dsit_appraisal frameworks for assessing inclusive transport design

8/10/2019 DSIT_Appraisal Frameworks for Assessing Inclusive Transport Design

1/13

APPRAISAL FRAMEWORKS FOR

ASSESSING INCLUSIVE

TRANSPORT DESIGN

Dr Karen Lucas

Institute of Transport StudiesUniversity of Leeds, UK

Training on Designing Socially Inclusive Transport

Session 15


2/13

Why do social impact appraisal?

Transport infrastructurefundamentally

changes social and economic structures and

land-use.

It drives peoples livelihoods by providingaccess to income activities, social services,

safety nets.

It is essential to consider social inclusivenessin transport infrastructure development in

order to maximize this potential.


3/13

UK Treasury perspective:

The identification of potential Social and Distributional

Impacts (SDIs) is important in determining the efficiency

of the overal l appraisal process.

It aims to:

1. Measure the impacts of transport interventions on

dif ferent groups of people

2. Identify whether there are significant negative impacts on

particular groups or areas

3. Identify whether expected negative impacts can be

eliminated through amendment to scheme design


4/13

Which social impacts to measure?

DfT WebTAG TAG Unit 4.1 suggests:

1. User benefits changes in generalised cost of travel

2. Noise as per sub-objective 3.3.2

3. Air quality - as per sub-objective 3.3.34. Accidents - as per sub-objective 3.4.1

5. Personal security as per sub-objective 3.4.2

6. Severance - as per sub-objective 3.6.2

7. Accessibility (to key destinations)8. Personal affordability (as per user benefits)

NB: impacts can be positive or negative


5/13

But there can be many more

impacts to consider Journey quality

Aversion factors

e.g. Stranger danger

Exposure to hazardous

waste (freight)

Property values

Health Etc.

Disruption

Construction damage

Displacement

Accessibility

Severance

Local amenity

Crime levels

See Markovich and Lucas (2011) for an overview of

the literatures


6/13

Which social groups and areas?Social groups:

1. Income (quintiles/deciles)

2. Age (children, young adults,older people)

3. People with disabilities

4. Ethnic minorities5. Non-car owners

6. H/h with dependent children

Socio-economic, social anddemographic profiles of:

1. Transport users (and non-

users)2. Local residents (and regular

incomers)

Vulnerable and at risk

areas

Area specifications will

vary depending on the

nature of the impact:

1. Transport corridors

2. Travel to work areas

(TTWA)

3. Local deprived

neighbourhoods

4. Key activity destinations


7/13

Six-step process

Step 0: Initial screening: consider increased potential for SDIs (positive or

negative). Justify non-pursuit.

Step 1: Confirm the impacted areas applying appropriate spatial scales

Step 2: Identify social groups in areas by building a detailed socio-

demographic profile of each area

Step 3: Full screening. This will include a check on the initial screening to

confirm or amend the findings.

Step 4: Core appraisal process to generate detailed technical data for use

in the SDI analysis for each of the impacts

Step 5: Collation of SDI analysis into a matrix of social and distributional impacts and summarising this data in the Appraisal

Summary Table.


8/13

Census 2011:

Economic profile of case study areas

Source: 2011 Census


9/13

Census 2011:

Car ownership and use

Source: 2011 Census


10/13

Monitor impacts the Project Cycle

Source: HM Treasury Green Book (2003/11), p3


11/13

Example of a simple assessment

framework (Lucas and Pangbourne, 2014)Project: Local cycle infrastructure investment

Description: This policy targets investment in high-quality cycling to promote short

distance cycling trips (1-5 kms) within the urban area.

Aggregate social impactsIncome Quintiles

Vulnerable groupsLow to high

Timescale 1 2 3 4 5

wea

lth

heal

th

Project: Local cycle infrastructure

investment

Description: This policy targets investment in high-quali ty cycling to promote short

distance cycling trips (1-5 kms) within the urban area.

Aggregate social impacts

Income Quintiles

Vulnerable groups

Low to high

Timescale

1 2 3 4 5

wea

lth

hea

lth

acc

essi

bilit

Age

Gen

der

Dis

abil

ity

Eth

nici

ty

Immediate

Immedia

te

Short term (1-

5 years) Short

term (1-

5 years)

Mid-term (6-

10 years) Mid-

term (6-

10 years)

Longer term

(11 25 years) Longer

term (11

25

years)


12/13

Example of indicator-based

framework (Lucas and Akyelken, 2014)Area of Progress Indicator of progress Disaggregation criteria

1. Livelihoods

Access to key affordable services

Access to formal and informal

transport

Wider impacts

Reducetotal household expenditure on travelto below 10%of income (zero forlow income households)

Increase % of residents living within 15-min safe walk to key local facilities (e.g. schools,clinics,local shops,

policestation, welfare centres, etc.)

Increase% of population within 15-min safe walk to regular public transit services (bus stop, bus station, rail

stations)

Income quintiles/deciles

Gender

Age

Disability

Ethnicity

2 P lanning and integrat ion Increase av ai labi li ty of low cost hous ing with in30mins publ ic trans it journey t ime ofk ey employ me nt centres

Increase % of urban populat ion within 30-min publ ic trans it journey t imes to k ey economic and l ife

opportunities (e.g. gainful employment, higher education, familyplanning and familywelfare centres)


Gender

Age

Disability

Ethnicity

3 Health, environment, and safety Reducenumberof child and adult pedestriancasualties

Reduceincidence of crime on andwaiting forpublic transit

Reduce levels of population exposure to traffic related noise and air pollution (especially children and olderpeople)


Gender

Age

Disability

Ethnicity

4 Transport g ov ernance Increase le velsofcommunity part ic ipation in local dec is ion-making processes for local t rans itservice provision Income quint iles/dec iles

Gender

Age

Disability

Ethnicity

5 Introduce mechanisms for recourse to legal justice where populations experience negative transport

externalities (e.g. participation in citizens panels)


13/13

Further reading Cook, C. C., Duncan, T., Jitsuchhon, S., Sharma, A. and Guobao, W. (2005).Assessing the Impact of Transport and Energy

Infrastructure on Poverty Reduction. Manila: Asian Development Bank.

Department for Transport (2006) Full Guidance on Accessibility Planning http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/accessibility-

planning-guidance/accessibility-planning-guidance-full-guidance.pdf

Geurs, K. T, Boon, W. and van Wee, B. (2009) 'Social Impacts of Transport: Literature Review and the State of the Practice of

Transport Appraisal in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom' Transport Reviews, 29: 1, 69 90.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01441640802130490

Litman, T. (2014) Evaluating Transportation Equity: Guidance for Incorporating Distributional Impacts in Transportation

Planning http://www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf Lucas K; Brooks M; Marsden G; Kimble M (2007) Assessment of capabilities for examining long-term social sustainability of

transport and land use strategies, Transportation Research Record, pp.30-37. doi: 10.3141/2013-05

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/78968/7/Assessment%20of%20Capabilities%20for%20Examining%20Long-

Term%20Social%20Sustainability%20and%20Land-Use%20Strategies_with_coversheet.pdf

Markovich, J. and Lucas, K. (2011) The Social and Distributional Impacts of Transport: A Literature Review Transport Studies

Unit, University of Oxford Working paper no. 1055 http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/pubs/1055-markovich-lucas.pdf

TRL (2002) Framework for the inclusion of social benefits in transport planning

http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/Project/5339/Default.aspx

TRL (2004) Overseas Road Note 22: a guide to pro-poor transport appraisal http://www.transport-links.org/transport_links/filearea/documentstore/322_ORN22%20-%20Final.PDF

Van de Walle D. (2002) Choosing Rural Road Investments to Help Reduce Poverty World Development 30/4: 575-589

http://www.transport-

links.org/transport_links/filearea/documentstore/322_Dominique%20van%20de%20Walle%20Paper%201.pdf

World Bank (2006) Social Analysis in Transport Project: Guidelines for Incorporating Social Dimensions into Bank-Supported

Projects. Washington DC: The World Bank

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/SA_Transport_wb.pdf

dsit_appraisal frameworks for assessing inclusive transport design

Documents