Subtitle:

Geographia Polonica Vol. 84 No. 2 (2011)

Publisher:

IGiPZ PAN

Place of publishing:

Warszawa

Description:

138 pp ; 24 cm

Type of object:

Journal/Article

References:

1. Bewley, R., Fiebig, D. G. (1988), A flexible logistic growth model with applications to telecommunications, International Journal of Forecasting, 4 (2) : 177-192.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0169-2070(88)90076-3 -
2. Brunet, R. (1989), Les villes "Européennes", La Documentation Française, Paris: Reclus/Datar.
3. Dalvi, M. Q., Martin, K. M. (1976), The measurement of accessibility: some preliminary result. Transportation, 5, (1): 17-42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00165245 -
4. Davidson, K. B. (1977), Accessibility in transport/ land-use modelling and assessment. Environment and Planning A. 9 (12), 1401-1416.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a091401 -
5. ESPON (2003), Transport sendees and networks: Territorial trends and basic supply of infrastructure for territorial cohesion, ESPON Project 1.2.1, Third interim report August 2003, <http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/de-fault/Documents/Projects/ESPON2006Pro-jects/ThematicProjects/TransportTrends/3. ir_1.2.1-final.pdf>.
6. ESPON (2007), Update of selected potential accessibility indicators final report, Spiekermann & Wegener Urban and Regional Research (S&W) RRG Spatial Planning and Geoinformation.
7. ESPON (2009), Territorial dynamics in Europe: Trends in accessibility. Territorial observation No. 2, <http://www.espon.eu/export/ sites/default/Documents/Publications/Ter-ritorialObservations/TrendsIn Accessibility/ to-no2.pdf>.
8. Forslund, U.M. and Johansson, B. (1995), The Malardalen—a leading region in Scandina-via and Europe'?, in Cheshire, P. and Gordon, I. (eds.). Territorial competition in an integrating Europe, Aldershot: Avebury, pp. 3—27.
9. Fotheringham, A. S. (1982), A new set of spatialinteraction models: The theory of competing destinations. Environment and Planning A, 15 (1): 15-36.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a150015 -
10. Gallup, J. L., Sachs, J D., Mellinger, A. D. (1999), Geography and economic development, in: Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics 1998 (April), The World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 127-178., Reprinted in International Regional Science Review, 22(2): 179-232.
11. Geertman, S.C.M. and van Eck, J.R.R. (1995), GIS and models of accessibility potential: an application in planning, International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 9 (1): 67-80.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02693799508902025 -
12. Geurs, K.T. and van Eck, R. JR (2001), Accessibility measures: review and applications. Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use transportation scenarios, and related social and economic impact. Report no. 408505006, < http://www.mnp.nl/bibliotheek/rap-porten/408505006.pdf>, 265 p.
13. Geurs, K.T. and Wee, B. (2004), Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography 12 (2): 127-140.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005 -
14. Gutierrez, J. (2001), Location, economic potential and daily accessibility: an analysis of the accessibility impact of the high-speed line Madrid-Barcelona-French border. Journal of Transport Geography 9 (4): 229-242.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6923(01)00017-5 -
15. Guy, C. M. (1983), The assessment of access to local shopping opportunities: a comparison of accessibility measures. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 10 (2): 219-238.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b100219 -
16. Hansen, W.G. (1959), How accessibility shapes land-use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25 (2): 73-76.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944365908978307 -
17. Harris, C. D. (1954), The market as a factor in localisation of industry in United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 44 (4): 315-348.
18. Hilbers, H. D. and Veroen, E. J. (1993), Het beoordelen van de bereikbaarheid van lokaties. Definiering, maatstaven, toepassingen beleidsimplicaties, INRO-VVG 1993-09, TNO Inro, Delft.
19. Ingram, D. R. (1971), The concept of accessibility: A search for an operational form. Regional Studies, 5 (2): 101-105.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09595237100185131 -
20. Joseph, A.E. and Bantock, PR. (1982), Measuring potential physical accessibility to general practitioners in rural areas: a method and case study. Social Science and Medicine, 16 (1): 85-90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(82)90428-2 -
21. Keeble, D, Offord, J., Walker, S. (1988), Peripheral regions in a community of twelve. Office for Official Publications of the European Com-munities, Brussels/Luxemburg.
22. Keeble, D., Owens, PL., Thompson, C. (1982), Regional accessibility and economic potential in the European Community, Regional Studies, 16: 419-432.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09595238200185421 -
23. Kineses, A. and Toth, G. (2011), Potencialmodellek geometriaja [Geometry of potential models], Teruleti Statisztika [Spatial statis-tics], 14 (1): 23-37.
24. Knox, PL. (1978), The intraurban ecology of primary medical care: patterns of accessibility and their policy implications. Environment and Planning A 10 (4): 415-435.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a100415 -
25. Kunzmann, K. R. (1992), Zur Entwicklung der Stadtsysteme in Europa, in Stiglbauer, K. (ed.), Mitteilungen der Österreichischen geographischen Gesellschaft. Band 134, Wien, pp. 25-50.
26. Linneker, B. J. and Spence, N. A. (1992), An accessibility analysis of the impact of the M25 London Orbital Motorway in Britain, Regional Studies, 26 (1): 31-47.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343409212331346761 -
27. Lukermann, F. and Porter, PW. (1960), Gravity and potential models in economic geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 50 (4): 493-504.
28. Martin, K. M. and Dalvi, M. Q. (1976), The comparison of accessibility by public and private transport. Traffic Engineering and Control, 17 (12): 509-513.
29. Nitsch, W. (2000). National border and international trade: Evidence from the European Union., Canadian Journal of Economics, 22: 1091-1105.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0008-4085.00055 -
30. Puga, D. (2002), European regional policies in light of recent location theories. Journal of Economic Geography, 2(4): 373-406.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jeg/2.4.373 -
31. Redding, S.J. and Venables, A.J. (2001), Economic geography and international inequality, Manuscript, London School of Economics.
32. Rich, D.C. (1978), Population potential, potential transportation cost and industrial location. Area, 10: 222-226.
33. Rich, D.C. (1980), Potential models in human geography. Concepts Geoabstracts Catmog (26), Norwich, University of East Anglia.
34. Schürmann, C, Spiekermann, K., Wegener, M. (1997), Accessibility indicators, Berichte aus dem Institüt für Raumplanung 39, Dortmund, IRPUD.
35. Simma, A., Vrtic, M., Axhausen, K.W (2001), Interactions oftravel behaviour, accessibility and personal characteristics: The Case of Upper Austria, Paper presented at European Transport Conference, Cambridge, September 2001.
36. Smith, D.M. and Gibb, R.A. (1993), The regional impact of Channel Tunnel. A return to potential analysis. Geoforumi, 24.(2): 183-192.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(93)90032-D -
37. Song, S. (1996), Some tests of alternative accessibility measures: A population density approach, Land Economics, 72(4): 474-482.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3146910 -
38. Spence, N. A. and Linneker, B. J. (1994), Evolution of the motorway network and changing levels of accessibility in Great Britain, Journal of Transport Geography, 2 (4): 247-264.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0966-6923(94)90049-3 -
39. Spiekermann, K. and Neubauer, J. (2002), European accessibility and peripherality: Concepts, models and indicators, Nordregio Working Paper, 9, p. 43.
40. Spiekermann, K. and Wegener, M. (2006), Accessibility and spatial development in Europe, Scienze Regionali, 5 (2): 15-46, < http://www. spiekermann-wegener.de/pub/pdf/KSMW_ Scienze_Regionali.pdf>.
41. Stewart, J.Q. (1947), Empirical mathematical rules concerning the distribution and equilibrium of population. Geography Review, 37 (3): 461-485.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/211132 -
42. Tagai, G. (2007), A potencialmodell erenyei es hatranyai a tarsadalomkutatasban [Virtues and limits of potential model). Teres Tdrsadalom [Space and Society], 21 (1): 145-158.
43. Toth, G. and Kineses, A. (2007), Elerhetosegi modellek [Accessibility models], Teres Tdrsadalom [Space and Society], 21 (3): 51-87.
44. Van Wee, B., Hagoort, M., Annema, J.A. (2001), Accessibility measures with competition, Journal of Transport Geography, 9 (3): 199-208.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6923(01)00010-2 -
45. Vickerman, R.W. (1974), Accessibility, attraction, and potential: A review of some concepts and their use in determining mobility. Environment and Planning A, 6 (6): 675-691.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a060675 -
46. Weibull, J.W. (1976), An axiomatic approach to the measurement of accessibility. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 6 (4): 357-379.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0166-0462(76)90031-4 -
47. Wilson, A. G. (1971), A family of spatial interaction models, and associated developments. Environment and Planning A, 3. (1): 1-32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a030001 -

Relation:

Geographia Polonica

Volume:

84

Issue:

2

Start page:

33

End page:

46

Detailed Resource Type:

Article

Format:

File size 2,1 MB ; application/pdf

Resource Identifier:

10.7163/GPol.2011.2.3 ; oai:rcin.org.pl:4591

Source:

CBGiOS. IGiPZ PAN, call nos.: Cz.2085, Cz.2173, Cz.2406 ; click here to follow the link

Language:

eng

Rights:

Rights Reserved - Free Access

Terms of use:

Copyright-protected material. May be used within the limits of statutory user freedoms

Digitizing institution:

Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization of the Polish Academy of Sciences

Original in:

Central Library of Geography and Environmental Protection. Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization PAS

Projects co-financed by:

Programme Innovative Economy, 2010-2014, Priority Axis 2. R&D infrastructure ; European Union. European Regional Development Fund

Access:

Open