Mapping transit accessibility: Possibilities for public participation

The value of accessibility concepts is well-established in transportation literature, but so is the low adoption of accessibility-based instruments by practitioners. Based on the premise that leveraging accessibility concepts to address public involvement challenges could promote their adoption in planning practice, this research investigates mechanisms to promote social learning among participants in public workshops. Potential mechanisms of learning include specific tool-based interactions and how such interactions reinforce structures of learning such as alignment and imagination. This paper details iterative testing of these mechanisms with a tool called CoAXs (short for Collaborative ACCESSibility-based stakeholder engagement system), through focus groups and exploratory workshops. A mixed-methods analysis of the workshops supports the expectation that alignment and imagination correlate positively with social learning, as measured by reported learning and dialog quality. Specific interactions with the accessibility-based features of CoAXs in turn correlate positively with alignment and imagination, at individual and group levels of analysis. These findings, while not robustly generalizable, suggest that effective targeted stakeholder engagement for public transport can be structured around collaborative accessibility mapping. Adoption for broader public participation requires further development, especially the incorporation of actual day-to-day experiences such as unreliable operations.

[1]  Daniel J. Graham,et al.  Agglomeration, accessibility and productivity: Evidence for large metropolitan areas in the US , 2017 .

[2]  Mordechai Haklay Computer‐Mediated Communication, Collaboration and Groupware , 2010 .

[3]  D. Kolb,et al.  Planning in the Face of Power. , 1988 .

[4]  Anson F. Stewart Visualizing urban accessibility metrics for incremental bus rapid transit projects , 2014 .

[5]  Brigid Barron When Smart Groups Fail , 2003 .

[6]  Mordechai Haklay,et al.  Usability evaluation and PPGIS: towards a user-centred design approach , 2003, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

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

[8]  R. Sieber Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature Review and Framework , 2006 .

[9]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[10]  M. Kwan Beyond Space (As We Knew It): Toward Temporally Integrated Geographies of Segregation, Health, and Accessibility , 2013 .

[11]  Henri Lefebvre The production of space , 1992 .

[12]  Kevin Manaugh,et al.  Who benefits from new transportation infrastructure? Using accessibility measures to evaluate social equity in public transport provision , 2012 .

[13]  G. Ding,et al.  Geo-Narrative: Extending Geographic Information Systems for Narrative Analysis in Qualitative and Mixed-Method Research , 2008 .

[14]  Marco te Brömmelstroet,et al.  Facilitating PSS workshops : A conceptual framework and findings from interviews with facilitators , 2015 .

[15]  Emily Saunoi-Sandgren,et al.  Changing Minds Through Deliberation: Citizens’ Accounts of Their Changing Local Transportation Policy Preferences , 2015 .

[16]  F. Fischer Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge , 2000 .

[17]  Andrew Byrd,et al.  Evidence-Based Transit and Land Use Sketch Planning Using Interactive Accessibility Methods on Combined Schedule and Headway-Based Networks , 2017 .

[18]  Piotr Jankowski,et al.  Toward a Framework for Research on Geographic Information-Supported Participatory Decision-Making , 2003 .

[19]  Anson F. Stewart,et al.  CoAXs: A Collaborative Accessibility-based Stakeholder Engagement System for communicating transport impacts , 2016 .

[20]  Marco te Brömmelstroet,et al.  From Planning Support Systems to Mediated Planning Support: A Structured Dialogue to Overcome the Implementation Gap , 2010 .

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

[22]  Ira Winder,et al.  An Observational Study of Usability in Collaborative Tangible Interfaces for Complex Planning Systems , 2015 .

[23]  Theodore H. Grossardt,et al.  Toward Structured Public Involvement: Justice, Geography and Collaborative Geospatial/Geovisual Decision Support Systems , 2010 .

[24]  Mei Po Kwan Beyond Space (As We Knew It): Toward Temporally Integrated Geographies of Segregation, Health, and Accessibility , 2013 .

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

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

[27]  Enrica Papa,et al.  Accessibility instruments for planning practice: a review of European experiences , 2014 .

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

[29]  Participatory Approaches in GIS and Society Research: Foundations, Practices, and Future Directions , 2011 .

[30]  Rajeev Sharma,et al.  Enabling collaborative geoinformation access and decision‐making through a natural, multimodal interface , 2005, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[31]  B. Wee,et al.  A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches , 2016 .

[32]  L. Cronbach Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests , 1951 .

[33]  Robert Goodspeed,et al.  Sketching and learning: A planning support system field study , 2016 .

[34]  Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais,et al.  Developing a web-based accessibility calculator prototype for the Greater Montreal Area , 2013 .

[35]  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..

[36]  Anson F. Stewart,et al.  Designing BRT-oriented development , 2016 .

[37]  J. Casello,et al.  Public Engagement in Public Transportation Projects , 2015 .

[38]  Antonio Gschwender,et al.  Transantiago: A tale of two cities , 2007 .

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

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

[41]  E. Manley Estimating the Topological Structure of Driver Spatial Knowledge , 2016 .

[42]  Artemis Skarlatidou,et al.  Human‐Computer Interaction and Geospatial Technologies – Context , 2010 .

[43]  M. Kwan,et al.  Metropolitan Area Job Accessibility and the Working Poor: Exploring Local Spatial Variations Of Geographic context , 2010 .

[44]  Karel Martens,et al.  Transport Justice: Designing fair transportation systems , 2016 .

[45]  Ron Janssen,et al.  Effectiveness of collaborative map-based decision support tools: Results of an experiment , 2013, Environ. Model. Softw..

[46]  C. Dunn Participatory GIS — a people's GIS? , 2007 .

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

[48]  Timothy F Welch,et al.  A measure of equity for public transit connectivity , 2013 .

[49]  Chao Li,et al.  Human Understanding of Space , 2010 .

[50]  Carey Curtis,et al.  Strengths and weaknesses of accessibility instruments in planning practice: technological rules based on experiential workshops , 2016 .

[51]  Kevin Lynch,et al.  The Image of the City , 1960 .