无障碍工具GOAT对规划实践的有用性评估

IF 2.7 Q1 GEOGRAPHY Journal of Urban Mobility Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.urbmob.2022.100033
Elias Pajares , Ulrike Jehle , Joelean Hall , Montserrat Miramontes , Gebhard Wulfhorst
{"title":"无障碍工具GOAT对规划实践的有用性评估","authors":"Elias Pajares ,&nbsp;Ulrike Jehle ,&nbsp;Joelean Hall ,&nbsp;Montserrat Miramontes ,&nbsp;Gebhard Wulfhorst","doi":"10.1016/j.urbmob.2022.100033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Accessibility instruments could serve as powerful support in assisting planning practitioners. Though, accessibility instruments are usually not yet applied in practice. Past research has identified that besides institutional barriers in adopting accessibility, there is still a lack of useful instruments. It is suggested that tool developers engage closer with planning practice to better meet requirements from practice. The authors developed an interactive and web-based accessibility instrument called GOAT, focusing on active mobility in a co-creative environment with urban and transport planning practitioners. This manuscript aims to answer two research questions. Which planning questions exist for GOAT in the field of transport and urban planning? Is the accessibility instrument GOAT of useful support in the planning practice?</p><p>First, suitable planning questions were identified. The tools’ utility and usability for the planning questions were self-assessed based on the experience in five applications workshops with 37 planning professionals in four German cities. The assessment was realized by analyzing workshop minutes and worksheets for the different planning questions. As a result, the usefulness was assessed for the planning questions and was summarized into four groups: Infrastructure Planning Walking, Infrastructure Planning Cycling, Location Planning, and Housing Development.</p><p>The assessment revealed that the tool helps answer common planning questions. In terms of usability, the tool could also be used by individuals unfamiliar with existing planning software after a half-day introduction. Meanwhile, practitioners requested further indicators and improvements in usability. Furthermore, stronger technical integration with existing systems should be envisaged. It is concluded that the involvement of planning practice was highly beneficial when developing and assessing the tool. Therefore, ongoing exchange and a long-term assessment of the tools’ usefulness are suggested in the future.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100852,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Urban Mobility","volume":"2 ","pages":"Article 100033"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667091722000218/pdfft?md5=746c192f1954f116f5d259c37cf439d5&pid=1-s2.0-S2667091722000218-main.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of the usefulness of the accessibility instrument GOAT for the planning practice\",\"authors\":\"Elias Pajares ,&nbsp;Ulrike Jehle ,&nbsp;Joelean Hall ,&nbsp;Montserrat Miramontes ,&nbsp;Gebhard Wulfhorst\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.urbmob.2022.100033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Accessibility instruments could serve as powerful support in assisting planning practitioners. Though, accessibility instruments are usually not yet applied in practice. Past research has identified that besides institutional barriers in adopting accessibility, there is still a lack of useful instruments. It is suggested that tool developers engage closer with planning practice to better meet requirements from practice. The authors developed an interactive and web-based accessibility instrument called GOAT, focusing on active mobility in a co-creative environment with urban and transport planning practitioners. This manuscript aims to answer two research questions. Which planning questions exist for GOAT in the field of transport and urban planning? Is the accessibility instrument GOAT of useful support in the planning practice?</p><p>First, suitable planning questions were identified. The tools’ utility and usability for the planning questions were self-assessed based on the experience in five applications workshops with 37 planning professionals in four German cities. The assessment was realized by analyzing workshop minutes and worksheets for the different planning questions. As a result, the usefulness was assessed for the planning questions and was summarized into four groups: Infrastructure Planning Walking, Infrastructure Planning Cycling, Location Planning, and Housing Development.</p><p>The assessment revealed that the tool helps answer common planning questions. In terms of usability, the tool could also be used by individuals unfamiliar with existing planning software after a half-day introduction. Meanwhile, practitioners requested further indicators and improvements in usability. Furthermore, stronger technical integration with existing systems should be envisaged. It is concluded that the involvement of planning practice was highly beneficial when developing and assessing the tool. Therefore, ongoing exchange and a long-term assessment of the tools’ usefulness are suggested in the future.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100852,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Urban Mobility\",\"volume\":\"2 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100033\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667091722000218/pdfft?md5=746c192f1954f116f5d259c37cf439d5&pid=1-s2.0-S2667091722000218-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Urban Mobility\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667091722000218\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Urban Mobility","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667091722000218","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

摘要

无障碍工具可以为协助规划从业人员提供强有力的支持。不过,无障碍文书通常尚未在实践中得到应用。过去的研究表明,除了在采用无障碍方面存在体制障碍外,仍然缺乏有用的工具。建议工具开发人员更密切地参与规划实践,以更好地满足实践的要求。作者开发了一个名为GOAT的交互式网络无障碍工具,重点关注与城市和交通规划从业者在共同创造的环境中的积极流动性。本文旨在回答两个研究问题。GOAT在交通和城市规划领域存在哪些规划问题?无障碍工具GOAT在规划实践中是否有有用的支持?首先,确定了适当的规划问题。这些工具在规划问题上的实用性和可用性是根据德国四个城市37名规划专业人员参加的五次应用研讨会的经验进行自我评估的。评估是通过分析不同规划问题的研讨会纪要和工作表来实现的。因此,对规划问题的有用性进行了评估,并将其总结为四组:基础设施规划步行、基础设施规划自行车、位置规划和住房开发。评估显示,该工具有助于回答常见的规划问题。在可用性方面,不熟悉现有规划软件的个人也可以在半天的介绍后使用该工具。与此同时,从业者要求在可用性方面提供进一步的指标和改进。此外,应设想加强与现有系统的技术整合。得出的结论是,在开发和评估该工具时,参与规划实践是非常有益的。因此,建议今后继续进行交流,并对这些工具的有用性进行长期评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Assessment of the usefulness of the accessibility instrument GOAT for the planning practice

Accessibility instruments could serve as powerful support in assisting planning practitioners. Though, accessibility instruments are usually not yet applied in practice. Past research has identified that besides institutional barriers in adopting accessibility, there is still a lack of useful instruments. It is suggested that tool developers engage closer with planning practice to better meet requirements from practice. The authors developed an interactive and web-based accessibility instrument called GOAT, focusing on active mobility in a co-creative environment with urban and transport planning practitioners. This manuscript aims to answer two research questions. Which planning questions exist for GOAT in the field of transport and urban planning? Is the accessibility instrument GOAT of useful support in the planning practice?

First, suitable planning questions were identified. The tools’ utility and usability for the planning questions were self-assessed based on the experience in five applications workshops with 37 planning professionals in four German cities. The assessment was realized by analyzing workshop minutes and worksheets for the different planning questions. As a result, the usefulness was assessed for the planning questions and was summarized into four groups: Infrastructure Planning Walking, Infrastructure Planning Cycling, Location Planning, and Housing Development.

The assessment revealed that the tool helps answer common planning questions. In terms of usability, the tool could also be used by individuals unfamiliar with existing planning software after a half-day introduction. Meanwhile, practitioners requested further indicators and improvements in usability. Furthermore, stronger technical integration with existing systems should be envisaged. It is concluded that the involvement of planning practice was highly beneficial when developing and assessing the tool. Therefore, ongoing exchange and a long-term assessment of the tools’ usefulness are suggested in the future.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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