Research in Transportation Business & Management 2 (2011) 3–11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Transportation Business & Management

Does Accessibility Planning address what matters? A review of current practice andpractitioner perspectives

Angela Curl ⁎, John D. Nelson, Jillian AnableCentre for Transport Research, Department for Geography & Environment, University of Aberdeen, St Mary's, Elphinstone Road, Aberdeen, AB24 3UF, United Kingdom

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1224 273 772.E-mail address: angelacurl@abdn.ac.uk (A. Curl).

2210-5395/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. Aldoi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2011.07.001

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 5 January 2011Received in revised form 30 June 2011Accepted 4 July 2011Available online 28 July 2011

Keywords:Accessibility planningAccessibility measuresLocal transport planning

“Accessibility” has become commonplace in transport planning and as such there is a plethora ofinterpretations of what accessibility means, what constitutes a good measure of accessibility, and how thismight be applied in practice. This paper presents an overview of approaches to measuring accessibility andpresents a case study of Accessibility Planning in England — one approach to formalising the concept ofaccessibility. Results of semi-structured interviews with local authority officers are discussed to establishwhether current approaches, allow their desired outcomes to be met. This approach demonstrates wherethere might be gaps between measured or modelled accessibility and the perceptions of the individuals.Findings suggest that while the process is deemed useful in raising the profile of accessibility issues,measuresof accessibility do not necessarily easily translate into quantifying benefits of those improvements that areperceived by practitioners to improve accessibility and reduce transport disadvantage.

l rights reserved.

© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Accessibility, in the context of transport planning, has been definedin anumberofways, but is broadly understood to encapsulate the abilityof people to access destinations (origin based), or the accessibility ofdestinations to a defined population (destination based). Mobilityprovided through the transport system is traditionally the means bywhich accessibility is provided. In order for the concept of “accessibility”to be applied there is a need to develop measures of accessibility forutilisation in planning and policy decisions capable of measuringvariation both temporally and spatially, and there are various suchapproaches to measurement.

The process of Accessibility Planning in England represents oneapproach to a practical application of theoretical measures of accessi-bility, and forms the focus of this paper. Despite the large number ofapproaches to measuring accessibility, Straatemeier (2008) suggeststhat the theory is not well applied in practice. As Handy and Niemeier(1997) point out, concepts of accessibility have rarely been translatedinto performance measures by which policies are evaluated and thushave had little practical impact on policies.While there is a large body ofliterature focussing on the theoretical definition and measurement ofaccessibility, the extent to which measures are useful in assessing themost appropriate interventions to reduce inequality and disadvantagefor society as a whole or for targeted populations is less clear.

Accessibility Planning in the UK has developed a particular focus onindividuals' barriers to accessing services, and (in)equality anddisadvantage in levels of accessibility. TheAccessibility Planningprocesshas developed slightly differently in each of the devolved nations of theUKover the last decadeor so (seeHalden, 2009 for anoverview)butwasformalised in England – the case study for this paper – through therequirement of “Accessibility Strategies” to accompany the secondround of Local Transport Plans (LTPs) submitted by Local TransportAuthorities (LTAs).

The motivation for this paper is to explore how local transportplanners are using Accessibility Planning to address inequalities anddisadvantage in accessibility. The research seeks to contribute to theexisting literature on accessibility measurement by providing evidenceto understand how suchmeasures are used in one practical application:the English Accessibility Planning process; and reacts to the assertionthat measures may not assess the complex social interactions,perceptions and behaviours which influence travel and ultimately theaccessibility of individuals. As such, measuring accessibility in this waymay not lead to desired improvements in social welfare. The papertherefore seeks tounderstandwhichmeasures can lead to the outcomesdesired from Accessibility Planning.

2. Approaches to understanding and measuring accessibility

Classical approaches to measuring accessibility include Hansen(1959) and the time-space geography of Hägerstrand (1970).Measure's based upon Hansen's approach are widely used, wherebyaccessibility is calculated based on a distance decay function of originsto a destination point and the attractiveness of the destination (e.g.

4 A. Curl et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 2 (2011) 3–11

number of jobs available). Taking a more person-based approach,Hägerstrand (1970) introduced the concept of time-geography andspace time, based on individual travel spaces and taking into accountdaily scheduling. While this measure has been used extensively inresearch, particularly utilising travel diary data in the United States,there is limited evidence of this approach being applied in practice,perhaps due to the data requirements and the difficulty of developingpolicy to address individuals' needs.

A review of the literature reveals numerous methods of measuringaccessibility. The various approaches differ in their level of complexityand practical applicability. Table 1 summarises these classifications.Baradaran and Ramjerdi (2001), Geurs and van Eck (2001), Geurs andvanWee (2004), Vandenbulcke et al. (2009), Halden et al. (2000) andHandy and Niemeier (1997) amongst others have attempted toclassify such measures.

While activity and utility based measures are arguably based ona stronger theoretical underpinning and are better able to reflectbehaviour, they are rarely used in practical applications due to thecomplexity and data intensity of such measures, and the difficultiesencounteredwith communicating the outputs to a non-expert audience.As a result of this use of cumulative or contour measures is much morecommon in practical applications (Geurs & van Eck, 2003).

Many studies utilise a combination of techniques in developing anunderstanding of accessibility, as, broadly speaking, quantitativeapproaches provide an aggregate level of understanding, oftenenriched by qualitative work addressing individual level issues. Thispoint is borne out in the results of practitioner engagement presentedin this paper.

It is important to represent the views of practitioners responsiblefor implementing accessibility related policies, as they are responsiblefor shaping policy and utilising measures of accessibility. Wennberget al. (2009) present planners' views in relation to incorporatingaccessibility into planning in Swedish municipalities, but otherwisethere is limited evidence of how planners have implemented theconcept of accessibility into planning and policy.

Table 1Classification of accessibility measures.

Measure Description

Infrastructure based measures Relate to the performance of the network and tinclude measures used in transport modelling sor in terms of public transport frequency or reli

(e.g. Church et al., 2000)

Cumulative measures Represent the accessibility at a location (origin(destination) or set of destinations and are theunderstood measures. These are often also descontour measures, due to the contour mapsproduced.

- Contour measures- Threshold Measures(e.g. Casas, 2007; Escalona-Orcao &Díez-Cornago, 2007; Nettleton et al., 2007)

Gravity based measures An extension of cumulative measures, but weigby an impedance factor and the attractiveness oand may also be called opportunity or potentialresulting measure does not mean anything on irelative measure of accessibility at one point rewithin the study area.

- Hansen measures- Opportunity measures- Potential measures(e.g. Bertolini et al., 2005; Geertman &Van Eck, 1995; Hansen, 1959; Knox, 1981)

Utility based measures Considers travel behaviour in terms of selectingbased on economic principles of diminishing reof an individual making a certain choice is baseof that choice in relation to all options.

(e.g. Bohnet & Gertz, 2008;Niemeier, 1997)

Activity based measures Relate to individuals' level of access to spatiaactivities, considers location of activities, travnetwork and incorporates a behavioural elemvia travel diary data.

-Time-space measures- Potential Path areas(e.g. Buliung & Kanaroglou, 2006;Casas, 2007; Farber & Páez, 2009)

2.1. Accessibility Planning in the UK

Considerable progress has been made in “mainstreaming” acces-sibility into transport planning through the local transport planningprocess, which, in England, requires a Local Transport Plan (LTP)including an Accessibility Strategy. Accessibility Planning is framed inthe context of social exclusion within transport planning, focusing onthe ability of people to participate fully in society, characterised asbeing limited by poor accessibility (DfT, 2004). This paper focuses onthe experiences of English Local Transport Authorities (LTAs) inimplementing the process of Accessibility Planning, through thedevelopment of Accessibility Strategies, and under the guidance ofcentral government (DfT, 2004).

LTAs are the local government bodies with statutory highways andtransport responsibilities in England. The governance structure variesbut LTAs can be a county council (encompassing several districtcouncils), a metropolitan borough or unitary council. Since 2000 LTAshave been required to submit LTPs, the first one covering the period2001–2006 (LTP1), and the second covering 2006–2011 (LTP2). Inmetropolitan areas LTPs are submitted in conjunction with thePassenger Transport Executive (PTE), a local government bodyresponsible for co-ordinating public transport across a metropolitanarea. There are six PTEs in England covering the metropolitan areas ofGreaterManchester,Merseyside, SouthYorkshire, Tyne andWear,WestMidlands and West Yorkshire. Following recommendations outlined ina report by the Social Exclusion Unit, “Making the Connections” (SEU,2003) local councilswere required to submit anAccessibility Strategy aspart of LTP2, alongside strategies for congestion, air quality and roadsafety, together known as the four shared priorities. Halden (2009) andDHC and University of Westminster (2003) provide an overview of thehistorical development of Accessibility Planning in the UK, prior to andfollowing “Making the Connections” (SEU, 2003) and placing this in thecontext of broader themes in transport planning. This paper focuses onthe English experience; the approach toAccessibility Planning is slightlydifferent in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Example measure

herefore mightuch as capacity,ability.

• Travel times to development Site• Frequency of bus services passing an origin point• Congestion across a local authority area

) to anothermost easilycribed as

• Proportion of the population within a reasonable(e.g. 30 min) walking time threshold of a GP surgery• Number of schools within a 20 min drive of a postcodesector (origin)

ht opportunitiesf the destination,measures. Thets own but is alative to others

• Accessibility of the defined population (e.g. within a localauthority area) to employment (where accessibility is calculatedusing a function of travel time and number of jobs available ateach employment site).• Accessibility of schools to the population (where accessibilityis calculated using a function of travel time and number ofchildren of school age).

the locationturn; the likelihoodd on the attractiveness

• Monetary value of a change in accessibility for a definedpopulation• Accessibility, in terms of attractiveness, of a destination basedon the expected utility an individual will gain

lly distributedel through theent, usually captured

• Potential path areaThe area that can be visited by an individual taking intoaccount location of destinations, the transport network andthe individuals scheduling constraints• Household activity spaceExtension of the Potential Path Area to account for theactivities and constraints of all members of the household

5A. Curl et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 2 (2011) 3–11

Theuse of accessibilitymeasures forms a largepart of theAccessibilityPlanning process, alongside tools such as user and stakeholderconsultation. Software called ‘Accession’ was developed to support theprocess, and can be used to calculate measures based on simplethreshold, cumulative opportunity or gravity based measures. CoreAccessibility Indicators (CAI) are calculated nationally to benchmarklocal authorities and for reporting against two National Indicators:NI175 (Access to Services) and NI176 (Access to Employment) againstwhich local authorities may choose to report as part of their overallaccountability to central government.

Accessibility Planning recognises the importance of factors otherthan journey time and spatial location (SEU, 2003), yet, given theavailability of data accessibility measures and indicators have tendedto focus on the objective journey time or distance of people todestinations, and do not usually consider factors such as convenience,physical mobility, safety and cost.

There is often an assumption that because a public transportservice exists it can be used, but as noted by Kwan andWeber (2003):individual household measures, or individual characteristics such asgender, age, income and number of households are more important thanthe urban environment and differences between individuals can havevast impacts on their personal accessibility. Hine and Grieco (2003)suggest that Accessibility Planning is based on largely anecdotalevidence. While accessibility audits, and use of tools such as GIS areuseful in identifying accessibility problems, and raising awarenesswith stakeholders, it is important not to adopt the ‘black box’approach feared by Lucas (2006) who highlighted the potentialproblem: however sophisticated the model, it will be unable to identifypeople's actual activity patterns, or other ‘softer’ barriers to access such aslow travel horizons, cognitive and mental mapping abilities, which canoften be more of a barrier than the availability and timing of transportservices. However, with the use of (sophisticated) measures ofaccessibility it is all too easy for them to be seen as providing theanswer, rather than placed in the wider context. While many, mainlyspeculative problems were anticipated there is limited evidence ofhow these have played out following full introduction of the process.This paper thus provides a more up to date discussion following thefull introduction of Accessibility Planning across English localauthorities. Lucas (2006) provides a useful discussion of the pilotingof Accessibility Planning in eight local authorities, and many of thepotential problems highlighted resonate with some of the emergentproblems of the process found in this discussion with practitioners.The following section presents results of engagement with localauthorities involved in delivering Accessibility Planning in England asempirical evidence for how the process has been implemented.

3. Practitioner perspectives

This section draws on results from semi-structured interviews withofficers from English Local Transport Authorities (LTAs). An under-standing of their perspectives and experiences with the process andwith utilising accessibilitymeasures is vital given the pivotal role playedby LTAs in delivering transport improvements. If the link from theory ofaccessibility measurement to practice of accessibility improvements isnot understood then the process will not achieve its full potential.

3.1. Methodology

A shortlist of fifteen LTAs was contacted by email and post duringFebruary 2010 to invite them toparticipate in a short telephone interviewdiscussing their experiences with Accessibility Planning. A similarapproachwas used by Canning et al. (2010) to understand local transportauthorities' views towards devolutionof transport powers, andproved aneffective method of eliciting views from transport professionals. Theshortlist was drawn from a total of eighty-three authorities who hadsubmitted Accessibility Strategies covering the period 2006–2011. The

shortlisting process was designed to ensure broad coverage of represen-tation in terms of geographical region, rurality, quality of accessibilitystrategy (according to a scoringprocedureundertakenby theDepartmentfor Transport) and levels of accessibility (as measured by the 2008 CoreAccessibility Indicators). Three of the shortlisted areasweremetropolitanareas where a joint LTP had been submitted with the relevant PassengerTransport Executive (PTE). In these cases contactwasmadewith both thePTE and the individualmetropolitan boroughs. Twelve positive responseswere received and semi-structured telephone interviews were under-taken between February and April 2010. Those interviewed included 1PTE, 4 unitary authorities falling within metropolitan PTE areas, and sixcounty councils. The individuals targeted for interviews were officerswith responsibility for Accessibility Planning.

Engagement with Local Authorities had four primary objectives:

1) To gain an understanding of how Accessibility Planning is beingimplemented by English Local Authorities as part of the LocalTransport Planning Process — what are the aims of AccessibilityPlanning and the tools being used to implement it?;

2) To establish whether the tools and data currently used and availableto practitioners allow them to undertake their jobs effectively, andresult in their desired outcomes;

3) To understand what (if any) gaps in knowledge or resources existpreventing authorities obtaining more desirable outcomes; and

4) To identify examples of where modelled accessibility differs fromperceived accessibility.

The semi-structured interview schedule was designed aroundthese four objectives. With interviewee's permission the interviewswere recorded, and subsequently transcribed. A qualitative dataanalysis tool (NVivo) was then used to code the data into themesrelated to the interview schedule, as well as other emergent themes;the results are discussed in the remainder of this section.

3.2. Background to interviewees

This section discusses the role of the individual within theorganisation and their involvement in the Accessibility Strategy as wellas the accessibility priorities for the local area. There was a range ofresponse from officers involved at different levels of responsibility orstages within the process of Accessibility Planning. The levels ofinvolvement can be split into three broad types: 1) Policy and Strategy(strategic level work involving production of the accessibility strategyand the LTP); 2) Technical (detailed appraisal and analysis work, and themonitoring andmeasurement of accessibility) and; 3) Delivery (deliveryof accessibility improvements, usually in the guise of a sustainable travelor ‘Smarter Choices’ (behaviour change) teamwithin the local authority),although there is some overlap. Interviews were conductedwith a rangeof individuals representingdifferent levelsof involvement inAccessibilityPlanning, and therefore a range of perspectives are covered.

When discussing the authorities' accessibility priorities, themajority of respondents referred to the key areas outlined by theSEU (2003). These are employment, healthcare, education, food andleisure. There were some exceptions; for example where an area-based approach was taken, reported priorities were often basedaround regeneration or economic development.

3.3. Aims and expectations of accessibility (planning)

This section explores how local accessibility planners understandaccessibility, what they seek to achieve (desired outcomes) andperceived barriers to accessibility.

The majority of definitions given derive from the SEU (2003)definition of accessibility as the ‘ease with which people can accessgoods and services’. Many respondents emphasised the differencebetween ‘physical accessibility’, seen as specifically relating to accessonto a bus or into a building and associated with disability legislation,

6 A. Curl et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 2 (2011) 3–11

and accessibilitymore broadly, as defined in the context of AccessibilityPlanning. Itwas clear the “accessibility” respondentswere talking aboutwas a broader concept relating to and affected by a wider range offactors ranging from air quality to road safety. Indeed accessibility wasdescribed as a “buzzword” and an “umbrella term”.

As shownby Fig. 1 definitions had a clear theme surrounding issuesof equity, social exclusion and transport-related deprivation. There isalso a clear ‘sustainable’ theme to understandings of accessibility, withmany definitions relating to improving non-car accessibility.

Most respondents viewed accessibility as a normative policy goal, asillustrated by definitions (Fig. 1) focussed on non-car based accessibility

“it was about deprivation............(we) had previously identprogrammes to tackle that deprivation in a holistic mannewe were gonna come up with accessibility, we were gonnof the evidence at that level ( neighbourhood renewal or haccessibility planning and help solve their problems and a

accessibility’s essentially is your ability to access serquality congestion plus other stuff

“Atoeogreb

“when we’ve talked with people we tend to find people come with one of two approaches, one is on the physical side of accessibility which is sort of having dropped crossings in place and tactile paving and things like that then there’s the other area of accessibility which I would argue encompasses that as well which is actual not being able to access services and needs for different people so there might be barriers”

“otpltgg

“Well our vision was to ensure that everyone had the oaccess essential services in a reasonable time and at cost .....I mean people do get confused when you say alot of people will think its accessibility in terms of peopldisability or access to a building or something like that explain to them the that its getting its either getting youthe service that you need or its getting the service brinso that’s what we look at, we look at the two sides of thObviously because its in the local transport plan a lot oassume that every solution is going to be a transport omight not be it may be......so yeah that’s what we classaccessibility, its if you haven’t got a car or haven’t accehow can you access the services you need to either bythere or getting them to you”

improving access for socially excluded groups for the services they need, employment, education, health services, fresh food or at a broader level leisure opportunities

Fig. 1. Definitions of acce

and improving access to opportunities for deprived populations. Whilethere was some recognition that an increase in accessibility might leadto excess travel, this was not a widely held view and the generalperception was increased accessibility would have economic and socialbenefits, both within and outside of the transport sector by improvingthe range of opportunities individuals have access to (using non-carmodes). A number of barriers to accessibilitywere identified, and can bebroadly categorised into those relating to the transport system, the land-use system, societal factors and individual factors. Specifically, cost,interchange and reliability of services were the most frequentlymentioned as barriers to use of public transport in accessing key

ified deprived areas and had non-transport r and therefore on a basis of almost opportunity a start doing the evidence, doing the analysis ousing market renewal)......we’d go along with t the same time solve ours”

“well accessibility’s really hard to define it means everything, it means the small things”

vices so its everything isn’t it like road safety air

ccessibility Planning is about people’s ability access to services, the services they need for veryday life and to have some equal access to ther parts of the community, so looking at roups that don’t have access for whatever ason, so how we can overcome those

arriers”

“I suppose its about ensuring there is a reliable level of service and facilities available to give people access to the services that they need to use”

Well, we’re trying to make journeys for people by, n foot and by public transport far more easier, so hat’s various aspects so looking at public transport rovision or walking and cycling route provision or

ooking at where certain facilities are located and he timing of the facilities and the expense to either et there or do the service or do whatever you’re onna do when you get there”

pportunity to a reasonable ccessibility, a

e with a so you have to physically to ging that to you e equation. f people tend to ne but actually it ify as ss to a car its getting you

ssibility (planning).

7A. Curl et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 2 (2011) 3–11

destinations. It was generally believed that reducing or eliminatingthese barriers would improve accessibility and therefore lead toenhanced social inclusion, greater equality and modal shift. Theseoutcomeswere seen as broad ranging, and not only impacting transportbut a wide range of sectors, particularly health, as well as employmentand overall quality of life. In terms of measuring this change, difficultieswere stated by respondents, many of whom suggested that the way inwhich accessibility is measured and reported does not allow many ofthese barriers to be considered.

Accessibility, in terms of its definition, aims and expectations isinterpretedas abroad rangingconcept and it is difficult tofindadefinitiveunderstanding. While this is not problematic in itself and it is a usefulconcept around which transport planners can frame certain problems,how this translates into measurements of accessibility is less clear.

3.4. Approaches to measuring accessibility

This section focuses on the different ways accessibility is measuredby local authorities and how measures are related to the definitionsand expected outcomes of Accessibility Planning. Interviewees wereasked what they thought made a good measure of accessibility, howthey measure accessibility, the tools and data they use for this, howthey agreed their accessibility targets for LTP2 and finally, how theythink their targets reflect the aims of Accessibility Planning.

Respondents had difficulty explaining what would make a goodmeasure of accessibility, suggesting there cannot be one singlemeasureand emphasising a good measure would draw upon a number ofsources, reflective of the multi-dimensional concept of accessibility. Anumber of respondents suggested a good measure would incorporatehow people perceived accessibility, yet there was frustration thatmeasuring perceptions is difficult to achieve because most evidencetends to be anecdotal and difficult to quantify. Respondents mentioneduse of non time-based measures, with frequency and cost beingimportant. Overall there was recognition among practitioners thatthere is no one “good” measure of accessibility, and each problem orapplication should be approached differently. This is encouraging givensome of the concern that the process could have led to a “black-box”approach (Lucas, 2006). How this recognition translates into practice isdiscussed in the rest of this section.

Focussing on how accessibility is currently measured resulted inmuch more uniform responses, although this was closely connectedwith continued debate about the “correct”way tomeasure accessibility.Almost all authorities said they used Accession software to measureaccessibility and report against local and national targets. Few re-spondentsmentioneduse of national CoreAccessibility Indicators (CAI),calculated for reporting against national targets and benchmarking localauthorities, and where they were discussed there was little under-standing of how to use them. For example in discussion of using the CAI:I've tried to on a number of occasions and I've found them very difficult toget hold of, to access and very difficult to understand and to be honest I thinkwhen you have national indicators they're pretty meaningless.

In practice, the types of measures most often used were based oncumulative or contour accessibility measures (see Table 1). Re-spondents were hesitant to discuss the use of more complexmeasuressuch as gravity-based measures (although there is functionality forthis within Accession) and where these were discussed they weredismissed as being flawed, too difficult to explain to stakeholders, aswell as being difficult to compare longitudinally. There were someexceptions to the use of threshold based measures with one authorityusing a measure of accessibility based upon satisfaction with local busservices. However, given this was an authority wide measure and notgeographically disaggregated in relation to bus service provision it isarguably no more beneficial than other measures of accessibility as itis not known how this measure of satisfaction varies in relation toprovision of bus services, and therefore how it could be improved.

Although Accession was used as a tool to measure accessibilityalmost without exception by the LTAs interviewed, the extent this wasdeemed acceptable varies. Some authorities found it a useful tool,whereas others felt pressure to use the software had limited their abilityto approach the issue independently. It was felt going against the DfTguidancewould have created problems for the authority in terms of theincreased workload associated with presenting a more robust alterna-tive. Limitations were discussed in relation to the level of detailcaptured, such as not being able to incorporate micro-level accessibilityissues forpedestrian routes, suchasdual carriageways or droppedkerbs,and in terms of assumptions made such as modelling an unlimitednumber of interchanges or use of the nearest destination point possible.

As noted, use of the national Core Accessibility Indicators (CAI) islimited, despite the richness of information readily available. The statedreasons behind thiswerefirstly, some respondentswere not aware of theavailability of these indicators. Those that were, often did not feelcomfortable using them, finding it difficult to penetrate the quantity ofinformation available, not understanding how to use it, having littlecontrol over the calculation methods and data inputs, meaning theycould not manipulate the data for their requirements. Secondly, therewere issues of trust, as results generated were often different to their“own” Accession calculations and inmany cases respondents felt the CAIover-estimated the “real” levels of accessibility, particularly in rural areas.

It emerged there is a wide range of data used to support decisionsin the process of Accessibility Planning, outside of the straightforwardmeasurement of accessibility used to report against targets, includingwidespread use of census data and the Indices of Multiple Deprivation(IMD), which are a nationally calculated index based on 7 domainsand used to rank areas in terms of relative deprivation. There was alsodiscussion of using outcome-based data such as number of missedhospital appointments, or job centre usage, although it was difficult tofind clarity on how this is used and how outcomes can be directlyattributed to accessibility improvements. Data relating to evaluationof a specific initiative had also been used, such as bus patronagefigures or uptake of specific initiatives such as ‘Wheels to Work’ (amoped loan scheme). Questionnaire data is also used, again usually inrelation to perceptions or satisfaction with a specific initiative as wellas council-wide surveys such as citizens' panels. Interestingly, thissort of data was much more widely used in evaluation rather thanproblem identification, where views of individuals weremore likely tobe represented through anecdotal evidence or from qualitativeresearch based around focus groups. Some respondents suggestedthat since it is difficult to quantify the importance of issues arisingfrom qualitative approaches this can lead to an evidence base highlydependent upon measurable aspects of accessibility, such as journeytime, giving more weight to time-based barriers, even if this is notalways the most important barrier to accessibility; for example:

themain issue forme is that although it wasn't intended that things likemappingwould be the principal source of information I think it has gonethat way a little bit and I think that has tended to make it take focusaway from other, less quantitative sort of analysis, so the importance ofgoing to talk to people about accessibility difficulties and the more verylocalised accessibility differences in terms of the benefits you can get byputting seats at all your bus stops or having pedestrian crossing inparticular places and those sort of very localised things, I think they get alittle bit lost, and also some of the limitation in the measurement toolsprobably give a false impression of accessibility.

There is some evidence of a feeling of being restricted by DfTguidance in terms of deciding priorities and targets for the local area:the scope's sort of narrowed a lot… the sort of implicit thing within theDfT guidance is that they have a big focus on travel time indicators andthat may not be the only benefit and furthermore the process ofreporting targets to DfT was only a small part of the picture—we wentfor a simple thresholdmeasure, but only on the basis of, that it was kind of

8 A. Curl et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 2 (2011) 3–11

like, it wasn't gonna bother us that much, you knowwhat I mean it wasn'tgoing to cause us any difficulty and we could get on with doingaccessibility. Evidence suggests that for some respondents the targetsetting process was simply a box-ticking exercise and the real “gettingon with it” did not depend too much on measures and targets.Respondents suggested the only way to impact on targets was toimprove public transport services, although this may not be the bestway to meet the needs of socially excluded populations, a sentimentechoed by Hine and Grieco (2003). In contrast, the types of initiativesseen by practitioners to improve accessibility are smaller schemes,whose benefits might not be evidenced through measuring accessi-bility but could be assessed by those with local knowledge who“knew” what schemes would be and were being effective.

Respondents were convinced of the impact their work is having inimproving outcomes, but this is not necessarily linked to the targets ormeasures set out in the Accessibility Strategies. While respondentswere critical of measures and able to discuss the problems with targetsetting it was harder to talk directly about how these targets mightrelate to desired outcomes of Accessibility Planning. Often the onlyway to improve against targets was seen to be through bus servicechanges or relocation of facilities, and it was clear these were not seento be the things perceived as making a “real” difference. Interestingly,this was not always expressed as a problem. Rather, the local level ofworking and implementation of accessibility improvements might beviewed as separate to the more strategic policy making and targetsetting agenda, but both are important: well we need an indicator tosort of raise it in the profile in the strategy and something to report on andsort of gets it in the process, raising the profile of it so people recognisethat it's something that needs to be addressed but then more locally wehave all the other work which I think you can influence when it comes toa more local level.

Use of strategic level accessibility measures is useful for trackinglongitudinal changes in accessibility across a region, but less useful formeasuring small local level changes in accessibility for individual's ortargeted sections of the population. Respondents described tensionbetween the political and technical process and this is one potentialtension arising between use of targets at the policy level and localknowledge at the delivery level. Another important point to emerge iswho accessibility provides improvements for. Use of accessibilitymeasures will give an overall picture of accessibility for a specific areaor population but may not address the trade-offs this creates for otherareas or groups. This was highlighted by some respondents — one ofthe potential scenarios we were envisaging would be beneficial for mostpeople, but just a small area would get slightly worse accessibility.

This leads to debates surroundingwho should benefit andwhetherthe aim should be to improve accessibility for all, for targetedpopulations or to reduce inequalities in accessibility. Farrington andFarrington's (2005) discussion of the difference between absolute andrelative accessibility is of relevance here, drawing upon issues of socialjustice, rights and wants as important, especially when areas forinvestment might be decided based upon how one area compareswith another.

3.5. Expected and realised outcomes of accessibility planning

This section addresseswhether local authorities have realised theirexpected outcomes through Accessibility Planning and what initia-tives have been implemented as a result, and also how they have beenable to communicate the benefits of Accessibility Planning to non-transport stakeholders.

A very wide range of transport and non-transport initiatives werementioned as having emerged from the Accessibility Planning process.These range from bus service improvements (quality, frequency, routes,interchanges) ticketing changes, bus subsidies, information such assignage or leaflets including “how to guides”, demand responsivetransport, moped loan schemes, changes to walking and cycling infra-

structure such as pedestrian crossings and cycle lanes and changinglocation of service provision, such as clinics, to reflect the needs of thepopulation.

The “joined-up”, cross-sectoral nature of Accessibility Planning wasemphasised by the SEU (2003). However, given many of the initiativesmentioned during engagementwith practitioners and likewisemany ofthe LTP targets are transport, and specificallymobility focussed, the levelof engagement with non-transport stakeholders was discussed in theinterviews, particularly in terms of how cross-sectoral benefits ofAccessibility Planning can be demonstrated. There is evidence ofengagement with a wide range of non-transport stakeholders, but thequantifiable benefits of this are less well evidenced. Respondents werepositive in terms of having achieved engagementwith stakeholders andhaving put the issues on their agendas, but felt accessibility problemswere still often regarded as a transport problem, rather than a sharedobjective. A common example is in the healthcare sector whererelocation of services to less accessible locations often takes place dueto rationalisationwithin theNational Health Service (NHS), for examplein relation to reducing missed appointments: for instance do you knowwhat the cost of missed appointments is because if you worse[en]accessibility that's one of the potential outcomes and you're going to bepaying for more missed appointments, locally there doesn't seem to be aparticularly big grasp of that. They know what the cost of missedappointments is but not what percentage of that is down to people havingaccessibility difficulties, and so there's a lack of information for them tomake an informed decision on that. Demonstrating the benefits ofimproved accessibility in terms of targets in non-transport sectorswould therefore be a useful step in making accessibility a sharedresponsibility and being able to impact non-transport agendas.

In general respondents were positive in terms of what has beenachieved from the process of Accessibility Planning, even if the evidenceis not quantifiable: I would say there has definitely been awareness benefitsin terms of having it there and I think it's definitely raised the profile ofaccessibility among planners and engineers… I would say the emphasisthat's been put on the use of mapping and Accession hasn't had the benefitsthat were intended, probably because of some of the limitations that it has.However, identifying and quantifying outcomes are more difficult. Ashighlighted by definitions of accessibility (Fig. 1), expectations are broadranging and multi-dimensional. Expectations of improved accessibilityare related to social exclusion and mode shift policy objectives, and it isevident many practitioners envisage a utopia where accessibility can beimproved for all. Tensions exist between adesire to improve accessibilityfor all versus reducing inequalities and improving accessibility fortargeted segments of the population.

3.6. Perceptions, measures and realities of accessibility

Attempting to understand how well measures of accessibilitycapture the “reality” and how perceptions might differ from this was atheme running through the design of the interviews. This sectiontherefore draws together examples of where accessibility measuresmight differ from perceptions and the ‘reality’. While measurementandmapping exercises have been useful in someways, they can divertfrom exploring the “real” and more localised issues:

so the importance of going to talk to people about accessibilitydifficulties and the very more localised accessibility differences interms of the benefit you get from putting seats at all of your bus stopsor having pedestrian crossings in particular places and those sort ofvery localised things.... if you do an accessibility map of this [and it] iswithin 60 minutes travel time of the hospital say, that may not matchpeople's impression because it'll include journeys that people maynot be prepared to make or may not be aware they can make.

This quotation is one example of many highlighting that anindividual's knowledge and travel horizons can mean perceptions

9A. Curl et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 2 (2011) 3–11

may differ from the official or objective ‘reality’ presented byaccessibility measures. The issue of interchanges was mentioned onseveral occasions. Therewas concern that journeysmay seem possiblefrom model outputs but as there is no limit on the number ofinterchanges built into these calculations, these may not be realisticoptions for many. One example given of this was the implementationof a direct bus service between two hospitals, which according to asatisfaction and patronage survey undertaken by the authority hadimproved perceptions of accessibility and use of the route, but thisparticular journeywhenmeasured using Accession hadworsened dueit taking longer than a previous journey involving a change. Crime andthe fear of crime were mentioned as reasons why some destinationsor modes of transport might be perceived as inaccessible, especially atcertain times of the day, highlighting factors other than time areconsidered important by accessibility planners and the public.

While for some respondents there was a clear distinction betweenthe strategic, target setting measurement of accessibility and the localdelivery of schemes to improve accessibility, it is clear there can betensions between these — if we were to put a lot of money into say,wheels to work because we thought that was best, you know that wasgoing to meet people's needs that wouldn't be reflected when we usedAccession.

There was recognition that using measures of accessibility onlytells part of the story and the real barriers to individuals' accessibilityaremuchmore complex and harder to understand and quantify. Someauthorities had considered the use of a perception basedmeasure, andsome have adopted this approach in their accessibility strategies, butthey have concerns about the best way to implement this, the expenseinvolved, and how valid such an approach is as compared to existingmeasures. Such issues raise the point that both “objective” measuresand perceptions are needed to understand the whole picture ofaccessibility issues in an area (Stanley & Vella-Brodrick, 2009).

Drawing from the examples discussed, the reasons for differencesbetweenperceptions andmeasures of accessibility seemtobe twofold—

firstly, problems with calculations methods and data inputs mean themeasures presented are not always considered accurate reflections ofthe “real” situation and may not capture all aspects important indetermining accessibility, and secondly people's perceptions may notreflect the “reality” due to lack of information, fear or importance ofissues not captured in the measures.

4. Does accessibility planning address what matters?

This section draws together the findings outlined in the previoussection from the engagement with Accessibility Planners anddiscusses the implications of this.

Accessibility Planning in England is generally viewed positively bythe practitioners involved, as it has allowed local authorities to raisethe profile of the importance of accessibility in transport planning. Theaims, and expected outcomes of Accessibility Planning are broadranging but can be summarised as being related to quality of life,social inclusion/exclusion and use of non-car travel modes.

There is a clear mismatch between the strategic level measurementof accessibility and reporting of targets, and the individual levelimprovements expected from many initiatives implemented underthe banner of Accessibility Planning. However, this is not always seen asproblematic as it is well recognised by accessibility planners. In somecases the requirement for reporting against targets and developingmeasures is seen to take away resources from focussing on whereimprovements for individuals are seen to be made, but on the otherhand theprocesshas raised theprofile of such issues andplaced themonthe agenda in authorities where they may have previously been givenlittle attention. Initiatives such as walking and cycling infrastructure,smarter choices measures, and demand responsive transport were seenas effective in addressingmany of the social-exclusion related issues but

quantifying the benefits and outcomes of interventions in terms of themeasures used to identify accessibility problems is more difficult.

While practitioners are clear about the outcomes they seek toachieve, less clear is whether these outcomes are realised and how“success” in achieving them is ascertained. The success of interventionsin improving accessibility can be measured using the same technicalprocess bywhich problems are identified. For example, a new bus routewill mean a higher proportion of the population can access destinationswithin a certain time threshold, or a new GP surgery will increase theproportionof thepopulationwith access toGPs, signifying an increase inpotential accessibility for a given population. However, such anapproach does not determine whether this accessibility is realised,and thereforewhether the behavioural outcomes in terms ofmode shiftor reduced exclusion are achieved. On the other hand, some in-terventions would not necessarily show an improvement againstaccessibility measures and success can be measured differently, forexample, by using patronage or satisfaction data. Measurement in thisway is more closely related to improvement against the outcomesexpected from the process of Accessibility Planning. The difference ofapproach to appraising accessibility problems and outcomes, comesfrom recognition that improving potential accessibility (against acces-sibility measures) does not necessarily lead to changes in realisedaccessibility, or behaviour of individuals. Therefore, if “what matters” isimproving individual's quality of life and reducing social exclusion,efforts should be focused on ensuring this is what is measured so thatinterventions can be suitably targeted.

It is important to consider not just what matters, but who itmatters for. Practitioners optimistically envisioned a global improve-ment in accessibility, leading to greater inclusion, with less consid-eration given to the inevitable trade-offs, and potential increasedexclusion involved. A policy focussed on improving accessibility forone particular group in society may result in a net reduction inaccessibility measured across a geographical area, and likewisepolicies focussed at improving spatial accessibility over an area maydisproportionately impact on different people and therefore be moreexclusionary than inclusionary. The Core Accessibility Indicators (CAI)use measures based on the whole population and an “at risk”population so in theory it is possible to examine the impact of apolicy on both the population as a whole and a target group, yet thereis less evidence of this being used, and again increases in potentialaccessibility will not necessarily lead to changes in behaviour orrealised accessibility. It is therefore important to consider the impactof solutions or policies emerging from Accessibility Planning both interms of what they are addressing and who is benefitting or notbenefiting. In general, respondents were comfortable in “knowing”how best to achieve their desired outcomes, even if this clearlydiffered from how they might reach accessibility targets.

A perception — measure gap was recognised and respondents felttheir work would benefit from a better understanding of perceptions,but only if their extent could be quantified. Policy requires a robustand quantifiable evidence base and this leads to difficulties whentaking public views into account. Concerns were raised regarding howlarge a particular issue might be and that a few people with extremeviews could be over-represented. Emphasis was placed on theimportance of local knowledge, with respondents suggesting mea-sures provide background and can be verified and enriched with localknowledge (both of planners and citizens). Measures were in someinstances considered a poor reflection of the real situation and seen toover-estimate the levels of accessibility, for example: the resultsindicate that we have perhaps very good accessibility but the reality maybe very different.

5. Implications for managerial practice

The advice emerging from this paper is aimed at two separate butrelated policy domains. Firstly, those responsible for implementing

10 A. Curl et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 2 (2011) 3–11

accessibility at the local level, with specific reference to the Englishexperience, but with suggestions applicable internationally. Secondly,and more UK-specific, central government in terms of the adviceprovided to local authorities and the future direction of AccessibilityPlanning.

Local authorities need to ensure they have a clear definition ofaccessibility, and clear objectives for Accessibility Planning, otherwiseconfusion and contradictions can occur between improving accessibilityand achieving the outcomes of Accessibility Planning. As suggested byPreston and Rajé (2007) simply pursuing improvements againstaccessibility targetswill lead to implementingmobility related solutionssuch as more bus services, which may not best meet the needs of localpopulations but will show improvement in measured accessibility. It istherefore important to be clear about how such measures relate to theobjectives of Accessibility Planning. Many interventions emerging fromthe process of Accessibility Planning tend to be mobility based and ashighlighted by Kenyon (2003) increased mobility for some, at theexpense of others can result in the social exclusion issues to whichaccessibility planning is linked. She therefore advocates long termreduction in mobility as the means to address social inclusion.Accessibility solutions therefore need to focus on changes to the land-use system to allow accessibility without mobility.

It is clear from this research with local authority practitioners thatthe work being undertaken at the local level is heavily influenced bycentral government requirements and guidance. The AccessibilityPlanning guidance is widely welcomed by local planners but there issome frustration that the requirement for targets creates an excessivework burden, taking away resource from having ‘real’ impacts on theground. In a similar veinMarsden et al. (2009) noted a tension betweensupport for the local transport plan process and the burden placed onlocal authorities. Despite this there is uncertainty as to what wouldmake a better measure and recognition of the difficulties surroundinguse of a perception basedmeasure. Central government therefore needsto ensure that the requirement for performance measures does notovershadow the work taking place at a local level. It is important toprovide clarity regarding the outcomes expected from the process andensure the way in which accessibility is measured is commensuratewith this. If the outcomes are long-term land-use changes to improvelocal accessibility, then the use of traditional accessibility measuresprovide a useful tool to benchmark changes. If outcomes are focussed onindividuals or targeted sections of the population then spatialaccessibility measures are less appropriate.

In light of discussions about the role of software such as Accessionversus local knowledge in delivering Accessibility Planning, it mightbe suggested the use of Accession as a strategic measurement tool haslittle benefit over Core Accessibility Indicators (CAI) in terms ofquality of output, given its costs. However, this is not recognised bythose involved in using Accession as they find the CAI data hard topenetrate and use, as well as having issues with trust and reliability ofthe data. If the DfT could do more to make this data accessible andmore easily manipulated by local planners then this data could bebetter utilised to deliver time and cost savings compared to use ofAccession. This would enable efforts to be concentrated on under-standing more localised and individual accessibility problems, hencedelivering the kinds of improvements that matter. A detailed reviewof how CAI compare to Accession outputs could be undertaken tounderstand the impact of such an approach and this could then becommunicated to planners. The use of Accession is seen as usefulfor planners and has not necessarily resulted in black box thinking(Lucas, 2006). It allows them to make decisions over parameterswhich may be more appropriate at the local rather than nationallevel, however, it is important to consider the benefits against thecosts of using such an approach and ensure the widespread use ofsuch software does not take resource away from where it is bestplaced, providing valuable local knowledge and delivering small scaleimprovements.

The involvement of land-use planning and development controlcould be greater. Some authorities have succeeded in incorporatingaccessibility indicators into planning guidance and felt this was apositive move. Strategic accessibility indicators might be best appliedin this arena, rather than in attempting to solvemore individual issuessurrounding transport disadvantage and social inclusion, usually bestsolved by individual mobility solutions, in the short term at least.Ferreira and Batey (2007) suggest a similar approach beginningwith aland-use planning approach and using mobility based solutions last.

Both locally and nationally good progress has been undertakentowards raising theprofile of Accessibility Planningwithin the transportplanning arena, and it is importantnot to let this slip in light of economiccircumstances, and the reduced emphasis on accessibility and the LTPprocess in terms of allocation of funding, when in fact AccessibilityPlanning is well placed to deliver both economic growth and costsavings. Related to this, the focus onaccess to a range of services, not justemployment should be applauded, and is indeed recognised interna-tionally (FIA Foundation, 2007).

6. Conclusions and recommendations

By way of conclusion, we suggest Accessibility Planning can anddoes address what ‘matters’ (both to individuals and planners) butthe measures used to assess and evaluate accessibility changes do notnecessarily relate to the desired outcomes and may actually becounter-productive in achieving the kind of change that matters, ordelivers real improvements in accessibility where it is needed.

The process of Accessibility Planning has been useful in raising theprofile of accessibility and social exclusion related issues within localauthorities, although in many cases the work was already beingundertaken, albeit under a different label. Nevertheless, it has helpedofficers to highlight the importance of this kind of work at a corporateand strategic level, as well as with stakeholders. While the work willcontinue without the formal process of Accessibility Planning it mightbe harder for planners to justify the need for this and give importanceto accessibility-related improvements.

Those involved in Accessibility Planning are aware of multiplenon-time barriers to accessibility, and often place emphasis on these;however, they struggle to reflect these in target setting. Whilesetting targets at the strategic level is only a small part of the workundertaken by Accessibility Planners, the government requirementfor measurable targets means efforts may be focussed on setting andmeasuring against these targets, and implementing change thatimproves against these targets at the expense of other, potentiallymore beneficial improvements. While such measures are seen asuseful for large scale projects, they can be time-consuming and makesmaller projects cost ineffective.

Accessibility Planners recognise there is not one single measure ofaccessibility, but in the absence of an easily quantifiable alternativethere is often heavy reliance on time based threshold measures.Perceptions are seen as important but difficult to quantify. This doesnot however, mean they should be ignored, as simplifying the conceptof accessibility into a single measure means some issues are not fullyrepresented.

Accessibility has become a buzzword in transport planning, andwhile the higher profile this gives to such issues is to be welcomed it isalso important not to let this cause confusion. Both central and localgovernment need to be clear what is meant by “accessibility” andwhat they are trying to achieve through Accessibility Planning. Linkedto this is the distinction between accessibility and AccessibilityPlanning. While the process of Accessibility Planning may leadto reductions in transport related social exclusion and improvementsin quality of life, unchecked increases in levels of accessibility, asassessed by some measures will not always lead to the kinds ofoutcomes sought.

11A. Curl et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 2 (2011) 3–11

Engagement with local authority practitioners involved in Acces-sibility Planning in England has highlighted the importance ofunderstanding local level, household and individual accessibilities inaddition to the aggregate, national or regional picture if we are toproperly understand the relationship between accessibility andassociated outcomes, and therefore target interventions appropriate-ly. However, objective measurements, against which progress can bemonitored, are a requirement of government policy and theirusefulness is recognised by planners.

Stanley and Vella-Brodrick (2009) explain: while the subjectiveperspective is important, such measures do not account for value-basedsocial policy social justice principles....an individual may be personallysatisfied with their circumstances if they have diminished capabilities,social justice dictates that they should be offered the choice to be able toparticipate fully in society. This position subsumes the value judgementthat it is not sufficient to allow people to simply adjust or accommodateto adverse circumstances, suggesting only using subjective measure-ments would not be an appropriate alternative policy response, butrather both subjective and objective perspectives are needed.Differences between objective and subjective social indicators are tobe expected otherwise one or the other would be rendered futile(Pacione, 1982) and it is therefore suggested a method incorporatingboth objective and subjective measures would be best placed todeepen our understanding of accessibility and enable interventions tobe appropriately targeted to achieve the desired outcomes.

While there is a considerable body of work attempting to developobjective measures of accessibility and equally those seeking tounderstand people's perceptions and experiences of travel, there islimited work directly comparing the two approaches to understandingaccessibility for the same people or places. If more can be done tounderstand the difference between perceived and policy measuredaccessibility, then improvements in perceived and therefore realisedaccessibility, may be achieved, alongside improvements in howaccessibility is measured and assessed by practitioners. Future researchshould therefore focus on understanding the role of subjective orperceptionbasedmeasures in assessingaccessibility, to understandhowthese vary with the objective measures upon which current practice isheavily based.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank those who participated in the interviewsthat informed this research and the reviewers and editors for theirhelpful comments and feedback.

The research reported in this paper is funded by a University ofAberdeen College of Physical Sciences postgraduate studentship withadditional support from DHC Ltd.

References

Baradaran, S., & Ramjerdi, F. (2001). Performance of accessibility measures in Europe.Journal of Transportation and Statistics, 4(2/3), 31–48.

Bertolini, L., le Clercq, F., & Kapoen, L. (2005). Sustainable accessibility: a conceptualframework to integrate transport and land use plan-making. Two test-applications intheNetherlands and a reflection on theway forward. Transport Policy, 12(3), 207–220.

Bohnet, M., & Gertz, C. (2008). “Mode Specific Accessibility and Car Ownership”, mobil.TUM 2008 — International Conference on Mobility and Transport. http://www.vsl.tu-harburg.de/Archiv/Bohnet_mobilTUM2008_Paper_Final.pdf

Buliung, R. N., & Kanaroglou, P. S. (2006). A GIS toolkit for exploring geographies ofhousehold activity/travel behavior. Journal of Transport Geography, 14(1), 35–51.

Canning, P. E., Hellawell, E. E., Hughes, S. J., Gatersleben, B. C. M., & Fairhead, C. J. (2010).‘Devolution’ of transport powers to Local Government: Impacts of the 2004 TrafficManagement Act in England. Transport Policy, 17(2), 64–71.

Casas, I. (2007). Social exclusion and the disabled: An accessibility approach. TheProfessional Geographer, 59(4), 463–477.

Church, A., Frost, M., & Sullivan, K. (2000). Transport and social exclusion in London.Transport Policy, 7(3), 195–205.

Derek Halden Consultancy (DHC)University of Westminster. (2003). Developing andPiloting Accessibility Planning, DfT.

DfT (2004). Accessibility Planning: Full Guidance. http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/ltp/accessibility/guidance/gap/accessibilityplanningguidanc3633 (accessed03/01/2011).

Escalona-Orcao, A., & Díez-Cornago, C. (2007). Accessibility to basic services in one ofthe most sparsely populated areas in Europe: The province of Teruel (Spain). Area,39(3), 295–309.

Farber, S., & Páez, A. (2009). My car, my friends, and me: A preliminary analysis ofautomobility and social activity participation. Journal of Transport Geography, 17(3),216–225.

Farrington, J., & Farrington, C. (2005). Rural accessibility, social inclusion and socialjustice: Towards conceptualisation. Journal of Transport Geography, 13(1), 1–12.

Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) Foundation. (2007). Transport andSocial Exclusion: A Survey of the Group of Seven Nations. Summary Report.

Ferreira, A., & Batey, P. (2007). Re-thinking accessibility planning: A multi-layerconceptual framework and its policy implications. The Town Planning Review, 78(4).

Geertman, S. C. M., & Van Eck, J. R. R. (1995). GIS and models of accessibility potential:An application in planning. International Journal of Geographical Information Science,9(1), 67–80.

Geurs, K. T., & van Eck, J. R. R. (2001). Accessibility measures: Review and applicationsEvaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use transport scenarios, and re= lated socialand economic impacts. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu RIVM ReportNumber 408505006. (http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporte=n/408505006.html).

Geurs, K. T., & van Eck, J. R. R. (2003). Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-usescenarios: The implications of job competition, land-use, and infrastructuredevelopments for the Netherlands. Environment and Planning B: Planning andDesign, 30, 69–87.

Geurs, K. T., & van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transportstrategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2),127–140.

Hägerstrand, T. (1970). What about people in Regional Science? Papers in RegionalScience, 24(1), 6–21.

Halden, D. (2009). 10 years of Accessibility Planning in the UK — What has beenachieved? 2009 European Transport Conference-Association of European Transport.

Halden, D., McGuigan, D., Nisbet, A., & McKinnon, A. (2000). Accessibility: Review ofMeasuring Techniques and their Application. : Scottish Executive Central ResearchUnit.

Handy, S. L., & Niemeier, D. A. (1997). Measuring accessibility: An exploration of issuesand alternatives. Environment and Planning A, 29, 1175–1194.

Hansen, W. G. (1959). How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association, 25(2), 73–76.

Hine, J., & Grieco, M. (2003). Scatters and clusters in time and space: Implications fordelivering integrated and inclusive transport. Transport Policy, 10(4), 299–306.

Kenyon, S. (2003). Understanding social exclusion and social inclusion. Proceedings ofthe Institution of Civil Engineers. Municipal Engineer, vol. 156,(ME2). (pp. 97–104).

Knox, P. L. (1981). Retail geography and social well-being: A note on the changingdistribution of pharmacies in Scotland. Geoforum, 12(3), 255–264.

Kwan, M., & Weber, J. (2003). Individual accessibility revisited: Implications forgeographical analysis in the twenty-first century. Geographical Analysis, 34(4),341–353.

Lucas, K. (2006). Providing transport for social inclusion within a framework forenvironmental justice in the UK. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,40(10), 801–809.

Marsden, G., Kelly, C., & Nellthorp, J. (2009). The likely impacts of target setting andperformance rewards in local transport. Transport Policy, 16(2), 59–67.

Nettleton, M., Pass, D. J., Walters, G. W., & White, R. C. (2007). Public transportaccessibility map of access to general practitioners surgeries in Longbridge,Birmingham, UK. Journal of Maps, v2007, 64–75.

Niemeier, D. A. (1997). Accessibility: An evaluation using consumer welfare.Transportation, 24(4), 377–396.

Pacione, M. (1982). The use of objective and subjective measures of quality of life inHuman Geography. Progress in Human Geography, 6(4), 495–514.

Preston, J., & Rajé, F. (2007). Accessibility, mobility and transport-related socialexclusion. Journal of Transport Geography, 15(3), 151–160.

Social Exclusion Unit (SEU). (2003). Making the Connections: Final Report on Transportand Social Exclusion.

Stanley, J., & Vella-Brodrick, D. (2009). The usefulness of social exclusion to informsocial policy in transport. Transport Policy, 16(3), 90–96.

Straatemeier, T. (2008). How to plan for regional accessibility. Transport Policy, 15(2),127–137.

Vandenbulcke, G., Steenberghen, T., & Thomas, I. (2009). Mapping accessibility inBelgium: A tool for land-use and transport planning? Journal of TransportGeography, 17(1), 39–53.

Wennberg, H., Ståhl, A., & Hydén, C. (2009). Implementing accessibility in municipalplanning — Planners' view. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 2(2), 3–21.