The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions
Geurs, K. T., & van Wee, B. (2004) · Journal of Transport Geography · doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005 · Cited by 3,353
Cited by
Accessible accessibility research challenges
van Wee, B. (2016) · Journal of Transport Geography · doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.10.018 · Cited by 400
Assessing equity in transport accessibility to work and study: The Bogotá region
Guzman, L. A., Oviedo, D., & Rivera, C. (2017) · Journal of Transport Geography · doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.12.016 · Cited by 319
Bicycle and Car Share Schemes as Inclusive Modes of Travel? A Socio-Spatial Analysis in Glasgow, UK
Clark, J., & Curl, A. (2016) · Social Inclusion · doi:10.17645/si.v4i3.510 · Cited by 74
Eppenberger, N., & Richter, M. A. (2021) · European Transport Research Review · doi:10.1186/s12544-021-00484-4 · Cited by 43
Oviedo, D., & Sabogal, O. (2020) · Journal of Transport & Health · doi:10.1016/j.jth.2020.100966 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Lucas, K., van Wee, B., & Maat, K.
- Venue
- Transportation
- Published
- 2015-03-03
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 473-490
- ISSN
- 0049-4488 (ISSN-L)
- 1572-9435
- OpenAlex
- W2103883242
- Cited by
- 548
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 45.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11116-015-9585-2
- The paper
- Lucas, K., van Wee, B., & Maat, K. (2016). A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches. Transportation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9585-2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.