Light rails more than from A to B?
Translated title
Letbaner mere end fra A til B?
Author
Mogensen, Jesper Klarskov
Term
4. term
Education
Publication year
2017
Submitted on
2017-05-18
Pages
77
Abstract
Bæredygtig transport handler om at balancere økonomiske, miljømæssige og sociale mål. Alligevel fokuserer projektvurderinger ofte på omkostninger og miljø, mens sociale forhold får mindre opmærksomhed. Dette projekt undersøger, hvordan den sociale dimension forstås og omsættes til praksis i planlægningen af to danske letbaneprojekter. Med et kvalitativt studiedesign og en teoretisk ramme, der omfatter bæredygtighedsbegrebet, paradigmet om bæredygtige mobiliteter (en tilgang, der fremmer tilgængelig, ressourcelet mobilitet for mennesker) og definitioner af sociale påvirkninger, kortlægger studiet, hvordan sociale hensyn operationaliseres i planlægningen, og hvordan praktikere forstår dem. Resultaterne viser, at de to sager anvendte bæredygtighed på forskellige måder i planprocessen, men at begge kan forstås inden for en bæredygtig mobilitetstilgang. Der er desuden en bottom-up anerkendelse—hos praktikere—af, at sociale forhold bør vurderes, mens top-down anerkendelse gennem formelle retningslinjer og krav endnu er begrænset.
Sustainable transport aims to balance economic, environmental, and social goals. Yet project appraisals often prioritize costs and environmental effects, while social issues receive less attention. This study examines how the social dimension is understood and put into practice in the planning of two Danish light rail projects. Using a qualitative study design and a theoretical frame that covers sustainability concepts, the sustainable mobilities paradigm (an approach that promotes accessible, low-impact movement for people), and definitions of social impacts, the study maps how social considerations are translated into planning and how practitioners understand them. The findings show that the two cases used the idea of sustainability differently during planning, but both fit within a sustainable mobility approach. They also show a bottom-up recognition—at the level of practitioners—that social aspects should be evaluated, while top-down recognition through formal guidance and requirements is still limited.
[This abstract was generated with the help of AI]
Keywords
Documents