Attempting a strategic planning process model for sustainable public transport across national and regional borders in the south Baltic Sea region

Several plans have been announced recently to reduce emissions, with a focus on climate change. Current methods for creating attractive and sustainable transport take a broader perspective, including transport-related emissions and noise, but lack general guidance on public transport across national and regional borders. To fill this gap, the authors developed a strategic planning model for sustainable mobility. Research activities were mainly carried out within the South Baltic Sea Region project Interconnect, whose purpose was to curb car-reliance by increasing public transport across national and regional borders. The study drew on experiences from earlier and related studies, literature reviews, stakeholder collaboration workshops, a survey, and expert interviews. This resulted in a process model that embeds the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development, including its Sustainability Principles, and a procedure for planning towards sustainability that, when applied, can lead to a plan for sustainable public transport across national and regional borders.

To deal with the environmental challenges in the transport sector, and especially climate change, several governmental bodies (e.g., UK Department of Transport, 2018; The Swedish Energy Agency, 2017; The European Commission, 2019) have proposed measures to increase electromobility, mobility as a service, walking, biking, and public transport (PT) to reduce emission-rich transport means (e.g., fossil fueled aircrafts and cars), but according to European Commission (2021) only 20% of traveling across borders in EU is done by cross-border public transport (CBPT). Decreasing usage of flights and cars when crossing borders would then reduce environmental impacts, and according to Medeiros et al. (2021) there is also a potential to create 1 million new jobs in European cross-border areas by removing obstacles to cross-border interactions. As suggested by Missimer et al. (2017) and Robèrt et al. (2017), there is a lack of a systemic and systematic approach to sustainability that could deal with other sustainability challenges as well, and according to Roth and Kåberger (2002), it would be preferable to use long-term sustainability criteria and a backcasting process when planning for sustainable development in the transport sector.

Gaps in planning for sustainable mobility and cross border public transport

Lately, several methods and tools have been adopted in transport projects to support sustainable transport development, including Cost Benefit Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment (Heijungs et al., 1992), Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (Belton and Stewart, 2002) and Multi Actor Multi Criteria Analysis (Huang et al., 2021). However, according to Macharis and Bernardini (2015), none of them seems to be complete due to a lack of stakeholder involvement, and according to Bueno et al. (2015) none of them addresses sustainability sufficiently. Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning–SUMP (Rupprecht et al., 2019) along with Sustainable Urban Transport Planning–SUTP and Sustainable Urban Logistic Planning–SULP, have become popular tools within the European Union for helping primarily cities towards sustainability by means of transport. Out of the three, SUMP is closest related to the development of the planning process model in this study. SUMP is a strategic and integrated approach for dealing effectively with the complexities of urban transport, with the core goal to improve accessibility and quality of life by achieving a shift towards sustainable mobility. However, the SUMP tool lacks a public transport perspective for CBPT as it focuses on urban transport. In Sweden, Traffic for an attractive city–TRAST (Wirsenius et al., 2015) is commonly used to guide development of strategies for transport planning and PT in cities. Having a focus on sustainable urban transport could solve the sustainability challenges for cities and surrounding areas, but most likely not the ones that comes with current dominant travelling means (i.e., flights and cars) between countries and regions.

For more than 20 years ago, the most prevailing obstacles for CBPT was according to Winder et al. (2001) related to legal and financial issues. A comprehensive and more recent study with 31 case studies in EU by Zillmer et al. (2022) reveals that CBPT is widely spread in Europe and included 6,949 services in total in 2019/2020, of which 76% were buses, 20% rail, 3% ferries (shorter than 1 h), and 0.3% trams. In that report, the authors concludes that soft tools that addresses collaboration and co-creation between PT authorities tend to be most important for mitigating legal and administrative obstacles for CBPT planning (e.g., laws, administrative directives, asymmetric competences, structural differences, subsidies, safety standards, local timetables, and fares). Another conclusion from that study was that tailor-made solutions for CBPT are needed to overcome different obstacles and spatial and institutional contexts, but before putting solutions into action, the scope of the problem constellation, possible actions, and stakeholders to initiate action needs to be identified. Lastly, the authors in that study found that capabilities to facilitate a collaboration process is crucial as governance structures are often complex and shaped by the normative base for PT in each country. The importance of skilled facilitation is also highlighted by Robèrt et al. (2017).

Moreover, to improve coherence and user perspective in CBPT, Ryan and Wretstrand (2020) identified in 2020 the need for formalization of collaboration and cooperation between PT stakeholders, and further inclusion of travelers via user forums/panels. The importance of collaboration across borders is also highlighted by Medeiros et al. (2021) who claims that (1) transport networks and services, as well as transport infrastructure need to be jointly planned, (2) legal and administrative standards or systems when operating cross-border transport needs to be created, (3) joint management structures can facilitate the establishment and operation of genuine cross-border transport. An example of the latter is European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation–EGTC (Evrard and Engl, 2018) which has successfully been practiced in the PAMINA mobility plan (Karlsruhe-Rastatt-Haguenau-Saar-brücken), Leo express train service (Krakow-Ostrava-Prague), and Eurodistrict-bus (Erstein-Lahr). Added to that, McLeod et al. (2017) claims that efficient and effective PT systems must be planned as part of increasingly sophisticated urban systems, which then needs PT stakeholders and users from different disciplines to collaborate. The importance of cross-sectoral collaboration in policy learning about the state-of-the-art in PT network planning is also highlighted in the HiTrans best practice guide (Nielsen et al., 2005).

Region Blekinge from Sweden and project partners from Denmark, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and Estonia started in 2017 the Interconnect project (Region Blekinge, 2017) that had a focus on curbing car reliance by enhancing the use of CBPT in the South Baltic Sea Region (SBSR). Research activities managed by BTH in the project focused on development and testing of the initial planning model, as well as development of visions and solutions for strategic sustainable development of CBPT in the SBSR. The Interconnect project also served as a case study for a master thesis by (Fellner et al., 2018) that identified best practices to overcome eight common barriers for the use of PT. The authors of this study interpreted the results so at least barriers about politicians and legal structure, ticketing, behavior, and customer and demands seems to be important to address in planning support for sustainable CBPT.

Initial planning model for strategic sustainable development of transport

At large, transport systems are good examples of how several sectors, systems, organizations, and citizens depend on, and are intertwined with each other in a way that planning for a transformation of a sub-system (i.e., a bus fleet in a town or a transport infrastructure project) requires involvement of several stakeholders and not only a civil servant at a national transport agency, or a spatial planning department at a municipality. There would otherwise be a risk that some needs would not be accounted for, or that measures could lead to sub-optimizations that leads to problems elsewhere than for the specific sub-system. This is especially important when planning for sustainability, which involves many aspects of the society and needs a robust anchoring among stakeholders to withstand future trials and challenges. Methodological support for development of sustainable transport systems should therefore be based on scientific grounds and allow for differences in values to become clear, so that the values can be weighed against each other and discussed in relation to the scientific grounds. The Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development–FSSD (Broman and Robèrt, 2017) was created to serve such purpose and has proven useful for analyzing and coordinating the use of various methods, tools and other support for sustainable development that has been used in studies for sustainable transport system development (e.g., Alvemo et al., 2010; Borén et al., 2017; Ny et al., 2018). The FSSD provides, for example, backcasting from a principled definition of sustainability. This makes it possible for planners to focus on the overall goal, not just the current situation, and then chart the best possible course in the right overall direction towards a vision framed by the full scope of sustainability. FSSD also provides a strategic planning procedure called the ABCD that help actors create economically viable strategies that support society’s transition towards fulfillment of that definition of sustainability. A further description of the principles for sustainability and the ABCD-procedure can be found in Section 2.2.

Robèrt et al. (2017) presented an iterative multi-stakeholder planning process model (Section 2.3.1) that embeds the FSSD and includes four interdependent planning perspectives (‘Resource base’, ‘Spatial’, ‘Technical’, and ‘Governance’). This initial planning model proved helpful by giving diverse stakeholders (with various competences and representing various planning perspectives) a common, robust, and easy-to-understand goal and a way of working that was adequate for each of their contexts.

The initial planning model was applied in cross-sector collaboration among transport stakeholders to develop a sustainable vision for electric vehicles (EVs) in southeast Sweden. As explained by Borén et al. (2017), it resulted in a vision of sustainable transport (with a focus on EV systems) within each planning perspective, and an initial development plan towards that vision. After refinement, the authors of that paper also suggested that the planning process model could be applicable to strategic sustainable community planning in any societal sector. This was further refined in a study by Ny et al. (2018) that used system dynamics to create a roadmap towards fossil free and sustainable road transport in southeast Sweden.

Based on experiences from applying the initial planning model and experiences from working with municipalities, a PhD project by Wälitalo et al. (2020) started in 2016 at the Blekinge Institute of Technology (BTH) with a focus on how to enhance long-term work processes for cross-sectoral strategic work for sustainability in municipalities and regions. Through participatory action research - PAR (in ten Swedish municipalities, regions, and in the Finnish province Åland) that project applied the FSSD guidelines for how actors and organizations can create economically viable and sustainable strategies (as described in the initial planning model) for various focus areas and societal sectors. Learnings from these processes led to evaluation of the overarching FSSD implementation model of a geographic municipality or region, and further to identification of necessary additional support. To that end, the initial planning model focuses on detailed strategic sustainability procedures as it could be planned for a specific sector, and the FSSD implementation model describes how many such procedures could ‘collaborate’ to create and fulfil a common sustainable vision for the whole municipality or region.

Aim and scope of the study

To deal with the abovementioned lack of PT planning methods/models for CBPT with a strategic sustainable approach (and not enough of stakeholder collaboration), the aim of the study was to further develop the initial planning process model to support planning for sustainable CBPT with a focus on the SBSR. As highlighted in earlier sections, such process model needs to be well facilitated and enhance context-specific… … collaboration and co-creation among PT stakeholders (e.g., PT travelers, authorities, experts, operators, landowners, politicians) to ensure the outcomes to be of high quality and well-anchored before activating the plan(s),

… use of a holistic and systematic approach to enable a fast (enough) transition towards sustainability and address all aspects of sustainable development,

…identification of CBPT-related obstacles and barriers, and solutions for sustainable CBPT,

…creation of a plan for sustainable CBPT.

In line with Cambridge Dictionary (2023), PT is in this study defined as “a system of vehicles such as buses and trains that operate at regular times on fixed routes and are used by the public”, but do not include means of transport that have large sustainability impacts per passenger (e.g., aircrafts and cars, especially when they are powered by fossil fuels). Moreover, such trips are limited to neighboring countries (e.g., countries around the Baltic Sea) and neighboring regions that do not plan PT together.

The term cross-border represents transport across national borders, but it is also relevant in this study for regional/county borders when collaboration in planning of mobility is sparse, especially regarding public transport.

The study was based on testing in the Interconnect project (which was limited to focus on countries in the SBSR) and included other studies and experiences that included other countries in Europe. Stakeholders where mainly from organizations in the Interconnect project (Section 1.1) who were involved with planning of PT (Section 2.3.2), but also other stakeholders who were involved in planning of transport at large were also indirectly involved through other studies (Section 1.2) that were connected to this study.

Summary of methods

The flowchart in Figure 2 describes briefly the planning model development in this study. The initial process model and the embedded FSSD-approach (described in Section 1.2 and the following section) has been used as a platform for the development of the planning model in this study. To adapt to the context of the study, the authors choose more specific methods/tools that in earlier studies have been proven useful when working with FSSD to create a sustainable vision for the transport system, analyzing current reality compared to that vision, and identify solutions to achieve such vision. Vision workshops (Section 2.3.3) were then meant to provide a high degree of stakeholder collaboration through round-table discussions and dialogues in languages that participants were comfortable with. The following feedback (Section 2.3.4) from transport planning experts and stakeholders on a proposed developed model were done via surveys and complementary interviews to include as many perspectives and thoughts as possible. The core team then made some last improvement of the planning model (Section 3.4).

Framing model development

As mentioned in Section 1, the FSSD (Broman and Robèrt, 2017) and its ABCD planning procedure was a core theme of the initial process model (Section 1.2), which have also guided the planning of research activities in this study.

As described in Figure 1, the ABCD planning procedure includes (A) design of a sustainable vision framed by eight sustainability principles (see below), (B) analyze current challenges and opportunities in relation to the sustainable vision, (C) identification of possible solutions towards the vision, and (D) prioritization of solutions and measures to build a strategic plan that bridge the whole gap between the current situation and the vision. Prioritization includes questions about whether actions and goals in the plan are (1) flexible platforms for forthcoming steps that, taken together, are likely to support society’s transition towards sustainability and take the organization to the sustainability framed vision, while striking a good balance between (2) the pace of progress towards the vision and (3) return on investment.

The sustainability principles–SPs (Broman and Robèrt, 2017) is another core concept of the FSSD and defines a sustainable future as follows:

In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing … … concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth’s crust. This means limited extraction and safeguarding so that concentrations of lithospheric substances do not increase systematically in the atmosphere, the oceans, the soil or other parts of nature; e.g., fossil carbon and metals;

… concentrations of substances produced by society. This means conscious molecular design, limited production and safeguarding so that concentrations of societally produced molecules and nuclides do not increase systematically in the atmosphere, the oceans, the soil or other parts of nature; e.g., NOx and CFCs;

… degradation by physical means. This means the area, thickness and quality of soils, the availability of fresh water, the biodiversity, and other aspects of biological productivity and resilience, are not systematically deteriorated by mismanagement, displacement or other forms of physical manipulation; e.g., overharvesting of forests and overfishing;

and within that society, people are not subject to structural obstacles to…

… health. This means that people are not exposed to social conditions that systematically undermine their possibilities to avoid injury and illness; physically, mentally or emotionally; e.g., dangerous working conditions or insufficient rest from work;

… influence. This means that people are not systematically hindered from participating in shaping the social systems they are part of; e.g., by suppression of free speech or neglect of opinions;

… competence. This means that people are not systematically hindered from learning and developing competence individually and together; e.g., by obstacles for education or insufficient possibilities for personal development;

… impartiality. This means that are not systematically exposed to partial treatment; e.g., by discrimination or unfair selection to job positions;

… meaning making. This means that people are not systematically hindered from creating individual meaning and co- creating common meaning; e.g., by suppression of cultural expression or obstacles to co-creation of purposeful conditions.

These principles are not only an essential part of the ABCD procedure (as mentioned above). They also fit well into both the initial and the developed planning model when there is a need of assessing whether ideas and solutions violate (or contribute to) sustainability. The SPs therefore also fit well in this study when it assesses whether ideas and solutions can be a part of a strategic sustainable development of CBPT. According to earlier analysis by Borén (2020), transport by fossil fueled vehicles violates the SPs by, for example, CO 2 (SP1), NO X emissions (SP2), destruction of land during open-pit mining in raw material production for vehicles (SP3), dangerous working conditions in raw material production and recycling (SP4), freedom of speech and right to opinions are neglected (SP5), use of child labour and armed conflicts that hinder education (SP6), corruption and partial treatment (SP7), hinders for accessing traditional land and culture (SP8). The examples above for SP4-8 usually occur when establishing open pit mining in corrupt societies and areas of armed conflicts.

Model development through stakeholder collaboration and feedback

Model development guidance

The development and testing of the initial planning model (illustrated in Figure 3) was guided by the model itself to test it and evaluate its usefulness. The first step “Core Team ABCD” was to form a core team to drive and facilitate the planning process, which in this study was represented by researchers at BTH. This largely followed the recommendations of a core team formation from the initial planning model. In the Interconnect project, this happened in the planning part, and the exact formation was settled later (before the next step started). The second step “Interacting Expert ABCDs” was about engaging stakeholders from different planning perspectives to focus on ‘resource base’, ‘spatial’, ‘technical’, and ‘governance’ while going through the steps of the ABCD-procedure (Figure 1), and this was done through vision workshops in the Interconnect project. The third step “Public Review” and the fourth “Decision Makers” were not used in this study. It could be argued, though, that the third and the fourth step have been used to some extent as the authors have used feedback from stakeholders in the development of the model. Added to that, the results were further refined with previous experiences and results from literature reviews.

