Evaluation of Active Travel Using with the Health and Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT): The Case of Samsun/Turkey

Abstract

Introduction: The widespread use of fossil fuel vehicles in transportation, which is one of the most basic needs of societies, has negative effects on air pollution and traffic congestion. In order to reduce the negativities of the usage of motor vehicles in transportation, countries are trying to expand the use of active travel paths and electric vehicles. However, to increase the use of active travel in transportation, the cities' active travel infrastructure, the traffic density, and the distance for active travel are essential. Active travel path's investment in Turkey is less than in European countries. In this study, planned active travel path investment in Atakum/Turkey has been evaluated from different perspectives in order to provide useful data to decision-makers. Method: Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) was used to analyze the benefits of planned investment. As a result of new investment, four scenarios of the walking and cycling time were assumed as input to HEAT. HEAT outputs compromise premature deaths prevented, physical activity (PA) time, carbon emissions avoided and a benefit/cost ratio for each scenario. In addition to HEAT outputs, the net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) of the planned investment have also been calculated for different scenarios. Results: In the Atakum, there is an about 9 km active travel path built on a line parallel to the coast to increase the use of bicycles and the level of walking mobility of the citizens. In addition to that, a new active travel path is planned. The length of the planned active travel path is about 22 km long and is designed to be interconnected with the light rail system. In this study, benefit/cost ratios have been estimated for expected different physical activity (PA) time due to the new active travel path. The highest benefit/cost (B/C) ratio was obtained as 8 with an expected 117 min of PA time for scenario4. The least PA time is 22 min for scenario1 provides B/C ratio of 1. The prevented premature death is 6 for scenario1 and 69 for scenario2. The IRR is estimated to be 83% for 117 min of PA and 6% for 22 min of PA.