Strengths and weaknesses of accessibility instruments in planning practice: technological rules based on experiential workshops

ABSTRACT Accessibility instruments can play a valuable role in urban planning practice by providing a practical framework for exploring and testing relationships between land use and transport infrastructure. Despite many available accessibility instruments, they are still not widely used in planning practice. This paper explores the background of this problem by examining the findings of a EU-funded study on the usability and usefulness of existing accessibility instruments. The study applied 16 instruments in local planning contexts according to a standardized process protocol. The outcomes of these so-called experiential workshops were analysed through a standardized measurement protocol, which included participant observation along with pre- and post-workshop practitioner questionnaires. This broad investigation presents a rich analytical tool for understanding how different types of accessibility measures, spatial resolutions of output and levels of comprehensiveness affect usability and usefulness. Based on this we propose 10 technological rules that (a) can be used directly in practice to improve usability of accessibility instruments and (b) can provide hypotheses to be examined in further academic studies. Our results suggest that instead of striving for the ultimate accessibility measure, it would be more effective to identify which measures could successfully serve different user needs in accessibility planning.

[1]  Douglass B. Lee,et al.  Requiem for large-scale models , 1973, SIML.

[2]  Jac A. M. Vennix,et al.  Group model building effectiveness: a review of assessment studies † , 2002 .

[3]  Luca Bertolini,et al.  Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making , 2009 .

[4]  Marco te Brömmelstroet,et al.  Performance of Planning Support Systems: What is it, and how do we report on it? , 2013, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[5]  Mark Keil,et al.  Usefulness and ease of use: field study evidence regarding task considerations , 1995, Decis. Support Syst..

[6]  Luca Bertolini,et al.  An Experiential Approach to Research in Planning , 2010 .

[7]  Luca Bertolini,et al.  Integrating Mobility and Urban Development Agendas: a Manifesto , 2012 .

[8]  Carey Curtis,et al.  Planning for sustainable accessibility: Developing tools to aid discussion and decision-making , 2010 .

[9]  Carey Curtis,et al.  Institutional Barriers for Sustainable Transport , 2012 .

[10]  Lewis D. Hopkins.  Planning support systems for cities and regions , 2011, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[11]  Luca Bertolini,et al.  Joint Accessibility Design , 2008 .

[12]  Bert van Wee,et al.  Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions , 2004 .

[13]  Stan Geertman,et al.  Potentials for Planning Support: A Planning-Conceptual Approach , 2006 .

[14]  P. Nijkamp.  Institutional Barriers to Sustainable Transport , 2013 .

[15]  Susan L Handy,et al.  Accessibility- vs. Mobility-Enhancing Strategies for Addressing Automobile Dependence in the U.S , 2002 .

[16]  J. Aken.  Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules , 2004 .

[17]  L. Bertolini,et al.  Assessing usability of accessibility instruments , 2022 .

[18]  Chris J. L. Yewlett,et al.  The Electronic Oracle: Computer Models and Social Decisions , 1986 .

[19]  Carey Curtis,et al.  Using New Accessibility Tools to Guide Policy Innovation , 2013 .

[20]  Luca Bertolini,et al.  Urban Transportation Planning in Transition , 2008 .

[21]  Luca Bertolini,et al.  COST Action TU1002 - Assessing usability of accessibility instruments , 2014 .

[22]  Aken van Je.  Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences : the quest for tested and grounded technological rules , 2001 .

[23]  Carey Curtis.  Integrating Land Use with Public Transport: The Use of a Discursive Accessibility Tool to Inform Metropolitan Spatial Planning in Perth , 2011 .

[24]  J. Gerring,et al.  An Experimental Template for Case Study Research , 2007 .

[25]  L. Bertolini,et al.  The Role of Transport‐Related Models in Urban Planning Practice , 2011 .

[26]  R. Klosterman.  Planning Support Systems: A New Perspective on Computer-Aided Planning , 1997 .

[27]  Fadhel Kaboub.  Realistic Evaluation , 2004 .

[28]  S. Clegg.  Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again , 2002 .

[29]  Luca Bertolini,et al.  COST Action TU1002 - Accessibility instruments for planning practice , 2012 .

[30]  Cecília Silva,et al.  Comparative accessibility for mobility management : the structural accessibility layer , 2008 .

[31]  Luca Bertolini,et al.  Sustainable accessibility: a conceptual framework to integrate transport and land use plan-making. Two test-applications in the Netherlands and a reflection on the way forward , 2005 .

[32]  Luca Bertolini,et al.  Accessibility Instruments in Planning Practice , 2012 .

[33]  D. Tranfield,et al.  Developing Design Propositions through Research Synthesis , 2008 .

[34]  Douglass B. Lee.  Retrospective on Large-Scale Urban Models , 1994 .

[35]  Marco Te Brömmelstroet,et al.  Accessibility is Gold, Mobility is Not: A Proposal for the Improvement of Dutch Transport-Related Cost-Benefit Analysis , 2012 .

[36]  K. Lucas.  Providing transport for social inclusion within a framework for environmental justice in the UK , 2006 .

[37]  T. Straatemeier.  How to plan for regional accessibility , 2008 .

[38]  Richard E. Klosterman,et al.  Planning Support Systems: Integrating Geographic Information Systems,Models,and Visualization Tools , 2001 .

[39]  Nabil Amara,et al.  New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual, and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies , 2004 .

[40]  Guido Antonius Vonk,et al.  Improving Planning Support : The use of planning support systems for spatial planning , 2006 .

[41]  Ernesto Villaescusa.  Planning and Design , 2014 .

[42]  C. Curtis,et al.  Performance measures for public transport accessibility: Learning from international practice , 2017 .

[43]  Debbie A. Niemeier,et al.  Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives , 1997 .

[44]  Peter Batey,et al.  Re-thinking accessibility planning: A multi-layer conceptual framework and its policy implications , 2007 .

[45]  Fred Toppen,et al.  Planning Support Systems for Sustainable Urban Development , 2013 .

[46]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[47]  Derek Halden,et al.  Accessibility Analysis Concepts and their Application to Transport Policy, Programme and Project Evaluation , 2017 .

[48]  Marco te Brömmelstroet,et al.  Transparency, flexibility, simplicity: From buzzwords to strategies for real PSS improvement , 2012, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[49]  John Stillwell,et al.  Planning Support Systems in Practice , 2003 .

[50]  Paul Schot,et al.  Bottlenecks Blocking Widespread Usage of Planning Support Systems , 2005 .

[51]  Marco te Brömmelstroet,et al.  Equip the warrior instead of manning the equipment: Land use and transport planning support in the Netherlands , 2010 .

[52]  Karst Teunis Geurs,et al.  Accessibility measures: review and applications. Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use transportation scenarios, and related social and economic impact , 2001 .

[53]  Henrik Gudmundsson,et al.  Analysing Models as a Knowledge Technology in Transport Planning , 2011 .

[54]  K. Axhausen.  Accessibility: long term perspectives , 2007 .

[55]  Agostino Nuzzolo,et al.  Politiche della Mobilit e Qualit delle Aree Urbane , 2010 .

[56]  D. Banister.  Unsustainable Transport: City Transport in the New Century , 2005 .

[57]  Enrica Papa,et al.  Marginal Activity Access Cost (MAAC): A New Indicator for Sustainable Land Use/Transport (LUT) Planning , 2014 .

[58]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability engineering , 1997, The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.