Impedance measures in evaluating accessibility change

References

• Allen W, Liu D, Singer S. 1993. Accessibility measures of U.S. metropolitan areas. Transport Res B Methodol. 27(6):439–449.
   Google Scholar
• Alpkokin P, Kato H, Black J, Hayashi Y. 2007. Empirical model of firm location for clustered cities: the case of Istanbul. 11th World Conference on Transport Research. Berkeley, CA, United States.
   Google Scholar
• Bhat C, Handy S, Kockelman K, Mahmassani H, Chen Q, Srour I, Weston L. 2000. Development of an Urban accessibility index: literature review. Austin (TX): Texas Department of Transportation.
   Google Scholar
• Brinkhoff T. 2019. City population. [Accessed 2019 Sep 02]. https://www.citypopulation.de.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng G, Zeng X, Duan L, Lu X, Sun H, Jiang T, Li Y. 2016. Spatial difference analysis for accessibility to high level hospitals based on travel time in Shenzhen, China. Habitat Int. 53:485–494.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng J, Bertolini L. 2013. Of three sub-systems: transport, workers (or places of residence). J Transp Geogr. 30:100–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chin HC, Foong KW. 2006. Influence of school accessibility on housing values. J Urban Plan Dev. 132(3):120–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Condeço-Melhorado AM, et al. 2016. The impact of measuring internal travel distances on self potentials and accessibility. Eur J Transport Infrastructure Res. 16(2):300–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García-Albertos P, Picornell M, Salas-Olmedo M, Gutiérrez J. 2019. Exploring the potential of mobile phone records and online route planners for dynamic accessibility analysis. Transport Res A Policy Pract. 125:294–307.
   Google Scholar
• Geurs K, Eck J. v. 2003. Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use scenarios: the implications of job competition, land-use, and infrastructure developments for the Netherlands. Environ Plan B 30(1):69–87.
   Google Scholar
• Geurs KT, Östh J. 2016. Advances in the measurement of transport impedance in accessibility modelling. Eur J Transport Infrastruct Res. 16(2):294–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guagliardo MF. 2004. Spatial accessibility of primary care: concepts, methods and challenges. Int J Health Geogr. 3(1):3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Handy S, Clifton K. 2001. Evaluating neighborhood accessibility: possibilities and practicalities. J Transport Stat. 4(2):67–78.
   Google Scholar
• Handy SL, Niemeier DA. 1997. Measuring accessibility: an exploration of issues and alternatives. Environ Plan A 29(7):1175–1194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen WG. 1959. How accessibility shapes land use. J Am Inst Plan. 25(2):73–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris B. 2002. Accessibility: concepts and applications. J Transport Stat. 4(3):15–30.
   Google Scholar
• Hou Q, L. Si-Ming 2011. Transport infrastructure development and changing spatial accessibility in the Greater Pearl River Delta, China, 1990–2020. J Transport Geogr. 19(6):1350–1360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IBB. 2011. Istanbul metropoliten alani kentsel ulaşim ana plani. Istanbul: IBB.
   Google Scholar
• Järv O, Tenkanen H, Salonen M, Ahas R, Toivonen T. 2018. Dynamic cities: location-based accessibility modelling as a function of time. Appl Geogr. 95:101–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeble D, Offord J, Walker S. 1988. Peripheral regions in a community of twelve. Luxembourg: Commission of the European Community.
   Google Scholar
• Kwan M-P, Weber J. 2003. Individual accessibility revisited: implications for geographical analysis in the twenty-first century. Geogr Anal. 35(4):341–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu S, Zhu X. 2004. An integrated GIS approach to accessibility analysis. Transact GIS. 8(1):45–62.
   Google Scholar
• Mennis J. 2003. Generating surface models of population using dasymetric mapping. Professional Geogr. 55(1):31–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moya-Gómez B, García-Palomares JC. 2015. Working with the daily variation in infrastructure performance. How can this be included in territorial accessibility measurements? Eur Transp Res Rev. 7(2):1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moya-Gómez B, Geurs K. 2020. The spatial–temporal dynamics in job accessibility by car in the Netherlands during the crisis. Reg Stud. 54(4):527–538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moya-Gómez B, María HS-O, Juan CG-P, Javier G. 2018. Dynamic accessibility using big data: the role of the changing conditions of network congestion and destination attractiveness. Netw Spat Econ. 18(2):273–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OpenStreetMap, W. c. 2018. OSM tags for routing/Maxspeed. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=OSM_tags_for_routing/Maxspeedandoldid=1878104.
   Google Scholar
• Rosik P, Stępniak M, Komornicki T. 2015. The decade of the big push to roads in Poland: Impact on improvement in accessibility and territorial cohesion from a policy perspective. Transport Policy 37:134–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salze P, Banos A, Oppert JM, Charreire H, Casey R, Simon C, Chaix B, Badariotti D, Weber C. 2011. Estimating spatial accessibility to facilities on the regional scale: an extended commuting-based interaction potential model. Int J Health Geogr. 10(2):2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shiode N, Shiode S. 2011. Street-level spatial interpolation using network-based IDW and Ordinary Kriging. Transact GIS. 15(4):457–477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shoman W, Alganci U, Demirel H. 2019. A comparative analysis of gridding systems for point-based land cover/use analysis. Geocarto Int. 34(8):867–886.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shoman W. 2019. Dynamic monitoring of land cover change: a recent study for Istanbul metropolitan area. Fresenius Environ Bull. 28(2):688–693.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shoman W, Demirel H. 2019. Spatio temporal detection of accessibility change on health care a case study for Istanbul. Fresenius Environ Bull. 28(2):700–704.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shoman W, Demirel H. 2020. Spatio-temporal evaluation of transport accessibility of the Istanbul metrobus line. Geocarto Int. 35(6):602–622.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spiekermann K, Neubauer J. 2002. European accessibility and peripherality: concepts, models and indicators. Working paper 9. Stockholm: The Nordic Centre for Spatial Development.
   Google Scholar
• Turkish National Statistics Institute. 2013. http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/Start.do. [accessed 2019 Sept 02].
   Google Scholar
• Wang L. 2007. Immigration, ethnicity, and accessibility to culturally diverse family physicians. Health Place 13(3):656–671.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu X, Prevedouros PD. 2013. Performance and challenges in utilizing non-intrusive sensors for traffic data collection. ARS. 2(2):45–50.
   Google Scholar