deliverable d3.2 report on capacity development · pdf fileroute signalization ... basic...

Baltic Environmental Forum Deutschland e. V. • Osterstraße 58 • 20259 Hamburg • Germany • www.mobile2020.eu

Part-financed by the European Union

Deliverable D3.2 Report on Capacity Development Seminars Tomas Hefter, Jutta Deffner, Christian Rudolph, Torben Ziel 08.01.2013

Report on Capacity Development Seminars • T. Hefter, J. Deffner, C. Rudolph, T. Ziel • 08.01.2013 2/28

IMPRINT

Prepared by (editors and authors)

Tomas Hefter, Jutta Deffner Institute for Social-Ecological Research ISOE GmbH

Christian Rudolph, Torben Ziel Hamburg University of Technology

This report was developed in the frame of the mobile2020 project www.mobile2020.eu

The project is managed by

Matthias Grätz

Baltic Environmental Forum Deutschland e.V. Osterstraße 58 D-20259 Hamburg www.bef-de.org

The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EACI nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

January 2013

Part-financed by the European Union

http://www.mobile2020.eu/

http://www.bef-de.org/


Table of Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 4

2 Capacity development seminars ...................................................................... 6

2.1 Seminar on strategic planning ..................................................................... 6

2.2 Seminar on infrastructure planning ............................................................... 8

2.3 Seminar on services for cyclists .................................................................. 11

2.4 Seminar on communication for behavioural change .......................................... 13

3 Participants ............................................................................................. 16

4 Evaluation of the seminars ........................................................................... 18

4.1 Topic and case example selection ............................................................... 19

4.2 Comprehensibility and applicability ............................................................. 20

4.3 Quality of presentations from internal and external speakers .............................. 21

4.4 Exercises and bicycle excursions ................................................................. 22

4.5 Preparation for national multiplication process ............................................... 23

4.6 General organisation, accommodation and venues ........................................... 24

5 Conclusions and lessons learnt ....................................................................... 25

5.1 Positive experiences during the seminars....................................................... 25

5.2 Challenging experiences during the seminars .................................................. 25

5.3 General and methodical considerations ........................................................ 26

6 Related documents and deliverables ............................................................... 28


1 Introduction

The aim of the capacity development seminars within mobile2020 was to increase the

knowledge and expertise of the nominated national multipliers in the field of cycling inclusive

planning and promotion. The approach of the seminars was to “train the trainers”, which

means that the aim of the seminar was to enable the participants to act as multipliers for

cycling promotion1 in their own national multiplication process (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Overview on the mobile2020 multiplication approach Source: Own compilation

All in all four capacity development seminars were carried out between April and October

2012. Each seminar focused on one specific topic within the framework of cycling promotion.

The sequence of topics reflected the four thematic strands of the mobile2020 handbook.

However, there were overarching aspects which have been covered several times from

different perspectives. The thematic fields have close connections, overlaps and

interdependencies. So the division into thematic fields was a pragmatic way to make the

process of strengthening the capacities of multipliers in the target countries manageable.

Figure 2 gives an overview of the thematic strands that were also focused on during the

seminars.

1 Promotion as it is understood here includes all activities to foster the use of bicycles as urban transport mode – infrastructure, planning, service and awareness as well as marketing.

Multiplication process in mobile2020

Exchange & spreading of knowledge

National multiplication

Train the trainers

• National working groups• Around 350 planners are trained• Study visit in GER/NL (2013/14)

21 national multipliers will hold ~3 training seminars for planners in each country (2012/2013)

• Nomination of 21 multipliers from 11 countries (2012)

• 4 training seminars


Figure 2: Overview on the four thematic strands of the mobile2020 seminars Source: Own compilation

The knowledge and case studies presented during the seminars are mostly based on the

compiled handbook the participants received at the first seminar in Odense. Therefore, the

participants had the possibility to deepen their knowledge by reading the handbook and

participating in the seminars. Additionally to the information and examples already included in

the handbook, the team of ISOE and TUHH presented new examples and further knowledge in

the seminars, to avoid too much repetition and to add new information.

The presentations of local experts from the hosting cities as well as the input from invited

external speakers contributed additional knowledge and examples from a strong practical

perspective to the seminars. These external presentations very well complemented the

presentations of the team of ISOE, TUHH and IBC.

Mobile2020 - cycling as a system

Strategic and

integrated urban and transport planning

Infra-structure

Commu-nication & marketing

on behavioural

change

Service for cyclists

Material level Symbolic level

Integrated urban and transport planning

Transport development plan/ transport master plan

Route types Requirements of a cycle network Integration of networks Route signalization Participation in planning Bicycle Policy Audit

General and local information Maps and route planners Brochures and calendars Intermodal bicycle transport Bicycle parking and service Rental bike systems Other bike services

Need of cycling promotion Communication strategies Identifying target groups Broad image and motivational

campaigns Programmes and actions to

motivate specific groups Stakeholder communication

Cycling infrastructure Design principles Cycle track types Construction Quality control Signalization Traffic lights Parking facilities Pedelecs and E-bikes

Source: Hefter/Deffner 2011


2 Capacity development seminars

Each of the four capacity development seminars was held in a cycling frontrunner city. It was

the aim for the participants to gain their own experiences of good practice and explore

different mobility cultures. The four cities were Odense (Denmark), Västerås (Sweden), Zwolle

(The Netherlands) and Bolzano (Italy).2 Personal experience and the exchange with

practitioners in the hosting cities were emphasized during the seminars. Bicycle excursions

were a good way to link theoretical knowledge gained during presentations and the real

implementation within the cities in question. Homework and guiding questions for the time

between the seminars facilitated the discussions during the seminars and also allowed

international exchange about the specific national situations.

2.1 Seminar on strategic planning

The first seminar in Odense (Denmark) took place at Dalum Landbrugsskole a few kilometres

outside the city centre from April 17th – 19th 2012.

The thematic focus of the seminar was put on strategic and integrated urban and transport

planning.

Presentations and input of the mobile2020 project team:

• Torben Ziel (TUHH): What is integrated urban and transport planning? Part I: Background of

strategic cycle planning in Europe

• Torben Ziel (TUHH): What is integrated urban and transport planning? Part II: Objectives,

targets and measures

• Torben Ziel (TUHH): Principles of spatial planning. Development of measures and tools

• Jutta Deffner (ISOE): Stakeholder involvement in planning processes

Presentations and input given by external experts:

• Connie Juel Clausen (City of Odense): Cycle planning, strategy and policy in Odense

• Troels Anderson (Consultant): Basic elements of a cycling strategy

2 The cities have been approached already during the development of the project proposal. Most of them expressed the support of the project in a letter of intend, the city of Zwolle is official project partner.


Moderated discussions and exercises during the seminar:

• Table group discussions dealing with the most important aspects of the presentations

• Plenary discussion on integrated urban and transport planning

• Exercises to systematically structure exemplary problems, objectives, targets and measures

done in working groups

• Exercise on stakeholder analysis done in working groups

• Plenary discussion of the aims, obstacles and the importance of municipal cycling

strategies

• World Café on the further multiplication process within mobile2020 with plenary wrap-up

Bicycle excursion:

• Joint bicycle excursion within the city centre and in the outskirts of Odense guided by the

local cycling officer Connie Juel Clausen. The thematic focus was on the strategic planning

of a cycle network, on infrastructure, and on services for cyclists.

Figure 3: Bicycle tunnel in Odense Source: Jutta Deffner

Figure 4: Traffic calmed street in Odense Source: Michal Tvrdon

Figure 5: Cycling in residential area in Odense Source: Michal Tvrdon

Figure 6: Cycling in recreational area in Odense Source: Michal Tvrdon


Homework that had to be prepared for the second seminar in Västerås:

Homework 1:

• Exercise to investigate the institutional authorities that are responsible for cycling planning

in the respective countries and cities of the multipliers.

• Identification of the stakeholders and interest groups that the multipliers want to address

during the dissemination process of mobile2020.

Homework 2:

• Exercise identifying well or badly designed cycling infrastructures in the multipliers’ home

cities. Multipliers had the task to take photos of examples as a basis for discussion.

