Modelación de las fronteras del barrio caminable con modelos de elección discreta

Ignacio Guimpert, Ricardo Hurtubia

Resumen


La noción de barrio caminable es fundamental para el desarrollo de políticas públicas en diversas áreas. Involucra la caminata, la definición de barrio y la accesibilidad. Este trabajo busca responder la pregunta ¿Cómo impactan los elementos del uso de suelo y su distribución espacial en un área urbana a la percepción del límite de barrio caminable de sus habitantes? Se presentan resultados obtenidos a partir de una encuesta que utiliza una técnica novedosa para la identificación del “barrio caminable” de un individuo. Un modelo para el límite del barrio caminable es especificado y estimado. A partir de los resultados, se concluye la importancia de la distancia interactuada con el perfil social del individuo y la atractividad de los lugres a los que se desplaza.


Palabras clave


Barrio; Caminata; Accesibilidad

Texto completo:

PDF

Referencias


Ben-Akiva, M., Walker, J., Bernardino, A., Gopinath, D., Morikawa, T., & Polydoro-poulou, A. (2002). Integration of Choice and Latent Variable Models. Perpetual motion: Travel behaviour research opportunities and application challanges, 431-470.

Bierlaire, M. (2003). BIOGEME: A free package for the estimation of discrete choice models, Proceedings of the 3rd Swiss Transportation Research Conference, Ascona, Switzerland.

Boyd, J. H., & Mellman, R. E. (1980). The effect of fuel economy standards on the US automotive market: an hedonic demand analysis. ransportation Research Part A: General, 14(5-6), 367-378.

Cardell, N., & Dunbar, F. (1980). Measuring the societal impacts of automobile downsizing. Transportation Research 14A(5-6), 423-434.

Cole, R., Leslie, E., Bauman, A., Donald, M., & Owen, N. (2006). Sociodemographic variations in walking for transport and for recreation or exercise among adult Australians. J Phys Activity Health, 3:164-78.

Contribuidores de OpenStreetMaps (15 de 5 de 2017). Mapa recuperado de https://planet.osm.org. Obtenido de OpenStreetMap: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/-33.4544/-70.6242

Coulton, C. J., Korbin, J., Chan, T., & Su, M. (2001). Mapping resident's perceptions of neighborhood boundaries: A methodological note. American journal of community psychology, 371-383.

Dalvi, M., & Martin, K. (1976). The measurement of accessibility: some preliminary results. Transportation 5, 17-42.

Domencich, T., & McFadden, D. (1975). Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioral Analysis. North-Holland Publishing Company.

Downs, R. M., & Stea, D. (1973). Cognitive maps and spatial behavior: Process and products. Image and environment, 8-26.

Fadda, G., & Cortés, A. (2015). Barrios. En busca de su definición en Valparaiso. Asuntos Urbanos Nacionales, 10(16), 50-59.

Geurs, K. T., & van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. Journal of transport geography, 127-140.

Guest, A. M., & Lee, B. A. (1984). How urbanites define their neighborhoods. Population & Environment, 32-56.

Handy, S. L., & Clifton, K. J. (2001). Evaluating neighborhood accessibility: Possibilities and practicalities. Journal of transportation and statistics, 4(2/3), 67-78.

Handy, S. L., Clifton, K., & & Fisher, J. (1998). The effectiveness of land use policies as a strategy for reducing automobile dependence: a study of

Austin neighborhoods (No. SWUTC/98/465650-1,). Southwest Region University Transportation Center, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin.

Handy, S., & Clifton, K. (2001). Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automobile travel. Transportation 28, 317-346.

Hansen, W. (1959). How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of American Institute of Planners 25 (1), 73–76.

Heath, G., Brownson, R., & Kruger, J. (2006). The effectiveness of urban design and land use and transport policies and practices to increase physical activity: A systematic review. L Phys Activity Health, 55-71.

Humpel, N., Marshall, A. L., Leslie, E., Bauman, A., & Owen, N. (2004). Changes in neighborhood walking are related to changes in perceptions of environmental attributes. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 27(1), 60-67.

Jenks, M., & Dempsey, N. (2007). Defining the neighbourhood: Challenges for empirical research. The town planning review, 78(2), 153-177.

Keller, S. (1968). The urban neighborhood: a sociological perspective. New York: Random House.

Lee, C., & Moudon, A. V. (2004). Physical activity and environment research in the health field: implications for urban and transportation planning practice and research. Journal of planning literature , 19(2), 147-181.

Lee, T. (1968). Urban Neighbourhood as a Socio-Spatial Schema. Human Relations, 21(3), 241-267.

Martinez, F. J. (1992). The bid—choice land-use model: an integrated economic framework. Environment and Planning A, 24(6), 871-885.

Matley, T., Goldman, L., & Fineman, B. (2000). Pedestrian travel potential in Northern New Jersey: A metropolitan Planning organization's approach to identifying investment priorities. ransportation Research Record:

Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1705), 1-8.

McFadden, D. L. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in econometrics, 105-142.

Minvu (2017). Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo - Gobierno de Chile - (Quiero Mi Barrio). [online] Disponible en: http://www.minvu.cl/opensite_20070212164909.aspx [Accessed 15 Jun. 2017].

Neyman, J. and Pearson, E. S. (1933). On the Problem of the Most Efficient Tests of Statistical Hypotheses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 231, (694–706): 289–337.

Ortuzar, J. d., & Willumsen, L. G. (2011). Modelling Transport(4th ed. ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Owen, N., Cerin, E., Leslie, E., duToit, L., Coffee, N., Frank, L. D., . . . Sallis, J. F. (2007). Neighborhood Walkability and the Walking Behavior of Australian Adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 395.

Revelt, D., & Train, K. (1998). Mixed logit with repeated choices: households' choices of appliance efficiency level. Review of economics and statistics, 80(4), 647-657.

Saelens, B. E., & Handy, S. L. (2008). Built Environment Correlates of Walking: A Review. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 40(7 Suppl), S550.

Sistema de impuestos internos (2017). GobiernoTransparente. [online] Available at: https://zeus.sii.cl/cvc_cgi/dfmun/dfmun_repGobierno.cgi [Accessed 15 May 2017].

Smith, G., Gidlow, C., Davey, R., & Foster, C. (2010). What is my walking neighbourhood? A pilot study od English adults` definitions of their local walking neighbourhood. International Journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 7(1), 34.

Train, K. E. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. San Francisco, California: Cambridge University Press.

Wen, M., Kandula, N. R., & Lauderdale, D. S. (2007). Walking for transportation or leisure: what difference does the neighborhood make? Journal of general internal medicine, 22(12), 1674-1680.


Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Para consultas generales contáctese a: revista@sochitran.cl

ISSN 0719-8507 versión en línea

ISSN 0719-8523 versión impresa (ex ISSN 0717-3482)