indicators and beyond - assessing the sustainability of transport projects - lecture for phd thesis...

Indicators and beyond Assessing the sustainability of transport projects

September 12 2016

Yannick Cornet - [email protected]

Repro

duced w

ith p

erm

issio

n,

Luca D

’acci

htt

p:/

/ww

w.u

rem

.eu/i

sobenefit/

Indicators and beyond - Assessing the sustainability of transport projects

2/58 Yannick Cornet

People

• Cathy Macharis

• Greg Marsden

• Per Nielsen

• Henrik Gudmundsson

• Steen Leleur

• Yannick Cornet

What if the future looked like this? The punctiform city http://www.urem.eu/isobenefit/ consists of dense, walking human settlements connected by elevated high speed links, freeing land for nature to rewild. • Assuming this is a desirable vision, how do we get there? In other words, how do we make sure the

decisions we make today in terms of transport infrastructure and land use serve as stepping stones to this vision?

• A part of sustainable transport planning is normative – it depends on the visions of the future we hold. What is yours?


3/58 Yannick Cornet

Lecture Plan

• Introduction

• Articles I, II, III, IV and V

• Conclusions


4/58 Yannick Cornet

Introduction


5/58 Yannick Cornet

Unsustainable transport?

1. Congestion

2. Safety

3. Emissions

But also

4. Sprawl

5. Habitat Fragmentation

6. Health (e.g. noise)

7. Equity

Road-based transport is responsible worldwide for the equivalent of 13 crashes / day

(1) (2)

(3) (4)

(5) (6) (7)


6/58 Yannick Cornet

Sustainable Transport trends


7/58 Yannick Cornet



8/58 Yannick Cornet



9/58 Yannick Cornet



10/58 Yannick Cornet

Challenges

• Credibly demonstrating actual progress towards a genuinely more sustainable transport situation remains a challenge

• Decisions on major transport infrastructure not yet fully aligned with the overarching goals of sustainable development and the need for transformative actions

• Need to fully integrate sustainability in all conceptual, operational and procedural approaches to transport planning and decision-making

• Current decision support processes and assessment tools are inadequate *

* Sources: Bueno, P.C., Vassallo, J.M., Cheung, K., 2015. Sustainability Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Projects: A Review of Existing Tools and Methods. Transp. Rev. 1–28. Bruun, E., Givoni, M., 2015. Six research routes to steer transport policy. Nature 523, 29–31.



Research question

How can sustainability be transformed from general ideals to corresponding decision-support processes and assessment tools

that genuinely support sustainable development in the transport sector?



Presentation of the articles

Transport Governance

Transport planning and decision-making

Decision-support processes and assessment tools

Sustainable Transport Indicator

Frameworks

II

I

III

IV V

The state-of-the-art in STIFs and research needs

Operationalising a sustainability viewpoint in STA

Expanding the sustainability viewpoint in STA

Biodiversity loss and climate in STA

The concept of reasonable travel time in STA

I

II

III

IV

V



Sustainable Mobility Paradigm

Source: Banister, D., 2008. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transp. Policy 15, 73–80.

II III IV

V

III IV

V



Article I The state-of-the-art in STIFs and research needs

Cornet, Yannick, and Henrik Gudmundsson. 2015. “Building a Metaframework for Sustainable Transport Indicators - Review of Selected Contributions”. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2531: 103–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2531-12

Adapte

d f

rom

“Econom

ic I

ndic

ato

rs”

Walt H

andels

man,

in N

ew

sday,

2012.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2531-12

http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2531-12

http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2531-12

http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2531-12



Rather than ‘standard

indicators’ there could be a common set of criteria for assessment frameworks

Article I - Building a Metaframework for Sustainable Transport Indicators - Review of Selected Contributions

Purpose

• Develop a metaframework for what should inform the analysis and design of STIFs

Method

• Explicit framework theory

Arti

cle

I



Conceptualization

OperationalizationUtilization

”Policy driven” ”Data driven”

”Theory driven”

Arti

cle

I

Method



• Review state-of-the-art

• Key literature on sustainable transportation indicator frameworks

• Collect and evaluate characteristics for robust indicator frameworks 21 Criteria

Arti

cle

I

Conceptualisation = concepts, theory-driven

Operationalisation = procedures, data-driven

Utilisation = intention, policy-driven

1. Provides an explicit and holistic view on sustainability

1. Provides an indicator ‘logic’ based on an understanding of linkages

1. Connects to goals and strategies

2. Spans over a long time horizon

2. Uses models and prospective tools to support target setting

2. Integrates vertically e.g. agency levels, gov’t levels

3. Integrates land use and transportation

3. Supports integrated assessment

3. Integrates horizontally e.g. agency dept’s, other agencies

4. Captures interactions and trade-offs explicitly

4. Is cost effective e.g. uses existing or collective data

4. Engages with stakeholders and context

5. Is consistent with sustainability goals

5. Provides an explicit and transparent process

5. Communicates externally efficiently

6. Provides guidance for ranking sustainability effects

6. Evaluates the quality of the selected indicators e.g. validity, sensitivity, comparability, interpretability, actionability, ..

6. Aligns with agency capabilities

7. Provides guidance for sustainable transport choices

7. Supportive leadership

8. Periodic feedback



Findings and research paths

• The three functions of conceptualization, operationalization and utilization provide a useful first-level structure to assess assessment tools

• Develop each metacriterion

• Look beyond indicators

Arti

cle

I



Arti

cle

I

Conceptualisation = concepts, theory-driven

Operationalisation = procedures, data-driven

Utilisation = intention, policy-driven

1. Provides an explicit and holistic view on sustainability

1. Provides an indicator ‘logic’ based on an understanding of linkages

1. Connects to goals and strategies

2. Spans over a long time horizon

2. Uses models and prospective tools to support target setting

2. Integrates vertically e.g. agency levels, gov’t levels

3. Integrates land use and transportation

3. Supports integrated assessment

3. Integrates horizontally e.g. agency dept’s, other agencies

4. Captures interactions and trade-offs explicitly

4. Is cost effective e.g. uses existing or collective data

4. Engages with stakeholders and context

5. Is consistent with sustainability goals

5. Provides an explicit and transparent process

5. Communicates externally efficiently

6. Provides guidance for ranking sustainability effects

6. Evaluates the quality of the selected indicators e.g. validity, sensitivity, comparability, interpretability, actionability, ..

6. Aligns with agency capabilities

7. Provides guidance for sustainable transport choices

7. Supportive leadership

8. Periodic feedback

III

II

IV

V

Next contributions



Article II Operationalising a sustainability viewpoint in STA Pryn, Marie Ridley, Yannick Cornet, and Kim Bang Salling. 2015. “Applying Sustainability Theory to Transport Infrastructure Assessment Using a Multiplicative AHP Decision Support Model.” Transport 30 (3): 330–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2015.1081281

http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2015.1081281

http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2015.1081281



Decision-support processes and assessment tools in STA

1st generation: CBA and objectivist-positivist assumptions

• A well-established tool for transport appraisal

• Monetization of impacts across time and space

• A way of “civilising decision making”

2nd generation: MCA and extension of instrumental rationality

• Wide range of techniques to assess impacts that are currently not feasible or practical to monetise

• “Not everything that counts can be counted”

3rd generation: MAMCA and communicative rationality

• Key to 3rd generation: make stakeholders perspectives explicit, earlier in appraisal

• Complex problem = “no right answer”

• Key to our approach: make future generations stakeholder explicit

Arti

cle

III



Article II - Applying Sustainability Theory to Transport Infrastructure Assessment Using a Multiplicative AHP Decision Support Model

• Purpose

• Developing a method to integrate explicitly strong principles of sustainability as a means to inform the weighting of transport effects in a real appraisal context

• Method

• Review high order sustainability principles

• Apply MCA to Frederikssund bridge case

• Operationalise sustainability by using the nested model of sustainability

Arti

cle

II



UK/DK

Povety

line

Environm

enta

l im

pacts

Economic growth & Technological development

Increasing human wants are met

Min

imum

consum

ption

sta

ndard

s

Paradox of poverty Paradox of affluence

Brundtland’s sustainable development path

Essential human needs not met

Essential human needs are met

Sustainable development theory



Virtual ‘future generations’ stakeholder perspective

• Organise criteria in hierarchy of three dimensions of sustainability

• Applies nested model of sustainability using ROD weights

Arti

cle

II



Results

Arti

cle

II



Results

Arti

cle

II

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Alt1 Alt2 Alt3 Alt4

Pre

fere

nce

va

lue

Alternatives

Municipality viewpoint

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Alt1 Alt2 Alt3 Alt4

Pre

fere

nce

valu

e

Alternatives

Future generations

viewpoint (sust.ranking)



Article III Expanding the sustainability viewpoint in STA

Cornet, Yannick, Michael Bruhn Barfod, Merrill Jones Barradale, and Robin Hickman. Under review for special issue.

“Incorporating a sustainability viewpoint into multi-actor MCA – the case of HS2.”



Article III - Incorporating a sustainability viewpoint into multi-actor MCA – the case of HS2

Purpose

• Develop and test a STA process on a large transport project

• Make explicit a sustainability viewpoint

• Explore methodological trade-offs and address common biases

Method

• HS2 case

• Adapt multi-actor MCA (MAMCA) procedure

• Develop a comprehensive and coherent list of assessment criteria

• Structured interviews based on online questionnaire

Arti

cle

III



High Speed Rail 2 (HS2)

Phase I

• 221km

• 2017-2026

• £21.4B €27B

• BCR 1.4 time savings = 70% benefits

Phase II

• +335km

• +£21.2B

• Opens in 2033 Source: Source: Department for Transport. 2013. The Strategic Case for HS2.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/the-strategic-case-for-hs2



HS2 Phase I

Max 400kph 49min

Upgrade West Coast Main Line

200225kph

73min

Project options

High Speed Rail along M1 motorway

300kph – 55min

Current journey time: 85min

Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty



28 Criteria

1. Based on standard transport appraisal criteria (WebTAG)

2. Iterative and interactive process with respondents

Respondents are asked to select minimum 6 criteria

Arti

cle

III



Prioritising criteria

Arti

cle

III



Assessing performance

Arti

cle

III



Common Biases

Arti

cle

III

Source: von Winterfeldt, D., Edwards, W., 1986. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press.



Perfo

rm

an

ce a

ssessm

en

ts



Perfo

rm

an

ce a

ssessm

en

ts

Ora

nge:

off

icia

l H

S2 g

oals

Purp

le:

all e

nvironm

enta

l im

pacts

HS2 performs relatively better on most direct impacts, including official HS2 goals. The WCML upgrade option performs better on most environmental criteria.



Pro

ject

prefe

ren

ces p

er

sta

keh

old

er g

ro

up



Pro

ject

prefe

ren

ces p

er

sta

keh

old

er g

ro

up

(ro

bu

stn

ess)

Final results are robust for all stakeholder groups: results do not vary significantly in terms of project preferences when testing for range of consistency thresholds (10-50%) and minimum of respondents per criterion.



Crit

eria

prio

rit

isati

on

1 Econ. dev. 2 Passenger cap. 3 Proj. cost 4 Time

1 Proj. cost 2 Passenger cap. 3 Econ. dev. 4 Freight cap.

1 Accessibility 2 Passenger cap. 3 Connectivity 4 Carbon

1 Connectivity 2 Proj. cost 3. Land use 4. Landscape



Key take-aways

• Expert/stakeholder judgements

• Requires knowledge about the project and its options

• Important to cover impacts (criteria) broadly (to avoid omission bias)

• Semi-structured interviews worked well

• Validation and self-learning

• MAMCA to enable ‘communicative rationality’

• Provide clarity about competing views, and why

• Sensitivity analysis as a way to support negotiation

Arti

cle

III



Article IV Biodiversity loss and climate in STA

Cornet, Yannick, David Banister, and Geoffrey Dudley. In peer review.

“High Speed Rail: A Mandate for Future Generations?”



Article IV - High Speed Rail: A Mandate for Future Generations?

Purpose

• Analyse trade-offs associated with assessment of large transport projects in the long term

Method

• “Critical” HS2 case: tunnelling of protected areas in Chiltern Hills

• Two core planetary boundaries

• Analysis of (extensive and publicly available) impact assessment reports

Arti

cle

IV

Sources: Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qual. Inq. 12, 219–245 Steffen, W. et al. 2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science (80). 347



HS2 alignment phase I

Increase levels of biodiversity = more tunnels More tunnels = more carbon = more costly



Tunnel extension and the issue of time



Tunnel extension and the issue of time

Savings are not immediate, they are cumulative Benefits will only accrue if and when HS2 is completed (Phase I 2026; Phase II 2033) Carbon sequestration from tree planting is not immediate Phasing of modal shift – depends on freight and passenger uptake of released capacity Depends also on speed of decarbonization of energy system



Defining a legacy

• No discussion over balance between climate and biodiversity impacts

• Important trade-offs made not accounted for

• Time dimension not well understood

• Environmentalists are split (e.g. local vs national)

• Environment seen as part of remediation

• Harder to achieve UK carbon and biodiversity commitments

• Debate driven by the politics, not rationality

• Unstructured stakeholder involvement and inefficient public participation?

• Speed and cost have taken priority



Article V The concept of reasonable travel time in STA

Banister, David, Yannick Cornet, Moshe Givoni, and Glenn Lyons. In peer review.

“From Minimum to Reasonable Travel Time.”

Com

part

ment

C C

ar,

1938 b

y E

dw

ard

Hopper



Article V - From Minimum to Reasonable Travel Time

Purpose

• Enrich (challenge) the current planning paradigm

• Introduce RTT

• NOT: propose how to measure or quantify RTT

Method

• Deconstruct the elements that compose travel time

• Develop a (more) holistic conceptualisation of travel time

• Illustrate concept with high-speed rail

Arti

cle

V



Is a function of:

• Activities at destination

• Door-to-door travel time

• Travel experience

Reasonable Travel Time

Arti

cle

V

Travel time ratio =

Travel time

Travel time + activity time

Interconnectivity ratio = Access + Egress + Transfer + Wait

Main trunk travel time

Source: Dijst, M., Vidakovic, V., 2000. Travel time ratio : the key factor of spatial reach. Transportation

(Amst). 179–199

Source: Krygsman, S., Dijst, M., Arentze, T., 2004. Multimodal public transport: an analysis of travel time elements and the interconnectivity ratio. Transp. Policy 11, 265–275



If we want to invest in transport ..

Investing in experience and/or interconnectivity (and not speed) is likely to be a more efficient investment

RTT Improvement

Reasonable Travel Time

Faster door-to-door travel time

Better travel

experience

ISO RTT curves

Arti

cle

V



Conclusions and Perspectives

Deus s

ive N

atu

ra (

Baru

ch S

pin

oza),

in

terp

reta

tion b

y S

hoshannah B

rom

bacher



Conclusions

• Sustainability is holistic incorporating

sustainability into transport assessment requires broadening its scope

•Operational aspects are important, but also underlying conceptualisation and the actual utilisation of knowledge (article I)

• These considerations are not always explicitly addressed, even in state-of–the-art appraisal processes (article IV)



Conceptualisation

• Strong sustainability theory from the natural and social sciences provides top-down guidance for prioritising impacts based on high order principles (articles II and III)



Operationalisation

• MCA methods can be adapted to provide a strong sustainability viewpoint by

• Reprioritising impacts from a future generations’ perspective

•Making this viewpoint explicit in decision-making

• This can be done in two ways

• Top-down (theory-based, ROD)

• Bottom-up (Rawls’ veil of ignorance)



Utilisation

• Results are not intended to be used ‘as is’, but instead to be compared to other stakeholder perspectives in a process of communicative planning

• Further empirical research is needed to find out whether the approach of providing an explicit ‘future generations’ viewpoint can indeed influence decisions in the practice



Formalising STA

Essential characteristics of Sustainable Transport Appraisal:

• The analysis of the design of STA processes involves explicitly addressing conceptual, operational and utilisation challenges,

• Conceptual: STA is based on first-order principles of sustainability and sustainability is a goal,

• Operational: The core process of STA is decision-making,

• Utilisation: STA is democratic, STA is political. It makes the perspectives of stakeholders explicit in the decision-making process,

• STA expands democracy to incorporating explicitly the interests of future generations, and

• Epistemologically, STA is plural: is a combination of various rationalities.



• No silver bullet, sustainable transport is wicked

• A lot of it boils down to lack of integrated, network planning • Need for true options generation, going beyond lock-in

• MCA enforces consideration of alternatives

• Opportunity for engineers as providers of tools, methods and systems to support the formulation, implementation and enforcement of policies • From analytical, problem-solving to normative, problem-framing role

• Keep it complex! Knowledge is uncertain.

Perspectives

Sources: Banares-Alcantara, R., 2010. Perspectives on the potential roles of engineers in the formulation, implementation and enforcement of policies. Comput. Chem. Eng. 34, 267–276. Stirling, A., 2010. Keep it complex. Nature 468, 1029–1031.



Thank you for your attention [email protected] @yanninbj /yaco8

Prof. David Banister

Dr. Geoffrey Dudley

Dr. Moshe Givoni

Prof. Glenn Lyons

And kudos to my co-authors and mentors Dr. Robin Hickman

Merrill Jones Barradale

Michael Bruhn Barfod

Snr Res. Henrik Gudmundsson