Journal of Transport Geography 111 (2023) 103648

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Transport Geography

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

Accessibility of social housing by sustainable transport modes: A study in

Poznań, Poland
Adam Radzimski *
Faculty of Human Geography and Planning, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Krygowskiego 10, 61-680 Poznań, Poland

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

Keywords: Sustainable urban planning should include affordable housing and access to essential opportunities among its
Accessibility priorities. Residents of social housing projects are at particular risk of suffering from below-average accessibility
Cycling levels. This paper proposes the concept of socially sustainable accessibility and applies it to evaluate low-income
Public transport
and medium-income housing projects in the city of Poznań, Poland. The study includes different scenarios for
Social housing
Sustainable city
public transport and cycling as transport modes used at the city scale. Results show that low-income social
Poznań housing had substantially worse accessibility scores than market-rate housing in all scenarios. Medium-income
social housing tended to perform better but, in most cases, did not match the level of market-rate housing as
well. The proposed approach may inform integrated transport and land-use planning strategies and contribute to
social equity and cohesion.

1. Introduction programs is a lack of quality standards guaranteeing an equitable level

Progress towards sustainable urban development depends upon the
ability to create neighbourhoods offering both affordable residential
space and convenient access to opportunities. The United Nations Sus­
tainable Development Goal 11 invites national, regional, and local au­
thorities to seek solutions promoting inclusive, safe, resilient and
sustainable development (United Nations, 2015). Meeting the goal re­
quires providing affordable housing units and accessible transport sys­
tems. Nevertheless, as many cities across the globe have experienced a
steady increase in housing prices, there is a growing risk that the less
affluent members of society will find it increasingly difficult to meet
their basic needs.
Due to high demand and limited space, housing is a highly
competitive commodity in many cities. There is a growing concern that
urban housing has become less affordable (Hochstenbach and Musterd,
2018). The social housing model (also called public housing or afford­
able housing model) may help alleviate some negative consequences of
rising housing costs (Scanlon et al., 2015). However, existing evidence
suggests that policies integrating housing affordability and transport
accessibility have been only moderately successful. There is a tendency
to locate social housing projects in peripheral neighbourhoods where
transport infrastructure is limited (Welch, 2013; Martínez et al., 2018;
Zeng et al., 2019). A significant shortcoming of many public housing
of access to opportunities (Smith et al., 2021). Public housing projects
tend to be driven by the minimum cost principle, resulting in con­
strained location choices. Thus, improving the integration of transport
and land use planning (Geurs and Wee, 2004; Bertolini et al., 2005) is
particularly important in such cases.
Recent trends in public policymaking have tended to reduce the
scope of housing policy to only address the needs of the least affluent
households. Under such conditions, the differentiated ability to enter the
housing market may exacerbate existing inequalities. In a competitive
situation, socially and economically vulnerable residents (i.e. popula­
tion groups lacking resources and/or agency to control life situations
due to social, political or economic marginalization) may be constrained
to places with lower accessibility, limiting their capability to access jobs,
schools, hospitals, or visit relatives (cf. Foth et al., 2013; Lucas, 2012;
Verlinghieri and Schwanen, 2020). On the other hand, insufficient
accessibility may push lower-income residents to choose cars instead of
travel means with lower environmental impact, leading to a phenome­
non known as forced car ownership (Currie and Delbosc, 2011; Mattioli,
2017), and thus undermining the sustainability objectives that are
currently central to the transport agendas of many cities.
The paper proposes an approach to evaluating affordable housing
projects based on accessibility by sustainable travel modes. The
approach relies on the following three criteria: (1) versatility: it should

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: adam.radzimski@amu.edu.pl.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103648
Received 4 May 2022; Received in revised form 27 January 2023; Accepted 29 June 2023
Available online 6 July 2023
0966-6923/© 2023 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Radzimski
be possible to include multiple travel modes and multiple destination
types, (2) comparability: it should be possible to compare the accessi­
bility of public housing projects to the accessibility of housing units sold
on the market, (3) replicability: there should be a replicable framework,
including the use of open data and open-source software whenever
possible. The proposed framework is applied to evaluate social housing
projects in Poznań, the fifth-largest city in Poland (532,048 residents as
of 2020).
The remaining part of the paper starts with a literature review, which
discusses the role of transport in promoting social cohesion and looks at
previous studies investigating the accessibility of social housing pro­
jects. The following chapters introduce the case study area and the
methodological approach applied in the paper. The empirical part pre­
sents four accessibility scenarios, including two scenarios for public
transport and two scenarios for cycling. The final chapter discusses the
results and concludes.
2. Literature review
2.1. Transport and social cohesion
Due to its role in creating spatial connections between people and
opportunities, transport may be considered an instrument of promoting
social cohesion. Surprisingly, however, the social contribution of
transport has tended to be underrepresented in the academic debate for
a long time. Historically, the maximum utility principle has strongly
influenced the planning of transport systems (Martens, 2017). Such an
approach prioritises the overall benefit, making it more helpful in con­
ceptualising transport's contribution to the economy than its societal
outcomes.
Transport systems tend to be seen primarily through the lens of
economic efficiency. However, in the past few decades, an alternative
vision has emerged that seeks to redefine the understanding of transport.
Early examples include Cleveland's equity planning initiative in the
1960s (Krumholz, 1982) and the Transit Equity Movement of Los
Angeles' Bus Riders Union in the 1990s (Grengs, 2002). In the United
Kingdom, the first studies attempting to link transport disadvantage and
social exclusion in the 1990s resulted in the publication of several policy
papers that stirred public debate (Lucas, 2012). Since then, the topic has
been increasingly present in English language literature.
In conceptual terms, there remains much ambiguity when defining
the social contribution of transport. That is perhaps, at least to some
extent, a consequence of the weaker influence exerted by social sciences
and humanities in conceptualising the role of transport compared to
other disciplines such as engineering. Social sciences and humanities
have theorised a lot about justice or equity but typically failed to
translate the theorisations to practice-oriented fields such as transport
(Martens, 2017).
Terms such as equity and justice are sometimes used interchangeably
in transport-related contexts. While acknowledging that the discussion
on different aspects of equity in transport studies is on-going, this paper
focuses on an understanding of equity related to the distribution of
certain goods and its differentiated effects on the population. While the
term surely does not cover all the aspects related to the social function of
transport (cf. Boschmann and Kwan, 2008), it represents an integral part
of them. In most general terms, an equitable transport system is a system
that provides access to opportunities for those in a disadvantageous
position. In particular, it does so by assuring that vulnerable socio-
economic groups have adequate accessibility to desirable destinations,
such as jobs, schools, healthcare, or groceries. Such a perspective con­
trasts with the conventional understanding of transport planning which
focuses on maximising the overall output rather than distributing costs
and benefits among different societal factions (Pereira et al., 2016).
Approaches to defining transport equity generally fall within two
categories (Litman, 2021). In the horizontal equity approach, people are
considered equal in their abilities, and the policy aims to provide them
2
Journal of Transport Geography 111 (2023) 103648
with an equal level of service. The vertical equity approach seeks pri­
marily to meet the needs of those who are most limited in their choices
(Delbosc and Currie, 2011). While the horizontal approach is helpful in
providing an overall assessment of the equity of a transport system, it
risks overlooking difficult situations faced by particularly vulnerable
groups. By contrast, the vertical equity perspective emphasises the risk
of unequal access to a transport system due to vulnerability factors such
as age, gender, income, or housing status.
There are different ways to measure the outcomes delivered by a
transport system. Two widely accepted ways include mobility and
accessibility (Martens, 2012). The concept of mobility describes the
ability to overcome barriers created by spatial separation, and as such, it
has linkages to the notions of liberty and freedom. Accessibility, by
contrast, is characterised as the ability to reach desired destinations. It is
a more relational concept that emphasises that every travel activity in­
volves both an opportunity and a cost. Accessibility research commonly
relies on the assumption that closer opportunities are more attractive
and thus more likely to be chosen. Yet, it should also be acknowledged
that more distant destinations may be preferable if their adequacy and
quality better fit individual preferences (Guimarães et al., 2019).
Socially sustainable accessibility may be defined as a measure of
access to opportunities for vulnerable population groups using means of
travel with a low environmental impact. As there does not seem to be a
universally agreed understanding of vulnerability, the concept should be
understood contextually by considering criteria such as gender, age,
income, ethnicity, disability, housing situation and others. Lucas et al.
(2016) proposed the concept of “socially relevant accessibility impacts”
to evaluate transport plans from a social perspective. Socially sustain­
able accessibility takes a similar approach but includes a broader
perspective by looking at the social impacts and other dimensions of
sustainability. For instance, vulnerable residents may compensate for
insufficient public transport accessibility by using old cars, which do not
comply with modern emission or safety standards. In this way, they may
overcome the transport disadvantage, but at the cost of higher expen­
ditures from the household budget and a negative environmental
impact.
2.2. Accessibility of social housing
It has been argued that the recent trends in housing policy have been
“making economic resources more important in determining housing
and neighbourhood outcomes” (Hochstenbach and Musterd, 2018).
When confronted with rising housing prices, vulnerable persons may be
unable to find a residential location with a decent level of accessibility.
Classic monocentric city models have assumed that more affluent resi­
dents would choose locations in the urban periphery, compensating for
longer commuting distances by convenient access to cars (Alonso,
1964). Thus, the less affluent households would benefit from better
public transport accessibility in more central locations (Glaeser et al.,
2008). However, current research suggests a change in residential
preferences of the middle class leading to an appreciation of more
accessible areas, which may result in accessibility-induced gentrification
(Revington, 2015). Under economic stress, vulnerable households may
be forced to relocate to less accessible areas, resulting in a phenomenon
known as the suburbanisation of poverty (Hochstenbach and Musterd,
2018).
The integration of transport and housing policy may help alleviate
the negative consequences of this process. However, due to austerity
policies public authorities have tended to limit the supply of social
housing. Even if certain provision thresholds are required by law, aus­
terity policies result in affordable units being located in peripheral lo­
cations with low land prices. If such investments are not coordinated
with an extension of the public transport system, the residents of social
housing units may have insufficient access to desired opportunities.
Previous studies seem to corroborate this hypothesis. A study of so­
cial housing units in Baltimore, Maryland, found that policy goals
A. Radzimski Journal of Transport Geography 111 (2023) 103648

Table 1 A summary of them is given in Table 1. Two general conclusions may be

Accessibility of social housing - overview of existing studies. drawn from an overview of these studies: (1) a significant share of public
Source Travel Method Scope housing is situated in peripheral parts of cities, and (2) public housing
mode tends to have significantly lower accessibility than market-rate housing.
Welch (2013) Public Connectivity measure U.S. Department of Previously published studies provided important insights, but they
transport based on frequency, Housing and Urban also had some limitations. Firstly, none of the existing studies attempted
speed, distance, Development to conceptualise accessibility to social housing units as socially sus­
capacity, required subsidised units in tainable accessibility. The studies either did not specify the exact
transfers and activity Baltimore, Maryland,
density USA
transport mode used to calculate accessibility or used only a single
Park et al. Private Opportunities available Subsidised senior transport mode such as public transport, walking, or even private cars.
(2019) car within a 10-min drive housing in Chicago, Accessibility by bicycle was not considered, despite cycling having clear
service area USA benefits in terms of sustainability (Valenzuela-Levi et al., 2021). Sec­
Martínez et al. Public Composite index of Social housing estates
ondly, while the existing methodological variety is enriching from a
(2018) transport connectivity based on in Santiago de Chile,
access to employment, Chile research point of view, it may be confusing for practice-oriented deci­
education, shopping and sion-makers seeking measures that are easy to communicate (El-Geneidy
health care and Levinson, 2006). Thus, there is a need for a measure taking into
Apparicio and Not Network-based distance Public housing in account different sustainable travel modes that could be communicated
Seguin specified to 40 types of Montréal, Canada
(2006) opportunities grouped
to non-academic audiences while remaining scientifically sound and
into six categories accurate.
Zeng et al. Not Estimated shortest path Affordable Housing
(2019) specified distance to services and Communities in 3. Case study
facilities in five Nanjing, China
categories
Talen and Walking Average nearest distance Subsidised housing in The case study used in this paper is the city of Poznań, Poland
Koschinsky to services, amenities Chicago, USA (532,000 residents as of 2020). The city has a relatively compact built-
(2011) and facilities in five up structure, with an average population density of about 2040 residents
categories
per square kilometre. As of October 2021, the city's public transport
Yang et al. Not Euclidean distance to Affordable housing in
(2014) specified public services (metro Beijing, China
network included 18 daytime and two nighttime tram lines and 48
stations, schools and daytime and 17 nighttime bus lines. In addition, there were 11 bus lines
hospitals) operated by the city-owned transport company reaching out to suburban
municipalities. Connections to the suburbs were also offered by bus
companies owned by neighbouring municipalities and a metropolitan
concerning equity were not met (Welch, 2013). The study used a sample
rail. A significant part of the public transport network is the Poznań Fast
of housing units subsidised by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Tram, a light rail system that connects the centre of Poznań with
Urban Development under different public programs. Accessibility was
neighbourhoods in the northern part of the city (Gadziński and Rad­
calculated using a connectivity measure, which considered several
zimski, 2016).
characteristics of a transport connection, such as frequency, speed,
Compared to the extensive public transport network, the cycling
distance, capacity, required transfers, and activity density. Results sug­
network in Poznań remains less developed. The overall length of sepa­
gest that whether the accessibility by public transport was equitable was
rated cycling infrastructure amounted to 276 km, which means an in­
dependent on the type of the housing program. One of the programs
crease of about 160% in a decade. However, cycling infrastructure is still
delivered a less equitable distribution of accessibility than the distri­
inaccessible or fragmented in some neighbourhoods. Since 2012 the city
bution in a random sample of market-rate residential units, while
of Poznań has offered a subsidised bike-sharing service operated by
another led to more equitable results.
NextBike (Radzimski and Dzięcielski, 2021). Cycling trips amounted to
Similar findings were reached in a more recent study in Santiago de
4% of the modal share, compared to 13% of pedestrian trips, 39% of car
Chile. A composite index of connectivity was used to calculate accessi­
trips and 41% of public transport trips (Miasto Poznań, 2014). However,
bility to four categories of opportunities, including employment, edu­
it should be noted that the modal split data refer to the period before the
cation, shopping and health care (Martínez et al. (2018). The index
COVID-19 pandemic.
measured the percentage of opportunities reachable from the point of
Since the re-establishment of a free-market economy in Poland in
departure within a predefined time window. The authors conclude that
1989, Poznań has continuously ranked among the most expensive
areas with a high share of social housing were characterised by lower
housing markets in the country. As of 2020, the median housing price
than average accessibility levels. This leads them to observe that there
per square metre amounted to 6500 PLN (1 EUR = ca. 4.5 PLN), which
was a lack of integration between different policies, as the basic need for
situated Poznań at the fifth position among the largest Polish cities. By
shelter was met, but distances to essential opportunities were
law, all municipalities are obliged to provide low-income social housing
lengthened.
(in Polish: budownictwo komunalne) to those most in need. However,
Research conducted in Nanjing, China, has also concluded that
due to limited support from the national government, the supply of low-
accessibility levels of affordable housing units were lower than of other
income social housing has only amounted to 1.9% of the total new
housing units (Zeng et al., 2019). Among the five included categories of
housing supply between 2001 and 2020. Polish municipalities may also
opportunities were education, health care, shopping, recreation and
provide middle-income social housing (in Polish: społeczne budow­
transport. Accessibility was measured using Euclidean distances to the
nictwo czynszowe) for those who exceed eligibility criteria for low-
nearest service, multiplied by a conversion factor leading to the shortest
income social housing and fail to afford housing at market rates. Be­
path distance estimate. The estimate allowed classifying affordable
tween 2001 and 2020, such units made up 3.6% of all housing built in
housing units into five accessibility levels. The authors recommended
Poznań in that period. Both the low-income and the middle-income
that future urban planning policies should not only build houses for low-
housing categories are included in this study. The shares of social
income residents but also provide them with appropriate access to
housing in Poland tend to be lower than in Western Europe (Czischke
opportunities.
and van Bortel, 2018). In contrast, the homeownership rate is high,
Several other studies investigated the accessibility of social housing
primarily due to the mass privatization of the housing stock built in
units in different geographical locations using different methodologies.
socialist times. Major Polish cities are coping with a housing shortage,

