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 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)

3. 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 SA-SEA good practice review

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. 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 Issues & indicators

6. 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’

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. 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 Independent Assessment STRATEGIC LOCAL Report change in assessment criteria (For whole system)

9. 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) Integrated Assessment

10. MS in a full LUTI model MS in a partial LUTI model (city isa buffer zone) INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT Data exchange from local design to LUTI model zones (& v.v.) INDEPENDENTASSESSMENT ‘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. 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 TEMMS NO2 AM Do-All 2005

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. 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) Water Resource Use

15. 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 Urban Diffuse Pollution Model NPS Copper (Kg/ha/yr)

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 • MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT • Proven method, readily applied • Weighting controversial but transparent • SUSTAINABILITY INDEX • Many exist, none directly applicable • Opportunity for bespoke application (e.g. ecological footprinting)

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. 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 ‘DEPTH’ OF ASSESSMENT (extent of processrepresentation) MS in a partial LUTI model (city isa buffer zone) INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT Data exchange from local design to LUTI model zones (& v.v.) INDEPENDENTASSESSMENT EXTENT OF ASSESSMENT (No. of tests)

19. 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 Independent Assessment STRATEGIC LOCAL Report change in assessment criteria (For whole system)

20. 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) Integrated Assessment

21. MS in a full LUTI model MS in a partial LUTI model (city isa buffer zone) INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT Data exchange from local design to LUTI model zones (& v.v.) INDEPENDENTASSESSMENT ‘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)