IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2017i1p61-d124697.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing and Assessing Alternative Land-Use Scenarios from the MOLAND Model: A Scenario-Based Impact Analysis Approach for the Evaluation of Rapid Rail Provisions and Urban Development in the Greater Dublin Region

Author

Listed:
  • Eda Ustaoglu

    (School of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Richview, Clonskeagh, D14 E099 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Brendan Williams

    (School of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Richview, Clonskeagh, D14 E099 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Laura O. Petrov

    (European Commission DG Joint Research Centre, Strategy and Work Programme Coordination, Rue du Champ de Mars 21, CDMA 4 160, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium)

  • Harutyun Shahumyan

    (School of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Richview, Clonskeagh, D14 E099 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Hedwig Van Delden

    (Research Institute for Knowledge Systems bv, Witmakersstraat 10, 6211 JB Maastricht, The Netherlands)

Abstract

In this study, environmental sustainability implications of planned rail infrastructure investments on the urban form and development in the Greater Dublin Region (GDR) have been analysed incorporating the scenario analysis approach. Various scenarios are developed using the MOLAND Model applications including: A baseline scenario incorporating a continuation of the present dispersed pattern of urban development and an alternative scenario with rail-oriented corridor development, under varying conditions of economic growth. An alternative scenario was also developed for the recessionary development case considering the prolonged recession in the GDR. Further explorations incorporating a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) approach are developed to evaluate the sustainability implications of different land development scenarios in the Dublin Region. This is assisted by focussing on the impacts of rail investments on urban form and development as raised in the international comparative literature. The findings from the CBA assessment positively indicate that containment policies-as represented by the public transport oriented development indicate benefits over the dispersed development case by reducing the negative consequences of sprawl type of developments. In contrast, dispersed development in the baseline scenario indicates costs of continuation of such development patterns exceed the benefits in the long term. This study will contribute to policy support evaluation measures relating to the integration of scenario analysis tool with the CBA approach in assisting the evaluation of new transport infrastructure proposals.

Suggested Citation

  • Eda Ustaoglu & Brendan Williams & Laura O. Petrov & Harutyun Shahumyan & Hedwig Van Delden, 2017. "Developing and Assessing Alternative Land-Use Scenarios from the MOLAND Model: A Scenario-Based Impact Analysis Approach for the Evaluation of Rapid Rail Provisions and Urban Development in the Greate," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-34, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2017:i:1:p:61-:d:124697
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/61/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/61/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. K C Clarke & S Hoppen & L Gaydos, 1997. "A Self-Modifying Cellular Automaton Model of Historical Urbanization in the San Francisco Bay Area," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 24(2), pages 247-261, April.
    2. Grengs, Joe, 2010. "Job accessibility and the modal mismatch in Detroit," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 42-54.
    3. R White & G Engelen, 1993. "Cellular Automata and Fractal Urban Form: A Cellular Modelling Approach to the Evolution of Urban Land-Use Patterns," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 25(8), pages 1175-1199, August.
    4. Rebecca C W Kwok & Anthony G O Yeh, 2004. "The Use of Modal Accessibility Gap as an Indicator for Sustainable Transport Development," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(5), pages 921-936, May.
    5. Giles-Corti, Billie & Bull, Fiona & Knuiman, Matthew & McCormack, Gavin & Van Niel, Kimberly & Timperio, Anna & Christian, Hayley & Foster, Sarah & Divitini, Mark & Middleton, Nick & Boruff, Bryan, 2013. "The influence of urban design on neighbourhood walking following residential relocation: Longitudinal results from the RESIDE study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 20-30.
    6. Raj Chetty & Nathaniel Hendren & Patrick Kline & Emmanuel Saez, 2014. "Where is the land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 129(4), pages 1553-1623.
    7. Hickman, Robin & Saxena, Sharad & Banister, David & Ashiru, Olu, 2012. "Examining transport futures with scenario analysis and MCA," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 560-575.
    8. Morisugi, H., 2000. "Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in Japan," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 35-40, January.
    9. Brendan Williams & Zorica Nedovic-Budic, 2016. "The real estate bubble in Ireland. Policy context and responses," Urban Research & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 204-218, July.
    10. Jasper Willigers & Han Floor & Bert van Wee, 2007. "Accessibility Indicators for Location Choices of Offices: An Application to the Intraregional Distributive Effects of High-Speed Rail in the Netherlands," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(9), pages 2086-2898, September.
    11. Ewing, R. & Schieber, R.A. & Zegeer, C.V., 2003. "Urban Sprawl as a Risk Factor in Motor Vehicle Occupant and Pedestrian Fatalities," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(9), pages 1541-1545.
    12. Hayashi, Y. & Morisugi, H., 2000. "International comparison of background concept and methodology of transportation project appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 73-88, January.
    13. H Couclelis, 1997. "From Cellular Automata to Urban Models: New Principles for Model Development and Implementation," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 24(2), pages 165-174, April.
    14. Francisco Martínez & Claudio Araya, 2000. "Transport and Land-Use Benefits under Location Externalities," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(9), pages 1611-1624, September.
    15. Susan Handy, 2005. "Smart Growth and the Transportation-Land Use Connection: What Does the Research Tell Us?," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 28(2), pages 146-167, April.
    16. Paul Waddell, 2011. "Integrated Land Use and Transportation Planning and Modelling: Addressing Challenges in Research and Practice," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 209-229.
    17. Ginés de Rus & Gustavo Nombela, 2007. "Is Investment in High Speed Rail Socially Profitable?," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 41(1), pages 3-23, January.
    18. Milan Janic, 2003. "Multicriteria Evaluation of High-speed Rail, Transrapid Maglev and Air Passenger Transport in Europe," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 491-512, December.
    19. Deal, Brian & Schunk, Daniel, 2004. "Spatial dynamic modeling and urban land use transformation: a simulation approach to assessing the costs of urban sprawl," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 79-95, November.
    20. Bristow, A. L. & Nellthorp, J., 2000. "Transport project appraisal in the European Union," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 51-60, January.
    21. Matthew J. Schroeder & James H. Lambert, 2011. "Scenario-based multiple criteria analysis for infrastructure policy impacts and planning," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 191-214, February.
    22. Eda Ustaoglu & Brendan Williams & Laura Petrov, 2017. "Scenario Analysis of Alternative Land Development Patterns for the Leipzig-Halle Region: Implications for Transport-Land-Use Sustainability," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(1), pages 108-129.
    23. Lee, D. B., 2000. "Methods for evaluation of transportation projects in the USA," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 41-50, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Macharis, Cathy & Bernardini, Annalia, 2015. "Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 177-186.
    2. Hayashi, Y. & Morisugi, H., 2000. "International comparison of background concept and methodology of transportation project appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 73-88, January.
    3. Major, Iván, 2004. "A korlátozó szabályozástól az ösztönző szabályozásig. A közlekedés szabályozása az Európai Unióban és Magyarországon [From restricting regulation to incentive regulation. Transport regulation in th," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(6), pages 501-529.
    4. Junn-Yuan Teng & Wen-Chih Huang & Maw-Cherng Lin, 2010. "Systematic budget allocation for transportation construction projects: a case in Taiwan," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 331-361, March.
    5. Liu, Xiaoping & Li, Xia & Shi, Xun & Wu, Shaokun & Liu, Tao, 2008. "Simulating complex urban development using kernel-based non-linear cellular automata," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 211(1), pages 169-181.
    6. van Wee, Bert, 2016. "Accessible accessibility research challenges," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 9-16.
    7. Marleau Donais, Francis & Abi-Zeid, Irène & Waygood, E. Owen D. & Lavoie, Roxane, 2019. "Assessing and ranking the potential of a street to be redesigned as a Complete Street: A multi-criteria decision aiding approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-19.
    8. Nir Sharav & Yoram Shiftan, 2021. "Optimal Urban Transit Investment Model and Its Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-29, August.
    9. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2013. "Ranking the substantive problems in the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis practice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 241-255.
    10. Cheng, Jianquan & Bertolini, Luca, 2013. "Measuring urban job accessibility with distance decay, competition and diversity," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 100-109.
    11. Polydoropoulou, Amalia & Roumboutsos, Athena, 2009. "Evaluating the impact of decision making during construction on transport project outcome," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 369-380, November.
    12. Cundric, A. & Kern, T. & Rajkovic, V., 2008. "A qualitative model for road investment appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 225-231, July.
    13. Liu, Dongya & Zheng, Xinqi & Zhang, Chunxiao & Wang, Hongbin, 2017. "A new temporal–spatial dynamics method of simulating land-use change," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 350(C), pages 1-10.
    14. AlSabbagh, Maha & Siu, Yim Ling & Guehnemann, Astrid & Barrett, John, 2017. "Integrated approach to the assessment of CO2e-mitigation measures for the road passenger transport sector in Bahrain," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 203-215.
    15. Andersson, Matts & Berglund, Moa & Flodén, Jonas & Persson, Christer & Waidringer, Jonas, 2017. "A method for measuring and valuing transport time variability in logistics and cost benefit analysis," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 59-69.
    16. Haozhi Pan & Stan Geertman & Brian Deal, 2020. "What does urban informatics add to planning support technology?," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1317-1325, October.
    17. Bert van Wee & Piet Rietveld, 2013. "CBA: ex ante evaluation of mega-projects," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 12, pages 269-290, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Bernardo A. Furtado & Miguel A. Fuentes & Claudio J. Tessone, 2019. "Policy Modeling and Applications: State-of-the-Art and Perspectives," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-11, February.
    19. Barfod, Michael Bruhn & Salling, Kim Bang, 2015. "A new composite decision support framework for strategic and sustainable transport appraisals," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 1-15.
    20. Carl Koopmans & Piet Rietveld, 2013. "Long-term impacts of mega-projects: the discount rate," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 14, pages 313-332, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2017:i:1:p:61-:d:124697. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.