Space‐Time and Integral Measures of Individual Accessibility: A Comparative Analysis Using a Point‐based Framework

Geographical Analysis - Tập 30 Số 3 - Trang 191-216 - 1998
Mei‐Po Kwan1
1Geography and Geographic Information Science

Tóm tắt

Conventional integral measures of accessibility, although valuable as indicators of place accessibility, have several limitations when used to evaluate individual accessibility. Two alternatives for overcoming some of the difficulties involved are explored in this study. One is to adapt these measures for evaluating individual accessibility using a disaggregate, nonzonal approach. The other is to develop different types of measures based on an alternative conceptual framework. To pursue the former alternative, this study specifies and examines eighteen gravity‐type and cumulative‐opportunity accessibility measures using a point‐based spatial framework. For the latter option, twelve space‐time accessibility measures are developed based on the construct of a prism‐constrained feasible opportunity set. This paper compares the relationships and spatial patterns of these thirty measures using network‐based GIS procedures. Travel diary data collected in Columbus, Ohio, and a digital data set of 10,727 selected land parcels are used for all computation. Results of this study indicate that space‐time and integral indices are distinctive types of accessibility measures which reflect different dimensions of the accessibility experience of individuals. Since space‐time measures are more capable of capturing interpersonal differences, especially the effect of space‐time constraints, they are more “gender sensitive” and helpful for unraveling gender/ethnic differences in accessibility. An important methodological implication is that whether accessibility is observed to be important or different between individuals depends heavily on whether the measure used is capable of revealing the kind of differences the analyst intends to observe.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1016/0191-2615(93)90016-4

10.1068/a120301

10.1068/a130955

10.1080/09595237500185021

Ben‐Akiva M., 1979, Behavioural Travel Modelling, 654

10.1068/a091013

10.1068/a141355

10.1080/09595237800185401

10.2747/0272-3638.1.1.53

Burns L. D., 1979, Transportation, Temporal, and Spatial Components of Accessibility

10.1007/BF00167272

City of Columbus, 1993, Growth Statement 1993

Cullen I., 1972, Patterns and Processes in Urban and Regional Systems, 281

10.1007/BF00165245

10.1068/a091401

10.1080/09595237400185061

Ewing R., 1994, “Getting around a Traditional City, a Suburban Planned Unit Development, and Everything in Between”, Transportation Research Record, 1466, 53

10.1068/a130497

10.1111/j.1467-8306.1981.tb01367.x

Fotheringham A. S., 1989, Spatial Interaction Models: Formulations and Applications

10.1080/01944368308977059

10.1080/02693799508902025

Gutierrez J. P., 1995, Proceedings of ESRI User Conference 1995

10.1068/b100219

10.1111/j.1435-5597.1970.tb01464.x

Handy S. L., 1993, “Regional versus Local Accessibility: Implications for Nonwork Travel”, Transportation Research Record, 1400, 58

10.1068/a291175

10.1080/01944365908978307

10.1111/j.1538-4632.1980.tb00034.x

10.1007/BF00153866

Hanson S., 1995, The Geography of Urban Transportation, 3

Hanson S., 1990, “Geographic Perspectives on the Occupational Segregation of Women”, National Geographic Research, 6, 376

10.4324/9780203397411

10.1068/a190735

10.1111/j.1538-4632.1997.tb00965.x

Harris C. D., 1954, “The Market as a Factor in the Location of Industry in the U.S”, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 44, 315

10.2307/1249154

10.1111/j.1538-4632.1986.tb00085.x

10.1006/juec.1993.1016

10.2307/3146368

10.1080/09595237100185131

10.1080/09595237600185491

10.1068/a100415

10.1007/BF00167128

Kwan M.‐P., 1997, Activity‐Based Approaches to Travel Analysis, 117

Kwan M.‐P., 1998, “Gender Differences in Non‐Work Activity‐Travel Behavior in Space‐Time: A Case Study of Columbus, Ohio”

Kwan M.‐P., 1998, “Gender Differences in Access to Urban Opportunities”

Kwan M.‐P., 1998, “Activity‐Travel Behavior and Accessibility”

Kwan M.‐P., 1998, “Network‐Based Constraints‐Oriented Choice Set Formation Using GIS”, Geographical Systems

10.1080/01944366508978155

10.1016/0191-2607(82)90021-8

Lenntorp B., 1976, Lund Studies in Geography B: Human Geography

10.1068/a241137

10.1080/00343409212331346761

10.1111/j.1467-8306.1982.tb01830.x

10.2307/144026

10.1111/j.0033-0124.1996.00420.x

Michelson W., 1985, From Sun to Sun: Daily Obligations and Community Structure in the Lives of Employed Women and Their Families

10.1080/02693799108927856

10.1016/0191-2607(79)90012-8

10.2307/142890

10.1016/0191-2615(92)90018-R

Oberg S., 1976, Methods of Describing Physical Access to Supply Points

O'Kelly M. E., 1984, “Characteristics of Multistop Multipurpose Travel: An Empirical Study of Trip Length”, Transportation Research Record, 976, 33

10.1111/j.0033-0124.1994.00199.x

10.1068/a130373

Pickup L., 1985, Transportation and Mobility in an Era of Transition, 97

10.1068/a110299

10.1080/03081068208717208

10.1177/016001768400900303

10.2307/144118

10.1007/978-94-015-8118-9_5

Sherman L., 1974, “Method for Evaluating Metropolitan Accessibility”, Transportation Research Record, 499, 70

10.2307/3146910

10.1080/01944366908977823

Stone P. A., 1973, Structure, Size and Costs of Urban Settlements

Taaffe E. J., 1996, Geography of Transportation

10.1007/978-3-662-03499-6_10

Tivers J., 1985, Women Attached: The Daily Lives of Women with Young Children

Villoria O. G. Jr.(1989).“An Operational Measure of Individual Accessibility for Use in the Study of Travel‐Activity Patterns”.Ph.D. Dissertation Graduate School of the Ohio State University Columbus Ohio.

10.1016/0038-0121(73)90041-4

Walsh S. J., 1995, “Health Care Accessibility: Comparison of Network Analysis and Indices of Hospital Service Areas”

10.1111/j.1467-9787.1976.tb00960.x

10.1068/a030001

10.1080/136588197242248

10.1111/j.0033-0124.1996.00431.x