Integrating equity in transportation project assessment: a philosophical exploration and its practical implications

References

• Adeel, M., Yeh, A. G.-O., & Zhang, F. (2016). Transportation disadvantage and activity participation in the cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad, Pakistan. Transport Policy, 47, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson, F., & Lyttkens, C. H. (1999). Preferences for equity in health behind a veil of ignorance. Health Economics, 8, 368–378. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199908)8:5<369::AID-HEC456>3.0.CO;2-Q
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arneson, R. (2002). Egalitarianism. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University.
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Akiva, M. E., & Bowman, J. L. (1998). Activity-based travel demand model systems. In P. Marcotte & S. Nguyen (Eds.), Equilibrium and advanced transportation modeling (pp. 27–46). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Beyazit, E. (2011). Evaluating social justice in transport: Lessons to be learned from the Capability Approach. Transport Reviews: A Transnational Transdisciplinary Journal, 31(1), 117–134. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2010.504900
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, J., & Conroy, M. (1977). Accessibility measures and the social evaluation of urban structure. Environment and Planning A, 9, 1013–1031. doi: 10.1068/a091013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bommier, A., & Stecklov, G. (2002). Defining health inequality: Why Rawls succeeds where social welfare theory fails. Journal of Health Economics, 21(3), 497–513. doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00138-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boucher, D., & Kelly, P. (1998). Introduction. In D. Boucher & P. Kelly (Eds.), Social justice: From Hume to Walzer (pp. 1–16). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Casal, P. (2007). Why sufficiency is not enough. Ethics, 117(2), 296–326. doi: 10.1086/510692
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, G. A. (1993). Equality of what? On welfare, goods, and capabilities. In A. K. Sen & M. C. Nussbaum (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 9–29). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dagsvik, J. K. (2013). Making Sen’s Capability Approach operational: A random scale framework. Theory and Decision, 74(1), 75–105. doi: 10.1007/s11238-012-9340-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniels, N. (1985). Just health care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels, N. (2008). Just health: Meeting health needs fairly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Denier, Y. (2007). Efficiency, justice and care: Philosophical reflections on scarcity in health care. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Dong, X., Ben-Akiva, M. E., Bowman, J. L., & Walker, J. L. (2006). Moving from trip-based to activity-based measures of accessibility. Transportation Research A, 40, 163–180.
   Google Scholar
• Dworkin, R. (1983). To each his own. The New York Review of Books, 30(6), 4–6.
   Google Scholar
• Eitoku, Y., & Mizokami, S. (2010). An evaluation method of transportation policies by the quality of mobility index based on Capability Approach. Asian Transport Studies, 1(1), 77–89.
   Google Scholar
• Geurs, K., Zondag, B., de Jong, G., & de Bok, M. (2010). Accessibility appraisal of land-use/transport policy strategies: More than just adding up travel-time savings. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 15(7), 382–393. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2010.04.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, R. M. (1976). Health care and justice in contract theory perspective. Ethics and Health policy, 111–126.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, W. G. (1959). How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25, 73–76. doi: 10.1080/01944365908978307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harsanyi, J. (1955). Icardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of welfare. Journal of Political Economy, 63. doi: 10.1086/257678
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, L., & Giuliano, G. (2014). Poverty concentration, job access, and employment outcomes. Journal of Urban Affairs.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inoi, H., & Nitta, Y. (2005). The planning of the community transport from the viewpoint of well-being: Applying Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach. Journal of Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 5, 2330–2341.
   Google Scholar
• Kaldor, N. (1939). Welfare propositions of economics and interpersonal comparisons of utility. The Economic Journal, 549–552. doi: 10.2307/2224835
   Google Scholar
• Khisty, C. J. (1996). Operationalizing concepts of equity for public project investments. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1559, 94–99. doi: 10.3141/1559-12
   Google Scholar
• Laird, J., Geurs, K., & Nash, C. (2009). Option and non- use values and rail project appraisal. Transport Policy, 16, 173–182. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levinson, D. (2003). Perspectives on efficiency in transportation. International Journal of Transport Management, 1, 145–155. doi: 10.1016/j.ijtm.2004.01.002
   Google Scholar
• Lucas, K. (2012). Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transport Policy, 20, 105–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucy, W. H. (1981). Equity and planning for local services. Journal of the American Planning Association, 47(4), 447–457. doi: 10.1080/01944368108976526
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macário, R., Filipe, L., Martins, P., & Reis, V. (2007, June). Urban mobility management: What about distribution of urban goods. 11th World Conference on Transport Research, Berkely, CA, pp. 24–29.
   Google Scholar
• Mackie, P. J., Wardman, M., Fowkes, A. S., Whelan, G., Nellthorp, J., & Bates, J. (2003). Value of travel time savings in the UK: Summary report. Leeds: Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds/John Bates Services.
   Google Scholar
• Martens, K. (2006). Basing transport planning on principles of social justice. Berkeley Planning Journal, 19(1), 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Martens, K. (2011). Substance precedes methodology: On cost-benefit analysis and equity. Transportation, 38(6), 959–974. doi: 10.1007/s11116-011-9372-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martens, K. (2012). Justice in transport as justice in access: Applying Walzer’s “spheres of justice” to the transport sector. Transportation, 39(6), 1035–1053. doi: 10.1007/s11116-012-9388-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martens, K. (2017). Transport justice: Designing fair transportation systems. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Martens, K., Di Ciommo, F., & Papanikolaus, A. (2014, June 11–13). Incorporating equity into transport planning: Utility, priority and sufficiency approaches. Paper presented at the PANAM Conference, Santander.
