Pedestrian accessibility has been growing in importance as an urban planning objective. Assessing it with gravity-based or potential accessibility measures requires the selection of an impedance function in order to reflect the friction of distance. The choice of impedance function is crucial to pedestrian accessibility assessment due to the level of spatial data detail required and also because perceived distances differ from physical distances. Here, we measure and compare 20 gravity-based measures, varying the impedance function and associated parameters. Correlation analysis revealed a significant and strong correlation between the measures. Factor analysis extracted two groups of measures, differing mainly in their maximum cutoff travel distance, i.e. the distance at which the impedance function reaches zero. Spatial analysis revealed that all measures produce similar spatial results in terms of identifying high and low accessibility locations but different values for medium accessibility locations. Places located at between 200 and 400 m from an opportunity are especially sensitive to the impedance function used. We promote a cumulative–Gaussian approach to measure pedestrian accessibility, as it explicitly includes the travel tolerance concept and we found it to be the most robust measure in terms of data variability.

Agrawal, AW, Schlossberg, M, Irvin, K (2008) How far, by which route and why? A spatial analysis of pedestrian preference. Journal of Urban Design 13, 8198.
Google Scholar
Anable, J, Gatersleben, B (2005) All work and no play? The role of instrumental and affective factors in work and leisure journeys by different travel modes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 39, 163181.
Google Scholar
Anselin, L (1995) Local indicators of spatial association – LISA. Geographical Analysis 27, 93115.
Google Scholar
Apparicio, P, Abdelmajid, M, Riva, M (2008) Comparing alternative approaches to measuring the geographical accessibility of urban health services: Distance types and aggregation-error issues. International Journal of Health Geographics 7:7.
Google Scholar
Atash, F (1994) Redesigning suburbia for walking and transit: Emerging concepts. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 120, 4857.
Google Scholar
Breheny, MJ (1978) The measurement of spatial opportunity in strategic planning. Regional Studies 12, 463479.
Google Scholar
Burnett P and Briggs R (1975) Distance cognition and intra-urban movement. In: Proceedings of the Association of American Geographers, West Lake Meeting, Carbondale, Illinois.
Google Scholar
Daniels, R, Mulley, C (2013) Explaining walking distance to public transport: The dominance of public transport supply. Journal of Transport and Land Use 6, 520.
Google Scholar | Crossref
El-Geneidy, A, Grimsrud, M, Wasfi, R (2014) New evidence on walking distances to transit stops: Identifying redundancies and gaps using variable service areas. Transportation 41, 193210.
Google Scholar
Ewing, R, Cervero, R (2010) Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association 76, 265294.
Google Scholar
Fishbein, M, Ajzen, I (2010) Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach, New York: Taylor and Francis.
Google Scholar
Frank, LD, Sallis, JF, Conway, TL (2006) Many pathways from land use to health: Associations between neighborhood walkability and active transportation, body mass index, and air quality. Journal of the American Planning Association 72, 7587.
Google Scholar
Frank, LD, Schmid, TL, Sallis, JF (2005) Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: Findings from SMARTRAQ. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28, 117125.
Google Scholar | Medline
Garcia-Palomares, JC, Gutiérrez, J, Cardozo, OD (2013) Walking accessibility to public transport: An analysis based on microdata and GIS. Environment and Planning B 40, 10871102.
Google Scholar | Abstract
Gebel, K, Bauman, AE, Sugiyama, T (2011) Mismatch between perceived and objectively assessed neighborhood walkability attributes: Prospective relationships with walking and weight gain. Health and Place 17, 519524.
Google Scholar | Medline
Getis A (1969) Residential location and the journey from work. Proceedings of the Association of American Geographers, pp.55–59.
Google Scholar
Golledge, RG, Stimson, RJ (1997) Spatial Behavior: A Geographic Perspective, New York: Guilford Press.
Google Scholar
Halás, M, Klapka, P, Kladivo, P (2014) Distance-decay functions for daily travel-to-work flows. Journal of Transport Geography 35, 107119.
Google Scholar
Handy, S (2005) Planning for accessibility: In theory and in practice. In: Levinson, DM, Krizek, KJ (eds) Access to Destinations, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 131147.
Google Scholar
Handy, S, Cao, X, Mokhtarian, PL (2005) Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transportation Research Part D 10, 427444.
Google Scholar
Handy, S, Niemeier, DA (1997) Measuring accessibility: An exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A 29, 11751194.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
Hansen, WG (1959) How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 25, 7376.
Google Scholar
Hess, DB (2012) Walking to the bus: Perceived versus actual walking distance to bus stops for older adults. Transportation 39, 247266.
Google Scholar
Hjorthol, R (2001) Gendered aspects of time related to everyday journeys. Acta Sociologica 44, 3749.
Google Scholar | Abstract
Horning J, El-Geneidy A and Krizek KJ (2008) Perceptions of walking distance to neighborhood retail and other public services. In: Eighty-seventh meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Google Scholar
Hupkes, G (1982) The law of constant travel time and trip-rates. Futures 14, 3846.
Google Scholar
Iacono, M, Krizek, KJ, El-Geneidy, A (2008) Access to Destinations: How Close Is Close Enough? Estimating Accurate Distance Decay Functions for Multiple Modes and Different Purposes, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Google Scholar
Iacono, M, Krizek, KJ, El-Geneidy, A (2010) Measuring non-motorized accessibility: Issues, alternatives, and execution. Journal of Transport Geography 18, 133140.
Google Scholar
IMTT—Instituto da Mobilidade e dos Transportes Terrestres (2011) Mobilidade em Cidades Médias (Mobility in Medium-Sized Cities), Lisbon: IMTT.
Google Scholar
Ingram, DR (1971) The concept of accessibility: A search for a operational form. Regional Studies 5, 101107.
Google Scholar
Jain, J, Lyons, G (2008) The gift of travel time. Journal of Transport Geography 16, 8189.
Google Scholar
Johansson, B, Klaesson, J, Olsson, M (2003) Commuters’ non-linear response to time distances. Journal of Geographical Systems 5, 315329.
Google Scholar
Kwan, M-P (1998) Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: A comparative analysis using a point-based framework. Geographical Analysis 30, 191216.
Google Scholar
Kwan, M-P (2012) The uncertain geographic context problem. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102, 958968.
Google Scholar
Larsen, J, El-Geneidy, A, Yasmin, F (2010) Beyond the quarter mile: Re-examining travel distances by active transportation. Canadian Journal of Urban Research: Canadian Planning and Policy (supplement) 19, 7088.
Google Scholar
Lee, C, Moudon, AV (2004) Physical activity and environment research in the health field: Implications for urban and transportation planning practice and research. Journal of Planning Literature 19, 147181.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
Le Vine, S, Lee-Gosselin, M, Sivakumar, A (2013) A new concept of accessibility to personal activities: Development of theory and application to an empirical study of mobility resource holdings. Journal of Transport Geography 31, 110.
Google Scholar
Levinson, DM, Gillen, D (2005) The machine for access. In: Levinson, DM, Krizek, KJ (eds) Access to Destinations, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 110.
Google Scholar
MacEachren, AM (1980) Travel time as the basis of cognitive distance. Professional Geographer 32, 3036.
Google Scholar
Macintyre, S, MacDonald, L, Ellaway, A (2008) Lack of agreement between measured and self-reported distance from public green parks in Glasgow, Scotland. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 5, 18.
Google Scholar | Medline
McNeil, N (2011) Bikeability and the 20-min neighborhood: How infrastructure and destinations influence bicycle accessibility. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2247, 5363.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
Manaugh, K, El-Geneidy, A (2012) What makes travel ‘local’: Defining and understanding local travel behaviour. Journal of Transport and Land Use 5, 1527.
Google Scholar
Marchetti, C (1994) Anthropological invariants in travel behavior. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 47, 7588.
Google Scholar
Martínez, LM, Viegas, JM (2013) A new approach to modelling distance-decay functions for accessibility assessment in transport studies. Journal of Transport Geography 26, 8796.
Google Scholar
Metz, D (2004) Travel time – Variable or constant? Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 38, 333344.
Google Scholar
Milakis, D, Cervero, R, Van Wee, B (2015) Do people consider an acceptable travel time? Evidence from Berkeley, CA. Journal of Transport Geography 44, 7686.
Google Scholar
Miller, HJ (2005) Place-based versus people-based accessibility. In: Levinson, DM, Krizek, KJ (eds) Access to Destinations, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 6389.
Google Scholar
Millward, H, Spinney, J, Scott, D (2013) Active-transport walking behavior: Destinations, durations, distances. Journal of Transport Geography 28, 101110.
Google Scholar
Moudon, AV, Lee, C (2003) Walking and bicycling: An evaluation of environmental audit instruments. American Journal of Health Promotion 18, 2137.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
Neutens, T, Schwanen, T, Witlox, F (2010) Equity of urban service delivery: A comparison of different accessibility measures. Environment and Planning A 42, 16131635.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
Owen, N, Humpel, N, Leslie, E (2004) Understanding environmental influences on walking: Review and research agenda. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27, 6776.
Google Scholar | Medline
Páez, A, Scott, DM (2004) Spatial statistics for urban analysis: A review of techniques with examples. Geojournal 61, 5367.
Google Scholar
Páez, A, Scott, DM, Morency, C (2012) Measuring accessibility: Positive and normative implementations of various accessibility indicators. Journal of Transport Geography 25, 141153.
Google Scholar
Páez, A, Whalen, KE (2010) Enjoyment of commute: A comparison of different transportation modes. Transportation Research Part A 44, 537549.
Google Scholar
Rahul, TM, Verma, A (2014) A study of acceptable trip distances using walking and cycling in Bangalore. Journal of Transport Geography 38, 106113.
Google Scholar
Reyer, M, Fina, S, Siedentop, S (2014) Walkability is only part of the story: Walking for transportation in Stuttgart, Germany. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 11, 58495865.
Google Scholar | Medline
Tabachnick, BG, Fidell, LS (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed. Boston: Pearson International.
Google Scholar
Talen, E, Anselin, L (1998) Assessing spatial equity: An evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and Planning A 30, 595613.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
Thorsen, I, Obøe, J, Naevdal, G (1999) A network approach to commuting. Journal of Regional Science 39, 73101.
Google Scholar
Tobler, WR (1970) A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography 46, 234240.
Google Scholar
Vale, DS (2013) Does commuting time tolerance impede sustainable urban mobility? Analysing the impacts on commuting behaviour as a result of workplace relocation to a mixed-use centre in Lisbon. Journal of Transport Geography 32, 3848.
Google Scholar
Vale, DS, Saraiva, M, Pereira, M (2016) Active accessibility: A review of operational measures of walking and cycling accessibility. Journal of Transport and Land Use 9, 127.
Google Scholar
Van Eggermond M and Erath M (2016) Pedestrian and transit accessibility on a micro-level: Results & Challenges. Journal of Transport and Land Use 9: 1–16.
Google Scholar
Van Ommeren, J, Rietveld, P, Nijkamp, P (1997) Commuting: In search of jobs and residences. Journal of Urban Economics 42, 402421.
Google Scholar
Van Wee, B (2011) Evaluating the impact of land use on travel behaviour: The environment versus accessibility. Journal of Transport Geography 19, 15301533.
Google Scholar
Van Wee, B, Hagoort, M, Annema, JA (2001) Accessibility measures with competition. Journal of Transport Geography 9, 199208.
Google Scholar
Van Wee, B, Handy, S (2016) Key research themes on urban space, scale, and sustainable urban mobility. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 10, 1824.
Google Scholar
Witlox, F (2007) Evaluating the reliability of reported distance data in urban travel behaviour analysis. Journal of Transport Geography 15, 172183.
Google Scholar
Yang, Y, Diez-Roux, AV (2012) Walking distance by trip purpose and population subgroups. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 43, 1119.
Google Scholar | Medline
Zahavi Y (1979) The ‘UMOT’ project. Report prepared for the US Department of Transport, Washington, DC and for the Ministry of Transport, Federal Republic of Germany, Bonn.
Google Scholar
Access Options

My Account

Welcome
You do not have access to this content.



Chinese Institutions / 中国用户

Click the button below for the full-text content

请点击以下获取该全文

Institutional Access

does not have access to this content.

Purchase Content

24 hours online access to download content

Research off-campus without worrying about access issues. Find out about Lean Library here

Your Access Options


Purchase

EPB-article-ppv for $37.50
Single Issue 24 hour E-access for $346.00

Cookies Notification

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more.
Top