A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches

By K. Lucas, Bert van Wee, K. Maat. 2016

485 citations recorded by the source corpus.

In this paper, we present the case that traditional transport appraisal methods do not sufficiently capture the social dimensions of mobility and accessibility. However, understanding this is highly relevant for policymakers to understand the impacts of their transport decisions. These dimensions include the distribution of mobility and accessibility levels over particular areas or for specific population groups, as well as how this may affect various social outcomes, including their levels of participation, social inclusion and community cohesion. In response, we propose a method to assess the socially relevant accessibility impacts (SRAIs) of policies in some of these key dimensions. The method combines the use of underlying ethics principles, more specifically the theories of egalitarianism and sufficientarianism, in combination with accessibility-based analysis and the Lorenz curve and Gini index. We then demonstrate the method in a case study example. Our suggestion is that policymakers can use these ethical perspectives to determine the equity of their policies decisions and to set minimum standards for local transport delivery. This will help them to become more confident in the development and adoption of new decision frameworks that promote accessibility over mobility and which also disaggregate the costs and benefits of transport policies over particular areas or for specific under-served population groups.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Transportation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d1df10d5878031d8eeaee1f11d9cc0f86e0a7e61

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Transportation

Citations in the corpus

Distributive justice and equity in transportation (2016, background): “utility-based weights to capture variations in benefits/costs between affected groups/individuals (Lucas et al., 2015), the utilitarian approach still faces serious shortcomings regarding the measurement and interpersonal comparison of the utility people derive from”
Evaluating equity and accessibility to jobs by public transport across Canada (2018, background): “…focus on measuring accessibility to jobs, accessibility has also been calculated to health care facilities, schools, grocery stores, and a myriad of other opportunities (Bissonnette et al., 2012; Grengs, 2015; Guagliardo, 2004; Luo and Wang, 2003; Mao and Nekorchuk, 2013; Páez et al., 2010).”
Assessing equity in transport accessibility to work and study: The Bogotá region (2017, methodology): “…be found in the international literature regarding the relationship between accessibility and equity, which stress the relevance of equity in the formulation and evaluation of public policies as outlined above (Delbosc and Currie, 2011a;Lucas et al., 2016;van Wee and Handy, 2016;Wu and Hine, 2003).”
Distributional effects of transport policies on inequalities in access to opportunities in Rio de Janeiro (2019, unknown): “reduction in inequalities of opportunities (Lucas et al., 2015; Pereira et al., 2017) .”
Future accessibility impacts of transport policy scenarios: Equity and sensitivity to travel time thresholds for Bus Rapid Transit expansion in Rio de Janeiro (2019, unknown): “…an egali-tarian-prioritarian view of justice like the one developed by John Rawls (1999, 2001) is increasingly in ﬂ uential among academics (Lucas et al., 2015; Martens, 2012; Pereira, Schwanen, et al., 2017a; van Wee & Roeser, 2013) and o ﬃ cial transport authorities (Karner & Niemeier,…”