Evaluating Spatial Inequities in Multimodal Accessibility to Convenience Stores: A 3SFCA-Based Study of Jongno-gu, Seoul

IF 12 1区工程技术 Q1 CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY

Sustainable Cities and Society Pub Date : 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.scs.2025.106782

Yu Xu, Jaekyoung Kim, Gunwon Lee

{"title":"Evaluating Spatial Inequities in Multimodal Accessibility to Convenience Stores: A 3SFCA-Based Study of Jongno-gu, Seoul","authors":"Yu Xu, Jaekyoung Kim, Gunwon Lee","doi":"10.1016/j.scs.2025.106782","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study investigates spatial justice in convenience store accessibility by examining how travel modes, mobility conditions, and spatial structures jointly shape service equity. Drawing on the “capability space” framework, it first constructs a behavior-based accessibility measure using the Three-Step Floating Catchment Area (3SFCA) method and credit card transaction data, capturing individuals’ actual ability to access retail services. This empirically grounded indicator is then analyzed alongside socio-spatial and demographic variables to uncover disparities rooted in capability differences and institutional structures.</div><div>Owing to Jongno-gu’s compact urban form, walking showed the highest equity. In contrast, cycling and driving revealed pronounced gaps in accessibility, which is attributable to uneven resource allocation and transportation infrastructure. While walking provides relatively equitable access overall, it does not serve older adults and residents living in peripheral neighborhoods. Infrastructural discontinuities and mode-user mismatches constrain cycling accessibility, whereas driving expands spatial coverage but reinforces structural advantages for car-owning households. These findings underscore how transport modes, land use patterns, and population characteristics interact to produce unequal service landscapes.</div><div>Accordingly, this study presents an integrated framework that operationalizes spatial justice through behavior-based accessibility assessment. By connecting actual service use with socio-spatial disparities, it enables targeted diagnosis of capability inequalities in retail provision. Beyond methodological contribution, the findings offer actionable insights for equitable and inclusive mobility planning in dense, aging urban contexts.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48659,"journal":{"name":"Sustainable Cities and Society","volume":"131 ","pages":"Article 106782"},"PeriodicalIF":12.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainable Cities and Society","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210670725006560","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study investigates spatial justice in convenience store accessibility by examining how travel modes, mobility conditions, and spatial structures jointly shape service equity. Drawing on the “capability space” framework, it first constructs a behavior-based accessibility measure using the Three-Step Floating Catchment Area (3SFCA) method and credit card transaction data, capturing individuals’ actual ability to access retail services. This empirically grounded indicator is then analyzed alongside socio-spatial and demographic variables to uncover disparities rooted in capability differences and institutional structures.

Owing to Jongno-gu’s compact urban form, walking showed the highest equity. In contrast, cycling and driving revealed pronounced gaps in accessibility, which is attributable to uneven resource allocation and transportation infrastructure. While walking provides relatively equitable access overall, it does not serve older adults and residents living in peripheral neighborhoods. Infrastructural discontinuities and mode-user mismatches constrain cycling accessibility, whereas driving expands spatial coverage but reinforces structural advantages for car-owning households. These findings underscore how transport modes, land use patterns, and population characteristics interact to produce unequal service landscapes.

Accordingly, this study presents an integrated framework that operationalizes spatial justice through behavior-based accessibility assessment. By connecting actual service use with socio-spatial disparities, it enables targeted diagnosis of capability inequalities in retail provision. Beyond methodological contribution, the findings offer actionable insights for equitable and inclusive mobility planning in dense, aging urban contexts.

查看原文本刊更多论文

基于3sfca的首尔钟路区便利店多模式可达性空间不公平评价

本研究通过考察出行方式、出行条件和空间结构如何共同影响服务公平性，探讨便利店可达性的空间公平性。在“能力空间”框架的基础上，首先利用三步浮动集水区（3SFCA）方法和信用卡交易数据构建了基于行为的可达性度量，捕捉个人获取零售服务的实际能力。然后，将这一基于经验的指标与社会空间和人口变量一起进行分析，以揭示源于能力差异和制度结构的差异。由于钟路区紧凑的城市形态，步行表现出最高的公平性。相比之下，骑自行车和开车在可达性上存在明显的差距，这是由于资源配置和交通基础设施不平衡造成的。虽然步行总体上提供了相对公平的通道，但它不适合老年人和居住在外围社区的居民。基础设施的不连续性和模式与用户的不匹配限制了自行车的可达性，而驾驶扩大了空间覆盖范围，但强化了拥有汽车的家庭的结构优势。这些发现强调了交通方式、土地利用模式和人口特征如何相互作用，从而产生不平等的服务景观。因此，本研究提出了一个综合框架，通过基于行为的可达性评估来实现空间正义。通过将实际服务使用与社会空间差异联系起来，它可以有针对性地诊断零售供应中的能力不平等。除了方法上的贡献外，研究结果还为人口密集、老龄化城市环境下的公平和包容性交通规划提供了可行的见解。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Sustainable Cities and Society Social Sciences-Geography, Planning and Development

CiteScore

22.00

自引率

13.70%

发文量

810

审稿时长

27 days

期刊介绍： Sustainable Cities and Society (SCS) is an international journal that focuses on fundamental and applied research to promote environmentally sustainable and socially resilient cities. The journal welcomes cross-cutting, multi-disciplinary research in various areas, including: 1. Smart cities and resilient environments; 2. Alternative/clean energy sources, energy distribution, distributed energy generation, and energy demand reduction/management; 3. Monitoring and improving air quality in built environment and cities (e.g., healthy built environment and air quality management); 4. Energy efficient, low/zero carbon, and green buildings/communities; 5. Climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban environments; 6. Green infrastructure and BMPs; 7. Environmental Footprint accounting and management; 8. Urban agriculture and forestry; 9. ICT, smart grid and intelligent infrastructure; 10. Urban design/planning, regulations, legislation, certification, economics, and policy; 11. Social aspects, impacts and resiliency of cities; 12. Behavior monitoring, analysis and change within urban communities; 13. Health monitoring and improvement; 14. Nexus issues related to sustainable cities and societies; 15. Smart city governance; 16. Decision Support Systems for trade-off and uncertainty analysis for improved management of cities and society; 17. Big data, machine learning, and artificial intelligence applications and case studies; 18. Critical infrastructure protection, including security, privacy, forensics, and reliability issues of cyber-physical systems. 19. Water footprint reduction and urban water distribution, harvesting, treatment, reuse and management; 20. Waste reduction and recycling; 21. Wastewater collection, treatment and recycling; 22. Smart, clean and healthy transportation systems and infrastructure;