Conceptualising justice in transit-oriented development (TOD): towards an analytical framework

Figures & data

Figure 1. Flow of the selection of articles for review.

Figure 2. A proposed analytical framework to examine justice in TODs.

Figure 3. The IAD model. Adopted from: (Ostrom, 2005).

Table 1. The seven Rules-in-Use in the IAD model.

Rules-in-Use	Action verbs	Description
(a) Boundary	Be (not) involved	Which parties are admitted in the planning process? Who is rejected? Why is it so?
(b) Position	In charge of, be responsible for	What is the role of the parties in the planning process? Can the roles change in the process and how?
(c) Authority	Able to do	What are the actions and decisions that each party is able to make? What gives them this power?
(d) Information	Send and receive	What information is shared and what is held secret? What information is sought and received, and what is not received? How is this information used?
(e) Aggregation	Decide jointly, by one self	How are the deliberations, considerations and decisions made, jointly or individually? In joint efforts, who leads? Why is it so?
(f) Scope	Have jurisdiction, control over	What are the outcomes that the parties can affect and influence? What are the goals and vision of the parties?
(g) Payoff	Bear cost, earn profit	How are costs and benefits allocated?

(Ostrom, 2011; Polski & Ostrom, 1999).

Table 2. Key definition and commonly used indicators of 5Ds.

5Ds	Definition and meaning	Commonly used indicators
Density	Density refers to the agglomeration and concentration of housing, businesses and other functions. In its historical U.S. context, it referred to a minimum density that ensures a critical mass of passengers for public transport in the TOD (Calthorpe, 1993), though modern understanding has moved towards an optimal density that balances efficiency and social sustainability (Thomas & Bertolini, 2020).	Population density; housing density; employment density
Diversity	Diversity refers to the availability and variety of different functions and land uses, from residential, commercial to social and leisure facilities. Diversity is one of the key promises of TOD, creating communities that could satisfy the various needs of different residents within a walkable pocket (Cervero & Kockelman, 1997).	Types of housing; jobs, services, shops and social services to housing ratio; distribution of use-functions (entropy-based land-use mix index)
Design	Though its definition could be very wide, Design focuses on various characteristics of the built environment, from street furniture and connections to public spaces and infrastructure that facilitate walking and travelling within the TOD area, particularly by the more disadvantaged groups such as older adults and the disabled (Chen et al., 2022).	Network of walkways and bicycle paths; accessible designs and facilities; inclusive infrastructure (e.g. protected walkways, lifts)
Destination Accessibility	Destination Accessibility refers to the ease for people to reach their destinations, including workplaces, schools, shops, places for leisure, etc (Liu et al., 2020). The destinations could be within the TOD neighbourhood and further away in other locations outside of the TOD.	Number and variety of destinations in the area; distance from home to workplaces and other destinations; average time spent travelling per day
Distance to Transit	Initially referring to the physical distance to the train station, we can interpret “Distance to Transit” in an extended sense to cover the availability and ease to reach and use different public transport options. This includes both the train station but also other shuttle and supplementary services, such as local buses and on-demand personal transport that run within the TOD neighbourhood (Thomas & Bertolini, 2020).	Distance and journey time from homes and workplaces (and other destinations) to the train station; local public transport (e.g. bus) network; catchment and usage of public transport services

Table 3. Suggested guidance questions to analyse justice in TOD with the framework.

Framework component	Suggested guidance questions	Relevant studies and literature
Part (II): Process
(a) Boundary	What parties are involved in the planning process (from planners, developers, public transport operators, commercial actors, advocacy groups and residents)? Who else is not involved but is interested and relevant, especially less powerful stakeholders? Who decides what parties are involved, and where is this specified and formalised? Are there dedicated efforts to identify and include disadvantaged stakeholders who are relevant and affected by the TOD? Is it possible to change who is involved during the planning process? How is this done?	Cascetta and Pagliara (2013) discussed different tools of public engagement that ensure wide inclusion of stakeholders, while Sandoval (2018) explored how ethnic identities could become barriers to participation in the planning process of a TOD.
(b) Position	What are the roles and functions of the different parties in the planning process? How are different parties positioned in the planning process? Who determines the positions of different parties? Do parties of similar roles (e.g. different groups of residents, various developers) occupy similar positions? Are there dominating positions and who occupies them?	Mittal and Shah (2021) explored how different levels of government influence the planning process, on paper and in reality, while Trudeau (2018) discussed how the position of different actors affects the effectiveness of participatory planning.
(c) Authority	What is the power of different parties in the planning process? What are the sources of power of these parties (e.g. legislation, conventions, practical constraints)? What are the mandates and goals of different parties? For parties that hold conflicting mandates and goals, are their power comparable and equal? Are there safeguards to facilitate and maintain the power of disadvantaged stakeholders?	Lung-Amam et al. (2019) explored how grassroots initiatives can mobilise their power to strive towards more equitable TOD, while (Al-Kodmany et al., 2022) found that TODs in Hong Kong often feel like isolated islands of development separated from the neighbourhood, perhaps a result of certain stakeholders’ greater power in planning the TOD.
(d) Information	What are the key pieces of relevant information in the planning process? Who creates, controls and distributes the key pieces of information? Are these pieces of information available to the public, only to some parties, or held in confidence? Is there information that parties deem important and relevant to them but are unable to obtain? Is the information understandable without technical background or expertise?	Pojani and Stead (2015) used workshops to understand the distribution and exchange of information between stakeholders in a (simulated) planning of TOD, while Hossinger et al. (2004) discussed practices on information dissemination in stakeholder engagement.
(e) Aggregation	What are the key decisions to be made in the planning process? How are these decisions made (e.g. individually, in consultation with others, collectively, etc.)? Who is involved in the making of these decisions? For decisions involving competing interests, who makes the final decisions? How do(es) the said decision maker(s) take into account various interests and views? How are the welfare of disadvantaged groups safeguarded in the key decisions?	Humphreys (2012) discussed how to effectively conduct public participation that leads to equitable decision-making, while Harrison et al. (2019) identified limitations of South Africa’s “Inclusionary TOD” in promoting collective decision-making among stakeholders.
(f) Scope	Who specifies the overall visions and strategies of the TOD? How do different parties influence the planning process? What are the envisioned and actually controllable targets and goals of different parties? Are there discrepancies between the two? Whose visions and goals play a greater role or influence the planning process more? To what extent are the visions and goals of disadvantaged groups taken into account in the planning process?	Baker and Lee (2019) found that active efforts by planners to shape TOD towards more inclusive development helps counter gentrification and lead to more equitable TODs, while He et al. (2018) explored how Hong Kong’s metro company business model in developing TOD affects distribution of different housing and thereby its spatial equity.
(g) Payoff	Who bears the economic costs of the TOD project (public money / private capital)? Who bears the social costs of the TOD project (e.g. demolishment, relocation of residents and businesses)? How is this cost allocation decided? Do those affected have a say in the cost allocation and compensation? What are the expected benefits and profits (financial, social, and otherwise) upon completion of the TOD? How will these benefits and profits be enjoyed by and allocated to different parties?	Liang et al. (2020) found that land and property values are common focuses of Chinese TODs, and proposed a development approach that integrates efficiency and equity, while Zhu and Diao (2022) identified a spill-over of property values gains not only at a new TOD, but also along the existing network, providing additional payoffs to developers.
Part (III): Outcome
(a) Density	What are the densities of different neighbourhoods in the TOD? How do the densities of similar functions (e.g. different types of housing) compare around the TOD? How satisfied are the residents with the densities of their living environment? [ex-post evaluations only] Are there perceived overcrowding and congestion? In which neighbourhoods around the TOD do they occur? [ex-post evaluations only]	Lin and Gau (2006) proposed a framework to find an optimal density in TOD balancing transit ridership, the living environment and social equity, while Bramley et al. (2009) found that the relation between density and satisfaction is not always straightforward but also depends on other Ds.
(b) Diversity	What types of housing (including affordable housing) are found in the TOD? Where are shops, services and facilities located in the TOD? How diverse are these destinations in different neighbourhoods of a TOD? How satisfied are the residents with the choices and variety of shops, services and facilities in their living environment? [ex-post evaluations only] Are there certain shops, services and facilities that residents want to see more/less in their neighbourhoods? [ex-post evaluations only]	Chen et al. (2022) found that functional diversity improves residential satisfaction up to a certain level, over which overcrowding may reduce satisfaction. Noland et al. (2017) noted that the diversity of shops and services that are aimed at travellers and tourists in a TOD does not necessarily add to the satisfaction of residents.
(c) Design	What are the designs and features of the various neighbourhoods in the TOD that facilitate walking, cycling and travelling within the area? Are there specific designs and features that cater to the needs of disadvantaged groups, e.g. older adults and the disabled? How satisfied are different social groups of residents with the designs of their living environment? [ex-post evaluations only] What are the potential design improvements identified by the residents? [ex-post evaluations only]	Wey et al. (2016) and Appleyard et al. (2019) both devised metrics to analyse the designs of TODs (covering aspects such as streets, networks and facilities) in terms of their equity and sustainability, among others.
(d) Destination Accessibility	Where are the destinations located in a TOD, from workplaces and offices, markets and shops, to parks and leisure spaces, and social services and amenities? How accessible are these destinations in various neighbourhoods? Are destinations needed by specific groups (e.g. elderly care, schools) accessible to these people? Do residents find it easy to reach the destinations they want to go? [ex-post evaluations only] What are the challenges they face in reaching destinations? [ex-posts evaluations only]	Chen et al. (2023) calls for making destinations frequented by older adults more accessible for a more equitable TOD, while Bierbaum and Vincent (2013)’s study showed that improving accessibility to schools and childcare facilities is essential in creating more equitable TODs for families with children.
(e) Distance to Transit	What occupies the plots closest to the train station, and those further away? How easy is it for residents from different neighbourhoods to access the train station and other transport options? Are local transport options available for travelling in the TOD area and connecting to the train station? How satisfied are residents with travelling to the train station and within the TOD area respectively? [ex-post evaluations only]	Tao et al. (2022) found that distance to different transit modes (metro, bus, etc.) in a TOD had different impacts towards the mobility and activity spaces of different income groups, though Luckey et al. (2018) found that both lower and higher income groups showed similar preferences for closeness to transit in housing location.

Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7s7wm.

 Google Scholar

Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework: Ostrom: Institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Polski, M. M., & Ostrom, E. (1999). An institutional framework for policy analysis and design. Workshop in political theory and policy analysis, Indiana University. https://ostromworkshop.indiana.edu/pdf/teaching/iad-for-policy-applications.pdf

 Google Scholar

Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American dream. Princeton Architectural Press.

 Google Scholar

Thomas, R., & Bertolini, L. (2020). Transit-Oriented development: Learning from international case studies. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48470-5

 Google Scholar

Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demands and 3Ds: Density, diversity and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2(3), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen, Q., Yan, Y., Zhang, X., & Chen, J. (2022). A study on the impact of built environment elements on satisfaction with residency whilst considering spatial heterogeneity. Sustainability, 14(22), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215011

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liu, L., Zhang, M., & Xu, T. (2020). A conceptual framework and implementation tool for land use planning for corridor transit oriented development. Cities, 107, 102939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102939

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cascetta, E., & Pagliara, F. (2013). Public engagement for planning and designing transportation systems. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 87, 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.597

 Google Scholar

Sandoval, G. F. (2018). Planning the barrio: Ethnic identity and struggles over transit-oriented, development-induced gentrification. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 41(4), 410–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X18793714

 Google Scholar

Mittal, H., & Shah, A. (2021). Discursive politics and policy (im)mobility: Metro-TOD policies in India. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 40(2), 463–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/23996544211029295

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Trudeau, D. (2018). Integrating social equity in sustainable development practice: Institutional commitments and patient capital. Sustainable Cities and Society, 41, 601–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.05.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lung-Amam, W., Pendall, R., & Knaap, E. (2019). Mi casa no es Su casa: The fight for equitable transit-oriented development in an inner-ring suburb. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(4), 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X19878248

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Al-Kodmany, K., Xue, Q., & Sun, C. (2022). Reconfiguring vertical urbanism: The example of tall buildings and transit-oriented development (TB-TOD) in Hong Kong. Buildings, 12(2), 197. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12020197

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pojani, D., & Stead, D. (2015). Transit-oriented design in The Netherlands. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X15573263

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hossinger, R., Jones, P., Barta, F., Kelly, J., Witte, A., & Wolfe, A. (2004). Successful transport decision-making: A project management and stakeholder engagement handbook. GUIDEMAPS Consortium. https://trid.trb.org/view/1157841.

 Google Scholar

Humphreys, J. (2012). A critical evaluation of the role of public consultation in transport planning, With particular reference to the city of York’s local transport plan. Irish Transport Research Network, Belfast, Ireland. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332182794_A_Critical_Evaluation_of_the_Role_of_Public_Consultation_in_Transport_Planning_With_Particular_Reference_to_the_City_of_York's_Local_Transport_Plan.

 Google Scholar

Harrison, P., Rubin, M., Appelbaum, A., & Dittgen, R. (2019). Corridors of freedom: Analyzing Johannesburg’s ambitious inclusionary transit-oriented development. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(4), 456–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X19870312

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Baker, D. M., & Lee, B. (2019). How does light rail transit (LRT) impact gentrification? Evidence from fourteen US urbanized areas. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17713619

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

He, S. Y., Tao, S., Hou, Y., & Jiang, W. (2018). Mass transit railway, transit-oriented development and spatial justice: The competition for prime residential locations in Hong Kong since the 1980s. Town Planning Review, 89(5), 467–493. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2018.31

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liang, Y., Du, M., Wang, X., & Xu, X. (2020). Planning for urban life: A new approach of sustainable land use plan based on transit-oriented development. Evaluation and Program Planning, 80, 101811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101811

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhu, Y., & Diao, M. (2022). The local and network effects of rail transit network expansion on retail property values. Journal of Planning Education and Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X221121247

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lin, J. J., & Gau, C. C. (2006). A TOD planning model to review the regulation of allowable development densities around subway stations. Land Use Policy, 23(3), 353–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.11.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S., Brown, C., & Watkins, D. (2009). Social sustainability and urban form: Evidence from five British cities. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 41(9), 2125–2142. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4184

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Noland, R. B., Weiner, M. D., DiPetrillo, S., & Kay, A. I. (2017). Attitudes towards transit-oriented development: Resident experiences and professional perspectives. Journal of Transport Geography, 60, 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.02.015

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wey, W.-M., Zhang, H., & Chang, Y.-J. (2016). Alternative transit-oriented development evaluation in sustainable built environment planning. Habitat International, 55, 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.03.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Appleyard, B. S., Frost, A. R., & Allen, C. (2019). Are all transit stations equal and equitable? Calculating sustainability, livability, health, & equity performance of smart growth & transit-oriented-development (TOD). Journal of Transport & Health, 14, 100584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2019.100584

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen, Z., Li, P., Jin, Y., Bharule, S., Jia, N., Li, W., Song, X., Shibasaki, R., & Zhang, H. (2023). Using mobile phone big data to identify inequity of aging groups in transit-oriented development station usage: A case of Tokyo. Transport Policy, 132, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.12.010

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bierbaum, A. H., & Vincent, J. M. (2013). Putting schools on the Map: Linking transit-oriented development, households with children, and schools. Transportation Research Record, 2357(1), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.3141/2357-09

 Google Scholar

Tao, S., Ettema, D., Luo, S., & He, S. (2022). The role of transit accessibility in influencing the activity space and non-work activity participation of different income groups. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 15(1), 375–398. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2022.2075

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Luckey, K. S., Marshall, W. E., Durso, C., & Atkinson-Palombo, C. (2018). Residential preferences, transit accessibility and social equity: Insights from the Denver region. Journal of Urbanism, 11(2), 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2017.1422531

 Google Scholar