Understanding Transport-Related Social Exclusion Through the Lens of Capabilities Approach

Abstract

The paper builds on the TRSE literature and investigates how the insights provided by the Capability Approach can help to inform inclusive transport planning. To address the literature lack of conceptual clarity, we provided a framework that considers how individuals may be prevented from travelling and accessing valued opportunities and how this may lead to TRSE. Ten different dimensions of TRSE that individuals may experience are suggested. Although some dimensions were already proposed in past work, we contributed to this framework by expanding their scope and proposing a new dimension. The paper concludes that policiesaimed at reducing TRSE should be concerned with increasing the capabilities of those in accessibility poverty to a sufficient level that enables individuals' participation in key opportunities of the society. We identified that not every accessibility measure is suitable for assessing TRSE, and the selection of measures must pay attention to their alignment with the idea of accessibility as a human capability. We recommend that conducting an aggregated analysis may be helpful to identify a suitable accessibility measure and to identify regions at risk of TRSE; however, to have a deep understanding of an individual's TRSE risk factors, a bottom-up analysis is necessary.

Digital Shared Mobility Services: Operationalizing the Capabilities Approach to Appraise Inclusivity

“…As a continuation of the research mentioned in previous paragraphs, such as the work of Kaufmann (2002) and Luz and Portugal (2021), this paper proposes a framework to appraise DSMS through the lens of the CA. With this contribution, we aim at enabling a comprehensive understanding of the inclusivity of DSMS, a knowledge gap identified in the literature.…”

“…The CA shifts the focus from 'resources' to 'capabilities', arguing that all individuals should enjoy a level of 'capabilities' which allow them to fulfil their needs and develop their lives (Luz and Portugal 2021;Pereira et al 2017). For Nussbaum and Sen (1993), the focus on the distribution of resources overlooks the diversity of preferences and needs of individuals.…”

“…Likewise, many scholars state that the CA is the most adequate fairness approach to understanding the complexity of transport networks (Martens 2016;Pereira et al 2017;Vecchio and Martens 2021). It takes into account various important elements: the diverse needs and motivations of individuals, how people interact with the transport system, and the resources at their disposal to reach opportunities depending on their characteristics and choices (Luz and Portugal 2021;Vecchio and Martens 2021). Furthermore, the adoption of the CA in transport studies offers the opportunity to move beyond traditional socio-technical perspectives and bring into the debate the cultural dimension of transportation.…”

“…This second approach seems more adequate to convey the main theorisations of the CA, which revolves around the freedom of each person to develop their life. Moreover, since the concern of research on transport disadvantages and related social exclusion is not only to ensure people's mobility but rather that they participate in society and reach opportunities, this second perspective lends itself better to transport research from the point of view of social inclusion (Luz and Portugal 2021;Pereira et al 2017).…”

“…As previously explained, vulnerable populations which already suffered transport disadvantages, often also face digital-divide exclusion, resulting in additional difficulties for vulnerable users and creating new forms of deprivation (Durand et al 2021). Thus, Luz and Portugal (2021) incorporate the digital-divide exclusion into their definition of the CA.…”