The approaches to measuring the potential spatial access to urban health services revisited: distance types and aggregation-error issues.
The approaches to measuring the potential spatial access to urban health services revisited: distance types and aggregation-error issues.
复制标题
衡量潜在的空间进入城市卫生服务的方法：距离类型和聚合 - 错误问题。
DOI：
10.1186/s12942-017-0105-9
复制
发表时间：
2017-08-23
影响因子：
4.9
通讯作者：
Robitaille É
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Apparicio P;Gelb J;Dubé AS;Kingham S;Gauvin L;Robitaille É
城市卫生服务的潜在空间可获得性是卫生地理学、空间流行病学和公共卫生领域的一个重要问题。计算居民区(例如人口普查区域)的地理可达性取决于距离的类型、聚集的方法和可达性的衡量标准。本文的目的是比较六种距离类型(欧几里德距离和曼哈顿距离；步行、自行车、公共交通和汽车的最短网络时间)、四种聚合方法和14种可及性度量计算的卫生服务地理可及性结果的差异。为了探索根据六种类型的距离和聚合方法得出的结果的差异，进行了相关分析。通过敏感性分析和不确定性分析，对潜在空间准入的评价随三个参数(距离类型、聚集法和可达性度量)的变化进行了测量。首先，除了公共交通的最短网络时间外，与所使用的距离类型无关，结果在全球范围内是相似的(相关性&>0.90)。然而，在笛卡尔距离和四个最短网络时间距离之间的相关性中观察到了重要的局部变化，特别是在笛卡尔距离不太精确的郊区。其次，聚合方法的选择也很重要：与最准确的聚合方法相比，根据人口普查区域质心计算的可达性度量虽然不准确，但对10%的人口普查区域产生了重要的测量误差。第三，SA结果表明，对潜在地理访问的评估可能会因可达性度量而变化很大，在较小程度上取决于距离的类型和聚合方法。第四，UA的结果清楚地表明，郊区地区的不确定性很强，而中央社区的不确定性水平较低。为了准确评估城市地区潜在的卫生服务地理可获得性，选择精确的距离类型和聚合方法尤为重要。然后，根据研究目标，应认真考虑网络距离类型(根据运输方式)和若干无障碍措施的选择，并充分说明理由。
The potential spatial access to urban health services is an important issue in health geography, spatial epidemiology and public health. Computing geographical accessibility measures for residential areas (e.g. census tracts) depends on a type of distance, a method of aggregation, and a measure of accessibility. The aim of this paper is to compare discrepancies in results for the geographical accessibility of health services computed using six distance types (Euclidean and Manhattan distances; shortest network time on foot, by bicycle, by public transit, and by car), four aggregation methods, and fourteen accessibility measures. To explore variations in results according to the six types of distance and the aggregation methods, correlation analyses are performed. To measure how the assessment of potential spatial access varies according to three parameters (type of distance, aggregation method, and accessibility measure), sensitivity analysis (SA) and uncertainty analysis (UA) are conducted. First, independently of the type of distance used except for shortest network time by public transit, the results are globally similar (correlation >0.90). However, important local variations in correlation between Cartesian and the four shortest network time distances are observed, notably in suburban areas where Cartesian distances are less precise. Second, the choice of the aggregation method is also important: compared with the most accurate aggregation method, accessibility measures computed from census tract centroids, though not inaccurate, yield important measurement errors for 10% of census tracts. Third, the SA results show that the evaluation of potential geographic access may vary a great deal depending on the accessibility measure and, to a lesser degree, the type of distance and aggregation method. Fourth, the UA results clearly indicate areas of strong uncertainty in suburban areas, whereas central neighbourhoods show lower levels of uncertainty. In order to accurately assess potential geographic access to health services in urban areas, it is particularly important to choose a precise type of distance and aggregation method. Then, depending on the research objectives, the choices of the type of network distance (according to the mode of transportation) and of a number of accessibility measures should be carefully considered and adequately justified.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4.8
作者：
Gao F;Kihal W;Le Meur N;Souris M;Deguen S
通讯作者：
Deguen S
DOI：
10.1080/00045608.2012.685050
发表时间：
2013-01-01
期刊：
ANNALS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHERS
影响因子：
--
作者：
Bell, Scott;Wilson, Kathi;Shah, Tayyab
通讯作者：
Shah, Tayyab
影响因子：
6.1
作者：
Hadas, Yuval
通讯作者：
Hadas, Yuval
DOI：
10.1068/a35165
发表时间：
2003-10-01
期刊：
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING A
影响因子：
--
作者：
Haynes, R;Lovett, A;Sünnenberg, G
通讯作者：
Sünnenberg, G
影响因子：
4.9
作者：
Helbich, Marco;Schadenberg, Bjorn;Poelman, Maartje
通讯作者：
Poelman, Maartje