Overview full-color pictureTU Delft logo

Content | Menu | Taal/Language | Banners

U maakt gebruik van een browser die de gebruikte web-standaarden niet of onvolledig ondersteunt.
Hierdoor kunnen afwijkingen in de lay-out ontstaan.

Afhankelijk van uw platform is deze site het beste te bekijken met een recente versie van Microsoft Internet Explorer (5 of hoger), Netscape (6 of hoger), Mozilla (1 of hoger) en Opera (6 of hoger).

Contact |  Search  

European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research (ISSN 1567-7141)


TU Delft logo
Home > Back Issues > Volume 11 Issue 4

Discussing Equity and Social Exclusion in Accessibility Evaluations



Bert van Wee* and Karst Geurs**

*Section of Transport and Logistics, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology
P.O. Box 5015, 2600 GA, Delft, NL
T: +31152787186
F: +31152782719
E: g.p.vanwee@tudelft.nl

**Centre for Transport Studies, Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente
P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, NL
T: +31534891056
F: +31534894040
E: k.t.geurs@utwente.nl

Full text pdf




Ex ante evaluations of transport policy options (including infrastructure plans) are generally based on cost-benefit analyses (CBA). Accessibility changes are included in such analyses indirectly, via a utilitarian perspective. But accessibility is broader than is assumed by this perspective and also incorporates equity and related distribution effects as well as social exclusion. This paper aims to give an overview of the relevance of distribution effects and equity, and social exclusion for accessibility, based on the literature. The most important conclusions of our paper is that the two subjects are poorly addressed in transport appraisal in general, and in CBA in particular. Additional ethical theories could add value to the utilitarian perspective, egalitarian theories being a major competitor. Equity analysis is however complex because there are several types of equity, various ways to categorize people for equity analysis, numerous impacts to consider, and various ways of measuring these impacts. And such analysis requires normative judgements, in addition to simply presenting distribution effects. Several options are available to express distribution effects. Important choices to be made if such effects need to be reported relate to the unit of comparison (e.g. the household versus the individual), the indicator to be used, and the value of each unit to be compared (e.g. accessibility) for all units of comparison (e.g. households). We also conclude that CBA is not suitable for evaluating social exclusion policies. Based on this overview we propose an agenda for potential future research in the area of ethics and accessibility.