Advertisement

Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 520–524 | Cite as

How participatory planning processes for transit-oriented development contribute to social sustainability

  • Blanca Fernandez MilanEmail author
Article

Abstract

Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a relatively recent neighbourhood development concept associated with the three dimensions of urban sustainability (environmental, economic and social). Traditionally, TOD has been associated with environmental and economic benefits. Recent research has shown evidence of positive social outcomes related to the spatial characteristics of TOD areas. But the social sustainability that can be drawn from TOD interventions may multiply when designed through participatory planning processes. Here, I combine TOD literature with that of collaborative urban planning to highlight the potential of participatory TOD for urban social sustainability.

Keywords

Transit-oriented development Bus rapid transit Public transport accessibility levels Urban sustainability Public transport services Public participation 

References

  1. Assefa G, Frostell B (2007) Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: a case study of energy technologies. Technol Soc 29:63–78. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2006.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ataöv A, Ezgi Haliloğlu Kahraman Z (2009) Constructing collaborative processes through experiential learning: participatory planning in Kaymaklı, Turkey. Habitat Int 33:378–386. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey K, Grossardt T, Pride-Wells M (2007) Community design of a light rail transit-oriented development using casewise visual evaluation (CAVE). Socioecon Plan Sci 41:235–254. doi: 10.1016/j.seps.2006.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumann C, White S (2012) Making better choices: a systematic comparison of adversarial and collaborative approaches to the transport policy process. Transp Policy 24:83–90. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.06.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belzer D, Autler G (2002) Transit-Oriented Development: Moving From Rhetoric To Reality. In: Brook. Inst. http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2002/06/cities-dena-belzer-and-gerald-autler. Accessed 4 Nov 2014
  6. Bertolini L, le Clercq F, Straatemeier T (2008) Urban transportation planning in transition. Transp Policy 15:69–72. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boarnet MG, Compin NS (1999) Transit-oriented development in San Diego County. J Am Plan Assoc 65:80–95. doi: 10.1080/01944369908976035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brand P, Dávila JD (2011) Mobility innovation at the urban margins. City 15:647–661. doi: 10.1080/13604813.2011.609007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cervero R, Ferell C, Murphy C (2002) Research results digest 52: transit-oriented development and joint development in the United States: a literature review. National Research Council and Transport Research Board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Chiu Y, Huang C, Ma C-M (2011) Assessment of China transit and economic efficiencies in a modified value-chains DEA model. Eur J Oper Res 209:95–103. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2010.05.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark M (2005) The Compact City: European Ideal, Global Fix or Myth? Glob Built Environ Rev 4Google Scholar
  12. Collier MJ, Nedović-Budić Z, Aerts J et al (2013) Transitioning to resilience and sustainability in urban communities. Cities 32. Supplement 1:S21–S28. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2013.03.010 Google Scholar
  13. Coors V, Jasnoch U, Jung V (1999) Using the Virtual Table as an interaction platform for collaborative urban planning. Comput Graph 23:487–496. doi: 10.1016/S0097-8493(99)00068-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Currie G, Stanley J (2008) Investigating links between social capital and public transport. Transp Rev 28:529–547. doi: 10.1080/01441640701817197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Curtis C, Renne JL, Bertolini L (2009) Transit Oriented Development: Making it Happen. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.Google Scholar
  16. Dávila JD, Daste D (2011) Pobreza, participación y Metrocable. Estudio del caso de Medellín. Bol CFS 121–131Google Scholar
  17. De Luca S (2014) Public engagement in strategic transportation planning: an analytic hierarchy process based approach. Transp Policy 33:110–124. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Vos J, Van Acker V, Witlox F (2014) The influence of attitudes on transit-oriented development: an explorative analysis. Transp Policy 35:326–329. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Delmelle EC, Casas I (2012) Evaluating the spatial equity of bus rapid transit-based accessibility patterns in a developing country: the case of Cali, Colombia. Transp Policy 20:36–46. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dempsey N, Brown C, Bramley G (2012) The key to sustainable urban development in UK cities? The influence of density on social sustainability. Prog Plan 77:89–141. doi: 10.1016/j.progress.2012.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dorsey B, Mulder A (2013) Planning, place-making and building consensus for transit-oriented development: Ogden, Utah case study. J Transp Geogr 32:65–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Du Toit L, Cerin E, Leslie E, Owen N (2007) Does walking in the neighbourhood enhance local sociability? Urban Stud 44:1677–1695. doi: 10.1080/00420980701426665 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dubé J, Rosiers FD, Thériault M, Dib P (2011) Economic impact of a supply change in mass transit in urban areas: a Canadian example. Transp Res Part Policy Pract 45:46–62. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2010.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Elvy J (2014) Public participation in transport planning amongst the socially excluded: an analysis of 3rd generation local transport plans. Case Stud Transp Policy 2:41–49. doi: 10.1016/j.cstp.2014.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Faehnle M, Tyrväinen L (2013) A framework for evaluating and designing collaborative planning. Land Use Policy 34:332–341. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glaeser EL, Gottlieb JD (2006) Urban resurgence and the consumer city. Social Science Research Network, RochesterGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamann R, April K (2013) On the role and capabilities of collaborative intermediary organisations in urban sustainability transitions. J Clean Prod 50:12–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hasibuan HS, Soemardi TP, Koestoer R, Moersidik S (2014) The role of transit oriented development in constructing urban environment sustainability, the case of Jabodetabek, Indonesia. Procedia Environ Sci 20:622–631. doi: 10.1016/j.proenv.2014.03.075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Innes JE (1995) Coordinating Growth and Environmental Management Through Consensus Building, Vol. 1. Calif Policy Res CentGoogle Scholar
  30. Innes JE (1996) Planning through consensus building: a new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. J Am Plan Assoc 62:460–472. doi: 10.1080/01944369608975712 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Innes JE, Gruber J (2005) Planning styles in conflict: the metropolitan transportation commission. J Am Plan Assoc 71:177–188. doi: 10.1080/01944360508976691 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kamruzzaman M, Wood L, Hine J et al (2014) Patterns of social capital associated with transit oriented development. J Transp Geogr 35:144–155. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kathryn Scott JP (2000) From ‘sustainable rural communities’ to ‘social sustainability’: giving voice to diversity in Mangakahia Valley, New Zealand. J Rural Stud 433–446.  10.1016/S0743-0167(00)00018-8
  34. Knowles RD (2012) Transit oriented development in Copenhagen, Denmark: from the finger plan to Ørestad. J Transp Geogr 22:251–261. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leyden KM (2003) Social capital and the built environment: the importance of walkable neighborhoods. Am J Public Health 93:1546–1551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lund H (2002) Pedestrian environments and sense of community. J Plan Educ Res 21:301–312. doi: 10.1177/0739456X0202100307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lund H (2003) Testing the claims of new urbanism: local access, pedestrian travel, and neighboring behaviors. J Am Plan Assoc 69:414–429. doi: 10.1080/01944360308976328 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mahdavinejad M, Amini M (2011) Public participation for sustainable urban planning in case of Iran. Procedia Eng 21:405–413. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mason SG (2010) Can community design build trust? A comparative study of design factors in Boise, Idaho neighborhoods. Cities 27:456–465. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2010.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nahlik MJ, Chester MV (2014) Transit-oriented smart growth can reduce life-cycle environmental impacts and household costs in Los Angeles. Transp Policy 35:21–30. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ndebele R, Ogra A (2014) A place-based approach to spatial transformation: a case study of transit oriented development (TOD), JohannesburgGoogle Scholar
  42. Neuenschwander N, Wissen Hayek U, Grêt-Regamey A (2014) Integrating an urban green space typology into procedural 3D visualization for collaborative planning. Comput Environ Urban Syst 48:99–110. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.07.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Newman P, Kenworthy J (1999) Sustainability and cities: overcoming automobile dependence. Auflage: Teacher and Rev. Island Pr, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  44. Pinnegar S (2012) Neighbourhood Planning. In: Smith SJ (ed) Int. Encycl. Hous. Home. Elsevier, San Diego, pp 78–84Google Scholar
  45. Proli S (2011) Improving an urban sustainability environment through community participation: the case of Emilia-Romagna region. Procedia Eng 21:1118–1123. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rahul TM, Verma A (2013) Economic impact of non-motorized transportation in Indian cities. Res Transp Econ 38:22–34. doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2012.05.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Renne JL (2008) From transit-adjacent to transit-oriented development. Local Environ 14:1–15. doi: 10.1080/13549830802522376 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rodriguez Herrera C (2012) Análisis de los Procesos de Inclusión Social a Partir de los Programas de Mejoramiento Urbanístico. Estudio de Caso Línea J Metrocable. Universidad Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del RosarioGoogle Scholar
  49. Sagaris L (2014) Citizen participation for sustainable transport: the case of “Living City” in Santiago, Chile (1997–2012). J Transp Geogr 41:74–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.08.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shen Y, Kwan M-P, Chai Y (2013) Investigating commuting flexibility with GPS data and 3D geovisualization: a case study of Beijing, China. J Transp Geogr 32:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smedby N, Neij L (2013) Experiences in urban governance for sustainability: the constructive dialogue in Swedish municipalities. J Clean Prod 50:148–158. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Soria-Lara JA, Bertolini L, te Brömmelstroet M (2015) Environmental impact assessment in urban transport planning: exploring process-related barriers in Spanish practice. Environ Impact Assess Rev 50:95–104. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2014.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stanley J, Lucas K (2008) Social exclusion: what can public transport offer? Res Transp Econ 22:36–40. doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2008.05.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stanley J, Vella-Brodrick D (2009) The usefulness of social exclusion to inform social policy in transport. Transp Policy 16:90–96. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stanley J, Stanley J, Vella-Brodrick D, Currie G (2010) The place of transport in facilitating social inclusion via the mediating influence of social capital. Res Transp Econ 29:280–286. doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2010.07.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stanley J, Stanley J, Hensher D (2012) Mobility, Social Capital and Sense of Community: What Value? Urban Stud 0042098012447002.  10.1177/0042098012447002
  57. Taylor BD, Schweitzer L (2005) Assessing the experience of mandated collaborative inter-jurisdictional transport planning in the United States. Transp Policy 12:500–511. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. The World Bank (2011) Social Capital Initiative Working Paper Series. Social Development Department, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  59. Turner J (2012) Urban mass transit, gender planning protocols and social sustainability—the case of Jakarta. Res Transp Econ 34:48–53. doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2011.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Upham P, Kivimaa P, Virkamäki V (2013) Path dependence and technological expectations in transport policy: the case of Finland and the UK. J Transp Geogr 32:12–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vale DS (2013) Does commuting time tolerance impede sustainable urban mobility? Analysing the impacts on commuting behaviour as a result of workplace relocation to a mixed-use centre in Lisbon. J Transp Geogr 32:38–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vallance S, Perkins HC, Dixon JE (2011) What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum 42:342–348. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vickerman R (2008) Transit investment and economic development. Res Transp Econ 23:107–115. doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2008.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Winston C, Maheshri V (2007) On the social desirability of urban rail transit systems. J Urban Econ 62:362–382. doi: 10.1016/j.jue.2006.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wood L, Giles-Corti B, Bulsara M (2012) Streets apart: does social capital vary with neighbourhood design? Urban Stud Res 2012:e507503. doi: 10.1155/2012/507503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) gGmbHBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of Economics and Climate Change EconomicTechnische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations