Valuing Urban Realm Business Cases in Public Spaces PDF

VALUING URBAN REALM – BUSINESS CASES IN PUBLIC SPACES
Rob Sheldon and Chris Heywood

Accent
Paul Buchanan
Colin Buchanan
David Ubaka and Chris Horrell

Transport for London
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
To obtain funding for improvements, urban realm schemes require robust

business cases that demonstrate the benefits of investment outweighing the
costs. In order to make the case for improvements benefits can now be
assessed both qualitatively and quantitatively.
There is a strong qualitative case for investment in urban realm

improvements. As part of a mix of policies, urban improvements can
encourage walking, improve health outcomes, benefit the environment,
reduce congestion, enhance social cohesion and assist local economies.
However, in order to best demonstrate the case for funding, it is important that
benefits are also assessed quantitatively.
Traditionally, the benefits assessed for urban realm business cases are time
savings and safety benefits. Time savings are particularly important for
schemes that relieve crowding or re-phase pedestrianisation and part-
pedestrianisation schemes. However, many schemes have impacts that are
not covered by quantitative measurement of time savings and safety benefits.
In particular, this approach underestimates the benefits of schemes that
improve ambience.
More recently, ambience is being assessed quantitatively in Transport for

London (TfL) business cases. It is a measure of the improvement to the
quality of environment that users experience. However, in the past, few urban
realm schemes included valuation of ambience benefits in their business
case. Despite the fact that a variety of urban realm schemes focus on
improving the experience of users, benefits were not included. This put the
schemes at a disadvantage because:
• It is difficult to prioritise between urban realm schemes. As a result,

obtaining funding can be more difficult as there is a lack of quantitative
evidence to suggest the scheme is the best option among alternatives
• Other modes have a wider set of benefits included in evaluations. Since

other modes demonstrate ambience improvements, they may be better
placed to receive funding.
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007 1

The reason why ambience benefits have were not included in business cases
for urban realm improvements is that neither the methodology nor the data
was available.
This paper describes a study commissioned by TfL that was designed to

provide a methodology and the data required to allow ambience benefits to be
included in business cases for urban realm improvements.
1.2. Objectives
Transport for London (TfL) commissioned Accent and Colin Buchanan to

conduct research into how users value improvements to the public realm. The
study built on work originally undertaken by Colin Buchanan in producing an
approach to valuing benefits for the Strategic Walks in London, and
subsequently extended by Accent with Colin Buchanan in preparing
innovative statement preference research. The design of the study formed a
pilot for the methodology as a way of exploring walking/urban design issues.
The output provided the data and methodology needed to include ambience
benefits in business cases for a wide variety of schemes.
The challenge of the project was to provide valuations to user benefits for
quality improvements to the pedestrian environment. In terms of a designing a
research methodology there were particular challenges in how complex
payment mechanisms and improvements could best be described to
respondents in relevant and easily understood way.
The study included four integrated phases:
• Scoping study – in which Accent/Colin Buchanan worked with TfL

representatives to establish the parameters to be included in the
research. This included which potential improvements should be put to
respondents as well as which payment mechanisms should be tested
• Qualitative research – focus groups were used to test the visuals and
descriptions to be used in the stated preference work. This was a key
phase that ensured the most appropriate language and stimulus was put
to respondents whilst testing the levels for each attribute.
• Pilot of the stated preference approach
• Quantitative stated preference study – quantitative hall tests were used

to provide data to deliver:
− relative priorities for improvements to the urban realm for users of

specific parts of the Edgware Road and Holloway Road
− willingness to pay for those improvements using three payment

mechanisms:
Council Tax
Public transport fares/joining cost

Rent
− An evaluation system for public realm improvements that was to be

included in TfL business cases.
2. QUALITATIVE WORK
2.1. Methodology
A programme of six focus groups was held among pedestrian users of the
Edgware Road to help determine the most appropriate terminology and show
material to use in the state preference study.
2.2. Crossing the Edgware Road
Crossing wait time was explored with the aim of using this as a potential value
of time measure.
Some respondents, particularly older respondents and those with children,

crossed the road at designated crossings and “wait for the green man”.
Younger respondents were more opportunistic and crossed where and when
they could. For the younger males, this would involve vaulting over the
barriers. The younger female respondents admitted to crossing first into the
middle of the lane, waiting in the middle and then going on to the middle of the
second lane before reaching the opposite pavement.
Where they did wait to cross the road, respondents talked of waiting “minutes”
before getting the green man.
This made it difficult to establish an acceptable crossing wait time.
2.3. Texts and Pictures
Eighteen aspects of the walking environment were included in the qualitative

element of the research, chosen as proxies for parameters measured in the
Pedestrian Environment Review System 2.0 (PERS). Respondents were
given pictures representing these aspects and separate word cards. They
were asked to match them to explore the understanding of both the visual
images and the descriptive words used.
2.4. Ratings and Descriptions
Respondents were then shown pictures representing different levels of each

aspect to explore which they thought were the best and worst and whether the
pictures successfully conveyed those levels.

Those that worked best were where the same scene was used for each level
but amended using PhotoShop to provide the different levels. This ensured
that a direct comparison was being made between levels without any other
differences being taken, incorrectly, into consideration. An example is given
below, for Graffiti and Flyposting.
2.5. Willingness to Pay for Improvements
A range of approaches were tested to see which was likely to be the most
successful in getting respondents to indicate any level, however small, of a
willingness to pay for improvements to the pedestrian environment along the
Edgware Road.
The payment vehicles used were Council Tax, public transport fares/journey
cost, rent, single donation and subscription.
Council Tax
Respondents were given two scenarios using Council Tax to explore

willingness to pay for improvements to the Edgware Road. One involved an
increase and the other a rebate.
Unsurprisingly, the mention of Council Tax provoked emotional responses

with respondents’ initial reactions being that they should not be expected to
pay any more than they do already to fund any improvements. However,
neither did they want the Edgware Road to become worse than it is now, and
generally understood the contradiction.
It was important to emphasise that the focus was solely on the part of the
Council Tax that pays for street maintenance, so that respondents had a
reference point (we suggested £75) against which to pitch their suggested
payments. Amounts in the region of £5 and £10 were suggested.
Another key issue was that respondents needed reassurance that the money
would definitely go towards the Edgware Road. With that reassurance, they

were willing to accept the Council Tax as a means of paying for improvements
to the Edgware Road.
Journey Cost
Regardless of whether or not they use public transport, respondents were

asked to imagine that they were regular public transport users.
Older respondents, who do not pay bus fares, dismissed the idea of paying
anything at all. Other respondents felt that they would want any improvements
funded by fares to be made to public transport, not to the pedestrian
environment.
Donation/Subscription
Initially, if respondents showed no willingness to pay using the Council Tax or

journey fare scenarios, they were asked to say how much they would give as
a single, one-off donation that would they could be certain would go towards
improving the environment for pedestrians on the Edgware Road.
Respondents were more willing initially to make a payment under this

scenario. It avoided any negative associations they may have with Council
Tax and they assumed immediately that the money would be spent solely on
the Edgware Road.
Respondents offered £10 a year.
For the last group, this approach was revised slightly to become a
subscription scheme, whereby respondents were asked how much they would
pay, annually, as a subscription to the Edgware Road improvement scheme.
As with the donation approach, respondents were willing to pay through a

subscription. However, the range of money offered at this stage was varied
and seemingly unrealistic. This variation highlighted the weakness in the
subscription approach and raised some concerns at the willingness of
respondents to pay much larger sums of money to a subscription scheme
than they were through any other mechanism. Perhaps because they
considered a subscription scheme to be a very unlikely scenario, respondents
offered similarly unrealistic amounts. In contrast to the Council Tax approach,
they had no reference point against which to measure the amount they are
willing to pay.
Willingness to pay more on account of having “more disposable income” also

raised concerns. This response seemed much more in line with giving to a
charitable cause than with a genuine assessment of willingness to pay.

3. STATED PREFERENCE FIELDWORK
3.1. Methodology
The method for the stated preference research was CAPI hall tests which
were held in two locations: Edgware Road and Holloway Road.
All respondents were recruited on street to quota. Respondents had to be

walking on the part of the road defined by a map of the area. The map also
indicated the area in which those termed “residents” lived.
The sample comprised residents and non-residents and two trip purposes:
leisure/shopping (where it is assumed that the trip is less time constrained)
and commuting.
The sample size of 600 was based on eight cells of 75 interviews each (a
recommended minimum cell size for stated preference).
3.2. Attributes
There were fifteen attributes included in the research. Examples of some the
attribute levels and the photos (at the size they were shown to respondents)
that accompanied them are shown below.
View of the street

Blocked view of street Mainly clear view of street Clear view of street

Cycles on the pavement
Cyclists allocated lane / own
Cyclists ride on pavement No cyclists on pavement
space for riding on pavement
3.3. Stated Preference Exercises
There were four stated preference exercises. The first three traded the fifteen
variables.
An example layout for the first stated preference exercise is shown below.
The final exercise traded off the top and bottom levels of the preceding three
exercises. These were colour coded with blue as the “bottom” level and green
as the “top” level. An example of the screen layout for the fourth stated
preference exercise is shown below.

3.4. Results
Stated Preference 1
All levels for both samples were significant and had the correct sign. The most
important attribute in the first exercise for both samples was ‘good, bright,
even lighting after dark’ with ‘vehicles do not park on pavement’ the second
most important attribute.
Table 1: Output from Stated Preference Exercise 1

Holloway Road Edgware Road
View of the street coefficient t-stat coefficient t-stat
Mainly clear view of street1 0.8482 7.9 0.7772 7.2
Clear view of street1 0.6158 4.9 0.5438 4.3
Kerbs
Sloped kerb2 0.605 5.2 0.9317 8
Completely flat crossing2 0.7759 6.5 0.9998 8.2
Street lighting
Reasonably bright, patchy lighting after dark3 0.7575 6.4 1.151 9.4
3
Good, bright, even lighting after dark 1.358 10.3 1.765 12.7
Vehicles on the pavement
Vehicles do not park on pavement4 1.255 14.8 1.611 18
Cycles on the pavement
Cyclists allocated lane / own space for riding
0.6816 5.4 1.129 8.7
on pavement5
5
No cyclists on pavement 0.5011 4.2 0.8774 7.3
1. compared to Blocked view of street
2. compared to Step at kerb
3. compared to Very poor lighting after dark

4. compared to Vehicles park on pavement
5. compared to Cyclists ride on pavement
Stated Preference 2
For the Edgware Road sample all levels were significant but both the levels of
the number of people in daylight were negative: ‘busy but not crowded.’ and
‘very crowded so that walking pace is badly affected’. In other words both of
these were seen as worse than the base level: ‘street (nearly) deserted.’
For the Holloway Road sample one level was insignificant: ‘busy but not
crowded.’ As for the Edgware Road sample both the levels of the number of
people in daylight were negative.

Number of people in daylight coefficient t-stat coefficient t-stat
Very crowded so that walking pace is
-0.4105 -4.4 -0.5527 -5.5
badly affected1
Busy but not crowded1 -0.0908 -0.8 -0.3562 -2.8
Number of people after dark
A few people around after dark2 0.3507 3.6 0.3241 3.1
2
A lot of people around after dark 0.5622 5.1 0.4379 3.8
Pavement condition
Pavement cracked but even3 1.141 11.4 1.354 12.7
Pavement has no cracks and is even3 1.288 10.8 1.744 13.3
Graffiti and fly-posting
Generally free from graffiti / flyposting4 0.644 5.4 0.7991 6.3
4
No graffiti / flyposting 0.8946 7.2 1.226 9.3
Litter
Generally free from litter and chewing
5 0.7705 6.8 0.9338 7.9
gum
Generally free from litter and no chewing
1.371 11.3 1.507 11.8
gum5
1. compared to Street (nearly) deserted
2. compared to Street (nearly) deserted after dark
3. compared to Pavement cracked and uneven
4. compared to Significant graffiti / flyposting
5. compared to Significant litter and chewing gum
Stated Preference 3
All levels for both samples were significant and had the correct sign.
The most important attributes for both samples were in the crossing the street
variable: ‘direct green man crossing’ followed by ‘green man crossing in
stages’.

Signs to public transport and attractions coefficient t-stat coefficient t-stat
Signs to public transport1 0.4102 3.9 0.5616 5.4
Local area maps, information boards and
0.7962 7.5 0.9336 8.8
signed routes1
Plants and public art

Plants alongside street2 0.4694 4.9 0.432 4.6
Plants alongside street and public art in
0.6173 7 0.6063 6.9
well chosen locations2
Seating
Seating areas at well chosen locations3 0.7851 11.1 0.9207 12.4
Crossing the road
Green man crossing in stages4 0.8226 9 1.078 11.3
Direct green man crossing4 0.9752 8.9 1.461 12.6
Physical intrusion of traffic
Traffic flow is safe to cross and there is
0.5965 7.6 0.5965 7.6
little or no noise5
1. compared to No signage
2 compared to No plants or public art
3 compared to No seating areas
4 compared to No green man crossing
5 compared to Traffic flow prevents crossing and there are high levels of noise
Stated Preference 4
The fourth stated preference exercise showed the attributes from first three
exercises each at two levels, the base level and the ‘top’ level.
For both samples all levels were significant and had the correct sign. Package
1 was the most important attribute and Package 3 was the second most
important for both samples.

coefficient t-stat coefficient t-stat
Package 1 1.077 12 1.184 13.1
Package 2 0.7435 9 0.9197 11
Package 3 0.9334 10.4 1.143 12.5
The coefficients for the first three exercises can be ranked in order of the size
of their coefficients – the larger the coefficient the more important it is.
However, the coefficients from the three exercises needed to be linked. To do

this the values of the fourth stated preference exercise were used as follows.
To scale the coefficients for the three ‘lower’ level exercises to the final
exercise, first of all the coefficients for the top levels for each exercise were
summed.
So, for example, for Stated Preference exercise 3, the sum of the top level
coefficients for the Holloway Road sample was 3.7703 when compared with
the lowest levels:
• Local area maps, information boards and signed routes 0.7962

• Plants alongside street and public art in well chosen locations 0.6173
• Seating areas at well chosen locations 0.7851
• Direct green man crossing 0.9752
• Traffic flow is safe to cross and there is little or no noise 0.5965
• Total 3.7703

Then each coefficient was multiplied by the coefficient for the Exercise 3 top
level (0.9334) divided by the sum of the top level coefficients. For example,
the value for ‘direct green man crossing’ is:
• Direct green man crossing: 0.9752 * (0.9334/3.7703) = 0.241426857
Finally, all the values were scaled to 100. Figure 1 shows the scaled values
for the whole sample. The attributes are ordered by the ‘top’ level attribute. If
there were values for two attributes within a topic, for example ‘direct green
man crossing’ and ‘green man crossing in stages’ within ‘crossing the road’,
then the ‘lower’ level is shaded light green in the chart.
Figure 1: Ranked attributes
Good, bright, even lighting after dark 7.21

Reasonably bright, patchy lighting after dark 4.40
Vehicles do not park on pavement 6.62
Direct green man crossing 6.42

Green man crossing in stages 5.01
Pavement has no cracks and is even 6.17
Pavement cracked but even 5.10

Generally free from litter and no chew ing gum 5.90
Generally free from litter and chew ing gum 3.48
Local area maps, information boards and signed routes 4.57
Signs to public transport 2.57

Seating areas at w ell chosen locations 4.49
No graffiti / flyposting 4.31
Generally free from graffiti / flyposting 2.94

No cyclists on pavement 3.18
Cyclists allocated lane / ow n space for riding on pavement 4.17
Completely flat crossing 4.11
Sloped kerb 3.56

Clear view of street 2.68
Mainly clear view of street 3.76
Plants alongside street and public art in w ell chosen locations 3.23
Plants alongside street 2.38
Traffic flow is safe to cross and there is little or no noise 3.15
A lot of people around after dark *
A few people around after dark -1.94
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Base: 600

Payment mechanisms
Three payment mechanisms were tested:
• Council Tax
• Rent
• Public transport fares
For each a transfer pricing approach was used. This asks respondents
whether they would pay a set amount. If they say no, the amount is reduced. If
they say yes the amount is increased. If they say yes again they are asked
what is the maximum they would pay.
Council Tax
The Council Tax payers were asked questions about their willingness to pay
more Council Tax for the improvements they has just seen in the stated
preference.
There were three price points: £5, £2 and £10 per year.
The proportions responding at each price point are shown below.
Table 5: Proportions willing to pay an increase in Council Tax for

improvements
£5 % %
Yes (asked £10) 75 78
No (asked £2) 25 22
£2
Yes 5 7
No 19 16
£10
Yes (asked maximum prepared to pay) 56 56
No 19 22
Maximum prepared to pay
£10 16 13
£10.01 0 *
£10.50 0 *
£11 3 *
£11.11 * *
£12 2 1
£13 * *
£15 8 4
£20 12 11
£25 2 6
£30 2 3
£40 0 1
£46 0 *
£50 8 10
£52 0 *
£60 0 1
£100 1 1
£200 1 0
£250 0 *

Base 167 225
This data was used to calculate the maximum preparedness to pay. For
example a respondent who said ‘no’ to £2 increase was assumed to be
prepared to pay 0p, a respondent who said yes to £5 but no to £10 was
assumed to be prepared to £5 and a respondent who said yes to £10 was
asked the maximum he/she would be prepared to pay.
On this basis the average annual increase in Council Tax to pay for all the
improvements was £17.35 at Edgware Road and £14.78 at Holloway Road.
Journey Cost
The public transport users who paid fares were asked questions about their
willingness to pay increased public transport fares for the improvements they
had just seen in the stated preference.
There were three price points: 5p, 2p and 10p per public transport journey.
Table 6: Proportions willing to pay an increase in fares for

improvements
5p % %
Yes (asked 10p) 64 51
No (asked 2p) 36 49
2p
Yes 8 11
No 28 38
10p
No 17 17
10p 0 0
11p 8 8
12p 0 1
15p 5 2
20p 16 8
25p 1 0
26p 0 0
30p 2 1
40p 0 0
50p 9 7
£1 4 2
£1.10 0 0
£1.50 0 1
£1.60 0 0
£1.70 0 1
£2 0 0
£2.10 0 0
Base 222 210
The mean additional fare was 17p at Edgware Road and 18p at Holloway
Road.

Rent
The rent payers were asked questions about their willingness to pay
increased rent for the improvements they had just seen in the stated
preference.
There were three price points: 10p, 2p and 20p per week.
Table 7: Proportions willing to pay an increase in rent per week for

improvements
10p per week % %
Yes (asked 20p) 78 73
No (asked 2p) 22 27
2p per week
Yes 5 10
No 17 16
20p per week
No 23 19
21p 6 5
25p 3 6
30p 4 5
40p 3 2
50p 10 5
52p 0 0
60p 0 1
75p 0 0
80p 0 0
85p 0 0
90p 0 0
£1 10 10
£1.50 0 1
£1.60 0 0
£2 2 1
£3 2 0
£5 3 5
£6 0 0
£7 0 0
£10 4 5
£11 1 1
£12 0 0
£12.50 0 0
£15 2 0
£20 3 4
Base 226 220
This data was used to calculate the maximum preparedness to pay. The
average weekly increase in rent to pay for all the improvements was £2.02 at
Edgware Road and £1.90 at Holloway Road.

Comparison of Payment Mechanisms
Table 8 shows a comparison of the three different payment mechanisms. It

should be borne in mind that different respondents answered different
payment mechanisms.
For public transport per trip figures were annualised by multiplying them by
the average number of public transport trips made per week by public
transport fare payers and then multiplying by 48 weeks.
The preparedness to pay increased rent or public transport fares for the
improvements are much higher than for Council Tax. This is probably largely
because the values were asked for in weekly amounts for rent (although the
annual amount was mentioned) and per trip for public transport users whereas
for the Council tax they were always asked in annual amounts.
Table 8: Comparison of payment mechanisms

Council Tax
Annual amount £14.78 £17.35
Base 167 225
Rent
Weekly amount £1.90 £2.02
Annual amount £98.80 £105.04
Base 226 220
Public Transport Fares
Per trip 18p 17p
Weekly number of trips 12.40 13.82
Annual amount1 £107.14 £112.77
Base 222 210
1
the annual amount is based on 48 weeks (assuming 4 weeks holiday)
4. WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PUBLIC REALM
4.1. Transferability
Whether the results can be transferred between sites depends, in part, on

whether improvements were valued differently in different locations or vary by
user type. Significance tests were conducted to determine whether
preferences vary. The stated preference data for Holloway Road and Edgware
Road were re-run as additive models which gave a better impression of what
segmentations were significantly different. The results showed that:
• The only coefficient which was significantly different between Edgware

Road and Holloway Road was ‘direct green man crossing’
• There were no significant differences between residents and visitors for

Holloway Road and Edgware Roads
• There were no significant differences between commuters and non-

commuters.

This suggests that results are transferable between high street locations in
London since it appears that respondents answered with their general high
street preferences.
4.2. Choice of Payment Mechanism
As previously described, a transfer pricing approach was used to assess three

payment mechanisms.
The average willingness to pay for each is shown in Table 9.
Table 9: Willingness to pay by mechanism (average)

Public Transport
Council Tax Fares Rent
Annual amount £16 £110 £102
Respondents 392 432 446
Clearly the council tax value is much lower than the results obtained for the
other two. To look more closely at an explanation for this, the distribution of
responses is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Distribution of responses by payment mechanism

40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
Rent
0%
Fares
£0-£5 £5 - £15 £15 - £25 Council Tax
£25-£50 £50-£100 £100 -£200 £200-£500 £500+
Council Tax Fares Rent
Between £5 and £100, the three payment mechanisms have similar

distributions. However, Figure 2 shows that there is a difference at the bottom
and a major difference at the top. At the bottom, the proportion of zero
valuations is higher for public transport fares than it is for either of the other
mechanisms (33% as opposed to 17%). At the top, fares and rent have a
higher proportion of values over £200 p.a (12% as opposed to 1%). Table 10
shows possible explanations for the differences.

Table 10: Possible explanation for high/low values
Possibly Low Possibly High
Council The qualitative research showed n/a
Tax many people objected to higher
council tax because of perceived
inefficiency.
Respondents may find it difficult to

value annual measures.
Fares The qualitative research showed Respondents answered on a per trip
many people objected to higher fares. basis and were not presented with
annualised figures.
The % of zero valuations may be
above that found for council tax/rent if
respondents do not see a direct link
between fares and urban realm
improvements.
Rent People may find it difficult to link rent The correlation between rent and
to street improvements council tax show a number of
respondents mistakenly gave annual
figures when prompted for a weekly
maximum.
4.3. Annual Willingness to Pay
In order to test the most appropriate figure for annual willingness to pay from
the three mechanisms, sensitivity tests were carried out by:
• removing the top and bottom 1%, 2.5%, 5% and 10% of answers
• removing the additional zero valuations associated with the fares
mechanism
• capping values at £100 p.a
• re-coding selected rent values to an annualised measure.
Table 11: Summary of sensitivity tests

Council Tax Farebox Rent
Test (£) (£) (£)
Base 16.26 108.66 101.19
Top/tail 1% 14.87 80.96 91.37
Top/tail 2.5% 14.06 68.26 77.19
Top/tail 5.0% 13.43 55.76 59.31
Top/tail 10% 11.95 42.00 34.14
Cap values at £100 p.a 15.62 37.38 29.10
17% zero valuation for farebox - 130.76 -
17% zero valuation for farebox & 5% cut from top - 64.36 -
17% zero valuation for farebox & £100 cap - 44.98 -
Recoding annual rent values with CT/£100 cap - - 23.06
Each mechanism for assessing willingness to pay has advantages and

disadvantages. The results do not suggest clear reasons for disregarding any
mechanism. Since the range itself may be valuable in certain cases, it would
appear useful to collect values for more than one measure. With this in mind,

the value associated with improving the public realm is best expressed as a
range. The results suggest this range lies between £12 and £130. Within this,
a most likely range is shown in Table 12.
Table 12: Most likely range

Council Tax Farebox Rent
Test (£) (£) (£)
Top/tail 5.0% 13.43 55.76 59.31
Cap values at £100 p.a 15.62 37.38 29.10
This suggests that £13 and £59 can provide low and high values for appraisal.
If a single number is required, a simple average of these (£35) is a reasonable
approach. However, given the need for comparability with other TfL
appraisals, public transport fares provide, perhaps, the most useful indicator.
As a result, we take £45 as the value used for willingness to pay valuation. By
applying both a £100 cap and a 17% proportion valuing improvements at zero,
this is a figure determined from the most reliable data obtained for fares.
5. EVALUATING THE PUBLIC REALM FOR BUSINESS CASES
5.1. Outline
The following describes how the values obtained for willingness to pay for
improvements to the urban realm have been developed into an evaluation
mechanism. It is split as follows:
• The meaning of the overall valuation

• Values by element
• Values by time spent
• Values in an evaluation framework.
5.2. The Meaning of the Overall Valuation
In the transfer pricing questions, it was not made explicitly clear to

respondents that the willingness to pay for improvements was for
Edgware/Holloway Road alone. The rest of the data collected provides an
insight into what this covers. It appears to suggest that respondents valued:
• Improvements between the lowest and highest standards presented in

the show material (rather than between base conditions on site and the
highest standard)
• Improvements for high streets in general (rather than just the high
street they were on).
If the value placed by respondents was related to the starting condition on the
road then one would anticipate a positive correlation between start condition
and willingness to pay. In fact, this is not the case. Figure 3 shows that the
relationship appears to be either nil or normally distributed. As a result, it

appears that given the phrasing of the question, and the lack of significant
difference between values for Edgware Road and Holloway Road, willingness
to pay values represent the change from the show material with the worst
condition to that with the best. Since the worst show material presented was,
typically, worse than both Holloway Road or Edgware Road, this is a
conservative assumption that reduces the values applied in appraisals.
Figure 3: Base condition against willingness to pay
750
'
Willingness to pay
500
250
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Assessment of base conditions
The payment mechanism suggested is public transport fares. With this

mechanism, it appears likely that residents provided values for both origin and
destination of that journey rather than something specific to Edgware Road.
This hypothesis is backed up by the lack of significant differences between
preferences among the resident and visitor groups.
Given the lack of correlation between base conditions and willingness to pay
as well as a pricing mechanism that involves two places, it appears that
respondents were valuing improvements over a larger area than that defined
by the study limits. We suggest that respondents answered with values that
cover all of their walks on high streets for an entire year. Since this means that
the values specified cover a wider area, it is a conservative assumption that
significantly reduces the values applied.
5.3. Values by Element
In order to place values on elements, it was important to ensure that the both
the start and end conditions were taken into account. In this way, the value
applied was for the change in condition. With up to three levels within each
category, this results in levels defined as low, medium or high are shown in
Table 13.

Table 13: Stated preference elements categories
Stated Preference
Element Low Medium High
Number of people Very crowded so that Street (nearly) deserted
in daylight walking pace is badly -
affected
Kerbs Step at kerb Sloped kerb Completely flat crossing
View of the street Blocked view of street Clear view of Mainly clear view of street
street
Crossing the road No green man crossing Green man Direct green man
crossing in crossing
stages
Signs to public No signage Local area maps,
transport and - information boards and
attractions signed routes
Street lighting Very poor lighting after Reasonably Good, bright, even
dark bright, patchy lighting after dark
lighting after dark
Number of people Street (nearly) deserted A few people A lot of people around
after dark after dark around after dark after dark
Pavement Pavement cracked and Pavement Pavement has no cracks
condition uneven cracked but even and is even
Vehicles on the Vehicles park on Vehicles do not park on
-
pavement pavement pavement
Cycles on the Cyclists ride on Cyclists allocated lane/
pavement pavement - own space for riding on
pavement
Plants and public No plants or public art Plants alongside Plants alongside street
art street and public art in well
chosen locations
Seating No seating areas Seating areas at well
-
chosen locations
Physical intrusion Traffic flow prevents Traffic flow is safe to
of traffic crossing and there are - cross and there is little or
high levels of noise no noise
Graffiti and fly- Significant graffiti/ Generally free from
-
posting flyposting graffiti/flyposting
Litter Significant litter and Generally free Generally free from litter
chewing gum from litter and and no chewing gum
chewing gum
The coefficients for each category in the table above provided the basis for
splitting the values by element. Where mid-values exist, these were converted
to money values by linear interpolation. Based on this, the valuation by
element is shown in Table 14.

Table 14: Stated preference valuation by element and level
Low Medium High
Stated Preference Element (£ pa) (£ pa) (£ pa)
Number of people in daylight 0 1.11
Kerbs 0 2.40 2.79
View of the street 0 1.89 2.64
Crossing the road 0 3.40 4.34
Signs to public transport and attractions 0 - 3.11
Street lighting 0 2.99 4.94
Number of people after dark 0 0.77 1.36
Pavement condition 0 3.37 4.07
Vehicles on the pavement 0 - 4.54
Cycles on the pavement 0 - 2.81
Plants and public art 0 1.65 2.23
Seating 0 - 3.07
Physical intrusion of traffic 0 - 2.14
Graffiti and fly-posting 0 - 1.93
Litter 0 2.29 3.90
5.4. Values by Time Spent
Since it appeared that respondents placed values for annual journeys in high
streets in general, it was important to determine how much time was spent in
high streets. The responses provide data on:
• Frequency respondents walk along the high street in an average week

• The type of use of the high street (National Travel Survey definitions)
• Resident/visitor split
• Length of time spent by journey purpose (commuting/shopping/leisure).
Through breaking usage down into types, and capping answers that included
time in shops as walking time, this information was used to estimate total time
spent along high streets in a year. This came to about 80 hours per year (1
hour 40 minutes per week).
To obtain values for improvements, this figure wasused to convert the annual
values into pence per minute spent on improved walkway. These values are
shown in Table 15.

Table 15: Values by time spent
Low Medium High
(pence per (pence per (pence per
Stated Preference Element min) min) min)
Number of people in daylight 0.00 - 0.02
Kerbs 0.00 0.05 0.06
View of the street 0.00 0.04 0.06
Crossing the road 0.00 0.07 0.09
Signs to public transport and attractions 0.00 - 0.07
Street lighting 0.00 0.06 0.10
Number of people after dark 0.00 0.02 0.03
Pavement condition 0.00 0.07 0.09
Vehicles on the pavement / 0.00 - 0.10
Cycles on the pavement 0.00 - 0.06
Plants and public art 0.00 0.03 0.05
Seating 0.00 - 0.06
Physical intrusion of traffic 0.00 - 0.04
Graffiti and fly-posting 0.00 - 0.04
Litter 0.00 0.05 0.08
5.5. Values in an Evaluation Framework
It is possible to develop business cases based entirely on the figures provided

above. The fifteen categories provide a means of assessment that can be
applied to any number of schemes in London. However, in order to more
accurately assess the improvement to the public realm, it is better to assess
changes within a framework that:
• Accounts for the interaction of different elements

• Covers as wide a range of scheme types as possible
• Offers consistency in measurement of the extent of improvements
• Ensures that small changes are not exaggerated or ignored
• Covers conditions better than the highest show material and worse than
the lowest show material.
PERS provides a framework that can be used to achieve all of these. PERS is
an audit tool developed by TRL and which is already in use at TfL to assess
the walking environment. PERS can assess infrastructure provision of links
and public spaces (as well as crossings, routes, public transport waiting areas
and interchange spaces). For links and public spaces, there are 14 and 6
characteristics respectively that are scored. For example, the characteristics
of links include ‘effective width’, ‘dropped kerbs’ and ‘permeability’. In a PERS
audit, a scorecard, detailed instruction manual and a series of prompts are
used to score these characteristics on a 7 point scale between -3 and +3. This
helps auditors to provide a consistent measure of the walking environment
that can be used to compare different locations. The first of two scorecards
used for assessing links is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Example PERS Scorecard

The full list of characteristics for both links and public spaces is shown in
Table 16.
Table 16: PERS Characteristics for links and public spaces

Links Public spaces
Effective width Moving in the space
Dropped kerbs Interpreting the space
Gradient Personal safety
Obstructions Feeling comfortable
Permeability Sense of place
Legibility Opportunity for activity
Lighting
Tactile information
Colour contrast
Personal security
Surface quality
User conflict
Quality of environment
Maintenance
Since it is not possible to portray many of these characteristics graphically, it

was necessary to use a proxy for these in the stated preference exercise. The
fifteen elements assessed were chosen specifically for that purpose. They
provide a cross-section of the walking environment that can best act as a
proxy for the characteristics defined in PERS for both links and public spaces.
Since some of the stated preference elements feature in more than one PERS
characteristic (for example ‘pavement condition’ in the stated preference
affects both ‘quality of the environment’ and ‘surface quality’ in PERS), and
others are not used as a proxy at all (for example ‘colour contrast’ has no
proxy among the SP elements), Table 17 and Table 18 show how elements
have been divided into PERS to ensure that appraisals do not suffer from
double counting.
Table 17: Splitting SP elements into PERS for links

Characteristic in PERS for
Links Percentage Stated Preference Element
Effective width 100 Number of people in daylight*
Dropped kerbs/Gradient 100 Kerbs
Obstructions 100 View of the street
50 Physical intrusion of traffic
Permeability
100 Crossing the road
Legibility 100 Signs to PT and attractions
Lighting 50 Street lighting
50 Street lighting
Personal security 100 Number of people after dark
50 Graffiti and fly-posting
Surface quality 50 Pavement condition
100 Vehicles on the pavement
User conflict
100 Cycles on the pavement
50 Pavement condition
100 Plants and public art
Quality of environment
100 Seating
Maintenance
100 Litter

* Issues with the ordering of the levels prevented us obtaining significant results for the highest level in
this category. As a result, values are an underestimate of the journey ambience benefits.
Table 18: Splitting SP elements into PERS for public spaces

Characteristic in PERS for
Public Spaces Percentage Stated Preference Element
100 Pavement condition
Moving in the space 100 Kerbs
100 Number of people in daylight
Interpreting the space 100 Signs to PT and attractions
100 Number of people after dark
100 Street lighting
Personal safety
100 Litter
100 Seating
Feeling comfortable
Sense of place 100 Plants and public art
100 Crossing the road
Opportunity for activity 100 Vehicles on the pavement
100 Cycles on the pavement
With these splits and the monetary values developed for each of the stated
preference elements, it is possible to ascertain a value for each of the PERS
characteristics. That value can then be related to PERS scores by using
PERS to assess the show material graphics. The scores for the show material
graphics can then be interpolated to provide a value for the full scale of scores
for each characteristic. The results from this are shown in Table 19 and Table
20.
Table 19: Journey ambience benefits for improvements to links (pence

per person per minute)
Characteristic
in PERS TfL Design Principle -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Effective width Create convenient connections 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03
Dropped Create convenient connections
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
kerbs/ gradient / Get the detail right
Obstructions Create convenient connections 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03
Create clear and easy to
Permeability 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13
understand routes and spaces
Create clear and easy to
Legibility 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
understand routes and spaces
Lighting Get the detail right 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Personal Create active and engaging
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15
security spaces
Surface quality Get the detail right 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.11
Create streets and spaces for
User Conflict 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.13
everyone
Quality of
Get the detail right 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27
environment
Maintenance Get the detail right 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.10

Table 20: Journey ambience benefits for improvements to public spaces
(pence per person per minute)
Characteristic
in PERS TfL Design Principle -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Moving in the
Create convenient connections 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.18
space
Interpreting the Create clear and easy to
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
space understand routes and spaces
Create streets and spaces for
Personal
everyone / Create active and 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.17 0.21 0.25
safety
engaging spaces
Feeling Create streets and spaces for
0.00 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.14
comfortable everyone
Create active and engaging
Sense of place 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06
space / Get the detail right
Opportunity for Create active and engaging
0.00 0.07 0.14 0.22 0.25 0.27 0.30
activity spaces
With a PERS audit carried out prior to bidding for funds and an estimate of
post-implementation scores conducted for the scheme designs, these tables
provide valuation of the improvement (measured in pence per person per
minute walked in that environment). Measuring improvements in this way
ensures:
• consistency among appraisals

• inclusion of a wide variety of scheme types
• that small differences are factored in (using the seven point scale)
• that appraisals take a holistic view of the walking environment taking into
account interactions between measures.
This clearly represents a major step forward in bringing a rigorous approach to

the appraisal of very soft public realm improvements. It is hoped and expected
that this will lead to a better allocation of funds and better design of schemes.
1
Fruin pedestrian density calculations (in persons per metre per minute) are
established measure of crowding (Fruin, J. J., Pedestrian Planning and
Design, 1971)

Valuing Urban Realm Business Cases in Public Spaces PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Valuing Urban Realm Business Cases in Public Spaces PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VALUING URBAN REALM – BUSINESS CASES IN PUBLIC SPACES

Rob Sheldon and Chris Heywood

David Ubaka and Chris Horrell

To obtain funding for improvements, urban realm schemes require robust

There is a strong qualitative case for investment in urban realm

More recently, ambience is being assessed quantitatively in Transport for

• It is difficult to prioritise between urban realm schemes. As a result,

• Other modes have a wider set of benefits included in evaluations. Since

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007 1

This paper describes a study commissioned by TfL that was designed to

Transport for London (TfL) commissioned Accent and Colin Buchanan to

The study included four integrated phases:

• Scoping study – in which Accent/Colin Buchanan worked with TfL

• Pilot of the stated preference approach

• Quantitative stated preference study – quantitative hall tests were used

− relative priorities for improvements to the urban realm for users of

− willingness to pay for those improvements using three payment

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007 2

− An evaluation system for public realm improvements that was to be

2.2. Crossing the Edgware Road

Some respondents, particularly older respondents and those with children,

This made it difficult to establish an acceptable crossing wait time.

2.3. Texts and Pictures

Eighteen aspects of the walking environment were included in the qualitative

2.4. Ratings and Descriptions

Respondents were then shown pictures representing different levels of each

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007 3

2.5. Willingness to Pay for Improvements

Respondents were given two scenarios using Council Tax to explore

Unsurprisingly, the mention of Council Tax provoked emotional responses

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007 4

Regardless of whether or not they use public transport, respondents were

Initially, if respondents showed no willingness to pay using the Council Tax or

Respondents were more willing initially to make a payment under this

Respondents offered £10 a year.

As with the donation approach, respondents were willing to pay through a

Willingness to pay more on account of having “more disposable income” also

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007 5

All respondents were recruited on street to quota. Respondents had to be

View of the street

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007 6

3.3. Stated Preference Exercises

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007 7

Table 1: Output from Stated Preference Exercise 1

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007 8

Table 2: Output from Stated Preference Exercise 2

Table 3: Output from Stated Preference Exercise 3

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007 9

Table 4: Output from Stated Preference Exercise 4

However, the coefficients from the three exercises needed to be linked. To do

• Local area maps, information boards and signed routes 0.7962

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007 10

• Direct green man crossing: 0.9752 * (0.9334/3.7703) = 0.241426857

Figure 1: Ranked attributes

Good, bright, even lighting after dark 7.21

Vehicles do not park on pavement 6.62

Direct green man crossing 6.42

Pavement cracked but even 5.10

Local area maps, information boards and signed routes 4.57

Signs to public transport 2.57

Generally free from graffiti / flyposting 2.94

Sloped kerb 3.56

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007 11