Advertisement

Infrastructure, Equity and Urban Planning: A Just Process for the Allocation of Benefits and Burdens

  • Daniel DurrantEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)

Abstract

This chapter asks first what is infrastructure or more importantly infrastructures as the physical artefacts and technologies are inextricably intertwined with complex economic, social and ecological systems. This is central to the first dimension of equity considered, distributional equity. Infrastructures allocate different ‘goods’ spatially, and to population groups therefore to understand the impacts of infrastructures upon distributional equity it is important to understand what exactly they are and what goods they produce. Second, planning and the planning of infrastructures highlight the importance of procedural equity and equality of input into the process. The next section examines definitions of equity and their application to urban planning and urban infrastructure. This draws upon three philosophical analyses of the concept and ways in which it has been recently applied to develop principles that could reshape the way infrastructure is planned and provided. A framework is developed to illustrate the ways in which the planning of urban infrastructure might be used to establish more equitable outcomes. This is based upon a vertical axis along which procedural inputs influence the way the planning process allocates distributional outputs. These are distributed along a horizontal axis of benefits and burdens with the planning process used as a means of establishing minimum and maximum permissible thresholds. As the examples of infrastructure that has been planned and delivered specifically to address issues of social equity are few and far between, the chapter is interspersed with examples of where some dimensions have been addressed either explicitly or indirectly.

References

  1. Altschuler A, Luberoff D (2003) Mega-projects: the changing politics of urban public investment. The Brookings Institute, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  2. Asian Development Bank (2005) Connecting East Asia: a new framework for infrastructure, Asian Development Bank, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, and Japan Bank for International CooperationGoogle Scholar
  3. Beatley T (1988) Equity and distributional issues in infrastructure planning: a theoretical perspective. In: Stein JM (ed) Public infrastructure planning and management. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 208–226Google Scholar
  4. Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  5. Brand R (2010) Whole earth discipline: an ecopragmatist manifesto. Atlantic Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Braungart M, McDonough W (2009) Cradle to cradle. Remaking the way we make things. Vintage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown H (2014) Next generation infrastructure: principles for post-industrial public works. Island Press, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curtis C, Low N (2012) Institutional barriers to sustainable transport. Ashgate, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  9. Devine-Wright P (2013) Explaining “NIMBY” objections to a power line: the role of personal, Place attachment and project-related factors. Environ Behav 6(45):261–781Google Scholar
  10. Dewey J (1927) The public and its problems. George Allen and Unwin Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Dorling D (2010) Injustice: why social inequality persists. Polity Press, BristolCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dryzek JS (1995) Discursive democracy: politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Forester J (1999) The deliberative practitioner: encouraging participatory planning processes. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Flores Dewey O (2016) BRT as a tool for negotiated re-regulation. In: Munoz JC, Paget Seekins L (eds) Restructuring public transport through Bus Rapid Transit: an international and interdisciplinary perspective. Polity Press, Bristol, pp 51–73Google Scholar
  15. Flyvbjerg B, Bruzelius N, Rothengatter W (2003) Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frischmann BM (2012) Infrastructure—the social value of shared resources. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fujiwara D, Campbell R (2011) Valuation techniques for social cost-benefit analysis: stated preference, revealed preference and subjective well-being approaches a discussion of the current issues. HM Treasury/Department of Work and PensionsGoogle Scholar
  18. Geels FW (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res Policy 31(8–9):1257–1274. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gellert PK, Lynch BD (2003) Mega-projects as displacements. Int Soc Sci J 55(175):15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graham S, Marvin S (2001) Splintering urbanism: networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. Routledge Chapman & Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giddens A (2011) The politics of climate change, 2nd revised edn. Polity Press, BristolGoogle Scholar
  22. Groves C, Yakovleva N, Munday M (2013) Fighting the pipe: neoliberal governance and barriers to effective community participation in energy infrastructure planning. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 31:340–356. doi: 10.1068/c11331r CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gül A, Gezer A, Kane B (2006) Multi-criteria analysis for locating new urban forests: an example from Isparta. Turkey 5:57–71. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2006.05.003 Google Scholar
  24. Hall P (2014) Good cities, better lives: how Europe discovered the lost art of urbanism. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  25. Harris M (2016) Secretive Alphabet division funded by Google aims to fix public transit in US. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/27/google-flow-sidewalk-labs-columbus-ohio-parking-transit Accessed 21 Oct 2016
  26. Healey P (1995) Discourses of integration: making frameworks for democratic urban planning. In: Healey P, Cameron S, Davoudi S, Graham S, Mandanipour A (eds) Managing cities: the new urban context. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 251–273Google Scholar
  27. HOFOR (2016) HOFOR: greater Copenhagen utility. http://www.hofor.dk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/hofor_greater_cph_utility.pdf Accessed 2 Nov 2016
  28. HS2Ltd/DfT (2011) Economic case for HS2. The Y network and London—West Midlands February 2011. HS2 Ltd/Department for TransportGoogle Scholar
  29. Innes JE, Booher DE (2004) Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Plan Theory Pract 5(4):419–436. doi: 10.1080/1464935042000293170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Legislation.gov.uk (2010) Equality act 2010. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents. Accessed 22 Nov 2016
  31. Klopp JM (2012) Towards a political economy of transportation policy and practice in Nairobi. Urban Forum 23(1):1–21. doi: 10.1007/s12132-011-9116-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lucas K (2012) Transport and social exclusion: where are we now? Transp Policy 20:105–113. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.01.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mackenzie MK, Warren ME (2012) Two trust-based uses of minipublics in democratic systems. In: Parkinson J, Mansbridge J (eds) Deliberative systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 95–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marshall A (2015) Why the word ‘infrastructure’ replaced ‘public works’. http://www.governing.com/columns/eco-engines/gov-the-word-infrastructure.html. Accessed 31 Oct 2016
  35. Martens K (2017) Transport justice: designing fair transportation systems. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  36. Metz D (2008) The limits to travel: how far will you go?. Earthscan, London, Stirling VAGoogle Scholar
  37. Monbiot G (2004) A scandal of secrecy and collusion. http://www.monbiot.com/2004/12/29/a-scandal-of-secrecy-and-collusion/. Accessed 14 Nov 2016
  38. Moroni S (2006) The ethics behind evaluation: Litchfield’s approach and Utilitarianism. In: Alexander ER (ed) Evaluation in planning. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 21–31Google Scholar
  39. Munoz JC, Paget Seekins L (2016) The promise of BRT. In: Munoz JC, Paget Seekins L (eds) Restructuring public transport through Bus Rapid Transit: an international and interdisciplinary perspective. Polity Press, Bristol, pp 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Naess P (2006) Cost-benefit analysis of transportation investment: neither critical nor realistic. J Crit Realism 5(1):32–60Google Scholar
  41. Nussbaum MC (1992) Human functioning and social justice: in defense of aristotelian essentialism. Political Theory 20(2):202–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nussbaum MC (1997) Capabilities and human rights. Fordham Law Rev 66(2):273–300MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  43. OMEGA Centre (2013) Mega projects, executive summery lessons for decision-makers: an analysis of selected international large-scale transport infrastructure projects. http://www.omegacentre.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Mega-Projects-Executive-Summary.pdf. Accessed 2 Nov 2016
  44. OMEGA Centre (2016) Central artery tunnel project summary. http://www.omegacentre.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/USA_BIG_DIG_SUMMARY.pdf. Accessed 24 Nov 2016
  45. Owens S, Cowell R (2011) Land and limits: interpreting sustainability in the planning process, 2nd edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Piketty T (2014) Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Planning Aid (2012) Good practice guide to public engagement in development schemes. http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/6312/Good-Practice-Guide-to-Public-Engagement-in-Development-Scheme-High-Res.pdf Accessed 1 Nov 2016
  48. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Rip A, Kemp R (1998) Technological change. In: Rayner S, Malone EL (eds) Human choices and climate. Climate change volume 2—resources and technology. Battelle, Columbus, pp 327–399Google Scholar
  50. Robeyns I (2003) Sen’S capability approach and gender inequality: selecting relevant capabilities. Fem Econ 9:61–92. doi: 10.1080/1354570022000078024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sagaris L (2016) Strategic participation for change. In: Munoz JC, PagetSeekins L (eds) Restructuring public transport through Bus Rapid Transit: an international and interdisciplinary perspective. Polity Press, Bristol, pp 101–127Google Scholar
  52. Shapiro SA, Schroeder CH (2008) Beyond cost-benefit analysis: a pragmatic reorientation. Harvard Environ Law Rev 32:434–502Google Scholar
  53. Smith A, Stirling A, Berkhout F (2005) The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Res Policy 34(10):1491–1510. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Steel C, (2008) Hungry City: How Food Shapes Our Lives. Chatto & WindusGoogle Scholar
  55. Thomopoulos N, Tight MR (2009) Incorporating equity considerations in transport infrastructure evaluation: current practice and a proposed methodology. Eval Progr Plan 32:351–359. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.06.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Torgeson D (2003) Democracy through policy discourse. In: Hajer MA, Wagenaar H (eds) Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 113–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Transport for London (2004) Equality impact assessments (how to do them). http://content.tfl.gov.uk/eia-06-04.pdf Accessed 31 Oct 2016
  58. Tyler N (2004) School of public policy working paper series. Working Paper 8: Justice in transport policyGoogle Scholar
  59. Tyler N (2006) Capabilities and radicalism: engineering accessibility in the 21st century. Transp Plan Technol 29(5):331–358. doi: 10.1080/03081060600917629 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van Dijk JAGM (2016) Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, (August 2006). doi: 10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004 Google Scholar
  61. van Wee B, Roeser S (2013) Ethical theories and the cost-benefit analysis-based ex ante evaluation of transport policies and plans. Transp Rev 33(6):743–760. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2013.854281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Walker G (2008) What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of energy production and use? Energy Policy 36(12):4401–4405. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wilkinson R, Pickett K (2011) The spirit level: why greater equality makes societies stronger. Bloomsbury Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  64. World Bank (2016) China overview. http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview. Accessed 22 Nov 2016
  65. Yanow D (2003) Accessing local knowledge. In: Hajer MA, Wagenaar H (eds) Deliberative policy analaysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 228–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bartlett School of PlanningUniversity College LondonBloomsburyUK

Personalised recommendations