Spatial Ethics as An Evaluation Tool for The Long-Term Impacts of Mega Urban Projects: An Application of Spatial Ethics Multi-Criteria Assessment to Canning Town Regeneration Projects, London

Spatial Ethics as An Evaluation Tool for The Long-Term Impacts of Mega Urban Projects: An Application of Spatial Ethics Multi-Criteria Assessment to Canning Town Regeneration Projects, London

Juhyun Lee 

The Bartlett School of Planning, UCL, UK

Page: 
541-555
|
DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V13-N4-541-555
Received: 
N/A
|
Accepted: 
N/A
|
Published: 
1 April 2018
| Citation

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract: 

Decision-making processes for mega urban infrastructure developments are far from closed rational systems. They rarely satisfy everyone, and are politically driven, reflecting the interests of key stake-holders and macro-scale economic development goals, with limited evaluation of multi-scale impacts and unwanted negative consequences to society at large. An integrated approach to evaluating impacts is required in consideration of the spatial and thus unavoidably ethical, political nature of decision-making on mega infrastructure development. Spatial Ethics (SE) is addressed as a conceptual basis to investigate the multi-scale impacts and the spatial equity issues of urban infrastructure development. SE multi-criteria assessment (MCA) has been explored as a tool to evaluate urban transport projects in respect of plurality of actors, interests and priorities by involving stakeholders in shaping the frame- work as well as evaluating the impacts. A case study, which applies the framework, identifies that urban transport infrastructure investment brings benefits and costs related to urban spatial transformation. The positive return to society over time and space is limited from the spatially ethical perspective; however, identification of winners and losers cannot be generalized as the impacts are perceived differently by individuals who are affected by various external and internal factors.

Keywords: 

decision-making, long-term impacts, multi-criteria assessment, social impact, spatial ethics, urban regeneration, urban transport infrastructure investment

  References

[1] Miller, D. & Patassini, D., Beyond benefit cost analysis: accounting for non-market values in planning evaluation, Ashgate, 2005.

[2] OMEGA Centre., Lessons for Mega Transport Project Developments and the Future of UK Cities and Regions. Final Report, OMEGA Centre, London: University College London, 2015.

[3] Booth, P., The Unearned Increment: Property and the Capture of Betterment Value in Britain and France. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA, 2012.

[4] Hoekveld, G. & Needham, B., Planning practice between ethics and the power game: making and applying an ethical code for planning agencies. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), pp. 1638–1653, 2013. (Oxford: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2013). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01146.x

[5] Graham, S. & Marvin, S., Splintering Urbanism: Networked infrastructures, technological motilities and the urban condition. Routledge: London, 2001.

[6] Levinson, D., Identifying winners and losers in transportation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1812, pp. 179–185, 2002. https://doi.org/10.3141/1812-22

[7] Beyazit, E., Evaluating social justice in transport: lessons to be learned from the capability approach. Transport Review, 31(1), pp. 117–134, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2010.504900

[8] Litman, T., Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable Transport Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2008. Available at: www.vtpi.org/wellmeas.pdf. (Accessed 25 August, 2016).

[9] Kaparos, G., Skayannis, P. & Pavleas, S., Athens Metro Project Profile, OMEGA Research Programme Study Report, Department of Planning and Regional Development, University of Thessaly, Volos, 2010.

[10] Jones, P., Assessing the wider impacts of the Jubilee Line Extension in East London. Chapter 21 in Hickman, R., Givoni, M., Bonilla, D. & Banister, D. (eds). An International Handbook on Transport and Development. Edward Elgar, 2010.

[11] Martens, K., Basing transport planning on principles of social justice. Berkeley Planning Journal, 19, pp. 1–7, 2006.

[12] Colantonio, A., The Social Sustainability Assessment Framework, presented at OISD – EIB. Workshop on Social Sustainability and Urban Regeneration in EU Cities, pp. 19–20 Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development, 2009.

[13] Fisher, T., Spatial ethics. The Ethical Design of Places, 40, pp. 152–157, 2009.

[14] Priemus, H., Flyvbjerg, B. & van Wee, B. (eds.), Decision-making on Mega-Projects: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Planning and Innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, 2008.

[15] Rydin, Y., Governing for sustainable urban development. Earthscan, London, 2010.

[16] New Economic Foundation (NEF), Measuring Real Value: a DIY Guide to Social Return On Investment. London, 2007.

[17] Burdge, R. & Vanclay, F., Social impact assessment: a contribution to the state of the art series. Impact Assessment, 14(1), pp. 59–86, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1080/07349165.1996.9725886

[18] Van Schooten, M, Vanclay, F. & Slootweg, R., Conceptualising Social Change Processes and Social Impacts. In H Becker & F Vanclay (eds.), The International Handbook of Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Advances, pp. 74–91, Edward Elgar. Cheltenham, UK, 2003.

[19] Davoudi, S. & Healey, P., City Challenge: sustainable process or temporary gesture? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 13(1), pp. 79–95, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1068/c

[20] Hall, P. & Hickman, R., Moving the city east: explorations into contextual public transport-oriented. Development Planning Practice & Research, 23(3), pp. 323–339, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450802423583

[21] Transport for London. Public Transport Accessibility Level. Available at: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-with-webcat/webcat. (Accessed July 28, 2016).