Suchergebnisse

Practices in the assessment and management of social impacts play an important role in the development of urban transport infrastructure megaprojects. Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is an internationally recognised process used to predict, assess and manage impacts aimed at securing an equitable distribution of social benefits and costs. However, practitioners applying SIA face significant challenges in balancing strategic policy objectives and specific project aims. The pilot study for this research suggested practitioners have limited influence on long-term social outcomes as their involvement is constrained by political decision-making and planning approval processes. Using a qualitative analysis of three rail infrastructure megaprojects from two urban geographical contexts, Sydney (Australia) and Amsterdam (The Netherlands), this research investigated what constrains and influences the assessment and management of social impacts. It considered relationships between urban geographical context and practices in Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) and management. Research methods included document analysis, field observations, semi-structured interviews and focus groups with practitioners, professionals and academics. The thesis argues that over-emphasis of technical (financial and engineering) aspects during urban and transport planning risks decision-makers undervaluing social impacts in projects. The implementation of good practice SIA, follow-up, and the management of impacts is constrained by a tension between governance priorities at multiple spatial scales. It suggests that adaptive management and governance to respond to social change over time is essential. The thesis concludes that practice must be supported by effective integration with project management, urban governance and planning to improve social outcomes from transport infrastructure megaprojects.

Social Impact Assessment (SIA) facilitates sustainable and equitable consideration of social issues in transport infrastructure planning. However, SIA practitioners face significant constraints in practice. Good SIA is effective in contributing to institutional mechanisms for holding political, bureaucratic and commercial processes accountable for social outcomes. This paper aims to better understand constraints to the assessment and management of social impacts. Drawing on interviews with expert infrastructure professionals involved in projects in Sydney (Australia), Amsterdam (The Netherlands), and internationally, this paper highlights weaknesses in the implementation of SIA, technical engineering-, time- and cost-focused project management practices, and poorly regulated, politically-driven urban governance and planning processes as key constraints. The findings suggest that overcoming those constraints cannot be the sole responsibility of EIA and SIA practitioners and there is more to be considered than practice alone. Instead, this requires an integrated approach across multi-level governance scales and the lifecycle of projects. This paper concludes that for good practice SIA to be realised as intended, systemic adjustments are needed in the planning of urban transport infrastructure, to address constraints and ensure that social impacts are considered in strategic stages and prioritised equally against other project and urban planning issues in decision-making.

In assessing the social impacts of major urban transport-infrastructure projects Impact Assessment (IA) practitioners determine and facilitate the equitable distribution of project benefits and costs. They do this in a context of governmental policy objectives and stakeholder interests. Public investment in transport projects shapes contemporary planning of urban Australian cities, addressing common challenges of rapid and sprawling population growth. Politically-driven urgency' in delivering new infrastructure, raises questions about long-term strategic benefit and delivery of the positive social and environmental outcomes that often frame their announcement.Follow-up to assess outcomes against policy objectives and stakeholder interests, however, is rare and tools to facilitate genuine public accountability through project phases are lacking. This paper discusses the need for better management and follow-up of social impacts from urban transport-infrastructure projects. Drawing insights from a review of the (partial) delivery of the former NSW Government's Parramatta Rail Link project, it evaluates social impact management strategies applied against the achievement of social and transport policy objectives. Lessons introduced highlight the constraints and limitations on good practice IA and Social Impact Assessment, the importance of early practitioner and community involvement and that political decision-making for urban transport-infrastructure has the greater influence on delivering social outcomes.

Urban rail transport megaprojects are promoted as generating positive social change at a metropolitan scale, yet they produce complex unplanned negative impacts at local scales. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) and its follow-up help decision-makers assess and manage the social and environmental impacts of major projects. Using Western Sydney's politically-successful South West Rail Link as an example, we identified the practice challenges and governance barriers to applying ESIA and EIA follow-up across spatial scales. These challenges and barriers influence the planning and management of the impacts of integrated urban development and transport infrastructure development.

Amsterdam's North-South Metro Line (NZL) megaproject has had a long eventful history. From the initial proposal in the 1990s, through construction in the 2000s to 2010s, to its opening in 2018, the NZL overcame many challenges. Several geotechnical incidents in the Vijzelgracht neighbourhood in 2008 cost the City of Amsterdam and the Dutch government millions of Euros. These incidents required complex recovery management actions, and there was a complete re-evaluation of the project, resulting in extensive reformulation of the project's communications and impact management strategies, and in more-transparent public participation. Despite NZL's significance, it never underwent any formal Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), thus it provides an interesting case to consider how social impacts are addressed when there is no formal ESIA. Drawing on document review, semi-structured interviews, and a focus group, we considered the experiences of key decision-makers and project team members to learn how social impacts were assessed and managed over time in the absence of ESIA. We conclude that, when combined with appropriate urban governance frameworks, applying ESIA in urban and transport planning would improve the assessment and management of the social impacts of future megaproject infrastructure developments.