A new approach to accessibility – Examining perceived accessibility in contrast to objectively measured accessibility in daily travel

TLDR

Accessibility has traditionally been measured by travel time and distance to predetermined destinations, ignoring user perceptions, prompting the development of the PAC scale to capture individual perspectives of accessibility. The study aims to refine the PAC measure, compare perceived accessibility across residential areas and travel modes, and contrast it with objective accessibility for the same areas. The authors refined the PAC scale and applied it to survey data from Malmö residents, comparing perceived accessibility across residential zones and travel modes and benchmarking it against objective measures. Data from 2,711 Malmö residents show perceived accessibility consistently differs from objective measures across 13 residential areas, with only minor area-level differences; bicycle users rate accessibility higher than car or public transport users, contrary to objective assumptions; these results highlight the need to include perceived accessibility in transport planning.

Abstract

Accessibility has conventionally been measured and evaluated ignoring user perceptions in favor of focusing on travel time and distance to a number of pre-determined destinations. Acknowledging this gap, we recently developed a scale for perceived accessibility PAC (Lättman, Friman, & Olsson 2016b) aimed at capturing the individual perspective of accessibility with a certain travel mode. In this paper, we 1) further develop the PAC measure of perceived accessibility in order to capture how easy it is to live a satisfactory life with the help of the transport system, 2) compare levels of perceived accessibility between residential areas and main travel modes, and 3) compare residents' perceived accessibility to the objective accessibility level for the same residential area. Data from 2711 residents of Malmö, Sweden show that perceived accessibility is consistently different from objective accessibility across 13 residential areas, with minor differences in levels of perceived accessibility between areas. Surprisingly, bicycle users rate their accessibility significantly higher than those who mainly use the car or public transport for daily travel, contrary to objective accessibility assumptions. These differences point at the importance of including perceived accessibility as a complementary tool when planning for and evaluating transport systems.