Urban accessibility: the paradox, the paradigms and the measures. A scientific review

Keywords: literature review, bibliometrix, urban accessibility

Abstract

The literature review presented in this paper represents a part of a wider research focused on the elderly quality of life within urban environments and aimed at designing innovative tools for both public administrations and elderly citizens. The article presents a systematic review of the relevant literature regarding the development of the accessibility concept during the 1959-2020 period. Nearly 6,000 documents were selected from the Scopus database, using the keywords “urban accessibility” and limiting the results to the fields of Urban Studies and Social Sciences to select the documents for the bibliometric analyses run. They were run in R Studio environment through a tool, developed in 2017, named bibliometrix. These analyses were run to highlight the main traits of the urban accessibility concept and developed methodologies and measures, in order to implement it in real-world practices and tools. The extensive and systematic literature review shows that for many years much of this scientific production has a deep theoretical nature, rather than practical. That was mostly due to difficulties in computing and introducing accessibility measures in decision-making practices. The advent of GIS has made much more practical the development of accessibility-oriented planning tools, and many commercial packages are now available. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Carmen Guida, University of Naples Federico II

Engineer, Ph.D. student in Civil Systems Engineering at University of Naples Federico II. She received a master degree in Hydraulic and Transport Systems Engineering at University of Naples Federico II with a thesis on the safety performance of urban intersections, developed at University of Central Florida, Orlando (U.S.). urrently, her PhD research concerns accessibility to urban services for elderly people with the aim of minimizing social exclusion and inequalities within urban areas.

Matteo Caglioni, Department of Geography, Universitè de Nice Sophia Antipolis

Engineer in Environmental Management and Urban Planning, graduated in 2003 from the Engineering Faculty of Polytechnic of Milan (Italy), he achieved the qualification to practice engineering profession in the same year. Awarded with scholarship for Ph.D. program on Sciences and Methods for the European City and Territory, in 2008 he got doctoral degree at Department of Civil Engineer, University of Pisa (Italy). Lecturing at different graduate and post-graduate levels, in 2013 he joined the University Nice Sophia Antipolis (France), as Associate Professor in Geography and researcher at ESPACE laboratory of CNRS. Awarded with UNS prize for research in 2014, currently he is the Head of Department of Geography, Urban Planning and Sustainable Environment. Member of several COST Actions of European Commission in Transport and Urban Development (TUD) and Trans-Disciplinary (TD) domains, he applied for specialized training school in 3D-GeoInformation for Risk Management at Technology University of Delft and at University of Amsterdam (The Netherlands). His main teaching and research fields are Urban Modelling and Geosimulation, Artificial Intelligence in Geocomputation, Smart Mobility, Geographical Information Science, Spatial and Data Analysis, Big Data and Volunteered Geographical Information, Ontology and Semantic Enrichment of 3D City Models.

References

Ahn, J. S., Kim, L. B., & Park, M. R. (2014). An analysis of variation of spatial accessibility pattern based on 2SFCA: A case study of welfare facilities for the aged in Gumi city. Journal of the Korean Association of Geographic Information Studies, 17 (4), 112-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.11.080

Amin, A. (2006). The good city. Urban studies, 43(5-6), 1009-1023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080=00420980600676717

Aria, M. & Cuccurullo, C. (2017) bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), pp 959-975, Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Banister, D. (2019). Transport for all. Transport Reviews, 39:3, 289-292, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2019.1582905

Bertolini, L., Le Clercq, F., & Kapoen, L. (2005). Sustainable accessibility: a conceptual framework to integrate transport and land use plan-making. Two test-applications in the Netherlands and a reflection on the way forward. Transport policy, 12(3), 207-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.01.006

Bhat, C., Handy, S., Kockelman, K., Mahmassani, H., Chen, Q., & Weston, L. (2000). Accessibility measures: formulation considerations and current applications (No. Report No. TX-01/7-4938-2). University of Texas at Austin. Center for Transportation Research

Caglioni, M., Pelizzoni, M., & Rabino, G. A. (2006). Urban sprawl: A case study for project gigalopolis using SLEUTH model. In International Conference on Cellular Automata (pp. 436-445). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Carpentieri, G., Guida, C., & Masoumi, H. E. (2020). Multimodal Accessibility to Primary Health Services for the Elderly: A Case Study of Naples, Italy. Sustainability, 12(3), 781. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030781

Chai, Y., & Kwan, M. P. (2015). The relationship between the built environment and car travel distance on weekdays in Beijing. Dili Xuebao/Acta Geographica Sinica, 70(10), 1675-1685. http://dx.doi.org/10.11821/dlxb201510011

Ding, Y., Zhou, J., & Li, Y. (2015). Transit accessibility measures incorporating the temporal dimension. Cities, 46, 55-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.05.002

Domencich, T.A., McFadden, D. Urban Travel Demand-a Behavioral Analysis. North-Holland Publishing Co./American Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 1975.

Dony, C. C., Delmelle, E. M., & Delmelle, E. C. (2015). Re-conceptualizing accessibility to parks in multi-modal cities: A Variable-width Floating Catchment Area (VFCA) method. Landscape and Urban Planning, 143, 90-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.06.011

EUROSTAT (2013). Special Eurobarometer 406: Attitudes of Europeans towards urban mobility. Report. Luxembourg.

Ewing R. & Cervero R. (2010). Travel and the Built Environment. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76:3, 265-294, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944361003766766

Farrington, J., & Farrington, C. (2005). Rural accessibility, social inclusion and social justice: towards conceptualisation. Journal of Transport geography, 13(1), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2004.10.002

Fusco, G., Caglioni, M., Emsellem, K., Merad, M., Moreno, D., & Voiron-Canicio, C. (2017). Questions of uncertainty in geography. Environment and Planning A, 49(10), 2261-2280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17718838

Gaglione, F., Gargiulo, C., & Zucaro, F. (2019). Elders’ quality of life. A method to optimize pedestrian accessibility to urban services. TeMA-Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 12(3), 295-312. https://doi.org/10.6092/1970-9870/6272

García-Palomares, J. C., Gutiérrez, J., & Cardozo, O. D. (2013). Walking accessibility to public transport: an analysis based on microdata and GIS. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 40(6), 1087-1102. https://doi.org/10.1068/b39008

Gargiulo, C., & Papa, R. (1993). Caos e caos: la città come fenomeno complesso. Per il XXI Secolo: una enciclopedia e un progetto, 297-306.

Gargiulo, C., Zucaro, F., & Gaglione, F. (2018). A Set of Variables for the Elderly Accessibility in Urban Areas. TeMA-Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 53-66. https://doi.org/10.6092/1970-9870/5738

Geurs, K. T., & Van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. Journal of Transport geography, 12(2), 127-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005

Hansen, W. G. (1959). How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of planners, 25(2), 73-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944365908978307

Hu, R. S., Dong, X. C., & Hu, H. (2012). A two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) method for measuring spatial accessibility to primary healthcare service in China: A case study of Donghai County in Jiangsu Province. Progr. Geogr, 31, 1600-1607. https://doi.org/10.11820/dlkxjz.2012.12.005

Istat, 2011. D.S. Popolazione residente - Censimento 2011 - Superficie Delle Abitazioni Occupate da Persone Residenti. Istat. Italian National Institute of Statistics. Available at http://daticensimentopopolazione. istat. it/

Istat, 2018. Spostamenti quotidiani e nuove forme di mobilità. Istituto Nazionale di Statistica, Roma. Available at https://www.istat.it/it/files//2018/11/Report-mobilit%C3%A0-sostenibile.pdf

Istat, 2019. I tempi della vita quotidiana. Lavoro, Conciliazione, Parità Di Genere E Benessere Soggettivo. Istituto Nazionale di Statistica, Roma. ISBN 978-88-458-1971-1.

Kanuganti, S., Sarkar, A. K., & Singh, A. P. (2016). Quantifying accessibility to health care using Two-step Floating Catchment Area Method (2SFCA): A case study in Rajasthan. Transportation Research Procedia, 17, 391-399.

Langford, M., Fry, R., & Higgs, G. (2012). Measuring transit system accessibility using a modified two-step floating catchment technique. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 26(2), 193-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.06.014

Lamíquiz, P. J., & López-Domínguez, J. (2015). Effects of built environment on walking at the neighbourhood scale. A new role for street networks by modelling their configurational accessibility? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 74, 148-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.02.003

Legacy, C., Ashmore, D., Scheurer, J., Stone, J., & Curtis, C. (2019). Planning the driverless city. Transport reviews, 39(1), 84-102. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2018.1466835

Levasseur, M., Généreux, M., Bruneau, J. F., Vanasse, A., Chabot, É., Beaulac, C., & Bédard, M. M. (2015). Importance of proximity to resources, social support, transportation and neighborhood security for mobility and social participation in older adults: results from a scoping study. BMC public health, 15(1), 503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1824-0

Mayaud, J. R., Tran, M., Pereira, R. H., & Nuttall, R. (2019). Future access to essential services in a growing smart city: The case of Surrey, British Columbia. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 73, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2018.07.005

Marx, W., Bornmann, L., Barth, A., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). Detecting the historical roots of research fields by reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 751–764. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23089

Meşhur, H., F., A. (2016). Evaluation of Urban Spaces from the Perspective of Universal Design Principles: The Case of Konya/Turkey. Tema. Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 9 (2), 191-208. http://10.6092/1970-9870/3786

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Prisma Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS med, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed .1000100

Papa, E., Carpentieri, G., & Guida, C. (2018). Measuring walking accessibility to public transport for the elderly: the case of Naples. TeMA - Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 105-116. https://doi.org/10.6092/1970-9870/5766

Papa, E., Silva, C., Te Brömmelstroet, M., & Hull, A. (2016). Accessibility instruments for planning practice: a review of European experiences. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 9(3), 57-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2015.585

Proffitt, D. G., Bartholomew, K., Ewing, R., & Miller, H. J. (2019). Accessibility planning in American metropolitan areas: Are we there yet?. Urban Studies, 56(1), 167-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098017710122journals.sagepub.com

Schneider, A., & Woodcock, C. E. (2008). Compact, dispersed, fragmented, extensive? A comparison of urban growth in twenty-five global cities using remotely sensed data, pattern metrics and census information. Urban Studies, 45(3), 659-692. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098007087340

Shaw, S. L., Fang, Z., Lu, S., & Tao, R. (2014). Impacts of high-speed rail on railroad network accessibility in China. Journal of Transport Geography, 40, 112-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.03.010

Silva, C., Bertolini, L., te Brömmelstroet, M., Milakis, D., & Papa, E. (2017). Accessibility instruments in planning practice: Bridging the implementation gap. Transport Policy, 53, 135-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.09.006

Unit, S. E. (2003). Making the connections: final report on transport and social exclusion. http://webarchive. nationalarchives. gov. uk/+/http://www. cabinetoffice. gov. uk/media/cabinetoffice/social_exclusion_task_force/assets/ publications_1997_to_2006/making_transport_2003. pdf

United Nations Enable, 2006. Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities. Available at: http://www.un.org/disabilities

Tao, Z., Yao, Z., Kong, H., Duan, F., & Li, G. (2018). Spatial accessibility to healthcare services in Shenzhen, China: improving the multi-modal two-step floating catchment area method by estimating travel time via online map APIs. BMC health services research, 18 (1), 345. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3132-8

Townsend, A. M. (2001). The Internet and the rise of the new network cities, 1969–1999. Environment and planning B: Planning and Design, 28(1), 39-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b2688

Wang, J., Jin, F., Mo, H., & Wang, F. (2009). Spatiotemporal evolution of China’s railway network in the 20th century: An accessibility approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43(8), 765-778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2009.07.003

Weast, R. A., & Proffitt, D. R. (2018). Can I reach that? Blind reaching as an accurate measure of estimated reachable distance. Consciousness and cognition, 64, 121-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.02.013

World Health Organization (2017). Global strategy and action plan on ageing and health. Geneva, Switzerland. ISBN 978-92-4-151350-0. Available at https://www.who.int/ageing/WHO-GSAP-2017.pdf?ua=1

World Health Organization (2018). 10 Priorities for a Decade of Action on Healthy Ageing. Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/10-priorities-for-a-decade-of-action-on-healthy-ageing

Published
2020-08-31
How to Cite
Guida, C., & Caglioni, M. (2020). Urban accessibility: the paradox, the paradigms and the measures. A scientific review. TeMA - Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 13(2), 149-168. https://doi.org/10.6092/1970-9870/6743