SpringerLink
Log in

Literature review of accessibility measures and models used in land use and transportation planning in last 5 years

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Journal of Geographical Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since its inception accessibility has undergone various changes in the way it is defined, measured, and modeled. The paper reviews the recent advancements made in the accessibility measures along with the models used in different applications of accessibility related to land use and transportation. The measures of accessibility are grouped under infrastructure-based, location-based, and person-based measures. The paper finds that although the person-based measures are statistically robust and theoretically sound, they are less preferred than the location-based measure in the accessibility measurement. The review finds recent development such as web based map** and use of location based data; image map** through convolutional neural networks; and activity-time constraints modeling in the measures of accessibility. Further, the paper reviews literature from the last five years that have used accessibility to study travel mode choices and household location choices and finds the use of three types of modeling framework — Statistical, Neural Network, and Agent Based models. Based on the literature review, this paper suggests the inclusion of environmental sustainability and gender equity in the accessibility measurement framework and a shift towards model synthesis to enhance the model accuracy and to reduce the present complexities in model building.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alford T J, Shi X, Onega T et al., 2008. Assess potential demand for major cancer care facilities in the US. Association of American Geographers Annual Conference. Boston, MA.

  • Alkamali N, Alhadhrami N, Alalouch C, 2017. Muscat city expansion and accessibility to the historical core: Space syntax analysis. Energy Procedia, 115: 480–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen J, Farber S, 2019. Sizing up transport poverty: A national scale accounting of low-income households suffering from inaccessibility in Canada, and what to do about it. Transport Policy, 74: 214–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AlQuhtani S, Anjomani A, 2021. Do rail transit stations affect the population density changes around them? The case of Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area. Sustainability, 13(6): 3355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Sayed K, Penn A, 2017. Translating analytical descriptions of cities into planning and simulation models. Design Computing and Cognition, 16: 537–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrew A, Alex D, Dennis M et al., 2018. WalkNet: A deep learning approach to improving sidewalk quality and accessibility. SMU Data Science Review, 1(1): 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babakan A, Alimohammadi A, 2015. An agent-based simulation of residential location choice of tenants in Tehran, Iran. Transactions in GIS, 20(1): 101–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babakan A, Taleai M, 2015. Impacts of transport development on residence choice of renter households: An agent-based evaluation. Habitat International, 49: 275–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badhan I M, 2019. Space syntax analysis: Tracing the rationale for accessibility of recreational/movement economy growth along Hatirjheel Lake Park through integration and connectivity. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 10(10): 1197–1206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batty M, 2009. Accessibility: In search of a unified theory. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36(2): 191–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva M E, Lerman S R, 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley M, Bowman J L, Griesenbeck B, 2010. SACSIM: An applied activity-based model system with fine-level spatial and temporal resolution. Journal of Choice Modelling, 3(1): 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant Jr J, Delamater P L, 2019. Examination of spatial accessibility at micro- and macro-levels using the enhanced two-step floating catchment area (E2SFCA) method. Annals of GIS, 25(3): 219–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns L D, 1979. Transportation, Temporal, and Spatial Components of Accessibility. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns L D, Golob T F, 1976. The role of accessibility in basic transportation choice behavior. Transportation, 5(2): 175–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrella E, Bailey R, Madsen J K, 2020. Calibrating agent-based models with linear regressions. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 23(1): 7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Y J, Akar G, 2017. Using trip chaining and joint travel as mediating variables to explore the relationships among travel behavior, socio-demographics and urban form. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 10(1): 573–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng G, Zeng X, Duan L et al., 2016. Spatial difference analysis for accessibility to high level hospitals based on travel time in Shenzhen, China. Habitat International, 53: 485–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng J, Yan R, Gao Y, 2020. Exploring spatial heterogeneity in accessibility and transit mode choice. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 87: 102521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlke J, Bogner M et al., 2020. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Machine learning (ML) in and for agent-based modelling (ABM). ar**v preprint ar**v:2003.11985.

