Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 91 (2022) 101726

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers, Environment and Urban Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ceus

Research Paper

Incorporating active transportation modes in large scale urban modeling to

inform sustainable urban development
Cong Cong a, Yoonshin Kwak b, *, Brian Deal c
a
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA
b
Landuse Evolution and impact Assessment Modeling (LEAM) Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA
c
Department of Landscape Architecture, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Extended suburbanization is a common planning challenge in growing cities and regions. Evaluating potential
Land use model areas for denser use before the region expands on the urban fringe informs sustainability-driven planning in­
Active transportation modes terventions. Land use/land cover (LULC) models are useful tools for planners to prioritize areas of high devel­
Sustainable development
opment potential. However, current models that have not effectively integrated non-auto transportation modes
Multi-modal
can overestimate the influence of car travel while underestimating the influence of walking or biking accessi­
Urban growth simulation
bility. The result can increase the likelihood of prioritizing suburban development along highways. In this study,
we propose to incorporate active transportation modes (walking and biking) and public transportation in large
scale urban modeling to explore the relationship between urban growth patterns and human behavior across
geographic scales. We consider how a multi-modal methodology informs urban growth simulation and use a
scenario-based analysis to evaluate the effects of travel modes on land use development probability. We un­
derscore the oftentimes missed opportunities for infill development in the existing urban areas, as opposed to the
opportunities of occupying areas of environmental benefits for large single-family housing and low-density
commercial development in the suburbs.

1. Introduction urban system interactions between economic development, human

Urban growth and its unsustainable influence on the environment –
urban sprawl, suburban residential development, resource depletion
and habitat loss (as examples), has been a constant challenge for plan­
ners (Flyvbjerg, 2008; Klosterman, 2013). The formulation of
sustainability-driven urban management strategies needed to meet these
challenges, requires a comprehensive understanding of urban systems
and their dynamics in order to assess this human-induced urban growth
and its implications. Spatiotemporal LULC simulations can be effective
tools for analyzing these future landscape dynamics under various sce­
narios (Cai, Wang, Cong, & Cvetkovic, 2020; Liu et al., 2017; Ralha
et al., 2013). LULC models capture the relationship between components
of the built environment such as land use, topography, infrastructure,
and human activities, and project the outcomes of these relationships
into the future. These qualities help decision-makers anticipate the
consequences of present-day decisions and the impact of uncertainties
(Deal & Schunk, 2004; Ligmann-Zielinska & Jankowski, 2012).
Prior research proposes simulation approaches to study complex
behavior and environmental factors (Anjomani, 2021; Pan, Zhang,
Cong, Deal, & Wang, 2019). Factors influencing the location choice of
future developments are defined as “attractors.” The assumption is that
attractors will determine the surrounding development based on
accessibility, or the ease of accessing these opportunities. Many studies
have measured this accessibility through travel cost-based distance/
travel time buffers, but such thresholds are considered arbitrary due to
the difficulty in determining predefined distances (Dony, Delmelle, &
Delmelle, 2015). Gravity-based accessibility models overcome this
problem by incorporating the concepts of both attractiveness and the
friction of travel (McCormack, Rock, Toohey, & Hignell, 2010; Xing, Liu,
& Liu, 2018), and are considered a more realistic method for attraction
measurements in some LULC models and play a significant role in
determining future residential and commercial location choices (Chen,
Chen, & Timmermans, 2008; Guo & Bhat, 2007; Pan, Zhang, et al., 2019;
Zolfaghari, Sivakumar, & Polak, 2012).
To date, little attention has been given to considering multiple
transportation modes in attraction measures in LULC models.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ccong2@illinois.edu (C. Cong), yk23@illinois.edu (Y. Kwak), deal@illinois.edu (B. Deal).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2021.101726
Received 9 August 2021; Received in revised form 5 October 2021; Accepted 11 October 2021
Available online 19 October 2021
0198-9715/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Cong et al.
Traditional LULC models calculate travel time based on one single
transportation mode – driving, partly due to limited data on walking and
biking facilities. Most cities maintain a geospatial database of urban
roads from interstate to local roads along with their posted speeds, while
the databases for walkable and bikeable roads are usually not readily
available or do not exist. Using driving alone to model LULC changes
typically results in two methodological gaps. First, the inherent
assumption that all residents drive to urban facilities is inaccurate and
inevitably overestimates (or underestimates) travel costs for different
population groups that prefer other transportation modes. Mao and
Nekorchuk (2013) suggest that a multi-modal method that accounts for
heterogeneity in travel preferences can provide a more realistic acces­
sibility estimation. Second, transportation modes, travel behavior and
the physical, built environment are highly interrelated and integrated.
For example, housing around transportation hubs in large cities are
generally more desirable (Pan, Deal, Chen, & Hewings, 2018) and
households without a car are more likely to live in places that are highly
accessible to public transportation (Bürgle, 2006). Similarly, Næss,
Strand, Wolday, and Stefansdottir (2019) found lower shares of non-
motorized trips with increasing residential distance from the city cen­
ter. Therefore, exploring travel times for multiple transportation modes
is valuable in assessing and forecasting the potential for urban change
that may affect planning and policy decision making.
In this paper, we explore how multi-modal methods inform and
impact sustainable urban management decisions. The purpose of this
paper is to incorporate non-auto transportation modes in traditional
LULC models to evaluate the effects of active travel on land use devel­
opment probability through a scenario planning approach. In this paper,
we propose counterfactual scenarios – one car-based scenario that
considers driving as the only available mode, and three car-free sce­
narios that consider non-auto travel modes – walking, biking, and public
transit, as the only available mode, respectively). We use different
transportation networks and travel speeds for different modes while
holding other potential explanatory variables (e.g., residential locations,
job numbers, job locations, natural and social amenities) constant. We
then estimate the probability of future developments under each indi­
vidual scenario and discuss implications for sustainable development
policies.
In this study, we recognize that the goal of urban growth modeling
should not be accurate predictions of urban growth at the pixel level, but
rather realistic patterns that can be used for useful comparisons among
alternative scenarios (Deal & Pallathucheril, 2007; Li, Gong, Yu, & Hu,
2017). Our primary objective is to conduct a scenario-based analysis of
the effects of travel modes on urban change simulation. In our findings,
we focus on illustrating the oftentimes missed opportunities for infill
development induced by active travel rather than examining urban
growth on particular cells.
Our paper is organized into 6 sections. Following this introduction,
Section 2 provides a background of our discussion reviewing related
literature and identifying research gaps. Section 3 zooms into our spe­
cific study context. Section 4 introduces data sources, methods, and a
modeling framework for our study. Section 5 presents modeling analysis
results and investigates how different travel modes relate to social and
environmental impacts. Section 6 discusses policy implications, con­
clusions and how our specific study case contributes to a broader un­
derstanding of sustainability-driven strategic interventions and best
practice learning.
2. Literature review
2.1. Land use models and policymaking
Building transit-accessible, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use develop­
ment patterns has been fundamental principles of planning approaches
for sustainable urban development, such as Smart Growth and Transit
Oriented Development (La Greca, Barbarossa, Ignaccolo, Inturri, &
2
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 91 (2022) 101726
Martinico, 2011). Planning for non-auto transportation modes has two
main goals in the context of urban sustainability: 1) reducing overall
transportation-induced emissions by shifting transportation mode from
private cars to public transportation, walking and cycling, and 2)
improving transportation service and design to better serve populations
that engage in non-auto travel (Cervero, 1996; Martens, 2016; Steinfeld,
Maisel, & Steinfeld, 2017). Despite discussions on the uncertainties of a
transportation or land use policy, planning decisions that support more
compact, infill, multi-modal development tend to prioritize high envi­
ronmental and social outcomes (Litman, 2021).
Land use change models quantitatively grasp the spatiotemporal
patterns of urban systems with a goal of formulating sustainable stra­
tegies (Anjomani, 2021; Basu & Ferreira, 2020). Land use and land cover
maps are used as an interface that links human decision-making in
commercial and residential location choices and the resulting land cover
change (Goldenberg et al., 2017; Pan, Deal, Destouni, Zhang, & Kalan­
tari, 2018; Wijesekara et al., 2012). The probability of any given cell on
a land cover map transitioning from non-urban to urban use is influ­
enced by the oftentimes non-linear relationships between external var­
iables that act as an attraction or an impediment. Land use change
models have been used in urban planning for some time (Harris, 1985;
Hunt, Kriger, & Miller, 2005; Lee, 1973; Wegener, 1994), both as a
stand-alone tool and as part of a broader toolbox for planning support
(Deal & Chakraborty, 2010).
Over the last few decades, considerable effort has been devoted to
improving the mechanisms of these dynamic urban change models.
Among many modeling methods, Cellular automata (CA) has been
widely used to simulate LULC spatial evolutions and has been applied in
a range of urban development studies (Xia Li & Yeh, 2000; Liu et al.,
2017; White & Engelen, 1997). In these models, the urban landscape is
represented as a raster space, in which the state of a cell is determined by
its initial state, the surrounding neighborhood effects and a set of tran­
sition rules (Liu et al., 2017). The logistic cellular automaton (Logistic-
CA) is a modified CA model that uses logistic regression to simulate the
organic growth due to suitability or intense human activities in addition
to spontaneous growth (Li, Gong, Yu and Hu, 2017). The development
potential of a cell is determined by the attraction from a set of devel­
opment factors, such as landform, elevation, population density, the
proximity to major urban activity areas such as population and
employment centers, forest and water resources, and transportation
hubs (Deal & Schunk, 2004; Kwak & Deal, 2021; Pan, Deal, Destouni,
et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2021).
Many improvements of the CA method focus on the derivation of
more precise parameters through the use of advanced techniques, such
as a support vector machine learning (Yang, Li, & Shi, 2008), kernel-
functions (Liu, Li, Shi, Wu, & Liu, 2008), and multilevel CA model
(Shu et al., 2020). However, less attention is paid to the specifications of
the attraction of driving factors, especially the potentially varied
amount of attraction depending on the availability, patterns, and cost of
human mobility. Traditional land use models by default assume auto-
based travel times as the only proximity factor that determines attrac­
tion, while the other travel modes were not considered, partly due to a
lack of reliable data on local roads and the mid-range spatial resolution
of these models. However, the increasing availability of open-source
transportation facilities data on local roads and paths, as well as land
use and land cover maps of higher resolution, have removed a key
barrier to more detailed multi-modal analysis.
2.2. Accessibility by mode affects location choices
Accessibility to economic and social resources (e.g., employment,
healthcare, food and green space) influences residential and commercial
location choices (Guo & Bhat, 2007; Hansen, 1959; Zolfaghari et al.,
2012; Zondag & Pieters, 2005). Zondag and Pieters (2005) point out that
travel time is a significant variable for all household types in land use-
transportation models, as changes in the transport system will affect
C. Cong et al.
the size of the housing market and the search areas of the households.
Guo and Bhat (2007) and Zolfaghari et al. (2012) show that households
in San Francisco and London prefer to reside near employment centers,
which ultimately lead to dense urban centers and sub-centers. Yang,
Pan, Hewings, and Jin (2019) quantify the relationship between poly­
centric urban development and accessibility to jobs, labor and quality-
of-life amenities, the understanding of which will help policymakers
to counter common adversities of urban sprawl including longer
commuting and jobs-housing imbalance.
With advancements in spatial analyses and geographic information
systems (GIS), multiple accessibility measures have been developed that
can be broadly categorized into spatial separation, cumulative oppor­
tunities, gravity measures, utility measures, and time/space measures
(Bhat et al., 2002; Geurs & van Wee, 2004). Travel time or distance is
usually a critical component in accessibility calculation that reflects the
spatial/temporal easiness of getting to the destinations. Many studies
have shown that network-based travel time metrics are better for
describing human behavior than distance-based metrics (Apparicio,
Abdelmajid, Riva, & Shearmur, 2008; Salonen & Toivonen, 2013). In
principle, the closer the destinations are to people, the more likely they
are visited, which is known as a “decaying” effect (Iacono & Levinson,
2011). Gravity-based accessibility metrics reflect this concept and thus
are adopted by many researchers to evaluate the attraction of the des­
tinations (La Rosa, Takatori, Shimizu, & Privitera, 2018; Liu et al.,
2017). The advantage of using a gravity model in urban change simu­
lation is that it describes both the “accessible areas” and “magnitude of
activities” of the driving factors in land use change models.
Prior studies also show the feasibility of developing raster-based
travel time surfaces that allow both on-road and off-road travel while
accounting for influences from natural barriers such as rivers and lakes
(Ray & Ebener, 2008). A raster-based model calculates travel cost for all
locations (cells) from/to all origins/destinations (Delamater, Messina,
Shortridge, & Grady, 2012) in a gridded region, and does not limit travel
along a road network. They can produce more realistic accessibility
evaluations for places that lack well-established infrastructure, or where
off-road travel by foot are common. Several urban growth models have
been developed along this line. Pu, Yoo, Rothstein, Cairo, and Malemo
(2020) generate a gridded travel impedance surface at 100 m spatial
resolution by merging the rasterized land use data, road network and
natural barriers such as rivers and lakes in resource-poor regions in sub-
Saharan Africa. They also validated the results with survey responses.
Pan, Deal, Chen, and Hewings (2018) use the parallel Stochastic Greedy
Algorithm (SGA) method on a 30-by-30-m raster surface to find the
shortest distance and the inverse distance model to determine the
attraction value for population, employment, and transportation
attractors, although the computational cost of scaling up this model
cannot be ignored. Given the advantages of both network and raster-
based methods, exploring the possibility of combining them in a scal­
able and reproducible way can better estimate the true cost of travel
time and geographic accessibility.
The relationships between accessibility and its influence on travel
behavior usually vary between travel modes (Iacono & Levinson, 2011;
Rojas, Sadeghvaziri, & Jin, 2016). This disparity is widely reported in
the transportation planning and geography literature as it leads to
critical discussions about fair access to urban facilities across all social
groups regardless of car ownership. Several studies address inter-mode
mobility disparity between drivers and transit riders (Kawabata &
Shen, 2007), and between driving and active travel modes (walking and
biking) (Jalkanen, Fabritius, Vierikko, Moilanen, & Toivonen, 2020;
Laatikainen, Piiroinen, Lehtinen, & Kyttä, 2017). For example, Laati­
kainen et al. (2017) argue that people would engage with environmental
facilities differently in terms of the maximum endurable time if they are
visiting these places by car or on foot. They delineate different service
areas based on these two travel modes and point out the important miss
in many arbitrary service area thresholds that are designed for only one
single mode of transport. Jalkanen et al. (2020) calculate walking,
3
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 91 (2022) 101726
biking and transit travel time separately for accessing urban green areas.
They use active travel modes (walking and biking) for calculating access
to local parks, and public transportation for calculating access to large
forests which attract people from near and far. By doing so they identify
green areas that demonstrate significant recreational value and should
be ensured equitable access.
3. Study context
Stockholm County is the largest metropolitan region in Sweden. In
2018, over 2.3 million people lived in the region, representing 22.3% of
Sweden's total population (TRF, 2017) Urban built areas in this region
consist of approximately 35% of the total area. The region's landscape
also includes 7% urban green spaces, 28% forests, 23% open water and
7% arable land (Goldenberg et al., 2017). Protecting the green areas and
blue areas in Stockholm, which generates great recreational and cultural
value, has been a central planning issue in the region (Mörtberg et al.,
2012).
Non-auto travel modes, including walking, biking and transit, play a
significant role in Stockholm. According to the most recent travel sur­
vey, driving represents only about 40% of the total travel initiated by
residents aged 16–84 in Stockholm County. Transit (including bus,
subway, railway, ferries) takes about 32% percent, biking 7%, and
walking 15% (RVU Sweden, 2015). This mode share, which is signifi­
cantly different from the car-dominate travel patterns in many U.S.
cities, suggests that when we examine travel in this region, driving times
are not enough. There are multiple ways of accessing a place, and by
extension, different values of attractiveness when evaluating urban
development potential in this region.
Most travel time measures assume that people will travel along
existing and publicly documented road networks (Berke & Shi, 2009;
Neutens, 2015). However, given the availability of off-road walkable
areas in Stockholm such as parks, green and blue areas and quiet areas, it
is also worth considering the accessibility of certain places off the road
network through walking paths, biking paths, walkable areas, etc. This
requires a systematic approach to improve the spatial accessibility that
incorporates both on-road and off-road elements that might influence
travel such as land cover, road network and natural barriers (e.g., rivers
and lakes).
These two challenges - the frequent use of non-auto travel modes and
the availability of off-road walkable areas (e.g., parks, green and blue
areas and quiet areas), encourage us to propose a new method that
conceptually investigates distances and durations that residents travel
with different transportation modes to access popular destinations. This
will inform not only strategic planning interventions in Stockholm but
also provide valuable lessons for sustainability-driven development in
cities worldwide. The magnitude and rate of urban growth across the
globe increase the need for sustainable development management, but
urban management policies should be carefully designed and imple­
mented at local scales to avoid the loss of valuable environmental
properties that support human wellbeing. Multi-modal simulation
methods tailored to the needs of metropolitans like Stockholm will be
able to decompose growth projections by travel mode, allocate potential
urban growth in a spatially explicit manner, and thus generate place-
based strategies that complement and enhance existing urban land use
planning and management practices.
4. Methodology and data
In this study, we obtained the land cover map from Lantmäteriet (htt
ps://www.lantmateriet.se/en/), the Swedish Land Survey Authority.
Materials contained in this data include residential and commercial land
use, water and forest, and digital terrain models. The land cover maps
are in raster formats with a 30-by-30-m resolution. We obtained the
demographic data (population by zones, employment by zones, the lo­
cations of households) from Tillväxt och Regionplaneförvaltningen
C. Cong et al.
(TRF), the Regional Development and Planning department at Stock­
holm County Council.
We collected multi-modal transport network data from Open­
StreetMap. OpenStreetMap maintains transport infrastructure data from
highways to footpaths that can be downloaded programmatically
through API requests and specified classes. It contains information
including one-way streets, on-and-off ramps and divided highways,
which allows the modeling of real-world travel route selection. Each
road segment has a speed value attached to it, and where there is not can
be assigned by road type and class. We compared the driving and transit
networks with their counterparts from TRF and revolved any inconsis­
tency that may affect modeling performance (Fig. 1).
We consider population centers, employment centers, environmental
services and healthcare services as major types of destinations for urban
dwellings, based on our discussions with TRF (Fig. 2). Population and
employment centers are derived from TRF's demographic data. For
healthcare services, we collected data of the locations of hospitals and
clinics in Stockholm County from OpenStreetMap. For environmental
services, we worked with TRF and derived the entry points to all urban
parks and protected green areas as the trip destinations. Variables used
in the modeling are presented in Table 1
4.1. Travel time and attraction
Our method for calculating raster-based travel time surface follows a
two-step measure. We first calculate the network-based travel cost,
which is the travel time through the least-cost path using available
transport networks for each mode (i.e., driving, walking, biking) and
travel speeds along these networks. For public transit, we integrate the
transit network with walking, assuming that people would walk to the
nearest stop and choose the path that would give them an overall min­
imal travel time. Second, we apply a raster diffusion method on the same
30 × 30 m grid. As we move away from the roads, transit stops, ferry
landings, etc., the travel time increases, and the travel costs decrease
according to distance and the difficulty associated with traversing the
various types of land cover. This diffusion does not measure the direct
distance from the network but rather iteratively finds the path of the
least resistance. The resistance is determined by the land cover, such as
the need to traverse difficult terrain, and we assign speed for different
Fig. 1. Multi-modal transportation network.
4
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 91 (2022) 101726
types of land covers accordingly.
Travel speeds used in our calculation were determined as follows:
walking speed was determined as 4.5 km/h and biking speed as 11 km/
h, referring to Millward, Spinney, and Scott (2013). For driving speed,
we used the posted speed, or the maximum legal speed limit for general
traffic on a particular road. This information is usually available for each
road segment, and where it is not, we infer it from the average posted
speed of roads of the same class. Public transport travel speed can be
obtained from a detailed timetable, but as the focus of this study is not
the administration of transit, we simply assigned 15 km/h for buses
(Millward et al., 2013), 40 km/h for trains and 25 km/h for subway.
Traversing speeds (by walking) per land cover type has been surveyed in
related studies (Felix, George, Fredrick, & Erick, 2020; Pu et al., 2020;
Weiss et al., 2018). Based on their research, we determined the
traversing speeds detailed in Table 2. Natural barriers like water were
assigned with a traveling speed of 0 km/h.
The attraction power of urban development drivers is modeled
through a gravity-based measure (Yang et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2021).
The gravity model uses two variables to estimate the volume of spatial
interaction between or among places. In our case, there two variables
are 1) the attractiveness of an opportunity (e.g., the number of jobs), and
2) the cost of reaching an opportunity (e.g., travel time). The expecta­
tion is that attraction levels are positively associated with the number of
jobs or population size, while the cost, or travel time, will reduce the
level of interaction. Prior studies suggest an impedance function on the
cost, usually in the form of a negative exponential or an inverse power
function (Kwan, 1998). We used the inverse power function in our
analysis. The attraction of any one type of driver by different trans­
portation modes is calculated as follows:
∑ Oj
Ami = k b (1)
ci,j,m
j
In Eq. (1), m is the transportation mode, i and j refer to the origin cell
and the destination cell. Oj denotes the attractiveness of opportunity j, ci,
m
j, m is the generalized travel cost between i and j in mode m, and Ai
denotes the attraction from all destinations to origin i. k is the constant
and b is the exponent of distance. The values of k and b vary depending
on the specific data set.
C. Cong et al. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 91 (2022) 101726

