sustainabilityArticleStakeholder Deliberation on Developing AffordableHousing Strategies: Towards Inclusive andSustainable Transit-Oriented DevelopmentsJyothi Chava * and Peter NewmanCurtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute, Curtin University, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia;P.Newman@curtin.edu.au* Correspondence: jyothi.chava@postgrad.curtin.edu.au; Tel.: +61-407-935-133Academic Editor: Marc A. RosenReceived: 29 June 2016; Accepted: 1 October 2016; Published: 13 October 2016Abstract: Transit-oriented developments (TODs) are commanding high land and rental values dueto improved accessibility and economic opportunities. Owing to the increase in land and rentalvalues, the highly desirable TODs are gradually becoming inaccessible to the poor, creating socialexclusion and housing inequities within the TODs. To address this consequence, the study proposes athree-level stakeholder deliberation framework (inform, involve, and collaborate) towards developinginclusive housing strategies for equitable and sustainable TODs. The framework is applied tothe context of the Yeshwanthpur industrial area, Bengaluru, India. The first level of deliberation,‘information’, foregrounds the need for affordable housing strategies for stakeholders. In the secondlevel of deliberation, the stakeholders involved identify the major challenges in incorporatingaffordable housing into TODs. In the third level of deliberation, stakeholders collaborate tocontemplate strategies to combat each challenge. The results show that mandatory inclusionaryzoning, special-purpose planning vehicles, land banking entities, innovative financing tools, and localarea level plans in collaboration with the community, emerged as potentially feasible strategies tocreate inclusive housing outcomes in the TOD case study area.Keywords: inclusive TODs; affordable housing strategies; stakeholder deliberation; sustainable TODs1. IntroductionTransit—and its associated transit-oriented developments (TODs)—are emerging as sustainablesolutions to address various transportation and rapid urbanization issues facing cities [1,2].By definition, TOD stands for enabling compact, mixed land use, and non-motorized transport (NMT)outcomes within the 500 m to 800 m radius of centrally-located transit stations [3,4]. TODs presentsignificant market opportunities—absent in the car-dependent urban fabric [1]—but these can onlybe realised if cities provide the necessary planning structures, in terms of zoning, land assembly,and other regulatory enablers. These enablers, combined with TOD amenities and high-quality publictransit accessibility, are generating demand for transit neighbourhoods, and inevitably increasingland and rental values. Cities frequently use the TODs’ potential to raise land value to capture thistransit-generated land value, and invest it to finance transit and social infrastructure [1,5]. In theabsence of inclusive affordable housing strategies, the high land and rental values of TODs inducedisplacement or exclusion of the poor from the coveted TOD areas [6–10]. The phenomenon of theexclusion of the poor and their replacement by the affluent due to housing inequities, is referred to asgentrification [8,11–13].Although some cities have a few affordable housing implementation programmes in place,they often prefer peripheral areas to locate such housing units due to lower land costs [14–16].Sustainability 2016, 8, 1024; doi:10.3390/su8101024 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainabilitySustainability 2016, 8, 1024 2 of 21However housing affordability is not the same as living affordability as transportation costs increasegreatly [17,18]. The occupants of these units can end up losing their livelihood by relocating fartherfrom urban opportunities [19,20]. According to Litman, “Housing is not really affordable if located inisolated areas with high transportation costs. True affordability therefore requires affordable-accessiblehousing” [21] (p. 10). Integrating affordable housing with affordable transport yields equitable TODs.It can also contribute significantly to transit ridership, as the poor who do not have access to privatevehicles are more dependent on transit [22].The process of incorporating affordable housing in TODs can be complex, given the highproduction cost, and the involvement of multiple agencies (transit, housing, municipality, state,bankers, private investors, landowners, and local and national governments). This process is morecomplicated in developing countries, like India, where the case study in this research project takesplace, due to the lack of coordination and regulation, and minimal experience with mass transit and itsTOD opportunities [23].In many developed cities, gentrification in TODs has been researched for some time as they havebeen dealing with it since the mid-20th century [24–26]. To combat the gentrification-related issues inTODs, cities in developed countries have adopted a combination of strategies and innovative toolsbased on the opportunities, challenges, and legislation governing their transit neighbourhoods [6].For example, BART, California, USA began converting parts of its large parking lots in TODs to mid-riseaffordable housing [27]. Inclusive TODs were further catalysed through development incentives forTODs, such as parking reduction, high floor area ratio (FAR), relaxed open space requirements,and public subsidies. In another example, in the Hong Kong “rail + property” (R+P) program,the transit and housing authorities actively participated in real estate activities around the stationarea, which yielded sustainable and inclusive TOD developments [28,29]. Similar projects have beenimplemented in Singapore, as well [30].Since each TOD has unique characteristics, the strategies and tools applicable to one TOD manynot be relevant to another [31,32]. The characteristics include location, economic opportunities,land use characteristics, density, design, market strength, redevelopment opportunities, and more [32].The variation in TOD types is probably greater in developing countries than the developed ones,due to vast differences in the above listed neighbourhood characteristics, but in almost all casesdeveloping countries are unlikely to have the extensive issues of density and land use mix associatedwith redevelopment [33].Identifying the strategies suited to the local context, based on the local TOD characteristics,is crucial for inclusive TOD planning. Traditionally, these strategies have been determined by urbanplanners, based on manuals or guidelines on mixed income TODs [34]. The implementation ofthese strategies is often minimal, due to the lack of coordination and collaboration among multipleagencies involved in the TOD planning. The study proposes—alternatively to traditional planning—aframework for stakeholder deliberation, which facilitates collaboration with the stakeholders inidentifying feasible strategies towards equitable TODs. This innovative process provides meaningfulopportunities for stakeholders to engage in a dialogue and share their views from the planning stageonwards. This process transforms the stakeholders’ role in the traditional planning process fromcombative and divisive to cooperative and collaborative; Hartz-Karp calls this co-intelligence [35].It generates communitywide buy-in and enhances the odds of stakeholders supporting inclusive TODgoals and implementing the corresponding strategies [23,36].The proposed stakeholder deliberation framework developed in the study is applied in the contextof the Yeshwanthpur industrial area metro station, Bengaluru, to identify affordable housing strategiesto mitigate the emerging TOD inequities.2. Literature ReviewThis section provides further insights on TOD concepts, gentrification issues in TODs, and theexiting tools—adopted in developed countries—to mitigate them.Sustainability 2016, 8, 1024 3 of 212.1. TOD Concept and Its Adoption by Various CountriesTODs are being embraced as a means to focus the rapidly-growing urban population around awell-planned transit system [1]. They encourage the use of public transport and NMT, and discouragethat of private vehicle(s). Further, cities are adopting the TOD concept as an innovative financial tool todirect capitalized land values towards investing on transit and other social infrastructure [5]. The TODconcept was first introduced in the USA, to enable more socially, environmentally, and economicallysustainable communities. In the USA, TODs are often planned as single node TODs, which focus onlyon the 3Ds concept (density, diversity, and design), within the 800 m radius of a centrally-located transitstation. Though developed as mixed-use TODs, in practice they are often used for mono-functionalpurposes [37].The TOD concept was widely recognized as a sustainable urban transport solution and adoptedby other regions across the globe. In many European countries the term TOD is rarely used, however,its concept has been incorporated in urban planning for many decades, albeit with other names [38,39].Unlike the USA, European countries develop TODs as multi node TODs, which are similar to singlenode TODs, except that they go beyond a single location, to create a regional network of nodes aroundrail stations [38,40]. They focus on the 6Ds concept (density, diversity, design, destination, distance,and demand management), to realign all urban regions around rail transport, away from cars as amode of travel [37,41]. However, the recent economic crisis in Europe has prioritized market-ledeconomic developments over planning-based developments. Hence, efforts to implement TODs inEuropean cities are losing momentum [39]. Despite these difficulties, most planners are still positiveabout the future of TODs in European cities.Few Asian countries are also successfully implementing TODs. Hong Kong’s R+P program bestillustrates the successful implementation of multi-node TODs. The first generation R+P programsfocused only on the density concept, neglecting the other TOD concepts. Later, however, the downwardtrend of real estate prices, coupled with people’s unwillingness to use transit, prompted Hong Kong’stransit authorities to incorporate high-quality designs, place-making, and land use diversity in thenext generation R+P programs [29]. Chinese cities are also taking to multi-node TODs as an alternativeform of urbanism, to reduce over-reliance on private automobiles [2,42,43].Following the example of many developed and developing countries, Indian cities are alsoincorporating the TOD concept in urban planning [43]. The primary focus of these TODs is densificationto increase transit ridership and raise funds for transit infrastructure. Though the TODs are cashing inon the land value in station areas and ensuring proximity to transit, however, from neglecting all otherD-variables, they may not yield liveable, walkable, sustainable, and healthy neighbourhoods [44].While implementing the various TOD aspects highlighted above, often planners do not focus oninclusive densities or mixed-income developments. As a result, the highly-desirable TODs are observedto exclude and replace the poor—by the affluent—thus creating gentrification [45]. Unfortunately,the existing literature does not focus on gentrification issues in TODs in the developing world,as gentrification has only recently become an emerging issue there. However, developed countriesoffer a few studies. The next section summarises these studies.2.2. Gentrification in TODsTODs are attractive both as residential, as well as working, spaces due to the various benefitsthey offer. This increase in demand for TODs attracts higher capital investments [46] and increasingland and rental values [1,5,47–49]. The higher housing cost of new developments and the increasein rental values of old ones can render the coveted TOD areas unaffordable for the poor who will,therefore, remain excluded from the new developments and be replaced by the affluent in the olderones and, thus, create gentrification issues [9,10,50]. There are very few studies which have focused onthe process of gentrification in TODs in developed countries.Firstly, Kahn conducted a study in 14 cities in the US. He considered the change in averagehome prices and the share of college graduates before and after transit operations were gentrificationSustainability 2016, 8, 1024 4 of 21indicators. The study concluded that there was greater gentrification near the walk-and-ride transitstations than the park-and-ride transit station [9]. Secondly, Feinstein and Allen conducted a study inthe Boston metropolitan region in the US. They considered the education, income, and householdsreceiving public assistance, and the influx of new residents were proxies to the gentrification. The studyresults show that the extension of rail lines compels less affluent, long-established residents in rentalhousing to move due to increases in housing costs [7]. Thirdly, Grube-Cavers and Patterson conducteda study in Canada. They considered education, income, house rent, occupation, and percentage ofowner-occupied housing are proxies to gentrification. The study concluded that rail transit has had asignificant impact on gentrification [51].All of the aforementioned studies focused on developed countries. Unfortunately, the examinationof gentrification in TODs has received relatively little attention in developing countries. There is,therefore, little written on strategies to mitigate inequity in the developing world context. A recentstudy conducted in Bengaluru illustrates that housing units in the new TODs cost 68% more than thehouses located in the suburbs. Due to high price and larger unit sizes, the new TODs are excludingthe poor and are providing them only for the affluent, thus undergoing new-build gentrification.The residents of these new TODs are wealthy, highly-qualified professionals with a high vehicleownership rate [8]. It is evident from the study that developing countries which are traditionallycharacterized by neighbourhoods which are mixed-income in nature are also undergoing gentrification.To combat the gentrification related issues in TODs, cities in developed countries adopt variousstrategies and innovative tools. Though these might not be directly applicable to other TODs(in developing countries), they can inspire and guide the development of existing or new toolsapplicable to the local context. The next section describes the strategies and tools adopted in citiesfrom the developed world.2.3. Existing Tools and Case Cities Adopting ThemDeveloped countries facing severe gentrification issues since the mid-20th century haveimplemented various housing strategies and tools—especially in TODs—with the objective of reducingboth housing and transportation costs. This section highlights a few such tools to guide the stakeholdersin identifying the affordable housing strategies in the case study area. Shoemaker classified these toolsbroadly under three categories, listed below [52]:(1) Tools related to zoning regulations, local codes, fees, and procedures;(2) Financing tools; and(3) Joint development programs tools.2.3.1. Tools Related to Zoning Regulations, Local Codes, Fees, and ProceduresThis section highlights the tools related to change in regulations, local codes, and approvalprocedures to incorporate affordable housing in TODs.a. Inclusionary zoning ordinance: The ordinance functions essentially as a trade-off betweenthe government and the developers, with the series of predetermined parameters [53].Such ordinances:• Apply only to the developments specified;• Create affordable units for families with a certain percentage or less of area medianincome; and• Ensure affordable units stay affordable for a specified time period, which usually differs forrental and sale units.An inclusionary ordinance mandates that the developers must set aside a certain percentage ofunits in the new residential developments as affordable, in exchange for government incentives, suchSustainability 2016, 8, 1024 5 of 21as density bonuses, impact fee waivers, streamlined permitting, and relaxing regulations [54,55].In exceptional cases, developers may provide land, money, or affordable housing off-site.The government incentives, predetermined parameters, and exemptions under the inclusionaryzoning ordinance vary