Access to quality basic education is crucial for social equity. In Global South cities, where socioeconomic, racial, and infrastructural inequalities are extensive and cumulative, a multidimensional understanding of school access is especially necessary. Traditional accessibility analyses often overlook critical dimensions such as school quality and heterogeneous demand. This paper introduces an innovative framework to examine how these inequalities shape public elementary school access, integrating school capacity, differentiated demand, and service quality. Leveraging a spatial optimization algorithm combined with explainable AI (Shapley values), the analysis presented in this article reveals income as the most decisive factor in school choice in São Paulo and Belo Horizonte, in Brazil. Racial disparities and inadequate pedestrian infrastructure (sidewalk coverage) significantly amplify access barriers. Considering school quality reveals more pronounced inequalities and a funneling effect that disproportionately benefits higher-income students. This study offers a diagnosis of spatial injustice, underscoring the urgent need for integrated education and urban mobility policies to effectively promote equity in education.
AbulibdehAAl-AliMAl-QuraishiD, et al. (2024) Assessing the spatial distribution and accessibility of public and private schools in Qatar: a GIS-based analysis. Geomatica76(2): 100015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomat.2024.100015
2.
Agência de Desenvolvimento da Região Metropolitana de Belo Horizonte (2012) Pesquisa Origem e Destino 2012. Governo de Minas Gerais. Available at: https://www.agenciarmbh.mg.gov.br/pesquisa-od/.
3.
AudibertMHeYMathonnatJ (2020) Dealing with demand heterogeneity on health care provider choice – the case of rural China. Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research7(2): 258–267. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.501.2020.72.258.267
4.
AwadelkarimASeshadriAAshlagiI, et al. (2023) Rank-heterogeneous preference models for school choice. Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM Digital Library, 47–56.
BittencourtTAGiannottiM (2023) Evaluating the accessibility and availability of public services to reduce inequalities in everyday mobility. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice177(September): 103833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103833
ChenXJiaP (2019) A comparative analysis of accessibility measures by the two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) method. International Journal of Geographical Information Science33(9): 1739–1758. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2019.1591415
12.
DonyCCDelmelleEMDelmelleEC (2015) Re-conceptualizing accessibility to parks in multi-modal cities: a Variable-width floating catchment area (VFCA) method. Landscape and Urban Planning143: 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.06.011
13.
DuQZhouYHuangY, et al. (2022) Spatiotemporal exploration of the non-linear impacts of accessibility on metro ridership. Journal of Transport Geography102(April): 103380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103380
14.
EdwardsDS (2021) Just out of reach? Unrestrained supply, constrained demand, and access to effective schools in and around Detroit. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis43(3): 391–418. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373721996738
FastI (2020) Unequal traveling: how school district and family characteristics shape the duration of students’ commute to school. Travel Behaviour and Society20(April 2019): 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.03.008
17.
FlanneryDO’DonoghueC (2013) The demand for higher education: a static structural approach accounting for individual heterogeneity and nesting patterns. Economics of Education Review34: 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.12.001
18.
GerusoM (2017) Demand heterogeneity in insurance markets: implications for equity and efficiency. Quantitative Economics8(3): 929–975. https://doi.org/10.3982/qe794
19.
GneccoGHadasYSanguinetiM (2020) Public transport transfers assessment via transferable utility games and shapley value approximation. Transportmetrica: Transportation Science9935: 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/23249935.2020.1799112
20.
GoudsmitINelDLinS (2023) Evaluating the quality of life in Hong Kong’s new towns in relation to accessibility and the distribution of community and cultural facilities: a case study of Tung Chung. Journal of Urban Management12(3): 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2023.06.002
21.
HatamiFRahmanMMNikparvarB, et al. (2023) Non-linear associations between the urban built environment and commuting modal split: a random forest approach and SHAP evaluation. IEEE Access11(February): 12648–12661. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3241627
22.
KelobonyeKZhouHMcCarneyG, et al. (2020) Measuring the accessibility and spatial equity of urban services under competition using the cumulative opportunities measure. Journal of Transport Geography85(January): 102706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102706
23.
KenyonS (2011) Transport and social exclusion: access to higher education in the UK policy context. Journal of Transport Geography19(4): 763–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.09.005
24.
KoushikAManojMNezamuddinN (2024) SHapley additive exPlanations for explaining artificial neural network based mode choice models. Transportation in Developing Economies10(1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40890-024-00200-6
25.
LuoWWangF (2003) Measures of spatial accessibility to health care in a GIS environment: synthesis and a case study in the Chicago region. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design30(6): 865–884. https://doi.org/10.1068/b29120
26.
LyuSChenXAdhinugrahaKM, et al. (2025) Bridging the education gap: a comprehensive analysis of travel distance and education quality based spatial accessibility of early childhood education in metropolitan Melbourne. Cities156(June 2024): 105530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105530
27.
MajumderSRoySBoseA, et al. (2023) Understanding regional disparities in healthcare quality and accessibility in West Bengal, India: a multivariate analysis. Regional Science Policy & Practice15(5): 1086–1113. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12607
28.
MarquesJLWolfJFeitosaF (2021) Accessibility to primary schools in Portugal: a case of spatial inequity?Regional Science Policy & Practice13(3): 693–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12303
29.
MassobrioRNesmachnowSGómezE, et al. (2021) Public transportation and accessibility to education centers in Maldonado, Uruguay. Communications in Computer and Information Science1359: 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69136-3_9
MonteiroJCarrilhoACSousaN, et al. (2023) Do we live where it is pleasant? Correlates of perceived pleasantness with socioeconomic variables. Land12(4): 878. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12040878
32.
PereiraRHMSaraivaMHerszenhutD, et al. (2021) r5r: rapid realistic routing on multimodal transport networks with R5 in R. Transport Findings2021: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.32866/001c.21262
33.
PizzolBGiannottiMTomasielloDB (2021) Qualifying accessibility to education to investigate spatial equity. Journal of Transport Geography96(September): 103199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103199
34.
RakowskaSBLutzKLRéquiaWJ, et al. (2023) Examining the effects of green space accessibility on school performance for 3421 elementary schools. Landscape and Urban Planning234(September 2022): 234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104731
35.
RaySChakravartyS (2025) Innovative initiatives to improve access to education in urban slums: a critical review of mobile school education programs. Cities159(February 2024): 105748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2025.105748
36.
RekhaRSRadhakrishnanNMathewS (2020) Spatial accessibility analysis of schools using geospatial techniques. Spatial Information Research28(6): 699–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41324-020-00326-w
SetyonoDACahyonoDDHelmyM (2016) Measuring service capacity of public facilities based on supply aspect (case study: elementary school in Malang City). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences227: 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.041
39.
ShapleyLS (1953) A value for N-Person games. In: KuhnHWTuckerAW (eds) Contributions to the Theory of Games. Princeton University Press.
40.
SharmaGPatilGR (2022) Spatial and social inequities for educational services accessibility - a case study for schools in Greater Mumbai. Cities122(January 2021): 103543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103543
41.
TangLTangCFuQ, et al. (2024) Predicting travel mode choice with a robust neural network and shapley additive explanations analysis. IET Intelligent Transport Systems18(7): 1339–1354. https://doi.org/10.1049/itr2.12514
42.
Tiznado-AitkenIMuñozJCHurtubiaR (2021) Public transport accessibility accounting for level of service and competition for urban opportunities: an equity analysis for education in Santiago de Chile. Journal of Transport Geography90(November 2020): 102919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102919
43.
ValantJLincoveJA (2023) Transportation inequities and school choice: how car, public transit, and school bus access affect families’ options. Educational Researcher52(9): 535–543. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X231189465
44.
van HeerdenQKarstenCHollowayJ, et al. (2022) Accessibility, affordability, and equity in long-term spatial planning: perspectives from a developing country. Transport Policy120(February): 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.03.007
45.
VillalbaAVilaLECarotJM (2025) Analyzing patterns of accessibility to schools: a gravitational metrics study in València. AIMS Mathematics10(1): 809–825. https://doi.org/10.3934/MATH.2025038
46.
WangXRenneJL (2023) Socioeconomics of urban travel in the U.S.: evidence from the 2017 NHTS. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment116(January): 103622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2023.103622
47.
WuCAdrian PoweN (2021) Integrating the quality of services into potential access measurement and assessing spatial equity based on both the need and demand conceptions. Urban and Regional Planning6(4): 176. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.urp.20210604.18
48.
WuJPengYLiuP, et al. (2022) Is the green inequality overestimated? Quality reevaluation of green space accessibility. Cities130(July): 103871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103871
49.
XuYSongWLiuC (2018) Social-spatial accessibility to urban educational resources under the school district system: a case study of public primary schools in Nanjing, China. Sustainability10(7): 2305. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072305
50.
YuanHYangX (2023) Spatial distribution of urban basic education resources in Shanghai: accessibility and supply-demand matching evaluation. Open Geosciences15(1): 20220571. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2022-0571
51.
ZhangRPengSSunF, et al. (2022) Assessing the social equity of urban parks: an improved index integrating multiple quality dimensions and service accessibility. Cities129(January 2021): 103839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103839
52.
ZhongJZhouLYangH, et al. (2025) School supply-demand balance and accessibility optimisation: a bi-objective spatial matching model using genetic algorithm. Journal of Transport Geography128(June): 104297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2025.104297
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
