رابطه‌ی بین قابلیت دسترسی به شبکه حمل‌ونقل و عدالت فضایی: مرور نظامند از ادبیات

نوع مقاله : مقاله مروری

نویسندگان

1 گروه برنامه‌ریزی شهری و منطقه ای، دانشکده هنر، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران

2 دانشیار و عضو هئیت علمی گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران

3 دانشیار برنامه ریزی حمل ونقل، دانشکده عمران و محیطزیست دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران

چکیده

عدالت فضایی در دو رویکرد اصلی توزیع فضایی و فرایندهای تصمیم‌سازی دنبال می‌شود، در رویکرد اول بیشترین مساله‌ای که در سالیان اخیر مورد توجه پژوهشگران بوده، دسترسی به حمل‌ونقل می‌باشد. قابلیت دسترسی مفهومی بسیار مهم با تعاریف، اندازه‌گیری‌ها و معیارهای ارزیابی متنوعی است؛ زیرا، پیامدهای حمل‌ونقل و سایر ابعاد برنامه‌ریزی را همانند محوری به یکدیگر وصل می‌کند. چندبعدی بودن قابلیت دسترسی خود نشان از پیچیدگی مفهوم آن دارد و از سوی دیگر نیز مفهوم‌پردازی رابطه آن با عدالت فضایی را پیچیده‌تر می‌کند. اما تاکیدات لازم به مبانی نظری و فلسفی رویکردهای نظری خیلی مورد توجه پژوهش‌گران نبوده است. این امر سبب ایجاد دو نوع مساله شده است: تخصص‌گرایی افراطی و کم‌توجهی به بین رشته‌ای بودن رابطه عدالت و قابلیت دسترسی و یا ساده‌انگاری بیش از حد با دیدگاه باینری به مقوله‌ی قابلیت دسترسی.
در دوره اول دسترسی از طریق مفهوم شمولیت اجتماعی با عدالت مرتبط می‌شود اما در دوره دوم با طرح عدالت افقی و عمودی در رویکرد محتوایی به توزیع زیرساخت‌ها می‌پردازند و در نهایت در دوره سوم با طرح انتقادهایی به مبانی فلسفی رویکرد محتوایی، رویکرد رویه‌ای شکل می‌گیرد. اصول مورد توجه رویکرد محتوایی را می‌توان شامل: فایده‌گرایی، برابرگرایی، اصل رالزی، کف حداقلی، بازه حداکثری و سهم‌های برابر دانست؛ درحالی‌که مارتنس در نظریه‌اش اصول نیاز، بیشینه‌سازی بیشنه و بسندگی را مورد توجه قرار می‌دهد. در رویکرد محتوایی اولین چالش، ظرفیت بسنده نظام حمل‌ونقل است که به دلیل دو مولفه مساله‌مند پیش‌بینی تقاضا و تحلیل هزینه فایده در این رویکرد سبب غلبه تحرک‌محوری می‌شود به همین دلیل غلی‌رغم تلاش‌های نظری، قابلیت دسترسی همچنان محور اصلی نیست.با جمع‌بندی این دو رویکرد می‌توان به این نتیجه رسید که قابلیت دسترسی به عنوان هدفی برای سنجش عدالت فضایی است که از طریق ابزارهای قابلیت اتصال، مجاورت و تحرک سنجیده می‌شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Relationship between Accessibility to Transport Network and Spatial Justice: A review of the literature

نویسندگان [English]

  • Daniel Dehghani 1
  • Hashem Dadashpor 2
  • Amir reza Mahmoodi 3
1 Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Art, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Ph.D, Associate Professor, Department of Urban Planning, Art & Architecture Faculty, University of Tarbiat Modares
3 Associate Prof, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Background: Spatial justice is pursued in two main approaches of spatial distribution and decision-making processes. In the first approach, the most important issue for researchers is access to transportation. Accessibility is a very important concept; Because it connects the consequences of transportation and other dimensions of planning like an axis. The multidimensionality of its accessibility indicates the complexity of its concept, and on the other hand, the conceptualization complicates its relationship with spatial justice. A relationship that has attracted a lot of attention in the background of research and applied studies with emphasis on analysis methods, but the necessary emphasis on the theoretical and philosophical foundations of theoretical approaches has not been much considered by researchers. This has led to two types of issues: extreme specialization and lack of attention to the interdisciplinary nature of the relationship between justice and accessibility, or excessive simplification with a binary perspective on accessibility. In this research, this relationship has been tried to be conceptualized according to theoretical and philosophical foundations in the theoretical literature.
Result & Conclusion: In the first period, access is related to justice through the concept of social inclusion, but in the second period, they distribute infrastructure by horizontal and vertical equity in the content approach, and finally in the third period, a procedural approach is formed by criticizing the philosophical foundations of the content approach. The principles of the content approach can be considered as utilitarianism, egalitarianism, Rawlsian principle, minimum floor, maximum interval, and equal quotas; While Martens in his theory considers the principles of need, maximum maximization, and sufficiency. In the content approach, the first challenge is the sufficient capacity of the transportation system, which due to the two problematic components of demand forecasting and cost-benefit analysis in this approach leads to mobility-centeredness. In the procedural approach, the main and most political step is to set satisfaction thresholds, which can cause complexity and create problems in practice. Summarizing these two approaches, it can be concluded that accessibility is a goal for measuring spatial justice, which is measured through the tools of connectivity, proximity, and mobility.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Spatial Equity
  • Spatial Justice
  • Accessibility
  • Mobility
  • Transportation Planning
داداش پور، هاشم و الوندی پور، نینا. )1396(. گونهشناسی مفهومی عدالت در نظریههای برنامهریزی شهری در چهارچوب رویکردی
میانرشتهای. فصلنامه مطالعات میانرشتهای در علوم انسانی, 9)2(، .27-1
داداش پور، هاشم و الوندی پور، نینا. )1397(. واکاوی رویکرد فضاییِ عدالت در پژوهشهای نابرابری منطقهای؛ مروری نظاممند در حوزه
میانرشتهای. فصلنامه مطالعات میانرشتهای در علوم انسانی، 10)3(، .112-79
رهنما، محمدرحیم و لیس، آنا. )1385(. اندازه گیری تغییرات دسترسی در منطقه ی مادر شهر سیدنی )2001-1991(. جغرافیا و توسعه، 7)4(،
.154-137
کچویان، حسین و زائری، قاسم. )1388(. ده گام اصلی روششناختی در تحلیل تبارشناسانه فرهنگ؛ با اتکا به آراء میشل فوکو .فصلنامه علمی
پژوهشی راهبرد فرهنگ، 2)7(، .30-7
منوچهری میاندوآب، ایوب؛ آهار، حسن و انوری، آرزو. )1398(. تحلیلی بر عدالت فضایی و تأثیر آن بر بومشناسی سیاسی شهرها نمونه موردی:
کالنشهر تهران. فصلنامه علمی - پژوهشی پژوهش و برنامه ریزی شهری، 10)38(، .100-89
Albet, A. (2011). Spatial justice: Where/when it all comes together. City, 15(1), 69-72. 
Barbier, E. B. (1987). The Concept of Sustainable Economic Development. Environmental Conservation,
14(2), 101-110.
Barrow, C. J. (1995). Sustainable development: Concept, value and practice. Third World Planning Review,
17(4), 369.
Black, J., & Conroy, M. (1977). Accessibility Measures and the Social Evaluation of Urban Structure.
Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 9(9), 1013-1031.
Boisjoly, G., & El-Geneidy, A. (2016). Daily fluctuations in transit and job availability: A comparative
assessment of time-sensitive accessibility measures. Journal of Transport Geography, 52, 73-81.
Boyne, G., & Powell, M. (1991). Territorial justice: A review of theory and evidence. Political Geography
Quarterly, 10(3), 263-281.
Bromberg, A., Morrow, G. D., & Pfeiffer, D. (2007). Editorial Note: Why Spatial Justice?. Critical
Planning, 14, 1-5.
Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society (2nd
 ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Cervero, R. (1996, September 3). PARADIGM SHIFT: FROM AUTOMOBILITY TO ACCESSIBILITY
PLANNING. the 15th EAROPH World Planning Congress, Auckland, New Zealand.
Chen, S., Claramunt, C., & Ray, C. (2014). A spatio-temporal modelling approach for the study of the
connectivity and accessibility of the Guangzhou metropolitan network. Journal of Transport Geography,
36, 12-23.
Chen, X. (2018). Review of the Transit Accessibility Concept: A Case Study of Richmond, Virginia.
Sustainability, 10(12), 4857.
Christensen, G. (2016). Genealogy and Educational Research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies
in Education (QSE), 29(6), 763-776.
Christie, S. M. L., & Fone, D. L. (2003). Does car ownership reflect socio-economic disadvantage in rural
areas? A cross-sectional geographical study in Wales, UK. Public Health, 117(2), 112-116.
Church, A., Frost, M., & Sullivan, K. (2000). Transport and social exclusion in London. Transport Policy,
7(3), 195-205.
Currie, G. (2010). Quantifying spatial gaps in public transport supply based on social needs. Journal of
Transport Geography, 18(1), 31-41.
Currie, G., & Delbosc, A. (2010). Modelling the social and psychological impacts of transport
disadvantage. Transportation, 37(6), 953-966.
Dadashpoor, H., & Alvandipour, N. (2017). Conceptual typology of justice in urban planning theories based
on an interdisciplinary perspective. Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, 9(2), 1-27. [In Persian]
Dadashpoor, H., & Alvandipour, N. (2018). Spatial Justice and regional inequality: An interdisciplinary
systematic review. Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, 10(3), 79-112. [In Persian]
Dadashpoor, H., & Alvandipour, N. (2020). A genealogy of the five schools of justice in planning thought.
Habitat International, 101, 102189.
Dadashpoor, H., & Rostami, F. (2017). Measuring spatial proportionality between service availability,
accessibility and mobility: Empirical evidence using spatial equity approach in Iran. Journal of Transport
Geography, 65, 44-55.
Dadashpoor, H., Rostami, F., & Alizadeh, B. (2016). Is inequality in the distribution of urban facilities
inequitable? Exploring a method for identifying spatial inequity in an Iranian city. Cities, 52, 159-172.
Davies, B. (1970). Social Needs and Resources in Local Services. Public Administration, 48(2), 214-215.
Davoudi, S. (2009). City-Region. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Human
Geography (1st ed., Vol. 2, pp. 125-135). Elsevier.
Delbosc, A., & Currie, G. (2011a). Transport problems that matter – social and psychological links to
transport disadvantage. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(1), 170-178.
Delbosc, A., & Currie, G. (2011b). Exploring the relative influences of transport disadvantage and social
exclusion on well-being. Transport Policy, 18(4), 555-562.
Delbosc, A., & Currie, G. (2011c). The spatial context of transport disadvantage, social exclusion and wellbeing. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6), 1130-1137.
Delbosc, A., & Currie, G. (2011d). Using Lorenz curves to assess public transport equity. Journal of
Transport Geography, 19(6), 1252-1259.
Department of the Environment. (1996). Planning Policy Guidance 6: Town Centres and Retail
Developments.
Desjardins, E., Higgins, C. D., & Páez, A. (2022). Examining equity in accessibility to bike share: A
balanced floating catchment area approach. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 102, 103091.
Dikeç, M. (2001). Justice and the Spatial Imagination. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space,
33(10), 1785-1805.
Dikeç, M. (2013). Space, Politics and (in) Justice (C. Hancock, Trans.). Ségrégation et Justice Spatiale,
244-264.
Dworkin, R. (2002). Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Harvard University Press.
Fainstein, S. S. (2001). Inequality in Global City-Regions. DisP - The Planning Review, 37(144), 20-25.
Ferguson, E. M., Duthie, J., Unnikrishnan, A., & Waller, S. T. (2012). Incorporating equity into the transit
frequency-setting problem. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(1), 190-199.
Flusty, S. (1994). Building paranoia: The proliferation of interdictory space and the erosion of spatial
justice.
Foth, N., Manaugh, K., & El-Geneidy, A. (2013). Towards equitable transit: Examining transit accessibility
and social need in Toronto, Canada, 1996-2006. Journal of Transport Geography, 29, 1-10.
Foth, N., Manaugh, K., & El-Geneidy, A. (2014). Determinants of Mode Share over Time: How Changing
Transport System Affects Transit Use in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2417(1), 67-77.
Geurs, K. T., & van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review
and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2), 127-140.
Godillon, S. (2011). Urban renewal – a vehicle for spatial justice in the face of traffic safety problems?
