A GIS-based method to identify spatiotemporal gaps in public service delivery

Applied Geography

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 253-264

  Neutens, Tijs ^a   Delafontaine, Matthias ^a   Scott, Darren M ^b   De Maeyer, Philippe ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Accessibility; GIS; Multi criteria analysis; Public services

Indexed keywords

ACCESSIBILITY; BUS TRANSPORT; GIS; IDENTIFICATION METHOD; MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS; PUBLIC SERVICE; SPATIAL VARIATION; SPATIOTEMPORAL ANALYSIS; TEMPORAL VARIATION; TRAFFIC CONGESTION; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING; URBAN TRANSPORT;

BELGIUM; EAST FLANDERS; GHENT;

EID: 79960320782     PISSN: 01436228     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.05.006     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Bertolini L., Dijst M. Mobility environments and network cities. Journal of Urban Design 2003, 8:27-43.
2. Boulin J.Y. Is the societal dialogue at the local level the future of social dialogue?. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 2005, 11(1):439-448.
3. Boussauw K., Neutens T., Witlox F. Minimum commuting distance as a spatial characteristic in a non-monocentric urban system: the case of Flanders. Papers in Regional Science 2011, 90(1):47-66.
4. Breedveld K. The double myth of flexibilization - trends in scattered work hours, and differences in time-sovereignty. Time & Society 1998, 7(1):129-143.
5. Casas I. Social exclusion and the disabled: an accessibility approach. Professional Geographer 2007, 59(4):463-477.
6. Casas I., Horner M.W., Weber J. A comparison of three methods for identifying transport-based exclusion: a case study of children's access to urban opportunities in Erie and Niagara Counties, New York. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 2009, 3:227-245.
7. Church R.L., Marston J.R. Measuring accessibility for people with a disability. Geographical Analysis 2003, 35(1):83-96.
8. Comber A., Brunsdon C., Green E. Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban greenspace accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups. Landscape and Urban Planning 2008, 86(1):103-114.
9. Dai F.C., Lee C.F., Zhang X.H. GIS-based geo-environmental evaluation for urban land-use planning: a case study. Engineering Geology 2001, 61(4):257-271.
10. Deffner A.M. The combination of cultural and time planning. City 2005, 9(1):125-141.
11. Delafontaine M., Neutens T., Schwanen T., Van de Weghe N. The impact of opening hours on the equity of individual space-time accessibility. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 2011, 35(4):276-288.
12. Farber S., Paez A., Mercado R.G., Roorda M., Morency C. A time-use investigation of shopping participation in three Canadian cities: is there evidence of social exclusion?. Transportation 2011, 38(1):17-44.
13. Goodchild M.F., Klinkenberg B., Janelle D.G. A factorial model of aggregate spatiotemporal behavior: application to the diurnal cycle. Geographical Analysis 1993, 25(4):277-294.
14. Healey P. The treatment of space and place in the new strategic spatial planning in Europe. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 2004, 28(1):45-67.
15. Janelle D.G., Klinkenberg B., Goodchild M.F. The temporal ordering of urban space and daily activity patterns for population role groups. Geographical Systems 1998, 5(5):117-137.
16. Jankowski P. Mixed-data multicriteria evaluation for regional planning: a systematic approach to the decision making process. Environment and Planning A 1989, 21(3):349-362.
17. Jenks G.F., Caspall F.C. Error on choroplethic maps: definition, measurement, reduction. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 1971, 61(2):217-244.
18. Kangas J., Kuusipalo J. Integrating biodiversity into forest management planning and decision-making. Forest Ecology and Management 1993, 61(1-2):1-15.
19. Kenyon S., Rafferty J., Lyons G. Social exclusion and transport in the UK: a role for virtual accessibility in the alleviation of mobility-related social exclusion?. Journal of Social Policy 2003, 32:317-338.
20. Kwan M.P. Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: a comparative analysis using a point-based framework. Geographical Analysis 1998, 30(3):191-216.
21. Kwan M.P., Weber J. Scale and accessibility: implications for the analysis of land use-travel interaction. Applied Geography 2008, 28(2):110-123.
22. Langford M., Higgs G. Accessibility and public service provision: evaluating the impacts of the post office network change programme in the UK. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 2010, 35(4):585-601.
23. Lucas K. Providing transport for social inclusion within a framework for environmental justice in the UK. Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice 2006, 40(10):801-809.
24. Lucas K., Tyler S., Christodoulou G. Assessing the 'value' of new transport initiatives in deprived neighbourhoods in the UK. Transport Policy 2009, 16(3):115-122.
