Presented at the Royal Geographical Society (RGS) Annual International Conference, 27-29 August 2014.
www.rgs.org/WhatsOn/ConferencesAndSeminars/Annual+International+Conference/Annual+international+conference.htm
Similar to Participative Transport Planning and Social Exclusion: Where do we begin? Understanding different perspectives through the co-production of knowledge
Communities Creating Racial Equity (CCRE) Case Studies Final ReportEveryday Democracy
Similar to Participative Transport Planning and Social Exclusion: Where do we begin? Understanding different perspectives through the co-production of knowledge (20)
Prescribed medication order and communication skills.pptx
Participative Transport Planning and Social Exclusion: Where do we begin? Understanding different perspectives through the co-production of knowledge
1. Institute for Transport Studies
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
Participative Transport Planning and
Social Exclusion: Where do we
begin? Understanding different
perspectives through the co-production
of knowledge
Joanna Elvy
RGS Annual Conference – Thursday 28th August 2014
2. • Context
• Academic and organisational
perspectives
• Survey findings
• Interview findings
• Concluding remarks
•What next
3. • Context
• Academic and organisational
perspectives
• Survey findings
• Interview findings
• Concluding remarks
•What next
4. Context
• Transport related social exclusion is a widely
documented problem (cf. Lucas, 2012)
• Attention of policy makers has shifted to a
focus on economic growth and carbon
reduction
• Additional pressure on socially excluded as a
result of cuts to local public transport and
community/voluntary transport funding
5. Transport & Social Exclusion
• Any group or individual who is excluded or at risk of
exclusion from undertaking everyday social activities
due to the nature or lack of transport provisions
• The groups at risk include but are not limited to (SEU,
2003 and SDC, 2011):
– older people
– children and young people
– ethnic minorities
– lone parents
– people with disabilities
– people on low incomes
6. • Context
• Academic and organisational
perspectives
• Survey findings
• Interview findings
• Concluding remarks
•What next
7. Academic perspective
• Important that the voices of socially excluded
groups and individuals are included
• Participatory transport planning - potential for co-production
of knowledge and solutions to suit
specific problems and contexts
• The localism agenda and unequal capacities for
involvement (Lucas, 2012)
• Previous research highlights need for more
effective public participation in transport planning (cf.
Ward, 2001; Hodgson and Turner, 2003; Bickerstaff and Walker, 2005; Dibben, 2006; Michels and De
Graaf, 2010)
8. Identified gaps in research
• Impacts of transport policy and decision making on socially
excluded (cf. Lucas and Currie, 2011, Lucas, 2012, Lucas and Jones, 2012)
• Mimi Sheller’s call for a ‘twin transition’ of sustainable
mobility and mobility justice (a socially inclusive sustainable
mobility?)
• Disaggregated perspectives within participatory transport
planning
• A refocus of the public participation debate (cf. Healey, 1997, Flyvbjerg,
1998, Bickerstaff and Walker, 2005, Taylor, 2007) onto its impacts on participants
and non-participants.
• A more nuanced understanding of the role of social capital
(Schwanen et al., 2014) on participatory transport planning and
transport related social exclusion.
9. Organisational Perspective
• Follow up from content analysis of LTP3s (Elvy,
2014) to explore co-production of knowledge within
current participatory transport planning involving
socially excluded groups and individuals.
• Same study area as LTP3 content analysis -
England (excl. London)
• An exploratory online questionnaire survey (252
invitations) and selected follow up interviews
10. Organisational Perspective
• 42 fully completed responses grouped into:
– Representatives of English councils, operators and LEPs (n=18)
– Representatives of community, voluntary and lobby groups and
organisations (n=24)
• 7 follow-up interviews (ongoing) including:
– The NW England Local Councillor (transport cabinet member)
– The SE England chief transport planner
– The West Midlands 50+ engagement coordinator
• ...case study selection for further research
11. • Context
• Academic and organisational
perspectives
• Survey findings
• Interview findings
• Concluding remarks
•What next
14. Reasons for inviting those
groups
• Open question...
SSppeecciiffiicc iinnssiigghhtt//eexxppeerriieenncceess ((xx77))
IInnvviitteedd aass aa rreeccooggnniisseedd oorrggaanniissaattiioonn ((xx55))
AAss UUsseerrss//MMeemmbbeerrss ooff tthhee PPuubblliicc ((xx22))
Everyone wwaass iinnvviitteedd ((xx22))
FFooccuuss oonn ssppeecciiffiicc iissssuueess ((xx33))
FFoorr ccoommmmuunniittyy bbeenneeffiitt ((xx22))
RReepprreesseennttaattiioonn // SSttaattuuttoorryy DDuuttiieess ((xx33))
15. Influence on LTP process
• Did those groups and individuals influence outcomes?
16. Feedback of that influence
• Was influence fed back to those groups/individuals?
17. • Context
• Academic and organisational
perspectives
• Survey findings
• Interview findings
• Concluding remarks
•What next
18. The NW England Local
Councillor
• Council led engagement
• Traditional methods
• Going out into the community – unsuccessful
• Bus Users Group and Area Forums
• “Silence is compliance”
• Participation dominated by “usual suspects”
• Diluted representation? most deprived ward sits within
same area forum as affluent rural ward
• Sustainable transport – LSTF focus on business park
19. The SE England chief transport
planner
• Independence of engagement groups
• Initial promise (diverse attendance)
• Internal politics
• Groups dominated by single issue and single personality
• Attempts to create new channels to bypass this
• Engagement with disability groups, older groups and
young groups
• Conventional participation dominated by older people
• Identified a need to work with the public on future
innovations (e.g. taxi bus scheme)
20. The West Midlands 50+ engagement
coordinator
• Runs an over 50 forum (quarterly) with 60-120 attendees
• Staffed project - £60,000 pa budget
• “Transport always comes up no matter what the issue”
• Outreach officer enables trust to be built up between
individuals (e.g. Asian community) – leads to attendance
• People involved reported feeling more engaged, confident
and socially active
• Scheme not reaching Muslim men, people with mental
health problems, “poorly educated and cash poor” as well
22. Challenges of co-production?
Transferability
between
spatial, social
and cultural
contexts
Sensitivity to
context
Handling
power relations
Embracing
difference and
disagreement
Understanding
people
Use of
appropriate
language and
terminology
Non response
24. A need for a framework?
• Bryson et al (2012) and Faehnle and Tyrvainen (2013)
• Context specific participatory governance frameworks can
potentially enable more effective public participation
Context specific?
Transferable?
Can it be used by the
public?
participation with
limited resources?
Can it be used by
policy makers?
Enabling more
effective
Can it promote
‘productive’ social
capital?
Risks of framework
fatigue?
Considerations
for potential
framework
development
25. What next?
• Aim: to understand
the role of social
capital in
participatory
transport planning
processes which
seek to promote
and provide
opportunities for
socially inclusive
sustainable mobility
26. Acknowledgments
• Frances Hodgson and Karen Lucas
• ESRC and the White Rose DTC
• ITS PGR Writing Group members and other proof readers
• The anonymous survey participants and interviewees
• The RGS Transport Geography Research Group
• Lisa Davison and Angela Curl
27. References
• BICKERSTAFF, K. & WALKER, G. 2005. Shared visions, unholy alliances: Power, governance and deliberative processes in local transport planning. Urban Studies,
42, 2123-2144.
• BRYSON, J.M., QUICK, K.S., SLOTTERBACK, C.S. & CROSBY, B.C. 2012. Designing Public Participation Processes. Public Administration Review. DOI:
10.111/j.1540-6210.2012.02678.x.
• DIBBEN, P. 2006. The 'socially excluded' and local transport decision making: Voice and responsiveness in a marketized environment. Public Administration, 84,
655-672.
• ELVY, J. 2014. Public participation in transport planning amongst the socially excluded: an analysis of 3rd generation Local Transport Plans. Case Studies on
Transport Policy, 2, 41-49.
• FAEHNLE, M. & TYRVAINEN, L. 2013. A framework for evaluating and designing collaborative planning. Land Use Policy, 34, 332-341.
• FLYVBJERG, B. 1998. Rationality and power : democracy in practice, London, University of Chicago Press.
• HEALEY, P. 1997. Collaborative planning : shaping places in fragmented societies, Basingstoke, Macmillan.
• HODGSON, F. C. & TURNER, J. 2003. Participation not consumption: The need for new participatory practices to address transport and social exclusion. Transport
Policy, 10, 265-272.
• LUCAS, K. 2012. Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transport Policy, 20, 105-113.
• LUCAS, K. & CURRIE, G. 2011. Developing socially inclusive transportation policy: transferring the United Kingdom policy approach to the State of Victoria?
Transportation, 39, 151-173.
• LUCAS, K. & JONES, P. 2012. Social impacts and equity issues in transport: an introduction. Journal of Transport Geography, 21, 1-3.
• MICHELS, A. & DE GRAAF, L. 2010. Examining citizen participation: Local participatory policy making and democracy. Local Government Studies, 36, 477-491.
• SCHWANEN, T., LUCAS, K., AKYELKEN, N., SOLSONA, D.-C., CARRASCO, J.-A. & NEITENS, T. 2014. Rethinking the links between social exclusion and transport
disadvantage through the lens of social capital (Unpublished Manuscript). University of Oxford.
• SHELLER, M. 2011. Sustainable Mobility and Mobility Justice: Towards a twin transition. In: GREICO, M. & URRY, J. (eds.) Mobilities: New Perspectives on
Transport and Society. Farnham: Ashgate.
• SOCIAL EXCLUSION UNIT (SEU) 2003. Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion, London, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
(ODPM).
• SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (SDC) 2011. Fairness in a Car-dependent Society, London, Sustainable Development Commission.
• TAYLOR, M. 2007. Community participation in the real world: Opportunities and pitfalls in new governance spaces. Urban Studies, 44, 297-317.
• WARD, D. 2001. Stakeholder involvement in transport planning: Participationand power. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19, 119-130.