Accessibilità di prossimità per una città più equa. Sperimentazione in un quartiere di Milano

Titolo Rivista TERRITORIO
Autori/Curatori Paola Pucci, Luigi Carboni, Giovanni Lanza
Anno di pubblicazione 2022 Fascicolo 2021/99
Lingua Italiano Numero pagine 13 P. 40-52 Dimensione file 624 KB
DOI 10.3280/TR2021-099006
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

Il paper restituisce i risultati preliminari di una ricerca finalizzata alla costruzione di un indice di accessibilità di prossimità (iapi), utile per migliorare la fruibilità e le dotazioni di servizi essenziali alla scala di quartiere. Iscrivendosi all’interno di un quadro teorico che riconosce il ruolo dell’accessibilità come condizione necessaria per garantire la partecipazione e l’inclusione sociale, il paper propone un indice di accessibilità di prossimità che rappresenta la traduzione operativa del concetto di ‘basic accessibility’ (Martens, 2017) e descrive i risultati di una sua sperimentazione nel quartiere di Crescenzago a Milano.;

Keywords:accessibilità di prossimità; basic accessibility; città dei 15 minuti

  1. Alfonzo M., 2005, «To walk or not to walk? The hierarchy of walk- ing needs». Environment and behavior, 37, 6: 808-836. DOI: 10.1177/0013916504274016
  2. Ascher F., 2004, «Les sens du mouvement: modernité et mobilités dans les sociétés urbaines contemporaines». In: Allemand S., Ascher F., Lévy
  3. J. (eds.), Les sens du movement. Paris: Belin, 21-34.
  4. Bausells M., 2016, «Superblocks to the rescue: Barcelona’s plan to give streets back to residents». -- www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/17/ superblocks-rescue-barcelona-spain-plan-give-streets-back-residents (accesso: 2020.09.15).
  5. Barthélemy M., 2011 «Spatial networks». Physics Reports, 499, 1-3: 1-101.
  6. Benenson I., Martens K., Rofé Y., 2010, «Measuring the gap between car and transit accessibility: Estimating access using a high-resolution tran- sit network geographic information system». Transportation Research Record, 2144: 28-35. DOI: 10.3141/2144-04
  7. Bertolini L., Curtis C., Renne J., 2012, «Station area projects in Europe and beyond: Towards transit oriented development?». Built Environment, 38, 1: 31-50.
  8. Bertolini L., 2012, «Integrating mobility and urban development agen- das: A manifesto». disp-The Planning Review, 48, 1: 16-26. DOI: 10.1080/02513625.2012.702956
  9. Bertolini L., le Clercq F., 2003, «Urban development without more mo- bility by car? Lessons from Amsterdam, a multimodal urban region». Environment and Planning A, 35, 4: 575-589.
  10. Boeing G., 2017, «osmnx: New methods for acquiring, constructing, analyzing, and visualizing complex street networks». Computers Environment and Urban Systems, 65: 126-139.
  11. Bertolini L., 2020, «From ‘streets for traffic’ to ‘streets for people’: Can street experiments transform urban mobility?». Transport Reviews, 40, 6: 734-753. DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2020.1761907.
  12. Cathcart-Keays A., 2015, «Will we ever get a truly car-free city?». www. theguardian.com/cities/2015/dec/09/car-free-city-oslo-helsinki-copen- hagen (accesso: 2015.12.09).
  13. Cervero R., Radisch C., 1996, «Travel choices in pedestrian versus au- tomobile-oriented neighborhoods». Transport Policy, 3, 127-141. DOI: 10.1016/0967-070X(96)00016-9
  14. Cervero R., 2004, ed., «Transit oriented development in the United States: Experiences, challenges and prospects». tcrp Report, 102. Washington: Transportation Research Board.
  15. City of Portland, 2012, «The Portland plan». -- www.portlandonline.com/ portlandplan/index.cfm?c=56527 (accesso: 2021.12.02).
  16. Comune di Milano, 2020, «Strategia di adattamento. Strade aperte». http://img.trk.comune.milano.it/static/105044/assets/2/30.4%20Strade%20 Aperte.pdf (accesso: 2021.12.02).
  17. Comune di Milano, 2021, «Reinventing cities. A Crescenzago la nuova porta d’accesso al Parco Lambro: social housing, verde e ciclabili». -- www.comune.milano.it/-/reinventing-cities.-a-crescenzago-la-nuo- va-porta-d-accesso-al-parco-lambro-social-housing-verde-e-ciclabili (accesso: 2021.12.02).
  18. Currie G., Delbosc A., 2010, «Modelling the social and psychological impacts of transport disadvantage». Transportation, 37, 6: 953-966.
  19. Farrington J., Farrington C., 2005, «Rural accessibility, social inclusion and social justice: towards conceptualization». Journal of Transport Geog- raphy, 13, 1: 1-12.
  20. Farrington J.H., 2007, «The new narrative of accessibility: its potential con- tribution to discourses in (transport) geography». Journal of Transport Geography, 15, 5: 319-330.
  21. Ferreira A., Beukers E., Te Brömmelstroet M., 2012, «Accessibility is gold, mobility is not: A proposal for the improvement of Dutch trans- port-related cost-benefit analysis». Environment and Planning B, 39, 4: 683-697.
  22. Ferreira A., Bertolini L., Næss P., 2017, «Immotility as resilience? A key consideration for transport policy and research». Applied Mobilities, 2, 1: 16-31. DOI: 10.1080/23800127.2017.1283121
  23. Ferreira A., Papa E., 2020, «Re-enacting the mobility versus accessibility debate: Moving towards collaborative synergies among experts». Case Studies on Transport Policy, 8, 3: 1002-1009.
  24. Geurs K.T., van Wee B., 2004 «Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions». Journal of Transport Geography, 12, 2: 127-140.
  25. Geurs K.T., Boon W., van Wee B., 2009, «Social impacts of transport: Literature review and state of the practice transport appraisal in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom». Transport reviews, 29, 1: 69-90. DOI: 10.1080/01441640802130490
  26. Givoni M., Banister D., 2010, Integrated transport: From policy to practice. London & New York: Routledge.
  27. Handy S., 2020, «Is accessibility an idea whose time has finally come?». Transportation Research Part D, 83: 102319.
  28. Handy S.L., Boarnet M.G., Ewing R., Killingsworth R.E., 2002, «How the built environment affects physical activity: Views from urban planning». American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 2 (suppl. 1): 64-73. DOI: 10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00475-0
  29. Jian I.Y., Luo J., Chan E.H.W., 2020, «Spatial justice in public open spa- ce planning: Accessibility and inclusivity». Habitat International, 97: 1012122.
  30. Jones S., 2018, «It’s the only way forward: Madrid bans polluting vehicles from city centre». -- www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/nov/30/its-the- only-way-forward-madrid-bans-polluting-vehicles-from-city-centre (accesso: 2021.12.02).
  31. Kaufmann V., Bergmann M.M., Joye D., 2004, «Motility: Mobility as capital». International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28, 4: 745-756.
  32. Kenyon S., Lyons G., Rafferty J., 2002, «Transport and social exclusion: Investigating the possibility of promoting inclusion through virtual mobility». Journal of Transport Geography, 10, 3: 207-219. DOI: 10.1016/S0966-6923(02)00012-1
  33. King D., Krizek K., 2020, «The power of reforming streets to boost ac- cess for human-scaled vehicles». Transportation Research Part D, 83: 102336.
  34. Lucas K., 2012, «Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now?». Transport Policy, 20: 105-113.
  35. Lucas K., van Wee B., Maat K., 2016, «A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: Combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches». Transportation, 43, 3: 473-490.
  36. Lyons G., Davidson C., 2016, «Guidance for transport planning and poli- cymaking in the face of an uncertain future». Transportation Research Part A, 88: 104-116.
  37. Martens K., 2017, Transport justice: Designing fair transportation sys- tems. London & New York: Routledge.
  38. Moreno C., 2016, La ville du quart d’heure. Pour un nouveau chro- no-urbanisme. -- www.latribune.fr/regions/smart-cities/la-tribune-de- carlos-moreno/la-ville-du-quart-d-heure-pour-un-nouveau-chrono- urbanisme-604358.html (accesso: 2021.09.27).
  39. Moreno C., 2020, Droit de cité. Paris: Humensis.
  40. Moreno C., Allam Z., Chabaud D., Gall C., Pratlong F., 2021, «Introdu- cing the 15-minute city: Sustainability, resilience and place identity in future post-pandemic cities». Smart Cities, 4, 1: 93-111.
  41. Preston J., Rajé F., 2007, «Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social exclusion». Journal of Transport Geography, 15, 3: 151-160.
  42. Pucci P., 2019, «Dialogando sui movimenti. La mobilità come capitale spaziale». In: Perrone C., Paba G. (a cura di), Confini, movimenti, luoghi. Politiche e progetti per città e territori in transizione. Roma: Donzelli, 59-68.
  43. Pucci P., Lanza G., Vendemmia B., 2021, «Distributing, de-synchro- nizing, digititalizing. dealing with transport inequalities in Milan in post-coronavirus society». In: Doucet B., van Melik, R., Filion P. (eds.), Global reflections on covid-19 and cities: Urban inequalities and the pandemic. Bristol: University Press, 201-210.
  44. Pucci P., Vecchio G., 2019, Enabling mobilities. Planning tools for people and their mobilities. Cham: Springer.
  45. Pucci P., Vecchio G., Bocchimuzzi L., Lanza G., 2019, «Inequalities in job-related accessibility: testing an evaluative approach and its po- licy relevance in Buenos Aires». Applied Geography, 107: 1-11.
  46. Salon D., 2016, «Estimating pedestrian and cyclist activity at the nei- ghborhood scale». Journal of Transport Geography, 55: 1-21.
  47. State Government of Victoria, 2017, «Melbourne plan». www.planmel- bourne.vic.gov.au (accesso: 2021.12.02).
  48. Transport for London, 2020, «Assessing public transport accessibility level in London (ptal)». -- http://content.tfl.gov.uk/connectivity-as- sessment-guide.pdf (accesso: 2021/12/02).
  49. Trudeau R.J., 1994, Introduction to graph theory. New York: Dover Publications.
  50. van Wee B., 2011, Transport and ethics: Ethics and the evaluation of transport policies and projects. Celtenham: Elgar.
  51. van Wee B., Geurs K., 2011, «Discussing equity and social exclusion in accessibility evaluations». European Journal of Transport and Infra- structure Research, 11, 4: 350-367.
  52. Vernez-Moudon A., Hess P., Snyder M., Stanilov K., 1997, «Effects of site design on pedestrian travel in mixed-use, medium-density environments». Transportation Research Record, 1578, 1: 48-55. DOI: 10.3141/1578-07

  • Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2023 Workshops Federica Stabile, Chiara Garau, Silvia Rossetti, Vincenza Torrisi, pp.209 (ISBN:978-3-031-37122-6)
  • Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2023 Workshops Giovanna Acampa, Luca S. D’Acci, Fabrizio Finucci, pp.91 (ISBN:978-3-031-37128-8)
  • Questioning Proximity - Opportunities and Challenges for Urban Planning and Mobility Policies Paola Pucci, Giovanni Lanza, pp.43 (ISBN:978-3-031-66070-2)
  • How do SUMPs Consider Factors Influencing Walkability and Cyclability? A Review of Literature and Planning Tools Silvia Rossetti, in European Transport/Trasporti Europei /2024 pp.1
    DOI: 10.48295/ET.2024.97.9

Paola Pucci, Luigi Carboni, Giovanni Lanza, Accessibilità di prossimità per una città più equa. Sperimentazione in un quartiere di Milano in "TERRITORIO" 99/2021, pp 40-52, DOI: 10.3280/TR2021-099006