the role of indicators in the assessment of integrated land‐use and transport policies in european...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Ontario]On: 10 November 2014, At: 17:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Planning StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cips20

The role of indicators in theassessment of integrated land‐use andtransport policies in European citiesStefaan Vande Walle a , Thérèse Steenberghen a , Neil Paulley b ,Annette Pedler b & Merijn Martens ca SADL , K.U. Leuven, Vital Decosterstraat 102 , B‐3000, Leuven,Belgiumb TRL Limited , Old Wokingham Road, Crowthorne, Berkshire,RG45, UKc TNO Inro , Schoemakerstraat 79, P.O. Box 6041, 2600 JA, Delft,The NetherlandsPublished online: 14 Oct 2010.

To cite this article: Stefaan Vande Walle , Thérèse Steenberghen , Neil Paulley , AnnettePedler & Merijn Martens (2004) The role of indicators in the assessment of integrated land‐useand transport policies in European cities, International Planning Studies, 9:2-3, 173-196, DOI:10.1080/1356347042000311767

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1356347042000311767

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cips20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/1356347042000311767

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1356347042000311767

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Planning Studies, Vol. 9, Nos 2–3,173–196, May–August 2004

The Role of Indicators in the Assessment of IntegratedLand-use and Transport Policies in European Cities

STEFAAN VANDE WALLE1, THERESE STEENBERGHEN1, NEILPAULLEY2, ANNETTE PEDLER2 & MERIJN MARTENS3

1SADL, K.U. Leuven, Vital Decosterstraat 102, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium; 2TRL Limited, OldWokingham Road, Crowthorne, Berkshire RG45, UK; 3TNO Inro, Schoemakerstraat 79, P.O.Box 6041, 2600 JA, Delft, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT This paper reviews the integration of land-use and transport indicators in currentEuropean planning practice. Integrated land-use and transport planning is considered to be oneof the instruments to reduce car dependency in European cities and regions and to promoteeconomic, social and environmental improvement. Within the framework of the TRANSPLUSproject more than 20 cities were analysed in depth about their integrated transport and land-usemonitoring activities. The cities were selected taking into account geographical spread, size,innovative character of policies and the availability of information. It is found that most citiesacknowledge the interrelation between land-use planning and mobility planning, but in most casesan integrated monitoring system has not yet been set up. The general tendency in the citiesinvestigated is a dominance of transport-oriented monitoring. In a number of cities, ad hoc projectshave been set up, involving both the transport and the land-use department. In other cities, effortsin relation to integrated land-use and transport monitoring are stimulated by higher policy levels.Whereas a number of cities try to combine land-use and transport data, only a few of them monitorthe institutional integration of the land-use and transport departments. Integrated land-use andtransport models are hardly used, and efforts are directed mainly at developing integratedindicators. A number of good practices have been identified and two are discussed in this paper.The Cologne case illustrates the use of land-use and transport data, combined with indicators, tomonitor the planning and implementation of a car-free neighbourhood project and the potential forthe reduction of parking places. In Orleans the development of a mobility observatory acts as aninstrument to monitor the implementation of the PDU (Plan de developpement urbain) in anintegrated way.

Introduction

The growing interest in the interrelation between land use and transport stemsfrom the general concern about sustainable development that has acquired animportant position in present policy processes. Research on the relation betweenurban characteristics and transport resulted in the concept of ‘car dependence’,brought forward by the study by Newman & Kenworthy (1989). In this studythe authors postulated a relationship between density and energy consumption,which acted as a proxy for car use. The study caused controversy on theimportance of density on mobility behaviour and generated additional research

1356-3475 Print/1469-9265 Online/03/02-30173-24 2004 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/1356347042000311767

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

174 S. Vande Walle et al.

on other land-use characteristics with an influence on mobility. At present,land-use strategies such as infill development, building at higher densities,compact development, mixing of functions, and qualitative urban design aregenerally considered to have the potential to contribute to a more sustainabletransport system. On the other hand, transport policies such as public transportpromotion and car restricting measures are believed to have an impact onground prices, activity patterns, the location of activities and the interests ofprivate developers (Deakin, 1998, p. 5).

Despite the growing interest in integrating transport and land-use strategies,little attention has been paid so far to the development of adequate tools andinstruments to monitor these strategies (Sawicki & Flynn, 1996; Kingsley, 1999).Most monitoring is mono-disciplinary oriented, emphasizing one componentand ignoring the other. However, the development of an operational integratedland-use and transport monitoring system requires more than a simple combi-nation of land-use and transport indicators (Innes, 1990; Kingsley, 1999)—itrequires the combination of land-use and transport data into indicators that tellsomething about the relation between the two fields or about the functioning ofthe institutions involved. Simple reporting of various transport and land-useindicators would provide no more than fragmented pictures of reality andwould be of little value to the planning process, unless strong assumptions aboutcause–effect relationships were made (Briassoulis, 2001).

The search for integrated land-use and transport indicators fits into thecurrent, broader search for indicators that cover the multi-dimensional characterof sustainable development, such as the TERM initiative from the EuropeanEnvironment Agency (EEA/Eurostat, 2000). This study draws further on pre-vious work performed on integration indicators in various EU projects, mainlyin the domain of sustainability (OECD, 1999; EEA/Eurostat, 2001; EuropeanCommission, Directorate-General for Agriculture, 2001; European Commission,Enterprise Directorate-General, 2001; European Commission, Directorate-Gen-eral for Energy and Transport, 2000), the literature on social indicators and theirrole in public policy (Bauer, 1966) and the literature on policy monitoring in thepublic sector (Innes, 1990; Smith, 1996; Kingsley, 1999; Bouckaert et al., 2003).Also, the literature on policy performance reporting mechanisms that haverecently been introduced in both North America and Europe has been helpful ininterpreting the information from the case-study cities (Booz, Allen & HamiltonInc., 2001; European Commission, Regional Policy Directorate-General, 2002).

The research for this paper was performed within the framework of theTRANSPLUS (TRANSport Planning Land Use and Sustainability) project, whichis supported by the European Commission under the ‘City of Tomorrow andCultural Heritage’ Key Action of the Fifth Framework Programme. The objectiveof this project is to investigate the relation between spatial and transportplanning in the consecutive stages of the planning process, based on the analysisof good practices in case-study cities. The determination of good practices andthe analysis of their strengths and barriers provide a way to organize a Europeanbenchmarking network. The project has been extended to involve cities from thenew member states also. This paper focuses in particular on the monitoringprocess and reviews current practices regarding land-use and transport inte-gration indicators in European cities. It aims to contribute to the ongoingdiscussion about indicators to monitor integration processes.

