Do appraisal tools affect equitability in infrastructure projects?

Abstract

In order to understand the impact of new infrastructure projects, appraisal tools are used to estimate the impact it will have on society. Infrastructure is a key part of society, enabling and disabling society to work and live, playing a vital part in everyone’s lives. Former studies by Annema, Frenken, et al. (2017), Niek Mouter (2017b) and Eliasson and Lundberg (2012) have researched how appraisal tools and especially CBA are used by decision-makers to get to a decision. Other research by Van Wee (2012) has shown the ethical problems which arise when using CBA as an appraisal tool. However, there has not been any research on the impact appraisal tools have on the process and outcome of infrastructure projects. This thesis will provide insights in the impact of appraisal tools on social and process equitability. By using a framework by D. Levinson (2002), case studies, interviews and policy documents, the incorporation of social and process equity factors can be depicted per country. Results show that the Dutch appraisal tools do not incorporate a wide array of dimensions and stratifications, which are depicted in literature. This lack of information results in social inequitable decision-making as well as inequitable outcomes due to negligence of not incorporating more dimensions. Two reasons can be found for this Dutch approach, namely the funding reason which results in solution-oriented design, and the general Dutch mindset of seeing and treating everyone as equal, resulting in inequitable outcomes due to not taking differences into account. The Dutch process equity is boosted by its near-perfect transparency in terms of accessibility of documents, but hurt by the lack of participation and the lack of impact when participation is present. The United Kingdom on the other hand has an elaborate appraisal process which analyses a much wider variety of dimensions and stratifications. However, due to a solution-oriented process design, the alternatives for a project have already been shot down when the social impact information is available to a decision-maker. Another reason which hurts the social equitability in the United Kingdom is the fact that it is necessary to have a high value-for-money project to receive funding, resulting in ignoring of social impact analyses due to this economic focus. In terms of process equity, the United Kingdom has a solid consultation process which is used consistently. However, a lack of transparency in the process with regard to decisions made and the availability of (policy) documents results in poor process equity overall. This thesis shows that social and process equity cannot be improved by simply adding tools which gather social impact information to the appraisal process. Political play, the drift for efficiency and cultural differences per country makes it difficult to create a single strategy to improve equity in appraisal processes. However, by improving transparency, focusing on getting a problem-oriented design and using a third party as a validation for the incorporation of equity factors, it is possible to improve the inclusion of equity factors in appraisal processes. This thesis can be used as a basis for analysing and understanding appraisal processes in other countries.