{"title":"感知的可达性和交通公平:满意度是否意味着感知到的机会充足?","authors":"Felix Johan Pot","doi":"10.1016/j.tra.2025.104497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This paper demonstrates that individual satisfaction with accessibility and perceived sufficiency of opportunities represent distinct dimensions of perceived accessibility in the normative evaluation of spatial accessibility inequalities. Satisfaction assessments are outcome-based and inform evaluations of the distributive justice of accessibility by capturing differences in current experiences of reaching desired activities. Perceptions of having sufficient options are opportunity-based assessments and relate to procedural justice by reflecting judgments on the fairness of mechanisms shaping accessibility distributions. In a survey conducted in the Netherlands, most individuals report both high satisfaction and perceived sufficiency. However, notable discrepancies emerge, particularly in rural areas, where many express satisfaction with accessibility but also concerns about the sufficiency of opportunities. For policy practice, it is important to acknowledge that goals related to individual benefits from accessibility and perceived sufficiency of opportunities are not inherently linked and potentially conflicting within broader social and environmental policy agendas. Recognizing the mechanisms explaining differences between satisfaction with accessibility and perceived sufficiency can help policymakers clarify justice priorities and balance opportunity-based and outcome-based strategies in accessibility planning.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49421,"journal":{"name":"Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice","volume":"198 ","pages":"Article 104497"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perceived accessibility and transport equity: Does satisfaction imply perceived sufficiency of opportunities?\",\"authors\":\"Felix Johan Pot\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tra.2025.104497\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This paper demonstrates that individual satisfaction with accessibility and perceived sufficiency of opportunities represent distinct dimensions of perceived accessibility in the normative evaluation of spatial accessibility inequalities. Satisfaction assessments are outcome-based and inform evaluations of the distributive justice of accessibility by capturing differences in current experiences of reaching desired activities. Perceptions of having sufficient options are opportunity-based assessments and relate to procedural justice by reflecting judgments on the fairness of mechanisms shaping accessibility distributions. In a survey conducted in the Netherlands, most individuals report both high satisfaction and perceived sufficiency. However, notable discrepancies emerge, particularly in rural areas, where many express satisfaction with accessibility but also concerns about the sufficiency of opportunities. For policy practice, it is important to acknowledge that goals related to individual benefits from accessibility and perceived sufficiency of opportunities are not inherently linked and potentially conflicting within broader social and environmental policy agendas. Recognizing the mechanisms explaining differences between satisfaction with accessibility and perceived sufficiency can help policymakers clarify justice priorities and balance opportunity-based and outcome-based strategies in accessibility planning.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49421,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice\",\"volume\":\"198 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104497\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856425001259\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856425001259","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Perceived accessibility and transport equity: Does satisfaction imply perceived sufficiency of opportunities?
This paper demonstrates that individual satisfaction with accessibility and perceived sufficiency of opportunities represent distinct dimensions of perceived accessibility in the normative evaluation of spatial accessibility inequalities. Satisfaction assessments are outcome-based and inform evaluations of the distributive justice of accessibility by capturing differences in current experiences of reaching desired activities. Perceptions of having sufficient options are opportunity-based assessments and relate to procedural justice by reflecting judgments on the fairness of mechanisms shaping accessibility distributions. In a survey conducted in the Netherlands, most individuals report both high satisfaction and perceived sufficiency. However, notable discrepancies emerge, particularly in rural areas, where many express satisfaction with accessibility but also concerns about the sufficiency of opportunities. For policy practice, it is important to acknowledge that goals related to individual benefits from accessibility and perceived sufficiency of opportunities are not inherently linked and potentially conflicting within broader social and environmental policy agendas. Recognizing the mechanisms explaining differences between satisfaction with accessibility and perceived sufficiency can help policymakers clarify justice priorities and balance opportunity-based and outcome-based strategies in accessibility planning.
期刊介绍:
Transportation Research: Part A contains papers of general interest in all passenger and freight transportation modes: policy analysis, formulation and evaluation; planning; interaction with the political, socioeconomic and physical environment; design, management and evaluation of transportation systems. Topics are approached from any discipline or perspective: economics, engineering, sociology, psychology, etc. Case studies, survey and expository papers are included, as are articles which contribute to unification of the field, or to an understanding of the comparative aspects of different systems. Papers which assess the scope for technological innovation within a social or political framework are also published. The journal is international, and places equal emphasis on the problems of industrialized and non-industrialized regions.
Part A''s aims and scope are complementary to Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Part C: Emerging Technologies and Part D: Transport and Environment. Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review. Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. The complete set forms the most cohesive and comprehensive reference of current research in transportation science.