The performance of various accessibility indices under extreme weather conditions was examined. Utilizing the Hansen accessibility index and taxi trip data from Manhattan during Hurricane Sandy, five types of accessibility indices were compared, focusing on attraction coefficients and impedance functions. The analysis included pre-disaster, during-disaster, and post-disaster accessibility in Manhattan, considering both temporal and spatial dimensions. Comparative findings indicated that demand attraction coefficients reflected the impact of disasters on travel distance, and aligned more effectively with taxi traffic flow changes during disaster scenarios than population-based coefficients. The absolute values of the Pearson correlation coefficients for the three types of impedance function accessibility were all above 0.8, albeit with varying degrees of accessibility. The gravity-type or the hybrid-type impedance function was found to offer a more realistic assessment of accessibility levels during disasters compared to the cumulative opportunity-based functions. Experimental results showed that the demand attraction coefficients and the gravity-type impedance functions captured the variations in taxi traffic flow and travel time characteristics during different disaster stages, while a significant spatiotemporal heterogeneity of extreme weather impacted on the urban road networks was observed. Identifying the applicable conditions of accessibility indices contributes to evaluating road network performance during disasters and guiding post-disaster reconstruction efforts.
Qingchang LU,Tu ZHANG,Qin WANG,Biao XU. Comparison of accessibility indices for extreme weather events from spatiotemporal perspectives. Journal of ZheJiang University (Engineering Science), 2024, 58(7): 1387-1396.
Fig.2Time distribution characteristics of accessibility for different attraction coefficients
Fig.3Spatial distribution of accessibility for different attraction coefficients
灾害阶段
函数类型
a
b
c
R2
灾前
线性
0.637 6
2.869 5
—
0.811 2
指数
0.875 6
1.871 5
—
0.814 3
对数
46.581 0
0.017 8
1.045 8
0.815 5
灾中
线性
0.574 7
3.699 0
—
0.858 9
指数
0.856 1
2.439 3
—
0.868 2
对数
32.637 0
0.027 5
1.071 2
0.871 1
灾后
线性
0.652 4
3.011 0
—
0.821 4
指数
0.881 7
2.061 1
—
0.828 2
对数
35.451 0
0.026 5
1.053 5
0.832 4
Tab.1Calibration coefficients of gravity-type impedance function
Fig.4Pearson correlation coefficients for different impedance function accessibility
Fig.5Time distribution characteristics of accessibility for different impedance functions
Fig.6Time distribution characteristics of accessibility margins for different impedance functions
Fig.7Time distribution characteristics of travel demand
Fig.8Time-varying characteristics of travel time
[1]
ILBEIGI M Statistical process control for analyzing resilience of transportation networks[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2019, 33: 155- 161
doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.10.002
[2]
王江波, 苟爱萍 桑迪飓风后纽约的城市发展战略及其启示[J]. 四川建筑, 2020, 40 (1): 12- 13 WANG Jiangbo, GOU Aiping The urban development strategy of New York after Hurricane Sandy and its enlightenment[J]. Sichuan Architecture, 2020, 40 (1): 12- 13
[3]
QIANG Y, XU J Empirical assessment of road network resilience in natural hazards using crowdsourced traffic data[J]. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 2020, 34 (12): 2434- 2450
doi: 10.1080/13658816.2019.1694681
[4]
LIAO T Y, HU T Y, KO Y N A resilience optimization model for transportation networks under disasters[J]. Natural Hazards, 2018, 93: 469- 489
doi: 10.1007/s11069-018-3310-3
JIANG R, LU Q C, PENG Z R A station-based rail transit network vulnerability measure considering land use dependency[J]. Journal of Transport Geography, 2018, 66: 10- 18
doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.09.009
[7]
HANSEN W G How accessibility shapes land use[J]. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 1959, 25 (2): 73- 76
doi: 10.1080/01944365908978307
[8]
秦艺帆, 石飞, 徐晓燕 可达性视角下极端天气事件对南京市通勤出行的影响分析[J]. 现代城市研究, 2019, (10): 91- 101 QIN Yifan, SHI Fei, XU Xiaoyan The impact of adverse weather event on commuting trips of Nanjing from the perspective of accessibility[J]. Modern Urban Research, 2019, (10): 91- 101
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-6000.2019.10.012
[9]
李睿, 王军, 李梦雅 暴雨内涝情景下城市消防服务可达性的精细化评估[J]. 地理科学进展, 2022, 41 (1): 143- 156 LI Rui, WANG Jun, LI Mengya Fine-resolution evaluation of urban fire service accessibility under the impact of a 100-year pluvial flood[J]. Progress in Geography, 2022, 41 (1): 143- 156
[10]
HANDY S Is accessibility an idea whose time has finally come?[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2020, 83: 102319
doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2020.102319
[11]
MARTÍN B, ORTEGA E, CUEVAS-WIZNER R, et al Assessing road network resilience: an accessibility comparative analysis[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2021, 95: 102851
doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2021.102851
[12]
SIDDIQ F, TAYLOR B D Tools of the trade? Assessing the progress of accessibility measures for planning practice[J]. Journal of the American Planning Association, 2021, 87 (4): 497- 511
doi: 10.1080/01944363.2021.1899036
[13]
KELOBONYE K, MCCARNEY G, XIA J, et al Relative accessibility analysis for key land uses: a spatial equity perspective[J]. Journal of Transport Geography, 2019, 75: 82- 93
doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.01.015
[14]
YU L, CUI M How subway network affects transit accessibility and equity: a case study of Xi’an metropolitan area[J]. Journal of Transport Geography, 2023, 108: 103556
doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103556
[15]
华晨, 周学文, 李咏华, 等 社区商业设施空间步行可达性评价及布局优化——以绍兴市三区为例[J]. 浙江大学学报: 工学版, 2022, 56 (2): 368- 378 HUA Chen, ZHOU Xuewen, LI Yonghua, et al Spatial walking accessibility evaluation and layout optimization of community commercial facilities: the case of Shaoxing[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University: Engineering Science, 2022, 56 (2): 368- 378
[16]
MOYA-GÓMEZ B, SALAS-OLMEDO M H, GARCÍA-PALOMARES J C, et al Dynamic accessibility using big data: the role of the changing conditions of network congestion and destination attractiveness[J]. Networks and Spatial Economics, 2018, 18: 273- 290
doi: 10.1007/s11067-017-9348-z
[17]
ZHU Y, DIAO M Crowdsourcing-data-based dynamic measures of accessibility to business establishments and individual destination choices[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2020, 87: 102382
doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2020.102382
[18]
PALACIOS M S, EL-GENEIDY A. Cumulative versus gravity-based accessibility measures: which one to use? [EB/OL]. (2022-02-11) [2023-06-14]. https://doi.org/10.32866/001c.32444.
[19]
KAPATSILA B, PALACIOS M S, GRISÉ E, et al Resolving the accessibility dilemma: comparing cumulative and gravity-based measures of accessibility in eight Canadian cities[J]. Journal of Transport Geography, 2023, 107: 103530
doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103530
[20]
KLAR B, LEE J, LONG J A, et al The impacts of accessibility measure choice on public transit project evaluation: a comparative study of cumulative, gravity-based, and hybrid approaches[J]. Journal of Transport Geography, 2023, 106: 103508
doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103508
[21]
NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission. TLC trip record data. [EB/OL]. [2023-06-14]. https://www.nyc.gov/site/tlc/about/tlc-trip-record-data.page.
[22]
DONOVAN B, WORK D B Empirically quantifying city-scale transportation system resilience to extreme events[J]. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 2017, 79: 333- 346
doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2017.03.002
[23]
Worldpop. Worldpop population data. [EB/OL]. [2023-06-14]. https://hub.worldpop.org/.
PAN X, DANG Y, WANG H, et al Resilience model and recovery strategy of transportation network based on travel OD-grid analysis[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2022, 223: 108483
doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2022.108483
[26]
邓广然. 基于多交通模式旅游景点可达性研究——以武汉都市发展区为例[D]. 武汉: 武汉大学, 2019. DENG Guangran. Study on tourist attractions accessibility based on multiple transportation modes: a case study of Wuhan metropolitan development zone [D]. Wuhan: Wuhan University, 2019.
