Transportation Research Part D 87 (2020) 102465

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part D

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd

Sustainable urban mobility: One definition, different stakeholders’

T
opinions
Hana Brůhová Foltýnováa, , Eliška Vejchodskáa, Kristýna Rybováa, Viktor Květoňb
⁎

a
Faculty of Social and Economic Studies, Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem, Pasteurova 3544/1, 400 96 Ústí nad Labem, Czech
Republic
b
Faculty of Science, Charles University, Albertov 6, 128 43 Prague 2, Czech Republic

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: During recent decades, the debate on how to sustain urban mobility has accelerated. Transport
Sustainable urban mobility decision-making has been more reflective of sustainability issues and quality of life in cities; this
Q methodology process has especially accelerated with the setting of modern urban mobility planning concepts,
Factor analysis substantially focusing on transport demand regulation and management, and Sustainable Urban
Stakeholders’ preferences
Mobility Plans taking over the role of cities’ primary transport-related strategic documents. The
Segmentation
SUMP
approaches to sustainable mobility visioning and planning differ within cities, as do their key
stakeholders’ opinions. Our research aims to reveal the main shared viewpoints on the preferred
JEL codes: paths towards sustainable urban mobility. We use the Q method, which is a statistical method to
Q58 study subjectivity. It enables determination of characteristic shared viewpoints on a particular
R58 subject. A qualitative analysis assessing subjective opinions is combined with the quantitative
R42 approach of a factor analysis of statements ranked by respondents. The study was undertaken on
36 carefully selected stakeholders situated within the Czech Republic. Our results indicate that
even stakeholders sharing the same definition of sustainable urban mobility may substantially
differ in regard to their ideas on how to achieve it. Furthermore, we show that some of the
attitudes expressed and measures appreciated by our respondents would not be recognised as
sustainable by environmentalists. There is still a wide gap between sustainable mobility theory
and its implementation in practice. All these findings represent barriers to sustainable mobility
development in urban areas. Therefore, the paper also conveys relevant policy implications.

1. Introduction

Transport greatly influences sustainability and quality of life in cities. Above all, urban areas are confronted with transport-related
air pollution, noise, congestion, occupation of public space by traffic, and increased morbidity and mortality rates caused by traffic
accidents and pollution (Bosetti et al., 2014; EC, 2011; EC, 2017; IEA, 2019). Furthermore, using fossil fuels in internal combustion
engines extends the harmful effects of urban transport far beyond city limits by contributing to global climate change; emission levels
are growing rapidly and have been projected to double globally by 2050 (IPCC, 2014). These negative transport effects impact
unequally on society, and accidents and air pollution particularly burden the most disadvantaged groups (Attard, 2020; Martens
et al., 2012; Schwanen et al., 2011).

Corresponding author.
⁎

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Brůhová Foltýnová), [email protected] (E. Vejchodská),

[email protected] (K. Rybová), [email protected] (V. Květoň).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102465

Available online 08 August 2020

1361-9209/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Brůhová Foltýnová, et al. Transportation Research Part D 87 (2020) 102465

Although the sustainability concept has become part of a policy discourse on sustainable transport including the local and re­
gional level (Boussauw and Vanoutrive, 2017), and some positive trends towards sustainability have been traceable in cities in the
past years (Hickman and Banister, 2014; see EC, 2017 for the European level), sustainable urban mobility remains one of the
unresolved topical concerns (EC, 2003; EC, 2013; Brůhová Foltýnová et al., 2018).
Every mobility strategy containing the word ‘sustainable’ in its name raises a question about what exactly sustainable mobility is
and how it should be operated by cities. There are various notions of sustainable mobility and a high number of definitions of this
concept and its implementation, but there is no agreement on a global definition (Marsden et al., 2010; Gudmundsson and Regmi,
2017). A definition of sustainable mobility can as such be derived from the sustainable development definition formulated by the UN
Brundtland Commission (WCED, 1987) that ‘satisfies the needs of present generations without compromising future generations’
ability to satisfy their own needs’. This definition comprises three pillars – economic, environmental and social, so-called a triple
bottom line (Litman, 2019).
Sustainable mobility as a complex phenomenon is quite difficult to operationalise; this is why transport researchers usually focus
on environmental and social problems and their possible solutions using various strategies ( Banister, 2008; Hickman et al., 2013;
Litman, 2019; Janic, 2006; Jeon and Amekudzi, 2005). For example, Banister (2008) identified four transition lines towards sus­
tainability which require actions: reduction of the need to travel (fewer trips), encouragement in a modal shift, the reduction of trip
lengths thanks to the spatial layout of cities, which reduces the travel needs of its inhabitants, and encouraging of greater energy
efficiency in the transport system. Regarding the tools and strategies of sustainable mobility, support of public and non-motorised
transport, integration of land-use and transport planning, the building of cities at short distances, technological innovations, and
discussions and citizen participation belong among the key ones (see, e.g. Hickman et al., 2013; Emberger and May, 2017; Arsenio
et al., 2016). The proactive behaviour of transport mode users is essential, rising from a change in travel behaviour, not only in
technical and organisational improvements (Gerike, 2007).
As was shown by Brůhová Foltýnová and Jordová (2014), who defined the Policy Environment Index, the quality of transport
planning at the city level (including visioning and development of strategic policies) substantially influences the implementation
process of sustainable mobility measures and the number of cars in cities. Some researchers (e.g. Boussauw and Vanoutrive, 2017)
show that sustainability discourse can be unintentionally conversed into non-sustainable policy actions due to their side effects, or
sustainable rhetoric can be misused for the legitimisation of questionable policies. Furthermore, these policies might even be a part of
the urban marketing strategies of cities engaged in inter-urban competition processes only resolving their own transport problems by
displacing them elsewhere (Reigner and Brenac, 2019). Many independent actors sway urban mobility decisions besides the political
authority of a particular jurisdiction (cf. Kluvánková-Oravská et al., 2010; Kębłowski and Bassens, 2018; Kębłowski et al., 2016)
including administrative officials of other government levels (regional, national, European), representatives of public transport
authorities, non-governmental organisations, academics, business representatives or journalists. Urban mobility decisions are thus
inevitably dependent on these actors’ opinions, their understanding and support of the sustainability concept and their ability to
share their views or find compromises.
The transformation towards sustainable mobility requires a paradigm shift in transport planning. A sustainability planning
process must be comprehensive and integrated, considering all significant objectives, impacts and options (Litman, 2019). European
cities are supported by European and national governments to develop their Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMP). These
strategies settle long-term future development of transport and mobility infrastructure and services towards high-quality and sus­
tainable mobility and transport. They include integrated sets of technical, infrastructural, policy-based and soft measures (Sitányiová
and Masarovičová, 2016). When developing a SUMP, it is necessary to formulate a long-term vision of the city and the transport
system development. Only then goals (what we ultimately want to achieve) and planning objectives (ways to achieve these goals) are
derived, following by the setting of targets (measurable objectives that we want to achieve) and outcomes (ultimate changes in
activities and impacts).
None of the definitions of sustainable mobility can, however, capture all of the possible nuanced interpretations of the meaning of
this concept. Similar viewpoints on long-term vision might be expected from stakeholders who identify themselves with the same
definition of sustainable urban mobility; this would foreshadow a smooth political discussion of the implementation of this vision
among them. However, the first experience with the preparation of SUMPs in the Czech Republic reveals that understanding how to
reach sustainable mobility differs substantially, and it is difficult to find a consensus on it. Through this study, we want to explicitly
set out the different viewpoints of stakeholders on a single sustainable urban mobility vision to help us understand a variety of ideas
shaping the future of our cities, and to understand the process of strategic mobility planning and vision-making within cities.
Our research aims to reveal the main viewpoints on the preferred paths towards sustainable urban mobility of stakeholders who
share the same vision and at the same time are able, from their job position, to effectively influence urban mobility policies. The Q
method, a mixed technique combining qualitative and quantitative analysis, was used for identifying shared viewpoints of key
stakeholders. The Q method is suitable for the identification of opinion groups without the need to quantify their relative significance
within the whole population. This type of analysis enables us to work with a relatively small sample (tens of respondents) of carefully
selected individuals (Smith, 2001).
This study is the first to focus on the segmentation of viewpoints of influential stakeholders active at the local or national level
who share the same sustainable urban mobility vision. The data was collected using structured interviews with carefully defined
stakeholder types. The stakeholders entering our study included individuals who shape the transport policies of the largest Czech
cities with more than 50 thousand inhabitants1, as well as those of smaller cities belonging among the leaders of sustainable urban
mobility concept implementation in the Czech Republic. Several representatives of relevant ministries representing the national level
were also included. The stakeholders were identified using a combination of the focus group technique with the snowball sampling

2
H. Brůhová Foltýnová, et al. Transportation Research Part D 87 (2020) 102465

method. We only analysed the responses of those approached stakeholders who claimed full agreement with a pre-defined vision of
sustainable urban mobility formulated as ‘a city that motivates its inhabitants to change their travel behaviour towards minimising
their emissions and noise impacts on health and the environment’. This approach enabled us to narrow our research and focus on the
variability of opinions of those experts who are in line with the sustainable mobility path and who can be labelled supporters of
‘sustainable approaches’ according to the classification by Kębłowski and Bassens (2018).
The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 describes the research methodology, including a short introduction to the Q meth­
odology and the development of the research instrument (Q sample). Section 3 summarises the statistical findings and defines the
shared viewpoints, followed by Section 4, which discusses the results in a broader national and European context.

2. Methods

2.1. Q methodology background and literature overview

The Q methodology was introduced by Stephenson (1953) as a statistical method to study subjectivity. It aims to reveal char­
acteristic shared viewpoints on a particular subject within society. Because the Q method works with a relatively small sample of
respondents (in the order of tens of respondents) and without the necessity of a random selection of respondents (Smith, 2001), it
does not seek to quantify the occurrence of the shared viewpoints within the society but focuses solely on their identification (Brown,
1980). A qualitative analysis assessing subjective opinions is combined with the quantitative approach of a factor analysis of
statements ranked by respondents (Brown, 1980). Thanks to its potential to reveal shared viewpoints on any social science subject,
the Q methodology has penetrated various social science arenas (see, e.g., Durning, 1999; Steelman and Maguire, 1999).
The Q method has relatively recently been utilised in transport research, in this respect mainly to identify shared viewpoints of
transport users. Cools et al., 2009 and Van Exel et al., 2011 used the Q method for profiling transport users’ shared viewpoints on
transport and private car use; Rajé (2007) for identifying people’s attitudes to the role of transport in their lives; and Cools et al.
(2012) for sorting travellers based on their acceptance of and attitudes towards transport policy measures. More recently, Milakis
et al. (2018) used the Q method for heterogeneity tracing expert opinion on automated vehicles.
Acceptance of different transport strategies by key stakeholders represents another research issue in transport. Van Duin et al.
(2018) stress the necessity to study stakeholders’ viewpoints as the first step for finding viable solutions for urban transport. These
authors studied stakeholders’ different viewpoints using the Q methodology on the case of urban freight transport, Kougias et al.
(2020) used the Q methodology for segmenting stakeholder’ views on clean energy issues in transport. Most studies focus on sta­
keholder segmentation outside the transport research agenda. Carmenta et al. (2017) have recently used the Q method for sorting
stakeholder perceptions on peatland fires, including stakeholders being able to affect the peatland protection policy; Živojinović and
Wolfslehner (2015) for sorting urban forestry stakeholders based on their views on climate change adaptation; Berry et al. (2018) for
analysing stakeholders’ views within the biodiversity conservation arena; Tuokuu et al. (2019) for an analysis of stakeholders’ views
within the mining sector; Lehrer and Sneegas (2018) and Iofrida et al. (2018) for studying stakeholders’ views within the agricultural
production arena; Cotton and Devine-Wright (2011) for sorting stakeholders affecting electricity transmission line siting; and Bacher
et al. (2014) for identifying stakeholders’ shared viewpoints on marine fish farming.
The Q method works with a set of statements (Q sample) characterising a particular topic. The Q sample is submitted to a number
of respondents (P set), who sort these statements based on the degree of (dis)agreement with them. Each participant develops an
individually sorted ranking of statements (a Q sort). Q sorts are statistically analysed to identify similarities in viewpoints and to
obtain characteristic shared viewpoints on the study subject (factors).

2.2. Urban transport policy and practise in the Czech Republic

The Czech Republic, similarly to other post-communistic countries, has been going through a transformation during the last
30 years. Although the formal remodelling of the institutional landscape has now been mostly completed, social practices and
structures have still retained some of the socialist features (Sýkora and Bouzarovski, 2012). In the Czech Republic, as well as in other
post-communistic countries, an entrenched mentality of planning based on old and outdated methods, materials and management
remains (Sitányiová and Masarovičová, 2016). This was caused by a national-wide mistrust to planning after the negative experience
of centrally-planned economy. Planning processes were overshadowed with an emphasis on liberalisation and an ‘invisible hand’ of
the market.
New requirements on cities, especially related to the necessity to prepare SUMPs, brought a substantial movement of the planning
paradigm, not only in the post-communistic countries but also in other European countries (Banister, 2008). The main challenge for
transport planners in the Czech Republic represents visioning and a stronger emphasis on the transport demand side and demand
management. Table 1 summarises the main differences between traditional and new urban mobility planning, which cities and
transport experts and planners have been challenging.

1
The Czech cities above 50 thousand inhabitants are required to have an SUMP to be allowed to apply for funding from EU Structural Funds
starting from 2021.

3
H. Brůhová Foltýnová, et al. Transportation Research Part D 87 (2020) 102465

Table 1
Differences in tradition and new transport planning in post-communistic countries.
Traditional approach New approach

Physical dimensions Social dimensions

Traffic focus, particularly on the car People focus, either in (or on) a vehicle or on foot
Street as a road Street as a space
Motorised transport All modes of transport
Forecasting traffic Visioning on cities
Modelling approaches Scenario development and modelling
Demand based Management based
Speeding up traffic Slowing movement down
Segmentation of people and traffic Integration of people and traffic
Separation of transport planning from land-use planning Integration of land-use and transport planning

Note: Based on Banister (2008).

2.3. Q sample development

The Q sample is a set of sorting statements used in the Q method. Before developing the final set of statements entering the Q
sample, a large number of statements on the research subject need to be identified. A universe of statements for any topic or situation
is sometimes called a concourse (Stephenson, 1986); it includes, for instance, wishes, declarations or opinions. In our study, state­
ments on the future development of urban transport policies were gathered using various sources including electronic newspapers
and journals, transport-oriented websites, websites of international organisations dealing with urban transport issues, blogs and
YouTube spots of various politicians active in the urban transport arena, websites of political parties, and scientific literature sources
(Ballantyne et al., 2013; Cools et al., 2009, 2012; Currie and Delbosc, 2010; Dablanc, 2007; Dargay, 2007; Holz-Rau and Scheiner,
2004; Rajé, 2007; Rietveld, 2004; Tym, 2015; van Exel et al., 2011; van Exel et al., 2006; Visser et al., 1999). We ended up with 133
relevant statements representing a wide variety of opinions and attitudes.
There are two ways to develop a Q sample – choosing statements randomly or selecting them to cover the analysed topic in the
broadest possible sense. We processed the statements systematically trying to avoid similarities among the identified statements and
to cover all of the most important topics addressed in our Q sample. If a statement contained several different opinions, it was divided
into multiple individual statements to precisely address one issue each, and over-lengthy statements were shortened without
changing their opinion content. All of them were clustered into seven addressed topics (see Table 2). The statements entering our Q
sample were selected to represent the most concise statements for various opinion possibilities on each topic. We selected 42
statements for the final set, which corresponds to the number of statements selected, e.g., by van Exel et al. (2011), Cools et al. (2009)
or Cools et al. (2012). A Q sample of 48 statements was applied in Stephenson (1993); Rajé (2007) used a Q sample of 60 statements,
Durning and Osuna (1994) developed 39 statements. In the last step, each statement of our Q sample was numbered randomly.

