Summary

in differing amounts of potential citizen power, with Paris’ participatory budgeting giving the greatest amount of local control over decision making.

In terms of inclusion, Paris and Portland both make an explicit effort to include marginal and underrepresented groups in the process. Portland is specifically seeking to include minority groups (including differently abled) on city advisory boards and has formed additional committees of non-geographic groups (such as culture or shared interest) to supplement its neighbourhood-level groups. In contrast, Melbourne focused on partnerships with community organizations within the pilot projects, which may put an emphasis on those who are already holding local positions of power.

The three plans also made efforts to include citizens in all stages of the process. Paris and Melbourne both included idea generation and implementation in their participatory budgeting and pilot projects, respectively, while Portland focused more on transparency through engagement and less on bottom-up processes for implementation. The 15-Minute City concept and the related city plans of Paris, Melbourne, and Portland focus primarily on addressing distributive justice. This is accomplished through reconfiguring the built environment and trying to correct the unevenness between neighbourhoods and between centre and suburb. This is a good first step, but proximity-based measures may not address users’ ability to convert the proximate resource into an improvement to quality of life. Social initiatives that complement infrastructure can help address these barriers.

The three plans reviewed employed different methods of engagement, but all recognized and received broad community support for their 15- or 20-Minute City initiatives. Increased decision-making power through a society-centric approach will be necessary in the creation of fine-grained plans for local implementation to ensure that whatever is created accomplishes the goals of increased mobility and quality of life.

Finally, the plans and the overarching concept need a mechanism that prioritizes those with the greatest need first. Decoupling the provision of daily services from economic potential or the utilitarian goal of greatest overall good will ensure that past patterns of injustice can be corrected and all urban residents can enjoy an equitable standard of living.

Distributive Justice Are daily needs provided at a minimum level for the least advantaged?

Key Findings

The existing built form can be transformed to increase diversity and encourage active transportation

Colocation of services and amenities at community hubs improves access and reduces needed trips, but it is important to ensure that everyone has access to a nearby hub

Greenways that bypass busy traffic corridors can promote active transportation without major infrastructural change, provided that they connect to local destinations and reach to all corners of the city

Representative Justice Do daily needs and access methods reflect the needs and abilities of the local community?

Key Findings

Initiatives need to apply to both the centre and the suburbs to decrease the risk of polarization

Social events are a complementary tool in addition to infrastructure and policy and are essential to remove the psychological barriers to active transportation

A 20-minute neighbourhood may not be appropriate or possible everywhere, and alternative methods of ensuring mobility justice need to be explored

Procedural Justice Are citizens able to influence decisions that impact their mobility and access to daily needs?

Key Findings

Direct, neighbourhood-level engagement and participatory budgeting allow for more resident control of the city

Community engagement in various forms is required to identify needs, but must be more than just data collection

A data-driven approach provides a framework for overall measurement, comparison and prioritization, but requires local input to respond justly to the needs of residents

5

DISCUSSION

Mobility and accessibility through transportation are at the centre of a broader discussion about the future of cities (Verlinghieri & Schwanen, 2020). Past theories have increasingly focused on human-centred planning and the importance of active transportation, upon which the 15-Minute City builds. However, the question remains of how the 15-Minute City and mobility justice relate. This analysis explored that relationship through three aspects of justice: distributive, representative, and procedural. Following a review and discussion of the findings, the lens will be widened to the tensions present between the scales of mobility justice as well as the 15-Minute City’s relationship to the suburban context. 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?