APPRAISAL FRAMEWORKS FOR

ASSESSING INCLUSIVE
TRANSPORT DESIGN
Dr Karen Lucas
Institute of Transport Studies
University of Leeds, UK
Training on Designing Socially Inclusive Transport
Session 15
Why do social impact appraisal?
Transport infrastructure fundamentally
changes social and economic structures and
land-use.
It drives peoples livelihoods by providing
access to income activities, social services,
safety nets.
It is essential to consider social inclusiveness
in transport infrastructure development in
order to maximize this potential.
UK Treasury perspective:
The identification of potential Social and Distributional
Impacts (SDIs) is important in determining the efficiency
of the overall appraisal process.
It aims to:
1. Measure the impacts of transport interventions on
different 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
Which social impacts to measure?
DfTWebTAG 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 3.3.3
4. 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
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
Which social groups and areas?
Social groups:
1. Income (quintiles/deciles)
2. Age (children, young adults,
older people)
3. People with disabilities
4. Ethnic minorities
5. Non-car owners
6. H/h with dependent children
Socio-economic, social and
demographic 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
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 processto generate detailed technical data for use
in the SDI analysis for each of the impacts
Step 5: Collation of SDI analysis into amatrix of social and
distributional impacts and summarising this data in the Appraisal
Summary Table.
Census 2011:
Economic profile of case study areas
Source: 2011 Census
Census 2011:
Car ownership and use
Source: 2011 Census
Monitor impacts the Project Cycle
Source: HM Treasury Green Book (2003/11), p3
Example of a simple assessment
framework (Lucas and Pangbourne, 2014)
Project: Local cycle infrastructure investment
Description: This policy targets investment in high-quality cyclingto promote short
distance cyclingtrips (1-5 kms) within the urban area.
Aggregate social impacts
Income Quintiles
Vulnerable groups
Low to high
T
i
m
e
s
c
a
l
e

1 2 3 4 5

w
e
a
l
t
h
h
e
a
l
t
h
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 impacts
Income Quintiles
Vulnerable groups
Low to high
T
i
m
e
s
c
a
l
e

1 2 3 4 5

w
e
a
l
t
h
h
e
a
l
t
h
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
yA
g
e
G
e
n
d
e
r
D
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
E
t
h
n
i
c
i
t
y
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)

Example of indicator-based
framework (Lucas and Akyelken, 2014)
AreaofProgress Indicatorofprogress Disaggregationcriteria
1. Livelihoods
Access to key affordable services
Access to formal and informal
transport
Wider impacts
Reducetotal household expenditure ontravel tobelow10%of income(zerofor lowincomehouseholds)
Increase%of residents livingwithin15-minsafewalk to keylocal facilities(e.g. schools, clinics, local shops,
policestation, welfarecentres, etc.)
Increase%of populationwithin15-minsafewalk to regular public transit services (bus stop, bus station, rail
stations)
Incomequintiles/deciles
Gender
Age
Disability
Ethnicity
2 Planning and integration Increaseavailabilityof lowcost housingwithin30minspublictransit journeytimeof keyemployment centres
Increase % of urban population within 30-min public transit journey times to key economic and life
opportunities (e.g. gainful employment, higher education, familyplanningandfamilywelfarecentres)
Incomequintiles/deciles
Gender
Age
Disability
Ethnicity
3 Health, environment, and safety Reducenumber of childandadult pedestriancasualties
Reduceincidence of crimeonandwaitingfor publictransit
Reduce levels of population exposure to traffic related noise and air pollution (especially children and older
people)
Incomequintiles/deciles
Gender
Age
Disability
Ethnicity
4 Transport governance Increaselevelsof community participationinlocal decision-makingprocessesfor local transit serviceprovision Incomequintiles/deciles
Gender
Age
Disability
Ethnicity
5 Introduce mechanisms for recourse to legal justice where populations experience negative transport
externalities(e.g. participationincitizenspanels)
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 Planninghttp://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 WalleD. (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