Indicators for Sustainable Urban NO2 Transport CO2 in Europe CO2 Overview and examples NO2 NO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 NO2 Henrik Gudmundsson PhD., Chief Advisor, CONCITO Expert Group Meeting on Planning and Assessment of Urban Transportation Systems 22-23 September 2016, Kathmandu, Nepal
Henrik s Background Chief advisor in Cities and Transport at CONCITO Green think tank, Copenhagen 10 year as Senior Researcher in transport policy at Technical University of Denmark 18 year as head of section/researcher in the Danish Ministry of Environment Contributions to several European and national projects, expert groups, scientific publications etc. on sustainable transport New book: Sustainable Transportation - Indicators, Frameworks and Performance Management Springer 2016 (co-authors, Hall, Marsden, Zietsman)
Overview 1. The role of indicators in Sustainable Transport Assessment 2. The European Union Sustainable Transport policies 3. Examples of European assessment frameworks and indicator systems for urban transport City Statistics European Green Capital Award, CIVITAS indicators 4. Summary
Indicator systems are essential for Sustainable Transport Assessment Transport systems have multiple impacts of significance for Sustainable Development Complete knowledge and models of sustainable transport systems are not available; approximations are needed Policy goals and measures for sustainable transport need to be assessed ex ante, monitored in real-time and evaluated ex post? What is not measured and compared cannot be managed and improved
Definition and role of indicators Indicators are variables that are selected to represent key properties of systems and phenomena of policy interest Indicators are measurable using quantitative or qualitative values, but do not provide complete information on systems or phenomena Indicators are intended and used for descriptive, normative or prescriptive assessments of sustainable transport From Dublin Dashboard
Different applications of indicators Describe and Inform What is going on? Review and Explore How are we doing? Diagnose and Explain How did we get here? Plan and Decide What should we do? Account and Compare Who accomplished what? Improve and Learn How can we do better?
Frameworks are essential Indicators are embedded in frameworks that are conceptual and procedural constructs Frameworks organize how indicator systems are designed, managed, and applied Concept What to measure? Intention Why to measure? Frameworks provide focus and structure Procedure How to measure?
Some indicator framework types Type Features System Measuring transport system conditions and performance, State of repair, Traffic vol., Mode split Pillar Measuring according to Environmental, Economic, and Social impacts of transport Emissions, Costs, Access Goal Performance compared to specified goals and performance targets, reduce delay 10%, 0 fatalities Chain Measuring along causal chain, typically for environment policy PRESSURE STATE IMPACT Pressure, State, Response DRIVING FORCE RESPONSE
Provocative finding Political decision makers gather information and do not use it; ask for more information and ignore it; make decisions first and look for relevant information afterwards; and collect and process a great deal of information that has little or no direct relevance to decisions. Source: Sager & Ravlum (2005) The political relevance of planners analysis: The case of a parliamentary standing committee, Planning Theory, 4(1), pp. 33 64.
Different forms of knowledge use Types of use Instrumental use Conceptual use Symbolic use Tactical use Explanation To support decisions to act To serve as a signal Frame the perception and structuring of a problem with no direct use Reference without drawing any consequences; decisions already made Use as an excuse, e.g. to postpone action Non-use (self-explanatory) Sources: Gudmundsson & Sørensen (2013); Weiss, CH (1988)
European Union 28 member states Annual budget of 145 bill 508 million inhabitants 72,3% live in cities, towns and urban areas Urban transport in Europe: 23% of transport CO2 69% of traffic accidents Many cities exceed air quality limit values due to transport
EU: Complex institutional set-up!? European Commission proposes European policies and legislation Member States (Council) and the European Parliament adopts European legislation Member states implement European policies and legislation Various institutions monitor European systems, policies and legislation
Key European policy areas Exclusive competence Shared competence Competence to coordinate member states Competence to support member states Customs union Competition rules Monetary policy (for euro area Conservation of marine resources Commercial policy Certain international agreements Internal market Social policy Cohesion Agriculture and fisheries Environment Consumers Transport Energy Security; Justice Public health Research Development Humanitarian aid Economic policy Employment Social policies Improvement of human health Industry Culture Tourism Education Civil protection Administrative cooperation
Some EU Sustainable Transport goals Decoupling economic growth and environmental impacts Modernizing the EU framework for public passenger transport Reducing transport energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (new cars: 95 g CO2/km by 2020) Reducing pollutant emissions Shift towards environment friendly transport modes Reducing transport noise Halving road transport deaths by 2020 compared with 2011
EU transport indicator systems : Country level Name Focus Frame Type EU Transport Scoreboard (2014 -) EEA TERM Indicator report (2000 -) EUROSTAT SDS Monitoring (2005 - ) Performance of national transport systems and policies Environmental performance of EU and national transport policy EU Sustainable Development Goals at EU and national level System and goal System chain and goal Pillar, System and goal Transport role Transport Indicators Only topic 29 Only topic 14 One of 10 topics 10
EU Transport Scorecard - examples Employment share in high growth transport enterprises Quality of railroad infrastructure Source: EURO STAT http://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/scoreboard/index_en.htm
EU and Urban Transport Limited jurisdiction for the EU level Subsidiarity principle Soft approach: General concepts and guidelines Support for research Financial support to cities Support for best practice exchange No binding goals (except air quality) No bindings urban policies No binding frameworks or indicators
Key conceptual framework: Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP) Strategic plan designed to satisfy the mobility needs of people and businesses in cities and their surroundings for a better quality of life Wefering et al. EU Guidelines, 2014 Planning for the future of your city with its people as the focus Plan for a city our children would like to live in
Monitor plan implementation Evaluate processes and outcomes Elaborating a monitoring and evaluation plan Assess measures and scenarios Selecting indicators for goal setting and assessment
History of EU SUMP policy 2002 6th Environmental Action Program 2002-10 2004 EU expert group on urban transport and environment 2005 Thematic Strategy for the Urban Environment (DG ENV) 2006 EU Renewed strategy for Sustainable Development 2009 Action Plan on Urban Mobility Need for Thematic strategy for the urban environment Need to tackle rising volumes of traffic, increase share of public transport, walk, cycle SUTP concept analyzed EU SUTP directive proposed No directive SUTP Guidance promised Support for knowledge exchange Local authorities should develop and implement urban transport plans.. Accelerating the take-up of SUMPs 2011 Transport White Paper Goal for Urban Transport Guidance for SUMP (draft) 2013 Urban Mobility Package Encourage the use of SUMP s Member States should promote SUMP s 2014 Follow-up Guidance for SUMP (final) Urban Mobility Observatory (ELTIS)
Types of Indicator applications Stand alone indicator Indicator set or system Systems for ex ante scenario analysis, SUMP development Systems for Real time surveillance and monitoring Systems for ex post project, SUMP or policy evaluation Comprehensive or cross cutting assessment systems
Indicator applications for ST in EU Stand alone indicator Indicator set or system Systems for ex ante scenario analysis, SUMP development Systems for Real time surveillance and monitoring Systems for ex post project, SUMP or policy evaluation Comprehensive or cross cutting assessment systems
EU transport indicator systems : Urban level examples Name Focus Frame Type Transport Role Transport Indicators EU City Statistics Quality of Life Ex post Subtopic 10 Ref. Framework for Sust. Cities European Green Capital Award ECOMOBILITY SHIFT SUMP Self assessment tool CIVITAS Capital indicators Urban Transport Scorecard Sustainable Urban Development Green and sustainable cities Sustainable Mobility Sustainable Mobility Sustainable Mobility Ex ante Subtopic 14 Integrated Subtopic 10 Integrated Only topic 20 Ex ante Only topic 100 questions Indicator set Only topic 28?? Only topic?
City Statistics Transport indicators Cost of a combined monthly ticket for public transport for 5-10 km in the central zone Number of deaths in road accidents Cost of a taxi ride of 5 km to the center at day time Number of private cars registered Length of bicycle network (dedicated paths) People commuting into the city People commuting out of the city Share of journey to work (by mode) Average time of journey to work (minutes) Average length of journey to work by private car
City Transport Statistics illustrated Number of registered cars per 1000 inhabitants Number of traffic fatalities per 10.000 inhabitants Source: EUROSTAT http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/rsi/#?vis=city.statistics&lang=en
European Green Capital Award Focus: Hosted by: Environmental performance European Commission Coverage: All cities above 100.000 inh. (+20-100.000) Frequency: Every year since 2010 Type: Role of transport: Approach Transport Indicators Comments: Integrated ; Competitive One out of 13 areas (water, air, noise, waste.) Indicators are combined with qualitative evaluation of achievements and future plans Cities are ranked for each area and all ranks added 4 (5) No follow-up on performance Not sustainable balance
EGCA Transport indicators Length of cycle lanes (meters/inhabitant) Share of journeys under 5 km made by private car (%) Population living within 300 metres of an hourly public transport service (%) Share of buses classified as low emission vehicles (%) Transport ton CO2/inhabitant
Scoring exercise per area Local Transport assessment for 2014 1 Dedicdated cycle lanes (meter/inh) 2. Share of population near Public transport 3. Car share of journeys under 5 km 4. Proportion of clean buses CITY 1 0,60 71,0 25,0 0,0 CITY 2 0,02 95,9 50,0 0,0 CITY 3 0,70 94,0 6,4 50,0 CITY 4 0,09 97,5 42,0 0,0 CITY 5 0,04 0,0 9,3 0,0 CITY 6 0,68 98,0 12,0 34,0 CITY 7 0,67 94,4 23,0 77,0 CITY 8 1,40 70,0 48,9 0,0 CITY 9 0,26 91,0 50,0 10,0 CITY 10 0,09 94,3 45,0 0,0 CITY 11 0,72 87,0 36,0 36,0 CITY 12 0,11 90,0 50,0 0,0 CITY 13 0,19 91,0 39,0 39,0 CITY 14 0,02 95,0 50,0 0,0 CITY 15 0,12 99,0 74,5 9,5 CITY 16 0,00 95,0 15,0 0,0 CITY 17 0,10 95,0 35,0 75,0 CITY 18 0,16 95,0 23,0 5,0
European Green Capital Award Nijmegen 2018
Examples of good practices Copenhagen as World s best city for bicycles At least 50% will go to work or school by bike Number of seriously injured cyclists cut by half At least 80% of cyclists feel safe and secure A reduction of transport CO2 by 20% Aosta Green Logistics Cityporto Unloading goods to the city Distributing goods with low-carbon vehicles Streets, squares have greater appeal The service has created new job opportunities
CIVITAS Capital indicator set Focus: Hosted by: Coverage: Frequency - Type: Approach 28 indicators in Nine topic areas Comments: Sustainable Mobility Planning CIVITAS All European cities (intended) Voluntary Indicator set Based on literature review and interviews Focus on what cities need Discussed with six cities Travel Patterns; Accessibility; Speed and safety Walking; Cycling; Public Transport; Cars and parking Socio-economic impacts; Environmental impacts Not based in sustainable framework (TBL) Not applied in full in any city
Description for each indicator: Definition Purpose and goals How to gather data Example of city use
Interviews with advanced cities Edinburgh, Copenhagen, Paris, Lyon, Stuttgart and Zurich Similar indicators are used, but often not exact same Far fewer the 28 indicators are normal Main use of data is for planning, policy monitoring, sometime statutory reporting, not benchmarking Typical comment: Interesting set of indicators but who would pay for costs of extra data gathering?
Ranking indicators using 5 criteria C1: Relevance for one or more of the sustainability dimensions (environment, social, economic), or measuring key transport system features C2: Representation of all urban modes, especially SUMP compatible modes such as walking, cycling and public transport, but also motor vehicles C3: Alignment with data and indicators that many cities use already C4: Easy data collection, preferably with standard concepts and methods C5: Actionability and decision relevance for a city, including for urban planning, financial allocation, and communication C6: Support reporting for key European urban transport policy goals, such a GHG emissions, alternative fuels, traffic safety, congestion, ICT/ITS deployment
Indicators with highest scores Category Travel Patterns Accessibility Speed and safety Walking Cycling Public Transport Cars and parking Social impacts Environmental impacts Indicator with highest score Modal split Density (land use) Safety people killed and seriously injured Accessibility of outside built environment Extent of on-street cycle network Public transport service per capita Car ownership Citizen satisfaction with transport system CO 2 emissions from transport per capita
Summary EU No official European monitoring of urban transport (yet) Not mandatory set of indicators or index for Sustainable transport in European cities Several voluntary assessment frameworks are offered by the European Institutions and professional bodies General Sustainable Development/Quality of Life frameworks Specific sets of indicators for urban transport Assessment and scenario tools to support development of new plans Self-evaluation tools for sustainable urban transport plans Will the EU deliver an Urban Transport Scoreboard?
Limited integration across frameworks City Statistics (Urban Audit) Number of private cars registered Length of bicycle network (dedicated cycle paths and lanes) Reference Framework for European Sustainable Cities (RFSC) Transport system Number of personal cars per adult Bicycle lanes and paths proximity Percentage of pedestrian streets and walkways European Green Capital Award (EGCA) Length of cycle lanes (meter/inhabitant) Accessibility to public transport stops Population living within 300 metres of hourly public transport service Roads maintenance Investment in transport infrastructure Travel patterns and behavior factors Share of journeys to work by mode Traffic modal split for persons Share of journeys under 5 km made by private car (%) Modal split of freight transport Average time of journey to work (minutes) Congestion index Average length of journey to work by private car (km) People commuting in and out of the city Cost of a combined monthly public transport ticket Passenger transport prices in the central zone Cost of a taxi ride of 5 km to the centre at day time Satisfaction with level of public transport services Number of deaths in road accidents Satisfaction with level of public transport services Transport impacts Transport energy consumption Traffic light using LED Number of companies with Green Travel Plans Transport ton CO2/inhabitant Share of buses classified as low emission vehicles (%)
Communicative Frameworks CIVITAS ELTIS Program to promote cleaner, better transport in cities. Started 2002 Over 200 cities have been involved Good Practice exchange, guidance and research http://www.civitas.eu/ Urban Mobility Observatory Website and knowledge hub Started 2004 Training material, case studies, guidance on SUMP Urban transport News http://www.eltis.org/
Summary for European cities Cities need and use indicators but not always the same The need for indicators depend on purpose and applications Large variation in how much cites use indicators Limited interest in benchmarking and comparison New issues such as Smart City will require and allow new types of indicators
Advanced city example Website: http://www.dublindashboard.ie/overview/stats
Challenge... If indicators are too simple -> They may be misinterpreted If indicators are too complex -> They may not be applied If indicators are too few -> They may be misused If indicators are too many - > They may be ignored High agreement regarding domains; Medium agreement about topics; Limited agreement about specific indicators What is the role for local, national, regional or global frameworks?
Thank you! hgu@concito.dk www.concito.dk @henrikgudm
EXTRA SLIDES
Aggregation and Communication Compo- Site (1) Key indicators (5-15) Broad Indicator sets (15-200+) Data, Observations, Records (10.000+ > entries) Target groups Media General public Decision makers Stakeholders Policy experts Scientists
Use for Sustainable Transport Type Strengths Weaknesses System Direct focus on transport systems Exploits transport agency data Pillar Clear conceptual relation to sustainability Holistic; Simple Goal Political relevance Good for steering Organizational basis Chain Supports different steps of planning process Possibility for deeper analysis Not addressing sustainability Ignores wider interactions Not all transport impacts allocate to one pillar May show conflicting results No-goal impacts may be lost Focus on incremental change Risk of silo thinking Complex, data and resource demanding Imitates modelling without the underlying knowledge 45
Monitoring EU SDS Strategy Source: EUROSATAT 2015 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/
Based on statistics from each EU state
EU agencies involved in monitoring European Commission DG MOVE European Commission EUROSTAT European Commission DG ENVIRONMENT European Commission DG REGIO European Commission Joint Research Centre CIVITAS Program European Environment Agency EEA
Combining surveys Proportion of people satisfied with public transport services and the quality of air in their city. Source: Urban Europe EUROSTAT (2016)