IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/regstd/v37y2003i8p783-794.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accessibility and Land Use: The Case of Suburban Seattle, 1960-1990

Author

Listed:
  • Kiril Stanilov

Abstract

STANILOV K. (2003) Accessibility and land use: the case of suburban Seattle, 1960-1990, Reg. Studies 37 , 783-794. This paper explores the relationship between land use and accessibility through analysis of changing land use covers in the suburban areas of Greater Seattle over a period of 30 years. Two simple interpretations of accessibility are employed. Relative accessibility is used to investigate changes in suburban growth patterns relative to the distance to the metropolitan central business district while integral accessibility reflects the correlation between the pattern of distribution of land uses and the pattern of the regional transportation network. The first model points to a weakening of the impact of the metropolitan core on the distribution of suburban activities. The second model shows a remarkably strong and consistent relationship between patterns of land use development and accessibility to high-class regional roads providing a strong confirmation of the bid- rent model on the micro scale. STANILOV K. (2003) L'accessibilite et l'occupation du sol: etude de cas des banlieues de Seattle de 1960 a 1990, Reg. Studies 37 , 783-794. Par moyen d'une analyse de la variation de l'occupation du sol dans les zones de banlieue de l' agglomeration de Seattle sur une periode de 30 annees, cet article cherche a examiner le rapport entre l'occupation du sol et la notion d'accessibilite. On emploie deux interpretations simples de la notion d'accessibilite. On se sert de la notion d'acessibilite relative afin d'examiner la variation de la distribution de la croissance des banlieues en fonction de la distance au noyau commercial metropolitain, alors que la notion d'accessibilite integrante reflete la correlation entre la distribution de l'occupation du sol et celle du reseau de transport regional. Le premier modele indique un affaiblissement de l'impact du noyau metropolitain sur la distribution des activites de banlieue. Le deuxieme modele montre un rapport fort et regulier entre la distribution de l'occupation du sol et l'accessibilite aux routes regionales de qualite, ce qui vient fortement a l'appui du modele de location a l'echelle microeconomique. STANILOV K. (2003) Zuganglichkeit und Landnutzung: der Fall der Vororte von Seattle 1960-1990, Reg. Studies 37 , 783-794. Dieser Aufsatz untersucht die Beziehung zwischen Landnutzung und Zuganglichkeit in einem Zeitraum von 30 Jahren mittels einer Analyse der Decken sich wandelnder Landnutzung in den Vorortgebieten von Grossseattle. Es wurden zwei einfache Interpretationen von Zuganglichkeit benutzt. Relative Zuganglichkeit diente dazu, Vera nderungen in Wachstumsmustern von Vororten in Bezug auf die Entfernung zum grossstadtischen Hauptgeschaftsgebiet zu untersuchen, wa hrend integrale Zuganglichkeit die Korrelation zwischen dem Verteilungsmuster von Landnutzungen und dem Muster des regionalen Verkehrsnetzes widerspiegelt. Das erste Modell weist auf ein Nachlassen der Auswirkung des Grossstadtkerns auf die Verteilung der Vorortaktivitaten hin. Das zweite Modell zeigt eine bemerkenswert ausgepragte und bestandige Beziehung zwischen Mustern der Entwicklung der Landnutzung und Zuganglichkeit zu erstklassigen Regionalstrassen auf, und stellt damit eine uberzeugende Besta tigung des Angebots-Mietmodells im Mikromassstab dar.

Suggested Citation

  • Kiril Stanilov, 2003. "Accessibility and Land Use: The Case of Suburban Seattle, 1960-1990," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(8), pages 783-794.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:regstd:v:37:y:2003:i:8:p:783-794
    DOI: 10.1080/0034340032000128712
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0034340032000128712
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/0034340032000128712?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. Mieszkowski, Peter & Smith, Barton, 1991. "Analyzing urban decentralization : The case of Houston," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 183-199, July.
    2. L Bach, 1981. "The Problem of Aggregation and Distance for Analyses of Accessibility and Access Opportunity in Location-Allocation Models," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 13(8), pages 955-978, August.
    3. K Jones & A Kirby, 1982. "Provision and Wellbeing: An Agenda for Public Resources Research," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 14(3), pages 297-310, March.
    4. S Hanson & M Schwab, 1987. "Accessibility and Intraurban Travel," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 19(6), pages 735-748, June.
    5. Thomas J. Cooke & Stephen L. Ross, 1999. "Sample Selection Bias in Models of Commuting Time," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 36(9), pages 1597-1611, August.
    6. P L Knox, 1978. "The Intraurban Ecology of Primary Medical Care: Patterns of Accessibility and Their Policy Implications," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 10(4), pages 415-435, April.
    7. 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.
    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. Ting Zhang & Bo Huang & Hung Wong & Samuel Yeung-Shan Wong & Roger Yat-Nork Chung, 2022. "Built Environment and Physical Activity among Adults in Hong Kong: Role of Public Leisure Facilities and Street Centrality," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, February.
    2. Suparmono, 2012. "Accessibility to center business district and land price," Economic Journal of Emerging Markets, Universitas Islam Indonesia, vol. 4(2), pages 143-152, April.
    3. Yuhong Tian & C. Y. Jim & Yiqing Liu, 2017. "Using a Spatial Interaction Model to Assess the Accessibility of District Parks in Hong Kong," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-14, October.
    4. Tenley M Conway, 2005. "Current and Future Patterns of Land-Use Change in the Coastal Zone of New Jersey," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 32(6), pages 877-893, December.
    5. Dena Kasraian & Kees Maat & Dominic Stead & Bert van Wee, 2016. "Long-term impacts of transport infrastructure networks on land-use change: an international review of empirical studies," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(6), pages 772-792, November.
    6. Páez, Antonio & Scott, Darren M. & Morency, Catherine, 2012. "Measuring accessibility: positive and normative implementations of various accessibility indicators," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 141-153.
    7. Xiao, Yang & Sarkar, Chinmoy & Webster, Chris & Chiaradia, Alain & Lu, Yi, 2017. "Street network accessibility-based methodology for appraisal of land use master plans: An empirical case study of Wuhan, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 193-203.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Vandenbulcke, Grégory & Steenberghen, Thérèse & Thomas, Isabelle, 2009. "Mapping accessibility in Belgium: a tool for land-use and transport planning?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 39-53.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Bocarejo S., Juan Pablo & Oviedo H., Daniel Ricardo, 2012. "Transport accessibility and social inequities: a tool for identification of mobility needs and evaluation of transport investments," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 142-154.
    8. 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.
    9. Reilly, Michael & Landis, John, 2003. "The Influence of Built-Form and Land Use on Mode Choice," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt46r3k871, University of California Transportation Center.
    10. 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.
    11. Tira, Maurizio & Tiboni, Michela & Badiani, Barbara, 2002. "High speed/high capacity railway and regional development - evaluation of effects on spatial accessibility," ERSA conference papers ersa02p362, European Regional Science Association.
    12. Jen-Jia Lin & Chi-Hau Chen & Tsung-Yu Hsieh, 2016. "Job accessibility and ethnic minority employment in urban and rural areas in Taiwan," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 95(2), pages 363-382, June.
    13. Rania Wasfi & Ahmed El-Geneidy & David Levinson, 2007. "The Transportation Needs of Seniors," Working Papers 000028, University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.
    14. Peter Mieszkowski & Edwin S. Mills, 1993. "The Causes of Metropolitan Suburbanization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 135-147, Summer.
    15. Edward L. Glaeser & Matthew E. Kahn, 2001. "Decentralized Employment and the Transformation of the American City," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1912, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
    16. Dong, Xiaojing & Ben-Akiva, Moshe E. & Bowman, John L. & Walker, Joan L., 2006. "Moving from trip-based to activity-based measures of accessibility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 163-180, February.
    17. Marius Th?riault & Fran?ois Des Rosiers and Jean Dub?, 2007. "Testing the Temporal Stability of Accessibility Value in Residential Hedonic Prices," SCIENZE REGIONALI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2007(3), pages 5-46.
    18. 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.
    19. Stewart, Anson F. & Zegras, P. Christopher, 2016. "CoAXs: A Collaborative Accessibility-based Stakeholder Engagement System for communicating transport impacts," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 423-433.
    20. Meyer, Jonas & Becker, Henrik & Bösch, Patrick M. & Axhausen, Kay W., 2017. "Autonomous vehicles: The next jump in accessibilities?," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 80-91.

    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:regstd:v:37:y:2003:i:8:p:783-794. 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/CRES20 .

    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.