G Model

CSTP 80 No. of Pages 6

Case Studies on Transport Policy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies on Transport Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cstp

The role of transport indicators to the improvement of local governance

in Rio de Janeiro City: A contribution for the debate on sustainable
future
Andrea Souza Santos* , Suzana Kahn Ribeiro
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro—UFRJ), Transport Engineering Programme (Programa de Engenharia de
Transportes—PET), COPPE-UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: One of the main outcomes of the Rio+20 Conference was the agreement by member States to launch a
Received 23 September 2014 process to develop a set of Sustainable Development Goals. Governments need to be aware of this process
Received in revised form 6 July 2015 considering that there are many challenges to promote sustainable development, especially in cities of
Accepted 19 August 2015
the developing world, usually with weak governance. In this context, governance arises as a key aspect to
Available online xxx
achieve sustainable development targets integrating other goals on specific issues. Additionally it is
important to highlight that the other way around is also true, which means, setting goals helps to improve
Keywords:
governance and the selection of the best indicator to monitor progress. Taking into account that transport
Sustainable development
Governance
is priority for cities, the development of a participatory, accountable, and an effective governance to
Transport indicators support rapid and equitable urban transformation is fundamental. Therefore, this paper considered the
CO2 emissions on transport transport sector in a developing city as Rio de Janeiro as a methodological approach to illustrate how a set
of sustainable transport indicators associated with a responsibility matrix could play an important role as
a tool to improve governance while pursuing sustainable transport goals. The use of indicators is
extremely helpful to strengthen governance that is crucial to achieve sustainable development. The
authors presented the success of the governance structured in Rio de Janeiro to comply the Olympics
commitments as a case study and, the CO2 indicator was chose as an example of sustainable transport
indicator.
ã 2015 World Conference on Transport Research Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction to define responsibilities and targets as well as monitoring the

The vision of sustainable development as a holistic concept
addressing the four dimensions of society: economic development
(including the end of extreme poverty), social inclusion, environ-
mental sustainability, and good governance including peace and
security is presented in the Rio+20 outcome document (UNCSD,
2012). Societies aim to achieve all four dimensions and to be
effective, a shared framework for sustainable development must
mobilize the world around a limited number of priorities and
associated goals.
In order to achieve a sustainable future, governments have an
important role (Tortajada, 2010). However, in some developing
countries, a governance system is still under construction (OECD,
2010). One way to improve governance is by creating tools to help
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: andrea.santos@pet.coppe.ufrj.br (A.S. Santos),
skr@pet.coppe.ufrj.br (S.K. Ribeiro).
results of actions taken by governments and institutions (Maur-
seth, 2008). Three aspects of governance need to be considered:
good governance (the processes of decision-making and their
institutional foundations), effective governance (the capacity of
countries to pursue sustainable development), and equitable
governance (distributive outcomes) (Biermann et al., 2014). While
these three different aspects have a number of connections
between them and will require separate political efforts (Maur-
seth, 2008; Tortajada, 2010; Biermann et al., 2014). The use of
indicators to monitor the progress and achievement of Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) is extremely helpful in that task.
Rio de Janeiro is a big city that presents highly complex issues,
as social and economic problems that are common in developing
countries (Santos, 2014). Challenges related to urban sustainable
development will require additional efforts. Thus, this study aims
to present how a definition of a governance matrix and the use of
transport indicators could assist to achieve the SDGs and
commitments presented in laws and international agreements.
The reason for consider the transport sector is due to the multiple

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2015.08.006
2213-624X/ ã 2015 World Conference on Transport Research Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Santos, S.K. Ribeiro, The role of transport indicators to the improvement of local governance in Rio de
Janeiro City: A contribution for the debate on sustainable future, Case Stud. Transp. Policy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2015.08.006
G Model
CSTP 80 No. of Pages 6
2 A.S. Santos, S.K. Ribeiro / Case Studies on Transport Policy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
actors involved in the sector that without a clear comprehension of
targets and roles generates a weak governance. Furthermore, the
transport is a major concern of urban areas worldwide.
Therefore, the use of indicators is crucial to promote gover-
nance in any scale, national or at municipal level. In order, to
achieve sustainability it is crucial to tackle climate change. Climate
change will have significant impacts in four sectors in most cities:
local energy system; demand and supply of water and wastewater
treatment; transportation and public health (Rosenzweig et al.,
2011). Cities already lead the action on responding to climate
change and are crucial to global mitigation efforts (Rosenzweig
et al., 2011). The International Energy Agency estimates in its latest
survey that urban areas are responsible for 71% of global carbon
emissions related to energy (Rosenzweig et al., 2010).
Besides the obvious relevance of urban mobility, transport is
also a major user of carbon-based fuels (Hickmana et al., 2010).
Globally, transport is responsible for 23% of total emissions of
greenhouse gases (GHG) related to energy, and 13% of global GHG
emissions (UN-HABITAT, 2011; IPCC, 2014). Therefore, this paper
considered Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a sustainable transport
indicator that can stimulate the debate on the necessity of to
strengthen governance in cities as a way to promote sustainability.
Rio de Janeiro City is presented as a case study to contribute on
the discussions related to sustainable transport indicators and its
use to assure governance, and at the same time, this case can
illustrate how a governance created to comply the Olympics
commitments can deliver results in terms of sustainable indica-
tors, including CO2 emissions avoided. The urban deficient
transportation system represents a major challenge to Rio de
Janeiro become a sustainable city. The city governance in this area
is a problem due to several different stakeholders acting in the
local transport policy.
2. The importance of indicators and governance in city planning
Governance denotes how a society is organized and indicates its
procedures and rules. It also determines how to build political
decisions and avoid conflicts of interest (Maurseth, 2008).
Increasingly, there is strong evidence for specific ways in which
particular types of governance factors can contribute to develop-
ment. This evidence is starting to point out to those elements of
governance that may matter most. Therefore, breaking governance
down, as a concept into different dimensions and themes is likely
to be useful in developing measurable, and actionable, proposals
(Foresti et al., 2014).
Because governance is such a complex and debated concept it
might lead to a conclusion that it is hard to measure. However, it is
important to recognize that there were some progress in relation to
specific dimensions of governance in recent years (OECD, 2010). A
range of relevant and useful indicators and measures, especially at
the national level was developed. In addition, there is growing
agreement that indicators based on assessments of specific
governance issues can play a useful role in policy and resource
allocation processes (Foresti et al., 2014).
In the globalization age, governance within and among
countries is becoming more diffuse and complex (Jacobi, 2009;
IPEA, 2013). Whereas in the past, national governments made most
decisions relating to a country's internal economic development,
today they must coordinate with a broad spectrum of actors,
including businesses, local governments, regional and interna-
tional bodies, and civil society organizations.
In practice, different kinds of data sources can be useful to
assess specific features of governance. In addition, a range of data
sources might be more useful to assess some types of indicators
but not others: for instance, compliance with international norms
and standards for example are useful measures of ‘forms’ of
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Santos, S.K. Ribeiro, The role of transport indicators to the improvement of local governance in Rio de
Janeiro City: A contribution for the debate on sustainable future, Case Stud. Transp. Policy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2015.08.006
governance, while measures of institutional performance are
better suited to assess governance functions (Foresti et al., 2014).
In terms of governance matters, there are need valid and
reliable data. According to the authors, many challenges remain in
effectively assessing and analyzing governance issues. There
remains debate over how best we can meaningfully measure
governance—many believe current indicators provide poor meas-
ures of key governance processes. Most existing sources of
governance data are subjective (Court et al., 2002).
An indicator is a quantitative metric to track progress towards
achieving a target. The development and use of indicators are
meaningful for analyzing and monitoring sustainable development
targets and in policymaking (Spangenberg, 2002; Gudmundsson,
2003; Hakkinen, 2007; Huang et al., 2009; Joumard et al., 2011;
Litman, 2011; Santos and Ribeiro, 2013). Organizations ranging
from public actors, to NGOs and private sector produce many
indicators. The simplicity of indicators makes it relatively easy to
communicate them to third parties. The expectation is that
decisions based on indicators are relatively transparent (Davis
et al., 2010). Creative examples such as creating dashboard or
menu approaches to governance at the level of targets or indicators
could allow countries to self-design robust, multifaceted
approaches to good governance. If common principles were
established, the selection of targets and indicators could then
allow for customization to national and local contexts (Biermann
et al., 2014).
Defining indicators of sustainable development has multiple
motivations that include decision-making and management,
participation and consensus building, and research and analysis
(Parris and Kates, 2013). Several authors note that the selection of
indicators should be driven primarily by the questions to which the
indicators are supposed to provide answers (Hester et al., 2004;
Litman, 2008; Joumard and Gudmundsson, 2010; Litman, 2011;
Hagshena and Vaziri, 2012; Santos and Ribeiro, 2013 Joumard and
Gudmundsson, 2010; Litman, 2011; Hagshena and Vaziri, 2012
Santos and Ribeiro, 2013).
One of the most common applications of indicators consists in
comparing municipalities, notably to support local decision-
making processes (Diamantini and Zanon, 2000; Litman, 2008;
Tanguay et al., 2010; Joumard et al., 2011 Tanguay et al., 2010;
Joumard et al., 2011). The indicators should be based on data that
are available (Stead, 2001; Reddy and Balachandra, 2013) or that
can be made available at a reasonable cost, and that are of known
quality and regularly updated (OECD, 2011).
Study by (Joumard and Gudmundsson, 2010) indicates that the
American experience generally suggests that the indicators related
to performance of planning can be more useful and have more
impact on policy. In that case, the indicators are not only
information, but also targeted signs that bureaucracies and
decision makers are required to respond in some way.
It is important to make a distinction between governance
performance indicators and governance process indicators. Gov-
ernance Performance indicators refer to the quality of governance
in terms of a normative outcome, such as the level of corruption.
Governance Process indicators refer to the quality of governance in
terms of how outcomes are achieved. The challenge, therefore, is
how to measure governance cohesively and systematically in
terms of critical processes (Court et al., 2002).
In terms of sustainability goals, the climate change prevention
and mitigation is an important environmental issue. In that case,
the GHG emission reductions can be the objective. In this work, the
authors used the CO2 emissions an example of sustainable
transport indicator, in order to evaluate sustainability of transport
sector, the achievement of the goals and targets presented in laws,
commitments posed by sportive events and additionally the
governance performance in the city.
G Model
CSTP 80 No. of Pages 6
A.S. Santos, S.K. Ribeiro / Case Studies on Transport Policy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
3. The transportation sector in Rio de Janeiro
In 2010, the Rio de Janeiro Metropolitan Area (RJMA) had a
population of 11.8 million within a 5327 square kilometer area. The
city of Rio represents more than half of the metropolitan area
population (6.3 millions) and 22.5% of its territory (1200.28 km2)
(SDSN, 2013b).
Rio's metropolitan area suffers greatly from massive traffic
jams, poor transport options and conditions, besides having
inappropriate quality indicators to monitor the quality and
efficiency of its services. Almost 45% of the population depends
on public transportation, and 15% makes use of cars, either as the
driver or as a passenger. The daily need of collective transport in
2013 amounted to about 9.5 million passengers (PDTU, 2005).
Taking the RJMA population, the mobility index is 1.77 daily
trips per inhabitant and the immobility rate of the population is
46% (PDTU, 2005).
It is possible to note that bus is the main means of mass
transportation in RJMA, and it is similar in other metropolitan
areas of the country. The average number of daily trips on
collective transportation in RJMA has a great participation of bus
passengers with 74% as seen in Table 1. This modal share is perverse
to urban air quality.
Today, the megacity Rio de Janeiro experiences an intense, rapid
urban development, supported by the pacemaker effect of the
World Cup in 2014 and the Olympics in 2016 (Kiepsch, 2013). Rio is
going through a transformation in its transport sector, mainly due
to the fact that the city is the host of Olympic Games (FIRJAN, 2011;
SDSN, 2013b).
This situation offered a unique opportunity for decision makers
to ease the current transport situation, because the city's road
system is no longer capable to serve current traffic flows and the
inefficient public transport system does not offer a reliable
mobility alternative (Kiepsch, 2013).
Due to Olympic commitments, the structure of the system is
changing. Buses will feed a modular system and no longer be the
dysfunctional crumbled heart of the system. Rio de Janeiro city
hall, together with Federal and State Government are implement-
ing a transport system based on the structural module briefly
described above, which alters the logic of the previous system. It is
a huge makeover and it will require a certain time to be completed.
The project comprises the implementation of 150 km of bus rapid
transit (BRT) in the North and West Zones, 28 km of light rail (LRT)
in Central Rio, in addition to further 16 km of subways lines in the
West Zone direction and bus rapid systems (BRS) across most of the
city, as shown in Fig. 1 (SETRANS, 2011).
The RJMA do not have any governmental body responsible for
metropolitan management. Therefore, planning does not have
orientation and global vision of the region. Several urban actions
have no link among each other (SDSN, 2013a). This compromises
metropolitan urban goals. Currently, the RJMA has deep social and
spatial inequalities, a lack of sector planning integration, and
excessive concentration of investment in the capital city. Land use
regulation and planning instruments are fragile, devised for local
application, and do not interact with other areas and regions. Land
Table 1
Trips on public transportation in RJMA (per day).
Trips on public transportation in RJMA per type
Bus (urban and interurban)
Complementary transport
Subway
Train
Ferryboat
Source: PDTU (2005).
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Santos, S.K. Ribeiro, The role of transport indicators to the improvement of local governance in Rio de
Janeiro City: A contribution for the debate on sustainable future, Case Stud. Transp. Policy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2015.08.006
3
use control and urban expansion are, therefore, unavoidable. This
fragmentation results in inadequate land use and occupation; and
deficits in urban infrastructure, including in the transportation
system.
In terms of transport planning in Rio de Janeiro, the Master Plan
of Urban Transportation (PDTU) developed in 2005, was the major
planning effort of metropolitan transport (SETRANS, 2011).
Considering the governance for transport in Rio de Janeiro, and
according to (Salandia, 2012; IPEA, 2013) the Master Plan of Urban
Transportation claimed to be the main planning tool urban
transport in the metropolitan area, but always depended on a
governance model that was not effectively established. Thus, this
illustrates the importance of creating a structure for metropolitan
governance for the transport sector.
4. CO2 emission indicator as a tool for governance
There are some proposed sustainable transport indicators
based on the study elaborated by (Santos and Ribeiro, 2013) to
monitor the development of Rio’s metropolitan transport sector
aiming at a more sustainable mobility and taking into account the
city’s specific characteristics and peculiarities. Table 2 presents
those indicators, selected from recent studies (OECD, 1999;
Appleton and Davies, 2008; Litman, 2009, 2011; Pitfield and
Castillo, 2010; Kim and Han, 2011; Joumard and Gudmundsson,
2010; Toth-Szabo et al., 2011; Haghshenas and Vaziri, 2012).
However, as mentioned before, the authors chose CO2 emission
indicator to exemplify the transport governance in the city level as
discussed in this session.
In Rio de Janeiro, the CO2 emissions from transport sector
accounted 40% of the total GHG emissions in 2012. The road
transportation is the most representative in terms of emissions. In
addition, CO2 is the most relevant gas.
Table 3 below shows the total values obtained by the GHG
Emissions Inventory from Rio de Janeiro City to the transport sub-
sector for 1996, 1998, 2005 and 2012. The amounts are accounted
for emission sources, and the total it is a thousand tCO2eq.
In terms of climate change policies, the GHG emissions
reduction is the principal goal presented in many laws worldwide.
In the case of Brazil, a 2007 Decree established the governance
structure that developed the Climate Plan with a comprehensive
framework of 25 actions to combat climate change. The National
Policy on Climate Change passed in 2009, established the country’s
voluntary emission reduction target of 36.1–38.9% compared to
business as usual by 2020, with 2005 as a baseline, which
mandates the development of sectoral plans to implement specific
mitigation actions. In this context, it was launched the Plan on
transportation and Urban Mobility for climate change Mitigation
that presents actions to reduce GHG emissions from transport.
Sub-national governments play an important role in establish-
ing and implementing climate policies. In the past decade, climate
legislation has been approved in several states and municipal
districts, which includes the Rio de Janeiro city and the State of Rio
de Janeiro with adoption of voluntary emission reduction targets.
Quantity (%) Total (quantity)
6,650,000 74.0 7,500,000
1,600,000 17.5
360,000 4.0
307,000 3.5
83,000 1.0
G Model
CSTP 80 No. of Pages 6

4 A.S. Santos, S.K. Ribeiro / Case Studies on Transport Policy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Public transport network—Rio de Janeiro.

Source: SETRANS (2011).

Table 2
Potential urban indicators for transport.

Indicators Unit
Access to public transport (population served by public transit near around a train station, subway, bus stop) per cent of total
Share of non-motorized transport (including walking) number of trips/ per type
Superior public transport network (trams, light rail, subway, BRT, VLT) km/km2
Mean Travel Time to Work hours/daily
Share of household expenditures on transport costs per month (U$) or% of budget
Emissions of local air pollutants, including maximum concentration of PM2.5 concentration/ month
CO2 emissions per capita or tCO2/ year
Per capita energy consumption, by fuel and mode per capita
Fatality and injured of traffic accidents per capita or person/km

Source: Own, based on Santos and Ribeiro (2013).

The State of Rio de Janeiro signed a 2011 Decree that established target related to energy used in transport vehicles was a 30%
goals for GHG emission reduction for some specific sectors of reduction in 2013 compared to 2010, which represents
public activities, including the transport sector. The emission 5400,000 tCO2 avoided.

Table 3
Total GHG emissions in the city of Rio de Janeiro for the years 1996, 1998, 2005 and 2012—transport sector.

Total GHG emissions 1996 1998 2005 2012

Kt CO2eq % Kt CO2eq % Kt CO2eq % Kt CO2eq %

Total transport 4.727 37,30% 5.021 37,10% 5.478 41,30% 6.753 48,20%
Road transportation 3.879 30,60% 4.157 30,70% 4.391 33,10% 4.985 35,50%
Aerial transportation 848 6,70% 864 6,40% 1.063 8,0% 1.664 11,8%

Source: Own, based on La Rovere (2013).

Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Santos, S.K. Ribeiro, The role of transport indicators to the improvement of local governance in Rio de
Janeiro City: A contribution for the debate on sustainable future, Case Stud. Transp. Policy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2015.08.006
G Model
CSTP 80 No. of Pages 6
A.S. Santos, S.K. Ribeiro / Case Studies on Transport Policy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
On January 2011, the city of Rio de Janeiro passed the Municipal
Policy on Climate Change and Sustainable Development, which set
an unprecedented GHG target for the city of Rio to avoid 20% of
GHG emissions by 2020.
Once the emission reduction of CO2 is part of the international
commitments, and it is presented as targets of national and
subnational climate change policies the governments are obliged
to achieve the results. The commitments and goals will stimulate
actions what will demand a good, effective and equitable gover-
nance.
Therefore, due to Rio de Janeiro CO2 targets commitments, the
government has to create specific structure involving different
state secretaries to handle the “decarbonization” of transport
sector.
5. Governance as a key aspect of sustainable transportation in
Rio de Janeiro
Urban governance can be defined as the sum of the many ways
individuals and institutions, both public and private, plan and
manage the common affairs of the city (Power and Houghton, 2007;
Dempsey et al., 2011; UN-HABITAT, 2013). Governance is a
continuous process can accommodate conflicting and diverse
interests. With a good governance, it is possible to promote some
cooperative actions. It includes formal institutions as well as
informal arrangements, and the social capital of citizens
(UN-HABITAT, 2013).
In this context, Rio de Janeiro created a special governance
structure to attend the commitments to host the Olympics.
Private institutions and public, international and local have been
involved in this process. The responsible for infrastructure works
and public services are the federal, state and local governments.
An Olympic Delivery Authority is a public entity created
especially to coordinate and integrate the work of governments
in the provision and operation of the necessary infrastructure for
staging the games.
To confirm the effectiveness of our proposal regarding
governance and the use of indicators as a way to achieve and
monitor sustainable goals, climate targets and commitments
posed by Olympics, the Rio de Janeiro BRT case is a good example.
The BRT positive result was possible mainly because of the
Olympics commitments, including the use of performance
indicators such as passengers transported and km of dedicated
lanes that created a convergence of the interests of all stakeholders
involved in the implementation of the initiative (Table 4).
Mainly due to those Olympics commitments, Rio de Janeiro
already has two BRT – Transoeste and Transcarioca – 120 km
transporting 430.000 passengers/day (BRTRIO, 2015). By 2016 will
still have the BRT Transolímpica. In 2010, before the first BRT come
on stream (Transoeste), 18% of the population used the high-
capacity transportation system in Rio. In 2016 this figure may reach
63% considering all new BRT corridors and with the expansion of
the subway.
Table 4
Specific goals and performance indicators presented by Olympics’ commitments for transport in Rio de Janeiro City.
Main topic Specific goals
Transport and Provide public transport for spectators and workforce.
Logistic Deploy pollutant emission reduction actions, including Greenhouse Gas - GHG, in public
transport systems.
Olympic and Paralympic operating fleet with less polluting fuels.
Rationalize and optimize logistics operations in the transport of materials and objects.
Source: Source: Own, based on Rio, 2016, ITDP (2013) and BRTRIO (2015).
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Santos, S.K. Ribeiro, The role of transport indicators to the improvement of local governance in Rio de
Janeiro City: A contribution for the debate on sustainable future, Case Stud. Transp. Policy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2015.08.006
5
By 2016, the use of public transport systems, high capacity
(train and metro) will be expanded from the current 12% of total
paths for up to 60% (train, metro, BRT and LRT).
In this work, we showed that a special governance created to
the Olympics in Rio de Janeiro is fundamental to achieve the
Olympic commitments and it was possible to see that with the
implementation of BRT system 96,624 tCO2 will be avoided in 2015.
The use of CO2 as an indicator will contribute to monitoring targets
and goals established in climate policies, and international
commitments to the Olympics.
6. Recommendations and conclusions
In the context of Brazil, a sustainable urban transport concept
enables equal access to urban space, prioritizing public and non-
motorized transportation modes, and reducing urban sprawl,
while this concept has to be in reconciliation with environmental
sustainability.
The current trend towards urbanization, if managed in a
sustainable manner, offers an unprecedented opportunity for
development. Sustainable urbanization can help end poverty and
reduce inequality; ensure food and nutrition security; improve
health and education; promote mobility; enhance participatory
governance and rebalance society and nature, including addressing
climate and global environmental change.
Governance is applicable to all issues that concern the city and a
sustainable future. It is transversal to concerns of a city and must
integrated with all sectors and indicators of the city.
Governance does not encompass only the Government and its
actions, but the interactions, responsibilities, and interferences
with the space and the society that exist in all organizations related
to the community, region, and area (SDSN, 2013a).
Good governance has to ensure proper coordination among all
agents involved. Several Government levels, the productive and
private sectors, and social organizations have to reach agreements
on institutional arrangements that favor problem-solving, estab-
lishing priorities, and implementation of concrete actions
(UNDP, 2009). Multilevel collaborative governance is necessary
for each topic. In addition, it is important to think about how to
overcome obstacles associated with outdated governance struc-
tures and how to ensure achievable goals.
This kind of indicator shows the success of a public initiative
and give more confidence in the decision-making process, serving
as a tool to build governance among all the stakeholders of the
process such as government, private companies and civil society.
The authors used the example of Rio de Janeiro City that created
a special governance to Olympics and the importance of the use of
transport indicators such as CO2 to achieve commitments. The
authors’ objective was to show how the usage of transport
indicators could motivate a way to improve governance.
Therefore, the debate of SDG should consider the importance of
sectoral indicators in helping the achievement of a sustainable
future.
Performance indicators Already achieved
(2015)
Deployed mileage (km) 120 km
Passenger/day 430.000
Number of trips or km 112.000 km/day
traveled
Tons of CO2 avoided 96.624 tCO2 avoided/
year
G Model
CSTP 80 No. of Pages 6
6 A.S. Santos, S.K. Ribeiro / Case Studies on Transport Policy xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
References
Biermann, F., Stevens, C., Bernstein, S., Gupta, A., Kabiri, N., Kanie, N., Levy, M.,
Nilsson, M., Pintér, L., Scobie, M., Young, O.R., 2014. Integrating Governance into
the Sustainable Development Goals. POST/UNU-IAS Policy Brief #3. United
Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability, Tokyo.
BRTRIO. Know the BRT. 2015. Available at: http://www.brtrio.com/ Access: 22 July.
2015.
Court, J., Hyden, G., Mease, K., 2002. Assessing Governance: Methodological
Challenges. World Governance Survey Discussion Paper 2. United Nations
University.
Davis, K.E., Kingsbury, B., Merry, S.E., 2010. Indicators as a Technology of Global
Governance. IILJ Working Paper 2010/2. Global Administrative Law Series, New
York, NY.
Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., Brown, C., 2011. The social dimension of
sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Dev.
19 (September/October (5)), 289–300. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.417
Article first published online: 26 MAY 2009.
Diamantini, C., Zanon, B., 2000. Planning the urban sustainable development. The
case of the plan for The Province of Trento, Italy. Environ. Impact Assess Rev. 20,
299–310.
Foresti M., Wild L., Takeuchi L.R., Norton A., 2014. Governance targets and indicators
for post 2015. An initial assessment. The Overseas Development Institute (ODI).
Governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. 2005. Plano Diretor de Transporte Urbano da
Região Metropolitana do Rio de Janeiro (PDTU) (Master Plan of Urban
Transportation, Rio de Janeiro Metropolitan Area). Relatório Síntese. Governo do
Estado do Rio de Janeiro. 2005.
Governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro: Rio, de sede do Governo às Olimpíadas [Rio,
from seat of government to the Olympics]. Rio de Janeiro: FIRJAN; 2011.
Gudmundsson, H., 2003. Making concepts matter: sustainable mobility and
indicator systems in transport policy. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 55, 199–217.
Haghshenas, H., Vaziri, M., 2012. Urban sustainable transportation indicators for
global comparison. Ecol. Indic. 15, 115–121.
Hakkinen (Ed): Trends and Indicators for Monitoring the EU Thematic Strategy on
Sustainable Development of Urban Environment. TISSUE; 2007. Available at:
http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/publications/2007/P643.pdf. 2012.
Hester, R.E., Harrison, R.M., Gudmundsson, H., 2004. Sustainable transport and
performance indicators. Transp. Environ. 20, 35–64.
Hickmana, R., Ashirub, O., Banisterc, D., 2010. Transport and climate change:
Simulating the options for carbon reduction in London. Transport Policy,
Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2010, Pages 110-125. http://tcurbes.com.br/pt/
biblioteca/pesquisa-academica/193-sustainable-urban-transport-approaches-
for-brazilian-megacities.html [Accessed: 05-20-2015]. http://www.central.rj.
gov.br/pdtu/indexbkp.html [Accessed: 07-26-2014]. https://rio20. un.org/sites/
rio20. un.org/files/a-conf.216l-1_english.pdf.
Huang, Shu-Li, Yeh, Chia-Tsung, Budd, W. William, Chen, Li-Ling, 2009. A sensitivity
model (SM) approach to analyze urban development in Taiwan based on
sustainability indicators. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 29, 116–125.
IPCC, 2014. Summary for Policymakers. In: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R.,
Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S.,
Eickemeier, P., Kriemann, B., Savolainen, J., Schlömer, S., von Stechow, C.,
Zwickel, T., Minx, J.C. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate Change.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
IPEA, 2013. Governança metropolitana no Brasil (Metropolitan governance in Brazil
). Relatório de Pesquisa: Relatório 1.1. Caracterização e Quadros de Análise
Comparativa da Governança Metropolitana no Brasil: Arranjos Institucionais de
Gestão Metropolitana Região Metropolitana do Rio de Janeiro.
ITDP, 2013. Impact Analysis of TrasOeste Bus Rapid Transit in Rio de Janeiro. Institute
for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP), Rio de Janeiro.
Jacobi, P.R., 2009. Governança da água no Brasil (Governance of water in Brazil). In:
Ribeiro, W.C. (org.). Governança da Água no Brasil: uma visão interdisciplinar.
Annablume Editora, pp. 35-59.
Joumard, R., Gudmundsson, H., 2010. Indicators of environmental sustainability in
transport: an interdisciplinary approach to methods (pdf file 17 Mo) INRETS
report, Recherches R282. INRETS, Bron, France.
Joumard, R., Gudmundsson, H., Folkeson, L., 2011. Framework for assessing
indicators of environmental impacts in the transport sector. Transp. Res Rec: J.
Transp. Res. Board 2242, 55–63.
Kiepsch, M., 2013. Sustainable urban transport approaches for Brazilian
megacities—the example of Rio de Janeiro.
Please cite this article in press as: A.S. Santos, S.K. Ribeiro, The role of transport indicators to the improvement of local governance in Rio de
Janeiro City: A contribution for the debate on sustainable future, Case Stud. Transp. Policy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2015.08.006
La Rovere, EL. 2013. Inventário das emissões de gases de efeito estufa da cidade do
Rio de Janeiro em 2012 e atualização do plano de ação municipal para redução
das emissões.
Litman, T. 2011. Sustainability and Livability: Summary of Definitions, Goals,
Objectives and Performance Indicators. Victoria Transport Policy Institute:
Written in cooperation of The Transportation Research Board Sustainable
Transportation Indicators Subcommittee (ADD40 [1]).
Litman T., 2009. Sustainable transportation indicators, a recommended research
program for developing sustainable transportation indicators and data.
Sustainable Transportation.
Maurseth, P.B., 2008. Governance Indicators: A guided Tour. NUPI Working Paper.
Department of International Economics. Norsk Utenrikspolitisk Institutt.
OECD, 2010. Charles P. Oman and Christiane Arndt. Measuring governance. OECD
Development Centre. Policy Brief No 39.
OECD. Towards Green Growth—Monitoring Progress. OECD Indicators; 2011.
Parris and Kates, 2013. Characterizing and measuring sustainable development.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources. Vol. 28: 559–586.
Power, A, Houghton, J., 2007. Jigsaw Cities: Big Places, Small Spaces. Policy: Bristol.
Reddy and Balachandra Benchmarking Urban Sustainability—A compose Index for
Mumbai and Bangalore, 2013.
Rio 2016. Plano de Gestão da Sustentabilidade dos Jogos Rio 2016TM (Sustainability
Management Plan for Rio 2016 Games), 2013. versão 1. Available at: http://
www.rio2016 com/sites/default/files/parceiros/
plano_gestao_sustentabilidade_ago2013. pdf.
Rosenzweig, C, Solecki, W, Hammer, S, A, Mehrotra, S., 2010. Cities lead the way in
climate-change action. Scientists should do the research to help mayors prepare
for a warming world, say. v. 467, Nature, pp. 909.
Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W., Hammer, S., Mehrotra, S., 2011. Climate Change and
Cities: First Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network.
Cambridge Univ. Press..
Salandia, 2012 - Salandía, Luis Fernando Valverde. Análise do rebatimento espacial
de planos setoriais na Região Metropolitana do Rio de Janeiro: 2012. Relatório
Final para apresentação ao Comitê Executivo de Estratégias Metropolitanas.
Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, 2012.
Santos, A.S., Ribeiro, S.K., 2013. The use of sustainability indicators in urban
passenger transport during the decision-making process: the case of Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability 5, 251–260.
Santos, AS (2014). A importância do setor de transporte para o aumento de
resiliência nas cidades frente à mudança climática: uma proposta de plano de
ação para a cidade do Rio de Janeiro (The importance of transport sector for
increase resilience in cities to climate change: an action plan for Rio de Janeiro
City). Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia de Transportes. Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ,
2014.
SDSN (2013a) Governance in Rio de Janeiro. International Workshop. UN
Sustainable Development Solutions Network: Rio Sustainability Initiative.
Available at: http://fbds.org.br/fbds/IMG/pdf/doc-736 pdf. [April 2014].
SDSN (2013b) Urban mobility in Rio de Janeiro. International Workshop. UN
Sustainable Development Solutions Network: Rio Sustainability Initiative.
Available at: http://fbds.org.br/fbds/IMG/pdf/doc-737 pdf. [September 2013].
SETRANS, 2011. PDTU 2011: Atualização do Plano Diretor de Transporte Urbano da
Região Metropolitana do Rio de Janeiro. Relatório 1 Revisão das informações
disponíveis, 05/07/2011. Available at: http://download.rj.gov.br/documentos/
10112/1464227/DLFE-59010 pdf/Relatorio1Revisaodasinformacoesdisponiveis.
pdf.
Spangenberg, J.H., 2002. Environmental space and the prism of sustainability:
frameworks for indicators measuring sustainable development. Ecol. Indic. 2,
295–309.
Stead, D., 2001. Transport intensity in Europe—indicators and trends. Transp. Policy
8, 29–46.
Tanguay, A., Lefebvre, J.F., Lanoie, P., 2010. Measuring the sustainability of cities: an
analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecol. Indic. 10, 407–418.
Tortajada, C., 2010. Water governance: some critical issues. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev.
26 (2), 297–307. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07900621003683298.
UNCSD. The Future We Want, Our Common Vision. Outcome document of the Rio
+20Conference (A/CONF.216/L.1). 2012.
UNDP, 2009. Handbook for Conducting Technology Needs Assessment for Climate
Change. Advance document. September 2009.
UN-HABITAT (2011) Cities and climate change: global report on human settlements.
Earthscan, 279 pp. Washington, DC, USA. ISBN. 9781849713719. Disponível em:
http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/GRHS2011_Full.pdf [June 2013].
UN-HABITAT, 2013. State of Urban Youth Report 2012–2013. Youth in the Prosperity
of Cities.