| dc.description.abstract | The current academic surrounding sustainable mobility centres around the effectiveness of governmental policies, interventions or the contribution to reducing emissions (Boogaard;Börjesson & Kristofferson). This approach however, misses the political aspect of real-life decision making and what constitutes as legitimate policy (Christiansen). Govermental polices are not simply the result of the identified needs and wants by expert urban planners (Jenssen; de Haan). Additional Important aspects needs to be taken into account such as legitimacy, role of citizens and urban experimentation. The creation of governmental policies are therefore simply the result of objectives but the manifestation of urban politics (Bulkeley et al; Isakson & Richardson). This research aims to address the lack of evaluation and description of governmental policies of urban mobility. For this research, the chapter 1 shows the introduction, research aim and research framework. In chapter 2 the frameworks for systematic description and evaluation of legitimacy are established. The framework for analysis consists of the municipal vision, policy implementation and politics of experiments while the evaluation of legitimacy consists of six criteria: The consistency of the municipal vision, consistency between governmental layers, transparency & monitoring, innovation capacity, stakeholder participation and comprehensiveness. Based on the framework for analysis and newspaper articles, the governmental policies and sites of urban politics are systematically described in chapter. These findings are then used in Chapter 4 to evaluate the legitimacy of governmental policies and provide key lessons from the comparison. Based on these findings a number of conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, the governmental policies and their overarching strategies are relatively similar but differ in terms of implementation. This leads to different sites of urban politics in each municipality. Secondly, the legitimacy of the Randstad area is relatively high and between municipalities and both common and unique strengths and weaknesses. The recommendations for the weaknesses consists improving communication towards citizens, establishing a framework and dedicating resources for innovation, improving coordination between governmental layers and improving the quality of deliberation and participation. | |
