GIS toolkits for understanding socio-economic impacts of Mega Urban Transport Projects (MUTPs)

Varina Delrieu: Upgrade 2008SEEDA PhD Scholarship holder

GIS toolkits for understanding socio-economic GIS toolkits for understanding socio-economic impacts of Mega Urban Transport Projects (MUTPs)impacts of Mega Urban Transport Projects (MUTPs)

Varina Delrieu Bartlett School of Planning / CASA


ABSTRACT

My research explores the impacts Mega Urban Transport Projects (MUTPs) have on urban communities by exploring changes in socio-demographic profile, accessibility and deprivation over time.

I am interested in sustainable development and want to know to what extent we can visually explore issues such as social-cohesion/exclusion, sustainable mobility and affordability.

I use GIS to spatially analyse data at the smallest spatio-temporal scale and look at ways that the results can be mapped to help urban planners evaluate and appraise an MUTP.

The MUTPs under study are two inter-urban railways; Channel Tunnel Rail Link ‘High-Speed 1’ and 2 hubs (Ashford and Ebbsfleet) in the UK, and KCRC West Rail Extension and 2 hubs (Tuen Mun and Yuen Long) in Hong Kong , so as to explore the effects of context on the impacts.


STRUCTURE OF RESEARCH:

Introduction

Contextual Framework

Theoretical Framework

Methodology

GIS Toolkits

Analysis & Discussion

Summary & Conclusion

• Research Aims & Objectives

• Overview of contextual and theoretical frameworks

• Hypotheses & Research Questions in brief

• Outline of my Methodology

• Work Flowchart



Introduction



Methodology

GIS Toolkits



• Background to MUTP and Impact Studies

• Planning Frameworks (UK & Hong Kong)

• Sustainability Challenges

• Overview of IT Planning Support Systems



Introduction



Methodology

GIS Toolkits



• Two main indicator toolkits: literature review:

Accessibility: GIS and key research themes

Deprivation Indices: GIS and key research themes

• Emerging Issues Analysis



Introduction



Methodology

GIS Toolkits



• Hypotheses and Research Questions

• Case-Studies: CTRL & WestRail

• Quantitative Datasets

• Qualitative Datasets

• Spatial Analytical techniques



Introduction



Methodology

GIS Toolkits



• Coding and implementing a GIS toolkit

• Spatial analysis

• Visualisation and mapping outputs

• Creation of impact indicators

• Error Checking and Testing the toolkit



Introduction



Methodology

GIS Toolkits



• Pattern recognition and interpretation

• Testing the hypotheses and answering the research questions

• Lessons for decision-makers



Introduction



Methodology

GIS Toolkits



• Potential uses for the toolkit

•Theoretical and technical Critiques

• Areas for future research


RESEARCH FLOWCHART


The OMEGA Centre, BSP

Research Context:

Study of Decision-making in Planning, Appraising and Evaluating MUTPs and their Impacts.

This project critically examines thirty international experiences in the planning, appraisal and evaluation of Mega Urban Transport Projects (MUTPs) and their impacts in the Developed World. Its overall aim is to ascertain what constitutes a ´successful mega urban transport project´ in the context of our fast changing world where visions of sustainable development are increasingly coming to the fore as a basis for assessing future development.

MUTP Definition: MUTPs are confined to post-1990 completed road, rail, bridge, tunnel or projects combining these types of links, costing in excess of US$500m (at 1990 prices), located either within urban areas or having a significant impact on urban and metropolitan development.


AIMTo create a toolkit that explores AccessibilityAccessibility, Deprivation IndicesDeprivation Indices and Demographic ProfilesDemographic Profiles as key indicators of socio-economic and change.

Utilising a range of datasets with spatial and temporal variables, the GIS will assess the effects of the MUTP and short- and long-term costs and benefits.

The synthesis of the toolkits’ outputoutput will provide a broader understanding of changes, and must be easily communicable to a wide user-group, such as policy-makers, planners and urban developers so as to play a role in the planning, appraisal and evaluation of MUTPs.


OBJECTIVES1. To identify and derive impact indicators from aggregated datasets across different

contexts

2. To clarify if ‘context is everything’ or what - if any - generic lessons for decision makers can be identified

3. To contribute to the OMEGA Centre’s question ‘What constitutes a successful MUTP?’ by discussion of the impacts, costs and benefits potentially derived from assessment of my case-studies

4. To discern what are the strengths and weaknesses in using GIS as a tool to reach the above objectives


HYPOTHESES & RESEARCH QUESTIONSPART 1: GIS and the CONTEXT of the MUTP

• Hypothesis 1:

“Context is everything”

• Question 1a:

How can we develop GIS-based tools that enhance knowledge of a range of impacts when planning a large urban project, given the breadth of diversity in the projects’ contexts?

• Question 1b:

What is the degree of correlation between outcomes of decisions made for similar infrastructure projects in different context and how these can be compared and visualised?

• Question 1c:

How can qualitative Pre-Hypothesis Narrative Pattern Analysis data and Hypothesis-led questionnaire data from project stakeholder interviews be incorporated into a ‘map’ of the project in a meaningful way so as to enrich the quantitative datasets?


HYPOTHESES & RESEARCH QUESTIONSPART 2: GIS and the IMPACTS of the MUTP

What is an ‘impact’?

First Order: Direct changes, cost or benefit to the natural / built environment and population caused by the project itself

Second Order: Indirect changes, cost or benefit to the natural / built environment and population, where the MUTP can be considered the most influential catalyst for the changes; i.e. outcomes attributed to first order impacts

* Ability to assess impacts is affected by SCALE, both in a geographical, and cost vs. benefit sense

• Hypothesis 2:

“GIS can draw out spatial patterning that indicates socio-economic process that can be considered impacts of MUTPs”

• Question 2:

What spatially-embedded

i) Social ii) Economic iii) Physical variables produce the most reliable and comparable indicators of the impacts of key-decisions across a wide

scope of mega transport projects?


HYPOTHESES & RESEARCH QUESTIONSPART 3: GIS and MUTP SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGES • Hypothesis 3:

“Accessibility Measures and Deprivation Indices can together provide a means to explore sustainability challenges such as social cohesion / exclusion, sustainable mobility and affordability”

• Sub-Hypothesis 3a:

“MUTPs improve social cohesion between pre-existing communities around an MUTP”• Sub-Hypothesis 3b:

“MUTPs induce social exclusion between the pre-existing communities and the newly developed communities around an MUTP”

• Questions 3a: Can aspects of sustainability through which an MUTP can be judged, be spatially analysed, especially as these are

expected to be weighted differently in terms of their importance in different spatio-temporal contexts (this refers closely to the change in the sustainability agenda over a Project’s lifespan)?

• Question 3b:

What factors can be considered to advance social exclusion?• Question 3c:

By which indices can we measure ‘affordability’ against?


DATAFLOWCHART


Section 2 Contextual Framework: OVERVIEW OF I.T. SUPPORT SYSTEMS IN MEGA

URBAN AND TRANSPORT PLANNING

2.2 How are I.T. and digital mapping tools assisting decision-makers?

Planning support / decision-making systems in local and national urban and transport planning

Planning support / decision-making systems in non-UK urban & transport planning (some focus on Hong Kong)

GIS-T: Geographical Information Systems for Transport


Section 2 Contextual Framework: BACKGROUND TO MEGA URBAN TRANSPORT

PROJECTS AND IMPACT STUDIES

2.3 History of definitions, topics, developments, key papers and concepts, regarding planning, appraising and evaluating MUTPs Includes planning frameworks in the UK and Hong Kong

What constitutes a ‘successful’ MUTP, in the past, now and in the future…?

Sustainability challenges: spatio-temporal and politically contextual significance to my research i.e. Social Cohesion/Exclusion, Affordability and Sustainable Mobility

RPG9a (1995)


Section 3 Theoretical Framework:THEORY AND APPLICATIONS OF THE TWO MAIN

INDICATOR TOOLKIT AREAS

2.1.1 Accessibility [network / economic]

2.1.2 Deprivation Indices [locational / social]

How these are important potential key spatial impact indicators of socio-economic change in urban communities post-MUTP?

Refer to research questions and hypotheses


Section 3 Theoretical Framework: ACCESSIBILITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS

[ adapted Murray et al. 1998: fig.1]

Ebbsfleet resident’s Home

MUTP: High Speed 1 – Domestic Service

Place of Work

Fastrack bus, cycling or walking (car?)



3.1 Introduction

3.2 Accessibility measures: perspectives and components What is Accessibility?

Transportation component Land-use component Temporal component Individual component





3.3 Accessibility measures: perspectives and components Measures: descriptions, examples, strengths and shortcomings:

Transport Infrastructure-based accessibility measures

Location-based accessibility measures:• Distance • Contour / Cumulative Opportunities • Potential accessibility / Gravity-based measures • Adapted Potential accessibility measure

Person-based accessibility measures

Utility-based accessibility measures



3.4 Accessibility studies and spatial / technological toolkits: an overview of methodology and research techniques

GIS, Accessibility and Transportation NetworksIntra-Urban Public Transportation* Inter-Urban (High-Speed) Rail Transportation

GIS, Accessibility and Land Use

GIS, Accessibility and Person-based measures



Accessibility & GIS:

Flowchart of a suggested GIS process to measure accessibility (Liu and Zhu 2004b:50)



Accessibility & GIS: transportation data

Digitising topological data for GIS:Kent Thameside Bus Network:(Access to the CTRL)Changes over time?


Section 3 Theoretical Framework:ACCESSIBILITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS

Accessibility & GIS: Public transportation on the periphery of Glasgow

[ Illustration of Easterhouse accessibility: O’Sullivan 2000 et al: Fig.9]



Accessibility & GIS: changes following the construction of a new Mass Rapid Transit Line in Singapore

[ Illustration of 2D & 3D maps: Lui & Zhu 2003: Fig.6]



Accessibility & GIS: Confidence Ellipses, Kernel Density Estimators and Shortest Path Networks: a study in analytical techniques

[Schönfelder & Axhausen 2003]


Section 3 Theoretical Framework:

ACCESSIBILITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS

3.5 GIS / spatial technology and accessibility measures: Discussion

How successfully can I adopt aspects of these approaches to explore the issues of socio-economic impacts and sustainability?

Scales of analysis; are there any cost and benefits of spatial, temporal or attribute data resolution?

How convincing and thorough were any geo-statistics and spatial analyses?

Level of programming and integration with the GIS

A summary of the prevalent shortcomings

How helpful are these approaches and techniques to assess MUTP impacts?


Section 3 Theoretical Framework:

ACCESSIBILITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS

3.6 Access & Accessibility and Key Research Themes:

Accessibility as a social social impact indicator

Accessibility as an economiceconomic impact indicator

Accessibility and sustainability sustainability

Loosely based upon Preston and Raje (2007)



Pennycook et al. 2001



Criteria for choosing the most ‘suitable’ accessibility measure:

Aim of the evaluation

Availability and quality of the primary datasets

Interpretability and communication for end-users

Paths for further research

Articulation with hypothesis of impacts of MUTPs


Section 3 Theoretical Framework: DEPRIVATION INDICES:

THEORY AND APPLICATIONS

(Relative) Deprivation (UK); measured by the government since 1981

• ‘Carstairs Scores’ 1981 & 1991: 4 variables in Census dataset• Index of Deprivation 2000 (ID2000): released at Small Area level• Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 (IMD2004) – updated and

expanded from ID2000. Released at Super Output Area lower level • Indices of Deprivation 2007 (ID 2007): released Dec 07

Deprivation relates to the lack of a resource which is needed for a basic standard of life. There are many different types of deprivation and people can be deprived of one or more of these resources.

Kent County Council website 2007


Section 3 Theoretical Framework: DEPRIVATION INDICES:

THEORY AND APPLICATIONSSeven ‘domains’: (Domain Weight)

• Income deprivation (22.5%)

• Employment deprivation (22.5%)

• Health deprivation and disability (13.5%)

• Education, skills and training deprivation (13.5%)

• Barriers to housing and services (9.3%)

• Crime (9.3%)

• Living Environment deprivation (9.3%)


Section 4: OVERVIEW OF THE CASE STUDIES AND DATASETS

4.1 Where are the case studies and why were they chosen:Case-study 1: Channel Tunnel Rail Link (High-Speed 1) hubs

Digimap Edina datasets



Case-study 1a: CTRL hub Ebbsfleet: Thameside Gateway



Case-study 1a: CTRL hub Ebbsfleet: Kent Thameside

www.gravesham.gov.uk/media/images/r/j/KTDevelopmentMapLarge_1.gif


OVERVIEW OF THE CASE STUDIES AND DATASETS



Case-study 1a: CTRL hub Ebbsfleet Masterplan(s):

www.ebbsfleetvalley.com



Case-study 1b: CTRL hub Ashford Masterplan to 2031:

Identified as one of four major 'growth areas' for the South East in the Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan.



