 89 (2016) 201214

Table 9
Social impact matrix: stakeholders perspectives with regard to the alternatives.
Groups/alternatives

Alternative A

Alternative B

Alternative C

Alternative D

Alternative E

Regional Government
Council of Tenerife
Transport experts
Nationalist coalition
Conservative party
Labour party
Left-wing party
Local Green party
Construction sector
Automotive dealers and rent-a-car union
National trade union (I)
National trade union (II)
Regional trade union
Bus company
Taxi drivers
Tram company
Environmentalists
Mobility-reduced people
Public transport users
Citizens affected by the NTP

Bad
Very bad
Extremely bad
Bad
Very bad
Very bad
Very bad
Bad
Extremely bad
Bad
Very bad
Extremely bad
More or less bad
Extremely bad
Bad
Moderate
Very bad
Extremely bad
Extremely bad
Bad

Very good
Moderate
Extremely bad
More or less good
Very good
More or less good
Bad
Moderate
Very good
Very good
Bad
Bad
Moderate
Bad
Moderate
Bad
Very bad
Bad
Very bad
Extremely bad

Perfect
More or less good
More or less bad
Good
More or less good
Bad
Extremely bad
Extremely bad
Perfect
More or less bad
Moderate
Very bad
Extremely bad
More or less bad
More or less bad
More or less bad
Extremely bad
More or less bad
Bad
Extremely bad

Good
More or less bad
Good
Moderate
Bad
More or less bad
More or less good
Very bad
More or less bad
Extremely bad
Perfect
More or less bad
Very bad
Very good
Good
Very good
Very bad
Good
Very good
Extremely bad

More or less
Bad
More or less
More or less
Moderate
Moderate
Very good
Very good
Moderate
Very bad
More or less
Good
Very good
Good
More or less
More or less
Very good
More or less
More or less
Very good

good
good
bad

bad

good
good
good
good

During the interaction between researchers and stakeholders a set of assessment criteria (shown in Table 7) covering different environmental, social and economic-institutional dimensions were determined, clarifying their goals (maximise or
minimise) and nature (quantitative or qualitative).
5.3. Step III. Multi-criteria approach to assess transport issues
Once the alternatives and criteria were selected, an impact matrix was built (see Table 8). The horizontal axis represents
the five alternatives under assessment, while on the vertical axis, the assessment criteria are presented. Each cell reflects
how the alternative is influenced either quantitatively or qualitatively by the selected criterion.
The application of NAIADE to the impact matrix produced a ranking of alternatives (Fig. 3) with alternative E positioned as
the best alternative. Alternative E is much better than the rest (U+ value of 0.33 against a value of 0.25 of alternative D) and it
is less worse than the rest (U value of 0.01 against 0.03 of alternative D).
5.4. Step IV: Social validation of results
Although stakeholders were involved during the design of the multi-criteria analysis, i.e. in the selection process of alternatives and criteria, this does not mean that they agree with the results or even accept them. In this sense, an approximation
of the possible coalitions might facilitate understanding of the dynamics of transport governance processes.
The inter-urban transport policy alternatives ranking was discussed in a focus group session, in which the stakeholders
shared their opinions and concerns about the outcomes. Initially, the different alternatives and criteria were briefly pre-

A. Alternative A
B. Alternative B
C. Alternative C
D. Alternative D
E. Alternative E

Fig. 4. Stakeholders preferences ranking of alternatives.