   Google Scholar
• Martens, K., & Golub, A. (2012). A justice-theoretic exploration of accessibility measures. In K. T. Geurs, K. J. Krizek, & A. Reggiani (Eds.), Accessibility analysis and transport planning: Challenges for Europe and North America (pp. 195–210). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, D. (1999). Principles of social justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nahmias–Biran, B. (2016, June). Incorporating equity considerations in transport projects evaluation: Developing a new measure (Dissertation). The Technion, Haifa.
   Google Scholar
• Nahmias–Biran, B., & Shiftan, Y. (2016). Towards a more equitable distribution of resources: Using activity-based models and subjective well-being measures in transport project evaluation. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 94, 672–684.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Cooperative Highway Research Program, American Association of State Highway, Transportation Officials, & Cambridge Systematics. (2012). Travel demand forecasting: Parameters and techniques (Vol. 716). Transportation Research Board.
   Google Scholar
• Nitta, Y., Inoi, H., & Nakamura, Y. (2004, May 23–26). Applying Sen’s Capability Approach to the evaluation of community buses. Paper presented at the TRANSED Conference, Hamamatsu.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Odgaard, T., Kelly, C. E., & Laird, J. (2006). Current practice in project appraisal in Europe. Project report. HEATCO. Retrieved from http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/2502/1/Current_practice_in_project_appraisal_uploadable.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Pereira, R. H. M., Schwanen, T., & Banister, D. (2017). Distributive justice and equity in transportation. Transport Reviews. doi:10.1080/01441647.2016.1257660
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quinet, E. (2000). Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in France. Transport Policy, 7(1), 27–34. doi: 10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00014-7
   Google Scholar
• Raux, C., & Souche, S. (2004). The acceptability of urban road pricing: A theoretical analysis applied to experience in Lyon. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 38(2), 191–216.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. ([2001] 2003). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rietveld, P. (2003). Winners and losers in transport policy: On efficiency, equity and compensation. In D. A. Hensher & K. J. Button (Eds.), Handbook of transport and the environment (pp. 585–602). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, J., Wretstrand, A., & Schmidt, S. M. (2015). Exploring public transport as an element of older persons’ mobility: A Capability Approach perspective. Journal of Transport Geography, 48, 105–114. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.08.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scanlon, T. M. (1991). The moral basis of interpersonal comparisons. Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being, 17–44. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139172387.002
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1980). Equality of what? In S. McMurrin (Ed.), Tanner lectures on human values (Vol. 1, pp. 197–220). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. K. (1985). Commodities and capabilities. North Holland: Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. K. (2011). Development as freedom. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, N., Hirsch, D., & Davis, A. (2012). Accessibility and capability: The minimum transport needs and costs of rural households. Journal of Transport Geography, 21, 93–101. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavasszy, L., Jonkhoff, W., Burgess, A., Rustenburg, M., & Hunt, A. (2005). Key issues in the development of harmonised guidelines for project assessment and transport costing. Retrieved from http://heatco.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/hd3final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. D., & Norton, A. T. (2009). Paying for transportation: What’s a fair price? Journal of Planning Literature, 24(1), 22–36. doi: 10.1177/0885412209347156
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teuber, A. (1984). Bookreview of spheres of justice by Michael Walzer. Political Theory, 12(1), 118–123. doi: 10.1177/0090591784012001008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trappenburg, M. (2000). In defence of pure pluralism: Two readings of Walzer’s spheres of justice. Journal of Political Philosophy, 8(3), 343–362. doi: 10.1111/1467-9760.00106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler, N. (2006). Capabilities and radicalism: Engineering accessibility in the 21st century. Transportation Planning and Technology, 29(5), 331–358. doi: 10.1080/03081060600917629
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Wee, B. (2011). Transport and ethics: Ethics and the evaluation of transport policies and projects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Van Wee, B. (2012). How suitable is CBA for the ex-ante evaluation of transport projects and policies? A discussion from the perspective of ethics. Transport Policy, 19(1), 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Wee, B., & Geurs, K. (2011). Discussing equity and social exclusion in accessibility evaluations. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 11(4), 350–365.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weis, C. (2012). Activity oriented modelling of short-and long-term dynamics of travel behaviour (Dissertation). Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule ETH Zürich, Nr. 20346, Zurich.
   Google Scholar
• Weis, C., & Axhausen, K. W. (2012). Assessing changes in travel behavior induced by modified travel times: A stated adaptation survey and modeling approach. disP-The Planning Review, 48(3), 40–53. doi: 10.1080/02513625.2012.759347
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wismadi, A., Zuidgeest, M., Brussel, M., & van Maarseveen, M. (2014). Spatial preference modelling for equitable infrastructure provision: An application of Sen’s Capability Approach. Journal of Geographical Systems, 16(1), 19–48. doi: 10.1007/s10109-013-0185-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar