Cookies

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.


Durham Research Online
You are in:

Comparing alternative approaches to measuring the geographical accessibility of urban health services distance types and aggregation-error issues.

Apparicio, P. and Abdelmajid, M. and Riva, M. and 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 (7).

Abstract

Background Over the past two decades, geographical accessibility of urban resources for population living in residential areas has received an increased focus in urban health studies. Operationalising and computing geographical accessibility measures depend on a set of four parameters, namely definition of residential areas, a method of aggregation, a measure of accessibility, and a type of distance. Yet, the choice of these parameters may potentially generate different results leading to significant measurement errors. The aim of this paper is to compare discrepancies in results for geographical accessibility of selected health care services for residential areas (i.e. census tracts) computed using different distance types and aggregation methods. Results First, the comparison of distance types demonstrates that Cartesian distances (Euclidean and Manhattan distances) are strongly correlated with more accurate network distances (shortest network and shortest network time distances) across the metropolitan area (Pearson correlation greater than 0.95). However, important local variations in correlation between Cartesian and network distances were observed notably in suburban areas where Cartesian distances were less precise. Second, the choice of the aggregation method is also important: in comparison to the most accurate aggregation method (population-weighted mean of the accessibility measure for census blocks within census tracts), accessibility measures computed from census tract centroids, though not inaccurate, yield important measurement errors for 5% to 10% of census tracts. Conclusion Although errors associated to the choice of distance types and aggregation method are only important for about 10% of census tracts located mainly in suburban areas, we should not avoid using the best estimation method possible for evaluating geographical accessibility. This is especially so if these measures are to be included as a dimension of the built environment in studies investigating residential area effects on health. If these measures are not sufficiently precise, this could lead to errors or lack of precision in the estimation of residential area effects on health.

Item Type:Article
Additional Information:The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the original version of this paper. The study has been funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).
Full text:PDF - Published Version (1593Kb)
Status:Peer-reviewed
Publisher Web site:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-7-7
Record Created:03 Sep 2008
Last Modified:15 Sep 2011 16:14

Social bookmarking: del.icio.usConnoteaBibSonomyCiteULikeFacebookTwitterExport: EndNote, Zotero | BibTex
Usage statisticsLook up in GoogleScholar | Find in a UK Library