211

Y. Hernndez Gonzlez, S. Corral Quintana / Transportation Research Part A 89 (2016) 201214

Table 10
Multi-criteria and stakeholders ranking.
Multi-criteria ranking

Stakeholders rankings

E
D
C
B, A

E
D
B
C
A

sented before focusing on the presentation and discussion of the ranking of alternatives. The ranking was used to promote a
debate among stakeholders concerning the characteristics of transport issues and the possible courses of action.
Twenty people participated in the focus group, representing most of the stakeholders related to the issue. Five absences,
however, occurred: two justified due to tight agendas (the Conservative Party member and one trade unionist), and three did
not respond to the invitation (the Labour Party, the construction sector and public transport users). During this focus group,
the views of decision-makers, politicians, transport technicians, transportation economists, geographers, entrepreneurs,
transportation companies, trade unions and diverse NGOs were represented. The information collected was used to build
a social impact matrix (Table 9) to reflect interest group judgments of each transport policy alternative. This analysis was
aimed at identifying those alternatives that could reach a certain degree of consensus among the different interest groups
involved in the transport issue.
The second ranking of alternatives, based on stakeholders opinions showed that alternative E has the best behaviour
according to U+ and U parameters. The comparison with the previous ranking (Fig. 3) and the one based on stakeholders
interests (Fig. 4) is presented in Table 10. The alternatives that improve public transport and introduce dissuasive measures
against private transport were those supported by stakeholders (alternatives E and D). Additionally, stakeholders coincided
in considering the business as usual alternative as the worst option. This may indicate that a consensus solution for transport policy in Tenerife might be feasible. Interestingly, the alternative proposed by the transport authorities is not well positioned in the ranking, suggesting that it should be revised.
Fig. 5 shows the dendrogram representing a set of possible coalitions among stakeholders on the basis of their common
interests. Thus, a potential coalition between the Regional Trade Union and the Local Green Party could be foreseen, since
they share the same opinion on most of the alternatives (see Table 9). They consider that alternative E is the best option
available and alternatives C and D the worst ones. Environmentalists and the Citizens organisation affected by the Northern
train policy had a similar opinion concerning the alternatives, and both consider alternative E the best option. On the other
hand, this coalition rejects the remaining alternatives. The potential coalition formed by Transport Experts, Public Transport
Users Union, Bus company, and Mobility-reduced people might agree with alternative D as the best option to improve sustainable mobility in Tenerife. However, as Fig. 5 shows, this potential coalition is not as robust as the two previous ones.

Groups
G1. Regional
Government
G2. Island Council
G3. Transport experts
G4. Nationalist coalition
G5. Conservative party
G6. Labour party
G7. Left party
G8. Green party
G9. Construction sector
G10. Automotive dealers
G11. Comisiones
Obreras (Trade Union)
G12. Unin General de
Trabajadores (Trade
Union)
G13. Intersindical
Canaria (Trade Union)
G14. Bus company
G15. Taxi drivers union
G16. Tram company
G17. Environmentalists
G18. Mobility-reduced
people
G19. Public transport
users
G20. Citizens
organisation

Fig. 5. Dendrogram presenting possible stakeholders coalitions.

212

Y. Hernndez Gonzlez, S. Corral Quintana / Transportation Research Part A 89 (2016) 201214

Finally, the Conservative Party and Construction Sector exhibited a clear disagreement when considering the best alternative. In fact, the Conservative Party perceives alternative B as the best option, whereas the Construction Sector supports alternative C, considering alternative A no longer viable.
Based on both analyses, and bearing in mind dendrogram outcomes, it can be argued that no possible compromise solution can be found: all the alternatives have strong opposition by at least one stakeholder or coalition of stakeholders. As a
consequence, a polarised panorama leading to an impasse in Tenerifes transport policies seems to be the current situation.
In fact, both the Regional Government and the Island Council of Tenerife are nowadays continuing to implement improvised
and uncoordinated policies in transport issues.
In situations where discrepancies arise among stakeholders and decisions might create conflicts, understanding stakeholders positions about the assessment alternatives and the other stakeholders involved in the process may facilitate reaching consensus solutions in decision-making processes. Specifically, in the case at hand, the long term discrepancies among
stakeholders encouraged such analysis.
According to Munda (2004), in certain situations, it is impossible to achieve a solution that maximises all criteria; therefore, under these circumstances, it is necessary to find compromise solutions that minimise conflict (Wang et al., 2014). Such
a solution is evident at the intersection between the impact and social impact matrixes performed with NAIADE, allowing
the identification of social alliances and providing further insight into possible conflicts surrounding the implementation
of control measures. The results of the social impact matrix in this case study demonstrate that there is social conflict
due to diverging interests and positions over which transport policy to follow. As in previous case studies De Marchi
et al. (2000), Corral Quintana (2004) and Munda (2004) have argued, this is a situation where avoiding value judgments
is impossible.

6. Conclusions
Inter-urban land-based transport issues in Tenerife cannot be fully understood by only considering technical aspects. On
the whole, transport planning in Tenerife has become a sum of disperse technocratic policies with a lack of a clear and coherent island transport strategy. In this case, the development of an integrated assessment without the involvement of the
stakeholders was considered insufficient to understand the case at hand.
An involvement based on the implementation of a two-step participatory exercise notably enriches the assessment process, since it allows a clearer idea of the issue at hand and stakeholders concerns and positions. The combination of their
knowledge with the information provided by the legal and press review was critical to frame this social issue, to define
the different assessment criteria and transport policy alternatives and to prepare the two assessments carried out, together
with stakeholders and external experts. In a second step, the results of the transport alternatives were discussed and modified during a focus-group session attended by the stakeholders.
The idea behind this approach was to integrate all the perspectives, not only regarding the criteria, but also the alternatives, engaging all the relevant stakeholders from the beginning. In a second step, the results of the transport alternatives are
discussed and modified during focus group sessions attended by the stakeholders.
Public authorities and private institutions representatives should also participate in such focus group sessions. In the case
under study, this was the first time the different public and private institutions of the island were gathered to discuss the
Islands land transport issues. It was a rewarding experience for the researchers as a source of valuable knowledge, but also
for the participants themselves. As mentioned, the interaction among stakeholders can lead to sharing of opinions and an
understanding of the positions and concerns of others. Moreover, it helps stakeholders to feel part of the process of analysing
the issues and suggesting actions. In fact, in this case study, the non-policy-maker stakeholders requested a long-term policy
debate, and the creation of a sustainable mobility forum.
With regard to the assessment results, some aspects should be clarified. As mentioned, a major finding has been that the
authorities current alternative on land transport policy was poorly positioned in both assessments. The results indicate that
the most feasible alternative, under current conditions, to reduce road transport impacts might be the improvement of the
bus-taxi transport system followed by the development of the island railway system. This demonstrates a clear opposition to
the use of private transport means. The stakeholders perspective-based assessment provided similar results to the impact
assessment, reinforcing the idea that the current official plan should be revised on the basis of both assessments of policy
alternatives and stakeholders perceptions.
Summing up, two major findings and one doubt arise from the research activity discussed in this article. From a methodological point of view, it has become clear there is a need for integrated participatory assessments that combine social techniques and multi-criteria analysis tools. Both analyses the impact assessment and the social impact assessment present
clear similarities regarding those alternatives better positioned in the rankings.
In contexts of scientific uncertainty and social controversy, inter-urban land-based transport policies cannot be fully
understood by only considering technical aspects.
In fact, we believe that in those situations where stakes are high, scientific uncertainties are unavoidable, transport planning strategies are unclear, and stakes are high, there is a need for inclusiveness during all assessment phases, such as the
framing, the design and assessment of the policy alternatives. Thus, the implementation of participatory integrated assess-

Y. Hernndez Gonzlez, S. Corral Quintana / Transportation Research Part A 89 (2016) 201214

213

ment approaches, such as the proposed in this paper, facilitate a better understanding of these issues due to its ability to deal
with multiple dimensions and to incorporate indispensable social values.
During discussions with stakeholders, it became clear that these have not been implemented despite being economically
feasible. Consequently, there should be an alternative explanation as to why there is no consensus solution, even though the
stakeholders and multi-criteria ranking mostly coincide. Thus, the authors consider that the role played by some stakeholders influencing the transport policy arena has amplified this stagnant situation. This might be due to some kind of ex-ante
institutional arrangement. The existence of specific power-relations exerted by several stakeholders might be another explanation for the current impasse. This hypothesis opens the door to a complementary analysis still to be carried out, a powerrelation analysis, which would facilitate the understanding of how land transport policies are defined and implemented. This
power-relation analysis would elicit lobbying behaviour, and, hence, promote more transparent decision-making processes.
However, it is worth noting that the assessment has not been exempt from limitations. At least two relevant drawbacks
have been found during the assessment. The first one concerns the lack of a multidisciplinary team. The ability to incorporate
different areas of expertise would have given a wider understanding of the issue, as well as a deeper knowledge of the complex social and environmental problems and their interactions, especially the interrelation between land-use planning and
mobility patterns. Future research should incorporate researchers from other disciplines such as planning and political
science, conflict resolution and deliberation, to better understand the nature of stakeholders actions and explore potential
methods for overcoming them, if a more sustainable transport strategy is the goal. Secondly, a broader participatory process
would have also been desirable. Time and resource constraints prevented the incorporation of other stakeholders, such as
transport users and tourists. Moreover, a representative survey of the opinions of local inhabitants concerning the alternatives assessed would also have been helpful.

References
Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. JAIP 35 (4), 216224.
Avineri, E., Prashker, J., Ceder, A., 2000. Transportation projects selection process using fuzzy sets theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst. (116), 3547
Banville, C., Landry, M., Martel, J.-M., Boulaire, C., 1998. A stakeholder approach to MCDA. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 15 (1), 1532.
Brand, C., Mattarelli, M., Moon, D., Wolfler Calvo, R., 2002. STEEDS: a strategic transportenergyenvironment decision support. Eur. J. Oper. Res. (139), 416
435
Bromley, D.W., 1989. Economic Interest and Institutions: The Conceptual Foundations of Public Policy. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
Cabildo de Tenerife, 2006a. Plan Territorial de Ordenacin de Infraestructuras y Dotaciones del Sistema Tranviario en el rea Metropolitana en Tenerife,
Cabildo de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife.
Cabildo de Tenerife, 2006b. Plan Territorial Especial de Ordenacin del Sistema Viario del rea Metropolitana de Tenerife, Cabildo de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de
Tenerife.
Cabildo de Tenerife, 2012. Plan Territorial Especial de Ordenacin del Transporte de Tenerife Documento Aprobacin Inicial, Cabildo de Tenerife, Santa
Cruz de Tenerife.
Commons, J.R., 1961. Institutional Economics. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, EEUU.
Corral Quintana, S., 2004. Una Metodologa Integrada de Elaboracin y Comprensin de los Procesos de Elaboracin de Polticas Pblicas. Universidad de La
Laguna, La Laguna.
De Brucker, K., Verbeke, A., Macharis, C., 2004. The applicability of multicriteria-analysis to the evaluation of intelligent transport systems (ITS). Res.
Transport Econ. 8, 151179.
De Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S., Lo Cascio, S., Munda, G., 2000. Combining participative and institutional approaches with multicriteria evaluation. An empirical
study for water issues in Troina, Sicily. Ecol. Econ. 34 (34), 267282.
EA, 2014. La calidad del aire en el Estado espaol durante 2013. Ecologistas en Accin, Madrid.
Espelta, J.M., Retana, J., Habrouk, A., 2003. An economic and ecological multi-criteria evaluation of reforestation methods to recover burned Pinus nigra
forests in NE Spain. For. Ecol. Manage. (180), 185198
European Commission, 2011. Impact Assessment: Accompanying Document to the Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area Towards a Competitive
and Resource. European Commission, Brussels.
European Commission, 2013. Together Towards Competitive and Resource-Efficient Urban Mobility. European Commission, Brussels.
European Commission, 2015. EU Road Fatalities. Directorate General for Mobility and Transport, Brussels.
Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1991. Ecological economics: the science and management of sustainability. In: Costanza, R. (Ed.), A New Scientific Methodology
for Global Environmental Issues. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 137152.
Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25 (7), 739755.
Garmendia, E. et al, 2010. Social multi-criteria evaluation as a decision support tool for integrated coastal zone management. Ocean Coast. Manage. (53),
385403
Giering, S., 2011. Public Participation Strategies for Transit. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C..
Gil, A., Calado, H., Bentz, J., 2011. Public participation in municipal transport planning processes the case of the sustainable mobility plan of Ponta Delgada,
Azores, Portugal. J. Transport Geogr. (19), 13091319
Grimble, R., Wellard, K., 1997. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities.
Agric. Syst. J. 55 (2), 173193.
Hernndez Gonzlez, Y., 2014. Una Evaluacin Integrada de Modelos Alternativos de Transporte Terrestre para Viajeros (Doctoral Thesis). University of La
Laguna, La Laguna.
Hodgson, F.C., Turner, J., 2003. Participation not consumption: the need for new participatory practices to address transport and social exclusion. Transport
Policy (10), 265272.
Hlsmann, F., Gerike, R., Ketzel, M., 2014. Modelling traffic and air pollution in an integrated approach the case of Munich. Urban Climate (10), 732744.
Imperial, M.T., 1999. Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: the institutional analysis and development framework. Environ. Manage. 24
(4), 449465.
Ingram, H.M., Mann, D.E., Weatherford, G.D., Cortner, H.J., 1984. Guidelines for improved institutional analysis in water resources planning. Water Resour.
Res. 20 (3), 323334.
ISTAC, 2014a. Actividad registrada en accidentes segn tipos por islas y aos. <http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/istac/jaxi-istac/tabla.do?uripx=urn:
uuid:7fed6113-771c-4330-a2bd-7603a1302960&uripub=urn:uuid:e9e775c9-37ea-48cd-9f7d-a46e9ef73966> (Accessed 22 December 2014).
ISTAC, 2014b. Canarias en Cifras 2013, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Santa Cruz de Tenerife: Instituto Canario de Estadstica.

214

Y. Hernndez Gonzlez, S. Corral Quintana / Transportation Research Part A 89 (2016) 201214

ISTAC, 2014c. Turistas segn grupos de edad y sexos por tipos de alojamiento, principales municipios tursticos y periodos. <http://
www.gobiernodecanarias.org/istac/jaxi-istac/tabla.do?uripx=urn:uuid:20736147-bd94-40cb-b9fa-7e008939fe1d&uripub=urn:uuid:260a6871-561f4874-8683-e0216be8c148> (Accessed 5 October 2015).
Jones, P., 2011. Developing and applying interactive visual tools to enhance stakeholder engagement in accessibility planning for mobility disadvantaged
groups. Res. Transport. Bus. Manage. (2), 2941
JRC, 1996. NAIADE: Manual & Tutorial, Ispra (Italy): Institute for Systems, Informatics and Safety Joint Research Centre European Commission.
Koontz, T.M., 2006. Collaboration for sustainability? A framework for analyzing government impacts in collaborative environmental management. Sust.: Sci.
Pract. Policy 2 (1).
Legacy, C., Curtis, C., Sturup, S., 2012. Is there a good governance model for the delivery of contemporary transport policy and practice? An examination of
Melbourne and Perth. Transport Policy (19), 816.
Low, N., Astle, R., 2009. Path dependence in urban transport: an institutional analysis of urban passenger transport in Melbourne, Australia, 19562006.
Transport Policy (16), 4758.
Macharis, C., De Witte, A., Ampe, J., 2009. The multi-actor, multi-criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: theory and
practice. J. Adv. Transport. 43 (2), 183202.
Macharis, C., Turcksin, L., Lebeau, K., 2012. Multi actor multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) as a tool to support sustainable decisions: state of use. Decis. Support
Syst. (54), 610620
Marina-Gonzlez, R., Marrero, G.A., 2012. Induced road traffic in Spanish regions: a dynamic panel data model. Transport. Res. Part A (46), 435445.
Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., ONeill, J., 1998. Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 26 (3), 277286.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J., 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts.
Acad. Manage. Rev. 22 (4), 853886.
Munda, G., 1995. Multicriteria Evaluation in a Fuzzy Environment. Theory and Applications in Ecological Economics. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.
Munda, G., 2004. Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodological foundations and operational consequences. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 158 (3), 662677.
Muoz de Escalona, F., 2004. La congestin del trfico urbano: Causas, medidas, costes. <http://www.eumed.net/ce/2004/fme-atascos.htm> (Accessed 22
December 2014).
Nocera, S., Murino, M., Cavallaro, F., 2014. On the perspective of using multiple agent multi criteria decision making for determining a fair value of carbon
emissions in transport planning. Soc. Behav. Sci. (160), 274283
Nogus, S., Gonzlez-Gonzlez, E., 2014. Multi-criteria impacts assessment for ranking highway projects in Northwest Spain. Transport. Res. Part A (65), 80
91.
Nurul Hassan, M., Hawas, Y.E., Ahmed, K., 2013. A multi-dimensional framework for evaluating the transit service performance. Transport. Res. Part A (50),
4761.
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions of Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ostrom, E., 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Paneque Salgado, P. et al, 2009. Participative multi-criteria analysis for the evaluation of water governance alternatives. A case in the Costa del Sol (Mlaga).
Ecol. Econ. 68 (4), 9901005.
Panou, K.D., Sofianos, A.I., 2002. A fuzzy multicriteria evaluation system for the assessment of tunnels vis--vis surface roads: the WPMA casePart II. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. (17), 209219
Pereira, .G. et al, 2003. ICT tools to support public participation in water resources governance & planning: experiences from the design and testing of a
multi-media platform. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manage. 5 (03), 395420.
Robust, F., Monzn, A., 1995. Una metodologa simple para estimar los costes derivados de la congestin del trfico en ciudades. Aplicacin a Madrid y
Barcelona. V Cong. N. Econ. 3, 117123.
Rydin, Y. et al, 2012. Shaping cities for health: complexity and the planning of urban environments in the 21st century. Lancet 379, 20792108.
Schmid, A.A., 1972. Analytical institutional economics: challenging problems in the economics of resources for a new environment. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 54 (5),
893901.
Shiftan, Y., Kaplan, S., Hakkert, S., 2003. Scenario building as a tool for planning a sustainable transportation system. Transport. Res. Part D (8), 323342.
SIMAC, 2010. Plan de Accion Mapas Estrategicos de Ruido de la Comunidad Autonoma de Canarias, Santa Cruz de Tenerife: Sistema de Informacion
Ambiental de Canarias, Gobierno de Canarias.
Susskind, L., Elliott, M., 1983. Paternalism, conflict, and coproduction: learning from citizen action and citizen participation in Western Europe. In: Susskind,
L., Elliott, M., Associates, a. (Eds.), Paternalism, Conflict, and Coproduction: Learning from Citizen Action and Citizen Participation in Western Europe.
Springer Science + Business Media, LLC, New York, pp. 334.
Tuominen, A. et al, 2014. Pluralistic backcasting: integrating multiple visions with policy packages for transport climate policy. Futures (60), 4158.
Vatn, A., 2005. Institutions and the Environment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK Northampton, MA, USA.
Vermote, L. et al, 2014. Traffic-restriction in Ramallah (Palestine): participatory sustainability assessment of pedestrian scenarios using a simplified
transport model. Land Use Policy (41), 453464.
Vienneau, D. et al, 2015. Years of life lost and morbidity cases attributable to transportation noise and air pollution: a comparative health risk assessment
for Switzerland in 2010. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 218 (6), 514521.
Waddell, P., Ulfarsson, G.F., Franklin, J.P., John, L., 2007. Incorporating land use in metropolitan transportation planning. Transport. Res. Part A (41), 382410.
Wang, Y., Monzn, A., Di Ciommo, F., Kaplan, S., 2014. Integrated transport planning framework involving combined utility regret approach. Transport. Res.
Rec.: J. Transport. Res. Board 1, 5966.
Yeh, C.-H., Deng, H., Chang, Y.-H., 2000. Fuzzy multicriteria analysis for performance evaluation of bus companies. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 126 (126), 459473.