A Configurational Accessibility Study of Road and Metro Network in Shanghai, China

  • Lingzhu ZhangEmail author
  • Alain Chiaradia
  • Yu Zhuang
Part of the GeoJournal Library book series (GEJL, volume 114)


Between 1993 and 2013, the high-capacity metro network of Shanghai has expanded rapidly and played a major part in the sustainable public transportation system. In this short period, the major change in accessibility introduced by the metro system kept pace with massive increase in population and land use intensification and diversification of the urban form. Understanding the relationship between public transport networks, public transport access point accessibility, land use location as destination accessibility and urban form is becoming important for interpreting the relationship between urban land-use and the transportation system in Metropolitan areas. However, most previous empirical studies relied on qualitative descriptions using large geographic scale. Furthermore, few studies focused on the detailed analysis of public transport access point locations.

The objective of this paper is to identify spatially disaggregated micro-macro relative accessibility relationships between urban block size, road and metro-line network design, metro stations and bus stop locations, commercial land use locations distribution and station usage in Shanghai. Using GIS and Spatial Design Network Analysis (sDNA) software to perform multi-level accessibility of each link in each network, we found that most of metro stations, bus stops and commercial land use are located on the part of the road network with the highest level of micro to macro accessibility indicating a coupling multiplier effect between metro stations, commercial land use and multi-level multi network spatial accessibility.

These findings suggest the possibility of evaluating the effectiveness of land use planning in relation to micro-macro accessibility change due to transportation system change and thus the further potential for guiding transport oriented development planning and urban design place making.


Accessibility Transportation system Metro system Network Land-use 


  1. Amion Consulting, Taylor Young, Donaldsons, & University of Liverpool. (2007). Economic value of urban design. Liverpool: Amion Consulting.Google Scholar
  2. Arefi, M., & Triantafillou, M. (2005). Reflections on the pedagogy of place in planning and urban design. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(1), 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banister, D. (1995). Transport and urban development. London: Spon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bavelas, A. (1950). Communication patterns in task‐oriented groups. Journal of the acoustical Society of America, 22(6), 725–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertolini, L. (1996). Nodes and places: Complexities of railway station redevelopment. European Planning Studies, 4(3), 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertolini, L. (1999). Spatial development patterns and public transport: The application of an analytical model in the Netherlands. Planning Practice and Research, 14(2), 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertolini, L., & Spit, T. (1998). Cities on rails. The redevelopment of railway station areas. London: Spon.Google Scholar
  8. Bian, J. (2006). Metropolitan space development and rail transit. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  9. Borzachiello, M. T., Nijkamp, P., & Koomen, E. (2010). Accessibility and urban development: A grid-based comparative statistical analysis of Dutch cities. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(1), 148–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boujenko, N., Marshall, S., & Jones, P. (2007). Link and place – A guide to street planning and design. London: Local Transport Today.Google Scholar
  11. Bourdic, L., Salat, S., & Nowacki, C. (2012). Assessing cities: A new system of cross-scale spatial indicators. Building Research Information, 40(5), 592–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. British Council for Offices. (2006, May 1). Offices, value and design. Accessed 1 July 2014.
  13. CABE. (2007). Paved with gold: The real value of street design. Accessed 1 July 2014.
  14. CABE Space. (2003). The value of public space, how high quality parks and public spaces create economic, social and environmental value. CABE Space (Commission for Architecture and the Built). Accessed 1 July 2014.
  15. CABE Space. (2009). Making the invisible visible the real value of park assets. Accessed 1 July 2014.
  16. CABE, ODPM, & Design for Homes. (2003). The value of housing design and layout. Accessed 1 July 2014.
  17. CABE, UCL, & DETR. (2001). The value of urban design. Analysing commercial developments to see how excellent design adds economic, social and environmental value. Accessed 21 Nov 2013.
  18. Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  19. CBuchanan. (2008). A programme-level evaluation of one NorthEast’s quality of place activities, 2002–07. Accessed 1 July 2014.
  20. Cervero, R., & Jennifer, D. (2008). Suburbanization and transit-oriented development in China. Transport Policy, 15, 315–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chiaradia, A. J., Hillier, B., Schwander, C., & Wedderburn, M. (2012, March). Compositional and urban form effects in centres in Greater London. Urban Design and Planning – Proceedings of the ICE, 165(1), 21–42.Google Scholar
  22. Chiaradia, A. J., Hillier, B., Schwander, C., & Barnes, Y. (2013, June). Compositional and urban form effects on residential property value patterns in Greater London. Urban Design and Planning – Proceedings of the ICE, 166(3), 176–199.Google Scholar
  23. Chiaradia, A., Crispin, C., & Webster, C. (2014). sDNA a software for spatial design network analysis. Accessed 15 June 2014.
  24. Chiaradia, A. J., Sieh, L., & Plimmer, F. (2015). Learning values in urban design: A studio-based approach. Design Studies, under review.Google Scholar
  25. Chorus, P., & Bertolini, L. (2011). An application of the node place model to explore the spatial development dynamics of station areas in Tokyo. The Journal of Transport and Land Use, 4(1), 45–58.Google Scholar
  26. Christaller, W. (1933–1966). Die zentralen Orte in Suddeutschland – Places in Southern Germany (C. W. Baskin, Trans.). Jena: Fisher – Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  27. CIHT. (2010). Manual for streets 2 wider application of the principles. London: The Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation.Google Scholar
  28. Cooper, C., Chiaradia, A., & Webster, C. (2014). Spatial design network analysis(+). Accessed 16 June 2014.
  29. Coupy, E. (1851). Solution d’un problème appartenant à la géometrie de situation, par Euler. Nouvelles annales de mathématiques 1re série 10, 106–119.Google Scholar
  30. Cutini, V. (2001). Centrality and land use: Three case studies on the configurational hypothesis. Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography [On line], Systèmes, Modélisation, Géostatistiques 188.Google Scholar
  31. Derrible, S., & Kennedy, C. (2009). Network analysis of world subway systems using updated graph theory. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2112, 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. DfT. (2007). Manual for Streets 1. London: Department for Transport.Google Scholar
  33. Dunse, N., White, M., White, M., & Dehring, C. (2007). Urban parks, open space and residential property values (RICS research paper series, pp. 1–8). London: RICS.Google Scholar
  34. Duranton, G., & Puga, D. (2004). Micro-foundations of urban agglomeration economies. Vol. 4, chap. 48. In J. V. Henderson & J. F. Tisse (Eds.), Handbook of regional and urban economics, cities and geography (pp. 2063–2117). London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  35. Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2001). Travel and the built environment. Transportation Research Record, 1780, 87–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), 265–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fisher, D. R. (1999). Waterside properties. Accessed 1 July 2014.
  38. Florida, R. (2000). Competing in the age of talent: Quality of place and the new economy. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon.Google Scholar
  39. Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Garrod, G., & Willis, K. (1994). An economic estimate of the effect of a waterside location on property values. Environmental and Resource Economics, 4(2), 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Geurs, K. T., & Ritsema van Eck, J. R. (2001). Accessibility measures: Review and applications. Bilthoven: National Institute of Public Health and the Environment.Google Scholar
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. Giuliano, G. (2004). Land use impacts of transportation investments: Highway and transit. In S. Hanson & G. Giuliano (Eds.), The geography of urban transportation (pp. 237–273). New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  44. GLA Economics. (2003). Valuing greenness, green spaces, house prices and Londoners’ priorities. Accessed 01 July 2014.
  45. GLA Economics. (2010). Working Paper 42 valuing housing and green spaces: Understanding local amenities, the built environment and house prices in London. Accessed 1 July 2014.
  46. Goetgeluk, R., Kauko, T., & Priemus, H. (2005). Can red pay for blue? Methods to estimate the added value of water in residential environments. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48(1), 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Grosvenor. (2013). Evolving cities, resilient urban form, governance and the creation of long term value. London: The London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  48. Haggett, P., & Chorley, R. J. (1969). Network analysis in Geography. London: Hodder & Stoughton Educational.Google Scholar