Context of empirical studies

As briefly mentioned in Section 1, empirical studies for evaluation of the interactive multi-stakeholder planning process model and testing of the developed process model for planning of CBPT towards sustainability, took place within the Interconnect project (Region Blekinge, 2017). The focus of the 3-year project (2017–2020) was to curb car reliance by enhancing the use of CBPT in the SBSR. This project received a flagship status on the European level. Nine main partners, as well as 11 associated partners, were recruited from the Blekinge region in Sweden, the Tricity metropolitan area (Gdansk, Gdynia, and Sopot) in Poland, the Klaipeda municipality in Lithuania, the Rostock municipality in Germany, the Guldborgsund municipality in Denmark, and the Viimsi municipality in Estonia. The Interconnect project had three focus areas–PT demand, supply, and governance. One of the working packages of the project is titled “Evidence, knowledge and experience”. The main goals of this package include identification of current and future needs of the passengers in the partner areas; facilitation of a co-produced vision for sustainable PT in the region; selection of sustainable solutions to address identified challenges; and development of pathways to achieve the vision. The main part of the evaluation and testing of the models took part in this working package of the project. There were to different extent plans for environmentally friendly or fossil-free mobility and how to increase public transport in respective region. The research team also found in the planning phase of the workshops that the need for such plans was also different, and it was not possible to host vision workshops in Rostock and Guldborgsund as similar plans were recently updated/created, but they could afterwards contribute with complementary interviews.

Vision workshops

As described by Borén and Ny (2018), the Interconnect project hosted 1-day vision workshops about development of CBPT towards sustainability that were held in 2018 in Karlskrona (Sweden), in Gdynia (Poland), and in Klaipeda (Lithuania). The aim was to arrive at regional visionary statements to lay the ground for a vision of sustainable public transport in the South Baltic area, the sustainability effects of the current and future public transport mobility patterns, and preliminary paths for how to reach the visionary statements. A draft of a common vision was later summarized by the BTH research team, based on the visionary statements gathered from the participating regions.

The workshops were planned and designed by the BTH research team with the guidance of the initial planning model (Section 2.3.1), naturally with a focus on the “interactive expert ABCDs”. To fit the aim of the workshops, the research team identified that the A, B, and the C-step in ABCD-procedure are crucial to include. The D-step was therefore left out as regional partners in the Interconnect project recommended the research team to keep the workshops to 1 day to make it easier to attract relevant stakeholders. Added to that, the research team have experienced that unless the workshop is top-prioritized, it is rare that ABCD workshop participants have a full mandate to decide on a plan in the D-step. The timeframe for the workshops in the Interconnect project was limited and having another workshop about the D-step could delay other activities and the timeframe of the project at large. The research team therefore agreed to let the participants take the results in the A, B, and C-step back to their organizations to possibly add more organizational specific items in each step, and then create their own plans (D-step) for how to contribute to sustainable PT.

Invitations went out via email (in local language) from respective partner representative in Poland (Pomorskie/Gdynia), Lithuania (Klaipeda), and Sweden (Blekinge/Karlskrona). In total, 103 PT stakeholders from cities/municipalities/regions and companies participated and represented many different professions related to sustainable transport planning (e.g., sustainability and/or transport researchers, transport and/or spatial planners, sustainability and environmental strategists, PT strategist, transport company managers, ticket system designers and managers).

In Blekinge/Karlskrona, most of the 43 participants where from publicly funded organizations (e.g., Region Blekinge, Municipalities, and the Swedish Transport Administration), but also a few participants from companies involved in PT (e.g., CGI, Food tankers, and Stena Line). Representatives from InnoBaltica from Gdansk (Poland) and HIE-RO from Rostock (Germany) provided their perspectives as well.

In Klaipeda, 17 stakeholders participated in total, but rather than inviting a wide range of stakeholders, the focus was on publicly funded organizations (e.g., the Region of Vilnius and Klaipeda, Municipalities, and the Klaipeda Transport Administration).

In Pomorskie/Gdynia, most of the 53 participants where from publicly funded organizations (e.g., Region of Pomorskie, Municipalities, InnoBaltica, and the Polish Transport Administration, but also a few participants from companies involved in PT (e.g., QB-mobile, LG CNS, Indata Utilities SA, Asseco Data systems).

The workshops were facilitated by the BTH research team in collaboration with local hosts who invited participants, made local arrangements, and additional staffing for each respective workshop. Local hosts and staff also helped with translations during the workshops and harvested results to English.

As described in the Interconnect report by Borén and Ny (2018), Additional information regarding visioning was later provided from partners in Rostock and Guldborgsund. Based on the results from these and other activities in the Interconnect project, Borén et al. (2021) published a paper about a process for, and a catalogue of solutions for sustainable CBPT.

The first part of the workshops was started by a framing session with a speech from a regional authority and then followed up by an introduction to strategic sustainable development (including the importance of sustainability in transport planning, and the ABCD procedure with backcasting from sustainability principles) and the initial process model by the BTH research team. The second part was inspired by the World Café concept and included round-table discussions where participants on beforehand were divided into discussion groups to have a mix of competences with regards to the four planning perspectives from the initial planning model, and to organizational affiliation, profession, and gender to some degree. The round-table discussions were facilitated by table leaders and guided by questions that were prepared by the BTH research team and were meant to enhance discussions leading to a vision within the frames of the sustainability principles. Except for the table leaders who stayed at each table, workshop participants were after the first round split up to join other tables according to a predetermined schedule prepared by the core team. This enabled that there were a mix of competences around the tables that could discuss the guiding questions, as well as previous results that was harvested by the table leader.

