Since accessibility is an essential factor in land-use and transport planning, several methods have been developed to evaluate it. Nevertheless, it has seldom been an essential part of performance measures for policy evaluation from the viewpoint of individuals' quality of life (QoL). The objective of this study is to develop an integrated evaluation method of accessibility, QoL, and social interaction which contributes to the evaluation of land-use and transport policies for livable and sustainable urban development. In this paper, based on quantification of the weights of multielements of QoL, we develop a QoL-based accessibility measure and a QoL performance measure to address appropriate policies of land-use transport coordination and integration by disentangling the mismatch between real urban structures and people's demand for QoL. Furthermore, we explore embryonic ideas for the development of a generalised framework of QoL evaluation, incorporating social interactions and institutional design which link the QoL concept with quality of space and quality of procedure.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArentzeTTimmermansH, 2005, “Social networks and activity-travel choice: Significance and prospects for micro-simulation”, presented at the Workshop on Frontiers in Transportation: Social and Spatial Interactions, Amsterdam, available from T Arentze, Urban Planning Group, Eindhoven University of Technology
2.
BeckerG, 1976, “Altruism, egoism and genetic fitness: Economics and sociobiology”Journal of Economic Literature14817–826
3.
BenhabibJDayR H, 1981, “Rational choice and erratic behaviour”Review of Economic Studies48459–471
4.
BolleF, 2000, “Is altruism evolutionarily stable? And envy and malevolence?—Remarks on Bester and Guth”Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization42131–133
5.
BrennanGBuchananJ M, 1985The Reason of Rules: Constitutional Political Economy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
6.
BrownP JManfredoM J, 1987, “Social values defined”, in Valuing Wildlife Eds DeckerDGoffG G (Westview Press, Oxford) pp 12–23
7.
BrownT C, 1984, “The concept of value in resource allocation”Land Economics60231–246
8.
BurnsL D, 1979Transportation, Temporal, and Spatial Components of Accessibility (Lexington Books, Lexington, MA)
9.
CragliaMLeontidouLNuvolatiGSchweikartJ, 2004, “Towards the development of quality of life indicators in the ‘digital’ city”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design3151–64
10.
FelceDPerryJ, 1995, “Quality of life: Its definition and measurement”Research in Development Disabilities1651–74
11.
FranckT M, 1995Fairness in International Law and Institutions (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
HayashiYSugiyamaI, 2003, “Dual strategies for the environment and financial goals of sustainable cities: De-suburbanization and social capitalization”Built Environment298–15
14.
HayashiYDoiKSugiyamaI, 2004, “Evaluating infrastructure projects by means of measures of the quality of life”Journal of Infrastructure Planning and Management751IV–6255–70 (in Japanese)
15.
HechterM, 1992, “Should values be written out of the sociologist's lexicon?”Sociological Theory10214–230
16.
HeinerR A, 1989, “The origin of predictable dynamic behavior”Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization12233–257
17.
HigginsonSWalkerPTerryARobbinsC, 2003, “Making indicators count, how to make quality of life indicators, make a difference to quality of life”, The New Economic Foundation and the Faculty of the Built Environment, University of the West of England
18.
JonesPHudsonJ, 2000, “Civic duty and expressive voting: Is virtue its own reward?”Kyklos533–16
19.
KahnemanD, 2000, “Experienced utility and objective happiness: A moment-based approach”, in Choices, Values and Frames Eds KahnemanDTverskyA (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) 673–692
20.
KenyonSLyonsGRaffertyJ, 2002, “Transport and social exclusion investigating the possibility of promoting inclusion through virtual mobility”Journal of Transport Geography10207–219
21.
KiiMDoiK, 2005, “Multiagent land-use and transport model for the policy evaluation of a compact city”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design32485–504
22.
KwokRYehA G O, 2004, “The use of modal accessibility gap as an indicator for sustainable transport development”Environment and Planning A36921–936
23.
MakriF, 1999, “Accessibility measures for analyses of land-use and traveling with geographical information systems”, Institution for Teknik och Samhalle, Lund University
24.
NakanishiHDoiKHisashiSIkuoSSintaroT, 2005, “The role of QoL indicators on policy evaluation in UK and its implication to Japan”Journal of Infrastructure Planning and Management793IV–6873–93 (in Japanese)
PossajennikovA, 2000, “On the evolutionary stability of altruistic and spiteful preferences”Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization42125–129
27.
RokeachM, 1973The Nature of Human Value (Free Press, New York)
28.
SchuesslerA A, 2000, “Expressive voting”Rationality and Society1287–119
29.
SugiyamaIKurodaKDoiKNakanishiH, 2005, “A rating system for realizing sustainable urban space with a focus on quality of life and quality of space”, presented at The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference in Tokyo, available from the authors
30.
Van PraagB M SFrijtersPFerrer-i-CarbonellA, 2003, “The anatomy of subjective well-being”Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization5129–49
31.
VeenhovenR, 2000, “Freedom and happiness: A comparative study in forty-four nations in the early 1990s”, in Culture and Subjective Well-being (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 257–288
