Social impact assessments (SIA) in larger infrastructure investments in Sweden; the view of experts and practitioners

ABSTRACT

This paper, by highlighting the experiences and reflections of experts and practitioners, aims to increase knowledge of how social impact assessment is managed and handled at various stages of the planning process in major infrastructure investments in Sweden. Interviews were conducted with nine experts and practitioners working with issues of transport planning and social sustainability. The informants represent the national and regional level and three established consultancies. The results largely confirm earlier research, and the area of social impacts assessment in transport planning in Sweden can be seen as being fragmented. Many fundamental issues in the field remain to be addressed for future development, including issues such as public procurement, the role (and competence) of the client, the role (and competence) of the practitioner, how SIA should be included in the whole planning process taking into account the different stages (including how the SIA should be documented, delivered and monitored), how methods should be managed and included, and how the genuine experts should be included, i.e. those living and working in the affected areas.

KEYWORDS:

• Transport planning
• planning process
• spatial justice
• social justice
• inclusion
• equity

Introduction

Over the last few decades, there has been growing criticism of transport planning and the fact that much of it has focused on issues related to, for example, profitability and fast and efficient travel flows from point A to point B. Less attention has been paid to individuals’ needs and different conditions for moving between different destinations (e.g. Sheller and Urry 2006) or to how infrastructure in our physical environment cause a variety of consequences (e.g. affect accessibility, health, and well-being) for a range of groups (Lucas et al. 2019). Social sustainability in a transport context can be about ´putting people at the centre`, rather than the traffic environment, flows and speed. From this point of view, human welfare and well-being can be regarded as an overarching goal in transport planning, where the transport system becomes both an enabler and sometimes a prerequisite for welfare. This is because movements usually constitute an essential part of our everyday life, for access to, for example, work, education, and services (e.g. UN (United Nations) 2016; Stjernborg and Mattisson 2016; Levin and Gil Solá 2021).

Additionally, while the transport sector accounted for 37 percent of the CO2 emissions from end-use sectors in 2021 (International Energy Agency [IEA] 2023), there is a strong focus on how we can accelerate the shift to more sustainable transport-effective societies. However, in the rapid transition, it is essential to ‘leave nobody behind’ as expressed in EU’s Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy (EU, 2021:2), and the social outcome of the transport system has become an increasingly vital issue (e.g. Lee et al. 2020, 2022).

While infrastructure development and ongoing urbanisation have created new opportunities for accessibility and growth in various ways (e.g. UN (United Nations) 2016), urbanisation has also increased the need for significant investments in transport infrastructure (Lee et al. 2022). In view of the rapid transformation of our societies, recent research highlights the need for;

… an integrated and broader approach to urban transport infrastructure development that addresses social consequences of multi-scale spatial changes induced by projects, including those that are unexpected or unintended. (p. 16)

The same researchers argue for a context-specific approach, in relation to social outcomes from transport infrastructure, and they call for further research about ‘how planning rules might lead to different outcomes in different contexts’ (Ibid.).

Additionally, increasing urbanisation has also, for instance, meant that already sparsely populated areas and smaller towns outside commuter routes have often become increasingly sparse (e.g. Hedlund and Lundholm 2015). These areas can be affected by a number of challenges, not least with regard to issues of accessibility to services, health facilities, culture, recreation and access to transport. Current research highlights this spatial inequality as a pressing issue, where inequality can create an underlying dissatisfaction among residents (Glaodic Håkansson and Bohman 2019).

Furthermore, spatial inequality has been shown to coincide with other forms of inequality, which means that the poorest sections of the population often have the least access to transport (Lucas et al. 2016; Jaramillo et al. 2019). Unfortunately, there is also evidence that new forms of mobility reproduce this pattern and might further worsen transport inequality (Groth 2019). Transport infrastructure can also create physical and/or mental barriers (e.g. Anciaes et al. 2014, 2016), that hamper social sustainability and can lead to increased social segregation and isolation. Thus, it is important to actively promote social sustainability when planning for new or improved infrastructure (Smyth and Vanclay 2017; Antonson and Levin 2020).

These issues together can be referred to as a question of spatial justice, i.e. the equitable distribution of resources, services, and access, also regarded as a basic human right (Soja 2010). Spatial justice can be seen to incorporate social justice, i.e. ‘the objective of creating a fair and equal society in which each individual matters, their rights are recognized and protected, and decisions are made in ways that are fair and honest’ (Oxford Reference 2023). Transport justice is about the designing of fair transport systems (Martens 2017).

More sustainable transport planning can promote environmental goals, such as the reduction of emissions while simultaneously supporting human rights, social sustainability, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Nonetheless, social issues have often not been adequately addressed in transport infrastructure projects (Boström 2012; Smyth and Vanclay 2017; Josa and Aguado 2019), and in Sweden for example, the call for the use of social impact assessments (SIA) is relatively new (Antonson and Levin 2020; Levin and Gil Solá 2021). However, within the Swedish context, several actors perform SIA, but each actor often operates from their own set of principles and guidelines. Therefore, there is what seems to be a plethora of tools and models for SIA (Antonson and Levin 2020).

This paper, by highlighting the experiences and reflections of experts and practitioners, aims to increase knowledge of how social impact assessment is managed and handled at various stages of the planning process in major infrastructure investments in Sweden.

The paper starts by outlining a general background to SIA and then goes into more detail on issues relating to social perspectives in transport planning. Then, the method and material will be presented, which in this case consists of qualitative material collected through interviews with experts and practitioners at national and regional level and with consultants. Following this, the results are presented, with a focus on questions about routine and systematic approach when handling SIA, the role of the client and public procurement, the impact of SIA in the planning process, follow-ups, political decisions, competence of providers and clients, knowledge transfer, different stages of the planning process and different scales, different methods, public participation, and further challenges. Finally, there is a discussion and conclusions.

Social impact assessment; a more general background

Social impact assessment (SIA) is about monitoring, analysing and managing intended and unintended social impacts (both positive and negative) of planned interventions (Burdge and Vanclay 1996; Vanclay 2003, 2004, 2006; Esteves and Vanclay 2009; Esteves et al. 2012), and aims to support the benefits and limit the disadvantages of a given project through an ongoing influence in the decision-making process (Vanclay et al. 2015) and to promote social sustainability and a fairer distribution of resources. It aims to contribute to a better understanding of the social impacts of infrastructure investments. These can be direct and indirect, positive or negative, temporary or permanent. They can occur in the long and short term (Esteves et al. 2012). One of the cornerstones of social impact assessment is often understood to be the involvement of those affected. Participation and community engagement are often seen as necessary to identify and assess social impacts (Vanclay 2003). According to international guidelines, it is important that social perspectives are considered at an early planning stage in order to influence the decision-making process (Vanclay et al. 2015). The importance of following up on the initial assessment to ensure that the SIA is updated throughout the planning process, as well as after, is also highly stressed (Mottee and Howitt 2018; Lucas et al. 2022; Mottee 2022).

A recent two-step literature review, focusing on both highly cited literature within the SIA field more generally and more specifically on academic literature related to SIA and transport planning (Holz et al. forthcoming), is based on four themes within the more general literature. The themes concern issues such as essential components of SIA, impacts of SIA, methods used in highly cited articles and challenges of SIA. In the highly cited articles, there was, among other things, a focus on public inclusion and the democratic right to be included in the decision processes as well as to consider SIA as ongoing throughout the planning process. The study, however, concludes that there seem to be many challenges remaining within the field of SIA and transport planning (ibid.).

Several researchers suggest a mixed method approach when conducting SIA, including qualitative and quantitative methods, that can grasp impacts that go beyond the quantifiable consequences of a project (e.g. Burdge et al. 2003; Esteves and Vanclay 2009). However, some discrepancies between suggestions in academic literature and practical applications analysed in case studies can be seen (Holz et al. forthcoming). For example, although it is generally acknowledged in literature that identification and consideration of social outcomes of transport infrastructure investments by participating methods are crucial for, among other, public support of the project. Practical examples in the literature show that social perspectives might be overshadowed by economic or political interests (Mottee and Howitt 2018; Mottee et al. 2020; Mottee 2022).

Furthermore, there is a discussion within research that the identification of social impacts is seen as a challenge due to the complex and broad meaning of what can be social impacts, which often limits the measurability of social impacts (Antonson and Levin 2020; Mottee et al. 2020; Mottee 2022). As such, identification of social impacts can be underdone by practitioners without relevant social science knowledge and crucial social impacts could be overlooked in the planning stage (Burdge and Vanclay 1996; Burdge et al. 2003). Furthermore, the often qualitative nature of social issues might also prevent the issues from being taken as seriously as more quantifiable environmental issues (Winter 2021).

SIA in Sweden; the Swedish planning process for transport infrastructure and public procurement

Social perspectives have garnered increased interest in Swedish transport planning in recent years, for example in terms of a ‘socially sustainable transport planning’ (Levin and Gil Solá 2021). Sweden has no legal requirements for social impact assessments for major infrastructure investments (when considering SIA as a formalised instrument) although it has become increasingly accepted that some form of SIA should be included. National researchers have however identified a lack of guidance in the field for practitioners of SIA, which seems to have led to a wide variety of SIA initiatives that differ in scope and quality (Antonson and Levin 2020).

Recent years have seen several major infrastructure investigations taking place in Sweden. Investigations include national rail initiatives with faster and more modern rail connections between the country’s major cities (an investigation that has been partially cancelled/paused by the new government), a railway track in a tunnel under central Gothenburg (the second largest city in the country) aiming to provide the city with regular commuter and regional train traffic, a new junction-free expressway south of Stockholm, the capital of the country, and more. These investments might not only provide new opportunities for increased accessibility and growth but might also risk creating various types of barriers and may lead to both positive and negative social impacts.

At the national level, the Swedish Transport Administration uses the same four-stage planning process regardless of whether it concerns roads or railways. The first step is what is known as a measure selection study (åtgärdsvalstudie) (The Swedish Transport Administration n.d.). This uses a four-step principle to investigate what needs to be done to remedy a deficiency in the transport system and is designed so that the first and second alternatives are initially examined to see if it is possible to solve the problem in those ways. If this is not deemed possible, the third and fourth alternatives are assessed as the most suitable to remedy the deficiency. Finally, if it is considered that a new road or railway is necessary, a major investigation is launched. At this stage, a public consultation process also begins, which continues until the road or rail plan is adopted (Ibid.).

The Swedish planning process can be briefly summarised as follows, first, a planning description is produced, which describes how the work will be organised. Times and places for consultation are included, and the planning description is updated during the course of the work. Consultation can take place with authorities, the public or other stakeholders.

When a planning description has been produced, the planning work begins with investigating where the road or railway should be built, how it should be designed and what consequences different alternatives may have. Public consultations continue during this process and are described as essential in order to understand what conflicts and values may exist in the areas where the road or railway is planned to be built. Early in the process, it is also assessed whether the project will have a significant environmental impact. If there is an identified risk for a significant environmental impact, an environmental impact assessment (EIA) must be produced.

In some major projects, the government must also undertake a permissibility assessment before a plan can be drawn up. The assessment means that the government examines whether the road or railway may be built on the site of the project. In order for the assessment to be carried out, documentation must be produced on various alternatives, and the most suitable alternative must be identified.

The road or rail plan that the planning process leads to must contain a map of the proposed project area, a description of which land is needed permanently for the project, and which land is needed temporarily, for example for access routes during the construction phase. A public consultation report must also be presented, in which all public consultations during the process are listed. If the plan is approved and there is funding for the project, the plan is forwarded to the Swedish Transport Administration’s Legal and Planning Assessment Department, which carries out a confirmation assessment. This means that the consequences of the project as a whole (environment, health, encroachment, etc.) are examined together with all remarks and viewpoints that have emerged during the course of the project. The Swedish Transport Administration adopts the plan if the assessment shows that the advantages and benefits for the public outweigh any disadvantages that may affect individual interests. If individuals or groups consider that the decision is incorrect, it can be appealed.

The regions coordinate long-term regional infrastructure planning, which is addressed, among other things, in regional infrastructure plans, as mandated by the government. These plans are primarily based on creating long-term sustainable accessibility with regard to long-term sustainable development. Public procurement is common in Sweden and affects many different areas of society. For major infrastructure projects, the Swedish Transport Administration and the regions often act as clients, ordering larger investigations (such as SIA), and consultants are often the contractors (Ibid.).

Method & material

This study is of a qualitative nature and consists of interviews with experts and practitioners in Sweden who work in various ways on issues of socially sustainable transport planning. The informants work at the national level (The Swedish Transport Administration), at the regional level in two of the country’s metropolitan areas, or as consultants. The informants who work as consultants represent three established consulting companies in urban planning and societal development.

The interviewees have been found via names that have appeared in more well-known official publications/reports in the field or via the snowball method, where in some cases informants have recommended other informants who could be valuable to the study. The informants were sent a contact e-mail, together with an information letter explaining the research project and the project’s ethical guidelines. The interviews were conducted in spring 2023 with a total of nine informants, some more informants were asked to participate in the study, but they chose to decline the invitation. The interviews were conducted digitally. All informants agreed to the interviews being recorded. The interviews were transcribed verbatim.

Interviews and the informants

All interviews were conducted individually with the responsible researcher, except in one case, where two informants were interviewed simultaneously. This was at the request of the informants. The interviews were based on some main themes, but were otherwise kept fairly free, as the interviewees had different roles and backgrounds. Topics included the stages at which an SIA should be included in the planning process, methods and approaches, the space/impact given to SIAs in the planning process, the competence of providers and clients, public participation and challenges within the field. As part of the project, a literature review was carried out initially (see Holz et al. forthcoming) and the identified themes are largely based on themes identified through the literature study.

All informants (except one) had at least 10–15 years of working experience in transport planning, and they had all become increasingly involved in social issues (from a transport perspective) over the years. The informants worked with, among other things, the early stages in the planning process, and environmental and social issues in major infrastructure projects. They had different backgrounds, with experience in landscape architecture and physical geography. Two informants worked with regional development and social sustainability and represented two of the country’s metropolitan regions, with academic degrees in natural science and physical geography. Four of the informants represented three established consultancy firms with many years of experience in transport/physical planning. Some of them worked mostly with quantitative methods, accessibility analysis and GIS-analysis and visualisation in maps, some worked mainly in the early stages, and some worked more with development within the social field related to issues of transport. They had a background in human geography and traffic engineering.

Analysis

Thematic analysis is regarded as a useful and highly flexible approach for qualitative research and can be used for deepening the understanding of people’s experiences, thoughts, or behaviours, and for identifying patterns across a data set (e.g. Braun and Clarke 2006, 2021). Thematic analysis does, according to Braun and Clarke (2023, p. 65), ‘allow the researcher to develop and make sense of collective or shared meanings and experiences’ and this ‘through focusing on meaning across a data set’.

The analysis in this study were carried out much in line with Nowell et al. (2017) step-by-step approach.

The interview material has been read repeatedly and reflective thoughts were documented through the process. This work was followed by the generating of initial codes. Coding of the material was done manually in NVivo, and in triangulation by the literature and the empirical data set. The coding was conducted much in line with the pre-identified themes made earlier in the study and which formed the basis of the interviews, but with the development of sub-themes during the analysis process. The categories and sub-themes were repeatedly reviewed and corrected by the researcher during the process. Hereafter, a more thorough work was carried out regarding to defining and naming the themes, which were done by the determination of what different aspects each theme captures and why they are of interest (for an overview of the phases of thematic analysis, see Nowell et al. 2017).

Results

Overall, the informants regarded the issue of SIA in transport planning as an important and urgent issue, however, there were a consensus that the area is complex, fragmented and that much work remains to be done. The informants differed in background and were working with SIA in different ways, some as providers, others as clients who commission SIA, while some worked more with questions concerning the development of SIA.

All informants agreed that social perspectives have become more prominent in national transport planning over the last decade or so. However, while the field has evolved, informants all agreed that many challenges remain. One informant, for example, pointed out that the whole area of social sustainability is a field that requires action.

But in general, social sustainability is a field that requires action. I think we have struggled with this for a very long time … […] In the end I’m just like this… Hey, don’t care what it is, just go ahead and do something … !. (Consultant, IP 6)

At the same time, the same informant explained how the work as a consultant has very much been about putting social issues on the agenda in later years. According to the informant, it is not always obvious to the clients that these types of investigation are essential.

Similarly, one of the regional informants discussed how the social field has evolved in recent years. The informant talked about a personal ‘journey of insight’ as well, to consider more and more social perspectives and described a personal maturity regarding the issue that has probably come ‘further’ than among some colleagues but feels it can still be challenging to include different perspectives.

No, but the fact that it doesn’t come naturally to look at it from many different perspectives… There’s something in that …. (Regional, IP 4)

Lack of routine and systematic approach, the role of the client and public procurement

All the informants described how different projects vary in terms of how social perspectives are handled. They also talked about an overall national and regional lack of routine and systematic approach for such issues within transport planning. One informant from the national level referred, for example, to a major ongoing infrastructure project as a good example of a project where they worked actively to highlight the social perspectives, however, the same person described the project as ‘unique’. The informant at the same time talked about how colleagues in other projects must work much harder for the social perspectives within those projects.

So, I would say that it is not a problem for us to bring out the social perspective. But it’s also a unique project, you can see that when you talk to various other people. (National, IP2)

Another informant referred to a perception that it largely depends on the organisation of the project, the assignment description, and on the individuals involved, as to how social perspectives are generally managed and handled.

… the client [who orders the contract] is very important, how their organisation is structured as well, […] We have seen major differences in the [name of another major infrastructure project], for example, where we are also involved in the work. There, no order has been placed at all for an SIA and that is because it was not included in the assignment description. So, it has been dropped. (National, IP 3)

All informants highlighted the role of the client (who orders the SIA) as very important, and they all referred to major variations in how social impact assessments are handled in different larger infrastructure projects, depending on the people involved, such as project leaders and other key personnel. Informants from the national level explained that in major national infrastructure projects they nowadays always strive to include the social perspective to some extent but referred at the same time to contemporary examples where social perspectives have been given limited attention. Again, they repeatedly highlighted the importance of interest, professional backgrounds and commitment of the people involved, which they also stated affects the outcome of how good clients are about requesting a SIA in the tender documents. The informants from the regional level shared the same picture.

Yes … We are a bit … We try to include it in the tender documents themselves. Then it has been a bit mixed on how good we have been at describing it. (Regional, IP 4)

The same informant said that the maturity to handle social issues within their own organisation varies and that there are some tendencies to miss the social perspectives for this reason. The informant who normally worked more actively with social perspectives described it as difficult to have enough time to support colleagues in the social issues. The informant believed that a more systematic approach in how to handle the social perspective within the organization is needed.

The colleagues who still haven’t understood… (laughs) Yes, sorry. But they often miss this, that’s how it is, and sometimes… They know that I work with these issues a bit, so sometimes I get the question and so on. […]’it’s difficult to do enough, we need systematise this work in our own organisation so that it will happen more. (Regional, IP 4)

Further, one of the consultants described a perception that there are large variations in how, for example, different regions handle social issues in transport planning, highlighting some regions as more advanced regarding the issue and others as further behind. In this context, the informant also related to economic incentives.

There are some regions that are pioneers, [name of a region] and so on. They order it. But otherwise… We’ve tried to sell it and sometimes we’ve succeeded and sometimes they just … . ‘It’s a pretty important issue but no… We’ll take it another time’. And that’s sad …. (Consultant, IP 6)

Further, several other informants referred to the economical frameworks as well, which often impose restrictions in various ways. At the same time, they described a reality where they need to consider policy documents and internal stepwise processes for managing major initiatives or investments, which also follow internal decision-making processes with various operational templates to be completed and decision-making bodies to be consulted. They all talked about a complexity that is not always easy to handle. As one informant expressed it ‘there actually needs to be a place where the SIA fits in, if it is to be a real tool…’ (Regional, IP5).

The impact of SIA in the planning process, follow-ups, and political decisions

The informants described variations in the impact a SIA may have during the planning process and in relation to decision-making processes. One of the consultants felt that SIA may not always be given any considerable significance in a project. The same informant highlighted the importance of initially questioning the purpose of a SIA within a given context and therefore the actual intention with the SIA.

However, the informant gave many national examples of larger infrastructure investments where this appears not to have been done, which, according to the informant, risks leading to the SIA ending up ´as a single product´ or as ´an assignment´ rather than as ´a process´ which runs through all stages of the project. This can also challenge the possibilities to exert an influence during the decision-making process, the informant explained. The informant also drew on many examples where the SIA rather has resulted in a paper appendix that few consider and emphasised the importance of including SIA as an integrated process within the whole project (with following planning stages). The informant mentioned national examples of when this has not been the case and where the SIA has rather been conducted as its own parallel process or as an individual/single investigation.

Informants from both the national and the regional level reasoned in the same way. An informant from the national level mentioned a couple of SIAs that they have been involved in as a client (ordering the contract), with a supporting role during the execution process. Although the informant talked about the outcome of the SIA being useful, with relevant potential measures to put in place, they also criticised the lack of a clear recipient of the SIA results.

Will anyone follow up that we have done this? Does it make sense that we are doing this? I do not know …. (National, IP3)

At the same time, the informant made a comparison with environmental impact assessments and how these follow more standardised procedures for monitoring and follow-ups, such as by a supervisory authority with competence in the area.

…at least we have a very knowledgeable supervisory authority and they read the EIA […]But with the SIA and CIA [child impact assessment], there is nothing … There is no supervisory authority for that […] Then you wonder, what did this SIA and CIA actually provide? Other than that, yes, we are going to do a child impact assessment because we have signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child and it ‘looks good’ to do a social impact assessment …. (National, IP3)

The same informant suggested that SIA and EIA should be merged into the same impact assessment, and in that way the SIA would be followed up in a more systematic and structured way.

Similarly, one of the informants from the regional level argued that the purpose of an SIA is not always clear and that the requirement to carry out an SIA may come when the project has already been decided upon. The person referred to something of a ’retrospective construction’.

Then it can feel a bit like a retrospective construction; and then what is the actual purpose of the social impact assessment?. (Regional, IP5)

The informant referred in the same way to often a lack of recipients of SIAs and also highlights ’politics’ as an additional complicating factor. The person described that the organisation in this case has tried to use a more standardised procedure for handling SIAs, but that political decisions can complicate this procedure. This is because, among other things, decisions can occasionally be taken before social benefits have been more thoroughly examined. The informant described a desire to sometimes be able to reverse the process and first investigate where investments are most beneficial, but notes that this is not always the case in practice.

One would like to reverse the process; do we really need to do this? But it’s too late…. (Regional, IP5)

Time-pressure, responsibility, and competence of providers and clients

When working with larger infrastructure projects there are, the informants related to, often time-pressured situations, and since SIAs are mainly conducted by consultants, the responsibility for management, method and processes often rests with the consultants. One informant from the regional level referred to the Public Procurement Act and how consultants are often procured without any requirement for specific competency regarding SIA, this is because SIAs are often procured as a smaller part of a larger contract, an issue highlighted by one of the interviewed consultants as well.

The consultants are also often replaced during the different stages of the planning process, which can add further complexity to the area when it comes to issues about knowledge transfer, for example, especially as there is not always in-depth documentation of the conducted processes, which several informants mentioned as challenging.

Further, one informant believed that there is often a certain lack of humility and understanding of the importance of a more social science-based competency within the field. The informant believed that there is a general perception that a variety of competencies can address social issues in a satisfactory way, which the informant disagreed with. Several of the other informants discussed the same issue and pointed to perceptions of shortcomings in competency among both providers and clients.

… there are very few other subject areas that so many people claim to know about as the social field. Somewhere we need to raise awareness of what this is all about so that we get a greater understanding, or humility, that the issues need to be handled by professionals who have experience. […] But I see that when you can place these issues on some kind of environmental coordinator sometimes, or you place the responsibility on a communicator or someone like that … or you put it on the landscape architect … I’m hesitant …. (Consultant, IP9)

Another informant raised the same questions and pointed to the complexity of SIA regarding different stages of the planning process, different scales and other aspects that need to be taken into account.

Do we take social sustainability too lightly? Yes, maybe we do. Partly to be able to understand the stages, scale level and aspects, and to understand what you need to do, you need professional knowledge. And it’s not something that comes out of the blue …. (Consultant, IP6)

Another consultant similarly argued that it can, however, be challenging in larger infrastructure projects to identify the skills required, both in terms of the different stages of the planning process, different methods (quantitative and qualitative), different scales and other aspects, such as different groups.

… you need to have the ability and experience, training to deal with SIA, from the community level to the individual level, systems and complexity, different processes… Well, it is quite difficult to define the competency, but I think that we, the whole profession, need to work on that. (Consultant, IP9)

At the same time, some informants mentioned the high workload of consultants with a solid grounding in, and experience of, SIA and working on social issues, as there do not appear to be very many of them.

Although several informants noted the importance of the competence of the client, they also remarked that the lack of such competence is an issue. The informants who work as consultants described how responsibility for SIA issues is often placed on the consultant, as the client may have limited knowledge of the issues, which in turn is described as creating confusion and further challenges. This can also mean that social perspectives are handled differently for different projects and that the investigations vary in quality and impact during the planning process.

… then there are individual project managers who have realised that social sustainability is important, so we commission that too. But at the same time, they have no feeling for… So, they leave it to us consultants to design that. (Consultant, IP6)

Another informant from the regional level were of the same opinion and argued that it is necessary for the client who orders the SIA to have a certain level of knowledge. The unevenness in the commissioning of SIAs were described as having a major impact on the result and the different ways in which social perspectives are handled in different projects. Several informants also described that there are often few requirements in the procurement documents regarding SIA and made comparisons with other fields of knowledge.

… imagine that a large railway plan will be procured, […] you need to have an environmental impact assessment, you need to have a plan description, you need to have blueprints for this, and then of course you set requirements for the project manager or task manager in this case. They must have so many years of experience, you make demands about the person who will be working with the environmental impact, but you also make… I have probably never seen a procurement where demands for an SIA have been made. (National, IP3)

At the same time, the informant explained the issue to be partly about not wanting too many conditions in the procurement process, with the risk of it being reviewed within the process itself.

Different stages of the planning process, different scales and knowledge transfer

The informants all agreed that social perspectives should come in early in the planning process and then be included throughout the whole process. However, most informants emphasised that how to include the social perspectives should be adapted based on the given context and considered in relation to the stage of the planning process. The issue is referred to as ’a highly discussed issue’ by one of the national informants. The same informant mentioned variations in outcomes in results and measures depending on the different stages and referred at the same time to different spatial and geographical scales, that according to the informant, need to be considered.

What are we going to do? How should we do it? What has emerged in this work … what has become clear to me, and which I am now trying to work hard to achieve, is that the different stages… It is very important if the SIA document is to live on, should it be done once or at each stage? There is a big difference between the results of the different stages, what you can produce and what you can get out of it…. (National, IP3)

Further, there seemed to be a consensus among the informants, in relation to larger infrastructure investments, and regarding wider transport planning, that a more detailed scale becomes more possible as the planning process progresses and that the scale is often less detailed earlier in the process.

Several of the informants believed that in the very early stages, the social perspective can mainly be about identifying key social issues for the investment or project. One informant referred to the planning process of larger railway investments and drew on examples of how the localisation study (which often includes larger geographical areas) is about identifying places and/or social functions in the environment that are important to protect. In the railway or road plans, it might be a focus on more concrete effects and to work on measures. In the construction document, it is more about going into these measures in detail and, above all, following up that they have the desired effects.

The other informants agreed that the issues in SIA become increasingly detailed further on during the planning process. One informant from the national level gave examples of how at an early stage the social perspectives can be about identifying groups that might be affected, which can then also form the basis for the delimitation of the SIA in later stages. One of the regional informants said that at very early stages it might only be a matter of compiling a bullet list of relevant social issues to bring into the next stage.

You just write something general, so that it can be used at the next stage. Then the work on social impact assessments has been started. […] So, you don’t constantly say that it’s too early to say anything. […] many times, people say that it’s too early to say anything about the consequences […] Then it was suddenly too late, and all the frameworks were set. (Regional, IP5)

Further, several of the informants agreed with the importance of regular documentation, clearly informing about input values for the next stage with motivations as to why, both for traceability and to avoid repeating the same issues all over again. However, at the same time the informant explained that in the absence of a more systematic way of handling social issues, they have the perception that there is a general tendency to avoid a thorough handover. Generally, there are also long time periods between different stages, which can create additional challenges, and which further increase the need for proper documentation.

Quantitative and qualitative methods, and public participation

The informants viewed SIA methods in different ways based on their different roles. They all argued that both qualitative and quantitative methods are appropriate, but there seemed to be differences in the meaning behind this, and overall, the informants mostly referred to quantitative methods.

The consultants who worked with SIA on a more regular basis described accessibility analysis (GIS-analysis) as an important tool, and so did the regional representatives. They referred in this context to often working in the early stages of the planning process and that the accessibility analysis mainly examines the proximity of different target points for different groups based on factors such as age, socioeconomics and more. The accessibility analysis is described as normally being illustrated by maps to ease the communication internally and externally. Some of the consultants who worked with accessibility analysis in their daily work explained that the maps are also often the basis for qualitative assessments. The qualitative assessments are made by the involved staff members and can, for example, be based on sustainability indicators developed within the projects, and are sometimes combined with site visits, the informants explained.

I would say that there is a bit of a mix between quantitative and qualitative methods. We try to have a quantitative basis with a map or analytical basis on which we then make qualitative assessments in order to be able to explain how we assess […] When it comes to the qualitative assessments, it’s very much about being out on site and looking and forming an idea of what it [the landscape] looks like and how it can be used. (Consultant, IP8)

When discussing which other qualitative methods (besides the qualitative assessments) are included in the projects and whether the local residents are included in any way, the answers among the informants were perceived as slightly more fragmented and several informants mentioned the choice of method as being linked to the stage in the planning process.

Several of the consultants believed that including the residents is easier to do in later stages when working with a more detailed scale. Some also described avoiding including the local population at an early stage, as they believed that large-scale infrastructure projects often cause upset feelings among the locals.

… it is difficult to talk to people in sensitive projects, somehow. Even though it’s very important […] … like in the investigation phase when there are still a lot of alternatives and some have major consequences and others minor ones, it can be a bit sensitive to go out and talk to people and above all know how to ask so as not to end up in these situations that are difficult to handle. (Consultant, IP8)

Similarly, one of the other informants from the consultancy side explained that the inclusion of any form of dialogue in the SIAs is rare. The same informant described a certain ’overconfidence’ in dialogues with the public, especially in the early stages of the planning process. The informant also showed some resistance to dealing with more qualitative material.

Firstly, I think there is an over-reliance on dialogue. It is so easy to say that we should ‘dialogue’ more… We gather a bunch of people, then they come… and they think… And then we sit there with a lot of qualitative material and just… So that’s contrary to dialogue. (Consultant, IP6)

The informant described that work could be done to increase the understanding of the needs of residents and the co-creation of solutions but also pointed out that these are issues that lie outside the function of a SIA. The latter issue could be discussed, particularly in relation to international guidelines for SIAs. At the same time, the person also referred to later stages, with a deeper level of detail, and said that it is not always necessary to include the public then either, as much of the work can be about, for example, monitoring accessibility issues for people with disabilities, for which there are legal requirements anyway.

If there are very concrete stages, it is also about actually following accessibility guidelines. It’s not always the case that user participation helps. Because accessibility is actually about meeting requirements. (Consultant, IP6)

Additionally, one of the regional informants discussed how in transport planning there is ’a preponderance of engineers’, who mainly work more quantitatively, which poses additional challenges in the potential inclusion of more qualitative material.

Because, well, it’s [the qualitative material] not perceived as important or reliable or whatever …. (Regional, IP4)

Time and resource constraints are also highlighted by the informants as a challenging issue regarding the SIA, which also sometimes contributes to some parts of SIA being transferred to other similar SIAs as ’copy-paste’ as one of the informants expressed it.

However, involving citizens in some stage of the SIA were described by all informants as important, and most of them referred mainly to the public consultations and to help residents feel involved in the planning process in that way.

… it is very important to include the SIA in the public consultation, so that we show the public that we have looked at where residential environments are located, where destinations are located, where recreational environments are located…. (Consultant, IP7)

The maps (based on the accessibility analysis) were described as important in the public consultations, so that people understand what parameters have been looked at in the SIA.

One of the other consultants described an awareness that the transport planning needs to better include qualitative methods in the SIA, and that it is necessary to include qualitative methods (such as interviews) in the SIA long before the public consultations start. The same person also described how the public consultations usually attract certain groups, and that public consultations are often not representative when it comes to issues about age, socioeconomic factors etc. One of the regional informants compared the quantitative and the qualitative and believes that qualitative material is more complex and that a better understanding of this type of material is needed. The same informant described an effort to find ways to ’adapt’ more qualitative values to the ’quantified world’.

… or that you try to make the world understand the qualitative, the more complex… Because that’s what it’s like… The social issues are more complex, that’s just the way it is. (Regional, IP4)

The regional informants related some examples of how to work for active involvement of residents, but at the same time said that there is a certain lack of guidance on how these types of issues should be handled. The same informant described how much of the dialogue on the regional level goes through the municipalities, but that it is difficult to know how the municipalities actually include residents in the dialogues.

Informants from the national level also described the inclusion of residents in the SIA as a challenge and referred in the same way to public consultations and the difficulty of reaching different groups. One informant described the extended time horizons of large infrastructure projects as particularly challenging.

I think this is often a challenge. Usually the projects [name of a project as an example] we started talking politically about this in the late 90s, […] and 22 years later we have still not finished building […] A person born in 2000 has had time to become an adult and have their own children 30 years later. So, it’s very difficult to involve them and what you might have said in 2001 is not necessarily true today. So, [name of a city] has developed along the way and so on. So of course, it’s difficult. (National, IP3)

Further challenges within the field

Several informants highlighted an increased consideration of how SIAs should be handled through the different stages of the planning process as one of the most critical challenges and mentioned the issue of competence, and a proper handover between stages and some kind of national guidance.

One informant believed that the concept of SIA has been somewhat eroded and that there is no national consensus on what an SIA should actually contain. The informant described national examples of SIAs that can include everything from individual dialogues with a certain group to a compilation of significant social aspects.

So, if you pick up an SIA and start flipping through it, you don’t know what you’re going to read, but it can be either a summary of a dialogue or just a summary of socially important aspects, or it can be a summary of goal formulations that have been reformulated…. (Consultant, IP9)

The informant considered it as important to develop some form of standardised way of handling SIA in transport planning, with a focus on it needing to be a process that should include certain elements related to knowledge gathering, measures and evaluation. One informant from the regional level believed that there is an urgency in SIA to create a deeper understanding about which groups will benefit the infrastructure investment and in what way. The same informant described how many SIAs can give the feeling of being ’a bit flat’, with a lack of deeper analysis and reasoning.

… social impact assessment is something that consultants are keen to do, but there is rarely substance in it in a way that we think actually provides a good basis for decisions, as well as for the next step [in the planning process] [...] The most recent social impact assessments, [project names as examples], usually show a map or map image of segregation and age distribution or income distribution and then they think that a social impact assessment has been made. (Regional, IP5)

From both the national and the regional level, the informants highlighted the issue of collaboration between different levels (national, regional, municipal) as important, but also as an issue where challenges remain. An informant from the national level also highlighted the importance of introducing SIA as a process that is being followed up afterwards. All informants responded in different ways to questions about the lack of a more systematic approach to SIA.

I think that with that must also come a responsibility in dealing with these issues, which cannot simply be based on the fact that we happen to have the right people in the right place. Because we have that in a few projects. But there too, I think… We need to have transparent management so that it looks the same in different types of projects, large-scale and small-scale, but also across the country. (National, IP2)

One informant believed that it is important to increase the awareness of the social impacts of major infrastructure investments in various ways among transport planners. Another informant believed that a broader view of what social sustainability is about is necessary and that there is a tendency for transport planning to, for example, be ’boiled down to socially vulnerable areas’.

Discussion and conclusions

This paper, by highlighting the experiences and reflections of experts and practitioners, aimed to increase knowledge of how social impact assessment is managed and handled at various stages of the planning process in major infrastructure investments in Sweden. The results from the study reinforce the picture presented by previous research about a fragmented field (see Antonson and Levin 2020), with no clear guidelines or national consensus on what a SIA within the transport planning (and more specifically in relation to major infrastructure investments) should be about. Several fundamental issues in the field remain to be addressed for future development, including areas such as public procurement and the role and required competencies of the client and the practitioner. Issues that can be related to previous research in different ways. Esteves and Moreira (2021) for example, stresses the urgent need for increased attention, support and development of individual professionals who are responsible for, and dealing with, social issues.

For future development within the field, several issues need to be considered. The informants recognised an overall need to increase the understanding among practitioners and planners of potential social impacts in relation to transport infrastructure, even though they all agreed that social perspectives have become more prominent in national transport planning over the last decade or so.

Further, according to previous research, follow-up of SIA is an important matter (e.g. Mottee and Howitt 2018; Lucas et al. 2022; Mottee 2022), but the result of the study indicates that this is often ignored. This becomes particularly urgent with regard to the different stages of the planning process, in relation to public procurement, competencies and extended time horizons, which means that there are often different people working with different stages of the planning process. The different stages of the planning process were overall an issue that was described as highly discussed and complex in relation to SIA, as well as in what way social perspectives should be addressed at different stages. However, all informants agreed that social perspectives should be brought in early, which is also advocated in the guidance document of the IAIA (Vanclay et al. 2015), even if the level of detail or the spatial scale in the different stages may change during the planning process.

Another essential issue was the role of clients who order the SIA. Several describe an unsystematic handling of the social issues in major infrastructure projects and that how they are handled largely depends on the people involved in the projects and is due to professional background and interests. According to recent research, there is often confusion about what such a role entails and what skills are required (Esteves and Moreira 2021). For the same reason, a Competency Framework has been developed by Social Practice Forum (2020), referring to the challenges related to that Social Performance is not yet a formalised profession. Particularly challenging when involved practitioners represents diverse disciplinary backgrounds. Another issue is the space and importance given to SIA within the procurement documents, as well as the competencies required of the provider being procured.

Further, a large responsibility for design and execution seems to fall on the consultants, described to be challenging sometimes, as there is often insufficient time and resources. In some situations, this can also mean that the same approach can be used for several SIAs. The question further highlights the importance of some form of support for SIA in transport planning, taking into account everything from the management of the procurement process to issues of competence and execution. Altogether, the shortages are described as having an impact on the quality of the SIA as well as on the ability to influence the decision-making process.

A common understanding of what an SIA should actually be about is another important question highlighted by the informants. The research uniformly shows the importance of seeing an SIA as an integrated process in the investigation rather than a separate product or a parallel investigation (e.g. Esteves et al. 2012). In the same way it is important that there is an explicit recipient of the results and a clear plan for how the results are to be utilised and managed. However, the informants referred to many national examples where this has not been the case. The need for guidance and a more systematic approach is expressed. This despite the comprehensive international work within the field, with international SIA guidelines developed, among other (see Vanclay et al. 2015).

Furthermore, research advocates a mix of methods (e.g. Burdge et al. 2003; Esteves and Vanclay 2009) and similarly, informants described it as important to use both qualitative and quantitative methods. Quantitative accessibility analyses and GIS analyses were described as important, while the qualitative methods were described in a more diverse way and seemed to be more about ’qualitative assessments’ made with regard to certain predetermined parameters by the providers. Qualitative material was regarded by some as complex and more difficult to understand, while some informants were hesitant about including the residents who will be affected and who can be seen as the genuine experts in terms of social functions and significant places in the geographical area concerned. This is despite the wealth of research showing the importance of including residents (e.g. Blahna and Yonts‐Shepard 1989; Esteves et al. 2012). The informants referred to the public consultations, while they at the same time explained that those usually only reach a certain sector of the local population.

The informants also mentioned a general lack of humility towards social issues and a sometimes low respect for the skills required for handling social perspectives. While the research highlights the importance of greater social science knowledge (e.g. Burdge and Vanclay 1996; Burdge et al. 2003), the interviews indicate that this is often not the case and that the people involved often have more of an environmental background, working as communicators, project managers, engineers, or landscape architectures. Here it also becomes a question of skills to deal with things like different scales and impacts from the individual level to impacts on whole communities, something further discussed and exemplified in earlier research as well (e.g. Lee, Arts & Vanclay, 2022).

Finally, the informants that participated in this study did all have a long working experience within the field of transport planning, with a focus on the social perspective. They showed consistency and agreement on many issues discussed during the interviews and a ‘qualitative saturation’ could be noticed (for a conceptual discussion see e.g. Corbin and Strauss 2008). For future studies, and to increase the knowledge and understanding of SIA from a transport perspective, it would be relevant to further study how SIA is handled in major infrastructure projects in different contexts, where a wider range of informants are included. This, among other, to expose underlying determinants and influencing factors driving their different positionalities, possible inherent epistemological biases in their practices and how these factors might influence their overt and hidden narratives and justifications of their current practices. Similarly, it would be relevant to compare the practice of SIA of transport infrastructures in different countries, and contexts, to further highlight challenges and good practices.

Ultimately, identified deficiencies in the study become an urgent issue in the work for spatial justice and a fair distribution of resources, services and access, and in the creation of ’a fair and equal society in which each individual matters, their rights are recognized and protected, and decisions are made in ways that are fair and honest’ (Oxford Reference 2023).

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank all the informants who generously gave their time and shared their experiences. The Swedish Transport Administration for assisting with relevant documents and fruitful discussions. To project assistants Emilia Donalds, Marcella Holz and Gustav Lopez Svensson at the Department of Technology and Society, Lund University, for assisting through the project.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Swedish Transport Administration under Grant [TRV 2021/54272] and the K2 – The Swedish Knowledge Center for Public Transport K2 under Grant [2022007].