A geographical methodology for assessing nodality of a road network. Case study on the western Moldavia

Daniel Tudora, Mihail Eva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS54107

Abstract

The study tests the concept of nodality in a three-dimensional space, both as a projection of the physical-geographical support and an expression of topological centrality, which is insufficiently employed in papers attempting to evaluate the geographical or potential accessibility. The junctions of the reticular systems will be positioned differently within the network depending on the acquired nodality values, which may influence through their importance the potential for development of the polarized territory. By focusing on a methodology specific to nomothetic epistemology, aimed at highlighting the vulnerabilities induced by the dysfunctions within the road network and obtaining nodal hierarchies, the study allows for the extraction of legitimate relationships, which can be extrapolated beyond the particular space matrix selected for demonstration purposes only.

Keywords

geography; transport geography; impeded-distance; accessibility; centrality; reticularity; roughness; Moldavia

Full Text:

PDF

References

Banister, D. 2002: Transport planning. London.

Berdica, K. 2002: An introduction to road vulnerability: what has been done, is done and should be done. Transport policy 9-2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(02)00011-2

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. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-8-23

Black, W. R. 2003: Transportation: a geographical analysis. New York.

Combes, P. P., Lafourcade, M. 2005: Transport costs: measures, determinants, and regional policy implications for France. Journal of economic geography 5-3. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnlecg/lbh062

Curl, A., Nelson, J. D., Anable, J. 2011: Does accessibility planning address what matters? A review of current practice and practitioner perspectives. Research in transportation business & management 2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2011.07.001

Debrie, J., Eliot, E., Soppe, M. 2005: Un modèle transcalaire des nodalités et polarités portuaires: exemple d'application au port de Hambourg. Mappemonde 79. Internet: http://mappemonde.mgm.fr/num7/ articles/art05304.html

Ducruet, C. 2008: Typologie mondiale des relations ville-port. CyberGeo. Article no. 417. http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/cybergeo.17332

Earth remote sensing data analysis centre. Internet: http://www.gdem.aster.ersdac.or.jp/search.jsp (15. 10. 2011).

Fleming, D. K., Hayuth, Y. 1994: Spatial characteristics of transportation hubs: centrality and intermediacy. Journal of transport geography 2-1. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/0966-6923(94)90030-2

Freeman, L. C. 1979: Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social networks 1-3. Gravelius, H. 1914: Flusskunde. Berlin.

INS 2002: Census of population and dwellings. National institute of statistics, Bucharest, Romania.

Knowles, R. D. 2006: Transport shaping space: the differential collapse of time/space. Journal of transport geography 14-6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.07.001

Knowles, R. D., Shaw, J., Docherty, I. 2008: Transport geographies: mobilities, flows and spaces. Malden.

Matthiessen, C. W., Schwarz, A. W., Find, S. 2002: The top-level global research system, 1997–1999: Centres, networks and nodality. An analysis based on bibliometric indicators. Urban studies 39, 5–6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/0.1080/00420980220128372

Matthiessen, C. W., Schwarz, A. W., Find, S. 2006: World cities of knowledge: research strength, networks and nodality. Journal of knowledge management 10-5.

MTD 1992: Topographic maps of Romania, 1 : 50.000, Military topographic department, Ministry of national defense, Bucharest.

Mérenne, E. 1995: Géographie des transports. Paris.

Muntele, I., Groza, O., Țucănașu, G., Rusu, A., Tudora, D. 2010: Calitatea infrastructurii de transporturi ca premisă a diferențierii spațiilor rurale din Moldova. Iași.

Rathert, D. 2003: ArcScript Linear Proprieties. Internet: http://arcscripts.esri.com/details.asp?dbid=12789 (15. 10. 2011).

Rodrigue, J. P., Comtois, C., Slack, B. 2009: The geography of transport systems. New York.

Salonen, M., Toivonen, T., Cohalan, J. M., Coomes, O. T. 2011: Critical distances: comparing measures of spatial accessibility in the riverine landscapes of Peruvian Amazonia. Applied geography 32-2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.06.017

Sappington, J. M., Longshore, K. M., Thompson, D. B. 2007: Quantifying landscape ruggedness for animal habitat analysis: a case study using desert bighorn sheep in the Mojave Desert. Journal of wildlife management 71-5.

Shaw, S. L. 2006: What about time in transportation geography? Journal of transport geography 14. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.02.009.

Taaffe, E. J., Gauthier, H. L., O'Kelly, M. E. 1996: Geography of transportation. New Jersey.



DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS54107

Copyright (c) 2019 Acta geographica Slovenica

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

© Acta geographica Slovenica | P. B. 306, SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia | ags@zrc-sazu.si | tel: +386 1 470 65 09