IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i3p1295-d487406.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenges and Opportunities in Early Stage Planning of Transport Infrastructure Projects: Environmental Aspects in the Strategic Choice of Measures Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Sofia Eckersten

    (Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, S100 44 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Berit Balfors

    (Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, S100 44 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Ulrika Gunnarsson-Östling

    (Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, S100 44 Stockholm, Sweden)

Abstract

The Strategic Choice of Measures (SCM) approach aims to integrate different perspectives and identify measures to adapt new infrastructure projects to their local context at an early stage of Swedish transport planning. SCM is a loosely structured framework for collaboration between actors from, e.g., municipalities and the Swedish Transport Administration, in order to facilitate the coordination of transport planning and land use planning. This paper aims to explore the consideration of environmental aspects in early-stage transport planning by analyzing the SCM approach. An explorative research approach is applied based on literature studies, semi-structured interviews, and a focus group interview. The result shows that in the SCM process, environmental aspects such as noise and air pollution generated by road traffic in urban areas, engage the actors, whereas aspects related to landscape and water were perceived as poorly addressed and received less attention. The consideration of environmental aspects in the SCM process is affected by the local and national authorities’ different interests and the competences involved. To consolidate environmental aspects in early transport planning, these aspects need to be explicitly addressed in the SCM guidelines and the link between the SCM and preceding and following planning stages needs to be strengthened.

Suggested Citation

  • Sofia Eckersten & Berit Balfors & Ulrika Gunnarsson-Östling, 2021. "Challenges and Opportunities in Early Stage Planning of Transport Infrastructure Projects: Environmental Aspects in the Strategic Choice of Measures Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-18, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:3:p:1295-:d:487406
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1295/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1295/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gard Lindseth & Marit Reitan, 2007. "The urban governance of transport and the environment in the city of Kristiansand," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(1), pages 135-151.
    2. Geerlings, Harry & Stead, Dominic, 2003. "The integration of land use planning, transport and environment in European policy and research," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 187-196, July.
    3. Guido Vonk & Stan Geertman & Paul Schot, 2005. "Bottlenecks Blocking Widespread Usage of Planning Support Systems," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(5), pages 909-924, May.
    4. Jacob Witzell, 2019. "Physical planning in an era of marketization: conflicting governance perspectives in the Swedish Transport Administration," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(7), pages 1413-1431, July.
    5. Tornberg, Patrik & Odhage, John, 2018. "Making transport planning more collaborative? The case of Strategic Choice of Measures in Swedish transport planning," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 416-429.
    6. Stephen Connelly & Tim Richardson, 2004. "Exclusion: the necessary difference between ideal and practical consensus," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(1), pages 3-17.
    7. Vigar, Geoff, 2017. "The four knowledges of transport planning: Enacting a more communicative, trans-disciplinary policy and decision-making," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 39-45.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Husnain Arshad & Muhammad Jamaluddin Thaheem & Beenish Bakhtawar & Asheem Shrestha, 2021. "Evaluation of Road Infrastructure Projects: A Life Cycle Sustainability-Based Decision-Making Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-26, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tornberg, Patrik & Odhage, John, 2018. "Making transport planning more collaborative? The case of Strategic Choice of Measures in Swedish transport planning," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 416-429.
    2. Amanda P. Rehr & Mitchell J. Small & Paul S. Fischbeck & Patricia Bradley & William S. Fisher, 2014. "The role of scientific studies in building consensus in environmental decision making: a coral reef example," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 60-87, March.
    3. Olga Stepanova & Magdalena Romanov, 2021. "Urban Planning as a Strategy to Implement Social Sustainability Policy Goals? The Case of Temporary Housing for Immigrants in Gothenburg, Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Dian Nostikasari & Nicole Foster & Lauren Krake, 2024. "Inhabiting digital spaces: An informational right to the city for mobility justice," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 61(13), pages 2585-2602, October.
    5. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    6. Xue, Jin, 2014. "Is eco-village/urban village the future of a degrowth society? An urban planner's perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 130-138.
    7. Rye, Tom & Welsch, Janina & Plevnik, Aljaz & de Tommasi, Roberto, 2011. "First steps towards cross-national transfer in integrating mobility management and land use planning in the EU and Switzerland," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 533-543, May.
    8. Martin J Wassen & Hens Runhaar & Aat Barendregt & Tomasz Okruszko, 2011. "Evaluating the Role of Participation in Modeling Studies for Environmental Planning," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 38(2), pages 338-358, April.
    9. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
    10. Tessa Eikelboom & Ron Janssen, 2015. "Comparison of Geodesign Tools to Communicate Stakeholder Values," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 1065-1087, November.
    11. Geertman, Stan, 2017. "PSS: Beyond the implementation gap," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 70-76.
    12. Hu, Lingqian & Schneider, Robert J. & Chakraborty, Tathagato, 2025. "Reformed planning process for transport justice: The experiment of FlexRide Milwaukee," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 198-206.
    13. Haozhi Pan & Stan Geertman & Brian Deal, 2020. "What does urban informatics add to planning support technology?," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1317-1325, October.
    14. Shlomit Flint Ashery & Carl Steinitz, 2022. "Issue-Based Complexity: Digitally Supported Negotiation in Geodesign Linking Planning and Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, July.
    15. Wilson, Adam & Mitra, Raktim, 2020. "Implementing cycling infrastructure in a politicized space: Lessons from Toronto, Canada," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    16. Papa, Enrica & Coppola, Pierluigi & Angiello, Gennaro & Carpentieri, Gerardo, 2017. "The learning process of accessibility instrument developers: Testing the tools in planning practice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 108-120.
    17. José Manuel Viegas & Miguel Gaspar & Elisabete A. Silva, 2004. "A methodological approach in order to support decision-makers when defining Mobility and Transportation Politics," ERSA conference papers ersa04p254, European Regional Science Association.
    18. Silva, Cecília & Patatas, Tiago & Amante, Ana, 2017. "Evaluating the usefulness of the structural accessibility layer for planning practice – Planning practitioners’ perception," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 137-149.
    19. Canitez, Fatih, 2020. "Transferring sustainable urban mobility policies: An institutional perspective," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 1-12.
    20. Yoonshin Kwak & Brian Deal & Grant Mosey, 2021. "Landscape Design toward Urban Resilience: Bridging Science and Physical Design Coupling Sociohydrological Modeling and Design Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:3:p:1295-:d:487406. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.