Upload
jason-curtis
View
222
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SOLUTIONS: A Proposed Appraisal
Framework Dr Gordon Mitchell
School of Geography / Institute for Transport Studies
University of Leeds
Guiding Principles
Address Sustainability (SEE) – with evaluation criteria
sensitive to LU&T instruments & scenarios
Objective (predictive ability preferred) and transparent
Practical & achievable given available tools / resources
Outputs useful to case study cities, but goal of
generic guidance production paramount
Be consistent with current practice in LU & T appraisal
for wide stakeholder acceptance (evolution not revolution)
SA-SEA good practice review
UK practice review, inc:– SEA directive implementation
(Therivel 2003)
– SA of spatial plans(D. Tyldesley Assoc 2004)
– Typical recommended LU/T plan assessment process
Tailoring to SOLUTIONS
– Required by SOLUTIONS?
– Relevant to assessment?
Typical UK SA-SEA Process Screen the plan Baseline assessment Scope plan issues Define objectives & criteria Assess plan aims Transboundary effects Identify alternatives Check policy plan range Assess plan Report results Consult over plan & appraisal Deposit plan Plan approval Monitoring and review
SPECIFY ISSUES & ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
SPECIFY DESIGNS
SCOPING ASSESSMENT (OPTIONAL)
HYBRID ASSESSMENTIndependent assessments of local and strategic designsAssessment of some integrated local-strategic designs
ENHANCED ASSESSMENT
REPORTING
Assessment
Issues & indicators
Literature (generic, national, case cities) reviewed to identify common LU/T issues, & potential indicators
Preliminary list under discussion
(Further input from DISTILLATE survey of LTP stakeholders - Jan 2005)
ECONOMIC Net economic benefit
ENVIRONMENT Pollution (GHG and noxious
emissions, noise, NPS pollution) Local environmental quality (Green
space, land/townscape, biodiversity) Flood risk Land coverage (green/brown) Energy and water use
SOCIAL Accessibility (jobs, services) Health (accidents, fitness, journey
ambience) Severance; Journey reliability Equity in distribution of social /
economic benefits & environmental costs
Specify LU&T ‘designs’
‘Designs’ are described by– Spatial designs at the strategic (city) scale– Spatial designs at the local (neighbourhood) scale (STA screening)– Pricing, regulation and investment levers
These designs are also to be tested for– 4 case study cities (for generic guidance)– Exogenous ‘scenarios’ (fuel price, demographics…)
Not all possible ‘designs’ can be tested, so a systematic approach to selection is essential– A task to address in WPs 2-4– Can be supported by the ‘scoping assessment’
Scoping Assessment (optional)
Scoping aids selection of those LU & T ‘designs’ that merit more detailed assessment
Scoping is a subjective assessment of a designs impact on evaluation criteria (matrix noting impact size / direction)
– Identifies designs that appear broadly comparable in impact terms (& which could be dropped to avoid duplication)
– Identifies potential mechanisms that merit further investigation (e.g. greenbelt protection may increase travel)
– Identifies evaluation criteria most sensitive to designs, guiding application of subsequent assessment tools
Independent Assessment Designs assessed
separately at city and neighbourhood scales
Results presented against a common indicator set, and reported together
ADVANTAGES Simple, allowing S/L teams to
apply familiar methods (that differ according to scale)
Collectively, more assessment criteria could be addressed
DISADVANTAGES Danger of double counting
No recognition of macro-micro scale interaction
STRATEGIC LOCAL
Report change in assessment criteria (For whole system)
Integrated Assessment
Designs assessed with explicit scale integration
Local design represented in a full LUTI model using zonal level data exchange
& / or microsimulation
ADVANTAGES Recognises macro level
patterns emerge from local processes, &….
Local behaviour controlled by macro level constraints
DISADVANTAGES Less proven methodology
Insensitivity of LUTI models to local designs
Fewer tests possible
Scheduling issues
LUTI model not operational for all case cities (?)
STRATEGIC LOCAL
Report change in assessment criteria (For whole system)
‘Hybrid’ Assessment
‘DEPTH’ OF ASSESSMENT
EXTENT OF ASSESSMENT (No. of tests)
INDEPENDENTASSESSMENT
QUESTIONS / DECISIONS
Which scale interactions are key….& which indicators are sensitive to them?
What feedback can be represented?
What are the main practical issues (resources, timing etc)?
What is the appropriate balance of integrated & independent assessments?
MS in a full LUTI model
MS in a partial LUTI model (city isa buffer zone)
Data exchange from local design to LUTI model zones (& v.v.)
INTEG
RA
TED A
SSESSMEN
T
Enhanced Assessment Many S/L outputs need further analysis to address
the evaluation criteria (enhanced assessment)
Leeds team have developed potentially useful models (applicable to transport networks and urban land use)– TEMMS– SMARTNET– Water demand – Diffuse Pollutant loadings– Environmental equity assessment
Great potential for integration with LU/T models, but– Application only relevant if agreed criteria are being addressed
– Practical difficulties of environmental feedback to LUTI model
2015 Do AllNO2 Annual Mean (ug/m3)
4035302824222016
NO2 AM Do-All 2005
VB model takes link flow / speed data from network (e.g. SATURN)
Rapid modelling and mapping of 7 emissions to air & energy use
Output to dispersion model (ADMS-Urban or AirViro)
Application EPSRC LINK-FIT – Air quality
implications for Leeds of: – 16 road user charge options– Road building – Clean Fuel vehicles– Do nothing
2005 Do Min - Inner Cordon% Difference NOx
25 and above5 to 25
-5 to 5-25 to -5-50 to -25
-100 to -50
TEMMS
TEMMS development to model additional link based criteria relevant to transport networks (guided by NATA). Includes
– Noise, water pollution abatement– Accidents (by severity)– Journey ambience; journey stress, – Severance
Multi-criteria module NATA 7 point scale for non-modelled criteria User definable value function curves AHP to define criteria weights
Gives option for MCA of road networks
SMARTNET
Water Resource Use
Domestic Demand Micro-component model
(H/hold size, SEG etc.) DCM database available to
develop demand coefficients response to LUTI model zonal outputs
Non-Domestic demand Econometric model
(employment, output, prices, climate, waste min practice)
Tiered model permits linkage to LUTI model zonal outputs (SIC coded economic activity)
Urban Diffuse Pollution Model EPSRC project for SUDS
planning
Probabilistic modelling of 18 NPS pollutants, considering land use, traffic and climate
Raster based model with potential for linkage to LUTI model
Main land uses of residential, commercial, industrial, roads, open, other/mixed)
Impermeability a function of land use and residential density
NPS Copper (Kg/ha/yr)
City B
XX --
XX
-- X
SUSTAINABILITY INDEX
Many exist, none directly applicable
Opportunity for bespoke application (e.g. ecological footprinting)
Reporting Appraisal Summary Table (AST) A ‘rich’ database of many individual
indicators supports writing of generic guidance ….but….
Identification of ‘best’ designs difficult
Supporting aggregation needed
GNP and ISEW for the USA (Daly and Cobb, 1989)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
1950 1960 1970 1980
$ pe
r ca
pita
(19
72 p
rices
)
GNP
ISEW
City A £ CO2 Access
Design 1 XX --
Design 2 XX
Design 3 -- X
MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT
Proven method, readily applied
Weighting controversial but transparent
Next steps…
Establish number & nature of ‘designs’ to assess
Agree preferred evaluation criteria / indicators (and establish quantification capability)
Decide balance of integrated v independent assessment (& the extent to which environmental feedback can be accommodated)
Decide if SD indexes or MCA are valuable tools to complement SEE indicators in reporting
‘DEPTH’ OF ASSESSMENT
(extent of process
representation)
EXTENT OF ASSESSMENT (No. of tests)
INDEPENDENTASSESSMENT
INDEPENDENT ASESSMENT:• Designs assessed separately at city
and neighbourhood scales• Relatively simple, but no micro-
macro scale interaction
INTEGRATED ASESSMENT:• Recognises interaction of micro and
macro scale processes • Unproven methodology; practical
and resource constraints
MS in a full LUTI model
MS in a partial LUTI model (city isa buffer zone)
Data exchange from local design to LUTI model zones (& v.v.)
INTEG
RA
TED A
SSESSMEN
T
Independent Assessment Designs assessed
separately at city and neighbourhood scales
Results presented against a common indicator set, and reported together
ADVANTAGES Simple, allowing S/L teams to
apply familiar methods (that differ according to scale)
Collectively, more assessment criteria could be addressed
DISADVANTAGES Danger of double counting
No recognition of macro-micro scale interaction
STRATEGIC LOCAL
Report change in assessment criteria (For whole system)
Integrated Assessment
Designs assessed with explicit scale integration
Local design represented in a full LUTI model using zonal level data exchange
& / or microsimulation
ADVANTAGES Recognises macro level
patterns emerge from local processes, &….
Local behaviour controlled by macro level constraints
DISADVANTAGES Less proven methodology
Insensitivity of LUTI models to local designs
Fewer tests possible
Scheduling issues
LUTI model not operational for all case cities (?)
STRATEGIC LOCAL
Report change in assessment criteria (For whole system)
‘Hybrid’ Assessment
‘DEPTH’ OF ASSESSMENT
EXTENT OF ASSESSMENT (No. of tests)
INDEPENDENTASSESSMENT
QUESTIONS / DECISIONS
Which scale interactions are key….& which indicators are sensitive to them?
What feedback can be represented?
What are the main practical issues (resources, timing etc)?
What is the appropriate balance of integrated & independent assessments?
MS in a full LUTI model
MS in a partial LUTI model (city isa buffer zone)
Data exchange from local design to LUTI model zones (& v.v.)
INTEG
RA
TED A
SSESSMEN
T