Citizens’ and stakeholders’ involvement in SUMP development in a small city
About this good practice
All citizens (via surveys and communication) and the following stakeholders were contacted: bus transport operator, school bus operator, road safety council, police, local tourist organisation, local NGO for environment.
First, Ljutomer created different groups and consulted them via different channels and for different purposes and this resulted in proposals for improving the SUMP. It also increased the sense of ownership and responsibility of the involved stakeholders and citizens.
Interviews with relevant stakeholders took place. A group of reviewers visited all relevant stakeholders involved in transport systems in the city, as well as key representatives of specific user groups. The results were compiled in a report and helped with the identification of main drivers and problems to address in the SUMP.
A short survey was carried out afterwards, it focused on residents’ satisfaction with the current mobility system and opinion on possible development scenarios and what they would change if they were the mayor. Results were integrated into the preparation phase of the SUMP.
Moreover, a project group was established and consulted at each key step in the SUMP development process.
The residents were informed about the activities taking place in the municipality with regards to the SUMP. The main public event was the ‘’Day of active mobility in Municipality of Ljutomer’’ where inhabitants were involved in activities promoting sustainable mobility.
Resources needed
The process required mostly staff time. However, some activities are costly, such as the survey process, communication products, etc.
The total amount of costs is not known yet, but the Active Travel Group and Day of Active Mobility cost €3000, while the interviews costs €500.
Evidence of success
A quantitative participation is provided by the number of activities and the qualitative participation is provided by the improvement of measures/SUMP.
A monitoring is made by the project group which is consulted on a regular basis and give advice on measures to change/improve, the ones to abandon and the ones to start.
Potential for learning or transfer
There are no prerequisites for the implementation of this GP, but the replication is probably easier for a city of a similar size, even though most activities can be replicated at a larger scale.
Regarding potential weakness, a lack of responsiveness/interest from the citizens or the stakeholders could be the only problem.
To be implemented, this GP requires time and efforts on the long term, coordination and project management skills, as well as some more transport-related technical skills. The financial effort is moderate.
Further information
Website
Good practice owner
You can contact the good practice owner below for more detailed information.
City of Ljutomer