CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,156Urban Transport and AccessibilityTransportation Planning and OptimizationAgglomeration and Urban Systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Space‐Time and Integral Measures of Individual Accessibility: A Comparative Analysis Using a Point‐based Framework

Kwan, Mei‐Po·1998·Geographical Analysis
DOI 10.1111/j.1538-4632.1998.tb00396.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Conventional integral measures of accessibility, although valuable as indicators of place accessibility, have several limitations when used to evaluate individual accessibility. Two alternatives for overcoming some of the difficulties involved are explored in this study. One is to adapt these measures for evaluating individual accessibility using a disaggregate, nonzonal approach. The other is to develop different types of measures based on an alternative conceptual framework. To pursue the former alternative, this study specifies and examines eighteen gravity‐type and cumulative‐opportunity accessibility measures using a point‐based spatial framework. For the latter option, twelve space‐time accessibility measures are developed based on the construct of a prism‐constrained feasible opportunity set. This paper compares the relationships and spatial patterns of these thirty measures using network‐based GIS procedures. Travel diary data collected in Columbus, Ohio, and a digital data set of 10,727 selected land parcels are used for all computation. Results of this study indicate that space‐time and integral indices are distinctive types of accessibility measures which reflect different dimensions of the accessibility experience of individuals. Since space‐time measures are more capable of capturing interpersonal differences, especially the effect of space‐time constraints, they are more “gender sensitive” and helpful for unraveling gender/ethnic differences in accessibility. An important methodological implication is that whether accessibility is observed to be important or different between individuals depends heavily on whether the measure used is capable of revealing the kind of differences the analyst intends to observe.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1538-4632.1998.tb00396.x

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The segregation analysis was conducted at the statistical sector level, which introduces uncertainties due to variations in geography and scale.

    “Another limitation is that the segregation analysis was conducted at the statistical sector level, which introduces uncertainties due to variations in geography and scale (Kwan 1998(Kwan , 2012)).”

    From Visitation patterns across mobility groups: wandering, commuting, and exploring (2026) · cites this paper as Kwan 1998

  • Activity space of an individual is not only dictated by home and job location.

    “However, as argued by Kwan (1998), the activity space of an individual is not only dictated by the home and job location.”

    From Activity-based models of travel demand: promises, progress and prospects (2014) · cites this paper as Kwan (1998)

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. City of Columbus, 1993, Growth Statement 1993
  2. Gutierrez J. P., 1995, Proceedings of ESRI User Conference 1995
  3. Hanson S., 1990, “Geographic Perspectives on the Occupational Segregation of Women”, National Geographic Research, 6, 376
  4. Harris C. D., 1954, “The Market as a Factor in the Location of Industry in the U.S”, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 44, 315
  5. Kwan M.‐P., 1998, “Gender Differences in Non‐Work Activity‐Travel Behavior in Space‐Time: A Case Study of Columbus, Ohio”
  6. Kwan M.‐P., 1998, “Gender Differences in Access to Urban Opportunities”
  7. Kwan M.‐P., 1998, “Activity‐Travel Behavior and Accessibility”
  8. Lenntorp B., 1976, Lund Studies in Geography B: Human Geography
  9. Walsh S. J., 1995, “Health Care Accessibility: Comparison of Network Analysis and Indices of Hospital Service Areas”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Kwan, M.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Kwan, Mei‐Po
ORCID
Kwan, Mei‐Po
Venue
Geographical Analysis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-07
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
191-216
ISSN
  • 0016-7363 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4632
DOI
10.1111/j.1538-4632.1998.tb00396.x
OpenAlex
W2042593386
Cited by
1,156
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 74 · 2019: 57 · 2018: 66 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 66 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 46 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 46
FWCI
107.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 4447 d)
Locations
Geographical Analysis (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Urban Transport and Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Transportation Planning and Optimization
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Agglomeration and Urban Systems
Keywords
space-time accessibility, travel diary data, land parcel data, Columbus, Ohio

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