Assessing land-use and transport integration via a spatial composite indexing model

Achieving sustainable urban development is identified as one ultimate goal of many contemporary planning endeavours and has become central to formulation of urban planning policies. Within this concept, land-use and transport integration is highlighted as one of the most important and attainable policy objectives. In many cities, integration is embraced as an integral part of local development plans, and a number of key integration principles are identified. However, the lack of available evaluation methods to measure extent of urban sustainability levels prevents successful implementation of these principles. This paper introduces a new indicator-based spatial composite indexing model developed to measure sustainability performance of urban settings by taking into account land-use and transport integration principles. Model indicators are chosen via a thorough selection process in line with key principles of land-use and transport integration. These indicators are grouped into categories and themes according to their topical relevance. These indicators are then aggregated to form a spatial composite index to portray an overview of the sustainability performance of the pilot study area used for model demonstration. The study results revealed that the model is a practical instrument for evaluating success of local integration policies and visualizing sustainability performance of built environments and useful in both identifying problematic areas as well as formulating policy interventions.

A spatial-indexing model for measuring neighbourhood-level land-use and transport integration

Significant attention has been given in urban policy literature to the integration of land-use and transport planning and policies—with a view to curbing sprawling urban form and diminishing externalities associated with car-dependent travel patterns. By taking land-use and transport interaction into account, this debate mainly focuses on how a successful integration can contribute to societal well-being, providing efficient and balanced economic growth while accomplishing the goal of developing sustainable urban environments and communities. The integration is also a focal theme of contemporary urban development models, such as smart growth, liveable neighbourhoods, and new urbanism. Even though available planning policy options for ameliorating urban form and transport-related externalities have matured—owing to growing research and practice worldwide—there remains a lack of suitable evaluation models to reflect on the current status of urban form and travel problems or on the success of implemented integration policies. In this study we explore the applicability of indicator-based spatial indexing to assess land-use and transport integration at the neighbourhood level. For this, a spatial index is developed by a number of indicators compiled from international studies and trialled in Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. The results of this modelling study reveal that it is possible to propose an effective metric to determine the success level of city plans considering their sustainability performance via composite indicator methodology. The model proved useful in demarcating areas where planning intervention is applicable, and in identifying the most suitable locations for future urban development and plan amendments. Lastly, we integrate variance-based sensitivity analysis with the spatial indexing method, and discuss the applicability of the model in other urban contexts.

Sustainability in post disaster road infrastructure recovery projects and asset management

Civil infrastructure and especially roads are being impacted with increasing frequency by flood, Tsunami, cyclone related natural and manmade disasters in the world. Responding to such events and in preparing for more regular and intense climate-change induced events in future, the road governing agencies are reviewing how postdisaster road infrastructure recovery projects are best planned and delivered. In particular, there is awareness that rebuilding such infrastructure require sustainable asset management strategies across economic, environmental and social dimensions. A comprehensive asset management framework for pre and post disaster situations can minimize negative impacts on our communities, economy and environment. This research paper is focused on post disaster management in road infrastructures and road infrastructure asset management strategies used by road authorities. Analyzing the implications of disruption to transport network and associated services is an important part of preparing local and regional responses to the impacts of disasters. This research paper will contribute to strategic infrastructure asset planning, management leading to safe, efficient and integrated transport system that supports sustainable economic, social and environmental outcomes. This paper also focuses on proper asset management, governance and engineering principles which should be followed and adopted in post disaster recovery projects to maximize sustainability in environmental, social and economic dimensions.

Sustainability outcomes of infrastructure sustainability rating schemes for road projects

The construction and operation of infrastructure assets can have significant impact on society and the region. Using a sustainability assessment framework can be an effective means to build sustainability aspects into the design, construction and operation of infrastructure assets. The conventional evaluation processes and procedures for infrastructure projects do not necessarily measure the qualitative/quantitative effectiveness of all aspects of sustainability: environment, social wellbeing and economy. As a result, a few infrastructure sustainability rating schemes have been developed with a view to assess the level of sustainability attained in the infrastructure projects. These include: Infrastructure Sustainability (Australia); CEEQUAL (UK); and Envision (USA). In addition, road sector specific sustainability rating schemes such as Greenroads (USA) and Invest (Australia) have also been developed. These schemes address several aspects of sustainability with varying emphasis (weightings) on areas such as: use of resources; emission, pollution and waste; ecology; people and place; management and governance; and innovation. The attainment of sustainability of an infrastructure project depends largely on addressing the whole-of-life environmental issues. This study has analysed the rating schemes’ coverage of different environmental components for the road infrastructure under the five phases of a project: material, construction, use, maintenance and end-of-life. This is based on a comprehensive life cycle assessment (LCA) system boundary. The findings indicate that there is a need for the schemes to consider key (high impact) life cycle environmental components such as traffic congestion during construction, rolling resistance due to surface roughness and structural stiffness of the pavement, albedo, lighting, and end-of-life management (recycling) to deliver sustainable road projects.

BIM for sustainable whole-of-life transport infrastructure asset management

The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) showed that, in 2004, owners and operations managers bore two thirds of the total industry cost burden from inadequate interoperability in construction projects from inception to operation, amounting to USD10.6 billion. Building Information Modelling (BIM) and similar tools were identified by Engineers Australia in 2005 as potential instruments to significantly reduce this sum, which in Australia could amount to total industry-wide cost burden of AUD12 billion. Public sector road authorities in Australia have a key responsibility in driving initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the construction and operations of transport infrastructure. However, as previous research has shown the Environmental Impact Assessment process, typically used for project approvals and permitting based on project designs available at the consent stage, lacks Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that include long-term impact factors and transfer of information throughout the project life cycle. In the building construction industry, BIM is widely used to model sustainability KPIs such as energy consumption, and integrated with facility management systems. This paper proposes that a similar use of BIM in early design phases of transport infrastructure could provide: (i) productivity gains through improved interoperability and documentation; (ii) the opportunity to carry out detailed cost-benefit analyses leading to significant operational cost savings; (iii) coordinated planning of street and highway lighting with other energy and environmental considerations; iv) measurable KPIs that include long-term impact factors which are transferable throughout the project life cycle; and (v) the opportunity for integrating design documentation with sustainability whole-of-life targets.

Developing affordable and sustainable housing through energy, transport, and building utility integration

Housing affordability and sustainable development are not polarised ideologies as both are necessary with increasing urbanisation. We must bridge the gap between current median house pricing and target affordable house pricing whilst pursuing sustainability. This paper examines the potential of initial construction cost and ongoing utilities and transport cost reduction through the integration of sustainable housing design and transit oriented development principles in a Commuter Energy and Building Utilities System (CEBUS). It also introduces current research on the development of a Dynamic Simulation Model for CEBUS applications in the Australian property development and construction industry.

Investigating the interplay between transport, land use and the environment : a review of the literature

Integration of land use and transport decisions to achieve sustainable travel behavior has been considered an integral element for sustainable urban development. However, before the popularity of urban sustainability concept, land use and transport interaction had been scrutinized as strictly separate entities in the urban planning and development domains. Fortunately today the concept of sustainability has been pushed to the forefront of policy-making and politics as the world wakes up to the impacts of climate change and the effects of the rapid urbanization and modern urban lifestyles. The paper therefore aims to highlight the importance of the interplay between transport, land use and the environment. This review paper provides evidence from the literature including the Transport, Land Use and the Environment Special Issue contributions and global best practice cases to showcase new empirical approaches and investigations from different parts of the world that contribute to the wealth of knowledge in exploring the interplay between transport, land use and the environment thoroughly.

Sustainability in infrastructure asset management

The expectation to integrate sustainability aspects (social, environmental, and economic success) into the design, delivery, and operation of infrastructure assets is growing rapidly and globally. There are now several tools and frameworks available to benchmark and measure sustainable performance of infrastructure projects and assets. This paper briefly describes the infrastructure sustainability (IS) rating tool developed by the Australian Green Infrastructure Council (AGIC) that was launched in February 2012. This tool evaluates sustainability initiatives and potential environmental, social, and economic impacts of infrastructure projects and assets. The rating tool provides the following benefits to industry: a common national language for sustainability; a vehicle for consistent application and evaluation of sustainability in tendering processes; assists in scoping whole-of-life sustainability risks, enabling smarter solutions that reduce risks and costs; fosters resource efficiency and waste reduction, reducing costs; fosters innovation and continuous improvement in sustainability outcomes; and builds an organization’s credentials and reputation in its approach to sustainability. The infrastructure types covered by this tool include transport, energy, water, and communication. The key themes of sustainability evaluation will be briefly presented in this paper, and they include management and governance; use of resources; emissions, pollution, and waste; ecology; people and place; and innovation.

Integrating urban ecosystem sustainability assessment into policy-making: Insights from the Gold Coast City

This paper introduces a policy-making support tool called ‘Micro-level Urban ecosystem Sustainability IndeX (MUSIX)’. The index serves as a sustainability assessment model that monitors six aspects of urban ecosystems, hydrology, ecology, pollution, location, design, and efficiency based on parcel-scale indicators. This index is applied in a case study investigation in the Gold Coast City, Queensland, Australia. The outcomes reveal that there are major environmental problems caused by increased impervious surfaces from growing urban development in the study area. The findings suggest that increased impervious surfaces are linked to increased surface runoff, car dependency, transport-related pollution, poor public transport accessibility, and unsustainable built environment. This paper presents how the MUSIX outputs can be used to guide policy-making through the evaluation of existing policies.

Analysis of arable land loss and its impact on rural sustainability in Southern Jiangsu Province of China

Rapid urbanization and industrialization in southern Jiangsu Province have consumed a huge amount of arable land. Through comparative analysis of land cover maps derived from TM images in 1990, 2000 and 2006, we identified the trend of arable land loss. It is found that most arable land is lost to urbanization and rural settlements development. Urban settlements, rural settlements, and industrial park-mine-transport land increased, respectively, by 87 997 ha (174.65%), 81 041 ha (104.52%), and 12 692 ha (397.99%) from 1990 to 2006. Most of the source (e.g., change from) land covers are rice paddy fields and dryland. These two covers contributed to newly urbanized areas by 37.12% and 73.52% during 1990-2000, and 46.39% and 38.86% during 2000-2006. However, the loss of arable land is weakly correlated with ecological service value, per capita net income of farmers, but positively with grain yield for some counties. Most areas in the study site have a low arable land depletion rate and a high potential for sustainable development. More attention should be directed at those counties that have a high depletion rate but a low potential for sustainable development. Rural settlements should be controlled and rationalized through legislative measures to achieve harmonious development between urban and rural areas, and sustainable development for rural areas with a minimal impact on the ecoenvironment. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Energy sustainability indicators for urban environments

Sustainable development comprises of three dimensions. The three dimensions are the environment, the social and the economic. There have been many indicators used to measure the three dimensions of sustainability. For example air pollution, consumption of natural resources, quality of open space, noise, equity and opportunities and economic benefits from transport and land use. Urban areas constitute the most crucial factor in the sustainability. Urban systems affect and are affected by natural systems beyond their physical boundaries and in general the interdependence between the urban system and the regional and global environment is not reflected in urban decision making. The use of energy in the urban system constitutes the major element in the construction and function of urban areas. Energy impacts across the boundaries of the three dimensions of sustainability. The objective of this research is to apply energy-use-indicators to the urban system as a measure of sustainability. This methodology is applied to a case study in the United Kingdom.

Can we meet targets for biofuels and renewable energy in transport given the constraints imposed by policy in agriculture and energy?

The deployment of biofuels is significantly affected by policy in energy and agriculture. In the energy arena, concerns regarding the sustainability of biofuel systems and their impact on food prices led to a set of sustainability criteria in EU Directive 2009/28/EC on Renewable Energy. In addition, the 10% biofuels target by 2020 was replaced with a 10% renewable energy in transport target. This allows the share of renewable electricity used by electric vehicles to contribute to the mix in achieving the 2020 target. Furthermore, only biofuel systems that effect a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 compared with the fuel they replace are allowed to contribute to meeting the target. In the agricultural arena, cross-compliance (which is part of EU Common Agricultural Policy) dictates the allowable ratio of grassland to total agricultural land, and has a significant impact on which biofuels may be supported. This paper outlines the impact of these policy areas and their implications for the production and use of biofuels in terms of the 2020 target for 10% renewable transport energy, focusing on Ireland. The policies effectively impose constraints on many conventional energy crop biofuels and reinforce the merits of using biomethane, a gaseous biofuel. The analysis shows that Ireland can potentially satisfy 15% of renewable energy in transport by 2020 (allowing for double credit for biofuels from residues and ligno-cellulosic materials, as per Directive 2009/28/EC) through the use of indigenous biofuels: grass biomethane, waste and residue derived biofuels, electric vehicles and rapeseed biodiesel. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Urban logistics: how can it meet policy makers' sustainability objectives?

This paper discusses how urban freight activity can function such that it meets the urban sustainability objectives policy makers are now beginning to implement. It considers: the importance of urban freight transport in maintaining the economic vitality of the city; the negative impacts that it imposes; the concept of urban sustainability and the development of sustainability strategies; and the means and measures by which freight transport could be made more sustainable. It presents results from a project that investigated the current freight transport operations of seven different companies in three urban areas in the UK. The potential operational, financial and environmental effects of four policy measures on these operations are considered.