Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Analyzing Accessibility Dimension of Urban Quality of Life: Where Urban Designers Face Duality Between Subjective and Objective Reading of Place

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The subject of urban quality of life and the promotion of its concept in particular, has always been the central focus of urban designers. This term is a multi-conceptual and dimensions. However most of the scholars have agreed that the concept consisted from two main dimensions; objective and subjective which these two approaches are used for its measuring. One of the important goals of urban designers is to create urban environment that all citizens have easy access to urban services, as accessibility reflects the quality of an urban environment. The present research intends to measure the public space accessibility by using objective approach in first and then by using the subjective approach for measuring in the study area to compare the results. The results revealed that there are considerable differences between objective and subjective measuring of urban quality of life in a urban space, therefore urban designers can not rely only on the results of objective measuring to understand such spaces for planning, if so, their attitudes towards urban spaces could not be an appropriate guide for explaining the quality of life for urban residents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, C. (1970). The timeless way of building. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arefi, M., & Meyers, W. R. (2003). What is public about public space: The case of Visakhapatnam. India. Cities, 20(5), 331–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audirac, I. (2002). Information technology and urban form. Journal of Planning Literature, 17, 212–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertaud, A. (2003). Tehran spatial structure: Constraints and opportunities for future development. Tehran: Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2003). Public places: Urban spaces. Oxford: Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society, the information age: Economy, society and culture. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • CNU. (2000). Charter of the new urbanism. Congress for the new urbanism. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couclelis, H., & Arthur, G. (2000). Conceptualizing and measuring accessibility in physical and virtual spaces. In D. Janelle & D. Hodge (Eds.), Information, place, and cyberspace. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, R. (2005). The dictionary of urbanism. Wiltshire: Streetwise Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromley, E. K., & McLafferty, S. L. (2002). GIS and public health. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, D. (2007). Urban quality of life: A case study of Guwahati. Social Indicators Research, 88, 297–310. doi:10.1007/s11205-007-9191-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, B. P. (1968). Social needs and resources in local services. London: Michael Joseph.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, K., Anderson, C., Powe, M., McMillan, T., & Winn, D. (2007). Remaking minnie street: The impacts of urban revitalization on crime and pedestrian safety. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26, 315–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dissart, J. C., & Deller, S. C. (2000). Quality of life in the planning literature. Journal of Planning Literature, 15(1), 135–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doi, K., Kii, M., & Nakanishi, H. (2007). An integrated evaluation method of accessibility, quality of life, and social interaction. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 35, 1098–1116. doi:10.1068/b3315t.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duany, A., & Platter-Zyberck, E. (1991). Towns and town-making principles. New York: Rizolli Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erkip, F. (1997). The distribution of urban public services: The case of parks and recreational services in Ankara. Cities, 14(6), 353–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. R. (1994). Enhancing quality of life in the population at large. Social Indicators Research, 33, 47–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, M. (1989). Control as a dimension of public space quality. In I. Altman & E. H. Zube (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurs, K. T., & Ritsema van Eck, J. R. (2003). Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use scenarios: The implications of job competition, land-use, and infrastructure developments for the Netherlands. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30, 69–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glazer, N., & Lilla, M. (1987). The public face of architecture. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodmann, W. (1968). Principles and practice of urban planning. Washington: International City Manager’s Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, M. (1997). Modelling third wave (virtual) accessibility. In: Paper presented at seminar in planning support systems, Cambridge, MA, USA.

  • Graham, S., & Marvin, S. (1996). Telecommunications and the city, electronic spaces, urban places. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Marvin, S. (1999). Planning cybercities? Integrating telecommunications into urban planning? Town Planning Review, 70, 79–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grayson, L., & Young, K. (1994). Quality of life in cities: An overview and guide to literature. London: The British Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, D. (1986). Accessibility. In R. J. Johnston, D. Gregory, & D. R. Stoddart (Eds.), The dictionary of human geography (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, S. (2000). Reconceptualising accessibility. In D. G. Janelle & D. C. Hodge (Eds.), Information, space and cyber space, issues in accessibility (pp. 267–276). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, T. S., & Barcus, H. L. (2007). Geographical accessibility and Kentucky’s heart-related hospital services. Applied Geography, 27, 181–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatry, H. P., & Dunn, D. R. (1971). Measuring the effectiveness of local government services, recreation. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, A. M. (1995). Concepts of equity, fairness and justice in geographical studies. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 20, 500–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janelle, D. G., & Hodge, D. C. (2000). Information, space and cyber space and accessibility. In D. G. Janelle & D. C. Hodge (Eds.), Information, space and cyber Space, issues in accessibility. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R. J., Gregory, D., Pratt, G., & Watts, M. (2000). The dictionary of human geography. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, P., & Nolan, J. (2002). E-work 2002, status report on new ways to work in the information society. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, K., & Kirby, A. (1982). Provision and well being: An agenda for public resources research. Environment and Planning A, 14(4), 297–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallus, R. (2001). From abstract to concrete: Subjective reading of urban space. Journal of Urban Design, 6(2), 129–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, P. (1994). The new urbanism: Toward an architecture of community. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenyon, S., Lyons, G., & Rafferty, J. (2002). Transport and social exclusion investigating the possibility of promoting inclusion through virtual mobility. Journal of Transport Geography, 10, 207–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, A., Knox, P., & Pinch, S. (1983). Developments in public provision and urban politics: An overview and agenda. Area, 15(4), 295–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knox, P. (1987). Urban social geography: An introduction (2nd ed.). England: Longman Scientific & Technical.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krier, L. (1984). Houses, palaces and cities. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langdon, P. (1994). A better place to live: Reshaping the American suburb. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Trans. D. Nicholson-Smith.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liska, A. E., Sanchirico, A., & Reed, M. D. (1988). Fear of crime and constrained behavior specifying and estimating a reciprocal effects model. Social Forces, 66(3), 827–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, K. (1981). Good city form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madanipour, A. (1992). Design of urban space: An inquiry into a socio-spatial process. West Sussex: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martens, M., Wilmink, I., Korver, W., Heijma, A., van Katwijk, R., & Harrell, L. (1999). The mobility impact of the electronic highway. Delft: TNO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massam, B. (1975). Location and space in social administration. Halsted, New York: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massam, B. H. (2002). Quality of life: Public planning and private living. Progress in Planning, 58, 141–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrea, R., Shyy, T., & Stimson, R. (2006). What is the strength of the link between objective and subjective indicators of urban quality of life? Applied Research in Quality of Life, 1, 79–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, D. (1995). The end of public space? People’s park, definitions of the public, and democracy. Annuals of the Association of American Geographers, 85, 33–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J. M., Dumble, P. L., & Wigan, M. R. (1979). Accessibility indicators for transportation planning. Transportation Research A, 13, 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moudon, A. V. (1992). A Catholic approach to organizing what urban designers should know. Journal of Planning Literature, 6(4), 331–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muhammad, S., Jong, T. D., & Ottens, H. F. L. (2008). Job accessibility under the influence of information and communication technologies, in the Netherlands. Journal of Transport Geography, 16, 203–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OEI. Organization of Environment of Iran. (2006). Annual reports of the capital pollution, Tehran, Iran.

  • Ogryczak, W. (2000). Inequality measures and equitable approach to location problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 122, 374–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pain, R. (2000). Place, social relations and the fear of crime: A review. Progress in Human Geography., 24, 365–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pain, R., MacFarlane, R., Turner, K., & Gill, S. (2006). When, where, if, and but: Qualifying GIS and the effect of streetlighting on crime and fear. Environment and Planning A, 38, 2055–2074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasaogullari, N., & Doratli, N. (2004). Measuring accessibility and utilization of public spaces in Famagusta. Cities, 21(3), 225–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinch, S. (1984). Inequality in pre-school provision: A geographical perspective. In A. Kirby, P. Knox, & S. Pinch (Eds.), Public service provision and urban development (pp. 231–282). London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinch, S. (1985). Cities and services. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich, R. C. (1979). Neglected issues in the study of urban service distribution: A research agenda. Urban Studies, 16, 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, L. (2000). Evaluating intra-metropolitan accessibility in the information age: Operational issues, objectives and implementation. In D. Janelle & D. Hodge (Eds.), Information, place, and cyberspace. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J., & Cornwell, T. (2002). How neighborhood features affect quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 59(1), 79–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. M. (1994). Geography and social justice. Colchester, VT: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorkin, M. (1992). Variations on a theme park: The New American City and the end of public space. New York: Hill and Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szalai, A. (1980). The meaning of comparative research on the quality of life. In A. Szalai & F. M. Andrews (Eds.), The quality of life: Comparative studies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talen, E. (1998). Visualizing fairness: Equity maps for planners. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(1), 22–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talen, E. (2000). Measuring the public realm: A preliminary assessment of the link between public space and sense of community. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17(4), 344–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talen, E. (2002). Pedestrian access as a measure of urban quality. Planning Practice and Research, 17(3), 257–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talen, E. (2003). Neighborhoods as service providers: A methodology for evaluating pedestrian access. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30, 181–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talen, E., & Anselin, L. (1998). Assessing spatial equity: An evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and Planning A, 30, 595–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tibbalds, F. (1992). Making people friendly towns: Improving the public environments in towns and cities. Harlow, Essex: Longman Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsou, K. W., Hung, Y. T., & Chang, Y. L. (2005). An accessibility-based integrated measure of relative spatial equity in urban public facilities. Cities, 22(6), 361–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenbulcke, G., Steenberghen, T., & Thomas, I. (2008). Mapping accessibility in Belgium: A tool for land-use and transport planning? Journal of Transport Geography. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.04.008.

  • Vrij, A., & Winkel, F. W. (1991). Characteristics of the built environment and fear of crime: A research note on interventions in unsafe locations. Deviant Behaviour, 12, 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, B. (1981). Welfare economics and urban problems. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warr, M. (1990). Dangerous situations: Social context and fear of victimization. Social Forces, 68, 891–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, A. N. (1979). Accessibility and public facility location. Economic Geography, 55(1), 18–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, M., Kasl, S. V., Zahner, G. E. P., & Will, J. C. (1987). Perceived crime in the neighborhood and mental health of women and children. Environment and Behavior, 19(5), 588–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, H. W. (2000). How to turn a place around. Projects for Public Space Inc.

  • Worpole, K. (1992). Towns for people: Transforming urban life. Buckingham: Buckingham University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urban Planning, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

    Sedigheh Lotfi

  2. School of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

    M. J. Koohsari

Authors
  1. Sedigheh Lotfi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. J. Koohsari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sedigheh Lotfi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lotfi, S., Koohsari, M.J. Analyzing Accessibility Dimension of Urban Quality of Life: Where Urban Designers Face Duality Between Subjective and Objective Reading of Place. Soc Indic Res 94, 417–435 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9438-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9438-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation