P2 Justice Analysis: Walking in Cities and Mobility (In)Justice

To achieve mobility justice, transport systems should be accessible, affordable, safe, and allow all people to travel to live a fulfilling life (Mullen, 2021). This reflects the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 11.2 which also highlights the focus on vulnerable groups like disabled people and women (United Nations, no date). The concept of mobility justice applies from global to local scale movement and can be affected by various factors like inequalities (Verlinghieri and Schwanen, 2020). Cities heavily rely on motorised transport for mobility, with high road traffic levels causing a global average of 27% of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) (Khreis et al., 2023). As well as detrimental human health problems like cardiovascular disease, GHGs from cities exacerbate climate change impacts (Brainard et al., 2019). Mobility justice is therefore closely related to climate justice (Verlinghieri and Schwanen, 2020). Shifting towards active travel, specifically walking, is necessary to reducing traffic congestion, GHGs, and strain on the climate change planetary boundary (Dovey and Pafka, 2020; Raworth, 2012). However, this causes exclusion and mobility injustices for certain socio-economic groups (Mullen, 2021; Bocarejo S and Oviedo, 2012).

The concept of ‘walkability’ refers to how well a city’s built environment promotes walking (Fancello et al., 2020). Risks to mobility justice come from how walkability is measured because it is a multi-dimensional concept, thus without considering all the factors different people value, certain socio-economic groups might not be included when deciding if a place is walkable (Dovey and Pafka, 2020; Fancello et al., 2020). For example, ‘accessibility’ – referring to physical distance to amenities like schools and public transport – implies a destination within 400 meters is walkable, which is not always true (Fonseca et al., 2022; Niksic, 2017). Disabled people with mobility issues, or blind or death people, are less likely to participate in walking, even if the destination is considered accessible (Brainard et al., 2019; Marcheschi et al., 2020). This is because other factors are important in measuring walkability, like quality of ‘pedestrian facilities’, and these need to be considered together (Fonseca et al., 2022). If there are obstacles, like steps, which someone cannot climb, they experience a mobility injustice which will increase in the shift towards walking as a main mode of transport (Mullen, 2021).

Subjective measures are important when measuring walkability because they reflect the experience of walking in cities (Middleton, 2011). Although road traffic accidents and crime rates are objective, ‘perception of safety’ – referring to road safety and personal security – is subjective and changes significantly between individuals and groups (Arellena et al., 2019; Niksic, 2017). For example, young women are more likely to feel unsafe walking alone in a city compared to middle-aged men (Niksic, 2017). Research around gendered perceptions of walkability show the scope of barriers women face to using walking as a mode of transport. Golan et al., (2019) found the built environment often influences women’s route to their destination, identifying they avoid features like bridges, parks, and alley ways for fear of crimes like robbery and sex offences. Fear of crime reflects low walkability, therefore socio-economic groups, like women, who experience these barriers do not have the same freedom of movement as others, causing a mobility injustice which could become greater in the move away from motorised transport and promoting walking (Mullen, 2021).

Overall, vulnerable groups face mobility injustices, but motorised vehicles can be used to overcome them (Mullen,2021). Shifting from motorised transport to walking has benefits to social health and the environment but cannot be considered fully sustainable while these injustices exist and are likely to worsen, creating a greater barrier to meeting social foundations like ‘social equity’ (Raworth, 2012).

 

References:

Arellana, J., Saltarín, M., Larrañaga, A. M., Alvarez, V., & Henao, C. A. (2020). Urban walkability considering pedestrians’ perceptions of the built environment: a 10-year review and a case study in a medium-sized city in Latin America. Transport Reviews, 40(2), pp.183–203.

Bocarejo S, J. P., and Oviedo H, D. R. (2012). Transport accessibility and social inequities: a tool for identification of mobility needs and evaluation of transport investments. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, pp.142–154.

Brainard, J., Cooke, R., Lane, K., and Salter, C. (2019). Age, sex and other correlates with active travel walking and cycling in England: Analysis of responses to the Active Lives Survey 2016/17. Preventive Medicine, 123, pp.225–231.

Dovey, K., and Pafka, E. (2020). What is walkability? The urban DMA. Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 57(1), pp.93–108.

Fonseca, F., Ribeiro, P. J. G., Conticelli, E., Jabbari, M., Papageorgiou, G., Tondelli, S., and Ramos, R. A. R. (2022). Built environment attributes and their influence on walkability. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 16(7), pp.660–679.

Francello, G., Congiu, T., Tsoukias, A. (2020). Mapping walkability. A subjective value theory approach. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 72, pp.1-18.

Golan, Y., Henderson, J., Wilkinson, N. L., & Weverka, A. (2019). Gendered walkability: Building a daytime walkability index for women. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 12(1), pp.501–526.

Khreis, H., Sanchez, K. A., Foster, M., Burns, J., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Jaikumar, R., Ramani, T., and Zietsman, J. (2023). Urban policy interventions to reduce traffic-related emissions and air pollution: A systematic evidence map. Environment International, 172, p.107805–107805.

Marcheschi, E., Ståhl, A., Almén, M., & Johansson, M. (2020). A Theoretical Model for Urban Walking Among People With Disabilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(156), pp.156–156.

Middleton, J. (2011). Walking in the City: The Geographies of Everyday Pedestrian Practices: Walking in the city. Geography Compass, 5(2), 90–105.

Mullen, C. (2021). Why Mobility Justice Means Prioritising Accessible Walking Environments. Active Travel Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1(1), pp.2732-4184.

Nikšič, M. (2017). Is a Walkable Place a Just Place? The Case of Ljubljana. Built Environment (London. 1978), 43(2), pp.214–235.

Raworth, K. 2012. A Safe and Just Space for Humanity: Can We Live Within the Doughnut?. Oxfam Discussion Papers, [No volume] [No issue number], pp.1-26.

United Nations. [No Date]. Sustainable Cities and Communities. [Online]. [Date Accessed: 24th October]. Available from: https://www.globalgoals.org/goals/11-sustainable-cities-and-communities/

Verlinghieri, E., and Schwanen, T. (2020). Transport and mobility justice: Evolving discussions. Journal of Transport Geography, 87, pp.102798–7.