refined sustainable urban transport index (suti) for ... · sustainable development goals (sdgs) in...
TRANSCRIPT
Refined Sustainable Urban Transport Index (SUTI)
for cities in Asia
Henrik Gudmundsson, Chief Advisor, CONCITO
Regional Meeting on Sustainable Urban Transport Index
2.-3. March 2017, Jakarta, Indonesia
• Background and purpose
• Process and method
• Framework
• Indicator selection
• Index
• Exemplification
• Summary
(data in second presentation)
Overview of SUTI presentation
• Urbanization, sprawl and growing income lead to more motorized traffic in cities
• More motorized traffic lead to increase in congestion, accidents and pollution
• There is a need to measure economic, social and environmental performance of sustainable urban transport
Background
Sustainable Urban Transport
Global framing agendas
“UP TO 65% OF THE SDG’S 169 TARGETS WOULD BE AT RISK
WITHOUT SUITABLE INVOLVEMENT OF LOCAL ACTORS”
The important global role of cities…
Assessment at the ‘C40 Cities Mayors Summit 2016’
• “Make transport planning, policy and investment decisions based on the three sustainable development dimensions …”
• “Develop, adopt and implement integrated national sustainable transport frameworks ”
• “Develop sustainable urban mobility plans that support intermodal and interconnected transport”
• “Establish comprehensive monitoring and evaluation methodologies for sustainable transport by national and local governments”
Recommendations from UN High Level Panel on Sustainable Transport
UN High-Level
Advisory Group on
Sustainable
Transportation
October 2016
• To measure urban transport and progress towards Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Asian cities
• To help summarize, compare and track the performance of transport in cities
• To simplify and facilitate communication and discussion about results and future plans
Purpose of the SUTI
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
100,00
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
100,00
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
100,00
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
100,00
• Develop framework based on ST literature
• Identify, review and select indicators:
– Framework based review
– Criteria based review
– Expert based review
• Construct index
– Normalizing the indicators
– Weighting the components
– Aggregating components into one composite index
General Methodology
Approaches to indicator development
Indicator System/Index
Policy driven
Theory driven
Data driven
Relevance
• Relevance for sustainable development goals
• Relevance for cities across Asian region
Simplicity
• Not a ´scientific´ measure
• Not too many indicators
• Not too complex calculations
• Based on existing methodologies and policies
Overall philosophy for SUTI process
• The three Sustainable Development dimensions (environmental, social, economic impacts)
• The Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) of relevance to urban transport
• The Sustainable Mobility Paradigm, according to which cities should promote strategies to ‘avoid’, ‘shift’ and ‘improve’ transport and negative impacts
Framework with three foundations
SDG’s Targets 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-
being for all at all ages (Road Safety)
3.6 By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and
injuries from road traffic accidents
7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable,
sustainable and modern energy for all
(Energy efficiency)
7.2 By 2030, increase substantially the share of
renewable energy in the global energy mix
7.3 By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in
energy efficiency
9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote
inclusive and sustainable industrialization
and foster innovation (Sustainable
infrastructure)
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. Make cities and human settlements
inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
(Sustainable (urban) transport 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
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
13. Take urgent action to combat climate
change and its impacts (Climate action)
13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national
policies, strategies and planning
Key SDG targets for urban transport
Aspects Dimensions
Sustainable Development
Economic Dimension impacts
Social Dimension impacts
Environment Dimension impacts
Sustainable Mobility Paradigm
Avoid strategy
Shift strategy
Improve strategy
SDG Targets Relevant for Urban Transport
3.6 Deaths and injuries from road traffic
9.1 Quality, reliable, sustainable, resilient infrastructure
11.2 Access to safe, affordable, accessible and
sustainable transport systems for all,
11.6 Adverse environmental impact including air quality
7/13. Reduce Energy/climate impact [proxy target]
Full set of dimensions in framework
Indicator literature review
REFERENCES
STI indicator/index
TYPE SCALE SCOPE APPLICATION # INDIC
ATORS
APPLIED
Sustainable Transport indicator/index
WBCSD 2016 Indicators Urban Internal Worldwide 19 6 cities
A.D. Little 2014 Index Urban Comparative World 19 84 cities
KOTI 2015 Index Urban Comparative Korea 24 Multiple cities
Siemens 2008 Index Urban Comparative World 15 Multiple cities
Marzieh 2015 Index Urban Academic Melbourne 9 1 city
Reddy et al 2013 Index Urban Comparative India/World 7 5 cities
Bachok 2015 indicators Urban Internal Malaysia 17 Not yet
ECOMOBILITY 2013 Indicators Urban Internal Europe 20 Several cities
Ahangari 2015 index National Comparative OECD 11 Several count
CIVITAS (May) 2016 Indicators Urban Internal Europe 28 Partly
Zheng et al. 2013 Index State Comparative US 24 Several states
Zito 2011 Index Urban Comparative Europe 12 Multiple
Georgouli 2015 Index Urban Academic Copenhagen 11 1 city
SLoCaT 2014 Indicators General (Open) World 14 No
Litman 2016 Indicators General Academic World/Us 20 No
Bongardt et al 2011 Indicators General (Open) World 10 No
Steenberghen 2013 Indicators Urban Comparative Europe 6 No
Olofsson 2016 Indicators Urban Internal Sweden 21 1 city
Castillo 2010 Index Urban Academic UK 15 Partly
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)
SDG-IAEG 2016 Indicators Global Multiple World 6 Not yet
HABITAT 2016 Indicators Urban Multiple World 3 Not yet
GCIF 2015 Indicators Urban Multiple? World 9 Several cities
Global City Rep 2015 Index Urban Comparative World 3 60 cities
UN Habitat (2016) • Suggests indicators to measure SDG goal 11, incl.
target 11.2 on Urban transport
WBCSD (2016) Sustainable Mobility 2.0 • 19 urban transport indicators • Applied in six cities, three in Asia • Detailed methodology
Arthur D Little/UITP (2014) • 19 urban transport indicators. • 84 cities are covered, 30 in Asia • Less detail, wider coverage
SUTE system, Korea (KOTI 2015) • 24 indicators • Applied annually to several Korean cites • Detailed methodology
Most important references
• 420 individual urban transport indicators identified (many identical / overlapping)
• Reduced to a shortlist of 20 most relevant indicators
• Subjectively scored using two sets of criteria
– Relevance for Sustainable Transport framework
– Methodological quality
• Resulting list of 8 indicators in four domains :
– Transport system domain
– Social domain
– Economic domain
– Environmental domain
Identification of potential indicators
A) Sustainable Transport framework
• Relevance for three sustainability dimensions
• Relevance for each of the key SGD targets
• Relevance for sustainable mobility strategies
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
Two sets of selection criteria
• Draft set of 8 indicators and index discussed at Expert Group meeting in Kathmandu, Nepal Sept. 2016
• Support, and suggestions to improve indicators and index
• Key recommendations:
– Avoid rigid structure with ‘sub-index’ for each of 4 domains
– include two additional indicators
Recommendations by Expert Group
Indicators Dimensions Strategies SGD Targets
1. Extent to which transport plans cover
public transport, intermodal facilities and
infrastructure for active modes
SYSTEM
(ENV./ SOC) SHIFT (11.2)
2. Modal share of active and public
transport in commuting
SYSTEM
(ENV./ SOC.) SHIFT (11.2)
3. Convenient access to public transport
service SOC. SHIFT 11.2
4. Public transport quality and reliability SYSTEM/SOC. SHIFT 11.2
5. Traffic fatalities per 100.000 inhabitants SOC. IMPROVE 3.6
6. Affordability – travel costs as part of
income ECON. IMPROVE (11.2)
7. Operational costs of the public transport
system ECON. SHIFT/IMPROVE (9.1)
8. Investment in public transportation
systems ECON. SHIFT (11.2, 9.1)
9. Air quality (pm10 concentration) ENV. AVOID/SHIFT/
IMPROVE 11.6
10. Greenhouse gas emissions ENV. AVOID/SHIFT/
IMPROVE 7/13.[proxy]
Final 10 Indicators for SUTI
• Indicator relevance for sustainable transport framework
• Proposed definition
• Unit of measurement
• Interpretation in regard to sustainable transport
• Minimum and maximum values of indicator scale to use in the index construction
• Sources in the literature
• Comments on data availability and methods to provide data
• Examples
For all 10 indicators is described…
• Indicator relevance for sustainable transport framework
• Proposed definition
• Unit of measurement
• Interpretation in regard to sustainable transport
• Minimum and maximum values of indicator scale to use in the index construction
• Sources in the literature
• Comments on data availability and methods to provide data
• Examples
For all 10 indicators is described…
Definition The extent to which the city’s most current comprehensive transport plan covers four aspects I) walking networks, II) cycling networks, III) intermodal transfer facilities and IV) expansion of public transport modes.
Unit Measured by an expert panel using a qualitative scale from 0 to 4 to score city plan for each of the four aspects and aggregated across aspects to a single score between 0 to 16. 0) No coverage of the aspect 1) Limited coverage of the aspect 2) Middle coverage of the aspect 3) Extensive coverage of the aspect 4) Leading coverage of the aspect
Interpretation Clear-cut. Increasing score is always positive.
Min / Max 0 / 16
Comments The proposed scoring method is an example.
Extent to which transport plans cover public transport, intermodal facilities and infra- structure for active modes
1
1) Stating clear goals and visions for each aspect Visions, goals, and targets are key components of a plan. Goals are stronger if they are quantified and accompanied by a performance monitoring process.
2) Designating infrastructure facilities and measures A transport plan identifies projects and measures to be adopted shown on maps and in tables. The extent and detail of the designation is important for scoring a plan
3) Allocating funding, budgets and finance A plan needs investments and may involve running costs for new
transport operations. Budgets and finance can be more or less secured.
Proposed scoring criteria 1
Example of a similar approach
KOTI (2015) SUTE assessment for Korean cities
1
Definition Percentage of commuters using a travel mode to work other than a personal motorized vehicle.
Unit Percentage of trips for commuters not by personal motorized vehicle
Interpretation Clear-cut. Increasing is positive.
Min / Max 10 / 90
Comments Most cities consider modal split data. Alternative units can be to measure passenger km which would be useful for calculating other indicators such as fuel efficiency and emissions. Issue: Accounting for Two-wheelers
Modal share of active and public transport in commuting
2
Definition 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 passenger transport service available to the general public, excluding taxis, car pools, hired buses and para-transit
Unit Percentage of population (%).
Interpretation Clear-cut. Increasing is positive.
Min / Max 20 / 100
Comments The indicator is recommended by UN Statistical Commission for 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?
Convenient access to public transport service 3
Definition The degree to which passengers of the public transport system are satisfied with the quality of service while using the different modes of public transport.
Unit Percentage of satisfied customers (top 3 steps of 7 step Likert score)
Interpretation Clear-cut, increasing is positive
Min / Max 30% / 95%
Comments Satisfaction can be measured for different aspects (punctuality, safety, cleanliness….) and averaged
Alternative to subjective satisfaction indicator is objective measure of reliability, for example wait time (the percentage of departures within a threshold of less than 3 minute after schedule)
Public transport quality and reliability 4
Definition Fatalities in traffic (road; rail, etc.) in the urban areas per 100.000 inhabitants
Unit Number of persons deceased as related to a traffic accident if it occurs within 30 days after the accident
Interpretation Clear-cut, Decreasing is positive
Min / Max 35 / 0
Comments Direct measure related to SDG target 3.6
Injuries are mentioned as well in the SDG target, but the definition and data collection is not as standardized for injuries
Could be limited to road fatalities for simplification
Traffic fatalities per 100.000 inhabitants 5
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 Percentage of monthly income
Interpretation Clear-cut: Decreasing is positive
Min / Max 20 / 3.5
Comments Not all cities may have a network wide tickets
WBCSD (2016) proposes a somewhat other definition based on single tickets and the income of the poorest quartile of the population
Challenge: comparability across cities with different PT systems
Affordability - travel costs as share of income 6
Definition Share of all transport investments made by the city that is directed to public transport
Unit % of transport investment spending that is for public transport; as average over three years because annual investments tend to fluctuate much over time
Interpretation Relatively clear-cut; Increasing is positive (generally)
Min / Max O / 50% (not based on observation)
Comments Does not consider investments in ‘soft modes’
Private investments could matter as well as public
Investment in public transportation systems 7
Definition Ratio of fare revenue to operating costs for public transport systems (‘Fare box ratio’)
Unit % of operational costs recovered by fares
Interpretation Clear – Increasing is positive
Min / Max 22% / 175%
Comments The ‘fare box ratio’ is one of several possible indicators used to measure public transport financial sustainability
Funding of public transport operations can come from different sources, including government subsidies, dedicated taxes, sale or rent of land, or other commercial operations.
Operational costs of the public transport system 8
Definition Annual mean levels of fine particulate matter (PM10) in the air (population weighted) compared to threshold
Unit Micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3)
Interpretation Clear-cut: Decreasing is positive.
Min / Max 150 / 10 (μg/m3) (Reddy 2013, WHO 2014)
Comments Air quality is not only affected by transport.
More cities are covered for PM10 whereas PM2.5 is more accurate as health indicator
Air quality (PM10)
9
Definition CO2 equivalent emissions from transport by urban residents per annum per capita
Unit Ton CO2 equivalent/capita/year
Interpretation Clear-cut: Decreasing is positive
Min / Max 2.75 / 0
Comments More and more cities worldwide are committed to reduce their GHG emissions
Challenge: Require calculations for each city. Using a transport model and/or data from a household travel survey will be very helpful.
Greenhouse gas emissions
10
• SUTI is constructed by aggregating information from all 10 indicators
• Idea of sub-index for each domain has been abandoned, since domains are overlapping
Key elements in the construction are:
• Normalization
• Weighing
• Calculation method for aggregation
Index
• Indicators on different scales need to be normalized
• The method used is linear rescaling to scale of 1-100
• Common approach in composite indicator used for several sustainable transport index
• Z is the normalized indicator X for topic i and city c.
• Xmin is the ‘worst’ value of the indicator in actual units, whereas Xmax is the ‘best’ value
Normalization for SUTI (1)
• Min and max defined as lowest and highest value to be found in cities for each indicator
• Most values based on real performance in literature
• Desired target level used for a few indictors (e.g. zero fatalities)
• Absolute ranking used. Relative ranking (without predefined min/max) not chosen because this would make tracking performance over time less meaningful
Normalization for SUTI (2) Min-Max
• Necessary to decide how to weigh each indicator
• Weights can be determined by political or subjective choice, by expert knowledge, or by statistical analysis (if sufficient data have been collected)
• In SUTI ‘equal weight’ to each indicator is applied
• Justification: No basis for different weights
• Note: ‘Equal weight’ is also a weighting choice!
• Could be reconsidered by expert panel /AHP, e.g. when data have been collected
Weighing (1)
Weighing (2) # Indicator Natural units Weight Range
MIN MAX
1
Extent to which transport plans cover public
transport, intermodal facilities and
infrastructure for active modes
0 - 16 scale 10 0 16
2 Modal share of active and public transport in
commuting Trips 10 10 90
3 Convenient access to public transport service % of the
population 10 20 100
4 Public transport quality and reliability % satisfied with
service 10 30 95
5 Traffic fatalities per 100.000 inhabitants # fatalities 10 0 35
6 Affordability – travel costs as part of income % of income 10 35 3.5
7 Operational costs of the public transport
system
Cost recovery
ratio 10 22 175
8 Investment in public transportation systems % of total
investment 10 0 50
9 Air quality (pm10) μg/m3 10 150 10
10 Greenhouse gas emissions from transport Tons 10 2.75 0
100
Calculation method
Where i1…i10 are the indicators
Geometric mean method chosen (similar to HDI)
• it avoids assumption of linear substitution between the elements as in linear (arithmetic) mean
• it punishes inconsistency across elements
• it is less sensitive to possible change of goal posts (min and max values)
SUTI =
Exemplification – for single city # Indicators Range Data
MIN MAX City X
1 Extent to which transport plans cover public transport,
intermodal facilities and infrastructure for active modest 0 16 1
2 Modal share of active and public transport in commuting 10 90 65
3 Convenient access to public transport service 20 100 53
4 Public transport quality and reliability 30 95 61
5 Traffic fatalities per 100.000 inhabitants 0 35 16.42
6 Affordability – travel costs as part of income 35 3.5 30
7 Operational costs of the public transport system 22 175 87
8 Investment in public transportation systems 0 50 18
9 Air quality (pm10) 150 10 100
10 Greenhouse gas emissions from transport 2.75 0 0.48
Exemplification – for single city
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
Extent to which transport planscover public transport,
intermodal facilities andinfrastructure for active modes
Modal share of active andpublic transport in commuting
Convenient access to publictransport service
Public transport quality andreliability
Traffic fatalities per 100.000inhabitants
Affordability – travel costs as part of income
Operational costs of the publictransport system
Investment in publictransportation systems
Air quality (pm10)
Greenhouse gas emissions fromtransport
City X Normalized performance
Exemplification – for multiple cities # Indicators DATA (cities)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1
Extent to which transport plans cover
public transport, intermodal facilities and
infrastructure for active modest
1 3 2 11 11 9 2 8
2 Modal share of active and public transport
in commuting 65 73 56 50 57 60 81 52
3 Convenient access to public transport
service 53 88 46 83 89 77 44 66
4 Public transport quality and reliability 61 88 59 67 95 81 51 54
5 Traffic fatalities per 100.000 inhabitants 16.42 3.3 9.4 1.6 1.1 11,0 22,0 13,0
6 Affordability – travel costs as part of
income 30 28 21 7 9 18 25 18
7 Operational costs of the public transport
system 87 67 33 90 136 41 101 79
8 Investment in public transportation
systems 18 12 24 45 33 35 15 32
9 Air quality (pm10) 100 132 90 31 25 50 75 74
10 Greenhouse gas emissions from transport 0.48 0.33 0.55 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.6
Exemplification – normalized values # Indicators DATA (cities)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1
Extent to which transport plans cover
public transport, intermodal facilities and
infrastructure for active modest
6.25 18.75 12.50 68.75 68.75 56.25 12.50 50.00
2 Modal share of active and public transport
in commuting 68.75 78.75 57.50 50.00 58.75 62.50 88.75 52.50
3 Convenient access to public transport
service 41.25 85.00 32.50 78.75 86.25 71.25 30.00 57.50
4 Public transport quality and reliability 47.69 89.23 44.62 56.92 100.00 78.46 32.31 36.92
5 Traffic fatalities per 100.000 inhabitants 46.91 9.43 26.86 4.57 3.14 31.43 62.86 37.14
6 Affordability – travel costs as part of
income 15.87 22.22 44.44 88.89 82.54 53.97 31.75 53.97
7 Operational costs of the public transport
system 42.48 29.41 7.19 44.44 74.51 12.42 51.63 37.25
8 Investment in public transportation
systems 36.00 24.00 48.00 90.00 66.00 70.00 30.00 64.00
9 Air quality (pm10) 35.71 12.86 42.86 85.00 89.29 71.43 53.57 54.29
10 Greenhouse gas emissions from transport 82.55 88.00 80.00 60.00 67.27 70.91 85.45 78.18
Exemplification – for multiple cities
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
100,00
Extent to which transport planscover public transport,
intermodal facilities andinfrastructure for active modes
Modal share of active andpublic transport in commuting
Convenient access to publictransport service
Public transport quality andreliability
Traffic fatalities per 100.000inhabitants
Affordability – travel costs as part of income
Operational costs of the publictransport system
Investment in publictransportation systems
Air quality (pm10)
Greenhouse gas emissions fromtransport
Comparing cities all indicators
City 1
City 2
City 3
City 4
City 5
City 6
City 7
City 8
SUTI for all cities - exemplification
SUTI Rank by score
City 5 55.29
City 6 52.08
City 4 51.36
City 8 50.74
City 7 41.52
City 1 35.10
City 2 33.67
City 3 32.87
• Comprehensive review of existing indicators
• SUTI Index has been developed
• Methods for calculation explained and exemplified
• Individual city and multiple city approach
• Overall considerations have been addressed:
– Sustainable development concerns (including SDG 11.2)
– Relevance for urban transport planning
– Methodological soundness
– Simplicity and transparency
– Expert feedback
Results
• Data collection and availability to be addressed in more detail
• Frequency of reporting
• Comparability across cities/countries for some indicators could be discussed further
• A pilot in actual cities would be most welcome
Issues and possible next steps
