Approach to the EqIA
Introduction
The EqIA and other impact assessments have aligned with each STAG stage, in order to maximise influence of impact assessment work in the overall assessment process. Table 5-1 sets out how the EqIA process aligns with STAG’s four-stage assessment process throughout the A96 Corridor Review.
|
Initial Appraisal: Case for Change Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs) |
|
An impact assessment team set out the evidence base for problems and opportunities linked to the transport network for all modes within the study area to influence the development of TPOs that align closely with STPR2. TPOs represent the positive outcomes sought for the corridor and provide the basis for the appraisal of alternative options. The EqIA aligns in particular with: TPO2 - An inclusive strategic transport corridor that improves the accessibility of public transport in rural areas for access to healthcare, employment and education. |
|
Preliminary Appraisal |
|
A multi-criterion sifting approach of shortlisted transport intervention options was undertaken, considering a matrix-based assessment in the context of likely disproportionate or differential effects on people with characteristics protected by the Equality Act 2010. Commentary has been provided to justify the rating and consider relevant likely significant effects, mitigation, risk and uncertainty. |
|
Detailed Appraisal |
|
A more detailed assessment of Full Dualling and sifted transport packages against aligned STAG topics and equalities-related considerations. The assessment utilises a matrix approach for Full Dualling and each of the transport packages as show in Table 5-2 which aligns with a seven-point rating system as shown in Table 5-3 . The commentary justifies the rating and considers relevant likely significant effects, mitigation, assumptions and uncertainties where relevant. |
Assessment of impacts
This EqIA presents an assessment of the potential impacts on protected characteristic groups for Full Dualling and six transport intervention packages that were developed in the detailed appraisal stage from the sifted options identified through the initial appraisal. The current Scottish Government commitment, the A96 Full Dualling (from Hardmuir to Craibstone) has also been appraised as part of the Detailed Appraisal, in order to assess its performance against current appraisal criteria, and this also forms part of the EqIA.
Assessment framework: matrix approach
The EqIA process assesses the contribution of Full Dualling and each package to meeting the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Duty.
The assessment of equality impacts used a matrix-based approach, with a qualitative rating system to identify likely impacts on protected characteristic groups. Impacts for each of the assessments have been determined against two assessment criteria: magnitude and sensitivity. These consist of:
Magnitude of impact : the extent to which protected characteristic groups would be impacted (positively or negatively) by Full Dualling or the package considering the numbers or proportion that would experience the impact.
Sensitivity of impact: this considers how those impacted might respond; whether they are able to adapt to Full Dualling or the package (where negatively impacted). If the impacted group has no alternatives and, as such, will be greatly impacted, then it is considered to be highly sensitive to the change. Where they are able to continue to function as normal, sensitivity would be low.
The identification of likely significant impacts has involved combining the sensitivity of those affected with the predicted magnitude of impact (change) using the assessment matrix provided in Table 5-2 .
|
Sensitivity of impact |
Magnitude of impact No change |
Magnitude of impact Low |
Magnitude of impact Medium |
Magnitude of impact High |
|
High |
Neutral |
Minor or Moderate |
Moderate or Major |
Major |
|
Medium |
Neutral |
Minor |
Moderate |
Moderate or Major |
|
Low |
Neutral |
Neutral or minor |
Minor or Moderate |
Minor or Moderate |
Where two significance categories are shown in the matrix, professional judgement has been used to select the appropriate category of significance. Evidence and rationale are provided for the selection of category.
|
Major positive impact |
|
The proposed option provides a major contribution to the achievement of the Public Sector Equality Duty. |
|
Moderate positive impact |
|
The proposed option contributes significantly to the achievement of the Public Sector Equality Duty. |
|
Minor positive impact |
|
The proposed option contributes to the achievement of the Public Sector Equality Duty, but not significantly. |
|
Neutral impact |
|
The proposed option is related to, but does not have any impact on, the achievement of the Public Sector Equality Duty. |
|
Minor negative impact |
|
The proposed option detracts from the achievement of the Public Sector Equality Duty, but not significantly. |
|
Moderate negative impact |
|
The proposed option detracts significantly from the achievement of the Public Sector Equality Duty. Mitigation is therefore required. |
|
Major negative impact |
|
The proposed option results in a major detraction from the achievement of the Public Sector Equality Duty. An alternative option or significant mitigation is therefore required. |
Table 5‑3: EqIA Rating System
Following each stage of assessment, any potentially negative impacts identified have been discussed with the project team to consider reasonable alternatives, effective mitigation and enhancement recommendations.
The key relevant findings and recommendations of the detailed appraisal options are recorded in Chapter 6 of this report, with overall assessment ratings for the EqIA.