Search

Costs related to serious injuries constitute an important input variable to assess the cost-efficiency of road safety measures, which is one of the objectives of the H2020 EU project SafetyCube. A survey collecting crash costs in European countries showed considerable variation in the costs related to serious injuries. The applied methodology to estimate human costs appeared to have a large influence. Other potential explanations are the applied definition, the registration procedure of crashes with serious injuries and the cost components that are included. Detailed analyses of medical costs and production loss showed the importance of assessing medical costs on the long term and taking into account the variation of these costs for different subgroups of traffic victims. To estimate monetary values for human costs, most countries use the Willingness To Pay method. While having a sound theoretical background, this method is rather limited in the specification of injuries. The use of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) gives the possibility to provide values for a larger diversity of injury types.

This paper provides an international overview of the most recent estimates of the social costs of road crashes: total costs, value per casualty and breakdown in cost components. It answers the question to what extent the total social costs of road crashes differ between countries and what the explanations for these differences are. The analysis is based on national reports about costs of road crashes of 16 countries, of which nine high income countries (HICs) and seven low and middle income countries (LMICs). The analysis shows that the share of social costs of road crashes in HICs ranges from 1.0 to 4.6% of the gross domestic product (GDP) with an average of 2.6%. The main explanations for differences between these countries are differences in methodologies regarding valuation of human costs and correction for underreporting. Excluding countries that do not use a ‘willingness to pay’ method (that is internationally recommended) for estimating human costs and countries that do not correct for underreporting, results in an average share of the costs of 3.7% of GDP. For LMICs that do correct for underreporting the share in GDP ranges from 1.2 to 3.0%. However, none of the LMICs included has performed a willingness to pay study into the human costs. A major part of the costs is related to injuries: an average share of 50% for both HICs and LMICs. The share of fatalities in the costs is 20% and 30% respectively. Prevention of injuries is thus important to bring down the socio-economic burden of road crashes. The paper shows that there are a number of methodological differences between countries regarding cost components that are taken into account and regarding the methods used to estimate specific cost components. In order to be able to make sound comparisons of the costs of road crashes across countries, (further) harmonization of cost studies is recommended. This can be reached by updating and improving international guidelines and applying them in future cost studies. The information regarding some cost components, particularly human costs and property damage, is poor and more research into these cost components is recommended.

Submitted by mirandaa@stj.jus.br (mirandaa@stj.jus.br) on 2022-04-28T19:36:05Z No. of bitstreams: 2 11_tratamento_servicos_acordos_wijnen.pdf: 1181233 bytes, checksum: 7cb04952d309c3660fd1efe76861bfdb (MD5) license.txt: 1239 bytes, checksum: c9b4c351324448672315a00808efb725 (MD5) Approved for entry into archive by betanial@stj.jus.br (betanial@stj.jus.br) on 2022-06-30T22:00:24Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 11_tratamento_servicos_acordos_wijnen.pdf: 1181233 bytes, checksum: 7cb04952d309c3660fd1efe76861bfdb (MD5) license.txt: 1239 bytes, checksum: c9b4c351324448672315a00808efb725 (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2022-06-30T22:00:24Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 11_tratamento_servicos_acordos_wijnen.pdf: 1181233 bytes, checksum: 7cb04952d309c3660fd1efe76861bfdb (MD5) license.txt: 1239 bytes, checksum: c9b4c351324448672315a00808efb725 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012

The aim of the DaCoTA Work Package 1 is to investigate road safety policy-making and management processes in Europe. In the Deliverables released previously, the Work Package 1 assessed the experts' needs in terms of road safety knowledge, data and decision support tools (Deliverable 1.1/4.1), as well as the road safety stakeholders' views (Deliverable 1.3). These two Deliverables contain information on the present and future needs and the actual availability of various types of road safety data and knowledge, which the experts and the stakeholders might find useful for their work. As for the Deliverable 1.2 at hand; it presents the theoretical background for the Work Package 1 'investigation model', as well as the model itself and the questionnaire derived from it. The 'investigation model' was designed for the study of the different aspects of actual road safety policy-making and management processes in Europe. Its objective is to allow describing concrete road safety policy-making and management practices. Therefore, it is not a 'good practice' model in the normative sense. Rather, it aims at discovering good practices that exist, whether they conform to a normative 'good practice' model designed by experts or not. In designing the investigation model, the group relied on an extensive review of recent literature. Some of the references the group reviewed contain only a small number of case studies. A number of these are limited to well performing developed countries and nevertheless prescribe the implementation of similar structures for road safety decision-making and management in quite different situations and contexts. A few other references, however, advocate a more analytical approach, backing their claim with case studies from a more varied set of countries. In any case, the group decided to draw on elements from all available models, thus ensuring that while the investigation model is now used to study road safety policymaking and management processes in European countries, its use is by no means restricted to Europe or to the developed countries. The investigation model inquires of course about the actors, processes and components of road safety management that can all probably, but not necessarily, be found in well-performing countries, and that quite certainly cannot all be found elsewhere. The results to the questionnaire will allow a first assessment of the idea that a good road safety record is necessarily linked to certain components of road safety management system. Road safety management, understood as an area of public action destined to reduce road un-safety, includes policy-making tasks and transversal processes, as well as the organisation necessary for these tasks and processes to take place. Policymaking tasks form a cycle, going from agenda setting to policy formulation, then to policy adaption, implementation and finally evaluation, before the cycle begins again-and there are of course feedback loops going from evaluation to policy formulation and implementation stages. In order to accomplish these policy-making tasks, some management processes are necessary. The group has identified four such processes. As road safety policymaking is an inter-sectoral activity (i.e. it involves several sectors of governmental action) there is a need for inter-sectoral coordination. Likewise, the diversity of actors involved in road safety call for the involvement of stakeholders. Knowledge must be produced and used to justify the need for a road safety policy and the priority status given to it, as well as to identify available options and arbitrate between them. Finally, there must be a process for capacity building. A road safety management system can function if the institutional and organisational arrangements are adequate; if Road safety management investigation model and questionnaire DaCoTA_WP1_D1.2_final_2011-09-21 5 responsibilities are allocated along with sufficient resources; if knowledge transfers between different positions and between generations are effective. Furthermore, there are two immaterial ingredients in an operative road safety management system, that may precede it to some extent, but which are also outputs of the system: the political will and the road safety culture. The model was then used for formulating a series of 69 questions, which assess the different aspects of a road safety management system. After eliminating redundancies, the finalised questionnaire contains 50 closed questions as well as some room for comments from the interviewees. The questionnaires will be used for collecting data from policy-makers and road safety experts in at least 13 European countries in the summer and autumn 2011. ; RAPPORT DE CONTRAT

The aim of DaCoTA's Work Package 1 is to shed light on road safety policy-making and management processes in Europe and to explore how these can be better supported by data and knowledge. This was done by assessing demands and views of stakeholders as well as by building a good practice model for road safety management investigation. Future versions of the European Road Safety Observatory (ERSO, www.erso.eu) are envisaged to be built on the findings of this project. This report describes the methodology and presents the first aggregated results of an on-line stakeholder consultation carried out in Task 1.3. The survey was successfully carried out among more than 3000 road safety stakeholders in Europe and beyond. The assessment was conducted along four dimensions of road safety management: Fact finding, Road safety programme development, Preparing implementation, and Monitoring and evaluation. The questionnaire was built on the results of an expert panel consultation carried out earlier in the project and was dedicated to bring in the viewpoints of stakeholders who may not be directly involved in decision-making. Circa 3150 stakeholder contacts were collected from the European Commission, the ETSC (European Transport Safety Council) as well as its PIN Panel members and the FERSI (Forum of European Road Safety Research Institutes). The questionnaire was launched in February 2011 and open for one month, resulting in a satisfactory response rate of more than 16%. Response rates were specifically high for national statistics bureaus, research institutes and consultancies. Also the health sector and associations / interest groups / European (umbrella) organisations responded at above-average rates. Stakeholders expressed significant demand for data and knowledge in road safety-related decision making. They also expressed discontent about the current poor availability of such information. The following issues scored highest with regard to priority for road safety work: ; RAPPORT DE CONTRAT

Within the framework of DaCoTA WP1, an Experts Panel was created and a consultation was launched for the preliminary assessment of knowledge, data and analysis needs within road safety management. The objective of the consultation of this Experts Panel was the assessment of current needs for evidence-based road safety decision making in the European countries, to be used also by other DaCoTA activities. In particular, it was intended to identify specific needs for knowledge, data and tools, which will be taken into account for the development of a data warehouse (DaCoTA WP3) and for the creation of useful and relevant road safety decision support tools (DaCoTA WP4). Moreover, this preliminary consultation of the Experts Panel serves as a first step towards the full assessment of current practices and future needs of knowledge-based road safety management, which will be carried out later on within DaCoTA WP1 by means of a broader consultation of stakeholders. The members of the Experts Panel included members of the CARE National Experts group of the European Commission, as well as persons within the national road safety administration or scientific community of each country suggested by the National Experts. The Panel was complemented with additional persons suggested by the DaCoTA partners. The Panel eventually covers 20 EU Member States and 3 other European countries with different histories and experiences of RS management. The Experts have in-depth knowledge of road safety management processes and needs in their country, being either directly involved in decision making, or working closely with decision makers as advisors. Two parallel consultation methods were implemented; the first concerned semi-directive interviews carried out by members of the DaCoTA WP1 partners with members of the Panel mainly from their own countries, and the second concerned a request for written contributions in case of language or time constraints. Particular emphasis was given to the open nature of the questions, both within the interviews and the written contributions, allowing the experts to describe their own experiences, views and messages and to put emphasis on the issues they consider themselves important, without being "directed" by a detailed questionnaire to specific judgments. The consultation provided a wealth of information on all aspects of road safety management in the European countries. A synthesis of the results of this open consultation was carried out by means of a predefined matrix. In this matrix, the basic road safety management tasks were decomposed into their particular components, and were then cross-tabulated with distinct categories of needs (knowledge needs, data needs, methodological needs, tools needs etc.), allowing the linking of specific aspects of road safety policy making to specific benefits from using the necessary knowledge, data, methods and tools. The matrix allowed for a classification of the opinions provided by the experts in the written contributions as well as in the interviews. Overall, the consultation of the Experts Panel provided valuable information about the current practices and future needs and priorities for evidence-based road safety management in Europe. It was stressed that only through the establishment of appropriate structures and procedures can evidence-based road safety management be achieved. Specific recommendations on such structures and procedures include the institutional arrangements for road safety management to be carried out centrally (at national level) by a single dedicated organization, the establishment of links and processes for smooth and efficient interaction between national and local road safety policies, and the introduction of compulsory consideration of scientific evidence for each road safety decision. Several useful remarks and recommendations on the various road safety management tasks, from fact-finding and assessment of problems to the development of road safety strategies and programmes, and from the planning and implementation of these programmes to the monitoring and evaluation of their effectiveness, were also derived from this preliminary consultation. First of all, the need for setting ambitious yet realistic targets for the improvement of road safety was confirmed. As regards the development of road safety programmes and the selection of measures, a need for methodological advances was identified, including the improvement of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses, so that they can serve both for setting priorities and for assessing the combined effects of road safety measures. Moreover, the creation of handbooks and databases with accumulated international experience on these questions was proposed, with emphasis on the country-specific conditions necessary to take into account in order to reach the maximum benefit of each measure. With respect to the planning and implementation of road safety programmes and measures, the need to gather and harmonise the available information from the international experience of measures implementation was frequently expressed. In particular, the information and data on the procedures, the conditions, the time frame and the costs for implementing the measures need to be made available at European level. Furthermore, the monitoring and evaluation task is considered to be most essential, not only for assessing the effectiveness of road safety measures, but also for identifying needs for further improvement. Several methodological needs were also mentioned, including the need for standardized assessment tools (statistical models, analysis techniques etc.), that will allow for the identification of the reasons and mechanisms leading to the observed safety effect of the measures. Finally, a number of issues concerning the availability and quality of data for knowledge-based road safety management were outlined. They include the need to address the injury under-reporting problem at European level, the need for improved methods for determining accident locations by means of GIS technologies and tools, the need for improved exposure data, for increasingly reliable behavioural data and the need to promote the collection and use of in-depth accident investigation data. The Experts also stressed the need for road safety databases of different types (accident data, health data, exposure data etc.) to be linked and to be made more accessible. The synthesis of the results of the consultation may serve as a first overview of experiences with road safety management in the European countries. Furthermore, it may serve as an outline of expert opinions on the needs and priorities for knowledge, data and tools to support road safety management, as well as on the related needs for better processes and structures, allowing the integration of knowledge and decision support tools into policy making. It is noted that such a consultation was launched for the first time at European level. The main directions and priorities identified for knowledge-based road safety management are presented in detail in the present report. These can be useful not only for the collection (WP3) and analysis (WP4) of data and information intended to support road safety decision making, but they can also be used as a broader guide towards the improvement of road safety management processes and practices both by individual countries and at European Union level (WP1). Finally, the information gathered in this consultation is also relevant for further developments of the ERSO, given the many suggestions made concerning the type of information and tools that should be made available at a European level. ; RAPPORT DE CONTRAT

This subject of this paper is the regional economic effects of revitalisation of industrial sites. From an economic point of view an ageing industrial site is one with underused capacity that leads to a suboptimal level of investment. The assumption made in this paper is that due to markets failures space on industrial site is used inefficiently and that governments intervene to reduce underutilization of available space. Fieldwork and literature show that the economic effects of revitalization are one of the most important inputs for decision making on revitalization. The paper describes a model (ACER) for estimating the regional economic effects and the results of application of ACER on revitalization of ?Lage Weide?, an industrial site in the city of Utrecht. The starting point of ACER is an intervention on the industrial site, resulting in growth of firms and employment on the site or a change of composition of firms and employment. This change has an economic impact on the site itself and on the rest of the city. ACER estimates this impact in terms of employment. The basis of the model is a biregional input-output table describing all economic transactions of several industrial and service sectors with each other. The two regions distinguished in the biregional table are the industrial site and the rest of the city. The model gives the direct and indirect effects of revitalization for both the site and the rest of city in terms of employment broken down in gender and level of education as well as an indication of change in land prices. The development ACER is part of the EU-project MASURIN leaded by TNO MEP (Environment, Energy and Politics). MASURIN, the Management of Sustainable Revitalisation of Industrial Sites, aims at providing tools and knowledge for policy makers in cities and public bodies. Several institutes and cities participate in this project.