JTLU Volume 9, No. 1 (2016)

Persistent link for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/11299/181559
Table of Contents:
  • Introduction: The Journal of Transport and Land Use enters year nine, pp. 1-7
  • Viewpoint: Quantifying residential self-selection effects: A review of methods and findings from applications of propensity score and sample selection approaches, pp. 9-28
  • Line structure representation for road network analysis, pp. 29-64
  • Shape grammars overview and assessment for transport and urban design: Review, terminology, assessment, and application, pp. 65-96
  • A multiscale classification of urban morphology, pp. 101-130
  • Accessibility and the choice of network investments in the London Underground, pp. 131-150
  • Development of rail infrastructure and its impact on urbanization in the Randstad, the Netherlands, pp. 151-170
  • Toward a spatial-temporal measure of land-use mix, pp. 171-186
  • Assessing built environment walkability using activity-space summary measures, pp. 187-207
  • Active accessibility: A review of operational measures of walking and cycling accessibility, pp. 209-235

    • Browse

    Browsing JTLU Volume 9, No. 1 (2016) by Subject "Active travel"

    Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
    • Thumbnail Image
      Item
      Active accessibility: A review of operational measures of walking and cycling accessibility
      (Journal of Transport and Land Use, 2016) Vale, David S.; Saraiva, Miguel; Pereira, Mauro
      Active travel is enthusiastically promoted in the Western world due to its clear and demonstrated individual and collective benefits. While active travel has been shown to be associated with features of the built environment such as density and land-use mix, it is also associated with walking and cycling accessibility—which we designate as active accessibility. However, the measurement of active accessibility is not straightforward and it can represent significantly different features of the built environment. This paper presents an extensive review of published research that measures active accessibility. We classified the literature into four categories based on the methodology used: distance-based, gravity-based or potential, topological or infra- structure-based, and walkability and walk score-type measures. A fifth category was created to classify outliers consisting of distinct methodological approaches or hybrids of the four main categories. We argue that almost all of these methods have conceptual and computational limitations, and that there are inconsistencies in the use of concepts and terms. Furthermore, no sensitivity analysis was carried out on the selected parameters. We conclude by presenting some guidelines that might improve the value and clarity of active accessibility research, theory, and practice.