Next Article in Journal
Semantics-Constrained Advantageous Information Selection of Multimodal Spatiotemporal Data for Landslide Disaster Assessment
Next Article in Special Issue
Principles and Applications of the Global Human Settlement Layer as Baseline for the Land Use Efficiency Indicator—SDG 11.3.1
Previous Article in Journal
Do Crash Barriers and Fences Have an Impact on Wildlife–Vehicle Collisions?—An Artificial Intelligence and GIS-Based Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Spatial Analysis Framework to Monitor and Accelerate Progress towards SDG 3 to End TB in Bangladesh
Article

Access or Accessibility? A Critique of the Urban Transport SDG Indicator

1
Faculty of Geo-information Science and Earth Observation, University of Twente, PO box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands
2
Faculty of Engineering & the Built Environment, University of Cape Town, Private Bag X3, Rondebosch, 7701 Cape Town, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8(2), 67; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8020067
Received: 28 November 2018 / Revised: 18 January 2019 / Accepted: 27 January 2019 / Published: 30 January 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Geo-Information and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs))
Progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is being evaluated through the use of indicators. Despite the importance of these indicators, the academic community has done little in terms of a critical reflection on their choice, relevance, framing and operationalization. This holds for many SDG domains, also for the urban sector domain of target 11. To partially address this void, we aim to critically review the UN methodology for the urban access indicator, SDG indicator 11.2. In discussing its conceptual framing against the background of paradigm shifts in transportation planning, we argue that this indicator has a number of shortcomings. The most important one is that it is supply oriented and measures access to transportation infrastructure, rather than accessibility to activity locations. As an alternative, we develop two accessibility indicators that show substantial variation in accessibility across geographical areas. We implement all indicators for the city of Bogotá in Colombia, using a geo-information based approach. Our results show that SDG indicator 11.2 fails to represent the transport reality well. Its supply oriented focus neglects transport demand, oversimplifies the transport system and hides existing inequalities. Moreover, it does not provide useful evidence for targeting new interventions. The proposed accessibility indicators provide a more diverse, complete and realistic picture of the performance of the transport system. These indicators also capture the large spatial and socio-economic inequalities and can help to target improvements in urban transportation. View Full-Text
Keywords: SDG indicator 11.2; urban transport; accessibility; public transport; Bogotá SDG indicator 11.2; urban transport; accessibility; public transport; Bogotá
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Brussel, M.; Zuidgeest, M.; Pfeffer, K.; van Maarseveen, M. Access or Accessibility? A Critique of the Urban Transport SDG Indicator. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8020067

AMA Style

Brussel M, Zuidgeest M, Pfeffer K, van Maarseveen M. Access or Accessibility? A Critique of the Urban Transport SDG Indicator. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 2019; 8(2):67. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8020067

Chicago/Turabian Style

Brussel, Mark, Mark Zuidgeest, Karin Pfeffer, and Martin van Maarseveen. 2019. "Access or Accessibility? A Critique of the Urban Transport SDG Indicator" ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 8, no. 2: 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8020067

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop