Advertisement

Self-Organisation Process, Accessibility and Principles of Justice

  • Joseph Cho-yam Lau
Chapter
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter focuses on investigating the roles of accessibility and social justice theories in the self-organisation process. Accessibility is a concept in transport planning that is used to measure the ability of an individual to penetrate constraints to reach his desired activities. In the studies of the self-organisation process in the following chapters, the accessibility problems of low-income workers in urban China in overcoming constraints on reaching employment opportunities and non-work activities will be introduced. The low-income workers in the deprived neighbourhoods being studied experience self-organisation processes in which they use their individual decisions and actions to interact with the various government policies and social norms to achieve employment and housing. Many of them have to work long hours or face time conflicts between household duties and employment. As a result, they choose to spend less time pursuing non-work activities, such as social and recreational activities.

References

  1. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman SR (1979) Disaggregate travel and mobility-choice models and measures of accessibility. In: Hensher DA, Stopher PR (eds) Behavioural travel modeling. Croom-Helm, London, pp 654–679Google Scholar
  2. Bentham J (1988 [1776]) A fragment on government. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beyazit E (2011) Evaluating social justice in transport: lessons to be learned from the capability approach. Transp Rev 31(1):117–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boisjoly G, El-Geneidy AM (2017) The insider: a planners’ perspective on accessibility. J Transp Geogr 64:33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brunetta G, Caldarice O (2014) Self-organisation and retail-led regeneration: a new territorial governance within the Italian context. Local Econ 29(4–5):334–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cao M, Hickman R (2019) Understanding travel and differential capabilities and functionings in Beijing. Transp Policy 83:46–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carleton PR, Porter JD (2018) A comparative analysis of the challenges in measuring transit equity: definitions, interpretations, and limitations. J Transp Geogr 72:64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chan KW (2009) The Chinese Hukou system 50. Eurasian Geogr Econ 50(2):197–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen C, Mokhtarian PL (2006) Trade-offs between time allocations to maintenance activities/travel and discretionary activities/travel. Transportation 33:223–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. China Daily (2017) High-speed trains to reduce travel time between west China cities, December. http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-12/05/content_35217290.htm. Accessed 2 Feb 2018
  11. Dijst M, Vidakovic V (2000) Travel time ratio: the key factor of spatial reach. Transportation 27:179–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geurs KT, Wee BV (2004) Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. Transp Geogr 12:127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Giddens A (1979) Central problems in social theory: action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. University of California Press, BerkeleyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giddens A (1981) A contemporary critique of historical materialism. Vol. 1. Power, property and the state. Macmillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Grandy C (2006) Through a glass, darkly: an economic view of fairness, globalization, and states. In: Jim D, Dick P, Yongseok S (eds) Fairness, globalization, and public institutions: East Asia and beyond. University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu, pp 49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hägerstrand T (1970) What about people in regional science? Reg Sci Assoc Pap 24(1):7–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hansen WG (1959) How accessibility shapes land use. J Am Inst Plann 25:73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harvey D (1973) Social justice and the city. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. He S, Wu F (2005) Property-led redevelopment in post-reform China: a case study of Xintiandi redevelopment project in Shanghai. J Urban Aff 27(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heylighen F (2008) Complexity and self-organization. In: Bates MJ, Maack MN (eds) Encyclopedia of library and information sciences, 3rd edn. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 1215–1224Google Scholar
  22. Kim HM, Kwan MP (2003) Space-time accessibility measures: a geo-computational algorithm with a focus on the feasible opportunity set and possible activity duration. J Geogr Syst 5(1):71–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krugman PR (1996) What economists can learn from evolutionary theorists, (transcript of speech given to the European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy, Rome). http://web.mit.edu.eproxy1.lib.hku.hk/krugman/www/evolute.html
  24. Levitas R, Pantazis C, Fahmy E, Gordon D, Lloyd E, Patsios D (2007) The multi- dimensional analysis of social exclusion, department of sociology and school for social policy, Townsend centre for the international study of poverty and Bristol institute for public affairs. University of Bristol, BristolGoogle Scholar
  25. Mao Z, Etterma D, Dijst M (2018) Analysis of travel time and mode choice shift for non-work stops in commuting: case study of Beijing, China. Transportation 45:751–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mas-Colell A, Whinston MD, Green JR (1995) Chapter 16: equilibrium and its basic welfare properties, microeconomic theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Meyer D, Miller EJ (2001) Urban transport planning: a decision-oriented approach. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller D (1976) Social justice. Claredon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller HJ (1991) Modelling accessibility using space-time prism concepts within geographical information systems. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 5(3):287–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller EJ (2018) Accessibility: measurement and application in transportation planning. Transp Rev 38(5):551–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mote JE, Whitestone Y (2011) The social context of informal commuting: slugs, strangers and structuration. Transp Res A 45:258–268Google Scholar
  32. Nahmias-Biran BH, Martens K, Shiftan Y (2017) Integrating equity in transportation project assessment: a philosophical exploration and its practical implications. Transp Rev 37(2):192–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Neutens T, Witlox F, Demaeyer P (2007) Individual accessibility and travel possibilities: a literature review on time geography. Eur J Transp Infrastruct Res 7(4):335–352Google Scholar
  34. Patterson Z, Farber S (2015) Potential path areas and activity spaces in application: a review. Transp Rev 35(6):679–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pereira RHM, Schwanen T, Banister D (2017) Distributive justice and equity in transportation. Transp Rev 37(2):170–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Portugali J (2000) Self-organization and the city. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pyrialakou VD, Gkritza K, Fricker JD (2016) Accessibility, mobility, and realized travel behavior: assessing transport disadvantage from a policy perspective. J Transp Geogr 51:252–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rauws W, De Roo G, Zhang S (2016) Self-organisation and spatial planning: an editorial introduction. Town Plan Rev 87(3):241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Ryan J, Wretstrand A, Schmidt SM (2019) Disparities in mobility among older people: findings from a capability-based travel survey. Transp Policy 79:177–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sen A (1979) Personal utilities and public judgments: or what’s wrong with welfare economics? Econ J 89:537–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sen A (1980) Equality of what? Choice, welfare and measurement (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 1997 [Originally published in The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol. I, by the University of Utah Press and Cambridge University Press, 1980]Google Scholar
  43. Sen A (1981) Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Sen A (1984) Resources, values and development. Oxford, Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  45. Sen A (1992) Inequality reexamined. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  46. Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Sen A (2000) Social exclusion: concept, application and scrutiny. Social development papers no 1. Office of Environment and Social Development, Asian Development Bank, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith A (1937) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations [1776]. In: Cannan E (ed) . Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith N, Hirsch D, Davis A (2012) Accessibility and capability: the minimum transport needs and costs of rural households. J Transp Geogr 21:93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Solá AG, Vilhelmson B, Larsson A (2018) Understanding sustainable accessibility in urban planning: themes of consensus, themes of tension. J Transp Geogr 70:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Wee B, Geurs K (2011) Discussing equity and social exclusion in accessibility evaluations. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research 11(4):350–367Google Scholar
  52. Wang D, Chai Y (2009) The jobs–housing relationship and commuting in Beijing, China: the legacy of Danwei. J Transp Geogr 17:30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wang D, Zhou M (2017) The built environment and travel behavior in urban China: a literature review. Transp Res D 52:574–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wee BV, Roeser S (2013) Ethical theories and the cost–benefit analysis-based Ex Ante evaluation of transport policies and plans. Transp Rev 33(6):743–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. World Bank (2014) Urban China: toward efficient, inclusive, and sustainable urbanization, development research center of the state council, the People’s Republic of China. World Bank Group, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. World Bank (2018) Social inclusion. http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/social-inclusion. Accessed 20 Mar 2018
  57. Yang W, Chen BY, Cao X, Li T, Li P (2017) The spatial characteristics and influencing factors of modal accessibility gaps: a case study for Guangzhou, China. J Transp Geogr 60:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zacharias J (2012) Resisting motorization in Guangzhou. Habitat Int 36:93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhang X, Wang J, Kwan MP, Chai Y (2019) Reside nearby, behave apart? Activity-space-based segregation among residents of various types of housing in Beijing, China. Cities 88:166–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhao J, Benthlage M, Thierstein A (2017) Residence, workplace and commute: interrelated spatial choices of knowledge workers in the metropolitan region of Munich. J Transp Geogr 62:197–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Cho-yam Lau
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations