Accessibility instruments for planning practice: A review of European experiences

Journal of Transport and Land Use

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 57-75

  Papa, Enrica ^a   te Brömmelstroet, Marco ^b   Silva, Cecilia ^c   Hull, Angela ^d  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PORTO   (Portugal)

^d HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Accessibility; Decision support systems DSS; Land use transport LUT planning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84991010690     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19387849     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5198/jtlu.2015.585     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Arce-Ruiz, R., E. Calderón, A. Condeço-Melhorado, and E. Ortega. 2012. Isochrone maps to facilities. Shopping centers in the Metrosur Influence Area (IMaFa), In Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice, edited by A. Hull, C. Silva, and L. Bertolini: COST Office. ISBN: 978-989-20-3187-3.
2. Bertolini, L. 2012. Integrating mobility and urban development agendas: A manifesto. disP—The Planning Review 48(1): 1–26. doi: 10.1080/02513625.2012.702956.
3. Büttner, B., J. Keller, and G. Wulfhorst. 2012. Erreichbarkeitsatlas der europäischen metropolregion München (EMM). In Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice, edited by A. Hull, C. Silva, and L. Bertolini: COST Office. ISBN: 978-989-20-3187-3.
4. Charalambous, N., and M. Mavridou. 2012. Space syntax: Spatial integration accessibility and angular segment analysis by metric distance (ASAMeD). In Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice, edited by A. Hull, C. Silva, and L. Bertolini: COST Office. ISBN: 978-989-20-3187-3.
5. Curl, A., J. D. Nelson, and J. Anable. 2015. Same question, different answer: A comparison of GISbased journey time accessibility with self-reported measures from the National Travel Survey in England. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 49: 86–97. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2013.10.006.
6. Curtis, C., and J. Scheurer. 2010. Planning for sustainable accessibility: Developing tools to aid discussion and decision-making. Progress in Planning 74(2): 53–106. doi: 10.1016/j.progress.2010.05.001.
7. Ferreira, A., E. Beukers, and M. te Brömmelstroet. 2012. Accessibility is gold, mobility is not: A proposal for the improvement of Dutch transport-related cost-benefit analysis. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 39(4): 683–697. doi: 10.1068/b38073.
8. Gerlach, J. 2012. The German guidelines for integrated network design—binding accessibility standards (RIN), In Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice, edited by A. Hull, C. Silva, and L. Bertolini: COST Office. ISBN: 978-989-20-3187-3.
9. Geurs, K. T., and J. R. R. van Eck. 2001. Accessibility Measures: Review and Applications: Evaluation of Accessibility Impacts of Land-use Transport Scenarios, and Related Social and Economic Impacts. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. RIVM report 408505 00. www.rivm.nl.
10. Geurs, K. T., and B. van Wee. 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography 12(2): 127–140. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005.
11. Halden, D. 2003. Accessibility analysis: concepts and their application to transport policy,programme and project evaluation. In Transport Projects, Programmes and Policies: Evaluation Needs and Capabilities, edited by A. Pearman, P. Mackie, and J. Nellthorp. Ashgate, Hampshire.
12. Handy, S. L. 2002. Accessibility vs. Mobility-Enhancing Strategies for Addressing Automobile Dependence in the US. Davis, California: Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis.
13. Handy, S. L., and D. A. Niemeier. 1997. Measuring accessibility: An exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A 29(7): 1175–1194. doi: 10.1068/a291175.
14. Höemke, M. 2012. Social spatial influences of new transport infrastructure (SoSINeTi). In Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice, edited by A. Hull, C. Silva, and L. Bertolini: COST Office. ISBN: 978-989-20-3187-3.
15. 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(3): 305–318. doi: 10.1177/0739456X12449483.
16. Hull, A., and S. Karou. 2012. Spatial network analysis of public transport accessibility (SNAPTA). In Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice, edited by A. Hull, C. Silva, and L. Bertolini: COST Office. ISBN: 978-989-20-3187-3.
17. Hull, A., C. Silva, and L. Bertolini, eds. 2012. Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice: COST Office. ISBN: 978-989-20-3187-3.