  49. Hansen, W. G. (1959). How accessibility shape land use. Journal of American Institute of Planners, 25(2), 73–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ingram, D. R. (1971). The concept of accessibility: A search for an operational form. Regional Studies, 5(2), 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jim, C. Y., & Chen, W. Y. (2010). External effects of neighbourhood parks and landscape elements on high-rise residential value. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 662–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jones, P., Roberts, M., & Morris, L. (2007). Rediscovering mixed-use streets the contribution of local high streets to sustainable communities. Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  53. Kansky, K. J. (1963). Structure of transport networks: relationships between network geometry and regional characteristics. Research paper *4, Department of geography, University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
  54. Krambeck, H. V. (2006). The global walkability index. Accessed 1 May 2014.
  55. Lin, L., & Moudon, A. V. (2010). Objective versus subjective measures of the built environment, which are most effective in capturing associations with walking? Health & Place, 16(2), 339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Liu, J. (2012). Urban multi-level development and rail transit. Nanjing: South East University Press (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  57. McIntyre, M. H. (2006). A literature review of the social economic and environmental impact of architecture and design. Edinburgh: Information and Analytical Services Division, Scottish Executive Education Department.Google Scholar
  58. Meyer, M., & Miller, E. (2001). Urban transportation planning: A decision-oriented approach. Boston: McGrawHill.Google Scholar
  59. Ministry for the Environment, NZ. (2005). The value of urban design: The economic, environmental and social benefits of urban design. Accessed 1 July 2014.
  60. Network Rail. (2011). The value of station investment. Accessed 1 July 2014.
  61. Newman, M., Barabasi, A.-L., & Watts, D. J. (2006). The structure and dynamics of networks. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Pan, H., & Ren, C. (2005). Study of the spatial coupling between the metro and urban activity center—Case study of Shanghai. Urban Planning Forum, 4(2005), 76–82 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  63. Pan, H., & Zhang, M. (2008). Rail transit impacts on land use, evidence from Shanghai, China. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2048, 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pan, H., Liu, X., & Zacharias, J. (2003). Street design characteristic and green transportation choice. Urban Planning Forum, 6, 42–48 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  65. Pan, H., Ren, C., & Yang, T. (2007). A study on the impact on the land use of station areas brought by urban rail transport in Shanghai. Urban Planning Forum, 4, 92–97 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  66. Pan, H., Shen, Q., & Zhang, M. (2009). Influence of urban form on travel behaviour in four neighbourhoods of Shanghai. Urban Studies, 46(2), 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pan, H., Shen, Q., & Chang, L. (2011). Transit-oriented development at the urban periphery, insights from a case study in Shanghai, China. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2245, 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pan, Q., Pan, H., Zhang, M., & Zhong, B. (2014). The effects of rail transit on residential property values: A comparison study on the rail transit lines in Houston and Shanghai. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2453, 118–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Parks, J. R., & Schofer, J. L. (2006). Characterising neighbourhood pedestrian environment with secondary data. Transportation research Part D: Transport and Environment, 11(4), 250–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pooler, J. A. (1995). The use of spatial separation in the measurement of transportation accessibility. Transport Research A: Policy and Practice, 29(6), 421–427.Google Scholar
  71. Porta, S., Crucitti, P., & Latora, V. (2006). The network analysis of urban streets: A dual approach. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 369(2), 853–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Reggiani, A. (1998). Accessibility, trade and location behaviour: An introduction. In A. Reggiani (Ed.), Accessibility, trade and location behaviour (pp. 1–16). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  73. Reilly, W. J. (1931). The law of retail gravitation. New York: Knickerbocker Press.Google Scholar
  74. Rogers, K., Jaluzot, A., & Neilan, C. (2012). Green benefits in Victoria Business Improvement District. Accessed 1 July 2014.
  75. Rouwendal, J., Van Marwijk, R., & Levkovich, O. (2014). The value of proximity to water in residential areas. Accessed 1 July 2014.
  76. Shimbel, A. (1953). Structural parameters of communication networks. The bulletin of mathematical biophysics, 15(4), 501–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Siskna, A. (1990). A comparative study of block size and form: (in selected new towns in the history of Western Civilization centres). St. Lucia, Qld: Thesis (PhD) – University of Queensland.Google Scholar
  78. Siskna, A. (1997). The effects of block size and form in North American and Australian city centres. Urban Morphology, 1, 19–33.Google Scholar
  79. Storper, M., & Venables, A. J. (2004). Buzz: The economic force of the city. Journal of Economic Geography, 4(4), 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. The Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment. (2007). Valuing sustainable urbanism, a report measuring & valuing new approaches to residentially led mixed use growth. Accessed 1 July 2014.
  81. Thomas, A., & Deakin, E. (2008). Land use challenges to implementing transit-oriented development in China: Case study of Jinan, Shandong. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2077, 80–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Transport for London. (2011). Valuing urban realm. Accessed 1 July 2014.
  83. Tribal Urban Studio, & CBuchanan. (2008). Baseline report of the quality of place longitudinal study (capturing the impacts of quality of place). London: CBuchanan.Google Scholar
  84. Trip, J. J. (2007, March 20). What makes a city? Planning for ‘quality of place’. . Accessed 1 May 2014.
  85. Wegener, M., & Fuerst, F. (2004, January 1). Land-use transport interaction: State of the Art. Accessed 1 May 2015.
  86. Wegener, M., & Furst, F. (1999). Land-use transport interaction: State of the art. Deliverable 46, Institut für Raumplanung, Dortmund.Google Scholar
  87. Xiao, Y., Webster, C. J., & Chiaradia, A. (2013). How urban form shapes land use: empirical findings in Wuhan, China. The Second International Workshop on Regional Urban and Spatial Economics in China, Beijing.Google Scholar
  88. Yeung, Y. M., & Sung, Y. W. (Eds.). (1996). Shanghai: Transformation and modernization under China’s open policy. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Zacharias, J. (2005). Non-motorized transportation in four Shanghai Districts. International Planning Studies, 10(3–4), 323–340.Google Scholar
  90. Zhang, M. (2007). Chinese edition of transit-oriented development. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2038, 120–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Architecture and Urban PlanningTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.School of Planning and GeographyCardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations