How do we know whether a shared mobility system is truly fair?
This question was at the centre of Share4Equity’s contribution to the Knowledge Hub Webinar Rethinking the Measurement of Accessibility and Proximity. The event brought together different projects and perspectives on how accessibility can be understood beyond distance, coverage, or the simple idea of being “close to” opportunities.
After the webinar, we asked our colleagues Katrin (University of Gävle, WP2) and Filip (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, WP4) to continue the conversation with us. We wanted to look more closely at what justice means in shared mobility, especially when some experiences, needs, or forms of knowledge are easier to measure than others.
In this follow-up conversation, Katrin and Filip reflect on why accessibility indicators matter, what they can miss, and how cities, providers and researchers can begin to think more carefully about whose voices are included when shared mobility systems are planned and evaluated:
1- Distributive justice seems to dominate mobility research and policymaking largely because it is easier to operationalize through quantitative indicators such as accessibility, coverage, or spatial distribution. What do you think risks being overlooked when justice is approached primarily through these measurable dimensions?
When answering this question, it is useful to take a step back and acknowledge that certain topics and perspectives are overlooked or underrepresented, even when analysing mobility from the perspective of distributive justice. In our literature review, we found a large number of studies devoted to the issues you mentioned, such as accessibility, coverage and spatial distribution. However, there were far fewer studies that focused on the distribution of public investment in different modes of transport, the distribution of public space for different modes and the distribution of air pollution associated with different modes. It is also rare to consider the benefits and costs of operating different modes of transport simultaneously and compare them.
Now, turning more directly to your question, the fact that distributive justice dominates these analyses means that we often analyse the status quo whilst knowing little about the processes that have brought us to this point or how we can make mobility more equitable. By reducing justice to a matter of fair distribution or coverage, we overlook who this distribution serves and who is left out in current planning practice. We cannot claim that a system is just based solely on a certain level of proximity to opportunities or the distribution of resources, without also considering who is included in the decision-making processes and whose needs this distribution is based on.
2- Epistemic justice was mentioned as a comparatively underdeveloped area in mobility research. Why does this gap matter in practice for cities, providers, and users of shared mobility systems?
The notion of epistemic justice has been increasingly used since Miranda Fricker’s famous book from 2007. For a few years it has been popularised in mobility studies, a.o. by Tim Schwanen. Epistemic injustice is about dismissing someone’s voice and knowledge or treating it far less seriously than others based on prejudice related to certain knower’s characteristics. This phenomenon, which Fricker calls testimonial injustice is often related to hermeneutical injustice: certain experiences are not recognised or marginalised due to the lack of certain collective interpretive resources (e.g. a notion of transport exclusion) which would allow to adequately capture and take into account someone’s knowledge and harm. In result certain knowers and their experiences remain Ill-understood or not intelligible, not only to others but often also to oneself. This makes their needs and interests poorly represented in policy and planning which means that the transport system will probably not include them to this extent as other. For example, the shared bicycles or cars might be too difficult to rent or operate or unfit to carry certain objects or people (e.g. children that you assist). And some practices which are more widespread among those who tend not to be heard like informal sharing might be overlooked, underestimated and not supported.
3- Why do you think epistemic justice remains so difficult to operationalize within mobility research?
First, it is much less clear what it means to dismiss someone’s voice, treat someone’s knowledge less seriously, or lack collective interpretive resources than it is to define access to a shared mobility station. The notion of epistemic justice is less obvious and less intuitive than that of distributive justice.
Second, this dimension cannot easily be generalized between contexts and is thus more difficult to include in planning and research compared to distributional aspects. In evaluations, we tend to want to generalize and simplify by measuring specific pre-determined aspects of a phenomenon. In the case of epistemic justice this seems to be a challenge. However, we work on including it in the policy evaluation toolkit for shared mobility that we intend to develop in the Share4Equity project. So please ask us about it again in a year or so!
4- Given the still limited literature on epistemic justice in mobility studies, how can policymakers and practitioners begin addressing these issues already today, even while conceptual and methodological frameworks are still evolving?
To reflect and approach the wider concept of justice we need to be more inclusive in the whole process. To capture justice from the people´s (user and non-users) perspectives it would be advantageous to include perceived justice in planning processes and evaluations. For people to perceive mobility systems as fair, they also need to feel that their own perspectives and needs, as well those of others, are recognized and included. This will probably require a focus on both epistemic and procedural justice. Qualitative participatory approaches are already in use today and are valuable for understanding specific contexts.
Within Share4 Equity we have been working on a conceptual and methodological approach that includes perceived justice in the survey instruments, interviews, workshops and strategic planning. We hope to publish the results of this work as soon as the process is completed and hopefully others will find it useful.
5- In your view, what could meaningful operationalization of epistemic justice look like in shared mobility research and governance?
Within Share4Equity we are working on including epistemic justice in multiple ways. First, by incorporating different forms of shared mobility, including the informal and hybrid forms, which are the focus of one of the work packages leade by our colleagues form Politecnico Milano. Informal sharing is particularly promising in terms of sustainability and equity. It offers ways to use existing resources more efficiently and include communities in decision-making and caring for common goods rather than relying purely on the market. Second, we have been translating the concept into survey questions. We are developing a scale to capture perceived justice which includes all three dimensions: distributive, procedural and epistemic. The first survey is underway and more are in preparation, so please stay tuned. Third,, we have developed a conceptual framework for assessing the equity performance of shared mobility systems which considers who is included in the decision-making process and evaluation activities, and what types of knowledge are incorporated. Finally, we are currently conducting interviews in Poland and in Canada, asking policy-makers and operators how they define justice, and studying who and how has or has not been included in their considerations and activities.
