D1. ANALYSIS REPORT- Questionnaire Survey · questionnaire was designed with the specific purpose...

1

D1. ANALYSIS REPORT- Questionnaire Survey

Status: final version

Date of preparation: 29/06/05

Prepared by: SEA/Renue

Contributions from: All eAtomium partners

��

2

Questionnaire Survey for WP1

May 2005

Larry Parker, SEA/Renue

3

Disclaimer The sole responsibility for the content of this [webpage, publication etc.] lies with the authors. It does not represent the opinion of the Community. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. Table of Contents

1 AIMS......................................................................................................................................................5

2 OBJECTIVES.......................................................................................................................................5

3 METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................................5 3.1 QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN.................................................................................................................5 3.2 DISTRIBUTION: ...............................................................................................................................6 3.3 METHODOLOGY OF ANALYSIS: MEAN SCORES AND FREQUENCIES ..................................................7

3.3.1 Mean scores...............................................................................................................................7 3.3.2 Shares of total scores and frequency tables...............................................................................7 3.3.3 Other remarks............................................................................................................................8

4 RESULTS..............................................................................................................................................9 4.1 RESPONSE .......................................................................................................................................9 4.2 THE ORGANISATIONS....................................................................................................................10

4.2.1 Client Base (Questions 6) ........................................................................................................10 4.2.2 Areas of work (Question 7)......................................................................................................12

4.3 TRANSPORT AND MOBILITY WITHIN ORGANISATIONS...................................................................13 4.3.1 Transport Sector (Question 7 & 9) ..........................................................................................13 4.3.2 Mission of organisations within Transport & Mobility (Question 10) ....................................14 4.3.3 Barriers to transport action (Questions 12 & 27) ...................................................................16

4.4 QUALIFICATIONS & TRAINING......................................................................................................20 4.4.1 Qualifications and transport & mobility training undertaken (Questions 15,16 & 17) ..........20

4.5 TOPICS OF KNOWLEDGE & TRAINING NEEDS ...............................................................................25 4.5.1 Overall knowledge levels (Question 18)..................................................................................25 4.5.2 Overall training needs (Question 19) ......................................................................................27 4.5.3 Identifying needs and knowledge by country ...........................................................................28

4.6 DEMAND FOR TRAINING AND PREFERENCES.................................................................................33 4.6.1 Training demand (Question 13 & 23)......................................................................................33 4.6.2 Training Preferences (Question 22) ........................................................................................34

5 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ................................................................................................................36

6 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................................39

7 APPENDIX A – FREQUENCY TABLE OF CLOSED RESPONSES ..........................................41

8 QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................................................................44

9 E-ATOMIUM WP 1 “ANALYSING PHASE” ................................................................................50

10 ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRES – BELGIUM ..............................................................78

4

Table of Figures FIGURE 1, RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRES ................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 2, CLIENT BASE BY COUNTRY ..................................................................................................... 10 FIGURE 3, CLIENT BASE, FREQUENCY OF SCORES OF 3 OR MORE ............................................................. 11 FIGURE 4, AREAS OF WORK, BY COUNTRY .............................................................................................. 12 FIGURE 5, IMPORTANCE OF SECTORS INVOLVED IN, BY COUNTRY........................................................... 13 FIGURE 6, SECTORS, FREQUENCY OF SCORE OF 3 OR MORE ..................................................................... 13 FIGURE 7, MISSION OF ORGANISATIONS, BY COUNTRY ........................................................................... 14 FIGURE 8, MISSION, FREQUENCY OF SCORES OF 3 OR MORE .................................................................... 15 FIGURE 9, BARRIERS TO TRANSPORT ACTION .......................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 10, OVERALL IMPORTANCE OF BARRIERS TO TRANSPORT ACTION............................................... 17 FIGURE 11, KNOWLEDGE SCORES BY COUNTRY ...................................................................................... 25 FIGURE 12, KNOWLEDGE SCORE, BY TOPIC ............................................................................................. 26 FIGURE 13, TRAINING NEEDS SCORES BY COUNTRY ................................................................................ 27 FIGURE 14, TRAINING NEEDS SCORE, BY TOPIC ....................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 15, KNOWLEDGE SCORES IN UK & IRELAND .............................................................................. 28 FIGURE 16, TRAINING NEEDS SCORES IN UK & IRELAND ....................................................................... 28 FIGURE 17, KNOWLEDGE SCORES IN BELGIUM ........................................................................................ 29 FIGURE 18, TRAINING NEEDS SCORES IN BELGIUM .................................................................................. 29 FIGURE 19, KNOWLEDGE SCORES IN FRANCE .......................................................................................... 30 FIGURE 20, TRAINING NEEDS SCORES IN FRANCE .................................................................................... 30 FIGURE 21, KNOWLEDGE SCORES IN THE NETHERLANDS ........................................................................ 31 FIGURE 22, TRAINING NEEDS SCORE IN THE NETHERLANDS .................................................................... 31 FIGURE 23, KNOWLEDGE SCORES IN ITALY ............................................................................................. 32 FIGURE 24, TRAINING NEEDS SCORES IN ITALY ....................................................................................... 32 FIGURE 25, PREFERENCE FOR TRAINING TYPE ......................................................................................... 34 Table of Tables TABLE 1, ORGANISATIONS SURVEYED .................................................................................................... 10 TABLE 2, ‘OTHER’ FOR QUESTION 6........................................................................................................ 11 TABLE 3, ‘OTHER’ FOR QUESTION 8........................................................................................................ 12 TABLE 4, ‘OTHER’ FOR QUESTION 7........................................................................................................ 14 TABLE 5, IMPORTANCE OF TRANSPORT FOR RESPONDENTS BUSINESS ..................................................... 14 TABLE 6, ‘OTHER’ FOR QUESTION 10...................................................................................................... 15 TABLE 7, ‘OTHER’ FOR QUESTION 12...................................................................................................... 18 TABLE 8, FREQUENCY TABLE FOR QUESTION 27 ..................................................................................... 19 TABLE 9, QUALIFICATIONS OF RESPONDENTS, QUESTION 15................................................................... 21 TABLE 10 TRANSPORT TRAINING ALREADY UNDERTAKEN, QUESTION 16 .............................................. 23 TABLE 11, TRAINING PLANNED, QUESTION 17 ........................................................................................ 24 TABLE 12, OPPORTUNITIES PERCEIVED FOR WORKING IN TRANSPORT .................................................... 33 TABLE 13, POTENTIAL TRAINEES FOR EATOMIUM .................................................................................. 33 TABLE 14, ‘OTHER’ FOR QUESTION 22.................................................................................................... 35

5

1 AIMS The survey was carried out to establish the knowledge gaps and training needs in the area of transport of the energy agencies, local government departments and a few other local transport actors.

2 OBJECTIVES

• To establish knowledge levels • To identify training needs • To estimate the demand for transport training

3 METHODOLOGY Primary research in the form of a questionnaire survey was chosen. Questionnaire surveys are a highly structured data collection technique whereby each respondent is asked much the same set of questions. The eAtomium project is supported under the EIE-STEER VKA10.1 “Strengthening the knowledge of local energy management agencies in the transport field”, the main target group being the SAVE funded Energy Agencies in the partner countries. The target group was energy agencies in UK & Ireland, France, local government in Belgium and Netherlands and a mix in Italy. The reason for the varying target groups is that although the prerequisite in Work Package 1 was to address Energy Agencies in the eAtomium countries, in certain countries, notably Belgium and Netherlands, too few Energy Agencies were in existence to give any real insight into the state of play in the respective countries. Therefore it was decided to address other local actors in such countries, principally local government departments. The target groups were a captive audience with a specific interest in the training that eAtomium will provide.

3.1 Questionnaire design A round table discussion was held in Brussels to establish the requirements of all partners for the questionnaire. Opinions were varied and the questionnaire was designed by SEA/Renue with the support of the other partners with all these views in mind. 5 drafts were sent to the eAtomium core consortium members, a final draft was sent to the task force, before a final version was ready. An excel version of the questionnaire was designed with the specific purpose to facilitate data collection, especially regarding quantitative aspects. The questionnaire was timed and it was estimated that it took between 15 and 20 minutes to complete. Translation was then undertaken by the eAtomium partners into their native language. Once translated, respective versions were distributed to the target groups within that country.

6

The questionnaire is attached in Appendix B and consisted of 4 question blocks. - block I: information about the organisation. Information was asked about the

size of the organisation, type, geographical area and main clients, sectors of actions, and type of services offered

- block II: the place of Transport & Mobility within the organisation; here we wanted to know the importance of transport & mobility within the organisation, their objectives within the field, and any barriers they perceived to action.

- Block III: existing knowledge and competencies in transport & mobility: qualifications, training undertaken and planned and knowledge gaps and aspirations.

- Block IV: personal details and personal barriers to transport & mobility action.

3.2 Distribution: The questionnaires were distributed and returned mostly via e-mail. This was to facilitate data collection and encourage more returns due to the ease which e-mails allow. The questionnaire was sent to: 78 = all the local energy agencies and EEACs in UK and Ireland 14 = all the SAVE Local Energy Agencies in France 300 = all the environmental administrations of the Flemish municipalities and

cities in Flanders (northern part of Belgium). 60 = 48 local government departments, 22 energy agencies in Italy 842 = Netherlands Follow-up calls or e-mails were made by partners in their respective countries to encourage responses and also provide clarity as to the aims and objectives of the eAtomium project. Questionnaires were then collected by the respective partners and sent to SEA/Renue for analysis. A comprehensive analysis for France was completed by Energie-Cités (see appendix C). Also for Flanders (Belgium) a more in depth analysis was made by Mobiel 21 (see appendix D). This was intended to gain an in-depth view of the primary target group within a specific country to see if it revealed any more insight into the knowledge gaps, aspirations and issues faced by SAVE energy agencies in the field of transport & mobility.

7

3.3 Methodology of analysis: mean scores and frequencies

3.3.1 Mean scores Knowledge scores and training needs scores were assigned to each respondent for each organisation according to how questions 18 and 19 of the questionnaire were answered. For each topic eg ‘alternative fuels’ a score between 0 and 3 was assigned. The scores were assigned as follows: Response Score Response Score Q.18 Knowledge score Q.19 Training needs score Very confident 3 Very useful 3 Mostly Confident 2 Useful 2 Not confident 1 Slightly useful 1 No knowledge 0 Not needed 0 A total for each topic (Alternative fuels, Alternative vehicles, Workplace travel plans, School travel planning, Personalised travel information, Public transport awareness and marketing, Teleworking & teleconferencing, Planning law, Rural transport, Car clubs & car sharing, Travel management through computer modelling) was then given by adding up the scores of all the respondents. The scores were then “normalised” in each country. An average knowledge and training needs score for a topic in each country is given to enable cross-country comparison giving each country equal weighting independent of the number of respondents per country. This average score is the sum of scores for that topic, divided by the number of returned questionnaires eg in UK & Ireland, for knowledge of ‘alternative fuels’: 27 total score divided by 20 questionnaires, gives an average score of 1.35.

3.3.2 Shares of total scores and frequency tables

For questions 6 to 10, two separate methodologies have been used to show similarities and disparities as clearly as possible. The share of total score methodology shows how the summed scores for all categories in each country is split between the categories. This shows the comparative share of scores for each category. A second methodology is used to analyse more closely how many organisations within each country attribute a high ‘importance’(scores of 3 and 4) to various categories. This method ignores low scores, thereby filtering the results to more specific targeting of receptive organisations. The frequencies are taken from the frequency table in Appendix A.

8

3.3.3 Other remarks In the case of missing answers for questions 18 and 19. As long as the questions were answered for certain topics ie some boxes ticked, if boxes for a certain topic were left unticked a score of 0 was allocated as otherwise it is expected that a higher box would have been ticked. Similarly in question 12, if no boxes were filled it was assumed that those areas were not considered significant barriers to transport action and a score of 0 was attributed. This was deemed appropriate as many respondents would rate say three of the categories eg ‘lack of knowledge’, ‘access to funding’, ‘lack of interest within target groups’, but leave the others blank, thereby assuming a score for 0 for those other categories. In the case of ‘Other’ for closed questions, responses are quoted in the relevant sections. Generally it was found that most comments were either already answered in the closed question responses or were irrelevant to the question. Graphical representation in the main report is complemented by a full frequency table in appendix A.

9

4 RESULTS

4.1 Response The survey met with a reasonable response, enough from which to undertake an analysis for the target groups. Figure 1 shows the spread of returned questionnaires from all partner countries. A total of 105 questionnaires were returned from a total of 1294 distributed. 38 questionnaires were returned completed from FLanders/Belgium, 26 from the Netherlands, 20 from UK & Ireland, 14 from France and 7 from Italy.

Returned Questionnaires

20

3814

26

7

UK & Ireland

Belgium

France

Netherlands

Italy

Figure 1, Returned questionnaires

Due to the absence of a good number energy agencies in the Netherlands and Belgium, the questionnaires were sent to local authorities and other organisations, whereas the UK and France focused on energy agencies. In Italy it was sent to a mixture of these target groups. There are many more local governments within a country than energy agencies, hence the larger numbers seen returned from Netherlands and Belgium1.

1 A futher in depth analysis of the Flemish/Belgian response revealed that some of the target group (of municipality sustainability administrators) sent the questionnaires to their colleagues mobility administrators!); This might have caused some bias on the results. This is to be analysed further during the in depth interviews with the sustainability administrators (WP2).

10

Type of Organisation UK & Ireland Belgium France Netherlands Italy

Energy Agency/EEAC 20 14 3 Government (local or regional) 38 26 4 Population 78 300 14 842 70 Response rate 30% 13% 100% 3% 10%

Table 1, Organisations surveyed

4.2 The Organisations

4.2.1 Client Base (Questions 6) Who are your main clients? Please rank the following types of client in order of importance (4 = most important to 0 = irrelevant)

Make-up of client base by country

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

UK & Ire

land

Belguim

Franc

e

Netherla

nds

Italy

Schools

Community Organisations

NGO

Local Authorities

Public Sector

Businesses

Households

Individuals

Figure 2, Client base by country

The results in Figure 2 drawn from question 6 of the questionnaire, show the split within each country of importance of client base. It shows that the relative make up of the client base within countries does not differ significantly in that all deal countries target groups deal with each area to some extent. This does not, however, differentiate particularly well between the importance of various categories between countries. To look at this Figure 3 shows the results of the number of organisations who answered 3 or 4 in response to question 6 ie considered the category ‘important’ or ‘very important’. This gives a better view as to exactly how many organisations (as a percentage of respondents within a country) considered particular clients for organisations within each country as “important” or “very important”.

11

Clients

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

UK & Ire

land

Belgium

Italy

Franc

e

Netherla

nds

perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

rat

ing

as

imp

orta

ntIndividualsHouseholdsBusinessesPublic SectorLocal AuthoritiesNGOCommunity OrganisationsSchools

Figure 3, client base, frequency of scores of 3 or more

Figure 3 gives fairly similar results to Figure 2 but enable a closer examination of to what degree clients within the each country are considered as genuinely important. These results are encouraging as they suggest that the training strategy is most likely to be transferable, as the training can be geared to the same client base for trainees across the partner countries. Although this need not necessarily be the case and for example ‘households’ could be focused on in the UK & Ireland, with ‘public sector’ the focus in the Netherlands. ‘Other’ Country No of Respondents European Partners UK & Ireland 1 Farmers France 2

Table 2, ‘Other’ for question 6

12

4.2.2 Areas of work (Question 7) What are your organisation's current sectors of activities? Please rank the following in order of importance (4 = most important to 0 = irrelevant

Areas of work, by country

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

UK & Ir

eland

Belgium

Franc

e

Nether

lands Ita

ly

ProjectmanagementResearch

Policy making

Consultancy

Public Advice &EducationRaisingawareness

Figure 4, Areas of work, by countryFigure 4 shows results to question 8 of the questionnaire. It is interesting to see how respondents in all countries work across the board in all fields mentioned. ‘Other’ Country No of Respondents Presentations and Exhibitions UK & Ireland 1 Energy Purchasing & Contract Management UK & Ireland 1 Incident Management Netherlands 1 Maintenance of infrastructure Netherlands 2


13

4.3 Transport and Mobility within organisations

4.3.1 Transport Sector (Question 7 & 9) (7) What are your organisation's current sectors of activities? Please rank the following in order of importance (4 = most important to 0 = irrelevant)

(9) How important is the field of transport & mobility within your organisation?

Importance of sectors involved in,by country

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

UK & Ir

eland

Belgium

Franc

e

Netherlan

dsIta

ly

Other renewable energy systems (RES)GeothermalPhotovoltaicsHydropowerBiomass & bioenergyDirect solarWindIndustryTransportRational use of energy (RUE)

Figure 5, Importance of sectors involved in, by country

The results of question 7 are shown in Figure 5 showing that the importance of the sectors involved vary more than the client base does between countries. All countries do at least seem to work in most areas. Most significant is the demonstration that the organisations in Netherlands and Italy work more in transport and mobility than the organisations surveyed in UK & Ireland, Belgium and France.

Sectors

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

UK & Ire

land

Belgium

Italy

Franc

e

Netherla

nds

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s ra

ting

as

impo

rtan

t

Rational use of energy (RUE)

Transport

Industry

Wind

Direct solar

Biomass & bioenergy

Hydropower

Photovoltaics

Other renewable energysystems (RES)

Figure 6, sectors, frequency of score of 3 or more

14

This is reiterated using alternative representation of results in Figure 6 which shows the number of organisations who answered 3 or 4 in response to question 10 ie considered the category ‘important’ or ‘very important’. This gives a better view as to exactly how many organisations within each country (as a percentage of respondents within a country) considered particular sectors as “important” or “very important”. Other sectors mentioned are shown in Table 4: ‘Other’ Country No of Respondents CHP UK & Ireland 1 Finance France 1 Waste Management Netherlands

& Belgium 2


Importance of Transport UK &

Ireland Belgium France Netherlands Italy

no. of employees working in transport/mobility per org

5 5 1 45 3

% of your organisation's business 5 4 8 19 23

Table 5, Importance of transport for respondents business

Table 5, from question 9, shows that in the Netherlands and Italy transport & mobility does plays a much bigger role in the respondent organisations than in the other countries.

4.3.2 Mission of organisations within Transport & Mobility (Question 10) What is the mission of your organisation regarding transport & mobility (if any)? Please rank your organisation's objectives in order of importance (4 = most important to 0 = irrelevant)

Figure 7, Mission of organisations, by country

Mission of organisations, by country

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

UK & Ire

land

Belgium

France

Netherl

ands Ita

ly

Decreasing greenhouse gasemissions

Improving local air quality

Improving health

Reducing congestion

Encouragement of modal shift

Increased mobility

15

Figure 7 shows the results of question 10 of the questionnaire. It compares the goals of the organisations with regard to transport and mobility in the various countries, which shows that apart from ‘increased mobility’ in France and Italy, most of the organisations share similar objectives. Other missions mentioned are shown in Table 6, . Figure 8 shows the results of the number of organisations who answered 3 or 4 in response to question 10 ie considered the category ‘important’ or ‘very important’. This gives a better view as to exactly how many organisations (as a percentage of respondents within a country) considered particular missions within each country as “important” or “very important”. It ignores scores of less than 3 and gives a similar picture to Figure 7, although shows the relative importance of various missions between different countries better than Figure 7.

Mission

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

UK & Ir

eland

Belgium Ita

ly

France

Nether

lands

perc

enta

ge o

f re

spon

dent

s ra

ting

as

impo

rtan

t

Increased mobility

Encouragement of modal shift

Reducing congestion

Improving health

Improving local air quality

Decreasing greenhouse gasemissions

Figure 8, mission, frequency of scores of 3 or more

‘Other’ Country No of Respondents Safety Netherlands 2 Local employment UK & Ireland 1 Awareness raising Belgium 1 Traffic safety Belgium 2 Road network management Belgium 1


16

4.3.3 Barriers to transport action (Questions 12 & 27)

(12) If your organisation is currently not (or only sporadically) dealing with transport & mobility, what are the reasons for this? Please rank the following in order of importance (4 = most important to 0 = irrelevant)

(17) What transport & mobility training are you or your colleagues currently planning to undertake (if any)?

Barriers to Transport ActionUK & Ireland

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

aver

age

caus

e fo

r in

acti

vity

sco

re

Lack of knowledge

Access to funding fortransport/mobility projectsLack of interest withinorganisationLack of interest amongsttarget groupsCompetition for transport andmobility work

Barriers to Transport Action

France

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

aver

age

cau

se f

or

inac

tivi

ty

sco

re

Barriers to Transport ActionBelgium

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

aver

age

cau

se fo

r in

acti

vity

sc

ore

Barriers to Transport ActionNetherlands

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

aver

age

caus

e fo

r ina

ctiv

ity s

core

Barriers to Transport ActionItaly

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

av

era

ge

ca

us

e f

or

ina

cti

vit

y s

co

re

Figure 9, barriers to transport action

17

The charts in Figure 9 show the results of question 12 in which respondents were asked to rate the causes of inactivity in order of importance to transport actions: ‘Lack of knowledge’, ‘Access to funding for transport/mobility projects’, ‘Lack of interest within organisation’, ‘Lack of interest amongst target groups’ and ‘Competition for transport and mobility work’. The charts are scaled identically according by summing the score (0 to 4 scale of importance) from the topics (Lack of knowledge, Access to funding for transport/mobility projects, Lack of interest within organisation, Lack of interest amongst target groups, Competition for transport and mobility work) and dividing it by the number of respondents. This makes comparison between countries possible. It is clear that the Netherlands and Belgium show less intense barriers than the other countries in general. Particularly in the Netherlands they do not perceive many barriers to transport and mobility work. Within these countries all barriers play a small part, except for competition which is perceived to be a negligible barrier. In France, Italy and UK & Ireland ‘Lack of interest within organisation’, ‘Lack of interest amongst target groups’, and ‘Competition for transport and mobility work’ have a small impact in terms of barriers to transport action, but very notably, it’s ‘lack of knowledge’ which restricts them most in these countries. ‘Access to funding for transport/mobility projects’ is also an important barrier in UK & Ireland and Italy, but less so in France.

Importance of barriers to transport action

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

Lack of knowledge Access to f unding f ortransport/mobility

projects

Lack of interest withinorganisation

Lack of interestamongst target groups

Competition f ortransport and mobility

work

Barriers

ItalyNetherlandsFranceBelgiumUK & Ireland

Figure 10, overall importance of barriers to transport action

Figure 10 shows the combined average scores for each barrier. Looking collectively it is clearer that ‘Lack of knowledge’ and ‘Access to funding for transport/mobility project’ are the main barriers, although all barriers feature to some extent. The importance of the comparisons between the countries here depends on whether we focus on the scale of the barriers overall, or their relative importance within countries. Table 7 shows other barriers mentioned in question 12.

18

‘Other’ Country No of Respondents No real replacement for car UK & Ireland 1 Poor centralisation Italy 1 Lack of resources Italy 1 Lack of personnel/time Netherlands 1 Not well place France 1


Question 27 examines the personal barriers to transport action and is therefore relevant to this section. There is some overlap on the barriers mentioned but it has also brought to light other issues that were not addressed in question 12. A frequency table of responses is shown below in Table 8.

Factors Number of respondents

UK & Ireland Lack of awareness 1 Lack of knowledge 3 Lack of training 1 Lack of public interest 1 Lack of government initiative 1 Lack of resources 7 Lack of time 4 Not a traditional part of organisations work 1 Council already has transport department 1 Car ownership is a difficult topic to deal with (responsible car use) 1 NONE OR BLANK 4 Factors Number of

respondents Belgium Too small a part of business 1 Lack of time 5 Lack of interest in target groups 1 Lack of interest in staff 1 Lack of support 4 Lack of knowledge 3 Too many other priorities 1 Costs 2 Not a traditional part of organisations work 1 NONE OR BLANK 24

19

Factors Number of

respondents France Competition with research consultancy (e.g. on alternative fuels) 3 EA’s do not have enough knowledge/experience/competence on the topic (e.g. on alternative fuels)

8

Not the relevant organisation to deal with Urban Transport Plans, etc., but the right body to provide advice to the general public. It is easier for us to continue the work in the energy and renewable energy sources fields than develop a new activity in the transport sector

1

Lack of or weak demand 2 Lack of time 3 Car ownership is a difficult topic to deal with (responsible car use) 2 Lack of knowledge of good practice cases 1 The certainty to interest people and make them participate to the project 1 EA’s do not really know the transport challenges 2 It is difficult to propose the topic to the rural area 1 EA’s do not know the funding possibilities 1 It is a risk for elected people 1 Projects are too long 1 Difficult to implement changes 1 Local authorities have not always the transport competence in their hands (group of local authorities in competition with the local authority)

1

NONE OR BLANK 3 Factors Number of

respondents Netherlands Too small a part of business 2 Lack of time 5 Lack of resources 3 Lack of knowledge 1 Costs 1 Pressure 1 NONE OR BLANK 22 Factors Number of

respondents Italy Poor policy definitions 1 Lack of resources 2 Job already done by other organisations 1 NONE OR BLANK 3

Table 8, Frequency table for question 27

20

Clearly there are barriers perceived by individuals that prevent them from taking local transport action. In UK & Ireland the most common barriers are ‘lack of resources’(7) and ‘lack of time’(4). In Belgium it’s ‘lack of time’(5) and ‘lack of support’(4). In France it’s ‘lack of knowledge’(8), ‘lack of time’(3) and ‘competition’(3). In Netherlands it’s ‘lack of time’(5) and ‘lack of resources’(3). In Italy it’s ‘lack of resources’(2). The most candid organisations seem to be in France and UK & Ireland with a lot of various reasons given. ‘Lack of time’ available seems to be the principle obstacle with 17 respondents mentioning it in total. These are important issues when looking at persuading organisations to undertake training and the business case should look closely at these aspects. Barriers mentioned in question 27 are not as significant in Belgium and Netherlands with a high ratio of respondents 24:38 and 22:26 not specifying any barriers in question 27. This reflects the answers to question 12 shown in Figure 9 whereby barriers to transport action are less pervasive in Belgium and the Netherlands.

