Search

The paper addresses the important question of how institutional structures matter to the delivery of climate change policy for urban transport. It examines the strategic goals, policy tools in operation and initial progress towards carbon emission reduction in seven cities across the UK and Germany where different institutional structures exist. The UK has the presence of a strong national carbon target and strong hierarchical national–local government relationships whilst Germany has a more integrated system of local transport provision in a context where local and regional government is stronger. Our findings show that the carbon agenda has made very little difference to what is happening on the ground in the cities. Across all sites, progress is being made but largely through technological improvements which are being almost completely offset by population growth. Even in the more integrated city environments there has not be an additional stimulus to manage the demand for travel. Contrary to previous research therefore, we cannot conclude that institutional structures are paramount in delivering effective carbon reduction policies. The institutional structures in the UK and in Germany are not perfectly aligned to carbon management but, given the cross policy impacts of most transport interventions, this is perhaps inevitable. We can clearly conclude however that “better” structures are not sufficient to achieve the implementation of more effective carbon policies. Whilst institutional structures must matter, it is the broader governance environment and the resources and politics involved in transport policy that currently seem to dominate the importance of the carbon agenda and implementation paths that emerge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper highlights the distinctive discursive framing of transport policy in Germany and the UK. Using an analysis of the introduction of the ‘scrappage bonus’ in both countries, against the background of the financial crisis, we show how distinct nationally specific discourses and political cultures are expressed within these. The German government was an early adopter of the policy, but the UK government was relatively late in introducing its own scheme. While the German scrappage scheme was introduced officially as an environmental bonus, the UK scheme did not make any reference to environmental concerns. We argue that these differences are important in the context of a wider research aim, to identify nationally specific mobility regimes and to develop an understanding of different possible pathways towards more environmentally friendly transport futures. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Visualizations are widely used in the communication of climate projections. However, their effectiveness has rarely been assessed among their target audience. Given recent calls to increase the usability of climate information through the tailoring of climate projections, it is imperative to assess the effectiveness of different visualizations. This paper explores the complexities of tailoring through an online survey conducted with 162 local adaptation practitioners in Germany and the UK. The survey examined respondents' assessed and perceived comprehension (PC) of visual representations of climate projections as well as preferences for using different visualizations in communicating and planning for a changing climate. Comprehension and use are tested using four different graph formats, which are split into two pairs. Within each pair the information content is the same but is visualized differently. We show that even within a fairly homogeneous user group, such as local adaptation practitioners, there are clear differences in respondents' comprehension of and preference for visualizations. We do not find a consistent association between assessed comprehension and PC or use within the two pairs of visualizations that we analysed. There is, however, a clear link between PC and use of graph format. This suggests that respondents use what they think they understand the best, rather than what they actually understand the best. These findings highlight that audience-specific targeted communication may be more complex and challenging than previously recognized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]