indicators and beyond - assessing the sustainability of transport projects - lecture for phd thesis...
TRANSCRIPT
Indicators and beyond Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
September 12 2016
Yannick Cornet - [email protected]
Repro
duced w
ith p
erm
issio
n,
Luca D
’acci
htt
p:/
/ww
w.u
rem
.eu/i
sobenefit/
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
2/58 Yannick Cornet
People
• Cathy Macharis
• Greg Marsden
• Per Nielsen
• Henrik Gudmundsson
• Steen Leleur
• Yannick Cornet
What if the future looked like this? The punctiform city http://www.urem.eu/isobenefit/ consists of dense, walking human settlements connected by elevated high speed links, freeing land for nature to rewild. • Assuming this is a desirable vision, how do we get there? In other words, how do we make sure the
decisions we make today in terms of transport infrastructure and land use serve as stepping stones to this vision?
• A part of sustainable transport planning is normative – it depends on the visions of the future we hold. What is yours?
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
3/58 Yannick Cornet
Lecture Plan
• Introduction
• Articles I, II, III, IV and V
• Conclusions
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
4/58 Yannick Cornet
Introduction
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
5/58 Yannick Cornet
Unsustainable transport?
1. Congestion
2. Safety
3. Emissions
But also
4. Sprawl
5. Habitat Fragmentation
6. Health (e.g. noise)
7. Equity
Road-based transport is responsible worldwide for the equivalent of 13 crashes / day
(1) (2)
(3) (4)
(5) (6) (7)
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
6/58 Yannick Cornet
Sustainable Transport trends
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
7/58 Yannick Cornet
Sustainable Transport trends
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
8/58 Yannick Cornet
Sustainable Transport trends
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
9/58 Yannick Cornet
Sustainable Transport trends
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
10/58 Yannick Cornet
Challenges
• Credibly demonstrating actual progress towards a genuinely more sustainable transport situation remains a challenge
• Decisions on major transport infrastructure not yet fully aligned with the overarching goals of sustainable development and the need for transformative actions
• Need to fully integrate sustainability in all conceptual, operational and procedural approaches to transport planning and decision-making
• Current decision support processes and assessment tools are inadequate *
* Sources: Bueno, P.C., Vassallo, J.M., Cheung, K., 2015. Sustainability Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Projects: A Review of Existing Tools and Methods. Transp. Rev. 1–28. Bruun, E., Givoni, M., 2015. Six research routes to steer transport policy. Nature 523, 29–31.
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
11/58 Yannick Cornet
Research question
How can sustainability be transformed from general ideals to corresponding decision-support processes and assessment tools
that genuinely support sustainable development in the transport sector?
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
12/58 Yannick Cornet
Presentation of the articles
Transport Governance
Transport planning and decision-making
Decision-support processes and assessment tools
Sustainable Transport Indicator
Frameworks
II
I
III
IV V
The state-of-the-art in STIFs and research needs
Operationalising a sustainability viewpoint in STA
Expanding the sustainability viewpoint in STA
Biodiversity loss and climate in STA
The concept of reasonable travel time in STA
I
II
III
IV
V
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
13/58 Yannick Cornet
Sustainable Mobility Paradigm
Source: Banister, D., 2008. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transp. Policy 15, 73–80.
II III IV
V
III IV
V
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
14/58 Yannick Cornet
Article I The state-of-the-art in STIFs and research needs
Cornet, Yannick, and Henrik Gudmundsson. 2015. “Building a Metaframework for Sustainable Transport Indicators - Review of Selected Contributions”. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2531: 103–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2531-12
Adapte
d f
rom
“Econom
ic I
ndic
ato
rs”
Walt H
andels
man,
in N
ew
sday,
2012.
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
15/58 Yannick Cornet
Rather than ‘standard
indicators’ there could be a common set of criteria for assessment frameworks
Article I - Building a Metaframework for Sustainable Transport Indicators - Review of Selected Contributions
Purpose
• Develop a metaframework for what should inform the analysis and design of STIFs
Method
• Explicit framework theory
Arti
cle
I
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
16/58 Yannick Cornet
Conceptualization
OperationalizationUtilization
”Policy driven” ”Data driven”
”Theory driven”
Arti
cle
I
Method
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
17/58 Yannick Cornet
• Review state-of-the-art
• Key literature on sustainable transportation indicator frameworks
• Collect and evaluate characteristics for robust indicator frameworks 21 Criteria
Arti
cle
I
Conceptualisation = concepts, theory-driven
Operationalisation = procedures, data-driven
Utilisation = intention, policy-driven
1. Provides an explicit and holistic view on sustainability
1. Provides an indicator ‘logic’ based on an understanding of linkages
1. Connects to goals and strategies
2. Spans over a long time horizon
2. Uses models and prospective tools to support target setting
2. Integrates vertically e.g. agency levels, gov’t levels
3. Integrates land use and transportation
3. Supports integrated assessment
3. Integrates horizontally e.g. agency dept’s, other agencies
4. Captures interactions and trade-offs explicitly
4. Is cost effective e.g. uses existing or collective data
4. Engages with stakeholders and context
5. Is consistent with sustainability goals
5. Provides an explicit and transparent process
5. Communicates externally efficiently
6. Provides guidance for ranking sustainability effects
6. Evaluates the quality of the selected indicators e.g. validity, sensitivity, comparability, interpretability, actionability, ..
6. Aligns with agency capabilities
7. Provides guidance for sustainable transport choices
7. Supportive leadership
8. Periodic feedback
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
18/58 Yannick Cornet
Findings and research paths
• The three functions of conceptualization, operationalization and utilization provide a useful first-level structure to assess assessment tools
• Develop each metacriterion
• Look beyond indicators
Arti
cle
I
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
19/58 Yannick Cornet
Arti
cle
I
Conceptualisation = concepts, theory-driven
Operationalisation = procedures, data-driven
Utilisation = intention, policy-driven
1. Provides an explicit and holistic view on sustainability
1. Provides an indicator ‘logic’ based on an understanding of linkages
1. Connects to goals and strategies
2. Spans over a long time horizon
2. Uses models and prospective tools to support target setting
2. Integrates vertically e.g. agency levels, gov’t levels
3. Integrates land use and transportation
3. Supports integrated assessment
3. Integrates horizontally e.g. agency dept’s, other agencies
4. Captures interactions and trade-offs explicitly
4. Is cost effective e.g. uses existing or collective data
4. Engages with stakeholders and context
5. Is consistent with sustainability goals
5. Provides an explicit and transparent process
5. Communicates externally efficiently
6. Provides guidance for ranking sustainability effects
6. Evaluates the quality of the selected indicators e.g. validity, sensitivity, comparability, interpretability, actionability, ..
6. Aligns with agency capabilities
7. Provides guidance for sustainable transport choices
7. Supportive leadership
8. Periodic feedback
III
II
IV
V
Next contributions
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
20/58 Yannick Cornet
Article II Operationalising a sustainability viewpoint in STA Pryn, Marie Ridley, Yannick Cornet, and Kim Bang Salling. 2015. “Applying Sustainability Theory to Transport Infrastructure Assessment Using a Multiplicative AHP Decision Support Model.” Transport 30 (3): 330–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2015.1081281
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
21/58 Yannick Cornet
Decision-support processes and assessment tools in STA
1st generation: CBA and objectivist-positivist assumptions
• A well-established tool for transport appraisal
• Monetization of impacts across time and space
• A way of “civilising decision making”
2nd generation: MCA and extension of instrumental rationality
• Wide range of techniques to assess impacts that are currently not feasible or practical to monetise
• “Not everything that counts can be counted”
3rd generation: MAMCA and communicative rationality
• Key to 3rd generation: make stakeholders perspectives explicit, earlier in appraisal
• Complex problem = “no right answer”
• Key to our approach: make future generations stakeholder explicit
Arti
cle
III
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
22/58 Yannick Cornet
Article II - Applying Sustainability Theory to Transport Infrastructure Assessment Using a Multiplicative AHP Decision Support Model
• Purpose
• Developing a method to integrate explicitly strong principles of sustainability as a means to inform the weighting of transport effects in a real appraisal context
• Method
• Review high order sustainability principles
• Apply MCA to Frederikssund bridge case
• Operationalise sustainability by using the nested model of sustainability
Arti
cle
II
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
23/58 Yannick Cornet
UK/DK
Povety
line
Environm
enta
l im
pacts
Economic growth & Technological development
Increasing human wants are met
Min
imum
consum
ption
sta
ndard
s
Paradox of poverty Paradox of affluence
Brundtland’s sustainable development path
Essential human needs not met
Essential human needs are met
Sustainable development theory
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
24/58 Yannick Cornet
Virtual ‘future generations’ stakeholder perspective
• Organise criteria in hierarchy of three dimensions of sustainability
• Applies nested model of sustainability using ROD weights
Arti
cle
II
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
25/58 Yannick Cornet
Results
Arti
cle
II
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
26/58 Yannick Cornet
Results
Arti
cle
II
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Alt1 Alt2 Alt3 Alt4
Pre
fere
nce
va
lue
Alternatives
Municipality viewpoint
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Alt1 Alt2 Alt3 Alt4
Pre
fere
nce
valu
e
Alternatives
Future generations
viewpoint (sust.ranking)
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
27/58 Yannick Cornet
Article III Expanding the sustainability viewpoint in STA
Cornet, Yannick, Michael Bruhn Barfod, Merrill Jones Barradale, and Robin Hickman. Under review for special issue.
“Incorporating a sustainability viewpoint into multi-actor MCA – the case of HS2.”
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
28/58 Yannick Cornet
Article III - Incorporating a sustainability viewpoint into multi-actor MCA – the case of HS2
Purpose
• Develop and test a STA process on a large transport project
• Make explicit a sustainability viewpoint
• Explore methodological trade-offs and address common biases
Method
• HS2 case
• Adapt multi-actor MCA (MAMCA) procedure
• Develop a comprehensive and coherent list of assessment criteria
• Structured interviews based on online questionnaire
Arti
cle
III
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
29/58 Yannick Cornet
High Speed Rail 2 (HS2)
Phase I
• 221km
• 2017-2026
• £21.4B €27B
• BCR 1.4 time savings = 70% benefits
Phase II
• +335km
• +£21.2B
• Opens in 2033 Source: Source: Department for Transport. 2013. The Strategic Case for HS2.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/the-strategic-case-for-hs2
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
30/58 Yannick Cornet
HS2 Phase I
Max 400kph 49min
Upgrade West Coast Main Line
200225kph
73min
Project options
High Speed Rail along M1 motorway
300kph – 55min
Current journey time: 85min
Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
31/58 Yannick Cornet
28 Criteria
1. Based on standard transport appraisal criteria (WebTAG)
2. Iterative and interactive process with respondents
Respondents are asked to select minimum 6 criteria
Arti
cle
III
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
32/58 Yannick Cornet
Prioritising criteria
Arti
cle
III
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
33/58 Yannick Cornet
Assessing performance
Arti
cle
III
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
34/58 Yannick Cornet
Common Biases
Arti
cle
III
Source: von Winterfeldt, D., Edwards, W., 1986. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press.
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
35/58 Yannick Cornet
Perfo
rm
an
ce a
ssessm
en
ts
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
36/58 Yannick Cornet
Perfo
rm
an
ce a
ssessm
en
ts
Ora
nge:
off
icia
l H
S2 g
oals
Purp
le:
all e
nvironm
enta
l im
pacts
HS2 performs relatively better on most direct impacts, including official HS2 goals. The WCML upgrade option performs better on most environmental criteria.
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
37/58 Yannick Cornet
Pro
ject
prefe
ren
ces p
er
sta
keh
old
er g
ro
up
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
38/58 Yannick Cornet
Pro
ject
prefe
ren
ces p
er
sta
keh
old
er g
ro
up
(ro
bu
stn
ess)
Final results are robust for all stakeholder groups: results do not vary significantly in terms of project preferences when testing for range of consistency thresholds (10-50%) and minimum of respondents per criterion.
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
39/58 Yannick Cornet
Crit
eria
prio
rit
isati
on
1 Econ. dev. 2 Passenger cap. 3 Proj. cost 4 Time
1 Proj. cost 2 Passenger cap. 3 Econ. dev. 4 Freight cap.
1 Accessibility 2 Passenger cap. 3 Connectivity 4 Carbon
1 Connectivity 2 Proj. cost 3. Land use 4. Landscape
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
40/58 Yannick Cornet
Key take-aways
• Expert/stakeholder judgements
• Requires knowledge about the project and its options
• Important to cover impacts (criteria) broadly (to avoid omission bias)
• Semi-structured interviews worked well
• Validation and self-learning
• MAMCA to enable ‘communicative rationality’
• Provide clarity about competing views, and why
• Sensitivity analysis as a way to support negotiation
Arti
cle
III
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
41/58 Yannick Cornet
Article IV Biodiversity loss and climate in STA
Cornet, Yannick, David Banister, and Geoffrey Dudley. In peer review.
“High Speed Rail: A Mandate for Future Generations?”
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
42/58 Yannick Cornet
Article IV - High Speed Rail: A Mandate for Future Generations?
Purpose
• Analyse trade-offs associated with assessment of large transport projects in the long term
Method
• “Critical” HS2 case: tunnelling of protected areas in Chiltern Hills
• Two core planetary boundaries
• Analysis of (extensive and publicly available) impact assessment reports
Arti
cle
IV
Sources: Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qual. Inq. 12, 219–245 Steffen, W. et al. 2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science (80). 347
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
43/58 Yannick Cornet
HS2 alignment phase I
Increase levels of biodiversity = more tunnels More tunnels = more carbon = more costly
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
44/58 Yannick Cornet
Tunnel extension and the issue of time
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
45/58 Yannick Cornet
Tunnel extension and the issue of time
Savings are not immediate, they are cumulative Benefits will only accrue if and when HS2 is completed (Phase I 2026; Phase II 2033) Carbon sequestration from tree planting is not immediate Phasing of modal shift – depends on freight and passenger uptake of released capacity Depends also on speed of decarbonization of energy system
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
46/58 Yannick Cornet
Defining a legacy
• No discussion over balance between climate and biodiversity impacts
• Important trade-offs made not accounted for
• Time dimension not well understood
• Environmentalists are split (e.g. local vs national)
• Environment seen as part of remediation
• Harder to achieve UK carbon and biodiversity commitments
• Debate driven by the politics, not rationality
• Unstructured stakeholder involvement and inefficient public participation?
• Speed and cost have taken priority
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
47/58 Yannick Cornet
Article V The concept of reasonable travel time in STA
Banister, David, Yannick Cornet, Moshe Givoni, and Glenn Lyons. In peer review.
“From Minimum to Reasonable Travel Time.”
Com
part
ment
C C
ar,
1938 b
y E
dw
ard
Hopper
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
48/58 Yannick Cornet
Article V - From Minimum to Reasonable Travel Time
Purpose
• Enrich (challenge) the current planning paradigm
• Introduce RTT
• NOT: propose how to measure or quantify RTT
Method
• Deconstruct the elements that compose travel time
• Develop a (more) holistic conceptualisation of travel time
• Illustrate concept with high-speed rail
Arti
cle
V
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
49/58 Yannick Cornet
Is a function of:
• Activities at destination
• Door-to-door travel time
• Travel experience
Reasonable Travel Time
Arti
cle
V
Travel time ratio =
Travel time
Travel time + activity time
Interconnectivity ratio = Access + Egress + Transfer + Wait
Main trunk travel time
Source: Dijst, M., Vidakovic, V., 2000. Travel time ratio : the key factor of spatial reach. Transportation
(Amst). 179–199
Source: Krygsman, S., Dijst, M., Arentze, T., 2004. Multimodal public transport: an analysis of travel time elements and the interconnectivity ratio. Transp. Policy 11, 265–275
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
50/58 Yannick Cornet
If we want to invest in transport ..
Investing in experience and/or interconnectivity (and not speed) is likely to be a more efficient investment
RTT Improvement
Reasonable Travel Time
Faster door-to-door travel time
Better travel
experience
ISO RTT curves
Arti
cle
V
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
51/58 Yannick Cornet
Conclusions and Perspectives
Deus s
ive N
atu
ra (
Baru
ch S
pin
oza),
in
terp
reta
tion b
y S
hoshannah B
rom
bacher
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
52/58 Yannick Cornet
Conclusions
• Sustainability is holistic incorporating
sustainability into transport assessment requires broadening its scope
•Operational aspects are important, but also underlying conceptualisation and the actual utilisation of knowledge (article I)
• These considerations are not always explicitly addressed, even in state-of–the-art appraisal processes (article IV)
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
53/58 Yannick Cornet
Conceptualisation
• Strong sustainability theory from the natural and social sciences provides top-down guidance for prioritising impacts based on high order principles (articles II and III)
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
54/58 Yannick Cornet
Operationalisation
• MCA methods can be adapted to provide a strong sustainability viewpoint by
• Reprioritising impacts from a future generations’ perspective
•Making this viewpoint explicit in decision-making
• This can be done in two ways
• Top-down (theory-based, ROD)
• Bottom-up (Rawls’ veil of ignorance)
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
55/58 Yannick Cornet
Utilisation
• Results are not intended to be used ‘as is’, but instead to be compared to other stakeholder perspectives in a process of communicative planning
• Further empirical research is needed to find out whether the approach of providing an explicit ‘future generations’ viewpoint can indeed influence decisions in the practice
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
56/58 Yannick Cornet
Formalising STA
Essential characteristics of Sustainable Transport Appraisal:
• The analysis of the design of STA processes involves explicitly addressing conceptual, operational and utilisation challenges,
• Conceptual: STA is based on first-order principles of sustainability and sustainability is a goal,
• Operational: The core process of STA is decision-making,
• Utilisation: STA is democratic, STA is political. It makes the perspectives of stakeholders explicit in the decision-making process,
• STA expands democracy to incorporating explicitly the interests of future generations, and
• Epistemologically, STA is plural: is a combination of various rationalities.
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
57/58 Yannick Cornet
• No silver bullet, sustainable transport is wicked
• A lot of it boils down to lack of integrated, network planning • Need for true options generation, going beyond lock-in
• MCA enforces consideration of alternatives
• Opportunity for engineers as providers of tools, methods and systems to support the formulation, implementation and enforcement of policies • From analytical, problem-solving to normative, problem-framing role
• Keep it complex! Knowledge is uncertain.
Perspectives
Sources: Banares-Alcantara, R., 2010. Perspectives on the potential roles of engineers in the formulation, implementation and enforcement of policies. Comput. Chem. Eng. 34, 267–276. Stirling, A., 2010. Keep it complex. Nature 468, 1029–1031.
Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects
58/58 Yannick Cornet
Thank you for your attention [email protected] @yanninbj /yaco8
Prof. David Banister
Dr. Geoffrey Dudley
Dr. Moshe Givoni
Prof. Glenn Lyons
And kudos to my co-authors and mentors Dr. Robin Hickman
Merrill Jones Barradale
Michael Bruhn Barfod
Snr Res. Henrik Gudmundsson