Fig. 2. Urban attractions as destinations.

Table 1 where Ai, km is the attraction value derived from (1) for cell i, influenced
Key variables and data sources used in modeling. by urban growth driver k and mode m. For the regression relationship,
we use a generic function fm() instead of a combination of linear pa­
Variable Data Data sources
rameters because the relationship between potential development and
Residential Land cover map Land Survey attraction to opportunities is often in a non-linear form (Pan, Page,
Authority
Commercial Land cover map Land Survey
Cong, Barthel, & Kalantari, 2021; Zhang et al., 2021), we tested different
Authority model specifications in the model calibration phase.
Transportation Road network by transport mode OpenStreetMap,
TRF 4.3. Model calibration
Population Population by zones, locations of TRF
households
Employment Job centers TRF We calibrate our model by quantifying how existing commercial and
Environmental Entry points to urban parks and TRF residential land use locational choices are shaped by location-based
Service protected green areas social and economic factors. Building on the methods in Pan, Zhang,
Healthcare Service Locations of hospitals and clinics. OpenStreetMap et al. (2019) and Pan et al. (2019), we construct two separate multi­
variate logistic regressions for residential and commercial land use, with
the population attraction, employment attraction, environmental ser­
Table 2 vice attraction and health service attraction as four independent vari­
Predefined traveling speeds for land classes. ables. The major modification of the existing method is to consider the
Land cover classification Traversing speed (km/h) Reference attractions generated by four types of transportation modes separately.
11 Water 0
In this case, we consider attractions by driving, transit, biking and
21–24 Built areas 5 Pu et al. (2020) walking for both the residential and commercial model, which yields 2
31 Barren 3 Weiss et al. (2018) × 4 regression models.
41 Deciduous Forest 4 Weiss et al. (2018) To determine model features, we test different polynomial orders to
42 Evergreen Forest 1.62 Weiss et al. (2018)
assess the robustness of model results and select the best-fit model by
43 Mixed Forest 3.24 Weiss et al. (2018)
51–52 Shrubland 3.2 Pu et al. (2020) calculating the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) value. For example,
71–74 Grassland/Herbaceous 4.86 Weiss et al. (2018) we compared the linear, second-degree, and third-degree polynomial
81 Pasture 3.24 Pu et al. (2020) combinations of population attraction variable (denoted as POP, POP2,
82 Cultivated Crops 2.5 Weiss et al. (2018) POP3) and employment attraction variable (denoted as EMP, EMP2,
91–92 Wetlands 2 Weiss et al. (2018)
EMP3) in Table 3.
Also adjusted from model calibration techniques described in Pan,
4.2. Development probability Zhang, et al. (2019) and Pan, Page, et al. (2019), we assess the rela­
tionship in each regression model by fitting a curve between the likeli­
For development probability, we use a logistic CA model to obtain hood of land use development and the influence of urban growth
the probability of each non-urbanized land use cell to transform to ur­ attractors. For example, the general understanding is residential de­
banized land use cell. Assuming there are k types of urban growth velopments are more likely to occur in areas close to employment op­
drivers (k = 4 in our case), we use the logistic model to express the portunities. We use the proximity to employment centers as the
probability of development under the influence of these drivers in horizontal axis, measured by travel time in minute, and calculate the
addition to other planning constraints such water bodies. We also accumulated residential cell at each time interval. The resulting curve
attempt to evaluate different travel modes separately, that is, how urban illustrates how the intensity of existing residential or commercial
development probability would be resulted from different hypothetical development is spatially related to the attraction of key variables (see
scenarios where we only consider one single travel mode. The devel­ Fig. 3).
opment probability of each land use cell from undeveloped land (non-
urbanized) to developed land influence by mode m was defined as:
1
pmi = (2)
f m (Am i,k )
,Am ,…Am
1 + e− i,1 i,2

5
C. Cong et al. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 91 (2022) 101726

Table 3
Regression results for calibration of residential land use vs urban growth driving
factors.
(a) Driving scenario

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

POP 0.007 POP 0.130** POP 0.005

(0.015) (0.059) (0.059)
POP2 / POP2 − 0.143** POP2 − 0.005
(0.057) (0.057)
POP3 / POP3 / POP3 − 0.022
(0.064)
EMP − 0.013 EMP 0.087 EMP − 0.124
(0.015) (0.059) (0.146)
EMP2 / EMP2 − 0.104* EMP2 0.150
(0.057) (0.339)
EMP3 / EMP3 / EMP3 − 0.172
(0.223)
ENV 4.496*** ENV 4.601*** ENV 4.553***
(0.033) (0.033) (0.033)
HHS 5.401*** HHS 5.342*** HHS 5.393***
Fig. 3. The spatial decay residential development against travel time to jobs by
(0.034) (0.034) (0.034)
Constant − 3.497*** Constant − 3.539*** Constant − 0.378***
walking (green line) and driving (red line). The horizontal axis represents
(0.013) (0.019) (0.022) average travel time in minutes. The vertical axis represents the accumulated
AIC 378,237 AIC 376,859 AIC 379.779 number of residentials cell at each time interval.(For interpretation of the ref­
erences to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)
(b) Walking scenario

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

centers, measured by walking or driving time, separately. The vertical
POP 0.123*** POP − 1.657*** POP − 3.358*** axis represents the accumulated number of residential cells at each time
(0.017) (0.065) (0.160)
interval normalized to a 0–1 scale. In general, location-choice decisions
POP2 / POP2 1.778*** POP2 5.891***
(0.062) (0.369)
steer residential land uses to places more accessible to employment, but
POP3 / POP3 / POP3 − 2.702*** the rate of decay and the range of proximity that best attracts residential
(0.243) growth for walking and driving are different. For instance, residential
EMP 0.198*** EMP − 0.545*** EMP − 0.668*** land use has high development potential within the first 10 min of
(0.016) (0.061) (0.151)
walking time to job destinations, while these destinations lose their
EMP2 / EMP2 0.756*** EMP2 1.094***
(0.060) (0.357) attraction to walking commuters thereafter. For driving commuters,
EMP3 / EMP3 / EMP3 − 0.261 residential land use peaks in the range of 15-20 min of driving time. This
(0.237) can be explained by the rising living cost and limited parking spaces in
ENV 5.883*** ENV 5.891*** ENV 5.855***
densely used areas. These non-linear results are generally consistent
(0.047) (0.047) (0.048)
HHS 2.118*** HHS 1.867*** HHS 1.958***
with the variable calibrations for in Table 3 and indicate the varied in­
(0.054) (0.053) (0.054) fluence of mode choices when evaluating urban change potential.
Constant − 2.256*** Constant − 1.805*** Constant − 1.633*** Similar analyses have been conducted between other urban growth
(0.013) (0.020) (0.026) factors and both commercial and residential land uses.
AIC 313.255 AIC 311,957 AIC 311,469

Note: 1. POP – population attraction, EMP – employment attraction, ENV –

5.2. Raster-based travel time surface
environmental service attraction, HHS – healthcare service attraction.
2. Value in each cell represents: estimate (p-value).
3. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. Fig. 4 shows accessible areas by driving, transit, biking and walking
within 1-h travel time for four types of destinations: population centers,
employment centers, environmental services and healthcare services.
5. Results
There are 4 × 4 travel time maps in total. We separate trip purposes and
travel modes to allow the most possible pairwise comparison. Driving
5.1. Model calibration and comparison
and transit accessible areas cover the majority of grid cells in 1 h for
these destinations, while walking and biking accessible areas concen­
Table 3 takes driving and walking as an example to illustrate the
trate on the adjacent neighborhood.
process and results of model calibration. The second-degree polynomial
Areas accessible by different travel modes are also determined by the
model is more suitable for car-based attractions, while the third-degree
spatial distribution of destinations. Take the healthcare services as an
polynomial is more suitable for walk-based attractions. The calibration
example. All health facilities, i.e., hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, and
results confirm the non-linearity for the relationships between the
doctor's offices, can be accessed by 95% of households by driving, about
above-mentioned attractions and existing residential land use. In both
91% by transit, and 68% and 60% for biking and walking within 1 h.
scenarios, two variables – the environmental and healthcare service
This suggests that 1) the transit system has good functional qualities in
factors - have significant positive relationship with residential land use,
Stockholm in terms of its connectivity and serves as a comparable
while the influence of the other two - population and employment at­
alternative to private cars, and 2) for low-cost travel means, the spatial
tractions - are more complex. We investigated the relationship between
distribution of healthcare services play a significant role in determining
residential development and employment attraction in Fig. 3. To pro­
its fair access of nearby population.
duce comparable results, the land use intensity is normalized to the 0–1
scale.
Fig. 3 shows the spatial decay of the intensity of existing residential 5.3. Attraction of urban growth driving factors
development against travel time to jobs, in walking and driving sce­
narios. In this graph, the horizontal axis is the proximity to employment Fig. 5 shows a matrix of gravity-based attraction maps, by trip

6
C. Cong et al. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 91 (2022) 101726

Fig. 4. Accessible areas by driving, transit, biking and walking within 1 h travel time.

