Multimodal transport and potential encounters with social difference: A novel approach based on network analysis

References

• Al_Sayed, K., Turner, A., Hillier, B., Iida, S., & Penn, A. (2014). Space syntax methodology (4th ed.). London, UK: University College of London. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
   Google Scholar
• Aldecoa Martínez-Conde, J. (2009). Plan de Intercambiadores—Madrid. Madrid, Spain: Consorcio Regional de Transportes.
   Google Scholar
• Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Amin, A. (2002). Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Living with diversity. Environment and Planning A, 34(6), 959–980. doi:10.1068/a3537
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson, R. (2006). Breaking segregation—Rhetorical constructor or effective policy? The case of the metropolitan development initiative in Sweden. Urban Studies, 43(4), 787–799. doi:10.1080/00420980600597608
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson, R., Bråmå, Å., & Holmqvist, E. (2010). Counteracting segregation: Swedish policies and experiences. Housing Studies, 25(2), 237–256. doi:10.1080/02673030903561859
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augé, M. (2002). In the metro. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Batty, M. (2009). Accessibility: In search of a unified theory. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36(2), 191–194. doi:10.1068/b3602ed
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertolini, L. (1999). Spatial development patterns and public transport: The application of an analytical model in the Netherlands. Planning Practice and Research, 14(2), 199–210. doi:10.1080/02697459915724
   Google Scholar
• Bertolini, L. (2005). Sustainable urban mobility: An evolutionary approach. European Spatial Research Policy, 12(1), 109–126.
   Google Scholar
• Bertolini, L., & Dijst, M. (2003). Mobility environments and network cities. Journal of Urban Design, 8(1), 27–43. doi:10.1080/1357480032000064755
   Google Scholar
• Bertolini, L., le Clercq, F., & Kapoen, L. (2005). Sustainable accessibility: A conceptual framework to integrate transport and land use plan-making. Two test-applications in the Netherlands and a reflection on the way forward. Transport Policy, 12(3), 207–220. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.01.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boterman, W. R., & Musterd, S. (2016). Cocooning urban life: Exposure to diversity in neighbourhoods, workplaces and transport. Cities, 59, 139–147. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2015.10.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. A social critique of the judgement of taste (2010 Re-edition). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (1999). Site effects. In P. Bourdieu (Ed.), The weight of the world. Social suffering in contemporary society (pp. 656). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, L. A., & Chung, S. Y. (2006). Spatial segregation, segregation indices and the geographical perspective. Population, Space and Place, 12(2), 125–143. doi:10.1002/psp.403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caplow, T., & Forman, R. (1950). Neighborhood interaction in a homogeneous community. American Sociological Review, 15(3), 357–366. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/pss/2087177
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caspi, A. (1984). Contact hypothesis and inter-age attitudes: A field study of cross-age contact. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47(1), 74. doi:10.2307/3033890
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid. (1996). Encuesta Domiciliaria de Movilidad 1996. Madrid, Spain: Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid.
   Google Scholar
• Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid. (2004). Encuesta Domiciliaria de Movilidad 2004. Madrid, Spain: Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid.
   Google Scholar
• Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid. (2014). Encuesta Sintética de Movilidad 2014. Madrid, Spain: Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid.
   Google Scholar
• Curtis, C., & Scheurer, J. (2010). Planning for sustainable accessibility: Developing tools to aid discussion and decision-making. Progress in Planning, 74(2), 53–106. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2010.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalmau, F., Garcia-Almirall, P., Domínguez, E., & Escudero, D. (2014). From raw data to meaningful information: A representational approach to cadastral databases in relation to urban planning. Future Internet, 6(4), 612–639. doi:10.3390/fi6040612
   Google Scholar
• de Ortúzar, J. D., & Willumsen, L. G. (1990). Modelling transport. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan, O. D., & Duncan, B. (1955). A methodological analysis of segregation indexes. American Sociological Review, 20(2), 210. doi:10.2307/2088328
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, M., Wright, R., & Parks, V. (2004). Work together, live apart? Geographies of racial and ethnic segregation at home and at work. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94(3), 620–637. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.00417.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estlund, C. (2003). Working together: How workplace bonds strengthen a diverse democracy. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.es/books?id=cBgPHimV5LgC
   Google Scholar
• Farber, S., & Páez, A. (2009). My car, my friends, and me: A preliminary analysis of automobility and social activity participation. Journal of Transport Geography, 17(3), 216–225. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.07.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fincher, R., & Iveson, K. (2008). Planning and diversity in the city. Redistribution, recognition and encounter. Basingstoke, UK, and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Geurs, K. T., & Ritsema van Eck, J. (2001). Accessibility measures: Review and applications. Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use transportation scenarios, and related social and economic impact. (RIVM Report) (Vol. 787). Retrieved from https://rivm.openrepository.com/rivm/handle/10029/9487
   Google Scholar
• Geurs, K. T., & van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2), 127–140. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons, J. (2015). Does racial segregation make community-based organizations more territorial? Evidence from Newark, NJ, and Jersey City, NJ. Journal of Urban Affairs, 37(5), 600–619. doi:10.1111/juaf.12170
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gil, J. (2014). Analyzing the configuration of multimodal urban networks. Geographical Analysis, 46(4), 368–391. doi:10.1111/gean.12062
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gil, J. (2016). Urban modality: Modelling and evaluating the sustainable mobility of urban areas in the city-region. Delft, The Netherlands: A+BE | Architecture and the Built Environment.
   Google Scholar
• Goetz, E. G. (2010). Desegregation in 3D: Displacement, dispersal and development in American public housing. Housing Studies, 25(2), 137–158. doi:10.1080/02673030903561800
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. doi:10.1086/225469
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutiérrez, J., & García-Palomares, J. C. (2007). New spatial patterns of mobility within the metropolitan area of Madrid: Towards more complex and dispersed flow networks. Journal of Transport Geography, 15(1), 18–30. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handy, S. L., & Niemeier, D. A. (1997). Measuring accessibility: An exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A, 29(7), 1175–1194. doi:10.1068/a291175
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen, W. G. (1959). How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Planning Association, 25(2), 73–76. doi:10.1080/01944365908978307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heraud, B. J. (1968). Social class and the New Towns. Urban Studies, 5(1), 33–58. doi:10.1080/00420986820080031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillier, B. (2007). Space is the machine – A configurational theory of architecture. Space Syntax—UCL. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(97)89854-7
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, B., & Iida, S. (2005). Network effects and psychological effects: A theory of urban movement. Proceedings 5th International Space Syntax Symposium, 553–564. doi:10.1007/11556114_30
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, B., Penn, A., Hanson, J., Grajewski, T., & Xu, J. (1993). Natural movement: Or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 20(1), 29–66. doi:10.1068/b200029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillier, B., Turner, A., Yang, T., & Park, H. T. (2010). Metric and topo-geometric properties of urban street networks: Some convergences, divergences and new results. Journal of Space Syntax, 1(2), 258–279.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, B., Yang, T., & Turner, A. (2012). Normalising least angle choice in Depthmap—and how it opens up new perspectives on the global and local analysis of city space. Journal of Space Syntax, 3(2), 155–193. Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1389938/
   Google Scholar
• Hull, A., Silva, C., & Bertolini, L. (2012). Accessibility instruments for planning practice. COST Office. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.1868.3605
   Google Scholar
• Instituto Nacional de Estadística. (2018). Cifras oficiales de población resultantes de la revisión del Padrón municipal a 1 de enero. Madrid. Retrieved from www.ine.es
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York, NY: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Kamruzzaman, M., Yigitcanlar, T., Yang, J., & Mohamed, M. A. (2016). Measures of transport-related social exclusion: A critical review of the literature. Sustainability, 8(696). doi:10.3390/su8070696
   Google Scholar
• Kwan, M. P. (2009). From place-based to people-based exposure measures. Social Science and Medicine, 69(9), 1311–1313. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.07.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law, R. (1999). Beyond “women and transport”: Towards new geographies of gender and daily mobility. Progress in Human Geography. doi:10.1191/030913299666161864
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Roux, G., Vallée, J., & Commenges, H. (2017). Social segregation around the clock in the Paris region (France). Journal of Transport Geography, 59, 134–145. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legeby, A., Berghauser Pont, M., & Marcus, L. (2015). Streets for co-presence? Mapping potentials. Proceedings of the 10th International Space Syntax Symposium (pp. 1–18), (November 2016),  UCL, London, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Lucas, K. (2012). Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transport Policy, 20, 105–113. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.01.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcińczak, S., Musterd, S., van Ham, M., & Tammaru, T. (2015). Inequality and rising levels of socio-economic segregation. Lessons from a pan-European comparative study. In T. Tammaru, S. Marcinczak, M. van Ham, & S. Musterd (Eds.), Socio-economic segregation in European capital cities—East meets west (pp. 358–381). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315758879
   Google Scholar
• Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1988). The dimensions of residential segregation. Social Forces, 67(2), 281–315. doi:10.1093/sf/67.2.281
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministerio de Hacienda y Función Pública. Dirección General de Catastro. (n.d.). Sede Electrónica de Catastro. Retrieved from http://www.sedecatastro.gob.es/
   Google Scholar
• Moya-Gómez, B., & García-Palomares, J. C. (2017a). The daily dynamic potential accessibility by car in London on Wednesdays. Journal of Maps, 13(1), 31–39. doi:10.1080/17445647.2017.1305301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moya-Gómez, B., & García-Palomares, J. C. (2017b). The impacts of congestion on automobile accessibility. What happens in large European cities? Journal of Transport Geography, 62(May), 148–159. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.05.014
   Google Scholar
• Mumford, L. (1938). The culture of cities. London, UK: Secker and Warburg.
   Google Scholar
• Murillo, F. J., & Martínez-Garrido, C. (2018). Magnitud de la segregación escolar por nivel socioeconómico en España y sus Comunidades Autónomas y comparación con los países de la Unión Europea. Revista de Sociología de La Educación (RASE), 11, 37–58. doi:10.7203/RASE.11.1.10129
   Google Scholar
• Musterd, S., Marcińczak, S., van Ham, M., & Tammaru, T. (2017). Socioeconomic segregation in European capital cities. Increasing separation between poor and rich. Urban Geography, 38(7), 1062–1083. doi:10.1080/02723638.2016.1228371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Netto, V. M. (2016). The social fabric of cities. doi:10.4324/9781315552804
   Google Scholar
• Netto, V. M., Meirelles, J. V., Pinheiro, M., & Lorea, H. (2018, February). A temporal geography of encounters. CyberGeo: European Journal of Geography. doi:10.4000/cybergeo.28985
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Netto, V. M., Pinheiro, M. S., & Paschoalino, R. (2015). Segregated networks in the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(6), 1084–1102. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12346
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Sullivan, D., & Wong, D. W. S. (2007). A surface-based approach to measuring spatial segregation. Geographical Analysis, 39(2), 147–168. doi:10.1111/j.1538-4632.2007.00699.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Östh, J., Shuttleworth, I., & Niedomysl, T. (2018). Spatial and temporal patterns of economic segregation in Sweden’s metropolitan areas: A mobility approach. Environment and Planning A, 50(4), 809–825. doi:10.1177/0308518X18763167
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pyer, M., & Tucker, F. (2017). ‘With us, we, like, physically can’t’: Transport, mobility and the leisure experiences of teenage wheelchair users. Mobilities, 12(1), 36–52. doi:10.1080/17450101.2014.970390
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Read, S., & Gil, J. (2017, July). Modality environments: A concept for sustainability and vitality in the multi-modal city. Proceedings—11th International Space Syntax Symposium, SSS 2017, 105.1–105.11. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85031102615&partnerID=40&md5=ad1d38418678d1d0b020a624f3955e27
   Google Scholar
• Reardon, S. F., & Firebaugh, G. (2002). Measures of multigroup segregation. Sociological Methodology, 32, 33–67. doi:10.1111/1467-9531.00110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reardon, S. F., Matthews, S. A., O’Sullivan, D., Lee, B. A., Firebaugh, G., Farrell, C. R., & Bischoff, K. (2008). The geographic scale of metropolitan racial segregation. Demography, 45(3), 489–514. doi:10.1353/dem.0.0019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reardon, S. F., & O’Sullivan, D. (2004). Measures of spatial segregation. Sociological Methodology, 34(1), 121–162. doi:10.1111/j.0081-1750.2004.00150.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reardon, S. F., Yun, J. T., & Eitle, T. M. (2000). The changing structure of school segregation: Measurement and evidence of multiracial metropolitan-area school segregation, 1989-1995. Demography, 37(3), 351–364. doi:10.2307/2648047
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarkissian, W. (1976). The idea of social mix in town planning: An historical review. Urban Studies, 13, 231–246. doi:10.1080/00320717608711516
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarkissian, W., Forsyth, A., & Heine, W. (1990). Residential “social mix”: The debate continues. Australian Planner, 28(1), 5–16. doi:10.1080/07293682.1990.9657439
   Google Scholar
• Scheiner, J., & Holz-Rau, C. (2012). Gendered travel mode choice: A focus on car deficient households. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 250–261. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.02.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sennett, R. (1977). The fall of public man (Re-edition). London, UK: Penguin Group.
   Google Scholar
• Sennett, R. (2012). Together. The rituals, pleasures and politics of cooperation. London, UK: Penguin Group.
   Google Scholar
• Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2000). The city and the car. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(4), 737–757. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.00276
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silm, S., & Ahas, R. (2014). The temporal variation of ethnic segregation in a city: Evidence from a mobile phone use dataset. Social Science Research, 47, 30–43. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.03.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva, C., & Larsson, A. (2018). Challenges for accessibility planning and research in the context of sustainable mobility (Discussion Paper). Paris, France.
   Google Scholar
• Silva, C., & Pinho, P. (2010). The Structural Accessibility Layer (SAL): Revealing how urban structure constrains travel choice. Environment and Planning A, 42(11), 2735–2752. doi:10.1068/a42477
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson, L. (2004). Statistics of racial segregation: Measures, evidence and policy. Urban Studies, 41(3), 661–681. doi:10.1080/0042098042000178735
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanley, D. (2003). What do we know about social cohesion: The research perspective of the federal government’s social cohesion research network. The Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers Canadiens De Sociologie, 28(1), 5–17. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3341872
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• te Brömmelstroet, M. (2010). Equip the warrior instead of manning the equipment. Land use and transport planning support in the Netherlands. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 3(1), 25–41. doi:10.5198/jtlu.v3i1.99
   Google Scholar
• te Brömmelstroet, M., & Bertolini, L. (2010). Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making. Transportation, 37(1), 85–104. doi:10.1007/s11116-009-9221-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• te Brömmelstroet, M., & Bertolini, L. (2011). The role of transport-related models in urban planning practice. Transport Reviews, 31(2), 139–143. doi:10.1080/01441647.2010.541295
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• te Brömmelstroet, M., Curtis, C., Larsson, A., & Milakis, D. (2016). Strengths and weaknesses of accessibility instruments in planning practice: Technological rules based on experiential workshops. European Planning Studies, 24(6), 1175–1196. doi:10.1080/09654313.2015.1135231
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varoudis, T. (2012). depthmapX—Open source multi-platform spatial network analysis software. Retrieved from http://varoudis.github.io/depthmapX/
   Google Scholar
• Vonofakou, C., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2007). Contact with out-group friends as a predictor of meta-attitudinal strength and accessibility of attitudes toward gay men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 804–820. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.804
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wong, D. W. S. (1999). Geostatistics as measures of spatial segregation. Urban Geography, 20(7), 635–647. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.20.7.635
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong, D. W. S. (2003). Implementing spatial segregation measures in GIS. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 27(1), 53–70. doi:10.1016/S0198-9715(01)00018-7
   Google Scholar
• Wong, D. W. S., & Shaw, S. L. (2011). Measuring segregation: An activity space approach. Journal of Geographical Systems, 13(2), 127–145. doi:10.1007/s10109-010-0112-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuker, H. E., & Hurley, M. K. (1987). Contact with and attitudes toward persons with disabilities: The measurement of intergroup contact. Rehabilitation Psychology, 32(3), 145–154. doi:10.1037//0090-5550.32.3.145
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar