Accessibility: Can less be better?
Rattachement africain : fi, nl. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
In recent decades, spatial accessibility provision has gradually become a core objective of urban and transport policies due to its many benefits for individuals and societies. While the minimum levels of accessibility have received significant attention in research recently, the upper end of the spectrum has rarely been addressed. Almost always, higher levels of accessibility are implicitly assumed to be better. In this perspective, we ask whether this view is justified. Or can more accessibility in some cases and contexts, be negative, or even excessive, especially given the deep unsustainability of our current transport systems? Can less be better? We begin by distinguishing between the main approaches to providing accessibility – by speed and by proximity – and examining evidence on when higher levels of accessibility may become negative. We then consider some reasons for these avenues not having been pursued this far. We conclude our perspective by suggesting that to support sustainability, transport research and planning should place greater emphasis on balancing societal benefits and trade-offs of accessibility, rather than only increasing individual choice. To this end, we have suggested some directions for further research.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Accessibility: Can less be better?
- Date Crossref
- 01/09/2026
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.