Towards a better consideration of climate change and
greenhouse gas emission targets in transport and spatial/
land use policies, plans and programmes
Prepared for presentation at the Open
Meeting of the Global Environmental Change Research Community,
Rio de Janeiro, 6-8 October, 2001
Thomas B Fischer
Word count: 5928
Institute for Regional Development
and Structural Planning (IRS)
Flakenstrasse 28-31
15537 Erkner (bei Berlin)
Germany
Email thomas.b.fischer@iname.com
1
Abstract
Whilst the transport sector has a crucial role to play in the task of stabilising and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, it is still experiencing strong world wide growth. Purely technical
measures aiming at reducing energy consumption of vehicles are unlikely to be sufficient for
making global transport more sustainable and there is clearly a need for decoupling transport
growth from overall economic growth. A comparison of current GDP and different transport
related indicators leads to the conclusion that there is a good chance of success, as ratios of
different regions differ substantially.
There are a number of possibilities for reducing overall transport energy consumption. Most
effectively, these include travel restrictions and fiscal measures, extensively applied in e.g.
Singapore and Hong Kong. Another possibility often considered more politically acceptable,
is the reduction of the need to travel. Whilst there is a controversial debate taking place on
how this might be achieved, a precondition for success is the acknowledgement of the need to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions in planning, i.e. in transport and land use policies, plans,
programmes and projects.
The paper portrays the extent to which global climate change and greenhouse gas emission
targets are currently considered in transport and spatial/ land use planning documentation
above the project level in three European Union member states; the UK, the Netherlands and
Germany. Suggestions are made on how the consideration of greenhouse gas emission targets
can be improved. In this context, the important role of formalised impact assessment is underlined.
2
Introduction
Whilst a stabilisation of energy consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions1 has
been achieved in many Western European countries in a number of sectors over the past few
decades (for example private household consumption, industrial production), the transport
sector has experienced consistent and strong growth. Transport growth rates have mostly been
above the general economic growth (European Environment Agency, 2001). Transport now
participates to at least 20%-25% to global greenhouse gas emissions.
Transport economists often suggest that there is a direct link between economic development
and transport and it is argued that transport growth is unavoidable if economic growth is to be
achieved. However, if this was really the case, within the current economic system, transport
would be doomed to indefinite growth. Whilst this assumption should lead to regions with
similar GDPs per capita having similar rates of transport energy consumption, in practice, this
is not observed. There are in fact many cases, including, for example Hong Kong and Singapore, two prosperous South East Asian city regions, which have much lower rates of transport
energy consumption than other developed regions, particularly in North America. Also, within
Europe, the rate of ‘accessibility’ to cities (in terms of road, rail and air access) is not always
in line with the overall economic performance. There is now sufficient evidence to suggest
that a ‘decoupling’ of economic and transport growth is possible.
Until recently, politicians and transport economists favoured technical solutions aiming at
transport means and infrastructure in order to achieve a reduction of energy consumption and
emissions. However, it is now clear that only a mix of different measures can ensure success,
i.e. it is assumed that gains in overall efficiency will not outweigh quantitative growth. This is
in line with the arguments of the sufficiency revolution theory (Spehl, 2000). In this context,
transport and land use planning are potentially of great importance. A precondition for being
effective is that policies, plans, programmes (PPPs) and projects explicitly acknowledge and
consider associated objectives and targets. Furthermore, proposed measures need to be assessed in terms of their ability to really lead to a reduction of energy consumption and associated harmful emissions and support the suggestion that necessary trade-offs between economic, social and ecological aspects should be made within a framework of regional governance.
1
This includes particularly those directly related to energy consumption, i.e. CO 2-emissions.
3
This paper is rooted in the believe that planners and politicians can in fact act in a way supporting an overall reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Whilst the suggestions of sociologists are acknowledged that individuals behave in unexpected and thus unpredictable ways,
based on empirical research findings, it is assumed that on aggregate certain behavioural patterns can be related to (time) distances, spatial opportunities and costs.
This paper consists of three parts. Part 1 provides some background information. In this context, firstly, past and present transport trends are portrayed. This is followed by a discussion
on whether transport can be decoupled from economic growth. Furthermore, options for
achieving a reduction of transport energy consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions are briefly discussed. Part 2 introduces transport and spatial/ land use planning systems
in Europe. In this context, aspects of administrative and systematic tiering are presented. Part
3 finally describes the extent to which climate change and greenhouse gas emission targets are
currently considered in transport and land use policies, plans and programmes in three countries: the UK, the Netherlands and Germany. Based on statistical analysis, factors leading to a
better consideration of objectives and targets in PPPs are identified. Finally, conclusions are
drawn.
Part 1: Reducing transport energy consumption and associated
greenhouse gas emissions
Part 1 is divided into three sections. Firstly, past and present transport trends in Europe are
portrayed. This is followed by a discussion on the relationship of economic and transport
growth. Finally, possible options for reducing transport energy consumption and associated
greenhouse gas emissions are introduced.
Past and present transport trends
Over the past few decades, world-wide transport has been growing rapidly, in many countries
at rates above the general economic growth (European Environment Agency, 2001; RCOEP,
1995). This trend is due to a number of aspects, including changes of production processes
(i.e. ‘just in time’) and more globally oriented economic activities. Furthermore, transport
growth is due to a substantial increase of leisure traffic. Suburbanisation and urban sprawl
also have some significance, as they have led to a substantial increase in daily commuting
distances (see, for example Cervero and Wu, 1998). In addition to these developments chang4
es in individual ‘lifestyles’ have been observed in Western societies over the past four decades
(Noller, 1999).
- Figure 1 in here -
In general, growth of transport is associated with low petrol prices (i.e. prices currently do not
reflect real costs; see for example Maddison et al., 1996) and extensive transport infrastructure
networks (Newman and Kenworthy, 1999). In Western Europe, car traffic growth has been
strong for many decades and remains so up until the present day2. Similar tendencies have
lately also been observed in Central and Eastern Europe. In Germany, 11 years after unification, the differences between the former East and the former West of the country have almost
disappeared. In this context, two examples are subsequently presented. Figure 1 shows car
ownership in Western and Eastern Germany since 1970. Whilst there were substantial differences up until the end 1980s, rates now hardly differ, anymore. In addition to an increase in
car ownership, distances travelled per capita have also increased. The number of trips per day
and person, however, appears to have stayed at a constant number of 3 for a number of decades. Figure 2 presents goods transport in the former East Germany. Whilst up until the end
1980s about three quarters of all goods transport was rail based, this has now been reduced to
only one quarter and road transport has largely increased in importance.
Compared with other consumption goods, costs associated with using the motor car and those
for air travel have decreased during most of the 1980s and 1990s (UPI, 1995). In fact, low fuel
prices have led to a situation where transport costs are frequently of only secondary importance for location decisions. Consequently, people and companies have moved to locations
far away from traditional urban centres. Furthermore, produce from all over the world can
now be purchased around the world at prices comparable to that of regional produce; i.e. physical distances are not reflected in prices, anymore.
- Figure 2 in here -
Low fuel prices and suburbanisation have led to the spatial separation of different urban functions and to increased travel distances. Low urban densities (following Newman and Kenwor2
There are currently no indications that telecommunication and E-business will lead to a reduction of transport.
In fact, it is now frequently suggested that rather the opposite will occur, i.e. an increase in transport.
5
thy, 1999) together with transport costs have been identified as the main contributors to greater travel distances, as is shown in Figure 3. Whilst US American cities have very low population densities compared with other world regions, they also have the highest rates of transport
energy consumption in MJ per capita. Hong Kong, on the other hand, with an extremely high
population density per ha has very low transport energy consumption rates.
- Figure 3 in here -
Central European cities are found in between these two extremes. It needs to be stressed that
Figure 3 also reflects fuel prices throughout the world. In the USA, for example, fuel prices
are about three times lower than in Japan. Energy consumption in the USA, on the other hand,
is almost 4 times of that in Japan. Furthermore, GDP per capita in the USA is smaller than
that in Japan.
Transport and the economy
Many transport economists and politicians still argue that transport growth is inextricably
linked with economic growth. However, research results clearly indicate that there is no linear
relationship between the two. In 1993, for example, a World Bank study concluded that there
was no direct link between kilometres driven per capita and economic prosperity between different major world cities (Kessides, 1993). Figure 4 shows accessibility (in terms of road, rail
and air access) and GDP of different European cities. Whilst there are examples for low accessibility and low GDP (Crete) and high accessibility and high GDP (London, Paris), there
are also examples for high accessibility and low GDP (Magdeburg) and low accessibility and
high GDP (Stockholm). Therefore, accessibility on its own cannot be regarded a sufficient
factor for explaining economic prosperity. The previous section already indicated that energy
consumption and GDP do not need to be positively linked, referring to the USA and Japan.
Similar observations have been made in terms of the effects of transport infrastructure construction, for example motorways. Thus, in certain disadvantaged regions where motorway
construction was thought to stimulate economic development these failed to live up to the
original expectations. European regions include Northern Wales and Southern Italy. In the
former East Germany, it remains to be seen whether the extensive motorway construction
programme will have positive or rather negative effects on the local and regional economies.
- Figure 4 in here 6
Possible ways for influencing transport energy consumption
There is an extensive literature on the effectiveness of different measures for influencing
transport energy consumption (see, for example, Goodwin and Parkhurst, 1996 or Rommerskirchen, 1993). In the past, politicians and decision makers largely tended to favour technical
measures; i.e. technical improvements of transport means and transport infrastructure. However, more recently in the European Union, there has clearly been a shift of attention and it has
become clear that only a mix of different measures is likely to be able to effectively reduce
transport energy consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Besides technical
measures, other ways for influencing transport energy consumption include regulatory
measures, pricing-policies, infrastructure (planning) and organisational measures. Pricingpolicy measures have proven to be most effective in reducing transport. However, they are
often politically difficult to implement and highly controversial. In fact, at the moment many
countries do not regard it politically feasible to internalise external transport costs, thus making real competition between different means of transport means impossible. Table 1 summarises possible options for each type of measure. No standard solution can currently be offered
and individual approaches need to be developed for any particular situation. The remainder of
this paper focuses on organisational measures, i.e. integrated policy making, planning and
assessment. These are potentially of great importance for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
(see, for example Stead, 1999). To some extent, particularly at the policy level, organisational
measures may include all other measures, as well. Therefore, they have an umbrella function
and should be given more attention than is often the case. Again, it needs to be stressed that
the effects of improved telecommunications are currently unclear.
- Table 1 in here -
Part 2: Current planning practice in the European Union
According to institutional theory, planning systems need to be supported by frameworks that
set up certain rules for decision making, particularly for ensuring democratic processes (Czada, 1997). These are usually provided by formalised legislation. Furthermore, in order for decisions to be taken in an informed manner, there is a need for assessing the likely impacts
within planning processes. Since the 1970s, following the US American National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), many countries world wide started introducing formalised requirements for assessing likely environmental impacts, usually for projects only. In this con7
text, the process based instrument most often used is environmental impact assessment - EIA.
Whilst EIA has been able to lead to improved decisions from an environmental point of view
(see for example Marr, 1997 or Sadler, 1996), it has not been formally applied at stages above
the project level. Therefore, to date, at higher tiers, decisions have been taken without properly addressing the potential environmental impacts. In the European Union (EU) this practice is
now about to change after a directive on the assessment of certain plans and programme was
introduced in 2001 - the so called SEA (strategic environmental assessment) Directive, according to which member states are required to introduce formal impact assessment for plans
and programmes by August 2003. Whilst both, EIA and SEA are suitable instruments for supporting local and regional governance and providing comprehensive communication platforms, in the EU, requirements will not cover policies, thus leaving out an important decision
making stage.
Planning in Western and Northern European countries can be allocated within tiered systems,
comprising two main components - administrative and systematic (following Fischer, 2002).
Administrative and systematic tiering aspects in the decision making cycle in transport and
land use planning are portrayed in Figure 5.
- Figure 5 in here -
The following two paragraphs elaborate this tiered decision making system further, which
ensures a consideration of ‘the right issues at the right time’, as was suggested by ICON,
(2001, V):
‚in the absence of tiering, communication processes become broken or interrupted,
creating dissonance with other levels of decision making‘
Administrative tiering
Transport planning is conducted at different geographical levels requiring the consideration of
different planning aspects. Subsequently, the aspects to be addressed at three main geographical levels of decision making are summarised: national, regional and local. Furthermore, the
potential to reduce transport energy consumption at a particular geographical level is discussed.
8
In addition to the three administrative planning levels, there is also an international aspect
which is of increasing importance, as growth rates of international long haul traffic have been
very high for the past few decades. This is due both, to increased business and leisure traffic.
Of all transport means, air transport has experienced the biggest growth. According to Banister (2000), this was +500% between 1970 and 1990. However, at the moment no effective
planning is taking place at the international level. At the EU level, there are currently some
activities aiming at changing this, i.e. the European Spatial Development Perspective.
Local level
Local level traffic is short distance traffic, usually within towns and cities. In Germany, about
2/3 of all car trips are less than 10 km and can be said to be of a local nature. Ways on how to
effectively reduce short distance trips are well known and there are now many examples
which indeed show a reduction of car traffic relative to other means of transport. Figure 6
shows private car use in percent of all trips to the city centres of Hanover, Freiburg, Braunschweig and Münster.
- Figure 6 in here -
An effective mix of different measures leading to lower shares of car traffic include an urban
fabric that enables a city ‘of short distances’ (‘compact city’)3 with mixed residential and
business areas and high densities (see also Figure 3), a good public transport system, restrictions to car use within inner city areas (i.e. pedestrian areas) and high parking fees. Spatial
and transport planning can be rather effective in influencing local traffic patterns.
Regional level
Over the past few decades regional level traffic has largely increased in importance, mainly
for two reasons. Firstly, the trend towards suburbanisation substantially increased commuting
distances and leisure traffic. This is particularly connected with an improved infrastructure
network allowing to travel longer distances at less time. Furthermore, low fuel prices have
supported this trend. Also, in some countries, in the past state subsidies only applied to developing rural areas, rather than inner-city sites. Secondly, and more recently, due to agglomera3
Whilst ‚compact city‘ proponents have been heavily criticised by post-modernists, to date there have not been
any conclusive suggestions why Asian and European cities have in fact much lower fuel consumption rates than
North American cities other than densities/ mix of urban functions and fuel prices.
9
tion effects, certain economic activities (particularly those that are service oriented) have increasingly tended to ‘cluster’ in certain regions. These effects are of particular importance in
‘global city regions’, which have lately become the focus of widespread political, economic
and research attention. It is likely that these developments lead to increased traffic between
regions.
In the European Union, there has lately been a strong focus on the regionalisation of government and regional governance (see, for example Fischer and Barker, forthcoming). However,
currently regional level activities are often not easily implemented, as administrative boundaries are not in line with functional regional boundaries. Consequently, apart from certain regions with only one administrative level, such as Hong Kong and Singapore, most regions
have not been able to properly co-ordinate their activities at the regional level and experienced
substantial growth in traffic energy consumption over the last decade. Theoretical concepts on
how regional spatial structures should be organised to reduce transport energy consumption
were introduced, for example, by Newman and Kenworthy (1999). This includes a combination of a strong city centre, an extensive train network and residential areas that are tightly
clustered around train stations, as is portrayed in Figure 7 (see also Williams et al., 2000 and
BBR, 1998). This concept could indeed lead to a decrease in transport energy consumption,
particularly if the four phases in the city development cycle prove to be true, which include
urbanisation, suburbanisation, desurbanisation and reurbanisation (Heinze and Kill, 1997).
The spatial structure of the last phase (reurbanisation) looks similar to the one presented in
Figure 7.
- Figure 7 in here -
National level
National transport growth has been very strong up until the present day in most countries
world wide. This has been particularly due to a substantial increase of road and air traffic,
both of which usually surpassed traffic growth predictions. Figure 8 shows different predictions for car ownership for Germany since the 1950s and the actual development, which always surpassed predictions. Similar developments were also observed for distances travelled
and overall fuel consumption. Whilst a reduction of national transport and associated energy
10
use is possible, only a consideration of a wide range of measures and particularly a better reflection of the real costs of road transport are likely to lead to the desired effect. However, in
Europe, the construction of extensive new road infrastructure, as proposed for example by the
Trans-European-Transport-Networks (TENs) is likely to be very counter-productive to reducing overall national transport energy consumption.
-
Figure 8 in here -
Systematic tiering
There are three systematic decision making tiers above the project level; policies, plans and
programmes (see Fischer et al, 2001; Jansson, 2000). Empirical evidence for the existence of
these three tiers is based on practice from the UK, the Netherlands, Germany and the Scandinavian countries. Furthermore, similar suggestions were made by Bina (2000) for transport
planning and Van Straaten (2001) for spatial planning in different other European countries.
The tiered system is based on the assumption that whilst the scope of site specific issues increases from policies to projects, the scope of alternatives decreases (see Figure 9).
- Figure 9 in here -
Whilst planning documentation above the project level in existing land use and transport
planning systems in North-Western Europe, Western Central Europe and Northern Europe can
be allocated to either the policy, plan or programme tier, currently no known planning system
consistently prepares planning documentation at all four levels within a systematic decision
making framework. Following Fischer rt al (2001) and Jansson (2000) each tier addresses
specific tasks. Figure 10 summarises planning focus and tasks to be addressed at each tier.
- Figure 10 in here Current tiering practice in Germany
In order to provide some empirical evidence to the system introduced above, Figure 11 shows
the current transport planning structure in Germany. It becomes clear that there are substantial
deficiencies, as no administrative level consistently applies systematic tiering. This is similar
in all other European Union member states.
11
- Figure 11 in here -
Part 3: Climate change and greenhouse gas emission targets in
transport and land use policies, plans and programmes
Part 3 portrays the extent to which climate change and greenhouse gas emission targets were
considered in transport and land use PPPs in three EU member states; the UK, the Netherlands
and Germany. Firstly, the data collection is explained. This is followed by a description of
PPPs and the identification of success criteria for an effective consideration of climate change
and greenhouse gas emission targets.
Data collection
Transport and spatial/land use PPPs from three regions were examined, covering all administrative levels of decision making in the UK, the Netherlands and Germany. These include
North West England, Noord-Holland and EVR Brandenburg-Berlin. Figure 11 shows the regions in a EU context. A systematic analysis was conducted, i.e. all planning authorities at all
administrative levels of PPP making were contacted. Data collection was carried out through:
(a) ‘structured interviews’ of all types of transport and spatial/land use PPPs at all administrative levels (i.e. national, regional, sub-regional and local) in the three regions with key personnel of responsible authorities, having analysed PPPs beforehand based on existing documentation. In total, interviews on 36 PPPs were carried out (12 in each region) between
1997 and 1998 (including confirmation of results by authorities).
(b) mail questionnaires that were sent out to all remaining authorities within the study regions
responsible for the preparation of local land use plans. Mail questionnaires were returned
by the end of January 1998.
In total, authorities were contacted on 194 PPPs. The interview co-operation rate was 100%.
The overall mail survey response rate was 55%. A comprehensive data set was compiled, including aspects of planning4 and SEA systems5, opinions and attitudes of decision makers6
and the consideration of different sustainability aspects7. Furthermore, based on a comprehen-
4
These include PPP relevance, PPP accountability, PPP inter-modality and PPP procedure
5
Aspects of SEA systems include procedure, methods and techniques, impact coverage and the potential SEA
benefits
6
Opinions on the influence and quality of current SEA and attitudes on formalised SEA
7
These include sustainability objectives, targets and measures for action
12
sive statistical analysis, success criteria were derived based on the different examined planning aspects. The results for all of these aspects are presented and discussed by Fischer
(2001). This paper mainly deals with the results of the interviews on 36 PPPs, representing all
administrative levels of planning in the three countries, focusing on the consideration of climate change and greenhouse gas emission targets8. The need to consider climate change and
greenhouse gas emissions is derived from the sustainable development strategy of the European Union, the Fifth Environmental Action Programme. In addition, mail questionnaire results
on local land use plans are used for verifying the observed patterns.
- Figure 12 in here The consideration of climate change in transport and spatial/land use PPPs
Figure 13 shows the extent to which the 36 PPPs, representing all administrative levels in the
three sample regions considered climate change as an overall objective. In total, only one third
of all PPPs did so, over half of which where from Noord-Holland. Whilst 60% of all transport
PPPs considered climate change, only 10% of the spatial/land use PPPs did so. The application of SEA clearly had a positive effect. Whilst 43% of those PPPs involving SEA considered climate change, only 15% of the PPPs not involving SEA did so. Regarding the different
SEA types, there are significant differences. Whilst 80% of all those PPPs involving policySEA and 58% of those involving programme-SEA considered climate change, none of those
involving plan-SEA did so. This is mainly explained by the rather applied nature of plans,
examining spatial alternatives for anticipated future development, thus leaving out other effects apart from those that are directly land use related.
- Figure 13 in here The consideration of greenhouse gas emission targets in transport and spatial/land use PPPs
Only roughly one fifth of the 36 PPPs explicitly considered greenhouse gas emission targets,
usually stating that no increase in transport generated CO2 emissions should occur. Whilst
most of the interviewees said greenhouse gas emission targets were implicitly considered, it
remained unclear what this meant and whether an implicit consideration had any effect. Almost all of the PPPs that explicitly considered reduction targets were from Noord-Holland.
8
Greenhouse gas emission targets were usually acknowledged referring to CO2 emissions
13
Only 8% were from EVR Brandenburg Berlin and none were from North West England. Similarly to the consideration of climate change, most of those considering targets were transport
PPPs. Only 10% of the spatial/land use PPPs considered targets at all. Whilst 50% of those
PPPs involving policy-SEA considered targets, none of those involving any of the other two
SEA types did so. This is the main reason for PPPs involving SEA only scoring slightly better
than those not involving any SEA at all.
- Figure 14 in here -
Factors leading to a better consideration of climate change and greenhouse
gas emission targets
The most important factor for the consideration of climate change and greenhouse gas emission targets in transport and spatial/land use PPPs was the application of policy-SEA (statistically significant at P≥.01). Furthermore, the extent to which SEA procedural stages were considered was positively correlated with the consideration of climate change (P≥.05). In this
context, the participation of the general public and consultation of external bodies played a
important role (both just failing to be statistically significant at P≥.05). Figure 15 shows a
simplified decision making process which, according to the analysis carried out, is most likely
to ensure the consideration of climate change and greenhouse gas emission targets in policy,
plan and programme making. It integratively includes an SEA process and involves public
participation and consultation at all major stages of decision making.
- Figure 15 in here -
Local land use plans
Findings for local land use plans basically confirmed observations made for the PPPs, representing all administrative levels of decision making. Firstly, hardly any of the 72 examined
plans (27 from North West England, 22 from Noord-Holland and 23 from EVR BrandenburgBerlin) explicitly considered climate change or greenhouse gas emission targets. However,
roughly 40% said these were implicitly considered. Overall, the application of SEA had a very
positive effect. Whilst over 60% of those land use plans involving SEA said climate change
was (implicitly) considered, only about 10% of the plans without SEA did so. Whilst emission
14
targets were considered in almost 60% of those plans involving SEA, these were mainly land
use related including, for example, minimal distances of housing areas from roads, i.e. no CO2
emission targets were considered.
Conclusions
Whilst transport continues to experience strong growth world wide with increasing environmental impacts, a reluctance of politicians and decision makers can be observed to really tackle the problem. This is mainly due to the widespread believe that economic growth and
transport growth are inextricably linked. However, there are now many examples showing that
this does not need to be the case and that transport can be decoupled from the overall economic development. Whilst pricing-policy measures and car traffic restrictions have proven to be
most effective for reducing transport energy consumption, in western societies, these are often
considered highly controversial and politically unacceptable. On the other hand, those
measures usually favoured by many politicians and transport economists, i.e. technical improvements of transport means and infrastructure, will clearly not be sufficient for achieving
more sustainable transport. Therefore, a mix of different measures will need to be applied. In
this context, transport and spatial/land use planning potentially play an important role. However, a precondition for transport and spatial/land use PPPs to be able to provide their share
towards more sustainable transport, is the explicit consideration of climate change and greenhouse gas emission targets in planning documentation. Furthermore, the effects of measures
proposed in policies, plans, programmes and projects on targets need to be assessed.
An analysis of transport and spatial/land use policies, plans and programmes in North West
England, Noord-Holland and EVR Brandenburg-Berlin leads to the conclusion that climate
change and greenhouse gas emissions are currently only sporadically considered. Only policies involving strategic environmental assessment (SEA) obtain comparatively good results. It
is concluded that current practice can largely be improved, if formalised SEA is conducted for
policies, plans and programmes, consisting of predetermined procedural stages and allowing
for widespread consultation and participation.
15
References
Acutt, M.Z. and Dodgson, J.S. 1996. Transport and global warming - modelling the impacts
of alternative policies, paper presented at the final conference for the ESRC Research Programme ‘Transport and the Environment’, Regent’s College Conference Centre, 22 March
1996, London.
Banister, D. 2000. Sustainable urban development and transport - a Eurovision for 2020,
Transport Reviews 20, 1:113-130.
BBR (Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung) 1998. Minderung des Regionalverkehrs Chancen von Städtebau und Raumordnung in Ostdeutschland, Forschungsberichte des BBR,
Heft 87, Bonn.
Bina, O. 2000. Strategic Environmental Assessment of Transport Corridors: Lessons learned
comparing the methods of five member states, European Commission, Directorate General for
the Environment, Brussels.
Cervero, R. and Wu, K.-L. 1998. Sub-centring and commuting: evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area, 1980-90, Urban Studies 35, 7: 1059-1076.
Czada, R. 1997. Neuere Entwicklungen der Politikfeldanalyse, presentation at the Suisse
Politologentag, Balsthal, 14 November 1997.
Deiters, J., Gräf, P. and Löffler, G. 2001. Verkehr und Kommunikation – eine Einführung, in:
Institut für Länderkunde: Nationalatlas Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Spektrum Verlag, Heidelberg.
Enquetekommission des Deutschen Bundestages (Ed.) 1994. Mobilität und Klima, Economica
Verlag, Bonn
European Commission (EC) 1993a. Towards Sustainability - A European Community Programme of Policy and Action in Relation to the Environment and Sustainable Development
16
(Fifth Environmental Action Programme), Directorate General Environment, Nuclear Safety
and Civil Protection (DG XI), Brussels.
European Environment Agency 2001. TERM 2001: indicators tracking transport and environment integration in the European Union, Copenhagen.
Fischer, T. B. 1999. The consideration of sustainability aspects within transport infrastructure
related policies, plans and programmes, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,
42: 189 – 219.
Fischer, T. B. 2001. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Transport and Land use Planning,
Earthscan, London (in press).
Fischer, T. B., Wood, C. and Jones, C. 2001. Improving the practice of policy, plan and programme environmental assessment, Environment and Planning B (in press).
Fischer, T.B. (2002). Approaches and tools for assessments in land use and sector plans, in:
Bjarnadóttir, H. (ed.). Environmental Assessment in the Nordic Countries, Nordregio, Stockholm (in press).
Fischer, T.B. and Barker, A. (forthcoming). English regionalism and sustainability: towards
the development of an integrated approach to SEA. Regional Studies.
Goodwin, P. and Parkhurst, G. 1996. The real effects of “environmentally friendly” transport
policies, paper presented at the final conference for the ESRC Research Programme
‚Transport and the Environment‘, 22 march 1996, Regent's College, London.
Heinze, G.W. and Kill, H.H. 1997. Verkehrswachstum als Herausforderung im Informationszeitalter – Zusammenhänge zwischen Telekommunikation, räumlicher Struktur und
physischem Verkehr, in: Institut für Landes- und Stadtentwicklungsforschung des Landes
Nordrhein-Westfalen (ed.): Daten- statt Autobahn? Entwicklungsperspektiven und Handlungserfordernisse im Zusammenhang von Telematik, Struktur und Verkehr, Dortmund.
17
Henschel, S., Krüger, D. and Kulke, E. 2001. Einzelhandel – Versorgungsstrukturen und
Kundenverkehr, in: Institut für Länderkunde, Nationalatlas Bundesrepublik Deutschland –
Verkehr und Kommunikation, Spektrum Verlag, Heidelberg.
ICON – IC Consultants LTD 2001. SEA and Integration of the Environment into Strategic
Decision-Making, European Commission, Brussels.
Ifo Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung 2000. Verkehrskonjunktur 2000: Kraftstoffpreise bremsen Personenverkehr – Außenhandel beschleunigt Güterverkehr, München.
Jansson, A. H. H., 2000. Strategic environmental assessment for transport in four Nordic
countries, in: Bjarnadóttir, H (ed.). Environmental Assessment in the Nordic Countries: 39-46,
Nordregio, Stockholm.
Kessides, K. 1993. The Contributions of Infrastructure to Economic Development: A Review
of Experience and Policy Implications, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Maddison, D., Pearce, D., Johansson, O, Calthrop, E., Litman, T. and Verhoef, E. 1996. Blueprint 5 - the true costs of road transport, Earthscan, London
Marr, K. 1997. Environmental Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom and Germany, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Newman, P. and Kenworthy J. 1999. Sustainability and Cities – Overcoming Automobile Dependence, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Noller, P. 1999. Globalisierung, Stadträume und Lebensstile, Opladen.
OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 1995. Urban Travel and
Sustainable Development, European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT), Paris.
Rommerskirchen, S. 1993. The effects of individual measures, and of combinations of
measures, on reducing CO2 emissions of transport in Germany, in: The European Conference
18
of Ministers of Transport (ECMT): Reducing Transport’s Contribution to Global Warming,
Conclusions of ECMT Seminar, 30.09. - 01.10.1992, ECMT, Paris.
RCOEP - Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 1995. 18th Report: Transport and
the Environment, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sadler, B. 1996. International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment - Final
Report: Environmental Assessment in a changing world: Evaluation Practice to Improve Performance, International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency (CEAA), Ottawa.
Schürmann, C., Spiekermann, K. und Wegener, M. 2001. Erreichbarkeit und Raumentwicklung; in: Institut für Länderkunde, Nationalatlas Bundesrepublik Deutschland – Verkehr und
Kommunikation, Spektrum Verlag, Heidelberg.
Spehl, H. 2000. Nachhaltige Entwicklung und ökologische Ökonomie – ein Ansatz für Raumordnung und Regionalpolitik, in: Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (ed.).
Beiträge zur theoretischen Grundlegung der Raumentwicklung, Hannover
Stead, D. 1999. Planning for Less Travel – Identifying Land Use Characteristics Associated
with More Sustainable Travel Patterns, Unpublished PhD-thesis, University College London.
UPI – Umwelt- und Prognoseinstitut 1995. Folgen einer globalen Massenmotorisierung, UPI
Heidelberg.
Van Straaten, D., Smolders, K. and Verheyen, R. 2001. Strategic environmental assessment of
the master transport plan in Flanders. Presentation at the IAIA 2001 Cartagena meeting, 27. May
to 1. June 2001 <www.iaia.org>.
Williams, K., Burton, E. and Jenks, M. 2000. Achieving sustainable urban form, E & FN
Spon, London.
19
Figures and Tables
700
600
500
400
Western Germany
300
Eastern Germany
200
100
98
96
94
92
90
88
00
20
19
19
19
19
19
84
82
80
78
86
19
19
19
19
19
74
72
76
19
19
19
19
70
0
19
motor cars per 1000 inhabitants of 18 years
and above
Figure 1: Car ownership in Western and Eastern Germany since 1970
Year
Source: ifo Institut, 2000, pA11
20
Figure 2: Goods transport in former Eastern Germany by transport mean 1980 to 1994
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
Rail
20%
Road
10%
Ship
Pipeline
0%
80
82
84
86 Jahr88
90
92
94
Source: Deiters, Gräf and Löffler, 2001, p22
21
Figure 3: Transport related energy consumption and urban densities
Energy Consumption in MJ per capita
80
US American cities
70
60
50
Australian cities
40
Central European cities
30
20
10
Hong Kong
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
75
50
25
0
100
Moscow
0
Population density per ha
Source: following Newman and Kenworthy, 1999, p110
22
Figure 4: Accessibility and GDP of European cities
GDP
180
Paris
Vienna
160
Stockholm
London
140
Cologne
120
100
80
60
Crete
Magdeburg
40
20
0
0
50
100 = European average
100
150
200
Accessibility (road, rail, air)
Source: Schürmann et al., 2001, p126
23
Table 1: Measures for influencing transport energy use
Measures
a) Technical
b) Regulatory
c) Pricing-policy
d) Infrastructure
e) Organisational
Options
Engines, fuels, infrastructure, telematics
Emission limits, recycling targets, speed limits
Internalisation of external costs, taxation
Infrastructure development, spatial structure / land use
Integrated policy making and planning, assessment
Source: following, for example, Goodwin and Parkhurst (1996), Acutt and Dodgson (1996), OECD (1995)
24
Figure 5: Administrative and systematic tiering aspects in the decision making cycle
Systematic
Tiering
Admin- National
istra- Regional
tive local
Policies
Plans
Programmes
Projects
25
Figure 6: Private car use in % of all trips to the city centre
%
50
45
Cities (number of
inhabitants in thou-
40
sands in brackets)
35
Münster (265)
30
Freiburg (200)
25
Hannover
(521)
20
Braunschweig
(249)
15
10
5
0
Year
1 84
2 88
3 90
4 94
5
80
Source: Henschel et al., 2001, p74
26
Figure 7: Spatial structure in favour of energy efficient transport
Source: Newman and Kenworthy, 1999, p185
27
Figure 8: Predictions for car ownership in Germany since 1950
Cars (M)
actual development
30
predictions
10
1950
1990
Source: following Enquetekommission, 1994, p62
28
Figure 9: Quantity of substantive information provided by different tiers of decision making
Quantity of information
Concrete, site specific issues
Scope of alternatives
Policies
Plans
Programmes
Project
Decision making tier
Source: Fischer, forthcoming
29
Figure 10: Tasks of decision making tiers above the project level
D e c is io n
m a k in g tie r
P o lic ie s
F ocus
T asks
A ll o p tio n s th a t m ig h t
le a d to m e e tin g
o b je c tiv e s a n d ta rg e ts
  c o lle c tin g e x is tin g e c o n o m ic , s o c ia l a n d
e n v iro n m e n ta l o b je c tiv e s a n d ta rg e ts
  id e n tify in g p o s s ib le p o lic y o p tio n s
P la n s
S p a tia l d e v e lo p m e n t
o p tio n s le a d in g to
s p e c ific p ro je c ts
P rogram m es
P rio rity p ro je c ts
P r o je c ts
P ro je c t d e s ig n
  id e n tify in g d iffe re n t d e v e lo p m e n t
s c e n a rio s , in d ic a tin g n e c e s s a ry tra d e -o ffs
in te rm s o f a n a c h ie v e m e n t o f o b je c tiv e s
a n d ta rg e ts (p o lic y -a s s e s s m e n t )
  m o n ito rin g a c tu a l d e v e lo p m e n ts
  re g u la r a d ju s tm e n ts o f p o lic ie s
  id e n tify in g s p a tia l d e v e lo p m e n t o p tio n s
a c c o rd in g to n e e d s id e n tifie d in p o lic ie s
  a s s e s s in g im p a c ts o n d iffe re n t o p tio n s to
a c h ie v e o b je c tiv e s a n d ta rg e ts ( p la n a s s e s s m e n t)
  m o n ito rin g a c tu a l d e v e lo p m e n ts
  re g u la r a d ju s tm e n ts o f p la n s
  id e n tify in g p rio rity p ro je c ts u s in g m u ltic rite ria -a n a lys is o r c o s t-b e n e fit a n a ly s is
(p ro g ra m m e -a s s e s s m e n t)
  m o n ito rin g a c tu a l d e v e lo p m e n ts
  re g u la r a d ju s tm e n t o f p ro g ra m m e s
  o p tim is e p ro je c t d e s ig n in te rm s o f p o lic y
o b je c tv e s a n d ta rg e ts ( p ro je c t-a s s e s s m e n t)
  m o n ito rin g a c tu a l d e v e lo p m e n ts
30
Figure 11: Preparation of transport policies, plans, programmes and projects and SEA/EIA
at the different levels of government in Germany
Tier
Level
of government
Policies
National/
Federal
Regional/
State
Subregional (Kreis)
Plans
Programmes
Projects

1
2

3

4



5

6

()7

Local
=
Systematic tiering (feedback possible)
=
Need for consultation and participation

=
‘Full’ preparation, including the assessment of environmental impacts

=
Random preparation, including an assessment of environmental impacts
=
Random preparation, not including an assessment of environmental impacts
=
Currently no preparation of a comprehensive document
(
)

1
Example: Federal Trunk Roads improvement study, covering the area between Berlin-Hamburg-Hanover
The Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan (Bundesverkehrswegeplan)
3
Example: Integrated Transport Concept Land Brandenburg (Integriertes Verkehrskonzept)
4
Example: Land Roads Development Plan Brandenburg (Landesstraßenbedarfsplan)
5
Example: County (Kreis) Roads Concept Oder-Spree (Straßenverkehrskonzeption Landkreis Oder-Spree)
6
Example: Transport Development Plan Hamburg (Verkehrsentwicklungsplanung)
7
Example: City Development Plan Transport Berlin (StEP), part 2
2
Source: Fischer, forthcoming
31
Figure 12: The study regions in a EU context
(kilometres in approximation)
Study regions
0
UK
200
400
600
800 1000 km
The Netherlands
Germany
Source: Fischer, 1999
32
Figure 13: The extent to which climate change is considered in PPPs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
Total
North West England
Noord-Holland
EVR Brandenburg-Berlin
Policy-SEA
Plan-SEA
Programme-SEA
Transport
Spatial/land use
SEA
no SEA
Based on 36 PPPs, representing all administrative levels of decision making in the three study regions
33
Figure 14: The extent to which greenhouse gas emission targets are considered in PPPs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
Total
North West England
Noord-Holland
EVR Brandenburg-Berlin
Policy-SEA
Plan-SEA
Programme-SEA
Transport
Spatial/land use
SEA
no SEA
Based on 36 PPPs, representing all administrative levels of decision making in the three study regions
34
Figure 15: Simplified process for the integration of the PPP formulation process and SEA
public
participation
and
consultations
Identification of impacts of PPP on defined objectives/screening

Targets setting and identification of scenarios, alternatives, options/ scoping

Impact assessment/SEA report

Monitoring and follow-up
Source: Fischer, 2001
35