The language used by the BTH research team at the workshops was English. However, in Karlskrona, Sweden, some discussions were held in Swedish and some in English depending on the language of comfort of the participants. In Poland, consecutive translation was used for the panel presentations and discussion, whereas the discussions in small groups were done in Polish or English with an interpreter if some participants did not speak Polish. Finally, in Lithuania, simultaneous translation was used for the panel presentations and discussions and Lithuanian for the group discussion as there were no participants who did not speak Lithuanian. Nikulina (2019) have gone deeper into insights and solutions for challenges related to linguistic diversity in the room, as well as to differences in cultures and epistemic communities.

These vision workshops gave input to the development of the initial planning model in terms of what worked well and what could be improved regarding how the workshops were planned, conducted, managed, and how results were harvested. All workshops included debrief sessions with hosts to follow up on these questions.

Model development and feedback from stakeholders

The model development that followed the vision workshops was done by the BTH research team, including results from the Interconnect project (e.g., Mazouzi et al., 2019), as well as relevant results from the thesis by Fellner et al. (2018) about barriers and best practices to the use of PT. Together with external experts on CBPT from each respective region, the Interconnect partners were consulted in a survey with questions (Supplementary Appendix B) on a preliminary design of the developed process model (Supplementary Appendix A) that were presented via an online video. The survey participants were in general asked about their current practices regarding planning for sustainable transport systems, if they thought that the presented model could work in their local context and if there could be any improvements of the presented model.

The survey was sent to 33 people who were selected by the research team based on if they were involved in transport (and PT) planning and made sure it was sent to at least 1–3 transport planning professionals from each region. 13 responded and were from PT-authorities with focus on planning for sustainable CBPT (7 in total), networking organizations (2), municipalities (3), and University (1). Geographically they were from Blekinge–Sweden (2), Guldborgsund–Denmark (2), Klaipeda–Lithuania (2), Pomorskie - Poland (4), Warnow-Rostock–Germany (2), and Wiimsi–Estonia (1).

The survey responses (Supplementary Appendix C) were then followed up by the BTH research team by interviews with seven survey participants from different regions in the Interconnect project, who were involved in CBPT planning at Region Blekinge, Wiimsi Municipality, Klaipeda PT Authority, Guldborgsund Municipality, Marshal’s Office of the Pomorskie Voivodship, and the PT authority in Warnow-Rostock. The purpose of these interviews was via a set of questions (Supplementary Appendix D) to get clarifications on some answers, and to get more feedback on improvements of the developed process model. The BTH research team then finalized the model development through a set of internal workshops, and the results are presented in the following section of this paper.

Core team formation

When starting from the beginning of the initial planning model, the first part about core team formation was somehow settled in the application of the Interconnect project as it was then determined that the BTH research team would manage activities related to development of the initial planning model. The core team was complemented with local hosts, which enabled each workshop to be tailored for local contexts and to adjust the introduction part about strategic sustainable development and guiding questions. For example, participants in Karlskrona could be expected to be aware of that sustainable development is about more than CO 2 emissions since Karlskrona is a so-called eco municipality (partnered with Swedish Eco-Municipalities - SEKOM) that have incorporated both the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the FSSD in its operations.

Vision workshops

As described in Section 2.3, the vision workshops about improving CBPT towards sustainability were guided by the initial planning model. The workshop results are described by Borén and Ny (2018), and the summary notes in Table 1 were by the authors found related to (and should be considered in) the model development.

When planning for the workshops, the BTH research team found that the division of participants into round-table groups should be done with a focus on having a great diversity of competences that preferably covers the four planning perspectives that were suggested in the initial model (Figure 3), and that mixing participants between tables through several round-table rounds can make up for initial deficiencies regarding group compositions. It can be hard, though, to find participants that cover the ‘resource base’ perspective well as not many people have that as a focus in their daily duties, especially when working with planning of PT. It could however be argued that participants with a bachelor’s or master’s degree in environmental science or sustainability could cover that perspective.

Among practical experiences from the vision workshops, it was found that the dual-language approach was much appreciated, and that harvesting of results is preferably done by someone who knows both the local language and English well to guide/facilitate discussions/dialogues, include all participants, and harvest the findings.

Model development and feedback

Based on the findings and experiences from the vision workshops (Section 3.2), together with findings from literature reviews (Sections 1.1, 1.2) and the identified needs in Section 1.3, the BTH research team developed the initial planning model and added a support process with more detailed steps than in the initial planning model. The idea was that the new process should be used as a guideline for stakeholders when complementing their planning processes for CBPT. During that development, the BTH research team discovered that the reason for starting the process could also be an idea or solution that might not require a whole new plan for sustainable development of CBPT, nor a remake of an existing plan that embraces these issues. These ideas or solutions (e.g., establishment of electric car sharing services, bus lines, bike rental at ferry terminals or stations for CBPT) are characterized by not affecting other systems for CBPT.

Survey results

As mentioned in Section 2.3.4, the survey with questions (Supplementary Appendix B) about a preliminary version of a developed process model (see Supplementary Appendix A) was sent out to several stakeholders that were involved in planning for CBPT.

