Nichols, Garrick & Atkinson-Palombo

A Framework for Developing Indicators of Sustainability for Transportation Planning

Submission Date: August 1, 2008 Word Count: 6574 words + 2 figures (250 words per figure) = 7074 words Authors: Jenna E. Nichols, Graduate Research Assistant * Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Connecticut 261 Glenbrook Road Unit 2037 Storrs, CT 06269-2037 Phone: (860) 486-0586 Fax: (860) 486-2298 Email: jen03003@engr.uconn.edu Norman W. Garrick, Associate Professor and Director Center of Transportation and Urban Planning University of Connecticut 261 Glenbrook Road Unit 2037 Storrs, CT 06269-2037 Phone: (860) 486-2990 Fax: (860) 486-2298 Email: garrick@engr.uconn.edu Carol Atkinson-Palombo, Assistant Professor Department of Geography University of Connecticut 215 Glenbrook Road Unit 4148 Storrs, CT 06269-4148 Phone: (860) 486-8805 Fax: (860) 486-1348 Email: carol.atkinson-palombo@uconn.edu * Corresponding Author

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Original paper submittal - not revised by author.

Nichols, Garrick & Atkinson-Palombo

ABSTRACT With the pressure of rising energy prices comes an increased interest in sustainability and sustainable planning. Due to its numerous environmental, social and economic impacts, transportation has gained attention as a logical starting point for achieving sustainability. A comprehensive definition of sustainability is multidimensional and takes into account a variety of issues including environmental conservation, social equity and economic profitability. Because what gets measured gets done it is important for a community to track their progress towards or away from sustainability. This is done through the use of indicators of sustainable transportation. The work that focuses specifically on transportation and sustainability is relatively new and is still evolving. As such, there is no established set of indicators for assessing transportation for sustainability goals, nor are there guidelines for developing such indicators. Our research examines the various conceptualizations of sustainability, which we used to guide the development of a comprehensive definition of sustainable transportation. We then reviewed the different styles of existing transportation indicator frameworks and built on this work to propose a framework for developing sustainable transportation indices.

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Original paper submittal - not revised by author.

Nichols, Garrick & Atkinson-Palombo

INTRODUCTION The recent dramatic increase in energy cost has heightened the attention being paid to energy use for transportation. This comes at a time of economic strain, environmental degradation and global climate change. The combination of these circumstances has created a growing interest in sustainable development and sustainability planning. One common but perhaps misleading interpretation of the term sustainability is the desire to maintain a particular system, resource or process now and into the future. Based on this description, a sustainable transportation system could be defined as one that continues to serve the transportation needs of a society indefinitely. Sustainability in the context of transportation, however, involves much more than the act of sustaining the transportation system. A comprehensive definition of sustainability is multidimensional and takes into account a variety of issues including environmental conservation, social equity and economic profitability. Therefore, sustainable transportation is about understanding the impact of a transportation system on the sustainability of the wider society. In terms of sustaining the society, attention must be paid to the environmental, social, and economic impacts of transportation systems and land use patterns, which will directly affect a communitys level of sustainability (1). One way to focus attention on these issues is through the use of sustainable transportation indicators, which can be used to measure a communitys progress towards sustainability. In this way, sustainable transportation indicators can help shape public policies and community planning efforts in order to reduce the negative impacts associated with unsustainable transportation systems. The literature shows that there are a number of nascent attempts underway to develop concensus on sustainable indicators for transportation planning. These works build on the efforts over the last 30 years to develop a rigorous framework for characterizing, assessing and quantifying the concept of sustainability in the broader context. The work that focuses specifically on transportation and sustainability is newer and is still evolving. As such there is no established set of indicators for assessing transportation for sustainability goals, nor are there guidelines for developing such indicators. In this paper, we will review the work that has been done in this arena for transportation and will build on the existing work to propose a framework for developing sustainable transportation indices. THE ORIGINS OF SUSTAINABILITY In 1968, a group of scientists, academics, economists, industrialists, and involved citizens met in Rome to discuss what they believed was a global environmental crisis, or the Predicament of Mankind (2). As a result of this meeting, the group, referred to as The Club of Rome, published a report entitled The Limits to Growth. In this report the authors discussed the limitations of the natural environment and argued that these limits would be reached within the next century if nothing were done to change the growth patterns of the 1960s and 1970s. Of particular concern were the growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production and resource depletion (2). The Limits to Growth sparked international interest in better managing the worlds environment and development. Almost two decades later, in 1987, the term sustainable development was given global recognition in a report entitled Our Common Future, written by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future is also known as the Brundtland Report, after the Commissions chairperson and Norways former Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland (3). The Brundtland Report defined sustainable development as development that

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Original paper submittal - not revised by author.

Nichols, Garrick & Atkinson-Palombo meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (4). This explanation of sustainable development has become the most recognizable and frequently used to date (5).

CONCEPTUALIZING SUSTAINABILITY The Brundtland Report attached two key concepts to its definition of sustainable development. The first concept mentioned in the report is that of needs with particular attention and priority given to the essential needs of the worlds poor. The second key concept is the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environments ability to meet present and future needs (4). These concepts show the link between the environment, society and economy (the three pillars of sustainability) when working towards sustainable development. The three pillars of sustainability were defined as follows (1): Environmental sustainability involves the protection of natural resources and the maintenance of a variety of species and habitats through the use of practices that strive to preserve the carrying capacity of the natural environment. Social sustainability is the ability of a community to provide a safe and healthy environment for day-to-day social interactions, education, recreation, employment, and cultural development now and into the future. It is based upon principles of social equity, urban livability, diversity, and accessibility for all. Economic sustainability is concerned with the ability of an economy to provide goods and services to present and future generations. This requires the presence of a variety of feasible economic opportunities at all levels and involves the continued production and distribution of wealth necessary to maintain a high quality of life. A comprehensive approach to sustainability involves the combination of these concepts, and is commonly depicted using the three spheres shown in Figure 1 below (1, 5, 6, 7).

FIGURE 1 The three interlocking spheres of sustainability. Most models of sustainability attempt to balance the concerns associated with each of these three spheres (1 7, 8). According to Low and Gleeson, this requires that corporations and governments seek the simultaneous achievement of three fundamental goals: economic profitability, social responsibility and environmental conservation (9). This idea of balance

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Original paper submittal - not revised by author.

Nichols, Garrick & Atkinson-Palombo

sounds like a reasonable approach in theory; however, it can be easily abused in practice. For example, one of the strategies to achieve economic profitability is to expand markets and increase profits. This may be accomplished by increasing the production and export of consumer products. Exporting products without thoughtful planning would require increased energy use and in turn, increased pollution through the release of carbon emissions. In addition to this, the new products may replace other consumer goods that would then be disposed of, producing more waste. These consequences of increasing economic profitability in this way come into conflict with the environmental conservation considered by some as being an imperative pathway to reducing pollution and waste. It becomes clear that we need to find a method of prioritizing the way in which sustainability goals are achieved. Both Nicolas Low and Maureen Hart suggest similar approaches for the prioritization of the three spheres of sustainability, through the use of nested models (6, 9). As Low and Gleeson explain, the economy is a creation of society because it is the people within a society that assign value to things (9). Hart reasons that all parts of the economy require the interaction between and among people, further supporting Low and Gleesons explanation. As a result, the economy is the innermost figure in the nested model because it is framed by the social context in which it occurs. Society exists entirely within the limits of the natural environment and the ability of the biosphere to supply the food, water, land and air needed for survival (9). Society, then, is located in the middle of the nested figures, demonstrating that it is both a creator of the economy and a creation of the environment. In both models, the environment is the outermost figure because it is the facet of sustainability on which all others depend. Based on these ideas, Low suggests a nested box model, while Hart suggests a set of nested circles (Figure 2). These nested models clarify priorities for sustainability, which is essential to our ability to better measure and compare the sustainability of different places.

FIGURE 2 Lows nested box model of sustainability (9). The concept of sustainability has been addressed at both the local level and the global level (7). Attempting to achieve sustainability at one level often leads to conflict with achieving it at the other level. When considering urban development, sustainability issues are frequently classified as fulfilling one of two agendas; the brown agenda and the green agenda (10). The brown agenda focuses on environmental health issues, such as urban air and waterway pollution and hazardous waste disposal. The impacts of these environmental health issues are commonly experienced at the local level by low-income groups (11). The green agenda represents the long-term global concern for ecological sustainability related to resource consumption,

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Original paper submittal - not revised by author.

Nichols, Garrick & Atkinson-Palombo

ecosystem disruption and climate change. Green agenda issues are usually the concern of environmentalists in high-income countries (10). The definition of sustainability can be further sharpened through the use of Graham Haughtons five interconnected equity principles: intergenerational equity, intragenerational equity, geographical equity, procedural equity and interspecies equity (12). These equity principles can be used to better understand local and global sustainability issues and the potential conflicts that arise between the brown and green agendas (10). Additionally, the equity principles can provide a valuable framework for analyzing the components of our nested box definition of sustainability. McGranahan and Satterthwaite categorize Haughtons equity principles as addressing either the brown agenda or the green agenda. Intergenerational equity, also known as the principle of futurity, is included in most definitions of sustainable development and is the first one of Haughtons equity principles (12). Intergenerational equity is concerned with preserving the planets natural resources for future generations, and is therefore labeled as a green agenda priority (10). Intragenerational equity is a form of social equity that is concerned with meeting the basic needs of all humans in the present and is classified as a brown agenda issue by McGranahan and Satterthwaite. Geographical equity (also known as transfrontier equity) is concerned with preventing the transference of environmental costs to other people or ecosystems. Haughton describes it as both a brown and green agenda issue while McGranahan and Satterthwaite list it only as a green agenda issue. From Haughtons perspective, geographical equity is a brown agenda issue as well because the transference of environmental costs can occur at the local neighborhood level all the way to the global level. Often times, geographical equity issues can be mitigated through local policies that are geared at resolving both global and local environmental problems (12). Procedural equity is concerned with the fair treatment of all people and their ability to engage in a democratic decision-making process regarding the management of how they live (10). It is labeled as a brown agenda equity issue by McGranahan and Satterthwaite due to its obvious local influence. Haughton, however, categorizes it as both a brown agenda issue and a green agenda issue due to the fact that in this globalized economy, environmental impacts do not stop at jurisdictional boundaries, but rather are wide spread (12). Interspecies equity is similar to intergenerational equity, with the focus on recognizing the rights of other species (10). Interspecies equity is categorized as a green agenda issue. The equity principles provide another way of conceptualizing sustainability, which can be useful when trying to evaluate the sustainability of places. Additionally, the equity principles can be used in conjunction with the components of the nested box definition of sustainability to ensure that any evaluation frameworks created will be both balanced and comprehensive. From the above review of the literature, it is clear that there are many ways of conceptualizing sustainability. The development of our framework for transportation sustainability was guided and informed largely by the nested box definition of sustainability and Haughtons equity principles. The Concept of Sustainable Transportation There is no commonly accepted definition of sustainable transportation; however most definitions include references to the three pillars of sustainability (1, 5, 13). The Transportation Research Board (TRB) described transportation sustainability as being about how environmental, economic and social systems interact to their mutual advantage or disadvantage at various space-based scales of operation (14). The Organization for Economic Cooperation

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Original paper submittal - not revised by author.

Nichols, Garrick & Atkinson-Palombo and Development (OECD) and the Canadian Center for Sustainable Transport (CST) provide more detailed definitions that recognize specific transportation issues within the environment, economy, and society (1, 5, 15, 16). According to these definitions, a sustainable transportation system is one that:

Meets the basic access and mobility needs of individuals and societies safely and in a way that does not endanger human or ecosystem health and with consideration of equity within and between generations; Is affordable, operates fairly and efficiently, provides mode choices, supports a competitive economy, and ensures the full cost accounting (including externalities) so as to shape transportation behavior and provide equity within the transportation system (among modes); Reduces noise, limits emissions and waste within the planets ability to absorb them, uses renewable resources at or below their rates of generation, uses non-renewable resources at or below the rates of development of renewable substitutes, and minimizes the use of land. Defining transportation sustainability is the first step to developing a standardized framework that can be used to create and organize a set of indicators. These indicators can then in turn be used to measure how a transportation system contributes to a societys progress towards sustainability (13). USE OF INDICATORS The common saying what gets measured gets done can easily be applied to sustainability. In order to work towards sustainability, it is helpful to define a list of variables or parameters that measure progress towards or away from a goal or objective. These measured variables are often referred to as indicators (5, 17). Communities can use indicators to help them understand where they are, which way they are going, and how far they are from where they want to be (1, 6). Sustainability indicators differ from traditional indicators because they must be integrated and multidimensional to show the link between the three spheres of sustainability (1, 5, 6). The integration of economic, social and environmental indicators is needed to reflect this interconnectedness. Indicators that address at least two of the three spheres of sustainability can be considered integrated (5). A good indicator should recognize a negative trend and identify the proper action to take to correct the problem (6). Indicators should also provide a measure of progress that is forward-looking toward achieving sustainability (5, 6). To do this, an indicator should not only include a measure for assessing the impact or condition, but also a set of baseline data to compare values for evaluation of the impact or condition (1). Due to the integrated and forward-looking nature of sustainability, baseline data may not be readily available for many indicators. This being said, potential sustainability indicators that do not have such data available should not be overlooked. Hart suggests that communities first develop indicators that best suit them and later decide how to obtain the necessary information (6). Indicators developed along these lines have been applied in a number of different areas of planning such as housing, resource use, education and employment (6). For example, housing availability could be evaluated by using indicators that measure the distribution of affordable housing throughout the community, home ownership rates or annual population growth versus housing growth. Tuition cost as a percentage of disposable income is an example of an indictor used to measure the affordability of educational opportunities. The adult literacy rate of a

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Original paper submittal - not revised by author.

Nichols, Garrick & Atkinson-Palombo community is an indicator that can be used to measure both education and employment, since being able to read is a skill required by most employers (6). More recently, sustainability indicators are beginning to be applied in transportation planning; however there is still work needed to standardize the approach. Below we will discuss some of the various approaches that have been applied to start to address the need for a rigorous and transferable set of indicators of sustainability for transportation application. Frameworks of Sustainable Indicators for Transportation One way that researchers have approached the subject of creating indicators is to first develop a framework. Such frameworks can be used to organize a set of existing indicators to ensure that the overall set is balanced and comprehensive. Alternatively, an indicator framework can establish and prioritize a communitys sustainability goals or objectives. The framework can then be used to select and identify appropriate indicators based on these goals. There are many types of sustainability indicator frameworks and each is valuable for different reasons. This paper will discuss three of the most common types of indicator frameworks: theme-based, linkages-based, and goal-oriented. Variations of each of these types of frameworks exist and may be referred to differently, but the basic ideas are the same.

Theme-Based Frameworks The theme-based framework organizes its indicators into mutually exclusive categories. These categories can be based on sustainability issues, themes or topics. As a result, this framework is also referred to as a category framework (6). A common theme-based framework is one that uses the three spheres of sustainability to organize indicators based on environmental, social and economic impacts (13). Within this framework, each indicator fits into one category. This type of framework is useful for illustrating the overall balance of a complete set of indicators (6). For example, if there are fewer indicators under one category than another, then it is clear that the set is not balanced. The theme-based framework also emphasizes the importance of the three spheres of sustainability by requiring that each indicator be placed into one of the following categories: environmental, social or economic. The use of mutually exclusive categories has its disadvantages as well. It reinforces the traditional view of isolating the three spheres of sustainability into separate categories instead of emphasizing interconnectedness. Linkages-Based Frameworks The linkages-based framework identifies the cause-effect relationships, allowing policy makers to better understand which policies are appropriate for implementation (13). An example of this type of framework is the driving force-state-response framework, originally called the pressurestate-response (PSR) framework (6, 13). It is easy for an organization or government to measure the conditions that currently exist, such as the quality of the air or water. An existing condition is also referred to as a state. Air quality, for example, can be evaluated by measuring the amount of criteria pollutants present on a given day. Therefore, this is a measure of the state of air quality (6). In order to improve the state of air quality, a government or organization may implement policies such as stricter emissions standards or mandatory vehicle emissions testing. These policies would be considered a response to the state of air quality. What is often not measured is the driving force or the pressures that cause the state to exist. These include human activities, such as excessive

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Original paper submittal - not revised by author.

Nichols, Garrick & Atkinson-Palombo automobile use, which exert pressures on the environment and cause a change in the existing conditions. These pressures or driving forces are used to show linkages between the three spheres of sustainability. In the PSR framework, the pressures that cause changes in the state are identified, thus aiding in the appropriate response (13). In theory this is an intuitive way of organizing indicators, however, determining the cause and effect relationships for economic and social issues is much more difficult than for environmental issues (6). For example, it can be difficult to establish a single driving force responsible for unemployment because there could be a number of factors. This complicates the simple cause and effect relationships needed for the PSR framework.

Goal-Oriented Frameworks The goal-oriented framework uses a matrix based on specific goals or objectives that should be accomplished in order to achieve sustainability and their corresponding indicators. For example, the goal may be to limit emissions and improve air quality. A potential corresponding indicator would be a measure of the frequency of air pollution standard violations. This framework organizes the community goals and indicators based on rows and columns that intersect (6). Within this framework, indicators are related to multiple goals at the same time instead of placing each indicator into a single category. In this way, the goal-oriented framework emphasizes the importance of the end result, or goal, using the indicators to directly measure a communitys ability to achieve specific sustainability objectives. The goal-oriented framework provides a view of the balance of the overall set of indicators relative to the goals. The difficultly with this type of framework arises when trying to assess progress in a particular area of sustainability (i.e. environmental, social, economic) because the indicators are organized based on goals and may be reported under more than one goal. Nevertheless, the goal-oriented framework has the advantage of allowing the user to clearly establish the intent or purpose of what the indicators are trying to measure so that they are used correctly. THE PROPOSED ELEMENTAL-INDICATOR FRAMEWORK The three frameworks discussed above have their advantages and disadvantages. The themebased framework is beneficial for evaluating the balance of a set of indicators in terms of the three spheres of sustainability; however it fails to relate the indicators to specific goals. The linkages-based framework is useful for determining the driving forces or pressures that must be addressed by the appropriate policies in order to achieve sustainability. Unfortunately the causeeffect relationships are not always easily identifiable when dealing with sustainability issues. The goal-oriented framework links specific sustainability goals with corresponding indicators. This helps to clarify the purpose of each indicator. The disadvantage of this type of framework is that it lacks a focus on the three spheres of sustainability, which is an essential component of any sustainability framework. A potential framework should consider the benefits and limitations of the three types of frameworks presented in this paper. As a result, when creating our proposed elemental-indicator framework, we decided to combine two of these frameworks to form a hybrid version. We used the theme-based framework because it emphasizes the importance of the three spheres of sustainability, which is an essential concept of any sustainability framework and an intuitive way to group sustainable transportation indicators. This type of framework is more consistent with

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Original paper submittal - not revised by author.

Nichols, Garrick & Atkinson-Palombo

10

Lows nested boxes and it allows us to explicitly consider Haughtons equity principles. The purpose of a standardized framework will be to ensure that all indicators relate to the clearly defined goals of a sustainable transportation system. This will require that the framework include these goals within its structure. Consequently, we used the goal-oriented framework because it links the indicators with specific sustainability goals. This is important because it establishes what the indicators are trying to measure and ensures that they relate to the actual definition of sustainable transportation. Ultimately, this standardized framework will be used to compare the sustainability of places at different geographic scales. Data availability and policy implementation practices suggest that the statewide level is a good starting point for comparison. The scale at which transportation sustainability is evaluated will dictate which indicators are the most appropriate to use, however, the definition of sustainable transportation will remain the same, regardless of scale. This suggests the importance of establishing a balanced, comprehensive and integrated definition of transportation sustainability as it relates to the overall sustainability of a society. By introducing the various ways in which sustainability has been conceptualized this paper provides a thorough basis for the construction of a definition-oriented framework. Elemental Definition of Sustainable Transportation Inspiration for the creation of a new standardized framework came largely from the work done by the Canadian Centre for Sustainable Transport. In their phase one report on developing sustainable transportation performance indicators (STPI), the Canadian CST organized the indicators based on their definition of sustainable transportation (18). This method of organization is similar to using a goal-oriented framework, because it relates the indicators to the actual definition of sustainable transportation. The CST deconstructed their definition of sustainable transportation into 17 elements. These elements, listed below in their original form, essentially represent the goals of a sustainable transportation system as defined by the Canadian Centre for Sustainable Transport (18): 1. Limits emissions within the planets ability to absorb them. 2. Limits wastes within the planets ability to absorb them. 3. Minimizes consumption of non-renewable resources. 4. Reuses and recycles components. 5. Minimizes the use of land. 6. Minimizes production of noise. 7. Meets the basic access needs of individuals. 8. Meets the basic access needs of society. 9. Consistent with human health. 10. Consistent with ecosystem health. 11. Access needs are met safely. 12. Access needs are met consistent with equity within the present generation. 13. Access needs are met consistent with equity across generations. 14. Is affordable. 15. Operates efficiently. 16. Offers a choice of transport modes. 17. Supports a vibrant economy.

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Original paper submittal - not revised by author.

Nichols, Garrick & Atkinson-Palombo

11

The elements were then organized into three separate domains; environmental, societal, and economic. Elements one through six were classified as environmental, Elements seven through 13 were classified as societal and Elements 14 through 17 were classified as economic. This method of organization is similar to the theme-based framework, using the domains as the theme or category. The CST used this element-domain framework to organize a long list of indicators that were collected after a preliminary review of work done around the world on the development and use of STPI (18). Although CST did not specifically identify their framework as being of the goal-oriented or theme-based variety, the connections to these types of frameworks are clear. Based on our research, we feel that CSTs framework can be classified as a hybrid that incorporates components of both the goal-oriented and theme-based frameworks. This hybrid framework is attractive because it seems to be a good foundation for developing and organizing sustainable indicators for transportation application. In our work we have decided to adopt a similar hybrid approach because of its use of the basic elements of the definition of sustainable transportation and its ties to specific goals for sustainability. Developing the Elements Each of the elements from CSTs definition of sustainable transportation was reviewed and changes were made with consideration to the various ways of conceptualizing sustainability but in particular, taking into account Lows (or Harts) nested boxes and Haughtons equity principles. The total set of elements was expected to address the three spheres of sustainability, take into account the five interconnected equity principles and remain focused on transportation. After a review of the elements presented by CST, some changes were made in order to ensure that each element maintained a focus on transportation. For example, the phrase for transportation was added to the third element so that it now reads, minimizes consumption of non-renewable resources for transportation. This is an important change because it serves as a reminder that the purpose of the elemental-indicator framework is to specifically evaluate and measure transportations role in achieving sustainability. Some of the original elements presented in CSTs definition were either removed or combined with other elements. The fourth element from CSTs list, Reuses and recycles components, was removed because rather than representing a sustainability goal, it represents a strategy that could be used in achieving sustainability. Element 16, Offers a choice of transport modes was removed because it represents a method for achieving sustainability as well. This element could also be interpreted as a means of achieving Element 15, Operates efficiently, as well as Elements 7 and 8, which are concerned with meeting the basic access needs of individuals and society. Elements 12 and 13 were removed on account of being redundant. Achieving equity within and between generations is fundamental to the achievement of sustainability itself and is therefore represented in the various goals of the other elements. Element 12 is concerned with ensuring that access needs are met consistent with equity within the present generation. In order to achieve equity within the present generation, a transportation system should be both affordable and accessible for everyone in society. The achievement of these goals is represented in Elements 14 and 8 respectively. Similarly, Element 13 states that access needs must be met in a way that is consistent with equity across generations. This concept is related to the principles of intergenerational equity and is represented through the achievement of Elements 1, 2 and 3.

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Original paper submittal - not revised by author.

Nichols, Garrick & Atkinson-Palombo

12

The last element to be removed was Element 17, Supports a vibrant economy. This element was removed because of its ambiguity and lack of a clear objective. How does one measure the extent to which transportation contributes to the vibrancy of the economy? Certain elements were combined in an effort to link common issues or concerns. For example, Element 6 was combined with Element 1 to form a new element concerned with issues of pollution. The new element suggests that a sustainable transportation system is one that Limits transportation related emissions and noise pollution. Based on their common interest in the human condition, Elements 9 and 11 were combined into a single element that reads, Access needs are met in a way that is consistent with human health and safety. Further steps were taken to ensure that the new elemental-indicator framework was based on a comprehensive definition of sustainable transportation. Along with the addition of new elements, some existing elements were reworded. Element 10, which originally read Consistent with ecosystem health was changed to Minimizes transportation systems impact on ecological systems. The original wording was only concerned with the health of the ecosystem rather than the full range of potential transportation impacts, such as habitat removal. Element 5, Minimizes the use of land lacked specificity and failed to address issues of land use and settlement patterns associated with transportation. In terms of sustainability, land use efficiency is more important than minimizing the amount of land used. As a result, Element 5 was changed so that it now reads Transportation system is designed to maximize land use efficiency. The affordability of a transportation system is important to its sustainability because if the system is not affordable its level of use will drop, thereby jeopardizing its existence. With this in mind, Element 14 states that a sustainable transportation system Is affordable. This begs the question affordable for whom? What may be affordable for society may not necessarily be affordable for individuals, and vice versa. Consequently, Element 14 was replaced by two new elements that specify affordability for whom. Other new elements were added as well. For example, an element was added to address the consumption of renewable resources for transportation. Another element was added to highlight the importance of a democratic decisionmaking process and community input. Lastly, an element was added to specify the need for transportation pricing to reflect the full cost accounting of transportation. To ensure a balanced and comprehensive framework, each element was categorized into one of three domains (environmental, societal, economic) and then evaluated in terms of its relation to the five interconnected equity principles. Linking the elements to one or more of the equity principles ensured that all of the principles were represented in the definition of sustainable transportation. Similarly, categorizing the elements by domain served to visually confirm the existence of a relative balance among the three spheres of sustainability. The following is a final list of elements that make up the well-balanced and comprehensive definition of sustainable transportation: 1. Limits transportation related emissions and noise pollution 2. Limits transportation related wastes 3. Minimizes consumption of non-renewable resources for transportation 4. Minimizes consumption of renewable resources for transportation 5. Minimizes transportation systems impact on ecological systems 6. Transportation system is designed to maximize land use efficiency 7. Transportation system meets the basic access needs of individuals 8. Transportation system meets the basic access needs of society 9. Access needs are met in a way that is consistent with human health and safety

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Original paper submittal - not revised by author.

Nichols, Garrick & Atkinson-Palombo 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Planning and management of the transportation system includes community input Transportation is affordable for individuals Transportation is affordable for society Transportation system operates efficiently Transportation pricing ensures the full cost accounting (including externalities)

13

According to this list, Elements 1 through 6 belong to the environmental domain, Elements 7 through 10 belong to the societal domain, and Elements 11 through 14 belong to the economic domain. This illustrates a sufficient balance in the representation of the three spheres of sustainability among the definition elements. In addition to this, all five equity principles are represented within the elements. Elements 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 13 are related to principles of intergenerational equity. Elements 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 are related to principles of intragenerational equity. Elements 1, 2, 5, 13 and 14 are related to principles of geographic equity. Elements 1, 2, 5, 6 and 13 are related to principles of interspecies equity and Elements 9 and 10 are related to principles of procedural equity. This finalized list of elements addresses the three spheres of sustainability, takes into account the five interconnected equity principles and maintains a focus on transportation. These elements combine to form a comprehensive definition of sustainable transportation, which can be used as a framework to guide the development of a set of indicators. Each element essentially represents a different goal or objective that must be achieved in order for a transportation system to work towards sustainability. To achieve these goals indicators must be developed to correspond to each element. In this way, the elemental-indicator framework uses a comprehensive definition of sustainable transportation to ensure the development of a complete and balanced set of indicators. CONCLUSIONS Growing concerns about rising energy costs, depleting oil supplies and global warming have put sustainability at the forefront of planning and policy initiatives. As a major contributor to social, economic and environmental impacts, transportation is an important driver of sustainability. There are many ways of conceptualizing sustainability, many of which are useful in developing a more detailed definition that can be used to guide planning policies. The fundamental concept of the three spheres of sustainability is useful in illustrating the integrated nature of environmental, social and economic sustainability. The need to prioritize the sustainability goals associated with each of these three spheres lead to the creation of the nested box model of sustainability. These nested models clarify sustainability priorities, which is essential to our ability to better measure and compare the sustainability of different places. The definition of sustainability is further improved through the use of Graham Haughtons five interconnected equity principles. These equity principles are used to better understand local and global sustainability issues and the potential conflicts that arise between them. All of these approaches to the conceptualization of sustainability helped to guide the development of a comprehensive sustainability framework. There is no commonly accepted definition of sustainable transportation, however, existing literature on the subject has begun to discuss what it means for a transportation system to be sustainable. This is important because defining transportation sustainability is the first step to developing a standardized framework that can be used to create and organize a set of indicators. Indicators are often used at the local and regional levels as effective tools for measuring sustainability progress. Through the use of sustainable transportation indicators,

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Original paper submittal - not revised by author.

Nichols, Garrick & Atkinson-Palombo

14

communities can work towards achieving sustainability goals by way of changes in transportation planning. The value of sustainable transportation indicators lies in their ability to be systematically applied at various geographic scales in order to compare the sustainability of different places. This is accomplished by using an indicator framework to organize and prioritize a communitys sustainability goals. The framework can then be used to select and identify appropriate indicators based on these goals. There are many types of sustainability indicator frameworks, however, the three of the most common types are theme-based, linkages-based, and goal-oriented. When creating our proposed elemental-indicator framework, we combined the theme-based and goal-oriented frameworks to form a hybrid version. This hybrid framework uses the basic elements of the definition of sustainable transportation, which have been revised to address the three spheres of sustainability, take into account the five interconnected equity principles and maintain a focus on transportation. As a result, our proposed elemental-indicator framework provides a comprehensive definition of sustainable transportation to ensure the development of a complete and balanced set of indicators. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank the University of Connecticut's Center for Transportation and Urban Planning and the New England University Transportation Center for funding this research. REFERENCES 1. MacDonald, R.A. Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Planning at Simon Fraser University: A Case Study of the Burnaby Mountain Campus. Research Project, School of Resource and Environmental Management Report No. 259. Simon Fraser University, 2000. 2. Meadows D., D. Meadows, et al. The Limits to Growth. Universe Books, New York, 1972. 3. Pezzoli, K. Sustainable Development: A Transdisciplinary Overview of the Literature. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 40, No. 5, 1997, pp. 549-574. 4. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, New York, 1987. 5. Patrick, R.J. Developing Sustainability Indicators for Rural Residential Areas: The Public Transit Connection. Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University, 2002. 6. Hart, M. Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators (Second Edition). Sustainable Measures, West Hartford, CT, 2006. 7. Newman, P. and J. Kenworthy. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Island Press, Washington D.C., 1999. 8. Berke, P. and M. Conroy. Are We Planning for Sustainable Development? An Evaluation of 30 Comprehensive Plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 66, No. 1, 2000, pp. 21-33. 9. Low, N. and B. Gleeson, Eds. Making Urban Transportation Sustainable, Palgrave/Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hampshire (UK), 2003. 10. McGranahan, G. and D. Satterthwaite. Environmental Health or Ecological Sustainability? Reconciling the Brown and Green Agendas in Urban Development. Sustainable Cities in Developing Countries. C. Pugh. London, Earthscan Publications, 2000, pp. 73-90.

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Original paper submittal - not revised by author.

Nichols, Garrick & Atkinson-Palombo

15

11. Bradley, D., et al. A Review of Environmental Health Impacts in Developing Country Cities. Urban Management Program Discussion Paper Series, World Bank, Washington, DC, 1992. http://www.worldbank.org, Accessed April 5, 2008. 12. Haughton, G. Environmental Justice and the Sustainable City. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1999, pp. 233-243. 13. Jeon, C. and A. Amekudzi. Addressing Sustainability in Transportation Systems: Definitions, Indicators, and Metrics. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2005, pp. 31-50. 14. Transportation Research Board (TRB). Committee for a Study on Transportation and a Sustainable Environment. Toward a Sustainable Future; Addressing the Long-Term Effects of Motor Vehicle Transportation on Climate and Ecology. National Academy Press, 1997. 15. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Project on Environmentally Sustainable Transport. 1996. www.oecd.org/env/trans, Accessed March 30th, 2008. 16. Centre for Sustainable Transport (CST). Defining Sustainable Transportation. Centre for Sustainable Transportation. 2005. http://cst.uwinnipeg.ca/documents/Defining_Sustainable_2005.pdf, Accessed April 15, 2008. 17. Litman, T. Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable Transport Planning. February 2008. http://www.vtpi.org/wellmeas.pdf, Accessed March 3, 2008. 18. Gilbert, R. and H. Tanguay. Sustainable Transportation Performance Indicators Project. Centre for Sustainable Transportation. 2000. http://cst.uwinnipeg.ca/documents/STPI%20Phase%201%20report.PDF, Accessed April 15, 2008.

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Original paper submittal - not revised by author.