Accessibility instruments for planning practice: a review of European experiences
Enrica Papa
AMRP Center for Mobility and Spatial Planning, Department of Civil Engineering, Ghent University Vrijdagmarkt 10/301 B-9000 Ghent
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2922-2443
Cecilia Silva
University of Porto, Territory Planning and Environment Division, Rua Dr Roberto Frias 4200-465 Porto
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2868-1840
Marco te Brömmelstroet
University of Amsterdam, AISSR Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV, Amsterdam
Angela Hull
Heriot-Watt University, School of the Built Environment, Riccarton EH14 4AS Edinburgh
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2015.585
Keywords: Accessibility, Decision Support Systems DSS, Land Use Transport LUT Planning
Abstract
Although a large body of literature has been produced on the theoretical definitions and measurements of accessibility, the extent to which such indicators are used in planning practice is less clear. This research explores the gap between theory and application by seeking to understand what the new wave of accessibility instruments (AIs) prepared for spatial and transport planning practice purports to offer the users of AIs. Starting from the question of how urban and transport planners are designing AIs, the article analyzes and describes the AIs developed over the last decade (mainly in Europe), offering a structured overview and a clear categorization of how accessibility measures can be applied. The paper identifies AI characteristics, and considers their usability, based on AI developer perceptions.Author Biography
Cecilia Silva, University of Porto, Territory Planning and Environment Division, Rua Dr Roberto Frias 4200-465 Porto
Cecília Silva is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto (FEUP). Her main research fields are on mobility management, accessibility planning and planning support instruments. She chaired the COST Action on Accessibility Instruments for European Planning Practice involving 22 Countries and more than 100 members (2010-2014).References
ARCE-RUIZ, R., CALDERÓN, E., CONDEÇO-MELHORADO, A. & ORTEGA, E. 2012. Isochrone Maps to Facilities. Shopping Centres in the Metrosur Influence Area (IMaFa). In: HULL, A., SILVA, C. & BERTOLINI, L. (eds.) COST Action TU1002 –Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice. COST Office.
BERTOLINI, L. 2012. Integrating mobility and urban development agendas: A manifesto. disP-The Planning Review, 48, 16-26.
BÜTTNER, B., KELLER, J. & WULFHORST, G. 2012. Erreichbarkeitsatlas der Europäischen Metropolregion München (EMM). In: HULL, A., SILVA, C. & BERTOLINI, L. (eds.) COST Action TU1002 –Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice. COST Office.
CHARALAMBOUS, N. & MAVRIDOU, M. 2012. Space Syntax: Spatial Integration accessibility and Angular Segment Analysis by Metric Distance (ASAMeD). In: HULL, A., SILVA, C. & BERTOLINI, L. (eds.) Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice. COST Office.
COPPOLA, P. & PAPA, E. 2013. Accessibility Planning tools for sustainable and integrated Land Use/Transport (LUT) development: an application to Rome. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 87, 133-146.
CURL, A., NELSON, J. D. & ANABLE, J. 2015. Same question, different answer: A comparison of GIS-based journey time accessibility with self-reported measures from the National Travel Survey in England. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 49, 86-97.
CURTIS, C. 2011. Integrating land use with public transport: The use of a discursive accessibility tool to inform metropolitan spatial planning in Perth. Transport Reviews, 31, 179-197.
CURTIS, C. & SCHEURER, J. 2010. Planning for sustainable accessibility: Developing tools to aid discussion and decision-making. Progress in Planning, 74, 53-106.
FERREIRA, A., BEUKERS, E. & TE BRÖMMELSTROET, M. 2012. Accessibility is gold, mobility is not: a proposal for the t analysis. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 39, 683-697.
GERLACH, J. 2012. The German Guidelines for Integrated Network Design– binding accessibility standards (RIN). In: HULL, A., SILVA, C. & BERTOLINI, L. (eds.) COST Action TU1002 –Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice COST Office.
GEURS, K. T. & VAN ECK, J. R. R. 2001. Accessibility measures: review and applications: Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use transport scenarios, and related social and economic impacts, Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu.
GEURS, K. T. & VAN WEE, B. 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. Journal of Transport geography, 12, 127-140.
HALDEN, D. 2003. Accessibility analysis: concepts and their application to transport policy, programme and project evaluation. Transport Projects, Programmes and Policies: Evaluation Needs and Capabilities. Ashgate.
HANDY, S. & NIEMEIER, D. 1997. Measuring accessibility: an exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A, 29, 1175-1194.
HANDY, S. L. 2002. Accessibility-vs. mobility-enhancing strategies for addressing automobile dependence in the US. Institute of Transportation Studies.
HÖEMKE, M. 2012. Social spatial influences of new transport infrastructure (SoSINeTi). In: HULL, A., SILVA, C. & BERTOLINI, L. (eds.) COST Action TU1002 –Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice. COST Office.
HOLDEN, M. 2012. Is integrated planning any more than the sum of its parts? Considerations for planning sustainable cities. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32, 305-318.
HULL, A. & KAROU, S. 2012. Spatial Network Analysis of Public Transport Accessibility (SNAPTA). In: HULL, A., SILVA, C. & BERTOLINI, L. (eds.) COST Action TU1002 –Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice. COST Office.
HULL, A., SILVA, C. & BERTOLINI, L. 2012. Accessibility instruments for planning practice, COST Office.
ILTANEN, S. 2012. Heuristic three-level Instrument combining Urban Morphology, Mobility, Service Environments and Locational Information (HIMMELI). In: HULL, A., SILVA, C. & BERTOLINI, L. (eds.) COST Action TU1002 –Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice. COST Office.
KOVAČ, M. Š., PERGAR, P. & SITAR, M. 2012. From Accessibility to the Land Development Potential (ATI). In: HULL, A., SILVA, C. & BERTOLINI, L. (eds.) COST Action TU1002 –Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice. COST Office.
LARSSON, A., ELLDÉR, E. & VILHELMSON, B. 2014. Accessibility Atlas to Analyse Regional Acessibility to Labour in the Food Sector. In: HULL, A., SILVA, C. & BERTOLINI, L. (eds.) COST Action TU1002–Assessing Usability of Accessibility Instruments. COST Office.
LIU, S. & ZHU, X. 2004. Accessibility analyst: an integrated GIS tool for accessibility analysis in urban transportation planning. Environment and Planning B, 31, 105-124.
MAKRÍ, M. B. Accessibility indices. A tool for comprehensive land-use planning. Proceedings of the TLEnet 5th workshop, The Nordic Research Network on Modelling Transport, Land-Use and the Environment, Sweden, 2001.
NUZZOLO, A., COPPOLA, P. & PAPA, E. 2014. Marginal Activity Access Cost (MAAC): a new indicator for sustainable Land Use/Transport (LUT) planning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 111, 450-459.
PAPA, E. & COPPOLA, P. 2012. Gravity-Based Accessibility measures for Integrated Transport-land Use Planning (GraBAM). In: HULL, A., SILVA, C. & BERTOLINI, L. (eds.) COST Action TU1002 –Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice. COST Office.
PENSA, S. & MASALA, E. 2013. InViTo: an Interactive Visualisation Tool to Support Spatial Decision Processes. Technologies for Urban and Spatial Planning: Virtual Cities and Territories: Virtual Cities and Territories. IGI Global.
PFAFFENBICHLER, P., EMBERGER, G. & SHEPHERD, S. 2010. A system dynamics approach to land use transport interaction modelling: the strategic model MARS and its application. System Dynamics Review, 26, 262-282.
PINTO, N. N. & SANTOS, B. 2012. Cellular automata modelling for accessibility appraisal in spatial plans (UrbCA). In: HULL, A., SILVA, C. & BERTOLINI, L. (eds.) COST Action TU1002 –Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice. COST Office.
SILVA, C. & PINHO, P. 2008. Structural Accessibility for Urban Policy: The case of Greater Oporto. Evaluation in planning, 1-20.
STÅHLE, A., MARCUS, L. & KARLSTRÖM, A. 2005. Place Syntax: Geographic accessibility with axial lines in GIS. In: VAN NES, A. (ed.) Proceedings, Fifth international space syntax symposium. Techne Press.
STEAD, D., GEERLINGS, H. & MEIJERS, E. 2004. Policy integration in practice: the integration of land use planning, transport and environmental policy making in Denmark, England and Germany, Delft University Press.
STRAATEMEIER, T. 2008. How to plan for regional accessibility? Transport Policy, 15, 127-137.
STRAATEMEIER, T. 2012. Joint-accessibility Design (JAD). In: HULL, A., SILVA, C. & BERTOLINI, L. (eds.) COST Action TU1002 –Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice. COST Office.
TE BRÖMMELSTROET, M. 2010. Equip the warrior instead of manning the equipment: land use and transport planning support in the Netherlands. Journal of transport and land use, 3, 25-41.
TE BRÖMMELSTROET, M. & BERTOLINI, L. 2010. Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making. Transportation, 37, 85-104.
TE BRÖMMELSTROET, M., SILVA, C. & BERTOLINI, L. 2014. COST Action TU1002 - Assessing Usability of Accessibility Instrument, COST Office.
TENNØY, A. 2012. Method for Arriving at Maximum Recommendable Size of Shopping Centres (MaReSi SC). In: HULL, A., SILVA, C. & BERTOLINI, L. (eds.) COST Action TU1002 –Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice. COST Office.
TROVA, V. 2012. Measures of Street Connectivity: Spatialist_Lines (MoSC). In: HULL, A., SILVA, C. & BERTOLINI, L. (eds.) COST Action TU1002 –Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice. COST Office.
VERHETSEL, A., CANT, J. & VANOUTRIVE, T. 2012. Retail Cluster Accessibility (TRACE). COST Action TU1002 –Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice. COST Office.
ZAKOWSKA, L., STAROWICZ, W. & PULAWSKA, S. 2012. Geographic/Demographic Accessibility of Transport Infrastructure (GDATI). In: HULL, A., SILVA, C. & BERTOLINI, L. (eds.) COST Action TU1002 –Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice. COST Office.
