Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice in Europe. Results of the Accessibility Instrument Survey of COST Action TU1002 (original) (raw)
Accessibility instruments for planning practice: A review of European experiences
2016
Although a large body of literature has been produced on the theoretical definitions and measurements of accessibility, the extent to which such indicators are used in planning practice is less clear. This research explores the gap between theory and application by seeking to understand what the new wave of accessibility instruments (AIs) prepared for spatial and transport planning practice purports to offer the users of AIs. Starting from the question of how urban and transport planners are designing AIs, the article analyzes and describes the AIs developed over the last decade (mainly in Europe), offering a structured overview and a clear categorization of how accessibility measures can be applied. The paper identifies AI characteristics, and considers their usability, based on AI developer perceptions.
Accessibility Instruments in Planning Practice
2012
Although a large body of literature has been produced on the theoretical definitions and measurements of accessibility, the extent to which such indicators are used in planning practice is less clear. This research explores the gap between theory and application by seeking to understand what the new wave of accessibility instruments (AIs) prepared for spatial and transport planning practice purports to offer the users of AIs. Starting from the question of how urban and transport planners are designing AIs, the article analyzes and describes the AIs developed over the last decade (mainly in Europe), offering a structured overview and a clear categorization of how accessibility measures can be applied. The paper identifies AI characteristics, and considers their usability, based on AI developer perceptions.
2014
One of the core objectives of urban planning practice is to provide spatial equity in terms of opportunities and use of public space and facilities. Accessibility is the element that serves this purpose as a concept linking the reciprocal relationship between transport and land use, thus shaping individual potential mobility to reach the desired destinations. Accessibility concepts are increasingly acknowledged as fundamental to understand the functioning of cities and urban regions. Indeed, by introducing them in planning practice, better solutions can be achieved in terms of spatial equity. The COST Action TU1002 "Accessibility instruments for planning practice" was specifically designed to address the gap between scientific research in measuring and modelling accessibility, and the current use of indicators of accessibility in urban planning practice. This paper shows the full process of introducing an easily understandable measure of accessibility to planning practitio...
Accessibility instruments in planning practice: Bridging the implementation gap
2017
Accessibility concepts are increasingly acknowledged as fundamental to understand cities and urban regions. Accordingly, accessibility instruments have been recognised as valuable support tools for land-use and transport planning. However, despite the relatively large number of instruments available in the literature, they are not widely used in planning practice. This paper aims to explore why accessibility instruments are not widely used in planning practice. To this end we focus our research on perceived user-friendliness and usefulness of accessibility instruments. First, we surveyed a number of instrument developers, providing an overview on the characteristics of accessibility instruments available and on developers’ perceptions of their user-friendliness in planning practice. Second, we brought together developers and planning practitioners in a number of local workshops across Europe and Australia, where participants were asked to use insights provided by accessibility instruments for the development of planning strategies. We found that most practitioners are convinced of the usefulness of accessibility instruments in planning practice, as they generate new and relevant insights for planners. Findings suggest that not only user-friendliness problems, but mainly organizational barriers and lack of institutionalization of accessibility instruments, are the main causes of the implementation gap. Thus user-friendliness improvement may provide limited contributions to the successful implementation of accessibility concepts in planning practice. In fact, there seems to be more to gain from active and continued engagement of instrument developers with planning practitioners and from the institutionalization of accessibility planning.
2019
The Lack of Implementation of Accessibility Instruments The development of Planning Support Systems (PSS) is a well-established practice in academic contexts and consultancy, with numerous examples ranging from out of the shelf, ready to use, products or software, to more conceptual prototypes or frameworks. The field of land use and transport planning, in particular, has been no exception, generating a significant number of PSS in recent years. If anything, the need for PSS has been largely advocated in this research field. Among these, accessibility-based instruments have been considered to have a strong planning support potential in, for instance, bridging the communication gap between land use and transport planners by making the overall goal of the land use and transport system explicit (it is impossible to talk of accessibility without also referring to both land use and transport systems). Despite this focus on planning support, many of the PSS have not been applied in practice. In particular, accessibility-based PSS provide a paradigmatic example of this lack of implementation, regardless of the believed potential for the integration of land use and transport planning. In fact, of the accessibility instruments reviewed in the COST Action TU1002, less than half had been implemented as part of the urban/transport planning process, and even when implemented, it often was a one-off exercise (Hull et al., 2012; Papa et al., 2016). This research project, reported on in this book, sets out to contribute to bridging this implementation gap by exploring why accessibility instruments are not used in practice and what can be done to overcome this lack of implementation. First of all, it is important to point out that the lack of implementation of accessibility instruments is rooted on a weak position of accessibility planning in the political agenda, where mobility planning is still the main priority. In fact, only 3 out of 16 of the countries involved in this study are believed to have policy requirements for accessibility planning (Figure 16.1). 1 By and large policy still focuses on facilitating mobility as an end in itself (by developing transport systems), rather than seeing mobility as a means of granting access to opportunities (by a combination of transport and land use interventions). As explained in the introductory chapters of this book, and illustrated by the many instruments and applications that have followed, the difference is rather substantial. Also if we take a closer look at the European Directives on transport and mobility, although accessibility is currently referred as a political priority, the specific scope is generally limited to mobility of the physically impaired or to accessibility to and at public transport stops or stations. FIGURE 16.1 Policy Requirements to undertake an accessibility analysis. Source: Hull, A., Silva, C. and Bertolini, L. (Eds.) (2012). N=16 Countries of the 22 accessibility instrument developers surveyed in the Accessibility Instrument Survey (Hull, et al., 2012).
Accessibility Progress and Perspectives
Handbook of Accessible Instruction and Testing Practices, 2018
Accessibility is seen to be a core issue which relates directly to the quality of life: if a person cannot reach and use a facility then they cannot take advantage of the benefits that the facility is seeking to provide. In some cases this is about being able to take part in an activity for enjoyment, but in some it is a question of the exercise of human rights-access to healthcare, education, voting and other citizens' rights. This paper argues that such an equitable accessibility approach requires understanding of the relationships between the capabilities that a person has and the capabilities required of them by society in order to achieve the accessibility they seek. The Capabilities Model, which has been developed at UCL is an attempt to understand this relationship and the paper sets out an approach to quantifying the capabilities in a way that allows designers and implementers of environmental construction and operation to have a more robust approach to their decisions about providing accessibility.
The learning process of accessibility instrument developers: Testing the tools in planning practice
Many planning support tools have recently been developed aimed at measuring and modelling accessibility (Accessibility Instrument or AI). The main difficulty for tool developers is designing an AI that is at the same time technically rigorous and usable in practice. Measuring accessibility is indeed a complex task, and AI outputs are difficult to communicate to target end-users, in particular, because these users are professionals from several disciplines with different languages and areas of expertise, such as urban geographers, spatial planners, transport planners, and budgeting professionals. In addition to this, AI developers seem to have little awareness of the needs of AI end-users, which in turn tend to have limited ability for using these tools. Against this complex background, our research focuses on the viewpoint of AI developers, with two aims: (1) to provide insights into how AI developers perceive their tools and (2) to understand how their perceptions might change after testing their AI with end-users. With this in mind, an analysis of 15 case studies was performed: groups of end-users tested different AI in structured workshops. Before and after the workshops, two questionnaires explored the AI developers' perceptions on the tools and their usability. The paper demonstrates that the workshops with end-users were critical for developers to appreciate the importance of specific characteristics the tool should have, namely practical relevance, flexibility, and ease of use. The study provides evidence that AI developers were prone to change their perceptions about AI after interacting directly with end-users.
A proposal for accessibility planning in NSW: research and policy issues
2010
Accessibility planning is a framework and process to use accessibility indicators as a basis for transport planning. The structured approach assesses actual accessibility at different spatial levels against indicators to identify accessibility inequities, and then develops and implements plans to improve accessibility. In this context, accessibility refers to spatial access rather than physical access. Accessibility planning has been introduced in the UK as a mechanism for achieving social inclusion by addressing inequities in access to goods and services using indicators of access to jobs, education, health facilities and retail facilities by public transport. The paper outlines a proposal for implementing accessibility planning in NSW. The paper explains the concept and significance of accessibility planning and the current context for accessibility planning in NSW. It identifies research and policy issues which would need to be resolved to implement accessibility planning in NSW including relationship with existing targets, determining accessibility indicators and standards, community engagement, governance and institutional frameworks, and funding and implementation.
Measuring Accessibility for People with a Disability
Geographical Analysis, 2003
This paper discusses some of the inherent problems associated with measuring accessibility for people on a landscape of surfaces, barriers, and travel modes. Along with this discussion we propose a new perspective for measuring accessibility with a focus on people with differing abilities. Even though our focus is on people with a physical disability, such an approach can be easily extended and is able to be generalized to other needs and differences. Traditional measurements of accessibility are jawed, as they fail to directly account for mobility and physical differences among people. They ignore structural barriers and individual mobility limitations that afect travel time, effort, and even successful completion. To make sense of this dilemma, we propose an accessibility measurement framework that includes measures of absolute access, gross access, closest assignment access, single and multiple activity access, probabilistic choice access, and relative access. Most of these measures of access have been proposed by others, but our framework attempts to codijiy an approach that helps to overcome weaknesses in using only the absolute access memurement currently used in ADA compliance. Such measures can be used to map accessibility as well as to help select the mitigation or renovation projects that yield the greatest increase in accessibility for people with disabilities. We argue that for many urban and building design problems providing absolute access for people with physical disabilities should be accompanied by the use of a relative access meawrement, so that removing barriers can be done in the order that provides the greatest improvement in access for a given level of expenditure.
Assessment of Accessibility Measures
2001
Page 1. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. FHWA/TX-01/4938-3 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle ASSESSMENT OF ACCESSIBILITY MEASURES 5. Report Date August 2001 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Authors Chandra Bhat, Susan Handy, Kara Kockelman, Hani Mahmassani, Qinglin Chen, Issam Srour, Lisa Weston 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7-4938-3 10.