  • Dalvi M Q, Martin K M, 1976. The measurement of accessibility: Some preliminary results. Transportation, 5(1): 17–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delamater P L, 2013. Spatial accessibility in suboptimally configured health care systems: a modified two-step floating catchment area (M2SFCA) metric. Health & Place, 24: 30–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbosc A, Currie G, 2018. Accessibility and exclusion related to well being. In: Quality of Life and Daily Travel. Springer, Cham, 57–69.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey N, Brown C, Bramley G, 2012. The key to sustainable urban development in UK cities? The influence of density on social sustainability. Progress in Planning, 77(3): 89–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng Y, Srinivasan S, 2016. Urban land use change and regional access: A case study in Bei**g, China. Habitat International, 51: 103–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixit M, Sivakumar A, 2020. Capturing the impact of individual characteristics on transport accessibility and equity analysis. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 87: 102473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckerd A, Kim Y, Campbell H, 2018. Gentrification and displacement: Modeling a complex urban process. Housing Policy Debate, 29(2): 273–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feilong H, Shijun W, Dongcan X et al., 2017. Space-time accessibility of commercial centers in Changchun urban area based on internet map service. Economic Geography, 37: 68–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feng X, Gan T, Wang X, 2015. Feedback analysis of interaction between urban densities and travel mode split. International Journal of Simulation Modelling, 14(2): 349–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fosset P, Banos A, Beck E et al., 2016. Exploring intra-urban accessibility and impacts of pollution policies with an agent-based simulation platform: GaMiroD. Systems, 4(1): 5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fotheringham A S, 1986. Modelling hierarchical destination choice. Environment and Planning A, 18(3): 401–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fotheringham A S, Nakaya T, Yano K et al., 2001. Hierarchical destination choice and spatial interaction modelling: A simulation experiment. Environment and Planning A, 33(5): 901–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fransen K, Neutens T, De Maeyer P et al., 2015. A commuter-based two-step floating catchment area method for measuring spatial accessibility of daycare centers. Health & Place, 32(1): 65–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu X, Lam W H K, Chen B Y et al., 2020. Maximizing space-time accessibility in multi-modal transit networks: An activity-based approach. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, 2: 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Albertos P, Picornell M, Salas-Olmedo M H et al., 2018. Exploring the potential of mobile phone records and online route planners for dynamic accessibility analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 125: 294–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurs K T, Van Wee B, 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2): 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gore R J, Lynch C J, Kavak H, 2017. Applying statistical debugging for enhanced trace validation of agent-based models. Simulation, 93(4): 273–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guagliardo M F, 2004. Spatial accessibility of primary care: Concepts, methods and challenges. International Journal of Health Geographics, 3(1): 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guan C, Peiser R, 2018. Accessibility, urban form, and property value: A study of Pudong, Shanghai. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 11(1): 1057–1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guan C, Srinivasan S, Nielsen C P, 2019. Does neighborhood form influence low-carbon transportation in China? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 67: 406–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo C, Buchmann C M, Schwarz N, 2017. Linking urban sprawl and income segregation: Findings from a stylized agent-based model. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science., 46(3): 469–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ha T V, Asada T, Arimura M, 2019. Determination of the influence factors on household vehicle ownership patterns in Phnom Penh using statistical and machine learning methods. Journal of Transport Geography, 78: 70–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hägerstrand T, 1975. Space, time and human conditions. Dynamic Allocation of Urban Space, 3: 2–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halás M, Klapka P, Kladivo P, 2014. Distance-decay functions for daily travel-to-work flows. Journal of Transport Geography, 35: 107–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handy S L, Niemeier D A, 1997. Measuring accessibility: An exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A, 29(7): 1175–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handy S, 2020. Is accessibility an idea whose time has finally come? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 83: 102319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen W G, 1959. How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25(2): 73–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heppenstall A, Crooks A, Malleson N et al., 2021. Future Developments in Geographical Agent-Based Models: Challenges and Opportunities. Geogr. Anal., 53(1): 76–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heppenstall A, Malleson N, 2020. Building cities from Slime Mould, Agents and Quantum Field Theory. In: An B, Yorke-Smith N, El Fallah Seghrouchni A. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. Auckland, New Zealand.

  • Hillier B, Hanson J, 1984. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hu L, He S, Han Z et al., 2019. Monitoring housing rental prices based on social media: An integrated approach of machine-learning algorithms and hedonic modeling to inform equitable housing policies. Land Use Policy, 82: 657–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang B X, Chiou S C, Li W Y, 2020. Accessibility and street network characteristics of urban public facility spaces: Equity research on parks in Fuzhou City based on GIS and space syntax model. Sustainability, 12(9): 3618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang R, 2017. Simulating individual work trips for transit-facilitated accessibility study. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(1): 84–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter E, Mac Namee B, Kelleher J D, 2018. A Comparison of Agent-Based Models and Equation Based Models for Infectious Disease Epidemiology. In AICS, 33–44.

  • Ingram D R, 1971. The concept of accessibility: A search for an operational form. Regional Studies, 5(2): 101–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inturri G, Ignaccolo M, Le Pira M et al., 2017. Influence of accessibility, land use and transport policies on the transport energy dependence of a city. Transportation Research Procedia, 25: 3273–3285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamtsho S, Corner R, Dewan A, 2015. Spatio-temporal analysis of spatial accessibility to primary health care in Bhutan. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 4(3): 1584–1604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ** J, 2019. The effects of labor market spatial structure and the built environment on commuting behavior: Considering spatial effects and self-selection. Cities, 95: 102392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson-Stenman O, Martinsson P, 2006. Honestly, why are you driving a BMW? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60(2): 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaewwichian P, Tanwanichkul L, Pitaksringkarn J, 2019. Car ownership demand modeling using machine learning: Decision trees and neural networks. International Journal of GEOMATE, 17(62): 219–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasraian D, Maat K, Van Wee B, 2017. The impact of urban proximity, transport accessibility and policy on urban growth: A longitudinal analysis over five decades. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(6): 1000–1017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasraian D, Raghav S, Miller E J, 2020. A multi-decade longitudinal analysis of transportation and land use co-evolution in the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area. Journal of Transport Geography, 84: 102696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan A A, 1992. An integrated approach to measuring potential spatial access to health care services. Socio-economic planning sciences, 26(4): 275–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan A A, Bhardwaj S M, 1994. Access to health care. A conceptual framework and its relevance to health care planning. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 17(1): 60–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim H M, Kwan M P, 2003. Space-time accessibility measures: A geocomputational algorithm with a focus on the feasible opportunity set and possible activity duration. Journal of Geographical Systems, 5(1): 71–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinigadner J, Büttner B, Wulfhorst G et al., 2020. Planning for low carbon mobility: Impacts of transport interventions and location on carbon-based accessibility. Journal of Transport Geography, 87: 102797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinigadner J, Vale D, Büttner B et al., 2021. Shifting perspectives: A comparison of travel-time-based and carbon-based accessibility landscapes. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 14(1): 345–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kofinas P, Dounis A I, Vouros G A, 2018. Fuzzy Q-learning for multi-agent decentralized energy management in microgrids. Applied Energy, 219: 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans C, Rietveld P, Huijg A, 2012. An accessibility approach to railways and municipal population growth, 1840–1930. Journal of Transport Geography, 25: 98–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwan M P, Kotsev A, 2015. Gender differences in commute time and accessibility in Sofia, Bulgaria: A study using 3 D geovisualisation. The Geographical Journal, 181(1): 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laite R, Portman N, Sankaranarayanan K, 2016. Behavioral analysis of agent based service channel design using neural networks. 2016 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC).

  • Lamperti F, Roventini A, Sani A, 2018. Agent-based model calibration using machine learning surrogates. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 90: 366–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langford M, Higgs G, Fry R, 2016. Multi-modal two-step floating catchment area analysis of primary health care accessibility. Health & Place, 38: 70–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leao S Z, Huynh N, Taylor A et al., 2017. Evolution of a synthetic population and its daily mobility patterns under spatial strategies for urban growth. Planning Support Science for Smarter Urban Futures, 399–417.

