SOLUTIONS: A Proposed Appraisal Framework

1
SOLUTIONS A Proposed Appraisal Framework

• Dr Gordon Mitchell
• School of Geography / Institute for Transport
  Studies
• University of Leeds

2
Guiding Principles

• Address Sustainability (SEE) with evaluation
  criteria sensitive to LUT 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)

3
SA-SEA good practice review

• 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

• 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?

4
SPECIFY ISSUES ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
SPECIFY DESIGNS
Assessment
SCOPING ASSESSMENT (OPTIONAL)
HYBRID ASSESSMENT Independent assessments of
local and strategic designsAssessment of some
integrated local-strategic designs
ENHANCED ASSESSMENT
REPORTING
5
Issues indicators

• 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

• 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)

6
Specify LUT 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

7
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

8
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)
9
Integrated Assessment

• 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 (?)

• Designs assessed with explicit scale integration
  
• Local design represented in a full LUTI model
  using zonal level data exchange / or
  microsimulation

10
Hybrid Assessment

• 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?

DEPTH OF ASSESSMENT
EXTENT OF ASSESSMENT (No. of tests)
11
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

12
TEMMS
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

13
SMARTNET

• 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

14
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)

15
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

NPS Copper (Kg/ha/yr)

• Main land uses of residential, commercial,
  industrial, roads, open, other/mixed)
• Impermeability a function of land use and
  residential density

16
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

City B
XX --
XX
-- X
City A CO2 Access
Design 1 XX --
Design 2 XX
Design 3 -- X

• SUSTAINABILITY INDEX
• Many exist, none directly applicable
• Opportunity for bespoke application (e.g.
  ecological footprinting)

• MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT
• Proven method, readily applied
• Weighting controversial but transparent

17
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

18
(No Transcript)
19
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)
20
Integrated Assessment

• 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 (?)

• Designs assessed with explicit scale integration
  
• Local design represented in a full LUTI model
  using zonal level data exchange / or
  microsimulation

21
Hybrid Assessment

• 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?

DEPTH OF ASSESSMENT
EXTENT OF ASSESSMENT (No. of tests)