Following the outbreak of COVID-19, governments took unprecedented measures to curb the spread of the virus. Public participation in decisions regarding (the relaxation of) these measures has been notably absent, despite being recommended in the literature. Here, as one of the exceptions, we report the results of 30,000 citizens advising the government on eight different possibilities for relaxing lockdown measures in the Netherlands. By making use of the novel method Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE), participants were asked to recommend which out of the eight options they prefer to be relaxed. Participants received information regarding the societal impacts of each relaxation option, such as the impact of the option on the healthcare system. The results of the PVE informed policymakers about people’s preferences regarding (the impacts of) the relaxation options. For instance, we established that participants assign an equal value to a reduction of 100 deaths among citizens younger than 70 years and a reduction of 168 deaths among citizens older than 70 years. We show how these preferences can be used to rank options in terms of desirability. Citizens advised to relax lockdown measures, but not to the point at which the healthcare system becomes heavily overloaded. We found wide support for prioritising the re-opening of contact professions. Conversely, participants disfavoured options to relax restrictions for specific groups of citizens as they found it important that decisions lead to “unity” and not to “division”. 80% of the participants state that PVE is a good method to let citizens participate in government decision-making on relaxing lockdown measures. Participants felt that they could express a nuanced opinion, communicate arguments, and appreciated the opportunity to evaluate relaxation options in comparison to each other while being informed about the consequences of each option. This increased their awareness of the dilemmas the government faces.

No abstract

Automated Vehicles (AVs) are expected to allow their users to engage in a broad range of non-driving activities while travelling, such as working, sleeping, playing games. The impact of this possibility on the satisfaction with travel and on travel demand has been extensively discussed in the literature. However, it has been hardly recognised that the availability of on-board activities influences the (time-geographic) constraints of daily activities and may alter the selection, location, and sequencing of other activities in the day. This hampers correct representation of travel behaviour in activity-based models aiming to predict the effects of AVs on mobility and environment (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions). To help fill this gap, we gathered and analysed qualitative data from focus groups, in which 27 commuters discussed their expectations concerning on-board activities and daily schedules in the AV-era. Among the core insights are the following three. First, it is useful to separate in modelling the satisfaction with travel and the potential for on-board activities during travel: they have different determinants and different consequences for activity schedules and individual travel demand. Second, on-board activities may be classified in 4 quadrants according to their novelty and priority level: this classification is helpful in understanding the potential rearrangements of daily activities. Third, performing new activities during travel may lead to complex rearrangements of daily activity patterns; the rearrangements may ease or also increase time pressure. These, and other reported insights may facilitate more realistic representation of activity-travel behaviour in future travel behaviour models.

No abstract

The energy justice literature has seen a rapid surge in both academic and practical popularity. However, there has been less systematic reflection on the research conducted so far, its scope or contribution, nor what it might mean for the future of the concept. To provide insights, this paper presents the results of a systematic and comprehensive review of 155 peer-reviewed articles published across eight databases between January 2008 and December 2019. The aim is firstly to review the current state of the art in the energy justice literature and, secondly, to present findings that support novel recommendations with the potential to enhance the impact of energy justice research, including applications in the economic and planning policy sectors. Critically, our study demonstrates that the literature lacks diversity in its author basis and research design. By contrast, conceptual frameworks and the geographies and technologies of global energy injustice are proliferating. These results illustrate that energy justice has power and agency as a tool. It can act as a protagonist in energy research, provoking researchers to remain reflexively normative and active in identifying injustices and vulnerabilities, and it can act as a promising progenitor, creating new research methods and themes.

We report and interpret preferences of a sample of the Dutch adult population for different strategies to end the so-called ‘intelligent lockdown’ which their government had put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a discrete choice experiment, we invited participants to make a series of choices between policy scenarios aimed at relaxing the lockdown, which were specified not in terms of their nature (e.g. whether or not to allow schools to re-open) but in terms of their effects along seven dimensions. These included health-related effects, but also impacts on the economy, education, and personal income. From the observed choices, we were able to infer the implicit trade-offs made by the Dutch between these policy effects. For example, we find that the average citizen, in order to avoid one fatality directly or indirectly related to COVID-19, is willing to accept a lasting lag in the educational performance of 18 children, or a lasting (>3 years) and substantial (>15%) reduction in net income of 77 households. We explore heterogeneity across individuals in terms of these trade-offs by means of latent class analysis. Our results suggest that most citizens are willing to trade-off health-related and other effects of the lockdown, implying a consequentialist ethical perspective. Somewhat surprisingly, we find that the elderly, known to be at relatively high risk of being affected by the virus, are relatively reluctant to sacrifice economic pain and educational disadvantages for the younger generation, to avoid fatalities. We also identify a so-called taboo trade-off aversion amongst a substantial share of our sample, being an aversion to accept morally problematic policies that simultaneously imply higher fatality numbers and lower taxes. We explain various ways in which our results can be of value to policy makers in the context of the COVID-19 and future pandemics.

In this study Dutch politicians were interviewed to derive their attitudes towards the use of Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) in the appraisal of transport projects. Dutch politicians' attitudes towards CBA are positive on the condition that CBAs are carried out in an impartial way. According to politicians CBA improves the planning process, serves as a countervailing power and produces a structured list of all the positive and negative effects of a project, amongst other things. Politicians criticize the use of CBA for killing political debates. Politicians were also asked to mention any solutions that they feel would improve their attitude towards CBA. Solutions suggested by politicians predominantly focus on: 1) ensuring that all effects that are covered in the CBA are scrutinized in an impartial way; 2) increasing the awareness and recognition of the elements of the political trade-off that are not covered by a CBA to diminish the probability that politicians will use CBA to kill a political debate.

No abstract