Local Culture and citizenship, in Rome. A Customer satisfaction survey.

Renzo Carli, Rosa Maria Paniccia, Paola Cavalieri

May 2005

Index

1 – Introduction

2 – Results

2.1. LOCAL CULTURE OF THE TRAFFIC IN ROME

2.2. LEVELS OF AWARENESS AND SATISFACTION WITH THE SEVEN ‘MIRACLES’ INITIATIVES

2.3. DIVISION OF AWARENESS AND SATISFACTION WITHIN THE VARIOUS CULTURAL PATTERNS

Annex 1

Local Culture of the Traffic in Rome in 2002

Annex 2

Local Culture of the Traffic in Rome in 2005

Annex 2a

Definitions of Cultural Patterns

Annex 3

Graphs


VERIFICATION OF ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN WITHIN PROJECT ‘MIRACLES’ FOR THE TRAFFIC IN THE CITY OF ROME

1 - Introduction

Verification was carried out through the following methods:

A – seven initiatives are being verified:

1.  pay-parking

2.  access restriction

3.  non-polluting buses

4.  collective taxis

5.  flexible parking

6.  telematics at bus stops

7.  car-sharing

B – the survey for verifying measurements has been carried out twice. In 2002 and 2005

C – the measurements being verified are: awareness and satisfaction levels for each initiative being considered

D – there are two criteria for the verification:

1.  comparison of awareness and satisfaction levels, with the initial and final surveys

2.  division into segments of the measurements of awareness and satisfaction, within the different elements of Local Culture, towards traffic, and surveyed by means of a sample of Roman inhabitants

E – in addition, two general measurements were taken into consideration: the reason for using means of transport and expectations with respect to city government. Graphs relevant to these measurements are shown in Annex 3.


2 – Results

Below are the results of the verification measurements.

2.1. LOCAL CULTURE OF THE TRAFFIC IN ROME

First of all are the changes revealed in the Local Culture[1] concerning the traffic in Rome.

Annexes 1 and 2 report the Local Cultures for the years 2002 and 2005, annex 2a reports the definitions of Cultural Patterns.

A significant change was verified in the Culture of traffic between the years 2002 and 2005:

1.  the control CP dropped considerably (from 23.16% to 18.76%, a difference of 4.4%)

2.  the anarchy CP increased notably (from 15.58% to 20.23%, a difference of 4.65%)

The two CPIs are at opposite ends of the second factorial axis.

In the anarchy CP, the power in the traffic is entrusted to individuals and their capacity to assert themselves one against the other, and everyone against any regulatory initiative proposed by institutions. If left to themselves, without any regulations, Romans, in this culture, will know how to do the best for themselves and create chaotic, but efficient traffic. The obvious favourite is private transport, particularly motorbikes; these people are indifferent to the development of public transport; attention is only paid to initiatives concerning the road network and they are pessimists about the evolution of the traffic, which is increasingly problematic, and about Public Administration initiatives.

On the contrary, the control CP calls for restrictions and limits to private means, which would be a solution to a conflict that the capricious Romans produce in city traffic. Here the solution of public transport seems to be the only answer to the traffic problem: public transport with improved efficiency and comfort. It is a matter of convincing even the most intractable people to use public transport, through severe actions, with the objective of discouraging the use of cars and motorbikes. These are people who would like to see a limit to the traffic, who think about their fellow citizens, i.e. those who are too individualistic and do not respect the rules, thus causing problems in traffic and in communal life. They trust the municipal administration, as a service agency for the citizens. They hope for more authoritative, less permissive city police officers.

This is the only significant variation, which occurred in the Local Culture of the traffic in Rome. On the other hand, it is an important variation, since it is indicative of an increase in an individualism that is intolerant of rules and the limitation of the use of private transport; of a comparable decrease in those who want rules and controls for promoting the use of public transport. Further on, the relevance of this change will be seen.

2.2. LEVELS OF AWARENESS AND SATISFACTION IN THE SEVEN ‘MIRACLES’ INITIATIVES

First of all, there is the data on AWARENESS. The percentages of awareness are reported on the entire representative sample of persons interviewed and residing in Rome (1410 subjects, in the surveys of both 2002 and 2005).

VARIABLES / 2002 Values [2] / 2005 Values / Difference / Significance of the differences
Pay-parking / 91% / 95% / 4% / n.s.
Access restriction / 90% / 89% / 1% / n.s.
Non-polluting transport / 53% / 76% / 23% / <.01
Collective taxis / 49%
Flexible parking / 32% / 46% / 14% / <.05
Telematics / / 41%
Car-sharing / 14%

Comments.

Pay-parking, access restriction and, to a lesser extent, non-polluting public transport are the initiatives most known to Romans.

Looking at 2005, collective taxis, flexible parking, telematics and car-sharing are not well known, particularly the latter, which not only suffers from its English term, but also from the emotional opposition between the car as a place of intimacy and solitude and its being shared with other people.

Of interest is the significant increase in awareness of non-polluting public transport and flexible parking: two initiatives serving the public without limit obligations.

There is still a major awareness of initiatives which lead to limitations and costs for citizens: pay-parking and access restrictions.


Further data concerning SATISFACTION

VARIABLES / 2002 Value[3] / 2005 Value / Difference / Significance of the differences
Non-polluting transport / 3.60 / 3.96 / .36 / <.05
Telematics / 3.72
Flexible parking / 3.90 / 3.57 / .33 / n.s.
Access restriction / 3.88 / 3.27 / .61 / <.01
Collective taxis / 3.13
Car-sharing / 3.06
Pay-parking / 3.30 / 2.52 / .78 / <.01

If one looks at the classification of satisfaction, one can see that the highest values concern dimensions and initiatives that do not entail limitations in the behaviour of individuals in traffic (non-polluting transport, telematics). In the classification of satisfaction, the last item is an initiative that results in a considerable limitation in the behaviour of the individual in traffic (pay-parking). A similar observation can be made for access restrictions.

Why was satisfaction with these last two categories significantly higher in 2002?

The reason for this may be related to the change in local culture related to traffic in the city of Rome during the period being considered. In particular, as was just seen and regarding the population, there was a drop in the Cultural Pattern of Control and an increase in the Cultural Pattern of Anarchy between 2002 and 2005.

Satisfaction with non-polluting public transport increased, as awareness about it increased. The initiatives that have been successful and are agreed to within the present cultural tendency in Rome are: those that are advantageous to everyone, i.e. people using public transport and those who simply “breathe the city air”, and that do not limit viability and the use of private means.

Pay-parking was the initiative that was least satisfactory in 2002 as well (even if its absolute value was higher than the average); today the satisfaction value has dropped below the satisfaction average. The satisfaction value of access-restricted areas has also dropped markedly.

This does not mean that these initiatives should be discontinued. They should be publicised with emphasis placed on the advantages for everyone, hereby removing privileges and improvisation in sanctions.

2.3.  DIVISION OF AWARENESS AND SATISFACTION WITHIN THE VARIOUS CULTURAL PATTERNS

AWARENESS

Population / Cluster 1
CONTROL / Cluster 2
TRUST / Cluster 3
ANARCHY / Cluster 4
EFFICIENCY / Cluster 5 MISTRUST
Telematics / 2002 ------
2005: 41% / ------
49% / ------
38% / ------
40% / ------
52% / ------
40%
Non-polluting public transport / 2002: 53%
2005: 76% / 65%
85% / 42%
73% / 46%
73% / 60%
80% / 51%
74%
Pay-parking / 2002: 91%
2005: 95% / 93%
96% / 89%
95% / 89%
94% / 90%
92% / 92%
95%
Flexible parking / 2002: 32%
2005: 46% / 40%
61% / 30%
41% / 31%
42% / 22%
33% / 42%
57%
Car-sharing / 2002:------
2005: 14% / ------
24% / ------
12% / ------
9% / ------
11% / ------
17%
Collective taxis / 2002:------
2005: 49% / ------
56% / ------
48% / ------
43% / ------
54% / ------
51%
Access-restricted areas / 2002: 90%
2005: 89% / 91%
93% / 88%
87% / 88%
86% / 90%
89% / 93%
91%

Comments:

CP 1 (control) always has higher than average values, while CP 3 (anarchy) has values that are consistently below average. These two CP changed in the comparison of Local Cultures 2002-2005.


Below are the SATISFACTION values

Population / Cluster 1
CONTROL / Cluster 2
TRUST / Cluster 3
ANARCHY / Cluster 4
EFFICIENCY / Cluster 5 MISTRUST
Telematics / 2002 ------
2005: 3.72 / ------
3.87 / ------
4.00 / ------
3.29 / ------
3.47 / ------
3.01
Non-polluting public transport / 2002: 3.60
2005: 3.96 / 3.98
4.13 / 4.10
4.18 / 2.88
3.46 / 3.12
3.89 / 3.01
3.53
Pay-parking / 2002: 3.30
2005: 2.52 / 4.13
3.33 / 3.31
2.57 / 2.68
1.77 / 3.32
2.61 / 3.01
2.08
Flexible parking / 2002: 3.90
2005: 3.57 / 4.21
3.80 / 3.97
3.65 / 2.88
3.16 / 3.99
3.63 / 3.66
3.41
Car-sharing / 2002:------
2005: 3.06 / ------
3.15 / ------
2.90 / ------
2.81 / ------
3.57 / ------
3.56
Collective taxis / 2002:------
2005: 3.13 / ------
3.19 / ------
3.27 / ------
2.78 / ------
3.00 / ------
3.06
Access-restricted areas / 2002: 3.88
2005: 3.27 / 4.74
3.84 / 4.18
3.37 / 2.94
2.73 / 4.45
3.42 / 2.12
2.56

Comments.

The cultural segmentation of the Roman population differentiates markedly within the levels of satisfaction with the initiatives of project ‘Miracles’.

This means that an action to improve satisfaction must take into account the different cultural areas into which the Roman population is subdivided.

The mistrust and anarchy CP values are invariably below the average; the values of the control CP are higher and always above the average; both the efficiency and trust CP values are about average.

1

Annex 1

Local Culture of the Traffic in Rome in 2002


The sizes of the circles representing the CPs are in proportion to their percentages, which are:

CP 2: 46.17%

CP 5: 9.06%

CP 1: 23.16%

CP 3: 15.68%

CP 4: 5.94%


The sizes of the circles representing the CPs are in proportion to their percentages, which are:

CP 2 TRUST: 48.03%

CP 5 MISTRUST: 8.50%

CP 1 CONTROL: 18.76%

CP 3 ANARCHY: 20.23%

CP 4 EFFICIENCY: 4.38%


Annex 2a

Definitions of the Cultural Patterns

The Cultural Patterns are defined as follows:

Cultural Pattern 2: TRUST

This CP is based on trust in the city of Rome and in the district of residency; this trust draws its origins from the reliability of public structures, in which Rome and the district are comparable to the rest of Italy, with the sole exception being the traffic; the latter is more reliable in the country and less in Rome and the district.

Rome is efficient and influential and therefore equipped with power and competency; the same is true of the districts. It is interesting to note that the City and districts are not typified by associative qualities, that is, by the capacity to arouse approval or cause positive affective behaviour. Hence, neither Rome nor one’s district of residence are able to make themselves loved, despite the power and competency. This competency seems to be expressed in the constant development of the quality of life.

With these qualities that evoke trust, Roma seems to be identified with the Municipal Administration: an Administration that is in advance of other Italian cities as regards services for its citizens; an Administration that produces Customer Satisfaction and that knows how to regulate investments in cultural heritage, its contact with its citizens and support of production activities.

Roma, on the other hand, if identified with the people living there, i.e. the “Romans”, seems to arouse mistrust and criticism: its citizens are not very responsible for their city, and only interested in themselves and their families; the problems of the Capital are the widespread unlawfulness and low quality of cultural life.

In the field of traffic, the opposition between Administration and citizens seems to have repercussions on the other opposition: between public and private transport. In the evaluation of this CP, the traffic will improve, but this improvement will be conditioned by the increasing use of public means of transport.

Moreover, public transport represents the true problem of the city: there is no incentive for using it and the traffic is worsened by people’s behaviour; removing “private” traffic (the Romans in the CP love to drive fast) and diverting people to public transport is a compulsory solution. But the actual means of transport are costly and stressful.

Emphasis should be placed on the positive evaluation of each Administrative initiative directed at containing and guiding the behaviour of the Romans; blue zones and pay-parking will be useful in discouraging the use of private cars; the traffic police, not very polite or helpful, should better fulfil their role of approach and guidance, through authoritativeness, but without increasing controls and penalties.

In brief: the opposition between the reliability of city Administration and mistrust in the inhabitants of the city appears interesting. This Administration is taking credible, useful initiatives and is capable of taking advantage of future events. As far as Romans are concerned, the method of control and penalties in the culture being examined would not seem as useful as that of promoting the culture and improving public transport, two tools for creating civility and the competency to coexist.