The divergent role of spatial access: The changing supply and location of service amenities and service travel distance in Sweden

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

Volumn 49, Issue , 2013, Pages 10-20

  Haugen, Katarina ^a   Vilhelmson, Bertil ^b  

^a UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Accessibility; Daily mobility; Destination choice; Service amenities activities; Travel behaviour; Travel distance

Indexed keywords

LAND USE; POPULATION STATISTICS; TRANSPORTATION ROUTES;

ACCESSIBILITY; DAILY MOBILITIES; DESTINATION CHOICE; SERVICE AMENITIES/ACTIVITIES; TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR; TRAVEL DISTANCE;

LOCATION BASED SERVICES;

ACCESSIBILITY; AMENITY; LAND USE PLANNING; MOBILITY; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR;

SWEDEN;

EID: 84873254207     PISSN: 09658564     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2013.01.001     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Arentze T.A., Timmermans H.J.P. An analysis of context and constraints-dependent shopping behaviour using qualitative decision principles. Urban Studies 2005, 42:435-448.
2. Banister D. The trilogy of distance, speed and time. Journal of Transport Geography 2011, 19(4):950-959.
3. Bell S.J. Image and consumer attraction to intraurban retail areas: an environmental psychology approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 1999, 6:67-78.
4. Dieleman F., Wegener M. Compact city and urban sprawl. Built Environment 2004, 30:308-323.
5. Eppli M.J., Shilling J.D. How critical is a good location to a regional shopping center?. Journal of Real Estate Research 1996, 12:459-468.
6. Fainstein S. New directions in planning theory. Readings in Planning Theory 2003, Blackwell, Malden. S. Campbell, S. Fainstein (Eds.).
7. Farrington J.H. The new narrative of accessibility: its potential contribution to discourses in (transport) geography. Journal of Transport Geography 2007, 15(5):319-330.
8. Fotheringham A.S., Champion T., Wymer C., Coombes M. Measuring destination attractivity: a migration example. International Journal of Population Geography 2000, 6:391-421.
9. Frändberg L., Vilhelmson B. More or less travel: personal mobility trends in the Swedish population focusing gender and cohort. Journal of Transport Geography 2011, 19(6):1235-1244.
10. Geurs K.T., van Wee B. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography 2004, 12(2):127-140.
11. Hägerstrand T. What about people in regional science?. Om tidens vidd och tingens ordning Texter av Torsten Hägerstrand 1970, Statens råd för byggnadsforskning, Stockholm. G. Carlestam, B. Sollbe (Eds.).
12. Handy S.L. Regional versus local accessibility: neo-traditional development and its implications for non-work travel. Built Environment 1992, 18:253-267.
13. Handy S.L. Understanding the link between urban form and nonwork travel behaviour. Journal of Planning Education and Research 1996, 15(3):183-198.
14. Handy S.L., Clifton K.J. Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automobile travel. Transportation 2001, 28:317-346.
15. Handy S.L., Weston L., Mokhtarian P.L. Driving by choice or necessity?. Transportation Research Part A 2005, 39:183-203.
16. Haugen K. The advantage of 'near' - which accessibilities matter to whom?. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research (EJTIR) 2011, 11(4):368-388.
17. Haugen, K., 2012. The Accessibility Paradox - Everyday Geographies of Proximity, Distance and Mobility. GERUM 2012:1. Department of Geography and Economic History, Umeå University, Umeå.
18. Haugen K., Holm E., Strömgren M., Vilhelmson B., Westin K. Accessibility, proximity and choice - a matter of taste of condition?. Papers in Regional Science 2011, 91(1):65-84.
19. Haynes R., Lowett A., Sünnenberg G. Potential accessibility, travel time, and consumer choice: geographical variations in general medical practice registrations in eastern England. Environment and Planning A 2003, 35:1733-1750.
20. Hensher D.A., Reyes A.J. Trip chaining as a barrier to the propensity to use public transport. Transportation 2000, 27(4):341-361.
21. Horner M.W. Extensions to the concept of excess commuting. Environment and Planning A 2002, 34:543-566.
22. Horner M.W., O'Kelly M.E. Is non-work travel excessive?. Journal of Transport Geography 2007, 15:411-416.
23. Jain J., Lyons G. The gift of travel time. Journal of Transport Geography 2008, 16:81-89.
24. Leszczyc P.T.L., Sinha A., Sahgal A. The effect of multi-purpose shopping on pricing and location strategy for grocery stores. Journal of Retailing 2004, 80(2):85-99.
25. Li W., Holm E., Lindgren U. Attractive vicinities. Population, Space and Place 2009, 15:1-18.
26. Loh C.-P.A., Cobb S.C., Johnson C.K. Potential and actual accessibility to hospital and hospital services in northeast Florida. Southeastern Geographer 2009, 49:171-184.
27. Lund H. Testing the claims of new urbanism: local access, pedestrian travel, and neighboring behaviors. Journal of the American Planning Association 2003, 69(4):414-429.