7
C. Cong et al.
Fig. 5. Gravity-based attraction maps, by trip purposes and travel modes.
purposes and travel modes. Similarly, there are 4 × 4 attraction maps,
namely, attraction of population centers by driving, transit, biking, and
walking, attraction of employment centers by driving, transit, biking,
and walking, attraction of environmental services by driving, transit,
biking, and walking, and attraction of health services by driving, transit,
biking, and walking. The value of each cell on these raster maps is its
attraction value, normalized to 1–100 for comparison. Using our
method, we are able to measure the combined attraction from all des­
tinations to each cell, not just from the nearest center, and build a cu­
mulative map for all types of urban growth driver.
The spatial distribution of destinations, the magnitude of activities at
these destinations and the availability of transportation facilities
collectively determines the urban growth “hot-spots”, or areas highly
attractive for residential and commercial development. In particular, the
comparison between single-mode scenarios underscores how non-auto
network contribute to the attraction of some neighborhoods in urban
areas. In driving and transit scenarios, existing roads, metro and rail­
ways connect adjacent municipalities and extend development oppor­
tunities to the “satellite cities” with emerging job opportunities and
transportation hubs. Nynäshamn, a municipality 27 miles south of
Stockholm City, show high attraction for future development as it is well
connected by the regional rail. At the same time, biking and walking
scenarios highlight the high attraction values in Stockholm city, Nacka,
Solna and Sollentuna. Most of these neighborhoods are within 6 miles to
the Stockholm city center but enjoy almost the same level of attraction
as Nynäshamn. The development potential in neighborhoods that have
high density and connectivity of non-auto network is significant for
planners to tailor and target future urban growth, but this potential is
not fully reflected in the driving-based development analysis.
8
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 91 (2022) 101726
5.4. Land use development probability results
In order to model the development probability of Stockholm in the
future, we obtained data on planned future developments from the
Regional Development Plan for the Stockholm County for 2050 (TRF,
2017). We used 2050 as our projection year accordingly. The future
development data include planned road and public transport de­
velopments, protected natural areas where no development is allowed
(e.g., water bodies), types of developments, development priorities, and
demographic projections.
Fig. 6 shows four single-mode scenarios of development probability
in the year 2050 for Stockholm, based on Eq. (2) detailed in Section 4.2
and the modal feature calibration results in Section 4.3. In these sce­
narios, we consider driving, transit, biking and walking individually,
each is the only available mode of transport, while holding other po­
tential explanatory variables (e.g., residential locations, job numbers,
job locations, natural and social amenities) constant across scenarios. By
doing so we can decompose the influence of transportation modes on
land use development potential and how the contrast between modes
might inform land use management in supporting sustainable develop­
ment policies.
Overall, areas that enjoy high development probability in Stockholm
are concentrated in two areas: (1) existing urban centers that have large
volumes of human and commercial activities, and (2) sub-centers that
have emerging job opportunities and transportation hubs, including
Solna, Ekerö, and Huddinge. Transit increases the development proba­
bility of distant municipalities along available networks, as demon­
strated in multiple Transit Oriented Development (TOD) studies in
Stockholm (Stojanovski, Alam, & Janson, 2014). Existing walking and
biking facilities stimulate small-scale development. They are likely to
serve as an asset for increasing the vitality of neighborhoods at a gran­
ulated scale that the driving network often fail to capture.
Our analysis found a stark contrast between the areas of high prob­
ability development in car-based scenarios and non-auto-based devel­
opment areas (Fig. 6). To express this, we take the highest 25% and the
lowest 25% of development probability from the driving scenario and
the walking scenario, respectively, and identify land use parcels that can
be classified as any combinations of high or low development proba­
bilities. The result is shown in Fig. 7. We focus on the dark blue and red
areas on this map: blue areas identify places that have high development
probability if driving is only considered in growth projection, and low
development probability if walking is only considered. These indicate
areas that are traditionally highlighted by car-based urban models but
have low accessibility to walking facilities. With driving taken into ac­
count as the only transportation mode, modeled development tends to
prioritize areas along highways, and potentially encourage long
commuting distance and suburban residential development.
In contrast, red areas are places that have high development prob­
ability if only walking is considered, and low development probability if
only driving is considered. These can be neighborhoods under-studied
by traditional urban models. However, by considering walking
network and finer-scale land cover information, they have a high po­
tential of development. Such places might include sites that can be in­
tegrated with the surrounding neighborhoods before the city further
expands on the urban fringe. Urban models that take consideration of
these areas, therefore, prioritize denser use of the existing built land, and
potentially lower the risks of occupying areas of high ecosystem service
value for large-unit housing development in the suburbs.
The zoomed-in images in Fig. 7 show the disparity of development
opportunities at the finer scale. The upper picture, which is located in
Östermalm (West), Stockholm, enjoy high development probability both
evaluated by walking and driving attraction. This area is known for its
restaurants on Stureplan square, and its cultural venues, such as the
Swedish History Museum, Royal Djurgården and city parks. This is also a
highly accessible area by walking and biking and bears further oppor­
tunities for infill development. The lower picture shows the
C. Cong et al.
Fig. 6. Single-mode scenarios of land use development probability. Reds represent areas of high development probabilities.
development probability near Jordbro, which is a suburban locality
situated in Haninge Municipality 20 km south of Stockholm. This area
shows a high probability for development due to its relatively low res­
idential density, and abundant green areas. However, the “high driving-
low walking” probability marked by blue strips in the east along Na­
tional Road 73 suggests the limitation of the single-mode accessibility
methods. They are in the natural land with almost no existing residential
development around, but are highlighted only because of their prox­
imity to highways.
6. Discussion and conclusions
6.1. Policy implications
Based on the land use and land cover change projection model and
our result in 5.4, we present several spatial strategies for sustainable
urban management. These solutions complement the current urban land
use planning and ecosystem management practices in Stockholm County
(Table 4).
1) Areas with high development probability in both driving and
walking scenarios are in close proximity to the existing urban center.
These are areas that have high population density and less available
land but will continue attracting urban residents and commercial
activities. One central concern for these areas is that increased de­
velopments could potentially erode existing green space and
ecosystem service values (ESV) in such areas. We propose middle- to
high-density but low-impact development strategies such as natural
preservation zoning and green architecture solutions (Askarizadeh
et al., 2015; Pour, Wahab, Shahid, Asaduzzaman, & Dewan, 2020) to
promote public health and quality of life for future population
growth.
2) Areas with high driving-based development probability and low
walking-based development probability reach north and south along
major highways. This reflects the leapfrog development projections
that are stimulated by the use of automobiles, the preference on large
residential units and suburban amenities. Many of these areas occupy
ESV-rich areas on the urban fringe, thus put a threat on the spatial
properties that support human wellbeing (Zhang et al., 2021).
Important policy implications can be derived from the suburban
residential development in the U.S. Policy priorities should be given
9
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 91 (2022) 101726
to limiting residential development in suburban areas with higher
ESV through stricter residential zoning and/or heterogeneous
development taxes based on location of development. Greenbelts
could also be used as one of the Nature-based Solutions (NBS) to limit
urban growth in such areas (Han & Go, 2019; Yang & Jinxing, 2007).
3) Areas with high walking-based development probability and low
driving-base development probability are scattered around the re­
gion, but cluster around existing urban sub-centers. These areas have
medium population densities relative to the city of Stockholm and
good non-auto transportation facilities. Urbanization in these areas
should look for opportunities for infill development to accommodate
future population growth, while maintaining high accessibility to
existing urban agglomerations and to ecosystem services. Proactive
planning approaches could be used in these areas such as using
design approaches to improve the esthetic, cultural, and recreational
services in existing nature environments (Kwak, Deal, & Mosey,
2021; Steiner, 2014).
Land use planning has been a comprehensive instrument for central
and local governments in the overall planning of sustainability. The
presented contrast in this section shed some light on prioritizing
development and managing construction land in local plans. For
instance, RUFS 2050 presents six principles for guiding the spatial dis­
tribution of new development, in which prioritizing pedestrian and bi­
cycles and maintaining a cohesive and attractive green infrastructure are
listed (TRF, 2017). A spatial explicit urban model can measure land use/
environmental interactions and suggest places where such interactions
can best manifest the planning visions and thus help develop effective
action plans.
6.2. Discussion
Some general trends stand out in our analysis: (1) driving, transit,
biking and walking influence human activities and location choices in
different ways. Models with a single mode of transport may fall short in
capturing the urban growth dynamic at the local scale, and (2) urban
development shows a tendency of agglomeration surrounding activities,
job opportunities and social amenities. This has been proved by previous
studies of urban structures for large, complex urban systems (Yang et al.,
2019). However, our study explicitly accounts for the varied urban
growth probability attribute to travel mode and thus provides more
C. Cong et al. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 91 (2022) 101726

Fig. 7. A contrast of driving- and walking-based residential development probability. Two call-out maps highlight the disparity of development probabilities in
Östermalm, Stockholm (upper) and Jordbro, Stockholm (lower).

10
C. Cong et al. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 91 (2022) 101726

Table 4 representativeness issues that modelers, planners and urban researchers

Strategies for different urban development opportunities in Stockholm County. need to resolve on a case-to-case basis.
Development Development Typical locations Suggested There are several limitations in this study that we'd like to address in
probability probability development the next step. One of them is to validate our raster-based travel time, we
(driving (walking strategies currently do not have a field survey or related data as the ground truth to
scenario) scenario)
calibrate our travel time result. Pu et al. (2020) found that the estimated
High High Around the Low-impact raster-based accessibility and surveyed accessibility were in good
existing urban development, overall agreement in their research in low-middle income countries, but
center natural preservation
zoning and green
to our knowledge, no such validation has been done for Stockholm.
architecture Second, our model only considers four independent variables, based on
solutions our previous studies (Kwak & Deal, 2021; Pan, Page, et al., 2019; Zhang
High Low Far north and Prevent urban et al., 2021) and the discussions with our project clients. Further study
south leapfrog
should explore more attractors that come into play in these complex
development
through methods urban dynamics. Third, the accessible areas that we have developed for
liken Greenbelt. each travel mode are not at the individual level, thus does not reflect
Low High Close sub-centers Prioritize infill people's actual mode choice. That is to say, even if you live within 10
including development; min of driving, but if you don't have a car, or don't usually travel by car,
Stockholm City, preserve high
Solna, Nacka and walking and biking
your actual accessible areas can be overestimated by our model. An
Sundbyberg accessibility for all upgraded model coupled with more detailed social demographic data
population and travel survey data that account for people's affordability, prefer­
Low Low Towards Natural and ence, and travel habits would provide more insights in this regard (Yang,
waterbodies and ecological
Pan, Zhang, Greenlee, & Deal, 2021). However, our current model
natural resources preservation policies
to limit impacts of provides a baseline of potential inter-modal disparities. The equity gap
urban growth caused by available transportation modes would more likely be wider
than narrower than the current scenarios.

targeted stimulation to planning actions. This study also derives a

scalable framework for grid-level comparison that is applicable for any
other pair of travel modes and another city.
The observed contrast between car-based and walk-based develop­
ment probability produced in our model improves our understanding of
where to develop and how to prioritize development in areas that have
high economic, social and environmental benefits. This will inform not
only strategic planning interventions in Stockholm, but also provide
valuable lessons for sustainability-driven development in cities world­
wide. The magnitude and rate of urban growth in many metropolitans
globally require carefully designed policies to refrain the low density,
leapfrog urban sprawl occurring at the edge of a city (Ewing, 2007).
Strategically making use of available urban land for more density, more
mixed-use and better non-auto accessibility, is expected to generate
lower ecosystem service value loss (Zhang et al., 2021). Multi-modal
simulation methods tailored to the needs of metropolitans will be able
to decompose growth projections by travel mode, allocate potential
urban growth in a spatially explicit manner, and thus generate place-
based strategies that complement and enhance existing urban land use
planning and management practices.
Our method also provides an example of an open and scalable
planning support procedure. One of the purposes that we want to
experiment with this method is to use open-source geospatial data in
urban system modeling. Many urban models require highly customized
and locally hosted data. Data collection can be time-consuming,
expensive and has to be repeatedly conducted every time the modelers
change the modeling subject or update the results. Open data have
drawn increasing attention in urban planning as a low-cost way for data-
intensive research (Balena, Bonifazi, & Mangialardi, 2013; Wilson &
Cong, 2020). Many open data are updated regularly with a consistent
format. This allows researchers to automate data collection and
“monitor spatial developments in a relatively automated way” (Geert­
man & Stillwell, 2020). Researchers can also engage in interesting
comparative studies across cities, if the same type of open data is
available in these places. For example, what would the OpenStreetMap
Point-of-Interest look like in Chicago or Los Angeles, as compared to a
European city. However, it should be noted that emerging new sources
of data are not always a solution in themselves. Although open data fill a
number of gaps of traditional data sources and can help facilitate
communication, there will be data comprehensiveness and
6.3. Conclusions
This study demonstrates a multi-modal method for evaluating urban
growth probability. We base our research in Stockholm, which features
over 50% non-auto travel and recognized sustainable urban manage­
ment strategies. We analyzed how multi-modal methods inform urban
change simulation and development probability evaluations. We inno­
vatively conducted a two-step raster-based travel time calculation and
used it as a more realistic accessibility input for an urban development
state-change model. We compared and contrasted urban development
probabilities under four scenarios, each exclusively considers driving,
transit, biking and walking as the only travel mode. The results suggest
different areas that urban development should prioritize and pinpoint
key issues that facilitate or prevent sustainable urban development
policies.
One major methodological contribution of our paper is incorporating
active transportation modes in evaluating urban growth probability.
Large-scale urban change models are often based on single-mode travel
time and thus exclude the multidimensional nature of accessibility
where transit, biking and walking facilities also play an important role.
Including different travel modes in evaluating land development po­
tentials provides an opportunity for better understanding the complex
relationship between urban growth factors and growth-induced inequity
at different geographic scales. Service areas analyses built on multi-
modal transport networks also recognize the requirements and costs
for non-auto users to access and participate in the urban activities.
This study also provides an opportunity for expanding the literature
on Planning Support Systems (PSS) for large-scale urban modeling by
incorporating an open-sourced and scalable model. Our travel time
estimation and multimodal simulation methods are applicable to any
urban area and any land-use units as they are not ad hoc measures for
our specific case study. This model can be further developed to evaluate
the inter-modal urban development disparity among cities from
different contexts, and is best coupled with a user-friendly, interactive
PSS interface.
Funding
This research received no external funding.

