Accessibility instruments for planning practice: A review of European experiences

Although a large body of literature has been produced on the theoretical definitions and measurements of accessibility, the extent to which such indicators are used in planning practice is less clear. This research explores the gap between theory and application by seeking to understand what the new wave of accessibility instruments (AIs) prepared for spatial and transport planning practice purports to offer the users of AIs. Starting from the question of how urban and transport planners are designing AIs, the article analyzes and describes the AIs developed over the last decade (mainly in Europe), offering a structured overview and a clear categorization of how accessibility measures can be applied. The paper identifies AI characteristics, and considers their usability, based on AI developer perceptions.

Accessibility Instruments In Planning Practice: Bridging The Implementation Gap

Accessibility concepts are increasingly acknowledged as fundamental to understand cities and urban regions. Accordingly, accessibility instruments have been recognised as valuable support tools for land-use and transport planning. However, despite the relatively large number of instruments available in the literature, they are not widely used in planning practice. This paper aims to explore why accessibility instruments are not widely used in planning practice. To this end, we focus our research on perceived user-friendliness and usefulness of accessibility instruments. First, we surveyed some instrument developers, providing an overview of the characteristics of accessibility instruments available and on developers’ perceptions of their user-friendliness in planning practice. Second, we brought together developers and planning practitioners in some local workshops across Europe and Australia, where participants were asked to use insights provided by accessibility instruments for the development of planning strategies. We found that most practitioners are convinced of the usefulness of accessibility instruments in planning practice, as they generate new and relevant insights for planners. Findings suggest that not only user-friendliness problems but mainly organisational barriers and lack of institutionalisation of accessibility instruments, are the main causes of the implementation gap. Thus user-friendliness improvement may provide limited contributions to the successful implementation of accessibility concepts in planning practice. In fact, there seems to be more to gain from the active and continued engagement of instrument developers with planning practitioners and the institutionalisation of accessibility planning.