IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v48y2021i9p2790-2807.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Proposing an integrated accessibility-based measure to evaluate spatial equity among different social classes

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammad Azmoodeh
  • Farshidreza Haghighi
  • Hamid Motieyan

Abstract

Fair spatial distribution of services has always been a challenge for urban planners to supply sufficient accessibility for individuals and to consider the needs of vulnerable social groups. Nevertheless, equity assessment literature has mostly focused on measuring the accessibility through distance-based variables, and social stratification based on just income, as well. Accordingly, this study intends to employ an accessibility measure that considers non-distance-based variables along with distance-based ones. It uses multi-criteria decision-making to propose an accessibility index to assess vertical and horizontal equity of residents’ accessibility to a range of public facilities, in the district 6 of Tehran, Iran. Therefore, using the integration of geographical information system-based spatial analysis, wider people specification, and the Gini coefficient, this measure proposes a novel framework to examine the equity level of individuals belonging to the lower, middle, and upper social classes. Results imply a 0.228 Gini index for horizontal equity, which indicates a low level of inequity among residents. Besides, for vertical equity evaluation, Gini index of 0.097, 0.249, and 0.167, respectively, for lower, middle, and upper groups show people in the lower class experience very low levels of inequity, therefore higher accessibility is well distributed among groups with higher social needs. This approach can help planners to choose the right analysis method and prioritize urban decisions toward the equitable distribution of facilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammad Azmoodeh & Farshidreza Haghighi & Hamid Motieyan, 2021. "Proposing an integrated accessibility-based measure to evaluate spatial equity among different social classes," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 48(9), pages 2790-2807, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:48:y:2021:i:9:p:2790-2807
    DOI: 10.1177/2399808321991543
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399808321991543
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2399808321991543?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:sae:envirb:v:48:y:2021:i:9:p:2790-2807. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.