Proximity-centred accessibility—A conceptual debate involving experts and planning practitioners

IF 2.7 Q1 GEOGRAPHY Journal of Urban Mobility Pub Date : 2023-09-15 DOI:10.1016/j.urbmob.2023.100060
Cecília Silva , Benjamin Büttner , Sebastian Seisenberger , Anna Rauli
{"title":"Proximity-centred accessibility—A conceptual debate involving experts and planning practitioners","authors":"Cecília Silva ,&nbsp;Benjamin Büttner ,&nbsp;Sebastian Seisenberger ,&nbsp;Anna Rauli","doi":"10.1016/j.urbmob.2023.100060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recognised as an important dimension of quality of life, accessibility has gained increasing attention from research and planning practice in the last decades. Rising concern with global warming and the dehumanization of cities has spotlighted the proximity-centred dimension of accessibility, which for decades has been mostly undervalued. In both research and practice, we witness a rise in references to proximity-centred accessibility, however, using a variety of different terms, with somewhat nuanced meanings or underlying concerns. Proximity-centred accessibility concepts are still in flux, inhibiting the establishment of a comprehensive understanding for the development of a cohesive research field and of effective public policies.</p><p>This paper provides a first contribution to the development of a conceptual framework for proximity-centred accessibility, through a co-development process involving both research and practice. For this we used a mixed methods approach incorporating bibliographic research, surveys, and a focus group, involving both experts in the research field and a sample of planning practitioners from Portugal and Germany.</p><p>Our research revealed over a dozen different proximity-centred accessibility terms currently in use in the scientific research field, of which, local accessibility and neighbourhood accessibility are the most commonly used. A difference in favoured terminology was identified between research and practice as well as different national contexts, requiring further explorations. While Proximity thresholds have been defined using a variety of physical distances or travel times, our survey revealed a nearly unanimous consensus around a threshold of 1600 m (roughly 20 min walking). Mixed evidence was found with regard to activities relevant at proximity. Regardless, playgrounds, green spaces, food shopping and elementary education showed particular relevance.</p><p>Building on the empirical evidence collected, we strike out a first conceptual framework for proximity-centred accessibility. Building on the general definition for accessibility, we include a maximum distance threshold of 1600 m to consider accessibility as proximity-centred. The proposed framework encourages multiple distances (up to 1600 m), transport modes, and activities (although the relevance of activities seems to be clearly dependent of distance and local context). The importance of clearly specifying the exact distances, transport mode(s) and activities for each application of the framework is stressed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100852,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Urban Mobility","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100060"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Urban Mobility","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266709172300016X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Recognised as an important dimension of quality of life, accessibility has gained increasing attention from research and planning practice in the last decades. Rising concern with global warming and the dehumanization of cities has spotlighted the proximity-centred dimension of accessibility, which for decades has been mostly undervalued. In both research and practice, we witness a rise in references to proximity-centred accessibility, however, using a variety of different terms, with somewhat nuanced meanings or underlying concerns. Proximity-centred accessibility concepts are still in flux, inhibiting the establishment of a comprehensive understanding for the development of a cohesive research field and of effective public policies.

This paper provides a first contribution to the development of a conceptual framework for proximity-centred accessibility, through a co-development process involving both research and practice. For this we used a mixed methods approach incorporating bibliographic research, surveys, and a focus group, involving both experts in the research field and a sample of planning practitioners from Portugal and Germany.

Our research revealed over a dozen different proximity-centred accessibility terms currently in use in the scientific research field, of which, local accessibility and neighbourhood accessibility are the most commonly used. A difference in favoured terminology was identified between research and practice as well as different national contexts, requiring further explorations. While Proximity thresholds have been defined using a variety of physical distances or travel times, our survey revealed a nearly unanimous consensus around a threshold of 1600 m (roughly 20 min walking). Mixed evidence was found with regard to activities relevant at proximity. Regardless, playgrounds, green spaces, food shopping and elementary education showed particular relevance.

Building on the empirical evidence collected, we strike out a first conceptual framework for proximity-centred accessibility. Building on the general definition for accessibility, we include a maximum distance threshold of 1600 m to consider accessibility as proximity-centred. The proposed framework encourages multiple distances (up to 1600 m), transport modes, and activities (although the relevance of activities seems to be clearly dependent of distance and local context). The importance of clearly specifying the exact distances, transport mode(s) and activities for each application of the framework is stressed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
以邻近为中心的可达性——一场涉及专家和规划实践者的概念辩论
无障碍被公认为生活质量的一个重要方面,在过去几十年中,无障碍越来越受到研究和规划实践的关注。人们对全球变暖和城市非人化的日益担忧,突显了以接近为中心的无障碍维度,几十年来,这一维度一直被低估。然而,在研究和实践中,我们看到越来越多的人提到以接近为中心的无障碍,使用了各种不同的术语,其含义或潜在的担忧有些微妙。以接近为中心的无障碍概念仍在不断变化,阻碍了对发展一个有凝聚力的研究领域和有效的公共政策的全面理解。本文通过涉及研究和实践的共同开发过程,首次为开发以接近为中心的无障碍概念框架做出了贡献。为此,我们采用了一种混合方法,包括书目研究、调查和焦点小组,包括研究领域的专家和来自葡萄牙和德国的规划从业者样本。我们的研究揭示了目前在科学研究领域使用的十几个不同的以接近为中心的无障碍术语,当地无障碍和邻里无障碍是最常用的。研究和实践以及不同的国家背景之间发现了受欢迎的术语的差异,需要进一步探索。虽然接近阈值是通过各种物理距离或旅行时间来定义的,但我们的调查显示,在1600米(步行约20分钟)的阈值上几乎达成了一致意见。关于附近的相关活动,发现了混杂的证据。无论如何,游乐场、绿地、食品购物和基础教育都显示出特别的相关性。在收集到的经验证据的基础上,我们提出了第一个以接近为中心的无障碍性的概念框架。在无障碍的一般定义的基础上,我们纳入了1600米的最大距离阈值,以将无障碍视为以接近为中心。拟议的框架鼓励多种距离(高达1600米)、运输方式和活动(尽管活动的相关性似乎明显取决于距离和当地环境)。强调了明确规定每种框架应用的确切距离、运输方式和活动的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Contrasting Stakeholders’ Perspectives on the First Full-Year School Street Initiatives in Ontario, Canada Just around the corner: Accessibility by proximity in the 15-minute city Diminishing returns of additional active travel infrastructure: Evaluating Barcelona's decade of sustainable transportation progress Effects of different mobility concepts in new residential areas Enhancing last mile connectivity using shared mobility: A stated preference survey of business park commuters
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1