25. Lyons G. The introduction of social exclusion into the field of travel behaviour. Transport Policy 2003, 10(4):339-342.
26. Maerivoet S., Yperman I. Analyse van de verkeerscongestie in België - rapport in opdracht van Federale Overheidsdienst Mobiliteit en Vervoer 2008, Transport & Mobility, Leuven.
27. Miller H.J. Place-based versus people-based geographic information science. Geography Compass 2007, 1(3):503-535.
28. Moccia F.D. Planning time: an emergent European practice. European Planning Studies 2000, 8(3):367-375.
29. Musterd S., van Zelm I. Polycentricity, households and the identity of places. Urban Studies 2001, 38(4):679-696.
30. Gemeenten: soms dure informatie. Testaankoop 2010, 545:12-17. N. N.
31. Neutens T., Schwanen T., Witlox F. The prism of everyday life: towards a new research agenda for time geography. Transport Reviews 2011, 31(1):25-47.
32. Neutens T., Schwanen T., Witlox F., De Maeyer P. Equity of urban service delivery: a comparison of different accessibility measures. Environment and Planning A 2010, 42(7):1613-1635.
33. Neutens T., Schwanen T., Witlox F., De Maeyer P. Evaluating the temporal organization of public service provision using space-time accessibility analysis. Urban Geography 2010, 31(8):1039-1064.
34. Neutens T., Van de Weghe N., Witlox F., De Maeyer P. A three-dimensional network-based space-time prism. Journal of Geographical Systems 2008, 10(1):89-107.
35. Neutens T., Versichele M., Schwanen T. Arranging place and time: a GIS toolkit to assess person-based accessibility of urban opportunities. Applied Geography 2010, 30(4):561-575.
36. Nuvolati G. Resident and non-resident populations: quality of life, mobility and time policies. Journal of Regional Science Analysis and Policy 2003, 33(2):67-83.
37. Omer I. Evaluating accessibility using house-level data: a spatial equity perspective. Computers Environment and Urban Systems 2006, 30(3):254-274.
38. Paez A., Mercado R.G., Farber S., Morency C., Roorda M. Relative accessibility deprivation indicators for urban settings: definitions and application to food deserts in montreal. Urban Studies 2010, 47(7):1415-1438.
39. Parkes D., Thrift N. Times, spaces and places: a chronogeographic perspective 1980, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
40. Preston J., Raje F. Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social exclusion. Journal of Transport Geography 2007, 15(3):151-160.
41. Ritsema van Eck J., Burghouwt G., Dijst M. Life styles, spatial configurations and quality of life in daily travel: an explorative simulation study. Journal of Transport Geography 2005, 13:123-134.
42. Rybarczyk G., Wu C.S. Bicycle facility planning using GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis. Applied Geography 2010, 30(2):282-293.
43. Saaty T.L. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathemmatical Psychology 1977, 15(1):234-281.
44. Saaty T.L. The analytical hierarchy process 1980, McGraw Hill, New York.
45. Saaty T.L. How to make a decision: the analytical hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 1990, 49(1):9-26.
46. Scott D.M., Horner M.W. Examining the role of urban form in shaping people's accessibility to opportunities: an exploratory spatial data analysis. Journal of Transport and Land Use 2008, 1(2):89-119.
47. Southerton D., Tomlinson M. 'Pressed for time' - the differential impacts of a 'time squeeze'. Sociological Review 2005, 53(2):215-239.
48. Szollos A. Toward a psychology of chronic time pressure Conceptual and methodological review. Time & Society 2009, 18(2-3):332-350.
49. Talen E., Anselin L. Assessing spatial equity: an evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and Planning A 1998, 30(4):595-613.
50. Tsou K.W., Hung Y.T., Chang Y.L. An accessibility-based integrated measure of relative spatial equity in urban public facilities. Cities 2005, 22(6):424-435.
51. Turner J., Grieco M. The impact of transport investment projects upon the inner city: a literature review. Time and Society 2000, 9(1):129-136.
52. Verhetsel A., Thomas I., Van Hecke E., Beelen M. Pendel in België. Deel I: Woon-Werkverplaatsingen 2007, Federal Public Service Economy.
53. Vickerman R.W. Accessibility, attraction, and potential: a review of some concepts and their use in determining mobility. Environment and Planning A 1974, 6(6):675-691.
54. Wachs M., Kumagai T.G. Physical accessibility as a social indicator. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 1973, 7(5):437-456.
55. Zandvliet R., Bertolini L., Dijst M. Towards planning for a mobile society: mobile and residential populations and the performance of places. European Planning Studies 2008, 16(10):1459-1472.
56. Zandvliet R., Dijst M., Bertolini L. Destination choice and the identity of places: a disaggregated analysis for different types of visitor population environment in the Netherlands. Journal of Transport Geography 2006, 14(6):451-462.