Towards a Typology of Arguments for Supporting or Opposing Transport Policy Measures

Van den Berghe, Wouter · 2025 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-85578-8_83

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This paper addresses the challenge policymakers face when implementing transport measures that lack public support, particularly those perceived as restrictive or unfair. While existing theoretical models explain factors influencing policy acceptability, there is a lack of solid categorization for the specific arguments people use to support or oppose such measures. The study aims to develop a typology of these arguments to help policymakers understand the nature of public resistance and find compromises between differing interests. The methodology involved qualitative interviews with forty senior transport experts from five European countries (France, the UK, Greece, Austria, and Sweden). These experts, who had an average of 21 years of experience in road safety, were confronted with eight controversial road safety policy measures. They were asked to state their position (for or against) and provide their main and ancillary arguments. The data was analyzed using a data-driven coding approach resembling template analysis. Labels were assigned inductively to the arguments, with the classification scheme iteratively refined through open coding. A label was only included in the final typology if at least three interviewees had used the corresponding argument. The results produced a typology consisting of eight groups of arguments: four supportive and four opposing, which act as "mirrors" to each other. The supportive categories include Relevance (e.g., reduces harm, is effective), Preserving Human Liberties (e.g., proportionate, transparent), Equity (e.g., difficult to cheat, feasible), and Public Support. The opposing categories mirror these with Limited Added Value, Restricting Human Liberties, Discrimination, and Public Opposition. For instance, the supportive argument "Equity" mirrors the opposing argument "Discrimination," which is further broken down into discrimination by road user, age, gender, wealth, or group. Specific arguments within these groups include beliefs about effectiveness, ethical concerns regarding freedom and fairness, and practical issues like feasibility and cost. The significance of this typology lies in its utility for policymakers to diagnose the root causes of resistance to policy measures. By identifying whether opposition stems from disbelief in effectiveness, ethical concerns, or feasibility issues, policymakers can tailor their communication strategies or adapt measures accordingly. For example, if resistance is based on perceived ineffectiveness, providing evidence of expected effects becomes a priority. Although developed in the context of road safety, the typology is suggested to be applicable to other policy areas such as environment, education, and health, potentially with minor adaptations. The authors note limitations, including the reliance on expert opinions rather than the general public, and suggest future research to test the scheme across varied policy areas and demographic groups.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• acceptance adoption