自行车的公平影响:考察自行车相关利益的空间-社会分布

IF 3.1 3区 工程技术 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES International Journal of Sustainable Transportation Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1080/15568318.2022.2082343
Isabel Cunha , Cecília Silva
{"title":"自行车的公平影响:考察自行车相关利益的空间-社会分布","authors":"Isabel Cunha ,&nbsp;Cecília Silva","doi":"10.1080/15568318.2022.2082343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Cities worldwide are developing and implementing strategies to promote the bicycle as a viable and competitive mobility option, to foster the development of resilient, livable, accessible, inclusive, and low-carbon societies. Nevertheless, empirical evidence has shown that equity issues have been far less addressed during bicycle planning and decision-making processes, regardless of the importance of the social dimension within the sustainable mobility policy.</p><p>Therefore, to explore the distributional impacts of bicycle-related benefits in cities around the globe, this article delves into the current literature encompassing distributive justice frameworks and equity-oriented assessments. Our review revealed that often the distributional effects of bicycle planning are context-dependent, with projects and investments targeting central, advantaged, and wealthy areas of cities. Quantitative assessments identified that bicycle benefits such as infrastructure coverage, cycling trips, accessibility, and health gains are unevenly distributed in cities, not addressing the needs of disadvantaged and vulnerable population groups.</p><p>Moreover, despite the current predominance of quantitative frameworks to examine the equity impacts of cycling, a considerable increase in qualitative and alternative approaches has been observed, including the role of bicycle advocacy, individual characteristics, and institutional perspectives in the distributive process.</p><p>Whereas empirical evidence suggests that bicycle planning and decision-making processes often overlook equity issues, this article discusses methodological strengths and limitations and future research pathways to support planners, politicians, and practitioners toward more equitable approaches.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47824,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Sustainable Transportation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Equity impacts of cycling: examining the spatial-social distribution of bicycle-related benefits\",\"authors\":\"Isabel Cunha ,&nbsp;Cecília Silva\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15568318.2022.2082343\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Cities worldwide are developing and implementing strategies to promote the bicycle as a viable and competitive mobility option, to foster the development of resilient, livable, accessible, inclusive, and low-carbon societies. Nevertheless, empirical evidence has shown that equity issues have been far less addressed during bicycle planning and decision-making processes, regardless of the importance of the social dimension within the sustainable mobility policy.</p><p>Therefore, to explore the distributional impacts of bicycle-related benefits in cities around the globe, this article delves into the current literature encompassing distributive justice frameworks and equity-oriented assessments. Our review revealed that often the distributional effects of bicycle planning are context-dependent, with projects and investments targeting central, advantaged, and wealthy areas of cities. Quantitative assessments identified that bicycle benefits such as infrastructure coverage, cycling trips, accessibility, and health gains are unevenly distributed in cities, not addressing the needs of disadvantaged and vulnerable population groups.</p><p>Moreover, despite the current predominance of quantitative frameworks to examine the equity impacts of cycling, a considerable increase in qualitative and alternative approaches has been observed, including the role of bicycle advocacy, individual characteristics, and institutional perspectives in the distributive process.</p><p>Whereas empirical evidence suggests that bicycle planning and decision-making processes often overlook equity issues, this article discusses methodological strengths and limitations and future research pathways to support planners, politicians, and practitioners toward more equitable approaches.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47824,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Sustainable Transportation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Sustainable Transportation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S1556831822007109\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Sustainable Transportation","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S1556831822007109","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

摘要世界各地的城市都在制定和实施战略,将自行车作为一种可行的、有竞争力的出行方式,促进发展有韧性、宜居、无障碍、包容和低碳的社会。然而,经验证据表明,在自行车规划和决策过程中,公平问题远没有得到解决,无论社会层面在可持续交通政策中的重要性如何。因此,为了探索自行车相关福利在全球城市中的分配影响,本文深入研究了当前的文献,包括分配正义框架和以公平为导向的评估。我们的综述表明,自行车规划的分配效应往往取决于环境,项目和投资针对的是城市的中心、优势和富裕地区。定量评估发现,基础设施覆盖率、自行车出行、无障碍和健康收益等自行车福利在城市中分布不均,未能满足弱势群体的需求。此外,尽管目前研究自行车对公平影响的量化框架占主导地位,但观察到定性和替代方法的显著增加,包括自行车宣传、个人特征和制度视角在分配过程中的作用。尽管经验证据表明,自行车规划和决策过程经常忽视公平问题,但本文讨论了方法论的优势和局限性,以及支持规划者、政治家和从业者采取更公平方法的未来研究途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Equity impacts of cycling: examining the spatial-social distribution of bicycle-related benefits

Cities worldwide are developing and implementing strategies to promote the bicycle as a viable and competitive mobility option, to foster the development of resilient, livable, accessible, inclusive, and low-carbon societies. Nevertheless, empirical evidence has shown that equity issues have been far less addressed during bicycle planning and decision-making processes, regardless of the importance of the social dimension within the sustainable mobility policy.

Therefore, to explore the distributional impacts of bicycle-related benefits in cities around the globe, this article delves into the current literature encompassing distributive justice frameworks and equity-oriented assessments. Our review revealed that often the distributional effects of bicycle planning are context-dependent, with projects and investments targeting central, advantaged, and wealthy areas of cities. Quantitative assessments identified that bicycle benefits such as infrastructure coverage, cycling trips, accessibility, and health gains are unevenly distributed in cities, not addressing the needs of disadvantaged and vulnerable population groups.

Moreover, despite the current predominance of quantitative frameworks to examine the equity impacts of cycling, a considerable increase in qualitative and alternative approaches has been observed, including the role of bicycle advocacy, individual characteristics, and institutional perspectives in the distributive process.

Whereas empirical evidence suggests that bicycle planning and decision-making processes often overlook equity issues, this article discusses methodological strengths and limitations and future research pathways to support planners, politicians, and practitioners toward more equitable approaches.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Sustainable Transportation provides a discussion forum for the exchange of new and innovative ideas on sustainable transportation research in the context of environmental, economical, social, and engineering aspects, as well as current and future interactions of transportation systems and other urban subsystems. The scope includes the examination of overall sustainability of any transportation system, including its infrastructure, vehicle, operation, and maintenance; the integration of social science disciplines, engineering, and information technology with transportation; the understanding of the comparative aspects of different transportation systems from a global perspective; qualitative and quantitative transportation studies; and case studies, surveys, and expository papers in an international or local context. Equal emphasis is placed on the problems of sustainable transportation that are associated with passenger and freight transportation modes in both industrialized and non-industrialized areas. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial evaluation by the Editors and, if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert reviewers. All peer review is single-blind. Submissions are made online via ScholarOne Manuscripts.
期刊最新文献
Driving the future: How value retention rate shapes electric vehicle adoption Last mile delivery with drones: A carbon emissions comparison Perceived seriousness of environmental issues and the influence of willingness to pay for hybrid vehicles: An anthropological extension of the theory of planned behavior Cargo bikes for personal transport: A user segmentation based on motivations for use Am I really willing to use my electric vehicle sustainably? A study on the charging preferences of electric vehicle users
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1