Comparison between Idealized and Realized Accessibility Measures in GIScience

TL;DR

This paper develops a framework to measure realized accessibility in active transportation, comparing it with idealized measures, and highlights disparities in access among different communities using case studies in Santa Barbara County.

Contribution

It introduces a conceptual framework for realized accessibility in GIS, and applies it to compare idealized and actual bicycling access in multiple cities.

Findings

Disparities in access are higher in lower-income and Hispanic communities.

Idealized measures tend to overestimate actual accessibility in underserved areas.

Nuanced, realized measures improve understanding of equity in access.

Abstract

Measures of access, defined as the ease with which people can reach opportunities or services, are often based on proximity. Proximity measures of access are often unrealistic or idealized, ignoring many of the real barriers to access including social and economic barriers. There is a need to develop GIS measures of access that incorporate all aspects of access, which we term realized access. Our goal is to develop a conceptual framework of realized accessibility in active transportation, and compare idealized and realized measures of access to bicycling. We apply the framework to measure realized accessibility in a case study focusing on bicycling access in Santa Barbara County, and compare idealized and realized measures of access for four cities in Santa Barbara County in California (Santa Maria, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, and Goleta). Differences in measures from idealized access to realized access are greatly increased in cities with lower median household income and a higher proportion of people identifying as Hispanic. Studies aiming to understand equity and access can benefit from more nuanced and realized access measures, as idealized access measures may overestimate accessibility in underserved communities. In GIScience, especially as new data on mobility become more widely available, nuanced measures of accessibility should be the standards in analysis.