What Is a Vision Zero Policy? Lessons from a Multi-sectoral Perspective

Abstract

AbstractVision Zero is a term mainly connected with road traffic safety and has its roots in the Swedish road safety strategy. It was formally adopted by the Swedish parliament in 1997, and due to the initial success of lowering the number of deaths in traffic crashes significantly, it has become a role model for road safety strategies in countries and cities all over the world. In Sweden, Vision Zero for road safety has also inspired the introduction of Vision Zero policies in other sectors, and this chapter focuses on Vision Zero from a multi-sectoral perspective. The purpose of this chapter is twofold: to present five different cases of Vision Zero policies and to discuss what constitutes a Vision Zero policy based on these five cases. The five cases are found in road traffic safety, fire safety, patient safety, suicide, and workplace safety. Every case has its unique preconditions in terms of laws, actors, scope, etc., but they are also similar in relation to injury prevention and the ambition to decrease the number of deaths and serious injuries. The five Vision Zero policies are summarized by presenting the problem and problem framing, the goal, measures, and solutions as well as leading actors and governing structures. We find that the problem itself is quite self-explanatory in each case but that the problem framing and attribution of responsibility differ. All cases have on paper been inspired by the road safety strategies, but the systems approach, so intimately connected with Vision Zero, is more or less absent in the cases of fire safety and suicide. Furthermore, in the field of fire safety, responsibility is placed on the individual and on the business sector rather than based on a shared responsibility and ultimately on the system designers. In all five cases, there are a set of measures in place, but there are differences in implementation due to temporal factors and also what kind of governing and steering structures are in place. There is also a difference in internal support where the Vision Zero for suicide stands out as having less support among agencies working with the issue. Finally, the monitoring systems differ from case to case. The Vision Zero for road traffic safety stands out as having a monitoring and evaluating system based on specific safety targets ultimately aiming toward zero (management by objectives). Based on the empirical findings, we argue that besides having a clear problem and problem framing, a toolbox of measures, a monitoring system, and a governing structure, a policy based on a visionary approach with an ambition to reach zero needs additional perspectives or criteria in order to be successful: (1) ascientificapproach to problem framing and solutions, (2) acomprehensiveapproach, (3) along-termcommitment, and (4) a system and structure based ongovernance. These criteria do not necessarily have to be in place in order to adopt Vision Zero, but they are a prerequisite for building a system based on Vision Zero.