Spatial characteristics of the urban environment as factors of accessibility

Introduction. It is emphasized that a shift is required from the paradigm of mobility to the paradigm of accessibility, conceived as a key indicator of urban quality, reflecting the population’s ability to reach spatially distributed destinations and functions within given costs. In the context of Russian cities, particular importance is attached to a comprehensive approach to assessing accessibility, which presupposes the coordinated development of transport infrastructure and the spatial organization of urban territory.

Materials and methods. A review of domestic and international literature has been conducted, approaches to measuring accessibility have been systematized, and a classification of methods into seven groups has been proposed: topological, isoline, potential accessibility (gravitational) methods, balance methods, infrastructure-network methods, spatio-temporal methods, and comprehensive index methods.

Results. It was found that morphological parameters such as density and land-use mix, street connectivity and permeability, block size, and provision of stops and routes significantly influence accessibility levels. Strengths and weaknesses of different methods were summarized. The potential of digital tools was demonstrated for studying the interaction of urban form and transport systems.

Conclusions. The study concludes that accessibility assessment should combine transport and morphological dimensions. For the Russian context, the introduction of indicators sensitive to differences in urban form is considered promising, as it can reveal transport inequality and support evidence-based planning decisions.

1. Vuchik V. Transport in cities convenient for living : monograph. Moscow, ID Territory of the Future, 2011; 576. EDN RAYWFL. (rus.).

2. Cervero R. Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced Travel: A Path Analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association. 2003; 69(2):145-163. DOI: 10.1080/01944360308976303

3. Banister D. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy. 2008; 15(2):73-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.005

4. Vlasov D.N., Danilina N.V. Concepts of sustainable territorial development. Architecture and construction of Russia. 2023; 2(246):8-9. (rus.).

5. Donchenko V.V., Baranov A.S., Nemchinov D.M., Polyakov A.S. Urban planning and transport behavior in the Russian Federation : monograph. Moscow, KnigIzdat, 2022; 240. (rus.).

6. Saveleva E. Managing travel behavior of the population as a way to achieve sustainable mobility in Russian cities. PNRPU Bulletin. Urban development. 2021; 1(41):5-18. DOI: 10.15593/2409-5125/2021.01.01. EDN NHPBNB. (rus.).

7. Bakhirev I.A. Transport problems of modern city Transport problems of the modern city. Urban Development. 2016; 2(42):12-19. EDN VZVLJH. (rus.).

8. Saveleva E.O. Sustainable mobility and (de)integration of land use and transportation development in Russian cities. Urban Studies. 2024; 2:130-140. DOI: 10.7256/2310-8673.2024.2.70422. EDN AMXMKF. (rus.).

9. Shcherbina E., Danilina N. Town planning aspects of designing sustainable urban environment. Proceedings of Irkutsk State Technical University. 2014; 11(94):183-186. EDN TALHUH. (rus.).

10. Grebennikov V.V., Munin D.A., Levashev A.G., Mikhailov A.Yu. The types of transport availability. Proceedings of Universities. Investment. Construction. Real estate. 2012; 1(2):56-61. EDN RAQTEX. (rus.).

11. Dubovik V.O. Methods for assessing the transport accessibility of a territory. Regional studies. 2013; 4(42):11-18. EDN RUDVDF. (rus.).

12. Tinkov S.A. Approaches to assessing transport accessibility of attraction points in a metropolis. Journal of Economics, Entrepreneurship and Law. 2021; 11(2):377-394. DOI: 10.18334/epp.11.2.111582. EDN VBRXOS. (rus.).

13. Bugromenko V.N. Transport in territorial systems. Moscow, Nauka, 1987; 110. (rus.).

14. Baransky N.N. Formation of Soviet economic geography: selected works. Moscow, Mysl, 1980; 287. (rus.).

15. Kolosovsky N.N. Selected Works. Smolensk, Oikumena, 2006; 334. (rus.).

16. Spirin I.V., Belyaev V.M. Content of transport accessibility concept. World of Transport and Transportation. 2018; 16(5):(78):26-38. EDN JXEVGA. (rus.).

17. Anikina E.A., Lazarchuk E.V., Chechina V.I. Accessibility of higher education as a socio-economic category. Fundamental Research. 2014; 12-2:355-358. EDN TENFKX. (rus.).

18. Yerugina M.V., Krom I.L., Shmerkevich A.B., Dorogoykin D.L., Zhuzhlova N.Yu., Shigaev N. et al. The availability of medical care as an obligatory social health predictor of the population in Russia. Saratov Journal of Medical Scientific Research. 2016; 12(2):101-105. EDN WZXGRL. (rus.).

19. Naberushkina E.K. Accessibility of the urban environment for people with disabilities. Sociological Studies. 2010; 9(317):58-64. EDN MULYWP. (rus.).

20. Sharov M.I., Mikhailov A.Yu., Duchenkova A.V. Example of transport accessibility evaluation using PTV “Visum” software. Proceedings of Universities. Investment. Construction. Real Estate. 2013; 1(4):133-138. EDN RAJBXJ. (rus.).

21. Yakimov M.R. Transport planning: creating transport models of cities. Moscow, Logos, 2013; 188. EDN RXRQZV. (rus.).

22. Bugromenko V.N. What is behind the paradigm shift? Transport of Russia. 2009; 46:5-18. (rus.).

23. Curtis C., Scheurer J. Planning for sustainable accessibility: Developing tools to aid discussion and decision-making. Progress in Planning. 2010; 74(2):53-106. DOI: 10.1016/j.progress.2010.05.001

24. Geurs K.T., van Wee B. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies : review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography. 2004; 12(2):127-140. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005

25. Handy S.L., Niemeier D.A. Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. 1997; 29(7):1175-1194. DOI: 10.1068/a291175

26. Handy S. Is accessibility an idea whose time has finally come? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2020; 83:102319. DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2020.102319

27. Hillier B., Hanson J. The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press, 1989.

28. Begey E.D., Smolina O.O. Configurational analysis of novosibirsk’s development area using depth map software. Journal of Construction and Architecture. 2022; 24(4):57-71. DOI: 10.31675/1607-1859-2022-24-4-57-71. EDN RJLSSD. (rus.).

29. Ovchinnikova E.A., Saveleva E.O. Spatial analysis and optimization of the urban structure in small towns. The case study of Gornozavodsk, Russia. Architecture and Modern Information Technologies. 2022; 2(59):245-257. DOI: 10.24412/1998-4839-2022-2-245-257. EDN MXJOAU. (rus.).

30. Sinitsyna I.A. Grammar of urban space: planning axes and associated areas assessment. Architecture and Modern Information Technologies. 2023; 1(62):197-212. DOI: 10.24412/1998-4839-2023-1-197-212. EDN NAAHTV. (rus.).

31. Saveleva E. Rail transport in post-soviet cities with fragmented urban form (the case study of Perm). PNRPU Bulletin. Urban development. 2016; 1(21):101-119. DOI: 10.15593/2409-5125/2016.01.07. EDN VPEMTD. (rus.).

32. Zhuzhgova Yu.E., Savel’eva V.V. Formation of an optimal logistics system based on the analysis of transport infrastructure of the city of Yekaterinburg. Innotrans. 2021; 2(40):3-7. DOI: 10.20291/2311-164X-2021-2-3-7. EDN DAMMBN. (rus.).

