ABSTRACT Evaluating the accessibility of amenities is fundamental to achieving equitable urban planning of cities. The cumulative opportunity measure (CO) and the two‐step floating catchment area method (2SFCA) are widely used in previous studies. Although there is ongoing debate and discussion about the choice of method for measuring accessibility, the comparison between these two methods has not been thoroughly examined and differences in the spatial distribution of accessibility and the resulting equity from them have tended to be ignored. Here, we contrasted the similarities and differences in spatial accessibility in 12 different scenarios by using CO and 2SFCA, respectively. The scenarios considered the two models in two transportation modes, public transport (PT) and private car (PC), and six key urban services, company, education, healthcare, shopping, restaurant, and scenery, are thoroughly explored. Equity, between different housing price areas, was also evaluated by using the Gini coefficient and Palma ratio. The findings show that the spatial distributions of accessibility from CO are more related to the whole city structure, while the results from 2SFCA can better reflect the local characteristics and spatial heterogeneity. Regarding equity, PT accessibility is less equitable than PC under CO, but more equitable under 2SFCA. We also found that the accessibility and equity of PT are more susceptible to the chosen method compared to PC. This study can help planners understand accessibility and equity from different views and make adjustments of resources allocation in future planning.
Chen et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: