IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jotrge/v66y2018icp300-308.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The limitations of using activity space measurements for representing the mobilities of individuals with visual impairment: A mixed methods case study in the San Francisco Bay Area

Author

Listed:
  • Wong, Sandy

Abstract

Activity space measures are often utilized to quantify the physical spaces that individuals travel through and have access to over the course of their daily activities. To date, these measures have rarely been used to investigate the mobility of people with disabilities, who often experience difficulties accessing transportation and navigating the built environment. Additionally, researchers have yet to compare results from activity space measures to people's perceived accessibility as a means of method validation. This paper contributes to the existing literature by (1) evaluating the activity spaces of individuals with visual impairment (VI) in the San Francisco Bay Area and (2) comparing the activity space results to qualitative information about individuals' travel behaviors and their perceptions about the accessibility of their environments. This mixed quantitative and qualitative methods project models individuals' activity spaces from travel diaries and analyzes participants' travel behaviors and perceptions from interviews. Three activity space measures are considered: standard deviational ellipse, network buffer, and potential path area. The results demonstrate significant shortcomings in activity space measures for representing the experiences of people with visual impairment and identify how existing methods can be improved for future research on environmental accessibility.

Suggested Citation

  • Wong, Sandy, 2018. "The limitations of using activity space measurements for representing the mobilities of individuals with visual impairment: A mixed methods case study in the San Francisco Bay Area," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 300-308.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jotrge:v:66:y:2018:i:c:p:300-308
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.12.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692317304684
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.12.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marston, James R. & Golledge, Reginald G. & Costanzo, C. Michael, 1997. "Investigating travel behavior of nondriving blind and vision impaired people: The role of public transit," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt9gb6d4b4, University of California Transportation Center.
    2. van Wee, Bert, 2016. "Accessible accessibility research challenges," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 9-16.
    3. Nancy Worth, 2013. "Visual Impairment in the City: Young People’s Social Strategies for Independent Mobility," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 50(3), pages 574-586, February.
    4. Kamruzzaman, Md. & Hine, Julian & Gunay, Banihan & Blair, Neale, 2011. "Using GIS to visualise and evaluate student travel behaviour," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 13-32.
    5. Rob Imrie, 2013. "Shared Space and the Post-politics of Environmental Change," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 50(16), pages 3446-3462, December.
    6. J A Black & C Kuranami & P J Rimmer, 1982. "Macroaccessibility and Mesoaccessibility: A Case Study of Sapporo, Japan," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 14(10), pages 1355-1376, October.
    7. S Hanson & M Schwab, 1987. "Accessibility and Intraurban Travel," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 19(6), pages 735-748, June.
    8. C M Guy, 1983. "The Assessment of Access to Local Shopping Opportunities: A Comparison of Accessibility Measures," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 10(2), pages 219-237, June.
    9. S L Handy & D A Niemeier, 1997. "Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 29(7), pages 1175-1194, July.
    10. Valerie Preston & Sara McLafferty, 2016. "Revisiting Gender, Race, and Commuting in New York," Annals of the American Association of Geographers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 106(2), pages 300-310, March.
    11. Oviedo Hernandez, Daniel & Titheridge, Helena, 2016. "Mobilities of the periphery: Informality, access and social exclusion in the urban fringe in Colombia," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 152-164.
    12. Maia, Maria Leonor & Lucas, Karen & Marinho, Geraldo & Santos, Enilson & de Lima, Jessica Helena, 2016. "Access to the Brazilian City—From the perspectives of low-income residents in Recife," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 132-141.
    13. Li, Ran & Tong, Daoqin, 2016. "Constructing human activity spaces: A new approach incorporating complex urban activity-travel," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 23-35.
    14. Zachary Patterson & Steven Farber, 2015. "Potential Path Areas and Activity Spaces in Application: A Review," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(6), pages 679-700, November.
    15. Tijs Neutens & Tim Schwanen & Frank Witlox & Philippe De Maeyer, 2010. "Equity of Urban Service Delivery: A Comparison of Different Accessibility Measures," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 42(7), pages 1613-1635, July.
    16. Pyrialakou, V. Dimitra & Gkritza, Konstantina & Fricker, Jon D., 2016. "Accessibility, mobility, and realized travel behavior: Assessing transport disadvantage from a policy perspective," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 252-269.
    17. B J Linneker & N A Spence, 1992. "Accessibility Measures Compared in an Analysis of the Impact of the M25 London Orbital Motorway on Britain," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 24(8), pages 1137-1154, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Renata Żochowska & Marcin Jacek Kłos & Piotr Soczówka & Marcin Pilch, 2022. "Assessment of Accessibility of Public Transport by Using Temporal and Spatial Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-29, December.
    2. Xinwei Ma & Yanjie Ji & Yuchuan Jin & Jianbiao Wang & Mingjia He, 2018. "Modeling the Factors Influencing the Activity Spaces of Bikeshare around Metro Stations: A Spatial Regression Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-12, October.
    3. Lättman, Katrin & Olsson, Lars E. & Friman, Margareta, 2018. "A new approach to accessibility – Examining perceived accessibility in contrast to objectively measured accessibility in daily travel," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 501-511.
    4. Wong, Sandy & McLafferty, Sara L. & Planey, Arrianna M. & Preston, Valerie A., 2020. "Disability, wages, and commuting in New York," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    5. Margareta Friman & Katrin Lättman & Lars E. Olsson, 2020. "Public Transport Quality, Safety, and Perceived Accessibility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-14, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cascetta, Ennio & Cartenì, Armando & Montanino, Marcello, 2016. "A behavioral model of accessibility based on the number of available opportunities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 45-58.
    2. Lättman, Katrin & Olsson, Lars E. & Friman, Margareta, 2018. "A new approach to accessibility – Examining perceived accessibility in contrast to objectively measured accessibility in daily travel," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 501-511.
    3. van Wee, Bert, 2016. "Accessible accessibility research challenges," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 9-16.
    4. Boisjoly, Geneviève & Serra, Bernardo & Oliveira, Gabriel T. & El-Geneidy, Ahmed, 2020. "Accessibility measurements in São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Curitiba and Recife, Brazil," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    5. Guzman, Luis A. & Cantillo-Garcia, Victor A. & Oviedo, Daniel & Arellana, Julian, 2023. "How much is accessibility worth? Utility-based accessibility to evaluate transport policies," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    6. Hasnine, Md Sami & Graovac, Ana & Camargo, Felipe & Habib, Khandker Nurul, 2019. "A random utility maximization (RUM) based measure of accessibility to transit: Accurate capturing of the first-mile issue in urban transit," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 313-320.
    7. Massingue, Suzanna Allen & Oviedo, Daniel, 2021. "Walkability and the Right to the city: A snapshot critique of pedestrian space in Maputo, Mozambique," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    8. Chikaraishi, Makoto & Jana, Arnab & Bardhan, Ronita & Varghese, Varun & Fujiwara, Akimasa, 2017. "A framework to analyze capability and travel in formal and informal urban settings: A case from Mumbai," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 101-110.
    9. Gonzalo Suazo-Vecino & Juan Carlos Muñoz & Luis Fuentes Arce, 2019. "The Displacement of Santiago de Chile’s Downtown during 1990–2015: Travel Time Effects on Eradicated Population," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, December.
    10. Li, Ran & Tong, Daoqin, 2017. "Incorporating activity space and trip chaining into facility siting for accessibility maximization," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1-14.
    11. Merlin, Louis A. & Hu, Lingqian, 2017. "Does competition matter in measures of job accessibility? Explaining employment in Los Angeles," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 77-88.
    12. Lättman, Katrin & Olsson, Lars E. & Friman, Margareta, 2016. "Development and test of the Perceived Accessibility Scale (PAC) in public transport," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 257-263.
    13. Sakinah Fathrunnadi Shalihati & Andri Kurniawan & Sri Rum Giyarsih & Djaka Marwasta & Dimas Bayu Endrayana Dharmowijoyo, 2022. "Daily Activity Space for Various Generations in the Yogyakarta Metropolitan Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-24, October.
    14. Papa, Enrica & Bertolini, Luca, 2015. "Accessibility and Transit-Oriented Development in European metropolitan areas," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 70-83.
    15. Ruben Cordera & Pierluigi Coppola & Luigi dell’Olio & Ángel Ibeas, 2017. "Is accessibility relevant in trip generation? Modelling the interaction between trip generation and accessibility taking into account spatial effects," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1577-1603, November.
    16. Wang, Yafei & Chen, Bi Yu & Yuan, Hui & Wang, Donggen & Lam, William H.K. & Li, Qingquan, 2018. "Measuring temporal variation of location-based accessibility using space-time utility perspective," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 13-24.
    17. Karen Lucas & Bert Wee & Kees Maat, 2016. "A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 473-490, May.
    18. Iacono, Michael & Krizek, Kevin J. & El-Geneidy, Ahmed, 2010. "Measuring non-motorized accessibility: issues, alternatives, and execution," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 133-140.
    19. Horner, Mark & Downs, Joni, 2014. "Integrating people and place: A density-based measure for assessing accessibility to opportunities," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 7(2), pages 1-18.
    20. Stępniak, Marcin & Pritchard, John P. & Geurs, Karst T. & Goliszek, Sławomir, 2019. "The impact of temporal resolution on public transport accessibility measurement: Review and case study in Poland," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 8-24.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jotrge:v:66:y:2018:i:c:p:300-308. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-transport-geography .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.