33. Hansen W.G. How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 1959; 25(2):73-76. DOI: 10.1080/01944365908978307

34. Giannotti M., Tomasiello D.B., Bittencourt T.A., Giannotti M. The bias in estimating accessibility inequalities using gravity-based metrics. Journal of Transport Geography. 2022; 101:103337. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103337

35. Geurs K., van Eck J.R. Accessibility measures: review and applications. RIVM Report. 2001.

36. Shen Q. Location characteristics of inner-city neighborhoods and employment accessibility of low-wage workers. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 1998; 25(3):345-365. DOI: 10.1068/b250345

37. Van Wee B., Hagoort M., Annema J.A. Accessibility measures with competition. Journal of Transport Geography. 2001; 9(3):199-208. DOI: 10.1016/s0966-6923(01)00010-2

38. Handy S.L., Niemeier D.A. Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. 1997; 29(7):1175-1194. DOI: 10.1068/a291175

39. Levine J., Grengs J., Shen Q., Shen Q. Does Accessibility Require Density or Speed? Journal of the Ameri-can Planning Association. 2012; 78(2):157-172. DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2012.677119

40. Fortin P., Morency C., Trépanier M. Innovative GTFS data application for transit network analysis using a graph-oriented method. Journal of Public Transportation. 2016; 19(4):18-37. DOI: 10.5038/2375-0901.19.4.2

41. Wessel N., Farber S. On the accuracy of schedule-based GTFS for measuring accessibility. Journal of Transport and Land Use. 2019; 12(1). DOI: 10.5198/jtlu.2019.1502

42. Hägerstrand T. What about people in regional science? Transport Sociology. 1986; 143-158. DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-08-023686-5.50017-1

43. Kwan M. Space-Time and Integral Measures of Individual Accessibility: A Comparative Analysis Using a Point-based Framework. Geographical Analysis. 1998; 30(3):191-216. DOI: 10.1111/j.1538-4632.1998.tb00396.x

44. Kim J., Lee B. More than travel time: New accessibility index capturing the connectivity of transit services. Journal of Transport Geography. 2019; 78:8-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.05.008

45. Rathod R., Joshi G., Arkatkar S. Composite Accessibility Index: A Novel and Holistic Measure for Evaluating Transit Accessibility. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2025; 2679(2):1359-1378. DOI: 10.1177/03611981241270156

46. Rode P., Floater G., Thomopoulos N., Docherty J., Schwinger P., Mahendra A. et al. Accessibility in Cities: Transport and Urban Form. Lecture Notes in Mobility. 2017; 239-273. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-51602-8_15

47. Fedorov V.A. Individual transport behaviour as the main source of urban transport problems. Young Scientist. 2015; 18(98):309-316. EDN UJLUSL. (rus.).

48. Savelyeva E.O. The factors of transportation behavior in the major cities of Russia. Urban Development. 2018; 5(57):54-62. EDN IIVGDL. (rus.).

49. Papa E., Silva C., Brömmelstroet M.T., Hull A. Accessibility instruments for planning practice: a review of European experiences. Journal of Transport and Land Use. 2015; 9(3):57-75. DOI: 10.5198/jtlu.2015.585

50. Papa E., Coppola P. Gravity-based accessibility measures for integrated transport-land use planning (GraBAM). Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice. 2012; 117-124.

51. Harari M. Cities in bad shape: Urban geometry in India. American Economic Review. 2020; 110(8):2377-2421. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20171673

52. Cervero R., Duncan M. Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association. 2006; 72(4):475-490. DOI: 10.1080/01944360608976767

53. Liu S., Zhu X. Accessibility Analyst: An Integrated GIS Tool for Accessibility Analysis in Urban Transportation Planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 2004; 31(1):105-124. DOI: 10.1068/b305

54. Koohsari M.J., Owen N., Cerin E., Giles-Corti B., Sugiyama T. Walkability and walking for transport: characterizing the built environment using space syntax. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2016; 13(1). DOI: 10.1186/s12966-016-0448-9

55. Litman T.A. Evaluating Accessibility for Transport Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. 2025. URL: https://www.vtpi.org/access.pdf

56. Scott D.M., Horner M.W. The role of urban form in shaping access to opportunities: An exploratory spatial data analysis. Journal of Transport and Land Use. 2008; 1(2):89-119.