Sustainable Cities and Communities

Living Edition
| Editors: Walter Leal Filho, Anabela Marisa Azul, Luciana Brandli, Pinar Gökcin Özuyar, Tony Wall

Contribution for Affordable and Accessible Infrastructure for Sustainable Cities

  • Michele Rocha ReolãoEmail author
  • Jessica Andrade MichelEmail author
Living reference work entry



Accessibility is present in various segments of modern society and can be understood from several perspectives. The concept of accessibility deserves special attention in its use, since it has a wide use (Gould 1969; Penchansky and Thomas 1981; Järv et al. 2018). In the literature, it is possible to find the term related to the main physical components of the urban structure: people, transport, and places of social activity (Järv et al. 2018) and may also be related to the economic environment, access to care health (Fransen et al. 2018; Guagliardo 2004), and other specific segments. In this context, as an example, it can be said that accessibility is present in the efficiency of the transportation network, distribution strategies, and land use (Hansen 1959; Gutierrez and García-Palomares 2008), and the economic performance of the cities (Salas-Olmedo et al. 2016...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. ABNT, Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (2015) NBR 9050: Acessibilidade a edificações, mobiliário, espaços e equipamentos urbanos. Abnt, Rio de Janeiro, p 148Google Scholar
  2. Bissonnette L, Wilson K, Bell S, Shah TI (2012) Neighbourhoods and potential access to health care: the role of spatial and aspatial factors. Health Place 18(4):841–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brasil. Lei n° 10.098, de 19 de dezembro de 2000. Estabelece normas gerais e critérios básicos para a promoção da acessibilidade das pessoas portadoras de deficiência ou com mobilidade reduzida, e dá outras providências. Brasília, DFGoogle Scholar
  4. Brasil. Débora Regina Possa. Ministério das Cidades (2016) BOAS PRÁTICAS EM ACESSIBILIDADE. Ministério das Cidades, Brasília, 90 p. Available via DIALOG. Accessed 26 May 2018
  5. Brasil. Ministério do Turismo (2016) Governo destaca cidades com estruturas acessíveis. 2016. Available via DIALOG: Accessed 11 Oct 2018
  6. Burns LD (1979) Transportation, temporal, and spatial components of accessibility. Lexington Books, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  7. Casas I (2007) Social exclusion and the disabled: an accessibility approach. Prof Geogr 59(4):463–477. Scholar
  8. Ceccato V (2015) Ensuring safe mobility in Stockholm, Sweden. Proc Inst Civil Eng Munic Eng, [s.l.], 168(1):74–82. Thomas Telford Ltd
  9. Cheshmehzangi A, Thomas SM (2016) Prioritizing accessible transit systems for sustainable urban development: understanding and evaluating the parameters of a transportation system in Mumbai. J Urban Plann Dev, [s.l.], 142(4). American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
  10. Chin HC, Foong KW (2006) Influence of school accessibility on housing values. J Urban Plann Dev 132(3):120–129. Scholar
  11. Choguill CL (2007) The search for policies to support sustainable housing. Habitat Int 31:143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dai D (2010) Black residential segregation, disparities in spatial access to health care facilities, and late-stage breast cancer diagnosis in metropolitan Detroit. Health Place 16(5):1038–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elmqvist T, Setala H, Handel SN, Van Der Ploeg S, Aronson J, Blignaut JN, Gomez-baggethun E, Nowak DJ, Kronenberg J, De Groot R (2015) Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EPD (Environmental Protection Department) (2015) Tax incentives for environment-friendly petrol private cars. Available via DIALOG:
  15. European Commission (2014) Access City Award 2014 European cities responding to the accessibility needs of ALL citizens. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014, ISBN 978-92-79-36165-4Google Scholar
  16. European Commission (2015) Disabilities: Access City Award 2016 for accessible-friendly cities goes to Milan! Available via DIALOG: Accessed 11 Oct 2018
  17. European Commission (2017) Access City Award 2017: examples of best practice in making EU cities more accessible. Available via DIALOG: Accessed 11 Oct 2018
  18. European Commission (2018) Access City Award 2018. Available via DIALOG: Accessed 11 Oct 2018
  19. Farrington JH (2007) The new narrative of accessibility: its potential contribution to discourses in (transport) geography. J Transp Geogr, [s.l.], 15(5):319–330. Elsevier BV
  20. Farrington J, Farrington C (2005) Rural accessibility, social inclusion and social justice: towards conceptualisation. J Transp Geogr 13(1):1–12. Scholar
  21. Fransen K et al (2018) A spatio-temporal accessibility measure for modelling activity participation in discretionary activities. Travel Behav Soc, [s.l.], 10:10–20. Elsevier BV
  22. Geurs KT, Van Wee B (2004) Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. J Transp Geogr, [s.l.], 12(2):127–140. Elsevier BV
  23. Gould PR (1969) Spatial diffusion, resource paper no. 4. Association of American Geographers, Commission on College Geographers, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Green Fiscal Commission (2010) Reducing carbon emissions through transport taxation, briefing paper six, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Guagliardo MF (2004) Spatial accessibility of primary care: concepts, methods andn challenges. Int J Health Geogr 3:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gutiérrez J, García-Palomares JC (2008) Distance-Measure Impacts on the Calculation of Transport Service Areas Using GIS. Environment And Planning B: Planning and Design, [s.l.], 35(3):480–503, SAGE Publications.
  27. Hansen WG (1959) How accessibility shapes land use. J Am Inst Plann 25(2):73–76. Scholar
  28. Järv O et al (2018) Dynamic cities: location-based accessibility modelling as a function of time. Appl Geogr, [s.l.], 95:101–110. Elsevier BV
  29. Kolodinsky JM, DeSisto TP, Propen D, Putnam ME, Roche E, Sawyer WR (2013) It is not how far you go, it is whether you can get there: modeling the effects of mobility on quality of life in rural New England. J Transp Geogr 31:113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. La Rosaa D, Takatorib C, Shimizub H, Priviteraa R (2018) A planning framework to evaluate demands and preferences by different social groups for accessibility to urban greenspaces. Sustainable Cities And Society, [s.l.], 36:346–362. Elsevier BV.
  31. Loose W (2009) The state of European car-sharing. Final Rep. D 2.4 Work Package 2, Bundesverband Car Sharing e. V., MOMO Car Sharing Project, Freiburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  32. Loukaitou-Sideris A, Levy-Storms L, Brozen M. (2014). Placemaking for an aging population: Guidelines for senior-friendly parks. [WWW Document]. Available via DIALOG: Accessed 12 out 2018
  33. Lowe K, Mosby K (2016) The conceptual mismatch: a qualitative analysis of transportation costs and stressors for low-income adults. Transp Policy, 49, 1–8. Appl Geogr 95 (2018) 101–110.
  34. Lucas K, van Wee B, Maat K (2016) A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches. Transportation 43(3):473–490. Scholar
  35. Mcarthur J (2018) Comparative infrastructural modalities: examining spatial strategies for Melbourne, Auckland and Vancouver. Environ Plann C Politics Space. [s.l.], 42–63. Sage
  36. Metz D (2000) Mobility of older people and their quality of life. Transp Policy 7:149–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller HJ (2006) Social exclusion in space and time. In: Axhausen KW (ed) Moving through nets: the social and physical aspects of travel. Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp 353–380Google Scholar
  38. Miller, H., 2007. Place-based versus people-based geographic information science. Geog. Compass 1, 503–535.
  39. Neutens T (2015) Accessibility, equity and health care: review and research directions for transport geographers. J Transp Geogr, [s.l.], 43:14–27. Elsevier BV.
  40. Ohmori N (2015) Mitigating barriers against accessible cities and transportation, for child-rearing households. Iatss Research, [s.l.], 38(2):116–124. Elsevier BV
  41. Páez A, Scott DM, Morency C (2012) Measuring accessibility: positive and normative implementations of various accessibility indicators. J Transp Geogr, [s.l.], 25:141–153. Elsevier BV
  42. Penchansky R, Thomas JW (1981) The concept of access: definition and relationship to consumer satisfaction. Med Care 19(2):127–140. Scholar
  43. Salas-Olmedo MH, García-Alonso P, Gutiérrez J (2016) Distance deterrence, trade barriers and accessibility. An analysis of market potential in the European Union. Eur J Transp Infrastruct Res 16(2):319–343Google Scholar
  44. Shah TI, Bell S, Wilson K (2016) Spatial accessibility to health care services: identifying under serviced neighbourhoods in Canadian urban areas. PLoS One, [s.l.], 11(12). Public Library of Science (PLoS)
  45. Smith R Jr (1983) Accessible public transit alternatives. J Transp Eng:16–32.
  46. Stough, LM. et al. (2015) Barriers to the long-term recovery of individuals with disabilities following a disaster. Disasters, [s.l.], Wiley 40(3):387–410.
  47. Talen E, Anselin L (1998) Assessing spatial equity: an evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environ Plan A 30(4):595–613. Scholar
  48. Tenkanen H, Saarsalmi P, Järv O, Salonen M, Toivonen T (2016) Health research needs more comprehensive accessibility measures: integrating time and transport modes from open data. Int J Health Geogr 15(1):23. Scholar
  49. Triki S, Hanachi C (2017) A self-adaptive system for improving autonomy and public spaces accessibility for elderly. In: Agent and multi-agent systems: technology and applications, 24 maio 2017. Springer International Publishing, [s.l.], pp 53–66.
  50. UN Habitat (2016) New urban agenda, technical report. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2015). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, (ST/ESA/SER.A/366).Google Scholar
  52. Van Wee B (2016) Accessible accessibility research challenges. J Transp Geogr, [s.l.], 51:9–16. Elsevier BV
  53. Vojnovic I (2014) Urban sustainability: research, politics, policy and practice. Cities, [s.l.], 41:30–44. Elsevier BV
  54. Weber J (2006) Reflections on the future of accessibility. J Transp Geogr 14:399–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wen C, Albert C, Von Haaren C (2018) The elderly in green spaces: Exploring requirements and preferences concerning nature-based recreation. Sustainable Cities and Society, [s.l.], 38:582–593, abr. Elsevier BV.
  56. Weru J, Okoyo O, Wambui M, Njoroge P, Mwelu J, Otibine E, Chepchumba A, Wanjiku R, Wakesho T, Maina JPN (2018) The Akiba Mashinani Trust, Kenya: a local fund’s role in urban development. Environment And Urbanization, [s.l.], 30(1):53–66, SAGE Publications.
  57. WHO (World Health Organization) (2002) International classification of functioning, disability and health. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  58. World Health Organization (2007) Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide. Available via DIALOG: Accessed 10 out. 2018.
  59. Wolch JR, Byrne J, Newell JP (2014) Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities “just green enough”. Landsc Urban Plan 125:234–244. Scholar
  60. Woldeamanuel M, Kent A (2015) Measuring walk access to transit in terms of sidewalk availability, quality, and connectivity. J Urban Plann Dev:04015019.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Passo Fundo – PPGENGPasso FundoBrazil

Section editors and affiliations

  • Luciana Londero Brandli
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Passo FundoPasso FundoBrazil