  • Lecompte M C, Pablo B S J, 2017. Transport systems and their impacts on gender equity. Transportation Research Procedia, 25: 4245–4257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee D, Derrible S, Pereira F C, 2018. Comparison of four types of artificial neural network and a multinomial logit model for travel mode choice modeling. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2672(49): 101–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee J S et al., 2015. The complexities of agent-based modeling output analysis. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 18(4): 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee J, He S Y, Sohn D W, 2017. Potential of converting short car trips to active trips: The role of the built environment in tour-based travel. Journal of Transport & Health, 7: 134–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee J, Miller H J, 2019. Analyzing collective accessibility using average space-time prisms. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 69: 250–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee S, Yoo C, Seo K W, 2020. Determinant factors of pedestrian volume in different land-use zones: Combining space syntax metrics with GIS-based built-environment measures. Sustainability, 12(20): 8647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenntrop B, 1976. Paths in time-space environments: A time-geographic study of movement possibilities of individuals. Lund Studies in Geography, Series B, Human Geography, 44: 1–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Wei Y D, Wu Y et al., 2018. Analyzing housing prices in Shanghai with open data: Amenity, accessibility and urban structure. Cities, 91: 165–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Gong P, 2016. Urban growth models: Progress and perspective. Science Bulletin, 61(21): 1637–1650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, Cao X, Li T, 2020. Influence of accessibility on land use and landscape pattern based on map** knowledge domains: Review and implications. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2020(3): 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu Z, Ma J, Chai Y, 2016. Neighborhood-scale urban form, travel behavior, and CO2 emissions in Bei**g: implications for low-carbon urban planning. Urban Geography, 38(3): 381–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu S, Shi C, Yang X, 2019. Impacts of built environment on urban vitality: Regression analyses of Bei**g and Chengdu, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(23): 4592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu Y, Sun G, Sarkar C et al., 2018. Commuting mode choice in a high-density city: Do land-use density and diversity matter in Hong Kong? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(5): 920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo J, 2014. Integrating the huff model and floating catchment area methods to analyze spatial access to healthcare services. Transactions in GIS, 18(3): 436–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo W, Qi Y, 2009. An enhanced two-step floating catchment area (E2SFCA) method for measuring spatial accessibility to primary care physicians. Health & Place, 15(4): 1100–1107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo W, Whippo T, 2012. Variable catchment sizes for the two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) method. Health & Place, 18(4): 789–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Määttä-Juntunen H, Antikainen H, Kotavaara O et al., 2011. Using GIS tools to estimate CO2 emissions related to the accessibility of large retail stores in the Oulu region, Finland. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(2): 346–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macal C M, 2016. Everything you need to know about agent-based modelling and simulation. Journal of Simulation, 10(2): 144–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmoudi J, Zhang L, 2018. Impact of county-level built environment and regional accessibility on walking: A Washington, DC—Baltimore case study. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 144(3): 04018020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manson S, L An, Clarke K C et al., 2020. Methodological issues of spatial agent-based models. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 23(1): 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marini M, Chokani N, Abhari R S, 2019. Immigration and future housing needs in Switzerland: Agent-based modelling of agglomeration Lausanne. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 78: 101400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D, 1978. Quantitative methods for analyzing travel behaviour of individuals: Some recent developments. In: Hensher D, Stopher P (eds.). Behavioural Travel Modelling. London: Croom Helm London, 279–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrail M R, Humphreys J S, 2014. Measuring spatial accessibility to primary health care services: Utilising dynamic catchment sizes. Applied Geography, 54: 182–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller H J, 1991. Modelling accessibility using space-time prism concepts within geographical information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 5(3): 287–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra D, Sarkar A K, 2017. Application of neural network in modeling commuter choice behavior with a novel fuzzy access measure. In: Bramer M, Petridis M (ed.). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 313–321.

  • Morales J, Flacke J, Zevenbergen J, 2019. Modelling residential land values using geographic and geometric accessibility in Guatemala City. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(4): 751–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris J M, Dumble P L, Wigan M R, 1979. Accessibility indicators for transport planning. Transportation Research Part A: General, 13(2): 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller B, Bohn F, Dreßler G et al., 2013. Describing human decisions in agent-based models − ODD + D, an extension of the ODD protocol. Environmental Modelling & Software, 48: 37–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muñiz I, Garcia-López M À, Galindo A, 2008. The effect of employment sub-centres on population density in Barcelona. Urban Studies, 45(3): 627–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nasri A, Younes H, Zhang L, 2020. Analysis of the effect of multi-level urban form on bikeshare demand: Evidence from seven large metropolitan areas in the United States. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 13(1): 389–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Negahban A, 2017. Neural networks and agent-based diffusion models. In: 2017 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), IEEE, 1407–1418.

  • Niemeier D A, 1997. Accessibility: An evaluation using consumer welfare. Transportation, 24(4): 377–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niu Q, Wang Y, ** API: A case study of main parks in Wuhan. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(8): 1725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özkazanç S, Özdemir Sönmez F N, 2017. Spatial analysis of social exclusion from a transportation perspective: A case study of Ankara metropolitan area. Cities, 67: 74–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öztürk O, Gülgen B, Bilgi S et al., 2018. Accessibility Analysis of Street Networks using Space Syntax. Sozopol, Bulgaria.

  • Páez A, Scott D M, Morency C, 2012. Measuring accessibility: Positive and normative implementations of various accessibility indicators. Journal of Transport Geography, 25: 141–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pang H, Zhang M, 2019. Understand the multi-level effects of the built environment on trip-chaining behavior. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2673(4): 640–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng Z R, 1997. The jobs-housing balance and urban commuting. Urban Studies, 34(8): 1215–1235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirie G H, 1979. Measuring accessibility: A review and proposal. Environment and Planning A, 11(3): 299–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirie G H, 1981. The possibility and potential of public policy on accessibility. Transportation Research Part A: General, 15(5): 377–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirra M, Kalakou S, Carboni A et al., 2021. A preliminary analysis on gender aspects in transport systems and mobility services: Presentation of a survey design. Sustainability, 13(5): 2676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pred A, 1977. The choreography of existence: Comments on Hagerstrand’s time-geography and its usefulness. Economic Geography, 53(2): 207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramchandani P, Paich M, Rao, 2017. Incorporating learning into decision making in agent based models. In: Oliveira E, Gama J, Vale Z et al. (eds). Progress in Artificial Intelligence. Proceedings of the 18th EPIA Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Porto, Portugal: Springer, 789–800.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rao A S, Georgeff M P, 1991. Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Allen J, Fikes R, Sandewall E (eds). Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. San Mateo, CA, 473–484.

  • Ruo-Qi L, Jun-Hong H, 2020. Prediction of housing price along the urban rail transit line based on GA-BP model and accessibility. 2020 IEEE 5th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Engineering (ICITE), Bei**g, China, 487–492.

  • Saghapour T, Moridpour S, 2019. The role of neighbourhoods accessibility in residential mobility. Cities, 87: 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlüter M, Baeza A, Dressler G et al., 2017. A framework for map** and comparing behavioural theories in models of social-ecological systems. Ecological Economics, 131: 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt B, 2002. The modelling of human behavior: The PECS reference model. In: Proceedings of 14th European Simulation Symposium. Dresden, Germany.

  • Schulze J, Müller B, Groeneveld J et al., 2017. Agent-based modelling of social-ecological systems: Achievements, challenges, and a way forward. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 20(2): 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen Q, 1998. Location characteristics of inner-city neighborhoods and employment accessibility of low-wage workers. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25(3): 345–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shukla N, Ma J, Wickramasuriya R et al., 2016. Modelling mode choice of individual in linked trips with artificial neural networks and fuzzy representation. Studies in Computational Intelligence, 405–422.

  • Song Y, Kim H, 2018. Evolution of subway network systems, subway accessibility, and change of urban landscape: A longitudinal approach to Seoul Metropolitan Area. In Intelligent Transportation and Planning: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice, 1087–1111. IGI Global.

  • Stokenberga A, 2014. Does bus rapid transit influence urban land development and property values: A review of the literature. Transport Reviews, 34(3): 276–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taaffe E J, 1996. Geography of Transportation. Morton O’kelly.

  • Tao Z, Cheng Y, Liu J, 2020. Hierarchical two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) method: Measuring the spatial accessibility to hierarchical healthcare facilities in Shenzhen, China. International Journal for Equity in Health, 19(1): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tao Z, Yao Z, Kong H et al., 2018. Spatial accessibility to healthcare services in Shenzhen, China: Improving the multi-modal two-step floating catchment area method by estimating travel time via online map APIs. BMC Health Services Research, 18(1): 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasiello D B, Giannotti M, Feitosa F F, 2020. ACCESS: An agent-based model to explore job accessibility inequalities. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 81: 101462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations, 2014. Liveable cities key to sustainable development, secretary-general stresses in message for international day [Press Release]. https://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sgsm16293.doc.htm, 2014-10-29.

  • Vale D S, Pereira M, 2016. The influence of the impedance function on gravity-based pedestrian accessibility measures: A comparative analysis. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 44(4): 740–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vale D S, Saraiva M, Pereira M, 2016. Active accessibility: A review of operational measures of walking and cycling accessibility. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 9(1): 209–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Hoog S, 2018. Surrogate modelling in (and of) agent-based models: A prospectus. Computational Economics, 53(3): 1245–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasconcelos A S, Farias T L, 2012. Evaluation of urban accessibility indicators based on internal and external environmental costs. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 17(6): 433–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vickerman R W, 1974. Accessibility, attraction, and potential: A review of some concepts and their use in determining mobility. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 6(6): 675–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wachs M, Kumagai T G, 1973. Physical accessibility as a social indicator. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 7(5): 437–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddell P, 2000. A behavioral simulation model for metropolitan policy analysis and planning: Residential location and housing market components of UrbanSim. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 27(2): 247–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wan N, Zou B, Sternberg T, 2012. A three-step floating catchment area method for analyzing spatial access to health services. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26(6): 1073–1089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang F, 2012. Measurement, optimization, and impact of health care accessibility: A methodological review. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102(5): 1104–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Du F, Huang J et al., 2020. Access to hospitals: Potential vs. observed. Cities, 100: 102671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Wu J, Che Y, 2019. Agent and system dynamics-based hybrid modeling and simulation for multilateral bidding in electricity market. Energy, 180: 444–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y, Chen B Y, Yuan H et al., 2018. Measuring temporal variation of location-based accessibility using space-time utility perspective. Journal of Transport Geography, 73: 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber J, Kwan M P, 2002. Bringing time back in: A study on the influence of travel time variations and facility opening hours on individual accessibility. The Professional Geographer, 54(2): 226–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weibull J W, 1976. An axiomatic approach to the measurement of accessibility. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 6(4): 357–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weibull J W, 1980. On the numerical measurement of accessibility. Environment and Planning A, 12(1): 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weld G, Jang E, Li A et al., 2019. Deep learning for automatically detecting sidewalk accessibility problems using streetscape imagery. The 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility — ASSETS’19.

  • White M J, 1999. Urban areas with decentralized employment: Theory and empirical work. In: Chesire P, Mills E S (eds.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, Volume 3 Applied Urban Economics, North-Holland.

  • Wickstrom G B, 1971. Defining balanced transportation: A question of opportunity. Traffic Quarterly, 25(3): 337–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson A G, 1971. A family of spatial interaction models, and associated developments. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 3(1): 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock J, Banister D, Edwards P et al., 2007. Energy and transport. The Lancet, 370(9592): 1078–1088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu C, Chung H, Liu Z et al., 2020. Examining the effects of the built environment on topological properties of the bike-sharing network in Suzhou, China. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 15(5): 338–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu H, Jiao H, Yu Y et al., 2018. Influence factors and regression model of urban housing prices based on internet open access data. Sustainability, 10(5): 1676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamu C, Van Nes A, Garau C, 2021. Bill Hillier’s Legacy: Space syntax — A synopsis of basic concepts, measures, and empirical application. Sustainability, 13(6): 3394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan X, 2020. Evaluating household residential preferences for walkability and accessibility across three U.S. regions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 80: 102255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu S, Shang C, Yu Y et al., 2016. Prediction of bus passenger trip flow based on artificial neural network. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 8(10): 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang C, Sargent I, Pan X et al., 2018. An object-based convolutional neural network (OCNN) for urban land use classification. Remote Sensing of Environment, 216: 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang H, Vorobeychik Y, 2019. Empirically grounded agent-based models of innovation diffusion: a critical review. Artif Intell Rev, 52: 707–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang L, Ye Y, Zeng W et al., 2019. A systematic measurement of street quality through multi-sourced urban data: A human-oriented analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(10): 1782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y, Li Z, Zhang Y, 2020. Validation and calibration of an agent-based model: A surrogate approach. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2020: 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng Z, ** API: An empirical study in Kaifeng, China. Sustainability, 11(4): 1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu Y, Diao M, 2020. Crowdsourcing-data-based dynamic measures of accessibility to business establishments and individual destination choices. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 87: 102382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhuge C, Shao C, Gao J et al., 2016. Agent-based joint model of residential location choice and real estate price for land use and transport model. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 57: 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuo F, Fu X, Liu Z et al., 2021. Short-term forecasts on individual accessibility in bus system based on neural network model. Journal of Transport Geography, 93: 103075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

    Aviral Marwal & Elisabete Silva

Authors
  1. Aviral Marwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elisabete Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aviral Marwal.

Additional information

Author

Aviral Marwal, PhD Candidate, specialized in land use and spatial modelling. E-mail: am2839@cam.ac.uk

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marwal, A., Silva, E. Literature review of accessibility measures and models used in land use and transportation planning in last 5 years. J. Geogr. Sci. 32, 560–584 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-022-1961-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-022-1961-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation