Institute for Transport StudiesFACULTY 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

• Context

• Academic and organisational perspectives

• Survey findings

• Interview findings

• Concluding remarks

• What next

• Context

• Academic and organisational perspectives

• Survey findings

• Interview findings

• Concluding remarks

• What next

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

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

• Context

• Academic and organisational perspectives

• Survey findings

• Interview findings

• Concluding remarks

• What next

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)

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.

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

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

• Context

• Academic and organisational perspectives

• Survey findings

• Interview findings

• Concluding remarks

• What next

Participation types

• 10 most commonly used types

Socially excluded groups involved

• Ethnic Minorities not listed or identified

• Open question...

Reasons for inviting those groups

Everyone was invited (x2)Everyone was invited (x2)

Focus on specific issues (x3)Focus on specific issues (x3)

Invited as a recognised organisation (x5)Invited as a recognised organisation (x5)

As Users/Members of the Public (x2)As Users/Members of the Public (x2)

For community benefit (x2)For community benefit (x2)

Specific insight/experiences (x7)Specific insight/experiences (x7)

Representation / Statutory Duties (x3)Representation / Statutory Duties (x3)

Influence on LTP process

• Did those groups and individuals influence outcomes?

Feedback of that influence

• Was influence fed back to those groups/individuals?

• Context

• Academic and organisational perspectives

• Survey findings

• Interview findings

• Concluding remarks

• What next

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

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)

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

• Context

• Academic and organisational perspectives

• Survey findings

• Interview findings

• Concluding remarks

• What next?

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

• Context

• Academic and organisational perspectives

• Survey findings

• Interview findings

• Concluding remarks

• What next?

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?

Can it be used by policy makers?

Can it promote ‘productive’ social

capital?

Enabling more effective

participation with limited resources?

Risks of framework fatigue?

Considerations for potential framework

development

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

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

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.