Version 1
: Received: 25 November 2023 / Approved: 28 November 2023 / Online: 28 November 2023 (10:15:52 CET)
How to cite:
Stanley, J.; Leong, W.Y.; Goh, Y.H. Supporting Social Goal Achievement for More Sustainable Land Use Transport Policy and Planning. Preprints2023, 2023111739. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202311.1739.v1
Stanley, J.; Leong, W.Y.; Goh, Y.H. Supporting Social Goal Achievement for More Sustainable Land Use Transport Policy and Planning. Preprints 2023, 2023111739. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202311.1739.v1
Stanley, J.; Leong, W.Y.; Goh, Y.H. Supporting Social Goal Achievement for More Sustainable Land Use Transport Policy and Planning. Preprints2023, 2023111739. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202311.1739.v1
APA Style
Stanley, J., Leong, W.Y., & Goh, Y.H. (2023). Supporting Social Goal Achievement for More Sustainable Land Use Transport Policy and Planning. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202311.1739.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Stanley, J., Wai Yan Leong and Yan Hui Goh. 2023 "Supporting Social Goal Achievement for More Sustainable Land Use Transport Policy and Planning" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202311.1739.v1
Abstract
The meaning of a good social outcome in land use transport policy/planning has been relatively underdeveloped, compared to economic and environmental sustainability goals, but this is now changing. Cities are increasingly prioritizing reducing social exclusion, with the allied intent of providing all residents with equitable access to the benefits of their city. However, in jurisdictions that use cost-benefit analysis to guide government decision-making, this poses a challenge: monetization of the benefits of reducing social exclusion is poorly developed. An evaluation gap thus confronts benefit-cost based assessment of initiatives intended to reduce social exclusion, compared to initiatives directed towards societal economic and environmental goals. This is a particular problem for public transport services that primarily enable people at risk of mobility-related social exclusion to access more opportunities in their society (social transit). The benefits of reducing social exclusion associated with these services have not been monetized, so social transit initiatives are poorly placed to argue their merits against competing initiatives where benefit monetization is more advanced (e.g., mass public transport and roads). The paper summarizes Australian research that has developed monetized measures for the value of increased trip making, bridging/bonding social capital, sense of community and several conceptions of wellbeing, and of reducing neighbourhood disadvantage, as these contribute to reducing social exclusion. New Singaporean research on the value of trip making to support reduced exclusion is also presented, affirming the Australian trip values. Trip values are then used in case study examples to show they can make a material difference to the societal worth of initiatives intended to reduce exclusion. Using these trip values, and other pathway values linked to reducing social exclusion, closes or at least substantially reduces the evaluation gap confronting social goal achievement in land use transport policy and planning, strengthening the case for reducing exclusion. These values will assist jurisdictions that are seeking to provide their residents with more equitable access to the benefits of their city.
Keywords
cost benefit analysis; evaluation; land use transport planning; monetization; social exclusion; social goal
Subject
Social Sciences, Urban Studies and Planning
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
