See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

An Approach for Integration of Sustainable

Transport Planning Indicators

Conference Paper · June 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 54

2 authors:

Ylber Limani Binak Beqaj

UBT College University for Business and Technology
8 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION 4 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Economic Assessment of Transport Infrastructure and Policies in Developing Countries View project

INCREASING THE PPP IN TRANSPORT PLANNING AND POLICY: FOCUS ON TRANSITION ECONOMIES
View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ylber Limani on 29 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 IC ASPCE Conference 2012

An Approach for Integration of Sustainable

Transport Planning Indicators
Ylber Limani, Binak Beqaj

University for Business and Technology

Prishtina

Abstract

This paper describes the factors that need to be considered when selecting indicators for sustainable
transport planning, principles for selecting indicators, and represents an indicator integration
methodology. Indicators are very important components for various assessments due to proper
decision making, and the end results depend on the accuracy of selecting, integrating and measuring
them. The sensitivity ratio between decision makers and planners concerning sustainable transport
planning indicators selection and application is not at a desired level and it needs to be improved.
This may be as a result of lack of sufficient methodologies for making indicators more practical and
understandable from all engaged groups and individuals in transport planning. From this perspective
this paper addresses the need for making indicators more understandable and easier to be measured
for decision makers, planners and other engaged groups in transport planning. Based on the
addressed needs this paper focuses on the differentiation and disintegration of indicators into more
functional and easier to be measured indicators. For this purposes this paper proposes an expressive
methodology for integration of sustainable transport planning indicators. The empirical evidence has
shown the existence of a great number of departments, institutions and agencies carrying out
research in the field of transport planning indicators. However there is a lack of appropriate and
comprehensive methodology for integration of indicators. In order to assist filling this gap this paper
proposes a straightforward methodology which is supposed to provide decision makers and planners
with a perceptual tool for proper integration and measurement of sustainable transport planning
indicators for use in specific circumstances.

Key words: sustainable transport planning, impacts, factors, indicators, integration.

 1. Introduction

Indicators in general are selected and defined variables aimed to describe and to measure physical
developments towards various objectives and other changes in time and space. Selecting and using
right indicators is essential undertaking for proper analyses of trends, impacts and reflections. The
impacts of an observed issue on other issues need to be systematically tracked. Such operations
feasibly are carried out through indicators.
Despite of the widespread adoption of many approaches concerning factors and indicators in transport
planning and the impact of transport on the environmental, economic and social systems, there is a
deficiency of comprehensive integration and evaluation approaches to help decision-makers and
planners in solving dilemmas concerning sensible transport planning issues. Hence, in this paper in
the frame of the integration of indicators, two approaches have been developed i.e. the approaches for
indicator disaggregation and differentiation. The two proposed approaches have been used to develop
a combined approach for indicator integration in terms of transport. This development represents the
main objective of this paper.
The research methodology has been based in a combined hypothetical and empirical approach
consisting following three sub-objectives:
 This paper initially describes the indicator essentials with the reference to the concept of
sustainable transport planning.
 Subsequently, the second objective of this research work is to discuss the relationship
between decisive factors and specific indicators in sustainable transport planning.
 Finally the third objective of this paper represents a concept for building preconditions for the
development of an approach for integration (organisation and disaggregation) of specific
indicators in transport planning.
The findings and suggestions of this research work are aimed to serve decision-makers and planners
as a perceptual tool proficient to contribute to the construction of stronger insight towards the
achievement of sustainable transport planning objectives. The classification and integration approach
of sustainable indicators reflects the bases of the sustainability concept of transport planning and
supports proactive planning methods where planning behaviour is tending to initiate changes rather
than responding to the events.

2. Definitions and principles for selecting sustainable transport

planning indicators

The main factors in sustainable transport planning are based on the triple-bottom line of the concept
for sustainable development. This concept has been systematically developed since it was presented
for the first time in the Brundtland report (UN, 1987). Sustainable transport planning can be defined
as planning that considers all factors, indicators and impacts, and the interactions between them,
including those in time and space projected. In consistency with the definition for sustainable
transport planning and this paper reviews and discusses the possibilities for functional integration of
sustainable transport indicators which indicates the change, state of the art, activities and future
perception related to main factors. Following indicator related issues have been reviewed: definition,
selection, and integration (organisation, differentiation and disaggregation).
Transport impacts the society, the economy and the environment in different ways. The assumption is
that the transport impacts should be more effectively tracked through indicators. Therefore it is
needed to explain more rationally the relationship between impacts of transport, causes of impacts,
effects of impacts, benefits and the consequences of effects. In many literatures the terms impact and
effect coincide each other. To explain evidently the situations and to avoid confusion about the terms
impact and effect in transport planning, this paper assumes the following definitions:

1
 Box 1

Specific main definitions

Baseline (or benchmark) – existing, projected or reference conditions if change is not implemented.
Goal – what you ultimately want to achieve.
Index – a group of indicators aggregated into a single value.
Indicator – a variable selected and defined to measure progress toward an objective.
Indicator data – values used in indicators.
Indicator framework – conceptual structure linking indicators to a theory, purpose or planning
process.
Indicator set – a group of indicators selected to measure comprehensive progress toward goals.
Indicator system – a process for defining indicators, collecting and analysing data and applying
results.
Indicator type – nature of data used by indicator (qualitative or quantitative, absolute or relative).
Objective – a desirable change defined in a planning process, often intended to address a problem.
Target – a specified, realistic, measurable objective.
Impact-interference or collision between two or more subjects.
Effect- a product or result produced from an impact.
Performance indicators-the measurement pointers of performance.
Performance- progress towards the achievement of goals and objectives.

Source: Adapted from Gudmundsson, 2001

Impact refers to the interference or the collision between two or more subjects (e.g. transport impact
on the economy) and is assumed to be the cause or generator of effects.
Transport impacts can be intended or unintended, major or minor (complex or single), direct or
indirect (Rodrigue, [Link]. 2009), simultaneous and cumulative (Litman, 2011a). Nevertheless, it is
important to understand the importance of main transport planning factors and their common
interactions. Table 3 shows the main factors (issues impacted from transport) in transport planning
and related indicators. This structure of factors may not be comprehensive as there may be other
issues included e.g. financial issues, business and technology, urban development, etc. Taking into
consideration these issues are not in the scope of this paper, five previously identified factors are
further considered.
Effect refers to the product or result produced by impact of one issue on another. The effect can be
beneficial or consequential (positive or negative). The effects can be specified through indicators,
which usually are measurable variables (Box 1). However, not all effects may be indicated by a
measurable indicator, e.g. when the impact of transport on the society have to be considered, it may be
not always easy to select the best indicators which should provide with the best information about the
magnitude and value of related effects.
In the Box 1 the main definitions related to indicator subject have been presented (Gudmundsson,
2001). In addition, this paper recognises the need for inclusion of the terms: impact, effect,
performance indicators and performance in order to create more comprehensive subject related
latitude.
Regardless of the existence and sensational activity of a great number of independent agencies,
governmental organisations and particular authors providing huge data sets concerning transport
planning and transport related subjects in various countries around the world, there is no standardised
2
method for selection and utilisation of indicators at the regional or international level. The research
encompasses many of such organizations and researchers, among others: EU Statistical Bureau
(EUROSTAT), European Environmental Agency (EEA), International Transport Forum (ITF),
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), International Monetary Fund
(IMF), Victoria Transport policy Institute (VTPI), Directorate-general Energy and Transport -
European Commission, United States Department for transport ([Link]), transport research Board
(TRB) etc.

Table 1: Possible considerations of indicators

Indicators Possible considerations

Feasibility, liability, stakeholder`s opinion Technical aspects of planning
The quality of planning, costs, performance Decision making process
Travel patterns, uncertainties, restrains Responses
Emissions and accident rates Physical impacts
Injuries, deaths, ecological damages Impacts on people and the environment
Cost to society due to crashes, time wastefulness Economic impacts
(congestion,) and environmental degradation
Accessibility, inclusion, equity Social impacts
Performance, mode split, speed, Various transport trends

Source: Adapted from Litman 2011b, TRB 2008

As a consequence, many countries develop transport planning indicator framework depending on their
mobility needs and their specific concerns. Table 1 displays several indicators and their possible
considerations. Indicators may reflect technical planning aspects, decision making process, reactions,
and physical impacts of transport on people and the environment (negative effects), economic impacts
(positive en negative effects), social positive effects, trends in transport, etc. (Litman, 2011b). The
selected indicators should correspondingly be capable to support various transport system elements,
e.g. transport mode, location, time period and the evaluation of trip propose (TRB, 2008).
Based on above findings this paper proposes a different approach for addressing the sustainable
transport planning indicators with reference to associated factors through following conclusions:
a. The possibility for occurrence of negative effects should be as much as possible prevented,
maximally mitigated or eliminated when possible, while positive effects should be
continuously maintained and improved. It would be paradoxical to assume that a negative
effect should be improved.
b. There are issues that do not easily fit within any assessment method because of their highly
complex nature, their intangibility, and their immeasurability. For example affordability,
equity, and fatalities and injuries from accidents represent the issues that are difficult to be
measured by any proposed assessment method or by any existing measuring system.
c. The principles for selecting indicators should reflect accurately the related factors, otherwise
the risk of overlapping, double counting, miscalculating, and misjudging may occur.
d. Identifying the circumstance showing that many indicator assessment approaches are in the
pioneering stage, the indicator integration method is needed to assist the development of more
comprehensive and rational approaches in this concern.
The principles for selecting indicators have been based on five identified decisive factors in transport
planning and their reciprocal impacts. Although, five decisive factors (economic, social,
environmental, land use, and governmental) are beyond the scope of this paper, the associated main
indicators and the principles for selecting them have been further evaluated.
The process of developing indicator includes the summary of data selection standards, procedures and
practices of strategic assessments.

3
 Table 2: Principles for selecting indicators based on based practices

Principles Rating1 Interpretations2

Comprehensiveness 9 To reflect various economic, social and
environmental impacts, and various transport
activities (such as both passenger and goods
transport).
Data quality 9 To reflect high standards and to insure that
information is accurate and consistent (stable
data collection practices and providers).
Simplicity and reliance 8 To present something that people can
understand, believe and use (easy to interpret,
showing trends over time against baseline or
reference values)
Ability and clarity 8 To be able to address a need (i.e. to be
established through stakeholder dialogue or
respond to a predicted significant impact), and
to be analytically sound
Sensitivity 7 To be sensitive to anthropogenic impacts and to
measure changes caused specifically by humans
(i.e. able to differentiate between long-term
background changes and those changes arising
from the present operations)
Dynamic and responsive 6 To response dynamically to ongoing changes in
the economy, society and in the environment
(changes over time and space)
Elasticity 5 To be able to address positive and negative
changes
Spatial and time relevancy 4 To be applicable across the required
geographical level (i.e. local, regional, global),
and time oriented.
Validity and reliability 3 To be valid based on the international standards
and reliable using technically defensible
measurement techniques.
Provide a basis for national and international
comparisons
To have a reference comparable value
Efficiency 2 To be cost-effective and involve the appropriate
level of effort
Policy relevancy and user utilisation 1 To be relevant to policy (easy to interpret,
showing trends over time against baseline or
reference values) and easy to be used by the
user.

Source: Adapted from TRB 2008, Litman 2011a, Litman 2011b

1
Rating of indicators has been presented for recommendation purposes
2
Some of these criteria describe the “ideal” indicator; not all of them will be met in the practice.

4
In conclusion, when selecting indicators it is essential to ensure they among others are:
comprehensive, represent quality data, simple and confident, clear and measurable, sensitive, dynamic
and responsive, elastic, spatial and timely relevant, valid and reliable, efficient and policy relevant.
The table 2 represents a rudimentary form of most relevant principles for selecting indicators. It is
important to note that this is not a comprehensive criterion for indicator selection; however, these
basic principles and following indicator integration approaches under the sections 4 and 5 of this
paper are aimed to construct a consistent perception tool for indicator assessment which is supposed
to be utilised from policy makers, planners and other engaged groups and individuals in transport
planning. The selected indicators should be measurable and capable to provide with quality data
useful and available to decision makers, planners and to the general public.

3. Organising indicators

Depending on their indication strength and transport impact implication, indicators may be organised
as a single indicator or as a set of indicators. Indicator sets are composed from indicators from each of
the factors involved in the observed and analysed situation, e.g. when observing the transport
infrastructure improvement projects, lack of links possibly will have multiple impacts such as
economic, social and environmental.
These impacts occur at the same time and at the same location producing negative or positive effects.

Table 3: The structure of transport planning indicators with respect to main factors

Sustainability Indicators (sub-categories)

factors (categories) Most important Supportive
Economic Economic development Pricing
Economic efficiency Regional cohesion
Mobility Competitiveness
Congestion Economic costs of crashes (accidents)
Productivity
Environmental Air quality Spatial quality
Energy use Biodiversity
Noise Waste
Climate change Natural resources depletion
Social Accessibility Welfare
Equity Health
Safety and security Cultural heritage preservation
Community cohesion Accessibility
Noise
Affordability
Land use Urban sprawl Mobility increase
Transport land consumption Low density housing (sub-urbanization)
Accessibility decrease Increased urban population and rapid
Car dependency urbanization
Land uses separation (zoning)
Change of the life style
Creation of megacities
Good governance Open and cooperative policy Demand management and network
Integrated comprehensive and inclusive management
planning (sustainable transport Uncertainty and constrains management
planning) Optimal technology and innovation
Democratic legitimacy and integral development
efficiency

Source: Adapted from Litman 2009, TRB 2008, Gudmundsson, 2001

5
The produced effects may be measured by the means of relevant indicators. Consequently, they can be
compared with the performance indicators that reflect the impact of infrastructure improvement as a
measure to mitigate the impacts of link deficiency. Table 3 shows the primary relationship of factors
obvious in the most of recent transport planning models (sustainability factors), and supplementary
factors that intensely vary depending on the installed political system of a specific country or region.

Table 4: The structure of unsustainable and sustainable transport planning indicators with respect to
main factors

Sustainability factors Indicators

Unsustainable Sustainable
Economic Congestion, crowding Economic development
Traffic fatalities and injuries Economic efficiency
Inequity Mobility
Economic costs of crashes (accidents) Productivity
Regional cohesion
Competitiveness
Environmental Air pollution Air quality improvement
Energy use Emission reduction
Noise Energy use reduction
Climate change Clean and renewable energy resources
Biodiversity distraction development
Spatial quality reduction Preservation of spatial quality
Waste Waste recycling
Natural resources depletion Eco efficiency
Noise mitigation
Social Noise pollution Accessibility
Accidents Mobility
Congestion Equity (infrastructure and transport
Health damage resources improvement and equivalent
Noise prizing)
Cultural heritage destruction Cultural heritage preservation
Social exclusion Welfare
Affordability
Community cohesion
Land use Urban sprawl Smart growth,
Car dependency Human behaviour change rate
Land take Territorial cohesion
Mobility increase Touristic development
Low density housing (sub- Rural areas connection-inclusion
urbanisation)
Increased urban population and rapid
urbanisation
Land fragmentation
Governance Insufficient expertise and knowledge Open and cooperative policy
Reactive planning behaviour Integrated comprehensive and inclusive
Obscure policy planning
Negligence Uncertainty and constrains management
Unequal aspect ratio with respect to Optimal technology and innovation
technical factors (planners) development
Conventional and reductionist Proactive planning behaviour
approach Improved aspect ratio between technical
and policy making factors

The level of recent economic development of the respected country or region plays a great role in the
process of factor and indicator selection (e.g. accessibility in developed countries should not be

6
equally understood as in the case of developing countries, since in developed countries the
accessibility has reached an attitude where possibly no large development is needed).
This established practice of organising factors and related indicators as presented in the tables 3 and 4
is supported by means of the concept of sustainable transport planning. It may be assumed that not all
transport related undertakings and activities produce intended impacts with positive effects, and not
all transport activities are equally important. Accordingly, the indicators associated with factors have
been organised into important (always preferable) and supportive (conditionally preferable).
The above assumption has produced preconditions for further structuring of indicators into
unsustainable (presenting and measuring negative effects of transport) and sustainable indicators
(desirable or required effects of transport) as displayed in the Table 4.
Table 4 represents creative approach toward better identification and structuring of sustainable
indicators through initially identification of those that are verified or assumed to be non-sustainable
and these recognised and supported by the sustainable transport planning concept.
This structural method does not represent a comprehensive or indexed form of organising factors and
indicators; however, it structures conceptual factors and related indicators and shows the oppositional
interpretation of various indicators.
Performance indicators basically represent the measurement pointers of performance, while
performance represents progress toward the achievement of strategic goals and objectives.
Performance indicators are beyond of the scope of research work; however it is important to note that
there is a strong relationship between impact and the performance of transport. Therefore the
recommendation can be made for more research in this area.
In conclusion indicators should be organised in order to be understandable, meaningful and
measurable to decision makers, planners and other stakeholders. The decision making levels and
technical factors concerning transport planning should be more cohesive in order to improve the
aspect ratio between technical achievements and political visions. In this matter the proper indicator
selecting procedures and principles, and the appropriate and perceptible indicator organisation scheme
should reflect the policy context and should influence the corresponding level of specific issues.

4. The methodology for indicator integration

There is empirical evidence showing the need for integration of indicators, different interpretations
concerning the importance and value of transport planning indicators. Indicators in sustainable
transport planning represent variables that measure progress toward specified objectives and they take
into account a wide range of transport impacts (Litman and Burwell, 2006). Indicators can reflect
different levels of analysis, decision-making process, responses and physical impacts of various
issues.
Indicators may also reflect different technical aspects of planning, e.g. feasibility, responsibility,
stakeholder’s opinions, etc. (Litman, 2011a). Table 5 shows how indicators can measure various
levels of impacts, from external trends through the social and environmental and economic impacts, to
performance evaluation (TRB, 2008). Physical impacts of transport may be reflected through GHG
emissions and accident rates, and their effects on the society and the environment, e.g. ecological
damages, injuries and deaths (TRB, 2008). However, there is no structured methodology for
integration of indicators for the purposes of sustainable transport planning. The methodology
presented in Figure 1 has been structured being based on the cause-and-effect diagram and includes
following elements:
 Couse factors (e.g. users, infrastructure, operations, etc.)
 Events (e.g. accidents, congestion, noise, etc.)
 Impacts of events (economic, environmental, social, land use, political, etc.)
 Effects of impacts (mobility increase, accessibility improvement, crash costs, land used, land
fragmented, air quality deterioration etc.)
 Measurement of indicators (physical units, monetary, psychological, etc.
 Feedbacks (responses in the case of improper selected indicator, not sufficient differentiated
and integrated indicator, etc.)
7
 Couse Factors (Inputs)

Events (Function)

Impacts of Events (Transformation)

Indicator differentiation process

Feedback
Effects/Results of the Impacts

Indicator disaggregation process

 Negative effects (unsustainable)
 Positive effects (sustainable)

Measurement

Figure 1: The rational methodology for indicator integration

It is not always simple to measure an indicator, since the situations where the measurement should be
performed, and the impacts may be complex. In this case this paper identifies the need for more
comprehensive indicator integration approach which should result in the increase of indicator
elasticity and dynamics.
The indicators should be integrated at a level where their disaggregation and simplification should be
performed without losing in weight and confidence (elasticity). Disaggregated indicators should
support particular types of analyses such as demographic, geographic, and travel activity analysis, e.g.
the equity analysis should compare transport quality with accessibility or mobility with transport
affordability when the needs of disadvantaged groups of people should be taken into consideration
(dynamics).
A particular process, change, problem or opportunity may seem needed and effective when measured
in a specified way, while it may be unwanted and ineffective when measured in other way.
For example, economic productivity seems to be greatly dependent on mobility magnitude when
measured from economic view, while it reflects the negative development when measured from the
environmental viewpoint. For above reasons the transport planning process requires the selection of
indicators in advance which are measurable and relevant to the impact of transport on the particular
issue as displayed in the tables 3 and 4.
The implementation
The Figure 3 represents possible implementation case of the rational indicator integration
methodology. The signification of accident as an unsustainable indicator, the possible cause factors of
accidents, the effects of accidents and the differentiation and disaggregation scheme of indicators
required to measure the magnitude of the impacts and accidents. The scheme is not exhaustive, since
it may contain various cause factors and impacts. However the proposed method may be implemented
for integration of various indicators for the purposes of sustainable transport planning.
Since sustainable transport planning depends on data from a variety of sources to provide a complete
print of the economic, environmental, and social impacts as well as the basic functionality of transport

8
projects (FHWA, 2011), it requires exact selection of indicators. Nevertheless, selecting proper
indicators is not an easy task considering that the nature of impacts is different and not always
determinable. Some indicators related to more complex issues show lack of accurate data, e.g. equity,
accessibility, affordability, while some other indicators are run over by data, e.g. indicators of system
state, air quality, congestion, etc. (OECD, 2005).

Level Examples

External Trends Changes in population, income, economic activity, political

pressures, etc.
Decision-Making Process Planning process, pricing policies, stakeholder involvement, etc.

Policies Facility design and operations, transport services, prices, user

information, etc.
Response Travel activity (VMT1, mode choice, etc.), pollution emissions,
crashes, land development patterns, etc.
Cumulative Impacts Changes in ambient pollution, traffic risk levels, overall
accessibility, transportation costs, etc.

Human and Environmental Effects Changes in pollution exposure, health, traffic injuries and
fatalities, ecological productivity, etc.

Economic Impacts Property damages, medical expenses, productivity losses,

mitigation and compensation costs.
Performance Evaluation Ability to achieve specified targets.

Figure 2: Measuring example of various levels of impacts

Source: TRB 2008

The Figure 2 shows the proposed structure of process levels for assessing impacts: impact complexity
level, indicator extension level, analysis of impact interferences and interaction level, indicator
differentiation level, indicator measurement level and result assessment level.
Some undertakings, activities and constitutive elements of transport system require simple indicator
sets because their impact on related issues is low or uncomplicated, while some other require a
comprehensive indicator set or a group of sets because of their complexity and their higher impact on
related issues (EEA, 2011).
Potential sustainable transport planning indicators should be built based on backward data research
(transport related statistics and practices), on recent state, and on the future expectations (scenario
planning) concerning transport planning developments (TRB, 2008). Backward data research should
result in a clear reflection of weaknesses and strengths of transport from the past and from the present
and should give the indications for possible transport developments in the future.
In conclusion indicators may be simple or complex depending on the issues they track and measure.
Above assumptions and findings supports the rationale for building the indicator integration
methodology. Recognising the context where developments in transport planning may be complex by
implicating various factors, the decision making needs to be supported by more understandable and
easy to use approach concerning possible impacts, effects, consequences, and benefits of transport in
specific circumstances.
There are various levels of transport impacts. Figure 2 displays an example of impact levels and
various related considerations. The process of indicator differentiation proposed by this integration
methodology is supposed to separate the impact levels. To perform an accurate differentiation of

1
Vehicle-Travelled-Miles
9
indicators into more specialised indicators is predecessor process of indicator disaggregation into little
and measurable indicators. The latest stadium of the integration process is the completing of indicator
measurement.

Cause factors Impacts Effects/results

Measurable
indicators

Monetary:
User/Driver Crash
casualties
Crash costs
Congestion
costs

Road Economic
Environment impacts Monetary and
Non-monetary
value loses:
Congestion
Environmental Noise
Accident Air quality
Vehicle impacts deterioration
technical Crash
casualties
conditions
Social impacts

Monetary and
Non-monetary
value loses:
Combination properties, time,
of factors opportunities,
value loses,
Fatalities,
injuries,
psychological
effects

Figure 3: Proposed approach of indicator differentiation/disaggregation

Observing a single factor or a sub-factor e.g. safety and security (accident) as presented in the Figure
3; it can be assumed that it represents a reasonably difficult subject that needs to be measured. To
make it less complex, the magnitude and intensity of safety and security should be indicated by simple
understandable and verifiable indicator e.g. by accidents. Furthermore, this indicator stretches
multiple indications and should be further disaggregated in less complex indicators such crash
casualties and crash costs. When required, these indicators may be further disaggregated into smaller,
easily and accurately measurable indicators. This description represents the analysis of factors and
related indicators and systematic integration (differentiation and disaggregation) process regarding to
their significance.
Differentiation means transforming indicator into different and more specific categories, while
disaggregation is process of sorting out of indicators from a whole into constituent parts. Depending
on the desired information, the combination of different indicators is possible. They can be assessed
one relative another e.g. transport demand growth may be measured relative to the GDP growth. An
indicator may be disaggregated in indicators of smaller size or it may be differentiated in specific
10
indicator groups by demographic and geographic factors (Litman, 2011b). Indicators may be
differentiated and disaggregated in more specialised indicators e.g. by type, by travel conditions, by
mode, by type of emissions, by user type, etc. (TRB, 2008).

Table 5: Sample of indicator disaggregation

Desired
Category Subcategory Indicator Disaggregation Rating1
development
Crash Crash deaths Mitigation or Mode, road type 9
Casualties and injuries elimination and cause of impact
Crashes Reported Mitigation Mode, road type 5
crashes and cause of impact
Crash costs Traffic crash Mitigation Mode, road type 7
Safety and economic costs and cause of impact
Security Congestion Time wasted Reduction Mode, location, 7
(Accidents) costs time
Inefficient fuel Reduction Mode, location, 6
consumption time
Vehicle Reduction Vehicle type, mode 3
operation costs

Source: Adapted from: Litman 2011a

Analysing the category of safety and security from the Table 5, the differentiation and disaggregation
of this indicator category produces four related indicator subcategories. New produced indicators from
desegregation process may be the number of deaths and injuries, police investigation reports and
economic costs of crashes. Congestion costs represent additional subcategory indicated by time
wasted, inefficient fuel consumption and vehicle operating costs. The cause of congestion in this case
is the accident and the information comes directly from safety and security category. Wasted time sub-
indicator is not suitable in the evaluation of the environmental impact of accident, while inefficient
fuel consumption has triple indication: economic, environmental and social. Rating of indicators
shown in the right side column of the Table 5 represents a recommended approach for assisting in
achieving more inclusive indicator assessment methodologies (the indicator rating approach is for the
same purposes as presented in the Table 2).
In conclusion the impacts of transport on five identified factors may be single, multiple, and multiple
and complex depending on the situation and the magnitude of interaction and interference between
factors. The efficient evaluation of multiple and complex impacts (e.g. impacts of congestion and
accidents) depend on the accuracy of indicator selection, organisation, and integration. The
measurement results are basis for setting correct transport planning objectives. The results accuracy
influences greatly the process of problem or opportunity identification. Finally the finding of
appropriate solutions to mitigate possible negative effects and to utilise the opportunities depend on
the measurement correctness.
The development method of indicators and indicator sets is not in the scope of this paper. The
indicator study subject is limited in the indicator selection principles which have been performed in
consistency with definitions and indicator integration methodology.
Particular efforts have been made to consolidate indicator indexes which should comprise a specified
number of indicators to provide with a single output value (Black, 2002). Such index may not be
comprehensive since the impacts are various and measurement units and different information are
difficult to be integrated. Consequently, the more information driven into a single index, the less
significance and sense it has for the policy objectives (TRB, 2008).

1
Proposed rating from 1- less important to 9 -very important. Similar rating purpose has been proposed in the Table 2
11
 Significance of transport impacts

Single impact Multiple Multiple and

impacts complex impacts

Single indicator Indicator sets Comprehensive

indicator system

Analysis Analysis of Comprehensive

interferences evaluation of
and interferences and
interactions interactions

Indicator Indicator set Indicator system

differentiation differentiation differentiation
(If required)

Indicator Indicator Single

measurement set indicator

Results assessment

Figure 4: The proposed integrated scheme for organising, differentiating and measuring indicators in
terms of transport impacts

5. Conclusions and recommendations

The rationale behind the assumptions made in this research work is coherent with following
conclusions:
 The division of indicators into unsustainable and sustainable represents a step towards logical
understanding of essential differences between the existing state of the transport and the
outline of envisioning transport. This will help to avoid eventual recurrences, needles multiple
12
 measurements and overlapping of indicators especially in the regions in transition e.g. in the
SEE region where transport planning require various implications.
 The discussions about sustainability are mostly focused on unsustainable transport factors and
indicators. Considerable research work is required to make such factors and indicators
sustainable, or to take actions to mitigate their negative (unsustainable) affects. This position
is uncertain considering that sustainable transport is required now and in the future.
 The reflective identification and definition of unsustainable indicators does not inevitably
mean that the course of sustainability is established. However, the perspective identification
and definition of sustainable transport indicators can be understood as a conceptual step
towards sustainable transport planning.
 Perceptive identification of problems, needs and opportunities belong to the political activity
scope, while the definition and practical governance of sustainable indicators belongs to the
technical operational area.
 The proposed division strategy of indicators creates better conditions to attain an accurate
image of sustainable transport planning and accentuates the efforts that should be made to
achieve it. It may be very useful methodology for decision makers and planners in countries
in transition such as in the case of Western Balkan.
A disadvantage of the indicator integration approach presented in this paper may be its excessively
descriptive latitude. However, considering that the sustainable indicator assessment approaches are in
the pioneering stage, the approach provided by this paper is aimed to serve as a control tool capable of
providing decision makers and planners with more perceptibility for managing and aligning
sustainable transport planning indicators.
The paper concludes that negative impacts of transport may be prevented, maximally mitigated or
possibly eliminated, while positive effects may be continuously maintained and improved. This
process requires proper indicator selection principles, indicator integration and accurate measurement.
It would be paradoxical to assume that a negative impact should be improved by any planning
approach.

Reference list

1. UN (1987). Development and International Economic Cooperation: Environment. Report of

the World Commission on Environment and Development. UN General Assembly A/43/427
Original Report

2. Rodrigue, J-P., Comtois, C., Slack, B. (2009). The Geography of Transport Systems.
Routledge, New York.

3. Litman T. (2011a). Well Measured Developing Indicators for Sustainable and Liveable
Transport Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute [online]. Available at:
[Link]

4. Litman, T. (2011g). Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable Transport

Planning [online]. Available at: [Link]

5. Gudmundsson, H. (2001). Indicators and Performance Measures for Transportation,

Environment and Sustainability in North America, National Environmental Research
Institute, Research Notes No. 148 Ministry of Environment and Energy, National
Environmental Research Institute, Denmark

6. TRB (2008). Sustainable Transportation Indicators Subcommittee of the Transportation

Research Board (ADD40 [1]). Paper 09-3403, 2009 Transportation Research Board Annual
Meeting [online]. Available at: [Link]
13
 7. Litman T. and Burwell, D. (2006). Issues in Sustainable Transportation, International Journal
of Global Environmental Issues, Vol.6, No. 4, pp. 331-347

8. TRB (2008). Sustainable Transportation Indicators Subcommittee of the Transportation

Research Board (ADD40 [1]). Paper 09-3403, 2009 Transportation Research Board Annual
Meeting [online]. Available at: [Link]

9. FHWA (2011). Transportation Planning and Sustainability Guidebook [online]. Available at:
[Link]
[Link]

10. OECD (2005). Measuring Sustainable Development. Statistics brief No 10. Statistics
Directorate of the OECD, Paris.

11. EEA (2011). Laying the foundations for greener transport. TERM 2011: indicators tracking
transport and environment in the European Union. European Environmental Agency,
Copenhagen

14

View publication stats