incorporating health and social benefits in the valuation of urban realm improvements etc oct2010
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
slide 1
Health and Social Benefits in the Valuation of Urban
Realm Improvements
Chelsea Dosad, Colin Buchanan
Rob Sheldon, Accent
ETC, Glasgow, October 2010
slide 2
Presentation structure
• Introduction
• Phase 1 & 2 research
• Phase 3: health & community benefits
• Difficulties in practical application
• Conclusions & next steps
slide 3
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
Urban realm improvements
Important for . . .
slide 4
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
slide 5
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
slide 6
Presentation structure
• Introduction
• Phase 1 & 2 research
• Phase 3: health & community benefits
• Difficulties in practical application
• Conclusions & next steps
slide 7
Appraisal for London Strategic Walks (SW)
investment proposals
Based on parameters ‘borrowed’ from LUL,
LBL and others
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?
2002 2004
slide 8
Examples of SP trade-offs
Blocked view of street Mainly clear view of street Clear view of street
slide 9
SW 2004 SP results: willingness to pay for improvements
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Raised street at crossings*
Benches
Signs to public transport*
Signs to attractions*
Dropped kerbs at crossings
Info panels
Crowdedness
Evenness of Pavements
Lighting
Cleanliness
Willingness to Pay (£ per annum)
slide 10
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
slide 11
PERS weightings in Phase 1 quantification/ valuation
slide 12
Used PERS to quantify changes
in quality
Used SP to value changes in quality
Phase 1 – Summary
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
slide 13
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
slide 14
Phase 2 – Summary
Questions remain:1. Is property impact a zero sum gain?2. Are property value changes additional
to user benefits?
What we know: 1. 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
slide 15
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
slide 16
Maidstone High Street Improvement Project
slide 17
Presentation structure
• Introduction
• Phase 1 & 2 research
• Phase 3: health & community benefits
• Difficulties in practical application
• Conclusions & next steps
slide 18
Defining and Quantifying Urban Realm Quality
Geographic Area
DetailUser Benefits
Property Values
Health & Community
slide 19
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
BUTLittle hard evidence linking these positive health and
community outcomes with improved urban realm
slide 20
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
slide 21
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
slide 22
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
1) Measure the change in
urban realm
2) Measure the behavioural
change
3) Quantify the outcomes
4) Value the outcomes as
benefits
slide 23
Qualitative refinement – Focus groups in Brixton
Following on from substantial urban realm improvement
Spread of agegroups
Mix of length of residence
General perceptions
Disbenefits of
regeneration
Sense of communit
y
Health
Social cohesion
Fear of crimeActual crime
slide 24
Elements of urban realm do not exist in isolationGeneral
perceptions
Disbenefits of
regeneration
Sense of community
Health
Social cohesion
Fear of crimeActual 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
slide 25
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
slide 26
Presentation structure
• Introduction
• Phase 1 & 2 research
• Phase 3: health & community benefits
• Difficulties in practical application
• Conclusions & next steps
slide 27
Practical application
User benefits
Property valuesWider societal
benefits (health and social)
Ease of use
Additionality - can we add the benefits together?
Applicability
slide 28
Presentation structure
• Introduction
• Phase 1 & 2 research
• Phase 3: health & community benefits
• Difficulties in practical application
• Conclusions & next steps
slide 29
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)
slide 30
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
slide 31
Thank you
Chelsea Dosad, Economist, Colin Buchanan
Rob Sheldon, Director, Accent