The potential spatial accessibility to urban opportunities. A comparative analysis in the metropolitan cities of Milan and Lyon

Author/s Luca Daconto, Matteo Colleoni, Luc Gwiazdzinski
Publishing Year 2017 Issue 2017/119
Language Italian Pages 19 P. 73-91 File size 198 KB
DOI 10.3280/ASUR2017-119005
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

This article puts forward a method for the analysis of potential spatial accessibility to urban opportunities and presents the findings of its application to the metropoli-tan cities of Milan and Lyon. The presentation of the method, based on the use of open data and GIS, and of the results, focused on the identification of vulnerable areas in terms of (in)accessibility, will be preceded by a review of the definitions and of the techniques used in research on spatial accessibility.

Keywords: Accessibility; inclusion; open data; Milan; Lyon

  1. Authier J.-Y., Grafmeyer Y., Mallon I. et Vogel M. (2010). Sociologie de Lyon. Paris: La Découverte.
  2. Azmi D.I., Karim H.A. and Ahmad P. (2013). Comparative Study of Neighbourhood Walkability to Community Facilities between Two Precincts in Putrajaya. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 105: 513-524.
  3. Barbagli M. e Pisati M. (2012). Dentro e fuori le mura. Città e gruppi sociali dal 1400 a oggi. Bologna: il Mulino.
  4. Barton H., Grant M. and Guise R. (2003). Shaping Neighbourhoods: A Guide for Health, Sustainability and Vitality. New York: Spoon Press.
  5. Ben-Akiva M. and Lerman S.R. (1979). Disaggregate travel and mobility choice models and measures of accessibility. In: Hensher D.A. and Stopher P.R., eds., Behavioural travel modelling. London: Croom Helm.
  6. Boffi M. (2012). Metodo e misurazione dell’accessibilità urbana. In: Castrignanò M., Colleoni M. e Pronello C., a cura di. Muoversi in città. Accessibilità e mobilità nella metropoli contemporanea. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  7. Cass N., Shove E. and Urry J. (2005). Social exclusion, mobility and access. The Sociological Review, 53(3): 539-555.
  8. Colleoni M. (2004). I tempi sociali. Teorie e strumenti di analisi. Roma: Carocci Editore.
  9. Colleoni M. (2012). Mobilità ed accessibilità urbana: definizioni e teorie di riferimento. In: Castrignanò M., Colleoni M. e Pronello C., a cura di, Muoversi in città. Accessibilità e mobilità nella metropoli contemporanea. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  10. Daconto L. (2015). Mobilità precaria. L’accesso alla città delle persone in situazione di precarietà legata al lavoro a Milano e Lione. Tesi di dottorato. Milano: Università degli studi di Milano Bicocca.
  11. Dijst M.J., Schenkel W. and Thomas I. (2002). Governing cities on the move: functional and management perspectives on transformations of European urban infrastructures. Aldershot: Ashgate.
  12. Dijst M.J. and Kwan M.P. (2005). Accessibility and quality of life: timegeographic perspectives. In: Donaghy K., Poppelreuter S. and Rudinger G., eds., Social Dimensions of Sustainable Transport: Transatlantic Perspectives. Aldershot: Ashgate.
  13. Dupuy G. (1999). La dépendance automobile: Symptômes, analyses, diagnostic, traitements. Paris: Anthropos.
  14. EEA (2010). Urban Atlas. --Testo disponibile al sito: (ultimo accesso: 16 ottobre 2015).
  15. Farrington J. and Farrington C. (2005). Rural accessibility, social inclusion and social justice: towards conceptualisation. Journal of Transport Geography, 13(1): 1-12.
  16. Farrington J.H. (2007). The new narrative of accessibility: its potential contribution to discourses in (transport) geography. Journal of Transport Geography, 15(5): 319-330.
  17. Fol S. and Gallez C. (2012). The role of social data in investment assessment: current practice and potential improvements. In : Volvo Research and Education Foundations (VREF) Workshop: Financing Urban Access. Bellagio, May 2012. --Testo disponibile al sito:
  18. Geurs K.T. and van Wee B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land use and transport strategies: review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geo-graphy, 12(2): 127-140.
  19. Gould P.R. (1969). Spatial Diffusion. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers.
  20. Guagliardo M.F. (2004). Spatial accessibility of primary care: concepts, methods and challenges. International Journal of Health Geographics, 3: 3. DOI: 10.1186/1476-072X-3-
  21. Gwiazdzinski L. (2003). La ville 24 heures sur 24. La Tour d’Aigues: Editions de l’Aube.
  22. Hägerstrand T. (1970). What about people in regional science? Papers in Regional Science, 24(1): 6-21. DOI: 10.1007/BF0193687
  23. Handy S.L. and Niemeier D.A. (1997). Measuring accessibility: an exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A, 29(7): 1175-1194.
  24. Hansen W.G. (1959). How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25(2): 73-76. DOI: 10.1080/0194436590897830
  25. Henckel D., Thomaier S., Könecke B., Zedda R. and Stabilini S. (2013) (eds.). Space-Time Design of the Public City. Dordrecht: Springer.
  26. Horton F.E. and Reynolds D.R. (1971). Effects of Urban Spatial Structure on Individual Behavior. Economic Geography, 47(1): 36–48. DOI: 10.2307/14322
  27. Hurd R.M. (1903). Principles of City Land Values. New York: Record and Guide.
  28. Indovina F., (1990) (a cura di). La città diffusa. Venezia: DAEST.
  29. Ingram D.R. (1971). The concept of accessibility: A search for an operational form. Regional Studies, 5(2): 101–107. DOI: 10.1080/0959523710018513
  30. INSEE (1998). Inventaire Communal 1998. Paris.
  31. INSEE (2010). Recensement de la population 2010 exploitations principale et complémentaire. Paris.
  32. ISTAT (2011). XV Censimento generale della popolazione e delle abitazioni. Roma: ISTAT.
  33. Kaufmann V. (2002). Rethinking mobility: contemporary sociology. Farnham: Ashgate.
  34. King L.J. and Golledge R.G. (1978). Cities space and behaviour: the elements of urban geography. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  35. Krizek K.J. (2003). Operationalizing Neighborhood Accessibility for Land Use-Travel Behavior Research and Regional Modeling. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(3): 270-287. DOI: 10.1177/0739456X0225031
  36. Krizek K., Horning J. and El-Geneidy A. (2012). Perceptions of accessibility to neighbourhood retail and other public services. In: Geurs K., Krizek K. and Reggiani A., eds., Accessibility and Transport Planning: Challenges for Europe and North America. London: Edward Elgar.
  37. Lefebvre H. (1968). Le droit à la ville. Paris: Anthropos (tr. it.: Il diritto alla città. Padova: Marsilio Editori, 1970).
  38. Lenntorp B. (1977). Paths in spacetime environments: A timegeographic study of movement possibilities of individuals. Environnement and Planning, 9(8): 961-972.
  39. Lucas K., Grosvenor T. and Simpson R. (2001). Transport, the environment and social exclusion. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
  40. Madanipour A., Cars G. and Allen J. (1998) (eds.). Social exclusion in European cities: processes, experiences, and responses. London-Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
  41. Moseley M.J. (1979). Accessibility: the rural challenge. London: Methuen.
  42. Nussbaum M. and Sen A. (1993) (eds.). The Quality of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  43. Ramadier T. (2011). L’accessibilité socio-cognitive. In Mobilités spatiales et ressources métropolitaines: l’accessibilité en questions. 11ème colloque du groupe de travail Mobilités Spatiales et Fluidité Sociale de l’AISLF. --Testo disponibile al sito:
  44. Schönfelder S. and Axhausen K.W. (2003). Activity spaces: measures of social exclusion? Transport Policy, 10(4): 273-286.
  45. SEU (2003). Making the connections: Final Report on Transport and social exclusion. London: Social Exclusion Unit – Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
  46. Silverman B.W. (1986). Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. London-New York: Chapman & Hall.
  47. Talen E. and Anselin L. (1998). Assessing spatial equity: an evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and Planning A, 30(4): 595-613.
  48. Urry J. (2002). Mobility and proximity. Sociology, 36(2): 255-274. DOI: 10.1177/0038038502036002002
  49. Vickerman R.W. (1974). Accessibility, attraction, and potential: a review of some concepts and their use in determining mobility. Environment and Planning A, 6(6): 675-691.
  50. Wachs M. and Kumagai T.G. (1973). Physical accessibility as a social indicator. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 7(5): 437-456. DOI: 10.1016/0038-0121(73)90041-
  51. Wade T. and Sommer S. (2006). A to Z GIS: An Illustrated Dictionary of Geographic Information Systems. Redlands, Calif: Esri Press.
  52. Wixey S., Jones P., Lucas K and Aldridge M. (2005). User Needs Literature Review. London: Transport Studies Group - University of Westminster.
  53. Zedda R. (2008). Tempi della città: metodi per l’analisi urbana: principi e pratiche dell’urbanistica temporale. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

Luca Daconto, Matteo Colleoni, Luc Gwiazdzinski, L’accessibilità spaziale potenziale alle opportunità urbane. Un’analisi comparata tra la città metropolitana di Milano e la metropoli di Lione in "ARCHIVIO DI STUDI URBANI E REGIONALI" 119/2017, pp 73-91, DOI: 10.3280/ASUR2017-119005