Accessibility to services of general interest in polycentric urban system planning: the case of Portugal

References

• Alexiadis, S. (2017). Territorial cohesion and prospects for sustainable development: A co-integration analysis. Habitat International, 68, 75–83. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amante, A. (2017). Medidas de Acessibilidade no Sistema de Planeamento Urbano Português (PhD In Civil Engineering – Planning. Faculty of Engineering – University of Porto, Porto.
   Google Scholar
• Apparicio, P., Abdelmajid, M., Riva, M., & Shearmur, R. (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). doi:10.1186/1476-072x-7-7.
   Google Scholar
• Apparicio, P., Cloutier, M.-S., & Shearmur, R. (2007). The case of Montréal’s missing food deserts: Evaluation of accessibility to food supermarkets. International Journal of Health Geographics, 6(4). doi: 10.1186/1476-072x-6-4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baradaran, S., & Ramjerdi, F. (2001). Performance of accessibility measures in Europe. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, 4(3), 31–48.
   Google Scholar
• Barreto, A. (1995). Portugal na periferia do centro: mudança social, 1960 a 1995. Análise Social, 30(134), 841–855.
   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
• Bhat, C., Handy, S., Kckelman, K., Mahmassani, H., Chen, Q., & Weston, L. (2000). Urban accessibility index: Literature review. Retrieved from https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/14882
   Google Scholar
• Biosca, O., Spiekermann, K., & Stępniak, M. (2013). Transport accessibility at regional scale. Europa XXI, 24(24), 5–17. doi: 10.7163/Eu21.2013.24.1
   Google Scholar
• Borges, L., & Johansson, M. (2012, August). SGI and territorial structures: European experiences. Bratislava: ERSA Conference.
   Google Scholar
• Brezzi, M., & Veneri, P. (2015). Assessing polycentric urban systems in the OECD: Country, regional and metropolitan perspectives. European Planning Studies, 23(6), 1128–1145. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2014.905005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brömmelstroet, M. t., & 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
• Burger, M. J., & Meijers, E. (2012). Form follows function? Linking morphological and functional polycentricity. Urban Studies, 49(5), 1127–1149. doi: 10.1177/0042098011407095
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burger, M. J., Meijers, E. J., & van Oort, F. G. (2014). Editorial: The development and functioning of regional urban systems. Regional Studies, 48(12), 1921–1925. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2014.979782
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burger, M. J., van der Knaap, B., & Wall, R. S. (2014). Polycentricity and the multiplexity of urban networks. European Planning Studies, 22(4), 816–840. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2013.771619
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmo, R. M. (2013). Polycentrism as a multi-scalar relationship between urban and rural areas: The case of Portugal. European Planning Studies, 21(2), 149–166. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.722912
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmo, R. M. (2014). Sociologia dos Territórios: Teorias, Estruturas e Deambulações. Lisboa: Mundos Sociais.
   Google Scholar
• Cattan, N. (2007). Cities and networks in Europe. A critical approach of polycentrism Esher. Surrey: John Libbey Eurotext.
   Google Scholar
• Cerdá, A. (2009). Accessibility: A performance measure for land-use and transportation planning in the Montréal Metropolitan Region (Masters of Urban Planning). McGill University Montreal, Montreal, QC.
   Google Scholar
• Dao, H., Plagnat Cantoreggi, P., & Rousseaux, V. (2017). Operationalizing a contested concept: Indicators of territorial cohesion. European Planning Studies, 25(4), 638–660. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2017.1281230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dühr, S. (2005). Potentials for polycentric development in Europe: The ESPON 1.1.1 project report. Planning Practice & Research, 20(2), 235–239. doi: 10.1080/02697450500414728
   Google Scholar
• EC. (2007). Territorial agenda of the European Union: Towards a more competitive and sustainable Europe of diverse regions. Leipzig: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• EC. (2011a). A quality framework for services of general interest in Europe. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• EC. (2011b). Territorial agenda of the European Union 2020: Towards an inclusive, smart and sustainable Europe of diverse regions. Gödöllő: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• El-Geneidy, A., & Levinson, D. (2006). Access to destinations: Development of accessibility measures. Retrieved from https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/638
   Google Scholar
• ESPON. (2013). SeGI indicators and perspectives for services of general interest in territorial cohesion and development ESPON applied research 2013/1/16. Final Report\Version, 25(5), 2013.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON. (2016). Polycentric territorial structures and territorial cooperation. Retrieved from www.espon.eu
   Google Scholar
• ESPON. (2017). PROFECY – processes, features and cycles of inner peripheries in Europe. Interim Report. Retrieved from https://www.espon.eu
   Google Scholar
• EU. (2016). Urban Agenda for the EU; ‘Pact of Amsterdam’. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/themes/urban-development/agenda/pact-of-amsterdam.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Evers, D. (2008). Reflections on territorial cohesion and European spatial planning. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 99(3), 303–315. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9663.2008.00463.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2007). Territorial cohesion and the European model of society. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Fassmann, H., Rauhut, D., da Costa, E. M., & Humer, A. (2015). Services of general interest and territorial cohesion: European perspectives and national insights. Vienna: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrão, J. (2002). Portugal, tres geografias em recombinacao: espacialidades, mapas cognitivos e identidades territorais. Lusotopie, 9(9), 151–158.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrão, J., & Mourato, J. M. (2010). A avaliação de políticas públicas como factor de aprendizagem, inovação Institucional e cidadania: o caso da política do ordenamento do território em Portugal. Revista Brasileira de Estudos Urbanos e Regionais, 12(1), 9–28. doi: 10.22296/2317-1529.2010v12n1p9
   Google Scholar
• Geurs, K. T., Boon, W., & Van Wee, B. (2009). Social impacts of transport: Literature review and the state of the practice of transport appraisal in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Transport Reviews, 29(1), 69–90. doi: 10.1080/01441640802130490
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geurs, K. T., & 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. Retrieved from https://rivm.openrepository.com/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
• Ginevičius, R. (2008). Normalization of quantities of various dimensions. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 9(1), 79–86. doi: 10.3846/1611-1699.2008.9.79-86
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gløersen, E. (2007). Towards an improved understanding of urban profiles and polycentric development potentials: Reflections on ESPON 1.1. 1. In N. Cattan (Ed.), Cities and networks in Europe. A critical approach of polycentrism (pp. 27–37). Esher: John Libbey Eurotext.
   Google Scholar
• Groth, N. B., & Smidt-Jensen, S. (2007). The ideo-centricity of urban poly-centricity. In N. Cattan (Ed.), Cities and networks in Europe. A critical approach of polycentrism (pp. 81–92). Esher: John Libbey Eurotext.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, P. (2009). The polycentric metropolis: A western European perspective on megacity regions. In J. Xu & A. G. O. Yeh (Eds.), Governance and planning of mega-city regions: An international comparative perspective (pp. 45–66). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Handy, S. L., & Niemeier, D. A. (1997). Measuring accessibility: An exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 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 Institute of Planners, 25(2), 73–76. doi: 10.1080/01944365908978307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hägerstraand, T. (1970). What about people in regional science? Papers in Regional Science, 24(1), 7–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1435-5597.1970.tb01464.x
   Google Scholar
• Hoyler, M., Kloosterman, R. C., & Sokol, M. (2008). Polycentric puzzles – emerging mega-city regions seen through the lens of advanced producer services. Regional Studies, 42(8), 1055–1064. doi: 10.1080/00343400802389377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hull, A., Silva, C., & Bertolini, L. (2012). Accessibility instruments for planning practice. Porto: COST Office.
   Google Scholar
• Humer, A. (2014). Researching social services of general interest: An analytical framework derived from underlying policy systems. European Spatial Research and Policy, 21(1), 65–82. doi: 10.2478/esrp-2014-0006
   Google Scholar
• Humer, A., & Palma, P. (2013). The provision of services of general interest in Europe: Regional indices and types explained by socio-economic and territorial conditions. Europa XXI, 23, 85–104. doi: 10.7163/Eu21.2013.23.5
   Google Scholar
• Iacono, M., Krizek, K. J., & El-Geneidy, A. (2010). Measuring non-motorized accessibility: Issues, alternatives, and execution. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(1), 133–140. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• INE. (2018). Statistics Portugal. Retrieved from www.ine.pt/
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs-Crisioni, C., e Silva, F. B., Lavalle, C., Baranzelli, C., Barbosa, A., & Castillo, C. P. (2016). Accessibility and territorial cohesion in a case of transport infrastructure improvements with changing population distributions. European Transport Research Review, 8(1), 9. doi: 10.1007/s12544-016-0197-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koenig, J. G. (1980). Indicators of urban accessibility: Theory and application. Transportation, 9(2), 145–172. doi: 10.1007/BF00167128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kompil, M., Jacobs-Crisioni, C., Dijkstra, L., & Lavalle, C. (2019). Mapping accessibility to generic services in Europe: A market-potential based approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 47, 101372. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2018.11.047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Litman, T. (2003). Measuring transportation: Traffic, mobility and accessibility. Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE Journal, 73(10), 28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López, E., Gutiérrez, J., & Gómez, G. (2008). Measuring regional cohesion effects of large-scale transport infrastructure investments: An accessibility approach. European Planning Studies, 16(2), 277–301. doi: 10.1080/09654310701814629
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makrí, M. B. (2001). Accessibility indices. A tool for comprehensive land-use planning. TLEnet 5th workshop, The Nordic Research Network on Modelling Transport, Nynäshamn, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Malý, J. (2016). Questioning territorial cohesion: (Un)equal access to services of general interest. Papers in Regional Science, 0(0). doi: 10.1111/pirs.12250
   Google Scholar
• Marques da Costa, E., Palma, P., & Marques da Costa, N. (2015). Regional disparities of SGI provision. Services of general interest and territorial cohesion (pp. 91–121). Vienna: V&R Unipress, Vienna University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marques, T. (2003). Retratos territoriais: Portugal na transição do século (XX/XXI) (PhD thesis). Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, Porto.
   Google Scholar
• Marques, T. (2016). Sistema Urbano. In J. A. R. Fernandes, L. L. Trigal, & E. S. Sposito (Eds.), Dicionário de Geografia Aplicada – Terminologia da análise, do planeamento e da gestão do território (pp. 473–475). Porto: Porto Editora.
   Google Scholar
• Medeiros, E. (2016). Territorial cohesion: An EU concept. European Journal of Spatial Development, 60, 1–30.
   Google Scholar
• Milbert, A., Breuer, I. M., Rosik, P., Stepniak, M., & Velasco, X. (2013). Accessibility of services of general interest in Europe. Romanian Journal of Regional Science, 7, 37–65.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, E. J. (2018). Accessibility: Measurement and application in transportation planning. Transport Reviews, 38(5), 551–555. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2018.1492778
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunes, A. S. (1964). Portugal, sociedade dualista em evolução. Análise Social, 2(7/8), 407–462.
   Google Scholar
• Nunes, G., Mota, I., & Campos, P. (2011). Policentrismo funcional em Portugal: uma avaliação. FEP Working Paper, 412.
   Google Scholar
• Pain, K. (2007). Integrating the European space: Flows and places in North West European city-region networks. In N. Cattan (Ed.), Cities and networks in Europe: A critical approach to polycentrism (pp. 161–171). Esher: John Libbey Eurotext.
   Google Scholar
• Palma, P., Rauhut, D., & Humer, A. (2015). Polycentricity and social services of general interest: A multivariate analysis. Paper presented at the 55th Congress of the European Regional Science Association: “World Renaissance: Changing Roles for People and Places”, Lisbon, Portugal.
   Google Scholar
• Páez, A., Scott, D. M., & Morency, C. (2012). Measuring accessibility: Positive and normative implementations of various accessibility indicators. Journal of Transport Geography, 25, 141–153. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.03.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rauhut, D., & Ludlow, D. (2013). Services of general interest and territorial cohesion: What, how and by whom? Romanian Journal of Regional Science, 7, 108–123.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, R., Gilliland, J., & Arku, G. (2011). An application of the edge effect in measuring accessibility to multiple food retailer types in southwestern Ontario, Canada. International Journal of Health Geographics, 10(34). doi: 10.1186/1476-072x-10-34
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Salvati, L., & De Rosa, S. (2014). ‘Hidden polycentrism’ or ‘subtle dispersion’? Urban growth and long-term sub-centre dynamics in three Mediterranean cities. Land Use Policy, 39, 233–243. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.02.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santinha, G., & Marques, T. (2012). A integração do princípio de Coesão Territorial na agenda política: o caso português. Revista de Geografia e Ordenamento do Território, 2, 215–244. doi: 10.17127/got/2012.2.010
   Google Scholar
• Sánchez-Zamora, P., Gallardo-Cobos, R., & Romero-Huertas, C. (2017). Assessing the determinants of territorial cohesion: Evidence from Colombian departments. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences, 87, 48–61. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheurer, J., & Curtis, C. (2007). Accessibility measures: Overview and practical applications. Impacts of Transit Led Development in a New Rail Corridor (Working Paper No. 4). Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Curtin University.
   Google Scholar
• Schmitt, P. (2013). Planning for polycentricity in European metropolitan areas – challenges, expectations and practices. Planning Practice & Research, 28(4), 400–419. doi: 10.1080/02697459.2013.780570
   Google Scholar
• Silva, C., Bertolini, L., te Brömmelstroet, M., Milakis, D., & Papa, E. (2017). Accessibility instruments in planning practice: Bridging the implementation gap. Transport Policy, 53, 135–145. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.09.006
   Web of Science ®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
• Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stepniak, M., & Rosik, P. (2016). From improvements in accessibility to the impact on territorial cohesion the spatial approach. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 9(3), 1–13. doi: 10.5198/jtlu.2015.570
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Straatemeier, T., & Bertolini, L. (2008). Joint accessibility design: Framework developed with practitioners to integrate land use and transport planning in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Record, 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
• Vale, D. (2010). Sustainable urban form, accessibility and travel: The relationship between polycentric urban development and commuting in Lisbon. Saarbrucken: Lambert Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Vale, D. S., Saraiva, M., & Pereira, M. (2016). Active accessibility: A review of operational measures of walking and cycling accessibility. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 9(1), 209–235. doi: 10.5198/jtlu.2015.593
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Wee, B., Geurs, K., & Chorus, C. (2013). Information, communication, travel behavior and accessibility. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 6(3), 1–16. doi: 10.5198/jtlu.v6i3.282
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandenbulcke, G., Steenberghen, T., & Thomas, I. (2009). Mapping accessibility in Belgium: A tool for land-use and transport planning? Journal of Transport Geography, 17(1), 39–53. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.04.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandermotten, C., Halbert, L., Roelandts, M., & Cornut, P. (2008). European planning and the polycentric consensus: Wishful thinking? Regional Studies, 42(8), 1205–1217. doi: 10.1080/00343400701874206
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandermotten, C., Roelandts, M., & Cornut, P. (2007). European polycentrism: Towards a more efficient and/or more equitable development. In N. Cattan (Ed.), Cities and networks in Europe. A critical approach of polycentrism (pp. 51–62). Esher: John Libbey Eurotext.
   Google Scholar
• Vasconcelos, A. S., & Farias, T. L. (2012). Evaluation of urban accessibility indicators based on internal and external environmental costs. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 17(6), 433–441. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2012.05.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaucha, J., Komornicki, T., Böhme, K., Świątek, D., & Żuber, P. (2014). Territorial keys for bringing closer the territorial agenda of the EU and Europe 2020. European Planning Studies, 22(2), 246–267. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.722976
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar