The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A new approach to accessibility – Examining perceived accessibility in contrast to objectively measured accessibility in daily travel
Open accessAbstract
Accessibility has conventionally been measured and evaluated ignoring user perceptions in favor of focusing on travel time and distance to a number of pre-determined destinations. Acknowledging this gap, we recently developed a scale for perceived accessibility PAC (Lättman, Friman, & Olsson 2016b) aimed at capturing the individual perspective of accessibility with a certain travel mode. In this paper, we 1) further develop the PAC measure of perceived accessibility in order to capture how easy it is to live a satisfactory life with the help of the transport system, 2) compare levels of perceived accessibility between residential areas and main travel modes, and 3) compare residents’ perceived accessibility to the objective accessibility level for the same residential area. Data from 2711 residents of Malmö, Sweden show that perceived accessibility is consistently different from objective accessibility across 13 residential areas, with minor differences in levels of perceived accessibility between areas. Surprisingly, bicycle users rate their accessibility significantly higher than those who mainly use the car or public transport for daily travel, contrary to objective accessibility assumptions. These differences point at the importance of including perceived accessibility as a complementary tool when planning for and evaluating transport systems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Byrne, B. M. (2013) · doi:10.4324/9780203805534 · Cited by 4,016
Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions
Geurs, K. T., & van Wee, B. (2004) · Journal of Transport Geography · doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005 · Cited by 3,353
Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives
Handy, S. L., & Niemeier, D. A. (1997) · Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space · doi:10.1068/a291175 · Cited by 1,643
Kwan, M. (1998) · Geographical Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1538-4632.1998.tb00396.x · Cited by 1,156
Exploratory Factor Analysis: Its Role in Item Analysis
Gorsuch, R. L. (1997) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6803_5 · Cited by 1,050
Transport and social exclusion in London
Church, A., Frost, M., & Sullivan, K. (2000) · Transport Policy · doi:10.1016/s0967-070x(00)00024-x · Cited by 735
Accessibility indicators for transport planning
Morris, J. M., Dumble, P. L., & Wigan, M. R. (1979) · Transportation Research Part A: General · doi:10.1016/0191-2607(79)90012-8 · Cited by 662
Lucas, K., van Wee, B., & Maat, K. (2016) · Transportation · doi:10.1007/s11116-015-9585-2 · Cited by 548
Travel and Subjective Well-Being: A Focus on Findings, Methods and Future Research Needs
De Vos, J., Schwanen, T., Van Acker, V., & Witlox, F. (2013) · Transport Reviews · doi:10.1080/01441647.2013.815665 · Cited by 543
Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS
(2013) · Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling using IBM SPSS Statistics and AMOS · doi:10.4135/9781526402257.n4 · Cited by 479
Metadata
- Authors
- Lättman, K., Olsson, L. E., & Friman, M.
- Venue
- Research in Transportation Economics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-09
- Volume
- 69
- Pages
- 501-511
- ISSN
- 0739-8859 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2808819249
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 33
- FWCI
- 13.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A new approach to accessibility – Examining perceived accessibility in contrast to objectively measured accessibility in daily travel. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.retrec.2018.06.002
- The paper
- Lättman, K., Olsson, L. E., & Friman, M. (2018). A new approach to accessibility – Examining perceived accessibility in contrast to objectively measured accessibility in daily travel. Research in Transportation Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2018.06.002
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.