Methodology
GOLIA gives cities actionable methodological guidance to identify and engage the stakeholders most relevant to their mobility use cases. This tool operationalises the 4-step approach described in Deliverable 5.1.
The 4-step approach
- 1
Link to the challenge
The city defines the specific mobility intervention being planned (e.g. a night-time shared mobility hub in an industrial zone). This anchor frames every subsequent decision.
- 2
The usual suspects
Plot the stakeholders you already know and engage with on the Influence / Ability-to-participate matrix — transport operators, municipal departments, major employers.
- 3
Diversifying stakeholder engagement
Use the SOMI pillars (citizens, private actors, interest groups) or the 5 Governance Optimization tests (public authorities) as lenses to surface stakeholders who are missing from the usual-suspects map.
- 4
A new perspective on inclusive stakeholder engagement
Reposition stakeholders into a deliberately designed engagement landscape. Move fragile groups into Actively Consult and Regularly Engage; align governance, funding and enforcement actors. Close with a reflection on Mobility as a Right.
Try the matrix
Here is an illustrative map for a night-time mobility hub. Hover over each chip to see why that stakeholder sits where they sit.
Understanding the matrix
The mapping exercise is built around a 2-axis matrix. Each stakeholder is a chip you drag into position; together the chips paint a picture of your engagement landscape.
Influence (vertical axis)
The stakeholder's capacity to shape the decision or its implementation — regulatory authority, budget control, political weight, operational capacity.
Ability to participate (horizontal axis)
How able the stakeholder is — practically and structurally — to take part in the planning process: access to information, time, channels, and the resources to engage meaningfully.
Actively Consult
High influence · High ability to participate — your core co-designers. Bring them in early and keep them in the loop.
Keep Informed
High influence · Low ability to participate — they can block or enable, even if they cannot easily engage. Send updates, request sign-off.
Regularly Engage
Low influence · High ability to participate — motivated voices that need a structured channel. Workshops, citizen panels, advisory groups.
Maintain Interest
Low influence · Low ability to participate — keep visible through general communication so they can opt in if relevance grows.
- Action: in step 2, drop the usual stakeholders onto the matrix and drag them where you think they sit today.
- Action: in step 3, the lens prompts surface new stakeholders, which are added with a tag.
- Action: in step 4, switch to the "Desired" view and drag chips to where they should sit for an inclusive plan; the "Compare" view draws arrows from each chip's current to desired position.
Citizens, private actors & interest groups — SOMI 8 pillars
The same 8 SOMI lenses stress-test the citizen, private and interest-group maps. Each lens is a diagnostic question: it doesn't invent stakeholders, it surfaces the people and organisations your usual-suspects map has left out. The exercise closes with a reflection on Mobility as a Right after the final matrix is drawn.
Acceptability — Comfort, Quality & Trust
Who might reject this solution because it doesn't match their values or expectations, lacks privacy or cleanliness, or because they don't trust the operator?
Action: add the groups whose trust must be earned to Regularly Engage.
Accessibility — Reaching Destinations
Who is prevented from using this service due to physical barriers (uneven paving, steps, distance to stop) or digital barriers (no smartphone, low digital literacy, no banking app)? Are we forgetting users with strollers or wheelchairs?
Action: surface accessibility-blocked users and place them in Regularly Engage.
Affordability — Financial Capacity
Who is priced out of this solution when comparing ticket prices and hidden costs (insurance, parking) against their monthly income? Are groups missing out because they lack access to specific discounts?
Action: bring low-income and discount-dependent groups into the map explicitly.
Agency — Choice, Control & Reliability
Who becomes stranded or loses their independence if this service fails, is delayed, or forces them into rigid schedules? Who is left lacking other options?
Action: add captive users (no alternatives) and give them a structured channel.
Availability — Service Presence in Space & Time
Who needs to travel at times (night/weekend) or from locations (low frequency areas) that this solution does not cover?
Action: add off-peak and peripheral-area travellers as distinct stakeholder groups.
Legal Recognition — Rights & Regulation
Whose use of this space or service puts them in legal ambiguity, lacks clear traffic rules, or leaves them without protection in case of an accident (e.g. delivery riders, e-scooter users)?
Action: add legally-grey user groups and the bodies that could clarify their status.
Participation — Voice & Influence
Whose voices are systematically excluded from feedback channels, or who feels the city does not listen to them because the planning process lacks transparency?
Action: identify silenced groups and design a dedicated participation channel for them.
Safety & Security — Protection from Harm
Who avoids this route or service because they feel afraid of personal security threats (harassment, poor lighting), theft, or traffic crashes?
Action: add safety-avoidant users and engage them on route/time design.
Public Authorities — Governance Optimization tests
Five diagnostic tests, derived from the FIT and EUROCITIES governance analysis, to stress-test the institutional mapping and identify missing or misaligned actors.
Mandate & Fragmentation
Are responsibilities split across multiple departments (transport, public works, urban planning), creating a 'no political owner' scenario? Is there a 'homeless topic' (like urban logistics) lacking a dedicated coordinator?
Action: identify the single department that signs off on street occupancy and move them into Actively Consult.
Enforcement & Compliance
Have you mapped the bodies responsible for monitoring and enforcement (traffic police, parking inspectors)? For dynamic regulations (kerbside, UVARs), are the actors who control digital enforcement tools and vehicle registries at the table?
Action: move enforcement bodies into Regularly Engage — without them, implementation fails on the street.
Fiscal & Funding
Are the entities controlling the long-term public budget (Operations & Maintenance) plotted with high power, or is the mapping biased toward those funding the initial CAPEX? Are financial and legal departments responsible for ring-fencing local revenue properly engaged?
Action: elevate budget holders to high-power quadrants so the project doesn't collapse after the pilot.
Multi-Level & Cross-Boundary
Does the mobility challenge span beyond municipal borders (commuting corridors, MaaS, regional public transport)? Are higher-level authorities engaged to prevent a 'patchwork' delivery?
Action: add regional, metropolitan, or national coordinating platforms if multi-jurisdictional alignment is needed.
Data & Digital Governance
If the solution relies on digital tools, data sharing, or AI (Mobility Data Spaces, CCAM), are municipal IT departments, data protection officers, or National Access Point managers included?
Action: treat data regulators and IT infrastructure owners as high-power stakeholders.