Master Thesis presentation

1. KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY
Participatory cycling planning:
challenges and strategies
The cases of Stockholm and Madrid
Javier Burrieza Galán - Master Thesis presentation
Division of Urban and Regional Studies

2. Contents
1. Introduction: issue, cities and aim
2. Research approach: theory and method
3. Four challenges
4. Two strategies
5. Conclusions
2

3. Introduction
The debate on cycling infrastructure
● Description in the literature: ‘bitter’, ‘acrimonious’...
● Blocking situations in Madrid cycling plans
● Developed through references to potential cyclists
3
Model of integration in traffic
❖ Not to lose legitimacy to use the street
❖ Cycle paths are dangerous at crossings
Model of dedicated infrastructure
❖ Attractive to potential cyclists
❖ Safety depends on the design
‘All claim to speak for the sake of potential cyclists’

4. Introduction
Why Stockholm and Madrid?
● Transformative change
● Participatory planning
● But preliminary signs of
different impacts of the debate
on cycling infrastructure
4

5. Introduction
Research aim and questions
● Step back to see the bigger picture: explore the networks
where the debate appears (or not appears)
5
RQ1
RQ2
RQ3
Who are the stakeholders involved in cycling planning?
How are the relations between these stakeholders?
How are the references to potential cyclists in the
debate on cycling infrastructure?
Reflect upon challenges and strategies of
participatory cycling planning

6. Research approach
Theoretical framework
6
Stakeholder and social network theories + concepts from:
● Agonist planning: recognize pluralism and role of
conflict - contrast with collaborative planning theories that
look for deliberative persuading dialogue
● Social movement theory: cycling advocacy as a social
movement → organizational models, action strategies,
cooperation between groups...
● Representativity theory: a
framework for analyzing
claims that make reference to
potential cyclists

7. Research approach
Stakeholder analysis
7
1 Identify collective stakeholders through snowball
sampling: three broad categories
2 Evaluate the independent attributes of stakeholders from
governance and social movement concepts
● 2+2 interviews with agents from governmental stk.
e.g. what are you responsible for regarding cycling?
● 9 + 24 questionnaires to civil society stk.
e.g. how do you make decisions?

8. Research approach
Social network analysis
8
4 ‘Observed collaboration’ between stakeholders
● Data mining from Twitter platform → matrix & graph
0 - 1 depending on the friendship status
Two approaches to compare methodologies
3 ‘Revealed collaboration’ between stakeholders
● Interviews (governmental stk.) → qualitative info
e.g. which civil society entities are you meeting?
● Questionnaires (civil society stk.) → matrix & graph
0 - 1 - 2 scale depending on the collaboration intensity
5 Comparison of the results for civil society subnetwork

9. Research approach
Social network and representativity analysis
9
Using graph analysis to unveil interdependent attributes
6 Centrality metrics and clustering of civil society
subnetwork
7 Analyze the references that stakeholders make to
potential cyclists for the case of Madrid, focusing on the
central ones

10. Challenges of participatory cycling planning
Multilevel cycling governance
10
● Two axis of cycling governance
● Complex relations within municipal governments
○ Planning vs. implementation
○ City-level vs. district-level
● To have two units under the same department does not
guarantee a better collaboration

11. Challenges of participatory cycling planning
Beyond cycling advocacy
11
● Cycling planning processes mobilize many civil society
stakeholders, not only cycling-focus ones
● Governmental stakeholders push for the inclusion of
these non-cycling focus entities, to include other users of
public space

12. Challenges of participatory cycling planning
Cycling informalities
12
● Informality in civil society stakeholders, though more
intense in Madrid case
● Informality in the public participation processes: high
relevance of informal meetings and communications

13. Challenges of participatory cycling planning
Agonist debate on cycling infrastructure
13
● As suggested, the debate is
only significant in Madrid case
● Transient frictions, but not
antagonism! → agonism
○ Joint mobilizations
○ Network organizations
○ No special clustering
● Two systems of meaning
about cycling, but commitment
to preserve community capital
for other aspects

14. Strategies for participatory cycling planning
Disaggregated stakeholder analysis
14
● Practitioners need to cope with many diverse agents
● A proposal for enhancing stakeholder analysis:
○ Based in snowball sampling → reach those hidden
○ Rejecting ‘unitary actor assumption’ → capturing
internal relationships

15. Strategies for participatory cycling planning
‘Big’ relational data
15
● Practitioners need to take into
account collaboration and
opposition ties
● A proposal for enhancing civil
society network analysis:
○ First approximation
through social media data
mining
○ Needs to be further
validated: other contexts,
platforms, metrics...

16. Conclusions
16
● Stakeholder and social network analysis were a worthy
step back to understand the ongoing debate
● The debate emerges as study case of agonist planning
● Cycling advocacy is under transformation and this has
impacts in how to organize participation
● The changes bring challenges to the design of
participatory processes, but there are strategies available
● New sources of data can be an approximation that helps
to optimize the obtention of ‘traditional’ data

17. Thank you for your attention!