Exploring just transport futures through social inclusion justice.

The transition to a net-zero (NZ) economy is pivotal in our endeavour to resist further effects of climate change (Middlemiss et al., 2019). As targets become increasingly ambitious, the embedment of justice in the NZ agenda is fundamental (Markkanen and Anger-Kraavi, 2019), and requires all stakeholders to “debate, discuss, research and apply” (Heffron and McCauley, 2018, p.3). Accounting for 27% of global GHG emissions (Carimichael, 2019), the transport sector must reduce emissions by 90% to meet NZ by 2050 (Prause and Dietz, 2022). This analysis will explore how social inclusion has been largely disregarded in the NZ transport regime and subsequent implications.

A just society is one where all members can participate as equals; important when considering the radical social transformation required in creating a NZ society (Prause and Dietz, 2022; Middlemiss et al., 2023). It will be an arduous journey for lower-income households, who will feel negative effects greater due to social exclusion (Markkanen and Anger-Kraavi, 2019). Recognised as a complex and multidimensional issue (Levitas et al., 2007), social exclusion ‘traps’ disadvantaged citizens, reducing their ability to equally participate in economic, social, political and cultural activities (DSS, 1999; Hills et al., 2002). In analysing impacts of the transition, it is important to investigate social exclusion as opposed to poverty, as the capacity of low-income communities to participate is relational and multicausal (Oppenheim, 1998, p.10). Investigating sources of social exclusion highlights the need for socially inclusive NZ policy.

Promotion of electric vehicles, green public transport and active transport (cycling/walking), and instruction to travel less and leisure locally will simultaneously tackle air pollution and congestion (Sheller 2018; Bergman et al., 2017; Middlemiss et al., 2023). However, in visions of the NZ future, stakeholders have framed ‘the public’ as rational beings, failing to incorporate structural and cultural diversities (Bergman et al., 2017; Middlemiss et al., 2023). Therefore, despite having potential for environmental and health benefits, low-income households’ risk social exclusion. This has been deepened by several turbulent economic years, reducing resilience to change, particularly when faced with discrimination (Markkanen and Anger-Kravi, 2019).

In practice, the NZ transport regime overlooks the complexities of individuals, for instance, low-income households are unlikely to afford an electric car and be reluctant giving up polluting vehicles due to inept public transport when this is their means to societal participation (Middlemiss et al., 2023). Pricing policies, like congestion charges, exacerbate disengagement, unfairly impacting those on the margin of car ownership (Lucas, 2006). Localising everyday activities risks losing development opportunities that are further afield, entrapping vulnerable people in a “mutually reinforcing” (Markkanen and Anger-Kraavi, 2019, p.828) cycle of poverty (The Young Foundation, 2024). Encouraging use of local infrastructure poses issues for high-crime communities, which discourages locals, particularly women from active travel, and endangers severance of relationships whom low-income households depend on (Middlemiss et al., 2023). Such NZ policies dismiss the factors at play when making sustainable travel choices.

Through exploration of unjust transport futures through the social inclusion framework, it is evident that policies have overlooked that burdens already disproportionately felt by lower-income households will be perpetuated under a NZ transition that generalises citizens’ ability to participate (Gössling, 2016). Despite historically being high on the agenda in social policy (Levitas et al., 2007), ineffective acknowledgment of social exclusion has led to distributional injustice being ignored (Gössling, 2016). To advocate for social inclusion, a pro-poor approach must prevail to ensure needs of low-income communities are addressed, thus promoting progressive universalism (Markkanen and Anger-Kraavi, 2019; Lucas, 2006). Importantly, to harness systemic change in mobility, policies must be people-focused and consider accessibility of innovations (Middlemiss et al., 2024; Bergman et al., 2017).

 

Reference list

Bergman, N., Schwanen, T. and Sovacool, B.K. 2017. Imagined people, behaviour and future mobility: Insights from visions of electric vehicles and car clubs in the United Kingdom. Transport Policy. [Online]. 59, pp.165–173. Accessed 3 November 2024]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.07.016

Carimichael, R. 2019. Behaviour change, public engagement and Net Zero. A report for the Committee on Climate Change. [Online]. [Accessed 30 October 2024]. Available from: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publications/

DSS (Department of Social Security). 1999. Opportunity for All: Tackling poverty and social exclusion. [Online]. London: Stationery Office. [Accessed 3 November 2024]. Available from: https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/15121/1/Opportunity%20for%20all%20-%20tackling%20poverty%20and%20social%20exclusion.pdf

Gössling, S. 2016. Urban transport justice. Journal of Transport Geography. [Online]. 54, pp.1–9. [Accessed 30 October 2024]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.05.002

Heffron, R.J. and McCauley, D. 2018. What is the ‘Just Transition’?. [Online]. Geoforum. 88, pp.74–77. [ Accessed 3 November 2024]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.11.016

Hills, J., Julian Le Grand and Piachaud, D. 2002. Understanding social exclusion. [Online]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Accessed 3 November 2024]. Available from: 10.1680/muen.156.2.97.37665

Levitas, R., Pantazis, C., Fahmy, E., Gordon, D., Lloyd, E., and Patsios, D. 2007. The Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Social Exclusion. [Online]. Bristol: University of Bristol. [Accessed 3 November 2024]. Available from: https://repository.uel.ac.uk/item/8666q

Lucas, K. 2006. Providing transport for social inclusion within a framework for environmental justice in the UK. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. [Online]. 40(10), pp.801–809. [Accessed 3 November 2024]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2005.12.005

Markkanen, S. and Anger-Kraavi, A. 2019. Social impacts of climate change mitigation policies and their implications for inequality. Climate Policy. [Online]. 19(7), pp.827–844. [Accessed 3 November 2024]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1596873

Middlemiss, L., Snell, C., Emily Jane Morrison, Yekaterina Chzhen, Owen, A., Kennedy, K., Samanthi Theminimulle and Carregha, T. 2023. Conceptualising socially inclusive environmental policy: a just transition to Net Zero. Social Policy and Society. [Online]. 22(4), pp.763–783. [Accessed 30 October 2024]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746423000180

Middlemiss, L., Snell, C., Theminimulle, S., Carregha, T., Morrison, E., Chzhen, Y., Kennedy, K. and Owen, A. 2024. Place‐based and people‐centred: Principles for a socially inclusive Net Zero transition. Geo: Geography and Environment. [Online]. 11(2).[Accessed 3 November 2024]. Available from: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5185-2033

Oppenheim, C. 1998. An inclusive society: Strategies for tackling poverty. London: London Institute for Public Policy Research.

Prause, L. and Dietz, K. 2022. Just mobility futures: Challenges for e-mobility transitions from a global perspective. Futures. [Online]. 141, p.102987. [Accessed 3 November 2024]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.102987

Sheller, M. 2018. Theorising mobility justice. Tempo Social. [Online]. 30(2), pp.17–34. [Accessed 3 November 2024]. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.11606/0103-2070.ts.2018.142763

The Young Foundation. 2024. Net zero policy risks making the poor poorer. [Online]. [Accessed 31 October 2024]. Available from: https://www.youngfoundation.org/insights/news/research-warns-net-zero-policy-risks-making-the-poor-poorer/.