Transformative capacity for climate mitigation in strategic transport planning – principles and practices in cross-sectoral collaboration

ABSTRACT

This article presents findings from a qualitative in-depth analysis of a four-year Swedish national policy initiative where six public agencies were commissioned to produce a strategic plan for a transition towards a fossil-free transport sector. The aim of the article is to provide empirically grounded insights on principles and practices of importance for building transformative capacity in strategic, long-term transport planning. In the analysis, the concepts stewarding, unlocking, transforming and orchestrating are applied to explore and discuss transformative features of the policy initiative. Altogether, several elements of transformative capacity were developed through the process. Of specific importance was the establishment of an open and explorative approach to carrying out the commission, and ways in which the organizations involved started to challenge dominant perspectives and analytical practices in conventional transport planning. Shared principles and practices for analysis and assessment were developed, which allowed for a broadened consideration of climate mitigation measures. However, due to a lack of coordination with formalized planning settings and a lack of political decisions to sustain the commission, there are yet no signs of the work influencing conventional transport planning. Even so, gained experience and insights from this case can inform future change-oriented initiatives.

KEYWORDS:

• transport planning
• climate mitigation
• transition
• transformative capacity
• path-dependency

1. Introduction

Mainstream transport policy and planning during the post-war era has been rooted in a paradigm where the private car is seen as the main mode for individual mobility, and where forecasted traffic growth has typically been accommodated by increased road capacity (Lyons & Marsden, 2019; Owens, 1995). This ‘conventional’ paradigm for transport planning has met criticism in recent decades, as knowledge has increased about the transport sector's contribution to the climate crisis and other environmental and social problems. Despite numerous initiatives to develop policy responses and planning initiatives for sustainable transport, automobility and its basic spatial, social and economic relations have continued to permeate a large share of transport planning (Banister, 2008; Isaksson et al., 2017). Previous literature identifies features within practices of policy and planning that sustain and reproduce the conventional approach. Common explanations point at a lack of sharp targets for long-term transport planning (Finnveden & Åkerman, 2014), fragmented institutional contexts (Hull, 2008; Pettersson, 2014), parallel and conflicting goals and agendas (Isaksson et al., 2017; Pettersson, 2014), and an avoidance of, or incapability to deal with, the essentially political choices that sustainable transport implies (Isaksson, 2020; Legacy, 2016). There is scarcer knowledge on possible paths of action for breaking the car-based mobility paradigm and transition towards a long-term sustainable trajectory. Previous research has outlined concepts such as sustainable mobility and sustainable accessibility (Banister, 2008; Curtis, 2008). Studies identify a need for transformed planning practice to strengthen consideration of climate objectives (Marsden & Reardon, 2017; Witzell, 2020) and point at the relevance of strategies for raising awareness, achieving strategic reorientations or institutionalizing desired discursive shifts (Hrelja et al., 2013; 2015). However, empirical explorations of how this could be achieved are still limited.

This article seeks to contribute a richer understanding of ways in which conventional transport planning can be transformed. We explore this by an in-depth analysis of a Swedish national policy initiative in 2016, when the Swedish Energy Agency was given the task to, in collaboration with five other national public agencies, produce a strategic plan for a transition towards a fossil-free transport sector (Swedish Government, 2015). In concrete terms, targets of a 70 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector in 2030 (compared to 2010), and zero net emissions in 2045, have been adopted by the national parliament. Theoretically, we take inspiration from emergent discussions in research on governance approaches for a deliberative sustainability transformation (O’Brien, 2012), with a specific focus on transformative capacity (Hölscher, 2019; Wolfram, 2016). Research on transformative capacity emphasizes the need for new institutional and procedural approaches including social learning (Castán Broto et al., 2019).

The government commission is an interesting case, since it suggests a new approach to consider climate mitigation targets, and integrate different public agency agendas, in transport policy and planning. It provides an up-to-date illustration of strategic, long-term transport planning in a context characterized by ambitious climate policy goals, but also implementation challenges. The complex character of the commission makes it a relevant case to explore for providing insights about transformative capacity.

1.1. Aim and research questions

With this paper, we wish to contribute to the emerging research on transformative capacity and how the concept can be understood and developed in policy and planning for sustainable transport. The aim is to provide empirically grounded insights on specific principles and practices for building transformative capacity in strategic, long-term transport planning. The analysis has been guided by the following research questions:

• Which were the overall features and characteristics of the government commission that generated opportunities for doing things differently?

• Which specific principles and practices were critical for establishing a climate target-oriented strategic planning approach?

2. Analytical framework

2.1. Institutionalized practice in transport planning

The study builds on critical studies on power relations and institutionalized practice permeating long-term strategic transport planning. Of specific relevance are previous studies on socio-technical and institutional path dependencies that serve to reproduce conventional transport planning, i.e. planning which is focused on car-based mobility and demand satisfaction, typically motivated by ambitions to shorten travel times, grounded in travel demand forecasting and cost–benefit analysis (Banister, 2008; Owens, 1995). Previous literature has given rich illustrations of how conventional transport planning has institutionalized certain methods, requirements and routines that prevent new perspectives such as de-carbonization and gender equality to transform existing planning practice (Driscoll, 2014; Henriksson, 2019; Kronsell et al., 2016; Næss, 2006; Witzell, 2020). A specific focus in previous research concerns the influence of power structures such as discourses, norms, routines, and knowledge perspectives (Imran & Pearce, 2015; Isaksson et al., 2017; Pettersson, 2014; Schwanen et al., 2011; Tennøy, 2010; Vigar, 2017; Witzell, 2020).

While several studies analyze and describe difficulties to change conventional transport planning approaches, we are specifically interested in principles and practices that can contribute to the development of a more transformative approach in transport planning. We take on this task in light of the well-known inertias and power structures that characterize transport planning.

2.2. Transformative capacity

Insights on transformative capacity mainly come from urban climate governance literature but are also informed by planning scholars who emphasize institutional and governance capacities more broadly (cf. Healey, 1997; Innes & Booher, 2003), and by sustainable transitions literature, transformative climate governance, resilience and systems thinking (Hölscher et al., 2019). The transformative capacity concept has been developed with the ambition to identify transformative action, often but not exclusively in urban and local settings, that contributes to the capability of partnerships and networks of public and private actors to steer development towards sustainability (Wolfram et al., 2019). In this paper, we define transformative capacity as the ability to organize action and to ‘reconfigure and move towards a new and more sustainable state’ (Wolfram, 2016; as cited in Castán Broto et al., 2019, p. 450). This also encompasses an ability to ‘actively disrupt and dismantle existing systems, and simultaneously create and build up viable alternatives’ (Wolfram et al., 2019, p. 438). Transformative capacity sheds light upon abilities, resources, capacities and practices that can help to spur transformation. The literature highlights communicative skills and the ability to collaborate with a variety of actors and stakeholders, as well as systemic thinking, civic engagement, strategies to prioritize social learning and reflexive action, and the ability to link specific initiatives to wider political visions (Wolfram et al., 2019).

In previous research, transformative capacity has sometimes been applied as an evaluative framework to enable self-reflection and learning (Castán Broto et al., 2019; Glaas et al., 2019; Wolfram, 2016). In other cases, it has been used to explore processes of urban climate governance, to see which ‘new’ capacities that have been developed around initiatives for climate mitigation, adaptation, or experiments for sustainability (Hölscher, 2019; Hölscher et al., 2019; Torrens, 2019). Attention has been drawn to how the development of transformative capacity is highly contextual. Previous research has often focused on agency and asked questions about how, by whom and under what conditions new types of capacities are produced (Nordström & Wales, 2019).

Most of the previous literature on transformative capacity has an urban focus. However, this does not mean that it is suitable only for urban research. We understand transformative capacity as a framework of relevance for exploring various types of complex governance situations where the need for change is evident, but also difficult to realize due to power structures, path dependencies and complex institutional and political conditions. Accordingly, we find it relevant to apply the concept in this analysis of a national initiative for climate mitigation of the transport sector, i.e. a sector which is currently facing pressure to transform, while also being characterized by inertia, path-dependencies and split responsibilities among various actors, as discussed previously.

We apply transformative capacity from a constructivist understanding of institutions and change, according to which professional norms, practices and discursive conditions are important aspects of policy and planning (Hajer & Wagenaar, 2003). Transformative capacity is not regarded as something that an individual actor can possess, but rather a result of interactions between actors in institutional settings that in turn are shaped by various social, material and spatial conditions. Thus, institutions have both enabling and constraining effects and are shapeable through work performed by actors who manage specific rules, knowledge and resources (Wolfram et al., 2019).

Hölscher (2019) has defined four types of capacities needed to address transformation dynamics: (1) stewarding (responding to uncertainties and risks through self-organization, monitoring and continuous learning), (2) unlocking (revealing, phasing-out and breaking down existing structures and path-dependencies), (3) transforming (creating and embedding novelties, anchoring novelties in context), and (4) orchestrating (strategic alignment, coordinating multi-actor processes to create synergies and avoid trade-offs) (Hölscher, 2019, p. 149; see also Wolfram et al., 2019, p. 440). We view these capacities as interrelated, often overlapping and mutually dependent. In our work, we make use of the capacities as analytical concepts for exploring transformative elements of the studied process.

3. Methods and materials

The study applies a social constructionist research approach, with a focus on interactions, interpretations and communicative practices among actors involved in policy and planning processes (Hajer & Versteeg, 2005). A qualitative methodology is used, and builds on in-depth semi-structured interviews, complemented by policy documents (instructions and reports) from the commission. The documents initially shaped our understanding of the process, as they reflect what was achieved, but also describe the working process and the methods applied.

Nine interviews with key persons in the commission's working group, who represented the participating authorities, were conducted in 2019–2020 (see Table 1). The interview guide included questions about the organization and process to carry out the commission, how the task was interpreted, what was achieved and why, if any issues or procedures gave rise to conflicts and how these were dealt with. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed through a content analysis approach (Patton, 2014). A first close reading identified utterances pointing at central principles and practices, as well as important decisions and key events. Through a second close reading, these themes were coded in line with the analytical framing of transformative capacities.

Table 1. Participating agencies and interview respondents.

Agency	Respondent(s)
Swedish Energy Agency. Provides knowledge and analyses of energy supply and use, funds research on renewable energy technologies and fuels, and supports commercialization of energy-related innovations.	SEA1. Project manager. SEA2. Project manager. SEA3. Project manager. SEA4. Economist.
Swedish Transport Administration. Prepares national transport infrastructure investment plans and constructs and maintains national roads and railways.	STAdm1. Contact person.
Transport Analysis. Provides transport statistics, analyses, and evaluates national transport policy.	TA1. Contact person.
Environmental Protection Agency. Coordinates environmental issues, monitors the state of the environment and the development of environmental objectives, including transport related emissions.	EPA1. Contact person.
National Board of Housing, Building and Planning. Reviews and monitors advice and regulations, including guidance for integration of transport and land-use planning, and grants national funding related to, among others, housing construction.	NBHBP1. Contact person.
Swedish Transport Agency. Responsible for drawing up and monitoring transport and vehicle related regulations and permits.	STAg1. Contact person.

Studied documents included the commission to carry out the collaboration (Swedish Government, 2015), and key publications during the project time: an analysis of the current situation (SEA, 2016), the strategic plan for a transition (SEA, 2017a), a plan for monitoring and evaluation (SEA, 2017b), an overview of carried out ‘effect chain’ assessments (SEA, 2017c), ‘control station’ reports (SEA, 2020a, 2020b), and a final report of the commission (SEA, 2020c). The analysis also included a video recording of a seminar with the director-generals of the authorities involved in the commission.

In our research, the government commission is used as a case to explore transformative capacity in strategic transport planning. The qualitative, single case study is a valuable methodological approach when studying complex phenomena in depth and within their contexts. While the method does not bring forward generalizable knowledge fully transferrable to another context, robust analyses of single cases still provide valuable insights. The ‘force of example’ has been identified as an important source for developing knowledge (Flyvbjerg, 2006). We acknowledge that long-term strategic transport planning in Sweden differs not only from such planning elsewhere but also from local and regional processes. However, processual elements such as coordination, interpretation of political objectives, and assessment of measures, are key features of planning in many different settings. Thus, rich and detailed case accounts often provide knowledge of relevance also for other cases and contexts (Donmoyer, 2000).

4. The government commission to coordinate a transition

In 2016, the Ministry of Environment and Energy gave The Swedish Energy Agency a briefly formulated four-year commission to coordinate a transition towards a fossil-free transport sector (Swedish Government, 2015). Five additional public agencies with differing but complementary mandates and capacities related to the development of the transport system should assist in the work (see also Table 1): The Swedish Transport Agency, The Swedish Transport Administration, Transport Analysis, The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning. The task included carrying out dialogues with relevant actors, preparing a strategic plan, coordinating activities, and striving for synergies with other relevant processes.

The brief government instruction suggested that the work could take international developments and previous public investigations as points of departure. Specifically, two reports were mentioned: a previous public investigation of pathways and measures to achieve reduced emissions and a fossil-free transport system (Swedish Government, 2013), and an at the time forthcoming report from the parliamentary Environmental Objectives Commission (Swedish Government, 2016) suggesting climate mitigation targets for the transport sector. The plan could, for example, suggest legislative changes, measures to be carried out by public agencies, and international policy advocacy. A plan for evaluation of associated costs and benefits should also be prepared.

The commission's mandate to coordinate a transition differed from the ordinary, institutionalized framework for long-term national transport planning in Sweden, which is focused on prioritizing funding for national infrastructure investments, operations, and maintenance. The conventional transport planning is carried out by the Swedish Transport Administration in collaboration with regional authorities, is strongly reliant on analytical practices of travel demand forecasting and cost–benefit analysis, and results in 12-year investment plans. In contrast to the conventional transport planning, the commission did not concern specific infrastructure investments, but instead focused on conditions for a transition more broadly, including wider policy instruments and measures.

The process of carrying out the commission started with a joint analysis of the current situation and obstacles to climate mitigation. Then followed a main phase to prepare the strategic plan, which came to include 31 agency commitments and 59 policy and legislative suggestions directed to the government (SEA, 2020c). Examples of policy measures include suggestions to investigate a comprehensive transport sector taxation reform, clarification of political objectives guiding transport developments, strengthened dissemination of agency guidance, improving conditions to implement measures aimed at affecting travel demand, etc. In parallel to the plan preparation, a plan for monitoring and evaluating the development, as well as measures in the plan, was prepared. During the last year, a ‘control station’ of the progression was carried out.

The choice to initiate the commission should be seen in the light of how Swedish public administration is organized. Swedish government offices are relatively small. In practice, a substantial part of the executive power is carried out by public agencies, who operate in accordance with the guidelines received from the Government, but who should also act semi-independently, and use their own expertise to make interpretations and decisions needed to make political decisions operative (ESV, 2020; Öberg & Wockelberg, 2021). The Swedish government regularly commissions public committees or agencies to analyze policy proposals, as they did in this case (ESV, 2020).

5. Results

The framing of the commission, and the result of the work, include several new elements compared to conventional transport planning. The following analysis uses the concepts stewarding, unlocking, transforming and orchestrating to identify and discuss specific elements of transformative capacity that were developed in this process.

5.1. Stewarding through co-ownership of an enabling commission

In transformative capacity theory, stewarding is defined as responding to uncertainties and risks through self-organization, monitoring and continuous learning (Hölscher, 2019; Hölscher et al., 2019). The government commission provided favorable conditions for self-organization. It was assigned by the Energy and Environmental Ministry to the Swedish Energy Agency, and thereby positioned at a distance from the conventional transport planning, which is infrastructure-focused and carried out by the Swedish Transport Administration under the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation. The conventional transport planning is known for its standardized analytical methods and assessment practices, centered around travel demand forecasting and cost–benefit analysis (Witzell, 2020). The commission to some degree overlapped with the conventional transport planning in the sense that it concerned analyses and assessments of long-term transport developments and goal fulfillment, but was wider in its scope, as it considered broader policy instruments and explicitly attended to synergies between different kinds of measures. Interviewees recall that they interpreted it as if the ministry wanted the work to be done, but not set the details for how to do it. Early discussions were characterized by open, mutual dialogue on how to define the task (STAg1; EPA1). The open character of the commission provided the Swedish Energy Agency much room to shape the process (SEA1). The Environmental Protection Agency contact person recalls that they ‘could think wide and free’, and that:

the instruction was vague enough to not set limitations. But it was interpreted positively – the project leadership did not set any restrictions or narrow scope. (EPA1, c.f. TA1; STAg1).

From the outset, the Swedish Energy Agency emphasized that they aimed at enabling a joint ownership of the process and its outcomes among the agencies. A project manager expresses that establishing an organization and process providing room to discuss and deliberate on issues was a major part of the work (SEA1). The principles of joint ownership and mutual dialogue were also manifest by the steering group consisting of the agencies’ general directors. Several respondents reflect upon the general directors’ close involvement, not only in approving and signing the strategic plan and the final ‘control station’ report, but also by discussing specific formulations in the documents (SEA2, c.f. SEA1; STAg1).

Initially, some participants expressed a will to ground the strategic plan in a long-term back-casting scenario to establish a comprehensive, credible climate mitigation trajectory. However, time constraints, in combination with a general will to support action, resulted in a more pragmatic focus on implementation within a shorter time perspective (SEA1; SEA2; TA1; video-presentation):

We felt that one can't keep on calculating and calculating and investigating eternally. We experienced that many measures had been on the table for ten years, in various investigations. Now action was needed. And we know that those measures are needed. So now we get together – the agencies – and jointly state that we must do these things, which have emanated from various processes, from various investigations. (TA1)

While there was an initial discussion on which target level for climate mitigation to strive for, the parliamentary Environmental Objectives Commission (Swedish Government, 2016) presented distinct targets half a year into the work. According to several respondents, the politically formulated targets were important for the process since they solved ongoing discussions, which otherwise could have been difficult to reconcile. As noted by a Swedish Transport Administration participant, the opinions on how to reach the target differed, but at least everyone agreed on which target to approach (STAdm1). With the target set, also the continued process was characterized by extensive discussions:

I recall that, generally, there were discussions on how we should work, what we should suggest, how we should calculate. (SEA2)

The openly formulated yet clearly targeted commission, the processual ambitions of co-ownership and room for deliberation, and the pragmatic approach to getting things done, reflect transformative capacity characteristics of self-organizing and opportunities for continuous learning.

5.2. Unlocking the conventional approach

Unlocking is about revealing, breaking down and phasing out existing structures (Hölscher, 2019). During the process, there were several such elements, especially in the early phases of the work, when the project group developed a joint approach to the task, and which laid a foundation for subsequent activities.

5.2.1. Analyzing the current situation and obstacles to a transition

As a first example of unlocking, the agencies carried out a joint analysis of the current state of the transport system in relation to climate mitigation, focusing on obstacles for a transition, an overview of agency mandates and ongoing strategic developments. Identified obstacles specifically related to transport planning involved the car as a norm, cheap fossil fuels and subsidies of car travel, lack of funding of measures aimed at sustainable travel, long lead-times related to implementation, ambiguous policy objectives, and tendencies in infrastructure planning to assume continued traffic growth. A Transport Analysis representative described that the analysis led to a joint acknowledgment of external dependencies and uncertainties to consider in the strategic plan and its subsequent implementation:

We discussed that precisely due to the uncertain surrounding world, it is important to work with all three ‘legs’ [of vehicles, fuels and ‘transport efficiency’]; we need to work on several frontiers. And we also generally discussed that changes in the surrounding world may make certain measures obsolete. Consequently, we included a continuous external analysis [as part of the commission], to be able to adjust the direction. (TA1)

Initially, there were diverging opinions regarding if yet another analysis of the current situation was needed. With hindsight, however, respondents acknowledge that it contributed to shape a common understanding that eventually proved important for the continued process:

The analysis of the current situation lay, very much, the foundation for it becoming such a good collaboration. All agencies presented what had been done previously. And everyone tried to understand each other's situation, and how one had worked with the issues before. It was very useful, because then suddenly we had a common background and platform for the continued work. … We came to agree on where we stand today and in which direction we aim. That increased the understanding for each other's limitations, what one can do and what one lacks mandate to do. (NBHBP1)

5.2.2. Agreeing on general principles for a transition

The agencies also came to formulate general principles for what should characterize a transition, as well as how mitigation measures should be designed and assessed (see Table 2). The principles were stated to support common attitudes in handling opportunities, obstacles and challenges during the process (SEA, 2017a).

Table 2. Agreed principles, summarized from the strategic plan (SEA, 2017a, pp. 5–9).

Principles for a transition	Principles for specific measures
A transition needs to consider increased ‘transport efficiency’, vehicle development, and fossil-free fuels	Measures should not counteract climate objectives
Sweden should take a role as international forerunner	Measures should follow the ‘polluter pays’ principle
The public sector should act as role model	Carbon taxation provides a foundation but needs to be complemented by a mix of measures
Collaboration among actors is required	Economic cost efficiency, and other societal objectives, should be considered
A transition can contribute also to other societal and environmental objectives	Developments should continuously be monitored, evaluated, and adjusted accordingly
Accessibility, rather than mobility, should be in focus	Policy measures should be technology-neutral
Digitalization can contribute to a more efficient transport system	Measures should be combined to achieve mutually supportive and amplified effects
The transition should consider and adapt to regional and local conditions	Social and geographical distribution effects should be considered

The agencies expressed that the vast scale, the limited time available, and risks related to a transition, requires consideration of a broad set of measures aimed at improved vehicle efficiency, fossil-free fuels, as well as strengthened ‘transport efficiency’ (SEA, 2017a). The attention given to ‘transport efficiency’ was significant as it addressed possibilities to avoid and shorten trips, and shift journeys to more energy efficient modes of travel. Such possibilities are generally less considered in conventional national transport planning (Witzell, 2020).

Respondents express how these principles were important in setting a common ground for the subsequent preparation of the strategic plan. Through the principles, it got clearer how different measures, with greater or smaller impact on climate emissions, contribute to the strategic direction (SEA2).

Altogether, the joint analysis of the current situation, the acknowledgment of uncertainty permeating the future, and the agreement on a set of principles for a transition, outlined a direction beyond the conventional approach to transport planning. The commission thus enabled a collective renegotiation of both what characterized the situation at hand, and ways to approach existing challenges.

5.3. Transforming by negotiating assessment approaches

According to previous literature, transformative capacity requires the creation of novelties and the provision of space, resources and networks for developing and testing new ideas, practices or policies (Hölscher, 2019).

5.3.1. Problematizing conventional economic appraisal

Throughout the process to develop a plan for monitoring and evaluating measures (SEA, 2017b), and in the preparations for the concluding ‘control station’ (SEA, 2020a, 2020b), references were made to an ideal of comprehensive economic assessment. According to this ideal, the marginal costs associated with each measure should be defined to allow comparisons vis-à-vis other measures, and thereby allow identification of the most cost-efficient mitigation pathway (SEA, 2017b, 2020a). Eventually, this ideal, which strongly influence conventional transport planning, was acknowledged as unattainable.

Published documents from the process reflect extensive deliberation over the relevance and applicability of standard economic appraisal in climate mitigation. The agencies stated that models are simplifications, and their applicability depends on their capacity to assess all relevant categories of measures (SEA, 2020b). Standard economic appraisal in the transport sector is not designed to analyze broad societal transitions and is insufficient for analyzing ‘transport efficiency’ measures. There is no obvious method for comprehensively analyzing effects against a wide array of societal objectives (SEA, 2017b, 2017c). Measures are often interrelated, reciprocally dependent, and thus difficult (or impossible) to isolate. Actual effects depend on measures’ subsequent detailed design (SEA, 2020b). Further, few marginal cost estimates of specific measures are currently available, wherefore measures can hardly be compared. The long-term marginal cost of a transition is also unknown. Analyses should therefore, according to the agencies, rather be interpreted as indications or directions of consequences. Measures should be assessed when relevant, depending on the aim of the measure and the size of its assumed effects (SEA, 2020a, 2020b).

5.3.2. Establishing qualitative ‘impact chains’

When proceeding to sorting, assessing, and selecting measures to include in the strategic plan, it was initially not evident how to structure the work. Eventually, the Swedish Energy Agency introduced an ‘impact chain’ method which had previously been applied in internal strategic work within the agency (SEA1), and which had been recommended by the government for collaborative assessment of policy proposals (ESV, 2016). Respondents describe the ‘impact chain’ method as a structured approach which allowed to focus on the climate objective and the agreed principles for a transition, while reflecting the heterogeneity and variation of knowledge available on potential effects of measures or combinations of measures. Potential measures were, through the ‘impact chains’, sorted according to their expected contribution to three overarching effects, which reflected the principle of considering a broad set of measures: improved transport efficiency, increased energy efficiency, and renewable fuels. Measures were prioritized based upon their assessed contribution to climate mitigation and the degree of complexity associated with their implementation. The assessments were mostly of a qualitative character, complemented by quantifications when available (SEA, 2017c).

5.3.3. Successive monitoring and evaluation

In accordance with the acknowledged uncertainty and limited beforehand knowledge on effects of several measures, recurring ‘control stations’ were suggested (SEA, 2017b) to monitor whether the development proceeds in the right direction, and to adapt measures accordingly (SEA1). A Swedish Energy Agency economist states:

There were discussions regarding what cost efficiency actually means – is it even possible to measure at this level, in dealing with such a great transition? … There are very large knowledge gaps. … We therefore expressed that this should be done continuously, as it is not possible to fully answer questions like this beforehand. One has to continuously get updated on technological developments, political developments, and so on. (SEA4)

The ‘control station’ in 2020 provided a first preliminary evaluation of the development direction. It included an updated analysis of external factors and trends, indicators of climate emissions and other societal objectives, and a review of national climate mitigation scenarios. Measures in the strategic plan were evaluated based on available knowledge primarily from previous investigations, and measures which the government had not yet initiated were recommended for rapid implementation. The ‘control station’ provided a forward-looking discussion on how assessments of a transition can further evolve. While the agencies referred to an ideal of comparable economic appraisals once again, they also pointed at a need for a broad set of future scenarios against which measures, and the general development direction, could be assessed. A range of scenarios would make it possible to illuminate expected impacts on wider environmental and social objectives that follow from different choices of transition pathways (SEA, 2020a, 2020b).

5.3.4. Potentially transformative practices, but normative tensions prevail

The pragmatic approach to assess measures by ‘impact chains’ and successive ‘control stations’ provided increased room for provisional expertise and professional judgment, beyond limitations of conventional modeling and transport economics. Several respondents specifically point at the quality of having six agencies assessing and supporting measures together, in light of the uncertainties permeating developments and the urgent need to act towards the climate objective (SEA1; SEA4; TA1; NBHBP1; STAg1). The inter-agency agreement on the strategic plan was seen as a quality mark:

It is in fact a form of quality assurance that all agencies agreed. A sign that it is a relevant measure is that we are six agencies with different missions and backgrounds who can agree. (TA1)

However, while the pragmatic assessment practices allowed for a widened consideration of measures with uncertain effects, there were still conflicting standpoints regarding the relevance of specific measures. This can partly be explained by differing and sometimes conflicting agency missions and mandates. Tensions evolved regarding formulations and interpretations of measures that could imply changes to conventional transport planning and funding frameworks. Contested issues included whether environmental objectives should take precedence over objectives of travel-based accessibility, whether national co-funding of infrastructure and land-use development should be conditioned by their contribution to ‘transport efficiency’, and whether public transport and smaller infrastructure investments supporting ‘transport efficiency’ should get improved funding conditions. As one Swedish Energy Agency project manager stated: ‘regarding the other two “legs” [in the transition] – vehicles and fuels – there were no similar discussions.’ (SEA3)

In sum, the applied practices of ‘impact chains’, ‘control stations’ and the acknowledgement of broader professional knowledge and provisional expert judgment, beyond limitations of standard economic appraisal, were novelties which, in line with the established principles of the process, allowed for consideration of wider development directions and measures.

5.4. Orchestrating for continuation, but failing to influence conventional planning

According to Hölscher (2019), orchestrating includes coordinating multi-actor processes and shaping opportunity contexts. In the studied process, we identify such aspects within the work of the commission, e.g. how the collaboration was established and carried out, and in the way in which the involved organizations planned and suggested a framework for a continuous process ahead.

The Swedish Energy Agency's efforts to establish an open atmosphere and a sense of joint ownership of the process and its results reflect elements of multi-actor coordination which shaped a new opportunity context, compared to conventional transport planning. A central feature of the process regards its attention to a transition as a process characterized by continuous change, which requires an explorative and successively adaptive framework for policy and planning. The focus on recurring ‘control stations’ created a new opportunity context for collaborative monitoring, evaluation and adaptation of measures for climate mitigation. In this ‘orchestrating’ the agencies also acknowledged a need for further development of analytical methods and assessment practices. They pointed specifically at the value of assessing potential measures against several future scenarios in order to secure that the development supports broad social and environmental needs (SEA, 2020a).

That six public agencies, with different roles and mandates, jointly agreed on outcomes and ways forward, was a novel situation in Swedish national transport policy and planning (SEA, 2020c). Towards the end of the commission, the general directors of the agencies sent a letter to the ministry recommending a continuation and expressed a need for continued collaboration as a transition towards zero emissions is considered to require changed ways of working and organizational learning among all involved agencies (SEA, 2020c).

While the government instruction to carry out the commission provided a mandate to coordinate activities and strive for synergies with other relevant processes, orchestration activities seem to have been mostly limited to coordinate the work of the agencies involved in the specific commission, rather than attempting to coordinate principles and practices with other processes. From a transformative capacity perspective, we observe that the orchestration, understood as coordination of actors and shaping of opportunity contexts, thus occurred within the process but without significantly affecting the established, conventional transport planning framework. While several policy recommendations from the strategic plan were included in the government's Climate Action Plan (Swedish Government, 2019), and the government acknowledged the importance of the commission, it did not make the developed principles and practices conditional for other processes. Instructions for a new round of conventional national transport infrastructure planning were presented in 2020 without any explicit references to conclusions from the commission. A new collaborative initiative was eventually initiated by the government in 2021, but not as a direct continuation of the previous work, and with the agency Transport Analysis as host, rather than the Swedish Energy Agency. Thus, while orchestration during the original commission focused on establishing a framework for continued collaboration among the agencies, the agencies did not establish opportunity contexts which involved conventional transport planning, nor did the government choose to sustain the specific collaboration. This deficit in orchestration eventually impeded the wider utilization of the developed transformative capacity, and thereby the potential to more significantly shift national transport planning.

6. Discussion and conclusions

The study has led to several insights regarding possibilities to develop transformative capacity in long-term strategic transport planning. When it comes to the overall features of importance, we have noted that the choice to assign this type of transition-oriented task to the Swedish Energy Agency, instead of one of the more transport-focused agencies, provided a favorable distance from the conventional transport planning practice. We have also seen that the open character of the assignment, where the government was specific about the climate mitigation targets, but left discretionary room to the Swedish Energy Agency to choose how to organize the work, enabled the establishment of a sense of joint ownership of the process and its outcomes among the involved agencies. The inclusive and explorative character of the initial phase of the commission allowed for different viewpoints and concerns to be raised and jointly discussed. An initial analysis of the current situation, in which different agency perspectives and expertise were given room, contributed to a shared understanding of the transition and its conditions. Taken together, these processual elements, which reflect capacities of stewarding and unlocking, provided favorable conditions for the development of a broader and transformative approach to transport planning.

Through our work, we have also identified more specific shared principles of importance, for instance the way in which the agencies acknowledged uncertainty of future developments, knowledge gaps regarding effects of measures, and allowed for critical discussions regarding the relevance and applicability of conventional economic appraisal. Altogether, these qualities of the process and ways of working made it possible for the agencies to agree on assessment principles adapted to the task at hand. The principles support a processual approach, in which uncertainty, complexity and changing conditions are explicitly acknowledged and successively managed.

The establishment of shared principles also became influential for the practices used in preparing and implementing the strategic plan. ‘Impact chains’ allowed assessments to reflect the heterogeneous and varying character of available knowledge on effects of measures. A structured assessment framework for successive monitoring and evaluation of the developments was established, which acknowledged provisional, tacit expertise and judgment to complement available quantitative data. At recurring ‘control stations’ initial ‘impact chains’ would be continuously reassessed in the light of emerging knowledge, and against a set of scenarios and indicators reflecting broad societal objectives. This enabled a broader planning scope and consideration of various types of measures and measure combinations, including measures aimed at increased ‘transport efficiency’.

Altogether, the principles and practices that enabled an open and inclusive process, as well as a broader, more adaptive analytical approach which explicitly addressed uncertainty, were key features of the development of transformative capacity in the process. In relation to this, we note that the four categories of stewarding, unlocking, transforming and orchestrating are interrelated and partly overlapping. For example, the initial stewarding of the commission was critical in making it possible for the involved actors to discuss and eventually agree on novel ‘unlocking’ principles, which were subsequently important for developing elements of ‘transforming’. Principles and practices were reciprocally dependent, in the sense that the principles provided a shared direction and approach to transformation, while adapted practices operationalized them in ways which allowed structured assessments of a broader set of measures in line with the principles.

However, as things developed towards the end of the commissions’ work, it did not become as transformative as it had seemed during parts of the process. This is primarily explained by shortcomings in orchestration capacity; while the involved organizations stressed the need for continued collaboration and organizational learning, and suggested a framework for continuously monitoring and evaluating developments, the orchestration did not include efforts to establish collaboration and opportunity contexts with the formalized framework of conventional transport planning. Neither did the government, who is the sole actor with formal authority to shape a new opportunity context for long-term strategic transport planning, act decisively to extend the commission or connect it to the conventional transport planning framework, even though it acknowledged a need for further inter-agency collaboration.

It could be argued that the lack of continuation and connections to the conventional transport planning framework makes the case an example of transformative incapacity. But even though there are yet no signs of the commission directly influencing conventional transport planning, we still see this case can be understood as an example of transformative capacity in progress. Recalling the definition of transformative capacity as a capacity to steer development processes towards sustainability, and where previous research has often tried to identify transformative action, we argue that there are several features in the government commission that reflect transformative potential. Not the least the ways in which the actors involved managed to develop an inclusive and jointly framed process, targeted towards a clearly set goal, based upon critical reflection and mutual learning, while also reconsidering past ‘truths’ and analytical approaches. While limited orchestration capacity resulted in weak influence over the conventional transport planning framework, experience and insights from the process can be applied in future change-oriented processes.

Finally, an important takeaway from this study is that the development, maintenance and proliferation of transformative capacity requires more proactive attention to orchestration and linkages to other processes and frameworks in the wider governance landscape. This ought to be attended to in future policy and planning initiatives, in order not to end up in yet another example of unredeemed capacity to transform.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for highly constructive and helpful comments. The study was carried out within the research program Sustainable Accessibility and Mobility Services, funded by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, MISTRA.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Stiftelsen för miljöstrategisk forskning, Sweden, as part of the research program Mistra Sustainable Accessibility and Mobility Services.

Notes on contributors

Jacob Witzell

Jacob Witzell, PhD, is a researcher at the Swedish national road and transport research institute, VTI. He has recently finished his PhD studies at the department of Urban Planning and Environment at KTH Royal institute of technology. His research is focused on the influence of knowledge perspectives and practices in considering uncertainty and potential future development directions in land use and transport policy and planning.

Malin Henriksson

Malin Henriksson, PhD, is a senior researcher at the Swedish national road and transport research institute, VTI. Her research concerns gender equality and justice consequences in transport planning, often with a focus on sustainability transitions. Recent projects include transport poverty among families in deprived areas, diversity in bike-sharing and the governance of new mobility services.

Maria Håkansson

Maria Håkansson is associate professor in urban and regional studies at the Department of Urban Planning and Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Her research interests include integration of sustainability issues in urban and regional planning processes, as well as professional roles and collaboration in complex planning contexts.

Karolina Isaksson

Karolina Isaksson is a senior researcher at the Swedish national road and transport research institute, VTI. She is also an adjunct professor at the department of Urban and regional Studies at KTH, Royal institute of technology, in Stockholm. Her research focuses on formal and informal institutional conditions, politics and power dynamics shaping the possibilities to integrate climate goals and broader sustainability perspectives in land use and transport planning.