A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches
A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11116-015-9585-2
复制
发表时间：
2016-05-01
期刊：
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Maat, Kees
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lucas, Karen;van Wee, Bert;Maat, Kees
在本文中，我们提出的情况下，传统的交通评估方法不足以捕捉流动性和可达性的社会层面。然而，了解这一点对于决策者了解其运输决策的影响具有重要意义。这些层面包括特定地区或特定人口群体的流动性和无障碍程度的分布，以及这可能如何影响各种社会成果，包括他们的参与程度、社会包容和社区凝聚力。作为回应，我们提出了一种方法来评估社会相关的无障碍影响（SRAIs）的政策在这些关键方面。该方法结合了基本伦理原则的使用，更具体地说，平等主义和平等主义的理论，结合基于可及性的分析和洛伦兹曲线和基尼指数。然后，我们演示的方法在一个案例研究的例子。我们的建议是，政策制定者可以使用这些道德观点来确定其政策决定的公平性，并为当地运输服务设定最低标准。这将有助于他们更有信心制定和通过新的决策框架，促进无障碍而不是流动性，并对特定地区或服务不足的特定人口群体的交通政策的成本和效益进行分类。
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.