What opportunities from implementing sustainable mobility solutions do governments have to reach a wider set of impacts, beyond just environmental improvement?
Research Premise
If there’s one good thing that’s come out of the coronavirus pandemic, it’s the resurgence of the bicycle to get around as a safe mode of travel. To accommodate the new swell of cyclists, cities have built new infrastructure to keep riders safe, it sets up a framework to ensure that cycling is an everyday choice for mobility into the future.
Empirical evidence shows that air quality by itself is not the main driver of change in cities such as Copenhagen, or Amsterdam, where achievements related to Climate change targeted goals surpass by far other cities around the world.
A team of two researchers, Jorge Diaz, Ph.D., and Sashenka Tapia, will focus on these and other aspects of the cost-effectiveness analysis, during a 6-month research project. The initiative is being considered under a call funded by the Development Bank of Latin America (CAF), it will begin in March 2022 and is expected to present the research in Q3, 2022.
Key takeaways:
- Climate change is not just a matter of air quality or environmental care, but also an opportunity to optimize the way we use our time, to have a healthier lifestyle, and for better social interaction, amongst other impacts.
- Cost-effective analysis should be built not only from a technical and solely quantitative perspective but furthermore from a political, social, cultural, economic, and qualitative contextualized analysis.
- Planning in advance pays off much higher than reactive measures, so providing comprehensive policies, programs, plans, and projects will enable better opportunities to reach targeted goals related to Climate change and Social welfare.
- We will consider an ex-post approach evaluation, which is intended to measure the impact and thus learn from the experience and be used to design other projects that pursue similar goals.
- We will consider two key core interventions implemented at the three-case study cities; Bike and BRT infrastructure.
- Currently, transport represents about 1/5 of the world’s energy demand and 1/4 of the CO2 emissions related to energy.
Background
In response to COVID-19, government fiscal investment in climate change mitigation and adaptation can bolster long-term prosperity by creating jobs and accelerating economic growth while also meeting environmental, gender, and social objectives.
Countries that fail to capitalize on this opportunity for low-carbon and climate-resilient economic transformation risk their economic prosperity, environmental sustainability, and long-term social cohesion.
Some considerations that we may prioritize are as following described:
-
-
- Short-term rescue spending, to keep businesses and people alive
- Green incentives in business liquidity support and other short-term support
mechanisms (e.g., subsidies to public transport services, loan guarantees, etc.) - Longer-term recovery investment, to reinvigorate the economy
- Public transport modernization, non-motorized modes, clean energy infrastructure investments, energy efficiency upgrades, natural capital investments, and clean research and development programmes.
- Reinforcement processes, to embed new economic trajectories from recovery investment into long-term development plans.
- Green public financial management frameworks:
1. Creating Partnerships
2. Accelerating the transition
3. Building Resilience
-
Methodological Approach
To answer the main question and related ones, we will develop a comparative ex-post evaluation case-study scenario, that will provide evidence from three cities in Latin America (Mexico, Bogota, and Lima).
The topic of sustainable mobility will exemplify the opportunities that specially governments may have to reach a wider set of impacts, beyond just environmental improvement.
Data Collection, Analysis, and Synthesis
First of all, we have to be aware of the development stage in each city in relation to assessment variables, outcomes, and achievements at the local level.
Governments often seek results not being aware of underlying issues that need to be tackled before the implementation stage.
The Development stage could be understood as a three-phase process of change:
- First stage, embraces; Raising Public Awareness, Stakeholders Engagement, and Partnerships & Agreements.
- Second stage includes; Capacity Building, Pilot-Testing, Monitoring & Evaluation & Learning. The main difference between the first and second phase is that in the latter we go through the implementation of projects.
- Third stage is oriented towards; Organizational Change Management (public & private institutions) and Advocacy and Political Leadership.
To reach long-lasting, and therefore sustainability across; Policies, Programs, Plans, and Projects we must induce local ownership and empowerment of key stakeholders that will advocate for change regardless of political interests or government terms.
[1] The research project is in a mid-stage development
[2] https://www.transformative-mobility.org/news/safe-cycling-as-driver-for-sustainable-mobility-with-james-theom
[3] The emergence of the “Cycling City Model” results to some extent from the experience accumulated in Copenhagen since the 1970s. Yet it only developed into a full-fledged model when cycling was singled out as a major driver of change in the city’s climate change agenda and place-making strategy.