Incorporating health and social benefits in the valuation of urban realm improvements etc oct2010
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Incorporating health and social benefits in the valuation of urban realm improvements etc oct2010

on

  • 490 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
490
Views on SlideShare
490
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Incorporating health and social benefits in the valuation of urban realm improvements etc oct2010 Incorporating health and social benefits in the valuation of urban realm improvements etc oct2010 Presentation Transcript

  • Health and Social Benefits in the Valuation of Urban Realm Improvements Chelsea Dosad, Colin Buchanan Rob Sheldon, Accent ETC, Glasgow, October 2010
  • Presentation structure
    • Introduction
    • Phase 1 & 2 research
    • Phase 3: health & community benefits
    • Difficulties in practical application
    • Conclusions & next steps
  • Urban realm improvements
    • Important for . . .
    Pedestrians (& Cyclists) Value improvements to their surroundings; Can deliver modal shift to walk/cycle Property values Hence, attracting inward investment and economic growth Wider social objectives E.g. health, crime, social/community cohesion
  • Valuing urban realm improvements
    • Important yet until recently completely ignored
    • Lack of economic appraisal led to under-investment
    Until recently a bench at a bus stop or in a station could be valued but not in a park or high street
  • What have we been aiming at? A better allocation of funds , IF public realm schemes have been undervalued A mechanism for raising funds , especially joint funding of schemes Improving the quality of design, by providing a focus on what users want
  • Presentation structure
    • Introduction
    • Phase 1 & 2 research
    • Phase 3: health & community benefits
    • Difficulties in practical application
    • Conclusions & next steps
  • Phase 1 – User benefits
    • With funding from Transport for London (TfL), undertook Stated Preference (SP) surveys
    • What value did users place on specific elements of the walk environment?
    Appraisal for London Strategic Walks (SW) investment proposals Based on parameters ‘borrowed’ from LUL, LBL and others 2002 2004
  • Examples of SP trade-offs
  • SW 2004 SP results: willingness to pay for improvements
  • Quantification of Urban Realm ─ PERS SP results matched with PERS Very detailed, very local measurement Good for user benefits Aggregation to larger geographic scale still possible
  • PERS weightings in Phase 1 quantification/ valuation
  • Phase 1 – Summary Used PERS to quantify changes in quality Used SP to value changes in quality Extensive data collection over many years Fits into standard transport appraisal , widely used for TfL Robust approach – although looks at relative importance rather than absolute
  • Phase 2 – Property values & rents
    • Building on work for SW & TfL, undertook demonstration project for CABE in 2007:
    • ‘‘ Paved with gold: the real value of good street design’’
    Largely RP instead of SP techniques Result uses weighted average PERS score +1 in weighted PERS = approx 5% uplift in property prices
  • Phase 2 – Summary
    • Questions remain:
    • Is property impact a zero sum gain?
    • Are property value changes additional to user benefits?
    • What we know:
    • Financial impacts rather than economic benefits - mechanism for raising funds :
      • Public sector investment in regeneration areas
      • Extract private sector funding from multiple landowners who benefit
  • Application of Phases 1 & 2
    • CB have widely applied to projects for TfL, local authorities and even private developers
    • Example : Maidstone High Street Improvement Project
    Existing quality of High Street Proposed quality of High Street
  • Maidstone High Street Improvement Project
  • Presentation structure
    • Introduction
    • Phase 1 & 2 research
    • Phase 3: health & community benefits
    • Difficulties in practical application
    • Conclusions & next steps
  • Defining and Quantifying Urban Realm Quality Geographic Area Detail User Benefits Property Values Health & Community
  • Phase 3 – Health & community benefits
    • So far only early stages of research complete:
    Evidence/ literature review
    • Scoping stage – incl:
    • collation of publicly available data on urban realm
    • health & community indicators
    Some health and community valuations available from other fields BUT Little hard evidence linking these positive health and community outcomes with improved urban realm
  • Phase 3 – What we know so far
    • Impact of changes in urban realm quality on health and community cannot be captured by PERS alone, if at all
    • Measurement of urban realm needs to include provision of facilities as well as quality
  • Phase 3 – What we know so far (2)
    • Increased urban realm quality and provision of facilities likely to lead to changes in people’s behaviour:
    More exercise More social interaction More usage/activity/ informal surveillance Better design
  • Phase 3 – What we know so far (3)
    • Changes in people’s behaviour can lead to positive outcomes in:
      • Physical health
      • Mental health
      • Social/ community cohesion
      • Sustainability/ environmental objectives
    • Aim of Phase 3 research: value those outcomes as benefits
  • Qualitative refinement – Focus groups in Brixton
    • Following on from substantial urban realm improvement
    Spread of age groups Mix of length of residence General perceptions Disbenefits of regeneration Sense of community Health Social cohesion Fear of crime Actual crime
  • Elements of urban realm do not exist in isolation General perceptions Disbenefits of regeneration Sense of community Health Social cohesion Fear of crime Actual crime Urban realm components are intertwined Better expressed as wellbeing; positively influenced by space and community events Positively affected by good lighting, space and safe access to facilities Positively affected by space and maintenance Positively affected by community events and good maintenance However, improvements to town centre may adversely affect side areas as crime and traffic are simply displaced
  • Phase 1, 2 & 3 Summary Urban realm improvement Change in behaviour Change in perception Intervention Impact Outcomes Valuation Benefits to existing users User benefits Property values User benefits Health & community benefits Benefits to new users Health and social outcomes Local area perception and use
  • Presentation structure
    • Introduction
    • Phase 1 & 2 research
    • Phase 3: health & community benefits
    • Difficulties in practical application
    • Conclusions & next steps
  • Practical application Ease of use Additionality - can we add the benefits together? Applicability
  • Presentation structure
    • Introduction
    • Phase 1 & 2 research
    • Phase 3: health & community benefits
    • Difficulties in practical application
    • Conclusions & next steps
  • Conclusions
    • The different benefits overlap but are complementary
    • User benefits and health & community benefits entirely public sector focused, property values largely private sector
    • User benefits are much more robust than the other two (at present)
  • Next steps
    • Data regression analysis to determine links between urban realm and health & community indicators, potential use of RP
    • Research programme in case study areas with potential use of SP methods
  • Thank you
    • Chelsea Dosad, Economist, Colin Buchanan
    • [email_address]
    • Rob Sheldon, Director, Accent
    • [email_address]