A problem-oriented categorisation of FTA-methods for transport planning Jens Schippl and Torsten Fleischer Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Institute

A problem-oriented categorisation of FTA-methods for transport planning

Jens Schippl and Torsten Fleischer

Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyInstitute of Technology Assessment and

System Analyses

The 4th International Seville Conference onFuture-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)

12 & 13 May 2011

Challenges for Transport Planning

Unintended effects are unavoidable • Transport is a socio-technical field that characterised by

– immense importance for economic development and quality of life

– high public interest / many controversies

– complexity / transport is derived demand

– risks and uncertainties

• Policy interventions lead to unintended or adverse effects in the transport system and beyond (economic, social, environment). Examples:

– new roads might lead to additional traffic;

– Introduction of biofuels might lead to deforestation and pressure on the food sector

– Flyvbjerg et al. 2003: cost of Megaprojects underestimated, revenues overestimated, environmental effects under evaluated

> Uncertainties are a challenge for prospective analyses in transport


Tools and Methods in Transport Planning

• A wide range of tools and methods are applied in transport planning to anticipate unintended effects

• The tools and methods are of very different character:

– Sophisticated ICT-based models, CBA, MCDA but also focus groups, surveys, workshops, citizen’ consultation, pTA approaches etc.

– In the last decades discursive methods became more prominent

• Results of a planning are shaped by the applications of different methods

• Difficult to understand the potentials and limits of different approaches

> Key-thesis: simple and transparent classification is helpful

- to better understand the pros and cons of FTA-methods

- to support a more appropriate and transparent usage of methods

- to reduce risks, uncertainties and, thus, unintended effects


Risks and Uncertainties

Different Approaches:

• Long tradition in studies on risks and uncertainties (e.g. Renn 2008)

• van Asselt and Rotmans 2002: Categorisation of the sources of uncertainty– Uncertainty due to variability (hardly removable)

– Uncertainty due to limited knowledge (in principle removable)

• Similar in Kleindorfer 2008: epistemic risks / aleatory risks

• Knight (1921) on risks and uncertainties (also Runde 1998; Grunwald 2007): – Risk: knowledge and parameters available to assess the likeliness of an outcome

– Uncertainty: more genuine lack of systematic understanding of causal relations

• Hansson (1996) adds “Great Uncertainties” as a third category– situations in which a decision maker lacks most of the information about his options and of

the values of the different outcomes.

> Three categories to classify unintended effects: risks (knowns), uncertainties (Known unknowns), great uncertainties (unknown unknwowns)


Knowns and Unknowns

The following categories are used:

• Knowns: Solid knowledge is available, but still negative effects can not be fully excluded; risks in the Knightian sense

– Effects of speed limits on emissions and number of accidents

– Health problems caused by noise or pollutants

• Known unknowns: There is rough knowledge about the situation or the effects of certain interventions; but the cause-effect relations are not understood; uncertainties in the Knightian sense

– Segregation effects (new road) on biodiversity

– Impacts of noise from traffic on human creativity

• Unknown unknowns: There is no knowledge about potential effects or cause-effect relations; surprises or “great uncertainties” (Hansson)

– Car friendly urban policy in the 60’ties leading to congestions and urban sprawl years later

– From an 1970’ties perspective: heavy growth rates in freight transport in the EU on roads from and to eastern European countries


Knowns and Unknowns II

Unknown unknowns Known Unknowns Knowns

Great Uncertainty Most features of the situation neither known nor well-defined (options, their possible consequences, reliability of information, value of different outcomes)

Uncertainty No sufficient basis for assigning a precise and accurate likelihood to a particular outcome, most other features of the situation well-defined and known

RiskBoth the likelihood of a particular outcome, and the nature of its impact, are well understood

Precaution Anticipate, identify and reduce the impact of ‘surprises’

Precautionary, Prevention Reduce potential hazards

Prevention Reduce known risks

Examples

- Car friendly urban policy in the 60’ties leading to congestions several years later - Car friendly urban policy in the 60’ties leading to urban sprawl - From an 1970’ties perspective: heavy growth rates in freight transport in the EU on roads from and too eastern European countries

- Effect of a bypass road on kilometres driven in an area (additional traffic might be attracted) - Segregation effects (new road) on biodiversity- Effects of market penetration of electric vehicles on travel patterns ( e.g. on modal split) Consequences of global warming on economic growth

- Effects of speed limits on emissions and number of accidents - Health problems caused by noise or pollutants- Effects of fuel prices on person kilometres driven in a region - Correlation between the development of GDP and growth rates in freight transport


The Transport System as a “web of nodes”

A climbing net as a rough approximation


Methods and the Web of nodes

• “Web” consist of nodes and linkages

• All FTA-methods focus on – different – aspects of the web of nodes: – they either systematically cut out a certain area of the web (transport models)

– or, at the other extreme, they provide more punctual knowledge from rather different areas (brainstorming, open space)

• Transport models show a cut-out with selected nodes and linkages: – enables detailed studies with quantification

– still, wide parts of the “ world” are not included

– a decision was made on what to include or exclude; such decisions are usually based on norms and values (Grunwald 2009)

• No methods is able to cover the full web


Two Categories

• Key questions for the categorisation of methods: – Does the structure of the method allow for a high degree in openness concerning the

inclusion of parameters and linkages between parameters or is the method rather characterised by a pre-defined set of nodes and linkages between these nodes?

• Two categories: structurally open / structurally closed:

– Closed methods: focus on knows (risks)

– Open methods: focus on unknowns (uncertainties and great uncertainties)

• Overlaps with “quantitative” and “qualitative” but should illustrate that closed methods systematically exclude many nodes and linkages

> important for the type of unintended effects that can be anticipated

• Categories are rather two points on a continuum


The categorisation


Structurally open methods Structurally closed methods Not too formalised and pre-structured degree in openness is determined by the

extent in pre-structure mainly explorative strongly shaped by qualitative information integrate knowledge of experts,

stakeholders or lay people help to structure arguments and to

separate facts from norms help getting a rough understanding on

effects in principle open to detect effects beyond

the system boundaries

> focus on unknowns (uncertainties)

pre-defined setting / formalised and pre-structured approaches

Good understanding of relevant parameters and causal relations needed

mainly quantitative Designed by including and excluding

parameters and linkages focus on effects inside the pre-defined

system effects outside the pre-defined system can

not be detected specifications and quantification of knowns

rather than for the detection of unknowns

> main focus on knowns (risks)

Examples:

open space, brainstorming, expert workshops, explorative scenarios, focus group exercise, stakeholder consultation

Examples:

quantitative models, cost-benefit analyses, multi-criteria analyses

Knowns and Unknowns II


Unknown Unknowns Unknowns Knowns

Great Uncertainty Most features of the situation neither known nor well-defined (options, their possible consequences, reliability of information, value of different outcomes)

Uncertainty No sufficient basis for assigning a precise and accurate likelihood to a particular outcome, most other features of the situation well-defined and known

RiskBoth the likelihood of a particular outcome, and the nature of its impact, are well understood

Structurally Open Methods

Structurally Closed

Methods

Mixed Approaches

Characteristics• In praxis, different methods are often applied in combination

• In principle, mixed approaches can cover the full range of unintended effects

• Application of mixed approaches need a careful design

Examples • Scenarios

– Ability to detect effects depends on the methodology

– Explorative scenarios are usually designed in a rather open way

• Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) / Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

– Combination of different methods (e.g. modelling approaches and discursive methods)

– SEA more open, integrates qualitative and quantitative data

– EIA more focussed on specifying and quantifying effects from the category knowns


Conclusions I

Problem-oriented categorisation

• is feasible with the categories “structurally open” / “structurally closed”

• is helpful for a better understanding of the potentials of different methods in dealing with knows, known unknowns and unknown unknowns

• increase awareness for a more careful design and integration of methods

• increases awareness for risks and uncertainties

• underlines that methods from both categories are needed to reduce unintended effects


Conclusions II

Further research needed


• regarding an optimised integration of structurally closed and structurally open methods in planning processes

• regarding “generic principles” for the combination of methods

• for example, the EU project OPTIC suggests (DLR, KIT 2010): – using open methods in the beginning; might be supported by simple pre-structured

approaches for better orientation; involvement of all relevant groups such a experts, of stakeholder/citizens; reduction of unknowns;

– closed methods in the middle; quantifications with models as a main task; mainly experts involved; reductions of risks

– open methods in the end again; discursive methods for the interpretation of the results; potentially affected groups should be involved

Thank you for your attention !


Documents

A problem-oriented categorisation of FTA-methods for transport planning Jens Schippl and Torsten Fleischer Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Institute