3
A. Radzimski Journal of Transport Geography 111 (2023) 103648

Fig. 1. Overview of the spatial structure of Poznań.

while government policies addressing the issue often lack strategic originating before or in the early 20th century. There is a sectoral
orientation (Glocker and Plouin, 2016). pattern of high-density areas surrounding the CBD, made up of pre­
An overview of the spatial structure of Poznań is shown in Fig. 1. The fabricated housing estates from the socialist period (1945–1989) and a
central business district consists primarily of historic neighbourhoods growing number of new apartment buildings built by private developers

Fig. 2. Distribution of investigated social housing units and market-rate housing units in Poznań.

4
A. Radzimski
Fig. 3. Public transport accessibility peak scenario, by time threshold.
after the systemic transition of 1989. The city's outskirts include low-
density areas dominated by single-family housing and non-built-up
areas such as forests.
4. Methodology and data
Measuring accessibility has been one of the most widely addressed
topics in transport literature. In most general terms, accessibility could
be defined as “the potential of opportunities for interaction” (Hansen,
1959), or in other words, the ability to overcome barriers created by
spatial separation. Over the years, at least three distinct approaches to
accessibility measurement have been established: (1) nearest opportu­
nity, (2) cumulative opportunities measure, and (3) gravity-based
measures. In addition, accessibility measurements may be based on
5
Journal of Transport Geography 111 (2023) 103648
physical distance or time. Distance-based measurement may be suitable
if the information on the available travel modes is limited, or only a
single travel mode, such as walking, is considered. Time-based mea­
surement allows for a more nuanced analysis but also requires travel
mode-specific information, such as schedule information in case of
public transport.
This study uses a cumulative measure of accessibility based on pre­
defined time thresholds. The resulting accessibility scores can be thus
interpreted as percentages of opportunities available in a given area.
Scores are calculated for several time thresholds, and the results are
compared to minimise risks resulting from the arbitrary choice of
threshold values. Travel times are calculated in the R environment using
the r5r package (Pereira et al., 2021), which provides an open-source
interface to the Rapid Realistic Routing on Real-world and
A. Radzimski
Fig. 4. Average accessibility scores to six categories of destinations in public transport peak scenario, by housing type and travel time threshold.
Reimagined networks (R5) routing engine. The algorithm calculates
travel time for public transport trips by taking a user-defined time
window and then calculating travel time for a departure every minute
within the window. The returned travel time includes walking to the
stop, waiting time, in-vehicle time, transfer time and walking from the
final stop. All calculated travel times within a time window are assigned
a percentile value. In this paper, the time window was set at 60 min, and
the percentile value was equal to 50, i.e. the median travel time within
the time window. In the case of cycling trips, the algorithm allows
specifying cycling speed and acceptable cycling stress levels and ac­
counts for elevation differences with digital elevation model data.
The origin matrix was created by dividing the area of the city into a
200 m square grid and selecting cells containing low-income, middle-
income or market-rate housing (Fig. 2). The centroid of each selected
cell was taken as a departure point. Data includes 1176 low-income and
3036 middle-income housing units constructed between 2000 and 2020
6
Journal of Transport Geography 111 (2023) 103648
and 19,946 market-rate units sold between 2012 and 2018. Data on
social housing units was obtained from the websites of social housing
providers, whereas data on market-rate transactions were drawn from
the City of Poznań. The destination matrix was constructed using the
same grid and by including six categories of destinations representing
different social and economic opportunities: (1) cultural facilities such
as libraries, museums and others, (2) large publicly available green areas
such as urban forests, (3) healthcare facilities such as hospitals, general
practitioners, pharmacies, (4) jobs in the industrial, office and retail
sectors, (5) schools providing education at the secondary level, (6) op­
portunities for social interaction, measured by the number of residents.
If one or more categories of destinations were present in a cell, it was
considered a destination. Destination data 1–4 was obtained from the
Polish Head Office of Geodesy and Cartography - GUGiK (Główny Urząd
Geodezji i Kartografii, 2022a), and destination data 5–6 is from the City
of Poznań WFS service (Miasto Poznań, 2022).
A. Radzimski
Fig. 5. Public transport accessibility off-peak scenario, by time threshold.
The reachable opportunities were calculated for five thresholds of
30, 45, 60, 75 and 90 min. Among these, the thresholds of 30 and 90 min
demonstrated the lowest variation of accessibility with either a small
minority (<10%) or a vast majority (>90%) of opportunities reachable
for most starting points. Thus, the results for these thresholds are not
reported in subsequent parts of the paper. The calculations are based on
street network data from the OpenStreetMap and public transport
schedule information for Thursday, 17 June 2021 in the GTFS format
downloaded from the local transit agency (Zarząd Transportu Miej­
skiego Poznań, 2021).
The algorithm calculates travel times using the level of traffic stress
(LTS) parameter for cycling trips, which accounts for varying levels of
safety on the street network (Conveyal, 2022). An average cycling speed
7
Journal of Transport Geography 111 (2023) 103648
of 10 km/h was assumed, which is about 20% lower than average
cycling speed in urban environments (Raser et al., 2018) to account for
differentiated levels of physical fitness among cyclists. Elevation-related
variability in cycling speeds was accounted for with data from the digital
elevation model downloaded from the Polish Head Office of Geodesy
and Cartography - GUGiK (Główny Urząd Geodezji i Kartografii, 2022b).
5. Results
5.1. Accessibility by public transport
Public transport accessibility scores were calculated for two sce­
narios corresponding to departure times at 7:00 (morning peak with
A. Radzimski
Fig. 6. Average accessibility scores to six categories of destinations in public transport off-peak scenario, by housing type and travel time threshold.
high service frequency) and 23:00 (night off-peak with low service fre­
quency). In both scenarios, the number of destinations accessible within
travel times of 45 min, 60 min, and 75 min was counted as a cumulative
opportunity measure, as the percentage of all grid cells with a given
opportunity accessible within the threshold. Accessibility scores to six
categories of destinations for both scenarios are shown in Fig. 3 and
Fig. 5, respectively, whereas Fig. 4 and Fig. 6 show the spatial differ­
entiation of average accessibility scores. Additional maps visualising
accessibility scores by destination type may be consulted on-line at
accessibility.shinyapps.io/social_housing.
For all destination categories and time thresholds, accessibility
scores of low-income social housing projects were lower than corre­
sponding accessibility scores of market-rate housing. By contrast,
medium-income social housing had accessibility scores comparable to
and, in some cases, somewhat higher than market-rate housing. For the
45 min travel time to culture there was a difference of >20 percentage
8
Journal of Transport Geography 111 (2023) 103648
points between low-income social housing and market-rate housing. As
travel time increased, the difference declined but still exceeded ten
percentage points at the 75 min threshold. In the case of green areas, the
accessibility scores were the lowest among all the categories of desti­
nations. This category of destinations covered the largest area, and in
many parts, it was only accessible by walking. For the 45 min threshold,
differences between types of housing were small. It was the only case
where the average accessibility of low-income social housing was higher
than the average accessibility of medium-income social housing, but not
higher than market-rate housing. By contrast, for the 75 min threshold,
medium-income social housing had marginally better accessibility to
green areas than market-rate housing, while low-income social housing
was lagging much behind both categories. There was a striking differ­
ence of >30 percentage points for healthcare between low-income social
housing and market-rate housing, suggesting a preoccupying gap in
accessibility to an essential social service. In the case of jobs and
A. Radzimski
Fig. 7. Cycling accessibility whole network scenario, by time threshold.
population, the difference was less pronounced, but notably, it only
declined marginally when the travel time threshold increased from 45
min to 60 min. The largest overall gap was found for the 45 min
accessibility to education, where <25% of schools were accessible from
low-income social housing projects, compared to over 70% for market-
rate housing. The difference declined as the time threshold increased
and almost nullified for a travel time of 75 min. However, as far as
accessibility to education is considered, 75 min could hardly be regarded
as an acceptable travel time.
Considering the spatial distribution of average accessibility, most
low-income social housing units had very low accessibility scores at the
45-min interval due to their predominantly peripheral locations (Fig. 4).
In contrast, middle-income social housing units had low to moderate
9
Journal of Transport Geography 111 (2023) 103648
scores. In the case of market-rate housing, the scores tended to be
moderate, except for units situated in low-density areas of predomi­
nantly single-family housing. At the 60-min interval, a clear difference
was still visible between low-income social housing units in low-density
and high-density areas. For middle-income social housing and market-
rate housing, the respective differences were less pronounced. It was
only at the 75 min interval when the difference between low and high-
density areas diminished for low-income social housing as well.
In the off-peak accessibility scenario, accessibility scores of low-
income social housing were much below, and the accessibility scores
of medium-income social housing were somewhat below respective
scores for market-rate housing. Notably, for the 45 min threshold, low-
income social housing had access to about 10% or fewer healthcare
A. Radzimski
Fig. 8. Average accessibility scores to six categories of destinations in cycling whole network scenario, by housing type and travel time threshold.
facilities, jobs and population. At the 60 min threshold, the scores were
still not even close to 50%, although they improved significantly for
market-rate and medium-income social housing. At the 75 min
threshold, the differences were still visible, even though extending
travel time during peak hours led to only marginal differences for most
categories. These findings suggest that reduced public transport fre­
quencies during off-peak periods disproportionately affect the residents
of low-income social housing, who are offered a substantially worse
quality of service in comparison to the residents of market-rate housing.
The situation of the residents in medium-income social housing is
somewhat better, but still, some of them would have to accept a long
travel time to achieve an accessibility level comparable to market-rate
housing.
The spatial distribution of average accessibility in the off-peak sce­
nario (Fig. 6) reveals a similar pattern as in the case of the peak scenario
(Fig. 4). However, corresponding accessibility scores in most cases were
10
Journal of Transport Geography 111 (2023) 103648
significantly lower. Consequently, most social housing units had low
accessibility scores at the 45-min interval. By contrast, market-rate units
located in high-density areas had moderate accessibility scores. Even at
the 75-min interval, some units had low accessibility scores, which was
not the case in the peak scenario.
5.2. Accessibility by bicycle
Accessibility scores by bicycle were calculated for two scenarios. In
the whole network scenario, all routes were allowed, regardless of the
