Fairness in Transport Policy: A New Approach to Applying Distributive Justice Theories
Inequalities based on income, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, race, class, ethnicity, religion and opportunity continue to persist across the world, within and among countries. Inequality threatens long-term social and economic development, harms poverty reduction and destroys people’s sense of fulfilment and self-worth. This, in turn, can breed crime, disease and environmental degradation. (p. 1)
2. Context: Transport, Wellbeing and Equity
3. Transport and Distributive Justice Theories
4. Transport and the Capabilities Approach
4.1. The Fundamentals of the Capabilities Approach
4.2. Transport Applications of the Capabilities Approach
5. Alternative Application of the Capabilities Approach to Transport
5.1. Transport Policy as a Social Conversion Factor
5.2. A Broader Normative Framework for Equitable Transport Policy
- The role of public policy is to act as a positive Conversion Factor that enhances capabilities and counteracts negative Conversion Factors (influences), while protecting the basic rights and freedoms.
- The effects of policies and the actions of people should not violate basic rights and freedoms of others including those of future generations.
- Transport policy should promote equality of opportunity; hence policy should focus on capabilities and not solely on outcomes.
- Fair policies are those that improve capabilities at least for the most disadvantaged in society. Both minimum and maximum thresholds of capabilities can be set to achieve this.
- Previous application of the Capabilities Approach to transport policy:
- Defined one transport-specific capability (access) to be the focus of policy
- Incorporated ideas from Rawls’ Theory of Justice to create a set of principles for transport justice:
- Basic rights and liberties should not be violated to improve access for others;
- A minimum level of access should be defined and guaranteed. Higher levels of access may need to be constrained if further increases will reduce access for others;
- Did not consider:
- Agency or empowerment
- Transport policy’s role in enhancing or limiting other capabilities (e.g. health)
- Transport policy’s interactions with other policy areas (other than land-use), such as environmental or health policy
- A new approach, using Social Conversion Factors to extend the Capabilities Approach to transport policy:
- Enables a broader perspective of the influences of transport policy on many capabilities besides access
- Allows communities to define their own list of capabilities, which may or may not include a transport-specific capability such as access
- Considers agency and emphasises the importance of fair process and just decision making
- Provides stronger normative guidance – public policy should act positively and counteract negative influences on capabilities
- Encourages the combination of transport policy with other policy areas to fit with holistic approaches to fairness and wellbeing
Conflicts of Interest
- United Nations. Reduced Inequalities: Why it Matters; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Final Report. Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity through Action on the Social Determinants of Health; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Banister, D. Inequality in Transport; Alexandrine Press: Marcham, UK, 2018; p. 272. [Google Scholar]
- Urry, J. The ‘System’ of Automobility. Theory Cult. Soc. 2004, 21, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Valenzuela-Levi, N. Why do more unequal countries spend more on private vehicles? Evidence and implications for the future of cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 43, 384–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Transport. A Framework for Shaping our Transport System: Transport Outcomes and Mode Neutrality; New Zealand Government: Wellington, New Zealand, 2018.
- Woods, M. Just Transition to a Low Emissions Economy: Strategic Discussion Cabinet Paper. Office of the Minister of Energy and Resources, New Zealand Government: Wellington, New Zealand, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- The Treasury. Our People, Our Country, Our Future. Living Standards Framework: Background and Future Work; New Zealand Government: Wellington, New Zealand, 2018. Available online: https://treasury.govt.nz/publications/tp/living-standards-framework-background-and-future-work (accessed on 3 December 2020).
- Durand, M. The OECD Better Life Initiative: How’s Life? And the Measurement of Well-Being. Rev. Income Wealth 2015, 61, 4–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sen, A. The idea of Justice; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry for the Environment. New Zealand’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2018; New Zealand Government: Wellington, New Zealand, 2020; Volume 1.
- Royal Commission on Social Policy. The April Report Volume 2: Future Directions; Royal Commission on Social Policy: Wellington, New Zealand, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Human Rights Commission. Human Rights in New Zealand 2010: Chapter 4 Human Rights and the Treaty of Waitangi; Human Rights Commission: Wellington, New Zealand, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations General Assembly. Resolution 61/295 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; A/RES/61/295 (2 October 2007); United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Hoskins, T.K.; Jones, A. Critical Conversations in Kaupapa Māori; Huia Publishers: Wellington, New Zealand, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- van Wee, B. Accessible accessibility research challenges. J. Transp. Geogr. 2016, 51, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Lucas, K. Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transp. Policy (Oxf) 2012, 20, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khreis, H.; Warsow, K.M.; Verlinghieri, E.; Guzman, A.; Pellecuer, L.; Ferreira, A.; Jones, I.; Heinen, E.; Rojas-Rueda, D.; Mueller, N.; et al. The health impacts of traffic-related exposures in urban areas: Understanding real effects, underlying driving forces and co-producing future directions. J. Transp. Health 2016, 3, 249–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woodcock, J.; Edwards, P.; Tonne, C.; Armstrong, B.G.; Ashiru, O.; Banister, D.; Beevers, S.; Chalabi, Z.; Chowdhury, Z.; Cohen, A.; et al. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: Urban land transport. Lancet 2009, 374, 1930–1943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Litman, T. Transportation and Public Health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2013, 34, 217–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Barton, H. Land use planning and health and well-being. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, S115–S123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gössling, S. Urban transport justice. J. Transp. Geogr. 2016, 54, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mackett, R.L. The health implications of inequalities in travel. J. Transp. Health 2014, 1, 202–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hosking, J.; Ameratunga, S.; Exeter, D.; Stewart, J.; Bell, A. Ethnic, socioeconomic and geographical inequalities in road traffic injury rates in the Auckland region. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 2013, 37, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rachele, J.N.; Learnihan, V.; Badland, H.M.; Mavoa, S.; Turrell, G.; Giles-Corti, B. Neighbourhood socioeconomic and transport disadvantage: The potential to reduce social inequities in health through transport. J. Transp. Health 2017, 7, 256–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, J.; Joh, K.; Woo, A. Social inequalities in child pedestrian traffic injuries: Differences in neighborhood built environments near schools in Austin, TX, USA. J. Transp. Health 2017, 6, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martens, K.; Di Ciommo, F. Travel time savings, accessibility gains and equity effects in cost–benefit analysis. Transp. Rev. 2017, 37, 152–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martens, K.; Golub, A.; Robinson, G. A justice-theoretic approach to the distribution of transportation benefits: Implications for transportation planning practice in the United States. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2012, 46, 684–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- van Wee, B. How suitable is CBA for the ex-ante evaluation of transport projects and policies? A discussion from the perspective of ethics. Transp. Policy (Oxf) 2012, 19, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordbakke, S.; Schwanen, T. Well-being and Mobility: A Theoretical Framework and Literature Review Focusing on Older People. Mobilities 2014, 9, 104–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hickman, R.; Ashiru, O.; Banister, D. Transitions to low carbon transport futures: Strategic conversations from London and Delhi. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19, 1553–1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giles-Corti, B.; Vernez-Moudon, A.; Reis, R.; Turrell, G.; Dannenberg, A.L.; Badland, H.; Foster, S.; Lowe, M.; Sallis, J.F.; Stevenson, M.; et al. City planning and population health: A global challenge. Lancet 2016, 388, 2912–2924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levinson, D. Equity effects of road pricing: A review. Transp. Rev. 2010, 30, 33–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Di Ciommo, F.; Shiftan, Y. Transport equity analysis. Transp. Rev. 2017, 37, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Duran-Rodas, D.; Villeneuve, D.; Pereira, F.C.; Wulfhorst, G. How fair is the allocation of bike-sharing infrastructure? Framework for a qualitative and quantitative spatial fairness assessment. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 2020, 140, 299–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verlinghieri, E.; Schwanen, T. Transport and mobility justice: Evolving discussions. J. Transp. Geogr. 2020, 87, 102798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, R.H.M.; Schwanen, T.; Banister, D. Distributive justice and equity in transportation. Transp. Rev. 2017, 37, 170–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDermott, P.; Toleman, R.; Lee, R.W. Recent and Future Transport Policy Planning in New Zealand. Transp Res. Rec. 1997, 1606, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walks, A. Stopping the ‘War on the Car’: Neoliberalism, Fordism, and the Politics of Automobility in Toronto. Mobilities 2015, 10, 402–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunner, R.; Watson, N. What Can the Capabilities Approach Add to Policy Analysis in High-Income Countries? 2015. Available online: http://whatworksscotland.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/workingpaper-capabilities-approach.pdf (accessed on 3 December 2020).
- The European Commission. Beyond GDP: Measuring Progress, True Wealth, and Well-Being. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/beyond_gdp/index_en.html (accessed on 18 August 2020).
- Arndt, C.; Volkert, J. The Capability Approach: A Framework for Official German Poverty and Wealth Reports. J. Human Dev. Capabil. 2011, 12, 311–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osmani, S.R. The Capability Approach and Human Development: Some Reflections; United Nations Development Porgramme: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Karner, A.; London, J.; Rowangould, D.; Manaugh, K. From Transportation Equity to Transportation Justice: Within, Through, and Beyond the State. J. Plan. Lit. 2020, 35, 440–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martens, K. Transport justice: Designing fair transportation systems; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Martens, K. Justice in transport as justice in accessibility: Applying Walzer’s ’Spheres of Justice’ to the transport sector. Transportation 2012, 39, 1035–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Vanoutrive, T.; Cooper, E. How just is transportation justice theory? The issues of paternalism and production. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 122, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harvey, D. The Right to the City. New Left Rev. 2008, 53, 23–40. [Google Scholar]
- Sheller, M. Theorising mobility justice. Tempo soc. 2018, 30, 17–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Walker, B.; Gunderson, L.; Kinzig, A.; Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Schultz, L. A Handful of Heuristics and Some Propositions for Understanding Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robeyns, I. The Capability Approach: A theoretical survey. J. Human Dev. Capabil. 2005, 6, 93–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nussbaum, M. Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements: Sen and Social Justice. Fem. Econ. 2003, 9, 33–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sen, A. Human rights and capabilities. J. Human Dev. Capabil. 2005, 6, 151–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, F. Groups and Capabilities. J. Human Dev. Capabil. 2005, 6, 185–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tonon, G. Communities and Capabilities. J. Human Dev. Capabil. 2018, 19, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Development Issues No. 1: Concepts of Inequality; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Nussbaum, M. Human rights and human capabilities. Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 2007, 20, 21. [Google Scholar]
- Nussbaum, M. Capabilities and human rights. Fordham L. Rev. 1997, 66, 273. [Google Scholar]
- Sen, A. Capabilities, Lists, and Public Reason: Continuing the Conversation. Fem. Econ. 2004, 10, 77–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goerne, A. The Capability Approach in Social Policy Analysis-Yet Another Concept? In REC-WP Working Papers on the Reconciliation of Work and Welfare in Europe No. 03-2010; University of Edinburgh: Edinburgh, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Sen, A. Well-Being, Capability and Public Policy. G. Econ. Ann. Econ. 1994, 53, 333–347. [Google Scholar]
- Beyazit, E. Evaluating social justice in transport: Lessons to be learned from the capability approach. Transp. Rev. 2011, 31, 117–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hananel, R.; Berechman, J. Justice and transportation decision-making: The capabilities approach. Transp. Policy (Oxf) 2016, 49, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hickman, R.; Cao, M.; Mella Lira, B.; Fillone, A.; Bienvenido Biona, J. Understanding Capabilities, Functionings and Travel in High and Low Income Neighbourhoods in Manila. Soc. Incl. 2017, 5, 161–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Nazari-Adli, S.; Chowdhury, S.; Shiftan, Y. Justice in public transport systems: A comparative study of Auckland, Brisbane, Perth and Vancouver. Cities 2019, 90, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, J.; Wretstrand, A.; Schmidt, S.M. Exploring public transport as an element of older persons’ mobility: A Capability Approach perspective. J. Transp. Geogr. 2015, 48, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, N.; Hirsch, D.; Davis, A. Accessibility and capability: The minimum transport needs and costs of rural households. J. Transp. Geogr. 2012, 21, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Soja, E.W. Seeking Spatial Justice; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2010; Volume 16. [Google Scholar]
