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

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

chelsea.dosad@cbuchanan.co.uk

Rob Sheldon, Director, Accent

rob.sheldon@accent-mr.com