level of traffic stress (LTS). In the safe scenario, only routes with a level
of traffic stress (LTS) equal to 1 or 2 were permitted. Classification of
streets by the level of traffic stress is based on criteria such as the
presence of car traffic, street type (e.g. primary, secondary, tertiary or
residential), or speed limit. In general, streets with LTS 1 are considered
to be safe for children, and LTS 2 and LTS 3 are appropriate for the less
A. Radzimski
Fig. 9. Cycling accessibility safe scenario, by time threshold.
and more experienced cyclists, respectively. LTS 4 indicates that a street
should be used only by the most experienced cyclists, who are willing to
accept increased risk. Similarly as in the case of public transport sce­
narios, results are shown in Figs. 7 to 10.
In the whole network scenario, the average accessibility of low-
income social housing was below the average accessibility of market-
rate housing. However, differences tended to be lower than in the
public transport peak hour scenario, not to mention the off-peak sce­
nario. For culture, the difference amounted to about ten percentage
points for the 45 min threshold and about five percentage points for the
75 min threshold. In the case of green areas, the gap was only marginal,
and for the shortest time threshold, low-income social housing even had
a slight advantage. More significant differences were found for
11
Journal of Transport Geography 111 (2023) 103648
accessibility to healthcare and schools, particularly for the 45 min and
60 min thresholds. For jobs and population, again, the differences ten­
ded to be moderate. About 45% of jobs and population were accessible
in the 45 min threshold for the residents of low-income social housing in
the whole network scenario, compared to about 25% in the public
transport peak hour scenario. Considering middle-income social hous­
ing, accessibility scores in this scenario tended to be similar to average
scores of market-rate housing.
From a spatial perspective, the cycling whole network scenario offers
certain advantages, particularly for peripheral low-density locations
(Fig. 8), compared to the public transport peak scenario (Fig. 4). That is
primarily visible for the 45-min threshold. Thus, for those willing to
accept a moderate level of travel-related stress, cycling may offer certain
A. Radzimski
Fig. 10. Average accessibility scores to six categories of destinations in cycling safe scenario, by housing type and travel time threshold.
advantages over public transport usage. At the 60 and 75-min intervals,
the spatial pattern of accessibility becomes more similar to the public
transport peak scenario.
In the safe scenario, where only parts of the cycling infrastructure
with lower traffic stress were included, the accessibility gaps between
market-rate housing and low-income social housing tended to be wider.
While accessibility levels decreased for all categories of housing, low-
income social housing was affected to the greatest extent. For the 45
min threshold, the difference amounted to >20 percentage points for
culture, healthcare and schools. Smaller but also notable increases were
found for accessibility to jobs and population, and only accessibility to
green areas seems to have changed more or less proportionately for all
categories of housing. Similarly, as in previously presented scenarios,
gaps in accessibility declined when time travel thresholds were extended
to 60 or 75 min. Nevertheless, the gaps remained clearly visible even in
the longest time threshold. By contrast, accessibility levels of medium-
12
Journal of Transport Geography 111 (2023) 103648
income social housing declined only moderately, and in most cases,
accessibility was only marginally different from the accessibility of
market-rate housing. Interestingly, accessibility to jobs and population
was better than the accessibility of units sold on the market.
The spatial pattern of average accessibility in the cycling safe sce­
nario shows higher accessibility scores than in the public transport off-
peak scenario but lower than in the cycling whole network scenario.
That mainly concerns low-density areas on the outskirts (Fig. 10).
Whereas average accessibility improved substantially for most social
housing projects in the whole network scenario at the 60-min threshold
and even more at the 75-min threshold, the improvement was not that
clearly visible in the safe scenario. Thus, the advantages of cycling
compared to public transport for risk-averse cyclists were much more
limited.
A. Radzimski
6. Discussion and conclusions
This paper investigated the ability of the residents of social housing
projects in the city of Poznań to reach six types of destinations using
sustainable travel modes such as public transport and cycling. Results
corroborate findings from previous studies conducted in other parts of
the world using different methodologies, which showed a tendency to
situate affordable housing in less accessible areas (see, for example,
Welch, 2013; Martínez et al., 2018; Zeng et al., 2019). Such a wide­
spread tendency suggests that land prices rather than accessibility
evaluations guided the locational choices made by decision-makers. A
strategy of locating social housing in urban periphery may bring some
gains in well-being due to improved housing conditions. However, at the
same time, such a strategy limits the set of freedoms and capabilities
(Sen, 2011) due to limited access to opportunities.
Results show accessibility gaps between low-income social housing
and market-rate housing in all four investigated scenarios. What is more,
gaps tended to be wider when assuming less-than-optimal conditions of
the transport systems (i.e. off-peak public transport frequency or cycling
only on streets with a low level of cycling stress). Thus, it is crucial to
identify such conditions considering the context of a transport system
under investigation and include corresponding scenarios. Interestingly,
accessibility gaps between medium-income social housing and market-
rate housing tended to be narrower but still existed.
A primary limitation of the study stems from the findings being
drawn from a single central European city. While some trends in the
housing market, such as worsening affordability and austerity policies
limiting the supply of social housing, appear to affect many cities
worldwide, varying social, economic, and political contexts may
differentially impact cities in different countries. Secondly, the study
focused on an understanding of accessibility as the ease of reaching
opportunities. In some circumstances, however, people may be willing
to travel to more distant destinations where the adequacy and quality of
opportunities better fit their individual preferences. Thirdly, the study
focused on cycling and public transport as sustainable travel modes most
likely to be used at the city scale. Walking was considered as well, but
only as a feeder and egress mode for public transport. However, with
certain modifications it is possible to extend the method to include
walking as a separate mode of travel. In such a case, preferably a
modified set of destinations should be used, including destinations
typically accessed at the neighbourhood scale, e.g. pharmacies, primary
schools or kindergartens. Finally, the study did not account for
discriminatory practices in the social housing sector, which may restrict
access to affordable housing to population groups based on social,
ethnic, or racial criteria. Policies resulting in increased social segrega­
tion have been widely documented in the United States, whereas in
Europe, comparable evidence is scarce, yet the presence of discrimina­
tion in housing policy has been acknowledged (Silver and Danielowski,
2019).
A policy recommendation based on this study is to include socially
sustainable accessibility as an evaluation criterion in decisions regarding
the locations of social housing projects. Increasing availability of open
data and open-source analytical tools make such evaluations more
feasible. If affordable housing is not available in locations accessible by
sustainable travel modes, it may not be possible to integrate sustain­
ability's social and environmental dimensions. Evidence-based social
housing policy taking into account accessibility measures may help
mitigate that risk.
Author statement
Adam Radzimski: all work.
Funding information
This work was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland
13
Journal of Transport Geography 111 (2023) 103648
[grant number UMO-2017/27/B/HS4/00099].
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank two anonymous reviewers, whose
comments greatly helped to improve the quality of the paper.
References
Alonso, W., 1964. Location and Land Use toward a General Theory of Land Rent. Harvard
Univ. Press.
Apparicio, P., Seguin, A., 2006. Measuring the accessibility of services and facilities for
residents of public housing in Montreal. Urban Stud. 43 (1), 187–211. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00420980500409334.
Bertolini, L., Clercq, F.L., Kapoen, L., 2005. Sustainable accessibility: a conceptual
framework to integrate transport and land use plan-making. Two test-applications in
the Netherlands and a reflection on the way forward. Transp. Policy 12 (3), 207–220.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.01.006.
Boschmann, E.E., Kwan, M., 2008. Toward socially sustainable urban transportation:
Progress and potentials. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2 (3), 138–157. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15568310701517265.
Conveyal, 2022. Cycling Level of Traffic Stress. Available at: https://docs.conveyal.
com/learn-more/traffic-stress (accessed 28.03.2022).
Currie, G., Delbosc, A., 2011. Mobility vs. affordability as motivations for car-ownership
choice in urban fringe, low-income Australia. In: Lucas, K., Blumenberg, E.,
Weinberger, R. (Eds.), Auto Motives. Understanding car Use Behaviours. Bingley,
Emerald.
Czischke, D., van Bortel, G., 2018. An exploration of concepts and polices on ‘affordable
housing’ in England, Italy, Poland and the Netherlands. J. Housing Built Environ.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-018-9598-1.
Delbosc, A., Currie, G., 2011. Using Lorenz curves to assess public transport equity.
J. Transp. Geogr. 19 (6), 1252–1259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jtrangeo.2011.02.008.
El-Geneidy, A.M., Levinson, D.M., 2006. Access to Destinations: Development of
Accessibility Measures. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Foth, N., Manaugh, K., El-Geneidy, A.M., 2013. Towards equitable transit: examining
transit accessibility and social need in Toronto, Canada, 1996–2006. J. Transp.
Geogr. 29, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.12.008.
Gadziński, J., Radzimski, A., 2016. The first rapid tram line in Poland: how has it affected
travel behaviours, housing choices and satisfaction, and apartment prices? J. Transp.
Geogr. 54, 451–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.11.001.
Geurs, K.T., Wee, B.V., 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport
strategies: review and research directions. J. Transp. Geogr. 12 (2), 127–140.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005.
Glaeser, E.L., Kahn, M.E., Rappaport, J., 2008. Why do the poor live in cities? The role of
public transportation. J. Urban Econ. 63 (1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jue.2006.12.004.
Glocker, D., Plouin, M., 2016. Overview of housing policy interventions in Poland. In:
OECD Regional Development Working Papers, No. 2016/07, OECD Publishing,
Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlpl4n838f2-en.
Główny Urząd Geodezji i Kartografii, 2022a. Dane do pobrania BDOT10k - Powiat
Poznań - SHP. Available at: https://opendata.geoportal.gov.pl/bdot10k/SHP/30/
3064_SHP.zip (accessed: 18.06.2021).
Główny Urząd Geodezji i Kartografii, 2022b. Numeryczny model terenu (NMT).
Available at: https://www.geoportal.gov.pl/dane/numeryczny-model-terenu
(accessed: 14.09.2021).
Grengs, J., 2002. Community-based planning as a source of political change: the transit
equity movement of Los Angeles’ bus riders union. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 68 (2),
165–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360208976263.
Guimarães, T., Lucas, K., Timms, P., 2019. Understanding how low-income communities
gain access to healthcare services: a qualitative study in São Paulo, Brazil. J. Transp.
Health 15, 100658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2019.100658.
Hansen, W.G., 1959. How accessibility shapes land use. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 25 (2), 73–76.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944365908978307.
Hochstenbach, C., Musterd, S., 2018. Gentrification and the suburbanization of poverty:
changing urban geographies through boom and bust periods. Urban Geogr. 39 (1),
26–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1276718.
Krumholz, N., 1982. A retrospective view of equity planning Cleveland 1969–1979.
J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 48 (2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368208976535.
Litman, T., 2021. Evaluating Transportation Equity: Guidance for Incorporating
Distributional Impacts in Transport Planning. Available at: https://vtpi.org/ITE_Equ
ity_Article_26Aug2021.pdf (accessed 25.03.2022).
A. Radzimski
Lucas, K., 2012. Transport and social exclusion: where are we now? Transp. Policy 20,
105–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.01.013.
Lucas, K., Wee, B.V., Maat, K., 2016. A method to evaluate equitable accessibility:
combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches. Transportation 43
(3), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9585-2.
Martens, K., 2012. Justice in transport as justice in accessibility: applying Walzer’s
‘spheres of justice’ to the transport sector. Transportation 39 (6), 1035–1053.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-012-9388-7.
Martens, K., 2017. Transport Justice: Designing Fair Transportation Systems. Routledge
Taylor & Francis Group.
Martínez, C.F., Hodgson, F., Mullen, C., Timms, P., 2018. Creating inequality in
accessibility: the relationships between public transport and social housing policy in
deprived areas of Santiago de Chile. J. Transp. Geogr. 67, 102–109. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.09.006.
Mattioli, G., 2017. ‘Forced Car ownership’ in the UK and Germany: socio-spatial patterns
and potential economic stress impacts. Social Inclusion 5 (4), 147–160. https://doi.
org/10.17645/si.v5i4.1081.
Miasto Poznań, 2022. Lista usług systemu informacji przestrzennej Poznania. Available
at: http://sip.geopoz.pl/sip/uslugi/get_uslugi_lay/id_rap/99/v_serwer_r/108
(accessed: 15.06.2021).
Park, S., Cho, J., Chen, Y., 2019. Subsidized housing and geographic accessibility to
neighborhood resources for low-income older people: from later year social
exclusion perspective. Geoforum 106, 297–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geoforum.2019.09.002.
Pereira, R.H., Schwanen, T., Banister, D., 2016. Distributive justice and equity in
transportation. Transp. Rev. 37 (2), 170–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01441647.2016.1257660.
Pereira, R.H., Saraiva, M., Herszenhut, D., Braga, C.K., Conway, M.W., 2021. R5r: rapid
realistic routing on multimodal transport networks with R5 in R. Findings. https://
doi.org/10.32866/001c.21262.
Poznań, Miasto, 2014. Plan zrównoważonego rozwoju publicznego transportu
zbiorowego dla miasta Poznania na lata 2014–2025. Available at: http://www.
plantap.pl/assets/Uploads/Plan-Transportowy-Miasta-Poznania-na-lata-2014-2025.
pdf.
Radzimski, A., Dzięcielski, M., 2021. Exploring the relationship between bike-sharing
and public transport in Poznań, Poland. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 145, 189–202.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.01.003.
Raser, E., Gaupp-Berghausen, M., Dons, E., Anaya-Boig, E., Avila-Palencia, I., Brand, C.,
Gerike, R., 2018. European cyclists’ travel behavior: differences and similarities
14
Journal of Transport Geography 111 (2023) 103648
between seven European (PASTA) cities. J. Transp. Health 9, 244–252. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jth.2018.02.006.
Revington, N., 2015. Gentrification, transit, and land use: moving beyond neoclassical
theory. Geogr. Compass 9 (3), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12203.
Scanlon, K., Fernández Arrigoitia, M., Whitehead, C., 2015. Social housing in Europe.
Eur. Policy Anal. 17, 1–12.
Sen, A., 2011. The idea of justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Silver, H., Danielowski, L., 2019. Fighting housing discrimination in Europe. Hous.
Policy Debate 29 (5), 714–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2018.1524443.
Smith, R.W., Bertolaccini, K., Lownes, N.E., 2021. Improving transit access measures in
affordable housing funding criteria. Transp. Policy 106, 239–248. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.04.006.
Talen, E., Koschinsky, J., 2011. Is subsidized housing in sustainable neighborhoods?
Evidence from Chicago. Hous. Policy Debate 21 (1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10511482.2010.533618.
United Nations, 2015. Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. Available at: https://www.unfpa.org/resources/transforming-our-wo
rld-2030-agenda-sustainable-development (accessed 25.03.2022).
Valenzuela-Levi, N., Echiburu, T., Correa, J., Hurtubia, R., Muñoz, J., 2021. Housing and
accessibility after the COVID-19 pandemic: rebuilding for resilience, equity and
sustainable mobility. Transp. Policy 109, 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tranpol.2021.05.006.
Verlinghieri, E., Schwanen, T., 2020. Transport and mobility justice: evolving
discussions. J. Transp. Geogr. 87, 102798 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jtrangeo.2020.102798.
Welch, T.F., 2013. Equity in transport: the distribution of transit access and connectivity
among affordable housing units. Transp. Policy 30, 283–293. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.09.020.
Yang, Z., Yi, C., Zhang, W., Zhang, C., 2014. Affordability of housing and accessibility of
public services: evaluation of housing programs in Beijing. J. Housing Built Environ.
29 (3), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-013-9363-4.
Zarząd Transportu Miejskiego Poznań, 2021. Dla Deweloperów - Pliki: Rozkłady Jazdy
GTFS. Available at: https://www.ztm.poznan.pl/pl/dla-deweloperow/gtfsFiles
(accessed 18.06.2021).
Zeng, W., Rees, P., Xiang, L., 2019. Do residents of affordable housing communities in
China suffer from relative accessibility deprivation? A case study of Nanjing. Cities
90, 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.038.