| Literature DB >> 35565010 |
Linlin Liu1, Bohong Zheng1, Chen Luo1, Komi Bernard Bedra1, Francis Masrabaye1.
Abstract
For current territory development planning in China, city center accessibility (CCA) has gained increasing attention for evaluating the expansion of urban areas. How should CCA and its differences between the automobile and public transit (PT) modes be measured? We analyzed CCA from travel time and travel cost perspectives using the travel data obtained from the Baidu Map at a 100 m × 100 m resolution. The GWR was then examined to explore the correlation between the explanatory variables and the CCA differences. Automobile-based CCA shows a concentric structure and varies with time, while PT-based CCA has an apparent linear expansion along the metro lines and fluctuates less. When measuring by travel cost instead of travel time, CCA gaps between the two modes are lessened, and the automobile's advantage is no longer evident. The distance from the metro stations has a significant positive effect on CCA differences, and the positive effect concentrates in the 3.6 km range (measured by travel time) and 2.8 km range (measured by travel cost) around the metro stations. Our study highlights the importance of multiple perspectives when comparing the accessibility of different transport modes, and the results also provide implications for policy-makers.Entities:
Keywords: GWR; city center accessibility; cumulative opportunities; isochrone maps; online map
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35565010 PMCID: PMC9099867 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095622
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Study area.
Figure 2Isochrone maps of automobile and PT for the three time periods.
Travel time by two modes and time-ratio for the three time periods.
| Time by Automobile (Min) | Time by PT (Min) | Time-Ratio | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AM | MD | PM | AM | MD | PM | AM | MD | PM | |
| mean | 59.6 | 39.5 | 57.7 | 83.1 | 80.4 | 82.5 | 1.41 | 2.07 | 1.44 |
| std | 15.4 | 12.4 | 15.1 | 33.9 | 32.3 | 33.5 | 0.61 | 0.88 | 0.78 |
Figure 3Time-ratio distribution for the three time periods.
Figure 4Growth curves of cumulative land and population percentages as travel time increases: (a) during AM; (b) during MD; (c) during PM.
Figure 5Iso-cost maps of automobile and PT for the three time periods.
Travel cost by two modes and cost-ratio for the three time periods.
| Cost by Automobile (USD) | Cost by PT (USD) | Cost-Ratio | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AM | MD | PM | AM | MD | PM | AM | MD | PM | |
| mean | 15.6 | 12.8 | 15.4 | 12.5 | 12.1 | 12.3 | 0.80 | 0.97 | 0.81 |
| std | 5.0 | 4.9 | 5.1 | 4.9 | 4.7 | 4.9 | 0.20 | 0.22 | 0.19 |
Figure 6Cost-ratio distribution for the three time periods.
Figure 7Growth curves of cumulative land and population percentages as travel cost increases: (a) during AM; (b) during MD; (c) during PM.
Results of the OLS regression.
| DV | Time-Ratio | Cost-Ratio | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coef | StdError | Prob | Coef | StdError | Prob | |
| (Intercept) | 1.819 | 0.0046 | **** | 0.995 | 0.002 | **** |
| Bus-dist | 0.055 | 0.0013 | **** | 0.005 | 0.0006 | **** |
| Metro-dist | 0.056 | 0.0009 | **** | 0.002 | 0.0004 | **** |
| Center-dist | −0.001 | 0.0004 | **** | −0.003 | 0.0001 | **** |
| AdjR2 | 0.134 | 0.005 | ||||
| AICc | 145,012.807 | −25,578.091 | ||||
Significance: **** < 0.001. Corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc) is a way of selecting a model from a set of models, and a lower AICc means a better model.
Figure 8Probability density distribution of the correlation coefficient of each explanatory variable.
The percentage of positive and negative effects of each explanatory variable.
| Time-Ratio | Cost-Ratio | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Center-Dist | Bus-Dist | Metro-Dist | Center-Dist | Bus-Dist | Metro-Dist | |
| Positive effect (%) | 51.11 | 69.84 | 65.10 | 49.62 | 71.27 | 61.81 |
| Negative effect (%) | 48.89 | 30.16 | 34.90 | 50.38 | 28.73 | 38.19 |
Figure 9Spatial distribution of the regression coefficients for each explanatory variable.
Figure 10Mean coefficient of metro-dist for units within the same range from the metro stations.