Andrew Devlin presents the results of some intense research he and his colleagues have recently completed at UBC: Towards a Less Carbon Intensive Built Environment: Evidence and Ideas for South of the Fraser. It looks at the direct relationship between land use and GHG emissions.

1. Towards a Less Carbon Intensive Built Environment
Evidence from and Opportunities for South of the Fraser
South Fraser OnTrax
Langley BC
9 June 2010
Andrew Devlin, BES (Pl.), MA | UBC Bombardier Active Transportation Collaboratory

2. Outline
• Problem
• Challenge
• Approach
• Trends
• Findings
• Opportunities
& Barriers
2

3. Problem

4. A changing climate
Source: BC Climate Action Plan
4

5. A myriad of potential impacts
Source: Wordle.net
5

6. Challenge

7. Emissions by sector
Source: BC Climate Action Plan
7

8. A focus on transportation
Source: BC Climate Action Plan
8

9. Limits of the “techno-fix”
Projected growth in
CO2 emissions from
cars and light duty
trucks (assuming
stringent nationwide
vehicle - 45 mpg -
and fuel standards -
15% less carbon
intensity).
Source: Center for Clean Air Policy
9

10. A role for the built environment?
Source: Frank et al., 2007 Source: Grazi et al., 2008
Seattle, WA The Netherlands
10

11. Approach

12. What was done
• Two studies 1) travel behaviour and 2) travel emissions, and associations with the
built environment.
• Focus on how nearby land use characteristics where people live influence home-
based work activities and non-work activities and associated emissions.
• Utilized individual, self-reported travel data from 1999 GVRD Travel Diary Survey.
• Travel survey included location (postal code) of where individuals live, work, go to
school, where they traveled, and how they got there. Socioeconomic and
demographic attributes also self-reported.
• Matched residential location of individual’s to corresponding postal code in Metro
Vancouver Walkability Index database to assess associations of nearby urban form
and accessibility attributes on travel and emissions.
12

13. Measuring walkability
Walkability
= Net residential density
+ Commercial density
+ Street connectivity
+ Land use mix (entropy)
Measured for each postal
code (1-km network buffer)
across Metro Vancouver
Source: Frank et al., 2005
13

14. Trends

15. Neighbourhood walkability
Source: van Loon and Frank 2008
15

16. Neighbourhood walkability
Source: van Loon and Frank 2008
16

17. Distance to work
Source: Devlin 2010
17

18. Distance to nearest centre
Source: Devlin 2010
18

19. Mean daily distance traveled
South of Fraser North of Fraser Metro Vancouver
Source: Devlin 2010
19

20. Share of distance traveled by mode
South of Fraser North of Fraser Metro Vancouver
Vehicles
Transit
Active
Transport
Source: Devlin 2010
20

21. Share of daily trips by mode
South of Fraser North of Fraser Metro Vancouver
Vehicles
Transit
Active
Transport
Source: Devlin and Frank 2009
21

22. Use of alternative modes
South of Fraser North of Fraser Metro Vancouver
Transit
Active
Transport
Source: Devlin 2010
22

23. Total daily travel emissions *
South of Fraser
North of Fraser
Trend reflective of
population distribution
across Metro
Vancouver at time of
data collection (1999)
* From sample population only, n = 2,690 persons, 1999 TransLink Trip Diary Survey
Source: Devlin 2010
23

24. Daily per-capita travel emissions
South of Fraser North of Fraser Metro Vancouver
Source: Devlin 2010
24

25. Daily travel emissions by activity type
South of Fraser North of Fraser Metro Vancouver
Work
Non-Work
Source: Devlin 2010
25

26. Findings

27. Walking and neighbourhood urban form
Built environment characteristics explaining walking in adults
Non-
Any walk Work/school
work/school
trip walk trip
walk trip
Higher residential density +++ +++ +++
Higher street connectivity +++ +++ +++
Higher commercial density +++ +++ +++
Higher mix of land uses ++ + ++
More nearby parks and open spaces +++ + +++
Higher overall neighbourhood walkability +++ ++ +++
NS = not significant, '+' = 95% significant; '++' = 99% significant, '+++' = 99.9% significant
Source: Devlin and Frank 2009
27

28. Transit and neighbourhood urban form
Built environment characteristics explaining transit use in adults
Non-
Any transit Work/school
work/school
trip transit trip
transit trip
Higher residential density ++ + +
Higher street connectivity ++ + ++
Higher commercial density +++ NS +
Higher mix of land uses ++ ++ NS
More nearby parks and open spaces NS NS NS
Higher overall neighbourhood walkability ++ ++ ++
NS = not significant, '+' = 95% significant; '++' = 99% significant, '+++' = 99.9% significant
Source: Devlin and Frank 2009
28

29. Vehicles and neighbourhood urban form
Built environment characteristics explaining vehicle use in adults
Non-
Any vehicle Work/school
work/school
trip vehicle trip
vehicle trip
Lower residential density +++ ++ +++
Lower street connectivity +++ +++ +++
Lower commercial density +++ +++ +++
Lower mix of land uses +++ +++ +
Few nearby parks and open spaces +++ NS +++
Lower overall neighbourhood walkability +++ +++ +++
NS = not significant, '+' = 95% significant; '++' = 99% significant, '+++' = 99.9% significant
Source: Devlin and Frank 2009
29

30. Travel behaviour and urban form
• Adults living in the most walkable neighbourhoods are over 4 times
more likely to report they walked for any home-based trip
compared to those living in the least walkable neighbourhoods
• Adults living in neighbourhoods with a higher quantity of accessible
park and open space are around 3 times more likely to report they
walked compared to adults who live in neighbourhoods with very
little park and open space.
• Adults in the most walkable neighbourhoods drive 57% less than
those in the least walkable areas.
30

31. Vehicle emissions and urban form
Dependent Variables Emissions related to
Independent Variables ACTIVITY LOCATION OF VEHICLE KM VEHICLE home-based non-
PATTERNS STOPS TRAVELED EMISSIONS
AGE
work travel and
FEMALE -0.092 0.014 0.013 activities
PERSONS<18 0.116 0.077 0.041 0.057
VEHICLE ACCESS 0.254 0.243 • Effect of vehicle access is
HH INCOME 0.048 0.046
positive and is 93%
greater than
NEIGHBRHD WALK 0.004 0.122 -0.141 -0.126
neighbourhood walkability.
DIST TO CENTRE (SQRT) -0.002 -0.067 0.074 0.072
TRANSIT AVLBLTY (SQRT) 0.003 0.083 -0.069 -0.097 • Effect of neighbourhood
% TOURS SIMPLE (SQRT) -0.151 -0.144 walkability is negative and
% STOPS NEAR HOME 0.036 -0.191 -0.192 75% greater than regional
(SQRT) connectivity.
VKT (SQRT) 0.955
R2 0.021 0.049 0.252 0.912
NOTE: Standardized regression coefficients. Estimates interpreted as ‘magnitude of effect’. All coefficients significant at the 95% confidence
interval. n = 1,370.
Source: Devlin 2010
31

32. Vehicle emissions and urban form
Dependent Variables Emissions related to
Indenpendent Variables ACTIVITY VEHICLE KM VEHICLE home-based work
PATTERNS TRAVELED EMISSIONS
travel and activities
AGE -0.059 0.065 0.042
FEMALE -0.072 -0.022
• Effect of distance to work
PERSONS<18 is positive and and over
VEHICLE ACCESS 0.067 0.303 0.298 400% greater than
HH INCOME 0.064 0.063 neighbourhood walkability.
NEIGHBRHD WALK -0.099 -0.097
• Effect of vehicle access is
DIST TO WRK/SCHL (SQRT) 0.509 0.500 positive and 200% greater
TRANSIT AVLBLTY (SQRT) than neighbourhood
TOUR CMPLXTY (LGn) 0.193 0.190 walkability.
VKT (SQRT) 0.983
R2 0.007 0.570 0.996
NOTE: Standardized regression coefficients. Estimates interpreted as ‘magnitude of effect’. All coefficients significant at the 95% confidence
interval. n = 1,713.
Source: Devlin 2010
32

33. Summary
• The culprit is the commute: 61% of travel emissions South of the Fraser are
generated from travel to and from work.
• Vehicle of choice: Residents South of the Fraser use a vehicle to travel more than
anyone else in Metro Vancouver. Increased vehicle access is positively associated
with vehicle use and related emissions.
• Location, location, location: The further we live from our places of work (regional
accessibility), the more inclined we are to drive, which leads to increased emission
levels.
• Our backyard: More walkable local neighbourhood urban form characteristics are
positively associated with active transportation levels and negatively associated with
greenhouse gas emissions related to home-based other travel (e.g. non-work).
33

34. Opportunities &
Barriers

35. A balanced approach
• Policies balancing “carrots” (e.g. strong land use regulation, accessible and
affordable transit alternatives) and “sticks” (e.g. vehicle, parking, road pricing)
required.
• Limiting outward growth (e.g. “distance-based” development review; firm growth
boundaries)
• A focus on increasing regional accessibility, supported by compact, walkable
and transit-oriented urban form should be a priority (e.g. the Interurban and
other regional transit investment for South of the Fraser).
• Reinvest in useable parks and recreational spaces that can double as
connectivity pathways
35

36. Avoiding the “cookie-cutter”
Auto-oriented suburbs like Cloverdale in Surrey:
• Encourage redevelopment of shopping malls and big box retail into more mixed-use
nodes.
• Reduce superfluous parking through appropriate design guidelines.
• Support location efficient development around public transit through taxation and
financing mechanisms.
• Consider rezoning select single-family housing areas to allow modest infill (e.g.
basement suites, coach houses, duplexes, triplexes) that may aid to increase
densities.
36

37. Avoiding the “cookie-cutter”
Rural neighbourhoods like Brookswood in Langley:
• Channel development and public services into accessible, mixed-use settlements
rather than dispersed, poorly connected patterns.
• Increase transportation options through community trail development for local
trips and bike/transit integration for longer, regional travel.
• Explore opportunities for para-transit and other flexible transportation
programming.
37

38. Barriers to VKT reduction
• Densities continue to decrease (beyond urban core);
• Vehicle ownership/access increasing (through 2006);
• Perceived vs. objective perspectives of time;
• Scattered employment trends;
• Socio-cultural connections to private vehicle; and
• Built environment slow to transform.
38

39. Contact Acknowledgments
Andrew Devlin, BES (Pl.), MA Dr. Larry Frank, UBC
Researcher Josh van Loon, UBC
UBC Active Transportation Collaboratory TransLink
ajdevlin@interchange.ubc.ca Metro Vancouver
http://www.act-trans.ubc.ca/ BC Recreation & Parks
Canadian Institute of Planners
SSHRC