Résumé on intensively discussed topics and questions during the seminar:

• The applicability of some presented case examples in Eastern European countries

• How to deal with existing planning structures/resp. the lack of integrated planning? This

was seen a pressing but not unswayable framing condition in many countries.

• On which scale should a city start to improve the cycling conditions?

Start with one neighbourhood at a time or with the city centre?

Start with easily implementable measures like road markings (N.Y. approach)?

2.2 Seminar on infrastructure planning

The second seminar took place in Västerås (Sweden) from June 5th – 7th 2012; the venue was

at TA Inn Hotel close to the city centre.

The thematic focus of the seminar was put on cycling infrastructure planning and design.


• Torben Ziel (TUHH): Cycle network planning – criteria & routes

• Christian Rudolph (TUHH): Cycling infrastructure I: Infrastructural design goals

• Christian Rudolph (TUHH): Cycling infrastructure II: Elements of cycling infrastructure

• Christian Rudolph (TUHH): Maintaining and operating cycling infrastructure

• Christian Rudolph (TUHH): Planning intersections

• Ton Daggers (IBC): Best Practice (Part I) - Parking facilities

• Christian Rudolph (TUHH) and Ton Daggers (IBC): Pedelecs and their requirements


• Ton Daggers (IBC): Best practice (Part II) - Facilitating cycling - “easy cycling”

• Jutta Deffner (ISOE): Evaluation of bicycle policies - BYPAD

Presentations and input from external experts:

• Lars Lindén, Marie Joelsonn and Jenny Bergström (City of Västerås): Cycling strategy and

planning in Västerås


• Discussing cases of infrastructure from Eastern Europe (photo presentation and plenary

discussion, homework from the first seminar)

• Plenary discussion on the importance of maintaining infrastructure

• Exercise on intersection planning done in working groups with a plenary presentation of

results and expert feedback

• Plenary discussion and exercise for working groups on moderation and presentation

techniques

• Group exercise during the bicycle excursion. Each excursion group should focus on one of

four infrastructure-elements: intersections, traffic lights for cyclists, road surfaces, road

markings

• Table group discussions about potential target groups for Pedelec use in CEE countries

• Table group discussions about how expensive infrastructure solutions can be turned into

more feasible ones

Bicycle excursion:

• For the bicycle excursion the group was split into four smaller groups to do a round trip

together with a guide from the city of Västerås. Aspects to be considered were urban fabric

and how to build a cohesive network, cycling infrastructure in newly developed residential

urban neighbourhoods (old harbour area), recreational network along the lake shore, inner

city infrastructure solutions, parking facilities (public, in front of schools etc.), coexistence

of cyclists and pedestrians, traffic light solutions and the city’s history of cycling.


Figure 7: Bicycle tunnel in Västerås Source: Laura Remmelgas

Figure 8: Bicycle excursion stop with explanation. Source: Laura Remmelgas

Figure 9: Sculpture “Stream” symbolizing the historic cycling culture in Västerås: workers cycling to ABB electric generator factory in the city centre

Figure 10: Intersection at one of the main cycling routes Source 9+10: Jutta Deffner

Homework for the third seminar in Zwolle:

Homework 1:

• Exercise on traffic regulations for cyclists, laws for bicycles and their legal status as a

mode of transport, national design manuals used by urban and transport planners in the

different countries.

Homework 2:

• Exercise to investigate web-pages dealing with bicycle services in the multipliers’ mother

tongues. Guiding questions: What can you learn? What is missing? Are they user friendly? At

whom is the information targeted? Are they useful for the multiplication process? Is

collaboration possible?



• Local adaptation of infrastructure solutions: there are many ways that lead to Rome or how

to overcome the idea that there is only one good solution. Solutions have to be adapted

(”tailor-made”) to local situations.

• Differences in perception of cycling conditions – the example of Västerås showed a very

different approach of how to direct cycling onto cycling paths and at intersections

• How to finance investments for cycling infrastructure? Which investments are most

effective?

• Conflicts between traffic modes and other land use purposes for limited space in the city

centre.

2.3 Seminar on services for cyclists

The third seminar in Zwolle (The Netherlands) took place at the City Hall in the city centre

from September 3rd – 5th 2012.

The thematic focus of the seminar was put on services for cyclists.


• Willem Bosch (City of Zwolle): Cycling policy in Zwolle

• Willem Bosch (City of Zwolle): BYPAD and the Cycle Balance in Zwolle

• Tomas Hefter (ISOE): What are services for cyclists?

• Tomas Hefter (ISOE) and Willem Bosch (City of Zwolle): Target group specific services

• Tomas Hefter (ISOE): Small & smart service solutions for cyclists

• Tomas Hefter (ISOE): Cycling and public transport


• René de Heer (City of Zwolle): Transport policy of the city of Zwolle

• Herbert Tiemens (City of Houten): Bicycles & public transport in the unique city of Houten

• Sebastian Schlebusch (Nextbike): Public bike sharing systems I – Benefits, designs and

challenges

• Sebastian Schlebusch (Nextbike): Public bike sharing systems II – Case examples from four

cities

• Cor van der Klaauw (County of Groningen): Cycling city Groningen



• Exercise on design and quality of bicycle maps, done in working groups

• Plenary discussion: Existing services for cyclists in Central and Eastern Europe

• Role play - Cycling strategies and local decision making processes in municipalities part I:

First round: Group work on part-concepts of a cycling strategy (1-Design of route plan,

2-design of infrastructure concept, 3-design of service concept, 4-design of criteria and

basic condition list for decision making process)

Second round: Presentation of working group results; assessment and remarks by the

head of the transport department

Bicycle excursions:

• Day 1: Short Bicycle excursion (1,5h) in two groups guided by Ilse Bloemhof and Willem

Bosch from the city of Zwolle.

• Day 2: Long bicycle excursion (3h) in two groups guided by Ilse Bloemhof and Willem Bosch

from the city of Zwolle.

Figure 11: Mobile2002 multipliers in front of the city hall in Zwolle Source: Jutta Deffner

Figure 12: Exploring delivery bikes at a bike courier service Source: Jutta Deffner

Homework for the fourth seminar in Bolzano:

• Exercise done in country teams on marketing and campaigning material for cycling in the

particular countries. Teams should collect examples (pictures, flyers, posters, etc.) and

present them at the following seminar.


• There was a very controversial discussion dealing with the question if public bike sharing

systems (BSS) are a good way to promote everyday cycling and to foster multimodal


mobility in cities. One argument against these systems was that they are very expensive.

Some politicians use BSS to present their cities as bicycle friendly while not doing much

else to improve the cycling situation. On the other hand, the examples of some cities show,

that BSS can raise awareness and can thus promote everyday cycling very successfully.

• Measures of how to deal with the high numbers of cyclists and parked bicycles at Dutch rail

stations: far away from the situation in the CEEC – do these approaches already have to be

considered in the starting phase?

2.4 Seminar on communication for behavioural change

The seminar in Bolzano (Italy) took place at Kolpinghaus in the city centre from October 2nd –

4th 2012.

The thematic focus of the seminar was put on communication towards behavioural change.

On the first day of the seminar several activities were done together with the CHAMP-project

team: presentation and discussion of the bicycle strategy of Bolzano, excursion and informal

exchange.


• Jutta Deffner (ISOE): Why promotion for cycling?

• Jutta Deffner (ISOE): Target group orientation

• Jutta Deffner (ISOE): Arguments for cycling

• Jutta Deffner (ISOE): Evaluation of communication measures


• Brunella Franchini (City of Bolzano): Sustainable mobility. Past, present, future of the

urban mobility in Bolzano

• Harald Reiterer (Eco-Institute Alto Adige/Südtirol, Bolzano): Cycling policy of Bolzano

• Günther Innerebner (Helios, Bolzano): Corporate cycling communication

• Nives Fedel (Municipal Police of Bolzano): Safe routes to school in Bolzano

• Per-Erik Hahn (City of Linköping): Cycling policy of the city of Linköping (video presentation

via Skype)



• Exercise in country teams on target group orientation with subsequent poster-walk

afterwards

• Exercise dealing with the concept of cycling culture, done in working groups

Part I: What is the meaning of cycling culture?

Part II: What kind of cycling culture would the multipliers like to see in their countries?

• Plenary discussion about communicating positive arguments for cycling

• Role play - Cycling strategies and local decision making processes in municipalities part II:

First round: Two working groups on cycling strategies and one on role scripts and

arguments for city council members

Second round: Presentation of cycling strategies, discussion at the city council and

decision for one strategy

Excursions:

• Day 1: "Read the city": Short excursion by foot focusing on the local traffic situation &

subsequent plenary discussion

• Day 1: Bicycle excursion together with the participants of the CHAMP-project in three

groups

Figure 13: “Read the city” excursion Source: Tomas Hefter

Figure 14: “Read the city” excursion Source: Tomas Hefter


Figure 15: Information point for cyclists in Bolzano Source: Tomas Hefter

Figure 16: Bridge for cyclists and pedestrians Source: Tomas Hefter


• It was discussed how politicians can be motivated to act in favour of communication

measures.

For example as testimonials for local cycling campaigns.

How to convince politicians to invest money in professional marketing?


3 Participants To prepare the nomination of the national multipliers ISOE, TUHH, BEF Germany and REC

Croatia developed a questionnaire that included a list of criteria and the framing conditions for

becoming a multiplier. The national project partners nominated 21 persons to act as

multipliers between Nov. 2011 and March 2012. As intended, most countries nominated two

multipliers, only Romania nominated just one multiplier.

In the end 24 persons from eleven countries participated in the four capacity development

seminars that took place between April and October 2012. Whereas from most countries the

same two multipliers participated in all four seminars, the multipliers from some countries

changed for each seminar or only one multiplier took part (see table below).

Notes: *Participant was not primarily nominated as a multiplier, nominated subsequently as stand-in for one or two seminars

List of all participants during the four capacity development seminars

Participation in seminar

Nr. First Name Surname Company Country Odense Västerås Zwolle Bolzano

1 Sandra Oisalu BEF Estonia Estonia

2 Laura Remmelgas BEF Estonia Estonia

3 Csaba Mezei REC Hungary Hungary

4 Peter Szuppinger REC Hungary Hungary

5 Andrej Klemenc REC Slovenia Slovenia

6 Klemen Gostič Prometni Institut Slovenia

7 Bojan Slišković REC Croatia Croatia

8 Petra Brandelek REC Croatia Croatia

9 Ingrida Bremere BEF Latvia Latvia

10 Irina Alekseveja BEF Latvia Latvia

11 Tomas Rehacek REC Czech Republic Czech Rep.

12 Tomas Kazmierski Integra Consulting Czech Rep.

13 Mihaela Dineva REC Bulgaria Bulgaria

14 Petya Doneva As. Bike Evolution Bulgaria

15 Michal Tvrdon REC Slovakia Slovakia

16* Natália Rumanová REC Slovakia Slovakia

17* Michal Feik City of Bratislava Slovakia

18 Vladimír Hudek REC Slovakia Slovakia

19 Bogdan Bardu REC Romania Romania

20* Serban Virgil Ionescu Mare Nostrum NGO Romania

21 Michal Brennek REC Poland Poland

22 Konrad Kosecki REC Poland Poland

23 Linas Vainius Atgaja Community Lithuania

24 Eduardas Krisciunas Atgaja Community Lithuania


Especially the multipliers nominated for the REC office in Slovakia often changed. Due to

unforeseeable staff change, four different persons ended up taking part at the seminars. Of

these four persons no one participated in all four thematic seminars. Due to staff restrictions

Romania could manage to send only one multiplier to each of the four seminars. As this

multiplier had other obligations during the second seminar, a stand in person was sent.

Therefore, in that case there was also no multiplier who attended all seminars. Considering

the holistic and integrative approach of the curriculum of the four capacity development

seminars it is suboptimal that from these two partners there were no multipliers who attended

all four seminars. So these partners should especially make sure to exchange the different

knowledge gained during the seminars among the multipliers who will be responsible for the

national multiplication process.

Figure 17: Group photo with multipliers and partners in front of the city hall in Zwolle Source: Jutta Deffner


4 Evaluation of the seminars

After each seminar an evaluation questionnaire was filled in by the participants that was

analysed directly thereafter. The questionnaire included for example the topic and case study

selection, the applicability and comprehensibility of the information as well as the quality of

presentations (results see 4.1 and following). Most participants returned their filled-in

questionnaires after each seminar (see table below.)

Table 1: Response rate of the participants

1st seminar in Odense

2nd seminar in Västerås

3rd seminar in Zwolle

4th seminar in Bolzano

Number of participants

20 21 21 20

Answered questionnaires

20 17 18 18

The questionnaire also included one open question where the participants could make further

remarks or offer proposals for the forthcoming seminars. Some examples for remarks and

proposals of the participants on the seminars are:

• Time to wrap-up and discuss the bicycle excursion afterwards

• More time to discuss some issues in more detail

• Possibility to try out the use of a Pedelec

• Learn more about pro-cycling arguments

• Provision of more practical information

• Case examples should be applicable under Eastern European conditions

Additionally, the questionnaire included a section for feedback on the mobile2020 handbook on

cycling inclusive planning and promotion where participants could make comments regarding

the following aspects:

• Is some important aspect missing in the handbook?

• Is anything incomprehensible?

• Do you have other comments on the handbook?

The given feedback was taken into account when finishing the final English version of the

handbook.


4.1 Topic and case example selection

The topic selection as well as the selection of the presented case examples was estimated as

very positive by the participants.

On average more than 90% of all respondents evaluated the selection of the presented topics

as very satisfying or satisfying. The lowest satisfaction rate (72%) considering the topic

selection was found for the seminar that took place Bolzano, the highest rates with 100% were

received for the seminars in Odense and Zwolle.

The selection of the presented case examples was evaluated with an average of 90% as very

satisfying or satisfying. The lowest satisfaction rate with 78% was in Bolzano and the highest

rate with 100% was in Zwolle.

Figure 18: Evaluation results – Selection of presented topics Source: Own compilation

Figure 19: Evaluation results – Selection of the presented case examples Source: Own compilation

100%

94%100%

72%

92%

6%

11%

4%

17%

4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1st seminar inOdense (n=20)

2nd seminar inVästerås (n=17)

3rd seminar inZwolle (n=18)

4th seminar inBolzano (n=18)

All 4 seminars

Selection of the presented topics

very satisfied / satisfied

unsatisfied / very unsatisfied

no answer

95%

88%

100%

78%

90%

5%

12%17%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%





All 4 seminars

Selection of the presented case examples



no answer


4.2 Comprehensibility and applicability

The satisfaction of the multipliers concerning the comprehensibility of the given information

for all of the four seminars was evaluated by 90% as very satisfying or satisfying. The

comprehensibility in Bolzano was estimated with 78% as very satisfying or satisfying and in

Zwolle with 100%. As the results show, the comprehensibility of the more abstract and

theoretical topics like strategic planning and especially the theoretical background on

communication measures was evaluated less good.

Figure 20: Evaluation results – Comprehensibility of the given information Source: Own compilation

Figure 21: Evaluation results – Applicability of the given information and examples Source: Own compilation

Another important aspect of the evaluation was the applicability of the given information and

examples. In total 82% of the multipliers were very satisfied or satisfied with the applicability.

90%94%

100%

78%

90%

5% 6%

11%

5%5%

11%

4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%





All 4 seminars

Comprehensibility of the given information



no answer

75% 76%

100%

78%82%

20%24%

17% 15%

5% 6%3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%





All 4 seminars

Applicability of the given information and examples



no answer


This means that more than four out of five multipliers rated this point positively. The results

also show some differences in the rate of satisfaction. While in Zwolle the satisfaction rate was

100% in the other seminars it ranged between 75% and 78%. This could have something to do

with the fact, that the examples presented in Zwolle were mostly small service measures

which can often be easily implemented while for example most presented infrastructure

measure examples are high end solutions which were perceived as less easy to implement

under Eastern European conditions.

4.3 Quality of presentations from internal and external speakers

The assessment of the quality of the presentations shows, that the satisfaction with the

presentations of the internal speakers from the project team as well as of the invited external

speakers was very high. Considering all four seminars, 89% of the multipliers were very

satisfied or satisfied with the presentations of the internal speakers and 86% with the

presentations of the external speakers. While the satisfaction rate concerning the presentation

quality of the internal speakers in Bolzano was the lowest with 78%, in Odense we had 95% and

in Zwolle 96% that were very satisfied or satisfied.

