While sustainability of transport projects is of increasing importance, the concept of sustainability can be understood in many different ways by the stakeholders that are involved in or affected by mobility projects. In this paper, we compare the outcomes of the assessment of sustainability of projects through a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) and the appraisal of stakeholder preferences through the multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA). Evaluating projects with both tools and comparing the outcomes can provide insight into the stakeholder support of sustainable solutions and the sustainability of alternatives preferred by stakeholders. The sustainability of projects is assessed through 16 criteria grouped under the three pillars of sustainability. They were selected by in-depth review of 16 case studies of mobility projects, 18 transport evaluation schemes and the ranking of potential criteria by 214 stakeholders in North-West Europe. These criteria were weighted by 93 representatives of decision makers in the mobility domain. Stakeholder preferences were appraised through the criteria identified for each stakeholder group. We illustrate the framework by evaluating alternative solutions to improve cycling connections between the towns of Tilburg and Waalwijk in the Netherlands. The results of the comparison show that stakeholder preferences are biased towards one or two of the sustainability pillars (economy, environment, society) in three ways: through the selection of the criteria by the stakeholders, the weights of each criterion by each stakeholder group and differences in the final ranking of alternatives between the stakeholder groups and the MCA.
MULTIFILE
31-12-2015Introduction: With a shift in healthcare from diagnosis-centered to human- and interprofessional-centered work, allied health professionals (AHPs) may encounter dilemmas in daily work because of discrepancies between values of learned professional protocols and their personal values, the latter being a component of the personal dimension. The personal dimension can be defined as a set of personal components that have a substantial impact on professional identity. In this study, we aim to improve the understanding of the role played by the personal dimension, by answering the following research question: What is known about the personal dimension of the professional identity of AHPs in (allied) health literature? Methods: In the scoping review, databases, CINAHL, ERIC, Medline, PubMed, and PsychINFO were searched for studies focusing on what is regarded as ‘the personal dimension of professional identity’ of AHPs in the health literature; 81 out of 815 articles were included and analyzed in this scoping review. A varying degree of attention for the personal dimension within the various allied health professions was observed. Result: After analysis, we introduce the concept of four aspects in the personal dimension of AHPs. We explain how these aspects overlap to some degree and feed into each other. The first aspect encompasses characteristics like gender, age, nationality, and ethnicity. The second aspect consists of the life experiences of the professional. The third involves character traits related to resilience and virtues. The fourth aspect, worldview, is formed by the first three aspects and consists of the core beliefs and values of AHPs, paired with personal norms. Discussion: These four aspects are visualized in a conceptual model that aims to make AHPs more aware of their own personal dimension, as well as the personal dimension of their colleagues intra- and interprofessionally. It is recommended that more research be carried out to examine how the personal dimension affects allied health practice.
LINK
31-12-2021
