IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/eurpls/v24y2016i6p1175-1196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strengths and weaknesses of accessibility instruments in planning practice: technological rules based on experiential workshops

Author

Listed:
  • Marco te Brömmelstroet
  • Carey Curtis
  • Anders Larsson
  • Dimitris Milakis

Abstract

Accessibility instruments can play a valuable role in urban planning practice by providing a practical framework for exploring and testing relationships between land use and transport infrastructure. Despite many available accessibility instruments, they are still not widely used in planning practice. This paper explores the background of this problem by examining the findings of a EU-funded study on the usability and usefulness of existing accessibility instruments. The study applied 16 instruments in local planning contexts according to a standardized process protocol. The outcomes of these so-called experiential workshops were analysed through a standardized measurement protocol, which included participant observation along with pre- and post-workshop practitioner questionnaires. This broad investigation presents a rich analytical tool for understanding how different types of accessibility measures, spatial resolutions of output and levels of comprehensiveness affect usability and usefulness. Based on this we propose 10 technological rules that (a) can be used directly in practice to improve usability of accessibility instruments and (b) can provide hypotheses to be examined in further academic studies. Our results suggest that instead of striving for the ultimate accessibility measure, it would be more effective to identify which measures could successfully serve different user needs in accessibility planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco te Brömmelstroet & Carey Curtis & Anders Larsson & Dimitris Milakis, 2016. "Strengths and weaknesses of accessibility instruments in planning practice: technological rules based on experiential workshops," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(6), pages 1175-1196, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:eurpls:v:24:y:2016:i:6:p:1175-1196
    DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2015.1135231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09654313.2015.1135231
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09654313.2015.1135231?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Handy, Susan L, 2002. "Accessibility- vs. Mobility-Enhancing Strategies for Addressing Automobile Dependence in the U.S," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt5kn4s4pb, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    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. Kinigadner, Julia & Büttner, Benjamin & Wulfhorst, Gebhard & Vale, David, 2020. "Planning for low carbon mobility: Impacts of transport interventions and location on carbon-based accessibility," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    2. Kinigadner, Julia & Büttner, Benjamin, 2021. "How accessibility instruments contribute to a low carbon mobility transition: Lessons from planning practice in the Munich region," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 157-167.
    3. Gil Solá, Ana & Vilhelmson, Bertil & Larsson, Anders, 2018. "Understanding sustainable accessibility in urban planning: Themes of consensus, themes of tension," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-10.
    4. Boisjoly, Geneviève & El-Geneidy, Ahmed M., 2017. "The insider: A planners' perspective on accessibility," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 33-43.
    5. Papa, Enrica & Coppola, Pierluigi & Angiello, Gennaro & Carpentieri, Gerardo, 2017. "The learning process of accessibility instrument developers: Testing the tools in planning practice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 108-120.
    6. Denise Capasso Da Silva & David A. King & Shea Lemar, 2019. "Accessibility in Practice: 20-Minute City as a Sustainability Planning Goal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, December.
    7. Stewart, Anson F., 2017. "Mapping transit accessibility: Possibilities for public participation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 150-166.
    8. Silva, Cecília & Patatas, Tiago & Amante, Ana, 2017. "Evaluating the usefulness of the structural accessibility layer for planning practice – Planning practitioners’ perception," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 137-149.
    9. Silva, Cecília & Bertolini, Luca & te Brömmelstroet, Marco & Milakis, Dimitris & Papa, Enrica, 2017. "Accessibility instruments in planning practice: Bridging the implementation gap," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 135-145.
    10. Pajares, Elias & Büttner, Benjamin & Jehle, Ulrike & Nichols, Aaron & Wulfhorst, Gebhard, 2021. "Accessibility by proximity: Addressing the lack of interactive accessibility instruments for active mobility," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).

    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. Ana Gil Solá & Bertil Vilhelmson, 2018. "Negotiating Proximity in Sustainable Urban Planning: A Swedish Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, December.
    2. Mizuki Kawabata, 2009. "Spatiotemporal Dimensions of Modal Accessibility Disparity in Boston and San Francisco," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 183-198, January.
    3. Jin, Scarlett T. & Sui, Daniel Z., 2024. "A comparative analysis of the spatial determinants of e-bike and e-scooter sharing link flows," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    4. Mondschein, Andrew & Taylor, Brian D & Brumbaugh, Stephen, 2010. "Congestion And Accessibility: What’S The Relationship?," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt8135b0jh, University of California Transportation Center.
    5. Riccardo Bonotti & Silvia Rossetti & Michela Tiboni & Maurizio Tira, 2015. "Analysing Space-Time Accessibility Towards the Implementation of the Light Rail System: The Case Study of Brescia," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 424-442, August.
    6. João Monteiro & Ana Clara Carrilho & Nuno Sousa & Leise Kelli de Oliveira & Eduardo Natividade-Jesus & João Coutinho-Rodrigues, 2023. "Do We Live Where It Is Pleasant? Correlates of Perceived Pleasantness with Socioeconomic Variables," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, April.
    7. Ahmed El-Geneidy & David Levinson, 2011. "Place Rank: Valuing Spatial Interactions," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 643-659, December.
    8. Ahmed El-Geneidy & David Levinson, 2007. "Mapping Accessibility Over Time," Working Papers 200709, University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.
    9. Melo, Lucas Eduardo Araújo de & Isler, Cassiano Augusto, 2023. "Integrating link count data for enhanced estimation of deterrence functions: A case study of short-term bicycle network interventions," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    10. Hayati Sari Hasibuan & Mari Mulyani, 2022. "Transit-Oriented Development: Towards Achieving Sustainable Transport and Urban Development in Jakarta Metropolitan, Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, April.
    11. te Brömmelstroet, Marco & Skou Nicolaisen, Morten & Büttner, Benjamin & Ferreira, Antonio, 2017. "Experiences with transportation models: An international survey of planning practices," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 10-18.
    12. Manaugh, Kevin & El-Geneidy, Ahmed, 2012. "What makes travel 'local': Defining and understanding local travel behaviour," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 5(3), pages 15-27.
    13. Mondschein, Andrew & Taylor, Brian D. & Brumbaugh, Stephen, 2011. "Congestion and Accessibility: What's the Relationship," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt6bh2n9wx, University of California Transportation Center.
    14. Mondschein, Andrew Samuel, 2013. "The Personal City: The Experiential, Cognitive Nature of Travel and Activity and Implications for Accessibility," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt7014d9cg, University of California Transportation Center.
    15. Yang, Wenyue & Chen, Bi Yu & Cao, Xiaoshu & Li, Tao & Li, Peng, 2017. "The spatial characteristics and influencing factors of modal accessibility gaps: A case study for Guangzhou, China," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 21-32.
    16. Vilhelmson, Bertil & Elldér, Erik, 2021. "Realizing proximity in times of deregulation and densification: Evaluating urban change from a welfare regime perspective," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    17. Chen, Na & Akar, Gulsah, 2016. "Effects of neighborhood types & socio-demographics on activity space," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 112-121.
    18. Boisjoly, Geneviève & El-Geneidy, Ahmed, 2016. "Daily fluctuations in transit and job availability: A comparative assessment of time-sensitive accessibility measures," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 73-81.
    19. Jin, Scarlett T. & Sui, Daniel Z., 2024. "Bikesharing and equity: A nationwide study of bikesharing accessibility in the U.S," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    20. Michela Tiboni & Silvia Rossetti & David Vetturi & Vincenza Torrisi & Francesco Botticini & Marco Domenico Schaefer, 2021. "Urban Policies and Planning Approaches for a Safer and Climate Friendlier Mobility in Cities: Strategies, Initiatives and Some Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:eurpls:v:24:y:2016:i:6:p:1175-1196. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CEPS20 .

    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.