ArticlePDF Available

Participatory Sustainability Approach to Value Capture Based Urban Rail Financing in India Through Deliberated Stakeholder Engagement

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Increasingly, cities around the world are seeking innovative financial mechanisms to build rail transit projects. Land value capture (VC) is a financing mechanism to fund urban rail transit. Often VC mechanisms are viewed only as a financing tool applied in relation to increased land values from the administration and legislation perspectives, without actively involving the community in the process. The lack of such participation has resulted in the under collection of the true value established. The transit beneficiary community and city tax payers are especially important stakeholders in this process as their willingness to participate is really critical to the overall VC success and transport outcome. This paper introduces a participatory sustainability approach to enable a more deliberated stakeholder engagement intervention across the VC life cycle. A four-step "Participatory Strategic Value Capture (PSVC)" framework is proposed offering step-by-step guidance toward facilitating a meaningful stakeholder dialogue, deliberation, and collaboration around the stated engagement interests. The PSVC framework, applied to the proposed Bangalore sub-urban rail project in India, has demonstrated the importance of stakeholder engagement using deliberated participatory approaches from a win-win perspective.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sustainability 2015, 7, 8091-8115; doi:10.3390/su7078091
sustainability
ISSN 2071-1050
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Article
Participatory Sustainability Approach to Value Capture-Based
Urban Rail Financing in India through Deliberated
Stakeholder Engagement
Satya Sai Kumar Jillella *, Annie Matan and Peter Newman
Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute, Curtin University, Building 209, Bentley,
Perth 6845 WA, Australia; E-Mails: anne.matan@curtin.edu.au (A.M.);
p.newman@curtin.edu.au (P.N.)
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: s.jillella@postgrad.curtin.edu.au;
Tel.: +61-892-669-030; Fax: +61-892-669-031.
Academic Editor: Marc A. Rosen
Received: 9 December 2014 / Accepted: 27 May 2015 / Published: 24 June 2015
Abstract: Increasingly, cities around the world are seeking innovative financial mechanisms
to build rail transit projects. Land value capture (VC) is a financing mechanism to fund
urban rail transit. Often VC mechanisms are viewed only as a financing tool applied in
relation to increased land values from the administration and legislation perspectives,
without actively involving the community in the process. The lack of such participation has
resulted in the under collection of the true value established. The transit beneficiary
community and city tax payers are especially important stakeholders in this process as their
willingness to participate is really critical to the overall VC success and transport outcome.
This paper introduces a participatory sustainability approach to enable a more deliberated
stakeholder engagement intervention across the VC life cycle. A four-step “Participatory
Strategic Value Capture (PSVC)” framework is proposed offering step-by-step guidance
toward facilitating a meaningful stakeholder dialogue, deliberation, and collaboration
around the stated engagement interests. The PSVC framework, applied to the proposed
Bangalore sub-urban rail project in India, has demonstrated the importance of stakeholder
engagement using deliberated participatory approaches from a win-win perspective.
OPEN ACCESS
Sustainability 2015, 7 8092
Keywords: value capture; deliberative processes; participatory sustainability; urban land
values; rail transit funding; stakeholder engagement
1. Introduction
Cities across the globe have recognized rail transit systems as an emergent multi-functional solution
to a range of urbanism challenges today [1–3]. However, most of them are struggling to find funds
through traditional methods, and are seeking for alternate innovative financing solutions. Indian cities
are no exception. Poor urban mobility can negatively impact the fast emerging developing economies,
such as India, where cities primarily form the epicenter for such growth. In this context, worldwide,
monetization of urban land values through passive and active interventions is gaining attention as an
alternate financing mechanism to fund urban rail transit. Cities in North America, Europe, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, and a few cities in Asia and Africa have opted for induced land value capture
(VC) mechanisms as an alternate funding to build rail transit systems [4–6]. Land value capture refers
to a type of innovative public financing, in which increases in land values generated by a new public
infrastructure investment are all or in part “captured” through a land related tax or any other active or
passive mechanisms, such as betterment charges, tax increment financing, air rights sale, property
development, to pay back such an investment [7]. In other words, VC, in a broader sense, opposes the
windfall gains derived out of public infrastructure creation accrued to a privileged few as unearned
income, but argues for redistribution of such gains fully or partially to fund public investment and also
to compensate social-costs often resulting from these investment negativities [8]. However, the VC
concept is still perceived as a work-in-progress with varied success. As evident from these global
experiences, this was primarily due to the fact that there is a notional misconception of the VC
mechanism as only a financing tool [9,10]. The majority of these practices looked at the VC process
only from the fiscal policy, administration and legislation perspectives. Often, VC is viewed as a tax
tool or technique in the hands of planners, local governments, and investors, to fund infrastructure
invested alone. Therefore, many of these practices lack clarity on the redistribution of the “captured”
gains beyond recovering the transit investment. Mostly they have overlooked the needed support
investments for infrastructure integration and the sustainable community living aspects [11].
In this context, stakeholder engagement has been recognized as a possible effective option to
complement the VC process and move beyond being simply another tax tool to offer a powerful
enabler for sustainable transit community development goals [9]. Whether as a resident with
transportation concerns or as a user of transit, streets, or public spaces, a citizen’s opinion is vital in
helping define the VC process from planning to implementation [12]. Both the transit beneficiary
community and the city taxpayer community are potential key stakeholders in defining the VC process.
Recently, a few cities in India have attempted to tap urban land values as an alternate funding source
for urban infrastructure using new financial instruments like impact fees, higher Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) sales, auction of public properties, and mostly structured them as a one-time charge collected to
partly pay toward public infrastructure required by new developments. The majority of such initiatives
have limited the community participation either to information sharing or to consultation approaches
Sustainability 2015, 7 8093
only [13]. Moreover, the lack of participatory approaches in the VC process has led to an
under-assessment and/or under-collection of the true value established and have been unable to fully
explore the true potential of actual value created [11]. Smolka [14] reiterates that citizen or community
engagement in service and policy design is not only the right thing to do but will also provide a rich
source of ideas to the government. Community and local businesses are especially important external
sources of ideas as they form the beneficiary user group and directly feel the impact of the stated public
investment and services. The success of VC, thus, depends on community engagement and their
willingness to participate in the process. Hence a participatory sustainability approach to the VC
process is needed to engage with the stakeholders as partners in the process rather than as mere actors
in the process.
Uncertainty remains about how to do VC-based stakeholder engagement, when it should
commence, the methods that should be used and which members should be consulted. In practice,
stakeholder engagement is not a simple task as many stakeholders are disengaged, especially when
certain groups within the population are marginalized [15]. Of late, Deliberative Democracy (DD)
techniques seek out how community engagement in decision-making can find broad support from all
key stakeholders, especially the general public, for a policy direction [16]. To this end, a participatory
route utilizing deliberative methods is regarded as the most effective process that will enable positive
outcomes. This is the goal behind the participatory sustainability approach in VC context examined in
this paper.
The paper sets out how to do a participatory sustainability approach within a VC context, from
planning to implementation stages, using deliberative consultation approaches. It provides a four-step
“Participatory Strategic Value Capture (PSVC)” framework, offering step-by-step guidance to
interventions along with providing various approaches of undertaking stakeholder participation across
the VC life cycle. The PSVC framework proposes a deliberated stakeholder engagement method using
various DD techniques that are relevant in a VC context to help facilitate a meaningful deliberation to
enable the co-creation of an inclusive and context specific VC strategy. This paper describes the
application of the PSVC framework in the context of defining VC-based financing for the proposed
Bangalore sub-urban rail project using high quality DD techniques. The paper first introduces a
participatory sustainability approach within a VC context, proposes the PSVC framework, and then
describes its application in Bangalore to examine the benefits of utilizing participatory approaches in
defining a VC process. It then assesses whether this PSVC framework has the potential to assist
other cities worldwide looking to undertake a VC process to deliver public transport involving
stakeholder engagement.
2. Background to Participatory Sustainability Approach in a VC Context
2.1. Need for Participatory Stakeholder Engagement in a VC Context
Holmes (2011) [17] (p. 13) states that “engagement is not a single process or set of activities. It is
an ongoing process or conversation that builds trust and relationship”. The Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) [18] (p. 30) classify stakeholder engagement into three forms
of engagement: information sharing, consultation, and participation. The first level, “information
Sustainability 2015, 7 8094
sharing” is basically a one-way communication approach where information is passed from the
decision makers to the stakeholders. The second level, “consultation”, is where stakeholders are able to
feed into parts of the decision-making process, but are not able (or empowered) to ensure that their
aspirations were taken into account. The third level, “participation”, enables stakeholders to be involved
in the decision-making process [18]. The participatory route with deliberative democratic approaches is
regarded as a much more influential process to have positive results. This engages randomly selected
people from the general public as well as stakeholders so it can create engagement or collaboration or
empowerment forms of participation [19]. Many successful community engagement experiences
envisage that having the general public and stakeholders engaged at the helm of the policymaking
process transforms them as an agent of change and co-creator with a systematic pursuit of sustained
collaboration [14,19].
A participatory approach, therefore, demands a major paradigm shift in the thought processes of
government agencies and community. Furthermore, engagement processes require stakeholders to
acquire specialized skills in order to have a successful collaboration. For example, Holmes (2011) [17]
(p. 1) highlighted that government or public agencies may be required to develop new roles as
enablers, negotiators, and collaborators, and, at the same time, the community may be required to
demonstrate a willingness to be actively engaged in the process (and dedicate time to the process)
along with being sufficiently well informed to enable their participation and deliberation to be effective.
Overall, the expected benefits from stakeholder engagement utilizing a participatory sustainability
approach within a VC context includes generating good will, removing uncertainty, and enabling
community expectations to be at the forefront of decisions, amongst other benefits. Furthermore, it
provides an opportunity to receive stakeholder support in the initial stages of the process and
participation from the community helps to enable democratically agreed VC fund redistribution
strategies. If such agreement happens, it can help to enable the captured value to be re-distributed
proportionately to related community support systems, along with the transit investment that was
necessary to enable the transit to be built. Primarily, the participatory sustainability approach actively
facilitates community and stakeholder involvement in decisions that affect them directly. However, in
practice, undertaking stakeholder engagement in a democratic dialogue is essentially a multifaceted
and multi-dimensional challenge [20]. The literature on stakeholder engagement emphasizes the need
for community engagements to be far reaching, inclusive, balanced, and facilitated through a democratic
dialogue [21].
2.2. Role and Techniques for Deliberated Participatory Stakeholder Engagement in a VC Context
There is no single tool or technique to influence successful stakeholder engagement, but a
combination of several tools are used to enable the desired engagement outcomes. Different people or
communities prefer different engagement methods, and some methods work better for some activities
than others. The determination of which technique is the right technique is influenced by several
factors, namely: set engagement objectives; desired outcomes; type of engagement; stakeholder types;
level of engagement; socio-politico-cultural environment; time, cost and skill set available; and the
stage of project progress [22] (Whichever method is selected, it is worthwhile to consider access for all
people or communities of interest, including hard-to-reach groups. The commonly used techniques
Sustainability 2015, 7 8095
across different levels of the stakeholder engagement process, as prescribed by the quick method
selector of Bolton’s Community Engagement and Consultation toolkit, include publicity campaigns,
and exhibitions and road shows are common for information-sharing purposes; focus groups, surveys
(self completion, telephone, or face to face), citizens panel, advisory committees, feedback and
suggestions, website based inputs, public meetings, are popular during stakeholder consultation stage;
ward councilor contact or user panel for citizen involvement stages; community needs analysis, citizen
juries, and visioning workshops, are advised for the collaboration stage [22].
DD goes beyond these techniques to ensure there are not just stakeholder but randomly selected
citizens who can ensure meaningful participation with inclusiveness, deliberation, dialogue, and
acceptable consensus [23]. To this end, DD is an established approach that provides a powerful and
effective way for communities to collaboratively problem solve and co-create sustainable outcomes
together with decision makers and technical experts. Carolyn and Lars (2006) [24] (p. 20) state that
DD advances richer forms of public participation that engage citizens in a structured dialogue around
focused policy issues, and yields benefits to participants and sponsors that extend beyond the
collection of useful information. Carolyn and Lars (2006) [24] (pp. 24–25, 31–32) recommended eight
DD techniques to integrate public deliberation into agency decisions, namely; “ChoiceWork Dialogue,
Citizens Jury, Consensus Conference, Deliberative Polling, Issue Forums, Study Circles, 21st Century
Town Meeting, and Citizen Assemblies”. These approaches seek to find “broad support” from all key
stakeholders as well as citizens for a policy direction. Similarly, Hartz-Karp (2013) [25] (pp. 45–90)
suggests seven DD techniques that are suitable for a participatory sustainability approach to enable
interactions, dialogue and ideally deliberation between all stakeholders. The DD techniques
recommended as suited to facilitate the VC based stakeholder engagement process are selected from
Hartz-Karp (2013) [25] (pp. 111–119) and are detailed below:
(1). Consensus Forum: This is a popular deliberation process in aiding shared understanding and
meeting consensus in a complex and difficult decision making situation, where a variety of
stakeholders namely, public, private, resident community, and civic societies are involved in
decision making. This technique is particularly useful when the participants are greater in
number and representing divergent views on more intricate issues, or most argumentative issues
as the approach aids the consensus-based decision-making process.
(2). Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA): The MCA technique is a structured iteration-based deliberation
technique, leveraging scientific data and technology to help the decision-making process. This
technique is a means of simplifying complex decision-making tasks, which may involve many
stakeholders, a diversity of possible outcomes, and many, and sometimes intangible, criteria by
which to assess the outcomes. This tool would help to prioritize a set of options identified with
appropriate weightages assigned, and rank them based on the pre-set deliberation objective.
(3). World Café: This technique offers a simple, effective, and flexible format for hosting large
group dialogue using participatory rounds of shared interactions especially in joint visioning,
planning, and designing context, to motivate networked exchanges in smaller group rounds. In
this approach, participation is only by invition, based on the purpose of the meeting. World
cafés can be used across a specific issue or multiple issues, where people engage in progressive
rounds of conversations ascertaining questions related to a particular issue in each cluster.
Sustainability 2015, 7 8096
(4). 21st Century Town Meeting/Dialogue: This technique is a software enhanced public deliberation
forum with near real-time outputs and priorities generated. This technique is more useful to
conduct with a large group deliberation, and provides instant feedback. Participants are linked
through online networked computers, and engage in informed deliberation in smaller groups
through real-time feedback and deliberation to find common themes and priorities on most
contentious issues. This primarily seeks substantive feedback on key issues, finding common
ground, and to prioritize what is most important toward influencing decision-making.
(5). Open Space Technology: The Open Space Technology meeting is to create time and space for
people to engage deeply and creatively around issues of concern to them. Later, an open circle
meeting is reconvened, where all participants can give their comments as part of a facilitated
process. This is followed with a final plenary session where participants can give comments
and, finally, it provides the outcome with a common understanding on defined goals, actions,
milestones, and responsibilities with a way forward.
(6). Local Area Forum: This technique is popular to bring together government, industry, and
community to determine the optimal use of scant resources through coordinated actions and
joint collaboration. It is more representative of the local community and can get greater local
ownership of issues. In this method, local community is more involved and empowered to make
informed decisions on what the community requires.
(7). Strategic Questioning: This is a powerful problem-solving technique to engage groups in
innovative thinking, to develop strategy, to facilitate change, and to gain acceptance to new
ideas. Strategic questioning as a tool helps to find creative ways in times of uncertainty, conflict
and confusion, and in case of current thinking, appears to be constrained.
The set of DD techniques provide a powerful and effective way for communities to engage and
co-create more consensual policy decisions with communities, public sector decision-makers and other
“experts”. The deployment of appropriate techniques will depend on the engagement objectives, such
as understanding stakeholder expectations, assessing levels of participation interest, and other
interconnected objectives [26]. Deliberative forms of democratic decision making help increase the
level of responsibility that citizens take for their own actions and behaviors. Participation also gives
stakeholders an opportunity for social learning by hearing the views of other stakeholders, talking
through the range of possible solutions, and comparing the impacts of various alternatives in terms of
their collective short-term and long-term interests.
2.3. Review of Best Practices for Participatory Stakeholder Engagement in a VC Context
Worldwide, there are many notable public participatory approaches in practice for community
engagement in decision-making, which seeks to find broad support from all key stakeholders for a
policy direction. This section highlights a few of such best practices that could be applied to the issue
of monetization of urban land values for financing urban infrastructure.
In the late 1990s and early 2000, a new form of civic participation model, Community Benefit
Agreements (CBAs) became popular in urban redevelopment practice and to claim public subsidies by
developers in North America. Musil [27] (p. 829) defines the CBA process as “a developer enters into
a private contract, usually with a coalition of community, faith-based, or special interest groups in
Sustainability 2015, 7 8097
exchange for their support, cooperation, or forbearance regarding the proposed development”. More
importantly, the developer is interested in such support before approaching agencies for formal
approvals and regulatory changes. Typically, CBAs are independent agreements between a developer
and negotiating parties, with or without a formal government role as a facilitator. Advocates of CBAs
aim to insert local stakeholders, typically low-income households in the vicinity of development
project, directly into the process of recovering the value. They are expected to drive for accountable
development by involving communities in formulating, or to arrive at negotiated deal-specific CBAs
on the sharing of the value of the resulting development. Wolf-Power (2010) [28] (p. 142) states that,
often, the participants in a CBA negotiation are neighborhood groups from the area surrounding the
development site, and regularly working in coalition with advocates for affordable housing,
environmental quality, and workers’ rights. Typically, such negotiations centre on democratic
deliberations, participation and in the pursuit of shared social objectives. Overall, deal-specific CBAs
are anticipated to remove project uncertainty with local support that produces positive results for the
project. However, Wolf-Powers [9] (p. 217) stated that CBA is perhaps the most controversial among
the various VC mechanisms and there exists a dual perspective on CBA Musil [27] (p. 842) cited that
there were about 30 CBA-based projects in USA as of 2012, and few states have CBA regulations in
place. This paper briefly reviewed the findings of the Musil [27] pilot study of various CBAs with
particular attention to two CBAs namely; Atlanta Beltline CBA and Gates-Cherokee CBA. The former
CBA is about the Atlanta Beltline light rail track around the city, and appropriate area redevelopment
along the corridor through creation of a tax allocation district, whose revenue will fund redevelopment
area improvements. The latter CBA is about the demolition and redevelopment of the abandoned Gates
Rubber factory site into a retail space and housing, with an emphasis on local hiring, affordable
housing, and with various other community benefits.
The study highlighted that CBAs are often criticized, as they are negotiated from a limited
community perspective because they represent only the views of the CBA coalition and do not reflect
the needs of the broader community. Therefore, issues of community identification in CBA negotiation
are at the forefront of the shortcomings identified in the study. Further, these studies also revealed the
key issues as: constitutional validity of CBAs with respect to issues on process, enforcement, and
protection of the agreement; enforcement related binding of contract issues; and CBAs’ compliance in
the context of existing property laws on land use regulation and planning processes. The Atlanta
Beltline CBA is in the context of constructing a 22-mile light rail transit loop around the city of
Atlanta, and aimed for financing partly through a 6500-acre tax-allocation district (TAD). The TAD
functions by diverting the difference between the baseline taxes and the increased tax increments to
repay the municipal bonds issued to finance the Beltline. Though the project created good interest, it
was faced with concerns on gentrification and the displacement of residents. While there is no Beltline
CBA coalition, the project is being managed in such a way so as to provide enhanced opportunities for
public input and a number of community benefits across Beltline projects. Common community
benefit principles, included: prevailing wages for workers; a “first source” hiring system to target job
opportunities for residents of impacted low income ‘Beltline’ neighborhoods; and establishment and
usage of apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs for workers of impacted Beltline
neighborhoods. The City Council approved, with community input and involvement, a number of
benefits, including living wages, local hiring and training programs, affordable housing, environmental
Sustainability 2015, 7 8098
remediation, and funds for community programs. Been [29] (pp. 34–35) alleged, citing Atlantic Yard
CBA, that developers forged a CBA with self-interested supporters, while excluding groups pushing for
modifications to the project plan, and even claimed revision to a higher subsidy package. Even in the
case of Denver's Gates-Cherokee CBA, issues were found to be the differences of opinion on the
definition and legal standing of CBAs. This is a clear case of a CBA that ended as a memorandum of
understanding with a slate of commitments for community groups, without any legal binding on the
defaulters. There is varied success with respect to private CBAs and public brokered CBAs as a
facilitator, and it can be further concluded that a CBAs outcome depends on interest-group politics
versus democratic public participation approaches [27]. Further, a lack of formal process to negotiate
CBAs, lack of structure for public involvement, difficulty of preset timelines for CBA negotiations, and
an overall weak structural process for CBA negotiation, are a few key issues of concern for CBA success.
Another such example, popular in Europe in the context of Garden Cities and New Towns, is the
strategic land and infrastructure contract (SLICs), to ensure infrastructure delivery through land value
capture. The SLIC concept is to secure delivery of infrastructure using land value capture and
voluntary land pooling. Typically, SLICs include a contract between land owners or developers, local
authorities, and government agencies [11].
Though CBAs and SLICs are driven by a participatory approach in the pursuit of equity and
accountable development, they are threatened by the risk of creating local lobby groups and
interest-group politics. The critical success factors, which are significant in such approaches, include
ensuring deal transparency, community empowerment, accountability, political commitment, inclusive
governance, and, most of all, public legitimacy. In this context, VC-based community engagement
practices of the North American cities, especially of practices in the context of public transportation in
the city of Portland, are worth mentioning. Portland has a history of over 40 years of strong community
governance through an established city-wide neighborhood association system and commitment
to citizen participation processes at various levels, as part of its pursuance of city-sustainability
goals. The Oregon state-level-enabling legal environment, coupled with the Portland local
government commitment to broad-based community participation, enabled the implementation of
system-development charges through tax-increment financing (TIF), special assessment districts
(SADs), and transit impact fees [30]. Portland has used local improvement districts (LIDs) as funding
sources to help finance all phases of the Central Streetcar Project. Community participation also played
a key role in the success of the LIDs, and Portland is probably among the first cities in USA, since the
1970s that recognized the importance of community engagement and sustainability goals [31]. The city
consulted the community, businesses leaders, and interest groups, involving them while developing
their Light rail. The city consulted the stakeholders prior to the LID formation, thereby securing their
strong support throughout the project. Furthermore, it revised assessments whenever mistakes were
made in the assessment calculation process. In the Phase 1 and 2 LIDs, the city averted a potentially
contentious political battle by exempting owner-occupied residential properties from paying
assessments [31] (p. 92). Furthermore, the city was able to work with the stakeholders to find solutions
when problems arose. For example, those living outside the underdeveloped North Macadam urban
renewal area (URA) were initially concerned that their funds would be used to subsidize it. The city
addressed this concern by creating the North Macadam Overlay, which helped specify the geography
of where the URA funds would be expended [31,32]. Behind the successful collaboration of the
Sustainability 2015, 7 8099
Portland experience there exists strong governance and institutional capacity to garner the support of
the community and public agencies at the time of the TIF-district formation. David [32] (pp. 1–2),
while appreciating Portland’s “coordinated key stakeholder” strategy in their neighborhood community
approach, stated that neighborhood leaders successfully persuaded property owners on each leg of the
streetcar route that they should support taxes on themselves to pay a major portion of the front-end
capital investment. However, this paper suggested that, though Portland has been working on its street
car system for the last 30 years, it is only now learning how to fully recoup their operating expenses.
Further, Portland has seen unbridled gentrification of the downtown area, and is still struggling with
providing needed affordable housing options throughout the city. This was primarily due to the fact
that neighborhood associations failed to pay attention to the voice of the under engaged, the people of
color or immigrants. This realization led to the initiation of the Community Connect initiative,
involving diverse groups, into deliberations.
The case of Portland revealed some conflicts over VC: resident stakeholder groups could oppose
SADs, while the business community were generally willing to pay for assessments charged. Therefore,
several SADs, formed to fund Portland Streetcar, exempted residential property owners from paying
assessments in order to pre-empt opposition from them [31]. Some states in the US required voting on
SAD formation, as per local and state legislation. In such cases, extensive community outreach
programs or campaigns were required in large residential neighborhoods to educate them on the transit
benefits, or simply to exempt them from paying property tax [32]. Different experiences from U.S.
cities suggest that the best approach for coordinating stakeholder input will depend on the objectives
for the transit corridor, corridor type, local context, and regional conditions [31].
Overall, the key lesson from these experiences is that early engagement of the key stakeholders,
involving the local residents, neighborhood organizations, real estate developers, and small business
owners, alongside transit agencies and city or county government in the project life cycle, can yield
productive collaboration and coalition-building. The importance of high-level political support, proper
legislation, and inclusive governance are keys to build trust and make a difference to the success of
community engagement. For example Oregon state-enabling legislation, and its authoritative sponsorship
of the process and openness to input, bolstered the credibility and effectiveness of community
collaborations, negotiations, and recommendations [33,34]. Community outreach, seed money grants,
work opportunities, faster implementation timelines, committed leadership, local champions; and
deployment of skilled neutral facilitators are critical to sustained collaboration [34].
The PSVC framework presented in this paper is inspired from such community engagement
experiences and best practices in the context of emerging cities that are and focused on a strategic
VC-perspective.
2.4. Need for a Participatory VC Stakeholder Engagement Framework for Cities in Developing Countries
Many cities in developing countries are still at a nascent stage of understanding and in
implementing innovative practices like deliberative forms of democracy and VC-based financing,
especially in building urban rail transit systems. In India, more particularly, after the 73rd and 74th
amendments to the Indian Constitution, the decentralized governance framework has introduced a new
dynamic into the overall process of participatory democracy [35]. In 2011, the Government of India
Sustainability 2015, 7 8100
issued an advisory to cities on exploring monetization of urban land values through innovative
financing mechanisms to build urban transit infrastructure projects. Few cities across India have
attempted tapping urban land values such as introducing impact fees, higher floor-area-ratio (FAR)
sale, toll fees, auction of vacant public properties, betterment charges, and joint development of open
areas, in the context of rail transit, BRT, highways development, and town planning schemes. There is
little evidence of any broad-based active community engagements beyond administrative consultations
or information sharing, while implementing such charges resulted in small, one-time charged tax
revenues [13,36,37]. The majority of cities, especially in developing countries, have not yet fully
explored the possibilities of a participatory approach to VC with a strategic planning perspective.
Interestingly, there is definitely a drive among them in realizing the advantages of such practices [36].
What is lacking, however, is a keen understanding of VC process-oriented methodology or strategic
engagement framework guidance with various planning interventions across the VC life cycle. To
bring all stakeholders to the same level of understanding and consensus building regarding the
problems and potential solutions for the transit corridor based development requires a significant
amount of skills, knowledge sharing, flexibility, empowerment, and time to be spent [37]. This
demands facilitated policy development, mediated negotiations, sustained collaboration, and
productive stakeholder involvement. This raises many questions and concerns regarding implementation,
which include: who are the key stakeholders to engage with, what are the objectives of such
engagement, what are the appropriate engagement techniques and models to be used, how to encourage
participation and ensure commitments, and how do we monitor the effectiveness of such engagement.
The PSVC process framework proposed in this paper is conceived to address such concerns and is
based on the good practices which already exist and are packaged into a focused end to end strategic
framework across the VC life cycle from planning to implementation in an urban rail transit context.
3. VC Process Life Cycle
Worldwide, many cities have implemented VC-based infrastructure-financing options in a stage
wise process, but have differed in the adoption of VC mechanism strategies. These stages can describe
the process of the VC-based transit funding project life cycle, from planning to implementation. The
entire VC process is classified into six stages: initiation, planning, design, strategize, execution, and
operation. The participatory sustainability approach recommends engaging stakeholders across all six
stages of the VC process life cycle. These stages are predominantly the same in any VC-based project,
however, the key processes followed within each stage may vary slightly. This can be further explained.
For example, the first stage is “initiation”, which is the conceptualization phase where the possible
transit network, alignment options, land use, legislation, and regulation perspectives are considered.
Similarly, the second to fourth stages, “planning”, “design”, and “strategize”, include the process of
defining and structuring the VC for the transit project. Indeed, the actual process of VC planning,
design, and strategizing kick off during these phases. The last two stages of the VC life cycle,
“execute” and “operate”, drive the VC implementation and VC operationalization. The key processes
of VC, across each stage for any urban rail transit project, are illustrated in Figure 1.
Sustainability 2015, 7 8101
Figure 1. VC stages, key VC focus, and key VC processes across the VC life cycle.
Now the challenge is how to apply the stakeholder engagement strategy across the VC life cycle.
The participatory approach to VC is more like creating and articulating transit impact on land value
gain, and sharing the gain, involving all stakeholders in a win-win strategy for the community at large.
Such stakeholder engagement shall rightfully begin from the infrastructure-investment planning phase,
and jointly identify numerous ways of creating value and, then, to conceptually deliberate the means to
capture from such gains. The following section will detail the PSVC framework to enable the stated
participatory sustainability approach in a VC-based urban rail transit funding context.
4. Participatory Strategic Value Capture (PSVC) Framework
The PSVC framework offers a platform from which to undertake a stakeholder engagement process
in VC-based rail transit financing projects. This framework requires the participation of all stakeholder
groups at various stages of the VC process life cycle. This means involving stakeholders in all stages
of the process, from the initial defining of the VC process, which is to be used for the
operationalization of the project on a continuous basis. The PSVC framework is envisioned to provide
a common path to dialogue and deliberation among key stakeholders, mutually acceptable resolutions,
community aspirations and needs. This means that when value creation and capturing are facilitated
from development proposals that build urban rail transit systems then at the same time they should
enable sustainable station neighborhoods. The PSVC driven participatory approach to VC-based
project funding is to help improve trust, negotiation, and dialogue between different stakeholders, and
Sustainability 2015, 7 8102
to build a broader ownership of the VC process with commitment. The key success factors to achieve a
successful PSVC-driven stakeholder collaboration include:
Broad based community participation is enabled
Effective communication and commitment is created
Concurrence on shared goals, value created or expected
Strategic, independent, adaptive and transparent approaches are developed
Building trust among stakeholders through being inclusive
Unbiased engagement objectives and plans are set upfront
Equity in value redistribution is given due importance
Sustainability goals are incorporated along with transit goals
Transit station neighborhood aspirations are aligned with the project
Conflict management processes are set up
Stakeholder capacities are strengthened to enable adequate engagement
Compliance with the city priorities, policy framework and legislation is enabled
Thus, the PSVC framework focuses on that designing of processes that facilitates value creation
learning, deliberates on value redistribution and promotes joint action to determine agreed multiple
VC-based outcomes. These need to simultaneously suit transit funding and also neighborhood
revitalization. Essentially this provides a framework and a strategic forum, offering step-by-step
guidance to the participatory approach identifying various interventions across the VC life cycle to
fund and finance urban rail transit systems, rather than being applied in context for a particular VC tool.
The proposed PSVC framework is comprised of a sequential four-step stakeholder engagement model:
Step 1: Identify Stakeholders
Step 2: Set Engagement Objectives
Step 3: Select Engagement Techniques
Step 4: Monitor Engagement Performance
Each of these steps will be described in detail in this section.
4.1. Step 1: Identify Stakeholders
Step one involves identifying and classifying the necessary project stakeholders at the onset of the
project. The next step is to classify the identified stakeholders into specific groups based on their
interests in the project. In a VC-based transit financing project context, we can broadly classify the
stakeholders into three major groups: investors, wind-fall beneficiaries, and city community [37,38].
The three major stakeholder groups for an urban rail project, along with the stakeholders that could be
included in these groups, and their aspirations, are illustrated in Figure 2.
The first stakeholder group is the “Investor” group. These are the stakeholders who provide the
capital or investment in the project. They, along with providing a public good, also require a return on
investment. The “Wind-fall Beneficiary” group are those who benefit by the delivery of the project,
generally through their proximity to the project, and with urban rail projects, from the increased
accessibility, the increased property values, increased rents, agglomeration of new economies, and land
use changes, that happened due to the implementation of the rail project. The third group, the
Sustainability 2015, 7 8103
“Community” group, includes the local community members with direct access to the project,
particularly the low-income community groups within the vicinity, and the city tax payer community at
large [11,36]. Understanding the aspirations and cross-sectorial objectives of these groups provides a
solid platform to be able to define the appropriate VC process to be undertaken.
Figure 2. VC-based urban rail financing project stakeholders and their aspirations.
4.2. Step 2: Set Engagement Objectives
The second step involves defining the stakeholder engagement interventions and objectives across
the VC life cycle as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Stakeholder engagement interventions across the VC life cycle.
Sustainability 2015, 7 8104
The engagement objectives need to be defined across all the six stages of the VC life cycle. The
initial stage is more of a conceptual stage. Therefore, the set engagement objectives at this stage could
include information sharing, communication of project goals, the elicitation of community views,
validation of the problem, and determining the anticipated value addition through consultations.
Similarly, stakeholder engagement objectives during the second, third, and fourth phases would involve
participation, deliberation, and co-creation from all groups, as identified above, and involves deliberating
and agreeing on the various VC mechanisms to be utilized. The last two stages of the VC life cycle
drive the VC implementation and operationalization. During these last two VC stages, the set engagement
interests are primarily collaboration, engagement, and empowerment through active participation in
project steering groups and governance in order to ensure the set project objectives are achieved.
4.3. Step 3: Select Engagement Techniques
The third step facilitates the undertaking of stakeholder engagement by identifying appropriate
engagement techniques that could be used across a VC life cycle. Primarily, this step focuses on
establishing which engagement techniques might work best in each stage of the VC life cycle. DD
techniques cross referenced with VC life cycle and engagement objectives are shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Stakeholder engagement and DD techniques across a VC life cycle.
DD techniques are helpful in enabling and facilitating the participatory sustainability approach. The
rationale behind the recommended technique in each stage is more based on the set engagement
objective. In the first stage the likely engagement strategy is more on consultations, dialogue and
validation of the set project goals. World cafés and consensus forums are the most suitable techniques
to facilitate such deliberations. The following stages 2 and 3, require more deliberation, active
participation and ideation based engagement interests. Accordingly, the selected DD techniques, such
as the 21st Century Dialogue, Open Space Technology and Multi-Criteria Analysis will help in
identifying the issues, prioritization, and in achieving more committed participation of the
Sustainability 2015, 7 8105
stakeholders. Similarly the local area forum-based engagement will bring more of the micro level
issues into focus and also solutions to solve any problems. These suggested DD techniques have been
proven and will help to facilitate either larger or smaller group deliberations toward achieving a
common ground. In addition to the above-suggested list of DD techniques, there is a host of
stakeholder engagement techniques, tools, and campaigns, that are available with extensive literature
and internet-based data sources. Stakeholder engagement objectives and the deliberation group size are
key considerations in choosing an appropriate technique.
4.4. Step 4: Monitor Engagement Performance
Step four involves reviewing the stakeholder engagement model undertaken, and occurs after the
process has started and is ongoing over the project’s life cycle. A periodic review of stakeholder
engagement is undertaken, at each stage of the VC life cycle. This helps in understanding the
performance of the various stakeholder groups against the set objectives and targets. From time to time
it is advisable to have a check point to measure the effectiveness of the engagement performance, and
also to evaluate any risk groups or dependent activities. Performance indicators are a set of
interpretable, communicable, comparable measures for tracking the engagement effectiveness at any
defined engagement level or process. This is, however, project specific. Therefore, at the beginning of
the VC process, check points, or stages to measure the performance, need to be identified.
The PSVC framework enables participatory monitoring and evaluation by internally defined
indicators that are locally relevant, context specific, or stakeholder processes based on qualitative and
quantitative judgment. Quantitative indicators are used to measure the magnitude of the outcome,
while qualitative indicators describe the quality of the participation. At the same time, indicators may
differ with respect to the aspirations of different stakeholder groups. Therefore, to accommodate such
pluralism, a disaggregated model of indicators needs to be developed. Furthermore, the level of
engagement and the various stages of the VC life cycle in which engagement is desired would also
influence the type of indicator to be applied. Primarily indicators are methods to analyze, monitor,
learn, identify risks, and, if required, make course correction changes toward achieving the set
engagement objectives. The World Bank-developed participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E)
process tool proposes that indicators selected for a particular project need to be valid, relevant,
specific, timely, reliable, sensitive, and cost-effective [39].
A suggested list of possible indicators for process participation across the VC life cycle within a
PSVC framework is summarized in Figure 5. The suggested indicators list is by no means meant as a
model list of indicators to be used, but rather as a guide, as an example of what might be needed in
various project practices. Various tools, such as before and after surveys, stakeholder feedback forms
or interviews, questionnaire-based responses, opinion surveys, web-enabled feedback inputs,
measurable outcomes or commitments, are applied to gather data for the indicators.
Sustainability 2015, 7 8106
Figure 5. Stakeholder engagement monitoring and indicators across a VC life cycle.
The next section of this paper describes how these PSVC framework steps could be applied in
practice, utilizing a case study of the proposed Bangalore suburban rail project.
5. PSVC Framework Applied to the Proposed Bangalore Suburban Rail Project
Bangalore city is urbanizing at an unprecedented scale and has a current population of over
8.5 million. The urbanization process has been defined by increasing urban sprawl (though not as low
density as in American cities) and the development of a complex transport pattern (increasingly car
depenedent). This urbanization process presents a formidable commuting challenge today. The
Comprehensive Traffic and Transportation Plan for Bangalore recommended the implementation of a
suburban rail system, to link Bangalore to surrounding cities within a radius of 50–70 km in order to
help reduce dependence on road-based transportation [25]. Considering the potential benefits of
suburban rail services, the State Government of Karnataka has given its in-principle approval for the
project, and a Detailed Project Report (DPR) for its implementation has commenced [40]. Currently,
the proposed suburban rail plan is to use the existing inter-state rail network of about 370 km to
connect towns, suburbs, and the inner city by introducing capacity and improving the frequency
of operations.
Along with the DPR preparations, the Government of Karnataka is also keen to explore alternative
innovative financing options to build the suburban rail. To this end, the Directorate of Urban Land
Transport (DULT) from the Government of Karnataka State, India, signed a memorandum of
understanding with the Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute, Australia, and Center
for infrastructure, sustainable transport and urban planning (CiSTUP) of Indian Institute of Science,
Sustainability 2015, 7 8107
Bangalore to help facilitate a VC-based funding strategy. According to the VC life cycle described
above, the current progress of this suburban rail project can be defined as between the “Initiation” and
“Planning” stages. Though, conceptually, the project initiation and feasibility study was completed in
2013, the participatory route through stakeholder engagement has not been initiated thus far.
Therefore, as part of this project, under the auspices of AusAID sponsorship, a two-day stakeholder
deliberation workshop on “Bangalore Suburban Rail Project: potentials for innovative financing and
planning strategies” was held on 9–10 October 2013, in Bangalore, India. The objective of this workshop
was to introduce VC- based innovative financing mechanisms through knowledge-sharing sessions and
to conduct deliberation on the feasibility of the application of such VC concepts in the Bangalore
suburban rail project context. The workshop used a participatory sustainability approach to which the
PSVC framework was applied in order to demonstrate its use in practice, particularly the applicability
of undertaking stakeholder engagement, using appropriate DD techniques. The core question for the
deliberation around using VC in the Bangalore Suburban Rail project was identified to be “can we
improve understanding and skills around transit oriented design and VC based suburban rail financing
through stakeholder engagement using deliberative democracy techniques in Bangalore?” This project
has enabled the testing of the application of the PSVC framework. The steps undertaken during this
process are described next following the four-step PSVC framework described above, along with
detailing the process so far, the outcomes and the way forward for this innovative project.
5.1. Step 1: Stakeholder Identification
Following the PSVC framework classification, as the first step we identified the stakeholders that
would be involved in this project. They were broadly identified as: state government agencies, railway
organizations, and representing the “investor” group; the local station residents and business groups,
including slum dweller representative associations residing within a distance of 1 km from station, and
community groups from suburban towns representing the potential “wind-fall beneficiary” groups;
and, finally, the community group stakeholders identified as representatives from citizen forums,
NGOs, and resident associations. On the first day of the workshop deliberation involved about 80
high-level participants from a wide range of organizations and also community members. The second
day involved a smaller group of 26 key stakeholders, to summarize and agree on the next steps. These
Day 2 participants were selected in such a way so as to ensure at least one or two representatives from
the all identified stakeholder groups participated in the “way forward” discussion. Primarily, Day 1,
with greater participation, planned for deliberation, and Day 2 planned to summarize the deliberation
into action and agree on a way forward.
5.2. Step 2: Set Engagement Objectives
Following the PSVC framework, the project was defined as “post initiation” and in the “planning”
stages of the VC life cycle. This provided an opportunity to orchestrate the stakeholder engagement
workshop during the second stage “planning” of the Bangalore suburban rail project. This workshop
primarily focused on bringing together key stakeholders of the proposed Bangalore suburban rail to
deliberate on innovative financing options using VC mechanisms and to determine a way forward that
maximizes suburban rail attractiveness, sustainability, viability, and accessibility. The stakeholder
Sustainability 2015, 7 8108
engagement objectives defined were to encourage deliberation on the identified core questions and
understand stakeholder willingness to participate in the VC-based financing process.
Keeping in mind that no prior stakeholder consultations had taken place during the project initiation
stage, except for a consultant study on project feasibility, it was decided to include a knowledge-sharing
session during the workshop on Day 1. This provided an opportunity to enable all stakeholders to
understand land-based VC financing mechanisms and to hear from experts sharing global best
practices. This was followed by a core group deliberation, which included validating the VC concept
with respect to its applicability to the proposed Bangalore suburban rail project. The key sub-questions
discussed during the focused deliberations were: “how can we make VC work in Bangalore?” and
“which one among them will be the most important to make VC work in Bangalore?” The
deliberations concluded with a discussion about the constraints and opportunities of the VC process in
the Bangalore context.
In the future, if the process was to follow the PSVC framework, a number of deliberation
workshops would need to be organized as per the suggested stakeholder interventions across the VC
life cycle stages, as presented in Figure 2. These could include stakeholder participation across
remaining stages of the life cycle: the “VC design”, i.e., to identify the appropriate VC instruments to
value assessment, stakeholder willingness to participate, as would be appropriate in the project context.
A project steering group with representation from the stakeholder community could help in creating
the ‘roadmap’ to strategizing the VC process. This would enable stakeholder involvement to move from
participation to engagement. The following fourth stage, “VC strategies” would set an agenda for the
stakeholder community to jointly structure the VC fund and its redistribution strategies, as identified
upfront. Then, in the fifth stage, “VC Implementation”, and the last stage, “VC Operationalization”, it
enables stakeholders to be part of VC governance through reviewing the progress of the project and
evaluation of the VC process, as measured by the stated engagement interests and commitments.
5.3. Step 3: Select Engagement Techniques
This stage is about identifying the appropriate stakeholder engagement techniques, as recommended
by PSVC framework, appropriate for the “planning stage” of the VC life cycle. On Day 1, the two
main DD techniques deployed were: 21st Century Town Meeting/Dialogue and Multi Criteria Analysis
(MCA). On Day 2, the DD technique used was the Open Space Technology technique [25]. Day 1
involved small, facilitated groups, using networked computers linked to an innovative online software
platform. This platform is designed to facilitate the finding of common ground and common priorities.
For key sub-questions, the responses received were classified in real-time into major themes, with the
aid of on-line software, and then themes were reviewed and prioritized by participants with an
appropriate score assigned to each using weightages. These themes were ranked using the MCA
technique. The participants also deliberated on constraints and opportunities around adopting VC in
the context of the proposed Bangalore suburban rail project.
At the end of the Day 1 deliberations, a “Workshop Outcome Report” detailing the key points from
the day, including expert presentations and a complete copy of workshop deliberations, key themes,
and prioritization scores was compiled and distributed to each participant. Participants were very
excited to receive their report, as shown in Figure 6. This presentation of the report was very important
Sustainability 2015, 7 8109
to maintain interest and enthusiasm with participants, as it enabled participants to have key outcomes
immediately, rather than waiting for a report to be produced a few weeks later, as typically happens in
traditional workshops [29]. The workshop on Day 2 used the Open Space Technology technique. On
Day 2 about 26 key participants representing all stakeholder groups deliberated on the key outcomes
from the previous day, and then identified actions, task-owners, and milestones moving forward.
Figure 6. Participants showing the receipt of workshop report in real-time at the end of the
Day 1 event.
5.4. Step 4: Monitor Engagement Performance
At the end of the event, the workshop results and processes were analyzed and the engagement
model used was found to be very positive. This is the first stakeholder workshop in the proposed
sub-urban rail project context. As stated earlier, project progress could be defined between the
initiation and planning phases. We apply the PSVC framework then the current VC processes are
defined between the first and second stages of the VC life cycle. The results are, therefore, primarily
evaluated based on the suggested indicators of the PSVC framework, stated in these two stages.
Firstly, the workshop was a success in identifying and involving broad based stakeholder groups,
including the government, public, private, city community, sub-urban community, local governments,
and resident associations from sub-urban station neighborhoods. Secondly, the workshop achieved a
consensus on the significance of the sub-urban rail project, and endorsed the urgency of its
implementation. The workshop also demonstrated the key learning of VC concepts shared, which were
reflected in active stakeholder deliberations. Lastly, all stakeholder groups unanimously agreed that
land-based VC financing was appropriate for the project, and also suggested barriers and opportunities
in the current system, along with high-level solutions for the alternatives proposed, which was truly a
great result within such a short time.
Overall, using the DD process uniquely transformed the role the public normally plays in traditional
community consultation, from combative and divisive to cooperative and co-intelligent. As a result of
the workshop, being the first of its kind, many more such stakeholder interactions will be planned to
achieve the set engagement objectives [40]. This workshop could not yet identify the enablers or
community champions to be sought out, which require other channels and one-on-one meetings to
ensure a committed participation. In order to understand issues at the network level, many more
Sustainability 2015, 7 8110
station-neighborhood-based deliberations need to be organized to finalize the plans. Although the
workshop discussed the sub-urban rail network influence zone to be within a 1 km radius from the
metro rail, opinions may differ in the sub-urban areas. This again underscores the need to organize
sub-urban-based micro-level deliberations at a later stage. Lack of transit funding and other sustainable
transportation planning issues were deliberated in the workshop, but require more such deliberations to
finalize the priorities list. The identified high priority issues, such as lack of coordination between
multiple agencies involved, highlight the fact that transit and development are still functioning in silos
and are large challenges for VC-based participatory transit governance.
As this was the first attempt to bring all stakeholders on to a single platform, the performance
indicators were not developed on a collaborative basis. In the future, based on the current learning,
such targets and expectations can be collaboratively decided in advance of such deliberations. The
authors recommend that performance indicators should be classified into macro-level and micro-level
targets to measure the outcomes, and identify the need to plan future deliberations or campaigns to
achieve the set objectives. This evaluation, therefore, can conclude the event as a 100% achievement, as
far as broader macro-level objectives of information sharing, project significance, willingness to
participate in the VC process and its applicability, are concerned. In conclusion, this evaluation also
recommends a series of such deliberations and campaigns in the future, during the project planning
phase, to further identify stakeholder champions, station-level or network level priorities, and to
more clearly seek station community goals and unique sub-urban area concerns that impact on the
value proposition.
5.5. Discussion
The deliberation process around the potential of VC in Bangalore enabled real discussions across a
variety of stakeholders, enabled potential oppositions or tensions to be considered, and a variety of
viewpoints to be expressed, debated, and then a common understanding to be developed. For example,
stakeholders deliberated and discussed, in smaller groups, potential “constraints and opportunities” to
utilizing the VC process in the Bangalore suburban rail project. The group responses were classified in
real-time, with the aid of on-line software, into major themes coming from the entire group. These
themes were then prioritized. This technique facilitate iteration, enabling the group to continue
discussing until a clear idea or action was identified. Indeed, using the MCA technique with
weightings to prioritize the themes, helped to define the whole VC process. From the example above,
“constraints and opportunities”, the major constraint to utilizing VC in the Bangalore suburban rail
project was collectively decided to be that: “There is a lack of collaboration, coordination and capacity
between and within agencies, with many conflicting interests. Better coordination is essential”, and for
opportunities, “VC schemes are popular and offer opportunities for involvement with various
stakeholders (private sector, developers, land owners and citizens)” [40]. From this, the next steps can
be determined and potential opposition can be aired and deliberated on so that a common
understanding is developed and formalized through the workshop outcomes report. In this example,
this was undertaken very quickly, in two days, using the framework driven approach described above.
Overall stakeholder acceptance of the VC process and the feasibility of the project was agreed on. If
the participatory sustainability approach had not been undertaken, then developing this common
Sustainability 2015, 7 8111
understanding may have taken a much longer time, using more common stakeholder engagement
processes, or not happened at all.
Moreover, the PSVC framework-driven stakeholder engagement approach, not only provided a
platform for facilitating the development of a common ground, but also provided a source for
cross-pollination of new knowledge and new ideas to VC value assessment. For example, when the
beneficiary group deliberated in smaller groups, they deliberated on what the possible equity
implications were and also the possible negativities they would face during the project construction
phase. In reality, this group, due to their proximity to the project site, does experience much
greateranxiety, interruptions to their businesses, traffic chaos, and other pollution-related negatives
during the project construction period. Thus, the discussion occured regarding how this negative
externality could be compensated for from the increased land value gained later in the process, how
this could be designed into the appropriate VC mechanism, and how this could be used to determine
the value assessment criteria in VC design at a later stage. These ideas and discussions may never have
occurred without this deliberation. Additionally, the group deliberated on commuter demand from the
affordability criteria rather than proximity-based traditional capacity estimates, which may often lead
to exaggerated demand. This is an important input for suburban rail capacity planning as the
beneficiary community mainly provides the catchment capacity and also source for fare box revenues
at a later stage. Lastly, participants identified support infrastructure requirements, such as bicycle
paths, foot paths, auto-rickshaw parking, vehicle parking and smart fare systems, as essential
investments and critical to making the station accessible and suburban rail an attractive commuter
choice. This enhanced the scope of VC financing, to not only cover the cost of the rail infrastructure
provision, but also to include the cost of providing the support infrastructures around the stations as
well. Often, these support infrastructure investments are ignored during VC redistribution by rail
authorities, as most of such support infrastructures need to be provided by other government agencies.
The above are a few examples that highlight the significant value of the deployment of the PSVC
framework-driven participatory sustainability approach to positively contribute in enhancing the
planning and design of the VC process. The received inputs from the stakeholders were very useful for
this planning stage, and will greatly help the Bangalore suburban rail VC design stage. As part of the
next steps, post-DPR study completion, it was agreed to initiate the value assessment along the
identified suburban rail corridors to identify potential VC mechanisms and strategies to generate revenues.
Overall, participants found several meaningful opportunities to engage in public deliberation, policy
development, and decision-making during the workshop. Though it was a successful deliberation
within the given constraints of time, stakeholder participation has not yet translated into engagement
levels. As the project is still in a planning stage, as a work-in-progress, further stakeholder engagement
needs to be continued throughout the life cycle of the VC process. Another important immediate future
step is to identify key stakeholders to be a project steering group. Thus, the PSVC framework, applied
to the proposed Bangalore suburban rail project in India, has demonstrated the importance of
stakeholder engagement in order to enable sustainable development community goals and to review
VC strategies from a win-win perspective.
Sustainability 2015, 7 8112
6. Conclusions
VC integrates the land use and transit system to enable an alternate revenue source, which is
traditionally ignored due to a flawed revenue focus. However using VC as a pure revenue raiser,
instead of incorporating a participatory approach, is likely to lead to inequitable results. A participatory
approach is, thus, an essential element of all VC planning and implementation processes. Stakeholder
participation enables concerned parties to understand each other’s requirements and limitations, and
allows them to work together to reach solutions in a consensus. To this end, the PSVC framework
described in this paper provides a unique attempt to enable stakeholder participation in the VC process,
and also enable stakeholder participation to strengthen the outcomes of the VC process. The PSVC
framework utilizes deliberative democracy stakeholder engagement techniques. These enable each
person to meaningfully participate. The PSVC framework is described and tested in the Bangalore
Suburban Rail case study. The framework has the potential to provide an important step forward in
mobilizing stakeholder support to the innovative financing option of VC, as well as potentially
enabling the VC process to explore its true potential. The results suggest that the PSVC framework
provides a powerful tool to visualize the value of the project from the point of view of all stakeholders,
and also enables increased acceptance and understanding of the project. The PSVC framework also
enables the minimization of risks through the early involvement of the stakeholder groups (investors,
beneficiaries, and the community). Furthermore, the PSVC framework has the potential to be applied
to stakeholder engagement in any VC-based transit-financing project globally, and could be extended
to other forms of VC-based urban infrastructure investment by modifying the objectives and the
stakeholder groups to reflect the context of the project.
In conclusion, stakeholder-driven VC approaches can shape and reshape any transit-oriented
development in compliance with sustainable development goals, including community aspirations with
well-defined value creation and value redistribution strategies upfront.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the Directorate of Urban Land
Transport (DULT) of State Government of Karnataka, India, and CiSTUP, Indian Institute of Science
in jointly organizing the Bangalore suburban rail workshop. The authors also would like to thank
AusAid, PATREC, and Curtin University for research grants. The authors would like to extend sincere
thanks to Janette Hartz-Karp of Curtin University, Australia, for her expert training inputs on
participatory sustainability and deliberative democracy approaches, and for her leadership in
successfully conducting the Bangalore workshop in India. The authors would like to thank the Editor
and anonymous reviewers of the 4th World Sustainability Forum Conference and Sustainability for
their guided inputs and publication as part of WSF4, 2014: e-conference proceedings.
Author Contributions
Satya Sai Kumar Jillella contributed to writing and completion of manuscript, established the
research paper design, paper methodology, policy analysis, and preparation of tables and figures.
Annie Matan supervised, and assisted with the manuscript compilation, editing, and co-authorship of
Sustainability 2015, 7 8113
manuscript. Peter Newman supervised, and guided with editing and co-authorship of manuscript. All
authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Newman, P.; Kenworthy, J. Sustainability and Cities Overcoming Automobile Dependence,
1st ed.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1999; pp. 116–118.
2. Newman, P.; Glazebrook, G.; Kenworthy, J. Peak Car Use and the Rise of Global Rail: Why this
is happening and what it means for large and small cities. JTTs 2013, 3, 272–287.
3. Cervero, R.; Duncan, M. Rail’s Added Value. Urban Land. 2002, 6, 77–84.
4. Cervero, R. Rail Transit and Joint Development: Land Market Impacts in Washington, DC and
Atlanta. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 1994, 60, 83–94.
5. Smith, J.J.; Gihring, T.A. Financing Transit Systems through Value Capture: An Annotated
Bibliography. Am. J. Ecol. Sociol. 2006, 65, 751–786.
6. William, B.H. Value Capture as a Policy Tool in Transportation Economics: An Exploration in
Public Finance in the Tradition of Henry George. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 2001, 60, 195–228.
7. Medda, F.R. Land value capture finance for transport accessibility: A review. J Transp. Geogr.
2012, 25, 154–161.
8. Smolka, M.O. Implementing Value Capture in Latin America: Policies and Tools for Urban
Development, a Policy Focus Report; The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: Cambridge, MA,
USA, 2013.
9. Wolf-Powers, L. Community Benefits Agreements in a Value Capture Context. In Value Capture
and Land Policies; Ingram, G.K., Hong, Y., Eds.; Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: Cambridge,
MA, USA, 2012; pp. 217–232.
10. Gross, J. CBAs: Definitions, values, and legal enforceability. Int. J. Afford. Hous. Comm. Dev.
Law. 2008, 17, 36–58.
11. Walker, J. Land Value Capture and Infrastructure Delivery through SLICs. In T&CP Tomorrow
Series Paper 13; TCPA: London, UK, 2012.
12. Smolka, M.O. A New Look at Value Capture in Latin America. J. Land Lines 2012, 243, 10–15.
13. Jillella, S.S.K. Unlocking land values in financing urban infrastructure. In CiSTUP News Letter,
Volume 3; Indian Institute of Science: Bangalore, India, 2012; pp. 14–15.
14. Smolka, M.O.; Iracheta, A. Mobilizing Land Value Increments to Provide Serviced Land for the
Poor; Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999.
15. Scheurer, J.; Newman, P.; Kenworthy, J.; Gallagher, T. Can Rail Pay? Light Rail Transit and
Urban Redevelopment with Value Capture Funding and Joint Development Mechanisms; Institute
for Science and Technology Policy: Murdoch University, Perth, Australia, 2000.
Sustainability 2015, 7 8114
16. OECD. Citizens as Partners: OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public
Participation in Policymaking; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD): Paris, France, 2001. Available online: http://internationalbudget.org/wp-content/
uploads/Citizens-as-Partners-OECD-Handbook.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2014).
17. Holmes, B. Citizens’ Engagement in Policymaking and the Design of Public Services; Australian
Parliamentary Library: Canberra, Australia, 2011.
18. OECD. Promise and Problems of E-Democracy; Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD): Paris, France, 2003. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/governance/
public-innovation/35176328.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2014).
19. OECD. Focus on Citizens: Public Engagement for Better Policy and Services. 2009. Available
online: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/3/42658029.pdf (accessed on 8 January 2015).
20. Ramanathan R. A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact
assessment, J. Environ. Manag. 2001, 63, 27–35.
21. Kenneth, M.A.; Andrew, C. Stakeholder engagement: A mechanism for sustainable aviation.
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2006, 13, 245–260.
22. Bolton Council. Involving Our Communities: Bolton’s Community Engagement and Tool Kit.
2007. Available online: http://www.bolton.gov.uk/sites/DocumentCentre/Documents/Community
EngagementAndConsultationToolkit.doc (accessed on 10 May 2015).
23. Hartz-Karp, J. How and why deliberative democracy enables co-intelligence and brings wisdom
to governance. J. Public Deliber. 2007, 3, 1–9.
24. Carolyn, J.L.; Lars, H.T. Public Deliberation: A Manager’s Guide to Citizen Engagement.
IBM Center for the Business of Government, 2006. Available online: http://www.businessof
government.org/report/public-deliberation-managers-guide-citizen-engagement (accessed on 20
June 2015).
25. Hartz-Karp, J. Deliberative Democracy: Techniques that Create Opportunities for Joint
Decision-making. In Participatory Sustainability (302475) Unit Information and Learning Guide;
Curtin University of Technology: Perth, Australia, 2013; pp. 45–119.
26. Margaret. G.; Hartz-Karp, J. The Role of Deliberative Collaborative Governance in Achieving
Sustainable Cities. J. Sustain. 2013, 5, 2343–2366.
27. Musil, T.A. The sleeping giant: Community benefit agreements and urban development. J. Urban
Law. 2012, 44, 827–852. Available online: http://ir.stthomas.edu/ocbfincpub/18 (accessed on 20
April 2015).
28. Wolf-Powers, L. Community Benefits Agreements and Local Government: A review of recent
evidence. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2010, 762, 141–159.
29. Been, V. Community benefits agreements: A new local government tool or another variation on
the exactions theme? Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 2010, 771, 5–35.
30. Christopher, D.H.; Mark, R.F. The North American Light Rail Experiences: Insights for Hamilton;
McMaster University: Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2012. Available online: http://mitl.mcmaster.
ca/documents/MITL_LRT_August.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2015).
Sustainability 2015, 7 8115
31. Mathur, S.; Smith, A. A Decision-support Framework for Using Value Capture to Fund Public
Transit: Lessons from Project-specific Analyses. 2012. Available online: http://transweb.sjsu.edu/
PDFs/research/1004-decision-support-framework-value-capture-public-transit-funding.pdf
(accessed on 2 May 2015).
32. David, M. Portland streetcar brings economic development. 2014 Available online:
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/03/26/portland-cincinnati-streetcar-
david-mann/6930051/ (accessed on 20 May 2015).
33. Paul, K.S. Financing the Airport Light Rail Line in Portland, Oregon: A Case study of public-private
partnership. J. Struct. Financ. 2001, 7, 54–67.
34. Oregon Metro. Public Engagement Guide: Final Adoption Draft. 2013. Available online:
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/final_draft_public_engagement_guide_112113.pdf
(accessed on 8 May 2015).
35. Ministry of Urban Development; National Urban Transport Policy (NUTP); Government of India.
National Urban Transport Policy. 2006. Available online: http://moud.gov.in/sites/upload_files/
moud/files/pdf/TransportPolicy.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2015).
36. Cervero, R. Linking Urban Transport and Land use in Developing Countries. J. Trans. Land.
2013, 6, 7–24.
37. Suzuki, H.; Luchi, K.; Cervero, R. Transforming Cities with Transit: Transit and Land-Use
Integration for Sustainable Urban Development; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
38. McIntosh, J.; Newman, P.; Crane, T.; Mouritz, M. Alternative Funding Mechanisms for Public
Transport in Perth: The Potential Role of Value Capture, Discussion Paper; Curtin University
Sustainability Policy Institute: Perth, Australia, 2011.
39. Larson, S.; Williams, L.J. Monitoring the Success of Stakeholder Management: Literature
Review. In People, Communities, and Economies of the Lake Eyre Basin; Mesham, T.G., Ed.;
Alice Springs: Canberra, Australia, 2009; pp. 251–298.
40. Newman, P.; Matan, A. Report on Stemming Car Dependency and Improving Transport Options
in Indian Cities; Technical report of AusAID Public Sector Linkage Program Project (65080);
Curtin University Sustainable Policy (CUSP) Institute: Fremantle, Australia, 2013.
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
... Cost-effectiveness Trubka et al., 2010;Nahlika and Chester, 2014;Ahlfeldt and Pietrostefani, 2017;Lee and Erickson, 2017;Sharma, 2018 Peterson andMichalek, 2013;IEA, 2017bAmbrosino et al., 2016Cheyne and Imran, 2016;Kent and Dowling, 2016 Absence of distributional effects Colenbrander et al., 2015;Lwasa, 2017;Broekhoff et al., 2018;Teferi and Newman, 2018;Wiktorowicz et al., 2018 Glazebrook andSivak andSchoettle, 2018 Gomez et al., 2015;Ambrosino et al., 2016;Kent and Dowling, 2016 Employment and productivity enhancement potential Ambrosino et al., 2016;Ahlfeldt and Pietrostefani, 2017;Broto, 2017;Gao and Newman, 2018;Han et al., 2018Whitelegg, 2016IEA, 2017bSweet, 2014Cheyne and Imran, 2016 Technological Technical scalability Broekhoff et al., 2018;Sharma, 2018;R. Zhang et al., 2018Brown et al., 2010IEA, 2017bBroch et al., 2013Ambrosino et al., 2016;Kent and Dowling, 2016;Reis et al., 2016Maturity Parnell, 2015Newman et al., 2017Whitelegg, 2016 Nahlika and Chester, 2014;Jillella et al., 2015;Chava and Newman, 2016;Su et al., 2016;Chava et al., 2018a, b IEA, 2017bNewman et al., 2017 de Groot andSteg, 2007;Rojas-Rueda et al., 2012;Cheyne and Imran, 2016;Kent and Dowling, 2016 Public acceptance Jillella et al., 2015;Chava and Newman, 2016;Chava et al., 2018a, b;Moglia et al., 2018Zhang et al., 2011Bockarjova and Steg, 2014;Liao et al., 2017 de Groot andSteg, 2007;Le Vine et al., 2014;Ambrosino et al., 2016;Kent and Dowling, 2016;Reis et al., 2016 Social and regional inclusiveness Jillella et al., 2015;Chava and Newman, 2016;Colenbrander et al., 2017;Endo et al., 2017;Lwasa, 2017;Broekhoff et al., 2018;Chava et al., 2018a, b;Teferi and Newman, 2018LE Newman et al., 2017Cheyne and Imran, 2016Kent and Dowling, 2016 Intergenerational equity LE Newman et al., 2017Newman et al., 2017Kenworthy and Schiller, 2018 Le Vine et al., 2014;Cheyne and Imran, 2016;Glazebrook and Newman, 2018 Human capabilities Moglia et al., 2018Wirasingha et al., 2008Newman et al., 2017Reis et al., 2016Newman et al., 2017 Environmental/ ecological Reduction of air pollution Deenihan and Caulfield, 2014;Gössling and Choi, 2015;MacDonald Gibson et al., 2015;V. Brown et al., 2016;Matan and Newman, 2016;Rajé and Saffrey, 2016;Litman, 2017Corbett et al., 2009Dessens et al., 2014;Cames et al., 2015a, b Absence of distributional effects Kenworthy and Schiller, 2018;Linovski et al., 2018;Yangka andKenworthy, 2015;Matan and Newman, 2016;Lohmann and Gasparini, 2017;Litman, 2018LE Cames et al., 2015a Employment and productivity enhancement potential Hazledine et al., 2017;Gao and Newman, 2018;Schiller, 2018 Matan andLitman, 2017Litman, , 2018Rohani andLawrence, 2017 Cames et al., 2015a;Gencsü and Hino, 2015 Technological Technical scalability Kenworthy and Schiller, 2018;Yangka and Newman, 2018;R. ...
... Cost-effectiveness Trubka et al., 2010;Nahlika and Chester, 2014;Ahlfeldt and Pietrostefani, 2017;Lee and Erickson, 2017;Sharma, 2018 Peterson andMichalek, 2013;IEA, 2017bAmbrosino et al., 2016Cheyne and Imran, 2016;Kent and Dowling, 2016 Absence of distributional effects Colenbrander et al., 2015;Lwasa, 2017;Broekhoff et al., 2018;Teferi and Newman, 2018;Wiktorowicz et al., 2018 Glazebrook andSivak andSchoettle, 2018 Gomez et al., 2015;Ambrosino et al., 2016;Kent and Dowling, 2016 Employment and productivity enhancement potential Ambrosino et al., 2016;Ahlfeldt and Pietrostefani, 2017;Broto, 2017;Gao and Newman, 2018;Han et al., 2018Whitelegg, 2016IEA, 2017bSweet, 2014Cheyne and Imran, 2016 Technological Technical scalability Broekhoff et al., 2018;Sharma, 2018;R. Zhang et al., 2018Brown et al., 2010IEA, 2017bBroch et al., 2013Ambrosino et al., 2016;Kent and Dowling, 2016;Reis et al., 2016Maturity Parnell, 2015Newman et al., 2017Whitelegg, 2016 Nahlika and Chester, 2014;Jillella et al., 2015;Chava and Newman, 2016;Su et al., 2016;Chava et al., 2018a, b IEA, 2017bNewman et al., 2017 de Groot andSteg, 2007;Rojas-Rueda et al., 2012;Cheyne and Imran, 2016;Kent and Dowling, 2016 Public acceptance Jillella et al., 2015;Chava and Newman, 2016;Chava et al., 2018a, b;Moglia et al., 2018Zhang et al., 2011Bockarjova and Steg, 2014;Liao et al., 2017 de Groot andSteg, 2007;Le Vine et al., 2014;Ambrosino et al., 2016;Kent and Dowling, 2016;Reis et al., 2016 Social and regional inclusiveness Jillella et al., 2015;Chava and Newman, 2016;Colenbrander et al., 2017;Endo et al., 2017;Lwasa, 2017;Broekhoff et al., 2018;Chava et al., 2018a, b;Teferi and Newman, 2018LE Newman et al., 2017Cheyne and Imran, 2016Kent and Dowling, 2016 Intergenerational equity LE Newman et al., 2017Newman et al., 2017Kenworthy and Schiller, 2018 Le Vine et al., 2014;Cheyne and Imran, 2016;Glazebrook and Newman, 2018 Human capabilities Moglia et al., 2018Wirasingha et al., 2008Newman et al., 2017Reis et al., 2016Newman et al., 2017 Environmental/ ecological Reduction of air pollution Deenihan and Caulfield, 2014;Gössling and Choi, 2015;MacDonald Gibson et al., 2015;V. Brown et al., 2016;Matan and Newman, 2016;Rajé and Saffrey, 2016;Litman, 2017Corbett et al., 2009Dessens et al., 2014;Cames et al., 2015a, b Absence of distributional effects Kenworthy and Schiller, 2018;Linovski et al., 2018;Yangka andKenworthy, 2015;Matan and Newman, 2016;Lohmann and Gasparini, 2017;Litman, 2018LE Cames et al., 2015a Employment and productivity enhancement potential Hazledine et al., 2017;Gao and Newman, 2018;Schiller, 2018 Matan andLitman, 2017Litman, , 2018Rohani andLawrence, 2017 Cames et al., 2015a;Gencsü and Hino, 2015 Technological Technical scalability Kenworthy and Schiller, 2018;Yangka and Newman, 2018;R. ...
... Cost-effectiveness Trubka et al., 2010;Nahlika and Chester, 2014;Ahlfeldt and Pietrostefani, 2017;Lee and Erickson, 2017;Sharma, 2018 Peterson andMichalek, 2013;IEA, 2017bAmbrosino et al., 2016Cheyne and Imran, 2016;Kent and Dowling, 2016 Absence of distributional effects Colenbrander et al., 2015;Lwasa, 2017;Broekhoff et al., 2018;Teferi and Newman, 2018;Wiktorowicz et al., 2018 Glazebrook andSivak andSchoettle, 2018 Gomez et al., 2015;Ambrosino et al., 2016;Kent and Dowling, 2016 Employment and productivity enhancement potential Ambrosino et al., 2016;Ahlfeldt and Pietrostefani, 2017;Broto, 2017;Gao and Newman, 2018;Han et al., 2018Whitelegg, 2016IEA, 2017bSweet, 2014Cheyne and Imran, 2016 Technological Technical scalability Broekhoff et al., 2018;Sharma, 2018;R. Zhang et al., 2018Brown et al., 2010IEA, 2017bBroch et al., 2013Ambrosino et al., 2016;Kent and Dowling, 2016;Reis et al., 2016Maturity Parnell, 2015Newman et al., 2017Whitelegg, 2016 Nahlika and Chester, 2014;Jillella et al., 2015;Chava and Newman, 2016;Su et al., 2016;Chava et al., 2018a, b IEA, 2017bNewman et al., 2017 de Groot andSteg, 2007;Rojas-Rueda et al., 2012;Cheyne and Imran, 2016;Kent and Dowling, 2016 Public acceptance Jillella et al., 2015;Chava and Newman, 2016;Chava et al., 2018a, b;Moglia et al., 2018Zhang et al., 2011Bockarjova and Steg, 2014;Liao et al., 2017 de Groot andSteg, 2007;Le Vine et al., 2014;Ambrosino et al., 2016;Kent and Dowling, 2016;Reis et al., 2016 Social and regional inclusiveness Jillella et al., 2015;Chava and Newman, 2016;Colenbrander et al., 2017;Endo et al., 2017;Lwasa, 2017;Broekhoff et al., 2018;Chava et al., 2018a, b;Teferi and Newman, 2018LE Newman et al., 2017Cheyne and Imran, 2016Kent and Dowling, 2016 Intergenerational equity LE Newman et al., 2017Newman et al., 2017Kenworthy and Schiller, 2018 Le Vine et al., 2014;Cheyne and Imran, 2016;Glazebrook and Newman, 2018 Human capabilities Moglia et al., 2018Wirasingha et al., 2008Newman et al., 2017Reis et al., 2016Newman et al., 2017 Environmental/ ecological Reduction of air pollution Deenihan and Caulfield, 2014;Gössling and Choi, 2015;MacDonald Gibson et al., 2015;V. Brown et al., 2016;Matan and Newman, 2016;Rajé and Saffrey, 2016;Litman, 2017Corbett et al., 2009Dessens et al., 2014;Cames et al., 2015a, b Absence of distributional effects Kenworthy and Schiller, 2018;Linovski et al., 2018;Yangka andKenworthy, 2015;Matan and Newman, 2016;Lohmann and Gasparini, 2017;Litman, 2018LE Cames et al., 2015a Employment and productivity enhancement potential Hazledine et al., 2017;Gao and Newman, 2018;Schiller, 2018 Matan andLitman, 2017Litman, , 2018Rohani andLawrence, 2017 Cames et al., 2015a;Gencsü and Hino, 2015 Technological Technical scalability Kenworthy and Schiller, 2018;Yangka and Newman, 2018;R. ...
... In cases where fees are excessively high, landowners may opt not to pay them and forgo land development (Wyatt 2017). This game of legitimacy tends to blur the boundaries between public and private interests and often involves non-transparent negotiations and non-participatory processes (Aveline-Dubach and Blandeau 2019; Jillella, Matan, and Newman 2015). ...
Article
Full-text available
Land Value Capture (LVC) in the Global South has long been a subject of long-standing debate, primarily driven by the need to address uneven urbanization and finance public investments. Despite its significance, current literature focuses on case analyses limited to local implementation contingencies. This paper aims to critically examine LVC as an epistemic object and question its approach within urban studies. Our hypothesis posits that LVC has remained confined to the empirical dimension of case studies, replicated for years, demanding a higher level of theorization that could reveal the colonizing intentions encrusted in the policy learning flows from the Global North.
... Jillella proposed a four step participatory strategic value capture (PSVC) framework. The PSVC framework, applied to the sub-urban rail project in India, has demonstrated the importance of stakeholder engagement using deliberated participatory approaches from a win-win perspective [24]. Currently, research on subway passageways is mainly aimed at meeting the transfer needs of passenger flow, but there is still insufficient research on commercial functions. ...
Article
Full-text available
In this study, three key factors affecting the planning of metro commercial passageways are selected: the built environment of metro station, travel purposes of passenger flow and gate position of the station hall. The Pearson model, Logistic model and software simulation are combined to analyze passage passenger flow. In the study of metro passageways, most studies focus on the optimization of evacuation and transfer functions, with little research on metro commercial passageways. The purpose of this study is to improve the attractiveness of metro commercial passageways to passenger flow by improving the three key factors mentioned above, thereby improving the current situation of underground commerce. The analysis results show that in the built environment analysis, the four selected construction factors are highly correlated with the passenger flow, and the correlation degree is in the following order (from high to low): length of the passage, operation of the escalators, the distance from the passage exit to the bus stop and the passage width. In the passenger flow travel purpose analysis, based on the structure of passengers and the function of the surrounding land use, it can be divided into shopping, work and living purposes, and the result of model parameter comparison shows that “shopping trips” is the most significant purpose. According to the analysis of the location of the exit gates at the station concourse level, the passageway with a closer distance or linear pattern to the gate location is more attractive to the passenger flow.
... On the demand side, input from all vulnerable groups is needed in order to deliver a user-oriented product. Stakeholder consultation should not be a mechanical exercise to justify an already existing project but be conducted with the aim of developing the project at the planning stage (see Jillella, Matan, and Newman 2015). ...
Article
In the cities of two million or more population in India, with expected high rates of urbanisation, fifty urban metro-rail projects are planned to meet the large latent demand for mobility. The debates about mass transit projects in India have compared the appropriateness of rail-based versus bus-based city-wide public transport systems. The national government formulated Metro Rail Policy in 2017 with partial national government funding. It is important to assess such mega-transport projects in order to understand their contribution to Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in the context of the Paris Agreement of 2015, and Agenda 2030 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In this paper we propose an expansion of a published project appraisal checklist on three rationales, i.e., the potential for realistic climate change mitigation, five relevant SDGs at the target level, and effective input from multiple stakeholders and actors across multiple stages of the life cycle of a project.
... This will also help the MMDAs to better communicate and engage stakeholders effectively. Stakeholders could be classified into three main groups: investors, wind-fall beneficiaries, and city community in accordance to Jillella, Matan, and Newman (2015). The investor group of stakeholders are those who provide capital investment in infrastructure services within the MMDAs. ...
... As the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 89: "Public Participation Strategies for Transit" discusses a number of documented transit-related case studies can be found in the literature, but, most concern "high-profile, high cost projects" or deal with specific issues (such as environmental/community impacts) (Giering, 2011). For example, passenger rail case studies both in and outside of the U.S. include mostly new constructions, such as from the planning of a new high-speed rail link between Lyon, France, and Turin, Italy (Pagliara and Di Ruocco, 2018) and the Campania Regional Metro System in Italy (Cascetta et al., 2015) to the planning of a proposed new suburban passenger rail in Bangalore, India (Jillella et al., 2015) and a proposed light-rail transit in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (Casello et al., 2015); expansions, such as extensions of the San Diego Trolley light-rail transit (Bates and Wahl, 1997); and rail transit-oriented development (TOD), such as the design of light rail TOD in Louisville Kentucky (Bailey et al., 2007) and the cases of Clarendon Station Area, Arlington County, Virginia, Emerson Park Station Area, East St. Louis, Illinois, and Fruitvale Transit Village, Oakland, California (Slotterback, 2010). In many cases, smaller-size state or regional public transportation projects, or more general initiatives related to regional transportation planning, including passenger rail decision making of operational changes, do not get the same attention. ...
Article
Recent changes in the United States (U.S.) passenger rail policies have affected a number of National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) corridors. One of the major changes is that, since the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) of 2008 was passed, all short-distance Amtrak corridors should become state-supported. Stakeholder and public involvement is strongly advocated by the U.S. Department of Transportation as a fundamental component of the transportation planning process and an important step to keep the public informed and engaged in decision making. Thus, states should attempt to engage the public in any funding decisions that might affect passenger rail service changes (such as line discontinuance). In addition, states should seek the input of the stakeholder and public to evaluate the alternative transportation investment options available in case such service changes occur. Nevertheless, both literature and practice of stakeholder engagement on policy making and planning of strategic operational changes and/or other broader decision making is scarce. This article presents a case study of stakeholder engagement in transportation decision making pertaining to decisions of investments in passenger rail and state and local fund allocation, using a focus group approach. This engagement aimed to (1) consult stakeholders in a group setting in an attempt to produce shared knowledge and (2) explore how the transportation investment decision-making process can incorporate public preferences and community values in a participatory manner via the assessment of potential investment directions. The goals of the study are to explore whether stakeholder engagement at a smaller-size projects and/or broader policy and planning decision making can be beneficial, and whether focus groups are suitable to facilitate such engagement. The findings verify that stakeholder involvement can provide states and other decision-makers with valuable insights on several topics supporting future policy and funding decisions. For example, in the case explored, the engagement of the stakeholders revealed that public investments towards the continuation and potentially improvement of the intercity passenger rail services are in line with the communities’ goals and are viewed as more beneficial than alternative transportation investments that can enable mobility in the area. In addition, the findings suggest that the benefits of engaging stakeholders in transportation decision making go beyond the act of gathering stakeholders’ input; focus groups or similar dynamic forums can facilitate the production of innovative ideas and shared knowledge while fostering collegiality among stakeholders. Finally, the findings of the case study also verify that focus groups can be a suitable approach to engage and consult a small group of stakeholders for higher-level transportation investment decision making. Overall, the case study results indicate that stakeholder engagement can benefit smaller-size projects and/or broader policy and planning decision making, such as decisions involving the financing of an intercity passenger rail line and investment directions towards operational changes of the line and/or alternative transportation modes and infrastructure.
Article
This study investigates the gender dimensions of Indonesia’s Community-based Forest Management (CBFM) extension program. It employs a mixed-method approach to examine women’s participation and benefits, highlighting gender biases in the extension. The findings reveal significant social capital within the CBFM group, while also identifying persistent gender exclusion in the extension process. Limited female participation in planning and evaluation, along with moderate scores in implementation and perceived benefits, indicate a neglect of women forest farmers in the extension intervention. Prioritizing women’s inclusion and empowerment, particularly through recognizing and involving them in the innovation process, proves to be as effective, if not more, than solely targeting men. While specific to this program and area, these findings inform future interventions addressing gender exclusion in community forest extension. Emphasizing gender-transformative approaches is crucial for meaningful innovation and the adoption of extension services. Keywords: Gender exclusion, community-based forest, management, social capital, participation, program extension
Article
Full-text available
Urban land values have reached unprecedented levels in many parts of the world. Many scholars direct their research on their utilisation for public purposes. Two established research communities can be traced – the community referring to land value capture comprised mainly of urban planners and lawyers, and the community of economists discussing land rent. The relatively low level of interrelations between these communities prevents an effective sharing of their research outcomes. This contribution seeks to strengthen interconnections between these communities by characterising the narratives of both research communities, and synthesising their views. The research is largely built on systematic literature review with content analysis undertaken using the NVivo software. The analysis focussed on the terminology used, the specific causes of land value increase, rationales and instruments used for land value capture, and the purpose of using the collected money to investigate the interconnections between both research communities.
Article
Full-text available
As a planning theorist who has studied and taught planning theory in the Global South and North, I grapple with the question – “What does planning theory mean in the Global South?” To answer this question, I ontologically investigate the meaning of Southern planning theory based on a Lacanian approach. Drawing on the Lacanian theory of human subjectivity, this article explains how planning theorists’ identities are constituted through their interactions within academia. Lacanian discourse theory assists in exploring how most Southern planning theorists adopt, internalise, and use hegemonic Western philosophy, ideas, and discourses as the only accepted mechanism of truth. Consequently, this process profoundly alienates Southern planning theorists from their local context, as they often devalue, overlook, and neglect non-Western beliefs, ideas, knowledge, and philosophy. I argue that although the number of Southern planning theorists has increased during the last decades, non-Western philosophy is seldom utilised as the core of their critical studies. Based on the Lacanian discourse theory, I show that they mostly remain in the hegemonic mechanism of knowledge production that is embedded in the colonial era.
Article
Full-text available
The 21st century promises some dramatic changes—some expected, others surprising. One of the more surprising changes is the dramatic peaking in car use and an associated increase in the world’s urban rail systems. This paper sets out what is happening with the growth of rail, especially in the traditional car dependent cities of the US and Australia, and why this is happening, particularly its relationship to car use declines. It provides new data on the plateau in the speed of urban car transportation that supports rail’s increasing role compared to cars in cities everywhere, as well as other structural, economic and cultural changes that indicate a move away from car dependent urbanism. The paper suggests that the rise of urban rail is a contributing factor in peak car use through the relative reduction in speed of traffic compared to transit, especially rail, as well as the growing value of dense, knowledge-based centers that depend on rail access for their viability and cultural attraction. Finally, the paper suggests what can be done to make rail work better based on some best practice trends in large cities and small car dependent cities.
Article
Full-text available
The mobility challenges of the developing world are considerably different than those in wealthier, advanced countries, and so are the challenges of coordinating transportation and land use. Rapid population growth, poverty and income disparities, overcrowded urban cores, poorly designed road networks, spatial mismatches between housing and jobs, deteriorating environmental conditions, and economic losses from extreme traffic by congestion are among the more vexing challenges faced by developing cities that could be assuaged through improved coordination of transportation and urban development. This is underscored by examples reviewed in this paper from South Asia, Southeast Asia, China, India, Africa, and South America. It is concluded that whatever is done to improve transportation and land-use integration must be pro-poor. The cardinal features of integrated and sustainable transport and urbanism everywhere-accessible urban activities and safe, attractive walking and cycling environs-are particularly vital to the welfare and prosperity of urbanites in the world's poorest countries.
Article
Full-text available
Community benefits agreements (CBAs) are the latest in a long line of tools neighbors have used to protect their neighborhood from the burdens of development, and to try to secure benefits from the proposed development. This Article canvasses the benefits and drawbacks various stakeholders perceive CBAs to offer or to threaten, and reviews the legal and policy questions CBAs present. It recommends that local governments avoid the use of CBAs in land use approval processes unless the CBAs are negotiated through processes designed to ensure the transparency of the negotiations, the representativeness and accountability of the negotiators, and the legality and enforceability of the CBAs' terms.
Article
Full-text available
Sustainability issues involve complex interactions between social, economic, and environmental factors that are often viewed quite differently by disparate stakeholder groups. Issues of non-sustainability are wicked problems that have many, often obscure causes, and for which there is no single, straightforward solution. Furthermore, the concept of sustainability is itself contested. For example there are disputes over whether a strong or weak interpretation of sustainability should be adopted. In cities, as elsewhere, sustainability therefore requires discursive plurality and multiple sites of action. It is the thesis of this paper that effective problem solving, decision-making and enacting of a sustainability agenda require deliberative collaborative governance (DCG), a logical hybrid of the closely related fields of deliberative democracy and collaborative governance. We provide a provisional typology of different modes of deliberative collaborative governance, explaining each with a sustainability example, with a particular focus on DCG initiatives for planning in Western Australia. It is argued that the lens provided by such a typology can help us to understand the factors likely to promote better resolution of wicked problems and increased sustainability.
Article
Full-text available
This study examines thirty cities in North America that have already developed light rail systems and with varying levels of success. The main objective of the work is to determine the main underlying factors which have contributed to the outcomes experienced in terms of ridership and the extent of transit oriented development. The implications for a future Hamilton LRT are discussed.
Article
Julian Gross is the director of the Community Benefi ts Law Center (CBLC), which is the legal program of the Partnership for Working Families. He has represented coali-tions of community-based organizations in negotiation of numerous CBAs. The CBLC represents community-based organizations in such negotiations and provides legal support to advocates around the country on related issues. The Partnership for Work-ing Families is a national network of community-based organizations that develop and promote strategies to build community power and reshape regional economies to benefi t workers and neighborhoods.