Geographies of transport III

Abstract

This third report in the series reviews recent research on the geographies of transport in Africa, Asia and Latin America to reflect on the spatialities of knowledge production and the question as to whether a post/decolonial turn is occurring in geographical scholarship on transport. A simple and heuristic classification scheme is developed and deployed to demonstrate that predominantly western worldviews, theories, concepts, methods and research practices continue to prevail in geographical scholarship on transport in the Global South. It is also shown that this hegemony is being reworked and resisted in various ways, and the report concludes with suggestions about how geographical scholarship on transport can be worlded and ultimately decolonized further.

Keywords

decolonization knowledge production mobility transfer transport worlding

I Introduction

A focus on the geographies of transport in Africa, Asia and Latin America can be justified on many grounds. Perhaps the most common is the historically unprecedented yet spatially uneven growth of all forms of motorized transport and hence the very large increases in emissions, noise, traffic injuries and casualties, and road congestion in these parts of the world in recent decades (see, for instance, Sims et al., 2014). In this progress report my motivation is more epistemic in nature. This is because critical analysis of recent geographical scholarship on transport in Africa, Asia and Latin America allows us to better understand some potentially significant developments in how geographers are examining questions of transport and mobility. At the end of the previous report I suggested that geographical scholarship on transport is expanding rapidly outside its traditional heartlands of North America and north-western Europe, and that post- or decolonial¹ studies of transport and mobility are emerging in our discipline (Schwanen, 2016; see also Kwan and Schwanen, 2016). Here I want to elaborate – and qualify – these claims on the basis of a critical examination of the spatialities of knowledge production within recent geographical scholarship on transport.

My starting point is that the history of academic research on the geographies of transport can be understood as a product of both specific processes that were predominantly (though certainly not exclusively) undertaken from the early 1900s onwards in research institutes across the USA and Western Europe, and wider circulations of worldviews, concepts, theories, methods and research practices. Sites in Africa, Asia and Latin America have long since been part of those circulations. For port geography, this has been the case since at least the 1950s, according to Ng and Ducruet’s (2014) analysis of the historical evolution of this field. Nonetheless, it is equally clear that, as in so many other parts of the discipline, there is a historical hegemony of predominantly western worldviews, concepts, theories, methods and research practices. My question in this report is to what extent and in what ways this hegemony is contested, reworked and overcome in recent (since 2014) publications in the Anglophone literature on the geographies of transport.²

Western in this context can be understood as developed in research institutes that are located in north-western Europe, USA/Canada and Australia/New Zealand and firmly rooted in philosophies, theories, methods and research practices originating from these regions. However, as post-colonial geographers contend (Sidaway et al., 2014), neither those regions nor Africa, Asia and Latin America nor their cities, countries and other spatial formations should be understood as clearly defined and bounded, relatively homogeneous territories. They are better understood as ‘contemporaneous field[s] of motion’ (Lin and Yeoh, 2016: 1005) with specific histories, long since internally differentiated and enmeshed in other constellations of the movement of people, material goods, capital, ideas, knowledge and so forth. Indeed, spatial formations like Africa, Asia and Latin America and the places within them must be understood relationally as hybrids that are entwined with each other, the West and a mobile world.

To explore the possibly changing hegemony of western ideas, concepts, theories, methods and research practices, I draw a distinction between transfer, mobility and worlding. All three labels are based on recent work in Urban Geography, which is going through a period of decolonization of epistemology, theory and method (Robinson, 2006, 2016; Roy, 2009, 2016; Derickson, 2015; Peake, 2016). Authors like Eugene McCann, Kevin Ward and Jamie Peck have argued that policies tend not to travel unscathed from one site (city) to another as the policy transfer literature in political science has often assumed (McCann, 2011; Peck, 2011; McCann and Ward, 2012). Rather, policies mutate along the way when moving from A to B because they first need to be deterritorialized, or loosened from place-specific embeddings, and then reterritorialized – made to fit locally specific circumstances – elsewhere. Building on this line of argument, I will use transfer to denote a situation in which western worldviews, concepts, theories, methods and research practices are deployed in more or less unchanged form to make sense of the geographical aspects of transport in Africa, Asia or Latin America. Mobility identifies situations in which selected significant elements of originally western worldviews, theories, concepts, methods or research practices have been changed or adapted to fit local circumstances. It thus suggests greater sensitivity to particularity and geography but does not ‘“dislocat[e]” the EuroAmerican centre of theoretical production’ (Roy, 2009: 820). The underlying core-periphery structures, which have characterized most transport geography and according to which theory is formulated in the Global North and travels from there to other places on the earth’s surface, remain largely intact. The category of worlding (Ong and Roy, 2011; McCann et al., 2013) challenges such structures. It is used here to identify research in which transport in cities, countries and other spatial formations in Africa, Asia and Latin America triggers new and inevitably site-specific worldviews, theories, concepts, methods or research practices that can somehow speak back to western versions. The resulting theories, concepts, methods and research practices therefore help to provincialize (Chakrabarty, 2000) geographical scholarship on transport, much as Sheppard and colleagues (2013) have advocated for urban studies.

I emphasize that the distinctions between transfer, mobility and worlding need to be seen as heuristic. The transitions between them are gradual and a given piece of research can be classified in different ways, depending in part on the assessor’s situatedness and perspective, but especially because studies can reproduce (neo-)colonial relationships in knowledge production in some ways but not in others. Nonetheless, as shown below, the simple classification scheme brings out how in recent geographical scholarship on transport in Africa, Asia and Latin America predominantly western worldviews, theories, concepts, methods and research practices continue to prevail but are also being reworked and resisted in various ways.

II Transfer

It would be mistaken to assume that the history of transport geography is one of mere transfer (see, for instance, Rimmer, 1982; Pirie, 1982; Hoyle, 1997). Still, transfer has been common and remains very widespread across all forms of geographical research on transport. If anything, it seems to have become more rather than less popular in recent years. It certainly can be found across all subject areas – urban commuting and everyday trip-making, vehicle ownership, aviation, high-speed rail (HSR), port and maritime geography, etc. – and is widespread as far as theories, concepts and methods are concerned.

Transfer of predominantly western theories and concepts is exemplified by recent studies of increasing vehicle ownership in China (Yang et al., 2017), India (Choudhary and Vasudevan, 2017) and the Global South more generally (Law et al., 2015), which all seek to explain spatial variations in ownership levels in terms of differences in income, urbanization levels and transport network characteristics. These studies thus replicate and enhance the credibility – and normative power – of explanations of changes in vehicle ownership that were developed in the 1950s–’70s in North America and Europe and from there exported to other parts of the world. Li and colleagues’ (2014) study of the governance of inland waterway transport on the Yangtze River offers another illustration. These authors carefully construct a theoretical model based on mostly western theoretical ideas from economic geography, institutional economics and political science and then apply this to empirical materials from the Yangtze River as a case study.

There are many recent cases of method transfer, including Wachowicz and Liu’s (2016) approach to study collective mobility patterns from Twitter data in Dakar, Senegal, and Zheng and Yang’s (2016) development of a hub-and-spoke model for container shipping on the Yangtze River. Particularly popular has been the transfer of accessibility metrics originally developed in Europe (e.g. Gutiérrez, 2001) to analyse the spatial-economic effects of HSR in the Chinese context (Cao et al., 2013; Jiao et al., 2014; Song and Yang, 2016; Wang et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2016). However, with the evolution of this literature, individual studies have been speaking to each other and subtly advancing each other’s methods, so that something akin to a Chinese methodological approach to HSR accessibility research is coming into existence. Transfer can over time morph into mobility.

The unabated popularity of transfer has multiple causes. Many transport geographers continue to subscribe to the idea that theories and methods are, and should be, place-independent instead of site-specific, tending towards the universal rather than tailored to local particularities. Whilst certainly not unique to the history of European thought or science, this epistemological commitment helps legitimize the transfer of theories, methods and practices in the eyes of researchers trained in research institutes in Europe, North America and Australia/New Zealand. The same seems to be true for researchers working in the borderlands of transport geography and other disciplines – most notably engineering – where exposure to feminist, post-colonial and decolonial perspectives on knowledge production is minimal. For geographers originating and working from Africa, Asia and Latin America, repeating predominantly western worldviews, theories, concepts and research practices with minimal change may have extra appeal because it can act as a marker of quality, prestige and authority in interactions with peers and non-academic stakeholders, and increase the odds of getting published in the globally recognized leading journals on transport and geography.

III Mobility

Transfer can be perfectly sensible in specific circumstances, but there are significant risks. Perhaps the biggest is that key elements of the transport system or practices are rendered invisible or insufficiently captured and expressed. This is why mobility as previously defined is, and long since has been, common in geographical scholarship on transport. However, mobility comes in many versions, some of which differ only in a few minor aspects from what I have labelled transfer.

Modest forms of mobility can be identified in recent research on home-to-work travel (Zhou et al., 2014; Feng et al., 2015; Li and Liu, 2016; Motte et al., 2016; Suárez et al., 2016; Zhao, 2015). These remain within an epistemological and methodological framework revolving around the separation of subject from object, traditional notions of objectivity and econometric analysis of quantitative survey data. In a number of cases commuting is also seen as a cost to be minimized or at least overcome (Zhou et al., 2014; Li and Liu, 2016; Suárez et al., 2016; Zhao, 2015) and space is typically rendered metric, fixed and morphological in line with the western tradition of classic quantitative geography, urban planning and urban economics. Change and adaptation occur primarily in the set of variables expected to explain variations in commuting and in the interpretation and explanation of results from econometric analysis. Thus Zhou et al. (2014) follow previous studies (e.g. Wang and Chai, 2009) in suggesting that the legacy of danwei is one reason why there is greater quantitative balance of jobs and housing in neighbourhoods in Xi’an than in western cities.³ Zhao (2015) refers to both the danwei legacy and the combination of rapid gentrification of Beijing’s central zone and accompanying sprawl in its outer areas as shaping low-income workers’ commuting burden in China’s capital. Meanwhile, Li and Liu’s (2016) analysis show that hukou is an important institution shaping the relationship between the distribution of housing vis-à-vis employment and commuting in Guangzhou.⁴

Studies focused on Rio de Janeiro (Motte et al., 2016), Mexico City (Suárez et al., 2016) and Nanjing (Feng et al., 2015) go beyond offering contextualized explanation. The former two redefine the classification of employment as commonly deployed in western commuting research by making a – still rough – distinction between formal and informal jobs in their analysis. This allows them to show how conclusions about the effects on commuting patterns of the distribution of housing relative to employment from US or European cities cannot be readily transposed onto southern cities with a large informal sector. Feng et al. (2015: 761) extend prevailing categorizations of the household in their study in Nanjing because of the ‘frequent co-habitation with elderly residents’. They formulate and find evidence in support of the Elderly Co-residence Hypothesis, which holds that co-residing grandparents or elderly family members take over some of the household responsibilities in their children’s households which have widely been shown to constrain mothers’ everyday travel and employment careers (Hanson and Johnston, 1985; Turner and Niemeier, 1997), and thereby reduce gender inequalities in everyday travel.

Emphasis on contextualized explanation within an epistemological and methodological framework resonating with conventions in western transport geography and transport studies more generally also prevails in recent geographical scholarship on aviation (Njoya, 2016; Oliveira et al., 2016), ports and maritime transport (Wilmsmeier et al., 2014; Li et al., 2016; Mohamed-Chérif and Ducruet, 2016; Wilmsmeier and Monios, 2016) and logistics (Wang and Xiao, 2015). In these fields there is also a tendency to develop theoretical or econometric models that rely on originally western concepts, categories and techniques and are presumed to have more universal application in order to explain site-specific events and processes, such as the ‘big blackout’ of massive flight disruptions in 2006–7 in Brazil following strong concentration of airline activity on the country’s two busiest domestic airports in São Paulo and Brasília (Oliveira et al., 2016). Another example is Wang and Xiao’s (2015) theorization of the co-evolution of e-retailing and the parcel express industry in China. Studies such as these unintentionally reproduce the dominance of western concepts, categories and/or research practices because, as Chakrabarty (2000: 39) has observed, their presumed universal applicability makes them appear very useful to understanding societies in non-western cultures in spite of their inevitable rootedness in mostly US and Western-European experiences and concerns.

Something similar is happening in research on what are often touted as African, Latin-American and (South-)Asian transport phenomena – Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) (Casas and Delmelle, 2014; Vermeiren et al., 2015) and the very poor access to employment, healthcare and other services experienced by low income households and particularly poor women from peripheral locations in rural areas (Naybor et al., 2016; Seedhouse et al., 2016) or rapidly expanding cities (Hernandez and Rossel, 2015; Alberts et al., 2016; Maia et al., 2016; Oviedo Hernandez and Titheridge, 2016). Much more than mere transfer is going on in these studies, as exemplified by the ways in which thinking on livelihoods is deployed (Alberts et al., 2016; Naybor et al., 2016), attention is directed towards informal modes of transport and motorbikes (Vermeiren et al., 2015; Naybor et al., 2016; Maia et al., 2016) and care is taken not to impose researchers’ ‘own parameters of distance and place on the participants, but rather to let those evolve from their own perceptions’ (Maia et al., 2016: 137). Nonetheless, many of the concepts and ideas used to frame the issues at stake remain undeniably western. The framework of transport-related social exclusion, originally developed for the UK context, is deployed rather easily (Casas and Delmelle, 2014; Oviedo Hernandez and Titheridge, 2016); Hägerstrand’s time geography is relied upon (Hernandez and Rossel, 2015; Naybor et al., 2016); and travel time is unreflexively framed as a cost (Hernandez and Rossel, 2015), a waste (Seedhouse et al., 2016) or something to be sped up (Vermeiren et al., 2016), especially if economic development is to be stimulated (Seedhouse et al., 2016).

I do not deny the usefulness of these concepts and ideas, nor do I seek to strongly territorialize certain concepts and ideas. My point is rather that those concepts and ideas constrain as much as enable our understanding because they constitute transport in specific, surreptitiously western ways and may conceal and obscure its other yet unknown qualities and geographies. Mobility as defined in this report is about the entanglement of sameness and difference, continuity and change. However, the balance has perhaps been tilted too strongly towards the former term in each pair in recent research on BRT and access from peripheral locations.

IV Worlding

A case for intervention in the scholarly practices of geographers interested in transport in Africa, Asia and Latin America can be made and is not without precedent. Informed by decades of research experience in various parts of rural Africa, Porter (2016: 442) has argued that ‘[t]he mobility conceptualizations developed within late capitalist urban societies have limited application in rural Africa because extreme precarity interposes different constraints’. Esson and colleagues (2016: 187) offer a similar conclusion:

conceptual frameworks such as the new mobility paradigm derived entirely based on conditions in the global North are inherently limited, despite their implicit claims of global relevance. Indigenous, colonial and postcolonial urban legacies of modernist urban planning, including land-use zoning and residential segregation, have long embedded conditions that necessitate high levels of flexible mobility for the conduct of even precarious informal livelihoods.

Recognizing the need to decolonize mobility theory (Cresswell, 2016: 1085) and transport geography is one thing, actually doing so is another. Key to this, I suggest, will be to selectively delink and disengage from the global circulations of worldviews, theories, concepts, methods and research practices as hitherto configured and explored above. This will help geographers interested in transport to move beyond the USA and/or Western Europe as ‘the silent referent’ (Chakrabarty, 2000: 28), thereby circumventing and reworking understandings of transport in the spatial formations of Africa, Asia and Latin America in terms of lack, absence or incompleteness relative to a (western) other (Chakrabarty, 2000) and as directly derived from supposedly universal theories, concepts, categories, methods and practices.

Geographers working on transport in Africa and, to a lesser degree, Latin America have begun to conduct research along these lines; various modalities can be identified. In an early contribution Pirie (2009: 32–3) has turned the popular idea that mobility levels in Africa lag behind those on other continents on its head, arguing that ‘Africans [should] turn motorised mobility deficits into a virtue’ and see themselves as frontrunners in ‘aligning mobility…with social and environmental values’. Others look from below by seeing mobility as part of livelihoods and focusing on site-specific (yet relationally constituted) forms of transport. For instance, Esson et al. (2016) affirm the creative ways in which small-scale entrepreneurs and itinerant workers in Accra, Ghana, make the various transport systems work for them and so negotiate the postcolonial city as a messy, moving and morphing whole that is replete with contradiction. Diaz Olvera et al. (2016) offer an in-depth, non-judgemental study of what it means to be a motorcycle taxi driver in Lomé, Togo. They show how this livelihood allows low-educated young men to generate a decent but in principle temporary income; the social stigma, health risk and precarity of employment mean that many intend to move into other occupations if the opportunity arises. Their analysis leads the authors to conclude that policies seeking to marginalize or even erase motorcycle taxis in the name of modernity are undesirable in a city where jobs are scarce because of the loss of livelihoods among drivers and capabilities to move around the city. Finally, a number of studies have considered how certain ways of providing and regulating transport services – in particular BRT (Wood, 2014, 2015; Paget-Seekins, 2015; Agyeman, 2015) and formalization of loosely regulated services (Paget-Seekins et al., 2015; Oteng-Ababio and Agyeman, 2015) – circulate between cities and what site-specific effects they generate. These studies highlight the importance of considering provision and regulation in the South as relational political processes of learning on their own terms, ‘[a]s experiences from countries [or cities] in the North are only partially applicable’ (Paget-Seekins et al., 2015: 427). And yet, sometimes these studies slip into the stubborn habit of representing loosely regulated minibuses and motor taxis as second-best solutions operated by reckless, ill-disciplined drivers – framings of lack and absence compared to a silent referent are never far away.

More broadly, the project of worlding geographical scholarship on transport can be advanced, particularly in terms of theory and method. Selective disengagement from the global circulations of knowledge production regarding the geographies of transport will be aided by what Jazeel (2014: 98) calls ‘working in the domain of the uncertain’ so that we ‘learn differences precisely by unlearning the kind of conceptual language [and methodological practice] that we already know as social scientists’. This does not mean rejecting out-of-hand the worldviews, theories, concepts, methods and research practices with origins that lie predominantly in western research institutes; through decades of research-policy interface, these have had real, material and socio-spatially uneven consequences for the geographies of transport across the world.

It rather implies opening up those worldviews, theories, concepts, methods and research practices by tracing their genealogies and the myriad effects of their circulation and invocation. It also means humility and inventiveness. There is a need to explore how the conventions of geographical research on transport, bestowed upon the field by its historical development, restrict the kinds of insights it is able to generate, and new theories, concepts, methods and research practices should be developed. The latter should not elevate parochial norms – Chinese HSR, the livelihoods afforded by motor taxis in sub-Saharan Africa, etc. – to new but arbitrary global hegemonies. Moreover, aspirations to develop global understandings of transport and its geographies⁵ are best restrained because, as post- and decolonial thinkers (Mignolo, 2011; Sidaway et al., 2014) argue, the very notion of the global is already implicated in colonial-like power relations which assume the same system of exchange to be in place everywhere. It is this system that makes possible the worldwide circulation of supposedly universal but ultimately site-specific worldviews, theories, concepts, methods and research practices regarding transport. This is, of course, not to suggest that worldviews, theories, concepts, methods and research practices can no longer travel but to say that they need to move and be moved differently, as exemplified by recent experimentation with comparative methods across the wider discipline (e.g. Hart, 2016; Robinson, 2016). Finally, a key challenge will be to develop concepts and methods that can articulate alterity in the geographies of transport – radical site-specific differences that are more than disparities/similarities vis-à-vis a referent but still connected to interactions and processes involving numerous sites across the earth’s surface.

Worlded geographical scholarship on transport cannot strive to become the new orthodoxy and is better framed as a modality that will open up new research trajectories. Developments elsewhere in the discipline, including Urban Geography, suggest that the risks of reconfiguring the spatialities of knowledge production in transport geography are well worth taking.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The work on this report was partly funded by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council (Grant ES/NO11538/1).

Notes

References

Agyemang

(2015) The bus rapid transit system in the Greater Accra Metropolitan Area, Ghana: Looking back to look forward. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift 69: 28–37.

Alberts

Pfeffer

Baud

(2016) Rebuilding women’s livelihoods strategies at the city fringe: Agency, spatial practices, and access to transportation from Semmencherry, Chennai. Journal of Transport Geography 55: 142–151.

Cao

Liu

Wang

(2013) Accessibility impacts of China’s high-speed rail network. Journal of Transport Geography 28: 12–21.

Casas

Delmelle

(2014) Identifying dimensions of exclusion from a BRT system in a developing country: A content analysis approach. Journal of Transport Geography 39: 228–237.

Chakrabarty

(2000) Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Chaudhary

Vasudevan

(2017) Study of vehicle ownership for urban and rural households in India. Journal of Transport Geography 58: 52–58.

Cresswell

(2016) Afterword – Asian mobilities/Asian frictions. Environment and Planning A 48: 1082–1086.

Derickson

(2015) Urban geography I: Locating urban theory in the ‘urban age’. Progress in Human Geography 39: 647–657.

Diaz Olvera

Guézéré

Plat

Pochet

(2016) Earning a living, but at what price? Being a motorcycle taxi driver in a sub-Saharan African city. Journal of Transport Geography 55: 165–174.

10.

Esson

Gough

Simon

Amankwaa

Ninot

Yankson

(2016) Livelihoods in motion: linking transport, mobility and income-generating activities. Journal of Transport Geography 55: 182–188.

11.

Feng

Dijst

Wissink

Prillwitz

(2015) Elderly co-residence and the household responsibilities hypothesis. Urban Geography 36: 767–776.

12.

Gutiérrez

(2001) Location, economic potential and daily accessibility: An analysis of the accessibility impact of the high-speed line Madrid–Barcelona–French border. Journal of Transport Geography 9: 229–242.

13.

Hanson

Johnston

(1985) Gender differences in work-trip length: Explanations and implications. Urban Geography 6: 193–219.

14.

Hart

(2016) Relational comparison revisited: Marxist postcolonial geographies in practice. Progress in Human Geography. DOI: 10.1177/0309132516681388.

15.

Hernandez

Rossel

(2015) Inequality and access to social services in Latin America: Space-time constraints of child health checkups and prenatal care in Montevideo. Journal of Transport Geography 44: 24–32.

16.

Hoyle

(1997) Ports, Port Cities and Coastal Zones: Development, Interdependence and competition in East Africa. Brussels: Royal Academy for Overseas Sciences.

17.

Jazeel

(2014) Subaltern geographies: Geographical knowledges and postcolonial strategy. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 35: 88–103.

18.

Jiao

Wang

Jin

Dunford

(2014) Impacts on accessibility of China’s present and future HSR network. Journal of Transport Geography 40: 123–132.

19.

Kwan

Schwanen

(2016) Geographies of mobility. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 106: 243–256.

20.

Law

Hamid

Goh

(2015) The motorcycle to passenger car ownership ratio and economic growth: A cross-country analysis. Journal of Transport Geography 46: 122–128.

21.

Notteboom

Jacobs

(2014) China in transition: Institutional change at work in inland waterway transport on the Yangtze River. Journal of Transport Geography 40: 17–28.

22.

Liu

(2016) The jobs-housing relationship and commuting in Guangzhou, China: Hukou and dual structure. Journal of Transport Geography 54: 286–294.

23.

Lin

Yeoh

BSA

(2016) Moving in relations to Asia: The politics and practices of mobility. Environment and Planning A 48: 1004–1011.

24.

Maia

Lucas

Marinho

Santos

De Lima

(2016) Access to the Brazilian City – from the perspectives of low-income residents in Recife. Journal of Transport Geography 55: 132–141.

25.

McCann

(2011) Urban policy mobilities and global circuits of knowledge: Toward a research agenda. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101: 107–130.

26.

McCann

Ward

(2012) Policy assemblages, mobilities and mutations: Toward a multidisciplinary conversation. Political Studies Review 10: 325–332.

27.

McCann

Roy

Ward

(2013) Assembling/worlding cities. Urban Geography 34: 581–589.

28.

Mignolo

(2011) The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

29.

Mohamed-Chérif

Ducruet

(2016) Regional integration and maritime connectivity across the Maghreb seaport system. Journal of Transport Geography 51: 280–293.

30.

Motte

Aguilera

Bonin

Nassi

(2016) Commuting patterns in the metropolitan region of Rio de Janeiro. What differences between formal and informal jobs? Journal of Transport Geography 54: 59–69.

31.

Naybor

Poon

JPH

Casas

(2016) Mobility disadvantage and livelihood opportunities of marginalized widowed women in rural Uganda. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 106: 404–412.

32.

AKY

Ducruet

(2014) The changing tides of port geography (1950–2012). Progress in Human Geography 38: 785–823.

33.

Njoya

(2016) Africa’s single aviation market: The progress so far. Journal of Transport Geography 50: 4–11.

34.

Oliveira

AVM

Lohmann

Costa

(2016) Network concentration and airport congestions in a post de-regulation context: A case study of Brazil 2000–2010. Journal of Transport Geography 50: 33–44.

35.

Ong

Roy

(eds) (2011) Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of Being Global. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

36.

Oteng-Ababio

Agyemang

(2015) The okada war in urban Ghana: A polemic issue or policy mismatch? Africa Studies Quarterly 15: 25–44.

37.

Oviedo Hernandez

Titheridge

(2016) Mobilities of the periphery: Informality, access and social exclusion in the urban fringe in Colombia. Journal of Transport Geography 55: 152–164.

38.

Paget-Seekins

(2015) Bus rapid transit as a neoliberal contradiction. Journal of Transport Geography 48: 115–120.

39.

Paget-Seekins

Flores Dewey

Muñoz

(2015) Examining regulatory reform for bus operations in Latin America. Urban Geography 36: 424–438.

40.

Peake

(2016) On feminism and feminist allies in knowledge production in urban geography. Urban Geography 37: 830–838.

41.

Peck

(2011) Geographies of policy: From transfer-diffusion to mobility-mutation. Progress in Human Geography 35: 773–797.

42.

Pirie

(1982) The decivilizing rails: Railways and underdevelopment in Southern Africa. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Social Geografie 73: 221–228.

43.

Pirie

(2009) Virtuous mobility: Moralising vs measuring geographical mobility in Africa. Afrika Focus 22: 21–35.

44.

Porter

(2016) Mobilities in rural Africa: New connections, new challenges. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 106: 434–441.

45.

Rimmer

(1982) Theories and techniques in Third World settings: Trishaw pedallers and towkays in Georgetown, Malaysia. The Australian Geographer 15: 147–159.

46.

Rimmer

(1984) The role of paratransit in Southeast Asia cities. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 5: 45–62.

47.

Robinson

(2006) Ordinary Cities: Between Modernity and Development. London: Routledge.

48.

Robinson

(2016) Thinking cities through elsewhere: Comparative tactics for a more global urban studies. Progress in Human Geography 40: 3–29.

49.

Roy

(2009) The 21st-century metropolis: New geographies of theory. Regional Studies 43: 819–830.

50.

Roy

(2016) Who’s afraid of postcolonial theory? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 40: 200–209.

51.

Schwanen

(2016) Geographies of transport II: Reconciling the general and the particular. Progress in Human Geography. DOI: 10.1177/0309132516628259.

52.

Seedhouse

Johnson

Newbery

(2016) Potholes and pitfalls: The impact of rural transport on female entrepreneurs in Nigeria. Journal of Transport Geography 54: 140–147.

53.

Sheppard

Leitner

Maringanti

(2013) Urban pulse – provincialising global urbanism: A manifesto. Urban Geography 34: 893–890.

54.

Sidaway

Woon

Jacobs

(2014) Planetary postcolonialism. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 35: 4–21.

55.

Sims

Schaeffer

Creutzig

Cruz-Núñez

D’Agosto

Dimitriu

Figueroa Meza

Fulton

Kobayashi

Lah

McKinnon

Newman

Ouyang

Schauer

Sperling

Tiwari

(2014) Transport. In: Edenhofer

(ed.) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 599–670.

56.

Song

Yang

(2016) Measuring the spatiotemporal variation and evolution of transport networks of China’s megaregions. Journal of Geographical Sciences 26: 1497–1516.

57.

Suárez

Murata

Campos

(2016) Why do the poor travel less? Urban structure, commuting and economic informality in Mexico City. Urban Studies 53: 2548–2566.

58.

Turner

Niemeier

(1997) Travel to work and household responsibility: New evidence. Transportation 24: 397–419.

59.

Vermeiren

Verachtert

Kasaija

Loopmans

Poesen

(2015) Who could benefit from a bus rapid transit system in cities from developing countries? A case study from Kampala, Uganda. Journal of Transport Geography 47: 13–22.

60.

Wachowicz

Liu

(2016) Finding spatial outliers in collective mobility patterns coupled with social ties. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 30: 1806–1831.

61.

Wang

Chai

(2009) The jobs-housing relationship and commuting in Beijing, China: The legacy of Danwei . Journal of Transport Geography 17: 30–38.

62.

Wang

Xiao

(2015) Co-evolution between etailing and parcel express industry and its geographical imprints: the case of China. Journal of Transport Geography 46: 20–34.

63.

Wang

Liu

Sun

Liu

(2016) Accessibility impacts of the present and future high-speed rail network: A case study of Jiangsu Province, China. Journal of Transport Geography 54: 161–172.

64.

Wilmsmeier

Monios

(2016) Institutional structure and agency in the governance of spatial diversification of port system evolution in Latin America. Journal of Transport Geography 51: 294–307.

65.

Wilmsmeier

Monios

Pérez-Salas

(2014) Port system evolution – the case of Latin America and the Caribbean. Journal of Transport Geography 39: 208–221.

66.

Wood

(2014) Moving policy: Global and local characters circulating bus rapid transit through South African cities. Urban Geography 35: 1238–1254.

67.

Wood

(2015) The politics of policy circulation: Unpacking the relationship between South African and South American cities in the adoption of Bus Rapid Transit. Antipode 47: 1062–1079.

68.

Liang

(2016) Evaluating the impact of China’s rail network expansions on local accessibility: A market potential approach. Sustainability 8: 512.

69.

Yang

Jia

Liu

Yin

(2017) Car ownership and urban development in Chinese cities: A panel data analysis. Journal of Transport Geography 58: 127–134.

70.

Zhao

(2015) The determinants of the commuting burden of low-income workers: Evidence from Beijing. Environment and Planning A 47: 1736–1755.

71.

Zheng

Yang

(2016) Hub-and-spoke network design for container shipping along the Yangtze River. Journal of Transport Geography 55: 51–57.

72.

Zhou

Chun

Xiaojian

Peng

(2014) Has the legacy of Danwei persisted in transformations? The job-housing balance and commuting efficiency in Xi’an. Journal of Transport Geography 40: 64–76.