Comparing conventional and PPGIS approaches in measuring equality of access to urban aquatic environments

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 144, Issue , 2015, Pages 22-33

  Laatikainen, Tiina ^a   Tenkanen, Henrikki ^b   Kyttä, Marketta ^a   Toivonen, Tuuli ^b  

^a AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Accessibility; Aquatic environments; Environmental justice; PPGIS; Public participation GIS; Urban water areas

Indexed keywords

SPATIAL VARIABLES MEASUREMENT;

ACCESSIBILITY; AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE; PPGIS; PUBLIC PARTICIPATION; URBAN WATERS;

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

ACCESSIBILITY; AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE; GIS; METROPOLITAN AREA; OUTDOOR RECREATION; RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; URBAN AREA; URBAN PLANNING;

FINLAND; HELSINKI; VARSINAIS-SUOMI;

EID: 84940841809     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.08.004     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Accessibility Research Group Multimodal accessibility measures in the Helsinki metropolitan region: MetropAccess-travel time matrix 2014, University of Helsinki, The Department of Geosciences and Geography, Helsinki, 〈http://Blogs.helsinki.fi/accessibility/〉.
2. Alessa L., Kliskey A., Brown G. Social-ecological hotspots mapping: A spatial approach for identifying coupled social-ecological space. Landscape and Urban Planning 2008, 85(1):27-39.
3. Barbosa O., Tratalos J.A., Armsworth P.R., Davies R.G., Fuller R.A., Johnson P., Gaston K.J. Who benefits from access to green space? A case study from Sheffield, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 83(2-3):187-195. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.04.004.
4. Boone C.G., Buckley G.L., Grove J.M., Sister C. Parks and people: An environmental justice inquiry in Baltimore. Maryland. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 2009, 99(4):767-787.
5. Brown G., Kyttä M. Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research. Applied Geography 2014, 46:126-136.
6. Brown G., Weber D. Public participation GIS: A new method for national park planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 2011, 102(1):1-15.
7. Brown G.G., Reed P. Public participation GIS: A new method for use in national forest planning. Forest Science 2009, 55(2):166-182.
8. Cohen D.A., McKenzie T.L., Sehgal A., Williamson S., Golinelli D., Lurie N. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. American Journal of Public Health 2007, 97(3):509-514.
9. Comber A., Brunsdon C., Green E. Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban green space accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups. Landscape and Urban Planning 2008, 86(1):103-114.
10. Coutts C. Greenway accessibility and physical-activity behavior. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2008, 35(3):552-563.
11. Cox C., Morse W., Anderson C., Marzen L. Using public participation geographic information systems to identify places of watershed service provisioning. JAWRA: Journal of the American Water Resources Association 2015, 51(3):704-718.
12. Eldridge J.D., Jones J.P. Warped space: A geography of distance decay. Professional Geographer 1991, 43(4):500-511.
13. Elwood S., Ghose R. PPGIS in community development planning: Framing the organizational context. Cartographica 2001, 38(3-4):19-33.
14. Ferreira A., Batey P. Re-thinking accessibility planning: A multi-layer conceptual framework and its policy implications. Town Planning Review 2007, 78(4):429-458.
15. 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.
16. Google Directions API The Google Directions API 2015, 〈https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/directions/〉 (last accessed: 19.4.2015).
17. Google GTFS What is GTFS? 2015, 〈https://developers.google.com/transit/gtfs〉 (last accessed: 19.4.2015).
18. Higgs G., Fry R., Langford M. Investigating the implications of using alternative GIS-based techniques to measure accessibility to green space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2012, 39(2):326-343.
19. Kaczynski A.T., Potwarka L.R., Saelens P.B.E. Association of park size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighborhood parks. American Journal of Public Health 2008, 98(8):1451-1456.
20. Korpela K.M., Ylén M., Tyrväinen L., Silvennoinen H. Favorite green, waterside and urban environments, restorative experiences and perceived health in Finland. Health Promotion International 2010, 25(2):200-209.
21. Kwan M., Weber J. Individual accessibility revisited: Implications for geographical analysis in the twenty-first century. Geographical Analysis 2003, 35(4):341-353.
22. Kyttä M., Broberg A., Tzoulas T., Snabb K. Towards contextually sensitive urban densification: Location-based softGIS knowledge revealing perceived residential environmental quality. Landscape and Urban Planning 2013, 113:30-46.
23. Kyttä M., Kahila M. Softgis methodology. GIM International 2011, 25(3).
24. Lee C., Moudon A.V. The 3Ds+R: Quantifying land use and urban form correlates of walking. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 2006, 11(3):204-215.
25. Lindsey G., Maraj M., Kuan S. Access, equity, and urban greenways: An exploratory investigation. The Professional Geographer 2001, 53(3):332-346.
26. Macintyre S., Macdonald L., Ellaway A. Do poorer people have poorer access to local resources and facilities? The distribution of local resources by area deprivation in Glasgow, Scotland. Social Science and Medicine 2008, 67(6):900-914.
27. 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.
28. Nokia Here Routing Routing API developer's guide 2015, 〈https://developer.here.com/rest-apis/documentation/routing〉 (last accessed: 19.4.2015).
29. Oh K., Jeong S. Assessing the spatial distribution of urban parks using GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 82(1-2):25-32.
30. Pocewicz A., Nielsen-Pincus M., Brown G., Schnitzer R. An evaluation of internet versus paper-based methods for public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS). Transactions in GIS 2012, 16(1):39-53.
31. Salonen M., Broberg A., Kyttä M., Toivonen T. Do suburban residents prefer the fastest or low-carbon travel modes? Combining public participation GIS and multimodal travel time analysis for daily mobility research. Applied Geography 2014, 53(0):438-448. 10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.06.028.
32. Salonen M., Toivonen T. Modelling travel time in urban networks: Comparable measures for private car and public transport. Journal of Transport Geography 2013, 31:143-153.
33. Salonen M., Toivonen T., Cohalan J., Coomes O.T. Critical distances: Comparing measures of spatial accessibility in the riverine landscapes of Peruvian Amazonia. Applied Geography 2012, 32(2):501-513.
34. Schlosberg D. Theorising environmental justice: The expanding sphere of a discourse. Environmental Politics 2013, 22(1):37-55.
35. Shahid R., Bertazzon S., Knudtson M.L., Ghali W.A. Comparison of distance measures in spatial analytical modelling for health service planning. BMC Health Services Research 2009, 9(1):200.
36. Sister C., Wolch J., Wilson J. Got green? Addressing environmental justice in park provision. GeoJournal 2010, 75(3):229-248.
37. Spinney J.E.L., Millward H. Investigating travel thresholds for sports and recreation activities. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2013, 40(3):474-488.
38. Taipale S. The use of e-government services and the internet: The role of socio-demographic, economic and geographical predictors. Telecommunications Policy 2013, 37(4-5):413-422.
39. Tyrväinen L., Ojala A., Korpela K., Lanki T., Tsunetsugu Y., Kagawa T. The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: A field experiment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2014, 38:1-9.
40. Tzoulas K., Greening K. Urban ecology and human health. Urban ecology-Patterns, processes, and applications 2011, 263-271. Oxford University Press, Oxford. J. Niemelä (Ed.).
41. Wang D., Brown G., Mateo-Babiano D. Beyond proximity: An integrated model of accessibility for public parks. Asian Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities 2013, 2(3):486-498.
42. Wang D., Brown G., Liu Y., Mateo-Babiano I. A comparison of perceived and geographic access to predict urban park use. Cities 2015, 42(PA):85-96.
43. White I., Kingston R., Barker A. Participatory geographic information systems and public engagement within flood risk management. Journal of Flood Risk Management 2010, 3(4):337-346.
44. Wolch J.R., Byrne J., Newell J.P. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities 'just green enough'. Landscape and Urban Planning 2014, 125(0):234-244. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.01.