Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions

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.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1998.tb00396.x

Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: a comparative analysis using a point-based framework

Authorship of scientific papers is an important activity for the academic researcher, as papers provide a forum for communication of scientific results and can be used to provide references of scientific merit. Authors are responsible for the content of reports, and of course, the presentation of results should be as accurate and unbiased as possible. However, manuscripts can be written in a variety of ways using different words and expressions. In addition, each scientific author does not need to write every single word in the manuscript nor is he/she a novelist. The definition of scientific authorship is not clear-cut and is interpreted differently in various scientific communities. This issue is far from new, and during my years I have seen several commentaries on this subject. Kassirer and Angell, Editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, discussed the issue of authorship in an Editorial published in 1991. I consider this Editorial important as it emphasizes the importance of scientific input and the need to define the contribution of an author particularly in multicenter trials [1]. In order to define roles more clearly, Rennie et al. suggested using “contributors” as a more appropriate designation for some authors [2]. The scientific paper when published is open for discussion, and all authors should be able to provide input of scientific value. All submissions to the European Journal of Heart Failure must include a statement about the role of each author and a signed document defining each author's contribution. This requirement was implemented as a consequence of several reports of papers being published without the knowledge of some of the co-authors. An example is the Sudbo paper, published in the Lancet in 2005, in which several of the 13 co-authors claimed that they were not aware of the submission or the full result [3]. The European Journal of Heart Failure complies with the definitions of authorship as outlined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors which is available online at: http://www.icmje.org. We have no further requirement more than an author should have made a scientific contribution. In our May issue, we published an Ethics statement from the HEART network [4]. In this statement, we repeat what we have stated on our website since June last year. The purpose of the statement is to ensure transparency

Who is an author

Any study that examines the effects of area-based attributes on individual behaviors or outcomes faces another fundamental methodological problem besides the modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP). I...

/pdf/the-uncertain-geographic-context-problem-1is4yid5v2.pdf

The Uncertain Geographic Context Problem

This paper presents the theoretical foundation for a different type of place-centered or regional geography. The framework rests upon an integration of time-geography and the emerging theory of structuration. It also builds upon a conceptualization of place as a constantly becoming human product as well as a set of features visible upon the landscape. Place is seen as a process whereby the reproduction of social and cultural forms, the formation of biographies, and the transformation of nature ceaselessly become one another at the same time that time-space specific activities and power relations continuously become one another. It is further contended that the ways in which these phenomena are interwoven in the becoming of place or region are not subject to universal laws but vary with historical circumstances. Three empirical foci that suggest themselves from the framework are briefly discussed.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/info/2569284

Torsten Hägerstraand

Papers

What about people in regional science