2.4. Sample of respondents (P set) and Q sorts

There are different approaches to choosing relevant players for stakeholder analysis. Freeman (1984) defines stakeholders as
those who can affect a specific decision or be affected by it; this is ultimately a comprehensive concept. In the transport policy
context, every citizen in the city is directly affected by the form of the policy, and everyone else indirectly due to external traffic
effects. In our case, the stakeholders are defined as representatives of institutions that are able to influence transport policy decisions
made at the municipal level. These stakeholders comprise representatives of various institutions forming municipal mobility. These
include, first of all, local politicians who are councillors for transport issues themselves or represent their political party in advisory
bodies in charge of transport policy for municipal councils and municipal assemblies. They may belong to the coalition as well as the
opposition. Important public sector stakeholders also include local civil servants from spatial development, transportation, strategic
planning, investment and environment departments, representatives of public transport providers and local transport coordinators,
and representatives of national bodies (mostly ministries). Relevant stakeholders outside the public sector area cover actors from
private companies providing mobility services in urban areas (car/bike sharing, taxis, IT services), NGOs, researchers and influential
journalists. We selected 83 relevant stakeholders across all the categories and invited them for an interview. Most of them were men
(82%), which corresponds to the low representation of women in decision-making positions in the Czech Republic, mainly within the
public sector bodies and in politics. This imbalance is further strengthened by the natural inclination of men to transport issues.
Some of the selected respondents did not react (27), did not consider themselves as experts for this topic (3), or were not available
during the interviewing period (2). We finally conducted 51 structured interviews between July and November 2018, of which we
needed to dismiss 8 due to improperly completed score sheets. We ended up with 43 correctly completed score sheets, which we
subjected to the further selection of answers entering the final P set as follows.
During the interviews, respondents formulated their own long-term vision of mobility and assessed, on a 5-point scale, their
agreement with the sustainable urban mobility vision which was formulated by our research team (see the previous section). Each
respondent then organised the statements of the Q sample into a quasi-normal distribution according to their point of view – how
much they agreed/disagreed/were neutral to them. In practice, the Q sample statements were printed on small cards. Each re­
spondent was asked to arrange the cards on the score sheet (see Fig. 1). A value of + 4 indicated the strongest agreement with the

4
H. Brůhová Foltýnová, et al. Transportation Research Part D 87 (2020) 102465

Table 2
Q sample structure.
Statements No.

Public transport Let us take the path of public transport improvement, not price reduction. 1
Public transport should run faster than cars. 10
Public transport will never be good enough to significantly reduce car ownership and use. 23
A reduction in public transport fares, leading to deeper loss for the transport authorities, would only be made by a populist 36
or green ideologist.
Taking public transport should be by far the most convenient way of travel. 38
Everyone should start by themselves and use public transport more often. 40
Private car transport Car traffic in cities is pointlessly restricted and slowed down. 5
Motorway vignettes for cars have to be abolished. Drivers pay more than enough through excise duty and VAT anyway. 8
Electric cars (and similar alternatives) should make up at least one half of all cars running in cities by 2030. 11
People have to be motivated, not forced, to reduce single car use. 13
The city should take care that citizens need a car for private use as little as possible. 20
The costs of a car trip should be higher than those of the same trip by public transport. 21
A second car in a family should not be penalised. 26
Cities should focus on building incentive parking facilities at their edges. 35
Car ownership is indispensable. 41
Further growth in car traffic is essential for growing economies in advanced countries. 42
Non-motorised transport Cycling is a hobby more than anything else, so cities do not have to support cyclists in everyday commuting. 14
Children under 12 years of age should not bicycle to school on their own, even if there is a safe cycling trail. 19
Walking and cycling around the city are healthy and pleasant alternatives, particularly for shorter trips. 23
Cycling enables people to move around the city freely and be independent. 28
Cyclists should have their own infrastructure wherever possible instead of sharing it with cars. 29
Walking infrastructure does not need to be developed beyond its present extent. 37
Freight transport Goods vehicles should be restricted depending on their environmental impacts. 9
Urban deliveries are purely a matter of private hauliers. The public sector should not try to influence them. 17
Freight transport in cities should be subject to clear, simple and stable rules on which politicians would agree with private 18
sector representatives.
The city should restrict freight transport using any available means. 27
Spatial development Current urban transport problems can be solved by simply building sufficient infrastructure capacity. 3
We should promote denser development rather than urban sprawl. 6
We have to emphasise cooperation with neighbouring municipalities in provision of transport services with maximum 7
utilisation of public transport.
Modern technology will resolve fundamental transport problems. 12
The city has to develop through investment in new transport infrastructure. 16
Cities do not need a change in the current transport behaviour to reduce environmental impacts of transport. 22
I want a city where small shops are not replaced with large commercial centres. 25
Transport policy has to be adjusted to population ageing. 34
The current state of transport in the city is satisfactory; there is no need to change it fundamentally. 39
Accessibility Society should provide a quality alternative for those who do not own a car to enjoy comparable mobility options. 2
The speed of traffic in the city is more important than environmental impacts. 30
We need to provide availability of public transport for all categories of citizens, even at the cost of significant regulatory 4
interventions.
Shopping areas with good public transport accessibility do not need large parking areas. 15
Public involvement We should not make any fundamental changes in transport policy without a society-wide agreement. 31
The public does not need to be involved in transport decision-making, as it makes the decision-making more complicated 33
and lengthier.
A shift to environmentally friendlier transport will be better assisted by positive role models (e.g., celebrities using electric 32
cars/bicycles) than by political measures.

Fig. 1. Score sheet.

statement, while the value of −4 the strongest disagreement. In this way, we reached individual Q sorts.
We further analysed only the Q sorts of respondents who ‘totally agreed’ with the suggested vision of sustainable urban mobility.
The final sample entering the Q analysis consisted of 36 respondents; its characteristics are summarised in Table 3 and Table 4.

5
H. Brůhová Foltýnová, et al. Transportation Research Part D 87 (2020) 102465

Table 3
Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents entering the P set.
Gender Men: 31 Women: 5

Age Between 26 and 70 years Average 44 years

Education Secondary: 6 Tertiary: 30
Work experience in the field of expertise Between 2 and 36 years Average 14 years
Work in their current position Between 2 and 25 years Average 8 years
Municipality as the interview object 25 capital city (Prague), 7 district town, 4 municipalities in general

Table 4
Working position of respondents entering the P set.
Local politician 9
Representative of a municipality 7
Representative of a transportation company owned by the municipality 3
Representative of a ministry 4
Consultant, transportation expert, researcher 5
Representative of an NGO 4
Representative of a private company providing mobility services 3
Journalist 1
Total 36

The majority of our respondents have university education (83%) and 14 years of work experience on average. 44% of them are
employed by a municipality as a politician or a city official. The others come from local or national institutions that directly influence
cities’ transport strategies.

3. Results

The individual Q sorts were subjected to by-person factor analysis using the PQMethod freeware package2. As the first step, each
Q sort was correlated with every other Q sort. The intercorrelation matrix was then factor-analysed using Principal Component
Analysis (PCA) to find associations among the different Q sorts. The PCA generated eight factors with eigenvalues ranking from 17.12
to 1.01. The eight obtained factors account for 78% of the variation in the Q sorts. Generally, our data show high variability. There is
one dominant factor explaining 48% of the data variability, and another seven factors which together explain 30% of the data
variability.
As shown in Table 5, a total of 22 of the 36 participants were purely loaded on Factor 1. A total of 12 participants’ sorts were
mixed with significant loading on more than one factor, including Factor 1. No participants were purely loaded on Factor 2, while five
were significantly loaded on Factor 2 and at least one other factor. One Q sort was significantly loaded on Factor 3, and two others
were significantly loaded on Factor 3 as well as one or more other factors. Factor 4 had zero purely loaded sorts and four mixed sorts.
None of the participants was purely loaded on Factor 5, while two were significantly loaded on Factor 5 as well as one or more other
factors. Factor 6 had three mixed sorts. One mixed sort was significantly loaded on Factor 7, and two mixed sorts were significantly
loaded on Factor 8 and one or more other factors.
According to Addams and Proops (2000, p. 27), only factors with eigenvalues above 1 should be selected for further analysis; all
the factors are in compliance with this condition. Furthermore, it is generally considered in Q studies that an interpretable Q factor
must have two or more Q sorts loaded significantly on it (Rajé, 2007), which eliminates Factor 7, and that the correlation between the
factor and the Q sort shall exceed 0.50 and cross-loadings of the Q sort with other factors shall be smaller than 0.40 (Cools et al.,
2012). By the latter principle, we also had to eliminate Factors 4, 5, 6 and 8. The final three interpretable Q factors (1, 2 and 3) and
statement scores representing the distinct attitudes of each of the discourses in this study are shown in Table A1 in the Appendix.
The final three factors together account for 59% of the data variability with a dominance of Factor 1: Factor 1 can be pointedly
characterised as ‘Support public transport and restrict cars’ (48% of the data variability); Factor 2 can be labelled as ‘Promote
transport infrastructure’ (7%); and Factor 3 as ‘Motivate people, not push them’ (5%).
Table 6 shows correlations between the factors; a low correlation indicates low similarity in content between the analysed factors.

3.1. Similarities within opinion groups (factors)

Statements which do not distinguish between any pair of factors are called consensus statements. These are either statements with
which there is a general agreement across the factors or a general disagreement. There are no consensus statements on the dis­
agreement side at the significance level of P < 0.01. Consensus statements on the agreement side at the significance level of
P < 0.01 include ‘Goods vehicles should be restricted depending on their environmental impacts.’ (+2,+2,+1), ‘Everyone should start by

2
The statistical program tailored to the requirements of Q studies is available at http://schmolck.org/qmethod/.

6
H. Brůhová Foltýnová, et al. Transportation Research Part D 87 (2020) 102465

Table 5
Factor matrix.
Respondents Factors

(Sorts) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 0.6083 0.1183 −0.1291 0.1072 −0.1277 0.1757 −0.0684 −0.1583

2 0.6928 −0.0215 0.3823 −0.116 0.2399 −0.1770 0.1562 0.0189
3 0.7145 −0.1849 −0.0538 −0.1512 −0.1326 0.1355 −0.0415 −0.0598
4 0.7791 −0.2587 −0.0623 −0.1543 0.3955 −0.0407 −0.038 −0.2038
5 0.7969 −0.1523 0.1439 0.1253 −0.1955 0.1304 0.3002 −0.1477
6 0.8053 −0.1494 −0.0168 −0.1724 0.0722 −0.1934 0.1900 0.0426
7 0.7763 0.1676 0.0604 −0.0602 −0.1668 −0.0741 −0.2034 −0.1178
8 0.7671 −0.1373 −0.2972 −0.0057 0.1732 0.3569 0.0385 0.0764
9 0.7121 −0.1187 0.2211 −0.3076 0.1855 0.3381 0.1436 0.0515
10 0.7911 −0.0114 0.0219 −0.0883 0.0657 −0.0344 −0.2603 0.2301
11 0.1887 0.3977 0.7138 0.1828 −0.0667 0.2030 −0.2571 −0.2196
12 0.4799 0.5426 0.0856 −0.461 −0.0923 0.2387 0.1245 −0.1018
13 0.7332 −0.2313 0.0404 0.0162 0.1201 0.1708 −0.3474 −0.1190
14 0.6070 0.0160 −0.0427 0.2648 −0.2053 0.0909 0.3841 0.2384
15 0.4781 0.3998 −0.5823 −0.1548 −0.0942 −0.0071 −0.0427 −0.1702
16 0.6026 0.1772 −0.0456 0.5073 −0.0986 0.2013 −0.1335 0.1124
17 0.7159 0.1755 −0.1074 −0.0058 −0.267 −0.1496 −0.3242 0.1178
18 0.7051 −0.1281 0.0658 0.2150 −0.1914 −0.3667 −0.0278 0.0120
19 0.7127 −0.2369 0.1077 −0.1243 0.1869 0.2833 0.0282 0.4284
20 0.8230 −0.0453 −0.0606 −0.1527 −0.0326 −0.2784 −0.1564 0.0927
21 0.7232 −0.2447 0.0451 −0.1082 0.1800 −0.0425 −0.0916 0.0287
22 0.7104 0.3358 0.1503 0.1323 0.2537 −0.0381 0.1002 −0.1623
23 0.1968 0.6537 −0.061 0.1165 0.2978 −0.2054 0.0366 0.4830
24 0.8795 −0.0787 −0.0955 0.0617 0.0323 −0.1658 0.0387 0.0291
25 0.8393 −0.1220 0.0079 −0.2251 −0.0507 0.0248 −0.0173 0.0412
26 0.7847 −0.1726 −0.0975 −0.0573 −0.0941 −0.2228 0.0091 −0.0486
27 0.5650 0.5781 −0.0788 −0.0721 0.2119 0.0028 0.1111 −0.2832
28 0.7478 0.1468 0.0461 0.2340 0.0015 −0.1929 0.0201 0.0015
29 0.4873 0.2732 −0.2046 0.4551 0.3533 0.0670 0.2227 −0.1189
30 0.6657 −0.0528 −0.1641 0.2115 −0.0823 0.3795 −0.2465 0.1283
31 0.2520 0.6568 0.0095 −0.3840 −0.2831 0.0310 0.0314 0.2165
32 0.8055 −0.0865 0.0646 0.2153 −0.2374 0.1433 0.0378 0.0083
33 0.5860 −0.1214 0.3127 −0.0274 −0.3789 −0.0466 0.3877 0.0271
34 0.8043 −0.0959 −0.1239 −0.1093 −0.0952 −0.1124 −0.093 −0.1511
35 0.6932 0.0438 0.3758 0.1156 0.1513 −0.225 −0.1659 0.0255
36 0.8296 −0.1341 −0.2616 0.0755 −0.0447 −0.0959 0.2017 −0.1330
Eigenvalues 17.1244 2.5920 1.6756 1.5438 1.3083 1.2808 1.1648 1.0118
% expl. var. 48 7 5 4 4 4 3 3

Table 6
Correlations between factor scores.
1 2 3

1 1.0000 −0,3088 −0,3256

2 −0.3088 1.0000 0.1968
3 −0,3256 0.1968 1.0000

themselves and use public transport more often.’ (+1,+1,+2), ‘Let us take the path of public transport improvement, not price reduction.’
(+0 meaning slightly positive neutral statement,+1,+0), but also ‘The costs of a car trip should be higher than those of the same trip by
public transport.’ (+2,+3,+2), and ‘Cyclists should have their own infrastructure wherever possible instead of sharing it with cars.’ (+0,
+0,+2). We can generalise that all the factors express that public transport should be more attractive, faster and cost less than
private car use. All the factors are also well disposed towards cyclists, but it is worth emphasising that at the same time, they do not
imply any restriction to private car use. This, as we will see, is one of the distinguishing elements among the factors. Table 7 displays
Z scores and Q statement values for the consensus statements for each factor.

3.2. Differences within opinion groups (factors)

Distinguishing statements can be defined as the statements for which respondents showed the lowest sorting agreement. Tables in
the Appendix provide an overview of distinguishing statements for each factor. The following text characterises each factor in more
detail. We use extreme agreement and disagreement statements on the level ± 4 and ± 3, as well as its distinguishing statements
with significance at P < 0.01 to characterise the individual factors.

7
H. Brůhová Foltýnová, et al. Transportation Research Part D 87 (2020) 102465

Table 7
Consensus statements.
No. Statements Factors

Q-SV Z-SCR Q-SV Z-SCR Q-SV Z-SCR

1 2 3

1* Let us take the path of public transport improvement, not price reduction. 0 0.45 1 0.78 0 0.00
9* Goods vehicles should be restricted depending on their environmental impacts. 2 0.95 2 0.89 1 0.46
12 Modern technology will resolve the fundamental transport problems. −1 −0.36 −3 −0.98 −2 −0.74
17 Urban deliveries are purely a matter of private hauliers. The public sector should not try to influence −1 −0.84 −1 −0.41 −3 −1.30
them.
19 Children under 12 years of age should not bicycle to school on their own, even if there is a safe cycling −1 −0.63 −3 −1.22 −2 −1.10
trail.
21* The costs of a car trip should be higher than those of the same trip by PT. 2 0.89 3 1.29 2 0.82
29* Cyclists should have their own infrastructure wherever possible instead of sharing it with cars. 0 0.37 0 0.11 2 0.65
40* Everyone should start by themselves and use public transport more often. 1 0.84 1 0.78 2 1.02

Note: * indicates significance at P < 0.01.

Q-SV = Q Statements values; Z-SCR = Z scores

3.3. Description of factors

3.3.1. Factor 1: ‘Support public transport and restrict cars’

Factor 1 was shared by the largest number of respondents (48% of the P set). It is identified strongly with the statements ‘We have
to emphasise cooperation with neighbouring municipalities in provision of transport services with maximum utilisation of public transport’
(+4) and ‘Walking and cycling around the city are healthy and pleasant alternatives particularly for shorter trips’ (+4). To a lesser extent,
it is positive towards the statements ‘Cycling enables people to move around the city freely and be independent’ (+3), ‘Society should
provide a quality alternative for those who do not own a car to enjoy comparable mobility options’ (+3), and ‘The city should take care that
citizens need a car for private use as little as possible’ (+3). On the contrary, it strongly disagrees with the statements ‘Car traffic in cities
is pointlessly restricted and slowed down’ (-4, distinguishing statement at the same time) and ‘Cities do not need a change in the current
transport behaviour to reduce environmental impacts of transport’ (-4, distinguishing statement at the same time). To a lesser extent, it
disagrees with the following statements: ‘Further growth in car traffic is essential for growing economies in advanced countries’ (-3,
distinguishing statement at the same time), ‘Cycling is a hobby more than anything else, so cities do not have to support cyclists in everyday
commuting’ (-3), ‘The speed of traffic in the city is more important than environmental impacts’ (-3). For the overall overview of the Q
scores, please see the Appendix (Table A1).
This factor is further distinguished from the other two factors by the following statements ‘Taking public transport should be by far
the most convenient way of travel’ (+2), ‘Cities should focus on building incentive parking facilities at their edges’ (+2), ‘We should promote
denser development rather than urban sprawl’ (+2), and ‘Public transport should run faster than cars’ (+1). The Z scores and Q statement
values for the distinguishing statements for Factor 1 are shown in the Appendix (Table A2).
Thus, Factor 1 is clearly distinguished above all by opinions supporting and increasing the quality of public transport, creating
conditions for improvements in public transport operation (such as anti-sprawl measures), and its adjustments to the demographic
changes in the population. This viewpoint would like to see public transport be more convenient and faster than cars. P + R facilities
should be built to eliminate commuting by cars to city centres. Moreover, more cooperation with surrounding municipalities in
providing regional integrated public transport is needed to promote better public transport within a region.
At the same time, this viewpoint supports active restriction of car use. It does not find any further growth in car traffic necessary
and stresses the need for a change in travel behaviour. Cycling and walking are also seen as alternatives to cars, but they are not
perceived as ones that can play such a significant role as public transport.

3.3.2. Factor 2: ‘Promote transport infrastructure’

This opinion segment characterises the views of 7% of the P set. It is identified strongly with the statements ‘The city has to develop
through investment in new transport infrastructure’ (+4, distinguishing statement at the same time) and ‘Current urban transport problems
can be solved by simply building sufficient infrastructure capacity’ (+4, distinguishing statement at the same time). It is also in line with
the statements ‘We have to emphasise cooperation with neighbouring municipalities in provision of transport services with maximum utili­
sation of public transport’ (+3), ‘The costs of a car trip should be higher than those of the same trip by public transport’ (+3), and ‘Cycling
enables people to move around the city freely and be independent’ (+3). On the contrary, it is strongly against the statements ‘Motorway
vignettes for cars have to be abolished. Drivers pay more than enough through excise duty and VAT anyway’ (-4, distinguishing statement at
the same time), and ‘The current state of transport in the city is satisfactory; there is no need to change it fundamentally’ (-4, distinguishing
statement at the same time). To a lesser extent, this factor also disagrees with ‘Modern technology will resolve fundamental transport
problems’ (-3), ‘Cycling is a hobby more than anything else, so cities do not have to support cyclists in everyday commuting’ (-3), and ‘Children
under 12 years of age should not bicycle to school on their own, even if there is a safe cycling trail’ (-3).
Factor 2 is further distinguished from the other two viewpoints by agreement with ‘A reduction in public transport fares, leading to

8
H. Brůhová Foltýnová, et al. Transportation Research Part D 87 (2020) 102465

deeper loss for the transport authorities, would only be made by a populist or green ideologist’ (+2). The following statement further
distinguishes Factor 2 on the disagreement side: ‘Shopping areas with good public transport accessibility do not need large parking areas’
(-2). The Z scores and Q statement values for the distinguishing statements for Factor 2 are displayed in the Appendix (Table A3).
We can summarise that this opinion subgroup expects that public transport will never be a mode equally competing with cars (it
will never be faster or more comfortable than cars). It firmly believes that new transport infrastructure is a necessary precondition for
resolving current urban problems. It does not promote new infrastructure solely for individual car transport, but also for cyclists. At
the same time, this opinion group does not lobby for decreasing the costs of private car use, neither does it believe in decreasing
public transport fares. This factor agrees with preference for alternative transport modes to cars (such as walking and cycling for
shorter distances), but car drivers should not be pushed to switch to alternative modes by restrictive measures.

3.3.3. Factor 3: ‘Motivate people to use public transport, not push them’
This factor is shared by 5% of the respondents and most strongly agrees with the statements ‘People have to be motivated, not forced,
to reduce single car use’ (+4; distinguishing statement at the same time), ‘The city should take care that citizens need a car for private use
as little as possible’ (+4), ‘We need to provide availability of public transport for all categories of citizens, even at the cost of significant
regulatory interventions’ (+3), ‘Cycling is a hobby more than anything else, so cities do not have to support cyclists in everyday commuting’
(+3, distinguishing statement at the same time), and ‘We should not make any fundamental changes in transport policy without a society-
wide agreement’ (+3). At the opposite pole, this opinion group most strongly disagrees with the statements ‘Electric cars (and similar
alternatives) should make up at least one half of all cars running in cities by 2030’ (-4, distinguishing statement at the same time), ‘Walking
and cycling around the city are a healthy and pleasant alternative particularly for shorter trips’ (-4, distinguishing statement at the same
time), ‘Society should provide a quality alternative for those who do not own a car to enjoy comparable mobility options’ (-3, distinguishing
statement at the same time), ‘Public transport should run faster than cars’ (-3), and ‘Urban deliveries are purely a matter of private hauliers.
The public sector should not try to influence them’ (-3).
Factor 3 is primarily further distinguished from the other two factors by these statements: ‘Cities do not need a change in the current
transport behaviour to reduce environmental impacts of transport’ (+2), and ‘Motorway vignettes for cars have to be abolished. Drivers pay
more than enough through excise duty and VAT anyway’ (+1). On the disagreement side, it is distinguished also by ‘The city should
restrict freight transport using any available means’ (-2). The Z scores and Q statement values for the distinguishing statements for Factor
3 are displayed in the Appendix (Table A4).
This opinion subgroup is against any strict regulation (above all regulation of car ownership and car use). It is also opposed to
increases in costs of car use, such as payments for transport infrastructure, or increasing travel time for car users because of traffic
calming. It prefers positive motivation to regulation, particularly in connection with public transport support. It firmly believes that
public transport can be of a high quality to decrease car use considerably on its own, even without the necessity of being faster than
cars. According to this viewpoint, it is not necessary to change people’s travel behaviour by any regulation. It is only necessary to
create conditions motivating the use of public transport more often. Concerning other alternative modes, this viewpoint does not see
walking and cycling as ‘fully-fledged’ modes of transport in comparison with the car or public transport. Cycling is only perceived as a
leisure activity. Neither cycling nor walking are recognised as a pleasant or healthy alternative. This viewpoint does not agree with
the necessity to replace the conventional car fleet considerably with electric cars.

4. Discussion

The results show significantly diverse opinions hidden behind the vision of sustainable urban mobility defined as ‘a city that
motivates its inhabitants to change their travel behaviour towards minimising their emissions and noise impacts on health and the
environment’ and describe shared opinions on how to reach sustainable urban mobility as well as controversial topics among sup­
porters of the same sustainable urban mobility vision (there is a high variability of opinions, statistically significant factors together
account for 59% of the data variability). There is a broad consensus about stressing the quality and affordability of public transport in
cities. Our stakeholders agree that everyone should start by themselves and use public transport more often, that certain regulation of
freight transport based on its environmental impacts should be implemented, and that cycling infrastructure should be separated not
to interfere with cars.
On the other hand, the respondents are distinguished by their approach to the restrictions of car users and further development of
infrastructure for motor traffic. Is it desirable to regulate car ownership or use? Should we more broadly apply car regulation tools,
especially economic ones, and actively restrict cars in cities? The second controversial topic is the (dis)belief in alternative transport
modes other than widely recognised public transport – mainly walking and cycling. Are walking and cycling a viable solution for our
cities as an adequate alternative to car or public transport? Other distinguishing aspects are the faith in public participation in
strategic decision-making on the transport agenda, and the rate of social feeling towards individuals with specific transport needs.
The analysis generally demonstrates that stakeholders broadly support ‘pull’ measures, i.e., stimulus measures; not all the actors
agree with ‘push’ measures, i.e., restrictive institutional measures. However, research results show that push factors are more im­
portant determinants in limiting individual car use than pull measures (O’Fallon et al., 2004), while the most effective change in
transport behaviour occurs when various push and pull measures are combined.
This study was undertaken in the institutional and transportation context of the Czech Republic. Therefore, the validity of some
aspects of the Q method results primarily applies to countries with a similar evolutionary trajectory of the transport sector, as well as
a similar institutional level of governance, and in a comparable period of automobile traffic growth (particularly the Central and
Eastern European countries, CEECs). Although each of these post-socialist countries has undergone their transformation in a different

9
H. Brůhová Foltýnová, et al. Transportation Research Part D 87 (2020) 102465

way, they have many common social and economic features, and moreover similar transport behaviour and transport concepts can
also be emphasised. Sitányiová and Masarovičová (2016) point out that transport and land use models have not yet responded to the
new transport planning principles and there remains an entrenched mentality of planning based on old and outdated methods,
materials and management in CEECs. Therefore, it can be assumed that the results may be valid in these countries. However, this
assumption must, of course, be empirically verified within future research agenda.
In the Czech Republic, lower rates of car ownership prevailed especially during the totalitarian regime period, followed by a very
dynamic increase in car ownership and use during the transformation period in the 1990s. In 2017, the Czech Republic was slightly
above the EU average in the number of passenger cars with 522 cars per thousand inhabitants (EC, 2019). During this period of rapid
increase in car ownership and use, the transport policy focused on expanding the transport infrastructure to accommodate rising
transport demand, but the application of mobility demand management tools has only been increasing slowly.
A partial paradigm change came with Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans in connection with the EC Urban Mobility Package
(2013). Some stakeholders’ low acceptance of push measures, as well as stress on new infrastructure provision, can be partially
connected with the historical development of transport policy in the Czech Republic and the very recent paradigm change regarding
car traffic. It can also be connected to the unfinished phase of building city bypasses, which could divert through-traffic from city
centres. Last but not least, the integration of land-use and transport planning is still a problem in post-communistic countries (Sýkora
and Bouzarovski, 2012).