11
C. Cong et al.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Anjomani, A. (2021). An integrated land-use/transportation forecasting and planning
model: A metropolitan planning support system. Journal of Transport and Land Use,
14(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2021.1412
Apparicio, P., Abdelmajid, M., Riva, M., & Shearmur, R. (2008). Comparing alternative
approaches to measuring the geographical accessibility of urban health services:
Distance types and aggregation-error issues. International Journal of Health
Geographics, 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-7-7
Askarizadeh, A., Rippy, M. A., Fletcher, T. D., Feldman, D. L., Peng, J., Bowler, P., …
Grant, S. B. (2015). From rain tanks to catchments: Use of low-impact development
to address hydrologic symptoms of the urban stream syndrome. Environmental
Science and Technology, 49(19), 11264–11280. https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.
EST.5B01635
Balena, P., Bonifazi, A., & Mangialardi, G. (2013). Smart communities meet urban
management: Harnessing the potential of open data and public/private partnerships
through innovative E-governance applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science
(Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in
Bioinformatics), 7974 LNCS(PART 4), 528–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
39649-6_38
Basu, R., & Ferreira, J. (2020). A LUTI microsimulation framework to evaluate long-term
impacts of automated mobility on the choice of housing-mobility bundles.
Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 47(8), 1397–1417.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808320925278
Berke, E. M., & Shi, X. (2009). Computing travel time when the exact address is
unknown: A comparison of point and polygon ZIP code approximation methods.
International Journal of Health Geographics, 8(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-
072X-8-23
Bhat, C., Handy, S., Kockelman, K., Mahmassani, H., Gopal, A. R., Srour, I. M., &
Weston, L. (2002). Development of an urban accessibility index: Formulations,
aggregation, and application. https://ctr.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubs/4
938_4.pdf.
Bürgle, M. (2006). Residential location choice model for the Greater Zurich Area conference
paper STRC 2006 (p. 359). https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-005228652
Cai, Z., Wang, B., Cong, C., & Cvetkovic, V. (2020). Spatial dynamic modelling for urban
scenario planning: A case study of Nanjing, China. Environment and Planning B: Urban
Analytics and City Science, 47(8), 1380–1396. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2399808320934818
Cervero, R. (1996). Mixed land-uses and commuting: Evidence from the American
housing survey. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 30(5 PART A),
361–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/0965-8564(95)00033-X
Chen, J., Chen, C., & Timmermans, H. J. P. (2008). Accessibility trade-offs in household
residential location decisions. Transportation Research Record, 2077, 71–79. https://
doi.org/10.3141/2077-10
Deal, B., & Chakraborty, A. (2010). Cyber-physical planning support systems: Advancing
participatory decision making in complex urban environments. International Journal
of Operations and Quantitative Management, 16(4), 353–367.
Deal, B., & Pallathucheril, V. (2007). Developing and using scenarios. In L. D. Hopkins, &
M. A. Zapata (Eds.), Engaging the future: Forecasts, scenarios, plans, and projects (pp.
221–242). Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Deal, B., & Schunk, D. (2004). Spatial dynamic modeling and urban land use
transformation: A simulation approach to assessing the costs of urban sprawl.
Ecological Economics, 51(1–2), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ECOLECON.2004.04.008
Delamater, P. L., Messina, J. P., Shortridge, A. M., & Grady, S. C. (2012). Measuring
geographic access to health care: Raster and network-based methods. International
Journal of Health Geographics, 11(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-11-15
Dony, C. C., Delmelle, E. M., & Delmelle, E. C. (2015). Re-conceptualizing accessibility to
parks in multi-modal cities: A Variable-width Floating Catchment Area (VFCA)
method. Landscape and Urban Planning, 143, 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2015.06.011
Ewing, R. (2007). Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? Journal of the American Planning
Association, 63(1), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369708975728
Felix, O., George, A., Fredrick, O., & Erick, O. (2020). The cost-implications of reaching
universal coverage of maternity health services in Siaya County, Western Kenya.
Public Health Research, 10(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5923/J.PHR.20201001.01
Flyvbjerg, B. (2008). Curbing optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation in planning:
Reference class forecasting in practice. European Planning Studies, 16(1), 3–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310701747936
Geertman, S., & Stillwell, J. (2020). Planning support science: Developments and
challenges. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 47(8),
1326–1342. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808320936277
Geurs, K. T., & van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport
strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2),
127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JTRANGEO.2003.10.005
Goldenberg, R., Kalantari, Z., Cvetkovic, V., Mörtberg, U., Deal, B., & Destouni, G.
(2017). Distinction, quantification and mapping of potential and realized supply-
demand of flow-dependent ecosystem services. Science of the Total Environment,
593–594, 599–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.130
12
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 91 (2022) 101726
Guo, J. Y., & Bhat, C. R. (2007). Operationalizing the concept of neighborhood:
Application to residential location choice analysis. Journal of Transport Geography, 15
(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2005.11.001
Han, A. T., & Go, M. H. (2019). Explaining the national variation of land use: A cross-
national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries. Land Use Policy, 81, 644–656.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2018.11.035
Hansen, W. G. (1959). How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 25(2), 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944365908978307
Harris, B. (1985). Urban simulation models in regional science. Journal of Regional
Science, 25(4), 545–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.1985.tb00322.x
Hunt, J. D., Kriger, D. S., & Miller, E. J. (2005). Current operational urban land-use-
transport modelling frameworks: A review. Transport Reviews, 25(3), 329–376.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144164052000336470
Iacono, M., & Levinson, D. (2011). Location, regional accessibility, and price effects:
Evidence from home sales in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Transportation Research
Record, 2245, 87–94. https://doi.org/10.3141/2245-11
Jalkanen, J., Fabritius, H., Vierikko, K., Moilanen, A., & Toivonen, T. (2020). Analyzing
fair access to urban green areas using multimodal accessibility measures and spatial
prioritization. Applied Geography, 124, 102320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apgeog.2020.102320
Kawabata, M., & Shen, Q. (2007). Commuting inequality between cars and public transit:
The case of the San Francisco Bay Area, 1990-2000. Urban Studies, 44(9),
1759–1780. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980701426616
Klosterman, R. E. (2013). Lessons learned about planning. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 79(2), 161–169. Routledge https://doi.org/10.1080
/01944363.2013.882647.
Kwak, Y., & Deal, B. (2021). Resilient planning optimization through spatially explicit,
Bi-directional sociohydrological modeling. Journal of Environmental Management,
300, 113742. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2021.113742
Kwak, Y., Deal, B., & Mosey, G. (2021). Landscape design toward urban resilience:
Bridging science and physical design coupling sociohydrological modeling and
design process. Sustainability, 13(9), 4666. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094666
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1998.tb00396.x
La Greca, P., Barbarossa, L., Ignaccolo, M., Inturri, G., & Martinico, F. (2011). The
density dilemma. A proposal for introducing smart growth principles in a sprawling
settlement within Catania Metropolitan Area. Cities, 28(6), 527–535. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cities.2011.06.009
La Rosa, D., Takatori, C., Shimizu, H., & Privitera, R. (2018). A planning framework to
evaluate demands and preferences by different social groups for accessibility to
urban greenspaces. Sustainable Cities and Society, 36, 346–362. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scs.2017.10.026
Laatikainen, T. E., Piiroinen, R., Lehtinen, E., & Kyttä, M. (2017). PPGIS approach for
defining multimodal travel thresholds: Accessibility of popular recreation
environments by the water. Applied Geography, 79, 93–102. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.12.006
Lee, D. B. (1973). Requiem for large-scale models. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 39(3), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944367308977851
Li, X., & Yeh, A. G. O. (2000). Modelling sustainable urban development by the
integration of constrained cellular automata and GIS. International Journal of
Geographical Information Science, 14(2), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/
136588100240886
Li, X., Gong, P., Yu, L., & Hu, T. (2017). A segment derived patch-based logistic cellular
automata for urban growth modeling with heuristic rules. Computers, Environment
and Urban Systems, 65, 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compenvurbsys.2017.06.001
Ligmann-Zielinska, A., & Jankowski, P. (2012). Impact of proximity-adjusted preferences
on rank-order stability in geographical multicriteria decision analysis. Journal of
Geographical Systems, 14(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-010-0140-6
Litman, T. (2021). Evaluating transportation land use impacts. World Transport Policy and
Practice (Vol. 1)(Issue 4). www.vtpi.org.
Liu, X., Li, X., Shi, X., Wu, S., & Liu, T. (2008). Simulating complex urban development
using kernel-based non-linear cellular automata. Ecological Modelling, 211(1–2),
169–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.08.024
Liu, X., Liang, X., Li, X., Xu, X., Ou, J., Chen, Y., Li, S., Wang, S., & Pei, F. (2017). A future
land use simulation model (FLUS) for simulating multiple land use scenarios by
coupling human and natural effects. Landscape and Urban Planning, 168, 94–116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2017.09.019
Mao, L., & Nekorchuk, D. (2013). Measuring spatial accessibility to healthcare for
populations with multiple transportation modes. Health and Place, 24, 115–122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.08.008
Martens, K. (2016). Transport justice: Designing fair transportation systems. Routledge.
McCormack, G. R., Rock, M., Toohey, A. M., & Hignell, D. (2010). Characteristics of
urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative
research. Health and Place, 16(4), 712–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
healthplace.2010.03.003
Millward, H., Spinney, J., & Scott, D. (2013). Active-transport walking behavior:
Destinations, durations, distances. Journal of Transport Geography, 28, 101–110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JTRANGEO.2012.11.012
Mörtberg, U., Haas, J., Zetterberg, A., Franklin, J. P., Jonsson, D., & Deal, B. (2012).
Urban ecosystems and sustainable urban development—Analysing and assessing
interacting systems in the Stockholm region. Urban Ecosystem, 16(4), 763–782.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S11252-012-0270-3
Næss, P., Strand, A., Wolday, F., & Stefansdottir, H. (2019). Residential location,
commuting and non-work travel in two urban areas of different size and with
C. Cong et al.
different center structures. Progress in Planning, 128, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.progress.2017.10.002
Neutens, T. (2015). Accessibility, equity and health care: Review and research directions
for transport geographers. Journal of Transport Geography, 43, 14–27. Elsevier Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.12.006
Pan, H., Deal, B., Chen, Y., & Hewings, G. (2018). A reassessment of urban structure and
land-use patterns: Distance to CBD or network-based? — Evidence from Chicago.
Regional Science and Urban Economics, 70, 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
regsciurbeco.2018.04.009
Pan, H., Deal, B., Destouni, G., Zhang, Y., & Kalantari, Z. (2018). Sociohydrology
modeling for complex urban environments in support of integrated land and water
resource management practices. Land Degradation & Development, 29(10),
3639–3652. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3106
Pan, H., Page, J., Cong, C., Barthel, S., & Kalantari, Z. (2021). How ecosystems services
drive urban growth: Integrating nature-based solutions. Anthropocene, 35, 100297.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANCENE.2021.100297
Pan, H., Page, J., Zhang, L., Chen, S., Cong, C., Destouni, G., Kalantari, Z., & Deal, B.
(2019). Using comparative socio-ecological modeling to support Climate Action
Planning (CAP). Journal of Cleaner Production, 232, 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.05.274
Pan, H., Zhang, L., Cong, C., Deal, B., & Wang, Y. (2019). A dynamic and spatially
explicit modeling approach to identify the ecosystem service implications of complex
urban systems interactions. Ecological Indicators, 102, 426–436. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2019.02.059
Pour, S. H., Wahab, A. K. A., Shahid, S., Asaduzzaman, M., & Dewan, A. (2020). Low
impact development techniques to mitigate the impacts of climate-change-induced
urban floods: Current trends, issues and challenges. Sustainable Cities and Society, 62,
102373. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2020.102373
Pu, Q., Yoo, E. H., Rothstein, D. H., Cairo, S., & Malemo, L. (2020). Improving the spatial
accessibility of healthcare in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo. Applied
Geography, 121, 102262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102262
Ralha, C. G., Abreu, C. G., Coelho, C. G. C., Zaghetto, A., Macchiavello, B., &
Machado, R. B. (2013). A multi-agent model system for land-use change simulation.
Environmental Modelling and Software, 42, 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsoft.2012.12.003
Ray, N., & Ebener, S. (2008). AccessMod 3.0: Computing geographic coverage and
accessibility to health care services using anisotropic movemen of patients.
International Journal of Health Geographics, 7(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/
1476-072X-7-63
Rojas, M. B., Sadeghvaziri, E., & Jin, X. (2016). Comprehensive review of travel behavior
and mobility pattern studies that used mobile phone data. Transportation Research
Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2563, 71–79. https://doi.org/
10.3141/2563-11
RVU Sweden. (2015). The Swedish National Travel survey. https://www.trafa.se/en
/travel-survey/travel-survey/.
Salonen, M., & Toivonen, T. (2013). Modelling travel time in urban networks:
Comparable measures for private car and public transport. Journal of Transport
Geography, 31, 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.06.011
Shu, B., Zhu, S., Qu, Y., Zhang, H., Li, X., & Carsjens, G. J. (2020). Modelling multi-
regional urban growth with multilevel logistic cellular automata. Computers,
Environment and Urban Systems, 80, 101457. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
COMPENVURBSYS.2019.101457
Steiner, F. (2014). Frontiers in urban ecological design and planning research. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 125, 304–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
LANDURBPLAN.2014.01.023
13
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 91 (2022) 101726
Steinfeld, A., Maisel, J., & Steinfeld, E. (2017). Accessible public transportation: Designing
service for riders with disabilities. Routledge.
Stojanovski, T., Alam, T., & Janson, M. (2014). Transit-Oriented Development (TOD):
Analyzing urban development and transformation in Stockholm. Simulation Series,
46, 1–8.
TRF – Tillväxt- och Regionplaneförvaltningen. (2017). Regional Utvecklingsplan För
Stockholmsregionen (RUFS) 2050. http://www.rufs.se/publikationer/2018/r
ufs-2050/.
Wang, Q., Guan, Q., Lin, J., Luo, H., Tan, Z., & Ma, Y. (2021). Simulating land use/land
cover change in an arid region with the coupling models. Ecological Indicators, 122,
107231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107231
Wegener, M. (1994). Operational urban models state of the art. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 60(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369408975547
Weiss, D. J., Nelson, A., Gibson, H. S., Temperley, W., Peedell, S., Lieber, A., …
Gething, P. W. (2018). A global map of travel time to cities to assess inequalities in
accessibility in 2015. Nature, 553(7688), 333–336. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nature25181
White, R., & Engelen, G. (1997). Cellular automata as the basis of integrated dynamic
regional modelling. Environment and Planning. B, Planning & Design, 24(2), 235–246.
https://doi.org/10.1068/b240235
Wijesekara, G. N., Gupta, A., Valeo, C., Hasbani, J. G., Qiao, Y., Delaney, P., &
Marceau, D. J. (2012). Assessing the impact of future land-use changes on
hydrological processes in the Elbow River watershed in southern Alberta, Canada.
Journal of Hydrology, 412–413, 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2011.04.018
Wilson, B., & Cong, C. (2020). A survey of municipal open data repositories in the U.S.
International Journal of E-Planning Research, 9(4), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.4018/
IJEPR.2020100101
Xing, L., Liu, Y., & Liu, X. (2018). Measuring spatial disparity in accessibility with a
multi-mode method based on park green spaces classification in Wuhan, China.
Applied Geography, 94, 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.014
Yang, J., & Jinxing, Z. (2007). The failure and success of greenbelt program in Beijing.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(4), 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
UFUG.2007.02.001
Yang, Q., Li, X., & Shi, X. (2008). Cellular automata for simulating land use changes
based on support vector machines. Computers and Geosciences, 34(6), 592–602.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2007.08.003
Yang, T., Pan, H., Hewings, G., & Jin, Y. (2019). Understanding urban sub-centers with
heterogeneity in agglomeration economies—Where do emerging commercial
establishments locate? Cities, 86, 25–36.
Yang, T., Pan, H., Zhang, X., Greenlee, A., & Deal, B. (2021). How neighborhood
conditions and policy incentives affect relocation outcomes of households from low-
income neighborhoods—Evidence from intra-city movement trajectories. Cities,
103415. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CITIES.2021.103415
Zhang, L., Cong, C., Pan, H., Cai, Z., Cvetkovic, V., & Deal, B. (2021). Socioecological
informed comparative modeling to promote sustainable urban policy transitions:
Case study in Chicago and Stockholm. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, 125050.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125050
Zolfaghari, A., Sivakumar, A., & Polak, J. W. (2012). Choice set pruning in residential
location choice modelling: A comparison of sampling and choice set generation
approaches in greater London. Transportation Planning and Technology, 35(1),
87–106. Taylor & Francis Group https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2012.635420.
Zondag, B., & Pieters, M. (2005). Influence of accessibility on residential location choice.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1902(1),
63–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198105190200108