Abstract A comparison of social impact categorisation in strategic planning across European Union Member States shows that Sweden neither categorises nor breaks down categories of social impact in areas such as transport infrastructure development. This is surprising because Sweden is known as a country concerned about social issues and having a high standard of welfare. This article accordingly studies how social issues are handled during transport infrastructure planning. An analysis of different source materials will answer four research questions: 1) To what extent are social impacts integrated into environmental impact assessment (EIA) reports? 2) Are social impacts sufficiently integrated and/or does this treatment simply amount to ‘good practice’? 3) Can any trend be detected over time in terms of addressing social issues in impact assessments? 4) What key measures could increase the influence of social impact issues on transport infrastructure planning practice? The study involved a content analysis of six EIA handbooks and EIA statements (EISs) for 18 large transport infrastructure projects. The concepts searched for in these documents largely apply to issues of vulnerability, health, social problems, perceived safety, and alienation. Our data were interpreted through the theoretical lens of institutional interplay. We found that though social aspects are not new considerations in EIA research, they are included in only a small proportion of the 18 Swedish EISs, mostly in connection with health and accessibility. We believe that this does not suffice. We also found that the more recent documents allotted less space to social issues. It is unlikely that most individuals in the organisations that order EISs, or the consultancies that write them, are unaware of the broader interpretation of ‘human beings’ which includes social aspects. Based on increasing interest in social issues in planning and due to the lack of national goals and guidelines in this area, some municipalities and consultants have begun to create their own methods of measuring and assessing social impacts. This has resulted in multiple local-level practitioners who want to develop social issues within impact assessment, and possibly also to introduce a social impact assessment framework, but with no management or coordination among them. The conclusion is that in the absence of a government initiative to clarify how social impacts can be addressed in transport infrastructure planning, there is a need for an external network for organisations involved in transport infrastructure EISs.

中文翻译：

---

瑞典福利方面的裂缝？评估交通基础设施规划中的社会影响

摘要 欧盟成员国战略规划中社会影响分类的比较表明，瑞典既没有对交通基础设施发展等领域的社会影响分类，也没有对其进行细分。这令人惊讶，因为瑞典以关注社会问题和高标准福利着称。本文相应地研究了在交通基础设施规划过程中如何处理社会问题。对不同来源材料的分析将回答四个研究问题：1) 社会影响在多大程度上被纳入环境影响评估 (EIA) 报告？2) 社会影响是否充分整合和/或这种处理方式是否只是“良好做法”？3) 在解决影响评估中的社会问题方面，是否可以随着时间的推移发现任何趋势？4) 哪些关键措施可以增加社会影响问题对交通基础设施规划实践的影响？该研究涉及对 18 个大型交通基础设施项目的六本 EIA 手册和 EIA 声明 (EIS) 的内容分析。在这些文件中搜索的概念主要适用于脆弱性、健康、社会问题、感知安全和疏远等问题。我们的数据是通过制度相互作用的理论视角来解释的。我们发现，尽管社会方面不是 EIA 研究中的新考虑因素，但它们仅包含在 18 个瑞典 EIS 中的一小部分，主要与健康和可及性有关。我们认为这还不够。我们还发现，较新的文件为社会问题分配的空间较少。订购EIS 的组织中的大多数个人或编写EIS 的咨询公司不太可能不了解“人类”的更广泛解释，其中包括社会方面。由于对规划中社会问题的兴趣日益浓厚，并且由于缺乏该领域的国家目标和指导方针，一些市政当局和顾问开始创建自己的衡量和评估社会影响的方法。这导致多个地方层面的从业者希望在影响评估中发展社会问题，并可能引入社会影响评估框架，但他们之间没有管理或协调。结论是，在缺乏政府举措来阐明如何在交通基础设施规划中解决社会影响的情况下，需要为参与交通基础设施 EIS 的组织建立一个外部网络。