4.4 Qualifications & Training

4.4.1 Qualifications and transport & mobility training undertaken (Questions 15,16 & 17)

The results from questions 15 and 16 are hard to compare between countries and even within countries as qualifications and training vary to such a large extent. The results are best seen in a frequency table for each country as shown in Table 9 and Table 10.

4.4.1.1 Question 15 What qualifications (e.g. degree, postgraduate qualifications) do you or your colleagues working in transport & mobility have?

UK & Ireland Qualification On the total number of

respondents employees

MSc Engineering 1 MSc Transport Planning 1 MSc Energy Economics 1 MSc Geography 1 MSc Landuse/ Planning 1 BSc Engineering 1 BSc Business 1 BSc Geological Engineering 1 BSc Social Sciences 1 MSc Renewable Energy 1 Registered Architect 1

21

Belgium Qualification On the total number of

respondents employees

MSc Geography 1 Engineering degree 2 Environmental Law 2 BSc Chemistry 1 BSc Retail Sciences 1 BSc Political sciences 2 BSc Environmental Care 2 A2 technics 1 France

Qualification On the total number of respondents employees

Engineer specialised in the energy field 5 European Degree “Eco advice” 1 High level Diploma in energy management or urban planning 4 Non specialised Degree 6 DUT HND 1 DUT Génie civil option climatique + DU Innovation, communication, entreprises DUT Génie Thermique et Energie

1

No special qualification 3 Netherlands


Many years of experience in transport & mobility 2 Italy


Law degree 1 Engineering degree 2 Political Sciences degree 1 Environment and Territory degree 1 Architecture degree 1 Chemical egineer 1 Unspecified degree 3

Table 9, Qualifications of respondents, question 15

As can be seen from the Table 9. There are a very large variety of different qualifications for the target group. A lot of questionnaires did not have responses for question 15 or their responses did not specify qualifications. What is clear from the above results is that the target audience has very little or no transport specific academic qualifications.

22

4.4.1.2 Question 16 What transport & mobility training have you or your colleagues already undertaken (if any)?

UK & Ireland Organiser of the topic

Training format

Number of respondents

Topic

Travel Plan Training 1 Car clubs workshop 1 various 1 Belgium Organiser of the

topic Training format


Topic

Mobility Workshop 1 Mobility plans VUB (1) LV(1) workshop 3 Bike pooling, awareness and ‘flanking’ NSV 1 Traffic science Workshop,

conference, lectures

3

Information evening on mobility B155ACV 1 Traffic safety LV (1) 2 Provincial info days LV (1) 2 France Organiser of the



Topic

Engine efficiency, biofuels, fuel cell vehicles 1 No specific education, only a simple awareness at the beginning of the training

1

Urban Transport and Environment within the “Espaces Info Energies" activities

ADEME 6

Personal research 1 Nothing for the moment 1 No 6 Netherlands Organiser of the



Topic

Parking, traffic & transport 1 Transport planning Workshop 2 Techniques in traffic management 1 New Driving Workshop 1 Parking policy 1 Elementary transport studies 1 City construction and movement Workshop 1 CROW 1 Traffic and transport economy Written

course 1

NHTV study Breda inter-national university

1

23

Italy Organiser of the



Topic

Mobility Management Training Euromobility (for some)

Conferences and seminars

4

Public Transport Seminars, workshop

Call-a-ride training 1 Road Safety 1 Scholastic and Company mobility management 1

Table 10 Transport training already undertaken, Question 16

From Table 10, the least training specified seems to be in UK & Ireland. All other countries have organisations with some form of training although it appears basic, inconsistent and not broadly spread over all organisations within countries (with the possible exception of the ADEME training in France). All other respondents either answered ‘none’ or blank. The target audience does, on the whole, not have an existing strong grounding in transport and mobility training.

4.4.1.3 Question 17 What transport & mobility training are you or your colleagues currently planning to undertake (if any)?

UK & Ireland Training format Number of

respondents Topic

Travelwise, ACT conference 1 Belgium Training format Number of

respondents Topic

Traffic Science course 2 France Training format Number of

respondents Topic

Mobility management of the agents in companies and local authorities

1

Mobility in rural areas 1 Awareness on energy management in rural areas Biofuels Mobility management

1

No training planned even if desired 4 A training organised by ADEME for the “Espaces Info Energies”

1

One training planned thanks to EU projects 1 Alternative vehicles and alternative fuels 1

24

Netherlands Training format Number of

respondents Topic

Study (non-specific) 1 Italy Training format Number of

respondents Topic

Innovation in Transport Services 1 Transport training (unspecific) Seminars,

workshop 2

Table 11, Training planned, question 17

Table 11, showing responses to question 17, shows that not much training is currently planned across the network.

25

4.5 Topics of Knowledge & Training Needs Although different target groups it is useful to look at the eAtomium network as a whole. Individual country’s situations are then examined in section 4.5.3. The analysis focuses on the results from questions 18 and 19 of the questionnaire as these are the core questions to establish the baseline situation in terms of existing knowledge as specified in Work Package 1.

4.5.1 Overall knowledge levels (Question 18) How confident would you or your colleagues feel in providing advice on these subjects?

Total Exisiting Knowledge scores by country

05

1015202530

UK & Irelan

d

Belgium

Fran

ce

Netherland

sIta

lysu

m o

f a

ve

rag

e k

no

wle

dg

e

sc

ore

s

Travel management through computer modelling Car clubs & car sharingRural transportPlanning lawTeleworking & teleconferencingPublic transport awareness and marketingPersonalised travel informationSchool travel planningWorkplace travel plansAlternative vehiclesAlternative fuels

Figure 11, Knowledge scores by country

By country looking at Figure 11 the Netherlands seems to have the highest level of knowledge amongst its organisations in the areas of transport and mobility, with France a close second and Italy a close third. The UK & Ireland and Belgium appear further behind. Total knowledge scores are worked out by summing the average knowledge scores for each topic in each country. The maximum possible score is 33 (3 (max possible average knowledge score for a topic) times 11(number of topics)).

26

Total existing knowledge score by topic

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

Alterna

tive fu

els

Altern

ative

vehic

les

Workp

lace tra

vel p

lans

School

trave

l plan

ning

Person

alised t

ravel

inform

ation

Public

transp

ort aware

ness

and m

arketi

ng

Telework

ing &

telec

onfer

encing

Plannin

g law

Rural tra

nspo

rt

Car club

s & ca

r sha

ring

Trave

l man

agem

ent th

roug

h compu

ter m

odellin

g

sum

of a

vera

ge k

now

ledg

e sc

ores


Figure 12, Knowledge score, by topic

Figure 12 shows the sum of the average scores for each topic and hence is the “Total Knowledge Score” in each topic for the entire sample. The maximum possible score would be 12 (3 (maximum average knowledge score) times 4 (number of countries)). From the above graph it is clear that knowledge gaps exist, to some considerable degree in all topics. The difficulty is deciphering which topics are in more need of training than others as there seems to be a very even knowledge spread over the topics, with the exception of ‘teleworking and teleconferencing’ and ‘travel modelling through computer modelling’ which score noticeably less than the other topics.

27

4.5.2 Overall training needs (Question 19) In which of these areas would you find training useful?

Total Training needs scores by country

05

1015202530

UK & Ir

eland

Belgium

Fran

ce

Nethe

rland

sIta

lysum

of

aver

aget

rain

ing

nee

ds

sco

res

Travel management through computer modelling Car clubs & car sharingRural transportPlanning lawTeleworking & teleconferencingPublic transport awareness and marketingPersonalised travel informationSchool travel planningWorkplace travel plansAlternative vehiclesAlternative fuels

Figure 13, Training needs scores by country

Figure 13 demonstrates the respondents’ stated need for training by country in the various topic areas. Clearly in the Netherlands, the higher level of knowledge means they are in need of less training. However, in France and Italy where knowledge is higher than in Belgium they see a greater need for training. The UK shows overall a high need corresponding to its larger knowledge gap. Total training needs scores are worked out by summing the average scores for each topic. The maximum possible score is 33 (3 (max possible average knowledge score for a topic) times 11 (number of topics)).

Total training needs score by topic

02468

101214

Altern

ative

fuels

Altern

ative

vehic

les

Workp

lace tr

avel

plans

School

trave

l plan

ning

Person

alised

trav

el inf

ormatio

n

Public

tran

sport a

warene

ss an

d mark

eting

Telework

ing &

telec

onfer

encing

Plannin

g law

Rural tr

ansp

ort

Car club

s & ca

r sha

ring

Trave

l man

agem

ent th

roug

h compu

ter ...su

m o

f ave

rage

trai

nin

g n

eed

s sc

ore

s


Figure 14, Training needs score, by topic

Looking by topic we get the output shown in Figure 14.

28

The areas of training needs stated by respondents according to usefulness are broadly spread across the topics. This indicates that across the eAtomium network education in all areas would be useful to trainees in the organisations interviewed. This appears to be the case for all countries, looking at the split in Figure 14, but there follows a deeper country by country look at results.

4.5.3 Identifying needs and knowledge by country The degree by which eAtomium can be tailor-made to countries will depend on the differing knowledge gaps and topics where training is needed. A full frequency table representation is available in Appendix A.

4.5.3.1 UK & Ireland

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Areas of existing transport knowledge

Alternative fuels

Alternative vehicles

Workplace travel plans

School travel planning

Personalised travel information

Public transport awareness and marketing

Teleworking & teleconferencing

Planning law

Rural transport

Car clubs & car sharing

Travel management through computermodelling

Figure 15, knowledge scores in UK & Ireland

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Areas of Training Needs

Alternative fuels







Planning law

Rural transport


Travel management through computer modelling

Figure 16, training needs scores in UK & Ireland

29

Figure 15 and Figure 16 are the average knowledge and training needs scores for each topic in UK & Ireland. Maximum score would be 3.

Although as can be seen from Figure 15, knowledge varies from a reasonable confidence in ‘alternative fuels’ to very little knowledge in ‘travel management through computer modelling’. All topic areas have large knowledge gaps and there is scope for training in all areas. As to in which topics to train, it appears that there is equal need in all areas from looking at Figure 16.

4.5.3.2 Belgium

00.5

11.5

22.5

3


Alternative Fuels

Alternative Vehicles

Workplace Travel Plans

School Travel Plans

Personlised travel information


Teleworking and Teleconferencing

Planning Law

Rural Transport

Car clubs and car sharing


Figure 17, knowledge scores in Belgium

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3


Alternative Fuels



School Travel Plans




Planning Law

Rural Transport



Figure 18, training needs scores in Belgium

Figure 17 and Figure 18 are the average knowledge and training needs scores for each topic in Belgium. Maximum score would be 3.

30

From Figure 17 we can see there is a significant knowledge gap in all areas, although particularly marked in ‘teleworking and teleconferencing’ and ‘travel management through computer modelling’. ‘Public transport awareness and marketing’ and ‘planning law’ have the highest scores.

Training needs in Figure 18 seem to be spread across topics and appear unrelated to knowledge gaps. The topics that are of least interest to respondents for training are: ‘personalised travel information’, ‘teleworking and teleconferencing’, ‘rural transport’ and ‘travel management through computer modelling’.2

4.5.3.3 France

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3


Alternative fuels





Public transport awareness andmarketingTeleworking & teleconferencing

Planning law

Rural transport



Figure 19, knowledge scores in France

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Areas of Training NeedsAlternative fuels






Planning law

Rural transport



Figure 20, training needs scores in France

2 It could be that th etarget group is not familiar with some of the terminology used in the questionnaire (e.g. personalised travel information (see annex D for more in depth analysis and to be explored further in in depth interviews with the targetgroup.)

31

Figure 19 and Figure 20 are the average knowledge and training needs scores for each topic in France. Maximum score would be 3.

The french respondents have good knowledge scores spread across the topics, with the exception of ‘travel management through computer modelling’,‘teleworking and teleconferencing’ and ‘planning law’. They express a need for training in most areas too although to a lesser degree in ‘travel management through computer modelling’, ‘teleworking and teleconferencing’ and ‘personalised travel information’.

4.5.3.4 Netherlands

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00


Alternative Fuels



School Travel Plans




Planning Law

Rural Transport



Figure 21, knowledge scores in the Netherlands

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3


Alternative Fuels



School Travel Plans




Planning Law

Rural Transport



Figure 22, training needs score in the Netherlands

32

Figure 21 and Figure 22 are the average knowledge and training needs scores for each topic in the Netherlands. Maximum score would be 3.

‘Public transport awareness and marketing’ and ‘planning law’ have the highest scores in terms of knowledge of areas with ‘rural transport’ and ‘school travel plans’ not far behind. Significant knowledge gaps exist in all other topics. As far as training needed, there is considerably high needs in all topic areas, except ‘travel management through computer modelling’, ‘teleworking and teleconferencing’, ‘rural transport’ and ‘personalised travel information’

4.5.3.5 Italy

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3


Alternative fuels






Planning law

Rural transport



Figure 23, knowledge scores in Italy

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3


Alternative fuels






Planning law

Rural transport



Figure 24, training needs scores in Italy

A reasonable level of knowledge is shown amongst the Italian respondents in Figure 23. ‘Teleworking and Teleconferencing’, ‘Rural Transport’ and ‘Travel management through computer modelling’ are the exceptions. Training needs were still expressed across the

33

spectrum of topics however, with significant, but slightly less demand in the areas of ‘workplace travel plans’ and ‘personalised travel information’.

4.6 Demand for Training and Preferences

4.6.1 Training demand (Question 13 & 23) (13) Do you see any opportunities to (continue to) work in the field of transport & mobility in the future?

(23) How many employees within your organisation would be interested in transport & mobility training?

Drawing on the results from 13 and 23, Table 12 and Table 13, reveal a strong demand for transport and mobility training and opportunities foreseen in the field of transport and mobility. The percentages were calculated as a proportion of those respondents who said “yes” to seeing opportunities for in working in transport and mobility in the future (question 13). UK & Ireland Belgium France Netherlands Italy 100% 63% 79% 81% 86%

Table 12, Opportunities perceived for working in transport

The number of employees wishing for training specified in question 23 differs: UK & Ireland Belgium France Netherlands Italy No per organisation 9.15 1.63 2.07 20.81 3.14 Total number 183 62 29 541 8

Table 13, Potential trainees for eAtomium

A total 821 recipients were suggested for training in total. This is far beyond the scope of eAtomium, and does appear to be somewhat exaggerated. However, even if we took out the 450 quoted by 2 of the Dutch respondents, which seems unrealistic, we are still left with over 300 potential trainees. If only a percentage of the numbers quoted actually undertake training, there will still be a significant demand for the eAtomium training. Demand appears greatest in UK & Ireland and Netherlands, although there is plenty of scope too in the other countries.

34

4.6.2 Training Preferences (Question 22) What form(s) would you prefer transport and mobility training to take? Please rank the following in order of preference (4 = highest preference, 0 = lowest)

Preference for Training Types

UK & Ireland

Individual tutoring

4% Lectures 13%

Workshops 23%

Training Manuals

16% CD Roms

11%

Website assistance

14%

Case Studies

19%

Preference for Training Types Italy

Individual tutoring

9% Lectures

13%

Workshops 16%

Training Manuals

16% CD Roms 9%

Website assistance

16%

Case Studies

21%

Preference for Training Types Netherland

s Individual tutoring 7% Lecture

s 16%

Workshops 20%

CD Roms 12%

Website assistance 16%

Case Studies 17%

Training Manuals 12%

Preference for Training Types Belgium

Individual tutoring

3% Lectures 18%

Workshops 23% Training

Manuals 10%

CD Roms 10%

Website assistance

20%

Case Studies

16%


France

Individual tutoring

6% Lectures 12%

Workshops 17%

Training Manuals

16% CD Roms

14%

Website assistance

14%

Case Studies 21%

Preference for Training Types All

Countries

Individual tutoring

5% Lectures

14% Workshops 20%

Training Manuals 14%

CD Roms 12%

Website assistance

16%

Case Studies

19%

Figure 25, Preference for training type

35

Figure 25 shows preference for type of training. Looking at all countries together it is clear that workshops (20%) and case studies (19%), as planned by eAtomium are the favourite form of training. Web assistance (16%), Lectures (14%) and training manuals (14%) next preference with individual tutoring and CD roms, less popular. There seems to be little variation between countries in terms of preference for types of training. Others mentioned in question 22 are: ‘Other’ Country No of Respondents Initial workshop- supported working – nominated support- occasional visits

UK & Ireland 1

Email Netherlands 1


36

5 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS A good response rate from the eAtomium countries gives a good sample from which to analyse the data. In some cases the sample is a large percentage of the population, for example, in the case of France, the entire population has been sampled. In other countries it is just a small sample, but enough data is available to give a good first overview. Considering that those organisations which responded to the questionnaire are the ones most likely to be open to receiving training, we can be fairly confident that we have a good idea about the needs and necessities to work with in next steps of the eAtomium project. Many of the conclusions a stated below will be deepened by in-depth interviews with key representatives of the target group. Individuals, Community organisations, NGOs, local authorities, public sector, businesses, households are all clients of the organisations surveyed. It could be deduced that client bases do not differ significantly across countries when looking at total scores for client base. Having said this the number of organisations giving a high importance to the various clients differs more significantly within each country (see Figure 3). It is up to the consortium to decide whether there is enough difference between countries to alter the approach for respective countries or whether there is enough general interest in similar areas to have a generic strategy. This has implications for the eAtomium training. If it is to achieve the ultimate aim of the European Commission which is eventually to see the greater uptake of local transport actions by the organisations that receive training, then the client base for those transport action must always be the focus. The mission objectives of organisations sampled are assessed for all countries in the survey. ‘Reducing greenhouse gas emissions’, ‘improving local air quality’, ‘improving health’, ‘encouragement of modal shift’, ‘reducing congestion’ and ‘increased mobility’ are all important goals in transport and mobility for the respondents in each country, with the exception of ‘increased mobility’ in France and Italy. Figure 8 gives a slightly more in-depth picture of the importance of the various missions. The eAtomium training will need to take all these factors on board. In both these areas though, client base, and mission objectives, eAtomium can have a generic strategy that is transferable across countries, or country-specific strategies in this area, if deemed more appropriate. It was noted with the answers to question 7 in Figure 5 that all organisations surveyed work in most areas ‘Rational use of energy (RUE),’ ‘Transport’, ‘Industry’, ‘Wind’, ‘Direct solar’, ‘Biomass & bioenergy’, ‘Hydropower’, ‘Photovoltaics’, and ‘Geothermal’, however organisations in Italy and the Netherlands seem to have more important transport and mobility departments. This could be due to the different target groups, ie local authorities in Belgium and Netherlands, and a mix in Italy. Although Belgium is somewhat of an anomaly, as it shows a higher importance of transport relative to other sectors within the country (Figure 6) but in Figure 5 shows scores very similar to UK & Ireland and France in terms of importance compared with other countries. However these differences do not necessarily affect the training as long as there is a general need for more training in the area of transport and mobility.

37

Barriers to transport action seem much smaller in Belgium and Netherlands and this is most likely to be due to the target groups, who already work and are successful in the areas of transport and mobility (see Figure 9, barriers to transport action). If, for arguments sake, 1 is used as the threshold over which to address causes of inactivity in transport and mobility in a specific country, then the two barriers to address would be ‘Lack of Knowledge’ in UK & Ireland, France and Italy and ‘Access to funding for transport/mobility projects’ in UK & Ireland and Italy. This ties in with Figure 10 where ‘Lack of Knowledge’ and ‘Access to funding for transport/mobility projects’ are collectively the two areas which are considered to be the biggest barriers to transport action. The answers to question 27 of the questionnaire, depicted in Table 8 overlaps question 12 in terms of barriers to transport action, yet is asked more on a personal level. This has brought to light more barriers such as ‘lack of time’, issues which the eAtomium training will have to address in its approach to training the clients. The decision as to which barriers will be prioritised for addressing will have to be decided by the eAtomium core partners. Looking across all countries in terms of the totals, UK & Ireland and Belgium have lower stated knowledge overall than Netherlands, Italy and France (Figure 11). However the differences are not that remarkable and the fact is that there is a significant knowledge gap in all countries, means that training could be beneficial across countries and in all target groups. To add to this, there is a high level of interest in working in transport and mobility across all respondents. In all countries over 60% of respondents believed that there were opportunities for them working in transport and mobility. To back this up, and encouraging for eAtomium, a total of 821 potential trainees were suggested for the training. However this number was heavily influenced by 450 potential trainees quoted in the Netherlands. It can still be confidently said that, looking at Table 13, that at least 1 person from each organisation will be interested in training. The results show that despite there being very little training actually planned in the field of transport and mobility, significant numbers are actually interested in receiving training and there is a need and desire for training. As to which topics to train in it is less clear. Looking at the totally (Figure 14) it is very difficult to say over the network which areas to train in. There is a fairly even spread across all topics, which means that all areas could be trained in with beneficial results. If any choice is to be made from these results, one possibility is for a threshold of a score of 8 or above in Figure 14 to be decided as topics with enough interest to provide training in. This would rule out ‘personalised travel information’, ‘teleworking & teleconferencing’, ‘rural transport’ and ‘travel management through computer modelling’. However, as no topic has a score of 10 or more and none of the excluded ones a score under 7, it may be too close to call from these results alone. Further examination of individual countries in terms of their specific needs may be required to be undertaken by the eAtomium task force. Despite an evident knowledge gap in both ‘teleworking & teleconferencing’ and ‘travel management through computer modelling’, there is not the perceived need amongst respondents for training in these areas, looking collectively. It is quite likely that knowledge levels are low in these areas due to simple lack of interest in these areas. It appears that perceived training needs are not directly positively related to the areas in which the largest knowledge gaps are as may have been expected. Training needs are most probably influenced by many other factors, such as interest in the topics, potential

38

for work in topic areas etc. This kind of multivariate analysis was beyond the scope of this survey. Looking at individual countries’ training needs as opposed to the results as a whole, the picture is slightly clearer. For Belgium and Netherlands ‘Public transport awareness and marketing’ and ‘planning law’ have the highest scores with scores of under 1 for training ‘personalised travel information’, ‘teleworking & teleconferencing’, ‘rural transport’ and ‘travel management through computer modelling’ (a score of under 1 would translate as an average score of less than being ‘slightly useful’ on question 19 of the questionnaire). Training in these areas would therefore generally be considered of little value. This also corresponds to the overall picture in Figure 14, where the same four topics scored lowest in total across all countries. However in the UK & Ireland, Italy and France, no topics have an average score of less than 1, leaving the decision as to topics for training more difficult. This is particularly evident in the UK & Ireland, where all topics have a very even score. The different target groups will therefore almost certainly require different training programmes. In an attempt to gain a clearer picture on which topics to train in for the sake of this analysis, an effort was made to examine those responses that expressed a high level of need ie those that would find training ‘useful’ or ‘very useful’ (using the methodology explained in section 3.3.2). The results of this test were did not however assist in analysis, as they were either almost identical, or even less revealing than the original analysis. As to what nature the training should take, it is somewhat easier to decide than the decision to be made on topics. There is a clear consensus as to the type of training preferred, explained in Section 4.6.2. It is clear that workshops and case studies are favourite training methods with the web assistance and training manuals being also popular. The potential trainees do generally not have a history of transport qualifications, which could be considered quite natural amongst energy professionals. Training in transport and mobility is inconsistent and not comprehensive in any of the countries, and neither are important steps planned at present to further training in this area.

39

6 CONCLUSIONS

A relatively high questionnaire response rate has given eAtomium the opportunity to undertake an analysis on the results. The results will be used as one of the tools to assess the training strategy, programme and topics for transport and mobility of the eAtomium project.

In general, some similarity in results was found across countries, such as client base and mission objectives, however others, in particular areas for training needs, existing knowledge and perceived barriers to action are markedly different between countries. A lot of this is due to the different target groups (energy agencies for France and UK & Ireland, local government for Netherlands and Belgium and a mix, but predominantly local government in Italy), but some results are simply country specific.

The indirect beneficiaries from the training will be all those clients whom the local transport actors provide services for. The results show that the make up of the client base of respondents does not differ too much between countries, all service ‘Individuals’, ‘community organisations’, ‘NGOs’, ‘Local Authorities’ etc. This means that the focus of the training with regard to eventual transport and mobility action could be generic in terms of what sectors it is aimed at, and individual focus may not be needed per country. This decision will need to be reached by the consortium as to whether there is sufficient scope and necessity to alter the training focus and strategy to account for the difference that there may be between client base in different countries, or whether to follow a generic, transferable strategy. The spectrum of client base must in addition be taken into consideration by eAtomium due to the broad client base mix across each country. For example, training to assist just local government initiatives will leave a large sector of the client base ignored.

The most clear and encouraging information to come from the questionnaire is the high level of latent demand for the eAtomium training, with a very high stated potential for training in the organisations involved in the survey. In particular the Netherlands expressed a very high demand. Across the countries, there is a stated demand for at least one person per organisation to receive training.

Figure 14 shows that, in theory, all areas could actually be trained in. This is unlikely to be feasible and it is necessary to find topics that may be preferable to others. In Belgium and Netherlands the topics ‘travel management through computer modelling’, ‘teleworking and teleconferencing’, ‘rural transport’ and ‘personalised travel information’ can be legitimately excluded. There is more difficulty in the UK & Ireland, Italy and France where ruling out topics is difficult due to the even spread of stated training needs in all areas. It is recommended that other methods be used for decision-making as to which topics are to be covered in these countries. For example if ‘rural transport’ is left out in France due to a decision based on the overall totals across countries, then a topic for which there is a high demand in a specific country (probably with rural energy agencies), will be ignored. In contrast the type of training preferred is fairly consistent

40

across all countries with workshops and case studies a definite priority for training, with scope for training manuals and web assistance alongside.

It is unsurprising that Netherlands & Belgium have generally similar results, whereas UK & Ireland and France have similarities, as the target groups were different between the two sets of countries. The results suggest therefore, that although the overall strategy and approach could be similar, at least the topics chosen should be split between the target groups. One package could be made for the local government trainees in Netherlands and Belgium and another for the energy agencies of UK & Ireland and France. Placing Italy, with its mix may be more difficult, but it seems to have more similarities with UK & Ireland and France than the other countries. Any training with regard to assisting in removing barriers to transport action, such as the proposed ‘business case’, should be treated differently between groups of countries, as barriers to transport action appear much smaller in Belgium and Netherlands than in other countries.

41

7 APPENDIX A – FREQUENCY TABLE OF CLOSED RESPONSES

UK & Ireland Belgium Italy France Netherlands 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

Clients Q.6 Individuals 0 3 3 1 13 4 3 2 5 24 0 0 1 1 5 1 1 1 2 9 5 5 4 3 9 Households 0 0 1 4 15 5 1 2 9 21 4 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 2 9 9 3 4 6 4 Businesses 4 4 7 3 2 5 2 13 7 11 0 1 1 3 2 1 4 6 1 2 3 3 6 6 8 Public Sector 2 3 2 8 5 18 5 7 2 6 0 1 1 2 3 3 2 3 1 5 4 3 2 8 9 Local Authorities 1 1 1 6 11 18 5 8 2 5 1 0 0 1 5 0 1 3 0 10 4 5 6 6 5 NGO 4 5 6 4 1 22 7 8 1 0 4 1 2 0 0 9 2 3 0 0 12 8 3 2 1 Community Organisations 1 0 5 9 5 16 7 11 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 5 5 1 0 5 1 10 7 3 Schools 2 1 3 9 5 7 5 8 11 7 0 0 3 1 3 2 0 5 6 1 4 5 7 6 4

Sectors of Activity Q.7 Rational use of energy (RUE) 0 0 0 1 19 6 1 7 7 17 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 13 4 10 5 4 2 Transport 2 9 3 2 4 14 8 7 9 0 0 0 1 2 4 2 8 1 3 0 5 3 5 1 12 Industry 10 6 2 2 0 18 4 12 2 2 4 1 2 0 0 10 3 1 0 0 11 8 3 0 4 Wind 2 8 3 5 2 31 1 1 3 2 5 0 2 0 0 3 3 5 3 0 13 5 3 3 1 Direct solar 0 2 4 9 5 17 6 9 5 1 3 0 0 1 3 0 1 2 2 9 12 6 2 4 1 Biomass & bioenergy 1 6 4 2 7 34 1 1 2 0 4 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 3 7 13 5 2 2 3 Hydropower 7 6 2 3 2 36 0 2 0 0 4 1 2 0 0 3 10 0 1 0 22 3 0 0 0 Photovoltaics 1 9 3 3 4 24 7 6 1 0 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 4 4 4 20 2 3 0 0 Geothermal 8 5 1 2 4 34 1 2 1 0 5 1 1 0 0 4 5 2 3 0 20 4 0 1 0 Other renewable energy systems (RES)

9 6 2 0 3 35 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 1 1 9 1 1 0 3 14 9 1 0 1

Services offered Q.8 Raising awareness 0 20 0 0 0 2 36 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 12 0 0 0 4 22 0 0 0 Public Advice & Education 0 20 0 0 0 17 21 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 2 12 0 0 0 17 9 0 0 0 Consultancy 6 14 0 0 0 23 15 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 16 10 0 0 0 Policy making 9 11 0 0 0 16 22 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 4 10 0 0 0 7 19 0 0 0 Research 14 6 0 0 0 30 8 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 13 1 0 0 0 15 11 0 0 0 Project management 6 14 0 0 0 31 7 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 18 8 0 0 0

Importance Q.9 no. of employees working in transport/mobility

% of your organisation's business

Mission Q.10 Increased mobility 12 4 1 2 1 21 1 7 4 5 7 0 0 0 0 12 2 0 0 0 16 2 5 2 1 Encouragement of modal shift 7 0 2 1 10 14 2 5 8 9 1 1 1 0 4 5 1 0 1 7 6 6 2 6 6 Reducing congestion 8 2 5 2 3 18 5 8 6 1 1 1 1 1 3 11 2 0 0 1 8 3 1 2 12 Improving health 7 0 8 2 3 14 8 4 8 4 1 0 0 3 3 7 2 1 1 3 7 6 7 2 4 Improving local air quality 7 1 3 4 5 14 4 9 6 5 0 0 0 3 4 4 2 2 2 4 2 7 7 6 4 Decreasing greenhouse gas emissions

2 1 3 3 11 15 6 5 9 3 0 1 0 1 5 2 0 1 0 11 6 7 6 1 6

42

Services in transport offered Q.11

None 15 5 0 0 0 35 3 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 23 3 0 0 0 Raising awareness 6 14 0 0 0 9 29 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 3 11 0 0 0 8 18 0 0 0 Public Advice & Education 8 12 0 0 0 24 14 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 4 10 0 0 0 20 6 0 0 0 Consultancy 18 2 0 0 0 32 6 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 12 2 0 0 0 17 9 0 0 0 Policy making 15 5 0 0 0 19 19 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 11 3 0 0 0 7 19 0 0 0 Research 17 3 0 0 0 35 3 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 15 11 0 0 0 Project management 15 5 0 0 0 32 6 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 8 6 0 0 0 18 8 0 0 0

Reasons for inactivity Q.12 Lack of knowledge 13 0 1 2 4 27 2 2 5 2 4 0 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 4 20 4 0 1 1 Access to funding for transport/mobility projects

10 1 1 1 7 27 2 5 1 3 4 0 1 1 1 10 2 1 0 1 22 0 1 2 1

Lack of interest within organisation

17 1 0 0 2 24 1 5 6 2 5 2 0 0 0 13 1 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 2

Lack of interest amongst target groups

14 4 0 2 0 27 2 6 2 1 5 1 1 0 0 9 2 0 1 2 25 0 0 1 0

Competition for transport and mobility work

16 3 0 1 0 36 1 0 1 0 6 0 1 0 0 9 1 1 1 2 25 1 0 0 0

(13) Do you see any opportunities to (continue to) work in the field of transport & mobility in the future?

20 6 6 11 21

Existing Knowledge Q.18 Alternative Fuels 4 7 7 2 0 17 13 7 1 0 1 2 3 1 0 0 1 11 2 0 9 10 3 4 0 Alternative Vehicles 7 6 6 1 0 18 10 8 2 0 1 3 2 1 0 0 5 6 3 0 9 8 5 4 0 Workplace Travel Plans 8 8 2 2 0 20 12 3 3 0 1 2 2 2 0 1 8 4 1 0 5 7 6 8 0 School Travel Plans 10 6 1 3 0 15 9 9 5 0 1 2 2 2 0 3 7 2 2 0 4 5 10 7 0 Personlised travel information 10 5 3 2 0 21 8 6 3 0 3 2 0 2 0 2 4 5 3 0 7 9 4 6 0 Public transport awareness and marketing

7 9 3 1 0 8 8 16 6 0 2 1 4 0 0 2 4 5 3 0 3 2 10 11 0


8 11 1 0 0 31 6 1 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 6 6 0 2 0 7 11 7 1 0

Planning Law 13 4 1 1 0 10 7 13 8 0 2 2 3 0 0 9 1 3 1 0 2 3 10 11 0 Rural Transport 10 7 3 0 0 19 8 9 2 0 2 5 0 0 0 5 6 2 1 0 6 4 6 10 0 Car clubs and car sharing 8 6 4 2 0 16 13 7 2 0 1 2 4 0 0 2 3 7 2 0 6 6 8 6 0 Travel management through computer modelling

14 5 1 0 0 27 9 0 2 0 4 2 1 0 0 9 4 1 0 0 8 10 4 4 0

Training needs Q.19 Alternative Fuels 4 3 1 12 0 11 10 11 6 0 0 1 3 3 0 1 0 8 5 0 8 8 7 3 0 Alternative Vehicles 3 3 1 13 0 9 7 13 9 0 0 0 4 3 0 2 0 7 5 0 9 8 6 3 0 Workplace Travel Plans 4 0 7 9 0 14 11 8 5 0 1 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 11 0 12 3 6 5 0 School Travel Plans 3 0 8 9 0 8 9 12 9 0 0 2 1 4 0 2 0 4 8 0 9 9 5 3 0 Personlised travel information 4 2 2 12 0 24 5 8 1 0 1 2 3 1 0 3 4 2 5 0 12 5 3 6 0 Public transport awareness and marketing

3 3 3 11 0 8 11 13 6 0 1 0 3 3 0 1 2 3 8 0 11 4 5 6 0


2 3 5 10 0 20 11 3 4 0 1 1 3 2 0 2 6 5 1 0 9 10 4 3 0

Planning Law 4 4 4 8 0 8 14 6 9 1 1 1 3 2 0 1 2 7 4 0 10 0 10 6 0 Rural Transport 6 3 3 8 0 20 10 4 4 0 0 3 1 3 0 2 3 3 6 0 11 5 4 6 0 Car clubs and car sharing 4 1 4 11 0 11 10 13 4 0 1 0 2 4 0 2 0 6 6 0 13 5 4 4 0 Travel management through 3 3 6 8 0 16 13 6 3 0 1 1 1 4 0 3 5 4 2 0 11 6 7 2 0

43

computer modelling

Current training received Q.21 Conferences and seminars 4 16 0 0 0 21 17 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 3 23 0 0 0 Courses run by specialist training institution(s)

7 13 0 0 0 22 16 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 9 5 0 0 0 10 16 0 0 0

In-house courses run by external specialists

13 7 0 0 0 34 4 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 12 2 0 0 0 20 6 0 0 0

In-house courses run by internal specialists

14 6 0 0 0 36 2 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 19 7 0 0 0

On the job training 11 9 0 0 0 29 9 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 4 10 0 0 0 18 8 0 0 0 One’s own initiative 6 14 0 0 0 22 16 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 8 18 0 0 0

Preference for training Q.22 Individual tutoring 13 3 4 0 0 31 4 2 0 1 4 3 0 0 0 7 4 1 1 1 15 6 2 2 1 Lectures 4 4 5 3 4 11 0 10 9 8 3 4 0 0 0 3 2 4 3 2 5 3 10 7 1 Workshops 3 1 0 2 14 6 1 6 14 11 2 5 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 7 5 1 4 10 6 Training Manuals 3 2 6 2 7 19 6 4 6 3 2 5 0 0 0 2 1 3 4 4 6 8 6 6 0 CD Roms 5 4 6 3 2 20 4 6 6 2 4 3 0 0 0 2 1 3 7 1 7 7 7 5 0 Website assistance 4 1 6 7 2 8 6 1 16 7 2 5 0 0 0 2 1 6 3 2 6 4 6 6 4 Case Studies 3 1 1 7 8 13 2 9 7 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 9 7 2 5 8 4


9.15 per org

1.631579

per org

1.142857

Per org

2.071429

per org

20.8076

9

per org

Roles of respondent Q.26 Project management 3 17 0 0 0 32 6 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 3 11 0 0 0 14 12 0 0 0 Advisor 9 11 0 0 0 17 21 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 3 11 0 0 0 17 9 0 0 0 Teacher 18 2 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 12 2 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 Policy maker 13 7 0 0 0 13 25 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 10 4 0 0 0 5 21 0 0 0 Researcher 16 4 0 0 0 37 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 21 5 0 0 0 Consultant 12 8 0 0 0 35 3 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 10 4 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0

44

8 QUESTIONNAIRE

Block I: your organisation

(1) Name of your organisation

(2) Country of organisation

(3) Size of organisation (number of employees)

(4) Type of organisation (e.g. energy agency, local government department, public service provider, NGO, private)

(5) Geographical area of principal responsibility (e.g. London)

Individuals Households Businesses Public Sector Local Authorities NGO Community Organisations Schools Other (please specify)

(6) Who are your main clients? Please rank the following types of client in order of importance (4 = most important to 0 = irrelevant):

��

Transport is the fastest growing producer of greenhouse gas emissions and accounts for 30% of EU final energy consumption. Transport demand hasgrown steadily over recent decades and it is predicted that by 2010 passenger transport will have increased by 19%. On these trends, it is predictedthat carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from transport in 2010 will be 39% higher than in 1990. The European EIE-STEER programme will provideintegration of transport and mobility issues within the wider context of other energy issues tackled primarily by Energy Agencies and EEACs but also bylocal and regional authorities in the EU. This survey has been designed to gather information on current knowledge of transport energy issues andsolutions in order to establish the needs of the organisations and provide appropriate training and information.

You are being asked to complete this questionnaire for the eATOMIUM project. eATOMIUM is a EC part-funded training project, coming under theSTEER part of the Intelligent Energy Europe programme, and aims to increase knowledge and competencies of sustainable transport and mobilityissues amongst local energy agencies, energy advice bodies and local authorities. The information you provide will be used to design training modulestailored to your specific needs. We hope that you can find the time to fill in and return this questionnaire and thank you for your assistance.

This form should be filled in by the person/s who is/will be responsible for transport and mobility queries within the organisation. To fill in, please do so in electronic format, writing the necessary text in the boxes. Where drop down lists are shown in the smaller boxes please choose an X to tick a subject, or leave blank (some boxes have other choices such as YES or NO).

45

Rational use of energy (RUE) Transport Industry Wind Direct solar Biomass & bioenergy Hydropower Photovoltaics Geothermal Other renewable energy systems (RES) Other (please specify, attaching a number 0 - 4)

(8) What type of services are you (and your colleagues) offering towards your clients?

Raising awarenessPublic Advice & EducationConsultancyPolicy makingResearchProject managementOther (please specify)

(7) What are your organisation's current sectors of activities? Please rank the following in order of importance (4 = most important to 0 = irrelevant):

46

Block III: knowledge and competences regarding transport & mobility in your organisation

(18) How confident would you or your colleagues feel in providing advice on these subjects?

Alternative fuelsAlternative vehiclesWorkplace travel plansSchool travel planningPersonalised travel informationPublic transport awareness and marketingTeleworking & teleconferencingPlanning lawRural transportCar clubs & car sharingTravel management through computer modelling

(17) What transport & mobility training are you or your colleagues currently planning to undertake (if any)? (press ALT+ ENTER to start a new line)

(16) What transport & mobility training have you or your colleagues already undertaken (if any)? Please mention topic(s), organiser of the course(s) and the training format (workshop, lecture etc.) (press ALT+ ENTER to start a new line)

(15) What qualifications (e.g. degree, postgraduate qualifications) do you or your colleagues working in transport & mobility have? (press ALT+ ENTER to start a new line)

Very confident

Mostly confident

Not confident

No knowledge

47

Block III: knowledge and competences regarding transport & mobility in your organisation

(18) How confident would you or your colleagues feel in providing advice on these subjects?


(17) What transport & mobility training are you or your colleagues currently planning to undertake (if any)? (press ALT+ ENTER to start a new line)

(16) What transport & mobility training have you or your colleagues already undertaken (if any)? Please mention topic(s), organiser of the course(s) and the training format (workshop, lecture etc.) (press ALT+ ENTER to start a new line)

(15) What qualifications (e.g. degree, postgraduate qualifications) do you or your colleagues working in transport & mobility have? (press ALT+ ENTER to start a new line)

Very confident

Mostly confident

Not confident

No knowledge

48

(19) In which of these areas would you find training useful?


(21) How do you currently receive new information and training?

Conferences and seminarsCourses run by specialist training institution(s)In-house courses run by external specialistsIn-house courses run by internal specialistsOn the job trainingOne’s own initiativeOthers (please specify)

Please rank the following in order of preference (4 = highest preference, 0 = lowest)

Individual tutoring Lectures Workshops Training Manuals CD Roms Website assistance Case Studies Other (please specify)


(20) Are there any other specific areas of transport & mobility that you would like any training to cover? (press ALT+ENTER to start a new line)

UsefulSlightly useful

Not needed

Veryuseful

(22) What form(s) would you prefer transport and mobility training to take?

49

Block IV: your personal details

(24) Name of respondent

(25) Job title

(26) What role do you have in projects in which you are involved?

Project managementAdvisorTeacherPolicy makerResearcherConsultantOther (please specify)

(28) Any further comments/suggestions (press ALT+ENTER to start a new line)

(27) What factors do you feel prevent you personally from engaging successfully in transport & mobility projects? (press ALT+ENTER to start a new line)

Thank you very much for your time spent in completing this questionnaire.

50

9 E-ATOMIUM WP 1 “ANALYSING PHASE”

Analysis for France

(at “global”, “national” & “educational strategy” levels)

Energie-Cités – May 2005

Foreword The European EIE-STEER programme is in particular aimed at integrating transport and mobility issues within the wider context of other energy issues tackled primarily by energy agencies but also by local and regional authorities in the EU. e-Atomium is a EC part-funded training project, coming under the STEER part of the Intelligent Energy Europe programme, and has the objective to increase knowledge and competencies of sustainable transport and mobility issues amongst local energy agencies and possibly local authorities. A survey has been designed within e-Atomium to gather information on current knowledge of transport energy issues and solutions in order to establish the needs of the organisations and provide appropriate training and information. The information the organisations provided will be used to design training modules tailored to their specific needs. 14 Local & County Energy Agencies (EA’s) have been created in France so far. All of them were kindly asked to fill in and return the e-Atomium questionnaire. All of them did it, which means that the return rate was actually of 100%!

51

1. Global analysis of the questionnaires returned (questions 3 to 28) Question 3: Size of organisation (numbers of employees) Number of employees Number of EA’s 3 1 4 3 5 2 6 1 7 3 8 2 9 1 No answer 1 Total 14

About 70% of the EA’s have between 4 and 7 employees. The average size of the EA’s in terms of employees is 6.4. Question 4: Type of organisation (e.g. energy agency, local government, department, public service provider, NGO, private) Type of organisation Number of organisations Energy Agency 14 All the organisations who returned the e-Atomium questionnaire are EA’s.

Question 5: Geographical area of principal responsibility (e.g. London) Agglomérations: Ardennes - County: 1 Lyon - Agglo: 1 Rennes - Agglo: 1 Mulhouse - Agglo: 1 Puy-de-Dôme - County: 1 West Brittany rural area: 1 Centre West Brittany area: 1 Grenoble - Agglo: 1 Lot - County: 1 Morlaix - Agglo: 1 Brest Océane - Agglo: 1 Montreuil, Vincennes, Bagnolet, Bondy - Agglo: 1 Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines - Agglo: 1 Loire - County: 1 The geographical area of principal responsibility is the agglomeration (57.14%), the County (28.57%) or a rural area (14.29%).

Geographical area of principal responsibility

57,14%

28,57%

14,29%

Agglomeration

County

Rural area

52

Question 6: Who are your main clients? Please rank the following types of client in order of importance (4=most important to 0=irrelevant)

Type of clients 0 1 2 3 4 Total Individuals 1 1 1 2 9 14 Households 2 1 / 2 9 14 Businesses 1 4 6 1 2 14 Public Sector 3 2 3 1 5 14 Local Authorities / 1 3 / 10 14 NGO 8 3 3 / / 14 Community Organisations 3 5 5 1 / 14 Schools 2 1 5 5 1 14 Other : Farmers 1 1 2 The EA’s main clients (4=most important + 3=important) are in order of importance: individuals, households, local authorities, public sector & schools.

EA's main clients

61111 10 602468

101214

IndividualsHouseholds LocalAuthorities

PublicSector

Schools

Question 7: What are your organisation’s current sectors of activities? Please rank the following in order of importance (4=most important to 0=irrelevant):

Sectors of activities 0 1 2 3 4 Rational use of energy (RUE) 1 13 Transport 2 8 1 3 / Industry 10 3 1 / / Wind 3 3 5 3 Direct solar 3 2 9 Biomass and bioenergy 1 3 3 7 Hydropower 3 10 1 Photovoltaics 2 4 4 4 Geothermal 4 5 2 3 Other renewable energy sources (RES) 9 1 1 3 Other: Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions 1

Funding mechanisms 1 Energy and town planning 1 Management of energy demand 1

53

The EA’s main current sectors of activities (4=most important + 3=important) are in order of importance: rational use of energy, direct solar, biomass & bioenergy, photovoltaics. One should note that transport is considered as an important sector of activity (3=important) for only 21.43% of the EA’s.

EA's main current sectors of activities

14 11 10 802468

101214

Rational useof energy

(RUE)

Direct solar Biomass andbioenergy

Photovoltaics

Question 8: What type of services are you (and your collegues) offering towards your clients?

Type of services Number of EA’s

Raising awareness 13 Public Advice & Education 13 Consultancy 14 Policy making 10 Research 1 Project management 14 Other: pre-diagnosis 1 Other: advice to Local Authorities (LA) and follow-up of high energy efficiency building sites

1

The main types of services EA’s offer towards their clients are in order of importance: project management, consultancy, raising awareness, public advice & education and policy making.

EA's main types of services

14 14 13 13 10

02468

101214

Projectmanagement

Consultancy Raisingaw areness

PublicAdvice &Education

Policy making

54

Question 9 (a): How important is the field of transport & mobility within your organisation?

No of employees working in

transport/mobility

Number of EA’s

0 2 1 7 2 4 3 1 4 / 5 / More than 85% of the EA’s have between 1 and 3 employees working in transport/mobility and near 15% have no employee dealing with this sector. Question 9 (b): % of your organisation’s business % of your organisation’s

business Number of

EA’s 0 % 2 1% 1 2% 1 3% 1 <5% 1 5% 3 9% 1 10% 1 20% 1 25% 2 Nethertheless, for more than 70% of the EA’s, the field of transport and mobility represents less than 10% of their organisation’s business.

% of the EA’s business in transport

71,43

28,57

less than 10% ofthe EA's business10% & more of theEA's business

55

Question 10: What is the mission of your organisation regarding transport & mobility (if any)? Please rank your organisation’s objectives in order of importance (4=most important to 0=irrelevant):

Mission 0 1 2 3 4 Increased mobility 12 2 Encouragement of modal shift 4 2 1 7 Reducing congestion 11 2 1 Improving health 7 2 2 1 2 Improving local air quality 4 2 3 2 3 Decreasing greenhouse gas emissions 1 1 1 11 Other: / / / / / The main missions (4=most important + 3=important) of the EA’s regarding transport and mobility are in order of importance: decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and encouragement of modal shift.

EA’s main missions in transport & mobility

811

02

468

101214

Decreasing greenhousegas emissions

Encouragement of modalshift

Question 11: Which (if any) of the services mentioned in question 8 are you (and your colleagues) offering in the field of transport & mobility?

Service Number of EA’s None / Awareness Raising 11 Public Advice & Education 10 Consultancy 3 Policy making 4 Research / Project management 6 Other: information mission in progress even if it is necessary to develop competencies

1

Other: service of checking the tractors to reduce fuel consumptions 1 Other: participation to the days without cars Other: info point and relationship promotion for car sharing 1

56

The main services the EA’s offer in the field of transport & mobility are in order of importance: awareness raising, public advice & education and project management.

EA’s main services in transport & mobility

6101102468

101214

AwarenessRaising

Public Advice &Education

ProjectManagement

Question 12: If your organisation is currently not (or only sporadically) dealing with transport & mobility, what are the reasons for this? Please rank the following in order of importance (4=most important to 0=irrelevant):

Reasons 0 1 2 3 4 Lack of knowledge 5 2 2 1 4 Access to funding for transport/mobility projects 10 2 1 / 1 Lack of interest within organisation 13 1 / / / Lack of interest amongst target groups 7 2 1 2 2 Competition for transport and mobility work 9 1 1 1 1 Other: other organisations (e.g. consultants) more specialised than us in the agglomeration (e.g. for implementing an Urban Transport Plan)

2

Other: Urban Transport Plan 1 Other: how to interest people in this topic 1 Other: the EA’s are generally not responsible for transport (policy, etc.) 1 More than 1 EA out of 3 estimates that the lack of knowledge is the main reason for not (or only sporadically) dealing with transport and mobility (4=most important + 3=important). Question 13: Do you see any opportunities to (continue to) work in the field of transport & mobility in the future? Number of EA’s YES 11 NO answer 3

57

Important is the fact that near 80% of the EA’s see opportunities to (continue to) work in the field of transport and mobility in the future.

