Figure - uploaded by Karel Martens
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
In this chapter, we recommend that the development of equity indicators should account for three components: (i) the benefits and burdens of interest, (ii) the population groups over which they are distributed; and (iii) a clear conception of what a "morally proper distribution" of benefit or burden should be. We present a simple framework of how t...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... chapter by Reardon et al. in this volume employs wellbeing as the focal variable and provides more detail on the way in which wellbeing can be understood in relation to transport. Table 1 illustrates the range of mobility-and accessibility-related benefits that could be the subject of an equity analysis and arranges them along the sequence of focal variables. The overview shows that there are multiple ways to understand equity in relation to the mobility/accessibility dimension. ...Citations
... With the global trend of urbanization leading to a surge in population and associated problems such as traffic gridlock and environmental pollution, transportation equity is gaining prominence as a pressing issue in various regions. Transportation equity is crucial as it has a pivotal role in advancing social and economic inclusivity (di Ciommo & Shiftan, 2017;Martens et al., 2019). Access to transportation is critical for individuals to access essential services like education, healthcare, and employment opportunities. ...
... Access to transportation is critical for individuals to access essential services like education, healthcare, and employment opportunities. Inadequate transportation infrastructure or unaffordable transportation options can impede people's ability to access such opportunities (Martens et al., 2019). By enhancing transportation choices and ensuring equal access, transportation equity can contribute to reducing poverty, improving social mobility, and boosting economic development. ...
... Several factors, including income, race, education, ethnicity, disability, car ownership, and language barriers, can categorize groups as disadvantaged in transportation studies (Martens et al. 2019). Using US Census Bureau and Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) data calculated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), we considered total population, median household income, African American population, and SVI (ranging 0-1, higher values signify higher vulnerability). ...
... 4.1 may enable further equity analyses of the accessibility outputs that go beyond distributional analyses, such as minimumstandard assessments (see e.g. [28]. ...
The Space–Time Accessibility (STA) model is broadly used to measure person-based accessibility based on the space, time, and transport constraints experienced at the individual level in connection to the actual modal choices of observed individuals. In this paper, we propose to adjust the STA model (by introducing a so-called PT-STA model) with three core purposes: (1) focusing on public transport accessibility specifically, (2) measuring accessibility to both fixed activities and discretionary opportunities, and (3) integrating travel-time thresholds in the accessibility measurement. These three elements aim to make the PT-STA model a suitable tool to evaluate the impacts of public transport interventions on person-based accessibility and extend the evaluation of public transport accessibility to its fixed and discretionary dimensions. The PT-STA model is tested with a sample of 118 residents of the rural municipality of Mühlwald (South Tyrol, Italy). Results show that the accessibility to fixed activities and discretionary opportunities are limitedly correlated. It is possible to identify people with high accessibility to fixed activities and poor access to discretionary opportunities (typically pensioners and homemakers living in remote locations) and vice versa (e.g. people with articulated rural–urban commutes but daily visiting locations with several amenities). These results preliminarily confirm the importance of combining both accessibility dimensions in the PT-STA model since they tell complementary and not overlapped stories that are relevant for policymakers to evaluate the pros and cons of alternative public transport interventions.
... According to the European Union (2022), transport poverty "refers to a lack of adequate transport services necessary to access general services and work, or to the inability to pay for these transport services". Existing studies distinguish between four dimensions of transport poverty; namely, mobility poverty (Lucas et al., 2016), accessibility poverty Martens et al., 2019), exposure to transport externalities (Lucas et al., 2016;Van Wee, 2009), and transport affordability (Litman, 2016). In this study, we define transport poverty in terms of transport affordability. ...
... High levels of crime in a neighbourhood may also increase the cost of access to transport-related goods and services such as car dealerships, fuel stations, car insurance, and car repair services, which in turn can increase household expenditure on transportation (Fisher & Looye, 2000;Ratcliffe, 2002;Sherman, 1995). Neighbourhood crimes may also contribute to transport accessibility poverty by affecting the mode of transport Martens et al., 2019). For example, higher prevalence of carjacking and car theft, can contribute to higher cost associated with private transport (Corbett, 2013;Jacobs & Cherbonneau, 2023;Van Nes & López, 2010). ...
We present the first study to examine the impact of neighbourhood crime on transport poverty. We use longitudinal data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey, which we match with official crime statistics at the neighbourhood (i.e., postcode) level over the period 2005 to 2019. Our fixed effects results suggest that a standard deviation increase in the crime rate causes a 4 per cent increase in the likelihood of being in transport poverty. Our two-stage least squares estimates, using historical convict sex ratios as an instrumental variable for crime rates, are considerably higher, suggesting these are lower bound estimates. We find that the effect of crime on transport poverty operates through the effects of crime on private transport poverty. Further, we find that the effects of violent crime on transport poverty are relatively stronger than that of property crime. Evidence from our mediation analysis demonstrate that neighbourhood trust and perceived safety are channels through which neighbourhood crime influences transport poverty.
... Transport equity encompasses a complex set of associations between transport systems, access both to the network and to key destinations, socioeconomic factors, and the spatial makeup of a territory. Martens et al. (2019) define equity in transport as a just, or "morally proper", distribution of benefits and burdens across populations or sociodemographic groups. Disparities in society become apparent in how these benefits and burdens are distributed, often resulting in unequal access to mobility (Ohnmacht et al., 2009). ...
In recent years there has been a surge of interest in the relation between transport and equity. While transport expenditure plays a pivotal role in promoting equity within public transport systems, out-of-pocket user costs are often overlooked. Making transport affordable is one of the foremost challenges, especially in the Global South, where inequality levels are high. The primary objective of this research was to determine who was most affected by high public transport fares and to assess the resulting implications for equity in Rio de Janeiro. This study uses survey data collected from public transport users in 2023 to assess real transport expenditures and incomes to provide a complex description of fare affordability in the city. By considering both perceived affordability and a calculated affordability metric, we use statistical analysis to identify which groups were most likely to be adversely impacted by the existing fare policies. We then evaluated these groups’ accompanying perceptions of public transport. Finally, a Pseudo Palma ratio was used to measure the equity of fare costs across those who could and could not afford their transport. Our findings revealed that income, gender, transport expenditure, trip time and trip purpose were the main factors that distinguish those who could or could not afford their daily transport needs. We find that the relation between fare policies and transport equity depends on a complex interaction between fare costs, sociodemographic characteristics, perceptions, and spatial organization.
... People with TLD were more likely to use 325 personal vehicles when they have a relatively higher income, are older, or are white. In 326 contrast, lower-income people were more inclined to use walking or public transit as their 327 mode of transportation, which was consistent with prior research on people without 328 disabilities who had a higher rate of driving alone among higher-income and white people 329 (Martens et al., 2019;McKenzie, 2015). This suggests potential issues regarding the 330 affordability of various modes of transportation for people with TLD. ...
Introduction: Despite the plethora of research devoted to analyzing the impact of disability on travel behavior, not enough studies have investigated the varying impact of social and environmental factors on the mode choice of people with disabilities that restrict their ability to use transportation modes efficiently. This research gap can be addressed by investigating the factors influencing the mode choice behavior of people with travel-limiting disabilities, which can inform the development of accessible and sustainable transportation systems. Additionally, such studies can provide insights into the social and economic barriers faced by this population group, which can help policymakers to promote social inclusion and equity.
Method: This study utilized a Random Parameters Logit model to identify the individual, trip, and environmental factors that influence mode selection among people with travel-limiting disabilities. Using the 2017 National Household Travel Survey data for New York State, which included information on respondents with travel-limiting disabilities, the analysis focused on a sample of 8,016 people. In addition, climate data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were integrated as additional explanatory variables in the modeling process.
Results: The results revealed that people with disabilities may be inclined to travel longer distances walking in the absence of suitable accommodation facilities for other transportation modes. Furthermore, people were less inclined to walk during summer and winter, indicating a need to consider weather conditions as a significant determinant of mode choice. Moreover, low-income people with disabilities were more likely to rely on public transport or walking.
Conclusion: Based on this study’s findings, transportation agencies could design infrastructure and plan for future expansions that is more inclusive and accessible, thus catering to the mobility needs of people with travel-limiting disabilities.
... Equity in transport generally refers to the fair distribution of benefits and harms from transport systems across society. While planning for transport equity can involve many considerations, distributive approaches provide a crucial starting point, including consideration of how different benefits (e.g., access to appropriate infrastructure) or harms (e.g., exposure to pollution) are distributed, the social groups that are affected by such distributions, and the extent to which the distribution of harms and benefits can be considered fair (Martens et al., 2019). ...
... As reflected in the previous section, considerations of road safety and inclusive design are crucial to diverse understandings of transport equity and justice. From a health-equity perspective, the implementation of comprehensive traffic safety measures to protect active travellers from road injuries and death should not be seen as supplementary, but should rather be understood as fundamental to urban and transport planning (Martens et al., 2019). While some progress in road safety has been made over the past decades, greater attention is needed to ongoing transport inequities and the silent pandemic of active-transport fatalities (Schmitt, 2020). ...
Federal governments across North America are increasingly working to scale up active-transport investments to harmonize policy efforts aimed at addressing intersecting urban, environmental, and public-health problems. While such policies promise to provide increased support for cycling, walking, and other active mobilities, the extent to which central-government interventions can foster wide-reaching and equitable infrastructure transitions remains an open question. This paper offers a comparison of recent federal policy initiatives aimed at supporting the development of active-transport facilities across Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Using a comparative content-analysis approach, we analyse federal active-transport strategies in terms of policy development, goals, instruments, as well as social-equity and road-safety considerations. Findings indicate that policy instruments, development resources, and social-equity mechanisms vary considerably between the three countries. While Canada’s recent policies offer targeted project funding for active transport, its national road-safety vision lacks attention to social equity concerns. The United States’ policies emphasize large-scale infrastructure transitions, but risk deprioritizing active-transport projects within wider investments. Mexico’s new mobility and road safety law lacks infrastructure funding but leads in its human-rights approach. While these variances can be attributed to specific differences between national contexts, we posit that they also provide insights into shared challenges and opportunities in federal efforts aimed at providing comprehensive support for active-transport systems. Through a systematic content analysis of recent policies, this paper aims to provide an exploratory assessment of how federal governments are mobilizing diverse approaches to active-transport policymaking and to contribute to multi-scalar theorizing on transport equity and mobility justice.
... Regarding steps or components of the application of equity assessment, a similar process has been adcocated by numerous scholars. For instance, Martens et al. (2019) noted three required components in applying the theoretical framework of distributive justice: unit, scope, and shape of the distribution (Bell, 2004;Page, 2007). Similar to Martens et al. (2019), Behbahani et al. (2019) also proposed three major factors that researchers and practitioners should assess when analyzing the impact of social equity on investments, i.e. impacts, target distribution group and distribution criterion. ...
... For instance, Martens et al. (2019) noted three required components in applying the theoretical framework of distributive justice: unit, scope, and shape of the distribution (Bell, 2004;Page, 2007). Similar to Martens et al. (2019), Behbahani et al. (2019) also proposed three major factors that researchers and practitioners should assess when analyzing the impact of social equity on investments, i.e. impacts, target distribution group and distribution criterion. Furthermore, Guo et al. (2020) proposed a three-step framework to assess transportation system equity based on the most existing methods for analyzing transportation equity: "Step 1 population measurement; ...
... For Martens (2017), a transportation system is "fair if, and only if, it provides a sufficient level of accessibility to all under most circumstances". This is known as the moral principle of sufficientarianism (Martens, 2017;Martens et al., 2019). ...
The need to shift to an equity-oriented transport planning has long been acknowledged, but its use in actual practice by planners and practitioners is limited. Using a dataset from the practice of transport planning in Western Visayas, Philippines, we provide more comprehensive evidence from the perspective of social practice theory for the pervasiveness of the demand-based epistemic framework on public transport planning – both in the planning process and in the elements of practice. Our results reveal a high degree of institutionalization and couplings among the elements which embed them as the underlying rationality at the core of the process and practice, sidelining the elements of equity-based planning. Such couplings manifest in the ways by which meanings are codified into formal practices through a translation into material structures, competences, and routines. We recommend pathways for dis-embedding the demand-based framework and embedding an equity-based epistemic in transport planning.
... Pereira et al. (2017) develop the concept of distributive justice and argue that a deep understanding of justice in transport demand depends on a better understanding of accessibility and human capacity. Martens et al. (2019) define equity and justice as "the morally proper distribution of benefits and burdens over members of society," and list three key components of transport equity: distributive principles that determine if a distribution is "morally proper" or not; benefits and burdens; and the social groups affected by this distribution. ...
... The choice of what to measure is important, because decisions about how to supply or manage transport systems may create disparities among the social groups that compose society. In this context, Martens et al. (2019) organized benefits and burdens into the following four focal variables (tackling the social justice debate regarding the proper "focal variable" for these assessments), based on the social justice literature: ...
Mobility as a service is a potential solution to mobility problems; however, it raises concerns about its relationship with socio-territorial inequalities (STIs). This paper contains a systematic literature review of real-world MaaS applications and their effects on STIs. From the principle of distributive justice, we adopted the Resources, Opportunities, Outcomes, and Wellbeing (ROOW) approach to assess cases. From 2009 papers on MaaS, we identified 20 that stood as real-world applications that considered equity impacts. Most studies were undertaken in Europe and Asia, neglecting countries in South America, Africa, and other low-income countries. They did not quantify the societal advantages of MaaS, while only a handful investigated the influence of MaaS over STIs. Results indicate that MaaS schemes contain at least three factors that may drive inequality: the lack of basic resources to enter the system, the systems’ limited geographic coverage, or MaaS users may simply not gain from the system’s intended accessibility benefits. In conclusion, MaaS could improve trip planning and access to new modes and low-density areas, but it is still perceived as expensive and only accessible to digitally literate people. This should be considered when defining MaaS governance, which remains (to date) underdeveloped, hindering private-public collaboration.
