The Urban Co-benefits approach: Methods and tools

Transcription

1 The Urban Co-benefits approach: Methods and tools Christopher Doll Research Fellow United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability Quantifying the Environmental, Social, Economic Benefits from Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Systems SPAD & Asia-LEDS Workshop Kuala Lumpur - 25 June

2 Outline Introduction to UNU, urbanisation and urban systems Urban development with co-benefits How much (quantification) ASI framework and transport tool Case study: Delhi Metro How come (dimensions of decision making) Results of survey Back to systems thinking 2

3 The UNU and its Institutes UNU-CRIS [regional integration] UNU-EHS [environment & human security] UNU-FLORES [material fluxes & resources] UNU-IAS [advanced study for sustainability] UNU-IIAOC [alliance of civilizations] UNU-IIGH [global health] UNU-IIST [software technology] UNU-INRA [Africa's natural resources] UNU-INWEH [water, environment, health] UNU-MERIT [society, economy, innovation] UNU-WIDER [development economics] 3

4 Conceptualising the urban challenge 4

5

6 Global urbanisation trends Since around 2007, more than 50% of the world s population live in cities Around 75% GDP, but only 2-3% of the Earth s land surface Human population growing (1911: 1.75bn : 7bn) Asia added 754 million people in cities between (US+EU). The trend will continue in the next decades Africa still well below 50% urban Africa s global share of urban population is projected to rise from 11.3% in 2010 to 20.2% by (1bn in bn in 2040) Grimm et al Science (319) 6

7 Only 8% live in clean air, 37 % (3/4 billion people) live outside minimum WHO target Doll, 2009; IPCC WGIII, Fig

8 8

9 Private transport and density 9

10 Greening the sectors Transforming space and movement Compact urban development increases density, which promotes all kinds of efficiencies in terms of energy use and reduced travel 20-40% reduction in private vehicle kilometres driven Combined with mixed land-use and increased public transport Green buildings Enhanced urbanism Sustainable transport initiatives Avoid, shift, improve Equity in mobility 10

11 Why does mode share matter? 11

12 12

13 Urban Development with co-benefits 13

14 Urban development with co-benefits approach Urban climate co-benefits are the contribution of one city to the reduction of global environmental degradation and achievement of local sustainable development goals at the same time. Here, it refers to policies which simultaneously address global and local environmental problems; GHG and air pollution reductions Particularly pertinent for developing countries Case study approach to evaluate: How much? How come? Develop support tools 14

15 The vicious cycle of urban transport 15

16 The virtuous cycle of urban transport 16

17 The tools Excel based: Transport; Energy; Waste, Governance (for transport) Designed to evaluate co-benefits of interventions into respective sectors for first order policy screening Four basic steps to the tools: Input data Examine initial baseline/results Apply changes to the sector (Avoid, Shift, Improve) Calculate co-benefits GHG emissions Local Air pollution, fuel saving etc 17

18 Governance & co-benefits evaluation: Transport Initial conceptual framework presented in Doll et al. (2011) 18

19 Governance & co-benefits evaluation Initial conceptual framework presented in Doll et al. (2011) The Institutional Dimension, (G) acts as a multiplier of effectiveness to the technical analysis How come? Technical dimension of co-benefits How much? 19

20 Governance & co-benefits evaluation Initial conceptual framework presented in Doll et al. (2011) Technical dimension of co-benefits How much? The Institutional Dimension, (G) acts as a multiplier of effectiveness to the technical analysis How come? 20

21 Transport tool structure Bottom up assessments of GHG emissions and air pollution in each sector based on local information Transport Fleet size (number of vehicles) Activity (annual distance - km) Occupancy ( persons/vehicle) Fuel efficiencies (km/litre) Fuel emission factors (gram/litre) 21

22 Policy variables Activity Fleet (number of vehicles) Activity (distance travelled) Share Mode share of different vehicles Intensity Fuel efficiency Fuel switch Changing fuel efficiency 22

23 Transport tool Step 1. Mode selection 23

24 Step 2: Data input Step 2. Data input by Mode 24

25 Policy scenario sheet Transport Activity (A) Mode Share (S) Fuel Efficiency (I) Fuel share (F) below 25

26 Policy scenario sheet Results 26

27 Policy scenario sheet Dynamic Graph 27

28 Co-benefits over time 28

29 Extending ASI to other sectors 29

30 Avoid, shift, improve in other sectors ASI framework is applied to the tools in each sector Transport Travel activity (fleet size & distance) Mode share Fuel efficiency Fuel Type Energy Dwelling sizes Building management Energy sources (local generation) Waste Waste generation, waste composition Waste processing method (compost, incineration..) Technology used within a processing method 30

31 Case Study: Delhi Metro 31

32 Mode shift to the metro 3-wheelers 4.5% Taxi 4.5% Mode shift to the Metro Motorcycle 25% Car 22% Bus 44% Mode shift revealed from interview data and corroborated with the literature Future scenarios looked at varying proportion of car vs. bus contribution at 22:44; 33:33; 44:22 Other modes kept constant even for greater ridership levels Current ridership calculated 1.8million/day - around 50% of capacity 6% total demand Calculations also made for 75% and 100% capacity ( 12% total Delhi travel demand) 32

33 CO2 (eq) emissions reductions Carbon(eq) reductions by ridership and mode contribution Percentage of potential metro capacity use 0% -2% Current 75% 100% -4% -6% -8% -10% Bus 44; Car 22 Bus 33; Car 33 Bus 22; Car 44-12% -14% -16% -18% 33

34 Co-benefits by pollutant 34

35 Co-benefits by pollutant 35

36 Summary Gives general idea of the range of co-benefits achievable under different scenarios Co-benefits mainly come from three areas: Ridership of metro Mode shift to the metro Electricity generation of metro Currently, marginal co-benefits with large potential Discussion focuses on means of attaining such shifts Better integration with other modes to use access the metro stations Improved and enforced parking regulations More detailed modelling required to fully understand tradeoffs 36

37 Urban development with co-benefits approach The Co-benefits approach is a means of achieving multiple outcomes with one policy initiative Here, it refers to policies which simultaneously address global and local environmental problems; GHG and air pollution reductions Particularly pertinent for developing countries Case study approach to evaluate: How much? How come? Develop support tools 37

38 Flexible framework for extension to other sectors Context Ranks relative importance of 11 factors upon which AHP is used to determine priorities Specific Policies (e.g. transport) 38

39 Governance Tool structure General Governance Specific Policies (e.g. transport) 39

40 Governance indicators Developed currently for the transport sector to aid decision making about what changes to make in the tool Self assessment of context indicators to determine capacities and most implementable projects Cultural/Lifestyle Legal Orgainisational Coordination Political The key question is what is your ability to change one variable relative to another? 40

41 Prioritizing conditions (partial screenshot) 41

42 Ranked policy measures

43 Link to Transport Tool

44 Two modes of usage If no policies under consideration: Assess context Determine governance abilities (AHP) Determine most implementable options Determine coherent policy package Set parameter sensitivity of change for transport tool If policies are in mind: Determine policy coherence Run self assessment Identify which areas of governance need strengthening/addressing

45 Access to tools: Tool-Server Interaction Access to local server Users from outside Registration & Fill in the input form Submit and save Input data Run the tool Download excel-based Tool

46 46

47 Guidebooks for Evaluation tools and Governance tools 47

48 Results from yesterday 48

49 Lifestyle change Public support and acceptance Legal authority and legislation Administrative structures and enforcement Openness and learning Relative Governance Challenges Expertise Human resources Mean rating Financial resources Technology and infrastructure Horizontal coordination Vertical coordination Consensus and commitment

50 Lifestyle change Public support and acceptance Legal authority and legislation Administrative structures and enforcement Openness and learning Relative Governance Challenges Expertise Human resources Mean rating Financial resources Technology and infrastructure Horizontal coordination Vertical coordination Consensus and commitment

51 Absolute Governance Challenges Technology and infrastructure Administrative structures and enforcement Lifestyle change Vertical coordination Financial resources Legal authority and legislation Human resources Std. Deviation Mean score Openness and learning Expertise Horizontal coordination Consensus and commitment Public support and acceptance

52 Consistency of relative rating scores (Kuala Lumpur vs. rest) Governance aspect N Kuala Lumpur Minimum rating Kuala Lumpur Maximum rating Kuala Lumpur Sub- Sample Mean Kuala Lumpur Sub- Sample S.D. Non-KL Sub-Sample mean Non-KL Sub-Sample S.D. Lifestyle change Public support and acceptance Legal authority and legislation Administrative structures and enforcement Openness and learning Expertise Human resources Financial resources Technology and infrastructure Horizontal coordination Vertical coordination Consensus and commitment

53 Consistency of absolute scores (Kuala Lumpur vs. rest) Governance aspect N Minimum Maximum Kuala Lumpur Mean Kuala Lumpur S.D. Non-KL Mean Non-KL S.D. Lifestyle change Public support and acceptance Legal authority and legislation Administrative structures and enforcement Openness and learning Expertise Human resources Financial resources Technology and infrastructure Horizontal coordination Vertical coordination Consensus and commitment

54 Respondents Capacity Assessment in KL City Hall SPAD Construction/ M.Pub.Works Average Absolute Capacity 54

55 Concluding remarks Simple way of looking at assessing a range of transport policies From an objective view, a city has a certain capacity in these factors Helps generate different perspectives Look at sensitivities, get a feel for the policy landscape One element of the multi-criteria approach to be evaluated with other co-benefits such as health, safety, environment, travel time Or.., as an aid to implementation 55

56 Co-benefits in Health Links Source: Woodcock et al.,

57 57

58 OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROMOTING URBAN CO- BENEFITS Discussions of Co-benefits has emerged in several organizations: Opportunities in the Policy Arena Short Term- Straight forward initiatives using simple technologies E.g., waste management, 3R. Medium Term: require larger investments and the projects can have a high institutional complexity, and consequently high risks and transaction costs E.g., transportation, and industry and energy sector. Long Term Areas with slow changing paths and involving a larger set of integrated initiatives and standards E.g.,: building and land-use sectors, consumption 58

59 Complexity increase Climate Change and Cities Mitigation and Adaptation Sectoral issues (energy, transportation) Physical issues (buildings) Land use issues (urban form, heat islands) Regional issues (effects on economy of the region) Green Agenda issues (consumption)

60 Discussion items Is the tool useful in an operational sense? If so, by whom? What is the best level to discuss governance? Are we missing any important dimensions? Is anything irrelevant 60

61 Brève histoire de la mobilité (A brief history of mobility) Sempé, Rien n est simple (1962) 61

62 62

63 63

64 64

65 65

66 66