28. Lynch K. A Theory of Good City Form 1981, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.
29. Manning W.G., Mullahy J. Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform?. Journal of Health Economics 2001, 20(4):461-494.
30. Marjanen H. The changing role of distance in consumers' store choice. Turku School of Economics A-1 2000, 2000.
31. Meloni I., Spissu E., Bez M. A model of the dynamic process of time allocation to discretionary activities. Transportation Science 2007, 41:15-28.
32. Metz D. Saturation of demand for daily travel. Transport Reviews 2010, 30(5):659-674.
33. Mokhtarian P.L., Salomon I. How derived is the demand for travel?Some conceptual and measurement considerations. Transportation Research Part A 2001, 35:695-719.
34. Morschett D., Swoboda B., Foscht T. Perception of store attributes and overall attitude towards grocery retailers: the role of shopping motives. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 2005, 15(4):423-447.
35. Næss P. Residential location affects travel behavior-but how and why? The case of Copenhagen metropolitan area. Progress in Planning 2005, 63:167-257.
36. Næss P. Accessibility, activity participation and location of activities: exploring the links between residential location and travel behaviour. Urban Studies 2006, 43:627-652.
37. Næss P. 'New urbanism' or metropolitan-level centralization?. The Journal of Transport and Land Use 2011, 4(1):25-44.
38. Niles S., Hanson S. A new era of accessibility?. URISA Journal 2003, 15(APA1):35-41.
39. östh, J., 2007. Home, Job and Space. Mapping and Modelling the Labor Market. Geografiska regionstudier nr 72, Department of Social and Economic Geography, Uppsala University, Uppsala.
40. Primerano F., Taylor M.A.P., Pitaksringkarn L., Tisato P. Defining and understanding trip chaining behaviour. Transportation 2008, 35:55-72.
41. Reimers V., Clulow V. Retail concentration: a comparison of spatial convenience in shopping strips and shopping centres. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2004, 11:207-221.
42. Salomon I., Mokhtarian P.L. What happens when mobility-inclined market segments face accessibility-enhancing policies?. Transportation Research Part D 1998, 3:129-140.
43. Sandow E., Westin K. Preferences for commuting in sparsely populated areas. Journal of Transport and Land Use 2010, 2:87-107.
44. Scheiner J. Interrelations between travel mode choice and trip distance: trends in Germany 1976-2002. Journal of Transport Geography 2010, 18:74-84.
45. Schenk T.A., Löffler G., Rauh J. Agent-based simulation of consumer behavior in grocery shopping on a regional level. Journal of Business Research 2007, 60(8):894-903.
46. Schmidt L., Courant P.N. Sometimes close is good enough: the value of nearby environmental amenities. Journal of Regional Science 2006, 46:931-951.
47. Schwanen T., Kwan M.-P., Ren F. How fixed is fixed? Gendered rigidity of space-time constraints and geographies of everyday activities. Geoforum 2008, 39:2109-2121.
48. Scott D.M., He S.Y. Modeling constrained destination choice for shopping: a GIS-based, time-geographic approach. Journal of Transport Geography 2012, 23:60-71.
49. SOU, 2005. Storstad i rörelse - Kunskapsöversikt över utvärderingar av storstadspolitikens lokala utvecklingsavtal. Statens offentliga utredningar (SOU) 2005, 29, Fritzes, Stockholm.
50. Statistics Sweden Tätorter 2010/Localities 2010 2010, Statistiska meddelanden, Official Statistics of Sweden, Statistics Sweden, Stockholm.
51. Sterner T. Policy Instruments for Environmental and Natural Resource Management 2002, RFF Press, Washington.
52. Thulin E., Vilhelmson B. The Internet, mobile phones and the geographies of everyday life. Ymer 2010: Placing Human Geography. Sweden through Time and Space 2010, The Swedish Society for Antropology and Geography, Stockholm. B. Hermelin, U. Jansson (Eds.).
53. van der Waerden P., Borgers A., Timmermans H. The impact of the parking situation in shopping centres on store choice behaviour. GeoJournal 1998, 45(4):309-315.
54. Vause M. A rule-based model of activity scheduling behaviour. Activity-based Approaches to Travel Analysis 1997, Pergamon/Elsevier, Oxford. D.F. Ettema, H.J.P. Timmermans (Eds.).
55. Vilhelmson B. Daily mobility and the use of time for different activities. The case of Sweden. GeoJournal 1999, 48:177-185.
56. Vilhelmson B. Urbanisation and everyday mobility. Long-term changes of travel in urban areas of Sweden. Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography 2005, 302. 17/02/2005.
57. Vilhelmson B. The use of the car - mobility dependencies of urban everyday life. Threats from Car Traffic to the Quality of Urban Life: Problems, Causes and Solutions 2007, Elsevier, Amsterdam. T. Gärling, L. Steg (Eds.).
58. Witten K., Exeter D., Field A. The quality of urban environments: mapping variation in access to community resources. Urban Studies 2003, 40:161-177.