Justice Spatiale - Spatial Justice, 4.
Gudmundsson, H., & Höjer, M. (1996). Sustainable development principles and their implications for
transport. Ecological Economics, 19(3), 269-282.
Haggett, P., & Chorley, R. J. (1969). Network Analysis in Geography. Edward Arnold.
Hamre, A. K. M. (2018). A Transport Justice Evaluation of Employer-Based Transit Subsidies [faculty of
the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University]. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/81911
Handy, S. L., & Niemeier, D. A. (1997). Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and
Alternatives. Environment and Planning A, 29(7), 1175-1194.
Hansen, W. G. (1959). How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners,
25(2), 73-76.
Hanson, S., & Schwab, M. (1987). Accessibility and Intraurban Travel. Environment and Planning A:
Economy and Space, 19(6), 735-748.
Harvey, D. (1996). Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (2009). Social justice and the city. Univ. of Georgia Press.
Hay, A. (1995). Concepts of Equity, Fairness and Justice in Geographical Studies. Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers, 20(4), 500-508.
Hay, A., & Trinder, E. (1991). Concepts of Equity, Fairness, and Justice Expressed by Local Transport
Policymakers. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 9(4), 453-465.
He, S. Y. (2020). Regional impact of rail network accessibility on residential property price: Modelling
spatial heterogeneous capitalisation effects in Hong Kong. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 135, 244-263.
Holloway, S. L. (1998). Geographies of Justice: Preschool-Childcarc Provision and the Conceptualisation
of Social Justice. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 16(1), 85-104.
Jeekel, J. F., & Martens, C. J. C. M. (2017). Equity in transport: Learning from the policy domains of
housing, health care and education. European Transport Research Review, 9(4).
Kachuiyan, H., & Zaeri, Q. (2009). Ten Basic Methodological Steps in Genealogical Analysis of Culture;
Special Reference to Michel Foucault. 2(7), 7-30. [in Persian]
Kaplan, S., Popoks, D., Prato, C. G., & Ceder, A. (2014). Using connectivity for measuring equity in transit
provision. Journal of Transport Geography, 37, 82-92.
Kwan, M.-P. (1999). Gender and Individual Access to Urban Opportunities: A Study Using Space–Time
Measures. The Professional Geographer, 51(2), 210-227.
Lei, T. L., & Church, R. L. (2010). Mapping transit‐based access: Integrating GIS, routes and schedules.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 24(2), 283-304.
Lei, T. L., Chen, Y., & Goulias, K. G. (2012). Opportunity-Based Dynamic Transit Accessibility in
Southern California: Measurement, Findings, and Comparison with Automobile Accessibility.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2276(1), 26-37. 
Levine, J., Grengs, J., Shen, Q., & Shen, Q. (2012). Does Accessibility Require Density or Speed?: A
Comparison of Fast Versus Close in Getting Where You Want to Go in U.S. Metropolitan Regions.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(2), 157-172.
Litman, T. (2002). Evaluating transportation equity. World Transport Policy & Practice, 8(2), 50-65.
Litman, T. (2013). The New Transportation Planning Paradigm. ITE Journal, 83(6).
Litman, T. (2017). Measuring People’s Ability to Reach Desired Goods and Activities. Victoria Transport
Policy Institute.
Liu, S., & Zhu, X. (2004). An Integrated GIS Approach to Accessibility Analysis. Transactions in GIS,
8(1), 45-62.
Manaugh, K., Badami, M. G., & El-Geneidy, A. (2015). Integrating social equity into urban transportation
planning: A critical evaluation of equity objectives and measures in transportation plans in North
America. Transport Policy, 37, 167-176.
Manouchehri miandoab, A., Ahar, H., & Anvari, A. (2019). An Analysis of Spatial Justice and its Impact
on the City's political Ecology Case study: Tehran metropolis. Research and Urban planning, 10(38), 89-
100. [in Persian]
Marcuse, P. (2009). Spatial Justice: Derivative but Causal of Social Injustice. Justice Spatiale/Spatial
Justice, 1(1), 1-6.
Martens, K. (2006). Basing Transport Planning on Principles of Social Justice. 19, 17.
Martens, K. (2011). Substance precedes methodology: On cost–benefit analysis and equity. Transportation,
38(6), 959.
Martens, K. (2012). Justice in transport as justice in accessibility: Applying Walzer’s ‘Spheres of Justice’ to
the transport sector. Transportation, 39(6), 1035-1053.
Martens, K. (2015). Accessibility and Potential Mobility as a Guide for Policy Action. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2499(1), 18-24.
Martens, K. (2016). [WEBINAR] Transport Justice: Designing Fair Transportation Systems. Received from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv7mMj3X8jE&feature=youtu.be&t=22s
Martens, K. (2017). Transport Justice: Designing fair transportation systems. Routledge.
Martens, K., & Hurvitz, E. (2011). Distributive impacts of demand-based modelling. Transportmetrica,
7(3), 181-200.
Martens, K., Golub, A., & Robinson, G. (2012). A justice-theoretic approach to the distribution of
transportation benefits: Implications for transportation planning practice in the United States.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(4), 684-695.
Masser, I., Svidén, O., & Wegener, M. (1992). From growth to equity and sustainability: Paradigm shift in
transport planning? Futures, 24(6), 539-558.
Meadmore, D., Hatcher, C., & McWilliam, E. (2000). Getting Tense about Genealogy. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 463-476.
Miller, H. (1991). Modelling accessibility using space-time prism concepts within geographical information
systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 5(3), 287-301.
Monzón, A., Ortega, E., & López, E. (2013). Efficiency and spatial equity impacts of high-speed rail
extensions in urban areas. Cities, 30, 18-30.
Nakamura, S., & Avner, P. (2021). Spatial distributions of job accessibility, housing rents, and poverty: The
case of Nairobi. Journal of Housing Economics, 51, 101743.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge
University Press.
Pirie, G. H. (1979). Measuring Accessibility: A Review and Proposal. Environment and Planning A, 11(3),
299-312.
Pirie, G. H. (1983). On Spatial Justice. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 15(4), 465-473.
Pizzol, B., Giannotti, M., & Tomasiello, D. B. (2021). Qualifying accessibility to education to investigate
spatial equity. Journal of Transport Geography, 96, 103199.
Prange, J. (2009). Spatial justice: A new frontier in planning for just, sustainable communities [Master
Thesis]. Tufts University.
Pyrialakou, V. D., Gkritza, K., & Fricker, J. D. (2016). Accessibility, mobility, and realized travel behavior:
Assessing transport disadvantage from a policy perspective. Journal of Transport Geography, 51, 252-
269.
Rahnama, M., & Lyth, A. (2006). Analysis of Changing Accessibility Indicator in Metropolitan of Sydney
(1991-2001). Geography And Development Iranian Journal, 4(7), 137-154. [in Persian]
Rawls, J. (2005). A theory of justice. Belknap Press.
Salonen, M., & Toivonen, T. (2013). Modelling travel time in urban networks: Comparable measures for
private car and public transport. Journal of Transport Geography, 31, 143-153.
Scott, A. J. (2008). Social economy of the metropolis: Cognitive-cultural capitalism and the global
resurgence of cities. Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (1990). Development as capability expansion. In K. Griffin (Ed.), Human Development and the
International Development Strategy for the 1990s (pp. 41–58).
Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University.
Silver, H. (2015). The Contexts of Social Inclusion. Social Science Research Network.
Social Exclusion Unit. (2003). Making the connections: Final report on transport and social exclusion.
Soja, E. (1989). Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. Verso
Books.
Soja, E. (2009). The city and spatial justice. Justice Spatiale/Spatial Justice, 1(1), 1-5.
Soja, E. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. University of Minnesota Press.
Talen, E., & Anselin, L. (1998). Assessing Spatial Equity: An Evaluation of Measures of Accessibility to
Public Playgrounds. Environment and Planning A, 30(4), 595-613.
Thomopoulos, N., & Grant-Muller, S. (2013). Incorporating equity as part of the wider impacts in transport
infrastructure assessment: An application of the SUMINI approach. Transportation, 40(2), 315-345.
Thomopoulos, N., Grant-Muller, S., & Tight, M. R. (2009). Incorporating equity considerations in transport
infrastructure evaluation: Current practice and a proposed methodology. Evaluation and Program
Planning, 32(4), 351-359.
Trinder, E., Hay, A., Dignan, J., Else, P., & Skorupski, J. (1991). Concepts of Equity, Fairness, and Justice
in British Transport Legislation, 1960-88. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 9(1),
31-50.
walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of Justice_A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. Basic books.
Wang, J., Deng, Y., Song, C., & Tian, D. (2016). Measuring time accessibility and its spatial characteristics
in the urban areas of Beijing. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 26(12), 1754-1768.
Wegener, M. (2004). Overview of Land Use Transport Models. In Handbook of Transport Geography and
Spatial Systems (Vol. 5, pp. 127-146). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Yang, L., Chau, K. W., Szeto, W. Y., Cui, X., & Wang, X. (2020). Accessibility to transit, by transit, and
property prices: Spatially varying relationships. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 85, 102387.
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press