Strengths and weaknesses of accessibility instruments in planning practice: technological rules based on experiential workshops

References

• van Aken, J. E. (2004). Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2), 219–246. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00430.x
   Google Scholar
• Amara, N., Ouimet, M., & Landry, R. (2004). New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Science Communication, 26(1), 75–106. doi:10.1177/1075547004267491
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Axhausen, K. (2008). Accessibility: Long-term perspectives. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 1(2), 5–22. doi:10.5198/jtlu.v1i2.66
   Google Scholar
• Banister, D. 2005. Unsustainable transport: City transport in the new century. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bertolini, L. (2012). Integrating mobility and urban development agendas: A manifesto. disP—The Planning Review, 48(1), 16–26. doi:10.1080/02513625.2012.702956
   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, 207–220. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.01.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertolini, L., le Clercq, F., & Straatemeier, T. (2008). Urban transportation planning in transition (editorial). Transport Policy, 15(2), 69–72. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brail, R. K. (Ed.). 2008. Planning support systems for cities and regions. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   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. (2012). Transparency, flexibility, simplicity: From buzzwords towards strategies for real PSS improvement. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 36(1), 96–104. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2011.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• te Brömmelstroet, M. (2013). Performance of planning support systems: what is it, and how do we report on it? Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 41, 299–308. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2012.07.004 doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2012.07.004
   Web of Science ®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., Silva, C., & Bertolini, L. (Eds.). (2014). Assessing usability of accessibility instruments. Amsterdam: COST Office.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman, A. (2008). Social science methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Curtis, C. (2011). Integrating land use with public transport: The use of a discursive accessibility tool to inform metropolitan spatial planning in Perth. Transport Reviews, 31(2), 179–197. doi:10.1080/01441647.2010.525330
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curtis, C., & Low, N. (2012). Institutional barriers to sustainable transport. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
   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
• Curtis, C., & Scheurer, J. (2015). Performance measures for public transport accessibility: Learning from international practice. Journal of Transport and Land Use. Retrieved from https://jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/view/683/665
   Google Scholar
• Curtis, C., Scheurer, J., & Burke, M. (2013). Using new accessibility tools to guide policy innovation. Built Environment, 39(4), 454–472.
   Google Scholar
• Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., & van Aken, J. E. (2008). Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organization Studies, 29(3), 393–413. doi:10.1177/0170840607088020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, A., & Batey, P. (2007). Re-thinking accessibility planning: A multi-layer conceptual framework and its policy implications. Town Planning Review, 78(4), 429–458. doi:10.3828/tpr.78.4.3
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, A., Beukers, E., & te Brömmelstroet, M. (2012). Accessibility is gold, mobility is not: A proposal for the improvement of transport-related Dutch CBA. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 39(4), 683–697. doi:10.1068/b38073
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Geertman, S. (2006). Potentials for planning support: A planning-conceptual approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33(6), 863–880. doi:10.1068/b31129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geertman, S., & Stillwell, J. (Eds.). (2003). Planning support systems in practice. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Geertman, S., Toppen, F., & Stillwell, J. (Eds.). (2013). Planning support systems for sustainable urban regions. Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Gerring, J., & McDermott, R. (2007). An experimental template for case study research. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 688–701. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00275.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geurs, K. T., & Ritsema van Eck, J. R. (2001). Accessibility measures: Review and applications. Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use transportation scenarios, and related social and economic impact. Bilthoven: RIVM.
   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
• Gudmundsson, H. (2011). Analysing models as a knowledge technology in transport planning. Transport Reviews, 31(2), 145–159. doi:10.1080/01441647.2010.532884
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halden, D. (2003). Accessibility analysis: Concepts and their application to transport policy, programme and project evaluation. In A. Pearman, P. Mackie, & J. Nellthorp (Eds.), Transport projects, programmes and policies: Evaluation needs and capabilities (pp. 227–242). Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Handy, S. (2002). Accessibility- vs. mobility-enhancing strategies for addressing automobile dependence in the U.S. Brussels: European Conference of Ministers of Transport.
   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
• Hull, A., Silva, C., & Bertolini, L. (2012). Accessibility instruments for planning practice. Porto: COST Office.
   Google Scholar
• Jeekel, H. (2011). Car dependent society. Delft: Eburon Uitgeverij BV.
   Google Scholar
• Keil, M., Beranek, P. M., & Konsynski, B. R. (1995). Usefulness and ease of use: Field study evidence regarding task considerations. Decision Support Systems, 13(1), 75–91. doi:10.1016/0167-9236(94)E0032-M
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klosterman, R. E. (2001). Planning support systems: A new perspective on computer-aided planning. In R. K. Brail & R. E. Klosterman (Eds.), Planning support systems: Integrating geographical information systems, models and visualization tools (pp. 1–23). New Brunswick: ESRI.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, D. B. (1973). Requiem for large-scale models. Journal of the American Planning Association, 39, 163–178. doi:10.1080/01944367308977851
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, D. B. (1994). Retrospective on large-scale urban models. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(1), 35–40. doi:10.1080/01944369408975549
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucas, K. (2006). Providing transport for social inclusion within a framework for environmental justice in the UK. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 40(10), 801–809. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2005.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lutz, C., & Lutz Fernandez, A., 2010. Carjacked: The culture of the automobile and its effect on our lives. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Makrí, M. B. (2001). Accessibility indices: A tool for comprehensive land-use planning. Lund: Lund University.
   Google Scholar
• Meadows, D. H., & Robinsons, J. M. (2002). The electronic oracle: Computer models and social decisions. System Dynamics Review, 18(2), pp. 271–308. doi:10.1002/sdr.239
   Google Scholar
• Milakis, D., Cervero, R., & Maat, K., 2014, July 9–12. How much travel is acceptable? Evidence from Berkeley, CA. Proceedings of the annual congress of the Association of European Schools of Planning (AESOP), Utrecht.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, J. 1994. Usability engineering. Cambridge: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nuzzolo, A., Coppola, P., Crisalli, U., & Comi, A. (2010). Mobilità e Qualità delle Aree Urbane. Napoli: Guida Editore.
   Google Scholar
• Nuzzolo, A., Coppola, P., & Papa, E. (2014). Marginal activity access cost (MAAC): A new indicator for sustainable land use/transport (LUT) planning. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 111, 450–459. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.078
   Google Scholar
• Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Rouwette, E. A. J. A., Vennix, J. A. M., & van Mullekom, T. (2002). Group model building effectiveness: A review of assessment studies. System Dynamics Review, 18(1), 5–45. doi:10.1002/sdr.229
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva, C. (2008). Comparative accessibility for mobility management—The structural accessibility layer. Porto: Oporto University.
   Google Scholar
• Stead, D., Geerlings, H., & Meijers, E. (2004). Integrated land use planning, transport and environmental policy-making: An international comparison. Delft: DUP Science.
   Google Scholar
• Straatemeier, T. (2008). How to plan for regional accessibility. Transport Policy, 15, 127–137. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Straatemeier, T., & Bertolini, L. (2007). Planning for accessibility: Helping policymakers to develop integrated regional land-use and transport strategies in the Netherlands. 21 AESOP conference 2007, Naples.
   Google Scholar
• Straatemeier, T., & Bertolini, L. (2008). Joint accessibility design: A framework developed for and with practitioners to stimulate the integration of regional land-use and transport strategies in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2077, 1–8. doi:10.3141/2077-01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Straatemeier, T., Bertolini, L., te Brömmelstroet, M., & Hoetjes, P. (2010). An experiential approach to research in planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(4), 578–591. doi:10.1068/b35122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vonk, G. (2006). Improving planning support; The use of planning support systems for spatial planning. Utrecht: Nederlandse Geografische Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Vonk, G., Geertman, S., & Schot, P. (2005). Bottlenecks blocking widespread usage of planning support systems. Environment and Planning A, 37, 909–924. doi:10.1068/a3712
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar