IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i7p5818-d1108761.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Method to Determine an Equity Score for Transportation Systems in the Cities

Author

Listed:
  • Navid Nadimi

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman 76169-14111, Iran)

  • Rosalia Camporeale

    (Department of Technology and Society, Division of Transport and Roads, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, 22100 Lund, Sweden)

  • Mostafa Khaleghi

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran 16846-13114, Iran)

  • Mohamadreza Haghani

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, USA)

  • Abbas Sheykhfard

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Shariati Ave., Babol 47148-71167, Iran)

  • Khaled Shaaban

    (Department of Engineering, Utah Valley University, Orem, UT 84058, USA)

Abstract

Transportation equity is vital for the fulfillment of citizens’ activities. To make better decisions for transportation planning, it is appropriate to have a method to evaluate each mode and assign an equity score to it. This paper aims to propose a method to assess the level of equity using different transportation modes in each zone of a city. Here, the equity level takes into account on one side the proportion between the frequency of long and short-distance trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio of streets, the air quality, and the parking availability. On the other side, the ratio of costs associated with using passenger cars, the average income of the residents, and transit and cycling infrastructure quality is used in a zone of a city. In this regard, at first, indicators are considered to assess the condition of buses, cycling, and passenger cars. Then, the Fuzzy Inference System (FIS) is used to determine the level of equity for each mode. The method has been applied to regular buses, cycling, and passenger cars in Kerman, Iran, as a case study. The results indicate a significant difference between the equity levels perceived by citizens and the performed calculations. The citizens’ perceptions about the equity of regular buses and cycling seem to be more pessimistic than what the FIS model shows. Based on the model outputs, more restrictions must be established about using passenger cars in most of the zones. Nevertheless, in this regard, citizens have stated that the current situation is fair. We believe this method can be a helpful way to quantitatively assess the equity level of transportation systems in each zone.

Suggested Citation

  • Navid Nadimi & Rosalia Camporeale & Mostafa Khaleghi & Mohamadreza Haghani & Abbas Sheykhfard & Khaled Shaaban, 2023. "A Method to Determine an Equity Score for Transportation Systems in the Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-22, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:7:p:5818-:d:1108761
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/7/5818/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/7/5818/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laura Eboli & Gabriella Mazzulla, 2008. "A Stated Preference Experiment for Measuring Service Quality in Public Transport," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(5), pages 509-523, February.
    2. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 2008. "A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 1422-1428, June.
    3. Karen Lucas & Bert Wee & Kees Maat, 2016. "A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 473-490, May.
    4. Chen, Zhiwei & Guo, Yujie & Stuart, Amy L. & Zhang, Yu & Li, Xiaopeng, 2019. "Exploring the equity performance of bike-sharing systems with disaggregated data: A story of southern Tampa," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 529-545.
    5. Martens, Karel & Golub, Aaron & Robinson, Glenn, 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, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 684-695.
    6. Guzman, Luis A. & Oviedo, Daniel & Rivera, Carlos, 2017. "Assessing equity in transport accessibility to work and study: The Bogotá region," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 236-246.
    7. Xiang Zhang & S. Travis Waller, 2019. "Implications of link-based equity objectives on transportation network design problem," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1559-1589, October.
    8. Shi, Jing & Zhou, Nian, 2012. "A quantitative transportation project investment evaluation approach with both equity and efficiency aspects," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 93-100.
    9. Itzhak Benenson & Karel Martens & Yodan Rofé & Ariela Kwartler, 2011. "Public transport versus private car GIS-based estimation of accessibility applied to the Tel Aviv metropolitan area," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 47(3), pages 499-515, December.
    10. Zhu, Zhi-Hong & Zheng, Jian-Feng & Gao, Zi-You & Du, Hao-Ming, 2014. "Properties of volume–capacity ratio in congested complex networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 400(C), pages 200-206.
    11. Zhao, Pengjun & Zhang, Yixue, 2019. "The effects of metro fare increase on transport equity: New evidence from Beijing," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 73-83.
    12. Behbahani, Hamid & Nazari, Sobhan & Jafari Kang, Masood & Litman, Todd, 2019. "A conceptual framework to formulate transportation network design problem considering social equity criteria," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 171-183.
    13. Jones, Peter & Lucas, Karen, 2012. "The social consequences of transport decision-making: clarifying concepts, synthesising knowledge and assessing implications," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 4-16.
    14. Lucas, Karen, 2012. "Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 105-113.
    15. Mamun, Sha A. & Lownes, Nicholas E. & Osleeb, Jeffrey P. & Bertolaccini, Kelly, 2013. "A method to define public transit opportunity space," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 144-154.
    16. Camporeale, Rosalia & Caggiani, Leonardo & Ottomanelli, Michele, 2019. "Modeling horizontal and vertical equity in the public transport design problem: A case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 184-206.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Navid Nadimi & Aliakbar Zamzam & Todd Litman, 2023. "University Bus Services: Responding to Students’ Travel Demands?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ben-Elia, Eran & Benenson, Itzhak, 2019. "A spatially-explicit method for analyzing the equity of transit commuters' accessibility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 31-42.
    2. Gabriella Vitorino Guimarães & Tálita Floriano Santos & Vicente Aprigliano Fernandes & Jorge Eliécer Córdoba Maquilón & Marcelino Aurélio Vieira da Silva, 2020. "Assessment for the Social Sustainability and Equity under the Perspective of Accessibility to Jobs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, December.
    3. Boisjoly, Geneviève & Serra, Bernardo & Oliveira, Gabriel T. & El-Geneidy, Ahmed, 2020. "Accessibility measurements in São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Curitiba and Recife, Brazil," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    4. Lin, Joanne Yuh-Jye & Jenelius, Erik & Cebecauer, Matej & Rubensson, Isak & Chen, Cynthia, 2023. "The equity of public transport crowding exposure," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    5. Ryan, Jean & Martens, Karel, 2023. "Defining and implementing a sufficient level of accessibility: What’s stopping us?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    6. Kaplan, Sigal & Popoks, Dmitrijs & Prato, Carlo Giacomo & Ceder, Avishai (Avi), 2014. "Using connectivity for measuring equity in transit provision," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 82-92.
    7. Nazari Adli, Saeid & Donovan, Stuart, 2018. "Right to the city: Applying justice tests to public transport investments," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 56-65.
    8. Xia, Jianhong(Cecilia) & Nesbitt, Joshua & Daley, Rebekah & Najnin, Arfanara & Litman, Todd & Tiwari, Surya Prasad, 2016. "A multi-dimensional view of transport-related social exclusion: A comparative study of Greater Perth and Sydney," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 205-221.
    9. Allen, Jeff & Farber, Steven, 2019. "Sizing up transport poverty: A national scale accounting of low-income households suffering from inaccessibility in Canada, and what to do about it," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 214-223.
    10. Vivas, H. & Rodríguez, D. A. & Sisto, N., 2021. "Disparidad espacial en la accesibilidad a los servicios de salud hospitalarios en Cali, Colombia," Documentos de trabajo - Alianza EFI 19591, Alianza EFI.
    11. Pyrialakou, V. Dimitra & Gkritza, Konstantina & Fricker, Jon D., 2016. "Accessibility, mobility, and realized travel behavior: Assessing transport disadvantage from a policy perspective," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 252-269.
    12. Elmira Jamei & Melissa Chan & Hing Wah Chau & Eric Gaisie & Katrin Lättman, 2022. "Perceived Accessibility and Key Influencing Factors in Transportation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-22, August.
    13. Sun, Zhe & Zacharias, John, 2020. "Transport equity as relative accessibility in a megacity: Beijing," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 8-19.
    14. Kębłowski, Wojciech & Dobruszkes, Frédéric & Boussauw, Kobe, 2022. "Moving past sustainable transport studies: Towards a critical perspective on urban transport," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 74-83.
    15. Guzman, Luis A. & Oviedo, Daniel & Rivera, Carlos, 2017. "Assessing equity in transport accessibility to work and study: The Bogotá region," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 236-246.
    16. Hamidi, Zahra & Camporeale, Rosalia & Caggiani, Leonardo, 2019. "Inequalities in access to bike-and-ride opportunities: Findings for the city of Malmö," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 673-688.
    17. Karner, Alex & Pereira, Rafael H. M. & Farber, Steven, 2023. "Advances and pitfalls in measuring transportation equity," SocArXiv y246u, Center for Open Science.
    18. Golub, Aaron & Martens, Karel, 2014. "Using principles of justice to assess the modal equity of regional transportation plans," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 10-20.
    19. Karen Lucas & Bert Wee & Kees Maat, 2016. "A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 473-490, May.
    20. Zhu, Le & Shi, Fei, 2022. "Spatial and social inequalities of job accessibility in Kunshan city, China: Application of the Amap API and mobile phone signaling data," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    equity; transportation; fuzzy; city;
    All these keywords.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:7:p:5818-:d:1108761. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.