File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Pricing accessibility: Urban morphology, design and missing markets

TitlePricing accessibility: Urban morphology, design and missing markets
Authors
KeywordsAccessibility
Open Space
Property Rights
Space Syntax
Urban Design
Urban Morphology
Issue Date2010
PublisherPergamon. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/progress
Citation
Progress In Planning, 2010, v. 73 n. 2, p. 77-111 How to Cite?
AbstractUrban design happens at a variety of scales-individual sites, streets, neighbourhoods, infrastructure projects, whole cities. At any of these scales, the benefits of good design spill over to a wider set of individuals than those with a direct interest in the project-land owners, developers, financiers, consultants, government officials, residents, neighbours, pedestrians, road users and so on. Indeed, urban design becomes an issue precisely because of these wider benefits. So we would like, in principle, to maximise the quantity of well designed urban morphology. One way of achieving this would be to attach a price to the benefits of urban design. The purpose of the paper is to take this argument as far as it will go in various directions. To facilitate this, the idea of well designed urban form is translated into the idea of accessible urban form; accessibility being a somewhat easier concept to deal with, there being a well established scientific literature to draw upon-in the fields of economic geography, spatial economics and spatial analysis. The term also has a singular common sense meaning. When applied to urban social science, it breaks down into a small number of more specific and equally well-defined concepts. The paper explores these in turn, considering the following: the role of markets in allocating scarce resources; accessibility as a scarce resource that planners and urban designers seek to supply; approaches to enhancing urban accessibility; the tricky problem of securing collective action; the idea of missing markets; the property rights ambiguities at the heart of collective action and missing market problems; mechanisms for pricing accessibility and organising its enhancement; the example of urban open space; and the distinction between general (geometric) and specific (economic) accessibility. © 2010.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/183459
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 2.0
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.663
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWebster, Cen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-05-27T08:38:11Z-
dc.date.available2013-05-27T08:38:11Z-
dc.date.issued2010en_US
dc.identifier.citationProgress In Planning, 2010, v. 73 n. 2, p. 77-111en_US
dc.identifier.issn0305-9006en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/183459-
dc.description.abstractUrban design happens at a variety of scales-individual sites, streets, neighbourhoods, infrastructure projects, whole cities. At any of these scales, the benefits of good design spill over to a wider set of individuals than those with a direct interest in the project-land owners, developers, financiers, consultants, government officials, residents, neighbours, pedestrians, road users and so on. Indeed, urban design becomes an issue precisely because of these wider benefits. So we would like, in principle, to maximise the quantity of well designed urban morphology. One way of achieving this would be to attach a price to the benefits of urban design. The purpose of the paper is to take this argument as far as it will go in various directions. To facilitate this, the idea of well designed urban form is translated into the idea of accessible urban form; accessibility being a somewhat easier concept to deal with, there being a well established scientific literature to draw upon-in the fields of economic geography, spatial economics and spatial analysis. The term also has a singular common sense meaning. When applied to urban social science, it breaks down into a small number of more specific and equally well-defined concepts. The paper explores these in turn, considering the following: the role of markets in allocating scarce resources; accessibility as a scarce resource that planners and urban designers seek to supply; approaches to enhancing urban accessibility; the tricky problem of securing collective action; the idea of missing markets; the property rights ambiguities at the heart of collective action and missing market problems; mechanisms for pricing accessibility and organising its enhancement; the example of urban open space; and the distinction between general (geometric) and specific (economic) accessibility. © 2010.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherPergamon. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/progressen_US
dc.relation.ispartofProgress in Planningen_US
dc.subjectAccessibilityen_US
dc.subjectOpen Spaceen_US
dc.subjectProperty Rightsen_US
dc.subjectSpace Syntaxen_US
dc.subjectUrban Designen_US
dc.subjectUrban Morphologyen_US
dc.titlePricing accessibility: Urban morphology, design and missing marketsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailWebster, C: cwebster@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityWebster, C=rp01747en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.progress.2010.01.001en_US
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-77950367384en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-77950367384&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume73en_US
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.spage77en_US
dc.identifier.epage111en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000276482600001-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWebster, C=7201838784en_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats