7 minute read
Improving Justice
from Mobility for All
Though the 15-Minute City aligns in part with the justice theories described previously, equal access to amenities through proximity alone is not enough to ensure justice and a reversal of persistent historical inequalities. Accessibility to daily needs via proximity is a necessary but not sufficient factor for justice as it only addresses distributive justice. In addition, the other three components (density, diversity, and ubiquity) are largely in support of proximity and as such do not address justice individually.
All things being equal, the end result of a fully implemented 15-Minute City has the potential to be just, if everyone is included and is able to satisfy their daily needs. However, without consideration for the representative and procedural justice aspects, the conversion of an urban area from its current state into a fully implemented 15-Minute City may not occur in a just way. In order to ensure justice throughout the process, the distributional aspects need to be extended, and procedural and representative justice need to be included. This can be accomplished through a recognition of the differences of ability, a change in decision making structures to include marginal voices in society, and a recognition that some areas or groups require more and/or earlier investment through implementation priority.
Advertisement
Differences of Ability
The 15-Minute City deals with distributive justice by setting a time-based minimum for service provision, but by treating everyone as equal, the concept does not take into account the differences in mobility that are highlighted through the Capability Approaches (Sen, 1979). Proximity to a desired resource, in the form of local services and amenities, is necessary for urban quality of life. However, it does not guarantee that a resident can navigate through the urban environment in order to convert that available resource into the desired outcome. For example, not having a wheelchair accessible route, not being able to afford a bike, or not being able to understand a bus system may block a user from reaching a destination, even if it is within a 15-minute journey. Thus, proximity also requires that an individual has the capability to convert that proximity into a resource.
To its credit, the 15-Minute City is attempting to solve the problems of uneven capability and past planning injustice by making essential services and amenities available to all residents. Some urban areas, particularly outlying or suburban neighbourhoods, may be very deficient in terms of the six essential functions, in which case providing any amenity can improve the local quality of life. In addition, focusing efforts on reallocating vehicle space to active transportation infrastructure can have an enabling effect for some residents. However, adding amenities and creating infrastructure is only the first step in accounting for differences in capability. It is essential to ask whether or not initiatives are useful and beneficial for local residents’ needs.
State-Centric to Society-Centric
One of the methods of identifying and responding to citizen needs is by including a society-centric approach to planning (Karner et al., 2020). The 15-Minute City can be seen as a state-centric concept, as it establishes a top-down minimum standard for services
and is typically initiated and implemented at the municipal or regional government level. In this way, the state holds the resources and power to implement change, but still needs to understand specific needs and to include others in decision making. To improve the procedural and representative justice of
the 15-Minute City concept, it needs to include society-centric measures, focused on bottom-up input and citizen decision making. This not only allows for a municipality to identify issues relating to insufficient services and capability, it also helps to give legitimacy to actions by including the voices of residents who may not have the social and political power to be included in traditional decision-making processes. (Karner et al., 2020). By combining state-centric and society-centric approaches, the 15-Minute City can work towards the distributive goals of the state and the representative and procedural goals of society.
This can be accomplished in two ways (Karner et al., 2020). The first involves working within the existing state framework, through advisory committees, public engagement, and participatory budgeting. The second method works outside of this framework in the form of advocacy groups and social movements. Initiatives can also move from one method to the other, such as a public advocacy campaign leading to a municipality adopting a cause into its formal planning process.
Regardless of the method, it is important to recognize that state- or society-centric alone is not the answer. State-centric solutions alone have a history of failure, with decades of past planning not solving underlying issues around justice (Karner et al., 2020). The 15-Minute City’s goal of repairing urban and social fabrics is evidence of this past injustice. Society-centric alone also has issues around representation and decision-making. No community is monolithic and not all community organizations are acting in the interest of marginal or disadvantaged voices. The NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) movement, for example, has been criticized for regressive actions, such as opposing the construction of affordable housing (Karner et al., 2020). Thus, a balance of voices from various perspectives are needed to ensure that all perspectives are included.
Any shift towards local accessibility and improving urban quality of life needs to include society and collective decision making. For the 15-Minute City, this could include defining the indicators for the six essential functions based on local input or identifying a set of existing barriers that could prevent an individual from taking advantage of a destination within 15 minutes. This is happening to varying degrees in the implementation of the concept (as will be investigated in the Case Study section) but is not necessarily included in Moreno’s underlying theory.
Implementation Priority
Once the local needs are identified via a society-centric approach, it is essential to implement the 15-Minute City in areas that have the most need. Current planning initiatives, such as city services and infrastructure, are often applied through an equality or utilitarian lens, ensuring an equal distribution regardless of need or aiming to maximize aggregate benefit for society (Pereira et al., 2017). However, a justice-based approach would see Rawls’ difference principle (Pereira et al., 2017) applied to prioritization. This would define a fair implementation as one that prioritizes the least advantaged over simple distributional equality. The 15-Minute City concept has been criticized for worsening socioeconomic polarization by focusing on areas and groups that are closest to the 15-minute goal (O’Sullivan & Bliss, 2020; Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, 2021). Areas that already have the necessary components to support a 15-Minute City, such as density and walkable built form, are also typically more affluent and less in need of improvements to quality of life (City of Portland, 2012b; O’Sullivan & Bliss, 2020). Further, development-based solutions for adding density, as a necessary component for proximity, may favour these areas in order to satisfy housing demand and maximize profit (City of Portland, 2012a).
Instead, the 15-Minute City needs to focus its implementation on areas and populations that are furthest from the 15-minute goal in terms of services and mobility. Outlying urban areas tend to have a greater need for basic services (Weng et al., 2019) and also tend to have lower investment in active transportation infrastructure (City of Portland, 2012b; Ledsham & Savan, 2017). The built form, lower density, and single-use zoning of these areas makes them more difficult to transition to a walkable form, but that also means they are less conducive to the active transportation on which the 15-Minute City relies. The concept partly addresses this by shifting space from cars to active transportation. Rebalancing public space towards more vulnerable users (i.e., pedestrians and cyclists) benefits the least advantaged road user and lines up with the difference principle. But if this infrastructure is only built in areas that are already walkable and bikeable, because the implementation is based on existing users and not the areas of greatest need, then it is only increasing mobility justice for a privileged subset of the population. By focusing the initiatives on areas that are furthest from the 15-Minute City’s components and essential functions, the concept can be used to increase mobility justice for the least advantaged, and reverse the current planning trend that links mobility and access to economic capital.
Key Findings
Quality of Life The 15-Minute City represents a universal minimum access level for all users and is supported by a broad desire for more walkable neighbourhoods
Improving Justice Recognize and account for differences in ability in accessing mobility and proximate resources
Include both state and society in decison-making to balance the power of the state with the knowledge of society
Focus on those furthest away from the 15-minute goal first, in particular underserved populations and outlying areas