5. Conclusion

This paper shed light on sustainable transport mobility perceived by stakeholders in the institutional and transportation context of
a Central European country. Drawing on the sustainable mobility concept combining with the Q method approach, we have de­
termined the main viewpoints on the preferred paths towards sustainable urban mobility among proponents of one sustainable
mobility vision.
The empirical analysis identified three main shared viewpoints on the desired future urban mobility development among key
stakeholders claiming full agreement with a formulated sustainable urban mobility vision. The findings indicate that these stake­
holders might hold views which environmentalists would not regard as sustainable – mainly in connection with the disagreement
with push measures as well as the stress on building additional transport infrastructure, which might induce additional motor traffic.
The reason consists in the very characteristic of a vision – it defines the ultimate goals without unequivocally identifying paths
and policies. Furthermore, even the relatively narrow concept of sustainable urban mobility vision, stressing the necessity of a change
in travel behaviour, is too broad to capture all possible nuanced interpretations of its meaning. Individuals identifying themselves
with this vision might come up with different prescriptions for how to apply it.
The transport policy remains a tough proposition even if stakeholders share the idea of urban mobility sustainability and sincerely
wish for the same – to minimise impacts of urban transport in terms of its emissions and noise by changing people’s transport
behaviour.
There is still a wide gap between sustainable mobility research and sustainable mobility practice, which represents a substantial
barrier to further sustainable mobility development in urban areas. Our findings reveal challenges for researchers, above all, to better
explain the concept of sustainable mobility and to better support decision-makers and other key stakeholders regarding appropriate
steps towards increased sustainable mobility in cities. It seems that not all academic knowledge areas are likely to be equally
influential in urban transport policies and decision-making processes, and that they are interpreted differently by different stake­
holders, even among those who share a common way of ‘framing’ reality (this is in agreement with Kębłowski and Bassens, 2018).
Researchers should also focus on the analysis of the first wave of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans, assess the plans according to
the principles of sustainability and compare them with the findings of our study. It will additionally be useful to apply ex-post
evaluation and find the extent to which sustainable mobility plans are practically implemented, i.e., it will be necessary to compare
the theory and practice of sustainable transport planning. Moreover, future research on sustainable mobility through the Q method in
other countries may bring interesting findings for comparison. Of course, this method has its limits (see, e.g., Whitehead and
Schneider, 2013), but it has proven itself, and the objectives of this article have been fulfilled by applying this approach. The future
research agenda could also focus on a more dynamic view and changes in the perception of stakeholders in the implementation of
sustainable urban mobility. Assuming that the opinions of stakeholders change over time, a comparison with a gap of several years
would bring interesting knowledge.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Hana Brůhová Foltýnová: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing -
review & editing. Eliška Vejchodská: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing. Kristýna Rybová: Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Viktor Květoň:
Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to

10
H. Brůhová Foltýnová, et al. Transportation Research Part D 87 (2020) 102465

influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgement

This paper was supported by the ‘Smart City – Smart Region – Smart Community’ project (CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/17_048/0007435)
financed by the Operational Programme Research, Development and Education of the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports,
supported by EU funds.

Appendix A. Additional tables

See Tables A1–A4.

Table A1
Statements and scores on 3 extracted factors.
No. Statements Factors

1 2 3

1 Let us take the path of public transport improvement, not price reduction. 0.45 19 0.78 12 0.00 24
2 Society should provide a quality alternative for those who do not own a car to enjoy comparable mobility 1.23 4 0.78 12 −1.58 40
options.
3 Current urban transport problems cannot be solved by simply building sufficient infrastructure capacity. −1.27 36 1.95 2 −0.37 31
4 We need to provide availability of public transport for all categories of citizens even at the costs of significant 0.75 14 0.36 25 1.39 4
regulatory interventions.
5 Car traffic in cities is pointlessly restricted and slowed down. −1.51 41 0.49 28 0.56 13
6 We should promote denser development rather than urban sprawl. 0.94 9 0.93 37 0.91 34
7 We have to emphasise cooperation with neighbouring municipalities in provision of transport services with 1.62 1 1.77 3 0.17 20
maximum utilisation of public transport.
8 Motorway vignettes for cars have to be abolished. Drivers pay more than enough through excise duty and VAT −1.08 31 −2.06 41 0.47 15
anyway.
9 Goods vehicles should be restricted depending on their environmental impacts. 0.95 8 0.89 9 0.46 16
10 Public transport should run faster than cars. 0.84 12 0.85 35 −1.58 40
11 Electric cars or similar alternative drives should make up at least one half of all cars running in cities by 2030. 0.64 17 0.33 15 −2.23 41
12 Modern technology will resolve the fundamental transport problems. 0.36 27 0.98 38 0.74 33
13 People have to be motivated, not forced, to reduce single car use. 0.55 18 0.17 17 1.75 1
14 Cycling is a hobby more than anything else, so that cities do not have to support cyclists in everyday −1.33 39 −1.40 40 1.12 5
commuting.
15 Shopping areas will good public transport services do not need large parking areas. 0.65 16 0.82 34 0.56 13
16 The city has to develop through investment in new transport infrastructure. 0.06 22 2.04 1 0.63 11
17 Urban deliveries are purely a matter of private hauliers. The public sector should not try to influence them. 0.84 30 0.41 26 −1.30 38
18 Freight transport in cities should be subject to clear, simple and stable rules on which politicians would agree 0.38 20 0.76 33 0.09 22
with private sector representatives.
19 Children under 12 years of age should not bicycle to school on their own, even if there is a safe cycling trail. 0.63 28 −1.22 39 −1.10 37
20 The city should take care that citizens need a car for private use as little as possible. 1.20 5 0.42 27 1.67 2
21 The costs of a car trip should be higher than those of the same trip by public transport. 0.89 10 1.29 4 0.82 8
22 Cities do not need a change in the current transport behaviour to reduce environmental impacts of transport. −1.75 42 0.56 29 1.02 7
23 Walking a cycling around the city are a health and pleasant alternative particularly for shorter trips. 1.49 2 1.12 6 −2.60 42
24 Public transport will never be good enough to significantly reduce car ownership and use. −1.11 32 0.73 14 0.28 29
25 I want a city where small shops are not replaced with large commercial centres. 0.66 15 0.98 7 0.28 29
26 A second car in a family should not be penalised. 0.29 26 0.83 10 0.09 22
27 The city should restrict freight transport using any available means. 0.06 23 0.19 16 0.93 35
28 Bicycling enables people to move around the city freely and be independent. 1.23 3 1.13 5 0.00 24
29 Cyclists should have their own infrastructure wherever possible instead of sharing it with cars. 0.37 21 0.11 19 0.65 10
30 The speed of traffic in the city is more important than environmental impacts. −1.32 38 0.86 36 0.37 31
31 We should not make any fundamental changes in transport policy without a society-wide agreement. 0.06 25 0.70 32 1.58 3
32 A shift to environmentally friendlier transport will be better assisted by positive role models (e.g., celebrities 0.05 24 0.67 30 0.28 19
using electric cars/bicycles) than by political measures.
33 The public does not need to be involved in transport decision-making, as it makes the decision-making more −1.24 35 0.14 22 0.37 18
complicated and lengthier.
34 Transport policy has to be adjusted to population ageing. 0.76 13 0.26 24 0.19 27
35 Cities should focus on building incentive parking facilities at their edges. 0.95 7 0.01 21 0.19 27
36 A reduction in public transport fares, leading to deeper loss for the transport authorities, would only be made in 0.70 29 0.95 8 −1.02 36
a populist or green ideologist.
37 Walking infrastructure does not need to be developed beyond its present extent. −1.18 33 0.22 23 0.47 15
38 Taking the public transport should be by far the most convenient way of travel. 0.99 6 0.16 18 0.09 25
39 The current state of transport in the city is satisfactory and there is no need to change it fundamentally. −1.29 37 −2.24 42 0.54 32
40 Everyone should start by themselves and use public transport more often. 0.84 11 0.78 13 1.02 7
41 Car ownership is indispensable. −1.18 34 0.06 20 0.75 9
42 Further growth in car traffic is essential for growing economies in advanced countries. −1.40 40 0.67 31 0.37 18

11
H. Brůhová Foltýnová, et al. Transportation Research Part D 87 (2020) 102465

Table A2
Distinguishing statements for Factor 1.
No. Statement Factors

Q-SV Z-SCR Q-SV Z-SCR Q-SV Z-SCR

1 2 3

38 Taking the public transport should be by far the most convenient way of travel. 2 0.99* 0 0.16 0 −0.09
35 Cities should focus on building incentive parking facilities at their edges. 2 0.95* 0 −0.01 −1 −0.19
6 We should promote denser development rather than urban sprawl. 2 0.94* −2 −0.93 −2 −0.91
10 Public transport should run faster than cars. 1 0.84* −2 −0.85 −3 −1.58
34 Transport policy has to be adjusted to population ageing. 1 0.76* 0 −0.26 −1 −0.19
31 We should not make any fundamental changes in transport policy without a society-wide agreement. 0 −0.06 −1 −0.70 3 1.58
8 Motorway vignettes for cars have to be abolished. Drivers pay more than enough through excise duty −1 −1.08* −4 −2.06 1 0.47
and VAT anyway.
24 Public transport will never be good enough to significantly reduce car ownership and use. −1 −1.11 1 0.73 −1 −0.28
37 Walking infrastructure does not need to be developed beyond its present extent. −2 −1.18* 0 −0.22 1 0.47
41 Car ownership is indispensable. −2 −1.18* 0 0.06 2 0.75
33 The public does not need to be involved in transport decision-making, as it makes the decision-making −2 −1.24* 0 −0.14 0 0.37
more complicated and lengthier.
3 Current urban transport problems cannot be solved by simply building sufficient infrastructure −2 −1.27* 4 1.95 −1 −0.37
capacity.
39 The current state of transport in the city is satisfactory and there is no need to change it fundamentally. −2 −1.29 −4 −2.24 −1 −0.54

Note: * indicates significance at P < 0.01.

Table A3
Distinguishing statements for Factor 2.
No. Statement Factors

Q-SV Z-SCR Q-SV Z-SCR Q-SV Z-SCR

1 2 3

16 The city has to develop through investment in new transport infrastructure. 0 0.06 4 2.04* 1 0.63
3 Current urban transport problems cannot be solved by simply building sufficient infrastructure −2 −1.27 4 1.95* −1 −0.19
capacity.
36 A reduction in public transport fares, leading to deeper loss for the transport authorities, would only be −1 −0.70 2 0.95* −2 −1.02
made in a populist or green ideologist.
24 Public transport will never be good enough to significantly reduce car ownership and use. −1 −1.11 1 0.73 −1 −0.28
4 We need to provide availability of public transport for all categories of citizens even at the costs of 1 0.75 0 −0.36* 3 1.39
significant regulatory interventions.
20 The city should take care that citizens need a car for private use as little as possible. 3 1.20 −1 −0.42* 4 1.67
5 Car traffic in cities is pointlessly restricted and slowed down. −4 −1.51 −1 −0.49 1 0.59
22 Cities do not need a change in the current transport behaviour to reduce environmental impacts of −4 −1.75 −1 −0.56* 2 1.02
transport.
32 A shift to environmentally friendlier transport will be better assisted by positive role models (e.g., 0 0.05 −1 −0.67 0 0.28
celebrities using electric cars/bicycles) than by political measures.
42 Further growth in car traffic is essential for growing economies in advanced countries. −3 −1.40 −1 −0.67 0 0.37
31 We should not make any fundamental changes in transport policy without a society-wide agreement. 0 −0.06 −1 −0.70 3 1.58
18 Freight transport in cities should be subject to clear, simple and stable rules on which politicians would 0 0.38 −2 −0.76 0 0.09
agree with private sector representatives.
15 Shopping areas will good public transport services do not need large parking areas. 1 0.65 −2 −0.82* 1 0.56

Note: * indicates significance at P < 0.01.

12
H. Brůhová Foltýnová, et al. Transportation Research Part D 87 (2020) 102465

Table A4
Distinguishing statements for Factor 3.
No. Statement Factors

Q-SV Z-SCR Q-SV Z-SCR Q-SV Z-SCR

1 2 3

13 People have to be motivated, not forced, to reduce single car use. 0 0.55 1 0.17 4 1.75*
31 We should not make any fundamental changes in transport policy without a society-wide agreement. 0 −0.06 −1 −0.70 3 1.58*
14 Cycling is a hobby more than anything else, so that cities do not have to support cyclists in everyday −3 −1.33 −3 −1.40 3 1.12*
commuting.
22 Cities do not need a change in the current transport behaviour to reduce environmental impacts of −4 −1.75 −1 −0.56 2 1.02*
transport.
5 Car traffic in cities is pointlessly restricted and slowed down. −4 −1.51 −1 −0.49 1 0.56
8 Motorway vignettes for cars have to be abolished. Drivers pay more than enough through excise duty −1 −1.08 −4 −2.06 1 0.47*
and VAT anyway.
42 Further growth in car traffic is essential for growing economies in advanced countries. −3 −1.40 −1 −0.67 0 0.37
7 We have to emphasise cooperation with neighbouring municipalities in provision of transport services 4 1.62 3 1.77 0 0.17*
with maximum utilisation of public transport.
28 Bicycling enables people to move around the city freely and be independent. 3 1.23 3 1.13 0 0.00*
24 Public transport will never be good enough to significantly reduce car ownership and use. −1 −1.11 1 0.73 −1 −0.28
25 I want a city where small shops are not replaced with large commercial centres. 1 0.66 2 0.98 −1 −0.28*
3 Current urban transport problems cannot be solved by simply building sufficient infrastructure −2 −1.27 4 1.95 −1 −0.37*
capacity.

Note: * indicates significance at P < 0.01.

References

Addams, H., Proops, J., 2000. Social Discourse and Environmental Policy: An Application of Q Methodology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Arsenio, E., Martens, K., Di Ciommo, F., 2016. Sustainable urban mobility plans: Bridging climate change and equity targets? Res. Transport. Econ. 55, 30–39.
Attard, M., 2020. Mobility justice in urban transport - the case of Malta. Transport. Res. Proced. 45, 352–359.
Bacher, K., Gordoa, A., Mikkelsen, E., 2014. Stakeholders' perceptions of marine fish farming in Catalonia (Spain): A Q-methodology approach. Aquaculture 424–425,
78–85.
Ballantyne, E.F., Lindholm, M., Whiteing, A., 2013. A comparative study of urban freight transport planning: Addressing stakeholder needs. J. Transp. Geogr. 32,
93–101.
Banister, D., 2008. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transp. Policy 15 (2), 73–80.
Berry, P.M., Fabók, V., Blicharska, M., Bredin, Y.K., Llorente, M.G., Kovács, E., Geamana, N., Stanciu, A., Termansen, M., Jääskeläinen, T., Haslett, J.R., Harrison, P.A.,
2018. Why conserve biodiversity? A multi-national exploration of stakeholders’ views on the arguments for biodiversity conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 27 (7),
1741–1762.
Bosetti, S., Brůhová Foltýnová, H., Di Bartolo, C., Jordová, R., Kurfürst, P., Malgieri, P., Sitran, A., Smutková, D., 2014. Policy Recommendations for EU Sustainable
Mobility Concepts Based on CIVITAS Experience, Freiburg: ICLEI, Brno: Transport Research Centre.
Boussauw, K., Vanoutrive, T., 2017. Transport policy in Belgium: Translating sustainability discourses into unsustainable outcomes. Transp. Policy 53, 11–19.
Brown, S.R., 1980. Political Subjectivity: Application of Q-methodology in Political Science. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Brůhová Foltýnová, H., Attard, M., Melo, S., 2018. Topical collection on the role of planning towards sustainable urban mobility. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 10, 38.
Brůhová Foltýnová, H., Jordová, R., 2014. The contribution of different policy elements to sustainable urban mobility. Transp. Res.Procedia. 4, 312–326.
Carmenta, R., Zabala, A., Daeli, W., Phelps, J., 2017. Perceptions across scales of governance and the Indonesian peatland fires. Global Environ. Change 46, 50–59.
Cools, M., Moons, E., Janssens, B., Wets, G., 2009. Shifting towards environment-friendly modes: Profiling travelers using Q-methodology. Transportation 36 (4),
437–453.
Cools, M., Brijs, K., Tormans, H., De Laender, J., Wets, G., 2012. Optimizing the implementation of policy measures through social acceptance segmentation. Transp.
Policy 22, 80–87.
Cotton, M., Devine-Wright, P., 2011. Discourses of energy infrastructure development: A Q-method study of electricity transmission line siting in the UK. Environment
and Planning A. 43 (4), 942–960.
Currie, G., Delbosc, A., 2010. Modelling the social and psychological impacts of transport disadvantage. Transportation 37 (6), 953–966.
Dablanc, L., 2007. Goods transport in large European cities: Difficult to organize, difficult to modernize. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 41 (3), 280–285.
Dargay, J., 2007. The effect of prices and income on car travel in the UK. Transp. Res. Part A 41, 949–960.
Durning, D., 1999. The transition from traditional to postpositivist policy analysis: A role for Q-methodology. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 18, 389–410.
Durning, D., Osuna, W., 1994. Policy analysts' roles and value orientations: An empirical investigation using Q methodology. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 13 (4), 629–657.
EC, 2003. Europe at a Crossroads. The Need for Sustainable Transport, Luxembourg.
EC, 2011. White paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system, Brussels.
EC, 2013. Urban Mobility Package, Brussels, COM (2013) 913 final.
EC, 2017. European Urban Mobility: Policy Context, Brussels.
EC, 2019. Passenger Cars in the EU, Luxembourg.
Emberger, G., May, A.D., 2017. Challenges in the development of national policies on transport. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 9, 55.
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. Basic Books, New York.
Gerike, R., 2007. How to make sustainable transportation development a reality?, oekom, München.
Gudmundsson, H.Regmi, M.B. 2017. Developing the sustainable urban transport index. Transp. Commun. Bull., Asia Pac., 35-53.
Hickman, R., Banister, D., 2014. Transport. Climate Change and the City, Routledge, London.
Hickman, R., Hall, P., Banister, D., 2013. Planning more for sustainable mobility. J. Transp. Geogr. 33, 210–219.
Holz-Rau, C., Scheiner, J., 2004. Verkehrsplanung und Mobilitaet im Kontext der demografischen Entwicklung (Transport Planning and Mobility in the Context of the
Demographic Development). Straßenverkehrstechnik. 48 (7), 341–348.
IEA, 2019. CO2 emissions from fuel combustion 2019 highlights. International Energy Agency, Paris.
IPCC, 2014. Climate change: Mitigation of climate change. In: Edenhofer, J., Pichs-Madruga, O., Sokona, R., Farahani, Y., Kadner, E., Seyboth, S., Adler, K., Baum, A.,

13
H. Brůhová Foltýnová, et al. Transportation Research Part D 87 (2020) 102465

Brunner, I., Eickemeier, S., Kriemann, P., Savolainen, B., Schlömer, J., von Stechow, S., Zwickel, C., Minx, T. (Eds.), Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
Iofrida, N., De Luca, A.I., Gulisano, G., Strano, A., 2018. An application of Q-methodology to Mediterranean olive production – stakeholders' understanding of
sustainability issues. Agric. Syst. 162, 46–55.
Janic, M., 2006. Sustainable Transport in the European Union: A Review of the Past Research and Future Ideas. Transp. Rev. 26 (1), 81–104.
Jeon, C.M., Amekudzi, A., 2005. Addressing Sustainability in Transportation Systems: Definitions, Indicators, and Metrics. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 3, 31–60.
Kębłowski, W., Bassens, D., 2018. All transport problems are essentially mathematical: The uneven resonance of academic transport and mobility knowledge in
Brussels. Urban Geogr. 39 (3), 413–437.
Kębłowski, W., Bassens, D., Van Criekingen, M., 2016. Re-politicizing Transport with the Right to the City: An Attempt to Mobilise Critical Urban Transport Studies.
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Cosmopolis, Brussels.
Kluvánková-Oravská, T., Gouldson, A., Paavola, J., Jílková, J., Slavíková, L., Chobotová, V., Kohlheb, N., 2010. From Government to Governance? New Governance for
Water and Biodiversity in Enlarged EU, Alfa Nakladatelství, Prague.
Kougias, Ioannis, et al., 2020. Clean energy and transport pathways for islands: A stakeholder analysis using Q method. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 78:
102180, 1–16.
Lehrer, N., Sneegas, G., 2018. Beyond polarization: Using Q methodology to explore stakeholders’ views on pesticide use, and related risks for agricultural workers, in
Washington State’s tree fruit industry. Agric. Hum. Values 35 (1), 131–147.
Litman, T., 2019. Well measured: Developing Indicators for Sustainable and Liveable transport planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Marsden, G., Kimble, M., Nellthorp, J., Kelly, C., 2010. Sustainability Assessment: The Definition Deficit. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 4 (4), 189–211.
Martens, K., Golub, A., Robinson, G., 2012. A justice-theoretic approach to the distribution of transportation benefits: Implications for transportation planning practice
in the United States. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 46, 684–695.
Milakis, D., Kroesen, M., Van Wee, B., 2018. Implications of automated vehicles for accessibility and location choices: Evidence from an expert-based experiment. J.
Transp. Geogr. 68, 142–148.
O’Fallon, C., Sullivan, C., Hensher, D.A., 2004. Constraints affecting mode choices by morning car commuters. Transp. Policy11, 17–29.
Rajé, F., 2007. Using Q methodology to develop more perceptive insights on transport and social inclusion. Transp. Policy 14 (6), 467–477.
Reigner, H., Brenac, T., 2019. Safe, sustainable… but depoliticized and uneven – A critical view of urban transport policies in France. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 121,
218–234.
Rietveld, P., 2004. Urban Transport Policies: The Dutch Struggle with Market Failures and Policy Failures, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper No. TI 04-126/3.
Schwanen, T., Banister, D., Anable, J., 2011. Scientific research about climate change mitigation in transport: A critical review. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 45 (10),
993–1006.
Sitányiová, D., Masarovičová, S., 2016. Development status of Sustainable Urban mobility plans in European Union new member states. Int. J. Transp. Devel. Integr. 1
(1), 16–27.
Smith, N.W., 2001. Current Systems in Psychology: History, Theory, Research and Applications, Wadsworth, Belmont.
Steelman, T.A., Maguire, L.A., 1999. Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 18 (3), 361–388.
Stephenson, W., 1953. The Study of Behavior: Q-technique and its Methodology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Stephenson, W., 1986. Protoconcursus: The concourse theory of communication. Oper. Subject. 9 (2), 37–58.
Stephenson, W., 1993. Introduction to Q-methodology. Oper. Subject. 17 (1), 1–13.
Sýkora, L., Bouzarovski, S., 2012. Multiple transformations: Conceptualising the post-communist urban transition. Urban Studies 49 (1), 43–60.
Tuokuu, F.X.D., Uwafiokun, G., James, S., Kayira, J., 2019. Linking stakeholder perspectives for environmental policy development and implementation in Ghana’s
gold mining sector: Insights from a Q-methodology study. Environ. Sci. Policy 97, 106–115.
Tym, A., 2015. Překážky a příležitosti implementace principů udržitelného rozvoje v pozemní dopravě v ČR, Dissertation. Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles
University.
Van Duin, R., Slabbekoorn, M., Tavasszy, L., Quak, H., 2018. Identifying dominant stakeholder perspectives on urban freight policies: A Q-analysis on urban con­
solidation centres in the Netherlands. Transport. 33 (4), 867–880.
Van Exel, N.J.A., De Graaf, G., Rietveld, P., 2011. I can do perfectly well without a car!. Transportation 38 (3), 383–407.
Van Exel, N.J.A., De Graaf, G., Rietveld, P., 2006. Getting from A to B: Operant approaches to travel decision making. Oper. Subject. 27 (4), 194–216.
Visser, J., Van Binsbergen, A., Nemoto, T., 1999. Urban freight transport policy and planning. In: City logistics I, 39–69.
WCED, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Whitehead, D., Schneider, Z., 2013. Mixed-methods research. In: Nursing & Midwifery Research: Methods and Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice, fourth ed.
Elsevier Mosby, pp. 263–284.
Živojinović, I., Wolfslehner, B., 2015. Perceptions of urban forestry stakeholders about climate change adaptation – A Q-method application in Serbia. Urban For.
Urban Greening 14 (4), 1079–1087.

14