Opportunities to work in transport & mobility in the future

78,57%

21,43%

Yes

No

Question 14: Please explain your answer to “Which (if any) of the services mentioned in question 8 are you (and your colleagues) offering in the field of transport & mobility”

Explanation Number of EA’s

Paid service proposed to farmers (engine checking, advise on how to reduce energy consumptions - eco-driving, best utilisation, change of spare parts)

1

Awareness raising on energy management among children on a transport project, collective transport promotion and « alternative » transport promotion (e.g. walking and cycling, transportation on demand in low density areas)

1

EA’s always propose raising awareness "events" on transport and mobility topics (with its challenges too: Environment Charter, State Development, Voluntary Urban Development Plan), attempt to develop the preparation of company and school travel plans (within car free days, reception and management of car pooling demand/offer (done in most cases without funds, without communication campaign and without professional work)

3

Awareness raising activities, dissemination of brochures, conferences, etc. good practice cases dissemination, public conferences, workshops exhibition (e.g. electric bikes)

2

Advice on alternative fuels and biofuels to the general public inside the "Espace Information Energie" activities. Awareness raising activities : public conferences, information days, alternative modes of transports

1

Awareness on air quality, working groups, advice on alternative fuels to the general public within the "Espace Information Energie" activities

1

Biofuels and promotion of alternative modes of transport 2 Working groups, awareness raising on « alternative » transport (e.g. walking to school, conference on mobility, car free day, mobility week), project on urban planning of transport

1

Advice on transport to the general public 2

58

Question 15: What qualifications (e.g. degree, postgraduate qualifications) do you or your colleagues working in transport & mobility have?

Qualification On the total number of EA’s employees

Engineer specialised in the energy field 5 European Degree “Eco advice” 1 High level Diploma in energy management or urban planning

4

Non specialised Degree 6 DUT HND 1 DUT Génie civil option climatique + DU Innovation, communication, entreprises DUT Génie Thermique et Energie

1

No special qualification 3 More than 80% of EA’s employees working in the field of transport and mobility are energy specialists or have a general education. Question 16: What transport & mobility training have you or your colleagues already undertaken (if any)? Please mention topic(s), organiser of the course(s) and the training format (workshop, lecture etc.)

Topic Organiser of the topic

Training format

Number of EA’s

Engine efficiency, biofuels, fuel cell vehicles

1

No specific education, only a simple awareness at the beginning of the training

1


ADEME 6

Personal initiative 1 Nothing for the moment 1 No 6 The main transport and mobility training already undertaken by EA’s was on the following topic: Urban Transport and Environment within the “Espaces Info Energies" activities. One should note that half of the respondents mentioned that they did not undertook any training yet.

59

Transport & mobility training already undertaken

6

1 1

8

02468

10121416

UrbanTransport

andEnvironment

Engineefficiency,biofuels

Personalinitiative

No training

Question 17: What transport & mobility training are you or your colleagues currently planning to undertake (if any)?

Training planned Number of EA’s Mobility management of the agents in companies and local authorities

1


1

No training planned even if desired 4 A training organised by ADEME for the “Espaces Info Energies” 1 One training planned thanks to EU projects 1 Alternative vehicles and alternative fuels 1 Few EA’s are currently planning to undertake a transport and mobility training (see table above for the topics), incl. thanks to EU projects.

60

Question 18: How confident would you or your colleagues feel in providing advice on these subjects?

Subject Very confident

Mostly confident

No confident

No knowledge

Alternative fuels 2 10 2 / Alternative vehicles 3 5 6 / Workplace travel plans 1 4 8 1 School travel planning 2 3 6 3 Personalised travel information

3 6 3 2


3 6 3 2


2 / 6 6

Planning law 1 2 2 9 Rural transport 1 2 6 5 Car clubs & car sharing 2 7 3 2 Travel management through computer modelling

/ 1 4 9

EA’s feel they would be confident (very confident + mostly confident) in providing advice on the following subjects, in order of importance: alternative fuels, personalised travel information, public transport awareness and marketing, car clubs & car sharing, alternative vehicles.

Confident in providing advice

899912

02468

101214

Alter nati ve f uels Per sonal i sed tr avelinf or mation

Publ ic tr anspor tawar eness and mar keting

Car clubs & car shar ing Al ter native vehicles

On the contrary, EA’s feel they would not be confident (no confident + no knowledge) in providing advice on the following subjects, in order of importance: travel management through computer modelling, teleworking & teleconferencing, planning law, rural transport, workplace travel plans, school travel planning

61

Not confident in providing advice

13 12 11 11 9 9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Travelmanagement

throughcomputermodelling

Teleworking &teleconferencing

Planning law Rural transport Workplace travelplans

School travelplanning

Question 19: In which of these areas would you find training useful?

Areas Very useful

Useful Slightly useful

Not needed

Alternative fuels 5 8 / 1 Alternative vehicles 5 7 / 2 Workplace travel plans 11 / / 3 School travel planning 8 4 / 2 Personalised travel information 5 1 5 3 Public transport awareness and marketing

8 3 2 1

Teleworking & teleconferencing 1 6 5 2

Planning law 5 6 2 1 Rural transport 6 3 3 2 Car clubs & car sharing 6 6 / 2 Travel management through computer modelling

2 5 4 3

EA’s would find training useful (very useful + useful) in the following areas, in order of importance: alternative fuels, alternative vehicles, school travel planning, car clubs & car sharing, workplace travel plans, public transport awareness and marketing, planning law.

62

Useful training for EA’s

13 12 12 12 11 11 11

02468

101214

Alternat ive

fuels

Alt ernat ive

vehicles

School t ravel

planning

Car clubs & car

shar ing

Workplace

t ravel plans

Public

t ransport

awareness and

market ing

Planning law

Question 20: Are there any other specific areas of transport & mobility that you would like any training to cover?

Area Number of EA’s Transport on demand in low density areas 1 Intermodality and the performance criteria on travel by public transport 1 Policies and means to encourage and develop cycling in urban areas 1 Links between transport and greenhouse gas emissions 1 Air traffic 1 Impact of transport on air quality 1 The above table summarises other specific areas of transport and mobility EA’s would like training to cover. Question 21: How do you currently receive new information and training?

How Number of EA’s

Conferences and seminars 9 Courses run by specialist training institution(s) 5 In-house courses run by external specialists 2 In-house courses run by internal specialists / On the job training 10 One’s own initiative 7 Other: high personal interest on many topics dealing with transport and impact of transports on the environment

1

existing good practices 1 ADEME Training (energy advisors) 1 Technological watchdog 1 EA’s currently receive new information and training thanks to:

- on the job training, - conferences and seminars, - one’s own initiative.

63

Question 22: What form(s) would you prefer transport and mobility training to take? Form of training Highest

preference Good

preference Middle

Preference Low

Preference Lowest

preference Individual tutoring 1 1 1 4 7 Lectures 3 2 5 1 3 Workshops 7 1 3 / 3 Training Manuals 4 5 2 1 2 CD Roms 2 8 2 / 2 Website assistance

2 3 6 1 2

Case Studies 10 3 / 1 / Other: Educational tools

Other: Specialised documentation, Power Point presentations

Other: Help on real projects, study tours, site visits

The most prefered forms (highest preference + good preference) EA’s prefer transport and mobility training to take are, in order of importance: case studies (13; NB:10 highest importance), CD Roms (10; NB: 2 highest importance), training manuals (10; NB: 4 highest importance) and workshops (8; NB: 7 highest importance).

Most preferred forms for training

13 10 9 8

02468

101214

CaseStudies

CD Roms TrainingManuals

Workshops

64

Question 23: How many employees within your organisation would be interested in transport & mobility training? Number of employees Number of EA’s 0 1 1 3 2 6 3 3 4 1 More than 85% of the EA’s think that between 1 and 3 employees within their organisation would be interested in transport and mobility training. Question 25: Job title

Job title Number of EA’s Director 11 Project Manager (also factual) 2 Person in charge of biomass sector 1 Quite 80% of the EA’s employees who responded to the e-Atomium questionnaire are EA’s Directors. Question 26: Which role do you have in projects you are involved?

Role Number of agencies Project management 11 Advisor 10 Teacher 1 Policy maker 4 Researcher / Consultant 4 Other: technical, administrative and financial responsibility 1 Help within projects 1 The respondents have generally a role of project management or advisor within the projects they are involved in.

65

Question 27: What factors do you feel prevent you personally from engaging successfully in transport & mobility projects?

Factors Number of EA’s

Competition with research consultancy (e.g. on alternative fuels) 3 EA’s do not have enough knowledge/experience/competence on the topic (e.g. on alternative fuels)

8


1


1

The most important factor preventing the respondents from engaging successfully in transport and mobility projects (in their opinion) is the lack of knowledge/experience/competence in the transport and mobility sector. The competition with research consultancy and the lack of time are two other factors quoted but far behind the first factor mentioned above. Question 28: Any further comments/suggestions

Comments/suggestions Number of EA’s We think that most of the things (with relevant impacts) that can be done today depends more on public authorities and legislation rather than education and training. Unfortunately !

1

66

2. “National” analysis: questions 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 27 & 28 Question 14: Please explain your answer to “Which (if any) of the services mentioned in question 8 are you (and your colleagues) offering in the field of transport & mobility”

Explanation Number of EA’s

Paid service proposed to farmers (engine checking, advise on how to reduce energy consumptions - eco-driving, best utilisation, change of spare parts)

1

Awareness raising on energy management among children on a transport project, collective transport promotion and « alternative » transport promotion (e.g. walking and cycling, transportation on demand in low density areas)

1

EA’s always propose raising awareness "events" on transport and mobility topics (with its challenges too: Environment Charter, State Development, Voluntary Urban Development Plan), attempt to develop the preparation of company and school travel plans (within car free days, reception and management of car pooling demand/offer (done in most cases without funds, without communication campaign and without professional work)

3

Awareness raising activities, dissemination of brochures, conferences, etc. good practice cases dissemination, public conferences, workshops exhibition (e.g. electric bikes)

2

Advice on alternative fuels and biofuels to the general public inside the "Espace Information Energie" activities. Awareness raising activities : public conferences, information days, alternative modes of transports

1

Awareness on air quality, working groups, advice on alternative fuels to the general public within the "Espace Information Energie" activities

1

Biofuels and promotion of alternative modes of transport 2 Working groups, awareness raising on « alternative » transport (e.g. walking to school, conference on mobility, car free day, mobility week), project on urban planning of transport

1

Advice on transport to the general public 2 Question 15: What qualifications (e.g. degree, postgraduate qualifications) do you or your colleagues working in transport & mobility have?

Qualification On the total number of EA’s employees

Engineer specialised in the energy field 5 European Degree “Eco advice” 1 High level Diploma in energy management or urban planning

4

Non specialised Degree 6 DUT HND 1 DUT Génie civil option climatique + DU Innovation, communication, entreprises DUT Génie Thermique et Energie

1

No special qualification 3

67

More than 80% of EA’s employees working in the field of transport and mobility are energy specialists or have a general education. Question 16: What transport & mobility training have you or your colleagues already undertaken (if any)? Please mention topic(s), organiser of the course(s) and the training format (workshop, lecture etc.)

Topic Organiser of the topic

Training format

Number of EA’s

Engine efficiency, biofuels, fuel cell vehicles

1

No specific education, only a simple awareness at the beginning of the training

1


ADEME 6

Personal initiative 1 Nothing for the moment 1 No 6 The main transport and mobility training already undertaken by EA’s was on the following topic: Urban Transport and Environment within the “Espaces Info Energies" activities. One should note that half of the respondents mentioned that they did not undertook any training yet.

Transport & mobility training already undertaken

6

1 1

8

02468

10121416

UrbanTransport

andEnvironment

Engineefficiency,biofuels

Personalinitiative

No training

68

Question 17: What transport & mobility training are you or your colleagues currently planning to undertake (if any)?

Training planned Number of EA’s Mobility management of the agents in companies and local authorities

1


1

No training planned even if desired 4 A training organised by ADEME for the “Espaces Info Energies” 1 One training planned thanks to EU projects 1 Alternative vehicles and alternative fuels 1 Few EA’s are currently planning to undertake a transport and mobility training (see table above for the topics), incl. thanks to EU projects. Question 20: Are there any other specific areas of transport & mobility that you would like any training to cover?

Area Number of EA’s Transport on demand in low density areas 1 Intermodality and the performance criteria on travel by public transport 1 Policies and means to encourage and develop cycling in urban areas 1 Links between transport and greenhouse gas emissions 1 Air traffic 1 Impact of transport on air quality 1 The above table summarises other specific areas of transport and mobility EA’s would like training to cover. Question 27: What factors do you feel prevent you personally from engaging successfully in transport & mobility projects?



8


1

Lack of or weak demand 2 Lack of time 3 Car ownership is a difficult topic to deal with (responsible car use) 2

69

Lack of knowledge of good practice cases 1 The certainty to interest people and make them participate to the project 1 EA’s do not really know the transport challenges 2 It is difficult to propose the topic to the rural area 1 EA’s do not know the funding possibilities 1 It is a risk for elected people 1 Projects are too long 1 Difficult to implement changes 1 Local authorities have not always the transport competence in their hands (group of local authorities in competition with the local authority)

1

The most important factor preventing the respondents from engaging successfully in transport and mobility projects (in their opinion) is the lack of knowledge/experience/competence in the transport and mobility sector. The competition with research consultancy and the lack of time are two other factors quoted but far behind the first factor mentioned above. Question 28: Any further comments/suggestions

Comments/suggestions Number of EA’s We think that most of the things (with relevant impacts) that can be done today depends more on public authorities and legislation rather than education and training. Unfortunately !

1

70

3. Analysis on the basis of the educational strategy 3.1 Organisational objectives: questions 7, 10, 11 Question 7: What are your organisation’s current sectors of activities? Please rank the following in order of importance (4=most important to 0=irrelevant):

Sectors of activities 0 1 2 3 4 Rational use of energy (RUE) 1 13 Transport 2 8 1 3 / Industry 10 3 1 / / Wind 3 3 5 3 Direct solar 3 2 9 Biomass and bioenergy 1 3 3 7 Hydropower 3 10 1 Photovoltaics 2 4 4 4 Geothermal 4 5 2 3 Other renewable energy sources (RES) 9 1 1 3 Other: Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions 1

Funding mechanisms 1 Energy and town planning 1 Management of energy demand 1

The EA’s main current sectors of activities (4=most important + 3=important) are in order of importance: rational use of energy, direct solar, biomass & bioenergy, photovoltaics. One should note that transport is considered as an important sector of activity (3=important) for only 21.43% of the EA’s.

EA's main current sectors of activities

14 11 10 802468

101214

Rational useof energy

(RUE)

Direct solar Biomass andbioenergy

Photovoltaics

71

Question 10: What is the mission of your organisation regarding transport & mobility (if any)? Please rank your organisation’s objectives in order of importance (4=most important to 0=irrelevant):

Mission 0 1 2 3 4 Increased mobility 12 2 Encouragement of modal shift 4 2 1 7 Reducing congestion 11 2 1 Improving health 7 2 2 1 2 Improving local air quality 4 2 3 2 3 Decreasing greenhouse gas emissions 1 1 1 11 Other: / / / / / The main missions (4=most important + 3=important) of the EA’s regarding transport and mobility are in order of importance: decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and encouragement of modal shift.

EA’s main missions in transport & mobility

11 8

02468

101214

Decreasing greenhousegas emissions

Encouragement of modalshift

Question 11: Which (if any) of the services mentioned in question 8 are you (and your colleagues) offering in the field of transport & mobility?

Service Number of EA’s None / Awareness Raising 11 Public Advice & Education 10 Consultancy 3 Policy making 4 Research / Project management 6 Other: information mission in progress even if it is necessary to develop competencies

1

Other: service of checking the tractors to reduce fuel consumptions 1 Other: participation to the days without cars Other: info point and relationship promotion for car sharing 1

72

The main services the EA’s offer in the field of transport & mobility are in order of importance: awareness raising, public advice & education and project management.

EA’s main services in transport & mobility

6101102468

101214

AwarenessRaising

Public Advice &Education

ProjectManagement

3.2 Needs of the organisation: questions 12, 13, 27 Question 12: If your organisation is currently not (or only sporadically) dealing with transport & mobility, what are the reasons for this? Please rank the following in order of importance (4=most important to 0=irrelevant):

Reasons 0 1 2 3 4 Lack of knowledge 5 2 2 1 4 Access to funding for transport/mobility projects 10 2 1 / 1 Lack of interest within organisation 13 1 / / / Lack of interest amongst target groups 7 2 1 2 2 Competition for transport and mobility work 9 1 1 1 1 Other: other organisations (e.g. consultants) more specialised than us in the agglomeration (e.g. for implementing an Urban Transport Plan)

2

Other: Urban Transport Plan 1 Other: how to interest people in this topic 1 Other: the EA’s are generally not responsible for transport (policy, etc.) 1 More than 1 EA out of 3 estimates that the lack of knowledge is the main reason for not (or only sporadically) dealing with transport and mobility (4=most important + 3=important). Question 13: Do you see any opportunities to (continue to) work in the field of transport & mobility in the future? Number of EA’s YES 11 NO answer 3 Important is the fact that near 80% of the EA’s see opportunities to (continue to) work in the field of transport and mobility in the future.

73

Opportunities to work in transport & mobility in the future

78.57%

21.43%

Yes

No

Question 27: What factors do you feel prevent you personally from engaging successfully in transport & mobility projects?



8


1


1

The most important factor preventing the respondents from engaging successfully in transport and mobility projects (in their opinion) is the lack of knowledge/experience/competence in the transport and mobility sector. The competition with research consultancy and the lack of time are two other factors quoted but far behind the first factor mentioned above.

74

3.3 Competencies of the staff: questions 18, 19, 20 Question 18: How confident would you or your colleagues feel in providing advice on these subjects?

Subject Very confident

Mostly confident

No confident

No knowledge

Alternative fuels 2 10 2 / Alternative vehicles 3 5 6 / Workplace travel plans 1 4 8 1 School travel planning 2 3 6 3 Personalised travel information

3 6 3 2


3 6 3 2


2 / 6 6

Planning law 1 2 2 9 Rural transport 1 2 6 5 Car clubs & car sharing 2 7 3 2 Travel management through computer modelling

/ 1 4 9

EA’s feel they would be confident (very confident + mostly confident) in providing advice on the following subjects, in order of importance: alternative fuels, personalised travel information, public transport awareness and marketing, car clubs & car sharing, alternative vehicles.

Confident in providing advice

899912

02468

101214

Alter nati ve f uels Per sonal i sed tr avelinf or mation

Publ ic tr anspor tawar eness and mar keting

Car clubs & car shar ing Al ter native vehicles

On the contrary, EA’s feel they would not be confident (no confident + no knowledge) in providing advice on the following subjects, in order of importance: travel management through computer modelling, teleworking & teleconferencing, planning law, rural transport, workplace travel plans, school travel planning.

75

Not confident in providing advice

13 12 11 11 9 9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Travelmanagement

throughcomputermodelling

Teleworking &teleconferencing

Planning law Rural transport Workplace travelplans

School travelplanning

Question 19: In which of these areas would you find training useful?

Areas Very useful Useful Slightly

useful Not

needed Alternative fuels 5 8 / 1 Alternative vehicles 5 7 / 2 Workplace travel plans 11 / / 3 School travel planning 8 4 / 2 Personalised travel information 5 1 5 3 Public transport awareness and marketing

8 3 2 1

Teleworking & teleconferencing 1 6 5 2

Planning law 5 6 2 1 Rural transport 6 3 3 2 Car clubs & car sharing 6 6 / 2 Travel management through computer modelling

2 5 4 3

EA’s would find training useful (very useful + useful) in the following areas, in order of importance: alternative fuels, alternative vehicles, school travel planning, car clubs & car sharing, workplace travel plans, public transport awareness and marketing, planning law.

76

Useful training for EA’s

11111112121213

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Alternativefuels

Alternativevehicles

Schooltravel

planning

Car clubs& car

sharing

Workplacetravelplans

Publictransport

awarenessand

marketing

Planninglaw

Question 20: Are there any other specific areas of transport & mobility that you would like any training to cover?

Area Number of EA’s Transport on demand in low density areas 1 Intermodality and the performance criteria on travel by public transport 1 Policies and means to encourage and develop cycling in urban areas 1 Links between transport and greenhouse gas emissions 1 Air traffic 1 Impact of transport on air quality 1 The above table summarises other specific areas of transport and mobility EA’s would like training to cover. 3.4 Learning activities: questions 21 & 22 Question 21: How do you currently receive new information and training?

How Number of EA’s

Conferences and seminars 9 Courses run by specialist training institution(s) 5 In-house courses run by external specialists 2 In-house courses run by internal specialists / On the job training 10 One’s own initiative 7 Other: high personal interest on many topics dealing with transport and impact of transports on the environment

1

existing good practices 1 ADEME Training (energy advisors) 1 Technological watchdog 1

77

EA’s currently receive new information and training thanks to: - on the job training, - conferences and seminars, - one’s own initiative.

Question 22: Which form(s) would you prefer transport and mobility training to take?

Form of training Highest preference

Good preference

Middle Preference

Low Preference

Lowest preference

Individual tutoring 1 1 1 4 7 Lectures 3 2 5 1 3 Workshops 7 1 3 / 3 Training Manuals 4 5 2 1 2 CD Roms 2 8 2 / 2 Website assistance

2 3 6 1 2

Case Studies 10 3 / 1 / Other: Educational tools

Other: Specialised documentation, Power Point presentations

Other: Help on real projects, study tours, site visits

The most prefered forms (highest preference + good preference) EA’s prefer transport and mobility training to take are, in order of importance: case studies (13; NB:10 highest importance), CD Roms (10; NB: 2 highest importance), training manuals (10; NB: 4 highest importance) and workshops (8; NB: 7 highest importance).

Most preferred forms for training

891013

02468

101214

CaseStudies

CD Roms TrainingManuals

Workshops

10 ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRES – BELGIUM This document gives a brief overview of the results of the Belgian survey3. The aim of this survey was to get a general idea of the needs and competencies of the sustainability civil servants of the Flemish communities in the domain of transport and mobility. More than 300 questionnaires were sent to all Flemish communities (308). In order to reach the sustainability civil servants, we sent questionnaires to several departments of the relevant community. Although the aim was to reach the civil servants of sustainability, in some cases the mobility civil servant completed the questionnaire. Furthermore, not all respondents interpreted all the questions in the same way. When asked about ‘the organisation’, some interpreted this as the whole community, while others interpreted ‘the organisation’ as being only the environmental department of the community. This analysis gives us a first insight on the knowledge and training needs of our target group but the preceding remarks may have influenced our results and we should keep this in mind when interpreting the questionnaire. �� 38 questionnaires were returned completed. �� Response rate=12,3 % 10.1 Information about the organisation �� The main clients of the respondents are individuals and households. Also

companies are seen as an important client. �� When we look at the importance of the activity domains, it becomes clear that the

respondents are most active in the sector ‘rational use of energy’. Furthermore, they tend to work in the areas ‘industry’, ‘wind’ and ‘solar energy’. It has to be mentioned that civil servants spend a big amount of their time on administrative tasks and services. Besides transport and mobility only make up a small part of this service.

10.2 Transport and mobility within the organisation �� When asked about the organisation’s mission regarding transport & mobility, it

appeared that as well ‘increase of mobility’, ‘encouragement of modal shift’, ‘reducing congestion’, ‘improving health’, ‘improving local air quality’ as ‘decreasing greenhouse gas emissions’ were seen as relative important objectives. Furthermore, ‘traffic safety’, ‘road network management’ and ‘raising awareness’ were seen as main goals.

3 This analysis is complemented by a questionnaire with the frequencies of the relevant answers in appendix A.

79

23 out of 38 respondents (62%), see opportunities to (continue to) work in the field of transport & mobility in the future. The organisations are particularly keen to work on the following topics:

o Implementation and work out of mobility plans o Creating company and school travel plans o Environmental friendly vehicles and fuels (bio fuels, technical

adaptations…) o Infrastructure measures (zone 30, parking routes, slow roads, playing

streets…) o Rational use of energy o Optimise public transport

10.3 Qualifications and training

00.5

11.5

22.5

3


Alternative Fuels



School Travel Plans




Planning Law

Rural Transport



Figure 1: Knowledge scores4

�� There are a very large variety of different qualifications for the target group (Msc

geography, political sciences, environmental sciences, engineering degree…). The target audience has very little or no transport specific academic qualifications.

�� 13 out of the 38 respondents (34%) took an additional course in transport and mobility however (mostly workshops like mobility planning and traffic science).

�� The respondents don’t seem to feel very confident in providing advice on several transport and mobility topics. The most well known topics are ‘spatial planning’, ‘raising awareness’ and ‘public transport awareness and marketing’. Respondents also seem to feel fairly confident to give advice on school travel plans.

4 3=very confident, 2= mostly confident, 1=not confident, 0= no knowledge

80

There seems to be no great need for training. o Topics where the respondents are most interested for:

��Alternative fuels and vehicles ��School and company travel plans ��Spatial planning

o Respondents are not really interested to be trained on ‘teleworking’, ‘personalised travel planning’ and ‘rural transport’.5

o Specific areas of training needs: ��Travel plans for events (1) �� Infrastructure (road improvements, city centres…) (3) ��Technical adaptations on vehicles (1)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3


Alternative Fuels



School Travel Plans




Planning Law

Rural Transport



Figure 26: Training needs

�� The respondents don’t perceive many barriers to transport and mobility work.

Some respondents however, mentioned some factors that prevented them from working efficiently in the field of transport and mobility:

o Lack of interest and support in colleagues and policy makers (4) o Lack of time (5) o Lack of knowledge (3) o Costs (2) o Too many other priorities (1) o Lack of interest in target groups (1)

�� Workshops and website assistance are the favourite form of training. The next

preference goes to lectures and case studies.

5 It could be that people were not interested in these topics, simply because they are not familiar with it.

81


Belgium

Individual tutoring

3%Lectures

18%

Workshops23%Training

Manuals10%

CD Roms10%

Website assistance

20%

Case Studies

16%

Figure 3: Preference for training types

D1. ANALYSIS REPORT- Questionnaire Survey · questionnaire was designed with the specific purpose...

Documents

Transcript of D1. ANALYSIS REPORT- Questionnaire Survey · questionnaire was designed with the specific purpose...