Figure 1 - uploaded by W MARTIN de Jong
Content may be subject to copyright.
Number of road deaths per 1 million inhabitants for EU member states in 2007
Source publication
In the early 1990s, in order to improve road safety in The Netherlands, the Institute for Road Safety Research (SWOV) developed an evidence-based "Sustainable Safety" concept. Based on this concept, Dutch road safety policy, was seen as successful and as a best practice in Europe. In The Netherlands, the policy context has now changed from a sector...
Citations
... When sustainability is pursued, is it to sustain the Earth or a town? When discussing the overall sustainability of the Earth, there are many diverse focuses in literature: (1) all of TBL (Crosby, 2010;Dunlop & Russel, 2012;Fiorino, 2010;Loorbach, 2010); (2) environmental sustainability (Dinica, 2018;Dumay et al., 2010;Dyck & Silvestre, 2019;Feiock et al., 2017); and (3) social sustainability (Amis et al., 2017;Bax et al., 2010;Broadbent et al., 2010;Hoopes & Treglia, 2019). ...
... The group-based efforts on sustainability sometimes manifest themselves as mediation or negotiation among diverse stakeholder groups (Ansell & Gash, 2018;Bax et al., 2010) or as active collaborations among individual groups (Fiorino, 2010;Spekkink & Boons, 2016;Yi et al., 2018). When the group-based approach helps forming a network, it can take either an informal form between internal and external stakeholders of organizations (Berkowitz & Bor, 2018;Hawn & Ioannou, 2016;Ivy et al., 2015;Kociatkiewicz & Kostera, 2012) or formal governance or institutions beyond the borders of countries (Doppelt, 2003;Krause et al., 2016;Sharma & Lee, 2012). ...
Why do conflicts arise even when we all aim for sustainability? Simply using the term “sustainability” does not eliminate disagreements. This is because discussions about sustainability are so varied that reaching a consensus can be challenging. To address these conflicts, it’s crucial to systematically understand their origins. With this perspective, this study delved into existing management literature on sustainability to explore: (1) how conversations about sustainability differ based on its boundaries, references, rationales, subjects, and objects, and (2) how these differing views can potentially complement each other. The results offer both theoretical and practical insights on how sustainability concepts and practices may be sustained.
... Finally, the overall implementation approach may need to shift over time in response to a constantly evolving context. For example, one study found it necessary to change the implementation approach for a road safety program in respond to changes in policy authority [81]. ...
Background
The fields of implementation science and knowledge translation have evolved somewhat independently from the field of policy implementation research, despite calls for better integration. As a result, implementation theory and empirical work do not often reflect the implementation experience from a policy lens nor benefit from the scholarship in all three fields. This means policymakers, researchers, and practitioners may find it challenging to draw from theory that adequately reflects their implementation efforts.
Methods
We developed an integrated theoretical framework of the implementation process from a policy perspective by combining findings from these fields using the critical interpretive synthesis method. We began with the compass question: How is policy currently described in implementation theory and processes and what aspects of policy are important for implementation success? We then searched 12 databases as well as gray literature and supplemented these documents with other sources to fill conceptual gaps. Using a grounded and interpretive approach to analysis, we built the framework constructs, drawing largely from the theoretical literature and then tested and refined the framework using empirical literature.
Results
A total of 11,434 documents were retrieved and assessed for eligibility and 35 additional documents were identified through other sources. Eighty-six unique documents were ultimately included in the analysis. Our findings indicate that policy is described as (1) the context, (2) a focusing lens, (3) the innovation itself, (4) a lever of influence, (5) an enabler/facilitator or barrier, or (6) an outcome. Policy actors were also identified as important participants or leaders of implementation. Our analysis led to the development of a two-part conceptual framework, including process and determinant components.
Conclusions
This framework begins to bridge the divide between disciplines and provides a new perspective about implementation processes at the systems level. It offers researchers, policymakers, and implementers a new way of thinking about implementation that better integrates policy considerations and can be used for planning or evaluating implementation efforts.
... For example, one study found that shifts in the implementation approach for an evidence-based road safety policy were necessary in response to a shift from centralized policy authority for road safety to distributed responsibility across multiple ministries and policy areas. (46) Outcomes The process of implementation is undertaken in order to lead to outcomes, which can be separated and measured at different levels. Proctor and colleagues (47) identi es three separate outcomes: 1) implementation outcomes; 2) service outcomes; and 3) recipientrelated outcomes. ...
Background: The fields of implementation science and knowledge translation have evolved somewhat independently from the field of policy implementation research, despite calls for better integration. As a result, implementation theory and empirical work do not often reflect the implementation experience from a policy lens nor benefit from the scholarship in all three fields. This means policy-makers, researchers and practitioners may find it challenging to draw from theory that adequately reflects their implementation efforts.
Methods: We developed an integrated theoretical framework of the implementation process from a policy perspective by combining findings from these fields using the critical interpretive synthesis method. We began with the compass question: how is policy currently described in implementation theory and processes and what aspects of policy are important for implementation success? We then searched 12 databases as well as grey literature and supplemented these documents with other sources to fill conceptual gaps. Using a grounded and interpretive approach to analysis, we built the framework constructs, drawing largely from the theoretical literature and then tested and refined the framework using empirical literature.
Results: A total of 7850 documents were retrieved and assessed for eligibility and 34 additional documents were identified through other sources. Eighty-two unique documents were ultimately included in the analysis. Our findings indicate that policy is described as: 1) the context; 2) a focusing lens; 3) the innovation itself; 4) a lever of influence; 5) an enabler/facilitator or barrier; or 6) an outcome. Policy actors were also identified as important participants or leaders of implementation. Our analysis led to the development of a two-part conceptual framework, including process and determinant components.
Conclusions: This framework begins to bridge the divide between disciplines and offers a new way of thinking about implementation processes at the systems level. It offers researchers, policy-makers and implementers with a new way of thinking about implementation and can be used for planning or evaluating implementation efforts.
... The road transport system therefore needs to be arranged such that the consequences of human error do not exceed the resilience of the human body (Langeland, 2009;Whitelegg & Haq, 2006). In other words, the road environment ought to be forgiving of mistakes by road users (Bax, De Jong & Koppenjan, 2010;Tingvall & Haworth, 1999). ...
Since the 1990s, the idea that accidents should be reduced to zero is gaining growing acclaim in the fields of road safety and occupational safety and health. As most of the literature on this so-called Zero Accident Vision (ZAV) deals exclusively with its application to road safety, which is a public sector responsibility, there is a need to learn more about the way it is implemented by private companies. This paper reports on a case study into the zero accident approach followed by steel company Tata Steel IJmuiden (the Netherlands). The study suggests that private sector advocates of the ZAV, unlike their public sector counterparts, tend to view safety aspirations and economic considerations as mutually reinforcing. However, it is shown that this harmony model does not entirely hold in practice. The findings also highlight another discrepancy. Characteristic of the ZAV is a systems-theoretic focus on identifying root causes of unsafe situations rather than on individual error and blame. Yet employee behavior appears to be a major target for Tata’s safety policy and several managers insist on punishing unsafe behavior. Paradoxically, this punitive tendency seems partly stimulated by and at the same time could hinder the very ambition of eradicating all accidents.
... On the other hand, staff involved in STIP programs did not see much change of the new policy with respect to prescriptiveness, since they have always had strict guidelines to follow for STI management including contact tracing. Similarly, the Bax, de Jong and Kooppenjan study of implementation of road policy in the Netherlands [31] noted that a policy implementation gap was the absence of precise policy objectives which allowed for discretionary power to deviate from the intended policy directions. They also argued that an implementation strategy needs to match the policy and implementation context. ...
... In other words, implementation requires a certain amount of discretionary freedom to permit local tailoring. On the other hand, Bax and colleagues also reported that a lack of precision in their policy had risks characterised as: "'not knowing how to' (lack of proper information and communication), 'not being able to' (lack of competence and capacity), and 'not wanting to' (resistance)" ( [31] p.873). This finding mirrors results of our parallel public health policy implementation paper which reported a key theme as, "you've told me what, now tell me how" [6]. ...
... However, the policy also took a stronger evidence-based approach than the previous MHPSG; in other words, health units were asked to carry out reviews of the literature to understand problems and develop programs with demonstrated effectiveness. This direction is in line with the general trend in the larger health sector and in public health to provide health services that are grounded in evidence [31,34,43,44]. Thus both of these objectiveslocal responsiveness and research-based programmingare reasonable in their own right. ...
Background
Public health systems in Canada have undergone significant policy renewal over the last decade in response to threats to the public’s health, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome. There is limited research on how public health policies have been implemented or what has influenced their implementation. This paper explores policy implementation in two exemplar public health programs -chronic disease prevention and sexually-transmitted infection prevention - in Ontario, Canada. It examines public health service providers’, managers’ and senior managements’ perspectives on the process of implementation of the Ontario Public Health Standards 2008 and factors influencing implementation. Methods
Public health staff from six health units representing rural, remote, large and small urban settings were included. We conducted 21 focus groups and 18 interviews between 2010 (manager and staff focus groups) and 2011 (senior management interviews) involving 133 participants. Research assistants coded transcripts and researchers reviewed these; the research team discussed and resolved discrepancies. To facilitate a breadth of perspectives, several team members helped interpret the findings. An integrated knowledge translation approach was used, reflected by the inclusion of academics as well as decision-makers on the team and as co-authors. ResultsFront line service providers often were unaware of the new policies but managers and senior management incorporated them in operational and program planning. Some participants were involved in policy development or provided feedback prior to their launch. Implementation was influenced by many factors that aligned with Greenhalgh and colleagues’ empirically-based Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations Framework. Factors and related components that were most clearly linked to the OPHS policy implementation were: attributes of the innovation itself; adoption by individuals; diffusion and dissemination;the outer context – interorganizational networks and collaboration; the inner setting – implementation processes and routinization; and, linkage at the design and implementation stage. Conclusions
Multiple factors influenced public health policy implementation. Results provide empirical support for components of Greenhalgh et al’s framework and suggest two additional components – the role of external organizational collaborations and partnerships as well as planning processes in influencing implementation. These are important to consider by government and public health organizations when promoting new or revised public health policies as they evolve over time. A successful policy implementation process in Ontario has helped to move public health towards the new vision.
... The majority of these studies merely provide an inventory of tasks of various governmental levels and knowledge organizations (for example Brouwer & Mulder, 1997;Chapelon & Lassarre, 2010;Elvik & Veisten, 2005;Schulze & Koßmann, 2010). Some Table 1 Differences between (scientific) knowledge and policy making (based on Leroy, 2007 are predominantly literature based discussions on preferred relationships between knowledge and policy (Bax, De Jong, & Koppenjan, 2010;Hauer, 2007). Few actually investigate and analyse the relationship between policy and science in the road safety field. ...
The increased salience of how to value ecosystems services has driven up the demand for policy-relevant knowledge. It is clear that advice by epistemic communities can show up in policy outcomes, yet little systematic analysis exists prescribing how this can actually be achieved. This paper draws on four decades of knowledge utilisation research to propose four types of `possible expert' who might be influential on ecosystems services. Broad findings of a literature review on knowledge use in public policy are reported, and the four-fold conceptualisation pioneered by Carol Weiss that defines the literature is outlined. The field is then systematised by placing these four modes of knowledge use within an explanatory typology of policy learning. With how, when, and why experts and their knowledge are likely to show up in policy outcomes established, the paper then proposes the boundaries of the possible in how the ecosystems services epistemic community might navigate the challenges associated with each learning mode. Four possible experts emerge: with political antenna and epistemic humility; with the ability to speak locally and early to the hearts and minds of citizens; with a willingness to advocate policy; and, finally, with an enhanced institutional awareness and peripheral policy vision. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the utility of the analysis.
This research examines the awareness of evidence-based practices by the public organizations that fund services in the North
American Quitline Consortium (NAQC). NAQC is a large, publicly funded, goal-directed “whole network,” spanning both Canada
and the United States, working to get people to quit smoking. Building on prior research on the dissemination and diffusion
of innovation and evidence-based practices, and considering differences between network ties that are homophilous versus instrumental,
we found that awareness of evidence-based practices was highest for quitline funders that were strongly connected directly
to researchers and indirectly to the network administrative organization, controlling for quitline spending per capita and
decision-making locus of control. The findings support the importance of maintaining instrumental (a technical/rational argument)
rather than homophilous ties for acquisition of evidence-based practice knowledge. The findings also offer ideas for how public
networks might be designed and governed to enhance the likelihood that the organizations in the network are better aware of
what evidence-based practices exist.
