Transport, Mobility & Justice

In order to analyze the 15-Minute City and its relationship to justice, this section will introduce the concepts of transport and mobility justice as well as selected justice theories that relate to the 15-Minute City. It will conclude by developing a set of criteria with which to analyze the 15-Minute City concept and three case studies.

Transport and mobility justice relate to the way in which people move and stay and the factors that enhance or reduce that movement or staying. More specifically, transport justice is concerned with distributing the benefits of transportation in a way that connects people to opportunities (Cook & Butz, 2019). To be just, the distribution should not favour or disadvantage one person or group over another and should provide everyone with the access needed to live a fulfilling life (Karner et al., 2020). Transport justice is focused on managing the externalities and benefits of movement, such as access to activities through increased mobility or impacts from construction or pollution as a result of the mobility of others.

The complementary concept of mobility justice has emerged more recently, extending the notion of transport justice to the overarching power structures and relationships that impact mobility (Everuss, 2019). A person’s or group’s capacity to move or stay in place is affected not only by the distribution of transportation’s externalities, but also by a combination of social factors. There is evidence that certain groups are more at risk of mobility injustice based on race, income, age, and physical ability (Cook & Butz, 2019). These factors are intersectional and apply at a variety of scales, from the individual to the planetary, and, when combined with institutional forms of governance and control, create patterns of unevenness and inequality with regards to mobility (Sheller, 2018). Thus, mobility justice seeks to correct these larger-scale disparities and address the structures that create and sustain them.

These two concepts link with the breakdown of justice into three interconnected aspects: distributive, representative, and procedural justice. Distributive justice is concerned with ensuring the equitable distribution of outcomes (Karner et al., 2020); representative justice involves recognizing the variety of values, needs and abilities of those affected by decision-making (Verlinghieri & Schwanen, 2020); and procedural justice relates to the ability of groups to participate in and influence the decision-making process (Verlinghieri & Schwanen, 2020). Of these, transport justice focuses on the distributive aspect while mobility justice focuses on the representative and procedural aspects. Addressing all three in concert is essential for any concept or initiative that seeks to promote justice (Verlinghieri & Schwanen, 2020). Therefore a combined definition utilizing the label of mobility justice will be employed (see Fig. 8), combining equity of access to opportunity with the political and social factors that impact the capacity for movement.

Three Justice Theories

The theories of mobility justice have strong links to political and environmental justice, and the theories developed by these movements provide well-developed analytical tools for evaluating mobility justice (Everuss, 2019). To link mobility justice to ideas of the 15-Minute City, three specific theories will be

Combined Mobility Justice Definition

Transport Justice

Fair distribution of the externalities of mobility

Distributive Justice

Representative Justice Procedural Justice

Mobility Justice

Addresses structures and relationships that affect mobility

Figure 8: A combined definition of mobility justice is employed, utilizing distributive, representative, and procedural aspects

investigated: Rawls’ Egalitarianism (Pereira et al., 2017), Sen’s (1979) Capability Approaches, and Karner’s (2020) Society-Centric Approach.

Rawls’ Egalitarianism Rawls’ Egalitarianism (Pereira et al., 2017) is related to the institutional role within justice and is broken down into two parts. The first principle states that basic rights and liberties must apply equally and should guarantee as much freedom as possible without infringing on the freedom of others. The second principle states that primary goods (defined as social conditions and means that enable a citizen’s life plans) should be distributed according to the difference principle. The difference principle states that inequality in society can only be considered fair if all members have equality of opportunity and if the inequality is to the benefit of the least advantaged groups. For Rawls, some level of inequality is unavoidable and acceptable as long as it is a result of personal choice and not the result of structural or systematic factors.

The concept of primary goods relates directly to the 15-Minute City’s six essential functions, as the enabling ingredients for daily living, but Rawls includes a broader set than just local services and amenities. In the end, both theories equate the meeting of needs as a key factor in providing for quality of life. Thus, for Rawls, the 15-Minute City should ensure that the essential functions are delivered in a way that enables a citizen’s life plans and benefits the least advantaged groups.

Sen’s Capability Approaches The Capability Approaches take a similar position to Rawls, but shift the focus from primary goods to the individual capabilities of people. For Sen (1979), the goods and services provided by the state are a means to an end, that end being quality of life. However, to achieve that quality of life, an individual needs to be able to access and convert those

means. The simple provision of goods and services is not sufficient. Thus, the Capability Approaches suggest guaranteeing a minimum level of basic capability to enable the fulfilling of needs and personal freedom.

In relation to the 15-Minute City, the minimum level is defined by the 15-minute walk or cycle trip, which Moreno (2019) assumes to be a reasonable distance that any citizen can travel. Sen (1979) also recognizes that the definition of basic capability and essential needs should be dependent on local culture. However, later theorists have suggested that, while culture and local needs should inform the definition, it is reasonable to identify a universal list of capabilities that any state should guarantee, such as freedom of movement, good health, and civic participation (Pereira et al., 2017). This aligns with the six essential functions of the 15-Minute City that, because of their broadness, could be considered a universal list that can be refined through local participation. Karner’s Society-Centric Approach The previous two theories are focused on the provision of needs and enabling of quality of life through state-led actions. A state-centric, or top-down, approach typically includes governments and public-sector experts and uses analytical tools and established guidelines to equitably distribute the externalities of mobility (Karner et al., 2020). The state holds the resources and power to create change (through large budgets and legal jurisdiction) but can lack a detailed knowledge of needs that exist at a local level.

A society-centric, or bottom-up, approach takes an opposing position, working to transform the structural conditions in which the existing actions and norms are produced and reproduced (Karner et al., 2020). This is typically characterized by social movements and non-profit groups working on behalf of disadvantaged populations. While the leaders of these groups have an understanding of their constituents’ needs, the groups often lack the power and resources to meet those needs and transform the structural condi-

Rawls’ Egalitarianism

Sen’s Capability Approaches Distributive Justice Representative Justice Procedural Justice

Distributing primary goods and other externalities through the difference principle Defining a list of primary goods that reflects all needs

Providing or ensuring a minimum level of capability to achieve freedom of choice Recognizing differences in ability to convert resource to quality of life Basic capabilities and needs should be determined locally

Karner’s Society-Centric Approach

Society-centric approach considers a broader range of perspectives, particularly from the disadvantaged Society lacks decision making power and resources and needs to be included by the state

Figure 9: Relationships between three aspects of justice and selected justice theories

tions in which they are created and recreated. Society- and state-centric approaches can work in collaboration toward shared goals, but are often in conflict.

The 15-Minute City takes a state-centric approach, using a minimum standard that is initiated and implemented by municipal government. While the functions are designed to meet the daily needs of individuals, Karner et al. (2020) would stress the need for the inclusion of society-centric actors to ensure that the decisions around providing those needs are reflective of the specific needs of individual residents. Operationalizing Mobility Justice

The three theories outlined above each interact with multiple aspects of justice. These relationships are outlined in Figure 9 and provide the basis for operationalizing the concept of mobility justice. To further combine the theories, a set of questions has been prepared as an analysis framework (see Fig. 10). These questions will be used as indicators to assess three municipalities that have implemented the 15-Minute City or similar initiatives (Paris, Melbourne, and Portland). The analysis will determine whether each plan addresses and improves distributive, representative, and procedural justice.

Overall Question Distributive Justice Representative Justice Procedural Justice

Are daily needs provided at a minimum level for the least advantaged? Do daily needs and access methods reflect the needs and abilities of the local community? Are citizens able to influence decisions that impact their mobility and access to daily needs?

Sub-Questions How does the plan distribute primary goods and capabilities?

What is done in the physical realm to support increased mobility for all users?

How does the plan identify areas/populations that are lacking in mobility? What participatory process was used in the identification of primary goods and capabilities?

Are special or disadvantaged groups recognized and included in measures or analyses?

What is done outside the physical realm to improve mobility? How are citizens included in the decision-making process?

What groups are included in the process?

At what stages are stakeholders included in the process?

Figure 10: Questions for operationalizing mobility justice for case study analysis