Figure 22: Evaluation results – Quality of presentations from internal speakers Source: Own compilation

The results of the presentation quality of the external speakers range between 71% in Västerås

and 98% in Odense. These results could have been due to the fact that the English language

skills of the external experts did not always meet the expectations. This might in turn have

influenced the presentation quality in some way.

95%

87%

96%

78%

89%

5% 5% 4%

15%

7%

0%

8%

0%

7%4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%





All 4 seminars

Quality of presentations - internal speakers



no answer


Figure 23: Evaluation results – Quality of presentations from external speakers Source: Own compilation

4.4 Exercises and bicycle excursions

The satisfaction with the exercises and group work during the seminars was very positive. With

89% nearly nine out of ten multipliers were very satisfied or satisfied with the exercises. As the

graph shows (see Figure 24) the satisfaction decreased starting with 100% for the first two

seminars down to 72% for the exercises at the last seminar. It is hard to tell why the

satisfaction decreased, because the multipliers were very motivated during the exercises in all

four seminars.

Figure 24: Evaluation results – Exercises and group work Source: Own compilation

The satisfaction with the bicycle excursions over all four seminars was very high. An average of

88% rated the excursions as very satisfying or satisfying. The difference in satisfaction rates

98%

71%

93%

82%86%

3%

18%

4%

12%9%

0%

12%

2%6% 5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%





All 4 seminars

Quality of presentations - external speakers



no answer

100% 100%

83%

72%

89%

0% 0%

6%

17%

6%

0% 0%

11% 11%

6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%





All 4 seminars

Exercises and group work



no answer


between the four seminars was very moderate, ranging between 83% in Bolzano and 94% in

Västerås.

Figure 25: Evaluation results – Bicycle excursions Source: Own compilation

4.5 Preparation for national multiplication process

A very important aspect considering the further process of mobile2020 is the question in how

far the multipliers themselves feel prepared for their own national multiplication process. As

the evaluation shows, with 78% nearly four out of five multipliers were very satisfied or

satisfied after the last seminar in Bolzano with the preparation for their future task.

Figure 26: Evaluation results – preparation for own national multiplication process Source: Own compilation

Interestingly the satisfaction with their own preparedness varied very much between the

seminars. This might have something to do with the situation that the multipliers were a little

90%94%

86%83%

88%

5% 6% 6%

0%4%5%

0%

8%

17%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%





All 4 seminars

Bicycle excursions



no answer

85%

59%56%

78%

15%

6%

0%

17%

0%

35%

44%

6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%





Preparation for own national multiplication process



no answer


uncertain regarding their own role in the future national multiplication process. It seems that

in the course of the four seminars the multipliers gained more self-confidence for their own

multiplication events which is a good basis for the further process.

4.6 General organisation, accommodation and venues

All in all the multipliers were mostly satisfied with the seminar accommodation, venues and

the general organisation of the four events. Considering all four seminars 92% were very

satisfied or satisfied with the accommodation and the seminar venue. The lowest satisfaction

was evaluated in Zwolle (83%) which might have something to do with the hotel being

relatively expensive.

The general organisation of the event considering all four seminars was estimated as very

satisfying or satisfying by 95% of the multipliers. The satisfaction rate was high at all four

seminars with the lowest value of 89% in Bolzano and the highest value with 100% in Zwolle.


5 Conclusions and lessons learnt

Resuming the four capacity development seminars one can say that they fostered the

knowledge and experiences of the multipliers on the topic of cycling promotion. The seminars

also provided room for good and interesting discussions, transnational exchange and they also

raised new questions. It was possible to include different interactive methods, for example

during the different presentations, exercises and in the working groups. All in all, the seminars

fulfilled their aim to prepare the multipliers for their own national multiplication process.

From a methodical point of view, during the seminars some positive as well as negative

experiences can be identified.

