Human Extensibility and Individual Hybrid-accessibility in Space-time: A Multi-scale Representation Using GIS

  • Mei-Po Kwan
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)


With the increasing use of the Internet for getting information, transacting business and interacting with people, a wide range of activities in everyday life can now be undertaken in cyberspace. As traditional models of accessibility are based on physical notions of distance and proximity, they are inadequate for conceptualizing or analyzing individual accessibility in the physical world and cyberspace (hereafter referred to as hybrid-accessibility). To address the need for new models of space and time that enable us to represent individual accessibility in the information age, there are at least three major research areas: (a) the conceptual and/or behavioral foundation of individual accessibility; (b) appropriate methods for representing accessibility; and (c) feasible operational measures for evaluating individual accessibility. With the recent development and application of GIS methods in the study of accessibility in the physical world (e.g., Forer 1998, Hanson, Kominiak, and Carlin 1997, Huisman and Forer 1998, Kwan 1998, 1999a, 1999b, Miller 1991, 1999, Scott 1999, Talen 1997, Talen and Anselin 1998), it is apparent that GIS have considerable potential in each of these research areas. As shown in some of these studies, a focus on the individual enabled by GIS methods also reveals the spatial-temporal complexity in individual activity patterns and accessibility through 3D visualization or computational procedures.


Physical World Graphical Window Personal Boundary Complex Interaction Pattern Individual Accessibility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, P.C. 1995. A reconsideration of personal boundaries in space-time. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 85(2):267–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, P.C. 1998. Network topologies and virtual place. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 88(1):88–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burns, L. 1979. Transportation, Temporal, and Spatial Components of Accessibility. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  4. Carlstein, T. 1982. Time Resources, Society and Ecology: On the Capacity for Human Interaction in Space and Time in Preindustrial Society. Lund Studies in Geography, Series B, Human Geography No.49. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
  5. Couclelis, H. 1994. Spatial technologies. Environment and Planning B 21:142–43.Google Scholar
  6. Forer, P. 1998. Geometric approaches to the nexus of time, space, and microprocess: implementing a practical model for mundane socio-spatial systems. In Egenhofer, M.J. and Golledge, R.G. (eds.) Spatial and Temporal Reasoning in Geographic Information Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 171–90.Google Scholar
  7. Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Socity: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hägerstrand, T. 1970. What about people in regional science? Papers of the Regional Science Association, 24:7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanson, S., Kominiak, T. and Carlin, S. 1997. Assessing the impact of location on women’s labor market outcomes: A methodological exploration. Geographical Analysis 29:281–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hodge, D. 1997. Accessibility-related issues. Journal of Transport Geography 5(l):33–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huisman, O. and Forer, P. 1998. Towards a geometric framework for modelling space-time opportunities and interaction potential. Paper presented at the International Geographical Union, Commission on Modelling Geographical Systems Meeting (IGU-CMGS), 28–29 August, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  12. Janelle, D. 1973. Measuring human extensibility in a shrinking world. Journal of Geography 72(5):8-l5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Janelle, D. 1995. Metropolitan expansion, telecommuting, and transportation. In Hanson, S. (ed.) The Geography of Urban Transportation, 2 nd edition. New York: Guilford, 407–34.Google Scholar
  14. Kwan, M-P. 1998. Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: A comparative analysis using a point-based framework. Geographical Analysis, 30(3): 191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kwan, M-P. 1999a. Gender and individual access to urban opportunities: A study using space-time measures. The Professional Geographer 51 (2):210–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kwan, M-P. 1999b. Gender, the home-work link, and space-time patterns of non-employment activities. Economic Geography 75(4).Google Scholar
  17. Kwan, M.P. 2000. Cyberspatial cognition and individual access to information: The behavioral foundation of cyber-geography. Environment and Planning B, in press.Google Scholar
  18. Kwan, M-P. and Hong, X-D. 1998. Network-based constraints-oriented choice set formation using GIS. Geographical Systems, 5:139–62.Google Scholar
  19. Lenntorp, B. 1976. Paths in Time-Space Environments: A Time Geographic Study of Movement Possibilities of Individuals. Lund Studies in Geography, Series B, Human Geography No.44. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
  20. Math Soft. 1997 S-Plus User’s Guide. Seattle, WA: MathSoft, Inc.Google Scholar
  21. MCI, 1998. Internet Traffic Report <>Google Scholar
  22. MIDS, 1998. The MIDS Internet Weather Report (IWR) <>Google Scholar
  23. Miller, H.J. 1991. Modelling accessibility using space-time prism concepts within geographic information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 5(3):287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller H.J. 1999. Measuring space-time accessibility benefits within transportation networks: Basic theory and computational procedures. Geographical Analysis 31(2): 187–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pred, A. and Palm, R. 1978. The status of American women: A time-geographic view. In Lanegran, D.A. and Palm R. (eds.). An Invitation to Geography. New York: McGraw-Hill, 99–109.Google Scholar
  26. Rose, G. 1993. Feminism and Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  27. Scott, L.M. 1999. Abstract — Evaluating intra-metropolitan accessibility in the information age: Operational issues, objectives, and implementation. In Janelle, D.G. and Hodge, D.C. (eds.) Measuring and Representing Accessibility in the Information Age, Research Conference Report. Santa Barbara CA: NCGIA, 30–31.Google Scholar
  28. Talen, E. 1997. The social equity of urban service distribution: An exploration of park access in Pueblo, Colorado, and Macon, Georgia. Urban Geography, 18(6):521–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Talen, E. and Anselin L. 1998. Assessing spatial equity: An evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and Planning A, 30:595–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thrift, N. 1985. Flies and germs: a geography of knowledge. In Gregory, D. and Urry, J. (eds) Social Relations and Spatial Structures. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 366–403.Google Scholar
  31. Villoma, O.G. 1989. An Operational Measure of Individual Accessibility for Use in the Study of Travel-Activity Patterns. Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate School of the Ohio State University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mei-Po Kwan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeographyThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations