Social and spatial equity effects of non-motorised accessibility to retail

• Published in: Cities Vol. 86; pp. 71 - 82
• Main Authors: Arranz-López, Aldo, Soria-Lara, Julio A., Pueyo-Campos, Ángel
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Kidlington Elsevier Ltd 01.03.2019; Elsevier Science Ltd
• Subjects: Access; Adults; Cluster analysis; Constraints; Cycling; Equity; Experiments; Inequalities; Mobility; Older people; Social exclusion; Social inequality; Thresholds; Transportation; Unemployed people; Walking; Cluster analysis; Walking; Cycling; Social exclusion; Inequalities
• ISSN: 0264-2751; 1873-6084
• DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2018.12.012

The evaluation of social and spatial effects of how accessibility is distributed between individuals is key to studying equity issues in transportation. However, the establishment of minimum accessibility requirements and the identification of accessibility thresholds for population groups remain as key methodological barriers. This paper contributes to addressing these shortcomings by using Retail Mobility Environments as an analytical and geographical concept to identify advantageous and disadvantageous non-motorised accessibility to retail for different population groups. The city of Zaragoza, Spain provides the spatial laboratory for experimentation, and the study focuses on four target groups: the young employed, the young unemployed, seniors, and adults. The results reveal social and spatial inequalities in the distribution of non-motorised accessibility in Zaragoza, with marked negative effects on the young unemployed and adults. On the other hand, seniors and the young employed are the groups that benefit from the current setup. It is finally discussed on the capacity of the proposed methodology for exploring both social and spatial inequalities, for establishing minimum accessibility requirements, and for identifying accessibility thresholds according to different population groups. Furthermore, the convenience of linking equity issues to non-motorised accessibility is also highlighted. •Relative vs generic non-motorised accessibility is compared.•Equity issues of non-motorised accessibility distribution are discussed.•A mix of quantitative and qualitative methods have been implemented.