Social Impacts of Transport: Literature Review and the State of the Practice of Transport Appraisal in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom

Abstract

Transport appraisals in European countries increasingly address three dimensions of sustainability—economic, ecological and social. However, social impacts of transport have been underexposed in (ex‐ante) transport project appraisal, at least in the Netherlands. Firstly, this article presents a theoretical framework describing the relationships between determinants of social impacts of transport; it also provides a definition and categorization of those impacts. Secondly, the article reviews the state of the practice of national transport project appraisal in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The article shows that social impacts of transport investments can take on many forms and their levels of importance may vary widely, in project appraisal. The UK transport appraisal guidance includes a spectrum of social impacts through quantitative and qualitative assessments that is broader than the Dutch appraisal guidance. However, it does not cover the full range as identified in the literature. This holds, in particular, for the temporary impacts of transport investments, health impacts, social cohesion, the distribution and accumulation of impacts across population groups and social justice. All in all, it can be concluded that there is a long way to go before social impacts of transport projects are completely included in appraisals, in a way that allows us to compare them to economic and ecological effects.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Karen Lucas, Transport Studies Group, University of Westminster, and three anonymous reviewers for their useful comments on earlier versions of this article.

Notes

1. According to social psychological and micro‐economic theories (e.g. Ajzen, 1991), perceptions, preferences (related to utility) and attitudes (which are opinions on objects or subjects that are stable over a longer period of time) influence a subject’s behaviour. In this context it is impossible to view perceptions, preferences and behaviour as distinct elements. These are regarded as mutually dependent.

2. Lichfield (1996) presented an analogous chain in connection with Community Impact Analysis, in which he coupled activities and effects to impacts on distinct community sectors (or groups in the community).