Revisiting the Concept of Accessibility: Some Comments and Research Questions

  • Sylvie Occelli
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)


Almost all urban systems in developed countries are undergoing a number of institutional, socio-economic and cultural changes, pushing them towards a ‘new’ societal configuration that is generally taken to be more democratic, better educated, culture-based, and environmentally sensitive, i.e., the so-called Post-Fordist society (Aminl994). Space-adjusting technologies, and particularly the New Information Technologies (NIT), are playing a substantial role in this transition, since they affect both the range and time-related organization of activities offered in an urban setting, as well as the ways in which individuals participate in them (see Castells 1989, Graham and Marvin 1996).


Urban System Spatial System Urban Activity Soft Component Urban Product 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amin, A. (ed.) 1994. Post-Fordism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, A.E., Batten, D.F., Kobayashi, K. and Yoshikawa, K. (eds.) 1993. The Cosmo-Creative Society, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Batten, D.F. 1995. Network cities: Creative urban agglomeration for the ‘1st Century. Urban Studies 32 (2) 313–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batty, M. 1995. Cities and complexity. Implications for modeling sustainability. In Brotchie, J., Batty, M., Blakely, E., Hall, P. and Newton, P. (eds.) Cities in Competition. Productive and Sustainable Cities for the 21 st Century. Melbourne: Longman Australia, 469–86.Google Scholar
  5. Batty, M. and Xie, Y. 1996. Possible urban automata. In Besussi, E. and Cecchini, A. (eds.) Artificial Words and Urban Studies, Venezia: Daest, Convegni, no.l, 176–205.Google Scholar
  6. Ben-Akiva, M. and Lerman, R. 1979. Disaggregate travel and mobility: Choice models and easures of accessibility. In Hensher, D.A. and Stopher, P.R. (eds.) Behavioural Travel Modeling, London: Croom Helm, 654–79.Google Scholar
  7. Bennett, R.J. and McCoshan, A. 1993. Enterprise and Human Resource Development. Liverpool: Chapman.Google Scholar
  8. Bertuglia, C.S., Lombardo, S. and Occelli, S. 1995. The interacting choice processes of innovation, location and mobility: A compartmental approach. In Bertuglia, CS., Fischer, M.M. and Preto, G. (eds.) Technological Change, Economic Development and Space, Berlin: Springer, 118–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bertuglia, CS., and Occelli, S. 1995. Transportation, communications and patterns of location. In Bertuglia, CS., Fischer, M.M. and Preto, G. (eds.) Technological Change, Economic Development and Space, Berlin: Springer, 92–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bertuglia, CS., and Occelli, S. 1997. The impact of the new communications technologies on economic-spatial systems. An agenda for future research, Paper presented at the International Seminar The Impact of the New Communications Technologies on Economic-Spatial Systems. Pisa: September, 12–13.Google Scholar
  11. Bertuglia, C.S., Clarke, G.P., Wilson, A.G. (eds.) 1994. Modeling the City: Performance, Policy and Planning, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Brotchie, J.F. 1986. Technological change and urban form, Environment and Planning A 16:583–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brotchie, J.F., Anderson, M. and McNamara, C. 1995. Changing metropolitan commuting pattern. In Brotchie, J., Batty, M., Blakely, E., Hall P. and Newton, P. (eds.) Cities in Competition. Productive and Sustainable Cities for the 21 st Century. Melbourne: Longman Australia, 382–401.Google Scholar
  14. Bruinsma, K. and Rietveld, P. 1998. The accessibility of European cities: Theoretical framework and comparison of approaches, Environment and Planning A 30:499–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bryson, M.J. and Crosby, B.C. 1998. Policy planning and the design and use of forums, arenas and courts, Environment and Planning B 20:115–9A.Google Scholar
  16. Burns, L.D. 1979. Transportation, Temporal, and Spatial Components of Accessibility. Lexington MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  17. Carlstein, T., Parkes, D. and Thrift, N. 1978. Introduction, in T. Carlstein. In Parkes, D. and Thrift, N. (eds.) Time and Regional Dynamics. London: Edward Arnold, 1–4.Google Scholar
  18. Clarke, G.P. and Wilson, A.G. 1987a. Performance indicators and model-based planning: I. The indicator movement and the possibilities for urban planning, Sistemi Urbani 9:79–127.Google Scholar
  19. Clarke, G.P. and Wilson, A.G. 1987b. Performance indicators and model-based planning: 2. Model-based approaches, Sistemi Urbani 9:137–69.Google Scholar
  20. Castells, M. 1989. The Informational City. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Casti, J.L. 1984. On the theory of models and the modeling of natural phenomena. In Bahrenberg, G., Fischer, M.M. and Nijkamp, P. (eds.), Recent Developments in Spatial Data Analysis, Gower, Aldershot, 73–92.Google Scholar
  22. Casti, J.L. 1986. On system complexity: identification, measurement, and management. In Casti, J.L., and Karlqvist, A. (eds.) Complexity, Language and Life: Mathematical Approaches, Berlin: Springer, 146–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Couclelis, H. 1984. The notion of prior structure in urban modeling, Environment and Planning A 16:319–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Couclelis, H. 1996. From cellular automata to urban models: new principles for model development and implementation. In Besussi, E. and Cecchini, A. (eds.) Artificial Worlds and Urban Studies. Venezia: Daest, Convegni n.l, 165–75.Google Scholar
  25. Couclelis, H. (ed.) 1996. Spatial Technologies, Geographic Information, and the City, Technical Report 96–10. Santa Barbara, CA: NCGIAGoogle Scholar
  26. Dalvi, M.Q. and Martin, K.M. 1976. The measurement of accessibility: some preliminary results, Transportation 5:17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Freeman, C. and Perez, C. 1988. Structural crises of adjustment: business cycles and investment behaviour. In Dosi, G., Freeman, C, Nelson, R., Silverberg, G. and Soete, L. (eds.) Technical Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter, 38–66.Google Scholar
  28. Friend, J.K, and Jessop, W.N. 1969. Local Government and Strategic Choice. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  29. Graham, S. and Marvin, S. 1996. Telecommunications and the City. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hägerstrand, T. 1975. Space time and human condition. In Karlkvist, A., Lundqvist, L and Snickars, F. (eds.) Dynamic Allocation of Urban Space. Farnborough Saxon House, 3–12.Google Scholar
  31. Handy, S.L. and Niemeier, D.A. 1997. Measuring accessibility: an exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A 29:1175–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hansen, W.G. 1959 How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 25:73–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanson, S. 1984. Environmental cognition and travel behaviour. In Herbert, D.T. and Jonhston, R.J. (eds.) Geography and the Urban Environment, New York: Wiley, vol. VI, 95–126.Google Scholar
  34. Hanson, S. and Schwab, M. 1987. Accessibility and intraurban travel, Environment and Planning A 19:735–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Helling, A. 1998. Changing intra-metropolitan accessibility in the U.S.: Evidence from Atlanta, Diamond, D. and Massam, B.H. (eds.) Progress in Planning, London: Pergamon, 55–107.Google Scholar
  36. Holly, B.P. 1978. The problem of scale in time-space research. In Carlstein, T., Parkes, D. and Thrift, N. (eds.) Time and Regional Dynamics. London: Edward Arnold, 5–18.Google Scholar
  37. Ingram, R.D. 1971. The concept of accessibility, Regional Studies 5:101–07.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. IRES 1995. Un’analisi dell’accessibilité in Piemonte. Studio di supporto alia valutazione delle politiche del piano regionale dei trasporti. Occelli, S. and Gallino, T. (eds.) Turin: Quaderni di Ricerca Ires, 74.Google Scholar
  39. Knight, R.V. 1995. Knowledge-based development: policy and planning implications for cities, Urban Studies 32:225–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kobayashi, K., Sunao, S. and Yoshikawa, K. 1993. Spatial equilibria of knowledge production with ‘meeting-facilities’. In. Andersson, A.E., Batten, D.F., Kobayashi K. and Yoshi-kawa, K. (eds.) The Cosmo-Creative Society, Berlin: Springer, 219–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Koenig, J.G. 1980. Indicators of urban accessibility: Theory and application. Transporta-tion 9:145–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kwan, M-P. 1998. Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: a comparative analysis using a a point-based framework. Geographical Analysis 30(3): 191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leonardi, G. 1979. Introduzione allateoria deU’accessibilità, Sistemi Urbani 1:65–88.Google Scholar
  44. Martellato, D. 1993. Reti di interazione e tecnologia della informazione. Un’analisi dei loro effetti sulla localizzazione. In Lombardo, S. and Preto, G. (eds.) Innovazione e trasformazioni della città. Teorie, metodi e programmi per il mutamento, Milano: Collana AiS-Rre, Angeli, 130–47.Google Scholar
  45. Miles, I., and Robins, K. 1992. Making sense of information, in Robins, K. (ed.) Understanding Information, Business, Technology and Geography, London: Belhaven, 1–26.Google Scholar
  46. Morris, J.M., Dumble, P.L. and Wigan, A.R. 1979. Accessibility indicators for transport planning. Transportation Research 13A:91–109.Google Scholar
  47. Papageorgiou, G. 1987. Spatial public goods, 1: Theory, Environment and Planning A 19:471–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Occelli, S. 1998a. Accessibility and time use in a post-Fordist urban system. Some notes for a research agenda, Paper presented at The International Conference on Time Use, Luneberg, 22–25April.Google Scholar
  49. Occelli, S. 1998b. A New Perspective for methodologies in spatial and urban analysis. In Bertuglia, C.S., Bianchi, G. and Mela, A. (eds.) The City and its Sciences, Berlin: Springer 851–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pirie, G.H. 1979. Measuring accessibility: A review and Proposal, Environment and Planning A 11:299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rabino, G.A. 1996. Complessità, scienza délia complessità e modello dei trasporti, Le Strade. Google Scholar
  52. Rabino, G.A. and Oecelli, S. 1997. Re-thinking urban system modeling: New features and a proposal, Paper presented at the ICCS Conference, Cortona, 22–25 September.Google Scholar
  53. Toulemonde, J. 1995. Should evaluation be freed from its causal links, Evaluation in Program Planning 1(1): 179–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Turoff, M. (1997) Virtuality, Communications 40(9):38–43.Google Scholar
  55. Vickerman, R.W. 1974. Accessibility attraction and potential: A review of some concepts and their use in determining mobility, Environment and Planning A 6:675–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wachs, M. and Koenig, J.G. 1979. Behavioral modeling, accessibility, mobility. In Hensher, D.A. and Stopher, P.R. (eds.) Behavioural Travel Modeling. London: Croom Helm, 698–710.Google Scholar
  57. Weibull, J.W. 1980. On the numerical measurement of accessibility. Environment and Planning A 12:53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilson, A.G. 1971. A family of spatial interaction models and associated developments. Environment and Planning A 3:1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylvie Occelli
    • 1
  1. 1.IRES — Istituto di Ricerche Economico Sociali del PiemonteTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations