Incorporating equity into transport planning: utility, priority and sufficiency approaches
Incorporating equity into transport planning: utility, priority and sufficiency approaches
复制标题
将公平纳入交通规划：效用、优先和充足性方法
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Papanikolaou
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Martens;F. Ciommo;A. Papanikolaou
该分析解决了运输公平问题，并探讨了三种不同的方法，公平的运输：功利主义，功利主义和优先主义。每一种办法都要求在评估运输投资或政策时对不同人口群体所获得的惠益采取不同的处理办法。在功利主义中，所有利益都受到相同的权重，无论利益的接受者是谁，而功利主义是当前交通项目评估实践的基础。在先验主义和非先验主义中，利益都以不同的方式进行权衡，这取决于接受者的特征。这三种方法说明了使用虚构的案例研究，其中三种不同的交通投资进行评估和相互比较。最后，将利用成本效益分析探讨运输投资的评估。CEA评估了交通投资的分布效应，包括实用主义、优先主义和优先主义方法，并解决了不同人口群体在交通方面的不同需求
The analysis addresses the issue of transport equity and explores three different approaches to equity in transport: utilitarianism, sufficientarianism and prioritarianism. Each approach calls for a different treatment of the benefits reaped by different population groups in the assessment of transport investments or policies. In utilitarianism, which underlies much of the current practice of transport project appraisal, all benefits receive the same weight, irrespective of the recipient of the benefits. In both sufficientarianism and prioritarianism, benefits are weighed in distinct ways, depending on the characteristics of the recipients. The three approaches are illustrated using a fictive case study, in which three different transport investment are assessed and compared to each other. Finally, the assessment of transport investments will be explored using the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). The CEA assesses the distributional effects of transport investments for utilitarism, sufficientarism and prioritarism approaches and addresses distinct needs associated with different population groups in respect to their transport