The assessment of traffic livability, including local effects at home, during trips and at the destination, based on the individual activity pattern and trip behaviour

The environmental quality of the living environment is mainly linked to the direct and indirect impact of traffic in the neighborhood of the dwellings. In the Flemish mobility and urban planning, the term ‘livability’ is used focusing on the living conditions of people’s home location: what is the satisfaction about their living environment? The more specific term ‘traffic livability’ is used to describe the impact of all types of traffic on the livability of a dwelling location. Some methodologies were developed for an objective measurement of the traffic impact on quality of life. In Flanders the most commonly used methodologies are the ‘traffic livability index’ and the ‘bearing capacity’, which use a very narrow interpretation of the traffic livability, as they are highly based on the local road design (number of lanes, cycle path, …) and the local traffic characteristics (traffic flow, speed, traffic safety, …) of the street of the dwelling. The main critic is that these methods should measure over the complete living environment of a person, rather than just at the dwelling. For this reason, an alternative methodology was developed for an objective measurement of the impact of traffic on the local quality of the living environment. Compared to the current practice, this new methodology aims at the following objectives: • The evaluation is not done for the average person, but includes individual needs and travel patterns, based on personal characteristics, representing the large diversity of the mobility needs. • The methodology should reflect a daily activity pattern, including the traveled routes and destinations. The traffic livability of a specific household in a specific area will reflect the full extent of their needs at home, during the trips and at the destinations. • Traffic livability is measured by means of a broad set of indicators, representing different types of traffic impacts (accessibility, traffic noise, traffic emissions, …). The separate indicators are combined into an evaluation of the traffic livability, including an extensive set of secondary effects. This is mainly realized by a better simulation of the personal trip behavior, using the data from the Flemish Trip Behavior Survey. In order to evaluate the livability at a certain home location (a number of) households are sampled from this database, with the specific characteristics of the household (composition, car availability, children, …), the people in the household (age, employment, …) and their activities and trip pattern. With this information, the different indicators for traffic livability can be evaluated on the home location, as well as during the trip and at the destination

A Quantitative Assessment of Livability Principles for Neighborhood-Level Analysis

The Partnership for Sustainable Communities, which includes the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), Housing Urban Development (HUD), an the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has established six principles of livability. The principles are defined in a qualitative way, and limited research exits to establish a quantitative measurement of livability goals. This research develops a quantitative metric to assess the six livability principles and applies the metric to measure the livability of Memphis, Tennessee neighborhoods. The results are compared to existing residential survey data for the Memphis area to determine how well the defined livability principles align with residential stakeholder perceptions of livability. This research indicates that there is an apparent discrepancy between the established livability principles and the value of cojmmunity residents related to livability

Measuring the Performance of Livability Programs, MTI Report 12-06

This report analyzes the performance measurement processes adopted by five large “livability” programs throughout the United States. It compares and contrasts these programs by examining existing research in performance measurement methods. The “best practices” of the examined performance measurement methods for each program are explored and analyzed with respect to their key characteristics. The report entails an appropriately comprehensive literature review of the current research on performance measurement methods from the perspective of various stakeholders including the public and government agencies. Additionally, the results of this literature review are used to examine the actual performance measures of the target programs from the perspective of different stakeholders. The goal of the report is to determine what did and did not work in these programs and their measurement methods, while making recommendations based on the results of the analysis for potential future programs

Building Age-Friendly Community: Notes from the Field

Building age-friendly communities is a global as well as a national concern. The purpose of this paper is to explore fundamental tensions underlying the formulation of age-friendly goals and their implementation, based on a review of age-friendly projects and reflections on the journey towards age friendliness in one state (Rhode Island). The authors conducted a comprehensive investigation of the relevant literature on previous age-friendly initiatives, which included case studies of individual projects, meta-analyses of age-friendly work, and educational toolkits for promoting age-friendly community. They also collected original data from ten focus groups with older adults, interviews with key informant service providers, surveys of older adults and observational environmental audits. Through this multi-faceted approach, they identified recurrent questions often not overtly addressed in building livable communities, despite their being central to decisions made in age-friendly projects. This paper focuses on six questions: Age friendliness for whom? Older adults viewed as a burden or a benefit? Age friendliness by or for older adults? Is age friendliness affordable? Should the target be the aged overall or the needy aged in particular? Should interventions aim to change people or places? The Aging in Community Report, (prepared by the authors and submitted to Rhode Island’s General Assembly), reflected decisions made—albeit sometimes inadvertently—in response to these questions. It showed that priority was given to age friendliness over livability, assistance to vulnerable, older adults was given precedence over helping the entire older population, and top-down interventions were emphasized more than grass-roots endeavors. Its recommendations were geared to leveraging or modestly increasing existing resources to better serve older adults and enhancing opportunities for older adults to contribute to their community. Following the release of the report, the focus shifted from modifications of the environment to facilitating changes in individual behavior to optimize person-environment fit

The Value of the Nonprofit Environment Field in Illinois: A Social Return on Investment Analysis with Donors Forum

This Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis compares the public and private investment into the Illinois nonprofit environment field to the social, environmental, and economic value it creates for people who live in Illinois and for society as a whole. What does this investment in Illinois's environment yield?Every dollar invested into the Illinois nonprofit environment field generates an estimated $58 in socio-environmental-economic value.$45 of this socio-environmental-economic value accrues to the people of Illinois.$13 of this socio-environmental-economic value accrues to society through increased tax revenue, increased spending in the state due to environment sector jobs, and avoided spending to treat costly environmental problems.The real utility of an SROI lies in its ability to reveal if and how our investments into programs pay off. And on that, this SROI of the nonprofit environment field in Illinois is clear: investing in the environment yields dividends

Energy Solutions for a Livable Community

A briefing co-sponsored by the House Livable Communities Task Force, the House Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, and Smart Growth America examined how improved land use and building design could protect our nation's energy supplies and enhance community livability