18. Iltanen, S. 2012. Heuristic three-level instrument combining urban morphology, mobility, service environments and locational information (HIMMELI). In Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice, edited by A. Hull, C. Silva, and L. Bertolini: COST Office. ISBN: 978-989-20-3187-3.
19. Kovač, M. Š., P. Pergar, and M. Sitar. 2012. From accessibility to the land development potential (ATI). In Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice, edited by A. Hull, C. Silva, and L. Bertolini: COST Office. ISBN: 978-989-20-3187-3.
20. Liu, S., and X. Zhu. 2004. Accessibility analyst: An integrated GIS tool for accessibility analysis in urban transportation planning. Environment and Planning B 31(1): 105–124. doi: 10.1068/b305
21. Makrí, M. B. 2001. Accessibility indices. A tool for comprehensive land-use planning. Proceedings of the TLEnet 5th workshop, The Nordic Research Network on Modeling Transport, Land-Use and the Environment, Nynäshamn, Sweden.
22. Nuzzolo, A., P. Coppola, and E. Papa. 2014. Marginal activity access cost (MAAC): A new indicator for sustainable land use/transport (LUT) planning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 111: 450–459. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.078.
23. Papa, E., and P. Coppola. 2012. Gravity-based accessibility measures for integrated transport-land use planning (GraBAM). In Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice, edited by A. Hull, C. Silva, and L. Bertolini: COST Office. ISBN: 978-989-20-3187-3.
24. Pensa, S., and E. Masala. 2013. InViTo: An onteractive visualisation tool to support spatial decision processes. Technologies for Urban and Spatial Planning: Virtual Cities and Territories. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4349-9.
25. Pfaffenbichler, P., G. Emberger, and S. Shepherd. 2010. A system dynamics approach to land use transport interaction modeling: The strategic model MARS and its application. System Dynamics Review 26 (3): 262–282. doi: 10.1002/sdr.451.
26. Pinto, N. N., and B. Santos. 2012. Cellular automata modeling for accessibility appraisal in spatial plans (UrbCA). In Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice, edited by A. Hull, C. Silva, and L. Bertolini: COST Office. ISBN: 978-989-20-3187-3.
27. Silva, C., and P. Pinho. 2010. The structural accessibility layer (SAL): Revealing how urban structure constraints travel choice. Environment and Planning A 42: 2735–2752. doi: 10.1068/a42477.
28. Stead, D., H. Geerlings, and E. Meijers. 2004. Policy Integration in Practice: The Integration of Land Use Planning, Transport and Environmental Policy Making in Denmark, England and Germany. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University Press.
29. Straatemeier, T. 2008. How to plan for regional accessibility? Transport Policy 15(2): 127–137. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.002.
30. Straatemeier, T. 2012. Joint-accessibility design (JAD). In Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice, edited by A. Hull, C. Silva, and L. Bertolini: COST Office. ISBN: 978-989-20-3187-3.
31. 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(1): 25–41. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v3i1.99.
32. Te Brömmelstroet, M., and L. Bertolini. 2010. Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy- making. Transportation 37(1): 85–104. doi: 10.1007/s11116-009-9221-0.
33. Te Brömmelstroet, M., C. Silva, L. Bertolini, eds. 2014. Assessing Usability of Accessibility Instruments: COST Office. ISBN 978-90-9028212-1.
34. Tennoy, A. 2012. Method for arriving at maximum recommendable size of shopping centers (MaReSi SC). In Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice, edited by A. Hull, C. Silva, and L. Bertolini: COST Office. ISBN: 978-989-20-3187-3.
35. Trova, V. 2012. Measures of street connectivity: Spatialist lines (MoSC). In Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice, edited by A. Hull, C. Silva, and L. Bertolini: COST Office. ISBN: 978-989-20-3187-3.
36. Verhetsel, A., J. Cant, and T. Vanoutrive. 2012. Retail cluster accessibility (TRACE). In Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice, edited by A. Hull, C. Silva, and L. Bertolini: COST Office. ISBN: 978-989-20-3187-3.
37. Zakowska, L., W. Starowicz, and S. Pulawska. 2012. Geographic/demographic accessibility of transport Infrastructure (GDATI). In Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice, edited by A. Hull, C. Silva, and L. Bertolini: COST Office. ISBN: 978-989-20-3187-3.