Extended ecological footprint for different modes of urban public transport: The case of Vienna, Austria

Contents

  • Available at ScienceDirect Land Use Policy journal

  • Title: Extended Ecological Footprint for Different Modes of Urban Public Transport: The Case of Vienna, Austria

    • Authors: Andreas Gassner, Jakob Lederer, Georg Kanitschar, Markus Ossberger, Johann Fellner

    • Institutions: Christian Doppler Laboratory for Anthropogenic Resources, Institute for Water Quality, Resource and Waste Management, TU Wien, WIENER LINIEN GmbH & Co KG

Introduction

  • Urbanization and population growth leading to increased passenger transport and land unavailability.

  • Strengthening public transport as a solution to negative impacts like traffic emissions and land use.

  • Public transport requires less land and has higher capacity than individual car transport.

  • Distinction in land use:

    • Direct land use within city borders.

    • Hinterland land use for raw material extraction and energy supply.

    • Land for CO2 sequestration from emissions.

Methodology

Multimodal Public Transport Network Analysis

  • Study focuses on Vienna's public transport network (subway, tram, bus).

  • Types of land uses assessed:

    1. Direct land use (620 ha in city).

    2. Direct hinterland use for materials and energy (1,660 gha/a).

    3. CO2 emissions sequestration from energy (55,000 gha/a).

    4. CO2 emissions sequestration from material production (15,000 gha/a).

  • Total land use equates to 72,500 gha/a (0.03 gha/capita).

Ecological Footprint Calculation

  • Analysis through Extended Ecological Footprint (EF) calculations based on life cycle impacts.

  • Input data sourced from GIS for direct land use.

  • Software used: SimaPro for hinterland calculations and GHG emissions.

Transport Mode Performance

  • Evaluation of transport mode environmental efficiency.

  • Subway (51% EF) most efficient compared to bus (20%) and tram (19%) based on capacity.

  • Higher service levels increase specific environmental efficiency per seat kilometer.

  • Subways perform poorly when transport demand is low.

Results

Land Use Findings

  • Total operational energy CO2 hinterland use (55,000 gha/a) is the largest contributor.

  • Direct land use represents 1.5% of city area, and public transport contributes 39% to modal split.

Transportation Infrastructure Findings

  • 621 ha directly used for Wiener Linien’s transport infrastructure.

  • Subway uses 15% of above-surface land; buses occupy 58% due to extensive network.

  • Direct hinterland use (1,660 gha/a) is vital for planning and urban development.

Discussion

Stakeholder Concerns

  • Different land use impacts for various stakeholder groups (e.g., urban planners vs. environmental NGOs).

  • Direct land use is crucial for local-level urban planning.

Comparative Analysis

  • Comparison shows public transport is more land-efficient than motorized individual transport (MIV) which has a direct land use of around 2,430 ha.

Future Research Directions

  • Extend study frameworks to include more transport providers and private vehicle impacts.

  • Investigate local versus global land use dynamics comprehensively.

  • Develop predictive models for future urban transport challenges based on inventory data.