- Pereira, R.H.M. Future accessibility impacts of transport policy scenarios: Equity and sensitivity to travel time thresholds for Bus Rapid Transit expansion in Rio de Janeiro. J. Transp.Geogr. 2019, 74, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Trani, J.-F.; Bakhshi, P.; Bellanca, N.; Biggeri, M.; Marchetta, F. Disabilities through the Capability Approach lens: Implications for public policies. Alter 2011, 5, 143–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Waa, A.M.; Pearson, A.L.; Ryks, J.L. Premature mortality resilience and wellbeing within urban Māori communities. Health Place 2017, 43, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Durie, M. Te Pae Māhutonga: A model for Māori health promotion. HPF Newsl. 1999, 49, 2–5. [Google Scholar]
- Raerino, K.; Macmillan, A.K.; Jones, R.G. Indigenous Māori perspectives on urban transport patterns linked to health and wellbeing. Health Place 2013, 23, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waa, A.M.; Ryks, J.L.; Livesey, B.; Kilgour, J. Responding to the challenges: Māori and urban development. In Cities in New Zealand: Preferences, Patterns and Possibilities; Howden-Chapman, P., Early, L., Ombler, J., Eds.; Steele Roberts Aotearoa: Wellington, New Zealand, 2017; pp. 15–28. [Google Scholar]
- Vecchio, G. Microstories of everyday mobilities and opportunities in Bogotá: A tool for bringing capabilities into urban mobility planning. J. Transp. Geogr. 2020, 83, 102652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dang, A.-T. Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach: A Framework for Well-Being Evaluation and Policy Analysis? Rev. Soc. Econ. 2014, 72, 460–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sen, A. The Ends and Means of Sustainability. J. Human Dev. Capabil. 2013, 14, 6–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watene, K. Nussbaum’s Capability Approach and Future Generations. J. Hum. Dev. Capabil. 2013, 14, 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, J. EVs Are Not the Answer: A Mobility Justice Critique of Electric Vehicle Transitions. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 2020, 110, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coleman, A. Transport infrastructure, lock-out and urban form: Highway development in Auckland and the United States. Policy Q. 2010, 6, 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woods, M. Integrating the nation: Gendering Māori Urbanisation and Integration, 1942–1969. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Mees, P.; Dodson, J. The American Heresy: Half a century of transport planning in Auckland. In Geography: A Spatial Odyssey: Proceedings of The Third Joint Conference of the New Zealand Geographical Society and the Institute of Australian Geographers, Dunedin, New Zealand, 1 February 2001; Holland, P., Stephenson, F., Wearing, A., Eds.; Brebner Print: Hamilton, New Zealand, 2001; pp. 279–287. [Google Scholar]
- Road Transport Forum. Transport Infrastructure must be a Focus for New Government [Press Release]. Scoop Media. 2017. Available online: https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1710/S00616/transport-infrastructure-must-be-a-focus-for-new-government.htm (accessed on 3 December 2020).
- Lowrie, M. Greater Auckland: Fixing the National Land Transport Fund. 2019. Available online: https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2017/10/25/fixing-national-land-transport-fund/ (accessed on 3 December 2020).
- Lee, R.W.; Rivasplata, C.R. Metropolitan transportation planning in the 1990s: Comparisons and contrasts in New Zealand, Chile and California. Transp. Policy (Oxf) 2001, 8, 47–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- OECD. OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: New Zealand 2017; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Docherty, I.; Shaw, J.; Gather, M. State intervention in contemporary transport. J. Transp. Geogr. 2004, 12, 257–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Randal, E.; Keall, M.; Shaw, C.; Russell, M.; Woodward, A.; Chapman, R.; Howden-Chapman, P. Why New Zealand transport policy needs to encourage walking and cycling. In Cities in New Zealand: Preferences, Patterns and Possibilities, Howden-Chapman, P., Early, L., Ombler, J., Eds.; Steele Roberts Aotearoa: Wellington, New Zealand, 2017; pp. 107–114. [Google Scholar]
- Howden-Chapman, P.; Hales, S.; Chapman, R.; Shaw, C. Improving air quality: Co-benefits for the urban system. Air Qual. Clim. Chang. 2011, 45, 19. [Google Scholar]
- Kuschel, G.; Metcalfe, J.; Wilton, E.; Guria, J.; Hales, S.; Rolfe, K.; Woodward, A. Updated Health and Air Pollution in New Zealand Study (HAPINZ), Volume 1: Summary Report; Health Research Council of New Zealand, Ministry of Transport, Ministry for the Environment and the New Zealand Transport Agency: Wellington, New Zealand, 2012; pp. 1–44. Available online: https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Air/updated-health-and-air-pollution-new-zealand-study-summary-report.pdf (accessed on 3 December 2020).
- Kingham, S.; Pearce, J.; Zawar-Reza, P. Driven to injustice? Environmental justice and vehicle pollution in Christchurch, New Zealand. Transp. Res. D: Transp. Environ. 2007, 12, 254–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hales, S.; Blakely, T.; Woodward, A. Air pollution and mortality in New Zealand: Cohort study. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2012, 66, 468–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Collins, D.C.A.; Kearns, R.A. Geographies of inequality: Child pedestrian injury and walking school buses in Auckland, New Zealand. Soc. Sci. Med. 2005, 60, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rose, E.; Witten, K.; McCreanor, T. Transport related social exclusion in New Zealand: Evidence and challenges. Kōtuitui 2009, 4, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Johnson, J.; Carter, K.N. Increasing Equity Background Paper: Treasury’s Living Standards Framework Papers; Treasury, T., Ed.; New Zealand Government: Wellington, New Zealand, 2015.
- Government of New Zealand. The Wellbeing Budget 2019; The Treasury: Wellington, New Zealand, 2019.
- Rees, D.; Stephenson, J.; Hopkins, D.; Doering, A. Exploring stability and change in transport systems: Combining Delphi and system dynamics approaches. Transportation 2017, 44, 789–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Abbas, K.A.; Bell, M.G.H. System dynamics applicability to transportation modeling. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 1994, 28, 373–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitmarsh, L. How useful is the Multi-Level Perspective for transport and sustainability research? J. Transp. Geogr. 2012, 24, 483–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Living Standards Framework Wellbeing Domain||Questions for Transport Policy when Focusing on Access||Questions for Transport Policy when Viewed as a Social Conversion Factor||Examples when Viewed as a Social Conversion Factor|
|Health||Does this policy provide fair access to health services and health promoting activities?|
Does one group’s access have unfair impact on other people’s health?
|Does this transport policy fairly contribute to the creation of health, directly and indirectly?|
Does the transport policy maintain the ability of future generations to achieve good health?
|An electric and a diesel bus provide the same access; however they have very different effects on air pollution & health.|
Building a new traffic lane may increase overall access over a cycle lane (at least in the short term), however a cycle lane may provide more health benefit in terms of physical activity and road safety improvements, and better options for those who have difficulty affording a motor vehicle, or who cannot drive.
|Environment||Does this policy provide fair access to the natural environment (e.g. greenspace or waterway)?|
Does people’s access degrade or improve the environment?
|Does this transport policy contribute to sustaining or degrading the environment, its ability to provide for people, and people’s relationship to the environment, particularly for those worse off and future generations?||A new motorway may increase access to a regional park; however, it may also increase car use and carbon emissions, which contribute to climate change and global environmental damage. Climate change may ultimately result in the loss or degradation of the regional park ecosystem. Looking at it from this perspective one may choose to increase access to the park through public transport systems or even not at all, it may be decided to invest in improving the quality of local green and blue spaces (i.e. the solution may not even be a transport one)|
|Housing||Does the transport system fairly provide good connections between housing and basic goods and services?||How does a transport policy interact with land use planning to affect the fair location of housing and land availability, and resulting house prices?||A combined transport and land use policy that encourages sprawl, including through the provision of road networks, separating housing from employment and service centres, builds in car dependence and congestion, makes housing with close access to employment and services more attractive and costly, while also reducing the viability of public transport|
|Civic engagement & governance||Does this provide fair access to opportunities to engage with democracy (e.g. access to voting booths, Council meetings, iwi/ tribal decision-making etc.)?||Is the transport decision making process open and democratic, in a way that encourages participation and engagement?||The framing of transport decision-making in technocratic terms based on complex transport and economic modelling may contribute to scepticism about urban governance and disengagement of many who are concerned most about non-quantifiable urban wellbeing outcomes, rather than indices of transport and economic activity. It also tends to ensure power is held with technocrats rather than providing mechanisms for well-informed public participation by a variety of groups.|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Randal, E.; Shaw, C.; Woodward, A.; Howden-Chapman, P.; Macmillan, A.; Hosking, J.; Chapman, R.; Waa, A.M.; Keall, M. Fairness in Transport Policy: A New Approach to Applying Distributive Justice Theories. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10102. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310102
Randal E, Shaw C, Woodward A, Howden-Chapman P, Macmillan A, Hosking J, Chapman R, Waa AM, Keall M. Fairness in Transport Policy: A New Approach to Applying Distributive Justice Theories. Sustainability. 2020; 12(23):10102. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310102Chicago/Turabian Style
Randal, Edward, Caroline Shaw, Alistair Woodward, Philippa Howden-Chapman, Alex Macmillan, Jamie Hosking, Ralph Chapman, Andrew M. Waa, and Michael Keall. 2020. "Fairness in Transport Policy: A New Approach to Applying Distributive Justice Theories" Sustainability 12, no. 23: 10102. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310102