5.1 Positive experiences during the seminars • Mainly very constructive discussions.

• Partially great eagerness of the participants to learn and to gain new knowledge on cycling

promotion.

• Often participants asked a lot of questions after the presentations; especially to external

speakers.

• There was a lot of transnational exchange of experiences between the participants during

the discussion rounds, excursions and also outside the official seminar programme.

• In general, participants were very motivated to participate and work actively in the

seminars, for example during the different working group exercises.

• The participants had their own ideas and proposals considering the content of the

seminars. They also had several thematic proposals for the completion of the handbook.

• The excursions and the exchange with experts were seen as important aspects of the

seminars.

5.2 Challenging experiences during the seminars • The multiplier changes of some countries might be a problem for the national

multiplication process (see also chapter 3).

• The fact that some multipliers left early on the last seminar days due to complicated travel

schemes, sometimes produced interruptions of the seminar. Sometimes the seminar-team


was informed very late about these early leavings, which caused short-term adjustments of

the seminar agenda.

• Some participants showed their indifference towards some presented topics (for example

strategic planning or evaluation of communication measures). From the presenters’ point

of view it was not clear if this occurred because some topics were perceived as less

important than others. Another explanation might be that some topics covered abstract

topics and were therefore hard to follow.

5.3 General and methodical considerations • Considering all four events, the thematic compilation (focus topic) of the seminars proved

to be meaningful. By concentrating on only one main topic per seminar, it was possible to

foster an understanding about the very complex approach of cycling promotion within only

four seminar sessions.

• The invitation of external speakers brought additional interesting and important viewpoints

and experience from practice into the seminars. The presentations of the local experts in

the seminar cities also made it possible to link theoretical knowledge (presentations) with

practical impressions during the excursions.

• The bicycle excursions were a very important element of the seminars. For future projects

with a similar seminar approach it should be considered to include a small excursion as a

daily working unit into the agenda.

• The selection of the visited seminar cities proved to be useful, because the cities showed

very different mobility cultures. But especially the situation in Odense and in Zwolle was

sometimes perceived by the participants as too far advanced compared to the situation in

most Eastern European cities. By visiting Northern, Central and Southern European cycling

frontrunner cities, it was possible to reflect the geographical and cultural situations in the

mobile2020 partner countries.

• In how far it was successful to make clear, how important it is to follow an integrative

cycling promotion approach is yet uncertain. Some participants stated that the building of

infrastructure is still the most important measure to promote more everyday cycling.

• When compiling the handbook and the seminar presentations it was sometimes difficult to

find suitable case studies to present, which could later be perceived as adaptable in the

Eastern European context by the participants (for example the far advanced bicycle

parking solutions in The Netherlands). Nevertheless most presented case studies were


inspiring, facilitated positive discussions and were perceived as good solutions to promote

everyday cycling.

• Some participants came to the seminars with the expectation to obtain knowledge and best

practice examples which can be adapted one to one in their home countries. Of course

these expectations could often not be fulfilled because there are no “one size fits all”

solutions for cycling. Besides this, “one size fits all” thinking with solutions that work for

all national or regional contexts in the same way, completely contradicts the idea followed

by the mobility culture approach. Nevertheless, visiting four different cycling frontrunner

cities brought an understanding to the participants of how manifold an active cycling policy

in various cities can be and of how different mobility cultures are.

• At the fourth seminar in Bolzano the motivation of some participants seemed to be a little

lower than in the previous events. This might have something to do with that the interim

time between the third and the fourth seminar was only three weeks. For future projects a

longer period of time in between seminars should be considered.


6 Related documents and deliverables

• Deffner, Jutta; Hefter, Tomas; Rudolph, Christian; Ziel, Torben (Eds.) (2012): Handbook on

cycling inclusive planning and promotion. Capacity development material for the multiplier

training within the mobile2020 project. Frankfurt a.M./Hamburg

• Hefter, Tomas; Deffner, Jutta; Schwerdtfeger, Steffi; Rudolph, Christian; Ziel, Torben (2012):

Collection of interactive methods, exercises and presentation formats for capacity

development seminars. Frankfurt a.M./Hamburg

deliverable d3.2 report on capacity development · pdf fileroute signalization ... basic...

Documents