Striking a balance between livability and accessibility
In their environment vision plans, municipal governments often express the ambition to create livable cities. At the same time, they face the challenge of keeping cities accessible. But these two ambitions sometimes appear mutually exclusive. Can a livable city also be accessible in today’s world?
How easily livability and accessibility can be harmonized, depends of course on how you define livability and accessibility.
The role of data
For a good decision to be made, it is indispensable to have good data, says Henk den Breejen of Technolution. “We already have a lot of data with regard to accessibility, such as travel times from home to shops, home to hospital or other facilities. We also know a lot about the travel times of visitors to cities. But much of these data are about cars. We do have data about pedestrians in pedestrian flow analyses, but these are normally used for modeling. And there is very little data on bike travel; that’s really a dimension that has been overlooked. Yet, we would like to have this data to determine whether the bike is a good alternative for the car. This is currently often determined on the basis of feeling.” Livability is more difficult to express in data, says Den Breejen. “You could think of such things as pollution or carbon emissions, but a sense of safety, for instance, is difficult to measure. The only way to do that currently is through surveys.”
Innovation: DRO and digital management of livable cities
Technolution is involved in developing DRO (“Digitale Regie op de Openbare Ruimte” or Digital Management of the Public Space). This is an innovation program that is developing digital, data-driven solutions to keep cities and regions livable, accessible, and sustainable. The program focuses on improving the management and use of the public space, particularly with regard to mobility and urbanization.
DRO is part of the DMI ecosystem. “We’re developing DRO together with the Cities of Amsterdam and Almere and with Groningen Bereikbaar, AMS Institute, Goudappel, and Vianova,” Den Breejen explains. “We began by asking ourselves what livability is. Then we drew up KPI for this. These KPIs are still a bit general, but each municipality will have to decide for itself which KPIs have priority in their city.” The KPIs are generally inspired by the principles of Broad Prosperity.
Decision-making dilemmas and inclusiveness
Even then things can still be complicated, says Den Breejen. “Imagine that you have a supermarket at 5 minutes’ walk. You might think this is good, but what if this is an expensive store and the nearest cheap supermarket is half an hour’s drive away. You would then still be excluding people.”
Creating an inclusive living environment is one of the great challenges that Thomas Otterman, consultant/project leader at Haskoning (previously Royal HaskoningDHV, ed.) predicts for the coming years. “One of the government’s main tasks is to ensure that a variety of interests are all taken into account, even if the groups in question represent only a small section of society. For example, small entrepreneurs or people with a physical disability. This is why municipal governments should be willing to take decisions that go against the flow if necessary, of course on the basis of arguments. The challenge is to find support in society for decisions that adequately protect the interests of small groups. It requires resolve on the part of the decision-makers, and good communication to explain decisions.” Otterman says that Haskoning distinguishes various pillars of livability:
- A healthy living environment where odor and noise pollution and harmful emissions are reduced to a minimum.
- A welcoming environment where citizens feel at ease and where they like to meet others.
- Rapid access to facilities.
- A safe environment that is also experienced as safe by citizens.
- A living environment that is adapted to the characteristics of the seasons, such as heat and excess water.
Differences in experience per target group
Accessibility is part of livability too, says Otterman. “There has to be an equilibrium between the various aspects of livability, and we see that this equilibrium is currently out of kilter. It depends on the target group, the area, and on individual preference which of these pillars people prioritize most. Important aspects that determine preference are age group and family situation, living situation, physical health, income, and political views.”
Otterman says there are traditional differences of opinion on what livability is, but he thinks change is underway. “We see that entrepreneurs are keen on rapid access to facilities, because they feel this contributes to higher turnover. Residents, by contrast, want a quiet living environment, and the most important thing for visitors is the experience of the environment. But even within these target groups we are seeing increasing variation. For instance, a certain group of entrepreneurs, say from the hospitality sector, attach greater value to the experience of the city, even if this means accessibility by car is affected. At the same time, another group of entrepreneurs, for example shopkeepers catering to day-to-day needs, regard access to the front door by car as the most important aspect.” Otterman gives an example: “Suppose entrepreneurs and visitors want a greener shopping street with more space for terraces. But a small group of entrepreneurs is afraid that this will affect accessibility by car and therefore their turnover. How are you going to square that circle?”
This is a particular problem in busy city centers, Ottoman observes, as there just isn’t the space to accommodate all the pillars of livability. “And so municipal governments make choices and redistribute the available space. Cars have to yield to accommodate new functions. Some users are excited about this because new functions add value to the area, but it also leads to resistance because people have the feeling that their accessibility is being restricted.” Den Breejen thinks smart access can be a solution to improve (or retain) neighborhood livability. “You could organize it in such a way, for example, that caregivers are allowed to enter a neighborhood even if others are not. At the moment this is done on the basis of registration number, but a registration number says little about who is actually in the car at any given moment. Of course, it is important to be conscious of privacy and the legal possibility has to be there, but I think this should be possible within four years. It has been included in the DRO program.”
Shared mobility as a structural link in the chain
Shared mobility is often mentioned as a means to reduce pressure on the public space, thus helping to realize a livable and accessible city. Tim van Schaik, parking and mobility consultant at Empaction, says: “Large-scale use of shared mobility can certainly contribute to a more livable and healthier city and yet guarantee good accessibility. In many of our projects we use shared mobility to solve the mobility requirement, particularly in new developments in the existing city. The housing shortage means that a lot of new homes have to be built, and this requires a lot of space for mobility, for example for parking and wider roads.”
The use of shared scooters and bikes has not been a resounding success everywhere. Shared mobility is not yet a structural part of our mobility. It is an example of a change that has not been received with great enthusiasm by all. But Van Schaik remains optimistic. “Shared mobility is being embraced by an increasing section of the population and this trend is going to continue. The success of shared mobility, such as shared scooters and bikes, depends on various factors. Often success is measured on the basis of commercial profit, but we think other effects should be included too, such as decreasing car ownership and stimulating chained trips.
Another important gauge for success is a sense of ownership. If residents share the same vehicles and are dependent on these, they are likely to take better care of the vehicles and to hold others to proper use. This will help make shared mobility a success. In addition, it is important to share positive stories about shared mobility. Although shared mobility is still a growing market, there are many examples to demonstrate that it can make a valuable contribution to the urban mobility network, for example as an extension of public transport.”
Area-based approach and support
Van Schaik thinks that the way the public space is organized can make an important contribution to the use of shared mobility. “Our proposal is to organize cities as 15-minute cities. This means that facilities such as shops, care facilities, and schools should be reachable within 15 minutes, preferably on foot, by bike, or by public transport. In addition, it is important to stimulate working from home. If people work from home more often, they don’t need a car as often for their daily trips. This means a shared car could suffice for the moments they really do need one. These spatial interventions reduce dependency on owning a car and make shared mobility an attractive and practical option for all.”
Like Van Schaik, Otterman thinks pressure on the public space is only likely to increase in the years ahead. He believes a number of big challenges will arise: “For example, the problem of finding public support for measures. Residents and entrepreneurs are often reticent whenever changes to the public space are proposed, because they know the risks involved but don’t have a clear picture yet of how the change could benefit them. Imagination can make all the difference. Painting an alluring picture with images of what it looks like now and what it will look like then can make the future visible – and visibly build enthusiasm.”
The area-focused approach that Van Schaik advocates is the right one, Otterman says. “Often livability issues are approached from a traffic engineering point of view, and restrictions of traffic flow dominate the debate on livability, blocking the transition. It helps to look at the question from the larger area perspective: what do we want the area to look like, and how do we accommodate the various interests in this? Common ground can often be found among all groups of users, for example, a safe school environment or an attractive core commercial area. This can then become the starting point for a conversation about ‘What do we need to do to make this possible?’ The question how accessibility should be organized in this area can then be asked in the context of this bigger picture. Keeping to this sequence prevents the debate from focusing on narrow issues and stalling the transition.”
Careful decision-making
The tension between accessibility and livability requires careful decision-making, which is cognizant of the conflicting interests and perspectives. Practical examples and insights show that defining and measuring these two concepts is not a uniform process, and it can differ per area. Data, technological innovations, and an area-focused approach offer possibilities to acquire greater insight into the effects of choices in the public space. By connecting these elements with each other, municipal governments and other stakeholders can work in a more targeted way to create cities that are both livable and accessible, now and in the future.