The survey was sent out to 33 people, and 13 answered. This might have resulted in incomplete results, so complementary interviews were conducted. Survey answers that are shown in Supplementary Appendix C are selected and summarized with the focus of what could influence the development of the process model. All the answers can, in their entirety, be provided by the authors of this paper whenever needed.

The authors could interpret the survey feedback that the presented model was in general useful, but that some main potential improvements could be made regarding usefulness and further descriptions, follow-up after implementation, and emphasis of the economic side (e.g., return on investments). One survey question was about what could be improved in the presented model, and the answers could be summarized by the authors of this paper as: − It is important that the model is easy to use and as timesaving as possible. The model must be easy to follow step by step, maybe with some form of presentation made for group discussions or workshops.

The involvement and getting valuable input from stakeholders outside of public authorities could be strengthened.

Describe phases in the model in more detail.

In international joint projects, coordination in the development phase is important. The processes/responsibilities are to be jointly developed and fixed after implementation.

Even if there is a long-term return on investment, the changes will not happen easily if the initial cost is high.

Feedback from interviews

As described in Section 2.3.4, interviews were held in addition to the surveys to get clarity on some answers and complementary feedback on how the model could be improved. When combined with the answers and feedback from the survey, the additional feedback can be summarized as: − There was quite a lot of text in the model, it was simple to understand, but difficult to grasp the theory around it. The different steps in the model are confusing.

Planning is done in different levels, and a model should cover enough for most parts of the planning.

Due to time constraints, it could be difficult to follow a process step by step. Some regions are better organized than others to plan for sustainability, and for those in need of help and structure, this process could really help.

The model is logically built and understandable (reflects everyday life), but you need to think of whom will apply and implement such model(s), i.e., small versus big organizations.

Similar models/processes exist in some organizations. They are often initiated with a political push, followed by a political committee that sets the priorities.

In some cases, the model could be more useful at municipal level and not regional level, depending on in which organization CBPT is planned.

Attempting a developed strategic planning model

A new version of the process model was developed based on experiences from vision workshops, literature reviews, and stakeholder feedback from the survey and interviews (Section 3.3). According Figure 4, this resulted in an updated strategic planning process model that comprises four main phases (‘Proposal/initiation’, ‘ABCD’, ‘Solution’, and ‘Implementation’). These phases, in turn, include subphases (rectangles), and decision gates (squares in black).

The authors found in general that subphases in the preliminary model could remain, but some could be added or integrated depending on the feedback from stakeholders and experts, and additional thoughts by the BTH research team during the development process. More changes were applied regarding decision gates due to refinement of the model and as the BTH research team added what organization that can decide in respective gate.

Proposal/initiation phase

This proposal/initiation phase comprises three subphases ‘Inception’, ‘Core team formation’, and ‘Benchmark’ and three decision gates ‘P1:A’, ‘P2:C’, and ‘P3:A’ as shown in Figure 5. The decision gates are numbered with ‘P’ as in ‘Proposal/initiation’ and ‘A’ if the decision is taken by an authority (e.g., PT authority or regional/municipal government), or ‘C’ if the decision is taken by the core team.

In the ‘Inception’ sub-phase, the authors found it likely that ideas and proposals that start the process come from companies, regions, municipalities, or academia, and can stem from citizens or from other transport systems worldwide. The proposal is refined and then decided by a relevant authority in ‘P1:A’ if it is mature enough to continue to next sub-phase or being sent back and further refined in the ‘Inception’ sub-phase, or dismissed as not suitable at all.

The next sub-phase ‘Core team formation’ is about forming a team of three to five persons, which should include representatives with the following profiles: Perspectives from the regions that are involved in the proposal.

Sustainability and planning competences.

Case specific knowledge/influence/network.

Facilitation and coordinating experiences.

In the next sub-phase ‘Benchmark’, the proposal is compared and evaluated by the core team with other/existing transport plans and solutions for sustainable CBPT (e.g., Borén et al., 2021). The core team then decides in ‘P2:C’ if any changes are needed or if the proposal can move on to the next decision ‘P3:A’, where a relevant authority decide if the scope of the proposal requires a change of an existing plan for CBPT, or a creation of a new plan.

The proposal will then move on to the ABCD-phase. The other option is to direct the proposal to the solution phase in case the scope is limited and plans for CBPT do not have to be created or changed.

ABCD phase

This ABCD phase comprises the subphases ‘Core team ABCD’, ‘Involvement’, ‘Multi-stakeholder ABCD’, and ‘Feedback’ as shown in Figure 6. To enter this phase, there must be a decision from either decision gate P3:A about scope in the proposal/initiation phase, or from the decision gate S3:A to change or create a plan.

In the first sub-phase ‘Core team ABCD’, the core team runs the ABCD procedure (see Section 2.2) on their own to get brief knowledge about results and what facilitation skills that are required. They also assess if there should be any changes in the composition of the team to add/change competences.

In the next ‘Involvement’ sub-phase, the core team assess who should be involved in the following multi-stakeholder ABCD-workshops by considering about the needed competences, and about all the other organizations/sectors involved or impacted during the end user transport journey. Prior experiences by the research team and from the vision workshop shows that these workshops must be carefully planned and well communicated to have sufficient participation from relevant stakeholders. Keeping in mind a balance between gender, and age to get a reasonable representation of perspectives on PT, the following entities could be invited: Traffic agencies (governmental)

Private travellers (PT users and non-users)

Business travellers

Transport companies (including Goods)

Municipalities/Regions

Land-use org. (e.g., forestry, agriculture, fisheries)

In the following sub-phase, Multi-stakeholder ABCD workshops should be conducted and facilitated by the core team. That procedure is started with creating a common ground and shared understanding about sustainability and the ABCD-procedure as such. In a round-table format (e.g., World Café), the workshop participants are then divided into groups that, through several rotational rounds, groupwise answer guiding questions about (A) what a vision for sustainable CBPT would look like that complies with sustainability principles in Section 2.2, (B) what the current reality is with regards to the vision, (C) what solutions that could contribute towards the vision, and (D) how the prioritization questions mentioned in Section 2.2 could help selecting solutions for a plan to move all the way from the current reality to the vision.

After the workshops, the core team compiles the results, make minor adjustments (if needed), and send these results out to workshop participants for feedback and to capture possible new thoughts/ideas. The core team then compiles and makes necessary adjustments (if needed).

Solution phase

According to Figure 7, the Solution phase comprises the sub-phases ‘Proposal refinement’, ‘Sustainability review’, and ‘Extra review’, along with decision gates ‘S1:C’, ‘S2:C’, and ‘S3:A’. As explained earlier, this solution phase is entered in case the scope of the proposal is limited so that plans for CBPT do not have to be created or changed.

The phase starts with the sub-phase ‘Proposal refinement’ where the proposal is further developed and refined as the core team know it will not be further developed through an ABCD-procedure. The core team also do a cost-benefit analysis, which also includes a comparison of investors cost versus societal costs.

In the next sub-phase ‘Sustainability review’, the proposal will be assessed against the sustainability principles (see Section 2.2) to find possible violations (and contributions). The proposal is also checked if it is flexible/robust enough to withstand future changes and will support rather than counteract other actions/solutions that contributes to a strategic sustainable development.

The core team then decides in S1:C if the proposal needs further refinement/development or can pass on to the next step S2:C where the core team decides if there is a need of an extra review about potential solutions against already existing PT plans and high-level visions, which is based on whether there has been changes/refinement done. In the next step S3:A, a relevant authority decides if the proposal has changed to such extent that it needs to go through the ABCD-procedure (i.e., requires a change of existing plans or creation of new plans for sustainable CBPT). If not, the proposal can move on to the next phase ‘Implementation’ and firstly to the decision if a public review is needed.

Implementation phase

This last phase ‘Implementation’ includes sub-phases ‘Public review workshop’, ‘Benchmark’, and ‘Follow-up’, and decision gates ‘I1:A’ and ‘I2:A’ according to Figure 8. The phase is entered with results from the multi-stakeholder workshops or the developed proposal solution phase.

In the decision gate ‘I1:A’, a relevant authority decides if the next step ‘Public review’ is needed or not, which depends on procedures in each region. This sub-phase gives feedback from citizens and organizations that could be used to not only get new insights and input to the proposal, but also to see what others might think about it in terms of usability and if it is doable. The core team will compile results from these public review workshops and adjust (if needed) the proposal and prepare for the next step.

Possible changes will then be decided upon in the next step ‘I2:A’ by a relevant authority. If changes are needed to such extent that the proposal needs to go through some steps in the process, then it will be directed back to the ‘Benchmark’ sub-phase to be compared and evaluated again by the core team with other/existing transport plans for CBPT.

If the relevant authority instead decides in ‘I2:A’ that the proposal can move on to the next step ‘Implementation’, then the core team will start work on realizing the proposal, which depends on the procedures in each region and the context/nature of the proposal as well.

At last, the sub-phase ‘Follow-up’ will according to procedures at respective region make sure that the implementation was as intended, status of SP violations/contributions, and at last if there is a plan for getting ‘back on track’ needed, and if so, what the status is.

Key findings

This paper shows how an initial planning model for strategic sustainable development of mobility has been developed into a process model (summarized in Figure 4) that can enhance planning of CBPT towards full sustainability. The authors believe the needs 1–4 in Section 1.3 are sufficiently covered in the process model as it is designed to be facilitated by a skilled core team and through a stepwise approach with total 13 subphases and 8 gates to enhance… … collaboration and co-creation among PT stakeholders in many of the subphases to ensure the outcomes to be of high quality and well-anchored before activating the plan,

… use of a holistic and systematic approach to enable a fast (enough) transition towards sustainability and address all aspects of sustainable development by embedding the application of FSSD in the ABCD phase as well as identifying sustainability aspects in the sustainability review subphase,

… identification of CBPT-related obstacles and barriers, and solutions for sustainable CBPT in the benchmark subphase and in the ABCD phase, and

… creation of a plan for sustainable CBPT with actions and goals that are in line with sustainability principles and avoids interference and non-productive overlaps with other transport-related plans.

This has been achieved through the authors’ experiences from earlier studies, literature studies, and testing and development in the Interconnect project in collaboration with partners and experts in the field of CBPT. In line with the initial planning model, the developed version embeds a systemic approach to sustainability by including the application of the FSSD through the ABCD-procedure, which embeds stakeholder collaboration from a sustainable vision and eventually results in a plan towards that.

Critical assessment

The process model development was (as mentioned in Section 2.3) based on earlier studies and experiences and then developed based on input from stakeholders and experts in the Interconnect project. This gave a great foundation and input to how the model might work in the different regions included in the study, but it also limits the results to be representative for these regions and participating stakeholders. However, these stakeholders were well represented by authorities who plan (and manage) PT and other organizations who are involved in such planning. As it lays within the interest of national authorities that planning of PT should be to some extent harmonized within a country, it is likely that the results of this study would not be very different if more stakeholders from the respective countries would have been involved. However, the input might have been different if other countries would have been involved in the study, but the authors claim that the process model can be valid in countries where PT is organized in a similar way. Learnings from the research on evaluating the overarching FSSD implementation model (Wälitalo et al., 2020) give that ABCD procedures for specific focus areas or societal sectors differ depending on pre-conditions, and that there is a need for various additional support throughout different processes. This suggest that step-by-step procedures (as the ones developed in this paper) might not be possible to always follow exactly. However, the procedure developed in this paper is the result of this specific study and could therefore be scrutinized to find complements to already existing procedures. The need for flexibility was also given as feedback from interviews. Still, many also liked step-by-step procedures, and at times when new projects are launched, the results from this study would arguably be supportive.

Some steps in the initial planning model were not included in the guidance of the design of the vision workshops and feedback from stakeholders on a preliminary process model. Specifically, the steps about “Public review” and “Decision makers” are specific and rather well described in each region/country and testing of these steps seemed to be superfluous for the results of this study. These two steps were also integrated in the process model as subphases. Also, leaving out the D-step in the ABCD-procedure in the vision workshops could be seen as a shortcoming in this study as the entire second step “interacting expert ABCDs” were not tested. However, the entire ABCD-procedure is included in the process model, and the difficulties with running an ABCD-workshop in one single event is accounted for in the process model. The authors of this study are well acquainted with the D-step in the ABCD-procedure and believe that leaving out the D-step in the vision workshops had a minor (if any) effect on the development of the process model.

As mentioned in Section 2.3.4, the survey about the preliminary process model was sent out to 33 of the workshop participants, but only 13 responded. When discussing the issue with some who responded, the authors found that one reason for the low participation is because some of the survey candidates are not transport planning professionals and do not work with transport planning models. This was to some degree known by the research team as the survey questions were formulated to provide useful feedback on the preliminary process model, which would be hard to do unless the respondent were acquainted with transport planning. There was however a hope that some none planning professionals would respond as they during the workshops were introduced to the initial process model and got familiarized with the ABCD-procedure. The research team were therefore keener on getting answers from transport planning professionals and sent several reminders to those who were late. The low respondent rate can therefore be relevant to the results of this study, especially since the research team made complementary interviews with transport planning professionals.

Comparison with other studies

Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning–SUMP (Rupprecht et al., 2019) is (as mentioned in Section 1.2) a strategic and integrated approach for dealing effectively with the complexities of urban transport. Together with Traffic for an attractive city–TRAST (Wirsenius et al., 2015) they have a focus on urban mobility (including PT) but lacks the cross-border focus that is provided by the developed process model in this study. SUMP has, according to ELTIS (The Urban Mobility Observatory, 2023) the United Nations definition from 1987 of sustainable development as guidance. The process model developed in this study has, in comparison with the definition of sustainability in SUMP, embedded a further developed holistic and systematic approach to sustainability, including the ABCD planning procedure and a principled definition of sustainability (Section 2.2) that, according to Broman and Robèrt (2017), aims at being necessary, sufficient, general, concrete and non-overlapping, and thus designed for backcasting planning and redesign for sustainability. Also, even if the SUMP guidelines and 12-step process is not very different from the process model presented in this study, the latter is by the authors of this study claimed to be more thorough as it includes gates and guidelines for hands-on management of the process. The approach of this study could therefore be seen as complementary regarding the spatial (urban vs. cross-border) perspective and the approach to sustainability, rather than competing with SUMP and TRAST.

As described in the introduction (Section 1.1) of this paper, Cost Benefit Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, and Multi Actor Multi Criteria Analysis lack stakeholder involvement and do not address sustainability efficiently. The develop process model have embedded the FSSD to include a holistic and systematic approach to full sustainability through stakeholder collaboration and can also include other tools and methods (such as the above-mentioned) in the ABCD-procedure, and thereby rather include than compete with those methods/tools.

The concept of European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation–EGTC (Evrard and Engl, 2018) is to some extent embraced in the developed process model as it calls for a wide range of stakeholders across borders to co-create a plan for sustainable CBPT. Such plan is likely to include actions and goals to ensure efficient and coherent cross-border cooperation despite structural differences between stakeholders, and, if needed, act as a cross-border entity.

Contributions to the research community and the society

As mentioned in Section 1, several plans have been announced lately to address the need of reducing emissions with a focus on climate change. Current methods for creating attractive and sustainable transport (e.g., SUMP and TRAST) have a wider perspective to include transport-related emissions and noise but lack guidance for planning for sustainable CBPT. In turn, the developed process model in this study has through the application of the FSSD embedded a holistic and systematic approach to sustainability including a principled definition (which covers ecologic, social, and economic sustainability aspects) and a stepwise procedure that through stakeholder collaboration eventually results in a plan for CBPT towards a sustainable future.

The results are believed by the authors of the study to be useful for transport/mobility planning professionals, decision-makers, policymakers, PT operators, and other stakeholders related to CBPT in the planning process for establishing CBPT cooperations or modify/improving existing ones.

Further studies

The developed model could be further tested in other countries to verify its usefulness, but also to possibly develop it further. Another suggestion is to go back to the initial process model’s target group (i.e., transport planning at large) to further develop and test the process model that has been presented in this study. At last, inclusion of other concepts (e.g., a Transdisciplinary approach) could possibly enrich further development of the model.