Proposal for a Sustainable Urban Transport Index (SUTI) for cities in the Asia-Pacific region

Transcription

1 Proposal for a Sustainable Urban Transport Index (SUTI) for cities in the Asia-Pacific region Henrik Gudmundsson, Chief Advisor, CONCITO EGM on Planning and Assessment of Urban Transportation Systems, September 2016, Kathmandu, Nepal

2 Overview Background and purpose of the SUTI index Methodology Framework Indicator selection (macro and micro) Index design Exemplification Summary

3 Background and Purpose Current transport trends pose major challenges for cities, for people living and working there, and for the local and global environment There is need for ways to measure, monitor and assess urban transport in the context of the Sustainable Development agenda, and thereby to support sustainable urban transport planning The purpose of this effort is to explore a concept for a Sustainable Urban Transport Index (SUTI) for cities in Asia This presentation may hopefully inform a discussion whether and how a SUTI index could be developed and applied

4 Overall methodology (1) SUTI proposal is based on, The sustainable transport literature General indicator and index methodology Partly inspired by UNDP s Human Development Index (HDI)

5 Human Development Index HDI published by UNDP annually since 1990 Used to rank countries Three dimensions with sub-index and four indicators Methodology has been modified along the way to make HDI more robust

6 Overall methodology (2) The approach and the presentation follows these steps based on Zheng et al. (2013) Defining the problem (= Framework) Identifying and selecting appropriate indicators Normalizing the data Weighting the components, and Aggregating components into a composite index Keep it simple!

7 Framework Framework for measuring sustainable urban transport should as a minimum reflect, The three Sustainable Development dimensions (environmental social, economic,impacts of transport) The SDG s of relevance to urban transport The Sustainable Mobility Paradigm (Banister 2008), according to which cities seek to promote clean, safe and efficient access, and to avoid, shift and improve transport as appropriate

8 Key SDG targets for urban transport SDG s 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages (Road Safety) 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all (Energy efficiency) 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation (Sustainable infrastructure) 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable (Sustainable (urban) transport for all) 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns (Fuel subsidies) Targets 3.6 By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents 7.3 By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency 9.1 Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and trans-border infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all 11.2 By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons Target 11.7 By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities 11.6 By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management 12.c. Rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by removing market distortions, in accordance with national circumstances

9 Indicator macro-selection Review of literature to identify indicators and indices for sustainable urban transport in existing reports 25 reports and papers considered with 420 individual indicators (many overlapping) put in excel sheet Priority given to indicators: with clear reference to sustainability aspects (framework) defined methodology reported in several studies used in one or more cities (preferably in Asia) Reduced to the most common and suitable 20/24

10 Indicator references considered Nr REFERENCES STI indicator/index TYPE SCALE SCOPE APPLICATION # INDIC ATORS APPLIED Sustainable Transport indicator/index 1 WBCSD 2016 Indicators Urban Internal Worldwide 19 6 cities 2 A.D. Little 2014 Index Urban Comparative World cities 3 KOTI 2015 Index Urban Comparative Korea 24 Multiple cities 4 Siemens 2008 Index Urban Comparative World 15 Multiple cities 5 Shiau et al 2013 Index National Internal Taiwan 16 1 country 6 Marzieh 2015 Index Urban Academic Melbourne 9 1 city 7 Reddy et al 2013 Index Urban Comparative India/World 7 5 cities 8 Bachok 2015 indicators Urban Internal Malaysia 17 Not yet 9 ECOMOBILITY 2013 Indicators Urban Internal Europe 20 Several cities 10 Ahangari 2015 index National Comparative OECD 11 Several count 11 CIVITAS (May) 2016 Indicators Urban Internal Europe 28 Partly 12 Zheng et al Index State Comparative US 24 Several states 13 Zito 2011 Index Urban Comparative Europe 12 Multiple 14 Georgouli 2015 Index Urban Academic Copenhagen 11 1 city 15 SLoCaT 2014 Indicators General (Open) World 14 No 16 Litman 2016 Indicators General Academic World/Us 20 No 17 Bongardt et al 2011 Indicators General (Open) World 10 No 18 Steenberghen 2013 Indicators Urban Comparative Europe 6 No 19 Olofsson 2016 Indicators Urban Internal Sweden 21 1 city 20 Castillo 2010 Index Urban Academic UK 15 Partly 21 Gilbert et al 2002 indicators National Internal Canada 14 1 country General set or index with transport as a domain/section (#indicators refer to transport only) 22 SDG-IAEG 2016 Indicators Global Multiple World 6 Not yet 23 HABITAT 2016 Indicators Urban Multiple World 3 Not yet 24 GCIF 2015 Indicators Urban Multiple? World 9 Several cities 25 Global City Rep 2015 Index Urban Comparative World 3 60 cities

11 Most important references UN Habitat (2016) Suggests indicators to measure SDG goal 11, incl. target 11.2 on Urban transport (+IAEG-SDG 2016) WBCSD (2016) Sustainable Mobility 2.0 Selects 19 urban transport indicators Applied in six cities, three in Asia Detailed methodology Arthur D Little/UITP (2014) Selects 19 urban transport indicators. 84 cities are covered, 30 in Asia Less detail, wider coverage

12 Indicator micro-selection Limit number of indicators and complexity of index to max 8 indicators in four domains, Social dimension Environmental dimension Economic dimension Transport system performance The 20 candidate indicators subjectively scored using two sets of criteria (Castillo and Pitfield, 2010): Relevance for Sustainable Transport framework Methodological quality

13 Detailed scoring criteria A) Sustainable Transport framework Relevance for each of the 4 domains Relevance for avoid, shift or improve strategy Relevance for each of the key SGD targets B) Methodological quality Definition and concept available in existing reports Has been applied in practice in several cities Data regularly available or readily produced Clear interpretation possible Scale to normalize indicator for index easy to define Relevant and actionable for cities

14 Proposed indicators for SUTI index Domain System Social Economic Environmental Indicator Extent to which transport plans cover public transport, intermodal facilities, and infrastructure for active modes Modal share of active and public transport in commuting Convenient access to public transport service Traffic fatalities per inhabitants Affordability travel costs as part of income Investment in public transportation systems Air quality (pm10/ pm2.5) Greenhouse gas emissions from transport

15 For each indicator is described Indicator relevance for sustainable transport framework Proposed definition Unit of measurement Interpretation Minimum and maximum values of indicator scale to use in the index construction Sources in the literature Examples of where the indicators have been applied in practice Comments on data availability Other comments Summary: Main challenges

16 1: Extent to which transport plans cover soft & public modes Definition Unit Interpretation Min / Max 0 / 12 Data issues Extent to which transport plans cover public transport, intermodal facilities, and infrastructure for active modes Measured in qualitative categories based on assessment of most recent transport plan with regard to how it addresses each of the four aspects, considered equal: a) walking networks, b) cycling networks, c) intermodal transfer facilities and d) expansion of public transport modes. For each aspect, four category levels are assessed: 0) 'no coverage', 1) 'limited coverage', 2) 'extensive coverage', or 3) 'full coverage'. The scores are added. The minimum score will therefore be 0 (=the case that none of the four aspects are covered). The maximum score is 12 (=the case that all four aspects are fully covered, 4*3). Clear-cut. Increasing score is positive Not immediately available. To be produced for each city Comments The proposed scoring method above is an example. Assessment could be done by an expert panel

17 2: Modal share of active and public transport in commuting Definition Percentage of commuters using a travel mode to work other than a personal motorized vehicle. Unit Interpretation Percentage of trips for commuters not by personal motorized vehicle Clear-cut. Increasing is positive. Min / Max 10 / 90 (GCIF 2015 and other sources) Data issues Comments Most cities consider modal split data. The methodology to measure modal split often differ, but the ISO standard could be basis. The best source of data is a regularly updated travel survey at the local level Main challenge: Comparability issues The unit can be trips, or (more advanced) pkm which is useful for calculating other indicators such as fuel efficiency and emissions. Two-wheelers?

18 3: Convenient access to public transport service Definition Unit Interpretation Proportion of the population that has convenient access to public transport, defined as living 500 meters or less from a public transport stop with minimum 20 minute service. Public transport is a shared passenger transport service available to the general public, excluding taxis, car pools, hired buses and paratransit Percentage of population. Clear-cut. Increasing is positive. Min / Max 20 / 100 (WBCSD 2016,0/100) Data issues Not directly available. Need to make estimates at city level. Easiest done with GIS tools available. Comments The indicator is the one proposed by SDG-IEAG for SDG target Does not necessarily reflect all aspects of the SDG target 11.2 Possible to differentiate between stops according to quality of service, e.g. larger buffers than around rail stations (1 km) than bus stops (500 m), or according to frequency of services at the stop. Main Challenge: Data availability and collection

19 4:Traffic fatalities per inh. Definition Fatalities in traffic (road; rail, etc.) in the urban areas per inhabitants. Unit Interpretation Number of persons deceased as related to a traffic accident if it occurs within 30 days after the accident Clear-cut, Decreasing is positive Min / Max 35 / 0 (WBCSD 2016) Data issues WHO maintains and updates database over traffic fatalities in member states based on annual national reporting. Some data is available at city level, although not universally Comments Injuries are mentioned as well in the DGSDG target, but the definition and data collection is not as standardized Could be limited to road fatalities for simplification Main challenge: Data availability at city level

20 5: Affordability travel costs as part of income Definition Cost of a monthly network-wide public transport ticket covering all main modes in the city, compared to personal monthly income (If a multi modal ticket is not available then for bus network alone) Unit Interpretation Percentage of monthly income Clear-cut Decreasing is positive Min / Max 20 / 3,5 (WBCSD 2016) Data issues Not directly available but possible to produce locally. Income at city level is likely available in statistical database. Cost of network ticket simple to obtain. Comments WBCSD proposes a more elaborate but still simple definition based on the income of the poorest quartile of the population Is this a social or an economic indicator? Main challenge: comparability across cities with different PT systems

21 6: Investment in public transportation systems Definition Share of all transport investments made by the city that is directed to public transport Unit Interpretation % of transport investment spending It is proposed to average over three or five years because annual investments tend to fluctuate much over time Relatively clear-cut; Increasing is positive (generally) Min / Max O / 50% (not based on observation) Data issues Comments Data not generally available. Cities could likely extract the data from public expenditure accounts. Which average to use, e,g 3 or 5 or other? The indicator is possibly not immediately found in any of major studies on urban indicators How about investments in soft modes? Private investments could matter as well?

22 7: Air quality (PM10 or PM2.5) Definition Annual mean levels of fine particulate matter (PM10 or PM2.5) in the air (population weighted) compared to threshold Unit Interpretation Micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) Clear-cut: Decreasing is positive. Min / Max 150 / 10 (μg/m3) (Reddy 2013) Data issues Comments WHO has a database of measurements from now over cities worldwide and growing More cities are covered for PM10 whereas PM2.5 is more accurate as health indicator How often are the WHO data updated? Air quality is not only affected by transport. Other local sources could influence it without a change in transport How does population weighting apply at city level? Possible alternative is to calculate total emissions from transport (WBCSD 2016 suggests method)

23 8: Greenhouse gas emissions Definition CO2 equivalent emissions from transport by urban residents per annum per capita Unit Interpretation Ton CO2 equivalent/capita Clear-cut: Decreasing is positive Min / Max 2.75 / 0 (WBCSD 2016) Data issues Comments Data typically not immediately available. Emissions from the transport system of a city need to be calculated based on data for transport flows, vehicle types, and fuel consumption data. Using a transport model and/or data from a household travel survey will be very helpful. (WBCSD 2016 proposes detailed methodology Main challenge: Can be relatively demanding to produce More and more cities worldwide are committed to reduce their GHG emissions More simple alternative could be monitoring the uptake of zero- or low carbon emission vehicles in the vehicle fleet or bus fleet

24 Index Index to be constructed from four domains (sub-index) with two indicators per domain Key elements in construction are: Normalization Weighing Calculation method for aggregation

25 Normalization for SUTI (1) Indicators on different scales need to be normalized The method used is linear rescaling to scale of Common approach in composite indicator used for several sustainable transport index Z is the normalized indicator X for topic i and city c. X min is the worst value of the indicator in actual units, whereas X max is the best value

26 Normalization for SUTI (2) Min-Max Min and max defined as lowest and highest value found in real cities for each indicator Mostly based on real performance information in literature Desired target level (e.g. zero fatalities) used in a few cases Relative ranking (without predefined min/max) not chosen because this would make tracking performance over time less meaningful

27 Weighing (1) Necessary to decide how to weigh each indicator and domain (sub-index). Weight can be determined by political or subjective choice, or by expert knowledge. In this case equal weight to each indicator and subindex is applied Justification is to allow equal importance to three sustainability dimensions + system dimension Equal weight is also a weighting choice! Could be reconsidered by expert panel /AHP

28 Weighing (2) Domain Indicator Natural units System Extent to which transport plans cover facilities for active modes and public transport Modal share of active and public transport in commuting Weights Normalization MIN MAX km trips System SUBINDEX 25 Social Convenient access to public transport service meter Traffic fatalities per inhabitants # fatalities Social SUBINDEX 25 Economic Affordability travel costs as part of income % money Investment in public transportation systems % money Economic SUBINDEX 25 Environmental Air quality (PM10 or PM2.5) μg/m Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2eq tons capita/year) tons Environmental SUBINDEX 25 SUTI INDEX 100

29 Calculation method Two aggregation methods are considered arithmetic (additive) (A), or geometric (multiplicative) (B) (A) Arithmetic mean assumes linear substitution Abandoned in HDI for this and other reasons (B) Geometric mean is proposed for SUTI, but both are applied

30 Exemplification Domain Indicators DATA (cities) System Extent to which transport plans cover facilities for active modes and public transport Modal share of active and public transport in commuting Social Convenient access to public transport service Traffic fatalities per inhabitants Economic Affordability travel costs as part of budget Investment in public transportation systems Environmental Air quality (PM10 or PM2.5) Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2eq tons capita/year)

31 Exemplification (normalized) Domain Indicators DATA (cities) System Social Economic Extent to which transport plans cover facilities for active modes and public transport Modal share of active and public transport in commuting Convenient access to public transport service Traffic fatalities per inhabitants Affordability travel costs as part of budget Investment in public transportation systems Environmental Air quality (PM10 or PM2.5) Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2eq tons capita/year)

32 Results (SUB-INDEX level) ENVIRONMENT SUB-INDEX SOCIAL SUB-INDEX City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City

33 Results SUTI level ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City

34 Comparing cities all indicators Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2eq tons capita/year) Air quality (PM10 or PM2.5) Extent to which transport plans cover facilities for active modes and public transport Modal share of active and public transport in commuting Convenient access to public transport service Investment in public transportation systems Traffic fatalities per inhabitants Affordability travel costs as part of budget City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4 City 5 City 6 City 7 City 8

35 Summary A SUTI Index was demonstrated in principle Guided by overall considerations: Sustainable development concerns relevant to urban transport planning (including SDG 11.2 etc.) Methodological soundness Simplicity and transparency Results could be informative and stimulate efforts Key obstacles for actual application Data availability for most indicators Comparability across cities/countries for some indicators Same SUTI relevant for all cities/regions?

36 Considerations and limitations Literature consultation was limited Macro-selection of indicators was conservative Micro-selection of indicators was subjective Data availability was not systematically reviewed

37 Personal recommendations Proceed with development of SUTI Critical discussion by city experts of all aspects Define precise purpose and scope Consider using expert panels to, Identify candidate indicators Redefine and apply indicator selection criteria Refine index methodology Operate index in practice

38 Thank you!