The Social Interaction Potential of Metropolitan Regions: A Time-Geographic Measurement Approach Using Joint Accessibility

We put forward a method for measuring the social interaction potential of a metropolitan region based on the time-geographic concept of joint accessibility. The metric is sensitive to prevailing land use patterns and commuter flows in the metropolitan region, time budgets, and the spatial distribution of joint activity locations. It is calculated via a geocomputation routine in which a representative subset of after-work, space–time prisms are intersected with each other. Decomposition of the metric gives rise to social potential metrics for each employment and residential zone in the city, for specific commuter flows, and for locations of potential social interaction, such as bars, restaurants, sports fields, and so on. The method is demonstrated via a scenario-based experiment that explores the impact of residential and employment land use patterns and varying levels of commuter flow dispersion. The findings indicate that the metric is adequately responsive to each of the scenario input parameters, as well as pairwise combinations of parameters. Following the experiment, an empirical example using flow data from Salt Lake City, Utah, is presented. Insights on how to introduce more realism in the calculation of the metric for actual metropolitan regions for comparative purposes are then put forward. Finally, the article concludes with a discussion of the broader applications of this metric to various topical areas in urban geography including segregation, social capital development, innovation and creativity, and location allocation of facilities and their opening hours.

[1]  R. Florida.  Cities and the Creative Class , 2003 .

[2]  Susan L Handy,et al.  The Influences of the Built Environment and Residential Self-Selection on Pedestrian Behavior: Evidence from Austin, TX , 2005 .

[3]  A. Pred.  'THE CHOREOGRAPHY OF EXISTENCE: COMMENTS ON HAGERSTRAND'S TIME-GEOGRAPHY AND ITS USEFULNESS , 1977 .

[4]  M. O'Kelly,et al.  Disaggregate Journey-to-Work Data: Implications for Excess Commuting and Jobs–Housing Balance , 2005 .

[5]  Joan L. Walker,et al.  Discrete choice with social and spatial network interdependencies: An empirical example using mixed generalized extreme value models with field and panel effects , 2005 .

[6]  Lance Freeman,et al.  The Effects of Sprawl on Neighborhood Social Ties: An Explanatory Analysis , 2001 .

[7]  Dick Ettema,et al.  Space–Time Accessibility Under Conditions of Uncertain Travel Times: Theory and Numerical Simulations , 2007 .

[8]  A. Maslow.  A Theory of Human Motivation , 1943 .

[9]  Shih-Lung Shaw,et al.  Exploring potential human activities in physical and virtual spaces: a spatio‐temporal GIS approach , 2008, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[10]  Mei-Po Kwan,et al.  Gender differences in space‐time constraints , 2000 .

[11]  K. Axhausen,et al.  Activity spaces: Measures of social exclusion? , 2003 .

[12]  Catherine Morency,et al.  A time-use investigation of shopping participation in three Canadian cities: is there evidence of social exclusion? , 2011 .

[13]  Harry Timmermans,et al.  Factors Influencing the Planning of Social Activities , 2010 .

[14]  T. Schwanen,et al.  Exploring the Juggling of Responsibilities with Space-Time Accessibility Analysis , 2008 .

[15]  Robert D. Putnam,et al.  Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community , 2000, CSCW '00.

[16]  John W. Polak,et al.  Space-Time User Benefit and Utility Accessibility Measures for Individual Activity Schedules , 2003 .

[17]  A. Páez,et al.  Social Influence on Travel Behavior: A Simulation Example of the Decision to Telecommute , 2007 .

[18]  Mei-Po Kwan,et al.  VISUALISATION OF SOCIO‐SPATIAL ISOLATION BASED ON HUMAN ACTIVITY PATTERNS AND SOCIAL NETWORKS IN SPACE‐TIME , 2011 .

[19]  L. Burns.  Transportation, temporal, and spatial components of accessibility , 1979 .

[20]  Catherine Morency,et al.  Activity Spaces and the Measurement of Clustering and Exposure: A Case Study of Linguistic Groups in Montreal , 2012 .

[21]  Ta Theo Arentze,et al.  Social influences on household location, mobility and activity choice in integrated micro-simulation models , 2011 .

[22]  J. Urry.  Mobility and Proximity , 2002 .

[23]  K. Leyden.  Social capital and the built environment: the importance of walkable neighborhoods. , 2003, American journal of public health.

[24]  Rick Grannis.  From the Ground Up: Translating Geography into Community through Neighbor Networks , 2009 .

[25]  Tim Schwanen,et al.  How fixed is fixed? Gendered rigidity of space–time constraints and geographies of everyday activities , 2008 .

[26]  M. Kwan,et al.  Scale and accessibility: Implications for the analysis of land use-travel interaction , 2008 .

[27]  A. Kearns,et al.  Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood , 2001 .

[28]  Tijs Neutens,et al.  Dealing with Timing and Synchronization in Opportunities for Joint Activity Participation: Opportunities for Joint Activity Participation , 2010 .

[29]  Torsten Hägerstraand.  WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE IN REGIONAL SCIENCE , 1970 .

[30]  B. Wellman.  Physical Place and Cyberplace: The Rise of Personalized Networking , 2001 .

[31]  Harvey J. Miller,et al.  Measuring Space‐Time Accessibility Benefits within Transportation Networks: Basic Theory and Computational Procedures , 1999 .

[32]  David W. S. Wong,et al.  Measuring segregation: an activity space approach , 2011, J. Geogr. Syst..

[33]  Rick Grannis.  The Importance of Trivial Streets: Residential Streets and Residential Segregation1 , 1998, American Journal of Sociology.

[34]  Darren M. Scott,et al.  An integrated spatio-temporal GIS toolkit for exploring intra-household interactions , 2008 .

[35]  Morton E. O'Kelly,et al.  Examining Commuting Patterns , 2011 .

[36]  J. Coleman,et al.  Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital , 1988, American Journal of Sociology.

[37]  Scott A. Bridwell,et al.  A Field-Based Theory for Time Geography , 2009 .

[38]  J. House,et al.  Social relationships and health. , 1988, Science.

[39]  I. Cullen,et al.  Urban Networks: The Structure of Activity Patterns , 1975 .

[40]  H. Lund.  Testing the Claims of New Urbanism: Local Access, Pedestrian Travel, and Neighboring Behaviors , 2003 .

[41]  J. Urry,et al.  The City and the Car , 2000 .

[42]  R. Florida.  The Rise of the Creative Class : And How It's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life , 2003 .

[43]  Eric J. Miller,et al.  Exploring the propensity to perform social activities: a social network approach , 2006 .

[44]  Harvey J. Miller,et al.  Necessary Space—Time Conditions for Human Interaction , 2005 .

[45]  Tijs Neutens,et al.  Equity of Urban Service Delivery: A Comparison of Different Accessibility Measures , 2010 .

[46]  Thomas H. Sander.  Social Capital and New Urbanism: Leading a Civic Horse to Water? , 2002 .

[47]  A. Páez,et al.  Running to stay in place: the time-use implications of automobile oriented land-use and travel , 2011 .

[48]  E. Talen.  Sense of Community and Neighbourhood Form: An Assessment of the Social Doctrine of New Urbanism , 1999 .

[49]  B. Lenntorp.  Paths in space-time environments : a time-geographic study of movement possibilities of individuals , 1976 .

[50]  M. J. Dijst,et al.  Accessibility and quality of life: time-geographic perspectives , 2005 .

[51]  Rick Grannis,et al.  T‐Communities: Pedestrian Street Networks and Residential Segregation in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York , 2005 .

[52]  Steven Farber,et al.  My car, my friends, and me: a preliminary analysis of automobility and social activity participation , 2009 .

[53]  Tijs Neutens,et al.  Space–time opportunities for multiple agents: a constraint‐based approach , 2007, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[54]  Tijs Neutens,et al.  My space or your space? Towards a measure of joint accessibility , 2008, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[55]  M. Kwan.  Gender, the Home-Work Link, and Space-Time Patterns of Nonemployment Activities , 1999 .