What Policies Contribute to Active Transport Participation? a Comparative Policy Analysis of Christchurch and Copenhagen
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Lincoln University Digital Dissertation Copyright Statement The digital copy of this dissertation is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). This dissertation may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use: you will use the copy only for the purposes of research or private study you will recognise the author's right to be identified as the author of the dissertation and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate you will obtain the author's permission before publishing any material from the dissertation. What Policies Contribute to Active Transport Participation? A Comparative Policy Analysis of Christchurch and Copenhagen A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Environmental Policy at Lincoln University by Michelle Ruske Lincoln University 2014 Abstract of a Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Environmental Policy. Abstract What Policies Contribute to Active Transport Participation? A Comparative Policy Analysis of Christchurch and Copenhagen by Michelle Ruske Abstract Increasing active transport participation in urban environments has a large body of academic support. Reasoning behind the push towards a cleaner, healthier, and more efficient mode of transportation is found in a range of disciplines including health science, in climate change and sustainability discussions, in economics, and in social science investigations into what creates a ‘happy’ urban environment. Active transport refers to modes of transportation in which the traveller is ‘active’; including both walking and cycling. This dissertation looks at what variables contribute to active transport, and identifies policy measures that low active transport cities should consider for future research. Using Christchurch, New Zealand and Copenhagen, Denmark as case studies (one low and one high active transportation city), the policies in each city are examined systematically using an outcomes based policy approach. The research identifies what variables can be changed by policy and further still which are changed by local policy. Policy and planning documents from the last decade are examined and compared for both cities. A separate analysis of the city contexts is included. This provides a holistic and integrated approach which considers all variables with potential to influence active transport participation. The research culminates in a list of policy recommendations that low active transport cities, like Christchurch, should consider to increase active transport participation. These include decreasing car parking spaces, increasing separated cycle paths, reconfiguring traffic intersections to give active transport modes priority, and increasing funding for active transport. Keywords: active transport, environmental policy, urban planning, comparative policy analysis, Christchurch, New Zealand, Copenhagen, Denmark, variables, context, cycling, walking, local policy, transport planning ii Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge my friends and family for their support and guidance in helping me throughout my studies and towards this dissertation. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Shannon Page, for his excellent guidance and enthusiasm for my research and for providing an ‘open door’ policy. I would also like to thank Ann Brower for her support throughout my five years at Lincoln University; and in assisting with the structure and methods used in this dissertation. Both Shannon and Ann helped ensure I did not lose doubt in myself amongst the challenges that one encounters researching. I extend my thanks to Lincoln University as a whole and the NRE department who always made me feel welcome. Special thanks to Tom Williams, fellow master’s student also researching in the active transport space. Your assistance with bouncing ideas around and helping with GIS images was most appreciated. I also thank the 2014 Master of Environmental Policy students – particularly Ben and Florian who helped me ‘refresh’ with lunch breaks. Thank you to my dear friends Amy, Emma, Monique, Alan, and Alice who ensured I had a balanced life throughout my post-graduate studies and never hesitated to message me with lovely words of support. Thanks also to my lovely work girls at The Fitting Room who are always so caring and encouraging. I would like to thank Michael Ferigo at Christchurch City Council, Kate MacKenzie, and Jack Jiang for their external support with this research. I also thank Statistics New Zealand, New Zealand Transport Agency and Copenhagen Bike Share for their assistance in answering my questions and queries. Lastly I would like to thank my parents for their support in my education over the years – whether this was in teaching me the value of hard work, buying computer ink, cooking hearty meals, listening to research presentations or watching me as I graduate. Thank you. iii Contents Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... iii Contents ..................................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. vii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ viii Chapter 1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................10 1.1 Climate Change Motivation ................................................................................................... 11 1.2 Broader Sustainability Motivation ......................................................................................... 11 1.3 Economic Benefits .................................................................................................................. 11 1.4 Health Benefits ....................................................................................................................... 12 1.5 Air Pollution Reduction .......................................................................................................... 13 1.6 Christchurch ........................................................................................................................... 13 1.6.1 Citizen Support for Active Transport..........................................................................13 1.6.2 Potential for Christchurch to Move to Active Transport ...........................................14 1.7 Copenhagen ........................................................................................................................... 15 1.8 The Issue at Hand ................................................................................................................... 15 Chapter 2 Literature Review....................................................................................................17 2.1 Factors Influencing Environmental Bahaviour ....................................................................... 17 2.1.1 Kollmus and Agyeman ................................................................................................17 2.1.2 Factors Influencing Cycling .........................................................................................18 2.2 Infrastructure and Policy Measures ....................................................................................... 19 2.2.1 The Urban Form .........................................................................................................19 2.2.2 Safety .........................................................................................................................22 2.2.3 Mutually Reinforcing Policies .....................................................................................24 2.3 Comparative Analysis of Transport Policy ............................................................................. 25 2.3.1 A Sydney and Melbourne Comparison ......................................................................25 2.3.2 A Comparison of Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands ......................................26 2.3.3 Megacities in India .....................................................................................................27 2.3.4 New Zealand Regional Differences ............................................................................28 2.3.5 Comparing Key Demographic Measures ....................................................................28 2.4 Comparative Policy Analysis .................................................................................................. 29 2.4.1 Introduction to Comparative Policy Analysis .............................................................29 2.4.2 Importance of Context to Comparative Policy Analysis .............................................29 2.4.3 Modern Comparative Environmental Politics ............................................................30 2.4.4 No Systematic Approach to Comparative Environmental Politics .............................31 2.4.5 Summary ....................................................................................................................31