Where are the case studies and why were they chosen: Case-study 2: Hong-Kong KCRC WestRail Extension



Case-study 2a: WestRail Hub Yuen Long District



Case-study 2b: WestRail Hub Tuen Mun District



Census 1996

Forrester et al (2004)

Deprivation in Hong Kong SAR:



6.1.4 Boundaries: how to select and define the spatial & conceptual boundaries?

6.2 The importance of context: socio-economic, cultural, political, spatial and temporal: how are these impacting on the case-studies? Is context explaining some of the emerging issues but not others? Are there unanticipated emerging issues?

6.3 Spatio-temporal datasets data sources / issues / processing

6.4 Socio-economic datasets data sources / issues / processing



4.3 GIS datasets: Geographical extent

Spatial Data collected for SE / E England and London



Road and train infrastructure data; (2006) From OS:

Strategi (1:250,000 )

Meridian 2 (1:50,000)

4.3 GIS datasets: Geographical extent



Polygons of the smallest Census areas for 4 decades

4.3 GIS datasets: Spatio-Temporal extent



4.3 Non-spatial digital datasets: Census tabular data

Census tables from the last 4 decades: (some only at 10% sample level)

Census datasets: collected for 1971-2001

5 Main classes of data• Total population and Age• Household:

Composition

AmenitiesTenure

• Socio-Economic classification• Economic Activities & employment

Industry

Occupation•Travel

Car / Van ownership

Distance to work

Means of travel



Where are the case studies and why were they chosen: Demographic profiles for socio-economic context of the 4 hubs:

Population density

Migration (long-term)

Soc-Ec classification

Employment levels

No of children

No of cars / household

Travel to Work

Ratio of owner occupiers

( + Accessibility level )

( + Deprivation Index )



Qualitative Datasets:

Enriching the depth of contextual information for the hubs

Hypothesis-Led Interviews:More traditional method of data capture via interviews with key

stakeholders, to test hypotheses we have regarding how and why MUTPs develop as they do.

‘Hybrid’ InterviewsA combination of the above two techniques, where the Pre-

Hypothesis section in conducted first, so as not to pollute the interviewee with hypotheses.

Pre-hypothesis Narrative Pattern Analysis: Interviews with key stakeholders to tell us their ‘story’ of their experience of the project. Anecdotes are filtered and patterns drawn out to potentially discover unexpected yet significant patterns of outcomes in the project’s development.


DATAFLOWCHART


Section 5: THE G.I.S. TOOLKITS

5.1 Research methodology & technical processes and analyses:a) Coding and implementing an integrated GIS toolkit (VBA /C++) b) spatial analytical techniques: MESDA, dynamic shift-share / GWR?c) visualisation and mapping outputsd) creation of impact indicators: generic / context specific

Need to design a robust framework for dealing with aggregate datasets

5.2 Error checking and testing of the tools


Section 6: DISCUSSION AND CRITICAL ASSESSMENT

6.1 Pattern recognition and interpretation; making sense of the data: visualising changes over time and space for impacts, costs and benefits

6.2 How do methods respond to research questions and prove or disprove the hypotheses?

6.3 How do the tools respond to emerging issues in section 5?

6.4 How does the toolkit aid the evaluation of potential key spatial-temporal, socio-economic & environmental impact indicators, sustainability challenges facing the planning of MUTPs

6.5 Generic lessons for decision-makers – is context everything?


Section 7: CONCLUSIONS

7.1 How can these tools assist in the decision-making process during the following stages, i.e. through indicators:a) planning?b) appraisal (pre-project)?c) evaluation of outcomes (post-project), including impact studies?

7.2 Potential implementation and use of the toolkit in planning sector

7.3 Critiques a) Conceptual / theoreticalb) Technical

7.4 Areas for future research


TIMETABLE FOR 2007-08 SESSION

1. Completion of the secondary aspect of the theoretical framework “Deprivation Indices” [c10,000 words]

2. Overview of I.T. Support Systems in Mega Urban & Transport Planning [c4,000 words]

3. Background to Mega Urban Transport Projects & impact studies [c4,000 words]

4. Commencement of the coding of the GIS toolkits [VBA ArcObjects]

5. Identify significant dataset shortcomings and rectify

6. Field-trip: Hong Kong University Jan-March 2009: Data collection

Documents

GIS toolkits for understanding socio-economic impacts of Mega Urban Transport Projects (MUTPs)