SOLUTIONS: A Proposed Appraisal

Framework Dr Gordon Mitchell

School of Geography / Institute for Transport Studies

University of Leeds

Guiding Principles

Address Sustainability (SEE) – with evaluation criteria

sensitive to LU&T 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)

SA-SEA good practice 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?

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

SPECIFY ISSUES & ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

SPECIFY DESIGNS

SCOPING ASSESSMENT (OPTIONAL)

HYBRID ASSESSMENTIndependent assessments of local and strategic designsAssessment of some integrated local-strategic designs

ENHANCED ASSESSMENT

REPORTING

Assessment

Issues & indicators

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)

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

Specify LU&T ‘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’

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

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)

Integrated Assessment

Designs assessed with explicit scale integration

Local design represented in a full LUTI model using zonal level data exchange

& / or microsimulation

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 (?)

STRATEGIC LOCAL

Report change in assessment criteria (For whole system)

‘Hybrid’ Assessment

‘DEPTH’ OF ASSESSMENT

EXTENT OF ASSESSMENT (No. of tests)

INDEPENDENTASSESSMENT

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?

MS in a full LUTI model

MS in a partial LUTI model (city isa buffer zone)

Data exchange from local design to LUTI model zones (& v.v.)

INTEG

RA

TED A

SSESSMEN

T

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

2015 Do AllNO2 Annual Mean (ug/m3)

4035302824222016

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

2005 Do Min - Inner Cordon% Difference NOx

25 and above5 to 25

-5 to 5-25 to -5-50 to -25

-100 to -50

TEMMS

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

SMARTNET

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)

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

Main land uses of residential, commercial, industrial, roads, open, other/mixed)

Impermeability a function of land use and residential density

NPS Copper (Kg/ha/yr)

City B

XX --

XX

-- X

SUSTAINABILITY INDEX

Many exist, none directly applicable

Opportunity for bespoke application (e.g. ecological footprinting)

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

GNP and ISEW for the USA (Daly and Cobb, 1989)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1950 1960 1970 1980

$ pe

r ca

pita

(19

72 p

rices

)

GNP

ISEW

City A £ CO2 Access

Design 1 XX --

Design 2 XX

Design 3 -- X

MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT

Proven method, readily applied

Weighting controversial but transparent

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

‘DEPTH’ OF ASSESSMENT

(extent of process

representation)

EXTENT OF ASSESSMENT (No. of tests)

INDEPENDENTASSESSMENT

INDEPENDENT ASESSMENT:• Designs assessed separately at city

and neighbourhood scales• Relatively simple, but no micro-

macro scale interaction

INTEGRATED ASESSMENT:• Recognises interaction of micro and

macro scale processes • Unproven methodology; practical

and resource constraints

MS in a full LUTI model

MS in a partial LUTI model (city isa buffer zone)

Data exchange from local design to LUTI model zones (& v.v.)

INTEG

RA

TED A

SSESSMEN

T

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)

Integrated Assessment

Designs assessed with explicit scale integration

Local design represented in a full LUTI model using zonal level data exchange

& / or microsimulation

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 (?)

STRATEGIC LOCAL

Report change in assessment criteria (For whole system)

‘Hybrid’ Assessment

‘DEPTH’ OF ASSESSMENT

EXTENT OF ASSESSMENT (No. of tests)

INDEPENDENTASSESSMENT

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?

MS in a full LUTI model

MS in a partial LUTI model (city isa buffer zone)

Data exchange from local design to LUTI model zones (& v.v.)

INTEG

RA

TED A

SSESSMEN

T