Subsequent sections of the paper discuss: a state-of-practice overview of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The Role of Indicators 175

Table 1. TRANSPLUS case-study cities

Population Population density(inhabitants) YearUrban area (km2)City name (inhabitants/km2)

Orleans 1998270 000 2523107Cologne 25061 014 910 1997405Amsterdam 1996718 119 4518212Groningen 175 666 84 2098 2002Munster 2000280 000 926303 (region)Dresden 2020456 102 1996226Tubingen 200081 100 402202 (region)Merseyside 4144463 708 1997112Croydon 2000330 000Bristol 3636400 000 1995110Nantes 1997265 000 501953Rome 2 801 389 1285 19962180Brescia 2000192 582 212391Lisbon 8102 500 000 (approx.) 19983128 (region)Evora 199138 094Barcelona 15 2251 508 805 199699Bilbao 1995385 000 932241Aalborg 2666159 980 199860Brussels 1997950 597 5890161

1444Gent 1997225 469 156Helsinki 1996532 053 2876185Vienna 38951 616 240 1996415

Source: EU Regional Policy, Urban Audit Results, TRANSPLUS, 2002.

land-use and transport policies applied in European cities; a conceptual frame-work to interpret the case study information on land-use and transportintegration indicators and to address the problem statement, i.e. the search forintegrated land-use and transport indicators; an evaluation of the current use ofland-use and transport integration indicators in European cities; and finally two‘good practices’ showing how these indicators could be put into practice.

The Practice of Land-use and Transport Planning in Europe

This section briefly reviews the land-use and transport planning practices foundin the examined cities (see Table 1). Issues such as public transport-orienteddevelopment, non-motorized-mode-based neighbourhood designs and car-freeneighbourhoods play a role in the planning discussions in many of the examinedcities. There is much differentiation, however, among cities and policies.

On a regional scale, planning strategies can be clustered into two categories,namely monocentric and polycentric strategies. The monocentric strategy putsthe focus on revitalization or further strengthening of the city centre (see Table2). We found a variety of policies to strengthen the city centre. Large sums ofpublic and private money are directed towards the redevelopment of all kindsof inefficient inner city land uses like the brownfield sites from the 19th centuryand the older, run-down residential neighbourhoods. As important are theenormous efforts made by those cities to improve the living quality of theinner-city and central-city neighbourhoods. Besides the policies included inTable 2, cities also report that policies like fighting inner-city crime, garbageremoval or programmes to help the homeless are seen as building stones to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Table 2. The monocentric planning strategy

Exemplary casesAction, and carrot (C) or stick (S) measurePolicy

Redevelop inefficiently Dresden, GhentRedevelop brownfield sites (C)used land plots inside Redevelop old neighbourhoods (C)the inner city

Make the inner city Bilbao, Groningen,Use leisure to revitalize the city (C)Differentiate the living quality to attractattractive again Nantes, Aalborg, Rome,high incomes (C) ViennaIntegrate tramline development (C)Give space to pedestrians and publictransport (C)Restrict car access to the inner city (S)Develop car-free living areas (C)

Search for appropriate development areas Ghent, Vienna,Focus suburbanHelsinki, Cologne,residential development within the existing rail network (C)

around public transport MunsterDevelop and intensify new publicfacilities transport corridors (C)

Reactivate rail lines and concentratedevelopments around new stations (C)

GhentRestrictive zoning and road-spaceDiscouragereduction (S)development in ‘wrong’

places

revitalize the inner city and achieve a more compact urban form. The significantattention paid to the inner city is often combined with suburban residentialdevelopment around a few major public transport lines—for example in-tensification of public transport corridors inside the existing built-up area andurban expansion around new, existing or reactivated rail lines.

Secondly, many cities have an active polycentric development strategy (seeTable 3). They choose to concentrate investments in the development of well-lo-cated regional subcentres while trying to consolidate the inner city. Increasingthe density inside subcentres and embedding them in the public transportnetwork is a major challenge for—often regional—public authorities. A differ-ence can be made between cases where it is aimed at developing new urbanityon places that are centrally located in the public transport network and strategiesaimed at integrating new non-planned peripheral urban centres into the publictransport network of the main agglomeration.

Monitoring the implementation of planning strategies needs to focus itsattention on the application of concrete policy instruments. Therefore, theacceptance of available instruments is examined. Table 4 lists possible land-useinstruments to obtain a sustainable land-use and transport pattern and presentsthe popularity (frequency of use) of the instrument in the case-study cities. Thetable shows that, in particular, policy instruments that aim to encourage goodbehaviour by providing a stimulus are popular. These instruments are oftencalled pull strategies or ‘carrots’. Typical activities are infrastructure improve-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Table 3. The polycentric planning strategya

Policy Exemplary casesAction, and carrot (C) or stick (S) measure

LisbonDevelop new urban centres to Develop a second centre of (inter)nationalcomplement the inner city repute to complement the inner city (C)

Develop multifunctional subcentres to Amsterdamenable further urban growth of the centralcity (C)

RomeMake a hierarchy of subcentres on thebasis of public transport accessibility (C)

Connect new non-planned Complement the radial network with Helsinkiurban centres with the public subcentre–subcentre connections (C)transport network Bring proper public transport to new

non-planned centralities at the urbanBristol

fringe; enlarge the density in these centres(C)

OrleansBring proper public transport to formerneighbourhood centres that have gainedregional importance (C)Give new suburban growth poles their Croydonown radial public transport network;enlarge the density in these centres (C)

a Note that the polycentric planning strategy usually also includes measures to revitalize theinner city.

ments to the public transport network, bicycle lanes, information on sustainablemodes and financial incentives to use them. For example, most cities use sometype of public investment to stimulate desired development projects. Policiesinstruments that restrict undesired behaviour, often called ‘sticks’, are lesspopular, since forbidding people to do something is generally more difficultthan enabling people to do something, especially by policy makers. The ‘sticks’that are used most frequently include planning and design regulations such asrestrictive zoning and road space reduction. Sticks that are applied less fre-quently are regulations such as local or company-based transport managementregulations, building orders, parking restrictions and minimum values fordensities or mixing.

Experience shows that stick policies are more effective than carrot measures.Wegener & Furst (2000), for example, state that land-use and transport policiesare successful only if they make car travel less attractive and that land-usepolicies that prevent undesired development are more effective than land-usepolicies aimed at promoting desired development. Whereas stick measuresmight be more effective, a combination of carrot and stick measures is oftenperceived as offering the best chances of a successful outcome. However, in mostcities, there is a clear predominance of carrot measures. Practitioners are lookingprimarily for a balance between effectiveness and feasibility. They argue thatcombining sticks and carrots can slow down implementation or nullify out-comes. The process of gaining acceptance with policy makers, stakeholders andthe public is generally perceived as much more difficult with stick measures. Theimplementation of a plan in which a combination of carrot and stick measureshas been adopted might slow down because of difficulties in getting the stick

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Table 4. Application of land-use planning actions in the TRANSPLUS case-studycities

Popularity of

Land-use planning actions, and carrot (C) or stick (S) the

measure instrumentaCategory

Public development projects incl. public investments (C)Public investment •••••••Purchase of land in public interest (C)

Sale or lease of publicly owned land (C) ••••Area-based subsidies to stimulate private development

of specific areas (C)

•Transfer of public functions towards development areas

(C)

•Reduced infrastructure costs at desired development

locations (C)

Tax relief for companies that show desired behaviour

(C)

•••Detailed land-use plan with binding restrictive zoningPlanning and design

(S)

•••Boundaries for urban growth (S)

Road-space reduction (S) ••••••Road categorization and redesign (C/S)

General master plan with government ••priorities/non-binding (C/S)

Neighbourhood design car-free, bicycle-friendly) (C) ••

Conditions of approval integrated in buildingDevelopment ••regulations regulations and permits (S)

••Expropriation or compulsory purchase (S)

•Regulation of private investment using public–private

partnerships (C)

•Binding area- or company-based parking restrictions (S)

•Pre-emption rights (right of first refusal for public

authorities) (–)

•Building order (oblige owners to use undeveloped land)

(S)

Transfer of development rights (S)

Binding area- or company-based transport management

regulations (S)

••••Protection of city-districts with historical and urbanDensity/mixed-use

value (S)regulations

••Inner-urban development (infill development) (C)

•Minimum density criteria or guidelines to development

(S)

Formal and binding standards or norms for mixed use •(S)

Coordination •••Informal coordination of transport planning and (future)

land-use patterns (–)

•••Formal consultation with transport department on all

land-use plans (–)

Formal approval of transport department on all ••land-use plans (–)

a One bullet represents 20% of the case-study cities.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Figure 1. Framework for a monitoring system.

measures accepted. This sometimes results in a tendency to exclude stickmeasures or to separate them clearly from carrot measures. In other cases theplan turns out to be unsuccessful because the stick measure prevents the carrotmeasure from being effective. For example, the ABC-location policy in theNetherlands combined a location policy that stimulated the ‘right’ locations witha parking policy that restricted the number of parking places, according to theaccessibility by car and public transport. The policy included both carrot andstick elements. Carrot elements in the policy were public investments (reducedinfrastructure costs, investments in transport, offering an attractive place to be),whereas stick measures were in the domain of more coercive planning anddesign (restrictive land-use plans) and development regulations (restrictiveparking policy). After 10 years of implementation it has become clear that theparking policy is the major bottleneck for the location policy. While businesseswere willing to locate near public transport facilities, they hesitated due to theparking restrictions (Martens & Griethuysen, 1999). In this way, the stickmeasure, which is part of the deal, hampers the implementation of the carrotmeasure. Good planning does not stop when plans are translated into concreteprojects or new regulations. Good implementation is secured only when anadequate monitoring and evaluation framework is set up to monitor progress. Asubsequent section of this paper takes a closer look at how cities monitor andevaluate land-use and transport integration.

Definitions and Methodology

Definitions

Indicators are the basis of a monitoring system. An indicator is defined in thisstudy as a tangible, measurable specification of a concept that cannot be fullymeasured itself and against which actual achievement can be compared (Innes,1990; Borken, 2003). An indicator summarizes and translates information in away that is clear and understandable for policy makers and the public (Borken,2003). The framework shown in Figure 1 is used to identify and structure thetypes of indicators that are applied by the cities. Indicators can be structuredhorizontally, according to the position in the policy cycle, or vertically, accordingto the aspect of urban policy that is measured. The internal organization and therelation with the environment are also parts of the monitoring system in an

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


organization. The policy cycle, used in the framework, is the core cycle for eachorganization (Bouckaert et al., 2003). Strategic goals are translated into oper-ational goals. Means will be employed, measures implemented and performancedelivered. These are done with an assumed effectivity in mind. To evaluate thiseffectivity a policy evaluation will have to be carried out. This evaluationcomprises the testing of means, activities, performance and effects, using astandard. Indicators of means comprise human resources and information fromthe financial cycle of the organization. Process indicators measure the waymeans are being transformed to performance through activities. Performanceindicators measure the results of the activities. Means, activities and perform-ance are usually interrelated by a causal relationship. This makes indicators ofmeans, process indicators and performance indicators more applicable thaneffect indicators and results in a strong bias towards the former three types ofindicators, although effect indicators can also provide very crucial information.They provide information about the result of the policy and determine whetherthe policy has an impact. However, policies are not implemented in a laboratorysituation. It is impossible to eliminate intermediary factors, which need to becontrolled if the impact of a policy is to be measured. That is why it is useful tomonitor environment indicators, in order to be able to make a profound analysisof policy effects. Good use of effect and environment indicators can significantlyimprove the effectivity of policy. The different elements from the policy cyclehave mutual relations, which are called efficiency, effectivity and cost effectivity.Efficiency is the ratio between input and output, effectivity is the ratio betweeneffects and output, and cost effectivity is the ratio between effects and input.Vertically, indicators used in the transport and land-use departments and at theinterplay of the two are taken into account. Horizontally, the focus lies onprocess indicators, effect indicators and environment indicators.

Within the context of this paper, integration indicators are defined as indica-tors that measure the degree of integration between land use and transport. Thismeans that transport and land-use data are combined and summarized into anindicator that provides information about the interaction between transport andland use. Besides sectoral transport and land-use indicators, integration indica-tors focus on an important aspect in the assessment of the sustainability of anurban system: the integration of the land-use and transport policy. Integrationindicators can be classified in various ways: according to their position in thepolicy process, their scope, relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, utility and sus-tainability. The distinctions further examined in the cities are indicators at thestrategic versus project level, environment versus policy process indicators andintegration versus sectoral (transport and land-use) indicators. This classificationprovided the framework for structuring the case-study information:

• The distinction between integration versus sectoral (land-use and transport)needs to distinguish those cities that are really having integration indicatorsfrom those where a clear transport or land-use bias is detected.

