Pedestrian accessibility has been growing in importance as an urban planning objective. Assessing it with gravity-based or potential accessibility measures requires the selection of an impedance function in order to reflect the friction of distance. The choice of impedance function is crucial to pedestrian accessibility assessment due to the level of spatial data detail required and also because perceived distances differ from physical distances. Here, we measure and compare 20 gravity-based measures, varying the impedance function and associated parameters. Correlation analysis revealed a significant and strong correlation between the measures. Factor analysis extracted two groups of measures, differing mainly in their maximum cutoff travel distance, i.e. the distance at which the impedance function reaches zero. Spatial analysis revealed that all measures produce similar spatial results in terms of identifying high and low accessibility locations but different values for medium accessibility locations. Places located at between 200 and 400 m from an opportunity are especially sensitive to the impedance function used. We promote a cumulative–Gaussian approach to measure pedestrian accessibility, as it explicitly includes the travel tolerance concept and we found it to be the most robust measure in terms of data variability.
AgrawalAWSchlossbergMIrvinK (2008) How far, by which route and why? A spatial analysis of pedestrian preference. Journal of Urban Design13, 81–98.
2.
AnableJGaterslebenB (2005) All work and no play? The role of instrumental and affective factors in work and leisure journeys by different travel modes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice39, 163–181.
3.
AnselinL (1995) Local indicators of spatial association – LISA. Geographical Analysis27, 93–115.
4.
ApparicioPAbdelmajidMRivaM (2008) Comparing alternative approaches to measuring the geographical accessibility of urban health services: Distance types and aggregation-error issues. International Journal of Health Geographics7:7.
5.
AtashF (1994) Redesigning suburbia for walking and transit: Emerging concepts. Journal of Urban Planning and Development120, 48–57.
6.
BrehenyMJ (1978) The measurement of spatial opportunity in strategic planning. Regional Studies12, 463–479.
7.
Burnett P and Briggs R (1975) Distance cognition and intra-urban movement. In: Proceedings of the Association of American Geographers, West Lake Meeting, Carbondale, Illinois.
8.
DanielsRMulleyC (2013) Explaining walking distance to public transport: The dominance of public transport supply. Journal of Transport and Land Use6, 5–20.
9.
El-GeneidyAGrimsrudMWasfiR (2014) New evidence on walking distances to transit stops: Identifying redundancies and gaps using variable service areas. Transportation41, 193–210.
10.
EwingRCerveroR (2010) Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association76, 265–294.
11.
FishbeinMAjzenI (2010) Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach, New York: Taylor and Francis.
12.
FrankLDSallisJFConwayTL (2006) Many pathways from land use to health: Associations between neighborhood walkability and active transportation, body mass index, and air quality. Journal of the American Planning Association72, 75–87.
13.
FrankLDSchmidTLSallisJF (2005) Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: Findings from SMARTRAQ. American Journal of Preventive Medicine28, 117–125.
14.
Garcia-PalomaresJCGutiérrezJCardozoOD (2013) Walking accessibility to public transport: An analysis based on microdata and GIS. Environment and Planning B40, 1087–1102.
15.
GebelKBaumanAESugiyamaT (2011) Mismatch between perceived and objectively assessed neighborhood walkability attributes: Prospective relationships with walking and weight gain. Health and Place17, 519–524.
16.
Getis A (1969) Residential location and the journey from work. Proceedings of the Association of American Geographers, pp.55–59.
17.
GolledgeRGStimsonRJ (1997) Spatial Behavior: A Geographic Perspective, New York: Guilford Press.
18.
HalásMKlapkaPKladivoP (2014) Distance-decay functions for daily travel-to-work flows. Journal of Transport Geography35, 107–119.
19.
HandyS (2005) Planning for accessibility: In theory and in practice. In: LevinsonDMKrizekKJ (eds) Access to Destinations, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 131–147.
20.
HandySCaoXMokhtarianPL (2005) Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transportation Research Part D10, 427–444.
21.
HandySNiemeierDA (1997) Measuring accessibility: An exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A29, 1175–1194.
22.
HansenWG (1959) How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners25, 73–76.
23.
HessDB (2012) Walking to the bus: Perceived versus actual walking distance to bus stops for older adults. Transportation39, 247–266.
24.
HjortholR (2001) Gendered aspects of time related to everyday journeys. Acta Sociologica44, 37–49.
25.
Horning J, El-Geneidy A and Krizek KJ (2008) Perceptions of walking distance to neighborhood retail and other public services. In: Eighty-seventh meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
26.
HupkesG (1982) The law of constant travel time and trip-rates. Futures14, 38–46.
27.
IaconoMKrizekKJEl-GeneidyA (2008) Access to Destinations: How Close Is Close Enough? Estimating Accurate Distance Decay Functions for Multiple Modes and Different Purposes, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
28.
IaconoMKrizekKJEl-GeneidyA (2010) Measuring non-motorized accessibility: Issues, alternatives, and execution. Journal of Transport Geography18, 133–140.
29.
IMTT—Instituto da Mobilidade e dos Transportes Terrestres (2011) Mobilidade em Cidades Médias (Mobility in Medium-Sized Cities), Lisbon: IMTT.
30.
IngramDR (1971) The concept of accessibility: A search for a operational form. Regional Studies5, 101–107.
31.
JainJLyonsG (2008) The gift of travel time. Journal of Transport Geography16, 81–89.
32.
JohanssonBKlaessonJOlssonM (2003) Commuters’ non-linear response to time distances. Journal of Geographical Systems5, 315–329.
33.
KwanM-P (1998) Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: A comparative analysis using a point-based framework. Geographical Analysis30, 191–216.
34.
KwanM-P (2012) The uncertain geographic context problem. Annals of the Association of American Geographers102, 958–968.
35.
LarsenJEl-GeneidyAYasminF (2010) Beyond the quarter mile: Re-examining travel distances by active transportation. Canadian Journal of Urban Research: Canadian Planning and Policy (supplement)19, 70–88.
36.
LeeCMoudonAV (2004) Physical activity and environment research in the health field: Implications for urban and transportation planning practice and research. Journal of Planning Literature19, 147–181.
37.
Le VineSLee-GosselinMSivakumarA (2013) A new concept of accessibility to personal activities: Development of theory and application to an empirical study of mobility resource holdings. Journal of Transport Geography31, 1–10.
38.
LevinsonDMGillenD (2005) The machine for access. In: LevinsonDMKrizekKJ (eds) Access to Destinations, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 1–10.
39.
MacEachrenAM (1980) Travel time as the basis of cognitive distance. Professional Geographer32, 30–36.
40.
MacintyreSMacDonaldLEllawayA (2008) Lack of agreement between measured and self-reported distance from public green parks in Glasgow, Scotland. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity5, 1–8.
41.
McNeilN (2011) Bikeability and the 20-min neighborhood: How infrastructure and destinations influence bicycle accessibility. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board2247, 53–63.
42.
ManaughKEl-GeneidyA (2012) What makes travel ‘local’: Defining and understanding local travel behaviour. Journal of Transport and Land Use5, 15–27.
43.
MarchettiC (1994) Anthropological invariants in travel behavior. Technological Forecasting and Social Change47, 75–88.
44.
MartínezLMViegasJM (2013) A new approach to modelling distance-decay functions for accessibility assessment in transport studies. Journal of Transport Geography26, 87–96.
45.
MetzD (2004) Travel time – Variable or constant?Journal of Transport Economics and Policy38, 333–344.
46.
MilakisDCerveroRVan WeeB (2015) Do people consider an acceptable travel time? Evidence from Berkeley, CA. Journal of Transport Geography44, 76–86.
47.
MillerHJ (2005) Place-based versus people-based accessibility. In: LevinsonDMKrizekKJ (eds) Access to Destinations, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 63–89.
48.
MillwardHSpinneyJScottD (2013) Active-transport walking behavior: Destinations, durations, distances. Journal of Transport Geography28, 101–110.
49.
MoudonAVLeeC (2003) Walking and bicycling: An evaluation of environmental audit instruments. American Journal of Health Promotion18, 21–37.
50.
NeutensTSchwanenTWitloxF (2010) Equity of urban service delivery: A comparison of different accessibility measures. Environment and Planning A42, 1613–1635.
51.
OwenNHumpelNLeslieE (2004) Understanding environmental influences on walking: Review and research agenda. American Journal of Preventive Medicine27, 67–76.
52.
PáezAScottDM (2004) Spatial statistics for urban analysis: A review of techniques with examples. Geojournal61, 53–67.
53.
PáezAScottDMMorencyC (2012) Measuring accessibility: Positive and normative implementations of various accessibility indicators. Journal of Transport Geography25, 141–153.
54.
PáezAWhalenKE (2010) Enjoyment of commute: A comparison of different transportation modes. Transportation Research Part A44, 537–549.
55.
RahulTMVermaA (2014) A study of acceptable trip distances using walking and cycling in Bangalore. Journal of Transport Geography38, 106–113.
56.
ReyerMFinaSSiedentopS (2014) Walkability is only part of the story: Walking for transportation in Stuttgart, Germany. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health11, 5849–5865.
57.
TabachnickBGFidellLS (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed. Boston: Pearson International.
58.
TalenEAnselinL (1998) Assessing spatial equity: An evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and Planning A30, 595–613.
59.
ThorsenIObøeJNaevdalG (1999) A network approach to commuting. Journal of Regional Science39, 73–101.
60.
ToblerWR (1970) A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography46, 234–240.
61.
ValeDS (2013) Does commuting time tolerance impede sustainable urban mobility? Analysing the impacts on commuting behaviour as a result of workplace relocation to a mixed-use centre in Lisbon. Journal of Transport Geography32, 38–48.
62.
ValeDSSaraivaMPereiraM (2016) Active accessibility: A review of operational measures of walking and cycling accessibility. Journal of Transport and Land Use9, 1–27.
63.
Van Eggermond M and Erath M (2016) Pedestrian and transit accessibility on a micro-level: Results & Challenges. Journal of Transport and Land Use 9: 1–16.
64.
Van OmmerenJRietveldPNijkampP (1997) Commuting: In search of jobs and residences. Journal of Urban Economics42, 402–421.
65.
Van WeeB (2011) Evaluating the impact of land use on travel behaviour: The environment versus accessibility. Journal of Transport Geography19, 1530–1533.
66.
Van WeeBHagoortMAnnemaJA (2001) Accessibility measures with competition. Journal of Transport Geography9, 199–208.
67.
Van WeeBHandyS (2016) Key research themes on urban space, scale, and sustainable urban mobility. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation10, 18–24.
68.
WitloxF (2007) Evaluating the reliability of reported distance data in urban travel behaviour analysis. Journal of Transport Geography15, 172–183.
69.
YangYDiez-RouxAV (2012) Walking distance by trip purpose and population subgroups. American Journal of Preventive Medicine43, 11–19.
70.
Zahavi Y (1979) The ‘UMOT’ project. Report prepared for the US Department of Transport, Washington, DC and for the Ministry of Transport, Federal Republic of Germany, Bonn.
