Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 91
91
extension of these methods to environmental justice methods as a substantial constraint in their efforts to con-
analyses employed at the systems, corridor, and project sider environmental factors in transportation planning.
levels of transportation planning and development. Where agencies have determined a need for new or differ-
ent tools, resources have usually been allocated to their
development. Examples include Caltrans, FDOT, and
TOOLS AND METHODS FOR CONSIDERING ODOT initiatives to develop GIS to catalogue their envi-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ronmental resources and analyze the effects of various plan
and project alternatives on these resources. Other notable
This chapter has examined tools and methods that can be examples are WSDOT's development of an environmental
used to consider environmental factors in systems planning. benefit-cost analysis tool, and the San Francisco Bay Area
Depending upon the type of environmental factor of concern, MTC's development of GIS capabilities for environmental
various tools are available that will enable transportation justice analysis. In this regard, the dissemination of practi-
agencies to consider the potential environmental implica- cal applications of emerging tools could be useful to
tions of transportation investments. As was shown in the agencies that have identified analytical needs and are iden-
Florida ETDM case, such tools can be quite sophisticated tifying options for developing or acquiring capabilities to
and comprehensive. But as shown in other case studies, sim- meet these needs.
pler tools are being used as well. Beyond agency needs, there also could be value in broadly
Such a range of capability was found in a recent survey of 11 disseminating useful applications of emerging methodolo-
strategic environmental assessments (SEAs) that covered the gies to showcase how tools and methods could be integrated
diverse topics of road, rail, waste management, electricity sup- into existing planning processes. For example, the use of
ply, gas development, underground infrastructure, an ecological integrated models, especially land usetransportation mod-
district, and a political program (96). In addition, various coun- els, could find a role in agencies that have begun to see a need
tries were represented in the survey, including Germany, the for promoting land-use decisions that also provide efficient
United Kingdom, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and China. transportation but that have not yet articulated analysis needs
Table 14 shows various methods used for such assessments. to support this effort.
As indicated by the survey undertaken for this project, Another possible example is the dissemination of GIS
very few agencies considered inadequate analysis tools and applications for inventorying and conducting systems-level
TABLE 14 Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) methods
Phase/Category Method
Checklists
Case comparison
Literature survey
Screening, scoping, definition of objectives
Model mapping
Consultation of experts
Formal procedures
Impacts prediction
· Screening
· Scenario development
· Computer modeling
· Geographic information systems
Impact analysis · Project EIA as case study
Use of baseline data
Uncontroversial aggregation
· Index methods
· Monetary methods
· Natural methods
Presentation of information
· Textual descriptions
Information analysis · Impact matrices
· Consistency analysis
Further aggregation
Scenarios
Sensitivity analysis
Showing points of view
Dealing with uncertainty
Decision analysis
Geographic methods
Postponing decisions
Source: National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2003 (95 ).
OCR for page 92
92
environmental assessments. A major prerequisite for moving Tools and methods do not always have to result in quantita-
environmental considerations early into the planning process tive output. For example, Table 15 offers different, noncom-
is knowing where sensitive environmental resource areas are puterized approaches to providing important information in the
located. GIS platforms are ideally suited to providing this early stages of the planning and decision-making processes.
type of information. It is not surprising that those states that Given the range in tools and methods that can be used in
have progressed the furthest in systems-level environmental environmental analysis, a regular synthesis on such methods
assessment have been those that made early investment in and tools, as well as their practical applications, would be very
GIS technologies. However, as also was seen in some of helpful in ensuring that transportation agencies have the best
these cases, such as in Florida and Wisconsin, determining capability for addressing different environmental issues.
possible impacts at such broad scales of application often Forums for sharing DOT and MPO experiences with the use of
relies on subjective expertise. various methods and tools would also be useful in this regard.
TABLE 15 Tools for identifying environmental values
Category Tool Use Strengths Weaknesses
Economic Assigns economic cost to Estimates costs directly Some resources
Measures Restoration/ environmental damages related to damaged resource irreplaceable; ignores loss of
replacement costs use before replacement
Assigns economic value to Works well when distance to Trips often have multiple
Travel costs resource based on visitation site is key for estimating objectives; confuses payment
benefits with value
Ecological Relates ecosystem quality Provides useful summary Hard to link cause and effect
Relationships Health to the performance of key measures to gauge impacts in ecological relationships;
indicators of changes over time choice of indicators may be
controversial
Focuses on synergistic and Recognizes systemwide Definitions can vary greatly
Integrity system relationships characteristics of complex across experts; human
ecosystems versus nonhuman factors
problematic
Assesses the long-term Captures threats to future Difficult to measure;
Resilience viability of a resource environmental quality based translation into comparable
on past events and policy terms can be
ecosystem response controversial
Relates fundamental Tracks key threats to future Relation of productivity to
Carrying capacity qualities of ecosystem value resource use and availability value may be contested;
to productivity choice of impact baseline
difficult
Expressed Gathers information about Viewed as egalitarian and Subject to strategic and
Preference Attitudinal and opinion ecological understanding democratic; can be closely motivational biases; may
Surveys surveys and support for policies targeted to issues or market encourage superficial
responses
Constructed Elicits values used in Attempts to reflect actual Responses may be difficult to
preferences making decisions about decision processes and the integrate into cost/benefit
environmental choices key tradeoffs of stakeholders framework
Assesses affective and Incorporates perceptions Stimulus-response
psychological reactions to and beliefs associated with a characteristics tough to
Image scenarios or events proposed action anticipate; high geographic
variability in responses
Elicits concerns of Can yield compelling stories; Subject to bias via small-
Narrative and effect stakeholders through methods grounded in familiar sample selection; coding of
dialogue and conversation feelings and emotions responses problematic
Asks individuals to vote for Provides familiar method for Knowledge level of
Referenda or against a specific gauging opinions of diverse participants can vary widely;
proposed action stakeholders responses sensitive to
framing of questions
Small-group Elicits responses to Inexpensive; directly targets Sessions can be dominated
Input proposed action through question of concern; uses by one point of view; values
Focus groups informal small group insights from diverse remain implicit; and conflicts
discussions populations difficult to address
Develops broad perspective Allows for open discussion; Objectives and powers of
on an issue; involves can increase trust in agency committee may be unclear;
Advisory committees interested and and empower local citizens diversity of viewpoints easily
knowledgeable suppressed
representatives
Source: Adapted from DHV Environmental and Infrastructure BV, undated (96).
