Rural Accessibility, Social Inclusion and Social Justice

www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo

Journal of Transport Geography 13 (2005) 1–12

Rural accessibility, social inclusion and social justice:towards conceptualisation

John Farrington a,*, Conor Farrington b

a Department of Geography and Environment, University of Aberdeen, Elphinstone Road, Aberdeen AB24 3UF, UKb Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing Place, Cambridge CBR 3EN, UK

Abstract

Accessibility has become established as a mainstream policy goal in the service of the UK Government�s aims of achieving greatersocial inclusion and social justice. It is argued that a better understanding of the relationship between conceptualisations of acces-

sibility and these policy aims would be of value in understanding the potential of accessibility to contribute to policy. The aim of this

paper is to contribute to this understanding.

The paper discusses a conceptual framework placing accessibility centrally in the social justice and social inclusion agenda. The

location of the idea of accessibility in the rural context, and as a �rural challenge�, is traced. Its relationship with welfare geography,and its essentially normative nature, are discussed, and connections with need are made.

It is suggested that there is not just one account, either of what, in terms of accessibility, people �need�, or what they experience.Neither can there be just one account of what accessibility people �should have�. The ideas of �absolute� and �relative� accessibility arereferred to. A �nested� framework is set out which relates social inclusion and accessibility, in turn, to social justice. Alternative phi-losophies of social justice are explored, and accessibility is discussed in the contexts of philosophical positions on needs, rights, wants

and deserts.

The development of accessibility as a policy element is analysed. Setting greater accessibility as a goal is a potentially powerful

driver of policy because it requires that policy sectors interact: otherwise the goal of achieving greater accessibility as a means of

greater social inclusion and social justice cannot be fully attained. It is concluded that the new narrative of accessibility, if itself

soundly conceptualised, is a sine qua non for the social justice project.

� 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Accessibility; Rural; Policy; Social justice; Social inclusion

1. Introduction

Accessibility is a concept which has come of age. No

longer solely a transport, or rural, geographer�s way ofexpressing an ideological goal, or merely shorthand for

a research paradigm, it has gained acceptance as a policy

goal. Established in the 1960s and 70s as an important

idea in understanding human experience and life

chances, the accessibility discourse has entered UK pol-

icy debates about social exclusion and social justice in

0966-6923/$ - see front matter � 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2004.10.002

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1224 272328.

E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Farrington).

the New Labour Governments, arguably before the

establishment of a clear understanding of the accessibil-

ity concept and its inter-relationships with these broader

concepts. The aim of this paper is to contribute to thisunderstanding.

The paper discusses a conceptual framework placing

accessibility centrally in the social inclusion and social

justice policy agenda. It emphasises the significance of

the accessibility concept�s place in this agenda—explor-ing some of its implications in the process—and thus

seeks to demonstrate its utility. The main focus is on

the Western context: if the discussion can contributeto other contexts it will realise greater value.

mailto:[email protected]

2 J. Farrington, C. Farrington / Journal of Transport Geography 13 (2005) 1–12

In outline the conceptual framework is as follows:

greater social justice cannot be achieved without greater

social inclusion, which requires that people have access

to a range of activities regarded as typical of their soci-

ety; greater social inclusion requires greater accessibility

which often (but emphatically not inevitably) impliesmobility and transport use. This is not to say, of course,

that social inclusion of itself achieves greater social jus-

tice, and particularly it is not to say that accessibility of

itself achieves social inclusion. The discussion considers

the ideas and relationships in this framework, and also

relates the ideas to concepts of sustainability.

2. Accessibility as a rural idea

Accessibility was particularly, though not exclusively,

based on the recognition of a post 1950s rural Britain

where bus and rail services, and other public sector facil-

ities such as schools and hospitals, were in decline,

leaving some groups in rural society with fewer opportu-

nities to access opportunities and activities despite anoverall increase in car ownership and car-based com-

muting. (See for example, Thomas, 1976.)

This paper discusses a conceptualisation of accessibil-

ity in the rural context. We recognise, but do not engage

in, the rural/urban dichotomy/continuum debate (see,

for example, Halfacree, 1993). We acknowledge the

urban dimension of accessibility, identified as early as

the late 1960s. For example, Hamnett (1996, p. 13),notes that: ‘‘The work of Pahl (1970), Harvey (1969),

and what can be termed the Antipode school of radical

geography, led to a spate of work on questions of the

distribution of, and access to, urban facilities, particu-

larly as they affected the poor’’. Interaction between re-

cent work on urban accessibility (see, for example,

Church and Frost, 1999 and Hine and Mitchell, 2001)

and work on rural accessibility can further enrich theconcept and realise more fully its potential contribution

to cross-cutting policy-making and delivery.

The parameters of accessibility as ‘‘the rural chal-

lenge’’ were set out by Moseley (1979a). He viewed

accessibility as the degree to which someone or some-

thing is ‘‘get-at-able’’ (56): although he regarded this

as a crude definition, it captures the essence of accessibil-

ity, and is in keeping with the way the term is treatedhere. We articulate the definition to be �The ability ofpeople to reach and engage in opportunities and activi-

ties�. �Reach� implies spatial separation, and thereforemobility and transport use, but two things should be

recognised: spatial separation is only one form of sepa-

ration (others, for example, include age, gender, ethnic-

ity, and income), and spatial separation may be

overcome by means other than movement. Moseleyemphasised this point: ‘‘. . . the rural transport problem. . .’’ is ‘‘. . . only part of the wider rural accessibility

problem.’’ (1979b, p. 137). This location of transport

within, and as one element of, accessibility is critical in

our conceptualisation of accessibility: while its discus-

sion involves transport, this is not the only dimension

of significance.

Moseley also insisted that the central focus of concern(in rural accessibility policy formulation and evaluation)

must be ‘‘opportunities, not behaviour’’, because ‘‘today�spattern of travel is so constrained by the [transport] sup-

ply situation as to tell us very little’’ (1979a, p. 56, origi-

nal emphasis). He recognised that this is ‘‘of very great

importance to the formulation and evaluation of rural

accessibility policies’’ (1979a). The emphasis on opportu-

nities rather than behaviour also points towards a viewof accessibility which requires us to consider its norma-

tive dimension. In this form the concept has the ability

to address, and potentially to provide a framework for,

the �correction� of �market failure�—the extent to whichthe market (made up of regulated, part-regulated and

unregulated provision not only of transport, but also

of a wide range of activities and services) constrains

accessibility to a degree that may be viewed as unaccept-able in a societal and political context. This constraint

also makes the empirical measurement of behaviour,

such as travel, inappropriate as a means of assessing peo-

ple�s accessibility opportunities. Although empiricism re-mains significant in assessing people�s current behaviourand aspirations in relation to their accessibility desires,

these are likely to be constrained by their perception of

what is possible or reasonable to expect. Recognitionof this point moves us beyond empirical studies towards

a more conceptual view of the role of accessibility in peo-

ple�s lives. At the same time, the empirical measurementof accessibility does offer an informative background to

discussion. Quantification of accessibility levels by mea-

suring the opportunities available to defined people liv-

ing in defined locations, and their ability to reach them

by transport or other means (at a cost of time, moneyor other constraint), highlights at least the broad tapes-

try. Inevitably, however, it involves value judgements

about people�s accessibility desires, and is imbued withthe empiricist�s account of accessibility and life chances.Accessibility became an identifier of the rural experi-

ence. For example, Phillips and Williams (1984) recogni-

sed the significance of accessibility in making the case

for ‘‘a distinctive rural social geography’’ (5) (partly tocounter the dominance of urban studies, but also to

aid in demystifying the countryside). They argued that

‘‘the differences between social groups are the key to

interpreting the experiences of those living in rural

areas’’, and that ‘‘Nowhere is this more evident than

with respect to accessibility’’ (14). Banister (1983) de-

scribed the ‘‘quiet revolution’’ which—in the age of

bus deregulation—was increasing the differences be-tween the levels of accessibility experienced by rural

households with and without cars.

J. Farrington, C. Farrington / Journal of Transport Geography 13 (2005) 1–12 3

The tendency to equate accessibility entirely with

mobility, and hence with transport, was revisited in

the rural context by Cloke (1984), who referred to the

repeated confusion between transport and accessibility.

Echoing Moseley, Cloke criticised the fact that ‘‘access

deficiencies have largely been viewed as a rural transportproblem with the accompanying assumption that better

implementation of transport solutions will cause the

�problem� to disappear’’ (2, original emphasis). It isclearly impractical to provide public transport at high

enough frequency and low enough cost to eliminate

poor levels of access in rural Britain, but ‘‘access defi-

ciencies’’, or �poverty of access� as we term it, are alsoa result of a wide range of factors, including people�stime budgets, household commitments, physical capabil-

ities, and attitudes to participation. A policy view which

saw transport as the solution to access deficiencies is

gradually changing to a more holistic perspective on

accessibility which sees a wider range of approaches

than a purely mobility (transport)-based one, as exem-

plified by the Social Exclusion Unit�s Report on Trans-port and Social Exclusion (2003). This perspective posesthe need for greater policy integration within the sec-

toral paradigm in which policy is traditionally made.

This need is expanded below.

The use of different identifications of the �unit� expe-riencing accessibility, in work such as that cited above,

is worth comment. Although this issue cannot be central

in the present discussion for reasons of space, there is

clearly a range of definitions of this �accessibility unit�(see, for example, Hillman et al., 1973, 1976). It may

be the individual, the household, or �groups� definedon the basis of different parameters such as location,

personal characteristic, time of day, or stage in life cycle.

Definitions might also distinguish between urban and

rural contexts. We recognise this as an important

sub-text of the accessibility discourse, since it imports

another set of value judgements by categorising the�accessibility unit� or the �accessibility experience�: whilethis can of course be useful, and may indeed be neces-

sary, in analysis and policy-making, we need to be aware

that it describes the �experience� of �greater or lesseraccessibility� in defined frameworks which impose theirown values and constraints.

3. Accessibility and the welfare concept in human

geography

Smith proposed ‘‘. . . a restructuring of human geog-raphy around the theme of welfare’’ (1977, ix, original

emphasis). The focus of human geography should be

‘‘the quality of human life’’, a notion which concerns

‘‘efficiency in the use of resources and equity or fairnessin distribution of the benefits and penalties of life’’ (xi,

emphasis added). The last phrase articulates the welfare

concept, and can be related to the conceptualisation of

accessibility, both literally and also in terms of the nor-

mative dimension of accessibility. Here, however, we

must be aware of the trap of paternalism: there is not

just one account of what people �need�, even if it isframed in multiple and closely defined �accessibilityexperience� groups or types.Smith observed that ‘‘for many sources of need or

want satisfaction, the individual is dependent on accessi-

bility with respect to sources of supply’’ (63, original

emphasis). This he underlined: ‘‘. . . location in space isvery much relevant to the individual�s life chances’’(14). Of course, factors other than location are relevant:

as we noted above, separation is not just spatial. Pahl(1970) noted not only the ‘‘distinctive constraints [on life

chances] imposed by the distribution of jobs, schools,

health facilities, shops, recreational facilities and so

on’’, but also economic and social constraints (56-8, in

Smith, 1977; 63). These include income, education level,

and health.

Hay�s useful discussion of equity, fairness and justicein geography (1995) recognised eight key concepts whichbetween them capture the large literature in the field. At

least three of these (�formal equality of provision�, �sub-stantive equality� and �need�) are affected by experiencedaccessibility: indeed, Hay identifies ‘‘access across

space’’ as a fundamental and pervasive issue in achiev-

ing social justice in the geographical context (p. 505).

It quickly becomes obvious that there are multiple

and complex cause-effect relationships between ‘‘eco-nomic and social constraints’’ and accessibility con-

straints, and their combined effects on life chances.

Economic and social constraints such as low income

or education level may themselves be affected, or even

�caused� by poverty of access, and vice versa. In addi-tion, we take it that we should recognise the Rawlsian

�natural lottery�, in which people just seem to get differ-ent talents, and certainly different wealth and social po-sition, at birth. (Rawls, 1971). (We acknowledge that

this is a contested position (see, for example, Graham,

1988), but for the sake of argument assume its validity.)

It should also be noted that there is a philosophical

position in regard to social justice which argues that

the use of the state to redistribute primary goods leads

to an inequality of power (see, for example, Le Grand,

1991).In short, we do not wish to over-emphasise the effects

of accessibility on people�s life chances, but simply to in-sert it into a scheme of conceptualisation which relates it

to ideas of social inclusion and social justice.

4. Accessibility—normative and relative

We have suggested that there is not just one account,

either of what, in terms of accessibility, people �need�, or


what they experience. Neither can there be just one ac-

count of what accessibility people �should have�.In common with any normative concept, adopting an

accessibility approach to the human condition implies

that ‘‘value-judgements about what in general ought to

be done in society are made and (that) inferences aredrawn from these basic ethical assumptions for specific,

recommended, courses of action’’ (Culyer (1973, p. 3) in

Smith (1977, p. 14)).

We begin to approach �prescriptions� of accessibilitylevels. Thus, there might be a prescription for accessibil-

ity levels which stipulates that everyone in defined types

of rural area or specified rural places should be within x

minutes� walk of a bus service of defined frequency.More boldly, the stipulation might be expressed in terms

of a maximum cost (actually achieved for certain groups

through concessionary fare schemes). Less boldly (or

more pragmatically) the prescription might specify a

percentage of people who should be within this walking

or cost distance. For example, the Government�s Trans-port Ten Year Plan set a target ‘‘to achieve a one third

increase in the proportion of households in rural areaswithin about ten minutes walk of an hourly or better

bus service by 2010’’ (DfT, 2000, p. 86). [The then cur-

rent proportion was 36% (DfT, 2000, p. 17). Local

authorities are then expected to pick up the implications

of these targets and fund tendered services to meet them,

though their ability to do so, at least through conven-

tional bus services, has for some time been decreasing

because of budget constraints. ‘‘Budgeting pressureshave constrained some local authorities from buying in

additional services to maintain or enhance bus networks

and evening/weekend services. In some cases, support is

being withdrawn from socially necessary services, partic-

ularly in rural areas’’ (DETR, 1998, p. 113).

In such targets and measures we can see �normative�attempts to �rectify market failure� by putting into placepublic transport services which the market is not supply-ing. It is interesting to note that where a proportion of

the population of an area is specified, this may be de-

scribed as a utilitarian target, where the goal is the great-

est good of the greatest number, and where nothing is

said about those who are not within the specified pro-

portion. The targets are also rather crude ways of

achieving greater accessibility; for example, they take

no account of activities or opportunities which can beaccessed by using the bus service. In terms of transport

efficiency they are lacking because they do not in them-

selves bring about more efficient use of bus services (for

example, by greater occupancy). Notably, and under-

standably, they are expressed as absolute rather than rel-

ative targets, since to express them in terms of what, for

example, an urban dweller might experience, would

present a political hostage to fortune. It may also be re-garded as impracticable or inappropriate to consider the

prospect of relative expressions of accessibility levels at

all, but it should certainly be noted as at least possible.

Overall, despite being presented as a means of achieving

greater accessibility for rural dwellers, targets such as

those referred to above are a blunt instrument in this

context. Moreover, as a transport-based approach to

accessibility they are inherently limited in potential.For all the attempts that might be made to conceive

of a deliverable, absolute level of accessibility to people,

the accessibility levels they experience will continue to

vary. They will vary by density of population, patterns

of settlement and service provision, and income level,

among other things. They will also, in the larger scale,

vary between different societies with different values

and mores. In addition, the levels of accessibility re-garded as desirable or essential will vary between differ-

ent societies. The issue of relativism is taken up below.

5. Accessibility, social inclusion and social justice

Having outlined some of the history of the accessibil-

ity concept, and indicated briefly its relationship withrural and welfare geography, we set out a �nested� frame-work which relates social inclusion and accessibility, in

turn, to social justice. In doing this we hope to demon-

strate the value of the accessibility concept in, at least,

the conceptualisation of social inclusion and social jus-

tice, and also we believe in policy-making.

Geographical engagement with social justice goes

back for three decades or more (Smith, 2000). In ourpresent context, Moseley�s work can be regarded as anexample. Caution is needed in approaching the concept.

For example, it is not unchanging: ‘‘Justice and rational-

ity take on different meanings across space and time and

persons’’ (Harvey, 1992, p. 430). Clearly we cannot set

out all the dimensions of social justice here. We proceed

on the basis that social justice is a means of achieving

political philosophy�s �first order good�, which in its sim-plest form might be characterised, in political philosophy

terms, as �happiness�. The achievement of this state re-quires conditions such as Freedom to. . ., Freedomfrom. . ., Security, Sustenance, Fulfilment and so on.We understand social justice as requiring, inter alia,

social inclusion. We take social inclusion to represent

the participation of people in society, and to be the con-

verse of social exclusion, represented by non-participa-tion. This accords, for example, with Philo (1995):

‘‘[Social exclusion is] a situation in which certain mem-

bers of society are, or become, separated from much

that comprises the normal �round� of living and workingin that society’’. Hine & Mitchell express it as being

‘‘about non-participation across a range of life-shaping

activities, including employment, education and leisure’’

(2001). We also note that the concept of social exclusionis contested, as Philip and Shucksmith (1970, p. 463),

point out.


Participation, or lack of it, is likely to be affected by

the distribution of �benefits and burdens�, and our posi-tion is that accessibility, or lack of it, can affect this dis-

tribution. A just society is one that inter alia grants the

opportunity of participation in society to all of its mem-

bers, and a society will certainly be unjust if it does notgrant this opportunity to all of its members. Thus, a just

society is inter alia a socially inclusive one, and a society

is unjust if it is a socially exclusive one.

The opportunity to participate in society means the

ability to engage with a reasonable range of activities

within society, with �reasonable� defined in relation tothe society in question. Now this definition of social

justice, as it stands, is relativistic, in that definitionsof what it is to participate in a society clearly differ

from society to society. Relativism in this sense is

unavoidable in considering accessibility: indeed, it en-

riches the concept since it encourages recognition of

the ways that different values might be spatially and

culturally refracted into accessibility needs in different

ways in different societies. Here, we take a pragmatic

approach and use the context of a �typical Westernsociety� as the framework for the creation of accessibil-ity needs, while acknowledging fully the importance of

avoiding its translation directly into other societies.

Participation in society is therefore taken to mean the

ability to engage in a range of activities typical of Wes-

tern society. It must be emphasised that �opportunity toengage� recognises the validity of personal and collectivechoice. Individuals and groups may choose not to en-gage with a �normal� range of activities, and they havethat right.

Finally, the means of achieving social inclusion in-

clude accessibility, which together with provision of

healthcare, education, social benefits, etc., deriving from

sectoral policy, provides the opportunity for people to

engage with the normal activities of their society. Acces-

sibility can therefore be conceptualised as a �third ordergood�, included in the pre-conditions for social inclusionand hence social justice. In the following discussion we

explore some of the conceptual dimensions of social jus-

tice and attempt to relate them to social inclusion and

accessibility.

In his Treatise on Social Justice (1989), Barry argues

that social justice is ‘‘in the first instance an attribute of

institutions’’. He equates enquiry about the justice of aninstitution with enquiry into the way in which it distrib-

utes benefits and burdens, the currency of which is

‘‘rights and disabilities, privileges and disadvantages,

equal or unequal opportunities, power and dependency,

wealth and poverty’’ (p. 355). It is, we suggest, helpful to

accept this currency as a measure of the contribution of

a concept of accessibility to social justice.

Discussing alternative concepts of social justice, Bar-ry notes that ‘‘part of the point of justice is to provide a

criterion for the redress of inequalities of bargaining

power’’ (p. 362). We adopt, with some reservation, the

basic idea of ‘‘justice as impartiality’’, while recognising

that there may be asserted to be many discourses of jus-

tice and of impartiality. One way of expressing the idea

of justice as impartiality is as ‘‘what someone with no

stake in the outcome would approve of as a distributionof benefits and burdens’’ (p. 362).

The alternative, ‘‘the universal motive of self-interest’’

(p. 360), as expounded by Hobbes and others, appears at

first sight to be less appropriate in the conceptualisation

of social justice in relation to accessibility and social

inclusion. However, as Barry argues, this position does

not consist merely in saying ‘‘might makes right’’ (p.

360), but can be shaped as a more tenable concept: ‘‘Itis not the case that . . . anything that is advanta-geous for someone to do is just. Justice consists in play-

ing one�s part in mutually advantageous co-operativearrangements, where the standard of comparison is some

state of affairs defined by the absence of co-operation’’

(p. 361).

In relation to these two positions (justice as impartial-

ity and justice depending on the motive of self-interest),Barry concludes that the second is inadequate by itself,

but can be incorporated as a special case in the general

theory of justice which the first generates.

If we regard the principal agent for the achievement

of social justice to be the state, Barry�s ideas allow usto recognise, for our particular context, that the motiva-

tion of the state and its agents in striving to provide

greater accessibility as a means to achieve greater socialinclusion and social justice can be interpreted as both

impartiality and self-interest—in effect, following his

conclusion that the latter can be incorporated as part

of the former. Self-interest is served by two conse-

quences of social inclusion: the political dividend as-

sumed to come from creating the circumstances which

allow people to have more fulfilling lives, and the eco-

nomic dividend from the more productive lives enabledby inclusion.

This could be argued as being a motivation with less

potential to invest the resources and thought necessary

to achieve greater accessibility than the position of jus-

tice derived from impartiality, because it invites the rec-

ognition of a �cost-benefit� relationship between theexpenditure necessary to provide greater accessibility

and the greater participation in social and economic lifethat results. It therefore applies necessary limits to re-

source allocation. In practice, the position of impartial-

ity will do the same: the person living on top of a

mountain, distant from other people, is unlikely to find

a school, university, hospital and business centre located

on the same peak to provide access to education, health

and employment.

However, we argue that the position of impartiality isa more robust position for the conceptualisation of

accessibility as welfare, and for the enabling of greater


equality and liberty. This is articulated by Plant (1998),

in a review of the moral case for social justice. He sum-

marises a rationale for social justice in which accessibil-

ity can, we feel, be appropriately located. Firstly, we

note, with reference to the above distinction between

self-interest and impartiality, Plant�s argument that‘‘. . . as an overall response to the issue of social justicethe self-interested argument will not do the work that

is required of it’’. While it might ‘‘. . . provide a rationalefor a safety net approach to the public funding of health,

education and welfare, . . . it will not justify a more egal-itarian approach to public provision or a conception of

the welfare state which is supposed to fund social justice

either through the direct provision of services orthrough cash transfers’’ (p. 278). Plant�s concern is withfairness rather than with equalised outcomes. He equates

the concern with fairness with what Rawls (1971) and

Crosland (1956) called �democratic equality�—‘‘socialinstitutions should be concerned with a fair distribution

of resources as a way of securing a fair value for liberty’’

(Plant, p. 275). Liberty ‘‘involves ability and the associ-

ated resources and opportunities’’ and can therefore beassociated with outcomes which we propose as goals

of improved accessibility. These outcomes are not an

equal distribution of resources but a fairer one. Plant

then poses the question (central to our discussion of

accessibility, because its answers underpin the utility of

an accessibility concept in social justice): ‘‘. . . what arethese opportunities and resources which bear most di-

rectly on liberty?’’ and recognises it as ‘‘a complex issue’’with a variety of answers (pp. 275–6). For answers he

draws on Gewirth�s (1978, 1996) argument of the genericconditions of agency;

‘‘In order to be able to act at all, certain conditions mustbe in place . . . to pursue my conception of the good Imust be first of all free from the coercion of others,but equally I have to have access to those goods whichwill satisfy my basic needs as positive aspects of the gen-eric conditions of agency in order for me to act autono-mously. These needs will be focused on physicalsecurity, health and education. Without having theseconditions and skills in place as generic conditions ofaction, I shall not be able to act at all efficiently.Social justice is therefore concerned with a fair distribu-tion to meet such generic conditions of agency’’ (Plant,p. 276).

In an observation which resonates well with the

accessibility context, Plant notes that;

‘‘There is no Platonic Idea of distributive justice whichwill act as a kind of philosopher�s stone here: it is a mat-ter of political judgement, and then trying to create aconsensus around that judgement. The judgement will,however, have to be based on a recognition of a limitto resources, and this is likely to mean that we have to

try to develop some view of the range of needs whichshould be met by public expenditure. . .’’ (p. 273).

This definition of needs raises issues which must be

recognised. They are familiar to those who have worked

on the theory or practice of attempting to identify acces-

sibility needs and may be summarised as: difficulties in

defining and prioritising need; growing needs as societal

expectations increase; growing needs as those in rural

areas without access to cars have fewer transport and

other services; growing needs as populations age; possi-ble bidding up of needs by interest and professional

groups; and scarcity of resources.

All these issues, but particularly the latter two, oblige

us to take further the discussion of needs and rights. The

argument refers to the �duty� raised upon the state, or itslocal government, or other responsible agencies, of pro-

viding the means of achieving social inclusion and social

justice. Critics of �welfare rights� argue, firstly, that needsare insatiable and, secondly, that they are culturally rel-

ative: it is therefore impossible for a theory of needs to

provide a basis for: ‘‘. . . a clear duty corresponding tothe rights claimed on the basis of such supposed needs’’

(Plant, 1991, p. 276). If need yields such unclear duties,

then: ‘‘. . . institutions and authorities seeking to satisfysuch needs as rights will be forced to act in an arbitrary

and discretionary way just because a theory of needscannot provide us with a watertight account of corre-

sponding duties’’ (pp. 276–7).

On the other hand, Plant�s argument is that: ‘‘. . .there is some objectivity of basic needs as a ground for

rights, and this object content will be generated by argu-

ing not about what are the necessary conditions for pur-

suing a view of the good as seen within this, that or the

other moral code, but rather by arguing that there arecertain basic needs which will have to be fulfilled if

any conception of the good is to be pursued’’ (p. 277)

(original emphasis). He concedes that: ‘‘It has, however,

to be accepted that the exact content of these responsi-

bilities in terms of the possession of goods and services

cannot be settled in advance by reflection on the concep-

tual structure of the rights involved’’, but doubts that

this is a serious concession: the ‘‘degree of protection’’required to secure rights is a matter ‘‘for policy and pol-

itics’’, and is ‘‘a contingent matter, not a conceptual

one’’. Such contingent rights—for example, medical

needs and their associated rights—may change with

technological advances (pp. 277–8).

Significantly, we are now coupling accessibility needs

with rights, and recognising that they are at an interface

between the conceptual province and the province ofpolitics and policy. Their conceptualisation will enrich

our understanding of their nature, and allow us to place

them as important in the realisation of the human good.

We must then proceed to attempt definition and priori-

tisation of accessibility need, which are essentially no


different from the problems in applying the welfare state

to any system of need, though the measurement process

may be more elaborate.

For example, needs for access to specified facilities

and activities (possibly by specified groups) at specified

frequencies in a specified area are defined by the use ofnormative standards. The available accessibility can be

measured by reference to the origin or destination loca-

tions, or by social group, taking account of the means of

access (travel, mobile service, proxy visit, telephone,

radio/television, Internet, etc.) (Nutley, 1998). (Issues

concerning the application of such approaches are taken

up in general terms in the discussion on Accessibility

and policy, below).It is useful to make more explicit some of the issues

surrounding needs and rights, in the accessibility con-

text, by considering a standard political philosophy ap-

proach to social justice. This would recognise four

categories, or ways of describing notions thought to be

tied up with justice (see, for example, Plant, 1991;

Chap.4). These are rights and needs, and also deserts

and wants. It is useful to consider these in the contextof accessibility.

In liberal democracies, and in some other constitu-

tions to a certain extent, citizens have certain rights. Jus-

tice is thought to have been done when these rights have

been fulfilled, or, more minimally, not withheld. The

right to liberty is one of the most basic of rights, and re-

lates to the exercise of preference when people adopt

those courses of action which are freely desired and cho-sen. Among these courses of action are decisions about

places of residence and work, and ownership of personal

means of transport—usually a car. Of course, these

choices are constrained in practical terms by factors

such as life cycle stage, disability, and particularly

income.

Having made choices about where to live and work

(for example), people�s needs for engagement with asociety�s activities then arise (their choice of where tolive and work having already been tempered by their

awareness of these needs). These needs may be largely

provided by people themselves, particularly, for exam-

ple, if they are able-bodied and have the use of a car:

or their needs might be met by the state�s welfare provi-sion—which might include its local authorities� provi-sion of public transport in areas where the marketdoes not provide it, or the transport of patients to health

care, or the provision of internet access in libraries or

post offices. We must, however, allow that unmet needs

are likely to exist, even for car-owning people.

The issue of deserts then arises: do people who decide

to exercise their right to live remote from locations,

which they need to access, deserve to be provided with

the opportunity to have that access? Again, service pro-viders do make trade-offs between social cost and bene-

fit, so that even if a society believes in the existence of

the rights, needs and deserts outlined, there will be a

shortfall, measurable by the cost or difficulty experi-

enced by people in accessing activities or services. This

shortfall is likely to be greater in most rural areas than

in most urban areas, but is not confined to either. It also

has a temporal dynamic: as people age, or become ill, orare mobility-impaired, their rights to access remain the

same (or even increase, for example with age-related

benefits) but their needs certainly tend to increase. Their

deserts could theoretically be regarded as being partly or

wholly dependent on whether they decide to move resi-

dential location to reduce their accessibility needs: in

political practice, such a criterion could hardly be ap-

plied, and desert can perhaps be viewed as being politi-cally impractical as an overt criterion for the provision

of improved accessibility. However, as we note below,

it may in practice lie behind some decisions affecting

accessibility provision. In this sense it would accord with

one of Le Grand�s (1991) positions, that people whochoose to live in inaccessible places are ‘‘not self-evi-

dently entitled to equality of access’’ (Hay, 1995, p.

505). However, it should also be said that looking at des-ert as determined by choice is a particular way of look-

ing at desert, and one could conceive of different ways of

approaching this issue, based on the idea that some indi-

viduals or groups deserve more (or less) because they

have some specific qualities which make them deserving

of reward (or deprivation).

Wants are often assumed to be universally high, with

respect to accessibility, and often �unrealistic�. Yet thereis some empirical evidence that people�s wants are actu-ally quite well tuned to the realities of their situation,

especially in so far as it is determined by location: people

in more remote areas often expect lower levels of acces-

sibility, even though their needs might be objectively as

great as people in less remote areas who experience

higher levels of accessibility. In this sense, the relation-

ship between people�s expressed wants and normativelyassessed needs is variable. It might vary systematically

with remoteness, but doubtless a wide range of variables

will affect the relationship. For example, it may be theor-

ised that for those who are pinned to remote locations

by family circumstances or employment, wants will ex-

ceed needs by more than is the case for those who have

exercised choice in living in such locations. It is also

plausible to suggest that people�s expressed wants arethemselves constrained, just as behaviour is, by remote-

ness, which would be consistent with the lower expecta-

tions noted above.

The identification of a potentially variable wants-

needs relationship helps in understanding the effects of

constraints on people�s decisions which affect their

accessibility and hence their degree of social inclu-

sion—for example, in their residential location deci-sions. Many of these are far from unconstrained:

tenants in public housing (urban or rural), agricultural


workers in tied accommodation, tenant farmers, and

people on low incomes typically do not have choices

in residential location, or at least they are likely to be se-

verely constrained. Indeed, there is clear evidence in

rural accessibility research (see, for example, Storey

and Brannen, 2000; McQuaid et al., 2003; Welsh Assem-bly Government, 2004) of links between jobs, housing

and accessibility, which we term �the vicious triangle�,particularly for young people and job-seekers. Without

a job, housing in many rural areas has become increas-

ingly unaffordable. Reaching a job (or interview, or

training), may be impracticable without a car. Car own-

ership, even though it has become relatively cheaper, is

only marginally affordable for those without a job,and multiple car ownership in a household with two

or more job-seekers who need to access job or training

opportunities in different locations may be financially

impossible.

Overall, it is proposed that the conceptual discipline

required to incorporate rights, needs, deserts and wants

into accessibility concepts is of value in understanding

the dimensions and implications of an accessibility com-ponent of policy. It is also acknowledged that it might

be less appropriate for determining the provision of

accessibility in specific cases. As distinct and overlap-

ping aspects of political theory and/or practice, rights,

needs, deserts and wants can be �mapped onto� accessi-bility, but it is unlikely that they can be regarded as a

prescriptive and cumulative way of defining the accessi-

bility that ought to be provided in specific cases—by thestate, local authorities, or other agents. For example,

some accessibility is provided in the UK on the basis

of rights, in the sense of statutory requirements (though

the idea of rights as being that which is expressed in stat-

ute is contestable), such as travel to schools (with certain

limitations): there is a statutory right to education and

this is supplemented by a right to transport to provide

access. In contrast, while there is a statutory right to re-ceive healthcare, there is no complementary right to

transport to provide access. Much of the accessibility

provided in Britain is predicated on the notion of need:

the process by which local authorities invite bus opera-

tors to tender for �social� services is based on the form-ers� assessment of accessibility need in some form.Desert is, on the face of it, not explicitly taken into ac-

count, but is in effect translated into a lower level ofpublic transport provision for remote areas through

market processes, whether in the context of �value formoney� auditing in the public sector, or commercialmarkets in the private sector. Again, we suggest that this

translation of desert can be seen as a reflection, at least

in part, of its determination by choice, while acknowl-

edging that this is not a complete account of desert in

accessibility.The foregoing discussion has attempted to address

some implications of often unspecified concepts under-

lying the �accessibility approach� to society and to policy.It has essayed a distinction between rights, needs, deserts

and wants in the context of accessibility. Next we ad-

dress the possible translation of some of these ideas into

policy and delivery.

6. Accessibility and policy

Policy in Britain has had limited success in delivering

improved accessibility levels:

‘‘Historically, nobody has been responsible for ensuringthat people can get to key services and employmentsites. As a result, services have developed with insuffi-cient attention to accessibility. In addition, too oftenaccess to services has been seen as merely a transportissue rather than one that can be solved by, for example,better land-use planning, or through policies to enablesafer streets and stations’’ (Social Exclusion Unit,2003, p. 40).

We note two characteristics of the policy adjustments

made over the last decade or so in an effort to insert

accessibility into policy and to achieve its delivery.

Firstly, accessibility has been located in a variety of

policy fields or sectors, including planning, rural, trans-

port and most recently, social exclusion. A brief sum-

mary only can be included here.

An accessibility dimension has been located in plan-ning for about a decade, beginning with Planning Policy

Guidance Note PPG 13 (Department of the Environ-

ment, 1994) and evolving so that in 2001, PPG 13 refers

to the particular challenges in rural areas: it includes a

statement that facilities should be sited in the most

accessible locations, and that ‘‘This will require an

integrated approach to plan location decisions, service

delivery and transport provision together. Local circum-stances will need to be taken into account and what is

appropriate in a remote rural area may be very different

from rural areas near to large towns’’ (Department of

Transport, Local Government and the Regions, 2001,

para. 40).

In rural policy there has also been an increasing ref-

erence to actions identifiable with social inclusion and

accessibility, and a commitment to setting out standardsfor rural services including indicators of access levels

(Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,

2000; Scottish Executive, 2000). These are overall stan-

dards which can mask wide variations, and which are

of limited use in assessing or targeting specific accessibil-

ity needs.

Accessibility and its role in social inclusion has tradi-

tionally had a place in transport policy, where it has usu-ally been articulated as a goal of providing more

mobility, through, for example, the funding of more

rural bus services. The 1998 White Paper A New Deal


for Transport: Better for Everyone identified remoteness

as a potential cause of social exclusion, and endorsed

additional expenditure on rural bus services across

Great Britain (DETR). Targeted provision of rural

transport includes the Scottish Rural Community

Transport Initiative, with funding for communitytransport.

Social Inclusion is the most recent policy area in

which accessibility has been addressed, following the

Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) report on transport and

social exclusion (Scottish Executive, 2000). This recog-

nises the value of �accessibility auditing� and �accessibil-ity planning�, and allocates the latter function

principally to Local Transport Plans (In England—theScottish equivalent is the inclusion of accessibility

assessment in guidance for local authorities on the ap-

praisal of transport expenditure which is to be sup-

ported by the Scottish Executive (2003)). The SEU

shows a keen awareness of the lack of an holistic

perspective in dealing with the implications of an acces-

sibility approach to policy-making. Listing eight Gov-

ernment departments, as well as local authorities, withresponsibilities for transport provision and the location

of services, it observes that: ‘‘This fragmentation means

that no single department is in charge of improving

access to work, learning, healthcare and the other activ-

ities covered in this report’’ (Scottish Executive, 2003,

p. 41).

In addition to a transport policy responsibility, the

SEU sees land use planning as a key tool for improvingaccessibility, since: ‘‘Difficulties in accessing work places

and key services are as much due to the location of those

facilities as the quality of transport links’’ (Scottish

Executive, 2003, p. 83). Local Development Frame-

works are to be introduced, and both these and the exist-

ing development plans should: ‘‘seek to ensure that land

use change and development includes the need for good

access by all sections of the community to key services’’(Scottish Executive, 2003, p. 85). Accessibility Planning

will include the land use dimension, as well as access to

education, work, healthcare, food and safer environ-

ments (Scottish Executive, 2003, pp. 85–121).

The SEU�s enterprise in making a cross-sectoral allo-cation, integrated at local authority level, of �accessibil-ity responsibility�, and in recognising this as a keyimplication of a serious intent to improve accessibility,is to be welcomed. In assessing the potential of this

arrangement, two concerns arise. Firstly, if accessibility

improvements were not sufficiently generated by their

allocation to land use planning over the last decade,

does their prime allocation to transport planning prom-

ise more? As an example of the possible misgivings

underlying this question, local authorities do not control

the location or temporal availability of healthcare facil-ities. Secondly, if eight Government departments are

still making policy (including health policy) which im-

pacts on accessibility, can local authority accessibility

planning be powerful enough to achieve the integration

across sectors which the SEU�s analysis suggests isnecessary?

Secondly, we suggest that the difficulty in achieving

the cross-sectoral policy integration which the SEU�sanalysis, and our discussion, propose as essential for

delivering greater accessibility reflects a disparate policy

approach to social justice in general. Policy intended to

tackle social (in)justice has been based mainly on a

�structural� perspective, reflecting an understanding ofthe causes of social injustice as essentially aspatial—or

at least, only incidentally spatial. Poverty and low in-

come (Levitas, 1998; DSS, 1999; Shucksmith, 2000;Countryside Agency, 2001), lack of qualifications or

skills (Shucksmith, 2000), low levels of economic activity

(Huggins, 2001), as well as age and gender, are �struc-tural� factors normally associated with an �explanation�(and an understanding) of social exclusion and hence

of social (in)justice. Of course, these are indeed central

elements of the experience of social exclusion and social

injustice, but without a spatial context in policy there isa danger of overlooking poverty of access. Geographical

isolation has recently been more frequently and more

explicitly identified as a contributing factor (see, for

example, DEFRA, 2000; Countryside Agency, 2001).

A key benefit of an approach that recognises the

implications of accessibility as conceived here is its abil-

ity to unpack the spatial dimension of social injustice.

Put another way, an accessibility perspective can beviewed as an essential part of the project of inserting

explicitly the notion of space into the understanding of

social justice, and to the design of policy intended to ad-

dress it. The understanding that the accessibility per-

spective can contribute may be summarised as follows.

Poverty of access to activities and services can lead to

a lack of qualifications and skills that can in turn lead

to �structural�manifestations such as poverty and low in-come. Equally, poverty of access is not experienced so-

lely as a result of geographical isolation, but can be

rooted in poverty and low income, age, gender, lack of

qualifications and skills, and other �structural� character-istics of social injustice. Such characteristics are histori-

cally liable to be tackled by sectoral policies.

Adding the �accessibility dimension� proposes notonly �location� as a factor (particularly in rural areasbut also in urban areas), but also the characteristics of

individuals, groups and communities which contribute

to low levels of accessibility. These characteristics are

likely, in turn, to be related to �structural� causation.Spatial and structural causation in social injustice are

viewed as complementary, and the spatial dimension

emphasised by an accessibility dimension enriches

understanding, broadens the policy perspective and de-mands effective policy integration. The need for policy-

making to recognise this spatial–structural intimacy


in the causes of social inclusion and social injustice is

demonstrated clearly by consideration of the accessibil-

ity dimension. It is, we argue, essential if they are to be

tackled effectively.

Also essential is an integration of policy-making.

The outputs of policy departments have consequenceswith accessibility dimensions. Yet policy-making pro-

cesses, and resulting policies, are often not integrated,

in the sense that policies are not thoroughly interro-

gated or rigorously analysed in relation to each other,

and their consequences follow in unrelated streams of

outcomes. Since many (though not all) of the policies

with accessibility impacts, ostensibly at least, stem from

inter-related notions of social inclusion, social justiceand sustainability, it is possible to say that the poli-

cies themselves, and the processes that generate and

deliver them, should be inter-related (integrated). If

they are not, then, based on this view, non-integration

is an intellectual mistake with negative practical

consequences.

At present local authorities, partnerships and rural

communities themselves attempt to deal with the acces-sibility consequences of government policies, and do

achieve a degree of integration at a �lower� level. In someways this is appropriate since these agents have better

knowledge of local conditions and requirements than

central government. In so far as local authorities inter-

pret government policy, they can achieve some policy

integration at a local level; they also administer policy

such as land use planning, which has an importantlonger term bearing on accessibility levels. In England

they also have responsibility for Accessibility Auditing

and Accessibility Planning, projects currently being

articulated in work in progress by the DfT. To this ex-

tent they, and other locally-acting agencies, may be said

to have the ability to treat causes as well as symptoms.

However, there are limits (which may be statutory) on

the integrated delivery that can be achieved at the locallevel. It is worth proposing that this �bottom-up� ap-proach to accessibility deprivation would be greatly

facilitated by greater �top-down� integration. It is alsopossible to argue that the �bottom-up� approach cannotbe completely fulfilled without complementary �top-down� integration. The challenge, if this proposition befollowed, is to achieve greater integration of accessibil-

ity-related policy-making �at the top� (between centralgovernment departments) and between the top and

lower levels (local authorities, agencies, communities),

as well as at the lower levels.

We propose tests for the analysis of policy effective-

ness in realising the social justice �value added� whichis offered by the �accessibility dimension�. Incorporatingaccessibility into constructs of social justice, and into

policy-making designed to achieve greater social justice,makes explicit the need to recognise several dimensions

of social justice which may be under-valued in a para-

digm built mainly on a �structural� premise of causation.These dimensions, in other words, may �add value� to aconstruct of social justice and its application. They are:

• Space and location.

• Sustainability (social, economic and environmental).• Integration within the �structural� view of the causesof social exclusion, and its associated policy-making

(�top-down�).• Empowerment of citizens through participation (�bot-tom-up�).

It is possible to apply these dimensions to policy anal-

ysis, as tests of the degree to which policy ostensibly re-lated to social justice incorporates accessibility goals,

and thus the added potential to achieve the greater so-

cial inclusion and social justice that we have proposed.

Rather than merely exhorting the incorporation into

policy-making of the notions explored here, one of the

authors has led a project (funded by H.M. Treasury,

the Countryside Agency, the Scottish Executive and the

Welsh Assembly Government) to develop an appraisaltool for application to policies which have an accessibil-

ity impact. This will be published by the Welsh Assembly

Government (2004) and provides a methodological

framework for the realisation of these notions in the

practical field of policy-making and delivery. Other jour-

nal articles on the appraisal tool are in preparation.

7. Conclusion

Accessibility planning as a tool, and greater accessi-

bility as a goal, are potentially powerful drivers of policy

because they require that policy sectors interact: other-

wise the goal of achieving greater accessibility as a

means of greater social inclusion and social justice can-

not be fully attained. The aim of inserting the new nar-rative of accessibility into policy-making—or, even

better, to incorporate it as a basis for policy-making—

is to bring about, or develop existing, integration

between sectoral policies. The DfT�s current work to en-able accessibility auditing and planning to be incorpo-

rated in Local Transport Plans, as proposed by the

Social Exclusion Unit (2003), promises to insert the

�accessibility approach� into policy-making, if it cantruly synthesise sectoral policy interests.

There is merit in regarding accessibility as a spatial

(or, more correctly, a space–time) dimension, which

interfaces in a potentially constraining way with struc-

tural dimensions. This is as true at the level of the indi-

vidual experiencing life opportunities and constraints as

at the level of government policy-making. Accessibility

is fundamentally about the life opportunities open topeople. It is not a sufficient condition for social inclusion


and social justice, but it is a necessary one. Of course it

cannot be universally or totally achieved: ‘‘[In regard to

accessibility]. . . inequality and some level of unfairnessis inescapable, and those who seek to achieve greater

equity, fairness and justice can at best seek to minimise

such inequalities’’ (Hay, 1995, p. 505). Recognising thelocation of social exclusion in geographical space auto-

matically means recognising such constraints, but does

not reduce the social and moral value of seeking to min-

imise these inequalities (and nor, of course, did Hay

advocate otherwise).

Improving accessibility is often taken to mean

improving transport (mobility) opportunities. The thrust

of the conceptualisation suggested here, and particularlythe concept of �poverty of access�, is that transport mayindeed often be a suitable option for increasing accessi-

bility, but that it is likely to be a �fire-fighting� solutionor an afterthought if policy in other sectors is not

brought into an integrated system with accessibility as

at least one of its main foci, if not the main focus. Acces-

sibility is a strong enough idea to support the demands of

this loading. It is a sine qua non for the social justiceproject.

Policies designed to achieve this project stem, by their

very nature, from a conceptualisation of a single (if com-

plex) idea—that of social justice. It is, we suggest, neces-

sary for them to be harmonised to a greater degree than

has hitherto happened, in terms of both their formation

and their delivery. The new narrative of accessibility, if

itself soundly conceptualised, has a key role to play inachieving this.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank: Gordon Graham, Jon Shaw, Gil-

lian Bristow, Matthew Leedal, Margaret Maclean, Tim

Richardson and Derek Halden for their perceptive com-ments on earlier drafts of this paper and for the stimulus

of their ideas, and anonymous referees for their con-

structive critique.

References

Banister, D.J., 1983. Transport and Accessibility. In: Pacione, M.

(Ed.), Progress in Rural Geography. Croom Helm, London.

Barry, B., 1989. Theories of Justice, A Treatise on Social Justice, vol. 1.

Harvester-Wheatsheaf, London.

Church, A., Frost, M., 1999. Transport and Social Exclusion in

London: Exploring Current and Potential Indicators. London

Transport Planning, London.

Cloke, P.J. (Ed.), 1984. Wheels Within Wales. St David�s UniversityCollege, Lampeter.

Countryside Agency, 2001. Social Exclusion. Available from:

<www.countryside.gov.uk/activities/rural/socialexclusion_01.htm>.

Crosland, C.A.R., 1956. The Future of Socialism. Jonathan Cape,

London.

Culyer, A.J., 1973. The Economics of Social Policy. Martin Robertson,

London.

Department for Transport (DfT), 2000. The Transport Ten Year Plan

2000. Available from: <www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_trans-

strat/documents/pdf/dft_transstrat_pdf_503944.pdf>.

Department of the Environment, 1994. Planning Policy Guidance

Note 13: Transport.

Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2000.

Our Countryside—The Future. A Fair Deal for Rural England.

HMSO, London.

Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR),

1998. A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone. HMSO,

London.

Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, 2001.

Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport. The Stationery Office,

London.

DSS, 1999. Opportunity for All—Tackling Poverty and Social

Exclusion. First Annual Report. Available from: <www.dss.gov.

uk/publications/1999/poverty.main/index.htm>.

Gewirth, A., 1978. Reason and Morality. University of Chicago Press,

Chicago.

Gewirth, A., 1996. A Community of Rights. University of Chicago

Press, Chicago.

Graham, G., 1988. Contemporary Social Philosophy. Blackwell,

Oxford.

Halfacree, K.H., 1993. Locality and social representation: space,

discourse and alternative definitions of the rural. Journal of Rural

Studies 9 (1), 23–37.

Hamnett, C., 1996. Social Geography: A Reader. Arnold, London.

Harvey, D., 1969. Social justice and spatial systems. In: Peet, R. (Ed.),

Geographical Perspectives on American Poverty. Antipode Mono-

graphs in Social Geography No. 1. Worcester, MA.

Harvey, D., 1992. Social justice, postmodernism and the city. In:

Fainstein, S., Campbell, S. (Eds.), Readings in Urban Theory.

Blackwell, Cambridge.

Hay, A.M., 1995. Concepts of equity, fairness and justice in

geographical studies. Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers, New Series 20 (4), 500–508.

Hillman, M., Henderson, I., Whalley, A., 1973. Personal mobility and

transport policy. Political and Economic Planning, Broadsheet 542,

London.

Hillman, M., Henderson, I., Whalley, A., 1976. Transport realities and

planning policy. Political and Economic Planning, Broadsheet 567,

London.

Hine, J., Mitchell, F., 2001. The role of transport in social exclusion in

urban Scotland. Scottish Executive Central Research Unit,

Edinburgh.

Huggins, R., 2001. The skills economy and its development: examples

and lessons from a rural region. Policy Studies 22, 19–34.

Le Grand, J., 1991. Equity and Choice. Harper Collins, London.

Levitas, R., 1998. The Inclusive Society. Social Exclusion and New

Labour. Macmillan, London.

McQuaid, R.W., Lindsay, C., Greig, M., 2003. Wired for Work?—ICT

and Job-Seeking in Rural Areas. Joseph Rowntree Foundation,

York.

Moseley, M.J., 1979a. Accessibility: The Rural Challenge. Methuen,

London.

Moseley, M., 1979b. Rural Mobility and Accessibility. In: Shaw, J.M.

(Ed.), Rural Deprivation and Planning. Geo Abstracts, Norwich.

Nutley, S., 1998. Rural areas: the accessibility problem. In: Hoyle, B.,

Knowles, R.D. (Eds.), Modern Transport Geography, second ed.

Wiley, Chichester.

Pahl, R.E., 1970. Patterns of Urban Life. Longmans, London.

Philip, L., Shucksmith, M., 1970. Conceptualising social exclusion in

rural Britain. European Planning Studies 11 (4), 461–480.

Phillips, D., Williams, A., 1984. Rural Britain: A Social Geography.

Blackwell, Oxford.

http://www.countryside.gov.uk/activities/rural/socialexclusion_01.htm

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstrat/documents/pdf/dft_transstrat_pdf_503944.pdf

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstrat/documents/pdf/dft_transstrat_pdf_503944.pdf

http://www.dss.gov.uk/publications/1999/poverty.main/index.htm

http://www.dss.gov.uk/publications/1999/poverty.main/index.htm


Philo, C. (Ed.), 1995. Off the Map: The Social Geography of Poverty in

the UK. Child Poverty Action Group, London.

Plant, R., 1991. Modern Political Thought. Blackwell, Oxford.

Plant, R., 1998. Why Social Justice. In: Boucher, D., Kelly, P. (Eds.),

Social Justice: From Hume to Walzer. Routledge,

London.

Rawls, J., 1971. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press,

Cambridge, MA.

Scottish Executive, 2000. Rural Scotland: A New Approach. HMSO,

Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive, 2003. Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance, vol.

1.0. HMSO, Edinburgh.

Shucksmith, M., 2000. Exclusive Countryside—Social Inclusion and

Regeneration in Rural Areas. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.

Smith, D.M., 1977. Human Geography: A Welfare Approach. Arnold,

London.

Smith, D.M., 2000. Social justice revisited. Environment and Planning

A 32, 1149–1162.

Social Exclusion Unit, 2003. Making the Connections: Transport and

Social Exclusion, London.

Storey, P., Brannen, J., 2000. Young People and Transport in Rural

Areas. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Youth Work Press,

Leicester.

Thomas, D.St.J., 1976. The Country Railway. David and Charles,

Newton Abbot.

Welsh Assembly Government, 2004. Settlements, Services and Access:

The Development of Policies to Promote Accessibility in Rural

Areas in Great Britain, Cardiff.

Documents

Rural Accessibility, Social Inclusion and Social Justice