• The distinction between policy process versus environment indicators needsto distinguish two types of integrated land-use and transport indicators. Goodpractices have been detected with regards to both types.

• The distinction between strategic versus project relates to the level at whichintegration indicators are used: from local projects, triggered by individualinitiatives, to strategic collaboration, embedded in the city’s daily policy.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Table 5. Definition of applied indicator types

Indicator Definition

Indicators that measure significant overlaps between policy(Transport and land-use)integration indicators domains. They measure how inter-agency issues are dealt

with in single-agency-based planning and monitoring(European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture,2001; European Commission, Regional PolicyDirectorate-General, 2002). Land-use and transport integrationindicators, in particular, measure intersectoral overlaps andrelations between the land-use and transport system. The termcan relate to environment or policy process integrationindicators

Indicators that measure various components of the urbanSectoral indicatorssystem in an isolated way

Indicators that measure how well sectoral departments arePolicy process indicatorsworking together in the planning process

Environment indicators Indicators that are measuring an element of the urban system.They can be sectoral or integration indicators

Project indicators Indicators that are developed within the framework of aspecific project and that are not incorporated in an overallurban monitoring framework

Strategic indicators Indicators that are part of an urban monitoring framework

Table 5 presents an overview and definitions of the indicator types used.Urban sustainability is part of the concept of sustainable development that

was proclaimed a guiding political concept at the UN World Summit onEnvironment and Development in 1992. Generally, the economic, social andenvironmental dimensions of sustainable development are distinguished. Ac-cording to the European Environment Agency’s survey on the state of theEuropean environment, i.e. the Dobrıs Assessment, the ecological aspect ofurban sustainability can be expressed as meeting the inhabitants’ needs “withoutimposing unsustainable demands on local, as well as global natural systems”. Itis clear that the total area required to sustain a modern European city is muchlarger than the city itself, and that the impacts of the functioning of the city arenot confined to its boundaries. Five urban sustainability principles can be named(European Environment Agency/Eurostat, 2001):

1. Environmental capacity: cities must be designed and managed within the limitsimposed by the natural environment.

2. Reversibility: planning interventions in the urban environment should be asreversible as possible in order not to endanger the ability of the city to adaptto new demands resulting from changes in population and economic activi-ties without impairing environmental capacity.

3. Resilience: a resilient city is able to recover from external stresses.4. Efficiency: cities should obtain the maximum economic benefit for each unit of

resource used (environmental efficiency) and the greatest human benefit fromeach unit of economic activity (welfare efficiency).

5. Equity: equal access for urban inhabitants to resources and services is import-ant to modify unsustainable behaviour exacerbated by inequitabledistribution of wealth.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Figure 2. Land-use–transport feedback cycle.

Operationalizing these principles is not an easy task, not least because compe-tences are often scattered between vertical and horizontal policy levels.

Land use and transport are considered to be important elements in achievinga sustainable land-use and transport system. Both domains are strongly interre-lated. The notion that the spatial separation of human activities creates the needfor travel and goods transport is common wisdom among planners. Conversely,the development of the transport system influences the location decisions ofstakeholders. The recognition that trip and location decisions co-determine eachother and that therefore transport and land-use planning needed to be coordi-nated led to the notion of the ‘land-use transport feedback cycle’ (Wegener &Furst, 2000). The set of relationships implied by this cycle can be summarized asfollows (see Figure 2):

• the distribution of land uses over the urban area determines the locations ofhuman activities such as living, working and leisure;

• the distribution of human activities in space requires spatial interactions ortrips in the transport system to overcome the distance between the locationsof activities;

• the distribution of infrastructure in the transport system creates opportunitiesfor spatial interactions and can be measured as accessibility;

• the distribution of accessibility in space co-determines location decisions andso results in changes of the land-use system.

Transport and land use can be considered as two basic and interrelated parts ofa sustainable urban system.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Methodology

A checklist of integration indicators was made based on literature research(Briassoulis, 2001; European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture,2001; European Commission, Regional Policy Directorate-General, 2002) and theinformation from city representatives (see Table 6). This checklist was usedduring in-depth interviews as a guideline for the evaluation of the monitoringpractices and the use of indicators in the case-study cities. Through the use ofthis checklist three major issues were addressed during the interviews: whetherintegration indicators are known and used in the cities, which indicators areused and how they are used.

Case-study cities were selected following a three-step approach starting witha first scan, followed by a written questionnaire and completed by in-depthinterviews. The first scan comprised a collection of existing urban indicators(population figures, economic figures, social figures, etc.) and other city infor-mation (recent policy initiatives, interesting particularities, etc.). Based on thisdesk research, 23 cities were selected, based on geographical spread, citycharacteristics and the innovative character of recent policy initiatives. For thesecase cities, interviews were conducted with city representatives and/or localexperts based on a standard questionnaire, addressing questions about planning,project implementation, monitoring, barriers, communication and participation.These questionnaires allowed the most interesting cases to be selected for eachresearch item and these were examined further through in-depth interviewswith several city representatives. Table 1 presents the 22 case studies (Bucharestwas also included in the original list but has been omitted here owing to lack ofinformation) which were retained for in-depth analysis in one or more of thestudy’s research areas.

The questionnaires provided a variety of information regarding the monitor-ing of land-use and transport developments. In order to structure theinformation and to identify innovative cases the checklist of indicators was usedand the indicators were classified according to their characteristics. The cate-gories of indicators identified above were used to position the cities. Citiesgained a higher or lower score on each axis according to the indicators theyused. The graphs were then validated by the national local partners. However,it should be noted that the primary aim of this project was not to fulfil aquantitative analysis of the application of integration indicators in Europe. Thetwo basic aims were to detect good practices that could act as examples for othercities and to obtain an overview of current practice in Europe. To meet theseaims the structure of the questionnaires was designed primarily to obtainqualitative information rather than quantitative information.

Classification and Overview of the Case-study Cities

Land-use and Transport Orientation of Indicators

In Figure 3, each city was positioned according to the transport and land-useindicators it uses. Cities placed on or around the diagonal use integrationindicators. Table 6 was used as a checklist during the interviews to assess thecities, and cities gained a higher or lower position according to the number ofindicators from the checklist that were used. After positioning, the graph wasvalidated by an expert from the country of the case-study city. The dashed ovals

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Table 6. Checklist of indicators to evaluate the integration of land-use andtransport policies in the selected cities

Land-use and transport Percentage of new developments (residential,Environmentintegration indicators business, retail) within certain perimeter ofindicators

public transport stop (or node)Accessibility to the city centre (eventually todistinguish between daily, travel cost andpotential accessibility)Accessibility to services (eventually todistinguish between daily, travel cost andpotential accessibility)Quantification of ‘car dependency’ (termintegrating transport aspects like carownership and mobility pattern and land-useaspects like residential location, distribution ofservices, workplaces, etc.)Percentage of households living within e.g.200 m of public transport station (with adefined minimum frequency, e.g. 15 minutesor less)Average share of household expendituredevoted to transportation (direct and indirect)Average amount of residents’ time devoted tonon-recreational travelAbility of non-drivers to reach employmentcentres and services

Transport indicators Total km travelled (person km)(selection) Modal split (i.e. by district, by motive)

Traffic congestion, commercial speed of publictransportNumber of public and private parking spacesIndex of the actual or perceived quality of thetransport system in relation to an acceptedbenchmarkTravel cost of public transport versus carNumber of traffic-calming measuresInvestment in public transport/cyclepaths/pedestrian infrastructureDensity of the public transport networkNetwork capacity indicatorsBicycle use per capita

Activities on public spaceLand-use indicatorsNew retail floor space in town centres and(selection)out of townNumber of brownfield sites versus greenfielddevelopmentsNumber of identified ‘centres’ withemployment, shopping, health care, a primaryschool, public open space, and with aresidential population of at least 7500 at adensity of 150 persons/haDegree of functional self-containment in adistrictDensities of retail (and services)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Table 6. (continued)

Land-use and transport Number of meetings between planningPolicy processdepartment and transport departmentindicators integration indicatorsIndicators measuring integration of land-useplans and mobility plansNumber of projects with both land-use andmobility department involvedIndicators measuring the degree ofcentralization or decentralization of mobilityand land-use policyNumber of integrated land-use and transportschemes implemented

on the graph group cities with similar values. The integration indicators thatwere used most frequently were those related to accessibility (Cologne, Croy-don, Bristol, Dresden, Amsterdam), policy process in both domains (Orleans,Groningen, Ghent, Helsinki) and car dependency (Merseyside, Amsterdam). Thepractices in Cologne and Orleans, which are both situated on the diagonal, arediscussed in detail in a subsequent section. In the case of Cologne, much effortis being directed at the city level to gather accurate accessibility data, turningthem into indicators such as accessibility to the city centre, employment centres,services and public transport stops. In the case of Orleans, many indicators aredeveloped by the regional mobility observatories, integrating them into mobilityreports. These mobility reports act as standardized monitoring instrumentsallowing a detailed annual evaluation of the regional land-use and transportsystem. Not all cities in the project exhibit a good combination of indicators. Amain problem is that land-use information is collected by other authorities andfor different purposes, resulting in lack of integration and incompatibility. Withregards to transport indicators, stronger national requirements, obliging citiesand regions to collect data and metadata on pollution, safety, traffic volumes,etc., result in better and interoperable indicators. When asked during the surveyabout land-use and transport indicators, there is a clear bias towards transportindicators, especially in Southern European cities. Sometimes, a few land-use-re-lated indicators can be mentioned, but data collection is scarce and their spreadand use within city departments seems to be low.

Environment Integration Indicators and Policy Process Integration Indicators

Secondly, the use of land-use and transport integration indicators in the citieswas analysed based on the distinction between environment indicators andpolicy process indicators. Based on their use of the indicators in the checklist, thecities were positioned on the graph (see Figure 4) following the same procedureas used for Figure 3. Indicators evaluating the policy process of land-use andtransport integration are not yet widespread in Europe. In about half of thecase-study cities such indicators have not been used yet. On the other side arethe cities of Munster, Tubingen and Dresden, Groningen, Amsterdam, Orleansand Helsinki. The case of Orleans is discussed in detail in a subsequent section.All these cities have developed procedures or institutions to enable regularcommunication between land-use and transport departments. This communi-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Figure 3. Positioning of case studies according to a dominance of land-use ortransport indicators and the presence of integration land-use and transport

indicators.

cation varies from information exchange and joint meetings to the establishmentof working groups for the planning and implementation of projects.

Land-use and Transport Integration Indicators at Project and Strategic Level (Figure 5)

Not all indicators found in the case-study cities are used systematically in thecity. Some of them were created within the framework of a project and have notbeen incorporated in the city’s daily planning practice. Some examples of the useof land-use and transport integration indicators at the project level are found inCologne and Vienna (car-free neighbourhood projects) and Tubingen (Tubingen-Sudstadt multifunctional area planning). Indicators serving to monitor theplanning process and the implementation of well-defined projects, such as acar-free neighbourhood project or a revitalization scheme, are found in Cologne.In some cities the monitoring is organized at the overall city level for thedevelopment of strategic planning documents, without direct relation to specific

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Figure 4. Positioning of case studies according to a predominance of environ-ment or policy process indicators.

projects. An example is Helsinki, where the MEPLAN model, which can beconsidered as an integrated land-use and transport model, is used. Amongothers, a yearly update of building land reserves is incorporated into the model,as well as information on the activity patterns of households. Merseyside alsoobtained a high score on both axes. In Merseyside the concept of car dependenceis used as a strategic evaluative framework to assess land-use and transportprojects. This concept was quantified by combining data on distances to publictransport and to activity centres, density of the public transport network in thearea and the population within a certain perimeter of public transport stops.However, in the majority of case studies the indicators used at the strategic levelare different from those used at the project level.

The most important findings of the inventory and classification are listedbelow:

• The majority of cities examined claim to have an integrated transport andland-use planning process, including monitoring tools. We learn that there isa considerable difference among the cities concerning their perspective onland-use and transport integration. The general tendency in the investigatedcities is a predominance of transport-oriented monitoring, especially in South-ern European cities (see Figure 3). The reasons for this bias are that, in anumber of cities, the transport department is better equipped than the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Figure 5. Positioning of case studies according to the use in the policy processof the land-use and transport indicators.

land use department. Also, the transport effects are generally more directlymeasurable on a short-term basis than land-use effects, which are oftenmeasurable only in the long term but are subject to many concurrent factors.

• Most efforts to monitor land-use and transport policies in an integrated wayare aimed at finding indicators for an integrated analysis of the urbanenvironment in question (see Figure 4). More critical, however, is monitoringof the integration of policy processes such as the integration of planningdepartments, changes in values, beliefs and norms, related processes, theirtime duration and actors involved (social groups, city departments). In a fewcities such monitoring is taking place (e.g. Orleans, Helsinki, Groningen) (seeFigure 4). These case studies (Orleans is discussed in detail in a subsequentsection) indicate that the presence of institutions besides the traditionalland-use and transport departments helps not only to monitor the integrationof the land-use and transport situation in the city but also the degree ofintegration of urban structures. In cities where institutions have been set up toorganize the integration of land use and transport, these institutions developtheir own monitoring system, evaluating their functioning and success interms of the institutional integration of land use and transport.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


• In some of the cases, integrated monitoring of land use and transport is not yetstructurally present, but a project around this theme has been set up (seeFigure 5). Within this project, indicators have been developed to assess thevarious stages in the policy process, such as a feasibility study, the evaluationof alternatives, the monitoring of the implementation and the evaluation ofimpacts. The applied methodology and the indicators that have been devel-oped can evolve to structural city practice. In other cities, the monitoring isorganized at the overall city level for the development of strategic planningdocuments, without direct relation to specific projects. Here, the driving forcesare often higher policy levels, using land-use and transport models andindicators, and they stimulate lower policy levels to follow, or they mightcouple extended discretionary powers or subsidies to the development of anadequate monitoring system.

• Integrated land-use and transport models are not used widely in the citiesinvestigated. Some of them do use a transport model, but without a link toland use. Three reasons for this came out of the interviews. The reason mostoften mentioned was that data requirements put a heavy burden on cityadministrations. A wide range of input data is required and needs to be keptup to date. Secondly, models are often perceived by city administrations asbeing unreliable, expensive and limited in their capabilities to predict policyeffects. A third reason lies in a diminishing appraisal of rational analysis in theurban policy process. Decision making is seen increasingly as a socio-politicaland organizational process, where the search for generally accepted—or, moreprecisely, politically accepted—decisions defines the main evaluation criteria.The search for a so-called ‘win-win alternative’ is tending to be based not onan analysis of all the available material but on a selective, strategic use ofinformation to support pre-existing viewpoints and private interests.

Good Practice in the Use of Transport and Land-use Integration Indicators

Cologne: Integrating Land-use and Transport Indicators at the Project and StrategicPlanning Level

Cologne was selected as a case study because of its innovative use of integratingland-use and transport indicators at the project (car-free neighbourhood) andstrategic planning level (parking reduction policy). At the project level bothland-use and transport information is combined to integration indicators. Land-use and transport integration indicators are also used to plan and monitor thereduction of parking spaces in the city.

Car-free neighbourhood. In various planning documents (the federal Landesen-twicklungsplan or LEP, the regional Gebietsentwicklungsplan or GEP) there is abroad agreement to develop ways to change the demand for mobility in favourof sustainable modes like public transport, cycling and walking in order toreduce urban traffic problems and their negative impact. To realize the policyobjectives set at the federal level the city of Cologne intends to develop theinnovative policy of the car-free neighbourhood.

A number of car-free housing or car-free neighbourhood projects have been orare being developed in Germany. However, the concept has not yet beenestablished in the housing market, which means that extensive analysis is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


needed to assess potential demand and to determine the design that is mostlikely to be successful. Basically, mobility is to be guaranteed by public trans-port, car sharing and an optimal infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists. Anoptimal infrastructure is also provided for shopping, social and other facilities indaily use. The realization of such an innovative concept requires an extensivefeasibility and market analysis to persuade potential investors and inhabitants.Additionally, the lack of data about people who currently live car free or whowish to do so and the absence of the concept of car-free living as a segment inthe housing market were driving factors behind the setting up of an extensivesystem of assessment and monitoring of the policy process. We will focus herein particular on the setting up of an indicator system to determine the ‘ideal’location for a car-free neighbourhood and the execution of a market study toidentify the optimal way of implementing the concept.

The first step was a land-use analysis, where potential housing areas of theHousing Programme of Cologne were identified to examine their compatibilitywith car-free neighbourhoods. The chosen areas should be easily reachable bypublic transport and should have good access to shops, schools and kinder-gartens. The area should have a certain minimum size. Potential areas wereweighted through a points system. The criteria ‘integration in existing settlementstructures’ and ‘contemporary realization’ are weighted less, where ‘area ofsettlement’ becomes twice as important. ‘Social and service infrastructure’ isweighted six times and the ‘quality of the public transport integration’ isweighted eight times. In this way a classification of areas was made, withholdingareas below a threshold score. The selection and weight of the criteria are beingmonitored continuously. An extension with the criterion of land ownership isbeing considered, since it is easier to develop land owned by the city as acar-free neighbourhood. Finally, four potential areas were selected for furtheranalysis and consultation with the citizens.

A second step was a micro-census analysis identifying the number of car-freehouseholds in Cologne, their characteristics, their location and their livingpreferences. This information is the basis for discussions with decision makers.Based on questionnaire information, data about potential inhabitants werecollected:

• the 25–45 age group is overrepresented;• households with children younger than six years are overrepresented;• people with a high education level are overrepresented;• households living in the inner city of Cologne or areas very near to the central

area of the city are overrepresented;• households regularly using public transport and non-motorized transport

modes are overrepresented;• people who are relatively independent from the car for their regular trips (less

than 1% of the people always go to work by car) are overrepresented;• a small majority of the households prefer buying a house rather than renting.

About 10–20% fulfils the requirements of living in a council flat.

These data were combined with an indicator that measures the potential interestin a car-free neighbourhood project.

The project system is up and running and a monitoring system has been setup. Currently, the following indicators are used to monitor the effects of themeasure:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Table 7. Composition of indicator for the possible reduction of parking lots inthe city of Cologne

Traffic leaving (degree ofmotorized individual traffic Traffic entering (share of

Quality of public transport in per accommodation unit motorized individual traffic)(%)the area (%) within the district) (%)

25 2550

• number of households within the neighbourhood that retreat from the car-freeconcept;

• reduction in the number of cars as a result of the project;• reduction in car trips, energy saving and reduction of pollution through the

abandonment of cars;• prevention of additional traffic strain in the project environment;• noise reduction in the project area and its environment;• number of saved parking space and land saving;• satisfaction within the residential area;• activity patterns of participating households.

This list comprises transport indicators, land-use indicators and other indicators(satisfaction measuring). The number of households that abandoned the use ofthe car because of better living conditions and better infrastructure can beregarded as an indicator of changes in mobility behaviour resulting from theimplementation of the model project. The standards can be set by the question-ing of new inhabitants and using the information from the indicators in themicro-census analysis.

Reduction in the number of parking lots. Until 2000 the authority of the municipal-ities was limited to public parking lots, with the risk that measures limiting thenumber of public parking spaces were compensated by additional privateparking lots. Since 2000 the municipalities have extended discretionary powersto limit the number of parking spaces on private land in those areas with a goodpublic transport system. Cologne seems to be the first city in Germany to have‘translated’ this extended competence into urban policy. The potential reductionof parking lots was evaluated through the creation of multi-criteria maps, takinginto account both land-use and transport data.

A couple of conditions need to be fulfilled in order to reduce the number ofparking lots:

• the land should be no more than 300 m away from a public transport stop;• the public transport stop is served by various public transport lines or the

frequency is 20 minutes minimum.

The city of Cologne is one of the first to use these new possibilities and elaboratean innovative concept for a new plan. The possible reduction of parking lots isevaluated according to the scheme shown in Table 7. The values for the indicatorare displayed on a city map, representing the potential reduction of parking lotsper accommodation unit in the city.

The quality of public transport was estimated at the district level by using thecriteria of attractiveness, frequency and density. Bus routes, bus routes withseparate lanes, trams and all kinds of regional trains were assessed. The quality

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


of public transport for every block of a district was given a score of between 0and 3.

The outbound traffic was investigated per district using a geographicalinformation system (GIS). The incoming traffic was assessed with a trafficsimulation programme (VISUM). The quality was assessed by a score of between0 and 6.

Finally, six possible steps for parking reduction were assigned. According tothe results of the method outlined above, the number of necessary parking lotsper district was reduced by 0, 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50%. These reduction percentagesare presented on a coloured map of Cologne. The map is being used by the cityadministration to make planning decisions without the need for complicatedcalculations.

Conclusions. The following conclusions can be drawn:

• Cologne has developed the concept of a car-free neighbourhood to implementthe principles of density and mixing laid down in its planning documents.Indicators, combining land-use and transport information, have been devel-oped to estimate the potential for car-free living in a certain area (based onquestionnaires) and to assess the success of the project (based on question-naires, simulation and calculation). In other words, the innovative character ofthe measures has forced the city to organize an extensive monitoring systemand to look for indicators measuring the success of the project.

• The monitoring system accompanying the car-free neighbourhood project alsoallows the follow-up of potential negative effects of the project such as anincrease in parking and traffic in the area surrounding the car-free neighbour-hood.

• The map showing the possible reduction in the number of parking lots in thecity is the result of processing complex land-use and transport data, combin-ing public transport data, and outbound traffic and incoming traffic data intoone synthetic indicator that can easily be used by policy makers in dailypractice.

• This case study is atypical of the majority of the case study cities. There is awell-balanced use of land-use and transport data, resulting in integratingindicators. Good cooperation between the land-use and transport departmentswithin this project could well result in good cooperation in strategic planning.

Orleans: Mobility Observatory as Integrating Instrument

Orleans is an illustration of the application of land-use and transport integrationindicators, not only to understand and measure the land-use and transportinteraction but also to measure the policy performance and the degree ofinstitutional integration of the two policy domains. This has been achieved bycreating a separate institution, the mobility ‘observatory’, which acts as anintegrating instrument to coordinate the efforts of local governments and tocoordinate efforts at different sectoral levels.

The primary function of the observatory is to ensure the implementation ofdecisions taken, and to measure their progress and their efficiency for the wholeplanning period. A second function of the observatory is to detect land-use,transport and socio-economic evolutions and trends and, if necessary, to propose

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


action to reverse them. Thirdly, the observatory has a function to communicatewith the population. An extra advantage of the observatory is that data collec-tion is centralized. Definitions are synchronized, redundant data collection isavoided, links between departments are established and a reference database,accessible to all departments, is constructed.

General context of an observatory: the implementation of the PDU. The Loi sur l’air(Air Law) imposes the elaboration of an Urban Mobility Master Plan (Plan dedeveloppement urbain or PDU) for the area that is served by urban transport inconurbations of more than 100 000 inhabitants. The installation of an observatoryis one of the essential elements that allows the process of evaluation to be guidedsuccessfully. The methodological framework has been defined by CERTU (Cen-tre de Recherche sur les Reseaux, Transports, l’Urbanisme et les ConstructionsPubliques), but every urban agglomeration defines the working conditions of itsown observatory. It is the role of these observatories to observe and analyseurban changes that are relevant to the PDU and to monitor the implementationof policy actions. The Orleans observatory was one of the first to be operationalin France and is an example for many others. The structure set up to monitor theUrban Mobility Master Plan usually consists of a steering committee, a technicalcommittee and a mobility observatory. The steering committee consists of theactors that were involved in the PDU planning process (representatives of localauthorities, regional authorities, etc.). The technical committee usually consistsof other partners, economic organizations, associations, experts, etc. The objec-tive of this organization is to generate a dynamic in the implementation of theplan by setting up an efficient organizational structure, motivating actors toexchange data, to reflect on scenarios, etc.

Operation of the observatory. According to the Loi sur l’air the minimum life ofthe observatory is five years. However, as the PDU itself, initialized by a firstperiod with an evaluation after five years, it can become a permanent instru-ment. The functioning of the observatory requires a certain degree ofstandardization (definitions of indicators used) but also allows the anticipationof circumstances such as limited availability of indicators or new problems. Anannual report needs to inform the members of the steering committee on theimplementation process of the PDU. At the same time a database and a GISsystem of indicators is being built up.

Principles for the selection and use of indicators. The Urban Mobility TransportPlans give rise to numerous themes in very diverse domains. As a result, theelaboration of the observatory starts with a selection of the principal objectivesand actions of the PDU, followed by a definition of indicators for all of them andfinally the determination of a reference situation. A strong selection of indicatorsneeds to be made, ensuring that:

• Only the most relevant indicators are selected. Equilibrium needs to be foundbetween synthetic indicators and indicators that are able to indicate a localevolution over the period concerned.

• The selected indicators are clearly defined (geographical spread, calculationmode, source, periodicity).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


• The selected indicators permit the monitoring of the six basic orientations ofthe Loi sur l’Air: reduction in car traffic, enhancement of public transport andnon-motorized modes, structuring of the road network, a parking policy, apolicy with regards to the transport and delivery of goods and the encourage-ment of companies and public institutions to organize collective transport andcarpooling.

• The selected indicators are readily available. Budgets are not available tocollect additional indicators, for example through the organization of regularmobility surveys. In many cases, indirect indicators will be used, for exampleto monitor changes in modal share.

• The selected indicators are easily understandable by policy makers and thepublic. The simplicity of selected indicators also facilitates the normalizationof indicators among different observatories.

• The selected indicators are reliable in terms of definition, place (geographicalextent) and time (the selected indicator should be measured over a long timeperiod).

• The selected indicators allow distinction between (inter)national, regional orlocal trends resulting from the realization of the PDU. In many cases a generaland a ‘local’ indicator will be defined.

Conclusions. An important element in the operation and success of the mobilityobservatories is the motivation of the local authorities involved. The mobilityobservatory does not have the budgets to execute its own research projects or toorganize large-scale mobility surveys. Intensive communication and feedback tothe local authorities need to keep them motivated. A lack of technical expertisein the local authorities can also pose a problem for the observatory. It is too earlyto estimate the impact on urban policies of the monitoring carried out by theobservatories. However, the monitoring instruments are particularly interestingfor various reasons:

• They enable constant observation of the mobility and land-use situation aswell as monitoring of the measures related to the PDU.

• They ensure that the actions decided upon by the PDU do not stay unimple-mented, not least because the same organizations that are involved in theplanning process are involved in the organization of the mobility observatory.

• They enable an integrated and consistent monitoring of land-use and trans-port projects by concentrating all the monitoring and evaluation in one bodythat operates independently from the local authorities.

• They serve as an information collecting instrument, using all kinds of data thatare available at various institutional and sectoral levels; they can identify datagaps and formulate proposals for further research.

• They can compare local evolution with national and regional trends. Coordi-nation among observatories (selection, definition of indicators) will enableeasy comparison and analysis among cities.

The case of the mobility observatory in Orleans represents good practice inrelation to the balance between land-use and transport indicators and their jointuse in monitoring the implementation of a plan. Secondly, the institutionalaspect of land-use and transport integration is not neglected. The mobilityobservatory acts as a medium between departments and administrative levels,ensuring integration of data and—to some extent—integration of the depart-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


ments themselves. The five-year lifespan (and possibly permanent status) of theobservatory allows it to play an important role in the region’s strategic planning,and to play a vital role in the monitoring of land-use and transport projects.

Conclusions on the Use of Transport and Land-use Integration Indicators

The use of integrated land-use and transport monitoring tools is not yetstandard practice in European policy making. However, this does not imply thatplanners refrain from these tools, but it strongly depends on the project, theregional and national planning standards and local practices. Using interviewswith city officials and information from local partners in the different countriesof the case-study cities, an inventory was made of the use of indicators in thefield of land use and transport and, in particular, the interplay of the two. It wasfound that most cities acknowledge the interrelation between land-use planningand mobility planning, but in most cases an integrated monitoring system hasnot yet been set up. The general tendency in the cities investigated is apredominance of transport-oriented monitoring. In a number of cities, projectshave been set up involving both transport and land-use departments. These canevolve to structural city practice. In other cities, efforts in relation to integratedland-use and transport monitoring are stimulated by higher policy levels.Whereas a number of cities try to combine land-use and transport data, only afew of them monitor the institutional integration of the land-use and transportdepartments. Integrated land-use and transport models are hardly used, andefforts are directed mainly at developing integration indicators. A number ofgood practices have been identified, two of which are discussed in this paper.The Cologne case illustrates the use of land-use and transport data, combinedwith indicators, to monitor the planning and implementation of a car-freeneighbourhood project and the potential for a reduction in the number ofparking places. In Orleans the development of a mobility observatory acts as aninstrument to monitor the implementation of the PDU in an integrated way.

References

Bauer, R.A. (1966) Social Indicators (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc. (2001) Transportation System Performance Measures Sustainability,

Definition Report, Transportation System Information Program from the California Department ofTransportation.

Borken, J. (2003) Indicators for sustainable mobility—a policy oriented approach, in: R. Joumard (Ed.)‘Transport and Environment’ Proceedings, 1st Symposium, Avignon, France, 19–20 June; ActesINRETS, No. 93.

Bouckaert, G., De Peuter, B. & Dooren, W. van (2003) Meten en Vergelijken van Lokale BestuurlijkeOntwikkeling (Bruges: Die Keure).

Briassoulis, H. (2001) Sustainable development and its indicators: through a (planner’s) glass darkly,Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 44(3), pp. 409–428.

Deakin, E. (1998) Land use for sustainable urban transport: an assessment of problems and options,paper presented at the ECMT/OECD workshop on Land Use Planning for Sustainable UrbanTransport: Implementing Change, Linz, 23–24 September.

European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture (2001) A Framework for Indicators for theEconomic and Social Dimensions of Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (Brussels: EuropeanCommission).

European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy and Transport (2000) COST 332, Transport andLand Use Policies: Innovations in Institutional Arrangements for Coordination (Brussels: EuropeanCommission).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


European Commission, Enterprise Directorate-General (2001) Indicators for Monitoring Integration ofEnvironment and Sustainable Development in Enterprise Policy (Brussels: European Commission).

European Commission, Regional Policy Directorate-General (2002) The New Programming Period2000–2006: Methodological Working Paper 3: Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation: An IndicativeMethodology (Brussels: European Commission).

European Environment Agency [EEA]/Eurostat (2001) Towards a Transport and Environment ReportingMechanism (TERM), TERM 2001 (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the EuropeanCommunities).

Innes, J.E. (1990) Knowledge and Public Policy: The Search for Meaningful Indicators (New Brunswick:Transaction).

Kingsley, G.T. (1999) Building and Operating Neighborhood Indicator Systems: A Guidebook (Washington,DC: Urban Institute).

Martens, M.J. & Griethuysen, S. (1999) The ABC location policy in the Netherlands: ‘The rightbusiness at the right place’ (http://www.inro.tno.nl/transland/).

Newman, P. & Kenworthy, J. (1989) Cities and Automobile Dependence: An International Sourcebook(Aldershot: Gower).

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] (1999) Report on Indicators for theIntegration of Environmental Concerns into Transport Policies, ref. ENV/EPOC/SE (98)1/FINAL(Paris: OECD).

Sawicki, D.S. & Flynn, P. (1996) Neighborhood indicators: a review of the literature and anassessment of conceptual and methodological issues, Journal of the American Planning Association,62(2), pp. 165–183.

Smith, P. (Ed.) (1996) Measuring Outcome in the Public Sector (London: Taylor & Francis).Wegener, M. & Furst, F. (2000) Land-use Transport Interaction: State of the Art, Berichte aus dem Institut

fur Raumplanung 46, Universitat Dortmund (www.inro.tno.nl/transland/) and(www.detr.gov.uk/roads/rodnetwork/sactra/support99/index.htm).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

7:03

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the role of indicators in the assessment of integrated land‐use and transport policies in european...

Documents