among cities, as well as among neighbourhoods. The most commonly adopteddevelopment incentives are highlighted below.Density bonus: This permits developers to construct additional units than the local zoningregulations typically allow, and enables them to create more housing units without having topurchase additional land. This “free land” acts as subsidy in the rent or sale price of affordableunits. Montgomery County, Maryland, USA best exemplifies this. In Maryland, in all developmentswith more than 50 units, developers must set aside 12.5%–15% of the units as affordable housing,in exchange for a density bonus of up to 22% [54].Density bonus is also being adopted—by cities—as an innovative financial tool to raise funds fortransit infrastructure [56]. In such cases, the transit agencies and housing authorities negotiate—witheach other—before framing the inclusionary zoning policy, to ensure that a certain percentage of fundsraised through density bonuses are committed towards the provision of affordable housing in TODs.Impact fee waiver: This incentive waives/reduces/defers the traditional one-timecharge—applicable to developers—for the cost of adding additional public services to thenew development. Boulder County, Colorado, USA best exemplifies this. The developers here mustprovide 20% of the total units as affordable housing, in exchange for an impact fee waiver [54].This tool might be feasible in developed countries, where adequate funds are available for socialinfrastructure. However, it might not be economically viable in developing countries where funds aresparse. Stakeholders make a call on implementing this tool based on the availability of funds.Streamlined permitting: This program operates on the ‘time is money’ principle in developinghousing. It entitles affordable housing projects to expedite reviews by the local government [57].Austin, Texas, USA exemplifies this approach. The city expedited the permit reviews to affordablehousing projects in TODs, under its SMART (Safe, Mixed-Income, Accessible, Reasonably priced,Transit-oriented) programme. The average completion time for SMART housing reviews wasapproximately half that of conventional reviews [34]. This tool can be implemented in developingcountries as well, as it is economically viable and does not involve a cost to the authorities. It offers awin-win solution for the developers and the authorities.Parking management measures: Parking space per dwelling unit is one of the key factors indetermining the housing budget. Since affordable units require fewer parking spots—especiallyif they are located in TODs—relaxing parking standards, and unbundling the parking cost fromdwelling cost, can effectively incentivise reducing the cost of affordable housing [58]. Portland,Oregon, USA exemplifies the introduction of maximum, rather than minimum parking, standards.The maximum parking allotment varies depending on the site distance from bus or light rail (the closerthe transit, the lesser the parking allotment) [59]. This tool is financially self-sustainable. However,while implementing it, cities must conduct a detailed parking demand and supply analysis at eachTOD. Parking demand differs among TODs, and parking norms suitable to one may be unsuitableto anotherb. Accessory dwelling unit (ADU): An ADU is a small unit added to an existing home either througha basement conversion, or in the backyard or above a garage—or included in a newly constructedhome [60,61]. ADUs typically cover 50–60 square meters and are affordable for the urbanpoor. Most of the cities in the USA adopt ADUs, especially Washington, where more than20,000 households are willing to provide ADUs to accommodate affordable housing [57]. As mostTOD housing is multi-story high-rise housing, this tool is only useful in areas further out, but stillinfluenced by TODs. It is an example of a tool with greater application to developed low-densitycities than high-density emerging cities like Bengaluru.Sustainability 2016, 8, 1024 6 of 212.3.2. FinancingThis section includes the tools related to innovative financing methods to help fund affordablehousing production in TODs.a. Tax increment financing (TIF): TIF funds are generated from the increase in the property-relatedtaxes and/or sales taxes within a specific district. The additional tax money can be generatedby both new development, and the enhanced assessed value of existing properties as a resultof improvements around them [52]. The Beltline in Atlanta, Georgia, USA exemplifies the useof TIF for providing affordable housing. In 2005, a tax allocation district (TAD) was createdaround 22 miles of historic Beltline, for revitalizing the disinvested areas around new transit.The TAD project includes a wide range of urban redevelopment and accessibility projects. The cityallocated 15% of TIF generated in TAD towards an affordable housing fund [62]. This tool can beimplemented only in countries where the guided and actual land values are the same. It might notbe applicable to countries like India where the guided and actual land values vary significantly asthe vast difference might make assessing the TIF funds in TODs infeasible.b. TOD targeted housing funds: The various departments, which are responsible for providingaffordable housing can access various funds controlled by national, state, and local authorities.Each of these funds include corresponding funding qualifications that can be adjusted or targetedto assist affordable housing development in TODs. This tool is economically viable, as theauthorities need not spend extra towards providing affordable housing in TODs. It offers awin-win solution for the authorities and the affordable housing beneficiaries.c. Land banking: A land bank is a governmental entity created exclusively to acquire, hold,and facilitate development on vacant, abandoned brownfield properties. Land banks typicallyassert their own legislation, to enable transfer of land to private developers (for profit or not-forprofit) with certain conditions on how the property will be developed. Bogota, Colombiaexemplifies this tool’s implementation. The city acquires agricultural land close to the proposedbus rapid transit system at relatively cheap prices (before the bus proposals are made public),converts it to residential land, and provides public utilities. The property is sold to developers athigher prices to help cover infrastructure costs, along with the rider that average prices be keptunder $8500 per unit and be affordable for families with income less than $200 per month [63].This tool not only facilitates incorporating affordable housing in TODs, but also serves as aninnovative financial tool to fund transit infrastructure, as in Hong Kong and Singapore. However,the tool might not be applicable in the strong real estate market, where land price is high, or noland is available for acquisition.2.3.3. Joint Development Programs in TODsJoint development programmes enable developments with the government, community,and private developers working in coordination. This section highlights the tools, which facilitate jointdevelopment programmes, along with their best practices.a. Public private partnership (PPP): PPPs enable the sharing of resources of public and private toproduce public benefit projects. Shared resources may include land, financing, knowledge,or another valuable component of the development process. There is a range of ways thatthe public agencies can facilitate the building of rail and TODs through PPP; for example,public agencies can provide the land or assemble it, and private agencies can provide the financingfor development on the land. This is how TODs are built in Japan and Hong Kong, which usePPPs to fund transit infrastructure and public housing. Transit agencies in Hong Kong sell thedevelopment rights of areas above (air rights) and adjacent to the station areas to the highestbidder, and negotiate a share of future property development or a co-ownership position. In 2009,these active real estate activities by the transit agency contributed to 62% of the transit revenue andSustainability 2016, 8, 1024 7 of 2140% of housing stock in station areas [28]. This tool works primarily when the government ownsthe land near TODs. For instance, in Hong Kong, while implementing this tool, cities must ensuredistribution of benefits towards financing transit infrastructure as well as towards social goals.b. Joint developments: Joint development allows sharing of the property interests held by the transitagency with private entities or other government entities. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART),California, USA exemplifies the adoption of joint development. The Unity Council, a localcommunity development corporation (near Fruitvale BART station, located south of downtownOakland) and BART agreed to a land swap. It enabled the Unity Council to develop TODsincluding affordable housing on BART’s property. In exchange, the Unity Council provided agarage for BART at a location away from transit [34]. As with PPPs, this tool can be adopted onlyif the land near the transit stations is government-owned.c. Development agreements: Development agreements are contracts between local governments anddevelopers that assure long-term planning approvals for a project for a certain number of years(applicable even if zoning policies change later), in exchange for specific public benefits fromthe developer. Affordable housing may be one of these benefits. Portland, USA successfullyexercised this during the development of the River District Urban Renewal Area, which includesthe transit-rich Pearl District. In 1994, the Portland Development Commission (PDC) entered intoa development agreement with the master developer to build nearly 7500 units with the followinghousing target goals: 33% upper income, 20% middle income, 20% moderate income, 13% lowincome, and 14% extremely low income [34]. The Pearl District redevelopment around the newtram has been seen as a graet success for Portland and a model for America [1]. This is anotherexample of an innovative tool which does not impose any financial burden on government entitiesto develop affordable housing in TODs. However, its applicability in a TOD depends on thelegislation governing the particular TOD.d. Community benefit agreements (CBAs): A CBA is a contract negotiated between community groupsand a prospective developer, in which the developer agrees to provide particular communitybenefits—related to the project—in exchange for the community’s support. This tool is useful incases where community acceptance is critical to the project’s success. The Staples Center CBA,created in Los Angeles, USA in 2001, is widely considered the ideal CBA. Initially, the projectencountered significant opposition from community groups concerned about its impact onsurrounding low-income communities. Ultimately, community members and the developersigned a contract in which the developer agreed to modify the project to include affordablehousing and other amenities. In exchange, the community coalition extended union support forthe expansion, which expedited the city council approval of the project [7]. This tool offers aneconomically viable solution to incorporate affordable housing and other social infrastructure inTODs. However, it works well only if community support plays a vital role in the success of anew project’s implementation.As is evident from the literature review above, there are various tools for inclusive TODs.Planners and stakeholders must identify the economically sustainable tools applicable to their region,either those existing or a new set of tools. Towards improving the odds of implementation of thesetools, in contrast to conventional planning, the study intends to involve all of the stakeholdersinvolved in TOD planning to identify affordable housing strategies in their regions. To enable this,the study proposes a three level stakeholder deliberation based on community engagement literature.The proposed stakeholder deliberation framework is described in detail in the next section.3. Stakeholder Deliberation Process Framework to Identify Affordable Housing Strategiesin TODsThe deliberation process facilitates engagement or interaction among the stakeholders. It providesthem an opportunity to find out more about a topic, consider relevant evidence, and discuss itwith other participants before presenting their views. This can happen over a few hours or months.Sustainability 2016, 8, 1024 8 of 21According to the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), engaging the communityor stakeholders in decision-making involves five levels, from planning to implementation: inform,consult, involve, collaborate, and empower [64]. Inform is a one-way communication—providinginformation to the participants. Consult is a two-way communication, designed to take feedback onproposals, alternatives for final decision-making. Involve is designed to identify issues and concerns.Collaborate is designed to develop solutions for the identified issues. Empower provides resourcesto the community to implement solutions. Engaging community and stakeholders, at various levels,is being adopted successfully by various countries, for sustainable and democratic decision-making.The study intends to adopt this process towards identifying affordable housing strategies incollaboration with the stakeholders. To facilitate this the study proposes stakeholder deliberation atthree levels, including inform, involve, and collaborate. The other two levels, consult and empower,are relevant during the implementation of the identified strategies. The tasks under the three levels—inthe proposed stakeholder deliberation framework—are described in Figure 1.The first level in the framework involves informing stakeholders about existing policies and theirimplementation, neighbourhood characteristics, existing inclusive housing strategies, and case cities,to guide them in identifying the potential local strategies. The second level constitutes involving thestakeholders in identifying the issues affecting the implementation of the affordable housing policiesin TODs. The last level is collaborating with the stakeholders to identify strategies suited to the localcontext, to address the issues identified at the previous level.Sustainability 2016, 8, 1024 8 of 21stakeholders, at various levels, is being adopted successfully by various countries, for sustainableand democratic decision-making.The study intends to adopt this process towards identifying affordable housing strategies incollaboration with the stakeholders. To facilitate this the study proposes stakeholder deliberation atthree levels, including inform, involve, and collaborate. The other two levels, consult and empower,are relevant during the implementation of the identified strategies. The tasks under the threelevels—in the proposed stakeholder deliberation framework—are described in Figure 1.The first level in the framework involves informing stakeholders about existing policies andtheir implementation, neighbourhood characteristics, existing inclusive housing strategies, and casecities, to guide them in identifying the potential local strategies. The second level constitutesinvolving the stakeholders in identifying the issues affecting the implementation of the affordablehousing policies in TODs. The last level is collaborating with the stakeholders to identify strategiessuited to the local context, to address the issues identified at the previous level.Figure 1. Stakeholder deliberation process framework to develop affordable housing strategiesin TODs.3.1. Informing StakeholdersThe International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) defines ‘inform’ as a one-waycommunication providing balanced and objective information to assist the stakeholders inunderstanding problems, alternatives, and/or solutions [65]. At the first level of the proposedstakeholder deliberation framework, planners must provide the information about existing policies,case study area characteristics, and existing strategies. It provides a realistic picture to thestakeholders about the TOD characteristics and its performance, as well as an insight to thestrategies adopted by developed countries. This information will guide the stakeholders indiscussing, querying, and drawing concl
