Why accessibility
instruments are not widely used in planning practice? Our recent article in
European Planning Studies gives some insights into this gap and suggests rules
that can make accessibility instruments more usable and useful.
Here is the abstract of our
paper:
Accessibility instruments
can play a valuable role in urban planning practice by providing a practical
framework for exploring and testing the relationships between land use and
transport infrastructure. Despite the many available accessibility instruments,
they are still not widely used in planning practice. This paper explores the
background of this problem by examining the findings of a EU funded study on
the usability and usefulness of existing accessibility instruments. The study
applied sixteen instruments in local planning contexts according to a
standardized process protocol. The outcomes of these so-called experiential
workshops were analysed through a standardized measurement protocol, which
included participant observation along with pre- and post-workshop practitioner
questionnaires. This broad investigation presents a rich analytical tool for
understanding how different types of accessibility measures, spatial
resolutions of output and levels of comprehensiveness affect usability and
usefulness. Based on this analysis, the paper proposes ten technological rules
that a) can be used directly in practice to improve usability of accessibility
instruments, and b) can provide hypotheses to be examined in further academic
studies. Our results suggest that instead of striving for the ultimate
accessibility measure, it would be more effective to identify which measures
could successfully serve different user needs in accessibility planning.
KEYWORDS: Accessibility
instruments, urban planning, experiential case study, technological rules,
usability, usefulness
